10 Top Worst Moves by the Spurs Front Office this Season.

[ceperez]

Okay here's it is....

#10. Not being able to trade away expiring contracts like Mason, Finley and Bonner for anything of value.
#9. Starting and playing Finley at expense of other player development, only to see him skip town when he lost playing time.
#8. Playing an injured Parker.
#7. Not picking up Mahinmi's contract and not having him play to avoid the embarrassment that he can actually play.
#6. Missing out on acquiring any of the Wizard players that were dumped prior to the trade deadline. Butler and Waywood are an enormous upgrade for the Mavs... who were acquired for... Gooden who we dumped.
#5. Going over the luxury threshold with Jefferson's salary.
#4. Signing a aging power forward in McDyess for $5M/year for 2 years and expecting him to play center.
#3. Signing Keith Bogans and playing him major minutes despite any evidence of ability or production.
#2. Claiming to limit Duncan's minutes at the same time trading away Ratliff and benching the other center Mahinmi.
#1. Not extending Ginobli's contract despite the fact that he contributes a lot of intangibles to the Spurs game.

[BG_Spurs_Fan]

10. Tough call since it was obvious the FO didn't want to take any contracts running after 2010, so who'd want our trash expirings for (supposedly) better expirings?
9. 2008 forum
8. Link to where it says PF heals magically with a couple of months rest only? Or do you mean just shutting him down for the season?
7. Why would they guarantee money ( +lux tax ) to a player who won't be in the NBA next season anyway?
6. Dallas's offer and willingness to take on another bloated contract was much better than anything we could have offered, if you can't grasp that you're delusional.
5. While you're right that his contract is very bad, simply letting Kurt, Bruce and Fab expire would not have helped make the team more competitive this season, as we were already above the salary cap.
4. Who would you have signed instead for less than the MLE in order to squeeze in Blair's contract too?
3. A min player playing better than the supposed level of a min player, not his fault Mason's and RJ's balls have shrunk.Who else would you have brought for the min?
2. Ratliff was never going to play any significant minutes anyway, Duncan's minutes have been well limited. Mahinmi is not an NBA player.
1. It's easy for a fan, not so easy for the FO to throw about $50 mil just like that ( salary + lux tax ) with no health insurances.

[objective]

#10 and #6 seem to be the same thing.

[will_spurs]

7. Why would they guarantee money ( +lux tax ) to a player who won't be in the NBA next season anyway?

How much do you bet Mahinmi gets picked up by a team next year?

[ceperez]

How much do you bet Mahinmi gets picked up by a team next year?

If Mahinmi were in fact as bad as everyone seems to claim, then why wasn't he trade like Ratliff for a 2nd round pick?

[BG_Spurs_Fan]

How much do you bet Mahinmi gets picked up by a team next year?

5 million internet banana dollars, how's that for a bet?

Seriously though, he wasn't in demand at the trade deadline, was he? Theo Ratliff was... apparently.

You got me though, some team might offer him the min, but how much do you bet anyone pays Mahinmi the $2 million ( that's $ 4 mil with lux tax ) he was supposed to get if his option had been picked?

[objective]

Maybe nobody will want Mahinmi. It's possible, and teams will be even less prone to carrying more than the minimum number of players as they continue to be affected by the economy.

though let's not forget, nobody wanted Scola either. Spurs couldn't get anyone to offer them jack for him even though everyone had seen Scola play for years at the highest levels in europe.

In the end, only two guys wanted him. Ferry, who had been in the Spurs FO and only offered a 2nd rounder, and the stat-nerd that was hated on for being hired while Dawson's groomed successor was shown the door and landed with the Spurs. And stat-nerd who uses EA Live sports games to scout players got him for a 2nd plus the cost of eating a single year of 2.5 million worth of coat-thief.

All it takes is one guy to throw Mahinmi a bone. Low risk, high reward. Invisible bone chips, Lots of french. It's all good. :lol

[superjames1992]

If Mahinmi were in fact as bad as everyone seems to claim, then why wasn't he trade like Ratliff for a 2nd round pick?
Maybe no one wanted him? Who knows?

[Spursfanfromafar]

None of the Top 10 Moves can be pinned against the Front Office, which in my opinion has done all that was needed except for this -

Trying to get a trade done during the Trade Deadline. Much more could have possibly been done to pry a Marcus Camby or a Tyrus Thomas or a Brendan Haywood.

Other than that, there is little to crib about the FO's moves.

As for Coach Pop's - his insistence on small ball was a major irritant and so were his inconsistent starting lineups. Other moves such as underplaying Hairston, Mahinmi would not have resulted in anything better in terms of wins for the team, I am sure of that.

RJ's under-achievement, TP's major ailments, Manu's and McDyess' slow starts and Duncan's wearing down of late are the major reasons for what the Spurs are now.

[TJastal]

None of the Top 10 Moves can be pinned against the Front Office, which in my opinion has done all that was needed except for this -

Trying to get a trade done during the Trade Deadline. Much more could have possibly been done to pry a Marcus Camby or a Tyrus Thomas or a Brendan Haywood.

Other than that, there is little to crib about the FO's moves.

As for Coach Pop's - his insistence on small ball was a major irritant and so were his inconsistent starting lineups. Other moves such as underplaying Hairston, Mahinmi would not have resulted in anything better in terms of wins for the team, I am sure of that.

RJ's under-achievement, TP's major ailments, Manu's and McDyess' slow starts and Duncan's wearing down of late are the major reasons for what the Spurs are now.

Duncan is wearing down because he's had to carry the paint defense all year long thanks to Popovich not playing the only guys on the team that can help in that dept (Theo and Ian)

He should have at least made an attempt to do one or the other, the fact he did neither is inexcusable.

[rascal]

Doing nothing at the trade deadline was a big failure for the front office. It was apparant the spurs were not good enough this year to contend for a title and still they could not upgrade the roster while other teams did.

[TJastal]

I do agree with you on the trade deadline though, contrary to what some think on this forum I don't think Popovich tried hard at all.

[gospursgojas]

A lot of those are coaching decisions.

I guess you can consider that FO. But I would make a list of pure FO decisions, like aquiring and letting go players.

Signing Rj, dice, waiving fin, not trading at deadline, not extending manu or ian, not acting on earlier season trade opertunites like jack.

[Cane]

Nobody fucking wanted to make a deal with the Spurs; you look at the trade deals that happened and the Spurs didn't have the contracts or players to make a deal unless you throw in George Hill, Manu Ginobili, or DeJuan Blair which would be dumb to do.

Mason Jr. almost got traded to Miami for a second round pick but their trade exception retired. Theo is a shitty and older version of Marcus Camby except he only statpads blocks and little to nothing else; Bonner, McDyess, and Blair all contribute more. Theo is better than Ian though but when it comes to garbage minute players, la-dee-fucking-da ;)

No trade would've made the Big 3 younger, Parker healthy, or greatly improve this squad and there was none that the Spurs could really capitalize on.

[TJastal]

Nobody fucking wanted to make a deal with the Spurs; you look at the trade deals that happened and the Spurs didn't have the contracts or players to make a deal unless you throw in George Hill, Manu Ginobili, or DeJuan Blair which would be dumb to do.

Mason Jr. almost got traded to Miami for a second round pick but their trade exception retired. Theo is a shitty and older version of Marcus Camby except he only statpads blocks and little to nothing else; Bonner, McDyess, and Blair all contribute more. Theo is better than Ian though but when it comes to garbage minute players, la-dee-fucking-da ;)

No trade would've made the Big 3 younger, Parker healthy, or greatly improve this squad and there was none that the Spurs could really capitalize on.

Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better, EricB. Spurs had decent expiring contracts to dangle (Roger Mason/Bonner) as well as 1st round picks and even the rights to Splitter. They could have pried Thomas with those assets given the scraps the bulls settled for from the bobcats.

Theo is doing quite well on the bobcats and could have done the same for the spurs (been the starter w/ limited minutes). With a full year under his belt he would have been a valuable piece by now and a great help to Duncan in the paint.

Really, just stop trying to sugar coat these failures, you just keep making yourself look dumber.

[BG_Spurs_Fan]

Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better, EricB. Spurs had decent expiring contracts to dangle (Roger Mason/Bonner) as well as 1st round picks and even the rights to Splitter. They could have pried Thomas with those assets given the scraps the bulls settled for from the bobcats.



OK, I'll play along, what makes you think our ( eventual ) offer would have been better than Bobcats'? How is 2 expirings + 1st round pick from the Spurs better than 2 expirings + 1st round pick from the Bobcats?

[ElNono]

I'll just point out one mistake that I think has been glaring since last season: We've been needing a legitimate backup point guard for a long time now.

[TJastal]

OK, I'll play along, what makes you think our ( eventual ) offer would have been better than Bobcats'? How is 2 expirings + 1st round pick from the Spurs better than 2 expirings + 1st round pick from the Bobcats?

Spurs could have simply made their pick unprotected, thus insuring the bulls got the pick instead of gambling on whether or not they make the playoffs.

And even if they made it protected (like the bobcats did) it would be more attractive to the bulls than the bobcats' pick given the spurs chance of making the playoffs and securing it would be higher given their rank in the standings and past performances.

This is to say nothing of the Splitter rights they could have used that the spurs will (probably) get nothing for now when Splitter decides to play out his contract and stay in Europe.

[pad300]

Greatly improved this squad? Get John Salmons. Look at that trade

John Salmons + 2 2nd round picks + First round exchange rights with the bulls in 2010

for

Joe Alexander and Hakim Warrick (2 expirings worth 5.5 million combined...)

Would John Salmons upgrade our wing rotation? He'd be the 2nd best wing on our team... Manu, Salmons, RJ,...

Could we do 2 expirings worth 5.5 million? Easy Peasey! Would we have happily skipped either one of the 2nd round picks or the first round exchange rights, yep! Gee we could have offered a better package than MIL!

[BG_Spurs_Fan]

Spurs could have simply made their pick unprotected, thus insuring the bulls got the pick instead of gambling on whether or not they make the playoffs.

And even if they made it protected (like the bobcats did) it would be more attractive to the bulls than the bobcats' pick given the spurs chance of making the playoffs and securing it would be higher given their rank in the standings and past performances.

This is to say nothing of the Splitter rights they could have used that the spurs will (probably) get nothing for now when Splitter decides to play out his contract and stay in Europe.

So you'd give out an unprotected 1st round pick? And you critisize the FO? Laughable.

Bobcats' pick is deffinitely more attractive than the Spurs', can't see how you can argue that.

As for Splitter, how can you possibly think his rights could be the sweetener that'd swing the deal in the Spurs favor and in the same time predict he'll stay in Europe? Surely you'd realize this makes no sense at all.
And gifting his rights hmmm, do you also critisize the FO for the Scola deal?

[in2deep]

Luis Scola is the #1 worst move every season

[TJastal]

Thomas and Ratliff have put up 40 blocks so far for the bobcats in just 9 games. Larry Brown obviously values rim protection and defense, it's too bad Popovich doesn't anymore.

[TJastal]

So you'd give out an unprotected 1st round pick? And you critisize the FO? Laughable.

Bobcats' pick is deffinitely more attractive than the Spurs', can't see how you can argue that.

As for Splitter, how can you possibly think his rights could be the sweetener that'd swing the deal in the Spurs favor and in the same time predict he'll stay in Europe? Surely you'd realize this makes no sense at all.
And gifting his rights hmmm, do you also critisize the FO for the Scola deal?

So you're saying the spurs would get a higher impact player in the 1st round than what Tyrus Thomas is doing right now for the bobcats? I'm sorry, but that's what is really laughable

And the bobcats pick was protected, meaning if they miss the playoffs (which at the time of the trade deadline looked fairly likely) the bulls miss out on the pick. Spurs' pick would have been much more secure bet for next season. That you debate this is laughable as well.

As for Splitter, just because it's my personal belief that he is staying in Europe doesn't mean everyone else does. There's always a chance he could come and teams might be willing to gamble on that chance. It makes perfect sense in that light, if I was the spurs F.O. and it was my opinion he was going to wig out on my team again then I am going to get something of value for him while I still can.

[BG_Spurs_Fan]

So you're saying the spurs would get a higher impact player in the 1st round than what Tyrus Thomas is doing right now for the bobcats? I'm sorry, but that's what is really laughable

And the bobcats pick was protected, meaning if they miss the playoffs (which at the time of the trade deadline looked fairly likely) the bulls miss out on the pick. Spurs' pick would have been much more secure bet for next season. That you debate this is laughable as well.

As for Splitter, just because it's my personal belief that he is staying in Europe doesn't mean everyone else does. There's always a chance he could come and teams might be willing to gamble on that chance. It makes perfect sense in that light, if I was the spurs F.O. and it was my opinion he was going to wig out on my team again then I am going to get something of value for him while I still can.

I'm not saying the Spurs would have gotten a better talent, I'm saying that from the Bulls perspective the Bobcats pick is better and no they don't miss out on it, it's much more complicated, you just don't know the facts - google it, read, then argue.

If the FO already knows that Splitter will stay in Europe, then it'd be extremely naive from you to think other teams are not aware of it as well. If he's not coming then his rights have no value at all and would be of no interest to anyone. If there's a chance he'd come, then the Spurs would be wise to keep him, as the Scola deal has proved. Now, if you think the FO did great with trading away Scola, then fine.

[Cane]

Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better, EricB. Spurs had decent expiring contracts to dangle (Roger Mason/Bonner) as well as 1st round picks and even the rights to Splitter. They could have pried Thomas with those assets given the scraps the bulls settled for from the bobcats.

Theo is doing quite well on the bobcats and could have done the same for the spurs (been the starter w/ limited minutes). With a full year under his belt he would have been a valuable piece by now and a great help to Duncan in the paint.

Really, just stop trying to sugar coat these failures, you just keep making yourself look dumber.

Nah, Theo is just a stat padder with little to no impact on the game; worse than even Marcus Camby and he'd likely get eaten alive in the West. Who the fuck is EricB?

And now you pulled out bullshit that we could've gotten Thomas and say I'm "sugar coating" that failure? GTFO, no wonder you can't start threads :rollin

The only trades available were to cash in expirings like Mason and Theo for future draft picks unless they throw in Blair, Hill, or Ginobili which would be dumb as shit.

[TJastal]

I'm not saying the Spurs would have gotten a better talent, I'm saying that from the Bulls perspective the Bobcats pick is better and no they don't miss out on it, it's much more complicated, you just don't know the facts - google it, read, then argue.

If the FO already knows that Splitter will stay in Europe, then it'd be extremely naive from you to think other teams are not aware of it as well. If he's not coming then his rights have no value at all and would be of no interest to anyone. If there's a chance he'd come, then the Spurs would be wise to keep him, as the Scola deal has proved. Now, if you think the FO did great with trading away Scola, then fine.

http://sports.espn.go.com/chicago/nba/news/story?id=4925000
Forman said on "The Afternoon Saloon" on ESPN 1000 that the first year for the pick would be 2012, and it would be lottery protected that year. Forman said the protection would decrease each year after that for "four or five years."

The bulls would miss out on the pick next year if the bobcats missed the playoffs which was looked like a possibility at the time of the trade deadline.
Hard to say whether they might be happy to salt it away, maybe the don't care or maybe they are hoping to have it for next year when they put their big FA plan together. The latter seems the most likely to me. In this regard, the spurs pick would seem the safest bet. /shrug

I don't think the F.O or anyone really knows anything about what Splitter's plans are. I just have a hunch he's going to stay in Europe. He may just make me look stupid and turn out to be just as good as Scola eventually. Question is, do we want to try to win now while the window is cracked or a few years or when the window is shut completely? The former is the route I would take.

[TJastal]

Nah, Theo is just a stat padder with little to no impact on the game; worse than even Marcus Camby and he'd likely get eaten alive in the West. Who the fuck is EricB?

And now you pulled out bullshit that we could've gotten Thomas and say I'm "sugar coating" that failure? GTFO, no wonder you can't start threads :rollin

The only trades available were to cash in expirings like Mason and Theo for future draft picks unless they throw in Blair, Hill, or Ginobili which would be dumb as shit.

Yah that Ratliff sure sucks against western conf opponents. That laker game when he was blocking Gasol and Bynum on the same sequence, and helping the bobcats give the best team in the west a beatdown sure backs up your crackhead theory huh?

[BG_Spurs_Fan]

http://sports.espn.go.com/chicago/nba/news/story?id=4925000
Forman said on "The Afternoon Saloon" on ESPN 1000 that the first year for the pick would be 2012, and it would be lottery protected that year. Forman said the protection would decrease each year after that for "four or five years."

The bulls would miss out on the pick next year if the bobcats missed the playoffs which was looked like a possibility at the time of the trade deadline.
Hard to say whether they might be happy to salt it away, maybe the don't care or maybe they are hoping to have it for next year when they put their big FA plan together. The latter seems the most likely to me. In this regard, the spurs pick would seem the safest bet. /shrug

I don't think the F.O or anyone really knows anything about what Splitter's plans are. I just have a hunch he's going to stay in Europe. He may just make me look stupid and turn out to be just as good as Scola eventually. Question is, do we want to try to win now while the window is cracked or a few years or when the window is shut completely? The former is the route I would take.

The pick they receive also depends on Minny/Denver, so the Bulls will likely not see it for a couple of seasons, but when they get it it'll likely be a much better pick than the Spurs' 20th(ish) pick this summer. Safe bet for the Bulls since they don't exactly want many first round picks this upcoming draft - on the contrary - they want as much cap space as possible, similarly to what the Spurs did in 2003 when targetting J Kidd.

As for Splitter - you're right that at this moment in time problable no one knows whether he'll come to the NBA or not, which is why his trade value is extremely low ( see Scola's proposed deals in 2007 ) and would have been unlikely to swing a deal in the Spurs favor. The best case scenario would be if the Spurs keep his rights and bring him over, chances are he's not far behind Scola as a player and his game is much more likely to translate to the NBA.

All in all, what I'm trying to say is that the FO might have presented an offer but obviously Bobcats had a better one for Chicago and obviously the Spurs didn't want to bid any higher, that is if they even had interest in Thomas.

[SenorSpur]

Greatly improved this squad? Get John Salmons. Look at that trade

John Salmons + 2 2nd round picks + First round exchange rights with the bulls in 2010

for

Joe Alexander and Hakim Warrick (2 expirings worth 5.5 million combined...)

Would John Salmons upgrade our wing rotation? He'd be the 2nd best wing on our team... Manu, Salmons, RJ,...

Could we do 2 expirings worth 5.5 million? Easy Peasey! Would we have happily skipped either one of the 2nd round picks or the first round exchange rights, yep! Gee we could have offered a better package than MIL!

:tu

[TJastal]

The pick they receive also depends on Minny/Denver, so the Bulls will likely not see it for a couple of seasons, but when they get it it'll likely be a much better pick than the Spurs' 20th(ish) pick this summer. Safe bet for the Bulls since they don't exactly want many first round picks this upcoming draft - on the contrary - they want as much cap space as possible, similarly to what the Spurs did in 2003 when targetting J Kidd.

As for Splitter - you're right that at this moment in time problable no one knows whether he'll come to the NBA or not, which is why his trade value is extremely low ( see Scola's proposed deals in 2007 ) and would have been unlikely to swing a deal in the Spurs favor. The best case scenario would be if the Spurs keep his rights and bring him over, chances are he's not far behind Scola as a player and his game is much more likely to translate to the NBA.

All in all, what I'm trying to say is that the FO might have presented an offer but obviously Bobcats had a better one for Chicago and obviously the Spurs didn't want to bid any higher, that is if they even had interest in Thomas.

Good point about not wanting the pick this year, due to capspace concerns. I overlooked that fact and also the fact that the pick isn't available until
2012, which supports your argument.

Still, I could easily imagine the bobcats being a strong playoff team in a few years and the spurs could be starting a rebuilding phase if Manu doesn't resign and TD retires. As a future pick I think I might actually prefer the spurs' future pick over the bobcats if I was the bulls.

[Cane]

Yah that Ratliff sure sucks against western conf opponents. That laker game when he was blocking Gasol and Bynum on the same sequence, and helping the bobcats give the best team in the west a beatdown sure backs up your crackhead theory huh?

The same game where he fouled himself out from playing substantial minutes (4 fouls in 16 mins) and where they got lucky that others stepped up their game and LA fumbled it away? Theo is inconsistent and his only asset are blocks - his offense, rebounding, etc just don't stack up well to what the Spurs already had. Spurs also already have a younger version of what Theo contributes and thats Ian.

Crackhead theory? Puff, puff, pass whatever you're smoking:


I do agree with you on the trade deadline though, contrary to what some think on this forum I don't think Popovich tried hard at all.

You make up bullshit and paint a delusion that the Spurs could've easily grabbed Thomas or a substantial trade without including guys like Blair, Hill, or Ginobili. Not only that but you try and downplay their efforts even though they were shopping around and had a disappointment named Richard Jefferson on their payroll to exchange? :lol

Just gotta face the reality that the Spurs and the market didn't have the contracts or players to make a worthwhile trade AND that there was no trade that would've elevated the team substantially. Imo Tyrus Thomas is too inconsistent, lacking in IQ, and needs too many minutes and attempts to be worthwhile especially in exchange for significant assets - not to mention the rise of Blair and Tiago's potential. Both he and Theo would take up minutes better suited towards the bigs the Spurs have had + Blair.

[JR3]

Now say something nice... list the top ten best things the front office did this year... okay there might only be a few (blair, blair, and blair)

[TJastal]

The same game where he fouled himself out from playing substantial minutes (4 fouls in 16 mins) and where they got lucky that others stepped up their game and LA fumbled it away? Theo is inconsistent and his only asset are blocks - his offense, rebounding, etc just don't stack up well to what the Spurs already had. Spurs also already have a younger version of what Theo contributes and thats Ian.

Crackhead theory? Puff, puff, pass whatever you're smoking:



You make up bullshit and paint a delusion that the Spurs could've easily grabbed Thomas or a substantial trade without including guys like Blair, Hill, or Ginobili. Not only that but you try and downplay their efforts even though they were shopping around and had a disappointment named Richard Jefferson on their payroll to exchange? :lol

Just gotta face the reality that the Spurs and the market didn't have the contracts or players to make a worthwhile trade AND that there was no trade that would've elevated the team substantially. Imo Tyrus Thomas is too inconsistent, lacking in IQ, and needs too many minutes and attempts to be worthwhile especially in exchange for significant assets - not to mention the rise of Blair and Tiago's potential. Both he and Theo would take up minutes better suited towards the bigs the Spurs have had + Blair.

I actually watched the bobcat/laker game, Theo's presence as a paint deterrent did have an impact on that game there is nothing you can say to change that fact.

And the fact that the spurs have Ian doesn't mean jack if they don't give him the necessary minutes to develop. Another whiff for you.

I'm calling bs he couldn't have helped the spurs. For the bobcats he's averaging in 26 minutes a game: 12 pts, 8 reb, 1.4 ast, 1 stl, and 2.6 blocks while shooting 50% from the field and 76% from the line. Put that in your crackpipe and smoke it.

Three strikes, your out.

[rascal]

So you're saying the spurs would get a higher impact player in the 1st round than what Tyrus Thomas is doing right now for the bobcats? I'm sorry, but that's what is really laughable

And the bobcats pick was protected, meaning if they miss the playoffs (which at the time of the trade deadline looked fairly likely) the bulls miss out on the pick. Spurs' pick would have been much more secure bet for next season. That you debate this is laughable as well.

As for Splitter, just because it's my personal belief that he is staying in Europe doesn't mean everyone else does. There's always a chance he could come and teams might be willing to gamble on that chance. It makes perfect sense in that light, if I was the spurs F.O. and it was my opinion he was going to wig out on my team again then I am going to get something of value for him while I still can.

good post. You countered all his arguments logically.

[Johnny RIngo]

Doing nothing at the trade deadline was a big failure for the front office. It was apparant the spurs were not good enough this year to contend for a title and still they could not upgrade the roster while other teams did.

Agreed. It's as if they decided to wave the white flag and pack it in for the season. Either that or the Spurs FO just suck at making trades(giving away useful players like Scola and Ratliff for virtually nothing)

[rascal]

Agreed. It's as if they decided to wave the white flag and pack it in for the season.

They were more concerned with trimming payroll.

[rascal]

The spurs should have offered Manu in a type of package deal to Wash for Butler and Heywood. Manu was a great trade chip I doubt the spurs dangled.

The spurs need a capable starting quality big and Butler has more solid years left than Manu.

[Cane]

I actually watched the bobcat/laker game, Theo's presence as a paint deterrent did have an impact on that game there is nothing you can say to change that fact.

And the fact that the spurs have Ian doesn't mean jack if they don't give him the necessary minutes to develop. Another whiff for you.

I'm calling bs he couldn't have helped the spurs. For the bobcats he's averaging in 26 minutes a game: 12 pts, 8 reb, 1.4 ast, 1 stl, and 2.6 blocks while shooting 50% from the field and 76% from the line. Put that in your crackpipe and smoke it.

Three strikes, your out.

Nah, Theo's presence was limited (16 minutes due to his foul trouble) and barely did jack. LA just sucked ass that game; then again the Bobcats are to the Lakers like the Bucks used to be to the Spurs - a shitty team that counters a good one.

Thomas would've "helped" the Spurs at the expense of using 13.6 FGA which is less than one attempt away from Duncan's average. Fact of the matter is the Spurs didn't have the players, contracts, or assets to make your delusional Thomas trade a reality. No wonder you can't start threads. :hat

[rascal]

Nah, Theo's presence was limited (16 minutes due to his foul trouble) and barely did jack. LA just sucked ass that game; then again the Bobcats are to the Lakers like the Bucks used to be to the Spurs - a shitty team that counters a good one.

Thomas would've "helped" the Spurs at the expense of using 13.6 FGA which is less than one attempt away from Duncan's average. Fact of the matter is the Spurs didn't have the players, contracts, or assets to make your delusional Thomas trade a reality. No wonder you can't start threads. :hat

Disagree, the spurs have enough players, contracts etc. to make a trade, they didn't want to make a trade.

[Johnny RIngo]

Disagree, the spurs have enough players, contracts etc. to make a trade, they didn't want to make a trade.

Seems like Holt clamped down on the FO after the Jefferson debacle.

[TJastal]

Nah, Theo's presence was limited (16 minutes due to his foul trouble) and barely did jack. LA just sucked ass that game; then again the Bobcats are to the Lakers like the Bucks used to be to the Spurs - a shitty team that counters a good one.

Thomas would've "helped" the Spurs at the expense of using 13.6 FGA which is less than one attempt away from Duncan's average. Fact of the matter is the Spurs didn't have the players, contracts, or assets to make your delusional Thomas trade a reality. No wonder you can't start threads. :hat

You sure got a shitload of excuses for everything.

You say Ratliff had no effect on that game. Just a coincidence that Pau Gasol shot 5 for 14 and Andrew Bynum 3 for 9. Pass the bong, please.

Spurs might not have had the better 1st round "pick" to offer but they did have better players as expiring deals (proven shooters which we know the bulls were looking for) and also Splitter's rights that might have been the sweetener that got the deal done. And let's just say its hard to believe that the spurs couldn't have put together something better than Acie Law, Flip Murray and a future protected pick.

[Johnny RIngo]

I thought it was pretty embarrassing that SA was looking to trade Dice only months after giving him that bloated three year deal. Talk about incompetence.

[Chomag]

3. A min player playing better than the supposed level of a min player, not his fault Mason's and RJ's balls have shrunk.Who else would you have brought for the min?



How about play and develop a player that totally outplayed and destroyed him in pre-season? Bogans is starting but he did not earn that spot his lack of production on all levels points to this.

Bogans playing better then supposed level? Sorry that one made me chuckle. I'm not even going to go in that Bogans has started more games with the spurs this season then he has his entire year.

[TJastal]

As for Salmons that is a head scratcher too. Bucks bent over the bulls on that one in their desperation to clear cap room. I think the spurs could have done better.

Bulls only got a role player in Hakim Warrick and 1st round superbust Joe Alexander, and gave up two future 2nd rounders. And that's not all. Milwaukee can switch 1st round picks with CHI as long as its not a top 10. Looking right now like they might cash that one in for a move up in the draft if they keep winning ballgames.

Salmons is proving to be a solid 2nd/3rd option on the bucks. Considering the spurs have Keith Bogans as a starter they should have been more actively pursuing this too.

[dbestpro]

The point is there have been a lot of things go wrong. I don't think you need a list of ten.

You can point the finger at the front office, Pop and the players not named Hill, Manu and Duncan.

[LongtimeSpursFan]

Nobody fucking wanted to make a deal with the Spurs; you look at the trade deals that happened and the Spurs didn't have the contracts or players to make a deal unless you throw in George Hill, Manu Ginobili, or DeJuan Blair which would be dumb to do.

Mason Jr. almost got traded to Miami for a second round pick but their trade exception retired. Theo is a shitty and older version of Marcus Camby except he only statpads blocks and little to nothing else; Bonner, McDyess, and Blair all contribute more. Theo is better than Ian though but when it comes to garbage minute players, la-dee-fucking-da ;)

No trade would've made the Big 3 younger, Parker healthy, or greatly improve this squad and there was none that the Spurs could really capitalize on.

Finally a voice of reason.

[ChumpDumper]

Good point about not wanting the pick this year, due to capspace concerns. I overlooked that fact and also the fact that the pick isn't available until
2012, which supports your argument.:lol

You can understand another team's cap concerns but pretend the Spurs have none.

:tu

[TJastal]

:lol

You can understand another team's cap concerns but pretend the Spurs have none.

:tu

Stale, old argument. I outlined before how the spurs could have made a trade for Salmons and Thomas and still had $$ leftover for Manu and even the mythical Splitter next year. And seeing what Salmons has done for Milwaukee and what Thomas is doing for the bobcats I think its fair to say that plugging Salmons in for Bogans and Thomas in for Bonner would have vaulted the spurs right up into the top of the league.

So for just a little bit more (actually spending the same $$$ in the future as this year) the spurs could have put them in a prime position to contend for a title for this year and next. And after next year Jefferson and McDyess come off the books. Then they would have alot of options depending on how Salmons and Thomas were performing, including keeping both as replacements for Jefferson and Dice, trading them, or letting them walk.

[FeZZy]

we missed on 3 wizards players! not one but THREE and they could all be been diffrence makers

[Johnny RIngo]

we missed on 3 wizards players! not one but THREE and they could all be been diffrence makers

Don't forget the two Bulls players(Thomas and Salmons)

[ChumpDumper]

Stale, old argument. I outlined before how the spurs could have made a trade for Salmons and Thomas and still had $$ leftover for Manu and even the mythical Splitter next year.No, you didn't.

And lol about stale and old. You can't go a day without bitching about Tyrus Thomas.

[jjktkk]

If Mahinmi were in fact as bad as everyone seems to claim, then why wasn't he trade like Ratliff for a 2nd round pick?

OH MY FREAKIN GOD!!!! Do you realize what you just posted? " If Mahimni were in fact as bad as everyone seems to claim, then why wasn't he trade(d) like Ratliff for a 2nd round pick?" Did you really ask that? If Mahimni is bad, why would a NBA team trade for him?

[jjktkk]

Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better, EricB. Spurs had decent expiring contracts to dangle (Roger Mason/Bonner) as well as 1st round picks and even the rights to Splitter. They could have pried Thomas with those assets given the scraps the bulls settled for from the bobcats.

Theo is doing quite well on the bobcats and could have done the same for the spurs (been the starter w/ limited minutes). With a full year under his belt he would have been a valuable piece by now and a great help to Duncan in the paint.

Really, just stop trying to sugar coat these failures, you just keep making yourself look dumber.

Sorry TJastal, but I agree with Cane. Ask yourself why would the Bulls want to so desperately to trade away a lottery pick like Thomas. I mean Thomas is long, athletic, can defend, board, and block shots. And hes young, what like this is his 3rd year in the league? Thomas is a immature knucklehead who is a extremely talented guy, but until he grows up he is an risky investment. If a coach known to be a disciplinarian and general asshole like Larry Brown can get under the skin of David Robinson, how long will it take for a hothead like Thomas to go off on Brown? Now I would of loved it if the Spurs could of gotten Thomas for expiring contracts and, or a 2nd rounder, but I'm happy as hell the Spurs didn't trade away this years 1st rounder, which will be a higher pick than ever in quite awhile.

[jjktkk]

The spurs should have offered Manu in a type of package deal to Wash for Butler and Heywood. Manu was a great trade chip I doubt the spurs dangled.

The spurs need a capable starting quality big and Butler has more solid years left than Manu.

:rolleyes Yea just trade one of the greatest Spurs ever for Butler and Haywood. You should think about applying for the Clipper's GM job.

[rascal]

:rolleyes Yea just trade one of the greatest Spurs ever for Butler and Haywood. You should think about applying for the Clipper's GM job.

That would be a great trade for the Spurs.

[ulosturedge]

Complimentary players would not have miraculously turned us from pretenders to contenders. Haven't we taken enough risk on temporary fixes? Then you are stuck with these guys contracts for the next couple of years. How are you so sure these things would have worked out perfect because if they don't you have just exacerbated the problem. It's like trying to plug a sinking boat with bubblegum. Your wasting your time when in fact the whole boat needs to be replaced. If there was a clear cut deal i'm sure the Spurs would have made it. I have a feeling most the talks did include blair, hill, or manu which are deal breakers imo. Better to hold and wait til the end of the season, clear some cap space, see whats left after teams fight over the big names, and get involved in some sign and trade deals.

[rascal]

Complimentary players would not have miraculously turned us from pretenders to contenders. Haven't we taken enough risk on temporary fixes? Then you are stuck with these guys contracts for the next couple of years. How are you so sure these things would have worked out perfect because if they don't you have just exacerbated the problem. It's like trying to plug a sinking boat with bubblegum. Your wasting your time when in fact the whole boat needs to be replaced. If there was a clear cut deal i'm sure the Spurs would have made it. I have a feeling most the talks did include blair, hill, or manu which are deal breakers imo. Better to hold and wait til the end of the season, clear some cap space, see whats left after teams fight over the big names, and get involved in some sign and trade deals.

You guys talk like Butler and Haywood are trash. Butler straightup for manu would be a good trade for the spurs and then throw in a capable starting center which is better than what the spurs currently have at center and its a steal of a trade.

The spurs are not winning a title with the frontline weak as it is even with Manu on the team.

Look how well getting those guys is working out for Dallas.

[rascal]

Hill and Blair I would keep. Both are young and will get even better. Manu is the one that needs to be traded. Manu will cost you big $ this summer and is good for at most only a couple more years.

Manu had an expiring contract so he may have been desired in a trade at the deadline but I doubt the spurs even considered trading him. The spurs had tradeable assets but just did not want to make any trade.

[ulosturedge]

You guys talk like Butler and Haywood are trash. Butler straightup for manu would be a good trade for the spurs and then throw in a capable starting center which is better than what the spurs currently have at center and its a steal of a trade.

The spurs are not winning a title with the frontline weak as it is even with Manu on the team.

Look how well getting those guys is working out for Dallas.


So Haywood is the center we were after all along? And now you want to take Manu out and replace him with Butler? Manu has been the only thing keeping us afloat this season. So your telling me Butler would fill the void of Manu Ginobili? Now the team would run through Butler? Yeah that has championship written all over it. I'm glad you found a way to solve all our problems. There was no quick fix, get over it and wait til next season.

[jjktkk]

Seems like Holt clamped down on the FO after the Jefferson debacle.

Thats a good possibility, but noone really wants to even discuss that might be another reason the Spurs didn't make a trade this year. It seems like its easier to crack on Pop and RC, yet noone cracks on Holt if he tells RC to cut payroll, like the horrible Scola trade. RC and Pop get the blame, but Holt should be accountable as well.

[rascal]

So Haywood is the center we were after all along? And now you want to take Manu out and replace him with Butler? Manu has been the only thing keeping us afloat this season. So your telling me Butler would fill the void of Manu Ginobili? Now the team would run through Butler? Yeah that has championship written all over it. I'm glad you found a way to solve all our problems. There was no quick fix, get over it and wait til next season.

The spurs would be a better team with Haywood and Butler instead of Manu.

There is no filling the void, the team as a whole would be better. The major problem is an incapable frontline and Haywood shores that up some. Butler is a good player and has many more upside years left than Manu has.

[BillMc]

10. Tough call since it was obvious the FO didn't want to take any contracts running after 2010, so who'd want our trash expirings for (supposedly) better expirings?
9. 2008 forum
8. Link to where it says PF heals magically with a couple of months rest only? Or do you mean just shutting him down for the season?
7. Why would they guarantee money ( +lux tax ) to a player who won't be in the NBA next season anyway?
6. Dallas's offer and willingness to take on another bloated contract was much better than anything we could have offered, if you can't grasp that you're delusional.
5. While you're right that his contract is very bad, simply letting Kurt, Bruce and Fab expire would not have helped make the team more competitive this season, as we were already above the salary cap.
4. Who would you have signed instead for less than the MLE in order to squeeze in Blair's contract too?
3. A min player playing better than the supposed level of a min player, not his fault Mason's and RJ's balls have shrunk.Who else would you have brought for the min?
2. Ratliff was never going to play any significant minutes anyway, Duncan's minutes have been well limited. Mahinmi is not an NBA player.
1. It's easy for a fan, not so easy for the FO to throw about $50 mil just like that ( salary + lux tax ) with no health insurances.

+1000

To be fair the majority of us on this board were VERY HAPPY with the acquistions of Jefferson and Dice last summer. And Bogans, flaws and all, has given us everything we could expect from a min salary veteran. Obviously its their job and we're just fans, but pretty much everyone was onboard with this. Now the FO is stupid, which means we were stupid too last summer.

Picking Blair and forcing Tim and Manu to rest last summer (Manu especially) is looking like some very smart moves on the FO's part. Making Hill learn the point too has been useful So they make some good ones and they miss some. It's life.

[timtonymanu]

It's weird how many of you say the FO made bad decisions last summer when you guys were all over their nuts and saying that the spurs will beat the lakers. IMO, RJ and Dice fooled everyone into thinking that the spurs were back to title contenders. So dont act like you guys were right all along.

However, the FO did flop in trying to get a player in the deadline. The Bucks got Salmons for pretty much nothing. The Spurs werent getting Haywood/Butler except in your dreams. Salmons was the easiest choice but i guess the FO wasnt interested.

[BG_Spurs_Fan]

It's weird how many of you say the FO made bad decisions last summer when you guys were all over their nuts and saying that the spurs will beat the lakers. IMO, RJ and Dice fooled everyone into thinking that the spurs were back to title contenders. So dont act like you guys were right all along.

However, the FO did flop in trying to get a player in the deadline. The Bucks got Salmons for pretty much nothing. The Spurs werent getting Haywood/Butler except in your dreams. Salmons was the easiest choice but i guess the FO wasnt interested.

Totally agree about RJ and Dyess, the FO did what was right at the time. Now hindsight shows the effect hasn't been very good, but it doesn't make the FO moves last summer totally wrong.

The Salmons thing is different, though, the Spurs had 11 million reasons not to trade for him, it was obvious they weren't going to add players with contracts longer than 2010 and no one can blame the owners if they want to get back under the lux tax next season.It's easy for fans to say how stupid it was they didn't add a player and pay him $11 million ( with lux tax ) for a season, but 11 million is a lot of money for a 4th/5th scorer.

[mountainballer]

Totally agree about RJ and Dyess, the FO did what was right at the time. Now hindsight shows the effect hasn't been very good, but it doesn't make the FO moves last summer totally wrong.

The Salmons thing is different, though, the Spurs had 11 million reasons not to trade for him, it was obvious they weren't going to add players with contracts longer than 2010 and no one can blame the owners if they want to get back under the lux tax next season.It's easy for fans to say how stupid it was they didn't add a player and pay him $11 million ( with lux tax ) for a season, but 11 million is a lot of money for a 4th/5th scorer.

well, we really don't know anything about the 2010 plans. (and I fear the FO doesn't know either).
if staying under the threshold is a priority, then we have to face much more disappointing moves than the non acquisition of Salmons.
because this will mean either no Manu or no Splitter for the next season. worst case: no Manu AND no Splitter.

what I try to say - if right before the deadline the FO got the order from Holt to stay under the threshold 2010, it included skip this season and call it a dynasty. no other scenario. if it was like this, then the FO didn't make a mistake. they just follow the instructions.
but what would be the logical consequence? it would be the start of a rebuilding process, including some significant move. considering how often the FO failed with their moves since 2006, I'm not very optimistic that they will make the right decisions in the future.
RC might be a decent facility manager for a well designed building (as he proved), but I really doubt he has the vision and the talent for playing the role of the architect of the Spurs future franchise. Pop had it, but I fear he is done. and the guy who has it (Presti) is gone.

however. back to the Salmons question. if the Spurs no longer believe they can be contenders, it was right not to trade for him. if they think they could be contenders for this season (and the next), it was a huge mistake not to get him. (assuming a decent offer was on the table)
considering our current wing rotation and the many holes (RJ's bad performance, Mason's inability) his impact would have been greater than most big man we could have got would provide.

[BG_Spurs_Fan]

well, we really don't know anything about the 2010 plans. (and I fear the FO doesn't know either).
if staying under the threshold is a priority, then we have to face much more disappointing moves than the non acquisition of Salmons.
because this will mean either no Manu or no Splitter for the next season. worst case: no Manu AND no Splitter.

what I try to say - if right before the deadline the FO got the order from Holt to stay under the threshold 2010, it included skip this season and call it a dynasty. no other scenario. if it was like this, then the FO didn't make a mistake. they just follow the instructions.
but what would be the logical consequence? it would be the start of a rebuilding process, including some significant move. considering how often the FO failed with their moves since 2006, I'm not very optimistic that they will make the right decisions in the future.
RC might be a decent facility manager for a well designed building (as he proved), but I really doubt he has the vision and the talent for playing the role of the architect of the Spurs future franchise. Pop had it, but I fear he is done. and the guy who has it (Presti) is gone.

however. back to the Salmons question. if the Spurs no longer believe they can be contenders, it was right not to trade for him. if they think they could be contenders for this season (and the next), it was a huge mistake not to get him. (assuming a decent offer was on the table)
considering our current wing rotation and the many holes (RJ's bad performance, Mason's inability) his impact would have been greater than most big man we could have got would provide.

You're right we don't know what the FO think so we'll see in the summer, right now we could only speculate.

On Salmons, he was gettable, we had the pieces and didn't get him, there were also no reports that we even made a proper push for him, these are the facts, I can only assume the FO didn't think he's worth it. For what it's worth I agree that adding Salmons wouldn't have made the team a contender this season. He probably would have helped, but not that much and thus taking on his contract wouldn't have been a wise decision in the long run. If you think e makes us a contender fair enough, but I understand why the FO did not.

I think the Spurs were only looking to dump RJ ( obviously failed ),also possibly looking for a TE to reduce the payroll or fascilitate a Mason/Fin move but for other expirings.I can see why they didn't want to add more salary to next year's payroll with so many questions looming, like national team play, RJ's situation, contract extensions, Splitter coming or not, health issues, luxury tax issues, etc. These are extremely tough decisions to make and evaluate without the need to add additional burden to next year's payroll.

[ceperez]

The spurs would be a better team with Haywood and Butler instead of Manu.

There is no filling the void, the team as a whole would be better. The major problem is an incapable frontline and Haywood shores that up some. Butler is a good player and has many more upside years left than Manu has.

As much as I like Manu, this may be the sad reality and Dallas got a steal.

Butler is the kind of gutsy player player like Manu that can take the hit and still score.

Haywood is a decent and tall enough big to ensure that all the front court duties don't fall in Tim's shoulders.

Not likely we'll be able to beat Dallas with their current lineup. Just too big and too strong.

[ceperez]

On Salmons, he was gettable, we had the pieces and didn't get him, there were also no reports that we even made a proper push for him, these are the facts, I can only assume the FO didn't think he's worth it. For what it's worth I agree that adding Salmons wouldn't have made the team a contender this season. He probably would have helped, but not that much and thus taking on his contract wouldn't have been a wise decision in the long run. If you think e makes us a contender fair enough, but I understand why the FO did not.


Completely forgot that Salmons was available.

In hindsight, that RJ deal was a complete disaster. If we got Salmons or Butler instead of him, we would be in much better shape than today.

Also, nobody ever mentions that the coaching staff didn't do what they did to Malik Rose. That is, you showcase the talent early in the season so you can get a better trade. Did we showcase anybody that we did intend to trade? We did the complete opposite and kept that a players talent hidden deep in the bench.

Heck, why couldn't we have played Mahinmi more after his break out game against Atlanta. We could have gotten something for him if he were showcased more.

[spursrocks]

bogans sucks! fuck you bogans, dick, Roger and Dice! those players dont deserve to be a spur! poor timmy, he wont get his 5th ring with these kind of shitty teammates. fuck! i cant accept the fact shaq or kobe will get their 5th ring this year!

[Mr Bones]

This summer is going to be very interesting. If Splitter joins the Spurs, is that enough to contend next year? And if not, does it make sense to resign Ginobili? There's a good possibility that the Spurs will have to gut it out next season and then rebuild around Parker/Hill/Splitter. And if they are in rebuilding mode, does it make sense to hold on to Blair, who RC and Pop have both have acknowledged probably will not have a long career in the NBA? The FO has a lot of tough decisions to make, and (sadly) a sign and trade involving Ginobili and trading Blair while his value is high might be among those decisions...