Should We Send Jacque to the Bench-- Permanently?

[grizzly_bexar]

I love Jacque Vaughn. I would echo what I heard Pop say the other night during a TV news segment covering training camp: Jacque will make a great coach when he retires, if he so chooses.

I don't think Jacque has lost anything since our title run in '07. I'll never forget his solid defense and reliability, both of which were a breath of fresh air after the debacle that was Beno Udrih (especially in the 2005 Finals). Not to mention his hustle (that steal against Houston in our comeback win [I think we won-- did we?] in '07 where he slid to the floor is forever etched in my mind.

But although JV hasn't changed, the league has. Every time the Spurs win, the rules change to make it tougher on us and teams gear up to stop us. The rest of the team isn't good enough offensively to cover up for Vaughn, and our defense wasn't good enough last year to overcome that.

Question: with . . .

1) already 4 passable point guards with guaranteed contracts (TP, Hill, Mason, JV), one of which (JV) can't score to save his life, and
2) an immovable object (Bonner) taking a roster spot
3) all this young talent screaming for PT
4) a rock-solid, mentally tough pro's pro in JV potentially sitting all year on the pine and taking up a roster spot . . .

why not buy out Vaughn and make him an assistant coach, with the caveat that he stays in shape, practices with the team, and otherwise keeps himself ready to come back in an emergency?

This would seem to satisfy the "Let's keep [name your favorite young scrub]" guys-- and you have to admit just about every one of us is a member of one such club or another.

Thoughts?

[dark21horse]

Here's the thing. I've read alot of threads trashing JV and here is one thing I do know. If JV or anybody is not doing the job that Pop thinks they can do, they will be gone. End of story.

[grizzly_bexar]

That's not my point. I know JV can and will do everything that's asked of him-- within his ability.

I expect that not much will be asked of him this year. George Hill has shown so far (IMO) that he's just a more talented defender and scorer than JV. He needs work in getting up to speed with the NBA and the offensive/defensive systems. But that's just minutes more than anything else.

So my question boils down to: if JV's going to be inactive, as I suspect (why keep TP, Hill, Mason, and JV all active?), then why is he on the roster? He's there for insurance purposes only. So if we could get that same emergency availability out of him, plus open up a roster spot to develop [insert your favorite on the bubble guy], why not do it?

[theinswes]

it's not a matter of the league changing rules to make it tougher for the spurs to win. but there is the reality that keeping the same team from '07 without addressing any of its weaknesses, combined with other teams improving, makes for a tougher task of repeating. the nba didn't change rules to keep amare suspended, nor did it change rules to injure manu or make vaughn have a terrible jumper. it is what it is, and complaining about that sounds so childish.

vaughn does all that's asked, you're right. and i also think he's severely limited in his capabilities. at the end of the day, vauhn really isn't that good, but he has pop's trust. we've seen certain players' minutes get skewed in preference for certain old vets pop trusts.

since vaughn's only got 1 year on his contract, i dunno if a buyout is even necessary. just bench him. his influence on the young guys will be important, both in teaching them what he knows and showing them how to be a professional everyday and working hard. but we've gotta let the kids play, because if we want to win this year, they need to be ready to contribute come playoff time. that means they're gonna have to get a crash course in the nba game. it's possible for young guys to have a big impact just by playing their roles, but they'll need the minutes and learning experience from the regular season to prepare em for the playoffs. i don't care too much if vaughn's bought out or not, but i just hope he doesn't play unless it's a last resort.

[dark21horse]

Originally Posted by grizzly_bexar:

That's not my point. I know JV can and will do everything that's asked of him-- within his ability. I expect that not much will be asked of him this year. George Hill has shown so far (IMO) that he's just a more talented defender and scorer than JV. He needs work in getting up to speed with the NBA and the offensive/defensive systems. But that's just minutes more than anything else. So my question boils down to: if JV's going to be inactive, as I suspect (why keep TP, Hill, Mason, and JV all active?), then why is he on the roster? He's there for insurance purposes only. So if we could get that same emergency availability out of him, plus open up a roster spot to develop [insert your favorite on the bubble guy], why not do it?

My question is has Pop shown the propensity to put subpar players on the floor while keeping above-par players on the bench? I am sure Pop has a reason why he's keeping JV on the team. Obviously, he either hasn't made it known to the general public or hasn't made it clear. It is easy to second guess Pop's decision to keep JV, alot harder to run a team with the available talent. My guess is that, like someone already mentioned, it is a trust issue. Pop can trust that JV will play within his abilities and keep the offense running while he rests the starters. I think that once Pop gets another guard that can perform competently, he will let go of JV. Hill, Mason, and others, need to step their game and prove that they can consistently run the offense, keeping the turnovers to a minimum.

[grizzly_bexar]

In answer to your question about Pop, I think the answer is no-- but he does have a tendency to try to saddle up and ride old, swaybacked horses with their teeth falling out (Stoudamire, NVE, Porter).

I think he knows that JV's not going to cut it for us to win another title, and hence Hill will play that backup role. In a strictly numbers game, that has to put JV on the inactive list. And I don't think that's the best use of our roster space.

[grizzly_bexar]

Originally Posted by theinswes:

it's not a matter of the league changing rules to make it tougher for the spurs to win. but there is the reality that keeping the same team from '07 without addressing any of its weaknesses, combined with other teams improving, makes for a tougher task of repeating. the nba didn't change rules to keep amare suspended, nor did it change rules to injure manu or make vaughn have a terrible jumper. it is what it is, and complaining about that sounds so childish.

Actually, they have changed the rules on us several times-- after the '99 title, they changed the rules on how post play was officiated (since TD/DRob were decimating opponents in the post to the point that teams were down to their 12th man by the last half of the fourth quarter), resulting in fewer post fouls. The league also changed the hand-checking rules for perimeter players. They have continued to do that the last few years, along with continuing to call post play more loosely.

This year, they have made it an unofficial rule change (a point of emphasis) that the defender must allow the offensive player room to land following his shot (aka the Bruce Bowen rule).

I'm not whining about it-- I'm just anticipating the objection that "oh, you're just a hater, we won it with Vaughn in '07," etc. The NBA tweaks the game every year, and the point of the tweaking, for the last decade or so (at least) has been to make things easier for offensively talented players and more difficult for defenders. Thus, guys with weak offensive skills and good defense are a liability, because the league rewards offense more than defense.

Yes, defense wins championships, but not when the offense is playing with one hand tied behind its back.

[dark21horse]

Originally Posted by grizzly_bexar:

In answer to your question about Pop, I think the answer is no-- but he does have a tendency to try to saddle up and ride old, swaybacked horses with their teeth falling out (Stoudamire, NVE, Porter). I think he knows that JV's not going to cut it for us to win another title, and hence Hill will play that backup role. In a strictly numbers game, that has to put JV on the inactive list. And I don't think that's the best use of our roster space.

All I know is I trust the guy with 4 championships on his resume. There are alot of coaches in the league who don't have a single championship let alone 4. For that reason alone, he gets the benefit of the doubt as far as knowing what he is doing. I know that by nature fans want instant gratification and have the "What have you done for me lately" attitude.

[ray_cortinasjr.]

Forget about the bench send him to the retirement home.

[grizzly_bexar]

Originally Posted by dark21horse:

All I know is I trust the guy with 4 championships on his resume. There are alot of coaches in the league who don't have a single championship let alone 4. For that reason alone, he gets the benefit of the doubt as far as knowing what he is doing. I know that by nature fans want instant gratification and have the "What have you done for me lately" attitude.

I do trust Pop-- but he's not infallible. And in that news bit about camp that I referenced above, Pop talked about Jacque as a coach. So it's not too much of a stretch, IMO, to ponder whether Pop is thinking that transition to a coach might be good for the team sooner rather than later-- especially if we retain the flexibility to bring him back in case of a disaster scenario or Hill's tragic failure to launch.

JV on the inactive list doesn't help anybody long-term. It takes up roster spot that we could be using to give a guy practice time (and playing time when injuries arise) who would otherwise be up for grabs in the D-league or overseas.

[Mulletino]

I think JV should have a starter role.........with the Toros.

[andru]

i like jacque. u know u'll get a solid back up point that will be steady and dependable for 10 - 20 minutes...from the regular season through round 1...but...
HEY!!! we gotta move on sometime!!! Might as well break in and audition other younger guards while we can...Manu is out anyways so let somebody get a chance. see if we can find some energy in player who could hopefully contribute past this one year.

he's taking up a dang roster spot...i can live with some extra losses and erratic back ups...we need to reload somehow...if nothing else works bring em back for the stretch run

[grizzly_bexar]

Originally Posted by Mulletino:

I think JV should have a starter role.........with the Toros.

I could see him coaching the Toros in the near future, if that's the kind of post-playing life he has in mind.

He brings a lot of the energy and enthusiasm that AJ does, without being a jerk. But he's not quite the commanding presence, either.

[Mulletino]

Originally Posted by grizzly_bexar:

I could see him coaching the Toros in the near future, if that's the kind of post-playing life he has in mind. He brings a lot of the energy and enthusiasm that AJ does, without being a jerk. But he's not quite the commanding presence, either.

He actually does look like coaching material.

I agree with Grizzly. I think we have to take our chances with a couple of these young guys and think about the future. Jaque's contract is low enough to enable a buyout--unfortunately Bonner's isn't--I've finally given up on Bonner. If we want to keep a couple of younger players we need more space.

[bossu]

I want to see Vaughn remain with the Spurs in ANY capacity. But I want to see Salim, George and the other members of the San Antonio Spurs Youth League™ get every opportunity to succeed or fail under Pop. That means getting minutes. Jacque Vaughn's minutes.

[angelbelow]

Originally Posted by dark21horse:

Here's the thing. I've read alot of threads trashing JV and here is one thing I do know. If JV or anybody is not doing the job that Pop thinks they can do, they will be gone. End of story.

i dont think its that simple. sometimes its not easy to find better replacement.

[miguelito]

Yes, by any means necessary he should be benched.

[Rzarector7]

Co sign this thread, dude is just average at best, and thats being nice.

[Big-POST-Bob]

JV is a solid 3rd PG

[spurscrazed]

Originally Posted by Rzarector7:

Co sign this thread, dude is just average at best, and thats being nice.

+100000
Dude is just average and a bit below average too if you comapared him to the Western Conf PG back ups and the defending Champs C's back up...Okay.

Time for him to accept the fact that he is not what the Spurs need as a first batch of BU/ PG okay.

[angelbelow]

JV is the ideal 3rd string. i believe pop when he says that JV has a great b-ball mind but hes just not good enough to compete regularly in the NBA.