What The Richard Jefferson Trade Really Means

I've been weighing the Spurs-Bucks trade over in my mind now for the past two days.  I've been thinking about what it means to the Spurs and their title chances for 2010.  I have heard numerous objections and dismissals about this deal from other fans (I'm looking at you, Laker fans), but I believe this deal is just what the Spurs need.

The most common objections I hear to this deal are: Jefferson is a selfish gunner who plays for stats, now the Spurs have no defense, the Spurs are too old, and it doesn't matter anyway because they're always hurt.  I would like a moment to refute each of these arguments, one by one.

As for Jefferson's stats mongering, who honestly believes that Gregg Popovich will allow that?  It's true that Jefferson has been the type to post big numbers on bad teams, but that is about to change.

Popovich has created a team-first culture in San Antonio, and every player has to know their role.  I find it hard to believe that the front office of the most consistently successful franchise in American professional sports over the past decade didn't do their homework and talk to Jefferson and his agent about what is expected of them before green-lighting this trade.

The second objection I hear is that by trading Bowen, Oberto, and Thomas, the Spurs have depleted their defense in favor of scoring more points.  

That may be true, but consider this: Bruce Bowen is considered such a defensive asset nowadays, that the Bucks are expected to buy out his contract and cut him.

In other words, a perennial title contender dumped him to a perennial lottery team, and they thought his best value was to cut him and save them money.  How is that a giant loss?

Oberto was promptly shipped to Detroit for Amir Johnson.  The Bucks didn't want him either.  They just wanted to save money.

The only part of this deal that will stay in Milwaukee is Kurt Thomas.   

Any time you can move an over the hill perimeter defender (Bowen), an automatic turnover or cover your eyes awful shot on the offensive end (Oberto), and an aging backup power forward (Thomas) for a legitimate 20 ppg, athletic wing player, you mean to tell me you don't make that deal?  

As for the Spurs recent injury issues, I do not feel as if that will be as much of a problem next year as in the past.  A number of different solutions help to resolve this issue.

The first is the Spurs abnormal early playoff exit. For the oldest team in the NBA to get an extra month of rest before next season is huge.

You forget, but the Spurs big three didn't just play 82 games and then five playoff games in the past year.

They went to Game Five of the Western Conference Finals against the Lakers last year (last game on May 29), after going five games with Phoenix, then seven games with New Orleans.

Then Duncan played for Team USA, Ginobili played for Team Argentina, and Tony Parker played for Team France in the Olympics.  More wear and tear.

Then they played the grind of another 82 game season, with no time off to recover from last year's grind, and they just broke down.  This summer, there are no Olympics, and they get an extra month of time off.

That doesn't mean injuries can't still occur.  They can happen at any time on the court.  But a rested athlete is less susceptible to injury than an exhausted one.

The Spurs had injury issues in 2006 (Duncan, Ginobili), 2008 (Ginobili), and 2009 (Ginobili).  They were bounced in all three years, although they reached the conference finals in 2006 and 2008.  They were healthy in 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2007, and they won titles in three out of four of those years.

If everybody stays healthy, this is a title-contending team.  That's a big if, but luck with injuries is part of every championship run.  What would have happened to the Heat in 2006 if Dwayne Wade got hurt?  Or in 2008 with Boston if Kevin Garnett got hurt?  Or 2009 with the Lakers if Kobe or Gasol got hurt?

In Miami's case, they would have been the 2007 or 2008 Heat, Boston would have been the 2009 Celtics, and do I really need to spell out where the Lakers would be without Kobe?

The fact is, the Spurs are closer to being their 2007 championship self than sliding into obscurity.  The core pieces are all still there, and they can still play.  What Peter Holt and R.C. Buford did was add one more piece to make another run while Tim Duncan still has some gas left.

Even though he's not the same player he used to be, he doesn't have to be.  Now he has three legitimate other scoring options to fall back on if he can't do it himself.

I'm not going to be foolhardy enough to guarantee a Spurs title in 2010.  But I can tell you that they just got a lot better, and with some rest and relaxation before next season to recharge the batteries, they should give the Lakers a run for their money.