THC: The Hairston Coalition

[Blackjack]

As I've said before, it's not ideal, but if the Spurs sign Bell and can bring over Splitter, I'd be fairly pleased. Ideally, I'd like them to move Jefferson, acquire a different type of player to fill the wing stopper role than Bell, etc., but I also think they'll be some value in bringing back the vast majority of the roster rather than undergoing wholesale changes for the second consecutive off season.

It may not show in the stats, but Jefferson and McDyess should be better from day one next season, just based on being more comfortable. Bell would probably be a seamless fit. He's an intelligent player and his role would be straightforward. That leaves Splitter as the wild card. If he can make a Ginobili '03 type impact, that would be a significant boost to this team. I'm not calling him Ginobili's equal as a player, but just think of what he brought to that '03 team that they didn't have in '01 or '02. Splitter, theoretically could help Duncan (and the team in general) a lot.

If, and it's a big if, the team comes to camp healthy, intact and ready to go from Day 1, I think we'd see a marked improvement; the base would be relatively sound to start, the roles more defined, and the system seemingly more ingrained for the likes of RJ and 'Dyess. And if all you're adding is a vet like Bell and a solid young big like Splitter (two guys whose roles won't require the ball being in their hand or any great, overbearing responsibility), the team should be able to get off to a nice start and have a pretty successful regular season.

I don't believe that's a championship-caliber squad ... but with RJ's contract in tow, they could very well have the means to turn it into one by the trade deadline.

I assume these eight will return: Duncan, Ginobili, Parker, Hill, McDyess, Jefferson, Blair and Hairston. Add the aforementioned two to those eight and there's the rotation. Is that a championship caliber team? Health permitting, on paper they should have a chance, but that was also the thinking going into this season. Like I touched on though, I think next season will be a smoother transition.

Just on a first glance, I have a hard time believing Bonner doesn't find his way back on the roster; his value to Pop and the Spurs, on the court and in the locker room, seems quite a bit higher than most would like to believe.

So Bonner would take them to 11 their draft pick(s) could take them to 12 and 13 ... but that doesn't seem to wash financially; maybe they'll be forced to let Bonner go?

Lets see . . .

The Spurs will be at $56,088,011 Duncan, Parker, Jefferson, 'Dyess, Hill, Blair and Hairston. You've got to think Manu will get between $7-10M/per, Tiago (should he come) will probably get a little over $4M/per and Bell would probably be asking for somewhere around the LLE.

Just a very rough estimate would take that salary to over $70M. Throw in a first-round pick and you're around $73M and you're still in need of two players to meet the league-required 13 (vet-minimums or second-rounders put you around $75-76M)

Last years cap number was $69,920,000 and it promises to be lower next year, so the Spurs could very well be $10M over again with the roster suggested; I've always believed this 'all-in' bet was for a two-year window ... but I'm not going to assume it's the case (not after the year this has turned out to be).

Moral of the story, RJ's contract sucks; the Spurs have to find a taker (offseason or deadline) for them to truly contend IMO.

[mountainballer]

Moral of the story, RJ's contract sucks; the Spurs have to find a taker (offseason or deadline) for them to truly contend IMO.

bottom line: trade RJ and get a quality player back (by taking back more long term salary) is the ONLY way to keep the window open.

of course we can always pray for a miraculous trade around RJ.
fact is, the current roster is far from being a contender and it won't be one next season either, even if they can add let's say Splitter and Bell.
and if they don't re sign Manu, they officially closed the window.

so finding a taker for RJ is crucial, but are the Spurs really in position to take back twice as much salary long term as RJ is owed for 2010-11?
(I assume that's the deal.). let's say/hope yes. what's next?
Maggette once more comes to mind. probably the only realistic option for a RJ scenario and reportedly the Spurs were thinking also in that direction before deadline.
(btw. as the topic is Hairston, if the Spurs would turn RJ into Maggette, it wouldn't exactly help Hairston's case).

a lot will depend on the lottery. Warriors will finish with the 3rd worst record, so they have a pretty good chance to win either 1st or 2nd.
currently Wall is the sure fire 1st and Turner looks like the very option for the 2nd pick a team can't pass.
if the Warriors end up with one of them, it would once more shake up either their PG and/or wing rotation. either Ellis or Maggette will be on the block, good chance it will be both. (there were reports that more or less all Warriors players except Curry will be available).
a Maggette trade would require at least one more player on 3 million, Turiaf and Azubuike come to mind. (a trade of Maggette and Azu for RJ would not only fill 2 wing spots, but also clear 2 million under the threshold for the Spurs. could be crucial in the Manu re signing or the Splitter signing, if in fact staying under the threshold is the primary guideline)

hmmm.
Tim, Tony, Maggette, Azubuike, Dice, Blair, Hill, Hairston sum up for 52 million.
Manu takes 7 M and Splitter 4 M. that's 63 for 10 players.
#20 pick pick costs 1.3M. that's 64.3M. threshold will be between 66 and 68 million. two more players to go. #50 pick signs for the minimum (counts for 700K), plus another veteran minimum signing (700K).
that's slightly under 66. maybe even room enough for your McGuire signing.

and looks like this:

Tony - Hill - veteran
Manu - Azubuike - (#50pick= Fields)
Maggette - Hairston - (minimum combo forward= McGuire)
Blair - Dice - (#20 pick= best big available = Udoh, Monroe, Sanders)
Tim - Splitter

this IS a nice looking roster, probably contender and still under the threshold. with a pretty nice young core for the post Tim era. just saying.

[BG_Spurs_Fan]

Mountainballer,a whole lot of win in your post as usual .

I've been thinking, however, how much of an asset would RJ's expiring contract really be next summer. Realistically, we could expect to trade him for a player, whose contract is longer than RJ's and whose team think he's overpayed/not worth the contract. Do you think this would be appealing to the Spurs FO at all after the RJ fiasco? Would they gamble again with another player on a worse contract and with the chance that it'd turn out to be RJ 2.0 and more money down the drian?

While it definitely looks like a good way to gamble in order to eventually contend next season for a fan, I'm not that sure the owners would find it as such a simple solution to the problems, since it'll cost them a lot of money, especially with the upcoming new CBA. Also, how many teams would take on RJ's contract in the summer unless they're giving back ridiculously bad contracts? I think these teams would wait until the 2011 feb trade deadline before taking on RJ ( that is if we're talking about trading him for the likes of Maggette, Granger, Iggy..., i.e. best case scenarios ).

[Interrohater]

Righttttttt. Why can't Pop just go find these "great players" and put them into his system and BOOM,PRESTO, the Spurs can start a new Dynasty for the new decade. Damn Pop is so stubborn, just do it Pop! Cmon Pop theres "greatplayers" all over the place just waiting for you or RC to give em a call.

That's not what I said at all. My point was that they should be going after best available, not "successors". Since David left, we've been looking for his "successor". They look for a shot-blocking big man who runs like a gazelle (the Mahinmi project?). Same with Horry (Bonner?) and Bruce (Bogans, Udoka, even Hill).

Finding players like them fit into the system, instead of looking for the best available, and adapting the system to them.

I think this line of thought may have been too far above your head, guy-who-couldn't-think-of-a-proper-name-so-he-mashed-the-keyboard.

[diego]

I dont get why some people are clamoring for hairston to develop his 3. Yes, eventually he will need it, but right now vs Mason and Bogans he brings more to the table- better D, better penetration, more hustle, more athleticism, and even if he hasnt shown the ability to make 3s, Bogans and Mason arent exactly making it rain.

For me, all hairston has to do to trump Bogans and Mason is play good D, help rebound, and be a garbage man on O.

[tav1]

bottom line: trade RJ and get a quality player back (by taking back more long term salary) is the ONLY way to keep the window open.

of course we can always pray for a miraculous trade around RJ.
fact is, the current roster is far from being a contender and it won't be one next season either, even if they can add let's say Splitter and Bell.
and if they don't re sign Manu, they officially closed the window.

so finding a taker for RJ is crucial, but are the Spurs really in position to take back twice as much salary long term as RJ is owed for 2010-11?
(I assume that's the deal.). let's say/hope yes. what's next?
Maggette once more comes to mind. probably the only realistic option for a RJ scenario and reportedly the Spurs were thinking also in that direction before deadline.
(btw. as the topic is Hairston, if the Spurs would turn RJ into Maggette, it wouldn't exactly help Hairston's case).

a lot will depend on the lottery. Warriors will finish with the 3rd worst record, so they have a pretty good chance to win either 1st or 2nd.
currently Wall is the sure fire 1st and Turner looks like the very option for the 2nd pick a team can't pass.
if the Warriors end up with one of them, it would once more shake up either their PG and/or wing rotation. either Ellis or Maggette will be on the block, good chance it will be both. (there were reports that more or less all Warriors players except Curry will be available).
a Maggette trade would require at least one more player on 3 million, Turiaf and Azubuike come to mind. (a trade of Maggette and Azu for RJ would not only fill 2 wing spots, but also clear 2 million under the threshold for the Spurs. could be crucial in the Manu re signing or the Splitter signing, if in fact staying under the threshold is the primary guideline)

hmmm.
Tim, Tony, Maggette, Azubuike, Dice, Blair, Hill, Hairston sum up for 52 million.
Manu takes 7 M and Splitter 4 M. that's 63 for 10 players.
#20 pick pick costs 1.3M. that's 64.3M. threshold will be between 66 and 68 million. two more players to go. #50 pick signs for the minimum (counts for 700K), plus another veteran minimum signing (700K).
that's slightly under 66. maybe even room enough for your McGuire signing.

and looks like this:

Tony - Hill - veteran
Manu - Azubuike - (#50pick= Fields)
Maggette - Hairston - (minimum combo forward= McGuire)
Blair - Dice - (#20 pick= best big available = Udoh, Monroe, Sanders)
Tim - Splitter

this IS a nice looking roster, probably contender and still under the threshold. with a pretty nice young core for the post Tim era. just saying.

The Spurs talked with GS leading up to the trade deadline, but they couldn't get anything done. Be interesting to see if they come back around to talks in June/July.

BTW: great post. Although, I wonder if moving McDyess is not a smart option too.

[jjktkk]

That's not what I said at all. My point was that they should be going after best available, not "successors". Since David left, we've been looking for his "successor". They look for a shot-blocking big man who runs like a gazelle (the Mahinmi project?). Same with Horry (Bonner?) and Bruce (Bogans, Udoka, even Hill).

Finding players like them fit into the system, instead of looking for the best available, and adapting the system to them.

I think this line of thought may have been too far above your head, guy-who-couldn't-think-of-a-proper-name-so-he-mashed-the-keyboard.

Umm,Interrohater, I commented on your post earlier in this thread where you stated "Pop should find great players, then mold the system to them, not search for players who look like they should fit into a system that you've created for others." So even though you think you didn't say that, you said Pop needs to find "great players". Really? Damn! No Kidding? You think Pop turns his nose when he has a chance to sign a great player? Do great players grow on trees or something? By your comments you make it sound like its easy to acquire great players. And now your attacking my ST name. OUCH!!! (reaching for a tissue right now).

[SenorSpur]

Senor Tool, are you hitting the pipe again? By your ignorant reply, you seem to think every year the Spurs should be able to find a NBA player in the later rounds. Its really not that easy. Maybe RC and the scouting department make it seem so.

Despite the fact that the draft itself is a crap shoot, there are often gems to be found (Hill) if a team does its homework. This also doesn't account for the influx of talented Euro players (Jonas Jerebko, Omri Casspi) that have annually deepened the pool of eligible players. Or the good players (Blair) that sometimes inexplicably slide down for whatever reason.

The fact that you seem to think productive players cannot be found later in the round shows just how ignorant and ill-informed you are. You also killed whatever point you were trying to make. Perhaps if you raise your head up from kissing Pop's ass long enough, you'd see that.

[Interrohater]

Umm,Interrohater, I commented on your post earlier in this thread where you stated "Pop should find great players, then mold the system to them, not search for players who look like they should fit into a system that you've created for others." So even though you think you didn't say that, you said Pop needs to find "great players". Really? Damn! No Kidding? You think Pop turns his nose when he has a chance to sign a great player? Do great players grow on trees or something? By your comments you make it sound like its easy to acquire great players. And now your attacking my ST name. OUCH!!! (reaching for a tissue right now).

Whatever dude, you're obviously taking that tiny statement way out of context. Ur posts are adding nothing to the conversations except the ever-present "Spurs FO is infallible" rhetoric. You didn't disagree with my point more than argue the semantics of it, which is usually the egress route of the naive.

Going back to the topic at hand, I'm wondering if Hairston would be good in the starting lineup in place of Hill, who moves to the starting PG spot. Then, you keep Manu coming off the bench and you still have a slasher and defender to start the game.

[boutons_deux]

Is Pop going to "George Hill" Malik by realizing this summer that he should have played Malik a lot more?

[ace3g]

Is Pop going to "George Hill" Malik by realizing this summer that he should have played Malik a lot more?

only way that happens is if Hairston (Hill) gets about 20+ minutes the rest of the season, then it looks like Pop is going to play Hairston in the playoffs, then Hairston (Hill) is benched for more worse player (Vaughn). Then during the offseason Pop will acknowledge that he should have played Hairston (Hill) more.

[jjktkk]

Despite the fact that the draft itself is a crap shoot, there are often gems to be found (Hill) if a team does its homework. This also doesn't account for the influx of talented Euro players (Jonas Jerebko, Omri Casspi) that have annually deepened the pool of eligible players. Or the good players (Blair) that sometimes inexplicably slide down for whatever reason.

The fact that you seem to think productive players cannot be found later in the round shows just how ignorant and ill-informed you are. You also killed whatever point you were trying to make. Perhaps if you raise your head up from kissing Pop's ass long enough, you'd see that.

My point dip is yes hidden gems can be found in the later rounds, but that doesn't make it a given. And why you do throw out popsucker when I debate a post of yours? I'm talking about drafting in the later rounds. WTF does liking Pop or not have to with drafting players? Do you do that when your frustrated or something? No need to get your depens in a bind. Just agree to disagree Senor.

[jjktkk]

Whatever dude, you're obviously taking that tiny statement way out of context. Ur posts are adding nothing to the conversations except the ever-present "Spurs FO is infallible" rhetoric. You didn't disagree with my point more than argue the semantics of it, which is usually the egress route of the naive.

Going back to the topic at hand, I'm wondering if Hairston would be good in the starting lineup in place of Hill, who moves to the starting PG spot. Then, you keep Manu coming off the bench and you still have a slasher and defender to start the game.

Nope your right, I never disagreed with your point, I just pointed out a sentence in your point. Your sentence made it sound like its easy to acquire 'great players". Perception is reality kinda of thing you know? But yes, back to the topic. I would love it if Pop started Hairston, but IMO Pop probably wants to see alittle more of Hairston's body of work and, as we know, Pop is usually reluctant starting rookies and, or young guys. But if Hairston keeps showcasing his talent, I could defintely see him getting a permanent spot in the rotation and, who knows, maybe even compete for a starting job next year.

[Obstructed_View]

I dont get why some people are clamoring for hairston to develop his 3. Yes, eventually he will need it, but right now vs Mason and Bogans he brings more to the table- better D, better penetration, more hustle, more athleticism, and even if he hasnt shown the ability to make 3s, Bogans and Mason arent exactly making it rain.

For me, all hairston has to do to trump Bogans and Mason is play good D, help rebound, and be a garbage man on O.

Agreed. The three pointer is SOO ing overrated. I'd much rather guys step three feet closer where their percentage goes up significantly and still be able to stretch the defense. Then maybe they won't fall in love with the trap of that extra point. The whole purpose of outside shooting is to open up better opportunities in the paint. Too many teams seem to have forgotten that.

Hairston can do more with his defense and rebounding than Bogans and Mason can do even if they were hitting twice as many threes as they are, which ain't likely.

[it's me]

I just hope Malik gets into the rotation for reals .... not just some sporadic minutes here and there..... hope he gets most of the centerpiece minutes.....

[TD 21]

If, and it's a big if, the team comes to camp healthy, intact and ready to go from Day 1, I think we'd see a marked improvement; the base would be relatively sound to start, the roles more defined, and the system seemingly more ingrained for the likes of RJ and 'Dyess. And if all you're adding is a vet like Bell and a solid young big like Splitter (two guys whose roles won't require the ball being in their hand or any great, overbearing responsibility), the team should be able to get off to a nice start and have a pretty successful regular season.

I don't believe that's a championship-caliber squad ... but with RJ's contract in tow, they could very well have the means to turn it into one by the trade deadline.



Just on a first glance, I have a hard time believing Bonner doesn't find his way back on the roster; his value to Pop and the Spurs, on the court and in the locker room, seems quite a bit higher than most would like to believe.

So Bonner would take them to 11 their draft pick(s) could take them to 12 and 13 ... but that doesn't seem to wash financially; maybe they'll be forced to let Bonner go?

Lets see . . .

The Spurs will be at $56,088,011 Duncan, Parker, Jefferson, 'Dyess, Hill, Blair and Hairston. You've got to think Manu will get between $7-10M/per, Tiago (should he come) will probably get a little over $4M/per and Bell would probably be asking for somewhere around the LLE.

Just a very rough estimate would take that salary to over $70M. Throw in a first-round pick and you're around $73M and you're still in need of two players to meet the league-required 13 (vet-minimums or second-rounders put you around $75-76M)

Last years cap number was $69,920,000 and it promises to be lower next year, so the Spurs could very well be $10M over again with the roster suggested; I've always believed this 'all-in' bet was for a two-year window ... but I'm not going to assume it's the case (not after the year this has turned out to be).

Moral of the story, RJ's contract sucks; the Spurs have to find a taker (offseason or deadline) for them to truly contend IMO.

Completely agree with your first paragraph.

On paper you don't? Or in reality you don't? On paper, I think it's good enough (though as I said, this is largely predicated on Splitter making an impact and to a lesser extent, Bell's game not falling off a cliff). In reality, I'm not sure. Realistically though, I'm not sure a better team can be assembled.

Here's the thing with Bonner, I assume the Spurs will want to re-sign him, but if they can sign Splitter, not at Bonner's current price. They're not paying $3 million for a fifth big, so my guess is unless they can move McDyess, Bonner won't be back and a cheaper version of him (Cook) will be brought in. If they can move McDyess, then Bonner will be re-signed and a center will fill the fifth big spot (Jones or someone of that ilk).

But then the same problem the Spurs have now they'll have next year: Blair and Bonner will be the backup big duo and in tandem they offer nowhere near enough size and virtually no rim protection. But since the front office is obsessed with (and it's a relatively cheap organization) having a stretch four amongst their big rotation, I assume they'd prefer to go with Bonner over McDyess, if they can bring over Splitter. Not only for his shooting, but for his cheaper price tag in comparison to McDyess.

If the Spurs do that, they're definitely not a championship contender because essentially all they're doing is going from McDyess to Splitter. An upgrade? Probably, but not a sizable enough one to make that big of a difference. I'm not opposed to moving McDyess, if he can be part of a package or expansive trade (more than two teams) that ultimately nets the Spurs a legit wing stopper, but I wouldn't just hand him away to re-sign Bonner. This organization needs to get over their obsession with having a three-point shooting big in their rotation. In '99 and '03, they won with Duncan, Robinson and Rose as the primary bigs, yet they act like they can't win without that type of big. If they can't land a wing stopper for McDyess, then they should keep him, bring over Splitter and sign Cook for cheap to be the fifth big. That would be a strong front line.

[SenorSpur]

My point dip is yes hidden gems can be found in the later rounds, but that doesn't make it a given. And why you do throw out popsucker when I debate a post of yours? I'm talking about drafting in the later rounds. WTF does liking Pop or not have to with drafting players? Do you do that when your frustrated or something? No need to get your depens in a bind. Just agree to disagree Senor.

Let me set you straight on something, son. We can debate and disagree all day long. When you resort to insults, you shouldn't be surprised to get some of it back - in droves.

If the Popsucker moniker offends you it's probably because you're one of the biggest apologists on here. I'll cease this debate with you now because your opinions make no sense - not even to you. Cheers.

[jjktkk]

Let me set you straight on something, son. We can debate and disagree all day long. When you resort to insults, you shouldn't be surprised to get some of it back - in droves.

If the Popsucker moniker offends you it's probably because you're one of the biggest apologists on here. I'll cease this debate with you now because your opinions make no sense - not even to you. Cheers.

I can smack talk with you anytime Senor, its kinda fun.

[jjktkk]

Completely agree with your first paragraph.

On paper you don't? Or in reality you don't? On paper, I think it's good enough (though as I said, this is largely predicated on Splitter making an impact and to a lesser extent, Bell's game not falling off a cliff). In reality, I'm not sure. Realistically though, I'm not sure a better team can be assembled.

Here's the thing with Bonner, I assume the Spurs will want to re-sign him, but if they can sign Splitter, not at Bonner's current price. They're not paying $3 million for a fifth big, so my guess is unless they can move McDyess, Bonner won't be back and a cheaper version of him (Cook) will be brought in. If they can move McDyess, then Bonner will be re-signed and a center will fill the fifth big spot (Jones or someone of that ilk).

But then the same problem the Spurs have now they'll have next year: Blair and Bonner will be the backup big duo and in tandem they offer nowhere near enough size and virtually no rim protection. But since the front office is obsessed with (and it's a relatively cheap organization) having a stretch four amongst their big rotation, I assume they'd prefer to go with Bonner over McDyess, if they can bring over Splitter. Not only for his shooting, but for his cheaper price tag in comparison to McDyess.

If the Spurs do that, they're definitely not a championship contender because essentially all they're doing is going from McDyess to Splitter. An upgrade? Probably, but not a sizable enough one to make that big of a difference. I'm not opposed to moving McDyess, if he can be part of a package or expansive trade (more than two teams) that ultimately nets the Spurs a legit wing stopper, but I wouldn't just hand him away to re-sign Bonner. This organization needs to get over their obsession with having a three-point shooting big in their rotation. In '99 and '03, they won with Duncan, Robinson and Rose as the primary bigs, yet they act like they can't win without that type of big. If they can't land a wing stopper for McDyess, then they should keep him, bring over Splitter and sign Cook for cheap to be the fifth big. That would be a strong front line.

Very interesting scenarios reguarding the roster possibilities next year. But what about upgrading the SF spot? Will the Spurs bring a vet. in, or will they resign Bogans(UGH!) and let Bogans and Hairston battle it out for the starting spot? Or draft a guy this summer? IMO the SF needs to be addressed this off-season as well.

[iManu]

Here.



THC, BABY!

[SenorSpur]

I can smack talk with you anytime Senor, its kinda fun.

Touche'

[Blackjack]

Thanks for the sig and contribution to the THC, SpursRulez4eVeR.





Get Lifted . . .

[Ditty]

Thanks for the sig and contribution to the THC, SpursRulez4eVeR.




Get Lifted . . .

Ian's reaction

[Blackjack]

On paper you don't? Or in reality you don't? On paper, I think it's good enough (though as I said, this is largely predicated on Splitter making an impact and to a lesser extent, Bell's game not falling off a cliff). In reality, I'm not sure. Realistically though, I'm not sure a better team can be assembled.

In the grand scheme of things, there probably isn't much better they can do. Whether that's enough to put them in the conversation as a legit contender, someone that you could legitimately see winning a championship, I have my doubts; I'd probably have the same feeling I had going into this year: Western Conference Finals seemingly their peak.

Let's say the Spurs acquired the Salmons-Thomas package I'd been pushing for (a pretty comparable pairing in impact to Splitter and Bell; probably better), would that have made them a likely champion? I believed it would have made them better and it was a no-brainer of a trade, for a lot of different reasons, but the Spurs would still be a step behind IMO. And with another year tacked on to Tim and Manu and with the bersome contract of RJ preventing them from acquiring better, more suited talent ... there's just far too many question marks for me to say, especially at this juncture, that they could legitimately hoist the trophy with that roster; who knows what the rest of the upper-echelon will look like next year . . .

Other than you putting Cook into the equation, someone I don't believe has the professionalism to be a Spur, I essentially agree with the rest of your post. I do agree with the rationale of Cook, in theory, I just don't believe the Spurs would entrust a spot in their rotation to him; something he'd need to have to justify the pick up.

[Interrohater]

Ian's reaction

good catch, I didn't even see that. He's like, "Oh (French-equivalent-of- )!"