The rockets may break all the scoring records next season, but their defense will be just as bad. They'll be a fun team to watch, though.

azulAg said:

---

Melo reported to sign with Houston if Knicks buy out his contract

---

If this happens and they can trot out some staggered lineups of Paul, Harden, Melo, Ariza, Anderson, Capela, etc. then the Rockets will definitely be interesting and fun to watch. Still don't see them beating GSW in 7-game series because the Warriors would be just as good offensively but play better defensively, but would be amusing matchup.

If Celtics land Hayward and Paul George, Wade goes to Cavs and Melo to Houston...you would have 4 'super teams'...two in each conference....where 3+ legit All-Stars have consolidated on a team.

Given the availability of what's out there in free agency, if the Spurs still want to remain a 2nd tier team they have to keep Aldridge IMO. They need to give him every assurance that he is safe so the 60 win team can take another crack at it next year. I really don't think getting anyone in free agency in place of Aldridge will make the Spurs better (not even Milsap).

What the Spurs do have to consider now is whether or not they want a consolation prize 2nd tier point guard. And if they do, would it really be worth trading Green to get one?

Enzo The Baker said:

---

Given the availability of what's out there in free agency, if the Spurs still want to remain a 2nd tier team they have to keep Aldridge IMO. They need to give him every assurance that he is safe so the 60 win team can take another crack at it next year. I really don't think getting anyone in free agency in place of Aldridge will make the Spurs better (not even Milsap).

What the Spurs do have to consider now is whether or not they want a consolation prize 2nd tier point guard. And if they do, would it really be worth trading Green to get one?

---

If you swapped LMA for Blake Griffin you could make the case we'd be a little better, but not enough to put us over the top imo.

Offensively that may be true. But Griffin would be a huge step back defensively.

Edit: Also I don't think Griffin is the type of player who would extend his contract in San Antonio. He's more of a big city guy.

2nd Edit: Not to mention his injury history.

If there is absolutely no hope to mend the LMA-Spurs relationship maybe the Spurs can do a straight up trade with LAC for DJ if they are looking to completely rebuild.

That way at least Deandre wouldn't have to worry about Pop using the hack-a-shaq on him ever again.

Yeah I'm. Not sure what the Spurs should do now that the CP3 dream is gone. Signing a lesser PG like Hill, Lowry, Rose, Holiday, etc might make you marginally better but also locks up salary for 3-4 years.

Same thing with moving LMA. Say we get Blake Griffin or Paul Millsap or DeAndre. None of those make us all that much better and again to up future salary flexibility.

The best thing would be a straight trade of LMA for George but I highly doubt that interests the pacers and is and is a one year bandaid and still doesn't make the Spurs that much better.

You need 3 all-stars (top 25 type players) to have a shot at the title. Warriors have 4, Cavs have 2.5, Rockets have 2 (working on 3) and the Spurs have 1.5. The Spurs system/coaching is good to make up for maybe one less all-star player if you get lucky.

I just don't see any immediate moves that the Spurs can make to close the GSW gap. I think you have to keep your cap flexibility, pray Murray develops and see where you are next off-season (although FA is very weak class). That's why I wish we could have got a pick for Aldridge. We need a couple young talents to try to develop internally since free agency isn't working out too well.

I'm really curious to see how RC and Pop play this, especially as Kawhi enters his prime and nears Free agency and Pop nears retirement. Hard to play the long game under those circumstances, but it might be the smartest play.

I also think that now Paul is in Houston, it gives the Spurs more reason to keep Danny Green. He's one of the few defenders in the league that can cause Paul problems.

GatorAg03 said:

---

Yeah I'm. Not sure what the Spurs should do now that the CP3 dream is gone. Signing a lesser PG like Hill, Lowry, Rose, Holiday, etc might make you marginally better but also locks up salary for 3-4 years

---

The Spurs have to sign someone because they can't roll into the season with our only PGs being an unproven Murray and Parker who we have no clue how much he'll be able to play (much less how effective he is). Obviously we shouldn't over pay for someone like Hill, but he shouldn't tie up so much money that it hamstrings us going forward. Also, I think a pretty good case could be made that one of those guys does make us better. Although Tony was having an excellent playoffs, he was very inconsistent and looked like he was on his last legs during the regular season. Hill won't ever be prime TP on offense, but he's still a very good PG, he's shot 40% from 3 the last couple years, and he's a light years better defender than Tony is. I think for next season rolling with basically the same roster and adding a George Hill, we're still a really good team. Let's not forget, we were up 20 on the Warriors while Kawhi was healthy and we didn't have Tony. Hill is another good defender to throw at Curry and is good enough offensively that they have to respect him. Maybe he doesn't put us over the top, but I still feel like we're the #2 team in the west.

Looking forward, Hill doesn't impede Murray's development at all. Hill would start right now because he's a veteran with more experience, but there's no reason they couldn't flip being the starter/reserve here in a couple years as Dejounte develops.

So say we sign Hill to a bargain, below value $15 million year deal for 3-4 years. He is now our 3rd highest paid player and ideally he wouldn't start in a year if Murray develops. I agree it mitigates risk next year if Murray doesn't develop, but it definitely could stunt Murray's growth. Hill is also injury prone.

That $15 million is also a huge hit to cap space going forward and doesn't get you back one of the three all-star quality player you need to compete.

Look at it this way assuming all healthy warriors team:

Hill with the Spurs has a WCF ceiling and a 3rd in the west floor.

Spurs without Hill has a WCF ceiling and a 4th in the west floor.

I just don't see the value in tying up future cap space for the small difference. If he will accept a 2 year deal, then perhaps, bit I don't see him doing that.

Quote:

---

You need 3 all-stars (top 25 type players) to have a shot at the title. Warriors have 4, Cavs have 2.5, Rockets have 2 (working on 3) and the Spurs have 1.5. The Spurs system/coaching is good to make up for maybe one less all-star player if you get lucky.

---

Let's suppose that:

1) Celtics sign Hayward and then trade for Paul George (per rumors)
2) Cavs mostly stays as-is (though maybe add Wade on the cheap if Chicago buys him out)
3) Houston adds Melo (if Knicks buy him out though is unclear whether they would be that foolish...it is the Knicks though we are talking about)
4) San Antonio mostly stays as-is

At that point, San Antonio could be looking at a #3 seed position out in the West (after Warriors and Rockets) and if that is how things play out, their path would mean first going through Rockets (Harden/Paul/Melo), then Warriors (Durant/Curry/Thompson/Green) and then either Celtics (Thomas/Horford/George/Hayward) or Cavs (LeBron/Love/Irving/(maybe)Wade).

That would be a ton of All-Star competition obstacles for Pop and Kawhi, as good as they are, to try to navigate through to a title without more legit star power added to their team.

I can't see Melo working out well at all in a Dantoni offense.

It would also be a guard-heavy team with Hill, Parker, Murray, Forbes, White and a combination of Green/Manu/Simmons depending how things shake out.

To be honest, I'd rather have the cap space next year to make a splash than take on Hill this year to get marginally better to maybe only take GS to 6 games.

Parker's situation really puts us in a tough bind.

But then you have to factor in next year, too, whether or not the Spurs could attract any free agents with the team they will have in place, and whether or not those free agents would even be worthwhile. You also have to consider Green's trade value right now.

I'm just glad we have RC, not Vlade Divac making these decisions.

Murray has a long long way to go to be on the level of someone like Hill. However, Spurs would be foolish to limit the future with bad contracts now that won't give them a chance to beat GSW. Im close at this point to wanting to get setup to reload in 2-3 years when GSW wears down.

The thing I like about Hill is that he is a big point guard. He's not especially tall, but with that wingspan he can play the two. I like the roster flexibility that implies if Murray takes over the starting role.

The Spurs could play small ball with Hill, Murray, Green/Simmons, and Kawhi. That's a big ass small ball lineup.

He also shoots 40%, doesn't turn the ball over, and is a plus defender. On the flip side he's not a dominant scorer or playmaker, but that's not what the Spurs need with Kawhi and Pop.

Quote:

---

On the flip side he's not a dominant scorer or playmaker, but that's not what the Spurs need with Kawhi and Pop.

---

If we are paying that much money, I think the Spurs should spend it on a playmaker. We would have a team full of guards and our only true point guard might not play until January. And that's being optimistic.

I agree that they would have lost ground this off-season in relation to handful of teams and the road is more difficult to a championship, but GSW is the real problem.

The hope since the warriors got Durant is basically that they have an injury or misstep and one of the other contenders can take advantage. Kind of like the Jordan Bulls in the 90s. It took Jordan leaving for another team to have a shot.

I still think the Spurs ceiling regardless of what they do is WCF appearance and the floor is about a 4 seed unless they catch a huge break. That's why I'm all for playing the long game 3-4 years from now, but that's difficult as Kawhi alone wins you 50 games and it is tough wasting even a year of Kawhi's prime as even a second solid sidekick gives you a punchers chance. Plus who knows if Kawhi and Pop will stick around for a rebuild. Plus good luck getting decent draft picks as 2-4 seed every year. I really wish LMA had been what he was supposed to be. His mediocrity and attitude have set the spurs back greatly and don't give them much flexibility going forward. The plan to go big while every one else goes small has fizzled with LMA's poor play.

A lot of underestimation of Hill on this board. He had a ridiculously good season last year in Utah and I believe was the number one reason they jumped from being out of the playoffs to the 4 seed. I bet the Jazz make every effort to keep him.

If the Spurs did find a way to sign him he would be a pretty large upgrade IMO. Defensively its not even close and Hill finally showed a lot of playmaking ability last season to go along with a pretty consistent jumper. A lineup containing Hill, Green, Leonard, Murray and Simmons is pretty dang long and athletic on the perimeter. Keep LMA, Gasol and Lee and you've got a solid front court as well.

What is the Spurs ceiling and floor with and without Hill in your opinion?

GatorAg03 said:

---

What is the Spurs ceiling and floor with and without Hill in your opinion?

---

Its hard to say. I don't think basketball teams are a math equation and neither do the Spurs. The best you can do is put together the pieces you hope can jell into a contender. Last season the Spurs were probably the second best team in the league in reality even though they clearly weren't "on paper". They dominated the Warriors for a half and then Kawhi gets hurt and everyone forgets they actually had a formula for beating them. Cleveland never had a chance because their defense sucked all year.

- Mistake free defense
- Methodical offense
- Rebound like crazy
- Kawhi dominates

Adding Hill would improve the team in all these areas so I think their ceiling goes up. At worst it puts them in position to win it if the Warriors have an injury. Most years that is a reasonable approach to winning it all.

Fair enough. I just don't think it moves the needle enough as a difference maker to tie up cap flexibility. At some point you have to find one, likely two all stars to put around Kawhi, and Hill is a solid player but not at that level.

If he was willing to sign a short term deal I would be more interested. But to make him our 3rd highest paid player for the next 3-4 years is way too much for me.

Ag Natural said:

---

GatorAg03 said:

---

What is the Spurs ceiling and floor with and without Hill in your opinion?

---

Its hard to say. I don't think basketball teams are a math equation and neither do the Spurs. The best you can do is put together the pieces you hope can jell into a contender. Last season the Spurs were probably the second best team in the league in reality even though they clearly weren't "on paper". They dominated the Warriors for a half and then Kawhi gets hurt and everyone forgets they actually had a formula for beating them. Cleveland never had a chance because their defense sucked all year.

- Mistake free defense
- Methodical offense
- Rebound like crazy
- Kawhi dominates

Adding Hill would improve the team in all these areas so I think their ceiling goes up. At worst it puts them in position to win it if the Warriors have an injury. Most years that is a reasonable approach to winning it all.

---

This.

IMO we fall off tremendously with Dejounte as our lead PG and a broken Parker. For those wanting to save money and worried about Hill's potential contract, he's not going to draw some crazy amount of money. Aldridge, Green, and Parker are all free agents next year so you lose two huge contracts at minimum with LMA leaving and Parker either retiring or signing for significantly less money. Also the 2018 free agent class is not awesome. The only real difference makers that would be available are Paul George (already said he's signing with the Lakers) and Boogie Cousins (who's a mental midget and a known locker room problem). So at best you're looking to add someone in the 2019 offseason. Hill ties you over those seasons while Murray develops behind him and may be ready to take over or you figure out he's not the guy to lead us and you can make a move then.

The fall off tremendously part I don't agree with. At most we go from a 2 to 4 seed and from 60 wins to 50 and from the WCF loss to a second round loss. It is a dip, but is worth it if it keeps the major all-star free agent possibility available.

At the end of the day We need to take the quickest path that puts two all stars around Kawhi. I don't think Hill fits in that equation. Hopefully Buford has a plan. Free agency hasn't even started so we will see what he does.

S&T Griffin for Aldridge + Pick - better than what they got for Chris Paul
Sign Hill
Use excess money for front court depth
Pray for health with Griffin, Parker, Hill, Gasol in your lineup.

How much per year would Griffin command? I think I would rather roll with the disgruntled and weak-minded Aldridge for a year. That's a pretty tough choice though.

Why the obsession with "putting all Stars around Kawhi"?

The Spurs have signed 2 potential all star players as FAs in the last 25 years. It's no magic bullet. We have been much better off grooming young talent. That's why LMA was made available, to get a talented rookie.

I'm of the mind that I really want to see what Simmons, Murray and Bertans can become if they are given more responsibility. The issue for this year is the PG numbers period. Murray can play a lot but you need 1 or 2 more guys and I'm sure Pop would prefer to have a vet.

The formula for many years now had been 3 all star caliber players. Even the Spurs used that formula with Manu, Tony and Tim and then Tim, Tony and Kawhi in 2014. That's typically what it takes, and that's before the stakes were raised with the warriors going to 4 all-stars.

You dont have to get them all through free agency, drafting and developing them is fine and more likely the Spurs strategy. However you go about getting the talent, that doesn't change the formula that you need three high end, borderline all star caliber players to have a realistic shot at a title.

GatorAg03 said:

---

How much per year would Griffin command? I think I would rather roll with the disgruntled and weak-minded Aldridge for a year. That's a pretty tough choice though.

---

I think most people believe he won't get the max offer from anyone due to his injury history. I've heard somewhere in the neighborhood of 4y/100mm would be his market value. Huge upside, though.

I think Doc was so in love with Chris Paul that he never really used Griffin right. Griffin has the talent to have the offense run through him and his passing and court IQ is a perfect fit for the beautiful game. Hell of a lot better than LMA. Plus I believe the Spurs are the best in the league at keeping players healthy. Look at how long the careers of Tim, Manu and Tony have been. Hopefully with Pop, Kawhi, and Gasol, he could learn to play much better defense but the reality is he will be better than LMA on Ryan Anderson and he is a solid match for Green. We don't really have to care about any other PFs in the West.

I'd trade LMA for BG in a heart beat and wouldn't think twice, especially if you get him for a sub-max contract.

Ag Natural said:

---

Why the obsession with "putting all Stars around Kawhi"?

---

Adapt or put yourself in the position where because your opponent is loaded with All-Stars, you have to play near-perfect basketball each game and your one super star (Kawhi) doesn't so much as stub his toe during the series.

It's risky and I don't love the move with his injury and off the court issues, but without too many other options I could get on board. Its as good as anything else out there right now and 2018 doesn't look great either for hoarding cap space.

He did kill us repeatedly in the playoffs, I just hope his mid range game doesn't vanish like LMA.

Has he had any off-court issues besides punching his buddy?

16' -> 23' FG% last year
Griffin: .436
LMA: .424

FWIW: LMA's 16-23' FG% is basically the same in SA as it was in Portland.

If the Spurs wanted a major risk with potential upside then trade LMA's poor attitude for Cousins poor attitude. It would be a huge gamble but you could dump him in a year if he doesn't conform. Then we could really see if going big vs all the small ball teams is a valid strategy.

I might prefer this risk over Griffin simply because you can walk away in a year if it doesn't work out.

I'm not great with the whole cap space game, but my dream off-season right now has us telling LA to grow tf up and play out this season, and we then sign hill, Simmons, and igoudala. Not sure if that's realistic or not but I think that finally gives us some more depth, playmaking, and 3pt shooting which we desperately needed last season

Not that I know of. That's the one I was thinking of. Injuries and his defense would be my bigger concerns, but Pop might be able to mitigate that.

Quote:

---

If the Spurs wanted a major risk with potential upside then trade LMA's poor attitude for Cousins poor attitude.

---

Problem is that Anthony Davis wants to play PF and so does LMA. NOLA traded for Cousins so Brow could spend more time at PF than C.