RealGM

Ginobili plays 1/2/3 positions.

Right now, the only true point guard Rockets have is Lowry, which isn't enough
in terms of better ball movements.

You can't beat the Lakers with Brooks as starting PG having 1 freakin' assist in a
game. You need penetration to make opponent team's defense collapsed.
Just look at what the Lakers did in Game 3. 11 freakin' 3-pointers made.

Ok, do you folks wanna give up Tmac for Ginobili?

Prob 90% of Rockets fans would do it.
I'd want to know how Ginobili's ankle looks first.

Mmm... actually I don't think Ginobli could play the 1 or the 3. Sure it'd be nice to have him (depending on his ankle but remember he's 31 now I think), but he's not really what we need. We have enough SGs as it is.

Obviously Ginobili would be nice, when he was healthy last season he was All-NBA third team and one of the most efficient 2-guards in the league. Don't really see how we'd get him..

tisbee wrote:Prob 90% of Rockets fans would do it.
I'd want to know how Ginobili's ankle looks first.

Injury situation between Ginobili and Tmac...
I have more faith in Ginobili being healthy.
Guy is one of the smartest players.

Ginobili has had recurring ankle problems for 2 yrs now. Doesn't matter how smart he is,if he can't play...

It's academic anyway,the salaries are not only not even close,but the only player the Spurs have to make up the difference is Parker! I somehow doubt the Spurs are going to offer Parker and Ginobili for McGrady-I don't care how much wine Pops drinks

We'll take Battier and Artest for him.

Turnover King wrote:We'll take Battier and Artest for him.

Turnover King wrote:We'll take Battier and Artest for him.

For Ginobili and Mason Jr., George Hill

well give u T-mac

HOW BOUT DAT

DiamondX wrote:

Turnover King wrote:We'll take Battier and Artest for him.

For Ginobili and Mason Jr., George Hill

well give u T-mac

HOW BOUT DAT

You want Mason? Did you see his performance in the playoffs?

Do you really think that Ginobli can play the 3? I'd rather take my chances with McGrady and his expiring.

Acquiring 32 year olds as major pieces is a known way to set yourself up for failure unless they've already declined significantly.

i.e. no.

Where can I sign the paper? Please

Manu is the one that we need most...He can be a play maker. 3 pt shooter, ball handler, drive to the rim.

Man, wtf else do we need once we have him.

The Spurs already gave us Scola no way the trade Manu.

That big 3 will retire in San Antonio for sure.

KiDdFrESh wrote:The Spurs already gave us Scola no way the trade Manu.

That big 3 will retire in San Antonio for sure.

I kinda think that Popovich/Buford are too smart for that. You're basically letting an allstar and/or his contract walk for nothing. I hated it when Hakeem left, but it was even worse that it was done via free agency. We basically got both bad ends of the deal, Hakeem neither sentimentally retired a Rocket, nor did we benefit from losing him.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... uha01.html

Look at both how much we paid him over his last 5 years (declining effectiveness) and how much salary we let walk with no return. I'm glad that a guy like Hakeem got that sort of money, but in retrospect, it was bad business and we saw effects from it and several other questionable CD moves for years.

Letting the player retire with you under a major contract is essentially R&D - you're helping develop the fanbase. The question is whether you can make up a new asset quickly enough to not lose the goodwill you acquired from doing so. Getting something at the end is revaluating an expiring asset (correct term?), watching the bottom line more carefully.

Dunno, I wouldn't be surprised if Duncan retired a Spur, but I would be if Duncan, Ginobli, AND Parker ALL retired as Spurs.

Ginobili for Tmac...i will do it.

moofs wrote:
I kinda think that Popovich/Buford are too smart for that. You're basically letting an allstar and/or his contract walk for nothing. I hated it when Hakeem left, but it was even worse that it was done via free agency. We basically got both bad ends of the deal, Hakeem neither sentimentally retired a Rocket, nor did we benefit from losing him.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... uha01.html

Look at both how much we paid him over his last 5 years (declining effectiveness) and how much salary we let walk with no return. I'm glad that a guy like Hakeem got that sort of money, but in retrospect, it was bad business and we saw effects from it and several other questionable CD moves for years.

Letting the player retire with you under a major contract is essentially R&D - you're helping develop the fanbase. The question is whether you can make up a new asset quickly enough to not lose the goodwill you acquired from doing so. Getting something at the end is revaluating an expiring asset (correct term?), watching the bottom line more carefully.

Dunno, I wouldn't be surprised if Duncan retired a Spur, but I would be if Duncan, Ginobli, AND Parker ALL retired as Spurs.

I pretty much agree, but the Rockets traded Hakeem as a favor to him. They were rebuilding, and he wanted a shot at one more ring, something the Rockets could not give him, so they obliged him. That stretch at the end of the 01 season made me believe he had more left.

tha_rock220 wrote:I pretty much agree, but the Rockets traded Hakeem as a favor to him. They were rebuilding, and he wanted a shot at one more ring, something the Rockets could not give him, so they obliged him. That stretch at the end of the 01 season made me believe he had more left.

Doh, he WAS traded, I was thinking he was a FA. Oh well, yeah, the points still stick.