Former Spur: Malik Hairston

[TD 21]

I'm with Blackjack on Hairston's ball handling. While it obviously needs to improve some, I'm not overly concerned with it considering the role he'll play on this team. The shooting, however, I am. Unless his defense is at the level of T. Allen's on Bryant in the finals, to where you can overlook the fact that the guy is a sub par shooter (not to say Hairston's as bad a range shooter as T. Allen), he has to shoot at or awfully close to mid-thirties from three to justify his playing time.

This team already lacks three-point shooting. They can't afford to have another guy on the perimeter who's in the high twenties or low thirties from three.

I remember in summer league last year how well Hairston shot the ball from range, though. Granted, so did Tolliver once upon a time, but still, that's never a bad thing. I think he can shoot around mid-thirties from three and if he can, then he'll probably not only make this team but crack the rotation. If he improves enough as a range shooter, he could become similar to Mo Evans.

I also agree with Blackjack that knockdown three-point shooting is going to have to come via either free agency (most likely) or trade. Short of a guy like Henry or Babbitt falling to twenty, they can't rely on an inexperienced, unproven player to provide that.

[Blackjack]

First off, good move and thanks. I didn't want that thread to get hijacked and off the topic.

Secondly, I wasn't arguing the Spurs' interest in the players. My fandom and opinion of Hairston I'm sure is well known by now but I'm not insinuating that the actions of the Spurs or the individual cir stances are favored one way or the other. I've tended to believe that Hairston's future on the team was pretty promising from all I had heard -- from players and coaches alike -- and from the belief I have in him as a player. But I'm fully aware of the numbers Sham revealed recently and the facts that led to Gee's re-acquisition.

But if you're going to compare Hairston and Gee solely on a lack of a handle and on their strength of attacking the rim, I'm just going to have to disagree. Yes, they do share that in common, but there's another end of the court and that's not all Hairston is and can do.

I'm much more knowledgeable about Hairston than Gee, so I can't say with complete certainty what kind of intangibles or intelligence Gee has for the game, but I do know Malik isn't lacking in those categories. And Hairston didn't just have a hot-shooting Summer League or shoot well with the Toros after never being known to hit a shot (Tolliver was a post player making the conversion to a stretch 4), he showed a steady progression in his shooting at Oregon, finishing with percentages of 42 and 43-percent from the three in his final years.

It may turn out that Malik just isn't the right type of player for the role they need him to assume and his skills would be served better in a different system; Temple and Mahinmi excelled because they 'fit'. Their skill set and placement (areas of operation) on the floor was a pretty easy mesh. But there's a good possibility Hairston could be an approximation of Tony Allen with a jumper if given the time and trust to go out there, get a rhythm and find a way to make it work (or for the coaching staff to find a way to utilize him and make it work with a tweak or two -- should they deem him someone they believe they'd be well-served in keeping around).

[Bruno]

^

http://www.truthabou .net/2010/03/...-pre-game.html

Flip [Saunders] was also asked about Alonzo Gee, whom the Wizards intend on keeping for the rest of the season. Here are two of his more interesting points:

* “He has been thrust into a situation where he’s had to play against [guard Gerald Wallace, Kobe Bryant and Carmelo Anthony] and he has not once backed down.”
* Flip called Gee “kind of a two-and-a-half” in terms of position, saying he’s not really a true three, but not really a true two because of his ball handling.

I'm sure if we change Gee with Hairston, these are sentences you could have said.

Do you really think than Gee and Hairston are so different that Pop will say to himself "they are so different that it's interesting to keep both because they bring different qualities on the table that could be used in different situations" ?

[dbestpro]

He has been thrust into a situation where he’s had to play against [guard Gerald Wallace, Kobe Bryant and Carmelo Anthony] and he has not once backed down.”

Maybe in the end, this is the difference. Hairston and Gee may bring the exact same thing to the table, but it seems that Hairston backs off offensively when thrust into big game situations.

[HarlemHeat37]

I agree about Hairston backing off offensively, I'm a fan, as many know, but his lack of aggressiveness offensively does bother me..he doesn't have that problem on the boards or defensively, but he's still scared to make mistakes offensively, which is a killer at the NBA-level..he seems to lack confidence with his shooting at the NBA-level, pretty much the complete opposite of his D-league/Summer League/Preseason play..

As for arguing about Hairston vs. Gee, it's pretty much completely pointless at this point..the Spurs intentions will be known when we see what kind of moves they make in the Draft and FA, then we'll have Summer League and preseason to enjoy the battles between guys like Hairston, Gee, Temple and any other rookies..comparing them at this point in time won't really settle or prove any arguments..

Hopefully a Hairston and Gee type is good enough to make the team so we no longer have to deal with the Bogans types..

[E-RockWill]

Word in Austin was that Alonzo Gee could score 25 w/o even trying.......

[Blackjack]

I'm sure if we change Gee with Hairston, these are sentences you could have said.

Do you really think than Gee and Hairston are so different that Pop will say to himself "they are so different that it's interesting to keep both because they bring different qualities on the table that could be used in different situations" ?

As for arguing about Hairston vs. Gee

That's the thing I've obviously failed to frame or you've just misunderstood. I haven't once said that the Spurs would or should choose one over the other. In fact, I wasn't even arguing Hairston v Gee as it pertains to making the team; I actually stated that between the contract and Spurs interest, Gee might actually have a leg up.

What I did take exception to was the notion that they were the same player or that there was little-to-no differentiation in terms of their actual games. It had nothing to do with saying one was significantly better or that I thought Hairston was an easy choice over Gee. Just because two players are noted slashers doesn't make them the same player: one might be a two-footed leaper the other a single; they might attack the seams differently; they may be more effective from different sides of the floor; one might finish at the rim, draw fouls and convert at the line better; and one might even actually have a three-point shot to augment the drive. That's what I was getting at and I do believe there's a differentiation. The same goes for the defensive end; you wouldn't say Bowen, Christie, Sefolosha, Ariza or a perimieter player of similar size is the same because they're noted perimeter defenders. Each one goes about it in a different way even if the results are comparable; but each player's strength and weaknesses translate and relate to the team differently.

If Hairston makes the team over Gee, if we're to assume it's one or the other, it'll be because of his three-point shot, corporate knowledge and defensive ability. Simple as that. If Gee's going to make the team over Hairston, it'll be because they either didn't see enough separation to fork out the extra money for Malik; Gee's strength is just significantly stronger than Hairston's and he's comparable everywhere else; or they just see more light at the end of the tunnel with him that they believe he's the wiser investment.

I agree about Hairston backing off offensively, I'm a fan, as many know, but his lack of aggressiveness offensively does bother me..

I honestly believe it all goes back to his handle. Hairston ain't scared of compe ion or the opposition, but his ballhandling can completely take him out of the game at the NBA level; it wasn't nearly the problem in college and against weaker opposition. But the fact that he's been susceptible to the turnover and worried about making mistakes because of a lack of opportunities and playing time, he's just been unable to get comfortable and find a feel for when to drive, when to shoot, and when to create off the dribble. If he can become a solid-to-decent ballhandler at the NBA level, I firmly believe the whole thing will click for him. You'll see the intuitive feel and vision he has for the game and the passiveness, or what I believe to be, uncertainty, will be a thing of the past. But it's an 'if' and a rather big 'if' whether he'll improve enough to be what he's capable of being or just basically what he is: borderline rotation to situational, end-of-bench or suit-worthy.

[Biggems]

i want him on the team, but if he isnt going to get any playing time, id rather trade him for a 2nd round pick....if at all possible (which we probably have zero chance of it)......

[Bruno]

That's the thing I've obviously failed to frame or you've just misunderstood. I haven't once said that the Spurs would or should choose one over the other.

I know that you aren't comparing them but I am.

To me, Hairston and Gee are similar players who will will play the same role for Spurs. I think they will fight for a roster spot and the only way both stick as a Spurs is they are really great during training camp.

I also think Gee will be the one who will win this battle for 3 reasons:
- He is cheaper to keep.
- He is still D-League eligible.
- The development curve. Gee has shown a lot of improvement during this year. He showed nothing in SL, worked on his game in D-League (for example he added a 3 point shot to his game) and had a great stint in NBA. On the other hand, Hairston has stagnated after a great training camp.

I also see Spurs going hard after Gee and spending $500K on him as a sign that they have some doubts about Hairston.

[MaNu4Tres]

I know that you aren't comparing them but I am.

To me, Hairston and Gee are similar players who will will play the same role for Spurs. I think they will fight for a roster spot and the only way both stick as a Spurs is they are really great during training camp.

I think they will both fight for a spot on the active roster in training camp and preseason along with whoever the#20 pick in the draft may be.

I honestly believe both of the players and Temple will make the team for some of these reasons:

- They all have showed they are able to contribute on the NBA level.

- They all have improved their game significantly over the past year. (Not just Gee.) Meaning there's most likely still more untapped potential that will be tapped possibly this year or next.

- Gee and Temple are cheaper than signing veterans for the minimum to fill out this upcoming year's roster. Hairston would cost the same.- Credit to Mel

- The drop-off between their talent level and veterans to be signed for the minimum is minuscule (if there is a drop-off; some may even think they are better than most of the veterans available for the minimum; including myself .)


- Temple and Gee can still play in some games Austin next year, if they aren't one of the best 12 guys on the roster. (Still great, cheap insurance options with a lot of upside, if any injury(ies) occur.)


Also, let me make note that the Spurs only having 7 players under guaranteed contracts going into next year. After the assumed signing of Splitter and a 5th big (via draft or free agency (Mahinmi)? ) the roster will be at 10, leaving 5 spots on the roster for the taking.

If Gee, Hairston and Temple keep building on their game through the summer and summer league, then the Spurs might not even add a veteran wing for the minimum. Meaning two of them would have a good chance on the active roster.

If the Spurs do add a veteran wing for the minimum, that will stretch the roster to 11. Leaving 4 spots open. I know most people seem to believe Spurs won't carry more than 13 guys due to financial reasons. But I have a hard time buying that for different reasons.

For one, teams have to prepare their roster in case of injuries because of how often they do happen ( I can't remember a year where Spurs had everyone healthy for 82 games). I would think the F.O would come to a consensus to which they'd rather have Gee, Temple and Hairston as options instead of having to sign players of less ability on the spot when the injuries do happen. ( Especially when these new players would be light years behind where Hairston, Gee or Temple would be, in regards to "corporate knowledge" and talent level.)

Secondly, it's vital for the Spurs to keep developing young talent, as Duncan and Manu are going to be gone soon. Having roster spots available and used for valuable developing young talent will help bridge this ending era and the post-Duncan/Ginobili era more smoothly. I think they will use the 11-15 spots on young players for the future. IMO

I see the Spurs holding on to all three, unless one player just regresses significantly ( which I don't see happening with them being in San Antonio working out already.)

I also see Spurs going hard after Gee and spending $500K on him as a sign that they have some doubts about Hairston.

I doubt that, I think they went after Gee because they saw a very talented player that has the ability to be a cheap option with a lot of upside to not only fill out the roster,( Since they only have 7 players on guaranteed deals going into next year) but also to be a possible piece of the Spurs' future as well.

I don't think it had anything to do with them having doubts about Hairston.

[Mel_13]

- They all are cheaper options than signing veterans for the minimum to fill out this upcoming year's roster.


- They signed their non-guaranteed contracts which last til the summer of 2012. Even in the 11'/12' season, their salary will be a cheaper than a veteran minimum signing to fill out the roster.

A couple of small corrections;

1. Malik will cost the same as a vet min player as he is a third year NBA player with no guaranteed money. The savings associated with Gee and Temple largely come from the guaranteed portions of their salaries plus the associated tax. The increased cost of a vet min player over Gee or Temple would be 92K plus the amount of guaranteed salary earned (plus tax) by the date the player is waived.

2. All three of them will be free agents after the 2010-11 season. The figures you see for 11-12 on a site like sham are the values of the qualifying offer the Spurs will be able to tender to make any one of these players a restricted FA, but they will all be FAs next summer.

[MaNu4Tres]

A couple of small corrections;

1. Malik will cost the same as a vet min player as he is a third year NBA player with no guaranteed money. The savings associated with Gee and Temple largely come from the guaranteed portions of their salaries plus the associated tax. The increased cost of a vet min player over Gee or Temple would be 92K plus the amount of guaranteed salary earned (plus tax) by the date the player is waived.

2. All three of them will be free agents after the 2010-11 season. The figures you see for 11-12 on a site like sham are the values of the qualifying offer the Spurs will be able to tender to make any one of these players a restricted FA, but they will all be FAs next summer.

Thanks Mel.

My mistake, to clarify I still would rather pay Hairston, who has more upside for the future instead of a veteran(plug-in) for the minimum.

And I see those figures now for 2011/2012. Thanks for the clarification.

The corrections still don't change my opinion on all 3 sticking, because of the other reasons above.

[Mel_13]

Thanks Mel.

My mistake, to clarify I still would rather pay Hairston, who has more upside for the future instead of a veteran(plug-in) for the minimum.

And I see those figures now for 2011/2012. Thanks for the clarification.

The corrections still don't change my opinion on all 3 sticking, because of the other reasons above.

I'd also like to see all three stick. Temple plus at least one of Malik/Gee seems likely.

[MaNu4Tres]

Temple plus at least one of Malik/Gee seems likely.

Fair enough... Just out of curiousity ...What route do u see the Spurs going in regards of the 10/11-15 spots on the roster ?..and what leads you to believe it's a one or the other situation w/ hairston and gee?

[Bruno]

I think they will both fight for a spot on the active roster in training camp and preseason along with whoever the#20 pick in the draft may be.

Agree but I also think there is no point in keeping Hairston if he isn't on the active roster. Either he is good enough to make the 12 players roster or he should be waived.

Hairston on the inactive roster is dead weight. He isn't D-League eligible so Spurs won't be able to work with him. He also isn't a proven vet who can step up in an emergency situation.

Spurs' active roster will have 7 perimeter players. 4 (Parker, hill, Ginobili and Jefferson) are a lock. I'm also quite sure Spurs will sign a vet shooter. At the end, there are 2 active roster spots remaining for Hairston, Gee, Temple and the #20 pick (if Spurs don't go with a big man).

[Mel_13]

Fair enough... Just out of curiousity ...What route do u see the Spurs going in regards of the 10/11-15 spots on the roster ?..and what leads you to believe it's a one or the other situation w/ hairston and gee?

Well, I did say at least one of Malik/Gee. It could be both, but in general I'm persuaded by the case put forth by Bruno on this subject.

For the rest of it, let's wait until after the draft and the Splitter decision.

[Chieflion]

I think the Spurs choose that Gee stays on the roster, if one has to go. But Pop looks that he trusted Malik more later in last season and he gave him some utility minutes to see what he can do. I think that probably affects the decision-making as well. What Bruno said is true as well, that the Spurs couldn't send Malik down to the D-League, but Gee and Temple can be sent down. I think that if the Spurs could not sign any other veterans for the minimum, they will keep both Gee and Hairston, which may be the best case scenario for Hairston and Gee, and for the Spurs' outlook in a year or two's time.

[MaNu4Tres]

Agree but I also think there is no point in keeping Hairston if he isn't on the active roster. Either he is good enough to make the 12 players roster or he should be waived.

Hairston on the inactive roster is dead weight. He isn't D-League eligible so Spurs won't be able to work with him. He also isn't a proven vet who can step up in an emergency situation.

I respect your opinion, but I disagree. I don't think Hairston on the inactive roster is dead weight. He's a young player that has proved he has the ability to contribute in the NBA, even if it's from an ample amount of opportunity compared to a full 82 game season.


IMO Hairston has value for this upcoming season even if he's on the inactive roster(worst case scenario), for the fact that he's still quality and cheap insurance for when an injury occurs. And he is still improving, his work-ethic was evident in his first full summer under the Spurs when R.C was quoted saying that " Hairston is the most improved player they’d ever seen coming from the D-League.” .

The Spurs will have seasons past this upcoming year, which is why I believe a young 23 year old with the skill-set of Hairston still has value for the Spurs in the big picture.

Now if he was a 30 year old vet then I'd agree that him on the inactive roster would just be dead weight because he wouldn't really have any value in the grand scheme of things.

[ChuckD]

Hairston's "improving" comes to a dead stop if he isn't active or in Austin, which is ruled out from now on. I agree with the "dead weight" view of Hairston as an inactive roster spot. I also don't see the Spurs carrying the full 15 next year. They must carry 13, and I can see them maybe carrying one more first year player who is VERY cheap.

There's no "developing youngsters to cushion the post Duncan/Ginobili transition" because that absolutely positively CANNOT be cushioned. When they leave, the Spurs will trade Parker or whoever we get in trade for him, and crash hard. There's no avoiding it, and it's better to go all the way down and get that top 3 or top 5 pick than to hang around as a low lottery team led by Parker. It can take you a decade to rebuild if you do that.

[MaNu4Tres]

Hairston's "improving" comes to a dead stop if he isn't active or in Austin, which is ruled out from now on. I agree with the "dead weight" view of Hairston as an inactive roster spot. I also don't see the Spurs carrying the full 15 next year. They must carry 13, and I can see them maybe carrying one more first year player who is VERY cheap.

There's no "developing youngsters to cushion the post Duncan/Ginobili transition" because that absolutely positively CANNOT be cushioned. When they leave, the Spurs will trade Parker or whoever we get in trade for him, and crash hard. There's no avoiding it, and it's better to go all the way down and get that top 3 or top 5 pick than to hang around as a low lottery team led by Parker. It can take you a decade to rebuild if you do that.

All of which is your opinion.

I just have a different one..I'm allowed to have one right?

What we do know is that after training camp and pre-season, the Spurs will have their roster and inactive roster in place. That is FACT and not an opinion.

[HarlemHeat37]

I'm really hoping they both make the team, but it will be dependent on Hairston's potential improvement in his shooting, and Gee's mentality as a two-way player..

Hairston's jump shooting is still terrible, but he did improve by 6% on his shot in his NBA time this year compared to last..he needs to make a big improvement this Summer, or at least just master the baselines like Bowen did(and like Hill has done)..

This is pretty much a necessity since the Spurs desperately need outside shooting..nothing else will be acceptable..

There aren't any available players that can come in and be a defensive stopper for the Spurs..their best option is internal growth and improvement..this is the route most NBA teams are taking right now in regards to their perimeter D..

Having both Hairston and Gee on the perimeter would give the Spurs 2 elite athletes that both have physical strength for their positions too..it's pretty much all dependent on their outside shooting though..I really hope they both improve and show a consistent jump shot, because I'm not interested in having a washed-up player like Raja Bell or Keith Bogans on the team, this is no longer a viable option in today's NBA, those guys can no longer keep up with the athleticism..

[Mel_13]

I'm really hoping they both make the team, but it will be dependent on Hairston's potential improvement in his shooting, and Gee's mentality as a two-way player..

Hairston's jump shooting is still terrible, but he did improve by 6% on his shot in his NBA time this year compared to last..he needs to make a big improvement this Summer, or at least just master the baselines like Bowen did(and like Hill has done)..

This is pretty much a necessity since the Spurs desperately need outside shooting..nothing else will be acceptable..

There aren't any available players that can come in and be a defensive stopper for the Spurs..their best option is internal growth and improvement..this is the route most NBA teams are taking right now in regards to their perimeter D..

Having both Hairston and Gee on the perimeter would give the Spurs 2 elite athletes that both have physical strength for their positions too..it's pretty much all dependent on their outside shooting though..I really hope they both improve and show a consistent jump shot, because I'm not interested in having a washed-up player like Raja Bell or Keith Bogans on the team, this is no longer a viable option in today's NBA, those guys can no longer keep up with the athleticism..

Amen..

[Bruno]

Now if he was a 30 year old vet then I'd agree that him on the inactive roster would just be dead weight because he wouldn't really have any value in the grand scheme of things.

Disagree. I would take a 30 years old vet on the inactive list over Hairston.

There are two kind of players that make sense to spend the year on the inactive list:
- prospects who can become better after some work.
- a reliable vet who can be an insurance in case of an injury.

Hairston doesn't fit these categories. He can't be send to Austin so Spurs can't work with him. He also isn't experienced enough to be a reliable player who can step up at any time of the season including playoffs.

[MaNu4Tres]

Disagree. I would take a 30 years old vet on the inactive list over Hairston.

There are two kind of players that make sense to spend the year on the inactive list:
- prospects who can become better after some work.
- a reliable player who can be an insurance in case of an injury.

Hairston doesn't fit these categories. He can't be send to Austin so Spurs can't work with him. He also isn't experienced enough to be a reliable player who can step up at any time of the season including playoffs.

I couldn't disagree more.

We can agree to disagree on this issue...

I really don't understand how you think Hairston can't improve anymore just because he can't go to Austin. During last year's pre-season, R.C was quoted saying he had never seen a player from the D-League improve as much as Hairston did in one summer.

IMO Players improve the most during the off-season or the summer. This is when they are able to put all the energy and effort into specific drills that target specific weaknesses. This time period for Hairston has started about a month ago and he still has another month to work on different areas before Summer League starts up, then he can put all the things he worked on to the test. After the Summer League he will have another two months to work whatever needs to be worked on. All this time is when a player improves, it is not during the course of a season.IMO

During the season, the player can't really work as hard on specific aspects because a lot of energy is put into games. In these games, players fine tune things they already have. In games is not the place to work on things they can't do. IMO

Also, during the year players who don't receive the majority of the playing time on the Spurs tend to put in a lot of work during practice and even on game day. Yeah Malik Hairston won't be able to play games against lesser compe ion in Austin, but that doesn't mean he can't get better.

A perfect example is George Hill. He didn't play in Austin in order to improve. He improved in the summer, when all of his energy and focus could be put into drills. Same with Hairston last year, it wasn't Austin.

And in my opinion Hairston is more reliable than most veterans available for the minimum. He has great tools to utilize on both ends, the only things that are suspect are his shooting ability and ball-handling. Although I don't think his shooting ability can be fairly assessed due to the limited opportunity he received last year.

[Bruno]

I don't know why you are talking about off season. Spurs have to make about Hairston only at the end of training camp. Hairston has still a full summer to work on his game.

At the end of the training camp, Hairston would have spend 3 off-season and 2 full season with Spurs. I think it will be time to draw conclusions about him. Either he is good enough to make the active roster or it is time to give up on him. I don't see how spending a third season practicing with Spurs will significantly help him.

Hairston is at a crossroad of his career with Spurs. I'm quite pessimistic he will succeed but I can understand people disagreeing with that. What I have a harder time to understand is when you disagreed that Hairston is at a crossroad.

An inactive list player is someone who won't play for 2 months before playing one or few games. Even if Hairston has some qualities, I would trust way more an experienced vet in a playoff game than Hairston after several months without playing game.