The three reasons why the Spurs are in this shape

[GSH]

For all the talk about the Spurs FO, Greg Popovich, etc., there are really three reasons for the Spurs no longer being the dominant team in the league. (The injury to Manu might be a fourth, but all teams have to deal with injuries.) Those three things are related, and work together to put the Spurs at a sizable disadvantage:

1. Salary Cap/Lux Tax
2. Small Market
3. The Best Winning Percentage Of Any Team For The Last Decade

The last one is arguably the most important. The Spurs incredible winning percentage during the Tim Duncan era has placed them at or near the bottom of the draft every season. And their average position over those years is by far the lowest of any team lin the league. Those draft picks not only bring in new talent, they bring in a lot of value. You can argue all you want to about who the Spurs should have drafted, but a 28 pick is just worth a lot less than a 10 pick. And even though the Spurs over-achieved with Tony and Manu, all the other teams in the league have been enriched by the draft more than they have - year after year. Even the Lakers would not be where they are talent-wise, if not for those years they sucked.

It doesn't help that the Spurs can't afford to throw lux tax money at players like the Cavs or Celtics. Without the ability to throw cash at players, or to get an influx of talent and trade value through the draft, you would expect the Spurs overall talent level to erode over time, relative to the rest of the league. If Manu had been healthy, they still might have been a contender this year - but they wouldn't have been dominant. That is a fact that was made extremely clear by the performance of their role players in the Dallas series. Players age and retire, and their replacements aren't of the same caliber.

Considering what they have to contend with, it's amazing that they have been able to stay on top for so long.

[Allanon]

You don't need 3 reasons, only 1.

Luis Scola or Tiago Splitter

Take your pick, either one of these guys would have offset the loss of Manu.

1) Tim would have been healthier at the end if he had a lighter load during the season

2) Both guys can score

3) Both guys play good interior defense

4) Both are scrappy rebounders

[Mel_13]

For all the talk about the Spurs FO, Greg Popovich, etc., there are really three reasons for the Spurs no longer being the dominant team in the league. (The injury to Manu might be a fourth, but all teams have to deal with injuries.) Those three things are related, and work together to put the Spurs at a sizable disadvantage:

1. Salary Cap/Lux Tax
2. Small Market
3. The Best Winning Percentage Of Any Team For The Last Decade

The last one is arguably the most important. The Spurs incredible winning percentage during the Tim Duncan era has placed them at or near the bottom of the draft every season. And their average position over those years is by far the lowest of any team lin the league. Those draft picks not only bring in new talent, they bring in a lot of value. You can argue all you want to about who the Spurs should have drafted, but a 28 pick is just worth a lot less than a 10 pick. And even though the Spurs over-achieved with Tony and Manu, all the other teams in the league have been enriched by the draft more than they have - year after year. Even the Lakers would not be where they are talent-wise, if not for those years they sucked.

It doesn't help that the Spurs can't afford to throw lux tax money at players like the Cavs or Celtics. Without the ability to throw cash at players, or to get an influx of talent and trade value through the draft, you would expect the Spurs overall talent level to erode over time, relative to the rest of the league. If Manu had been healthy, they still might have been a contender this year - but they wouldn't have been dominant. That is a fact that was made extremely clear by the performance of their role players in the Dallas series. Players age and retire, and their replacements aren't of the same caliber.

Considering what they have to contend with, it's amazing that they have been able to stay on top for so long.

:toast

Its amazing how many on here cannot see the obvious. The draft is designed to give the worst teams a chance to improve by getting the best new players. If you constantly have the lowest picks, the overall talent level will begin to decline. 12 straight years as a superior team is remarkable, and without many precedents in the history of American sports

[Dr. Gonzo]

They don't have anyone that can duuuuuunk!

[FromWayDowntown]

If you're not LA (and even if you're LA to an extent) there's an inevitabilty of decline that comes with long-term success. If you compound that with playing in a small market that is relatively unattractive to players, who won't (for instance) demand to be traded to your market or refuse to play for the small market team located in North Carolina that drafted him.

What I think is most amazing about where the Spurs stand is that, at this moment, they're in the top 3 in the association in championships, division titles, regular season wins, and playoff wins since the merger more than 30 years ago. I'm sure that fact would shock the hell out of many who follow the NBA very closely.

While the Spurs haven't always been dominant or necessarily elite, they've been consistently successful despite the inherent competitive disadvantages of being located in San Antonio. Lots of luck in that, to be sure, but a great deal of savvy has been necessary to make that possible.

[fyatuk]

They don't have anyone that can duuuuuunk!

George Hill!

[Twisted_Dawg]

My four reasons the Spurs are in "this shape" :

1. Failing to draft Josh Howard in 2003.
2. Trading Scola to Houston
3. Failing to hold on to some of the talent that has come through here like Turkalu or Jax, or in the summer free agent camps (Raja Bell, Udonis Haslem, Matt Barnes)
4. Failing to acquire and develop young athletic talent either through the draft or free agency (such as recent cut Pops Mensah-Bonsu)

[EricB]

4. Failing to acquire and develop young athletic talent either through the draft or free agency (such as recent cut Pops Mensah-Bonsu)



Yeah that cutting of D League players is whats killin em.

[Twisted_Dawg]

Yeah that cutting of D League players is whats killin em.

The last time I checked, that D-League player Pop was playing for Toronto and they are thrilled to have him.

[Russ]

The Spurs incredible winning percentage during the Tim Duncan era has placed them at or near the bottom of the draft every season.


They were also at the bottom of the draft when they got TP, Manu and Scola.

The problem is not the draft position, the problem is the drafting.

In '05 the Spurs could have drafted David Lee, Monta Ellis, Von Wafer or Romy Turiaf but instead took Ian Mahinmi, a player no one had going in the 1st round.

In '07 (another championship year), the Spurs took Marcus Williams in the 2d round two spots ahead of Glen "Big Baby" Davis, who had 23 and 7 for Boston last night in a big game.

The sad thing is, the Spurs lost out because they didn't take the obvious players. Instead, they reached for long-shots. Hubris? An effort to maintain their mystique for picking up jewels that no one had heard of?

And don't tell me that drafting TP was also reaching for a long-shot -- most mock drafts in '01 had TP going well before the Spurs' late 1st round pick. The TP pick was a no-brainer.

[itzsoweezee]

Scola better

[itzsoweezee]

:toast

Its amazing how many on here cannot see the obvious. The draft is designed to give the worst teams a chance to improve by getting the best new players. If you constantly have the lowest picks, the overall talent level will begin to decline. 12 straight years as a superior team is remarkable, and without many precedents in the history of American sports

this dumb theory would make sense if the spurs didn't draft an excellent player with one of those picks and give him away for nothin. in other words, SCOLA is better than all of the players on the spurs roster other than parker, ginobili, and duncan. your "reasoning" is no excuse. the spurs front office is just dumb.

[Mel_13]

this dumb theory would make sense if the spurs didn't draft an excellent player with one of those picks and give him away for nothin. in other words, SCOLA is better than all of the players on the spurs roster other than parker, ginobili, and duncan. your "reasoning" is no excuse. the spurs front office is just dumb.

Calling others dumb rather than just presenting your opinion is not exactly indicative of a sharp intellect.

Furthermore, its not a theory, it is a simple statement of fact. The lower you pick in the draft, the more difficult it will be to find good players. Picking low over a period of years will have a cumulative effect.

The fact that a good player was found with a low draft pick and then later traded for little or no value is unrelated to the basic premise.

Better players are easier to find with higher draft picks. Self evident truth.

[peskypesky]

Letting Scola go for a bag of peanuts was a HUGE blunder. Starting Bonner an equally huge blunder.

[Biggems]

I will add these as well

wasting time on Jason Kidd and costing us time to sign other FAs, as well as, trading away the rights to Barbosa.....when we could have kept the pick and had Barbosa or Howard.

drafting Beno Udrih instead of Chris Duhon

drafting Marcus Williams instead of Marc Gasol

[jjktkk]

Can you imagine a Clipper's fan visiting on ST and watching us bitch and moan about our Spurs.

[SouthTexasRancher]

For all the talk about the Spurs FO, Greg Popovich, etc., there are really three reasons for the Spurs no longer being the dominant team in the league. (The injury to Manu might be a fourth, but all teams have to deal with injuries.) Those three things are related, and work together to put the Spurs at a sizable disadvantage:

1. Salary Cap/Lux Tax
2. Small Market
3. The Best Winning Percentage Of Any Team For The Last Decade

The last one is arguably the most important. The Spurs incredible winning percentage during the Tim Duncan era has placed them at or near the bottom of the draft every season. And their average position over those years is by far the lowest of any team lin the league. Those draft picks not only bring in new talent, they bring in a lot of value. You can argue all you want to about who the Spurs should have drafted, but a 28 pick is just worth a lot less than a 10 pick. And even though the Spurs over-achieved with Tony and Manu, all the other teams in the league have been enriched by the draft more than they have - year after year. Even the Lakers would not be where they are talent-wise, if not for those years they sucked.

It doesn't help that the Spurs can't afford to throw lux tax money at players like the Cavs or Celtics. Without the ability to throw cash at players, or to get an influx of talent and trade value through the draft, you would expect the Spurs overall talent level to erode over time, relative to the rest of the league. If Manu had been healthy, they still might have been a contender this year - but they wouldn't have been dominant. That is a fact that was made extremely clear by the performance of their role players in the Dallas series. Players age and retire, and their replacements aren't of the same caliber.

Considering what they have to contend with, it's amazing that they have been able to stay on top for so long.


Have you been drinking? I have no idea what you are trying to say. Me thinks if Pop sees this he'll bust a gut.

If you want 3 reasons then:

1) Couldn't hit the broadside of a big hay barn.
2) Didn't and/or couldn't play a lick of defense.
3) We had 3 guys show up and Dallas had 12.

Your three reasons don't hold water because we've already won 4 NBA Championships in the past 11 years. OK, you may now go back to hitting the bottle. I think I'll do the same.

[ulosturedge]

We are in "this shape" because:

1)Bonner is our starting center..
2)We seem to think that age isn't an issue.
3)We sold our souls by trading defense for offense.

[Bukefal]

They don't have anyone that can duuuuuunk!

Lol, yeah thats a bit downside, i would love to see some crazy dunks sometime, like wade or lebron, too bad we dont have such a player,but then again, thats just for the beauty and fun, not really important.

I like how TP Tried to dunk sometimes :lmao

[xellos88330]

I think that the reason the Spurs draft the way they do is to find players who naturally fit into the Spurs system. A person who can play within the Spurs system instinctively is far more valuable than one that must be trained to do so IMO.

[stéphane]

Scola thread!

(again)

[ceperez]

Here's my 3 top reasons:

(1) Decline of Spurs management by defections to other teams (see: OKC Thunder, Cavaliers). We don't draft as good, and other people now steal our draft picks (see: Batum)
(2) Change away from twin tower strategy. Now we have a gaping hole in either a PF or C. Spurs defense is also now full of holes.
(3) Poor execution in nurturing new talent and absence of tradeable pieces for potential talent.

[pjjrfan]

Realistically though, why would Management want to waste time with players who were not ready but had potential to become players, during seasons where the team was a definite contender and an actual champion in 03, 05, and 07. The only season where the Spurs did go a youth movement 03, the bench was saddled with savvy vets who helped bail us out and bring us a trophy. Pop went with Tony, Manu, Sjax and Speedy to play the bulk of the minutes but in round 1 it was Ferry's performance when David got hurt and his backup got suspended who came in and saved the season. In round 2 the wily Willis was a major help against the Lakers, and of course Kerr's heroics killed the mavs. No one complained about the old bench then. More than anything the Spurs have been the victems of their own success.

I am not however condoning Pop's lack of foresight for this season. Giving up on Hill and putting Mason in a position to fail were bad choices that I just don't see how Pop convinced himself to allow.

[SenorSpur]

Realistically though, why would Management want to waste time with players who were not ready but had potential to become players, during seasons where the team was a definite contender and an actual champion in 03, 05, and 07.

It kills me when people act as though a team must elect to do one or the other. Having a couple of young players on your roster doesn't mean a team is rebuilding any more than having a team of older guys ensures playoff success.

Just because a team is in championship contention, doesn't mean you cannot add young talent to the roster. Of course, you MUST surround them with veterans, so that they can learn the ways of the NBA and learn from their mistakes. Yet, it is possible to develop some young guys on the fly, while a team is winning.

Ever heard of Rajon Rondo (Celtics), Glen Davis (Celtics), Andrew Bynum (Fakers), Courtney Lee (Magic), Aaron Brooks (Rockets), Mario Chalmers (Miami), Carl Landry (Rockets) or even Luis Scola (Rockets). All have 3 seasons or less experience in the NBA, and all are significant contributors to playoff-level or championship-contending teams. In the case of Rondo, you may remember his team won it all last year, with him as starting PG.

Therefore, I don't buy this crap that it's impossible for a team to infuse young players during their "window of championship opportunity". Utilizing this approach, if nothing else, can only strengthen the roster and extend that window. On top of that, it can be done cheaply.

[Mel_13]

It kills me when people act as though a team must elect to do one or the other. Having a couple of young players on your roster doesn't mean a team is rebuilding any more than having a team of older guys ensures playoff success.

Just because a team is in championship contention, doesn't mean you cannot add young talent to the roster. Of course, you MUST surround them with veterans, so that they can learn the ways of the NBA and learn from their mistakes. Yet, it is possible to develop some young guys on the fly, while a team is winning.

Ever heard of Rajon Rondo (Celtics), Glen Davis (Celtics), Andrew Bynum (Fakers), Courtney Lee (Magic), Aaron Brooks (Rockets), Mario Chalmers (Miami), Carl Landry (Rockets) or even Luis Scola (Rockets). All have 3 seasons or less experience in the NBA, and all are significant contributors to playoff-level or championship-contending teams. In the case of Rondo, you may remember his team won it all last year, with him as starting PG.

Therefore, I don't buy this crap that it's a team cannot afford to infuse young players during their "window of championship opportunity". Utilizing this approach, if nothing else, can only strengthen the roster and extend that window. On top of that, it can be done cheaply.

While I agree that it is possible to develop young players while on top, the comparisons you cite really are apples and oranges.

All five teams you point to have been to the lottery at least once in the last five years. Only two have won even one championship, and the Heat were back in the lottery only two years after winning their lone championship.

None of those teams were championship contenders that reloaded on the fly.

And to be fair to the Spurs, they have started to take steps in the direction you suggest. At the end of the 07-08 season, the Spurs allowed three of their oldest players to leave and replaced them with much younger players. Horry, Barry, and Stoudamire were replaced on their roster by Tolliver, Mason, and Hill. They came from three different sources, undrafted FA, vet FA, and draft pick. They were, on average, over 10 years younger than the players they they replaced. The results, as we know, were mixed but I think we will see more moves like them this summer.

[Chomag]

It kills me when people act as though a team must elect to do one or the other. Having a couple of young players on your roster doesn't mean a team is rebuilding any more than having a team of older guys ensures playoff success.

Just because a team is in championship contention, doesn't mean you cannot add young talent to the roster. Of course, you MUST surround them with veterans, so that they can learn the ways of the NBA and learn from their mistakes. Yet, it is possible to develop some young guys on the fly, while a team is winning.

Ever heard of Rajon Rondo (Celtics), Glen Davis (Celtics), Andrew Bynum (Fakers), Courtney Lee (Magic), Aaron Brooks (Rockets), Mario Chalmers (Miami), Carl Landry (Rockets) or even Luis Scola (Rockets). All have 3 seasons or less experience in the NBA, and all are significant contributors to playoff-level or championship-contending teams. In the case of Rondo, you may remember his team won it all last year, with him as starting PG.

Therefore, I don't buy this crap that it's a team cannot afford to infuse young players during their "window of championship opportunity". Utilizing this approach, if nothing else, can only strengthen the roster and extend that window. On top of that, it can be done cheaply.

x1
Also, maybe we have become spoiled, but it seems like that every player must have a 3pt shot to be on our Roster. The best teams have always had a mix where everyone brought something different to the table.

[Mel_13]

x1
Also, maybe we have become spoiled, but it seems like that every player must have a 3pt shot to be on our Roster. The best teams have always had a mix where everyone brought something different to the table.

The Spurs have been the best team in the NBA over the past decade. Who are these better teams that have built better rosters while remaining at the top of the league for a dozen years?

There are certainly teams that have better rosters today, but none of them have had a sustained level of success that comes close to that of the Spurs.

[ploto]

Hubris

[Mel_13]

Hubris

Just out of curiosity, what is the origin of your apparent, and seemingly fervent, dislike of the Spurs FO? There must be a story there.

[intlspurshk]

Hanging on too long for old aplyers like JV or Horry or Barry..talking abt Barry, the failure to get the deal done on time is a huge stupid mistake