The Offseason Thread

[co_laper]

You can't just say it's no difference because Lakers are the best. The only way we (or anyone) to be at LA's level is if we trade Jefferson and get Lebron James. Then we're at their level. Using your concept that it makes no difference, then everyone else should just rebuild because there's no way any team get to their level. The only way for LA to have a really huge challange right now is Lebron, wade, and Bosh teams up and even then they'll have to fill the roster up with minimum players. Not likely to get it done.

Portland and Oklahoma maybe better, but we're arguably at the same level. It's not like they're just simply better than us the way the Lakers are. Like Pop said last year, everyone is playing for 2nd best. Our chances look better this year than last year despite standing still. Tony Parker healthy, Splitter addition, improvement from Blair and Hill, shooting help from Anderson, and familiarity for Richard Jefferson. All those could be good enough to take us up another level from last year. Right now, my expectation for next season is that we get homecourt (top 4 west standings) and bow down in WCF againts LA. Nothing more, nothing less. That's way better than what we expect last season when we finished 7th and we didn't even think we'll get past Dallas in the 1st round

[Donald Kaufman]

Give me a break! We need LBJ to be on their level?! The Lakers are great, but they're not MJ's Bulls - not by a long shot. They're not unbeatable. Hell, a gimpy Celtics were a couple of buckets away from beating them. If we had the RJ that put up 20 a night in Milwaukee we'd be on their level, no doubt in my mind. But instead we got the meek tentative jump shooting version.

No point being an also-ran if first is so much better than you. That's my point. We shouldn't be playing for 2nd best, otherwise we may as well tank and go for a lottery pick. We can argue all day about where we stand with the Blazers, Thunder etc., it really doesn't matter.

[co_laper]

They're not MJ's bulls, but it's arguable that they're not just a level above us. they're more like a couple of levels above us. Switch Jefferson to the best SFs (Carmelo or Lebron) and I personally think that don't even make us better than LA. It only puts us at the same level.

I understand your point about playing for second best. It sucks. As it currently stands, we (and everyone else) is playing for second best. Are you saying we should tank?

[Donald Kaufman]

I'm not sure. I don't like first and second round playoff exits, I know that much. I'd probably rather throw in the towel and start developing young stars if that were the case.

I just don't see the point of getting all the way to the conference finals - if we get that far in the first place - only to get owned by LA.

I worry that we're in the same place competitively as the Jazz - good enough for 50 wins and a couple of rounds in the playoffs but no real threat for the title.

[co_laper]

I get your point. I don't disagree with them but I don't agree with them either.

It does suck to get owned by LA, but that's kind of the most likely scenario for everybody right now. Even for any team who is second best in the LEAGUE (Not just West), it's still looking like they're second best to LA. I mean, if everyone tanks, then here goes LA for the next 20 years because what happens is 29 other teams are tanking each and every year.

Really man, I think there's a lot worse than being like the Jazz. I'd rather be the Jazz than be the Clippers. I, for one, admire the Jazz organization. Second only to the Spurs.

For me personally, as long as we're a potential top 4 team in the league (if I'm predicting 2nd place finish, then we're atleast top 2 in the West) then we have a shot. Who knows what happens in the playoffs? Most likely scenario probably is that LA hurt themselves perhaps by things like injury or getting bored or whatever. If we clicked at the right time they're not clicking (hopefully), then we have a great chance on winning it.

As a top 2 team in the West, you have that chance to beat the 1st seed. It says you're pretty good. That's enough for me. But if you're 8th seed, you know that the difference in level of play is just too much to a point where they'll still win even if they're uninterested.

[SApuro_]

Screw the Lakers! You build a team to be competitive. Put the absolute best roster on the floor and make things happen. The best team doesn't always win the trophy. Injuries and chemistry play a huge factor. Spurs compete year in and year out. 50+ winning season what 10 years in a row doesn't happen by blowing teams up.

Sign Tiago
Re-sign RJ
Sign Barnes
Re-sign Bonner on the cheap

and we have a solid 10-12 man roster

TP Hill
Manu Anderson
RJ Barnes Hairston
TD Blair Bonner
Splitter Dice

I like our chances. We will be competetive and entertaining to watch.

[Donald Kaufman]

If we're not going for a championship, then we're wasting our time. I want to compete with the best. If that means tanking, so be it. If it means bringing over Splitter, signing a player like Barnes, great. Let's do it.

What I don't want is that middle ground. 2nd round exits. Barely 50 win seasons. We had to overachieve to do both this past season.

[co_laper]

Yeah, but tanking is not bringing Splitter and signing Barnes. That's going for it and I doubt you'll find anyone (non-Spurs fans) who actually think signing Splitter and Barnes puts us at Lakers' level.

Tanking means trading Parker for youth and giving George Hill the keys to this team.

Tanking means trading Manu for youth and expirings.

Tanking means giving Duncan the respect he deserves and allows him to choose wherever he wants to go that lets him finish his last couple of years of his career fighting for a championship.

That's what tanking means.

[Donald Kaufman]

No it doesn't. It means intentionally dropping games to position for a high draft pick.

[co_laper]

Wait.. Now i'm confused.

So are you saying we should be like the Jazz (win 50 games every season but arguably a level below the NBA Champions)?

Or

We should tank and be more like Washington?

That's the choice right? Or do you have another example (team) that you like us to become?

When you said tank, I immediately think you mean total rebuild because tanking usually happens to a a really bad team (lottery teams) who are trying their best to secure the highest chances of getting the 1st pick.

The message I'm getting from you so far is that we don't want to be the Jazz and we rather start over from beginning. If we move forward by keeping Tony, Manu, and Duncan and remain competitive, that's being the Jazz. That's not what tanking is.

[Donald Kaufman]

I want us to compete for a championship. I don't mind what methods are used to achieve this goal.

NJ tanked last year in the hopes of landing John Wall. As built, that roster should not have only won around 10 games. They were a 25-30 win team IMO. They tanked. They got Favors. Now they retain their core of Lopez, Courtney Lee, Devin Harris and Favors - along with any FA they pick up this offseason. That's a good core. Are they going to win the championship this coming season? Of course not. They may not even make the playoffs. But they're looking good for the future. If they maxed out their talent last year, like I said they may have won 30. Not enough to qualify for the playoffs. Too many wins for a lottery pick. Middle of the road.

We're a much better version of their situation. We're not good enough to win the title, but we're talented and experienced enough to win a series or two. Middle of the road.

I suspect you and I want the same thing: for the Spurs to hang with the best of them. You just want to argue semantics and definitions. Which I'm happy to do, it just leads nowhere.

[co_laper]

Nope, wasn't trying to argue. It turns out that we both want the same thing but I kind of misunderstood what you were saying.

I'm not trying to argue and change your mind, but I do want to know what exactly are you saying cause I am a little confused at the moment.

Do you agree that we're not at LA's level right now? The message I was getting was that you rather tank than be second best. Isn't that what we are?

Isn't the Jazz exactly like what we are right now? A level or two below the NBA Champion? When you said you don't want to be the Jazz but that you're happy enough with the situation that we're talented and experienced enough to win a series or two, what does that mean? To me, that sounds exactly like what the Jazz has been for the past 2 decades.

[Donald Kaufman]

We're not on LA's level. That's the problem.

Where did I say I was happy winning a series or two? I never said that at all. It's what we are at the moment, but I'm not happy with it in any way.

[Tribbiani]

What do you think about Josh Howard? He could be a better fit for us than RJ.

[Donald Kaufman]

I think most players would fit the team better than RJ did. Not a big fan of Howard though...is he a FA?

[co_laper]

Yeah, Howard is a FA. Had a knee injury that he never seem to fully recovered from. Not sure if he can ever get his explosiveness back.

Howard isn't a bad player, but I question how he'll fit in differently compared to Jefferson even if we are able to sign him.

Howard is a smaller player than RJ. RJ is a 6'7 225 lbs type while Josh is more like 6'7'' 205. He's skinny. He's also a slasher with not much shooting game and doesn't have a creative ballhandling skills to really go 1on1. To me, he'll just be a smaller version of RJ on this team. Plus, he just came off a serious knee injury and hasn't shown that he's got his explosiveness back. And add the fact that we only have BAE to sign him with. If he takes it, for 2 mil a year, i'm fine with it. He's worth the gamble. But he should be able to get something closer to the MLE. Perhaps more like 4 mil a year.