Nevermind that the Spurs did just complete smack-downs of much younger, far more athletic foes during the first and second round of the playoffs in the Suns and Hornets, respectively. Part of what's so important about athleticism for an NBA team is the ability to sustain a level of play over all four rounds of the tournament. The Spurs had what it takes against Phoenix and New Orleans, but really did seem to run out of gas against the Lakers.
A deeper analysis will lead to the conclusion that the Spurs, while already old, are likely to become even more old between now and June of 2009. For Tony Parker, and recent draft selection / Austin Toros star, Ian Mahimni, getting older is likely to be a good thing. For everyone else on their team, it will probably suck.
For other teams this paradigm is reversed: the Lakers and Hornets, for instance, have enough great young players that time is, as the Stones put so well, on their side (yes it is!). They should only be better next year.
So how do the Spurs overcome this obstacle and continue their six-year trend of winning an NBA Championship every odd year? New blood!
The NBA Draft is tomorrow. We'll get three players there, and odds are they'll all be fairly young. The latest espn mock draft (6.0) have the Spurs using their 26th pick to select a player from Cal named Ryan Anderson, a 6-10 power forward with a great outside shot.
If that's who the Spurs pick tomorrow, all well and good. But he (or any player selected with that late of a pick) is likely to be a lot more help in 2010 or 11 than he is in the 4th quarter of game 7 of next year's Finals.
All this sets the stage for an interesting dilemma for Pop and the Spurs front office. How badly do we want to mix things up? Bad enough to sign a talented, athletic 22-year old swingman with 30-foot range who has managed to overshadow his formidable athletic talent with a reputation for dumb decisions and lack of maturity and self-control? If the answer is yes, J.R. Smith may be our dude.He's a restricted free agent this Summer and, as Buck Harvey of the San Antonio Express News points out, he's everything the Spurs need, and nothing they want.
My favorite segment from the article features a quote from former (very former) Spur, and underachieving head coach of the Denver Nuggets, George Karl.
Smith committed such a sequence of selfish, foolish plays in one game that George Karl benched Smith for the finale. “I just love the dignity of the game,” Karl said of Smith's play, “being insulted right in front of me.”
I think the article is probably a little harsh to call Smith an "anti-human," but the dilemma it presents is hard to deny.
Whatever team ends up signing this guy, it will probably be to a fairly lengthy, fairly expensive contract. So in 2012, when Tony Parker is 30, Tim Duncan is 38, and Robert Horry is 57, J.R. Smith will be 26, and at the beginning of his prime as a player. That could be perfect timing for the Spurs. But is he the guy who can carry the torch? Or is he more likely to torch the Spurs cap space and their reputation for the highest standards of character in pro sports?
The easiest comparison--and it's made in the aforementioned article--is Stephen Jackson: a hot-tempered, self-absorbed player who was pivotal in the Spurs 2003 title run; later signed by the Indiana Pacers, where he followed Ron Artest into the crowd to fight with fans; and is now team captain for the Golden State Warriors.
The character arc of "Captain Jack" illustrates the fact that players, like almost all young people, mature at some point. Being on a winning team under a coach who can handle that sort of personality makes a big difference. The Spurs are that if anybody is. But still you have to wonder about this J.R. kid. Could he help the Spurs to Championship number five? Or are his most embarrassing moments ahead of him?
How about a poll to settle Odd Years' official position on the subject? I'll see if I can get it to work.
6 comments:
Jason, I LOVE this blog. Thank you for starting it!!! I'm going to link it on my blog page.
While Stephen Jackson is definitely the easiest and most recent example of a player who seems to be a Spur only by uniform, he's certainly not the only one. I would look at Derek Anderson on the 00-01 team and Dennis Rodman in the 90's, because of the 3, I think Jackson is actually our most successful case study. The stat line would tell us that these players were indispensable pieces to whatever degree of success the team had during their stay. Derek Anderson averaged 15.5 points per contest as a Spur; Dennis Rodman an unbelievable 17 rebounds. But it is my opinion that the distractions they produced more than negated their statistical production. No real evidence to back that up. Just an opinion. I feel our teams in those years were better than they performed due to a lack of player chemistry.
We won a championship with Stephen Jackson. And because he was a skilled player and played an important position he was a big part of it. But he was not indispensable. Duncan, Robinson, Bowen, Parker, Ginobili and any decent second-fiddle swingman would have won that title.
The Spurs built their empire on team chemistry and not letting guys like Rodman, Anderson and Jackson hang around for more than a year or two. I have to cast a nay ballot for JR.
T
i thought i should briefly mention that one of college roommates (there were many, i don't know why . . .) was RC Buford. if you don;t know who that is you have no business reading this blog . . .
That's right! That is really cool. (That's the Spurs General Manager, on the off chance any of you are in the dark on that) So did he have the makings of an NBA franchise GM even back then, or was it one of those never would have expected it type things?
Coach Gallucci! Welcome to the party.
Wow, RC the roommate. Did he keep up with his dishes? Ever have to bail him out of jail?
Yeah, RC is one of the under-sung heros of the Spurs Dynasty. Here's a 2007 SI article listing him as the top executive in the NBA.
Do you guys keep up at all? Think if I whipped up some questions, maybe you could forward them his way? Could be Odd Years' first "exclusive interview."
Oh, and Travis, thanks for continuing to lead the Comment discussion.
You're right, Derek Anderson and the Worm are two other good examples--neither of which were exactly home runs for the Spurs. But if you look to what happened with Dennis Rodman in Chicago after he left San Antonio, I think that is a better equivalent of what this would be like. Then, Rodman was going from a team of near-contenders who couldn't quite break through to a squad right in the middle of their dynasty. I think that's similar to the situation Smith would be walking into with the Spurs.
Oh, and you said that you cast a 'Nay' vote for the deal, but you didn't actually cast your nay vote. Did you see the poll on the front page? (I only know you didn't cast a vote because there are no nay votes cast yet.) Let's make it official.
Post a Comment