To sum up the offseason so far:

Weaknesses at end of season: PF/C depth & quality, SF quality

Players lost:
Hill PG
McDyess PF

Players gained:
Kawhi Leonard SF
Cory Joseph PG
Erazem Lorbek ?

Weaknesses to start next season: PF/C depth, SF quality, PG depth (no backup point guard--Joseph? WTF you have to be kidding)

And the way Pop treats rookies, these guys won't contribute until 2013 when Duncan is retired or dying.

that george hill move makes no sense to me.

Between Leonard and Butler, they may have a quality SF next season.

Otherwise I agree. They no longer have a second-team PG because they traded him for draft picks and replaced him with some guy who won't contribute for a couple years.


I really hope there are more moves coming. The Spurs badly need one of those Euro F/Cs to actually make it over here and contribute.

The Hill move is why the Spurs stay ahead of everyone else in terms of cap and development.

They drafted Hill 26th from IUIPUI or whatever and developed him through his rookie contract. They would have had to pay the guy next year, and with the salaries they have, they would not have been able to make it work if they wanted to get something in the post or at SF.

So, they traded him for a two picks and a euro. Now they will again have a couple of guys that they can develop into contributors on the rookie contract.

If they couldn't unload Jefferson with Parker, this was the next best move.

I dont see how you can not like the trade and how it worked out for the Spurs. I have already had several co-workers come up to me (Mavs fans mostly but a lakers fan and a pistons fan) and say "how do the spurs always manage to make a great move like this?

We moved a guy who is about to finish his rookie deal and would probably command a decent amount of money when he becomes a RFA. The spurs are cash strapped and with the new CBA probably couldnt afford to keep him anyway. The writing was on the wall and now was the best time to move him and get some value in return.

So RC flipped him, kept the 29 pick, picked up a long 3 who many had in the top 10 overall prospects, the second rated SF in the draft and who is still only 19 yrs old. We also picked up Bertans, who is only 18, and considered the best shooter in the draft. I didnt like the Joseph pick at the time but it worked out for them. Even as a sip, he is a solid defender, a good ball handler/low turnovers and is incredibly young (19). The other guy in the deal is considered a top 5 center in europe and is supposedly has a very polished inside game. he may come over this season or next and just turned 27.

Now I agree we didnt really address inside (Lorbek not included), but RC said they werent done in his post-draft PC. I expect they will move RJeff and his behemoth contract for some depth inside.

I like this move much better than the Fernandez deal for dallas. most mavs fans i know were pretty pissed about that deal.

----------------------------------------------------------
America's destiny is not of our own choosing. We did not seek nor did we provoke an assault on our freedom and our way of life. We did not expect nor did we invite a confrontation with evil. Yet the true measure of a people's strength is how they rise to master that moment when it does arrive.

If there are any other deals to be made, especially if we are trying to unload RJ, Blair will almost certainly be the next one to go IMO.

The problem is that eventually you do have to pay guys in the prime of their career if you want to be a playoff contender. Hoping you can simultaneously coach up a bunch of 19 year olds while Timmy and Manu try to turn back the clock 5-10 years might not be the greatest strategy. And oh yeah, someone needs to tell Bonner when the bus leaves for the playoffs because he keeps missing it.

[This message has been edited by Ulrich (edited 6/24/2011 10:31a).]

This may be a good move for the team in 2014, but it doesn't help them win now so the OP is correct. As a small market team the Spurs will need to get lucky with a lopsided trade for a superstar to return to contending status anyway so they might as well stock future assets and avoid potentially bad contracts. Jefferson really sticks out as an albatross. What was the rationale for giving him all that money last year again?

The Spurs typically know what they're doing in the draft..... but I don't understand the Joseph pick at all...

According to RC, that's who they wanted to pick at 29 all along. He really likes his defense at only 19, and I think he's someone who can run their offense coming off of the bench. If you think about it, the Spurs have never really had a great on the ball pg defender.

The Joseph pick makes no sense. There were projections he wouldn't even be picked in two rounds.

Most fans in SA are way overvaluing Hill. How exactly is his departure going to negatively effect next year? He's a good player, probably in the top 6 in SA, but he's not a star. The problem the Spurs were having is they couldn't have Parker, Manu and Hill on the court together. You're better off having a guy like Leonard to pair with Manu and Parker. He can guard the bigger 3s and rebounds his butt off. He reminds me of Shawn Marion and there's been comparisons to Gerald Wallace.

Personally, I've wondered what Pop could do with some long athletic wing players. The last guy he had was SJax and that was a championship year.

They are still in that weird place where they have lots of really old guys and lots of young guys, except now the young guys are younger, the old guys are older, and there's no backup PG. Leonard is growing on me, but was it worth it? I hope so.

Leonard is going to be very very good.

If we can add another solid post, I'm kind of excited about next year. I don't think the spurs will win it all, but I think they can make it interesting.

Why is everyone always so concerned about having a backup PG? Chris Quinn can play that role. ITS THE BACKUP POINT GUARD.

Because the backup PG is typically a pretty important part of the team.

The Spurs bench blew open a lot of games last year. Can a Chris Quinn-led squad do the same?

[This message has been edited by Ulrich (edited 6/24/2011 10:24p).]

George Hill wasn't a point guard either. As someone else mentioned, we would have lost him in a year anyway. He could bring the ball across the court, but that was about it. Neal and Ginobili can both manage that even if Cory Joseph can't contribute the first year.

This was a great deal; a lot of people think Leonard is a steal at 15. He's reworked his shot mechanics and is improving; he could be a Gerald Wallace clone according to some (Barkley said he could be a starter this year).

Splitter should actually play this year (Pop finally seemed to realize he was an idiot for refusing to play him, though too late to salvage last year). Anderson is finally healthy and looked great in limited time before his injury; he's bigger than Hill and should replace him (Hill, Neal, Ginobili and Anderson were too many 2 guards anyway).

Also, we might bring over Lorbek (a pretty good forward/center they also gave us), and Davis Bartans (whom we picked with their 2nd rounder) is a 6-10 18-year-old small forward who some say was the best shooter in the draft. The Spurs will leave him overseas for a couple years.

We might also try to add another veteran center through free agency (like Pryzbilla).

Oh, and Ryan Richards. He really impressed in pre-draft workouts last year, and he apparently grew from 6-11 to 7-1 this past year as he was recovering from shoulder surgery. He might surprise as well.

Thompson, the more you talk, the more I look at the George Hill deal as a potentially great deal for the spurs. We picked up 3 decent players, 2 of which could be starters at some point, for a guy who maybe could have started at some point in his career. That's if we held onto him past this next year.

As for Richards and Lorbek. Can these guys contribute this year?

Lorbek signed a 3-year deal in 2009 with a buyout after 2 years, meaning the Spurs can bring him over this year with a buyout.

I would assume they wouldn't bother having him included in the deal if they didn't want him; he's already 27, so you think they'd want to bring him over right away if at all.

He's almost 6-11 (I don't know what his standing reach is). He's actually pretty good offensively, less so defensively. He could be very useful though, and he performs on the 'big stage' (Eurobasket) in this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoWW_E5BRBU

As for Richards, here's an interesting comment on him from Xavier Henry right before the Spurs drafted him last year, when reporters asked Henry who the most impressive under-the-radar prospect was.

"The kid from England, Ryan Richards, can really play,” said Henry, the 6-foot-6 shooting guard from Kansas who is expected to go in the first 15 picks. “He showed me a lot of things. He’s a Euro-type of player, but he’s real smart and all of his moves are fast-paced. He can also shoot. That’s something he can do really well. He’s nearly 7 feet and when you have a 7-foot guy that can shoot and plays smart, I think that’s someone who can do some good things in the league."
http://www.hoopsfix.com/2010/05/ryan-richards-nba-pre-draft-timeline-what-the-web-is-saying/

Richards has also apparently grown to 7-1 in shoes over the past year; he's pretty quick and athletic, especially for his size. He'll hopefully get some time as a backup this year if Pop has learned anything.

It might be wise to try to acquire a proven veteran like Pryzbilla (if he's recovered) to be on the safe side, but if not, at least Pop will be forced to play the 'rookies' more. I'm trying not to be too optimistic about them, but I think there is potential there.

Here's another Lorbek video where he brought his team back to beat Croatia. He had 27 points, 8 rebounds, 3 steals, and 1 block.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGL9QhhoW7k

I would like to see some of these European bigs actually pan out for the Spurs before thinking this is a good deal. Seems like the Spurs have had the rights to half of Europe at one point or another. Also, most Euro teams aren't very good so looking good there doesn't mean anything by itself.

Scola would have been useful (if we hadn't traded him to get rid of Butler's contract).

Splitter showed some promise in the limited time Pop actually played him. The Euro teams are the 2nd best worldwide (after the NBA), and some players have seen success here; it's possible our new ones might.

The Spurs currently own the rights to 9 international players, all of whom were/are considered good enough to eventually play in the NBA. Splitter is your recent example of one of these guys who made it to the Spurs... well, it took 3 years for him to make it over here and get 4.6 and 3.3 per game.


Again, I'll think it's a good trade when Leonard turns out to be a star or at least one of these Euros turns out to be a good player for the Spurs. Traded a player in the prime of career who has proven to be very capable at his position for a rookie and a couple Euro shots-in-the-dark. Don't get me wrong, the more I read about Leonard the more I like him, but did we have to give up Hill? I guess that's what happens when you give RJ 11 million per year... kind of limited on options.

[This message has been edited by Ulrich (edited 6/25/2011 6:32p).]

Splitter's low numbers are more a result of his idiot coach not giving him a chance because he missed training camp.

As for Hill, he was more a 2 guard than a point guard. We would have had Ginobili, Hill, Neal, and Anderson at the 2, and Hill would have required an expensive new contract after this year. The Spurs were wise to trade him now and to get something in return, instead of being forced to match someone else who overpaid for him and letting him walk next year.

I think Anderson will do pretty well this year, and his added height will help also. He looked very good last year (even impressing on the defensive end) before his injury.

[This message has been edited by Thompson (edited 6/25/2011 7:08p).]

The bottom line is this, Hill is a safe player and he was traded for a lot of guys with great potential but no guaranteed success. In today's NBA, that's the correct move. Building a team around good (but not great) payers will get you 50 wins and one or two playoff series a year but it won't get you a championship.

[This message has been edited by Ag Natural (edited 6/25/2011 10:04p).]

Wtf is ag natural talking about?

Didn't the mavs just prove that his previous post is a load of crap? Take the established team guys, spend money, and build chemistry. And have one superstar. And you'll win a title.

The spurs are done for a decade now until they find the next superstar. Maybe done forever

We'll see simple, we'll see. The mavs aren't a very good comparison though. The spurs don't have a player capable of doing what nowitski did in the playoffs. Duncan's past that point, Ginobili is as well, and Parker isn't at that level.

The spurs needed to take a risk to have any chance at another title. I feel they have a better chance next year than they did this year. Still no where close to the favorites, but certainly a chance.

Oh, and it seems that the spurs are still keeping plenty of established guys. Taking a risk with one isn't quite "blowing it up" like the OP describes. We have plenty of proven guys, but need somone else to step up to have another shot at a title.

How many players do the Spurs have who are proven (proven good, I mean) and aren't pushing 1,000 pro games?

There's a big gap between players who are young (Splitter, Blair, Neal) and players who are getting a lot of wear on the tires (Duncan, Ginobili, Parker, RJ). As I recall, the players filling the gap (more than 3 seasons, less than 10) are Bonner, Quinn, and Novak. That seems like a problem to me.

[This message has been edited by Ulrich (edited 6/26/2011 1:47p).]

quote:

---

How many players do the Spurs have who are proven (proven good, I mean) and aren't pushing 1,000 pro games?

---

Tony Parker, maybe Richard Jefferson?

Parker's only just turned 29, and there hasn't been a dropoff, yet, anything like what's happened with Duncan/Ginobili.

[This message has been edited by TXAggie2011 (edited 6/26/2011 1:51p).]

Ulrich, that further pushes the point that we needed to take a risk. The spurs current roster wasn't going to win another championship. Too much dead weight on it. They still need to add another big or even 2, but they have a better shot today than they did a week ago.

Need to get rid of Bonner and Jefferson IMO. That won't be easy though, if possible at all.

[This message has been edited by beerad12man (edited 6/26/2011 1:54p).]

Cutting Hill doesn't do anything to cut dead weight. Sometimes you have to pay to keep good players; if Hill would agree to a reasonable contract then keep him.


Speaking of age, Parker has played nearly 900 NBA games plus two seasons in France (I think 72 total games plus any playoffs) and international competition. Jefferson has played in over 800 NBA games and kind of sucks, especially at 11 million a year.

[This message has been edited by Ulrich (edited 6/26/2011 3:41p).]