Posted by HoopsAvenue on August 4, 2008 under General NBA, Phoenix Suns, San Antonio Spurs | 
Ok, calm down, this trade has not happened and probably won’t, but I was thinking the other day about what the Spurs should do to get back to the Finals and I came up with this biggie. While it doesn’t seem to make sense that the Spurs should trade away their franchise player, I’m not sure that Tim Duncan is the best fit in San Antonio anymore (Spurs fans gasp here). He’s been slowing down the last few seasons and plays mostly in the half court making his own shots and kicking it out to perimeter shooters. But, the thing is, neither Manu Ginobili or Tony Parker is a spot up shooter. Brent Barry is gone as well. Bruce Bowen can still knock down shots as can Michael Finley, but they aren’t exactly young either. Maybe it’s time the Spurs make a move for the current and the future, and go all-in with a new, up-tempo style? If Gregg Popovich could accept the trade without having a heart attack, it makes a lot of sense.
The Suns, on the other hand, gave up some young, athletic talent in Shawn Marion to get the lumbering Shaquille O’Neal. Time is not exactly on Shaq’s side and how nice would it be to see him paired with his former nemesis? The Suns didn’t win a title with their up-tempo style and now that Shaq is there and D’antoni is gone, why not give up Amare and transform into a veteran, half-court team? Nash likes to run, but I’m sure he won’t exactly have a problem getting easy buckets for the big men in the halfcourt either. And, Shaq and Duncan still both command double teams so it’s be a shooter’s paradise in Phoenix. Not to mention, Phoenix would have the best interior defense in the league.
I went over to RealGM’s trade checker to see if the deal works and it doesn’t when you make the trade straight-up because of Timmy’s salary, but the Suns would just have to add one more player, perhaps their draft pick Robin Lopez.
So, what do you think? Do you want to see the run-and-gun Spurs vs. the boring Suns next season?
Posted by HoopsAvenue on June 13, 2008 under General NBA |
With all the hoopla around the NBA’s referee problem lately, I’d like to recommend a few easy rule changes to the NBA. First off, the NBA and its referees should be seperate entities. I know that is not going to happen, but it’s basically the same thing as a company and its auditors being under the same umbrella…bad things are going to happen. So that would be ideal, but I’m not holding my breath waiting for it to happen. I won’t hold my breath for the following rules changes either, but they might at least be debated in some league circles.
- No more foul outs - Players should no longer be disqualified for their 6th foul. I completely agree with Jeff Van Gundy on this count. The easiest way to fix a game would be to get a star player in foul trouble. Among the major sports, the star players in basketball far and away have the most influence on their team’s success. Without the opportunity to foul out, we’d see more aggressive defense, but most importantly we’d never have to worry about our favorite team’s star player being disqualified due to a questionable call. On a side note, I’m sure young big men prone to dumb ticky tack fouls would appreciate this rule change.
- Intentional fouls – Ok, now this one is an idea I have not heard yet, but I think it’s a good one. This has nothing to do at all with flagrant fouls (which as has been discussed ad nauseam by Mike Breen & Co.). If, in a referee’s judgment, a foul is committed intentionally and not in the last two minutes of a quarter, the aggrieved team would get one shot plus the ball. Essentially this means teams can’t abuse the no foul out rule and play hack-a-Shaq all game long. They’d be giving up far too many possessions to make it a worthwhile play. I would make sure, though, that if a guy gets beat he still has the leeway to act like he’s making a play while making major contact to prevent a basket without being assessed an intentional foul. The intentional fouls would be reserved for the two-arm wrapups of guys where its obvious you just don’t want to guard them straight up. There’s a little room for subjectivity, but not a whole lot.
The obvious caveat in the no fouls outs rule is that you have to have something to dissuade teams from playing hack-a-Shaq and I think this second rule does just that. I would love to see the NBA step up and make this a reality next season.
Loading ...