PDA

View Full Version : Wizards Make Offer For Ginobili



MillerTime
06-11-2009, 11:46 AM
The Washington Wizards have made a trade offer for Manu Ginoibili.

Asked by the Argentine press this week whether he thought he could be traded, he said “impossible” had lost a few letters.

“Today I believe there is a chance it could happen,” Ginobili said.

“People get in trouble when they say never,” Gregg Popovich said Wednesday.

“But Manu Ginobili is someone I cannot envision trading,” Popovich continued. “He has been such a huge part of our heart and soul; people like that are hard to come by. You don't even think about trading somebody like that. I can't imagine a scenario where he would be traded.”
Express-News
http://www.mysanantonio.com/sports/spurs/Money_talks_and_Manu_stays.html
By Buck HarveY

Trader Joe
06-11-2009, 11:48 AM
Grab the number 5 pick and take Harden?

MillerTime
06-11-2009, 11:50 AM
Grab the number 5 pick and take Harden?

I still think Manu will be better than Harden

SoupIsGood
06-11-2009, 11:53 AM
Only way they'd trade Manu is because of injury concerns, right?

What do you guys think, has Manu got too much wear-and-tear on him? He puts his body at risk more than most players, and he plays internationally during most summers (or used to, I don't keep track anymore).

count55
06-11-2009, 12:06 PM
Only way they'd trade Manu is because of injury concerns, right?

What do you guys think, has Manu got too much wear-and-tear on him? He puts his body at risk more than most players, and he plays internationally during most summers (or used to, I don't keep track anymore).

I didn't realize that he'll turn 32 this summer, and he's entering his 15th year of professional basketball.

Sollozzo
06-11-2009, 12:11 PM
I bet this move would irritate Duncan. They are basically throwing in the towel on the next few seasons as a rookie will take years to be as good as Manu.

Duncan is 33. You think he wants to spend his last good years waiting for a rook to come along?

idioteque
06-11-2009, 12:13 PM
Only way they'd trade Manu is because of injury concerns, right?

What do you guys think, has Manu got too much wear-and-tear on him? He puts his body at risk more than most players, and he plays internationally during most summers (or used to, I don't keep track anymore).

Manu is on the wrong side of 30 and I don't think he has more than a few good years left.

That being said, it is possible that if Arenas comes back healthy (a big if) that the Wizards with Arenas/Manu/Jamison/Butler could be a force in the East. This could also be a salary dump for the Wizards if they could get rid of Etan Thomas and maybe Andrey Blache in the trade. I'm sure Abe Pollin really wants to be able to show for the huge investment he has in Arenas and some of their other players, and getting Manu is a cost-nuetral way to do this. We know Thomas and Blatche aren't taking them anywhere, why not roll the dice with Manu, who may or may not?

As for the Spurs, they need youth, bad. Could be a good deal for both teams.

ChicagoJ
06-11-2009, 12:53 PM
If Manu is on the market (which I don't believe), the Pacers better find a way to make something happen.

rexnom
06-11-2009, 12:57 PM
If Manu is on the market (which I don't believe), the Pacers better find a way to make something happen.
How does that make any sense for us? Anything we could offer up would set back rebuilding two-three years.

CableKC
06-11-2009, 01:00 PM
Are Teams allowed to even talk about trades yet?

Or is that just limited to talking to FAs?

pwee31
06-11-2009, 01:03 PM
I doubt the offer would just be #5, I'm guessing they've offered a solid player as well, perhaps one of their big 3

count55
06-11-2009, 01:06 PM
Are Teams allowed to even talk about trades yet?

Or is that just limited to talking to FAs?

Everybody but the Lakers and Magic are free to talk/consummate trades.

Actually, I don't think teams are allowed to approach free agents until July 1st...at least Free Agents who were under contract to another team this season.

PR07
06-11-2009, 01:09 PM
If I were the Spurs, I'd swap Harden for Manu easy. I think Harden like Brandon Roy, can come on a team and play right away. The Spurs need to get younger, this would be a nice way to do it. As good as Manu can be when healthy, he's 32 and has a lot of mileage and might be starting to break down.

Sollozzo
06-11-2009, 01:13 PM
If Manu is on the market (which I don't believe), the Pacers better find a way to make something happen.

How in the world would we get Manu? Or more importantly, why would we want him? We're certainly not giving up Brandon Rush, who has his whole career in front of him, for a 32 year old that has 15 years of wear and tear on him. Make no mistake, Rush would be required in any deal for Manu. And even if we could somehow get Manu without giving up Rush then all Manu is going to do is take time away from Rush and stunt his growth. That's the last thing I want to happen. But its all moot because there are several teams out there that can put together better deals than us.

We still aren't a contender. We don't need a 32 year old SG who is entering the twilight of his career. We have our SG of the present and the future, and have far more pressing needs, such as getting a PF and a long term PG.

Jonathan
06-11-2009, 01:14 PM
Spurs have a lot of expiring contracts after 2010 (Bowen, Oberto, Thomas)

Expiring Contract(s) + A Late First rounder + Manu =

I would be suprised if the Spurs pulled a Boston draft day a few year agos odds are they continue signing veteran free agents.

CableKC
06-11-2009, 01:39 PM
You have to remember....this is the Wizards.....they are looking to shed ( at worst 2009-2010 ) salary. The only way that they make an offer for Ginobilli is if they are sending out the 5th pick with some huge Salary to cut their SalaryCap.

The best deal that I could come up with would be Manu for Haywood+Etan Thomas+5....but this would probably save the Wizards about $2.6 mil in 2009-2010 Salary...which isn't much to start off with.

Doesn't seem like much value for the #5 pick....but that's why I think that the Mavs are the best trading partner to take on Stackhouse's unguaranteed Contract to clear CapSpace.

ChicagoJ
06-11-2009, 02:02 PM
How does that make any sense for us? Anything we could offer up would set back rebuilding two-three years.

Nah. We'd have a been-there, done-that veteran to lead them.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

I don't waste time making up trades and checking them. Sorry. But off the top of my head, I'd give up some combination of either Foster or Hibbert, Dunleavy and our draft pick plus whatever salary filler on either side for Manu. Or include Ford and make the trade a three-way as the Spurs obviously don't need Ford.

Again, there's no way the Spurs would take anything we've got for Manu - he's too valuable. But because he is so valuable, if he's on the market (which I doubt) we should figure out if we can get close.

Sollozzo
06-11-2009, 02:23 PM
Nah. We'd have a been-there, done-that veteran to lead them.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

I don't waste time making up trades and checking them. Sorry. But off the top of my head, I'd give up some combination of either Foster or Hibbert, Dunleavy and our draft pick plus whatever salary filler on either side for Manu. Or include Ford and make the trade a three-way as the Spurs obviously don't need Ford.

Again, there's no way the Spurs would take anything we've got for Manu - he's too valuable. But because he is so valuable, if he's on the market (which I doubt) we should figure out if we can get close.

Hibbert? I think I would get sick to my stomach if we traded a promising center with his whole career ahead of him in a deal for a 32 year old who is past his prime.

I know this is all an unlikely hypothetical, but come on Jay, you yourself have said many times that the Granger-Hibbert-Rush trio is the future of this franchise. You'd be willing to throw all that away for a couple of years with Manu? Not only would you lose Hibbert in the deal, but you would kill Rush's development for the next few years. He needs to be playing 30+ minutes a night at the SG and he obviously wouldn't be getting that if Manu was on this team.

And before you say that Manu could teach Rush, I'm going to say that's not at all what Brandon needs. Brandon needs 30+ minutes a night at the wing opposite of Danny and nothing else. He came from one of the best college basketball progams in the country, so I think he has a pretty good grip on how to play the game of basketball. He doesn't need Manu showing him what to do (as if that's how Manu would want to spend the last couple years of his career anyway). He himself said that the hardest thing about adjusting to the NBA was getting used to how fast the game was. Well, he seemed to have a pretty good grip on it by the end of the year. The only way he will get better is to continue to give him huge minutes.

You only sacrifice the future in that magnitude if you can guarantee yourself that you will be a top 2-3 team with a good shot of reaching the conference finals. Sorry, Manu or no Manu that's not happening. Boston, Cleveland, and Orlando will be untouchable as the top 3 for the next 2-3 years unless something totally unforseeable happens. Manu Ginobili wouldn't be enough to elevate us over those teams. I'm not throwing away our future just to maybe win a playoff series (which I don't even know if we would with Manu). But Boston will be falling soon and Orlando might not be as good once Rashard and Hedo get some more age on them. Therefore, we have to continue to build a solid team and put ourselves in a position to make a deep playoff run in 3-4 years. By that time, Manu Ginobili will be a shell of his former self.

I know this is all just silly hypothetical, but I'm just really surprised that you would do this Jay. I know you're a Ginobili fan, but I think your fondness of him is clouding your judgment. For the past year you've been a huge advocate of building the team around a Granger-Hibbert-Rush core and I'm surprised you would throw that away for a couple of years of a good Manu, who will at the absolute most lead you past the first round and no further. If we did that, we would have taken 3 steps forward but 5 backward. It would be a slap in the face to Brandon and all the hard work he's putting in this summer if we pulled something like that.

EDIT: Manu is valuable to the Spurs because they're a championship contender year in and year out (with one of the best big men ever and a damn good pg). His abilities are enough to be a difference maker there and lead them to the promise land. But he wouldn't be near as valuable to a team that's 36-46. The most we could do with him is maybe win a playoff series, and I don't think we could even do that because we would have to give up so much for him. That's it. Not worth mortgaging the future for that.

Lance George
06-11-2009, 02:47 PM
The Spurs are smart enough to realize it's time to get younger, so they're looking to rebuild on the fly. With #5 they could possibly replace aging Manu with James Harden, a 19 year old that can do a lot of the same things, and has the potential to be even better.

Sollozzo
06-11-2009, 02:50 PM
The Spurs are smart enough to realize it's time to get younger, so they're looking to rebuild on the fly. With #5 they could possibly replace aging Manu with James Harden, a 19 year old that can do a lot of the same things, and has the potential to be even better.

But Duncan is 33. Do you think he wants to spend the last good years of his career waiting for a young guy to come around? I think he would be infuriated with the Spurs if they traded Manu. This team is just a year removed from the WCF's and 2 removed from a title. I personally don't think they'll ever get to the finals again, but I'm sure Duncan has that confidence---as he should.

ChicagoJ
06-11-2009, 03:15 PM
At least if we were still were a below-average team, we'd get the privilige of watching Manu all the time. That's got to count for something, right?

:love:

Sollozzo
06-11-2009, 03:20 PM
At least if we were still were a below-average team, we'd get the privilige of watching Manu all the time. That's got to count for something, right?

:love:


No....

:)

Trophy
06-11-2009, 03:28 PM
This is leaving me to believe that they want to blend some younger guys with the older veterans and look to rebuild.

ChicagoJ
06-11-2009, 03:29 PM
BOO!!

Sollozzo
06-11-2009, 04:22 PM
BOO!!

I'm just disappointed in you more than anything, Jay. For the past year I've loved reading your "Granger-Rush-Hibbert are the future core, we will build this team around them through the draft, we shouldn't waste time playing crappy veterans, and the rookies could have led us to the playoffs anyway" posts, and have agreed with them 100%. It hurts to think you would support throwing that away for a player who has 2-3 really good years left. A player that couldn't lead us past the first round and definitely wouldn't be able to lead us past the second.

It just seems to contradict all of the great points you have made for the past 12 months.

ChicagoJ
06-11-2009, 06:14 PM
I think you're underestimating Ginbolli. I think he's had a lot more to do with driving that team's success - IMO he was the MVP of the '05 Finals and co-MVP of the '07 Finals. Yes, Duncan is a super-solid player but Manu was both an outstanding player and more importantly, seems to be the real team leader as Duncan tends to defer to him.

That I'm willing to toss Hibbert in there is more about how much I respect and appreciate Manu than a happiness about giving up Hibbert. Yes, I'd rather the Spurs be willing to take Ford, Foster, and Dunleavy off our hands for Manu. But there's no way the Spurs would do that since they have no need for Ford, Dunleavy's hurt, and Foster is six months older and broken down just like you say Manu is (and 40% less expensive because he is 25% of the player that Manu is.)

I also don't think Manu is particuarly close to being washed up. I don't know if he wants to play until he's 39 or not, but like Reggie he never really relied on his speed - moreso on his savvy and toughness. (Not to mention, he's an outstanding ballhandler with a staggeringly high ATO considering how often he makes a crafty drive through traffic - something that won't necessarily be hampered if he "slows down".) However, unlike Reggie, he's won multiple championships in Europe, the NBA, and International ball, so he doesn't need to extend his career chasing one.

For me, mental toughness is more important than anything else. And nobody demonstrates that better than Manu.

(Frankly, I'd trade Granger for him, but can you imagine how much I'd get flamed by everyone except about three PD posters I don't read... After all, we all hope that Granger eventually grows into what Manu is - a mentally tough and immensely talented player that is a leader of a championship team. Maybe time will prove that Manu can't get back to that level without Duncan, but the question is not "can he ever develop into that player" but rather "can we built a team around him in that window of time"? With Danny, even though he's had a lot of success, it is still the first question.)

Pop says it best,


He has a willingness to do what it takes to win, and to do it at the highest possible level of intensity, every single minute he steps on the court.

LeBron and Howard are probably the only other two players I'd be willing to break up the Rush-Granger-Hibbert core for. And even then, neither LeBron or Howard have ever proven they are the winner that Manu is. But they are younger.

vnzla81
06-11-2009, 07:13 PM
ChicagoJ you are right I been always saying that Manu is been one of the best players in the NBA for the last ten years, he is so underrated this guy can do it all, play D and score, him and Kobe have been the best clutch shooters in the decade, I remember last year when Parker and Duncan were hurt and Manu was scoring 40 points every night to keep the team in the playoffs, I would trade anybody but Danny for him.

Sollozzo
06-11-2009, 07:21 PM
I think you're underestimating Ginbolli. I think he's had a lot more to do with driving that team's success - IMO he was the MVP of the '05 Finals and co-MVP of the '07 Finals. Yes, Duncan is a super-solid player but Manu was both an outstanding player and more importantly, seems to be the real team leader as Duncan tends to defer to him.

That I'm willing to toss Hibbert in there is more about how much I respect and appreciate Manu than a happiness about giving up Hibbert. Yes, I'd rather the Spurs be willing to take Ford, Foster, and Dunleavy off our hands for Manu. But there's no way the Spurs would do that since they have no need for Ford, Dunleavy's hurt, and Foster is six months older and broken down just like you say Manu is (and 40% less expensive because he is 25% of the player that Manu is.)

I also don't think Manu is particuarly close to being washed up. I don't know if he wants to play until he's 39 or not, but like Reggie he never really relied on his speed - moreso on his savvy and toughness. (Not to mention, he's an outstanding ballhandler with a staggeringly high ATO considering how often he makes a crafty drive through traffic - something that won't necessarily be hampered if he "slows down".) However, unlike Reggie, he's won multiple championships in Europe, the NBA, and International ball, so he doesn't need to extend his career chasing one.

For me, mental toughness is more important than anything else. And nobody demonstrates that better than Manu.

(Frankly, I'd trade Granger for him, but can you imagine how much I'd get flamed by everyone except about three PD posters I don't read... After all, we all hope that Granger eventually grows into what Manu is - a mentally tough and immensely talented player that is a leader of a championship team. Maybe time will prove that Manu can't get back to that level without Duncan, but the question is not "can he ever develop into that player" but rather "can we built a team around him in that window of time"? With Danny, even though he's had a lot of success, it is still the first question.)

Pop says it best,



LeBron and Howard are probably the only other two players I'd be willing to break up the Rush-Granger-Hibbert core for. And even then, neither LeBron or Howard have ever proven they are the winner that Manu is. But they are younger.


I never meant to underestimate Ginobili. I'll say this right now: The Spurs are a very good team without him (as is evident by them still getting the 3rd seed), but are a championship-caliber team with him. But they are a very good team in the first place because of Tim Duncan. Having one of the greatest big men of all time ensures that the team will be solid every year (as they were this year even without Manu) and gives guys like Manu and Parker opportunities to shine in the playoffs that they probably wouldn't have if they weren't playing along side a player of his caliber. It's kind of like Paul Pierce-- he's a winner too, but he would have never had the opportunity to shine in the finals unless he had a KG-type guy alongside him to get him there in the first place.

But I agree 100% with your assessment of what Manu brings to the table. They aren't even close to being a championship team without him, as we saw this season. He's a winner.

My issue with your comments was whether it would be wise for the Pacers to trade for Manu or not. Given the Pacers current condition, I don't think it would be. Realistically, we would have to trade some pretty valuable pieces to get him in the first place, giving you Granger, Manu and Rush (who would cannibalize each other for minutes) and a pretty weak supporting cast. Is that enough to beat Cleveland, Orlando, or Boston over the next couple of seasons? IMO, No-freaking-way. Not to mention that Miami has Wade alongside Chalmers and Beasley, who are only going to get better. Also, Atlanta has been playoff tested the past couple of seasons.

I think that realistically, the best we could do over the next couple of seasons is advance past the first round. Is that worth mortgaging the future?

You're right that Reggie was still playing at 39, but you have to remember that Reggie in his late 30's certainly didn't look like Reggie at 32. His game dropped off heavily from 02-04 (blame it on deferring or the injury in the WBC's if you want, but age had to play a part in it to), and picked back up in the last season because he was playing off of pure emotion. It's just a fact that guys drop off once they get past 35. Manu in 3 or so more years isn't going to look like the 05 and 07 Manu, especially given the fact that he's played pro ball since 1995.

But I guess my biggest issue is that adding Manu would kill the development of Rush, our SG of present and future. Rush should be getting 30+ minutes a game from now on, and he certainly wouldn't get that if Manu was here. He needs as much time as possible playing on the wing alongside Danny. You may think Manu would be a good role model for Rush, but I say he already has the perfect one here in Danny. Danny works his *** off and had a similar rookie season to Brandon, so I think he is the best role model possible for him.

All in all, I just don't think it would be worth mortgaging the future of Hibbert (by trading him) and Rush (by having one of the best SG's in the game come in and take minutes from him) just to have Manu who only has a couple of prime years left. I think you should only mortgage a future if you can reasonablly assure yourself that you will have a top 2-3 team in the conference, but I just don't see how we could be better than Boston, Orlando, or Cleveland. We need to continue with the foundation we laid last summer and make a run for when those teams (well, Boston and Orlando because of age) are inevitably down in 3 or 4 seasons.

And I'm certainly one that would flame you for the Manu for Granger statement, mainly because you never trade a 26 year old star for a 32 year old one (unless that 32 year olds name is Jordan, Kobe, Shaq, and a select few of NBA legends).

We both know Manu to Indy isn't going to happen. The Spurs would want a high draft pick that they could mold into a star, and we don't have that to offer. But it's an interesting debate, nonetheless.

PacerDude
06-11-2009, 07:25 PM
Did someone say Granger for Ginobili ??

Total insanity. 6 years ago - maybe. Now ?? Manu is on the tail end of his career, has been injured a lot and wouldn't have the rings he has if not for Duncan/Parker. Washington probably wanted him for a 1 year rental and then he's an expiring.

ChicagoJ
06-11-2009, 10:43 PM
Manu is clearly a pipedream, and as I said, the question would be "can you get enough other pieces around him in a 2-3 year window?" Probably not.

But if you can get him without unloading Rush, Manu has only averaged more than 30 mpg once in his NBA career. You could even play Rush and Manu together some of the time, I think. I don't see where "bringing in one of the premier SGs in the world" to show Rush how its done could be a bad thing. Losing a spot in the rotation to a career backup like Daniels or an out-of-postion F like Dunleavy - that bothers me. Losing a few minutes to Manu would not.

You get Manu only if you really can get the other pieces to complement him right away. The Pacers can't do either part of the equation - get Manu or get the complimentary players. That's because they are still a long way from being a contender. And the fastest way back is taking the time to let Rush, Granger, Hibbert, Jack (hopefully) and TBD gel, mature, and develop.

But I do believe that a team of TBD, Manu, TBD, TBD and TBD is better than a team of TBD, TBD, Granger, TBD and TBD. :twocents:

Sollozzo
06-11-2009, 11:05 PM
You get Manu only if you really can get the other pieces to complement him right away. The Pacers can't do either part of the equation - get Manu or get the complimentary players. That's because they are still a long way from being a contender. And the fastest way back is taking the time to let Rush, Granger, Hibbert, Jack (hopefully) and TBD gel, mature, and develop.



After reading this, I really don't think we disagree that much at all. I pretty much agree with everything you wrote in that paragraph. I think we have the same wants as to how this team goes about the next couple of seasons.




But I do believe that a team of TBD, Manu, TBD, TBD and TBD is better than a team of TBD, TBD, Granger, TBD and TBD. :twocents:


As to this, maybe Manu is better than Danny, maybe he isn't. I do know that Danny hasn't had the luxury of playing alongside one of the greatest big man ever, meaning he hasn't had the opportunities to shine in big moments like Manu has had.

I think you can debate which is better, but if Manu is better than Danny it's certainly not by a big enough margin that you could justify trading a 26 year old for a 32 year old. And if he is better, it's going to be for 1, maybe 2 years tops. Personally, I think Danny has the edge after last season.

Again, all crazy hypotheticals, but fun to discuss.

ChicagoJ
06-12-2009, 12:46 AM
That's why I wanted Manu four or five years ago - before age was a concern.

But let's not fool ourselves. If he wants to come to Indiana in a couple of years in a "Byron Scott" sixth-man role, I would be so :sunshine: optimistic y'all wouldn't recognize me.

maragin
06-12-2009, 12:58 AM
Did someone say Granger for Ginobili ??

Total insanity. 6 years ago - maybe. Now ?? Manu is on the tail end of his career, has been injured a lot and wouldn't have the rings he has if not for Duncan/Parker. Washington probably wanted him for a 1 year rental and then he's an expiring.

I would argue that Granger 6 years ago wasn't that great of a player.

rexnom
06-12-2009, 01:25 AM
LeBron and Howard are probably the only other two players I'd be willing to break up the Rush-Granger-Hibbert core for. And even then, neither LeBron or Howard have ever proven they are the winner that Manu is. But they are younger.
Manu is good but you're insane. You're taking a 32 year old guy coming off of a 44 game season and multiple injuries over Wade, Bosh, Melo, Kobe, Gasol, Garnett, Pierce, Allen, etc., etc. Not to mention you're not willing to break up our core for any of those guys apparently.

I think your mancrush on Ginobili has reached unhealthy levels. I tend to agree he was the key to that '05 team and he might still be valuable to the Spurs. However, a Manu-led team is going nowhere in the NBA playoffs with him as its best player. In the meantime, this team would go nowhere and just getting him as a rental would cost us any if not all of our non-Granger assets. Of course, we probably don't have enough non-Granger assets to even get the Spurs on the phone. The problem is, as always, the Manu's value is too high. You take him if you can get him for a low price (which, as you've been saying from the get-go is implausable) or if you can pawn off one of our longer contracts.

croz24
06-12-2009, 04:17 AM
I bet this move would irritate Duncan. They are basically throwing in the towel on the next few seasons as a rookie will take years to be as good as Manu.

Duncan is 33. You think he wants to spend his last good years waiting for a rook to come along?

if the #5 pick is a part of the deal, if you're the spurs, you have to assume that whomever you pick will be able to step in right away and eventually become at the least a quality starter. the problem is, i'm not sure there are even 3 sure-fire nba all-stars in this draft.

MAYBE, the wizards are offering arenas? this would allow them to feel comfortable about drafting a pg/combo guard like a curry or evans at #5...just maybe...

BKK
06-12-2009, 05:17 AM
butler and 5th for manu and spurs pick (26th or something like that)

MyFavMartin
06-12-2009, 07:20 AM
Butler is the last player they trade. He's the only one on that team that plays defense. But since it's the Wiz, it's always a possibility. I think the Spurs would be all over that.

Anthem
06-12-2009, 10:15 AM
Everyone talked about how much better TD was than JO, but I continue to believe that if you put JO in [EDIT] San Antonio with Manu and Parker he'd have won championships there.

count55
06-12-2009, 10:24 AM
Everyone talked about how much better TD was than JO, but I continue to believe that if you put JO in Sacramento with Manu and Parker he'd have won championships there.

I doubt that very, very much.

rexnom
06-12-2009, 10:28 AM
Everyone talked about how much better TD was than JO, but I continue to believe that if you put JO in Sacramento with Manu and Parker he'd have won championships there.
Assuming you meant San Antonio, I doubt it as well. While I think you could have replaced TD with KG on a couple of those teams, I don't think the same goes for JO.

ChicagoJ
06-12-2009, 10:36 AM
Everyone talked about how much better TD was than JO, but I continue to believe that if you put JO in Sacramento with Manu and Parker he'd have won championships there.

If you actually mean San Antonio, yes, for sure.

Any advantage Duncan had individually on JO would have been offset by the advantage in SA's backcourt. From 2004 too 2007 they had the best backcourt in the world - much better than any backcourt JO played with. They may still have the best backcourt in the world - I'm not convinced Manu is washed up.

ChicagoPacer
06-12-2009, 11:24 AM
Manu is good but you're insane. You're taking a 32 year old guy coming off of a 44 game season and multiple injuries over Wade, Bosh, Melo, Kobe, Gasol, Garnett, Pierce, Allen, etc., etc. Not to mention you're not willing to break up our core for any of those guys apparently.

And to add to this, Ginobili is the type of player who is great when he's on the court, but he's not physically capable of playing heavy minutes. The guy has had one season total where he's been able to give San Antonio 30 minutes a night, and he has generally missed 5-10 games a year to injury every year. These aren't the signs you want to see if you're hoping that a player can sustain a decent level of play into his mid 30s.

I can't really think of a guy who has had good success in the league well into his 30s with those kind of durability indicators. Kukoc might be a decent comparison. He was never a heavy minute guy and he was injury prone (more so than Ginobili). He also wasn't as good. He could only play 24-28 a night before his career tapered off at 34. Ginobili might play at a higher level for longer than Kukoc, but a big part of his game is predicated upon driving and drawing fouls. I'm not sure you can count on a 32 year old to keep doing that.

If he does get traded to a team that can't contend immediately, when his contract is up, I see him taking a reduced role on a contender or leaving for Europe where losing a step wouldn't be as detrimental.

So a team like the Pacers would get him for all of one year.

ChicagoJ
06-12-2009, 11:43 AM
Manu is good but you're insane. You're taking a 32 year old guy coming off of a 44 game season and multiple injuries over Wade, Bosh, Melo, Kobe, Gasol, Garnett, Pierce, Allen, etc., etc. Not to mention you're not willing to break up our core for any of those guys apparently.

I think your mancrush on Ginobili has reached unhealthy levels. I tend to agree he was the key to that '05 team and he might still be valuable to the Spurs. However, a Manu-led team is going nowhere in the NBA playoffs with him as its best player. In the meantime, this team would go nowhere and just getting him as a rental would cost us any if not all of our non-Granger assets. Of course, we probably don't have enough non-Granger assets to even get the Spurs on the phone. The problem is, as always, the Manu's value is too high. You take him if you can get him for a low price (which, as you've been saying from the get-go is implausable) or if you can pawn off one of our longer contracts.

Manu's value is so high because the Spurs know how valuable he is if they want to get back to The Finals. If they trade him, they have no chance getting back. If he happens to be on the downside (which I don't believe but am willing to concede that it is a risk), they also have no chance getting back, either. They are only going as far as Manu takes them.

His value is too high for the Pacers because the Pacers don't have any single player in his caliber. Granger isn't in his caliber yet. Now, in terms of trading, Granger is younger so he still has the potential to be as good as Manu. I understand the point you all are making with age, and yes, over the next six years I really hope that Granger eventually gets to Manu's level.

As for your players... I might put Wade in there. After being reminded last night that Howard is closer to being the next Dale Davis than the next Shaq, I might take him back out. :devil:

Bosh, I think, is super soft and absurdly overrated. Which seems to happen to a lot of Toronto players over the years - and not just Carter, McGrady, Camby and Ford.

Melo - maybe. Still waiting on him to win something in the pros. He's on the fringe, and probably easier to get than Manu.

Kobe. Are you ready for it? I'll take Manu over Kobe, period. Kobe is uber-talented and a little bit clutch, Manu is uber-clutch and very talented. I'll take clutch.

Gasol - maybe a little tougher than Bosh but I'm not a big fan of building around him.

Garnett, Pierce and Allen are the same age or older than Manu and have shown no consistent ability throughout their careers to win until Ainge got lucky enough to put them all together on one team. Manu has been a winner at everything - Euroleague, international ball, NBA, whatever.

Yes, I put a big value on being a winner vs. merely having skills. Ideally you get both - Manu has both.

The question isn't whether or not you can build a contender around Manu, its whether or not to build around him when he's already 32.

Trader Joe
06-12-2009, 11:52 AM
Everyone talked about how much better TD was than JO, but I continue to believe that if you put JO in Sacramento with Manu and Parker he'd have won championships there.

Why Sacramento?

Sollozzo
06-12-2009, 12:24 PM
Everyone talked about how much better TD was than JO, but I continue to believe that if you put JO in Sacramento with Manu and Parker he'd have won championships there.


Maybe 05 and 07, but that's because Parker and Manu were so good. But JO could have never dominated the way TD did in the 99 and 03 ones.

I'll say this though, the Pacers would have been far better off if they had Duncan instead of JO.

EDIT: The more I think about it, I don't think the Spurs would have won titles with JO instead of Duncan. Duncan is one of the best big men ever, and the Spurs barely beat the Pistons in 05 with him. I think if you put JO in his place (who has a weaker game), then the Spurs lose that series (if they are in the finals in the first place).

MillerTime
06-13-2009, 02:57 PM
There has been a lot of speculation regarding the Wizards coveting Manu Ginobili from the Spurs.

The rumors apparently started when San Antonio called Washington to see what it would take to get the fifth overall pick in this month's draft.

The Wizards said it would take Ginobili, which ended the discussion, according to the Washington Post.

Other than Ginobili, there is nothing the Spurs could offer the Wizards for the pick.

"They don't have a thing for [No.] 5," a source told the Post.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/wizardsinsider/2009/06/more_trade_rumors.html?wprss=wizardsinsider
Washington Post
Micheal Lee

PacerDude
06-13-2009, 06:25 PM
I'll take Manu over Kobe, period. Well, I just don't know what to say other than ............... well, I just don't know what to say.

Anyone have a clue how to address this ??

Hicks
06-13-2009, 09:22 PM
Well, I just don't know what to say other than ............... well, I just don't know what to say.

Anyone have a clue how to address this ??

It's a man crush of Peck/Dale Davis proportions. I'd let it go.

PacerDude
06-13-2009, 09:46 PM
It's a man crush of Peck/Dale Davis proportions. I'd let it go.It's unhealthy. It's eating away at the logical brain cells. It's mildly disturbing.

Bball
06-14-2009, 04:01 PM
A phone conversation-
Larry Bird: "Hey Pops, how's it going?"

Popovich: "It's going pretty good. What gets you calling me today instead of on the golf course?

Bird: "I heard Manu Ginobli might be on the market"

Popovich: "Well, I wouldn't say he's on the market necessarily. But then I wouldn't say he's not on the market either. We always have to make sure we do what is best for our fans and team. Sometimes, you have to make a move even with a favorite player. ...Hey wait a minute... You don't think I'm going to bite on Tinsley for Manu do you?"

Bird: "Great talking to you Pops.... I just noticed I'm late for my tee time. Take care"

BlueNGold
06-14-2009, 08:32 PM
Kobe. Are you ready for it? I'll take Manu over Kobe, period. Kobe is uber-talented and a little bit clutch, Manu is uber-clutch and very talented. I'll take clutch.


Ok, this is strange. This is the first time I have ever came to Kobe's defense. If Kobe had Duncan, Parker and the Spur's supporting cast for the last 10 years...he would be looking for a third hand to put that 11th ring on this season.

speakout4
06-14-2009, 08:48 PM
Did someone say Granger for Ginobili ??

Total insanity. 6 years ago - maybe. Now ?? Manu is on the tail end of his career, has been injured a lot and wouldn't have the rings he has if not for Duncan/Parker. Washington probably wanted him for a 1 year rental and then he's an expiring.
Manu never an nba all star and never has scored 20ppg in the nba. I'll stick with Granger over Manu. Manu is a great accessory player and he is unlikely at his age to continue to be as productive. We need players with an upside.

MrSparko
06-14-2009, 09:07 PM
Ok, this is strange. This is the first time I have ever came to Kobe's defense. If Kobe had Duncan, Parker and the Spur's supporting cast for the last 10 years...he would be looking for a third hand to put that 11th ring on this season.

Don't forget Robinson as well.

cinotimz
06-14-2009, 09:12 PM
Hey, makes sense to me. Lets trade away a young allstar who is improving every year and probably just beginning to enter his prime for an over-the-hill sixth man.

To follow up Bball, if Larry offered Granger to Pop for Ginobili, Pop would take Tinsley as well, and offer to take another player off our hands that we dont want-either now or later.

BlueNGold
06-14-2009, 09:31 PM
Don't forget Robinson as well.

Good point. Robinson is also one of the better centers in the last 20 years.

The truth is, Ginobili has had the fortune of playing the part of clutch swingman with tremendous players manning the PG and C positions and the unheralded Bruce Bowen who expended the energy on D to stop the other team's best player. In fact, Bowen is an all-star on defense and effective 3pt shooter...just a perfect compliment to Ginobili's game of drive and dish. In contrast, Kobe usually gets the tough assignment on D and plays far more minutes while usually carrying the full load on offense.

rexnom
06-14-2009, 10:21 PM
Alright, let's not go the other way and completely underrate Manu Ginobili, who has put together some of the finest playoff performances of the past decade. Without him the Spurs don't win their last three championships.

vnzla81
06-14-2009, 10:26 PM
Alright, let's not go the other way and completely underrate Manu Ginobili, who has put together some of the finest playoff performances of the past decade. Without him the Spurs don't win their last three championships.

I agree, like I said before he is been one of the most underrated players in the last decade, this guy could be the number one option in at least 29 teams, he is older but I am sure he is going to be back next year and the same guys that are saying that he is only a 6th man are going to be proposing trades for him.(lets wait and see :))

ChicagoJ
06-14-2009, 10:51 PM
Well, I just don't know what to say other than ............... well, I just don't know what to say.

Anyone have a clue how to address this ??

Why do I have to agree with you? I'm allowed to have my own opinion.

I don't worship at the alter of "mad skillz". I'm not impressed by any individual player's points per game. Teams with Manu at SG have defeated teams with Kobe at SG a number of times.

Kobe can take this "first ring without Shaq" and ride off to the sunset for all I care.

ChicagoJ
06-14-2009, 10:54 PM
Ok, this is strange. This is the first time I have ever came to Kobe's defense. If Kobe had Duncan, Parker and the Spur's supporting cast for the last 10 years...he would be looking for a third hand to put that 11th ring on this season.

Put Manu on the 03-04 Lakers and they don't have to trade Shaq away and they're working on the Lakers ninth title this decade too. Come on, do you really see Kobe deferring to Duncan and Parker if he couldn't get along with Shaq?

vnzla81
06-14-2009, 11:01 PM
Put Manu on the 03-04 Lakers and they don't have to trade Shaq away and they're working on the Lakers ninth title this decade too. Come on, do you really see Kobe deferring to Duncan and Parker if he couldn't get along with Shaq?

Hell, put Manu with Odom, Kwame Brown and the other guys they had two years ago and at least they go to the finals, Kobe was just crying for help, when a guy like Manu could have play like a mad men and would have taken that team to the finals.(even last year)

ChicagoJ
06-14-2009, 11:06 PM
Manu never an nba all star and never has scored 20ppg in the nba. I'll stick with Granger over Manu. Manu is a great accessory player and he is unlikely at his age to continue to be as productive.

He knows and accepts his role and isn't a ballhog. And that's somehow a bad thing?

He was willing to come off the bench and was still 3rd-team all-NBA. Accessory player? My comments may be optimistic, but I'm not trying to pass them off as rational. I'm a big fan of him because he's a winner and a great player, and I would be willing to do just about any trade to put my favorite player in the NBA on my favorite team. Calling him an "accessory player" is flat-out wrong. Or, of the 420 NBA players, 400+ of them are "accessory players.

As for the all-star game, you might want to check 2004-05. If you don't like that, there's at least one 3rd-team all-NBA, an Olympics MVP, and a bazillion other awards.


We need players with an upside.

We're a 36-win team. We need a lot of things. One of the things we need is quality player with championship experience to show the rest of the team what it takes. Granger has upside. If he hits his potential, he becomes the winner the Manu is. Clearly Manu's age is a concern, but other than that, getting Granger "to be" what Manu "already is" (the leader of a championship-caliber team) is the goal.

rexnom
06-14-2009, 11:17 PM
I think you're overrating Manu's leadership a bit. I never saw him as a leader on those Spurs team. Duncan anchored those teams offensively and defensively.

ChicagoJ
06-14-2009, 11:30 PM
Pop says he's the leader. Duncan says he's the leader. The Argentine team says he's the teader. His European teams said he was the leader.

Duncan was the guy they were built around, but Manu was the heart and spirit.

Perhaps you should re-watch the fourth quarter of all the Spurs wins in the 2005 Finals. Giving the Finals MVP to Duncan was a sham. I thought giving it to Parker in 2007 was a stretch as well, but ABC/ ESPN was so busy promoting his fiance's hit show and thier upcoming wedding and everybody knew what was going to happen.

rexnom
06-14-2009, 11:35 PM
Pop says he's the leader. Duncan says he's the leader. The Argentine team says he's the teader. His European teams said he was the leader.

Duncan was the guy they were built around, but Manu was the heart and spirit.

Perhaps you should re-watch the fourth quarter of all the Spurs wins in the 2005 Finals. Giving the Finals MVP to Duncan was a sham. I thought giving it to Parker in 2007 was a stretch as well, but ABC/ ESPN was so busy promoting his fiance's hit show and thier upcoming wedding and everybody knew what was going to happen.
I agree that Ginobili should have been the MVP in 05 but Duncan should have been the MVP in 2007.

Can you find some of those quotes from Popp and Duncan? All I hear from Spurs players and others alike is that Duncan is the anchor, he's the one communicating on defense and among his teammates in general

ChicagoJ
06-14-2009, 11:51 PM
I'm not trying to diminish Duncan's leadership skills. That's what is great about that team - all three of their top players are not just talented, but leaders and winners as well.

The main thing I'm thinking of is the ESPN the Magazine article from a couple years ago. I don't think I can link to it. I probably don't even have it anymore.

SycamoreKen
06-15-2009, 10:39 AM
I find it interesting that the story is nothing new. There were rumors that Manu might get traded at the deadline last season in order to bring in fresh legs. I can't see the Spurs trading him just to get younger. They would have to get an established player that could take his spot.

I think Manu is a special player in the NBA today and that a lot of what he gives does not show up in the stat line. He is an underrated defender that goes 100% all the time, hence the injuries. He also gives the Spurs their flair, though Parker has emerged into that position this past season. As the story stated, to trade Manu, easily the most popular player in this city, would have to bring back a player that would put the Spurs back in the title series in order to negate the negative vibs.

naptownmenace
06-15-2009, 11:37 AM
Kobe. Are you ready for it? I'll take Manu over Kobe, period. Kobe is uber-talented and a little bit clutch, Manu is uber-clutch and very talented. I'll take clutch.


I didn't think it was possible before I read this but with just one post, years of credibility have been erased.


Ginobili is one of my top 10 favorite players to watch play. He's an absolute fearless beast that could make any team better. He's nowhere near as good as Kobe. Kobe is better at every aspect of the game whether it be ballhandling, passing, driving the lane, clutchness, or defense - especially defense.

Manu is clutch but Kobe is the alpha-male of clutchness. It's like comparing Robert Horry's clutchness to Michael Jordan's.

I look at a player's entire play during the fourth quarter to determine his clutchness, not just the last 2 minutes of the game or less. Kobe has the ability to dominate the opposing team whether he's scoring or facillitating the action when he get's it going in the fourth, I can't say that Manu is at that same level.

rexnom
06-15-2009, 11:49 AM
I didn't think it was possible before I read this but with just one post, years of credibility have been erased.


Ginobili is one of my top 10 favorite players to watch play. He's an absolute fearless beast that could make any team better. He's nowhere near as good as Kobe. Kobe is better at every aspect of the game whether it be ballhandling, passing, driving the lane, clutchness, or defense - especially defense.

Manu is clutch but Kobe is the alpha-male of clutchness. It's like comparing Robert Horry's clutchness to Michael Jordan's.

I look at a player's entire play during the fourth quarter to determine his clutchness, not just the last 2 minutes of the game or less. Kobe has the ability to dominate the opposing team whether he's scoring or facillitating the action when he get's it going in the fourth, I can't say that Manu is at that same level.
Well, Jay is right to a certain extent. Manu Ginobili was more clutch in that one '05 series than Kobe Bryant has been in a playoff series in his entire life.

On the other hand, Kobe can take over an entire game from beginning to end on both sides of the court - like he did in game 1.

Kobe is not the alpha male of clutchness - he's just a very, very talented player. Manu goes into a special gear for the 4th quarter of a big playoff game - he's in every play, in every one's face, doing crap that no other player in NBA history can do for a solid 10-12 minute stretch. If I have a Tim Duncan or Pau Gasol, I would probably rather have Ginobili for that last quarter than Kobe Bryant. Yeah, Kobe is a better player for an entire game probably but Manu is something else. He creates shots for himself and for others like the best PG and he has an uncanny knock for hitting the big shots. Think about it - has Kobe really been the "the alpha male of clutchness" in these last two finals? Has he really been astounding - like Manu was in '05 - in '08 (his MVP year btw) and in '09? Not really.

Jay may have an unhealthy mancrush but he's not far off when he's talking Manu and the 4th quarter.

Sollozzo
06-15-2009, 12:08 PM
Kobe is the second best shooting guard of all time.

Manu is a great player, but hasn't reached all time status.

Hicks
06-15-2009, 12:12 PM
Better than Jerry West?

Sollozzo
06-15-2009, 12:21 PM
Better than Jerry West?

Fair point. I have a bias, as I have seen Kobe play but born alive until after West retired.

I think Kobe is the second best right now, but if not then I think he will be in a couple of years. Keep in mind that West played 14 seasons. Kobe has played 13 and he still has plenty of years left to add to his legacy. I'd be surprised if he doesn't win another with that loaded team.

For what it's worth, ESPN ranked Kobe second last year. But I'm sure you could find a list or 2 with the logo at 2, but I think you'll like this list because it has Reggie at 7 :).

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/dailydime?page=dime-GreatestSGs

But my point remains the same. At worst Kobe is the 3rd best SG all time. Manu simply isn't on a level like that. Maybe you'd (not you personally, Hicks) rather have Manu on your team, but he's not as great a player as Kobe Bryant.

cdash
06-15-2009, 12:29 PM
Kobe is the second best shooting guard of all time.

Manu is a great player, but hasn't reached all time status.

Third...Reggie was better ;)

ChicagoJ
06-15-2009, 12:40 PM
Jay may have an unhealthy mancrush but he's not far off when he's talking Manu and the 4th quarter.

Clutch play in the fourth quarter is all I pay attention to, if the Pacers aren't involved.

= = = = = = = = = = = =

I've said over and over that Kobe has the talent to take over a game any time he wants. But most of his fourth-quarter heroics are when he has decided it is the time to put an inferior team away with his talent. Not his "clutchness".

His almighty last-second clutchness doesn't hold up well, statistically.

http://www.pacersdigest.com/apache2-default/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=894290

Looking at those stats, I'd rather have Jalen Rose (6-10, 60%) than Kobe (14-56, 25%) and we all know that Jalen was lousy at crunch time (and don't forget, I'm one of the few that still admits to being a big Jalen Rose fan.)

Although his general last five mintues of a close game stats are nice, but not exceptional. Note that Manu isn't too far down the list over the entire season in spite of missing 1/2 of it...

http://www.82games.com/0809/CSORT11.HTM

I'm not saying Kobe sucks, or that he doesn't come through at all in crunch time. And I'm not saying Manu is "better".

I'm saying that regardless of the quality of opponenent, when the pressure is on Manu becomes the best player on the court. When the going gets tough, Manu is better than Duncan and Parker. And my preference is for a guy that can do that instead of the guy that is more talented.

What's the big deal? Its not like you can go wrong with either player.

Unless you are the 2004-2006 Lakers. Now that Kobe finally has "own" ring, instead of the gifts from playing alongside Shaq, we'll see if he reverts to the egomaniac selfishness that plagued the Lakers for the middle portion of the decade. That's not something you'll ever have to worry about from Manu.

rexnom
06-15-2009, 12:54 PM
Clutch play in the fourth quarter is all I pay attention to, if the Pacers aren't involved.

= = = = = = = = = = = =

I've said over and over that Kobe has the talent to take over a game any time he wants. But most of his fourth-quarter heroics are when he has decided it is the time to put an inferior team away with his talent. Not his "clutchness".

His almighty last-second clutchness doesn't hold up well, statistically.

http://www.pacersdigest.com/apache2-default/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=894290

Looking at those stats, I'd rather have Jalen Rose (6-10, 60%) than Kobe (14-56, 25%) and we all know that Jalen was lousy at crunch time (and don't forget, I'm one of the few that still admits to being a big Jalen Rose fan.)

Although his general last five mintues of a close game stats are nice, but not exceptional. Note that Manu isn't too far down the list over the entire season in spite of missing 1/2 of it...

http://www.82games.com/0809/CSORT11.HTM

I'm not saying Kobe sucks, or that he doesn't come through at all in crunch time. And I'm not saying Manu is "better".

I'm saying that regardless of the quality of opponenent, when the pressure is on Manu becomes the best player on the court. When the going gets tough, Manu is better than Duncan and Parker. And my preference is for a guy that can do that instead of the guy that is more talented.

What's the big deal? Its not like you can go wrong with either player.

Unless you are the 2004-2006 Lakers. Now that Kobe finally has "own" ring, instead of the gifts from playing alongside Shaq, we'll see if he reverts to the egomaniac selfishness that plagued the Lakers for the middle portion of the decade. That's not something you'll ever have to worry about from Manu.
Excellent post. Kobe is undoubtedly more talented than Manu - many guys are. But you put Manu in with 5 minutes to play and he just makes some excellent basketball plays.

Constructing championship teams isn't just about talent - haven't we learned that? If the Lakers traded Kobe for Manu in 2004, they probably win at least the next two championships, like Jay said. You don't build around Ginobili nor does he have a place now on a non-contender but he is as good as it gets for a team with another piece already in place (i.e. Duncan or even Gasol).

This is one of my favorite plays of the decade - what do you see in this play? Watch it and you'll get what Jay and I are talking about.

f5d_9k7AjuY (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5d_9k7AjuY)

naptownmenace
06-15-2009, 12:56 PM
Well, Jay is right to a certain extent. Manu Ginobili was more clutch in that one '05 series than Kobe Bryant has been in a playoff series in his entire life.

On the other hand, Kobe can take over an entire game from beginning to end on both sides of the court - like he did in game 1.

Kobe is not the alpha male of clutchness - he's just a very, very talented player. Manu goes into a special gear for the 4th quarter of a big playoff game - he's in every play, in every one's face, doing crap that no other player in NBA history can do for a solid 10-12 minute stretch. If I have a Tim Duncan or Pau Gasol, I would probably rather have Ginobili for that last quarter than Kobe Bryant. Yeah, Kobe is a better player for an entire game probably but Manu is something else. He creates shots for himself and for others like the best PG and he has an uncanny knock for hitting the big shots. Think about it - has Kobe really been the "the alpha male of clutchness" in these last two finals? Has he really been astounding - like Manu was in '05 - in '08 (his MVP year btw) and in '09? Not really.

Jay may have an unhealthy mancrush but he's not far off when he's talking Manu and the 4th quarter.

I totally but respectfully disagree.

Manu's play in 05 was great through the first 3 games of the series. After that, the Pistons really slowed him down. You could even argue that Bob Horry hit more big shots during the series, he basically won the pivotal game 5 of that series with those huge 3s late in the game.

Kobe in 2000 against the Blazers in the WCF (remember the drive and lob to Shaq?) and in the Finals during game 4 against the Pacers he made some huge plays. In overtime, with Shaq fouled out and sitting on the bench, he took over. He got a huge steal, snagged an offensive rebound from Smits on the other end and scored on the put-back, came back down and hit a huge jumper to put the Lakers up for good.

Those moments are already considered some of the biggest clutch plays of the decade - overshadowing anything Manu has done. Now you can add his play during the 2009 Finals -games 1, 2, and especially 4.


Plus I love Pau Gasol but he's no Tim Duncan. Derrick Fisher is no Tony Parker either. Kobe has pulled off his clutch plays with entire defenses keyed in on him. Manu rarely has to work against double teams.

I really don't see how anyone can seriously compare the two and think they are on the same level of clutchness.

BlueNGold
06-15-2009, 09:34 PM
I recognize the energy and aggressiveness Ginobili brings in the fourth quarter. Sure, he's clutch and an exciting player. The dude is fearless. He is the kind of player I would like to see in a Pacer uniform. However, I suspect that energy has something to do with the fact he plays about 28 minutes per game to Kobe's 40mpg and has the enormous benefit of Bowen always guarding the other team's most potent wing. Let's just say it's easier to be "clutch" when you're fresh....and fresh is exactly what Ginobili is when he only has logged 15-18 minutes at the start of the 4th quarter.

However you want to slice it, I would take Kobe over him in any series or any game against any team. The bottom line? I don't think the Lakers win this championship if the players had been swapped. Defense is half the game and Ginobili can't drag Bowen into this comparison.