For those who said the Spurs FO sucked

[ambchang]

http://82games.com/bestdraftingteams.htm

Essentially, the Spurs ranked #4 in drafting over the last 20 years. And this is not because of the Spurs drafting #1 twice, it factored in draft positions as well.

While this analysis was stats driven, and I generally think that stats don't tell the whole story, it does provide a decent guideline.


NBA Draft Analysis:
Best/Worst Drafting Teams
by Roland Beech, 82games.com


[Thanks to an assist from the wonderful Basketball-Reference.com web site, I gathered together the last twenty NBA Drafts (1989-2008) with an array of intended analysis in mind.]

In the first part of this series on "NBA Player Development" I studied the average performance of players by their draft pick number. In part two I will take a look at the specific teams and how they have fared!

To recap a few principles, since B-R provides career games, and then per game points, rebounds, assists and minutes, I have gone with an admittedly highly simplistic look on things with: Rating = points/game + rebounds/game + assists/game


Why use this definition? It's the data I have easily on hand, which while not a good player rating system is a decent wag for these purposes. Then I group players as follows:

Star -- 20+ rating
Solid -- 15 to 19.9
Role Player -- 10 to14.9
Deep Bench -- 5 to 9.9
Complete Bust -- less than 5
DNP -- (never played in the NBA)
Keep in mind the stats are career per game averages so lower than the peak performance years of a player. Moreover, there is also some bias in that using recent years some of the current players may well spike up their career 'standing' with more years under the belt.
Now to try and gauge drafting performance it is not enough to simply look at average stats, rather we need to adjust by the expected stats for the pick # -- so from our chart in part one, the #1 pick averages 16.6 points, 7.8 rebounds, 2.7 assists, etc and we need to compare that to the actual stats of a team picking at #1 to get a sense of the net...did they over or under-achieve for the pick.

Obviously there are a lot of issues with this approach, such as do you reward San Antonio for taking a consensus #1 in Duncan? The answer to me is yes, because we are talking not only about drafting but about hopefully some measure of player development which is the bigger theme in play.

On account of this, one additional point to mention is in the event of draft day trades, the team winding up with a player after the trade is counted as 'drafting' the player. So for example Dallas gets credit for Nowitzki even though the Bucks actually drafted him (but then moved him on the the Mavericks). It may be I missed some of these transitions as well if they were sometime after the draft, in which case I'll post a corrected version later on.

To calculate value I compare a player's career stats to the average stats for his draft pick number. For example, Kobe Bryant averages 25.0 pts per game for his career, but the average for a #13 pick (including Kobe) is just 9.8 pts per game so his team gets credit for +15.2 points per game for his pick and so on.


Draft picks 1989-2008 Pick Performance vs. Expected Perf.
Team Picks Gms Pts Reb Ast Rtg Gms Pts Reb Ast Rtg Star Solid RoleP DeepB Bust DNP
Milwaukee 40 299 7.1 2.9 1.7 11.7 45 1.1 0.2 0.5 1.8 6 8 7 12 3 4
Phoenix 41 226 5.5 2.4 1.0 8.9 30 1.1 0.3 0.2 1.5 6 4 3 10 13 5
L.A. Lakers 36 341 6.0 2.4 1.5 9.8 110 1.0 0.1 0.4 1.5 5 3 7 12 2 7
San Antonio 30 227 5.5 2.0 1.3 8.8 46 1.0 0.0 0.3 1.2 4 2 6 6 3 9
Cleveland 36 302 6.5 2.7 1.6 10.8 50 0.7 0.0 0.4 1.1 5 4 8 8 7 4
Golden State 47 262 7.2 3.3 1.3 11.8 -9 0.6 0.5 -0.1 1.0 9 5 7 16 6 4
Boston 41 263 6.6 2.7 1.4 10.7 9 0.6 0.1 0.1 0.8 6 6 5 14 4 6
Sacramento 43 309 6.4 2.8 1.4 10.6 50 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.7 5 8 9 11 3 7
Memphis 18 207 8.1 3.7 1.5 13.3 -111 0.3 0.5 -0.2 0.7 4 3 4 5 1 1
Utah 38 253 5.0 2.3 1.3 8.6 44 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4 3 3 7 12 8 5
Miami 36 224 6.5 2.4 1.3 10.1 -38 0.6 -0.3 0.0 0.3 4 5 7 9 7 4
Washington 35 308 6.3 2.9 1.2 10.4 47 0.2 0.1 -0.1 0.2 4 2 13 10 2 4
Charlotte Hornets 20 402 7.4 3.2 1.5 12.1 85 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 5 1 5 5 3 1
Seattle 48 260 5.5 2.4 1.1 9.1 17 0.0 -0.1 0.0 -0.1 5 7 8 8 7 13
Detroit 37 245 5.0 2.3 1.0 8.4 26 -0.1 0.0 0.0 -0.1 3 3 7 9 8 7
Vancouver 14 334 7.9 3.1 1.8 12.7 8 0.1 -0.3 0.1 -0.1 4 0 2 6 0 2
Philadelphia 44 225 5.6 2.6 1.0 9.2 -9 0.0 0.0 -0.2 -0.1 5 6 8 9 6 10
Indiana 33 315 5.3 2.7 0.9 8.8 71 -0.2 0.3 -0.3 -0.2 2 4 9 7 3 8
Chicago 51 239 6.0 2.7 1.5 10.2 -33 -0.3 -0.1 0.1 -0.3 7 5 8 17 7 7
Orlando 41 243 6.2 3.1 1.1 10.4 -37 -0.2 0.2 -0.2 -0.3 6 4 5 14 8 4
Dallas 45 236 5.2 2.4 1.1 8.7 -5 -0.2 -0.1 -0.1 -0.3 5 2 9 13 5 11
Houston 45 204 4.7 2.1 0.9 7.7 -9 -0.2 -0.1 -0.1 -0.4 5 2 6 11 8 13
New Orleans Hornets 11 129 5.8 2.4 1.4 9.5 -160 -0.4 -0.5 0.2 -0.6 2 1 1 2 3 2
New Jersey 35 255 6.2 3.1 1.3 10.6 -34 -0.6 0.1 -0.2 -0.6 7 3 5 9 7 4
Portland 40 218 5.7 2.4 1.1 9.2 -47 -0.3 -0.3 -0.1 -0.7 5 4 8 8 8 7
Charlotte Bobcats 10 112 7.7 3.4 1.9 13.0 -243 -0.8 -0.1 0.1 -0.8 2 2 1 3 2 0
Minnesota 40 277 6.0 2.6 1.4 10.0 4 -0.7 -0.2 0.0 -0.8 6 3 9 7 7 8
Toronto 24 244 6.8 2.8 1.2 10.8 -69 -0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -1.1 5 3 0 7 3 6
Denver 42 305 5.9 2.7 1.2 9.9 20 -0.8 -0.1 -0.2 -1.2 6 8 6 9 5 8
L.A. Clippers 44 268 6.0 2.9 1.2 10.1 -27 -1.0 -0.1 -0.3 -1.4 2 14 7 10 4 7
Atlanta 44 176 4.8 2.3 1.1 8.2 -76 -1.0 -0.3 -0.1 -1.5 3 3 8 18 6 6
New York 32 197 4.6 2.2 0.9 7.7 -55 -0.9 -0.3 -0.3 -1.5 0 4 8 9 5 6

I was surpised by how this look came out...Milwaukee as the best drafting team of the past twenty years? In looking over the actual picks though it makes more sense: six "stars" taken -- Glenn Robinson, #1 in '94 and a 29 rating... Ray Allen at #5 in '96, also 29 rating... Redd at #43(!) who has a 27 rating... Vin Baker at #8 in '93 who had a 24 rating (yes he had good years before the problems)... Bogut #1 in '05 and a 23 rating... T.J. Ford at #8 in '03 with a 22 rating. Now Bogut is actually an under-achiever to this point (especially since they could have had Paul, etc) but the Bucks also have scored with lots of other second round picks besides Redd like Sessions, Alston, Phills, Snow, Flip Murray, Bogans...all of whom way surpassed expectations for their lowly pick number.

Then you have the Suns who sparkle with their star picks -- Amare (a #9), Marion (#9), Nash (#15), Finley (#21), Stephen Jackson (#42), and Cedric Ceballos (#48).

The Lakers secured Kobe (#13) by trade, but also had stars in Van Exel (#37), Divac (#26), Eddie Jones (#10), and Marc Gasol (#48 but later traded of course...), as well as a slew of solid players like Elden Campbell (#27), Bynum (#10 and climbing in the career averages), and Fisher (#24).

The Spurs have Duncan (#1) as well as Parker (#28) and Ginobili (#57) as the foundation to their multi-title teams. They also nabbed Scola at #55 who is nearing star territory in the career rating, Barbosa at #28, Salmons #26, Udrih #28...

Cleveland is a much more mixed record. A huge lift up for LeBron (no brainer), but they did also tab Boozer at #34, Andre Miller at #8, Ilgauskas at #20, Brandon at #11 for their other stars. Some top ten misses though in Mihm (#7), Wagner #6), Ferry (#2), and Diop (#8).

And for the bottom of the table New York Knicks? Not a single star among the thirty-two picks made, with David Lee at 19.9 rating pushing the envelope to perhaps become the first one soon. Nene was another good pick for them, taken at #7, but their second round picks with the exception of Ariza have been poor performers, and few players who made much noise whatsoever in the NBA.

Then there's the Clippers of the Korolev (#12), Randy Woods (#16), Kimble (#8), Ely (#12), Dooling (#10), Livingston (#4), Olowokandi (#1) horror show. Elgin may want to rethink his discrimination lawsuit, seems like there was some just cause perhaps at work here. The Clippers had 11 top ten picks in the twenty years, and only one of these top ten guys (Odom taken at #4) became a star. Now of course, you could argue and I might that the bigger issue isn't the drafting but the player development once the player gets to the team...more on this later!

Now due to the recency bias (players drafted this year for example have just over half a season as their 'career' stats and will likely improve in some cases considerably on them with a few more years) we must give some excuses for the new to the party teams like the 'New Orleans' Hornets and the Charlotte Bobcats, but you can get a reasonable sense of the distribution of stars/solids/roleplayers/deep bench/busts and DNP's through the years.

I will be formatting a seperate page for the team by team looks so you can see all the hits and misses of your favorite franchise.

Moving on, next I've looked at the best and worst value picks of the last twenty drafts!

[ShoogarBear]

One problem:


The Spurs have Duncan (#1) as well as Parker (#28) and Ginobili (#57) as the foundation to their multi-title teams. They also nabbed Scola at #55 who is nearing star territory in the career rating, Barbosa at #28, Salmons #26, Udrih #28...

Outside of the Duncan/Parker/Ginobili, 3 out of 4 of their other highly-rated draft picks never played a single game for the team. Two of them were pre-arranged trades.

[FromWayDowntown]

One problem with the rankings is that the Spurs didn't actually choose (apparently) either Barbosa or Salmons. They get a boost from the production that both of those guys have maintained over the years as relatively low picks, but none of it was for the Spurs and neither selection was one that the Spurs decided upon.

edit: I see Shoog beat me to the punch on that one.

[Ariel]

Outside of the Duncan/Parker/Ginobili, 3 out of 4 of their other highly-rated draft picks never played a single game for the team. Two of them were pre-arranged trades.
Yup. Crediting a team on the development of a player picked on behalf of a third party is utterly stupid. If anything, actually, it´s the complete opposite, as it can be argued it shows the team failed to realise the potential value of the player in question. The fact that it went over the writer´s head is all I needed to know not to waste my time reading any further this piece of shit... or shit of a piece, whichever you like better.

[TDMVPDPOY]

chicago fail, they had so many top10 picks in the last 12 years its not even funni...

[rayray2k8]

Ever heard of a man name Luis Scola?
That and the Splitter situation isn't helping, so you can't blame the fans for
criticizing the spurs front office.

[Obstructed_View]

I'd have to say that trading a good player for nothing (Scola), grinding a decent player to nothing and then paying someone else to take him off your hands (Beno), picking an international player in the first round so you are hamstrung by the rookie pay scale (Splitter) and sending a promising front-court prospect to Italy (Gist) doesn't exactly improve a team's standing.

[Johnny RIngo]

The FO deserves all the blame in the world for standing pat after the '07 championship. The rest of the league has since gotten better while the Spurs have gotten noticeably worse.

[TDMVPDPOY]

i wouldnt complain the 2003 disaster, but resigning jackson to what he wanted that year...shouldve given a chance to at least fkn repeat or someshit.

[CubanMustGo]

I guess it's this analysis that sucks.

[purist]

Don't know how a FO can suck when they build a team around twin towers and win a title; proceed to replace starting pg and sf and win another title; then proceed to replace hall of fame center and win another title.

If the FO sucks then it stands to reason that the coach is outstanding beyond a level that many here would not concur with. If the coach sucks then it stands to reason that the FO is outstanding in stockpiling talent that even a monkey could coach to a championship.

So, which is it, Spurs fans? Does the FO suck or does the coach suck?

IMO, the FO was better when Pop had more control as coach and GM. Buford, Presti, et al, are merely proteges.

[dbestpro]

Front office historically does not suck and has done as well as anyone. But, this is sports and the premiere question in sports is what have you done for me lately? This is the question for every declining star from every FO and the question of every fan for every FO.
So, FO, what have you done for me lately?

[DUNCANownsKOBE2]

You know this article is bullshit because of the top 2 teams.

[Dex]

Ah, what could have been....

C: Splitter, Javtokas, Sandizke
PF: Duncan, Scola
SG: Ginobili, Barbosa
SF: Bowen, Salmons
PG: Parker, Hill, Udrih

Rings plz kthxbye.

[Obstructed_View]

Don't know how a FO can suck when they build a team around twin towers and win a title; proceed to replace starting pg and sf and win another title; then proceed to replace hall of fame center and win another title.
Add Tim Duncan to a 50+ win team that has David Robinson and Sean Elliott and try not to win a title. With the exception of Pop, the current front office had little to do with assembling that pre-Duncan core, and zero to do with David or Sean, who they inherited.


If the FO sucks then it stands to reason that the coach is outstanding beyond a level that many here would not concur with. If the coach sucks then it stands to reason that the FO is outstanding in stockpiling talent that even a monkey could coach to a championship.
If you have the aforementioned Duncan, turn the last pick in the NBA draft into one of the best players in the league, and get a single first round pick that becomes an all-star, you suddenly manage to, with two good choices and no others, contend for a title every year. With that as the foundation, there's plenty of room for coaching and personnel mistakes, and there have been plenty of both to go around.

[TDMVPDPOY]

overpaying malik rose for a start....

[Sean Cagney]

Front office historically does not suck and has done as well as anyone. But, this is sports and the premiere question in sports is what have you done for me lately? This is the question for every declining star from every FO and the question of every fan for every FO.
So, FO, what have you done for me lately?

Yep historically great, but can't live off that name forever... What have you done for me lately type of thing is true. I can see if Hill turns out to be a stud backup here and Gist comes over and does his thing soon. Ian? Does he exist? Splitter not coming soon, so F him. Will one of those guys I mention outta the first three pan out? If so they can redeem themselves, if not? They failed after 03 or so.


Thinks back to 07 summer when my boy at work says Spurs drafted their future big man too last night! Thinking we get him and Scola (Splitter) are coming over and saying everyone is coming back too and repeat is on!!!!!! I thought it was ours for sure then because LA had no Gasol yet nor Ariza (If I am right) and we are returning so many and at the top already! TIME is ours to repeat.......... GUN GOES Off BOOM, the end of this team as we know it and we get rid of Scola and Splitter stays, Manu gets hurt and can't perform against LA and then the rest.


DAMNIT!

[Sean Cagney]

Ah, what could have been....

C: Splitter, Javtokas, Sandizke
PF: Duncan, Scola
SG: Ginobili, Barbosa
SF: Bowen, Salmons
PG: Parker, Hill, Udrih

Rings plz kthxbye.

WALKS INTO a corner and CRIES for hours thinking of that there :depressed:bang:rollin.

Oh well they got 4 titles so far and many teams make similar mistakes and never get a title to even speak of, we are spoiled! Spurs are seriously one of the best teams to do it (4th overall with 4 titles), we should not dwell on the have nots.


I will be damned if they could afford all of that too, thats something that would not happen on ANY team, ANY TEAM. LA even traded Butler, can you imagine him there now with that team? WOW! GOOD LORD.

[KSeal]

And the Lakers finish ahead of the Spurs again..

[tlongII]

One problem:



Outside of the Duncan/Parker/Ginobili, 3 out of 4 of their other highly-rated draft picks never played a single game for the team. Two of them were pre-arranged trades.

One of the reasons I say the Spurs FO has sucked donkey balls for the past 7 years.

[ploto]

Spurs have traded away too many first round picks because they did not want to have to pay anyone. Since Parker, they have drafted whom in the first round?

Beno- who's gone
Ian- who's hurt all the time
Splitter- who's still in Europe
Hill- who Pop wouldn't play enough

That's what the Spurs have to show for 7 years of NBA first round draft picks while Duncan has been in his prime. Hill who hopefully gets to play more; Ian who hopefully finds some health; Splitter who hopefully arrives some day

[BG_Spurs_Fan]

Spurs have traded away too many first round picks because they did not want to have to pay anyone. Since Parker, they have drafted whom in the first round?

Beno- who's gone
Ian- who's hurt all the time
Splitter- who's still in Europe
Hill- who Pop wouldn't play enough

That's what the Spurs have to show for 7 years of NBA first round draft picks while Duncan has been in his prime. Hill who hopefully gets to play more; Ian who hopefully finds some health; Splitter who hopefully arrives some day

They have 3 titles to show for the last 7 years, 2 of which achieved with the significant help of players acquired using the alsmost useless late first round picks. This is better management than any other team has achieved for the past 7 years.

[Extra Stout]

You can't take anybody who criticizes the front office for the Spurs' current roster weakness seriously at all. I mean, after two dozen responses, nobody has even brought up how the Spurs simply fleeced the Virginia Squires to get George Gervin.

[ploto]

They have 3 titles to show for the last 7 years, 2 of which achieved with the significant help of players acquired using the alsmost useless late first round picks. This is better management than any other team has achieved for the past 7 years.

That is all based upon what they did BEFORE 2002. It has nothing to do with management for the past 7 years. And only one late first round pick contributed to those championships- Tony- and Holt was ready to lose him over a couple of million dollars before Pop stepped in.

The Spurs have championships for ONE reason- the luck of the draw to get Tim. Without that- they have ZERO titles.

Please show which of those players listed that the Spurs drafted in the late first round over the past 7 years in any way contributed to a championship.

[ploto]

Stephen Jackson wasn't drafted but they picked him as a FA, which was a damn good find. It's not all about the draft picks.

The article posted here claims the Spurs FO has drafted well. That is the whole point of the thread- to discuss how they have drafted. It makes ridiculous claims based upon players the Spurs did not even draft for themselves, a player they gave away to a rival to dump salary, one they paid a team to take, and others who never even came. The Spurs record on drafting and developing those young players over the past 7 years has sucked.

Have you watched the playoffs? Have you seen the young athletic players contributing who were given the chance to grow and to mature and to become who they are while the Spurs trotted out NVE and Michael Finley?

[Da Spurs]

Letting Stephen Jackson go in 2003 was the beginning of the FO downfall. And nobody hardly mentions letting Turkoglu go the following year. What we could have done with those two guys the past couple of years! All I hear is that we need long athletic wings who can shoot the three. Well guess what!! We had them on roster already but were too stupid to sign them for the future. Add giving away Scola and drafting another in Splitter who probably will never sign with us continues the saga of very poor FO management.

[sabar]

Letting Stephen Jackson go in 2003 was the beginning of the FO downfall. And nobody hardly mentions letting Turkoglu go the following year. What we could have done with those two guys the past couple of years!

Committed almost our entire salary to 5 players?
$12 million left to sign 7 more people. That's going to be one crappy bench,

[GSH]

The "stats" themselves are meaningless, on so many levels. I didn't see anyone mention that a player on the run-and-gun Suns is going to score more points than his counterparts on defensive-minded teams. The comments at the bottom of the article also sound like they gave the Lakers credit for Kobe, even though they didn't draft him. ("The Lakers secured Kobe (#13) by trade, but also had stars in...") That's especially ridiculous, given that Kobe and his agent made it clear that he would not play anywhere except for LA. And, no, Kobe wasn't a draft day trade. It was a couple of weeks before the deal was done.

There is one thing that caught my attention in the numbers. In the time period being looked at, the Spurs took a total of 30 picks. The only team with fewer picks is Toronto with 24. (The Charlotte Bobcats didn't exist for part of the time, so they don't count.) Vancouver/Memphis had 32 picks. The Knicks had 32 picks. They both sucked. Indiana had 33, and New Jersey had 35, and neither of them have been powerhouse teams. Charlotte/New Orleans managed to put together a couple of OK seasons with their 31 picks. The Spurs are the only team to have any real success by trading off a lot of their draft picks.

The article also has a link to the "Best Value Picks" from the last 20 drafts. Manu is #6 on the list, and Tony is #12. Scola is #20, and the Spurs get credit for him even though they didn't sign him. Those 3 pad the stats pretty heavily. (Oddly, Stephen Jackson is #9 on the list, and the Spurs get no credit, even though they were the ones who gave him a chance. Then you have Kobe at #4 on the list, even though the Lakers did nothing to deserve that "Value Pick".) Right behind Parker on the Best Value list is Tracy McGrady, who never has and never will win a Championship. And my favorite is #3 on the Best Value list - Dino Radja. WTF?

The article is stupid, the "stats" are stupid. Bottom line, the Spurs have drafted their Big 3 and done well with them. Everybody knew that Duncan was a winner, and their FO has gotten lots of credit for getting bargains with Parker and Manu. Other than those guys, they have nothing to show for their draft picks. Well... unless you count the trophies. You can argue that the only reason they got those was because of the Big 3, but the fact is they have the hardware. And when you get down to it, that's the only thing that counts.

[Obstructed_View]

I love the fans like you that are ready to jump of a building b/c the Spurs aren't winning it all every year. :lol

I'm not sure how pointing out facts = jumping off a building. The Spurs have NOT done a good job of acquiring and developing talent, and the number of championships they've won is NOT proof that they have. All I see you doing is mischaracterizing the intent of people that are successfully dismantling both the article and the challenge in title of the thread.

[BG_Spurs_Fan]

That is all based upon what they did BEFORE 2002. It has nothing to do with management for the past 7 years. And only one late first round pick contributed to those championships- Tony- and Holt was ready to lose him over a couple of million dollars before Pop stepped in.

The Spurs have championships for ONE reason- the luck of the draw to get Tim. Without that- they have ZERO titles.

Please show which of those players listed that the Spurs drafted in the late first round over the past 7 years in any way contributed to a championship.

One Tim Duncan does not guarantee any championships, as we have seen this season, the FO has to get good players to help him, which they have consistently been doing for 10+ years.

Let's have a look at who the Spurs have been drafting since Tony Parker and evaluate their decisions.

In the 2002 draft the Spurs drafted John Salmons for Philadelphia in a pre-aranged deal, which brought us Speedy Claxton. As overrated as he was, no one can deny he was a significant piece in the 2003 championship team. A notable name drafted later was Carlos Boozer at 35 to Cleveland.

In the 2003 draft the Spurs drafted L. Barbosa for Phoenix in a pre-aranged deal which gave us a 1-st round pick later used in the trade for Nazr Mohammed. The Spurs were clearly saving every penny back in the summer of 2003 because they were after a big FA. With hindsight we all know how things turned out but at the time this seemed to be the logical decision. We could have had either Leandro, who I don't think would have blossomed in SA, or Josh Howard who would have been a nice player if he had any brains, but the truth is that the Spurs did use this draft pick for a very valuable piece and I don't see why anyone should complain.

In the 2004 draft the Spurs drafted Beno Udrih at 28. From the players projected around that pick - David Harrison, Varejao, Jackson Vroman, Peter John Ramos, Lionel Chalmers, Donta Smith and Andre Emmett, I tihnk the Spurs took the best talent. Hindsight says they could have had Varejao, or pushed it a bit and go for Chris Duhon, but in any case this is not a decision to dwell on too much. A notable mistake the Spurs did in this draft was taking Sanikidze at 42, just a pick before NY drafted Trevor Ariza, but it is difficult to critisize the FO since there were 28 other teams who didn't take him earlier as well.

In the 2005 draft the Spurs drafted Ian Mahinmi at 28, a decision engineered by none other but the genius that Sam Presti is. Notable players who could have been drafted instead are David Lee, Brandon Bass, Ronny Turiaf and Monta Ellis. The jury is still out on this kid, so we'll see if he can ever contribute, but truth is that this decision didn't affect in any way our chances to compete, just like 95% of the late first round picks for any team.

In 2006 the Spurs didn't have a 1st round pick because it had been traded to NY for Nazr. Players drafted in the late first/early second round : Maurice Ager, Mardy Collins, Joel Freeland, James White!, Steve Novak, Solomon Jones, Paul Davis, P.J. Tucker. Not a great class eh? I say this 1-st round pick was used in as good a way as there possibly could have been.

In the 2007 draft the Spurs drafted Tiago Splitter at 28. Other players we could have had instead include Carl Landry and Glen Davis. IMO this was a no-brainer decision - taking a lottery talent at 28 when it's available. We all know the implications, so it's easier to judge with hindsight, but if we're able to bring him in 2010 this will prove to be a great draft for us.

In the 2008 draft the Spurs drafted George Hill. We could have had Darrell Arthur or Mario Chalmers instead. Jury's still out. I believe Arthur would have been the better choice but it's too early to critisize.

If you're going to critisize the Fo for not using well their late first round picks, please let us know what you would have done, that would have been better. Also, please tell us which teams have drafted better than us for the last 7 years.

[Blackjack]

How Well Do the Spurs Draft?

82games.com has an interesting study that ranks how well teams have drafted over the last 20 years. According to their calculations, the Spurs rank fourth. The system they use is simple (and therefore, problematic), but it isn’t terrible. (Ed. Note: OK, so it’s kind of terrible. But it makes a decent jumping-off point for a discussion.) Basically they add a player’s career PPG, RPG, and APG, and organize the sum into 1 of 5 categories:

- Star: 20+ rating

- Solid: 15 to 19.9

- Role Player: 10 to 14.9

- Deep Bench: 5 to 9.9

- Complete Bust: Less than 5

- DNP: Never played in the NBA

Each player is also compared to the average performance by a player drafted at the same spot. So, as Roland notes, the Spurs are actually rewarded for picking Duncan at #1 (even though he was a consensus pick) because #1 picks average 16.6 ppg, 7.8 rpg, and 2.7 apg. Those comparisons are then compiled to form a general rating for the team. It is from that rating that our rank of fourth derives.


As I’m sure some commenters will note, the Spurs ranking is improved by certain players who do not actually play for the Spurs. Players like Luis Scola, who were not immediately traded but never played for the Spurs, contribute to our ranking, not their eventual team’s. If we made a draft day trade, the player we traded for contributes to our ranking, not the player we initially drafted. (For instance, the Spurs drafted Goran Dragic, but immediately traded him to the Suns for Malik Hairston. Subsequently, Hairston’s performance this past season is included in the Spurs’ ranking, not Dragic’s.) I believe the author made a mistake by including Leandro Barbosa in our ranking; I believe we traded him on draft day in 2003.

You’ll also notice that an abnormally high number of our picks receive DNPs (9 out of 30). For a lot of teams, that would be a sign of poor scouting, but for the Spurs it reflects our draft-and-dash strategy: Many players remain abroad or are assigned to Austin or a foreign team until they are ready to contribute. In some instances (such as with Robertas Javtokas and Tiago Splitter) this strategy can frustrating. But it certainly isn’t accurate to look at that number and assume 1/3 of the Spurs draft picks do not have the talent to play in the NBA.

According to the study, the Spurs have drafted 4 “stars” in the past 20 years: Tim Duncan, Tony Parker, Manu Ginobili, and Sean Elliott. Obviously David Robinson is also a star, but his draft class of 1987 puts him just outside the study’s purview. The Spurs ranking is wildly improved by the selections of Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili, and especially Manu. A quick look at 82games.com’s breakdown of expected performance shows that Manu is the only 57th pick of the last 20 years who has been anything more than a member of the deep bench.

This is a good oppportunity to reinitiate a conversation we began earlier this year: The Spurs draft well, but how well do we develop talent? While Parker is held up as the crowning achievement of our player development abilities, many of our picks have fallen flat. But as several commenters have noted, when you maintain a high level of play for an entire decade, you are not in a position to draft high-caliber prospects that often. Maybe more importantly, several of our more talented picks (John Salmons, Leandro Barbosa, Luis Scola) no longer or never did play for the Spurs. So, take a look back at the players the Spurs have drafted, and tell me, how do you think we’ve done?


http://www.48minutesofhell.com/2009/06/10/how-well-do-the-spurs-draft/

[SenorSpur]

The following blog comments were taken from Buck Harvey's blog. It is a blogger's response to Pop's proclamation of not being able to envision a scenario where Ginobili is traded. However the blogger takes it a step further and makes the strongest case for WHY the FO should indeed be criticized and held accountable for several decisions made since 2003. The blogger chronicles several questionable decisions by the FO during that period and illustrates how the failure to develop talent behind the Big Three has become evident.

http://blogs.mysanantonio.com/weblogs/buckharvey/2009/06/popovich-to-ginobili-relax-you.html

Comments
I disagree with Pop and it's certainly not a first. I do see a scenario where Manu is traded but it won't be till during the season when healthy and flashing his old form.

Because the Spurs have done a poor job in recent seasons regarding player personnel, they are left with few assets.

If you want to get real radical, the Spurs should look to trade any or all of their Big 3 to set themselves up for another decade of success. But the Spurs aren't radical.

Since 2003 San Antonio has made so many mistakes I can't even count them all - but I'll try.

The biggest mistake was not retaining Stephen Jackson, which compounded itself by not selecting Josh Howard. Dallas, for example, now has an asset that they may trade to get into the top 10 of the draft.

And frankly, what the Spurs didn't realize was that the combination of Jax and Manu gave them the greatest combination of talent, skill, athleticism, length and versatility that they have ever had in the franchise's history manning the 2 and 3 spots. To me, that decision cost us a threepeat and maybe more.

Two smaller moves that have hurt San Antonio in different ways include Brent Barry and Kurt Thomas. Barry, ultimately was deemed to be better (for whatever reason) than a Jackson or Hedo Turkoglu even though he had only modest success on very bad NBA teams. Jackson starred in the 2003 Finals while Turk had an obvious skill set that contributed on the powerful Sacramento teams earlier this decade. While Jackson was offerred a 1 year, $5 million deal - they handed Barry a 3-year deal at about $6 per? That never made sense.

As for Thomas, I still don't understand how he was such an upgrade over Francisco Elson - who you actually won a title with on your roster. Not only did you take on double plus salaray but you gave away a first round pick for another player who had been nothing more than marginal on very bad NBA teams.

They couldn't bring over Luis Scola, trade him for nothing and he immediately starts putting up 13 and 10 for the Rockets. Don't tell me you don't doubt ever seeing Tiago Splitter in a Spurs uniform and selecting Mahimmi over David Lee, Marcus Williams over Big Baby Davis or Marc Gasol and George Hill over Mario Chalmers are also mysteries.

You can understand my concern with the overblown genius of the Spurs front office, right?

It's funny I read an article that for the past 20 years had them ranked 4th in drafting - there's a formula that needs not be paid attention to. Yes, they got credit for drafting Duncan...hilarious.

Regardless, the Spurs need to infuse TALENT back onto this roster. When they were winning titles, who did they 'upset'?

No, they were front runners - the team to beat. That has changed. Look at all the teams rising in the West. From Portland to Denver to LA to Houston and even Oklahoma City and the Spurs find themselves as just another team.

Granted, the return of a healthy Manu means a lot. When healthy, he is a borderline All-NBA talent. But as much as I love Manu - I won't love seeing him playing in another uniform and getting no compensation for him.

The Spurs aren't that far away and considering a lot of contracts can be bought out or are expiring by this time next year - the Spurs are poised to make some moves. But with Duncan, the time is always now. And with their recent track record I have more than my druthers that the Spurs can make the moves necessary to be more than contenders again.

Still, you either extend Ginobili for 3 or 4 seasons or you trade him before the deadline. You do not decide to not resign him and then get nothing in return. That would be foolish considering the Spurs don't have players other teams want (unless it's a salary dump deal).

The blogger makes some sound points. Obviously, for anyone to say the FO sucks would be way over the top. However, to think the FO shouldn't be roundly criticized for some failed personnel decisions and for not having retained and developed a draft picks during that period would be just as over-the-top.

[rascal]

There is more than just the draft to determine how well the front office has done in getting players. How about looking at trades and free agency.

[objective]

The following blog comments were taken from Buck Harvey's blog.

...

The blogger makes some sound points. Obviously, for anyone to say the FO sucks would be way over the top. However, to think the FO shouldn't be roundly criticized for some failed personnel decisions and for not having retained and developed a draft picks during that period would be just as over-the-top.

I don't disagree with much of what the blogger commented, there are few more objectively critical of the front office than me. But I do have problems taking that person seriously when their numbers are so screwed up.

My memory is that Stephen Jackson was offered 3/9, not 1/5. Hell I wish he was offered 1/5, he would have taken it.

Brent Barry didn't sign 3/18, but 4/19 according to the one account I could find, though I believe the cash amount could have been slightly more.

Regardless, the money issues can be hard to find, but the years on the contract, there's no excuse for anyone with an internet connection to get those wrong.

So yes, the Spurs did screw up with Jax, and Barry, and poor decisions up and down the last 5-6 years which cost them several more titles and has closed their contending window already.

BUT it's hard to convince people of that by screwing up basic facts like the column commenter does.