Reply With Quote
What makes you think that we can get the #3 pick for Hill and Blair???
First, I would like to say I have been an avid reader of Spurstalk for years.....Love it....Great info, great comments, everyone on this site does a great job.
I myself have never posted before so please be gentle.
I got a real kick out of story of the spurs moving up the the #3 spot a couple weeks ago. I agreed with most of the commentary that basicly said the spurs couldn't trade Parker for it because G. Hill is not a true point guard and that not having Parker in the end would kill us. With this in mind though why wouldn't we trade G. Hill and D. Blair for it. Here are my thoughts:
I hate small ball, I believe the only way we are going get our 5th championship is to go back to the 1997 - 2005 spurs. To do so we need a second dominate defensive and offensive 4/5 but these guys are nearly impossible to find and i believe D. Favors could be one of them. I love D. Blair, i believe he will only get better but the reality is for us to dominate the paint on the defensive end D. Blair is just not long enough. Therefore i propose if you have T.D., Favors and Splitter as your rotation for your front 3 you are set and you will not miss Blair a bit.
As for moving G. Hill we will absolutly miss him, I love this guy. Nevertheless, any trade is about replacement value and it is simply much easier to replace G. Hill a combo guard than a long dominant big. Will N. DeColo work out, can we fill in from the draft (I do like 2nd round pick Mikhail Torrance)? Maybe / maybe not, but if we can solidify the paint we have a shot to keeping this run going.
I will enjoy reading your responses.
Go spurs go
What makes you think that we can get the #3 pick for Hill and Blair???
Another soul trying to contribute meaningfully on it's way to being eaten alive and being devoured by trolls.
I agree with you that the proposal i am making is more likely to be turned down by the Nets than the Spurs.... As far as trade proposals go, i do not think this is a crazy, out of the question type offer. As far as the Nets go, it all depends how much they like Favors, if they believe that he is the next big thing, they won't go for it, nevertheless Favors, just like everyone else in this draft is a question mark, Hill is at a peak value right now after his playoff showing and Blair did not look like a second round pick to anyone. IF they feel they can match Blair with Lopez, G. Hill maybe enough to get them to bite...it also could take the 20th pick or a future pick to sweeten the deal.
Now the question is would you (the spurs) do the deal?
Moving Parker to NJ has more to do with star appeal than pure basketball skill. Parker is able to provide both and thus becomes an interesting target for the new Russian billionaire owner. Hill and Blair just gives them more of what they already have and will do little to convince another major free agent to go to NJ.
New Jersey wont trade the #3 pick for two bench players, especially when neither is even a 6th man type impact player.
The Spurs have limited role players. This move steals the only two and you will never get the value that Blair and Hill have because they are key players with small contracts.
The Spurs have to either move Tony/Manu to get back a piece that will have value. Manu is almost certainly out of the trade rumors because his new contract is way too much.
I would like to believe that they could move Jefferson but I just don't see a team taking him and giving up a piece that will truely help the Spurs.
Tony is the only piece we have that another team would want. I don't think we would get Parker value on the market either. I don't see the Spurs pulling the trigger on any major trades. They need to focus on the draft and Splitter. With Splitter and a quality pick, we will have the depth that we lacked this year.
Biggest mistake the Spurs FO could do at this point is trade a young, incredibly talented SG/PG with 2 years in the system, and an incredibly solid 2nd year player who hasn't had an opportunity to actually play. Regardless of who you can get for the two, I think it's a terrible mistake, and taking steps backward.
great thread.
pop will not trade hill in his dreams...so he will not trade him in reality....hill and blair are supposed to be the future of the spurs....if derrick favors is a real good player....then blair and some one else for the 3rd pick would be fine.....thats only if favors can replicate blair's hustle for rebounds.......i wouldnt give up hill and blair for an unproven guy....
the biggest mistake our FO did was to trade bruce for RJ who still cant adjust in our system.....am all for getting rid of RJ if we can...but am sure RJ will play good in the next season coz his contract is expiring and he will work hard for a real good contract....
I'm still an advocate of the Parker + Blair for Harris and a the #3 overall if we dont have to include our 20th pick. That is an influx of youth and a young point that contract expires along with Manu and Timmy.
why is that funny
I feel like there is a silver lining to both options, whether we get Tiago Splitter or Derrick Favors. I would be happy with either one of them. Either way, the Spurs would have another big to pair with Tim Duncan.
Tiago Splitter: If nothing else, we wouldn't be able to say it was a wasted draft pick if he comes over. He would have an immediate impact on the team, giving Tim Duncan the best center he has played with since David Robinson, and the Spurs the much-needed interior presence to go along with TD. No need to go into details about the tools Splitter would bring to the team, because there are enough threads about him on here that already do that.
Derrick Favors: If the Spurs can somehow get Favors, that would also be a huge plus. With me living in Alabama, I got a chance to see a pretty good bit of his games at Georgia Tech, and liked what I saw. He has a nice combination of length, athleticism, quickness, good awareness for somebody as young as he is, and is a pretty good defender and should be one of the best in the league with some polishing. From what I heard from the announcers, he also has a good work ethic, and that's a neccesity for being a Spur. He supposedly fits the profile of what the Spurs have been looking for since David Robinson retired, and could potentially take over for Tim Duncan as the franchise player one day.
I'm well aware that Derrick Favors is a project, but I like his chances of becoming a dominant big man one day if he comes to the Spurs mainly for 2 reasons:
1.) He would be mentored by the G.O.A.T. power forward; a top 10 all-time great regardless of position.
2.) Since he wouldn't be going to a losing team, there wouldn't be any ridiculous expectations for him. He could be a difference maker without the pressure of carrying the team. I believe that's a major factor in why the success rate for high draft picks is so low.
Like I said, I would be happy with either move if for no other reason than Tim Duncan having a legit big man next to him. But the more I read and hear about the possibilty of the Spurs trading up to get Derrick Favors, no matter how big or small that possibility might be, the more I'm in favor of that happening. The big question, and the key to making that happen obviously is what they would have to give up to make that happen. I do rememember several years back either Peter Holt or R.C. Buford saying that the Spurs planned on using TD in the David Robinson role toward the end of his career.
I strongly believe that if you have any kind of chance to get a potential franchise big man, you at least have to look into it. The more things change, the more they stay the same. In other words, as much as the game has changed over the years, one thing has remained constant: The way to build your team is from the inside out. The league might be a guard-driven league and all that, but you won't win a championship without a dominant (or highly skilled) big man. Here are a couple of stats as proof:
-56 out of the 64 NBA champions (including the current NBA Finals teams) have had a dominant/high skill big man- either a center or power forward.
-35 out the 55 league MVPs have went to either a center or power forward.
One other thing, I know I'm preaching to the chior on this one, but obviously the workload on Tim Duncan is way to much. It's making him look older than what he is. I feel like even at 34 years old, with a dependable center next to him, he could still be dominant. Here is the way I see it:
The lack of another dependable big has led to TD playing most of the game these days as the sole big on the floor. Which means that in addition to the normal 20/10 he puts up, he also has to help make up for the 10 rebounds a game they lose from not having that other big next to him. He also has to guard the best big on the floor for the other team, and block all the shots.
With him being the only big on the floor most of the time, that means the Spurs are going small. When they go small, that means Richard Jefferson moves over to power forward. As a result, you are asking him not only to get the normal 6 rebounds expected from a small forward, but split the center's rebounds with Tim Duncan. It's unrealistic to expect that to happen every night. So in essence, TD is having to give production for both post positions which again, at his age and miles he has, is too much for him, and that's why he wears down after the All-Star break.
The Spurs need to go back to the Twin Tower approach, that's what got them the championships in the first place. Whether they get Tiago Splitter or Derrick Favors, they need another big in there with TD in the worst way, along with a peremeter defender. This is just how I see it.
^ good points
^ Agreed, very good and well thought out.
It might be time to give up on trying to have astretch the floor big next to TD and make TD the stretch big if Spurs must have one. I honestly think TD has the range especialy if he works on it alot this summer. IT would keep him from being banged up so much.
Thanks man!! I'll even copy and post this in the Think Tank.
Thats what I'm talking about, but better then that why cant we get both Splitter and Favors (via trade with NJ) I say NJ cause getting a guard like Harris to help replace the production we lose by trading Parker is mandatory. If we could get Harris and the #3 pick for say Parker and Blair while keeping our pick we would be silly not to do this. We could end up with a talented youth infusion added along with a solid champion pedigreed veteran core, that could give us plenty of ammo for another few years run at the le(s).
Great points! As far as i am concerned Thomas82 and 4lifecowboy gets the prize.
The reason I started this thread by asking the question would you trade hill and blair for favors, (i understand the nets may not even consider such a deal), was to focus on the fact that we need T. Duncan II (Again I know there will never be a another T. Duncan).
We need to allow T. Duncan to become D. Robinson of 97 - 02 (I believe he will be a better version of that) to do so we need an extremley strong 4/5 to do it and you can not get those guys unless you get a top 3 pick. Blair is great but short, Tiago will be solid but not a superstar (please don't expect him to be Pau), and all the stretch 4's in the world will not help us.
For the first time in several years there seems to be a possibilty and enough tradable assets that the Spurs could make a push for a guy who could fill that role, luckily he might be the third pick in the draft not the first....and i say we should go for it and go for it aggressively. We will absolutley have to lose either one or a couple of our favorite players to do this, but i think the trade off will be worth our while because let's face it.....we are spoiled....we want championships and not just 50 win seasons, a trade like this might blow up in our face but something like this is what it is going to take to keep this run going.
Yuck. I hate Devin Harris. Also, none of the big men seem good enough to give up TP for imo.
Trading Hill lol
Do people really believe TP is a max player? He's not. He is a very good role player, he is Scottie Pippen an above average player that fell into a perfect situation that showcased is talents and hid his flaws. Besides scoring what other talent do he bring, he don't make those around him better, he is not a defensive stopper, and above all that he is not a leader. If he is barkin about max money (which he is) then you trade him if you can get a team to give you superstar type returns for him.
The more I think about it, the more I believe there is a strong possibility that Tony Parker might walk after next year, and that's why I believe we should at least look into getting something for him.
One other thing, I have seen and heard an awful lot of people saying that Spurs fan are spoiled from the 4 championships. I will agree, to a certain extent. It's easy to say we got spoiled when your favorite team doesn't even have 1 championship, or if you can't see how obvious it is the the Spurs haven't completely maximized their chances to win championships during the last 13 years, or at least the last 5. I actually believe we should have more, even with the way 2004 and 2006 turned out.
With all due respect to the Spurs front office, for every good choice they made, they made a head-scratcher to cancel it out. I guess you can say that about every team, but I honestly do believe that we wasted a couple of Tim Duncan's best years. I'm well aware that for whatever reason, we haven't been able to attract any big-ticket free agents, but I still believe we could have done some things different.
Thomas82 is bringing in some great points.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
