RealGM

In the last 3 years Spurs were the oldest team. Everybody was talking about trading one of the big 3 to rebuild the franchise and bla bla.

But i think Spurs organization is making a great job in trying to get younger but without losing games or players. With the development of Hill and Blair, this year they added Splitter, Anderson and Neil.
All these guys have experience. Anderson wasn't a freshmen at college. Splitter and Neil played overseas and Blair+Hill have 1-2 years in the league with good minutes.

So, without people noticing too much, Spurs are getting younger and they are still a winning franchise. Nobody knows what would happen without the big 3, but the future is not looking too bad right now..

It's great that Spurs mgmt is finally doing something about bringing in some youth, but I think it's a couple years too late.

You could get away with playing guys like Horry, Vaughn, Mohammed etc. decent minutes when the Big 3 are in their prime, but now as they get older we need more talent overall to pick up some of the slack.

But yeah, I think the moves we made have gone under the radar a little bit. Doesn't bother me though, the media and fans are fixated on the Heat and with good cause I guess.

Over the last couple years we've done a good job of adding youth, but like DK said it might be a little too late.

In the last years:
Ian Mahinmi was a bet that went wrong. Tiago was our pick in 2007, but due to contract issues he couldn't come earlier. In 2008 we pick George Hill (Gist), in 2009 was Blair and now, with the best draft pick position since i can't remember, James Anderson.

The thing is that i'm not sure if we had the assets to acquire some young good players in those days.
We had old Brent Barry, Bruce Bowen, Oberto, Udoka, Finley, Horry (retired in 2007), Elson, Vaughn..
We use some of these guys for Richard Jefferson who is not young, but he was meant to be our big 4.
I think that trading one of our big 3 would've been a mistake.

Frankie23 wrote:I think that trading one of our big 3 would've been a mistake.

Agree 100%. We never would've got equal value in return anyway.

I still have a bad feelings for years after Timmy...I think we can all agree that without Timmy, we won't be able to win those 4 championship...he's "The Team"

Well I surely can't see us being a championship team after Timmy retires. If we envision our future core to be Splitter, Blair, Anderson, and Hill, then we better have a future Lebron James at SF unless one of those guys turns into an MVP candidate. We'll need a franchise player to build around.

The Spurs have managed to be great because they draft great players late in the draft. Since 1999 they've drafted:

Manu in 99 (57th)
Parker in 01 (28th)
John Salmons (26th) and Luis Scola (55th) in 02
Barbosa in 03 (28th)
Splitter in 07 (28th))
Hill in 08 (26th)
Blair in 09 (37th)

Keep in mind some of these players didnt see the light of day in the NBA for a few years down the road

Overall, I agree their success depends on Duncan and its hard to draft a player of his caliber. If they can draft this well into the next decade they will stay relevant in the NBA for years to come.

We drafted Salmons? Didn't know that.

I'm very surprised we were (1) able to land Blair in the draft and (2) seen such a dramatic increase in production from George Hill [considering he was a 28th pick, from a small school]. The Spurs have done an excellent job bringing in young players, and though I don't personally see Anderson or Neal sticking for 1-2 more seasons, I would not be surprised if we see both Hill and Blair starting this season alongside Jefferson, Parker and Duncan.

I agree with co_laper on the point of a franchise player, none of these guys are they are essentially role players or borderline All-Stars at best. I wouldn't be surprised if George Hill ended up like Monta Ellis, but we need a franchise player to build around...and unfortunately that usually means very high lottery picks and a bad, bad year.

Then again, the draft isn't everything. Gilbert Arenas was drafted 31st overall and Greg Oden was drafted 1st overall, a sharp polarisation of talent right there.

Donald Kaufman wrote:We drafted Salmons? Didn't know that.

This. Hardly remember that.

Monta Ellis? I'd be surprised if he ends up anything like Monta... What are they similar at right now other than being a combo guard?

Monta looks like a big time scorer with ability to get to the lane at will because of his ballhandling skills and deadly slashing ability/midrange jumper.

Hill is none of that. Hill is a defensive minded player with passable dribbling skills but good enough to shake and bake a guy one on one. And he's not a shooter and isn't able to get to the rim at will like Monta can.

Hill to me looks more like Eric Snow once he age. Defensive minded PG with good size and can only shoot from certain spots on the floor. Steady and always under control. If Hill becomes Eric Snow, that's good enough for me. Eric Snow is a really solid PG IMO.

Snow? Defensively maybe, but he's got way more upside on offense than Snow ever had.

Well, nothing about George's offense screams elite potential to me. However, his defense is. That's why I can envision George be an Eric Snow type defensive player. Scoring wise, I just can't see George being a deadly shooter. At this point in his career, Hill is already a better scorer than Snow ofcourse. To me, his potential is a steady defensive PG with strong leadership and locker room presence.

^
Bobby Jackson is the best comparison I can think of for Hill. Solid gritty defender, good shooter, good scorer and a great leader.

Hill is a good scorer and slasher. Eric Snow is not a very good comparison. And I think he has a higher ceiling than Bobby Jackson as well.