was buying the toros a bad investment?

[ivanfromwestwood]

every player that we developed there is now overseas or with another club. not one has contributed. what do you guys think?

[rogcl1]

every player that we developed there is now overseas or with another club. not one has contributed. what do you guys think?

It may be from a financial stanpoint but from a basketball standpoint I think not. It has given players a chance to develop and the organization a chance to get longer looks at players without risking roster spots ect or giving up minutes in NBA games.
But it may turn out that Most players capable of playing in the NBA are playing in the NBA.

[ivanfromwestwood]

.
it may turn out that Most players capable of playing in the NBA are playing in the NBA.
so what your saying is you can polish a turd but its still a turd. lol it just seems like we're developing players for every other team but us. maybe this is why im pushing for Gee. if he turns into an nba player, it would be a small success.

[Whisky Dog]

If it's not making money for the organization then it was a terrible move to buy them, because it sure isn't helping the on court side.

[MarCowMar]

I suspect the investment will look a lot better if/when the league updates the rules to be more accomodating as to who can be sent to D-League and how their rights are handled. Right now it's pretty strict.

If every team had their bottom 5 or so guys there the league would be a lot more fun. Especially with some vets mixed in to stabilize things.

[wontstartdumbthreads]

so what your saying is you can polish a turd but its still a turd. lol it just seems like we're developing players for every other team but us. maybe this is why im pushing for Gee. if he turns into an nba player, it would be a small success.

The problem is that if you recognize something as a turd, you would never spend any time trying to polish it. You'd just flush it away.

[DesignatedT]

Lol no.

[The Truth #6]

If money really is getting tight, then I can't see how the Toros is a good investment unless the league is helping subsidize it. Our better D league prospects in Temple and Gee weren't even from the Toros, right?

[ChumpDumper]

Gee was a Toro.

The cost of running the Toros really isn't that much compared to even below average NBA player salaries, and the league pays all the players.

Under the current rules and tax conditions, the Spurs' hold on borderline NBA players on the Toros will be tenuous as it was last season. Any NBA team will be able to call up such players, and foreign teams can also come calling as buyout prices are notably low. It looks like the Spurs' strategy is to live with that risk until such time as finances allow to lock them up for the remainder of the season as they did with Gee and Jerrells.

[barbacoataco]

I have been surprised that they have spent time developing Hairston, Williams, Mahinmi and others at Austin--- and then got rid of them without ever giving them even a chance at the NBA level. I guess they saw enough to make up their mind, but I still am a little surprised.

[FromWayDowntown]

I have been surprised that they have spent time developing Hairston, Williams, Mahinmi and others at Austin--- and then got rid of them without ever giving them even a chance at the NBA level. I guess they saw enough to make up their mind, but I still am a little surprised.

I suspect the latter observation is precisely the point. In a world in which the Spurs didn't own the Toros, the calls about those guys would have to be made in relatively short order with relatively little evidence to make the call. By owning the Toros and having some control over how those players develop, the Spurs can closely monitor progress, insist that work be done on particular skills, and evaluate over a more meaningful period of time and series of events.

I'm not really sure why Spurs fans are asking about this. It's not as if the investment has cost fans anything . . . .

[dunkman]

The Spurs organization should also buy Tau or whatever it's called now. The ACB and Euroleague are much better leagues. Or at least the NBA should allow the teams to lease the players for a season or two there.

The team should also invest additionally in scouting, to avoid cases like Butler, Mahinmi and others.

The actual Toros program helps when the first and/or second string Spurs players have injuries. The Spurs can integrate more rapidly a player from the Toros, since that team uses the same system. If I recall right, the Toros budget is around $1M per year, perhaps it's worth for having that option.

[Trill Clinton]

It may be from a financial stanpoint but from a basketball standpoint I think not. It has given players a chance to develop and the organization a chance to get longer looks at players without risking roster spots ect or giving up minutes in NBA games.
But it may turn out that Most players capable of playing in the NBA are playing in the NBA.

Co-sign all of this.

This is the NBA not the MLB.

[Solid D]

was buying the toros a bad investment?

It was good for Philadelphia and New Orleans. It has helped to groom an NBA Assistant Coach and a GM.

[JWest596]

It's the future. I believe they will be an NBA team's 'Farm Club' and the CBA and the NBA will be very accommodating to and for them in the future. They will only get more expensive to acquire in the future and the Spurs were in on it from the ground floor.

It's a fiscal move and a wise one on many levels and if it was a real monetary drain, you wouldn't see the Spurs in on it. We are a fiscally conservative club...we have no choice. Austin is a great market with fans, potential advertisers and subscribers. Breaking even is all they want to do for now I suspect.

RC and the Spurs FO are always two to three chess moves ahead of everyone else. The Spurs were the second NBA team to do this if I remember correctly. The minute the Toros and if the future NBADL teams are not acclimated to the NBA favorably, the team will be sold or developed in to some semi-pro structure or ended. That's my .02

[Darkwaters]

I remember reading a short while ago that the D-Leauge has never made any money and runs a negative balance every year.

Was forming the D-League a good choice at all?

Speaking of similar situations...what about the WNBA? Same situation as the D-League except a longer period of lackluster everything.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

I suspect the investment will look a lot better if/when the league updates the rules to be more accomodating as to who can be sent to D-League and how their rights are handled. Right now it's pretty strict.

If every team had their bottom 5 or so guys there the league would be a lot more fun. Especially with some vets mixed in to stabilize things.


Gee was a Toro.

The cost of running the Toros really isn't that much compared to even below average NBA player salaries, and the league pays all the players.

Under the current rules and tax conditions, the Spurs' hold on borderline NBA players on the Toros will be tenuous as it was last season. Any NBA team will be able to call up such players, and foreign teams can also come calling as buyout prices are notably low. It looks like the Spurs' strategy is to live with that risk until such time as finances allow to lock them up for the remainder of the season as they did with Gee and Jerrells.


I suspect the latter observation is precisely the point. In a world in which the Spurs didn't own the Toros, the calls about those guys would have to be made in relatively short order with relatively little evidence to make the call. By owning the Toros and having some control over how those players develop, the Spurs can closely monitor progress, insist that work be done on particular skills, and evaluate over a more meaningful period of time and series of events.

I'm not really sure why Spurs fans are asking about this. It's not as if the investment has cost fans anything . . . .


It was good for Philadelphia and New Orleans. It has helped to groom an NBA Assistant Coach and a GM.


It's the future. I believe they will be an NBA team's 'Farm Club' and the CBA and the NBA will be very accommodating to and for them in the future. They will only get more expensive to acquire in the future and the Spurs were in on it from the ground floor.

It's a fiscal move and a wise one on many levels and if it was a real monetary drain, you wouldn't see the Spurs in on it. We are a fiscally conservative club...we have no choice. Austin is a great market with fans, potential advertisers and subscribers. Breaking even is all they want to do for now I suspect.

RC and the Spurs FO are always two to three chess moves ahead of everyone else. The Spurs were the second NBA team to do this if I remember correctly. The minute the Toros and if the future NBADL teams are not acclimated to the NBA favorably, the team will be sold or developed in to some semi-pro structure or ended. That's my .02

All excellent comments. :toast :tu

I'd add that the value of the investment in the Toros goes beyond obvious benefits - it helps to build the Spurs' brand and community, and the world basketball community in general.

A stronger development league means more opportunities for ballas everywhere, the families they support, and the communities they are a part of - like a tree spreading its roots in all directions to add stability.

It's hard to explain because it's hard to directly measure, but it's community building, and in the economic literature it's often called social externalities. Investments in community are long-term and should only be judged when they've had time to make systemic change, or you may as well not make them in the first place.