Going into the off season we needed a backup PG and a SF...

[TD 21]

Leonard was supposedly a project on offense. He was going to need a couple of years to work on his handles and shooting. He was penciled in as a defense and rebounding guy. Green wasn't a project, and I didn't say he was. I said that people didn't have much faith in him and didn't think he'd be a factor for the starting-two spot. Are you going to disagree with that? I didn't say Splitter was a project either. I was he was unproven, or at least seen as such.

As I said earlier in the thread, the team tried to get an upgrade to Jefferson through free agency. Butler, Prince and Howard are the names I recall off the top of my head. Butler and Prince took more money elsewhere, and Howard signed a smallish contract with Utah. The Spurs were supposedly considering trading Green for him mid-season. What a mistake what would have been.

The whole reason I said that was because Baam said the front office filled the holes at the starting two and competent three by making moves that seemed satisfactory at the time. They didn't. Many Spurs fans were very concerned about those positions, especially after Anderson laid and egg. It all worked out because the team relied on young players to pick up the slack. No reason not to do it again this time, at least until they prove they can't.

You're missing the point. It didn't work out "because the team relied on young players", it worked out because those young players were good players. And despite what you say, two of them were always thought to be and the other always had the two necessary skills to be a fit. Old, young, somewhere in between, that's what it's about. We've seen next to nothing from Joseph to indicate he's next in line, at least in the short term and with two chances left and this team being close, that should be the only concern.

People are underrating the importance of this role. It's not about whether they can get away with it in the regular season, it's about getting Parker, who's got the mileage of a player much older, who runs himself ragged every game and who'll be playing for France again this summer, through the season and four rounds in one piece. Not banged up or worn out from having a minimal backup.

[Chinook]

You're missing the point. It didn't work out "because the team relied on young players", it worked out because those young players were good players. And despite what you say, two of them were always thought to be and the other always had the two necessary skills to be a fit. Old, young, somewhere in between, that's what it's about. We've seen next to nothing from Joseph to indicate he's next in line, at least in the short term and with two chances left and this team being close, that should be the only concern.

People are underrating the importance of this role. It's not about whether they can get away with it in the regular season, it's about getting Parker, who's got the mileage of a player much older, who runs himself ragged every game and who'll be playing for France again this summer, through the season and four rounds in one piece. Not banged up or worn out from having a minimal backup.

I'm not missing the point. It worked out because the Spurs let players proved themselves. Sure, Green and Leonard were good players in college. But they hadn't done anything in the pros until the middle of 2011-2012. For you to imply that people thought Green was always going to be starting caliber is not true. For you to say that people though Leonard was going to be able to come in and lock down the starting-three position almost immediately is also untrue.

Of course the Medium Three came to the Spurs as good players. That's why the Spurs acquired them in the first place. They've committed all of this time to Joseph because they think he's a good player, too. The Spurs would not have given him the nod over De Colo if they didn't think he was ready. This isn't a situation like with AK or Ariza, where price was a big issue. The team could have easily signed a Ford-caliber backup and chose not to. That's because they didn't see it as a need. Time may prove them wrong, but it's not the same as ignoring a hole.

[TD 21]

I'm not missing the point. It worked out because the Spurs let players proved themselves. Sure, Green and Leonard were good players in college. But they hadn't done anything in the pros until the middle of 2011-2012. For you to imply that people thought Green was always going to be starting caliber is not true. For you to say that people though Leonard was going to be able to come in and lock down the starting-three position almost immediately is also untrue.

Of course the Medium Three came to the Spurs as good players. That's why the Spurs acquired them in the first place. They've committed all of this time to Joseph because they think he's a good player, too. The Spurs would not have given him the nod over De Colo if they didn't think he was ready. This isn't a situation like with AK or Ariza, where price was a big issue. The team could have easily signed a Ford-caliber backup and chose not to. That's because they didn't see it as a need. Time may prove them wrong, but it's not the same as ignoring a hole.

You are. You think it's about them being young, but it's not; it's about them being good. I never implied people thought Green would be starting caliber nor that people thought Leonard would be damn near an instant starter. The point was, there was always reason to think they could be contributors, just not to the extent they've been.

I disagree. I think they've committed the time to Joseph because they always knew he was going to be a long term project, love his work ethic and like what he could be in theory. The part about De Colo; as if he has any credibility. Them not addressing the need is, I think in large part, because of the rapid ascent of Leonard and Green and the out of nowhere success of Neal. It's as if they think it'll automatically happen with Joseph too, because they're the Spurs.

[Chinook]

You are. You think it's about them being young, but it's not; it's about them being good. I never implied people thought Green would be starting caliber nor that people thought Leonard would be damn near an instant starter. The point was, there was always reason to think they could be contributors, just not to the extent they've been.

I disagree. I think they've committed the time to Joseph because they always knew he was going to be a long term project, love his work ethic and like what he could be in theory. The part about De Colo; as if he has any credibility. Them not addressing the need is, I think in large part, because of the rapid ascent of Leonard and Green and the out of nowhere success of Neal. It's as if they think it'll automatically happen with Joseph too, because they're the Spurs.

So your last part is kind of weird. You're pretty much saying that the Spurs are just pretending to believe in Joseph because they're praying that they catch lightening in another bottle after Green and Leonard worked out. I have no idea why you think that. It's much more likely that the Spurs believe in Joseph and are willing to go young because they've seen what going old does to a team with an old core. Leonard and Green helped the team because they were good, but the fact that they were young, had upside, could handle big minutes for stretches, were athletic and hungry and weren't set in their ways played a huge role in why everything worked out.

You think Joseph is not ready. That's fine. But if we take for a fact that the Spurs think he's ready, then it makes perfect sense why they didn't go out of their way to fill that spot. Your protest may end up being valid, but as of now, it's fundamentally no different than the constant calls over last season for the Spurs to find a "legitimate" two-guard like Re to replace Green.

[TheGreatYacht]

You are. You think it's about them being young, but it's not; it's about them being good. I never implied people thought Green would be starting caliber nor that people thought Leonard would be damn near an instant starter. The point was, there was always reason to think they could be contributors, just not to the extent they've been.

I disagree. I think they've committed the time to Joseph because they always knew he was going to be a long term project, love his work ethic and like what he could be in theory. The part about De Colo; as if he has any credibility. Them not addressing the need is, I think in large part, because of the rapid ascent of Leonard and Green and the out of nowhere success of Neal. It's as if they think it'll automatically happen with Joseph too, because they're the Spurs.

So your last part is kind of weird. You're pretty much saying that the Spurs are just pretending to believe in Joseph because they're praying that they catch lightening in another bottle after Green and Leonard worked out. I have no idea why you think that. It's much more likely that the Spurs believe in Joseph and are willing to go young because they've seen what going old does to a team with an old core. Leonard and Green helped the team because they were good, but the fact that they were young, had upside, could handle big minutes for stretches, were athletic and hungry and weren't set in their ways played a huge role in why everything worked out.

You think Joseph is not ready. That's fine. But if we take for a fact that the Spurs think he's ready, then it makes perfect sense why they didn't go out of their way to fill that spot. Your protest may end up being valid, but as of now, it's fundamentally no different than the constant calls over last season for the Spurs to find a "legitimate" two-guard like Re to replace Green.

You both have some valid arguments. I don't think the Spurs ever go out of their way to pick a FA tbh.

[ace3g]

I'd say take another look at Derrick Brown but looks like he is staying with his Euro team:

http://www.court-side.com/news/blog/...komotiv-kuban/

[TD 21]

So your last part is kind of weird. You're pretty much saying that the Spurs are just pretending to believe in Joseph because they're praying that they catch lightening in another bottle after Green and Leonard worked out. I have no idea why you think that. It's much more likely that the Spurs believe in Joseph and are willing to go young because they've seen what going old does to a team with an old core. Leonard and Green helped the team because they were good, but the fact that they were young, had upside, could handle big minutes for stretches, were athletic and hungry and weren't set in their ways played a huge role in why everything worked out.

You think Joseph is not ready. That's fine. But if we take for a fact that the Spurs think he's ready, then it makes perfect sense why they didn't go out of their way to fill that spot. Your protest may end up being valid, but as of now, it's fundamentally no different than the constant calls over last season for the Spurs to find a "legitimate" two-guard like Re to replace Green.

I wouldn't say pretending, but I honestly think they think they can take just about any player, who fits their culture and has decent or better physical tools and mold them into a rotation player.

Again, your primary reason for going with Joseph is based on the success of three other players, who were always better and who have nothing to do with him. By your logic, Pendergraph and Baynes should be the third and fourth bigs, because they're younger than Diaw and Bonner, both of whom are on the downside.

It's completely different. Green had shown throughout the previous season plus that he was an above average defender and elite three-point shooter. Joseph hasn't shown nearly as much.

[Chinook]

I wouldn't say pretending, but I honestly think they think they can take just about any player, who fits their culture and has decent or better physical tools and mold them into a rotation player.

Again, your primary reason for going with Joseph is based on the success of three other players, who were always better and who have nothing to do with him. By your logic, Pendergraph and Baynes should be the third and fourth bigs, because they're younger than Diaw and Bonner, both of whom are on the downside.

It's completely different. Green had shown throughout the previous season plus that he was an above average defender and elite three-point shooter. Joseph hasn't shown nearly as much.

It's the same. You're saying you haven't seen enough of him to think he's a good player. Some people think they have. You say he doesn't adequately fill his position. Some people think he does. Sure, there are small differences that can be objectively measured, and subjectively, I agree that Green was already a solid part of the rotation the year before. But a fair number to people saw (and still do) him as the weak link on the team that could (and needed to) be upgraded with Re , Ellis, Jack and a whole list of players. You don't trust Joseph, and those people didn't trust Green. It's the same objection, with potentially stronger support.

And you keep ignoring the reasons people give as to why they think Joseph will be better next year. It's not just because it's young, and you know it. You can disagree with those reasons all you want, but don't keep acting like they weren't given. Diaw is at the end of his prime as a big, and Bonner is about as good as he ever was. We all hope Pendergraph and Baynes are better than Bonner, and it would be great for them to be good enough to challenge Diaw. But that's not the same thing as being against bringing in a vet to replace a player who did exactly what was expected of him last season and who has the skills and lower-level production to suggest he's going to be able to handle much more responsibility next season.

[TD 21]

It's the same. You're saying you haven't seen enough of him to think he's a good player. Some people think they have. You say he doesn't adequately fill his position. Some people think he does. Sure, there are small differences that can be objectively measured, and subjectively, I agree that Green was already a solid part of the rotation the year before. But a fair number to people saw (and still do) him as the weak link on the team that could (and needed to) be upgraded with Re , Ellis, Jack and a whole list of players. You don't trust Joseph, and those people didn't trust Green. It's the same objection, with potentially stronger support.

And you keep ignoring the reasons people give as to why they think Joseph will be better next year. It's not just because it's young, and you know it. You can disagree with those reasons all you want, but don't keep acting like they weren't given. Diaw is at the end of his prime as a big, and Bonner is about as good as he ever was. We all hope Pendergraph and Baynes are better than Bonner, and it would be great for them to be good enough to challenge Diaw. But that's not the same thing as being against bringing in a vet to replace a player who did exactly what was expected of him last season and who has the skills and lower-level production to suggest he's going to be able to handle much more responsibility next season.

Just admit it was yet another terrible comparison on your part. One guy had proven himself as an elite 3 point shooter and plus defender and the other guy has yet to prove himself as an NBA player period.

I'm not sure how I "keep ignoring", when this is the first time specific reasons have been given . . . I don't agree with them, but at least you explained your reasoning (which I can respect), so I left it alone.

[Chinook]

Just admit it was yet another terrible comparison on your part. One guy had proven himself as an elite 3 point shooter and plus defender and the other guy has yet to prove himself as an NBA player period.

I'm not sure how I "keep ignoring", when this is the first time specific reasons have been given . . . I don't agree with them, but at least you explained your reasoning (which I can respect), so I left it alone.

It's not a terrible comparison. You're conflating justification with structure. The argument's the same. You just think you are more justified in making it. You have different ideas for what it means to "play well" and to be "proven." But you are claiming the same thing that those people did about Green, that he was a weak link and that the team would be significantly better if it could upgrade from him, to the point that the need to upgrade makes it a hole.

You're talking to the person who suggested a Mo Williams trade and a CJ Watson signing in the Think Tank over the last month or so in addition to pretty consistent ideas of acquiring backup point-guards over the last season. I definitely can understand the benefit of upgrading from my perspective. I don't think it's a need, and especially not one worth spending significant resources on. If Pop thinks Joseph's fine (he hasn't always decided to trust a young player behind Parker), then it's perfectly reasonable to see why the Spurs didn't replace him. It's not like the need at the three, which Buford publicly acknowledged as a hole and about which they've done nothing.

We pretty much went through a stretch of posts where I was explaining what evidence I saw that Joseph was going to be a good player, and you kept responding that it wasn't specific enough. Then you started saying that I was just relying on Joseph's youth or the success of the Medium Three.

My argument is essentially that Joseph showed potential and played the role Pop wanted him to play last season. The fact that he's not very experienced should not automatically remove him from the rotation. Young players who flash potential and who have the right at ude often succeed, especially recently. Joseph has all the physical tools to be a good point-guard, and he demonstrated it in the d-league. The Spurs' window has been held open by Pop not shutting players like him out of the rotation. Sure, he's taking a risk that Joseph flops, but he's taking the same risk when it comes to Ginobili's health, Parker's fatigue, Duncan's rejuvenation, Green's confidence, Leonard's growth and Splitter's toughness. Those are just the things you have to hope work out.

Obviously, you don't think Joseph is good enough, so it's easy why you don't agree with that argument. In that same way, some people don't believe in Splitter, Green or Ginobili now. Time will tell who's right in all this.

[TD 21]

It's not a terrible comparison.

You're right, it's not terrible, it's beyond terrible. The argument is not the same, because one player was already proven. Whether some thought he was the weak link or needed to be upgraded or whatever, that's another matter altogether.

If Pop thinks Joseph's fine (he hasn't always decided to trust a young player behind Parker), then it's perfectly reasonable to see why the Spurs didn't replace him. It's not like the need at the three, which Buford publicly acknowledged as a hole and about which they've done nothing.

I don't care what Pop or anyone else thinks. Unlike the majority of this board, that just regurgitates whatever timvp or Bruno say, I actually have my own opinion.

Right again, it's not like the need at the three; it's worse, because at least at the three, the other options are proven, quality players.

We pretty much went through a stretch of posts where I was explaining what evidence I saw that Joseph was going to be a good player, and you kept responding that it wasn't specific enough.

Until I asked for specifics, you spoke in generalities.

The fact that he's not very experienced should not automatically remove him from the rotation

And it shouldn't guarantee him a spot either, nor should the success of others.

Joseph has all the physical tools to be a good point-guard, and he demonstrated it in the d-league

Again with the D-League. Who are you, ChumpDumper?

Physical tools are nice (and his are far closer to solid than spectacular), but this is the ultimate skill position and he doesn't have a single notable offensive skill that involves the ball.

Sure, he's taking a risk that Joseph flops, but he's taking the same risk when it comes to Ginobili's health, Parker's fatigue, Duncan's rejuvenation, Green's confidence, Leonard's growth and Splitter's toughness. Those are just the things you have to hope work out.

Your worst comparison yet. He doesn't have much of a choice there, since those are the six best players on the team, which means they're far more difficult to and in some cases, impossible, to upgrade.

[Chinook]

You're right, it's not terrible, it's beyond terrible. The argument is not the same, because one player was already proven. Whether some thought he was the weak link or needed to be upgraded or whatever, that's another matter altogether.

Some people still don't think Green is proven, and I'd say the majority of people on the board didn't think Green was proven until after the WCSF. Again, the argument is the same; the parameters for justifying it are different.

I don't care what Pop or anyone else thinks. Unlike the majority of this board, that just regurgitates whatever timvp or Bruno say, I actually have my own opinion.

Right again, it's not like the need at the three; it's worse, because at least at the three, the other options are proven, quality players.

Saying the Spurs didn't do enough to fill the hole is one thing. But to say that they ignored the hole is another. It's like saying that the Pacers didn't do enough to strengthen their bench because Scola's too old to carry it. Your opinion on how adequately filled the position has no bearing on whether or not the team ignored it. Baam is saying the front office was negligent when it comes to filling holes this off-season. That's not the same thing as not being able to see where the holes actually were, which is what you're saying is going on with Joseph.

Again with the D-League. Who are you, ChumpDumper?

Physical tools are nice (and his are far closer to solid than spectacular), but this is the ultimate skill position and he doesn't have a single notable offensive skill that involves the ball.

The d-league is where he played the most minutes and had the most responsibility. NBA skills like shooting (48-percent on three-pointer) carry over. He wasn't transcendent with the Toros, but he definitely showed the ability to do more than what he did with the Spurs last season. How many late-season pickups really play well for their teams? Diaw is a pretty big exception.

Your worst comparison yet. He doesn't have much of a choice there, since those are the six best players on the team, which means they're far more difficult to and in some cases, impossible, to upgrade.

It's funny that you seem to think that, but you preach about the Spurs hedging their bets on Splitter and Duncan by bringing in another big. The Spurs almost certainly can get the assets together to get a player or two that can help prop up some of the top six. You're also trying to say the Spurs should hedge Parker's fatigue by getting another point-guard instead of relying on Joseph.

[TD 21]

Some people still don't think Green is proven

I know a good number of idiots who thought his flame out in the WCF was because he "choked", but coming out of these playoffs, there's no argument for him not being proven.

Saying the Spurs didn't do enough to fill the hole is one thing. But to say that they ignored the hole is another. It's like saying that the Pacers didn't do enough to strengthen their bench because Scola's too old to carry it. Your opinion on how adequately filled the position has no bearing on whether or not the team ignored it. Baam is saying the front office was negligent when it comes to filling holes this off-season. That's not the same thing as not being able to see where the holes actually were, which is what you're saying is going on with Joseph.

I'm too tired to even bother attempting to make sense of this. Call it whatever you like, but to me, they've taken a foolish, unnecessary risk. This was only considered blasphemous after timvp and later Bruno, were firmly entrenched on the Joseph band wagon. Now all the usual suspects have predictably jumped on board.

The d-league is where he played the most minutes and had the most responsibility. NBA skills like shooting (48-percent on three-pointer) carry over. He wasn't transcendent with the Toros, but he definitely showed the ability to do more than what he did with the Spurs last season. How many late-season pickups really play well for their teams? Diaw is a pretty big exception.

The D-League is also not the NBA and I know he's not an explosive scorer or phenomenal athlete, but he didn't exactly set the league on fire, either.

It's funny that you seem to think that, but you preach about the Spurs hedging their bets on Splitter and Duncan by bringing in another big. The Spurs almost certainly can get the assets together to get a player or two that can help prop up some of the top six. You're also trying to say the Spurs should hedge Parker's fatigue by getting another point-guard instead of relying on Joseph.

Yeah, because Splitter is fragile and soft, Duncan is ancient and Parker isn't too far off being ancient himself at this point. That's why they need players around and behind them who can be counted on for more than minimal minutes, if need be.