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.
