I will say it again, Caruso is my dream for Manu's replacement. Very similar games and I love watching both!
*****Spurs 2017 Offseason Thread*****
206,957 Views |
1963 Replies |
Last: 7 yr ago by LawHall88
Caruso got 23 minutes of playing time last night, but other than a nifty no-look out of bounds pass for an ally oop really early, he looked pretty pedestrian. 4 points on 2-4 shooting, 0-2 from three. 2 assists, 1 rebound in 23 minutes. He also often looked just a step slow, IMO, on defense. Maybe the past 48 hours of extra attention/fame drained him a little bit. Another difference was the Lakers actually played both Caruso and Lonzo Ball out there at the same time for about roughly half of Caruso's minutes, so Alex during those periods was playing off the ball, rather than being the primary ball handler and distributor like he did Monday.bmart97 said:
I will say it again, Caruso is my dream for Manu's replacement. Very similar games and I love watching both!
Good news is the Lakers did win by 1, so they advance and get to play another game in the Summer League playoff tournament tonight versus the Cavs (at 9:30 pm central again) and so maybe another game opportunity for Caruso.
Do y'all think the cutting of timeouts will be a net positive or negative for the Spurs style of play?
On one hand, Spurs are deeper and play faster than most teams so if the pace of play goes more unbroken then it could be an advantage.
On the flip side, Pop likes to use his timeouts at the first hint of a run or to chew ass for a missed assignment, etc. He won't have that luxury anymore. It also will reduce the ability of well coached teams like the Spurs to set up as many plays coming off of timeouts. Finally, Spurs are older than most teams. All these current breaks in play may let old vets be more productive in bursts.
Obviously you can still sub at dead balls, so much of this is probably all a non factor in the end, but is at least something to talk about this off-season.
On one hand, Spurs are deeper and play faster than most teams so if the pace of play goes more unbroken then it could be an advantage.
On the flip side, Pop likes to use his timeouts at the first hint of a run or to chew ass for a missed assignment, etc. He won't have that luxury anymore. It also will reduce the ability of well coached teams like the Spurs to set up as many plays coming off of timeouts. Finally, Spurs are older than most teams. All these current breaks in play may let old vets be more productive in bursts.
Obviously you can still sub at dead balls, so much of this is probably all a non factor in the end, but is at least something to talk about this off-season.
GatorAg03 said:
Do y'all think the cutting of timeouts will be a net positive or negative for the Spurs style of play?
On one hand, Spurs are deeper and play faster than most teams so if the pace of play goes more unbroken then it could be an advantage.
On the flip side, Pop likes to use his timeouts at the first hint of a run or to chew ass for a missed assignment, etc. He won't have that luxury anymore. It also will reduce the ability of well coached teams like the Spurs to set up as many plays coming off of timeouts. Finally, Spurs are older than most teams. All these current breaks in play may let old vets be more productive in bursts.
Obviously you can still sub at dead balls, so much of this is probably all a non factor in the end, but is at least something to talk about this off-season.
agaimst the teams that like to run and gun (like Warriors, Rockets) Seems better to have a bunch of quick timeouts calls available in your back pocket to try keep them from going on runs. How often did teams run out of timeouts anyways though?
Ulrich said:
Also I would take Caruso over at least two of the spurs current backup guards.
Seriously, whose roster spot would you give to Caruso? That's a stretch.
GatorAg03 said:
Do y'all think the cutting of timeouts will be a net positive or negative for the Spurs style of play?
On one hand, Spurs are deeper and play faster than most teams so if the pace of play goes more unbroken then it could be an advantage.
On the flip side, Pop likes to use his timeouts at the first hint of a run or to chew ass for a missed assignment, etc. He won't have that luxury anymore. It also will reduce the ability of well coached teams like the Spurs to set up as many plays coming off of timeouts. Finally, Spurs are older than most teams. All these current breaks in play may let old vets be more productive in bursts.
Obviously you can still sub at dead balls, so much of this is probably all a non factor in the end, but is at least something to talk about this off-season.
You finally got it right in your last sentence. This won't have any noticeable impact and was done for MONEY only. Standardization of the length of timeouts to 75 seconds was a TV related gambit. Now all the commercial breaks are the same with those timeouts.
They didn't hardly reduce the overall amount anyway, and did away with the shorter timeouts.
I think the limiting to 2 timeouts in the last 3 minutes will have the biggest impact, both on time saved and the way games finish.
It reduces the number to half court inbounds too, which seem to an impact on the way many games finish.
It reduces the number to half court inbounds too, which seem to an impact on the way many games finish.
Caruso definitely looked out of sorts playing off the ball. I think Lonzo was determined to make a statement in that game and he wasn't giving up the rock very often. Alex showed what he can do if you let him make plays. We all know he's not a shooting guard.
As for the timeouts, Pop took a lot of quick one in some games but he always somehow had a few in his pocket at the end of games. The impact it could have here is actually more timeouts taken that normally weren't taken in the past. If you are entering with last 4 minutes with more than 3 you might be temped to just burn one since you'll lose it anyway. I wonder if the NBA did any actual analysis of the number of timeouts taken each game.
My hunch is this will have almost no impact.
As for the timeouts, Pop took a lot of quick one in some games but he always somehow had a few in his pocket at the end of games. The impact it could have here is actually more timeouts taken that normally weren't taken in the past. If you are entering with last 4 minutes with more than 3 you might be temped to just burn one since you'll lose it anyway. I wonder if the NBA did any actual analysis of the number of timeouts taken each game.
My hunch is this will have almost no impact.
Yea, I agree it wont have a major impact, especially regular season. I do wonder what the number of timeouts used in the last 3 minutes was for say a close playoff game. That's where I think it might have some impact. It seems almost every other possession is advanced to half court using timeouts in some close games. Of course that might be more perception than reality. Would love to see the numbers on that.
Spurs got Paul after all this off-season..... Brandon Paul that is. Also renounced rights to Simmons making him UFA.
He still won't get the full MLE anywhere, and he will be the next Spurs player to sign elsewhere and not do much.
I'm not sure if his shooting will ever come around, but he was the Spurs 3rd best player in the playoffs. He was the best player once TP and Kawhi went down. He is one of the few players who can create and score individually, outside the system creating shots.
I'm not for overpaying him, but it doesn't seem like he is going to command a huge offer either. I would have liked to keep him for a fair price (8-9 million per).
Also if we do meet the Warriors or Houston again Simmons sure seems like a better matchup than Mills on slowing a high octane offense. Not saying it was an either or deal with those two, but I would much rather have spent the FA money on the better defender personally instead of signing Mills.
Spurs lost alot of athleticism with Simmons leaving. Maybe Brandon Paul will fill in adequately.
I do like that we have that much more cap space next year in theory. I hope they give Pau back his one year deal, instead of a multiyear extension to keep cap space for next year.
I'm not for overpaying him, but it doesn't seem like he is going to command a huge offer either. I would have liked to keep him for a fair price (8-9 million per).
Also if we do meet the Warriors or Houston again Simmons sure seems like a better matchup than Mills on slowing a high octane offense. Not saying it was an either or deal with those two, but I would much rather have spent the FA money on the better defender personally instead of signing Mills.
Spurs lost alot of athleticism with Simmons leaving. Maybe Brandon Paul will fill in adequately.
I do like that we have that much more cap space next year in theory. I hope they give Pau back his one year deal, instead of a multiyear extension to keep cap space for next year.
He's 28. He's likely hit his peak. If he can play how he did for those last 7 games of the playoffs, great. 15/2/3 on 45% shooting. But over that time he still only shot 31% from three.
Can someone explain the thinking on this? They obviously liked him enough for a Qualifying offer and rumored to have been willing to go up to around $9 million at one point.
With pretty much everything but Pau, Manu and maybe a big on a vet min contract seemingly wrapped up, can someone explain why they wouldn't at least wait to see what was offered by some team before renouncing?
Is this just to help out Simmons possibly getting paid by teams that we're gun shy as a RFA? Did the Spurs just get tired of waiting?
I don't really understand why you renounced at this point but not before. Maybe they think Paul (who is about the same age is the better/cheaper player).
With pretty much everything but Pau, Manu and maybe a big on a vet min contract seemingly wrapped up, can someone explain why they wouldn't at least wait to see what was offered by some team before renouncing?
Is this just to help out Simmons possibly getting paid by teams that we're gun shy as a RFA? Did the Spurs just get tired of waiting?
I don't really understand why you renounced at this point but not before. Maybe they think Paul (who is about the same age is the better/cheaper player).
http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/19994996/san-antonio-spurs-renounce-rights-jonathon-simmons-now-unrestricted-free-agentQuote:
After withdrawing a qualifying offer, the San Antonio Spurs are working to complete a contract with guard Jonathon Simmons, league sources told ESPN.
Simmons, 27, had been a restricted free agent, but San Antonio has renounced his rights with hopes of signing him to a new contract. Thursday was the final day that teams could lift qualifying offers from restricted free agents.
Because today is the last day to pull QOs. We retain his early bird rights, just can't match another team's offer.Quote:
With pretty much everything but Pau, Manu and maybe a big on a vet min contract seemingly wrapped up, can someone explain why they wouldn't at least wait to see what was offered by some team before renouncing?
It says above he was renounced and that means no bird rights. Is that an inaccurate report?
Yes. We pulled his QO, which means he is unrestricted. We kept his early bird rights. We gain nothing by doing that.GatorAg03 said:
It says above he was renounced and that means no bird rights. Is that an inaccurate report?
That makes more sense. So why pull his Q.O., what is gained? Is it to come down on contract amount? Is it to negotiate with Simmons in the open market without him feeling like the RFA deal was causing teams to not offer?
It makes sense to me because now the Spurs are just competing with the open market. It gives them the flexibility to offer him less years than what someone else might offer, and he might be willing to stay.
Maybe they were scared of someone coming in with a 3-4 year deal, and would rather throw money at him on a richer 1 year deal instead to retain cap flexibility next summer.
Maybe they were scared of someone coming in with a 3-4 year deal, and would rather throw money at him on a richer 1 year deal instead to retain cap flexibility next summer.
Yeah, I think the Spurs want him to sign a 1y deal with a PO for the following year to keep more flexible next year
So basically this takes whatever deal was previously offered by the Spurs off the table?
Because a team can still come in with a 3-4 year deal and if anything being a UFA attracts more bidders.
Guitarsoup said:
Yeah, I think the Spurs want him to sign a 1y deal with a PO for the following year to keep more flexible next year
This
I think that is what is meant by withdraw, but I'm not Catholic so I'm not an expert on the subject.GatorAg03 said:
So basically this takes whatever deal was previously offered by the Spurs off the table?
My guess its all about leverage and flexibility. Teams may have been scared off because the Spurs would just match. But on the flip side, Simmons now has no offer and the Spurs can sign someone else. So unless he has teams calling right now it might light a fire under his ass to sign.
Also, word is Caruso just got a 2 year deal from the Lakers.
Also, word is Caruso just got a 2 year deal from the Lakers.
Doesn't change anything other than the Spurs don't have the right to match other team's offers.
GatorAg03 said:
Because a team can still come in with a 3-4 year deal and if anything being a UFA attracts more bidders.
Yes, another team can come in and offer him a longer term deal. However, the Spurs don't have to match to keep him. Maybe they have an understanding that Simmons wants to be back for at least a year and both sides want the ability to find better options next year.
Damn I hope we keep him
Ag Natural said:
Also, word is Caruso just got a 2 year deal from the Lakers.
I really hope so.
GatorAg03 said:
Because a team can still come in with a 3-4 year deal and if anything being a UFA attracts more bidders.
I get the feeling the way things transpired this summer disappointed a lot of FA, including Simmons. The great thing is that more FA than ever are taking short deals to try and prove themselves for a big contract a year down the road. Great deal for teams.
Am i a bad person for not being torn up if we lose him? I like him. He showed flashes of awesome. But he's 27. Its not like there's much more ceiling for him. I'm not feeling great about paying 9 million for the 9th/10th guy on the team. Hopefully this means there's not much market for him and he'll have a reasonable price.
I liked him because he played hard and put a lot of muscle into his defense, that Danny couldn't. That's especially nice against Harden.
Featured Stories
See All
27:26
8h ago
3.9k
5 Thoughts: No. 8 Texas A&M 69, Georgia 53
by Luke Evangelist
19:50
23h ago
8.3k
4:28
8h ago
810
Game Highlights: No. 8 Texas A&M 69, Georgia 53
by Matthew Dawson
3 Days 'til: Outlining what Texas A&M's 'best version' looks like in 2025
by Ryan Brauninger