young players development

[sharpshooter]

I was watching NBA gametime on nba tv tonight hosted by ernie johnson and eric snow. In one of their segment Doug Collins was on and he was asked about the spurs. He pointed out that what the spurs main problem is that they did not do a good enough job drafting and developing young players. Ever since we drafted ginobili and parker, the last two real good decision that the spurs front office have made. The spurs have either traded their picks or draft players that will never play for them, for example Doug pointed out that we traded away Leandro Barbosa , John Salmon, Beno Uldrich, Louis Scola and getting nothing in returns. I do understand that the spurs wanted to stay with this group of core players but they forget that its just as important to develop young players to help out our veterans throughout a long 82 games season.

[SenorSpur]

As Spurs fans, we can deny all we want. However Collins speaks the truth. While the Spurs did draft Ian in 2005, the development gap has been growing over that period of time. Adding 1 or 2 players younger players over that period, could've help mitigate the performance drop we're seeing from some of the older vets. Now the Spurs are faced with accelerating the development of Hill, Ian and Tolliver, with hopes that they can start contributing quickly. However, the youth movement is underway and I'm glad to see it taking place.

[Obstructed_View]

However, the youth movement is underway and I'm glad to see it taking place.

:clap

[jrmp317]

Barbosa wasn't drafted for us, he was drafted for Phoenix
Salmon if I'm not mistaken was traded for Speedy, who helped us win a title in 2003.
Beno is a bitch
Scola was a huge screw up, but the Spurs wanted to get rid of Butler's contract.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Collins is an idiot for mentioning some of those names.

Beno hosed himself.

Salmons and Scola are legit gripes.

[Obstructed_View]

Yeah, you'd think someone who's made a living from the NBA for so long would understand that Barbosa was never a Spur and the Spurs FO had nothing to do with the pick aside from the formality of making the pick for Phoenix.

[mrspurs]

I was watching NBA gametime on nba tv tonight hosted by ernie johnson and eric snow. In one of their segment Doug Collins was on and he was asked about the spurs. He pointed out that what the spurs main problem is that they did not do a good enough job drafting and developing young players. Ever since we drafted ginobili and parker, the last two real good decision that the spurs front office have made. The spurs have either traded their picks or draft players that will never play for them, for example Doug pointed out that we traded away Leandro Barbosa , John Salmon, Beno Uldrich, Louis Scola and getting nothing in returns. I do understand that the spurs wanted to stay with this group of core players but they forget that its just as important to develop young players to help out our veterans throughout a long 82 games season.

Cant argue that

[gingerwave]

young guys holdup better over the course of 82 games

[Allanon]

About Udrih, I think the Spurs could have gotten some better value for him. He was a first rounder and all the Spurs got back was a 2nd round draft pick. Also, I remember back then the Spurs didn't mind because they wanted to make room for Darius Washington.

I don't think Washington's even in the NBA any more, but Udrih had 30 points, 5 rebounds and 7 assists last night.

As for Barbosa, the Spurs just didn't want the pick even though Josh Howard was also available.

Spurs could have also have picked some shooters with that pick: Jason Kapono, Kyle Korver, Steve Blake

And of course, Matt Bonner was still available, they could have just picked him instead of trading for him later.

[Obstructed_View]

I believe the Spurs got a conditional 2nd round pick for Beno which basically means they paid to get rid of him with nothing in return.

[jjktkk]

Pop's prefers vetrean players. I too, have critizied the Spurs, for not developing young players as well, but I also understood the different personnel moves Pop and RC completed over the years and their reasons for making them. Until recently the Spurs were successful drafting foreign players and keeping them overseas, but as we now know that method no longer works very well(see Splitter). In the future, I think we Spurs fans will see more drafts like this past one, where the Spurs will concentrate more on the US college players, than in seasons past. I also think Pop and RC need to put more emphasis on devloping young talent. IMO the Detroit Pistons are a good example of keeping your core of vetrean players like Hamilton, Wallace, Prince, and Billips(until last week's trade),but also bringing in and developing young talent like Maxiell, Stuckey, and Johnson. They, the Pistons, have a very nice balance of Vetreans and young players. I hope in the future the Spurs can strike a similar balance.

[TJastal]

Whatever happened to Stephen Jackson, how did the spurs FO manage to let that guy slip under the cracks?

Can anyone fill me in on that, please?

[Obstructed_View]

Whatever happened to Stephen Jackson, how did the spurs FO manage to let that guy slip under the cracks?

Can anyone fill me in on that, please?

It was Violet Palmer's fault.

[Harry Callahan]

The Salmons deal got us Speedy Claxton, who was a key component of a championship team. The extra #1 pick used on Barbosa gave SA a #1 pick used to acquire Nazi Mohammed, who was a key component to a championship team (and a very good player in the Suns PO series that year). Beno did not give a damn about playing basketball here after his rookie year and was so bad and injury prone he had little value and was in the last year of his contract in 07. We all now know the Scola thing was a big screw-up (many of us knew that last year too).

I laugh at Doug Collins evaluating the Spurs given that he screwed up the Chicago Bulls and the Detroit Pistons - both teams won it all after he left. Has Collins achieved anything as an NBA coach? Please.

The Spurs FO did not let S Jax "get away" He took a one year deal in Atlanta and then cashed in in 2005, as did Hedo. The Spurs made both those players millions of dollars benefitting from having success here.

SA could not have six or seven guys making more that $5MM per.

We get this old stuff dredged up every now and then and have to educate folks here

[SenorSpur]

Pop's prefers vetrean players. I too, have critizied the Spurs, for not developing young players as well, but I also understood the different personnel moves Pop and RC completed over the years and their reasons for making them. Until recently the Spurs were successful drafting foreign players and keeping them overseas, but as we now know that method no longer works very well(see Splitter). In the future, I think we Spurs fans will see more drafts like this past one, where the Spurs will concentrate more on the US college players, than in seasons past. I also think Pop and RC need to put more emphasis on devloping young talent. IMO the Detroit Pistons are a good example of keeping your core of vetrean players like Hamilton, Wallace, Prince, and Billips(until last week's trade),but also bringing in and developing young talent like Maxiell, Stuckey, and Johnson. They, the Pistons, have a very nice balance of Vetreans and young players. I hope in the future the Spurs can strike a similar balance.

Proof positive that you CAN reload on the fly.

[SpurSupremacist]

Whatever happened to Stephen Jackson, how did the spurs FO manage to let that guy slip under the cracks?

Can anyone fill me in on that, please?

Nothing really, just the Spurs being cheap. Not really surprising at this point.

[Allanon]

The Salmons deal got us Speedy Claxton, who was a key component of a championship team. The extra #1 pick used on Barbosa gave SA a #1 pick used to acquire Nazi Mohammed, who was a key component to a championship team (and a very good player in the Suns PO series that year). Beno did not give a damn about playing basketball here after his rookie year and was so bad and injury prone he had little value and was in the last year of his contract in 07.

I think this is Doug Collins' point (I watched it on TV as well). He's pretty much saying the Spurs gave up their long-term success for the right now success.

Instead of developing players for a future run, they cashed in all their long-term chips for a ring right away.

There are still teams looking for their first EVER ring so it's hard to fault the Spurs FO for wanting to win right away. But at the same time, it also hurt their future (last year and this season and maybe a few more going forward)

[DROB4EVER]

Doug Collins is the white Charles Barkley! Hes Tuuurrrriiibbblllleee! Pay no attention to him, the spurs traded young players for guys who could come in and play right away. It did help get us 4 rings and win more games than any other team in the last 11years....so Doug needs to find a new line of work. He is as bad a broad caster as he is a coach!

Say doug, how many rings did you win? I dont remember seeing you in a lot of playoff games. How did that stint in Washington work out?

You cant have it both ways unless your are willing to have a bloated payroll. The Spurs owner is on of the lowest net worth owners in the NBA. So he cant afford to have 100 mill payroll.

Also, unlike many other teams who have spent nearly a decade in the dump...ie the Bulls....Knicks ect. the spurs have not spent like drunken democrats and locked themselves into bad deals, they have remained cap flexible and will again in 2010 baring a trade be able to rebiuld quickly.

Hill looks like he will be a good player and from what the FO of several teams Ian has the makings of an all star. Splitter if he had come over this year would have solved the problems in the paint. He is a top 10 talent and the spurs got him at 26-28.

So Doug STFU!

[DROB4EVER]

Whatever happened to Stephen Jackson, how did the spurs FO manage to let that guy slip under the cracks?

Can anyone fill me in on that, please?

Guy wanted to much money. Spurs dont overpay for no one.

[ambchang]

I struggle to find another team that won a whole slew of championships and still developed young players.

The Celtics could have done it if wasn't for Len Bias and Reggie Lewis' tragic deaths.
The Lakers could do it in the late 80's or the early 00's, the Bulls couldn't do it in the 90's, the Pistons couldn't do it in the late 80s.

Not being complacent, but there is no way the Spurs could keep those players, develop them and pay them, while keeping the team intact.

[angelbelow]

About Udrih, I think the Spurs could have gotten some better value for him. He was a first rounder and all the Spurs got back was a 2nd round draft pick. Also, I remember back then the Spurs didn't mind because they wanted to make room for Darius Washington.


hopefully this will help, beno was our luke, or go back to last season and beno was our cook.

[Obstructed_View]

Nothing really, just the Spurs being cheap. Not really surprising at this point.



Guy wanted to much money. Spurs dont overpay for no one.

Don't let facts get in the way, guys. The Spurs offered him 3 years and 9 million, he signed with Atlanta for 2 years and 2.1 million. :lol

[daslicer]

I struggle to find another team that won a whole slew of championships and still developed young players.

The Celtics could have done it if wasn't for Len Bias and Reggie Lewis' tragic deaths.


I like this point that you bring up. I was watching some celtic games from the early 90's a few weeks ago I think it was circa '92. Now I remember it was celtics vs blazers during the 91-92 season. In that game the celtics had their original big 3 vs Drexler's blazers. In that game the big 3 was way past their prime. You could tell Bird,Mchale, Parish had seen their best years past but they did have a few young guys that could play one in Reggie Lewis. The celtics during the last few years despite having their big 3 past their prime was still a 50 win team with the young additions and on the verge of becoming an elite team again. I think Reggie's death really stunted their potential for years to come. He was that guy who they were going to pass the torch to.

My point is the Spurs situation is kind of similiar to those celtic teams albeit not hundred percent similar. The one plus is the spurs big 3 still can be formidable for another 3 years. I see Duncan and Parker still being all-star calibur for several years. Just watching how Shaq can still put up numbers of 14-8 at the age of 36 leads me to believe Duncan will still be a force at that age because he keeps in himself in shape. The only guy I can't see holding up after 3 years and maybe even 2 is Manu since his body takes a huge beating. The spurs biggest problem is the role players either they are past their prime in Finley,Vaughn,Oberto,Thomas or their garbage ala Bonner. The spurs only have 3 young guys to really work with in Rogers,Hill,Mahinimi. Out of the 3 Rogers is already a solid contributer but I think Hill and Mahinimi could take a few years to pan out. Hence I think its going to be a painful2-3 years before the spurs can really dominate again. In the mean time I think the spurs will be a 50 win team but nothing really more but we'll see.

[all_heart]

Spurs biggest screw up is not starting the youth movement last year. The well was officially dry last spring. I always felt the Spurs were lacking 2 decent semi-young players to keep going strong. That's were Scola and a guy like Mason would come in.

[all_heart]

Also Finley is too high maintenance for what he gives back. He needs too many shots and playing time to get warm for a game or two. This guy gets paid way too much money (by the Mavs!!) for so little production.

[SenorSpur]

Also Finley is too high maintenance for what he gives back. He needs too many shots and playing time to get warm for a game or two. This guy gets paid way too much money (by the Mavs!!) for so little production.

I know where you're coming from, but that's no longer the case. His large contract with the Mavs expired this past July. He's now being paid only by the Spurs.

[SenorSpur]

Spurs biggest screw up is not starting the youth movement last year. The well was officially dry last spring. I always felt the Spurs were lacking 2 decent semi-young players to keep going strong. That's were Scola and a guy like Mason would come in.

I actually thought they should've started a "soft" movement at least a year earlier too. However, they had just won the championship and Pop was hell-bent on allowing the same core of players to come back and defend the title. Pop continued to bristle at claims that the team needed to get younger. When your team has just won the title, it's tough to argue his point.

However, your point is well-taken. 1 or 2 younger, contributing players (perhaps a big and a small) could have likely mitigated some of the deficiencies that were exposed during last year's regular season and playoffs. Manu's injury got most of the attention as the reason the Spurs came up short. However, his injury were not the only things wrong with last year's roster. A point now validated by the gradual youth movement that is currently undeway.

[all_heart]

I actually thought they should've started a "soft" movement at least a year earlier too. However, they had just won the championship and Pop was hell-bent on allowing the same core of players to come back and defend the title. Pop continued to bristle at claims that the team needed to get younger. When your team has just won the title, it's tough to argue his point.

However, your point is well-taken. 1 or 2 younger, contributing players (perhaps a big and a small) could have likely mitigated some of the deficiencies that were exposed during last year's regular season and playoffs. Manu's injury got most of the attention as the reason the Spurs came up short. However, his injury were not the only things wrong with last year's roster. A point now validated by the gradual youth movement that is currently undeway.

Yes, it is tough to argue to mix up the roster a bit when you just won a title. However it's pretty obvious now that those veterans that won the title were on their last legs sort to speak. I also noticed that last year you saw a lot more teams playing better D, like the Hornets. In years past a mediocre offense could win a title so long as you played smart D and team ball. Those days are over, now you need smart D, team ball and good offense to get to the title round. I will say this, I don't think there's a team in the NBA that can grind it out as much as the Spurs. Up until last year we were built for that, this year remains to be seen.

[mrspurs]

Guy wanted to much money. Spurs dont overpay for no one.

You might want to check yourself on that. Then look at our roster again. I see alot of overpaid scrubs. Matter fact theres probably only 3 guys who are worth what they're getting paid on our roster. Id rather have a guy who makes 10 million who contributes into wins. Then have a guy make 3 million and look like he belongs in the WNBA losing games shining the pine.

[SpurSupremacist]

Don't let facts get in the way, guys. The Spurs offered him 3 years and 9 million, he signed with Atlanta for 2 years and 2.1 million. :lol

No, actually, that is exactly what happened. The Spurs tried to lowball him and he wasn't having it. He ended up having to take a smaller contract, but the fact remains, the Spurs lost him because they were cheap, per usual. Next.

[anakha]

No, actually, that is exactly what happened. The Spurs tried to lowball him and he wasn't having it. He ended up having to take a smaller contract, but the fact remains, the Spurs lost him because they were cheap, per usual. Next.

If nobody was offering contracts better than 3 years-$9M, how is that 'lowballing'? Would you rather the Spurs outbid themselves?

[SpurSupremacist]

If nobody was offering contracts better than 3 years-$9M, how is that 'lowballing'? Would you rather the Spurs outbid themselves?

No. It just turned out for whatever reason he didn't receive a better deal that particular year, but he was definitely worth more than 3 mill/year, as seen as soon as his contract with the hawks was up. He took a short contract and then got paid, you see that with a lot of players, they take a 1 year deal at lower than market value and then cash in the following year. The Spurs lowballed him, thinking he would be easily replaced if he didn't accept their shitty offer. They've been searching for one ever since he left. The Spurs still don't have an athletic 3. He helped bring them a championship, reward him.

[anakha]

No. It just turned out for whatever reason he didn't receive a better deal that particular year, but he was definitely worth more than 3 mill/year, as seen as soon as his contract with the hawks was up. He took a short contract and then got paid, you see that with a lot of players, they take a 1 year deal at lower than market value and then cash in the following year. The Spurs lowballed him, thinking he would be easily replaced if he didn't accept their shitty offer. They've been searching for one ever since he left. The Spurs still don't have an athletic 3. He helped bring them a championship, reward him.

Dollar value for NBA players is very relative - primarily based on how much equivalent players are making and on how much teams are willing to offer.

You're dismissing all too handily the fact that no better offer was on the market that year, as well as letting Jackson off too easy for overestimating how much teams would be willing to offer that year.

[SpurSupremacist]

Dollar value for NBA players is very relative - primarily based on how much equivalent players are making and on how much teams are willing to offer.

You're dismissing all too handily the fact that no better offer was on the market that year, as well as letting Jackson off too easy for overestimating how much teams would be willing to offer that year.

Sure, that particular year he underestimated what his value was. That isn't really the point, though. The point is, if the Spurs weren't so tight, he would still be a Spur now... more than likely.

[anakha]

Sure, that particular year he underestimated what his value was. That isn't really the point, though. The point is, if the Spurs weren't so tight, he would still be a Spur now... more than likely.

Overestimated, not underestimated.

And I beg to differ, but that's exactly the point.

Why place all of the blame on the FO for a decision Jackson and his agent ultimately made?

[mrspurs]

No. It just turned out for whatever reason he didn't receive a better deal that particular year, but he was definitely worth more than 3 mill/year, as seen as soon as his contract with the hawks was up. He took a short contract and then got paid, you see that with a lot of players, they take a 1 year deal at lower than market value and then cash in the following year. The Spurs lowballed him, thinking he would be easily replaced if he didn't accept their shitty offer. They've been searching for one ever since he left. The Spurs still don't have an athletic 3. He helped bring them a championship, reward him.

+1

[Capt Bringdown]

I struggle to find another team that won a whole slew of championships and still developed young players.


You might be right - however, this is what makes the Spurs fumbles so painful.

We've had our chances, don't you think? If we could have made good on just one of the opportunities mentioned by Collins in the OP, the Spurs might have been in Bill Russell's Celtic dynasty territory.

4 titles is glorious. But I can't help but think we missed a chance to make write a even more fantastic chapter in NBA history.

[Fingaroll44]

The Salmons deal got us Speedy Claxton, who was a key component of a championship team. The extra #1 pick used on Barbosa gave SA a #1 pick used to acquire Nazi Mohammed, who was a key component to a championship team (and a very good player in the Suns PO series that year). Beno did not give a damn about playing basketball here after his rookie year and was so bad and injury prone he had little value and was in the last year of his contract in 07. We all now know the Scola thing was a big screw-up (many of us knew that last year too).

I laugh at Doug Collins evaluating the Spurs given that he screwed up the Chicago Bulls and the Detroit Pistons - both teams won it all after he left. Has Collins achieved anything as an NBA coach? Please.

The Spurs FO did not let S Jax "get away" He took a one year deal in Atlanta and then cashed in in 2005, as did Hedo. The Spurs made both those players millions of dollars benefitting from having success here.

SA could not have six or seven guys making more that $5MM per.

We get this old stuff dredged up every now and then and have to educate folks here

Thank you "Dirty Harry". What people keep convienently leaving out, while criticizing Pop & Co, is that titles have been won directly or indirectly by the "poor job" they've done in the front office.

[Fingaroll44]

IMO the Detroit Pistons are a good example of keeping your core of vetrean players like Hamilton, Wallace, Prince, and Billips(until last week's trade),but also bringing in and developing young talent like Maxiell, Stuckey, and Johnson. They, the Pistons, have a very nice balance of Vetreans and young players. I hope in the future the Spurs can strike a similar balance.

sure they make a good example but @ the same time wheres the criticism for them? They havent won since '04 and they havent been injured.

[Fingaroll44]

Instead of developing players for a future run, they cashed in all their long-term chips for a ring right away.

There are still teams looking for their first EVER ring so it's hard to fault the Spurs FO for wanting to win right away. But at the same time, it also hurt their future (last year and this season and maybe a few more going forward)

This is what ure supposed to do isnt it? Win NOW if u can. You cant have it both ways.

[Fingaroll44]

If nobody was offering contracts better than 3 years-$9M, how is that 'lowballing'? Would you rather the Spurs outbid themselves?

Yea, then so they can complain Pop doesnt know how to manage the budget.

[Obstructed_View]

He helped bring them a championship, reward him.

See Rose, Malik and Jackson, Jaren for info on how well that turned out. That Jack took the next step as a player could just as easily have been due to the fact that he had to earn his next contract in '04. He was certainly a huge disappointment for the team that ended up paying him all that money, so it seems equally likely that if he'd stayed he'd have ended up a good player for whoever the Spurs had to trade him to.

[Obstructed_View]

sure they make a good example but @ the same time wheres the criticism for them? They havent won since '04 and they havent been injured.

They also picked Darko over Carmelo, Bosh, Wade, and Kaman, picked Delfino over Barbosa and Howard, and let Mehmet Okur go for nothing, IIRC.