Thomas Gardner invited to training camp [Archive]

TD 21

09-23-2010, 07:34 PM

The only possible explanation is that Pop wants to put pressure on Anderson/Gee/Neal/Temple to play balls out in training camp, or the are just scrimmage scrubs.

Other than Gee, who stands a good chance himself, those guys know that, barring something unforeseen (and by that I mean, a veteran being brought in or a trade occurring; both of which appear to be highly unlikely) they're on the team and they also know that there's going to be at least one rotation spot available for them to claim, since there is no veteran wing to turn to.

I'm not going to make too big a deal out of training camp invites, but the amount of redundancy is ridiculous. Why have they not invited at least one SF yet?

Since they're so obsessed with shooters, why did they not invite Novak? Sure, he can't guard his own shadow, but he is an SF. Simmons is another SF that they could have invited. I don't want either on the team, but I think it would make more sense to invite guys like that than the guys they've invited so far.

ChumpDumper

09-23-2010, 07:39 PM

If they aren't going to be on the team anyway, why does it matter?

TD 21

09-23-2010, 07:42 PM

ChumpDumper

09-23-2010, 07:45 PM

Because they should be bringing in guys who have a chance to make the team and who could fill a potential hole. Right now, all they're doing is stacking the same players on top of each other. It's pointless.

Just because I don't want guys like Novak and Simmons on the team, if either were to have came in and had a good camp, there's potentially a spot for one of them. Gardner and Penney, their fate is probably already sealed.Novak would have no chance because he sucks.

Simmons would have no chance because he's too expensive.

Just because you think someone would have a chance to make the team because he's over 6'6" doesn't actually mean he would.

TD 21

09-23-2010, 08:00 PM

Novak would have no chance because he sucks.

Simmons would have no chance because he's too expensive.

Just because you think someone would have a chance to make the team because he's over 6'6" doesn't actually mean he would.

He'd have a chance. The front office is obsessed with shooters and he can not only play the three, but play some four.

Too expensive? He'd cost the veteran's minimum and at this point, he could more than likely be had for a non-guaranteed contract.

Just because you think someone wouldn't have a chance to make the team because he's over 6-6 doesn't actually mean he wouldn't.

I'm talking about making the team out of camp, not necessarily sticking the entire season. If one of those guys came in and played well, I think they'd be open to keeping one until January 10th. Whereas with guys like Gardner and Penney, I don't think it's going to matter how well they play, because they can only play the same position that the Spurs are most stocked at.

MaNu4Tres

09-23-2010, 08:10 PM

Who cares who else is brought in at this point.

The active roster is set as premature as that may sound.. It's obvious

Front court : Duncan, Splitter, McDyess, Blair, Bonner

SF : Jefferson, Anderson,

SG: Manu, Hill, Temple,

PG : Parker, (Hill), (Temple)

And the winner of the Gee/ Neal competition will get the 12 spot

Inactive roster will most likely be Gist/Loser of Gee, Neal competition/ the best of the rest (Jerrels, Penney, Gardner)

Russ

09-23-2010, 08:13 PM

Because they should be bringing in guys who have a chance to make the team and who could fill a potential hole.

Gardner and Penney, their fate is probably already sealed.

Chance? Gardner? Fate?

You may not make the team, but sometimes the key to success is just Being There.

ChumpDumper

09-23-2010, 08:14 PM

He'd have a chance.Because you say so? He sucks. Period.

Too expensive? He'd cost the veteran's minimumWhich is too expensive.

Just because you think someone wouldn't have a chance to make the team because he's over 6-6 doesn't actually mean he wouldn't.Right.

It's because he sucks or is too expensive.

I'm talking about making the team out of camp, not necessarily sticking the entire season. If one of those guys came in and played well, I think they'd be open to keeping one until January 10th. Whereas with guys like Gardner and Penney, I don't think it's going to matter how well they play, because they can only play the same position that the Spurs are most stocked at.Same thing with Novak and Simmons, really.

They just aren't that good, and there is really only one choice to make in training camp: keep Gist or leave the #15 spot empty.

TD 21

09-23-2010, 09:00 PM

Because you say so? He sucks. Period.

If you follow my reasoning, it makes sense that he'd have a chance. He does suck, though, but I never claimed anything to the contrary.

Which is too expensive.It's not too expensive if they cut him by January 10th, so as to avoid his contract becoming guaranteed for the entire season.

Right.

It's because he sucks or is too expensive.It means very little that they both suck. They can both shoot (clearly, something this front office is obsessed with) and they can both play a position this team is thin at. Gardner and Penney don't and while I'd prefer they retain Gee over someone like Simmons, it's not like Gee is the most established player in the world. Neither is Anderson, or Neal, or Temple and outside of Anderson, they're all fringe prospects. It couldn't hurt to have a veteran around, at least for a few months.

Same thing with Novak and Simmons, really.

They just aren't that good, and there is really only one choice to make in training camp: keep Gist or leave the #15 spot empty.I disagree. Clearly, they want to get younger and more athletic, but what if Anderson struggles and Gee doesn't look like an NBA player, then what? I think a guy like Simmons would have a chance.

"Really only one choice to make"? Why, because you said so? Hypocrite.

ChumpDumper

09-23-2010, 09:07 PM

If you follow my reasoning, it makes sense that he'd have a chance. He does suck, though, but I never claimed anything to the contrary.He doesn't stand a chance because he sucks.

It's not too expensive if they cut him by January 10th, so as to avoid his contract becoming guaranteed for the entire season.So there is really no reason to sign him.

It means very little that they both suck.That they suck means everything.

I disagree. Clearly, they want to get younger and more athletic, but what if Anderson struggles and Gee doesn't look like an NBA player, then what? I think a guy like Simmons would have a chance.There you go again.

"Really only one choice to make"? Why, because you said so? Hypocrite.Nah, that's pretty much the only decision to make at this point, and they will almost certainly leave the spot open at this point. It's a money thing. Gist probably sucks too much to keep as well.

TD 21

09-23-2010, 09:25 PM

He doesn't stand a chance because he sucks.

Who's to say Neal, Temple, Gee and even Anderson don't, at this juncture? And if they do, then what? Just play Jefferson 48 mpg or use Ginobili as strictly a backup SF?

So there is really no reason to sign him.The reason is simple: to have a fallback option in case the cadre of young, unproven players, fall flat.

Like I said (and you've ignored), I don't want Simmons or Novak to make the team. I just think it makes more sense to invite them to camp than to invite Gardner and Penney. You know I'm right, which is why you continue to resort to saying "they suck". As if Gardner and Penney don't.

That they suck means everything.Not really. Do Gardner and Penney not suck? And no one can say with certainty at this point that Neal, Temple, Gee and even Anderson, don't suck, either.

There you go again.?

Nah, that's pretty much the only decision to make at this point, and they will almost certainly leave the spot open at this point. It's a money thing. Gist probably sucks too much to keep as well.

Oh, so it's okay for you to make an educated guess, but it's not okay for me to do the same.

I get that it's a money thing and that by January 10th, say they signed Simmons and he made the team out of camp, it would likely come down to a decision between Gee and him and that he'd probably be on the outs. But that doesn't mean it doesn't make sense to have a veteran SF around, at least for a few months.

ChumpDumper

09-23-2010, 10:16 PM

Who's to say Neal, Temple, Gee and even Anderson don't, at this juncture? And if they do, then what? Just play Jefferson 48 mpg or use Ginobili as strictly a backup SF? Or pick up some other sucky player during the season.

The reason is simple: to have a fallback option in case the cadre of young, unproven players, fall flat.Can be done at any time.

Like I said (and you've ignored), I don't want Simmons or Novak to make the team. I just think it makes more sense to invite them to camp than to invite Gardner and Penney. You know I'm right, which is why you continue to resort to saying "they suck". As if Gardner and Penney don't.I'm saying they all suck and it really doesn't matter whom is invited after spot 14.

Not really. Do Gardner and Penney not suck? And no one can say with certainty at this point that Neal, Temple, Gee and even Anderson, don't suck, either.Anderson is guaranteed. If they all suck then there is Penney and Gardner. If they suck there is some other sucky player out there.

There always is.

?Thinking.

Oh, so it's okay for you to make an educated guess, but it's not okay for me to do the same.Depends on how educated the guess.

I get that it's a money thing and that by January 10th, say they signed Simmons and he made the team out of camp, it would likely come down to a decision between Gee and him and that he'd probably be on the outs. But that doesn't mean it doesn't make sense to have a veteran SF around, at least for a few months.Because they veteran sucks and several similar players could be found in the second half of the season.

There is simply far too much gnashing of teeth over players who won't play on this board.

MaNu4Tres

09-23-2010, 10:35 PM

There is simply far too much gnashing of teeth over players who won't play on this board.

Amen..

TD 21

09-23-2010, 10:37 PM

Or pick up some other sucky player during the season.
By then, the pickings could be even more slim, as far as veteran options go.

Can be done at any time.Yeah, if they want to turn to some other D-Leaguer.

I'm saying they all suck and it really doesn't matter whom is invited after spot 14.I'm saying spots 11-13 are currently filled with three fringe prospects, who are unproven at this level.

Anderson is guaranteed. If they all suck then there is Penney and Gardner. If they suck there is some other sucky player out there.

There always is.Guaranteed to be on the team, not guaranteed to be good as a rookie or good period at this level.

They supposedly have serious aspirations about winning a championship. If that's the case, it makes sense to have a proven backup wing, even if that player is mediocre or slightly worse.

Depends on how educated the guess. It was so educated, it had a PhD.

Because they veteran sucks and several similar players could be found in the second half of the season.

There is simply far too much gnashing of teeth over players who won't play on this board.By then, some of the veterans could be signed elsewhere in the NBA, some could be in Europe and even if they aren't, who wants to bring in some veteran half way through the season, when they haven't been playing at a high level? The best time to do it is now.

There is with every fan base in every sport. That's what fans do, particularly during times of the year like this, when there's very little to discuss. The irony is you think this is much ado about nothing, yet here you are going back and forth discussing it.

ChumpDumper

09-24-2010, 04:26 AM

By then, the pickings could be even more slim, as far as veteran options go.Probably about the same as far as sucky players go.

Yeah, if they want to turn to some other D-Leaguer.Compared to Bobby Simmons, there is little difference. That's the whole point.

I'm saying spots 11-13 are currently filled with three fringe prospects, who are unproven at this level.Yep, and they can be replaced by three more fringe prospects very easily. That's the whole point.

Guaranteed to be on the team, not guaranteed to be good as a rookie or good period at this level.You can stop at guaranteed to be on the team. That's the whole point.

They supposedly have serious aspirations about winning a championship. If that's the case, it makes sense to have a proven backup wing, even if that player is mediocre or slightly worse.You are aspiring to proven mediocrity?

Nice.

It was so educated, it had a PhD.No.

By then, some of the veterans could be signed elsewhere in the NBA, some could be in Europe and even if they aren't, who wants to bring in some veteran half way through the season, when they haven't been playing at a high level? The best time to do it is now.The Spurs have won championships bringing in veterans halfway through the season. PhD indeed.

There is with every fan base in every sport. That's what fans do, particularly during times of the year like this, when there's very little to discuss. The irony is you think this is much ado about nothing, yet here you are going back and forth discussing it.That only amplifies my point. You are the one getting worked up about the #15 spot. I'm telling you why it's stupid to get worked up about the #15 spot, and I follow that level of player more than most people on this board.

TD 21

09-24-2010, 05:19 PM

Probably about the same as far as sucky players go.

Why, because you said so? The reality is there's a good chance more veterans will be signed elsewhere by then. That's how it goes.

Compared to Bobby Simmons, there is little difference. That's the whole point.If you had actually read and comprehended what I said, instead of glossing over it, you'd realize that I don't want Simmons. All I'm saying is that it makes more sense to bring him to camp than to bring Gardner or Penney.

Yep, and they can be replaced by three more fringe prospects very easily. That's the whole point.So you want the Spurs to transform into the Warriors? Rotating D-Leaguers in and out? They're supposedly trying to win a championship. That's not how you do it.

You are aspiring to proven mediocrity?

Nice.I'm not aspiring to it, but it's probably the best they can do. Unless they want to sacrifice a key, young asset(s).

No.Yes.

The Spurs have won championships bringing in veterans halfway through the season. PhD indeed.Out of work veterans?

That only amplifies my point. You are the one getting worked up about the #15 spot. I'm telling you why it's stupid to get worked up about the #15 spot, and I follow that level of player more than most people on this boardNo, I'm not. Once again, glossing over what I said. "I'm not going to make too big a deal out of training camp invites, but the amount of redundancy is ridiculous."

It's not about the 15th spot, genius. It's the fact that spots 11-13 are largely unproven, which is why it makes sense to bring in a proven veteran to compete (not be handed a spot or playing time) with them.

It doesn't look like the front office is going to in that direction, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't.

ChumpDumper

09-24-2010, 05:26 PM

Why, because you said so? The reality is there's a good chance more veterans will be signed elsewhere by then. That's how it goes.We're talking about sucky players. There are always sucky players available.

If you had actually read and comprehended what I said, instead of glossing over it, you'd realize that I don't want Simmons. All I'm saying is that it makes more sense to bring him to camp than to bring Gardner or Penney.It makes the same amount of sense because none of them are making the team.

So you want the Spurs to transform into the Warriors? Rotating D-Leaguers in and out? They're supposedly trying to win a championship. That's not how you do it.It's clear you haven't followed the Spurs or the NBA in general. The Spurs routinely rotate D-Leaguers in and out, as do other championship contending teams.

I'm not aspiring to it, but it's probably the best they can do. Unless they want to sacrifice a key, young asset(s).So the players we are talking about suck so much they aren't going to make a difference.

Yes.No.

Out of work veterans?Again, you really don't know much about the San Antonio Spurs.

No, I'm not. Once again, glossing over what I said. "I'm not going to make too big a deal out of training camp invites, but the amount of redundancy is ridiculous."So you are making a big deal out of training camp invites. These posts and your next posts in this thread will prove it.

It's not about the 15th spot, genius. It's the fact that spots 11-13 are largely unproven, which is why it makes sense to bring in a proven veteran to compete (not be handed a spot or playing time) with them.Veterans who have been proved to suck. Yippee!

It doesn't look like the front office is going to in that direction, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't.According to whom?

Ditty

09-24-2010, 05:44 PM

i drafted a running back in madden 10 last years game who's name was thomas gardner he was fast

TD 21

09-24-2010, 05:50 PM

We're talking about sucky players. There are always sucky players available.

No, we're talking about veteran players and how, as the season goes along, the chances are more and more will be signed elsewhere, thus making the pickings even more slim. Even in the highly unlikely event they weren't, why wouldn't you want a player from the beginning of training camp? More time to learn the system.

It makes the same amount of sense because none of them are making the team.So, you're saying the Spurs are set at SF?

It's clear you haven't followed the Spurs or the NBA in general. The Spurs routinely rotate D-Leaguers in and out, as do other championship contending teams.Wow, you have serious comprehension problems. I'm not talking about inactive roster spots, genius. I'm talking about a possible rotation spot. You want them rotating D-Leaguers in and out of a possible rotation spot? Championship contending teams don't do that.

So the players we are talking about suck so much they aren't going to make a difference.Depends on the player, of course, but a veteran SF could make a slight difference.

No.Yes.

Again, you really don't know much about the San Antonio Spurs.So let me get this straight. You think it's a good idea to go with a cadre of largely unproven players and fringe prospects on a supposed team with serious championship aspirations and if they fail, then just bring in other D-Leaguers or some out of work veteran mid-way through the season? And that makes more sense than bringing in a veteran now, right? It's one thing to do that with the 14th and 15th spots, it's another to do that with a possible rotation spot.

Veterans who have been proved to suck. Yippee!At least they've been in the league for more than a minute. A guy like Simmons may suck, but at least we know for a fact he can make three's at a high percentage at this level. We're not guessing or hoping.

Veteran teams win championships. At this point, this team appears to be too reliant on too many young players to be a serious contender.

According to whom?Well, media day is Monday. Which means they have roughly two days to bring in the type of player they've so far neglected to bring in throughout an off season that's spanned months. At this point, I think it's safe to say, they're not going that route.

ChumpDumper

09-24-2010, 06:01 PM

No, we're talking about veteran players and how, as the season goes along, the chances are more and more will be signed elsewhere, thus making the pickings even more slim. Even in the highly unlikely event they weren't, why wouldn't you want a player from the beginning of training camp? More time to learn the system.You keep forgetting that these players suck and won't make the team.

So, you're saying the Spurs are set at SF?For now, yes. If they need to, someone as sucky as the training camp invites will be available.

Wow, you have serious comprehension problems. I'm not talking about inactive roster spots, genius. I'm talking about a possible rotation spot. You want them rotating D-Leaguers in and out of a possible rotation spot? Championship contending teams don't do that.Wow, you have serious comprehension problems. The players in spots 11-13 are not in the rotation. That's why they are players 11-13.

Depends on the player, of course, but a veteran SF could make a slight difference.As in not enough to be in the rotation.

As in suck.

Yes.No.

So let me get this straight. You think it's a good idea to go with a cadre of largely unproven players and fringe prospects on a supposed team with serious championship aspirations and if they fail, then just bring in other D-Leaguers or some out of work veteran mid-way through the season? And that makes more sense than bringing in a veteran now, right? It's one thing to do that with the 14th and 15th spots, it's another to do that with a possible rotation spot.Again, by your own definition they aren't in the rotation. Either say you think one of these sucky players can be a rotation player or quit acting like it.

At least they've been in the league for more than a minute. A guy like Simmons may suck, but at least we know for a fact he can make three's at a high percentage at this level. We're not guessing or hoping..317 is not a high percentage. You are definitely hoping at this point. He's so awesome nobody actually wants him.

Veteran teams win championships. At this point, this team appears to be too reliant on too many young players to be a serious contender.And you want them to rely on the .317 shooting of Bobby Simmons.

Well, media day is Monday. Which means they have roughly two days to bring in the type of player they've so far neglected to bring in throughout an off season that's spanned months. At this point, I think it's safe to say, they're not going that route.Again, you have reading comprehension problems. This time you can't even comprehend what you wrote yourself.

Congratulations.

ChumpDumper

09-24-2010, 06:06 PM

Please continue to show us how you aren't making a big deal out of training camp invitees.

TD 21

09-24-2010, 06:17 PM

You keep forgetting that these players suck and won't make the team.

I'm not arguing that Gardner or Penney will make the team. I'm saying this team lacks depth at SF and they've inexplicably chosen to not address it, which is why it makes more sense to bring a veteran SF to camp than to bring redundant players.

For now, yes. If they need to, someone as sucky as the training camp invites will be available.I mean set as in enough options there to be a legitimate contender.

Wow, you have serious comprehension problems. The players in spots 11-13 are not in the rotation. That's why they are players 11-13.One of them has a chance to be, because five of the top ten players are the team are bigs and one of the five perimeter players in the top ten is a rookie and it looks like he'll be playing a lot out of his natural position.

Again, by your own definition they aren't in the rotation. Either say you think one of these sucky players can be a rotation player or quit acting like it.I think there's a chance, sure. Because of the lack of a true backup three and the fact that the options are either rookies or essentially rookies and would be playing out of position.

.317 is not a high percentage. You are definitely hoping at this point. He's so awesome nobody actually wants him..401 is and that's his career mark. You're going to base his three-point shooting ability off of .317 in a season in which he played 23 games and ignore his career percentage, when the sample size is so much more? Real intelligent.

Who cares about others teams? Other teams were smart enough to not have a gaping hole at SF. The ones that do, at least have excellent starters (Pierce and Anthony ... for the moment, at least). Had this team been that smart, there would be no reason at all to bring in a minimal type such as Simmons or someone of that ilk.

And you want them to rely on the .317 shooting of Bobby Simmons.No, I want them to have a veteran option available, in case Jefferson succumbs to injury or the young players flop. Right now, there is no fallback.

Do you have any independent thoughts? Or does everything the front office does (particularly when it involves D-Leaguers) make sense to you?

ChumpDumper

09-24-2010, 06:23 PM

I'm not arguing that Gardner or Penney will make the team. I'm saying this team lacks depth at SF and they've inexplicably chosen to not address it, which is why it makes more sense to bring a veteran SF to camp than to bring redundant players.Sucky ones that won't make the team.

I mean set as in enough options there to be a legitimate contender.Sure. Thinking the roster is set in stone on opening night is folly.

One of them has a chance to be, because five of the top ten players are the team are bigs and one of the five perimeter players in the top ten is a rookie and it looks like he'll be playing a lot of of his natural position. One player.

Has a chance.

Wow.

I think there's a chance, sure. Because of the lack of a true backup three and the fact that the options are either rookies or essentially rookies and would be playing out of position.And that can be addressed by picking up sucky players later if needed.

.401 is and that's his career mark. You're going to base his three-point shooting ability off of .317 in a season in which he played 23 games and ignore his career percentage, when the sample size is so much more? Real intelligent.Gee, do you think anything might have contributed to Simmons' reduced 3pt% and playing time on one of the worst teams in NBA history?

Anything at all?

Who cares about others teams? Other teams were smart enough to not have a gaping hole at SF. The ones that do, at least have excellent starters (Pierce and Anthony ... for the moment, at least). Had this team been that smart, there would be no reason at all to bring in a minimal type such as Simmons or someone of that ilk.There really is no reason now, since those players suck and wouldn't make the team.

No, I want them to have a veteran option available, in case Jefferson succumbs to injury or the young players flop. Right now, there is no fallback.So you are upset that the Spurs invited a few 6'5" one dimensional players to training camp, but not a 6'6" one dimensional player.

I can see why you are making a big deal out of training camp invitees.

ChumpDumper

09-24-2010, 06:25 PM

Do you have any independent thoughts? Or does everything the front office does (particularly when it involves D-Leaguers) make sense to you?Not everything they do makes sense to me, but unlike you I'm not going to make a big deal about training camp invitees who aren't going to make the team.

TD 21

09-24-2010, 06:59 PM

Sure. Thinking the roster is set in stone on opening night is folly.

So you're confident that one of Anderson, Ginobili or Gee can be the backup SF and this team can contend for or win the championship like that?

This roster probably will be, as far as the rotation goes. Unlike past seasons, when they had a fairly pricey veteran or two that they deemed expendable, this roster has no such player, which makes it all the more difficult to acquire a rotation player (particularly for a team with serious championship aspirations). And I'd be surprised if they were willing to part with a key, young asset for a quick fix.

One player.

Has a chance.

Wow.
One of Temple, Neal or Gee has a chance to earn at least relatively consistent playing time. Or do I have to dumb that down further for you?

And that can be addressed by picking up sucky players later if needed.Like I said, the options will likely be lesser then and if given the choice, why would you not want a player to start the season with the team?

Gee, do you think anything might have contributed to Simmons' reduced 3pt% and playing time on one of the worst teams in NBA history?

Anything at all?The Nets were going nowhere last season, so obviously it made more sense to give playing time to younger players like Douglas-Roberts and Williams and that's what they did.

I'm not saying Simmons is anything more than a fringe player at this point, what I'm saying is you'd be a fool to base his three-point shooting proficiency off of last season.

There really is no reason now, since those players suck and wouldn't make the team.Why, because you said so? How can you be so sure that Neal, Temple, Gee and even Anderson, don't suck? I guess the middle two come with the D-League stamp of approval, so that must mean they're legit NBA players.

So you are upset that the Spurs invited a few 6'5" one dimensional players to training camp, but not a 6'6" one dimensional player.

I can see why you are making a big deal out of training camp invitees.You still don't get it. I'm not upset, I'm just saying what they're doing is illogical.

When you have only 11 guaranteed contracts, wouldn't it make more sense for the camp invites (at least some of them) to be players who could potentially fill a need?

Not everything they do makes sense to me

Really? Because I've been here for a while now and I'll have seen out of you is you backing every single move the front office makes, ardently supporting every D-League player and doing so with the same old, tired, played out shtick.

ChumpDumper

09-24-2010, 07:11 PM

So you're confident that one of Anderson, Ginobili or Gee can be the backup SF and this team can contend for or win the championship like that?Sure.

This roster probably will be, as far as the rotation goes. Unlike past seasons, when they had a fairly pricey veteran or two that they deemed expendable, this roster has no such player, which makes it all the more difficult to acquire a rotation player (particularly for a team with serious championship aspirations). And I'd be surprised if they were willing to part with a key, young asset for a quick fix.Then they won't win anything, because shitty players aren't going to put them over the top.

One of Temple, Neal or Gee has a chance to earn at least relatively consistent playing time. Or do I have to dumb that down further for you?One.

Has a chance.

Relatively.

Wow.

Like I said, the options will likely be lesser then and if given the choice, why would you not want a player to start the season with the team?The options now suck, and at worst they will still suck later. and not cost the team millions of dollars.

The Nets were going nowhere last season, so obviously it made more sense to give playing time to younger players like Douglas-Roberts and Williams and that's what they did.

I'm not saying Simmons is anything more than a fringe player at this point, what I'm saying is you'd be a fool to base his three-point shooting proficiency off of last season.So you don't know much about Simmons either.

This is a pattern with you.

Why, because you said so? How can you be so sure that Neal, Temple, Gee and even Anderson, don't suck? I guess the middle two come with the D-League stamp of approval, so that must mean they're legit NBA players.Have you never seen any of them play?

Two of them were actually on the San Antonio Spurs last season.

Did you know that?

You still don't get it. I'm not upset, I'm just saying what they're doing is illogical.You are making a big deal out of training camp invitees after saying you weren't making a big deal out of training camp invitees.

What you are doing is illogical.

When you have only 11 guaranteed contracts, wouldn't it make more sense for the camp invites (at least some of them) to be players who could potentially fill a need?Some of them fill a need. You didn't know that?

Really? Because I've been here for a while now and I'll have seen out of you is you backing every single move the front office makes, ardently supporting every D-League player and doing so with the same old, tired, played out shtick.I see you are making a big deal out of training camp invitees.

I see you don't really know much about the San Antonio Spurs or Bobby Simmons or the NBA.

So I can see how you wouldn't know much about me either.

Please continue to not make a big deal about training camp invitees by repeatedly posting about them.

TD 21

09-24-2010, 07:28 PM

Then they won't win anything, because shitty players aren't going to put them over the top.

I never said they would. Ideally, they'd have gotten someone at least a cut above Hayes, Simmons, etc.

The options now suck, and at worst they will still suck later. and not cost the team millions of dollars.They'll likely suck worse. If they're going to resort to bringing a minimal veteran in, it makes more sense to do it now, rather than trying to integrate them mid-season.

So you don't know much about Simmons either.

This is a pattern with you.Simmons has proven to be a quality three-point shooter and he's an SF. The former, the front office is obsessed with. The latter, they could use.

For the umpteenth time, I don't really want Simmons on the team, he's just an example.

Have you never seen any of them play?

Two of them were actually on the San Antonio Spurs last season.

Did you know that?Oh, they were on the Spurs, so I guess that automatically makes them proven NBA players then. Great logic.

I've seen them play, particularly Temple and he played well, but I'm not going to get carried away with such a small sample size and proclaim them proven NBA players just because they're younger and more athletic than guys like Bogans and Mason.

Some of them fill a need. You didn't know that?Only Gist could fill a possible need. Even if he were to make the cut, it's not like he's actually going to play.

I see you don't really know much about the San Antonio Spurs or Bobby Simmons or the NBA.

So I can see how you wouldn't know much about me either.

Please continue to not make a big deal about training camp invitees by repeatedly posting about them.You know less than I, so if I don't know much, then what do you know?

I know enough about you (as it pertains to your shtick on this board).

You're repeatedly posting about them as well, genius.

ChumpDumper

09-24-2010, 07:30 PM

TD 21

09-24-2010, 07:34 PM

The difference is I consistently say they suck and it doesn't matter who is invited.

You have Bobby Simmons penciled in as a rotation player.

Please continue not making a big deal out of your potential rotation players.

Forget the difference. You acted like I was being ridiculous by repeatedly talking about camp invites...while doing the same thing yourself.

I do not. You obviously lack basic reading comprehension.

Please continue on with your old, tired, played out shtick.

ChumpDumper

09-24-2010, 07:36 PM

Forget the difference. You acted like I was being ridiculous by repeatedly talking about camp invites...while doing the same thing yourself.I talked about them. I do these things often.

You made a big deal out of them.

I do not. You obviously lack basic reading comprehension.You do not what?

Pretend Bobby Simmons is rotation worthy for the San Antonio Spurs?

Yes you do.

Please continue on with your old, tired, played out shtick.Being butthurt about it won't keep you from making a big deal out of training camp invitees. Continue to make it about me if you wish. That is a pretty played out schtick as well.

EricB

09-24-2010, 07:41 PM

Bobby Simmons? :lmao

Someone a cut above them may be available? Uh yeah ok, if they are a cut above them they have multi year contracts on other teams....

TD 21

09-24-2010, 07:42 PM

You do not what?

Pretend Bobby Simmons is rotation worthy for the San Antonio Spurs?

Yes you do.

No, I don't.

Few things are more pathetic than an old man acting childish.

EricB, don't jump to conclusions about what I said. I used Simmons as an example and I said they should have acquired someone a cut above. I'm aware that at this late date that's not possible, at least via free agency.

ChumpDumper

09-24-2010, 07:44 PM

No, I don't.

Few things are more pathetic than an old man acting childish.Aw, so you do want to make it about me now?

Glad you aren't making a big deal out of this or anything.

That would be pathetic.

ChumpDumper

09-24-2010, 07:45 PM

EricB, don't jump to conclusions about what I said. I used Simmons as an example and I said they should have acquired someone a cut above. I'm aware that at this late date that's not possible, at least via free agency.A cut above Bobby Simmons would cost a substantial amount of money above the actual salary of that player.

EricB

09-24-2010, 07:47 PM

No, I don't.

Few things are more pathetic than an old man acting childish.

EricB, don't jump to conclusions about what I said. I used Simmons as an example and I said they should have acquired someone a cut above. I'm aware that at this late date that's not possible, at least via free agency.

It was never possible. Players a cut above Simmons at SF are coveted....

EricB

09-24-2010, 07:48 PM

A cut above Bobby Simmons would cost a substantial amount of money above the actual salary of that player.

Its not my money!

TD 21

09-24-2010, 07:50 PM

You're just upset because I'm not sold on a couple of D-Leaguers.

Get over it, Mr. D-League.

Unlike you, I'm not here to be a yes-man for the front office.

I forgot, EricB is the ultimate yes-man for the front office, slightly edging ChumpDumper for that honor. Can't expect any objectivity out of him.

Last I checked, they have their bi-annual exception available and part of the mid-level exception left and they're supposedly willing to exceed the tax. They should have found a way to acquire a competent backup SF, one who can play a modicum of defense. No excuses.

ChumpDumper

09-24-2010, 07:53 PM

You're just upset because I'm not sold on a couple of D-Leaguers.I am not sold on them either. I just don't make a big deal out of it.

Get over it, Mr. D-League.Wow! What an insult!

I may never recover!

Unlike you, I'm not here to be a yes-man for the front office.Yeah, you're here to make a big deal out of training camp invitees and display a near-complete lack of NBA knowledge.

ChumpDumper

09-24-2010, 07:54 PM

Last I checked, they have their bi-annual exception available and part of the mid-level exception left and they're supposedly willing to exceed the tax. They should have found a way to acquire a competent backup SF, one who can play a modicum of defense. No excuses.What makes you think they are willing to exceed the tax this season?

Please explain, you rebel, you.

EricB

09-24-2010, 07:57 PM

TD 21

09-24-2010, 08:14 PM

I am not sold on them either. I just don't make a big deal out of it.

Yeah, you're here to display a near-complete lack of NBA knowledge.

I didn't make a big deal out of it. You just got offended because I disagreed with something the front office did, so naturally and predictably, you came rushing to their defense.

I'm highly knowledgeable about the NBA. I'm talking current, so don't go bringing up some irrelevant factoid from fifty years ago.

What makes you think they are willing to exceed the tax this season?

Please explain, you rebel, you.

Based on their actions, nothing.

But we were told last off season that, for the next two seasons, they were willing to exceed the tax. I get that they'll most likely only do that for a player who's appreciably better than what they have and that's fine, but the problem I have is this: Why did they not find a way to acquire said player? We're not talking about a star or even anything close, just a proven SF who can make three's and defend.

Well, with what little of the MLE was left and the Bi annual at a whopping 2 million, who is that small forward that was available at that money?

Waiting....

There is a thing called trades, you know. It's not my job to concoct trades, it's the front offices' and just because it may have been relatively difficult to fill this hole, there's no excuse. I'm not saying, why didn't they get James and Bosh, all I'm saying is that if they're supposedly seriously aspiring to win the championship this season, then why didn't they address this gaping hole?

The other contenders found a way to address their needs. The Lakers, who are already better than the Spurs, found a way to improve. The Celtics and Magic got what they wanted. The Spurs settled.

EricB

09-24-2010, 08:20 PM

There is a thing called trades, you know. It's not my job to concoct trades, it's the front offices' and just because it may have been relatively difficult to fill this hole, there's no excuse. I'm not saying, why didn't they get James and Bosh, all I'm saying is that if they're supposedly seriously aspiring to win the championship this season, then why didn't they address this gaping hole?

The other contenders found a way to address their needs. The Lakers, who are already better than the Spurs, found a way to improve. The Celtics and Magic got what they wanted. The Spurs settled.

Trades?? wait you said they had exemptions to sign, you mention trades?

The Spurs settled? They signed the best bigman in europe, they signed a lottery talent they drafted.

Thats settling?? Settling is not changing your team 1 bit from one season to the next.

Also how do you KNOW they didn't attempt at addressing the gap? Again do you have links to the FO saying "We aren't gonna address it" If so I'll be right with you stringing the FO up by their feet.

But your basing it all on no news and hearsay and BS.

TD 21

09-24-2010, 09:14 PM

Trades?? wait you said they had exemptions to sign, you mention trades?

The Spurs settled? They signed the best bigman in europe, they signed a lottery talent they drafted.

Thats settling?? Settling is not changing your team 1 bit from one season to the next.

Also how do you KNOW they didn't attempt at addressing the gap? Again do you have links to the FO saying "We aren't gonna address it" If so I'll be right with you stringing the FO up by their feet.

But your basing it all on no news and hearsay and BS.

Exceptions, trades, the point is there's different ways to fill that hole and they didn't.

They absolutely settled when it came to the backup SF/wing defender role.

I didn't say they didn't attempt to fill the hole, I said they didn't fill the hole. This is a results oriented business, you don't get points for trying. All they've done is take a flier on a bunch of fringe prospects.

You're the ultimate front office apologist.

ChumpDumper

09-24-2010, 10:07 PM

I didn't make a big deal out of it. You just got offended because I disagreed with something the front office did, so naturally and predictably, you came rushing to their defense.

I'm highly knowledgeable about the NBA. I'm talking current, so don't go bringing up some irrelevant factoid from fifty years ago.There were no San Antonio Spurs fifty years ago.

nothing.Hey, you got one right.

That's why there are no "apparently better than Bobby Simmons backup SF free agent" signings.

You're learning. Stick around, I'll teach you more.

But we were told last off season that, for the next two seasons, they were willing to exceed the tax.We were told?

Link.

I get that they'll most likely only do that for a player who's appreciably better than what they have and that's fine, but the problem I have is this: Why did they not find a way to acquire said player? We're not talking about a star or even anything close, just a proven SF who can make three's and defend.Money.

You're welcome.

There is a thing called trades, you knowWait, you are now saying there are other ways to complete a roster than signing shitty players?

Wow.

You really are learning.

Stick around.

dbestpro

09-24-2010, 11:31 PM

That was a lot of hub bub. Look, its obvious that the front office has what it believes will be its game time 12. They will probably place 2 players in Austin and go with 14 for the first few months. They want to see what this group can do. Whatever deficiencies the Spurs have will get dealt with come the mid season.

MaNu4Tres

09-25-2010, 09:31 AM

There will be 13-18 minutes a night available at the small forward position if RJ can stay healthy.

That being said, do you honestly believe a player like Steve Novak or Bobby Simmons is worthy of those minutes ahead of Manu?

Hill will get respectable minutes at the 2 spot and I wouldn't be surprised if Temple got a few as well, which means Manu will have to get minutes at the 3 spot ( which is fine; both wing spots have always been interchangeable in the Spurs system ever since Pop has been in charge). Yes it would be great if Spurs had more length on the bench at the wing spots, but not if it meant excusing overall ability just for the sake of having more size at the spot.

I'm sure the Spurs have done their due diligence on trying to find a worthy candidate to bring in at the 3 with size ( having tried out Darius Miles, Trey Gilder, Jawad Williams; to name a few)...So to discredit the FO on not taking issue on this wish is foolish.

Like I've said many times before, the Spurs put more stock on the overall quality of a player. They won't sign an inferior talent just because of a players size or because of one skill-set ( Gilder, Miles; big 3's or just straight 3 point ability Novak, Kurz).

TD 21

09-25-2010, 05:14 PM

There were no San Antonio Spurs fifty years ago.

I never said there was. You have a serious problem/obsession when it comes to making things up.

Hey, you got one right.

That's why there are no "apparently better than Bobby Simmons backup SF free agent" signings.

You're learning. Stick around, I'll teach you more.They've told us one thing, then did another, when it comes to competing for a championship.

It's true that more and more teams are giving D-Leaguers a chance to make their roster, but the vast majority aren't being handed virtually uncontested spots and not just spots, active roster spots and in the case of one, potentially a rotation spot. And you certainly don't see any contender doing that.

We were told?

Link.Pop said it himself after Jefferson was acquired last off season and it's been repeated numerous times since then, most recently by Aldridge early last summer.

Money.

You're welcome.The Celtics and Lakers had no more money to spend than the Spurs, yet they were able to fill their holes and upgrade...and they were both already better than the Spurs to begin with.

Stop being a front office apologist.

Wait, you are now saying there are other ways to complete a roster than signing shitty players?

Wow.

You really are learning.

Stick around.I never said anything to the contrary. I just gave you an example, given the situation they're in, of a player they could have brought in to at least push Gee. And you responded by getting completely carried away with it.

There will be 13-18 minutes a night available at the small forward position if RJ can stay healthy.

That being said, do you honestly believe a player like Steve Novak or Bobby Simmons is worthy of those minutes ahead of Manu?

Hill will get respectable minutes at the 2 spot and I wouldn't be surprised if Temple got a few as well, which means Manu will have to get minutes at the 3 spot ( which is fine; both wing spots have always been interchangeable in the Spurs system ever since Pop has been in charge). Yes it would be great if Spurs had more length on the bench at the wing spots, but not if it meant excusing overall ability just for the sake of having more size at the spot.

I'm sure the Spurs have done their due diligence on trying to find a worthy candidate to bring in at the 3 with size ( having tried out Darius Miles, Trey Gilder, Jawad Williams; to name a few)...So to discredit the FO on not taking issue on this wish is foolish.

Like I've said many times before, the Spurs put more stock on the overall quality of a player. They won't sign an inferior talent just because of a players size or because of one skill-set ( Gilder, Miles; big 3's or just straight 3 point ability Novak, Kurz).

Simmons might be, but I never said I wanted either (for the umpteenth time, they were just examples of invites who would have made more sense than the types we've seen so far).

I'll give you an example. The Hornets signed Pargo yesterday, why? They had Green and Shakur to backup Paul and Pargo is nothing more than a mediocre veteran. This is why they did it: Because Green is really a two and Shakur hasn't proven that he's an NBA player yet. So instead of handing him a spot, they're going to make him earn it.

Why couldn't the Spurs have done this with Gee?

I realize this has become long and drawn out, but if you're going to take me to task for something, then get what I said right. I have no problem with you or anyone doing the former, so long as you do the latter.

It's fine at times, when the match-ups allow for it. But Ginobili shouldn't be consistently relied upon to play SF. I agree with not excusing overall ability, but that's just it. How do you know Temple, Neal, Gee and even Anderson, can do the job? If their goal is to win a championship, they shouldn't just be guessing or hoping with that many players. It's one thing to do with with spots 14 and 15, but we're not talking about those spots.

I don't care if they did their "due diligence" (that should go without saying, you shouldn't be patting them on the back for it), that's not good enough. This is a results oriented business and you don't get points for trying. I don't think the type of player they need, it was unreasonable to expect them to acquire.

What are you talking about? They've done this consistently over the years, particularly with shooters. Neal is the latest example of that.