Trade for Curry and sign FA to be Marbury

[msuh27]

Ok guys, don't chew my head off without listening to me first.

I have felt for the last few years that after Stephen Jackson left, we've been missing an "attitude". It's really hard to describe this attitude, but I guess the best way to put it is: "I grew up in the ghetto and now I have tattoos everywhere on my body showing how hard I am and I'm going to fuck up your team now". The problem with this "attitude" is that most of the time, it works against you. From AI's problems with his coaches, to Marbury's problems with every team he's been on, to Amare Stoudamire and Darius Miles, it's been a headache most of the time.

This being said, the Spurs have been known to deal with headache's quite well compared to other teams. Perhaps it the fact that Duncan is a superstar who isn't protected by the coaching staff. Perhaps its RC Buford who puts realities and egos into check before bringing on someone. We've had a few attitude problem players in the past:

Vernon "Mad Max" Maxwell
Jaren Jackson
Stephen Jackson
Dermarr Johnson
Mario Elie (He was more thug than you know)
Dennis Rodman
James White
Damon Stoudamire (Well, he had a problem with weed.)
Jack Haley :lol
Jackie Butler (Actually, this didn't turn out too well)

I believe that if we somehow bring Curry on board via the 3 team trade with GS and NYK that the internet is saying, Pop can teach him to first play more up to his potential, learn to be much more aggressive on defense, and basically turn his career around. I think he's still in his low twenties in age.

And the thought on Marbury is that NYK would be paying his cap killing salary of 21 million a year. We could probably get him for the vet minimum. Trust me, he's better than any healthy PG we have right now. He has playoff experience, and he's probably yearning for a fresh start.

Thanks for reading my post, please comment with your 2 cents. And GO SPURS GO!:flag:

[Mr.Bottomtooth]

What attitude problems did James White have?

[spursfan09]

I have felt for the last few years that after Stephen Jackson left, we've been missing an "attitude". It's really hard to describe this attitude, but I guess the best way to put it is: "I grew up in the ghetto and now I have tattoos everywhere on my body showing how hard I am and I'm going to fuck up your team now".

2 cents. And GO SPURS GO!:flag:


I'm calling my sister right now! She's exactly what you are looking for!

[FromWayDowntown]

Haven't the Knicks demonstrated the failings of building a team that way?

[mrspurs]

Well said. Many points you made are correct. You took the time to type how ya feel. And thats how ya feel. Ya just picked the wrong place to do it. Dont take it personal, but Id be willing to guess most of the replys you get are gonna be quite childish. So get ready. Ill agree we could use some kind of attitude adjustment. What ever kind of attitude the guys have know isnt working.

[FromWayDowntown]

Well said. Many points you made are correct. You took the time to type how ya feel. And thats how ya feel. Ya just picked the wrong place to do it. Dont take it personal, but Id be willing to guess most of the replys you get are gonna be quite childish. So get ready. Ill agree we could use some kind of attitude adjustment. What ever kind of attitude the guys have know isnt working.

Absolutely true. Since Stephen Jackson left, the attitude-less Spurs have only won 2 titles and reached another conference final while being eliminated twice on crazy plays. It's pretty apparent that the absence of the attitude that Stephen Jackson brings has been fatal to the Spurs.

If you just want to talk about it from an x's and o's standpoint, however, I can't see how the Spurs would benefit from another shoot-first point guard who has never shown himself to be a good teammate -- anywhere. The notion that Marbury is going to change strikes me a bit like thinking that George Bush will emerge as a political liberal after numerous meetings with Obama. Marbury is what he is, and what he is has never been a good thing for the teams that he's played on.

I really don't understand the willingness to trade for Curry. Take away all of the problems with the way he plays the game -- particularly his inability (or unwillingness) to rebound the basketball -- and you're still talking about making a deal to get a guy with a heart problem who's owed relatively significant money (about the same as Ginobili) for this season and the next two.

If the goal is to keep winning titles, it would behoove the Spurs to actually address their problems and not to simply sign guys who have names but not the games to back up those names any more. You guys are talking about a move that Mark Cuban would have made a few years ago when his lust for names was undermining the Mavs' chances. Building a team is about much, much more than just getting guys with names/talent.

[jjktkk]

Ok guys, don't chew my head off without listening to me first.

I have felt for the last few years that after Stephen Jackson left, we've been missing an "attitude". It's really hard to describe this attitude, but I guess the best way to put it is: "I grew up in the ghetto and now I have tattoos everywhere on my body showing how hard I am and I'm going to fuck up your team now". The problem with this "attitude" is that most of the time, it works against you. From AI's problems with his coaches, to Marbury's problems with every team he's been on, to Amare Stoudamire and Darius Miles, it's been a headache most of the time.

This being said, the Spurs have been known to deal with headache's quite well compared to other teams. Perhaps it the fact that Duncan is a superstar who isn't protected by the coaching staff. Perhaps its RC Buford who puts realities and egos into check before bringing on someone. We've had a few attitude problem players in the past:

Vernon "Mad Max" Maxwell
Jaren Jackson
Stephen Jackson
Dermarr Johnson
Mario Elie (He was more thug than you know)
Dennis Rodman
James White
Damon Stoudamire (Well, he had a problem with weed.)
Jack Haley :lol
Jackie Butler (Actually, this didn't turn out too well)

I believe that if we somehow bring Curry on board via the 3 team trade with GS and NYK that the internet is saying, Pop can teach him to first play more up to his potential, learn to be much more aggressive on defense, and basically turn his career around. I think he's still in his low twenties in age.

And the thought on Marbury is that NYK would be paying his cap killing salary of 21 million a year. We could probably get him for the vet minimum. Trust me, he's better than any healthy PG we have right now. He has playoff experience, and he's probably yearning for a fresh start.

Thanks for reading my post, please comment with your 2 cents. And GO SPURS GO!:flag:

Why? When healthy the Spurs are a championship contender. Eddie Curry is fat and lazy and has a huge contract. Marbury has been a team killer whereever hes played. Plus hes at the age where he abilities will decline. Not to mention he would be taken away George hill's minutes. Hill needs to get expierence. Sorry buddy, horrible trade scenario. Now lets try this one. Same team, different player. I would be willing to take on Curry's huge weight and his contract, if they throw in David Lee. Lee is a Spurs type player. 100% hustler and energy guy who can defend all 3 frontline positions. Hes young and is a team first guy. I would do that trade.

[SenorSpur]

Both are bad fits because they're either selfish, underachieving, lazy or a combination of all three. Both are dogs with a different set of fleas, which make them a bad chemistry and skills fit for this team.

[raspsa]

I think the Spurs' problems have more to do with injured players than team attitude.

[T Park]

Curry sucks and Marbury is a cancer.

Why would you want either one?

[baseline bum]

Curry sucks and Marbury is a cancer.

Why would you want either one?

Curry is awful, and is a lazy version of Kurt Thomas, compounded with him being someone who will make Duncan less effective (since Curry can't do anything but stand under the basket). I can't stand Marbury, but he's a huge improvement over Jacque Vaughn.

[mexicanjunior]

I would rather tank and start over in 2009 with a high pick and a completely rested big 3...this type of trade might help if we really felt we could win a title this year but doesn't work long term.

[MrChug]

Both are bad fits because they're either selfish, underachieving, lazy or a combination of all three. Both are dogs with a different set of fleas, which make them a bad chemistry and skills fit for this team.

The only reason I think either of those or BOTH could work is because of the environment they'd be entering. If our spirits were lifted (currently they're as saggy as your grandmother's tits) I think a solid work ethic or at least an improvement, could be instilled in veterans. The concept of winning, which neither has ever experienced would be motivation enough.

[lotr1trekkie]

Curry is a project who ran up All Star #'s the year before last. Forget Starbury--once Manu and Tony return he would be a cancer. Plus the Knicks aren't about to pay him off anyway. They would have to assume the majority of his contract if that is possible. Curry's game doesn't fit with D'antoni's. He is a legit 7' who has skills. Holt will not pay his salary for the next three years. It is possible that we could be 5-20 by the time Manu/ Tony get back to themselves. That means the Spurs will have to to 43-14 the rest of the way to get to 48 wins which is on the cusp of making the playoffs. The FO has a Hobson's choice. IMO we go with the kids--Tolliver, Hill, Mahimni and Farmer. We trade Splitter's rights to to move up in the draft to a team that can afford to wait for him in 3 years. If this year is lost then next year has to be an all out run while Tim is still Tim. Tonite vs the Knicks will tell me alot about the future.

[SenorSpur]

The only reason I think either of those or BOTH could work is because of the environment they'd be entering. If our spirits were lifted (currently they're as saggy as your grandmother's tits) I think a solid work ethic or at least an improvement, could be instilled in veterans. The concept of winning, which neither has ever experienced would be motivation enough.

The Spurs environment and structure are indeed strong. Unfortunately, I think you may be overrating the environment and underrating just how sorry and rotten these two players really are. No environment is fool proof. Especially if you're adding two fools like these two.

The Spurs are going through a bad time right now. Losing has a way of creating even a small amount of tension and anxiety that were never-before seen. Curry and Starbury would only exacerbate the situation, They both have a long history of poor behavior. Pop has enough on his hands now without having to rehabilitate the behavior of these two team cancers.

Any environment can be poisoned - even it's a little bit. Allow me to offer you an analogy. If you poured a thimble-full of strychnine into a large, tall, glass of cold, clear, drinking water, do you think it would still be fit for drinking? Would you drink it yourself? That said, the Spurs have no tradeable assets to take on contracts of that magnitude. Therefore, it's a moot point anyway.

Another thing, you should be more careful in your use of analogies. For the record, both of my grandmothers are no longer alive.

[mrspurs]

Absolutely true. Since Stephen Jackson left, the attitude-less Spurs have only won 2 titles and reached another conference final while being eliminated twice on crazy plays. It's pretty apparent that the absence of the attitude that Stephen Jackson brings has been fatal to the Spurs.

If you just want to talk about it from an x's and o's standpoint, however, I can't see how the Spurs would benefit from another shoot-first point guard who has never shown himself to be a good teammate -- anywhere. The notion that Marbury is going to change strikes me a bit like thinking that George Bush will emerge as a political liberal after numerous meetings with Obama. Marbury is what he is, and what he is has never been a good thing for the teams that he's played on.

I really don't understand the willingness to trade for Curry. Take away all of the problems with the way he plays the game -- particularly his inability (or unwillingness) to rebound the basketball -- and you're still talking about making a deal to get a guy with a heart problem who's owed relatively significant money (about the same as Ginobili) for this season and the next two.

If the goal is to keep winning titles, it would behoove the Spurs to actually address their problems and not to simply sign guys who have names but not the games to back up those names any more. You guys are talking about a move that Mark Cuban would have made a few years ago when his lust for names was undermining the Mavs' chances. Building a team is about much, much more than just getting guys with names/talent.

I never said anything about the names started by this thread. Im agreeing with the attitude this team doesnt have. Thats all. And Im just telling the thread starter to be ready for alot of mickey mouse replys. I personally dont want to see curry or starberry on my roster. But I do want to see Fab, Kurt, Matt, Jacque, and Finley re-signed by someother club then ours sometime in the future.

[MrChug]

The Spurs environment and structure are indeed strong. Unfortunately, I think you may be overrating the environment and underrating just how sorry and rotten these two players really are. No environment is fool proof. Especially if you're adding two fools like these two.

Another thing, you should be more careful in your use of analogies. For the record, both of my grandmothers are no longer alive.

Perhaps I'm just an optomist.

Perhaps you're a pessimist. On both their graves, I haven't a grandmother to speak of either. Lost them both in the same year, yet somehow I remain with my sense of humor. Lighten the fuck up.

[SenorSpur]

I never said anything about the names started by this thread. Im agreeing with the attitude this team doesnt have. Thats all. And Im just telling the thread starter to be ready for alot of mickey mouse replys. I personally dont want to see curry or starberry on my roster. But I do want to see Fab, Kurt, Matt, Jacque, and Finley re-signed by someother club then ours sometime in the future.

It's true. The Spurs have had great chemistry players, but players that have become non-performing dead weight.

[SenorSpur]

Perhaps I'm just an optomist.

Perhaps you're a pessimist. On both their graves, I haven't a grandmother to speak of either. Lost them both in the same year, yet somehow I remain with my sense of humor. Lighten the fuck up.

Pessimism or optimism has nothing to do with it. The fact is that it's rather difficult to gauge sense of humor through written word. If you want folks to know when you're being humourous, try using one of these :lol. It leaves no doubt.

BTW no offense taken, but someone else may not let your crack easily roll off. Just a bit of advice.

[jjktkk]

It's true. The Spurs have had great chemistry players, but players that have become non-performing dead weight.

IMO I think our big 3 have covered alot of warts on the Spurs roster. Now that Ginoboli and Parker are out, those warts are starting to show up and their ugly.

[mrspurs]

I would rather tank and start over in 2009 with a high pick and a completely rested big 3...this type of trade might help if we really felt we could win a title this year but doesn't work long term.

+1

[tp2021]

Pessimism or optimism has nothing to do with it. The fact is that it's rather difficult to gauge sense of humor through written word. If you want folks to know when you're being humourous, try using one of these :lol. It leaves no doubt.

BTW no offense taken, but someone else may not let your crack easily roll off. Just a bit of advice.

Sometimes using :lol isn't enough, as I recently discovered.
Especially when ST is in meltdown mode.

[benefactor]

:smchode:

I'm getting sick and damn tired of people trying to trying to create some sort of justification in their minds for us to go after Curry and/or Marbury. Open your eyes dammit. They are GARBAGE.

[MrChug]

BTW no offense taken, but someone else may not let your crack easily roll off. Just a bit of advice.

If someone takes my "crack" so seriously, they're smoking crack and said crack is not meant for them. If they get that mad, then it makes me kinda happy.

...and I think the ":lol"-used in that way-is like saying "With all due respect" before an insult or "Bless their heart!" after one.

It loses credence.

[GetNashty]

How the hell does Stoudemire end up in the same breath with AI and Marbury?

What problems has STAT ever caused?

[FromWayDowntown]

How the hell does Stoudemire end up in the same breath with AI and Marbury?

What problems has STAT ever caused?

At that, I'm not sure how AI ends up in the same breath as Marbury. And I'd agree that equating Stoudemire to Marbury is ridiculous. Amare's teams have been extremely good for a very long time; Marbury's teams have been universally mediocre or worse.

[msuh27]

Stoudamire is notoriously famous for not listening to coaches. Perhaps he's calmed down a bit, but in the first few years in the league, he was coasting just based on his physical gifts. Now, that he's lost a step due to serious injury, he's calmed down.

Ok, I see your point about Eddy Curry. Yes, he did average 19 points and 7 rebs a game while shooting 56% 2 years ago. But yes again, he played on a horrible team, and those numbers might have been inflated during junk time. But the fact remains that he's 6'11, he's only 26, and even though he's been lazy his whole career, he's known as a nice guy around the league. He can change, and the BEST coach for him would be Pop.

About Marbury. He's different than Curry. Marbury has been playing at a high level. He's averaged 19.7 pts and 7.8 asts for 10 years now. But right now his career is in jeopardy. He knows it, the Knicks know it, hell, the whole world knows it. The best enviroment for him would be a safe, stable one like the SAS's can give him. I'd take him for the vet minimum.

I started this post about attitude, and I definately think Steph brings some New York PG skills and attitude with him. I guess the bottom line is: If Steph and Curry behave and try their best to fit in, wouldn't you take them? I'd have to say yes.

Would you rather have Steph and Curry, or Vaughn and Tolliver?

[spurs_fan_in_exile]

I'd rather have Hill and a healthy Ian Mahinmi.

[DROB4EVER]

Curry is a poor rebounder for his size and an even woarse defender so no thanks.

[MoSpur]

If Marbury is bought out, I am down for signing him only because it seems like Parker will be out for more than a month.

[z0sa]

No thanks to Marbury, curry i would definitely give a chance to. Nevermind his past, hes a true C and we havent one of those next to Tim since Nazr.

[tmtcsc]

It's tough times like these that make the chemistry and positive attitude on our team all the more important. Tim is more vocal than ever. So far, I've seen him yell at Bonner, Hill and Mason. If these guys were pricks, there would be some serious problems.

Nah, we don't need malcontent tough guys to win. We just need to get healthy. Its getting through the tough times that makes the winning that much sweeter. Houston did it last year. We just need to get in a groove and then welcome back our studs.

[toki9]

Curry's having knee problems already this year...had to get cortisone shot on his right knee the other night to alleviate the pain (without even seeing much/any play time this year)...it's the same knee he had drained during preseason...he can't get on D'Antoni's rotation because he's not in good enough shape to run like D'Antonio demands...

[FromWayDowntown]

About Marbury. He's different than Curry. Marbury has been playing at a high level. He's averaged 19.7 pts and 7.8 asts for 10 years now.

There can be a massive difference between putting up good numbers and playing well. Steph's teams have categorically been no better than mediocre; he's played with talented guys and for coaches who've succeeded, but the talents of his teammates and the success of his coaches have never coincided with Steph's stops -- anywhere.


Would you rather have Steph and Curry, or Vaughn and Tolliver?

Given the contractual obligations of those players (Curry isn't being bought out) and the existing needs of the Spurs, I think I'd rather have Vaughn and Tolliver, honestly. It's not a choice based on talent -- but if it comes down to being hamstrung by overpaid and underachieving cancers or having to deal with 2 guys with reasonable deals, even if their skill-sets are limited, I'm keeping my options open with the reasonable deals.