First things first... What is Rivers?

[NMThreeMVP]

I keep wanting to think about my ideal offseason.

Unquestionably it involves trading Eric Gordon. But beyond that I always get stuck.

Last year I was convinced the nonsense about Rivers drafted to be a PG was just a smokescreen intended to give them leverage in a S/T or eventual in-season trade involving Gordon. Rivers was really drafted to be our SG when Gordon is moved.

But after watching Rivers play, I think maybe their intention really was to develop Austin into our PG.

If that really was the case, is Monty ready to stunt that development by bringing in another young guy to run that position for the next 4 years?

Did we really spend a draft pick on a 6th man when we apparently have a long term plan of pairing Davis with a big Center and Myers Leonard was available?

In my view, this whole offseason depends almost entirely on how this staff currently feels about Austin Rivers and what their intention and long term plan was when they drafted him.

[Purple Haze]

That last sentence is why other teams and teams' fans are making fun of us. I really think Rivers will improve a lot, but to base an entire offseason around Rivers is just... it gives me a headache.

[Snarly]

I still believe they are still planning on developing Rivers as a PG.

[FlyGirl]

What's wrong with him being our 6th man? Is there a rule that says since he was picked 10th he must be a superstar? Jason Terry was picked 10th. Another guy who people say could've been this season's 6th man, Jamal Crawford was drafted #8. Every team could use a good 6th man.

[GESWhoseBack]

Guess we find that answer out on June 27 if the pick is between Len and Burke? If Porter, Mac, or Dipo there it may not matter.

[Snarly]

What's wrong with him being our 6th man? Is there a rule that says since he was picked 10th he must be a superstar? Jason Terry was picked 10th. Another guy who people say could've been this season's 6th man, Jamal Crawford was drafted #8. Every team could use a good 6th man.

I think he's destined to be more than a 6th man. His defense and ability to play within the flow of the offense tells me he's going to be more than a 6th man.

[HornetGuru]

i think they continue to develop rivers with PG and SG minutes to see where he does best and draft BPA. its the smartest thing to do.

[GESWhoseBack]

What's wrong with him being our 6th man? Is there a rule that says since he was picked 10th he must be a superstar? Jason Terry was picked 10th. Another guy who people say could've been this season's 6th man, Jamal Crawford was drafted #8. Every team could use a good 6th man.

This is true but I can tell you Jamal Crawford was not drafted to be a sixth man. Not sure about Jason Terry but I doubt that as well.

[FlyGirl]

I think he's destined to be more than a 6th man. His defense and ability to play within the flow of the offense tells me he's going to be more than a 6th man.

You could very well be right. He could very well be more than a 6th man. I just don't understand why some feel like he's DEFINITELY SUPPOSED to be much more than that. Is it because of where he was picked in the draft or because of his last name?

ETA: I guess what I'm trying to say is, Austin could very well be more than a 6th man. He could be a star or superstar for all we know but I don't think there's any shame in him being a perennial 6th man candidate.

[GESWhoseBack]

You could very well be right. He could very well be more than a 6th man. I just don't understand why some feel like he's DEFINITELY SUPPOSED to be much more than that. Is it because of where he was picked in the draft or because of his last name?

Where we picked him. I would have a problem drafting someone who would not at least become an eventual starter in the top ten.

[GeauxPelicans]

You could very well be right. He could very well be more than a 6th man. I just don't understand why some feel like he's DEFINITELY SUPPOSED to be much more than that. Is it because of where he was picked in the draft or because of his last name?

Beat me to it, after reading the OP, I was going to say why does the 10th pick from last years draft have to be such a huge part of our future? I'm hoping Rivers is our future 6th man, in a role like JR Smith or Crawford. Where he's really much more important than a 6th man, but he still is the 6th man. Make sense?

[Eman5805]

All I know is if we take Burke (fingers crossed) it doesn't really affect Rivers. It mattes to Vasquez some but not Rivers. But some people will think that means we've given up on him.

[GESWhoseBack]

Where we picked him. I would have a problem drafting someone who would not at least become an eventual starter in the top ten.

He would have to be an elite sixth man to make that be ok and than what happens to Ryno?

[GeauxPelicans]

Where we picked him. I would have a problem drafting someone who would not at least become an eventual starter in the top ten.

U shouldn't, there are plenty of busts or just role players drafted in the top 10. Don't have time to research it, but I'd love to see the % of players who were drafted between 6-10 in the 1st round and are quality starters in the NBA today. I'd bet it's not as high as you think it is.

[GESWhoseBack]

Beat me to it, after reading the OP, I was going to say why does the 10th pick from last years draft have to be such a huge part of our future? I'm hoping Rivers is our future 6th man, in a role like JR Smith or Crawford. Where he's really much more important than a 6th man, but he still is the 6th man. Make sense?

But all these guys you bringing up were not drafted to be sixth men and when they get to that role it's after their original teams have given up on them as starters.

[HornetGuru]

ginnobili was a 6th man and was one of the keys to the spurs dynasty, u need a 6th man to take advantage of the lesser talanted bench players vs ur opponent to keep a lead or extend it. u honestly need 1 good guard and 1 good forward of the bench, if both ur starting guards get 33 minutes it leaves 30 minutes of bench minutes between the pg and SG spot, thats where rivers comes in, save for ryno at the forward spot. we have ryno and rivers for that, now we just need a starting pg and sf and we are set, we get our PG this year, SF next draft. done deal.

[AD23nEG10]

I think he is better suited at PG but if we draft a PG this year I don't see how he can possibly develop at the 1. Still hope we trade it for a vet at C or SF or draft a SF

[GeauxPelicans]

He would have to be an elite sixth man to make that be ok and than what happens to Ryno?

How does Ryno and Rivers playing time have any effect on each other? One is a combo guard and one is a stretch PF

[GESWhoseBack]

U shouldn't, there are plenty of busts or just role players drafted in the top 10. Don't have time to research it, but I'd love to see the % of players who were drafted between 6-10 in the 1st round and are quality starters in the NBA today. I'd bet it's not as high as you think it is.

I know this very well, but I'm talking about the intent of drafting them. I would like to see the % of these role players that reach their potential on the team that drafted them?

[FlyGirl]

He would have to be an elite sixth man to make that be ok and than what happens to Ryno?

Why does anything have to happen to Ryno? Heck, they both could be in the running for 6th man. I'd say that's a good problem for most teams to have.

[GESWhoseBack]

I think he is better suited at PG but if we draft a PG this year I don't see how he can possibly develop at the 1. Still hope we trade it for a vet at C or SF or draft a SF

This is what I'm saying as well.

How does Ryno and Rivers playing time have any effect on each other? One is a combo guard and one is a stretch PF

Just saying I dont know of a team with two elite sixth men. Has nothing to do with playing time.

[FlyGirl]

I think he is better suited at PG but if we draft a PG this year I don't see how he can possibly develop at the 1. Still hope we trade it for a vet at C or SF or draft a SF

He can possibly continue developing at the 1 if Greivis is gone couldn't he? That's IF Greivis is gone though.

ETA: Thing is, I don't know how much Monty puts into position labels. He seems to come across at times that he doesn't put much into labels.

[HornetGuru]

ginnobili was a 6th man and was one of the keys to the spurs dynasty, u need a 6th man to take advantage of the lesser talanted bench players vs ur opponent to keep a lead or extend it. u honestly need 1 good guard and 1 good forward of the bench, if both ur starting guards get 33 minutes it leaves 30 minutes of bench minutes between the pg and SG spot, thats where rivers comes in, save for ryno at the forward spot. we have ryno and rivers for that, now we just need a starting pg and sf and we are set, we get our PG this year, SF next draft. done deal.

i really think this is the plan.

[GeauxPelicans]

I'm confused to what your point is exactly? You claimed you'd be disappointed if Rivers doesn't end up a starter here right? I'm saying you shouldn't because he could become our back up 1/2, if we draft Burke to start at the 1. Burke is already better at running an offense than Rivers is at this point. We shouldn't pass on Burke just because we have Rivers. The one position we pass on talent wise is PF because our two best players both play this position.

EDIT:Nevermind I saw your responses above. If he's the backup 1/2 he could easily get 30 min a game and continue to develop there.

[AD23nEG10]

He can possibly continue developing at the 1 if Greivis is gone couldn't he? That's IF Greivis is gone though.

ETA: Thing is, I don't know how much Monty puts into position labels. He seems to come across at times that he doesn't put much into labels.

If we trade GV and draft a PG it's tough to develop two guys at the same position & same time. Roberts was also good enough at backup PG that the hole at SG would be more problematic causing Rivers to be inserted there a little more. Perhaps guard the 2 and let Roberts play off-ball and let Rivers bring it up could alleviate some of that but still a tough scenario IMO