Reply With Quote
F-!
Is it possible to get a G?
saw this on espn insider and thought i would share. don't know if it was mentioned before.
Key additions: Kawhi Leonard (draft), T.J. Ford (FA), Cory Joseph (draft), Gani Lawal (FA)
Key subtractions: George Hill
The Spurs are old. Tim Duncan is 35. Manu Ginobili is 34. Richard Jefferson, who signed an excessive four-year, $39 million deal two summers ago, is 31. Even Tony Parker turns 30 in May.
Yet it's hard to break up a team that still performs the way the Spurs do.
Spurs GM R.C. Buford has talked about blowing things up for the past few years, but he doesn't have the heart to do it. When he finally made a trade to move up in the draft and nab Kawhi Leonard, he did it by trading the team's best young player (and one of coach Gregg Popovich's favorite players) -- George Hill.
The Spurs' thinking was that the team wouldn't be able to afford to keep their core together and pay Hill this summer, so they cut bait and landed Leonard, a super-talented, high-energy combo forward instead. Leonard was a good pick, but when you factor in what they gave up for him combined with the rest of their haul this offseason, it just feels like the Spurs are still going in the wrong direction.
GRADE: C-
F-!
Is it possible to get a G?
I would have done D.
it makes sick just by reading it
Add McDyess to the list and the grade is a big fat D
It's weird too, because IIRC, ESPN normally overrates the Spurs FO moves. I guess it's just too apparent now.
Too generous of a grade, IMO.
Leonard > Hill.
I guess window is closed, well it was an awesome ride for the Spurs and all the fans, thanks Manu, Tony and Tim
The Spurs are lucky to get anything above a D-.
Getting Kawhi was good, but not playing him so RJ can crap all over the court for 30 minutes a game is terrible.
d
Generous.
This offseason has made no sense. The Spurs somehow managed to weaken their roster while simultaneously not building for the future. Props.
So ESPN guys do like us !!!!
I think they actually strengthened their roster with trading Hill, that is of course if they actually play Leonard.
Ford is hands down a better PG than Hill, Hill is better defensively but the last time I remember him actually playing great defense in the playoffs was against the Mavs. Even though Hill played heavy minutes throughout his career at PG he had proven he could not distribute the ball; making him strictly a SG, an undersized SG to be exact. Hill was also getting abused last year against Memphis' big G/F's (this would NOT happen to someone as big as JA), not only could he stop them from scoring but they rebounded over him at will, prior to that Dragic/Nash were man handling him. The only thing Hill proved he could do was score, even then he was mentally weak and couldn't keep it up consistently.
Trading him opened up a spot for Anderson (he would've rotted on the bench w/out trading Hill) who not only has a much higher ceiling but is MUCH bigger. Keeping Hill most likely would've forced the Spurs to play Anderson at SF keeping KL on the bench.
Even if KL doesn't get any playing time this year, moving JA to SF would've moved him out of his natural position of SG and would've created problems for the future starting SF rotation. I do think KL/JA will be starting for the Spurs in 1 or 2 years. They would've had to moved JA back down to SG or KL to SG etc. it would've caused some problems for the future starters of those positions.
Hill's scoring will most likely also be replaced by JA/Neal.
Their front line did get worse though by losing Dice. That's the only way I could see them be worse off, but then again it opens up PT for Splitter who will make a solid impact on this team.
I think this Spurs team upgraded significantly at the SG/SF/PG position
Lol
Sure
Parker - Ginobili - Leonard - Bonner - Duncan
Ford - Anderson - Jefferson - Blair - Splitter
Joseph - Neal - (Green) - (Lawal) - (x)
After cutting Dice contract and Novak, we have two to three spots to fill (Green is still a strong chance to be cut; so for Lawal) and all of them on our front-line.
The only reason to behave this way is that nobody the F.O. have looked at was worth a signing...or wanted to sign.
Ther's not a lot in the market and we have to offer only 3 millions or just minimum contracts.
Our only "benefit" from a FA point of view is that we can offer a more than decent amount of minutes, maybe also a spot in the "starting five" for anybody that eager to enhance his market value for next season...but the more we're going on the less candidates for such a perspective (Murphy could have been one, but he have chosen LA for an amount of money we could have given; Ayon could have been another, but he signed for the Hornets; Evans could be the last one but probably will take some better offer).
It's difficult to understand if the FO has already given up on this season or they are just waiting for a miracle to happen...
Considering the schedule of this year it's clear that youth is necessary...also the fifth and sixth "big man" (that at this moment are an x and maybe Lawal) will be options to be considered for a good amount of playing time in some game (back to back to back...).
The question is who...(maybe signing Richards, at this poiint, could have made sense...).
The Spurs flunked and deserve no extra credit.
F-
Maybe an "I" for Incomplete? They did damn near nothing. If not for trading a proven young player for an unproven young player, the only thing they accomplished was to be utterly incapable of convincing any players to come to San Antonio. They couldn't even convince McDyess to commit to a short season for an extra $2.5 Million.
And to make it worse, they don't have anything to sell a FA prospect next season, either. They sure can't use the "We're building something special here" approach. Next year's free agent class is supposed to be pretty deep. And unless something changes, they're going to be looking at SA as the place where careers go to die.
They either didn't commit to improving this team, or they utterly failed in that mission. They didn't commit to re-building. They're stuck somewhere in the middle. How much worse could an offseason get?
Horrible offseason after a horrible playoffs! F.
Should be an F...Spurs are half heartedly tanking, which is the worst possible option because it only allows us to draft in the middle of the 1st round. If we are going to get an impact player in the draft, we need to go all the way with it.
still can't believe the spurs struck out. i'm still wondering how the lakers signed kapono, mcroberts, and troy murphy for just the MLE/minimums. if the spurs did that, it would be the best offseason ever.
F
D seems about right
Incomplete makes sense right now, too.
Last edited by ginobilized; 12-19-2011 at 11:55 PM.
The Spurs won't be in San Antonio in about five years.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
