I'm sorry it's over. On to 2017-18.

So, continuing on with Frank Mason for a bit and other possibilities.

The reason Frank Mason makes so much sense is because his salary would be a small sliver of the cap for there to four years and because of his defense.

Frank Mason is a plus defender and that's what separates grim other small playmakers like Kemba Walker and Isaiah Thomas. Mason can help a team defensively at the point of attack. Those guys can't. What that means is Mason is Lowry level good right now. He can run an offense. He's a great decision maker. He's good at drawing fouls. He's great at making the right read in pick-and-roll. He's a great spot-up shooter. And he plays defense. He's great at getting over screens and pressuring the ball. He makes the defense work a lot harder to attempt a switch. He is good at defending the ball handlers primary shooting hand and forcing the ball handler to go to his non-shooting hand. He is good at trailing the ball handler when he does get bumped and forcing them into traffic while he is backside on the shooting hand. He's an extremely crafty and effective defender.

Frank Mason is a two-way player that is ready to contribute to a championship team today. He can defend Steph, Kyrie, Isaiah, Mills, etc. And while those guys can never be stopped he can bring down their individual offensive efficiency enough to help make their teams beatable. He's a positive defensive force in addition to his offensive gifts.

Now with that said, is Frank Mason the only cheap doable solution for our playmaking problem? Of course not. But because of his defense he may be the best cheap solution to our playmaking problem. Let's examine some other possible cheap solutions for our playmaking problem.

Starting with the current roster the most obvious candidate to become a cheap rotation playmaker would obviously be Isaiah Taylor. Taylor did look surprisingly good in RGV, at least offensively. But I really wasn't impressed defensively. However I doubt he could be any worse than Lou defensively. And the good thing is I believe his contract is non-guaranteed until the first day of the regular season. That means he can be traded or waived without consequence to the cap.

However, a decision in him still needs to be made. Is he the cheap playmaker we can plug into the rotation next season or not? If he is, then put him in the rotation. If not and we still want th develop him t or we decide to trade or waive him, doesn't make a difference. We still need to get that cheap playmaking upgrade from somewhere.

Here's some possibilities:

· Pierre Jackson - a pint-sized offensive dynamo that is faster and quicker than anybody else on the floor. He can make all the plays and is a very good shooter. Currently a free agent. Could be signed easily to three-year deal.

· Sergio Rodriguez - undersized point guard on the downside of his career but still a great shooter and playmaker. He'd probably accept a minimum salary deal or close to it and he's ready to play with tons of experience.

· Jose Calderon - another aging shooter/playmaker available for a low price signing.

· Facu "I'm going to write a stack of books" Campazzo - a small Argentine playmaker that reminds you of Nash with his playmaking but not his shooting. Good floor general and very creative. Would be a better shooter if he didn't take junk shots. Is a much better shooter when he gets his feet set and body squared. And we're looking at him. He could be signed for either the minimum or a very low multi-year deal.

There's other guys but these are just a few low budget players that are rotation-ready and could be signed for very little money. My preference, obviously, is Frank Mason III. If we have the opportunity to get him on draft night we should do it.

But if we do acquire any of these guys they need to be put in the rotation and given at least twenty minutes. If we don't do that then we haven't fixed anything. We've just added another project to the roster. And that would be a waste.

Next book - low budget solutions to help with paint/rim protection and rebounding.

 

Agree with all that. And I'm sure they're going to try to get a three man that can make plays and distribute. But what if we can't make that happen? Should we stand pat? After seeing what we just saw.

That is the reason I'm making the Frank Mason/small playmaking guard suggestion. Because its doable, its needed, and it doesn't prevent us from pursuing another playmaker at the three or 4.

It's going to be difficult to acquire playmaking threes. It's going to cost a lot of assets to trade for one if we can actually make a trade. And/or it will likely cost a ton of cap space.

In the event that nether of these things materialize, the solution that is achievable is to move Harden to the defensive three for some of his minutes and introduce a small playmaker into the rotation. That can be done and it can be done cheaply. Bev is good enough defensively to defend two guards and in my opinion would undoubtedly be more effective defensively against most two guards as he does have more difficulty with the plethora of tiny guards that have come into the NBA in recent years.

 

Ok guys, I said I was going to discuss low budget paint/rim protection and rebounding help next. But there's an opportunity here to make another point about getting a small, quick playmaker that can defend in our rotation that I simply can't pass up.

Everybody watched that game tonight, right? I mean that was some sensational basketball played by the Warriors. Give them credit. Love them or hate them no matter. They were balling.

So think about beating them. Look, if we're gonna keep Harden here for the foreseeable future we gotta not just try to beat them, we gotta beat them. If we're not going to do that and you don't think we can do that then why do you want to keep Harden here? Lord have mercy, trade him to Boston right after the draft for Fultz, the Nets pick next year, another first rounder, and Jaylen Brown.

Sorry guys. You're either on the boat or you're off. I'm convinced we can build a team around Harden to beat the Warriors.

But we've got to make the right moves.

So how do you build a team to beat the Warriors?

Well, start with this game. How many times have we seen it? Curry brings the ball up unimpeded, full bore, forcing bigger slower defenders to overcompensate their speed to get back on him. What does he do? He kills them. Game after game he kills them. He does whatever he wants. Stop and pop from thirty. Boom. Totally in rhythm. No hesitation. Just automatic. How about drive it down, dippity doo, defender is exhausted getting back, a little hesitation, a fake here, there, crossover, turn around, shake-n-bake, layup, or find a cutter or roller or wide open spot up shot, right? Unguardable. Indefensible.

What about.............putting a smaller, quicker, faster, more athletic player on him? And attacking his dribble. He starts running up the floor and he's got to bring the dribble down low and cover the ball up. Can't just run up and jack or crank. Gotta protect that ball sonny.

And that's where it starts. Nobody else can defend Steph. He's too good. Lebron can't defend him. Especially now with Durant. The big athletic point guards can't defend him. He simply dribbles them down out of position and either launches or gets to the rim.

The players that can defend Steph are smalls. Guys that can get in a low stance and use their quick feet to get up into him and disrupt his dribble while still being able to recover when he drives. Smalls are also usually your high energy guys. They're lugging around the least weight. They can go awhile. They can pick him up 75 feet and force him to cover the ball and walk it up or give up the ball altogether.

And then on the offensive end you make Curry check that same small quick guy. You don't let him switch out. You force him to defend that small, quick guy. You give that small quick guy the ball and let him work on Curry, make Curry have to work defensively. Curry has actually become a very good defender at the point. He uses his own quickness to disrupt opposing offenses. But if he's playing a smaller, quicker, faster player he's at a disadvantage and his own energy reserve is being drained on the defensive end where he doesn't really want to expend it. And he's getting burned and part of his offense is getting neutralized because he's giving it back.

Folks, I've been talking about a small, quick playmaker for a reason. If we're going to win a championship we have to have the right matchup against the Warriors. And a perimeter of Frank Mason, Beverley, Harden matching up against Curry, Klay, and Durant is just the kind of matchup where we could draw the advantage of the dribble and take the advantage of the dribble away from them. The last thing any of those three guys want to do is get low and try to beat their smaller defenders off the dribble. It makes them all stop and pop or spot up shooters.

Now they're still devastating shooters. So this one addition isn't going to beat them. Gotta have other stuff working. And I'll get to that. But the perimeter I just described gives us a lot of advantages on both ends.

And that is another reason why I believe we have to find a way to get Frank Mason out of this draft or have a plan to acquire a similar sized, similar skilled, similar fast, quick, and athletic player as Frank Mason with Mason level toughness and leadership. We need this type of player to help neutralize Curry's game.

 

I'm not proposing Mason as the be-all end-all. I'm proposing Mason as one of those subtle little itty-bitty acquisitions which give us the ability to address a key team deficiency while also opening up a whole new myriad of trade and free agent options without having to worry about replacing skill sets lost in trades.

 

Defense is the first one. Mason is a bulldog with quickness and athleticism. He dogs opposing points, goes over screens and picks and chases guys down. I'm telling you he's a troublesome defender for opponents because he's got a very low center and he gets low and attacks their dribble.

Taylor is just not in that class and in my opinion never will be. Taylor has a long way to go just to be adequate defensively.

Shooting - Mason is the far superior shooter. Although Taylor has improved, he's simply not in Masons class as a shooter. Mason is a great on the dribble shooter. Stop and pop, step back, you name it, among with catch-and-shoot.

Mason is the far superior decision maker in pick-and-roll. I have to laugh at some scouting reports that say Mason lacks in his pnr playmaking. Those guys don't know what they're looking at. They think because he scores out of the pick and roll more often than he passes that he's a bad pnr operator. That's garbage. He always makes the right decision in pnr action.

Taylor, once again, is a work in progress in this department. Taylor is a crisp passer. I'll give him that. But Mason much better in pick and roll action.

Those are the biggies. Mason is the stronger player. And while Taylor is fast, Masons strength helps him carry the day against bigger point guards. They can't post him up effectively. They can Taylor.

 

Totally understand. I almost didn't write it. Because I realize how absurdly stupid it sounds if you don't know much about Mason.