Pop & RC - take note as Mr. Presti gets it

[underdawg]

Sure I might jinx them, but right now OKC looks like their front court is coming together and will end up overtaking Memphis. It's absolutely puzzling how having a big front court pays dividends in the playoffs vs. a small front court.

If OKC starts to play more consistently as a team, they'll finish out this series and should take Dallas - OKC has the better front court.

They might not be that spectacular on paper, but Perkins, Ibaka, Nazr and Collison are a pretty formidable front court group and their total salary (my #'s might be wrong) is only $26 mil or $6 mil per player (Collison's is half that total.)

[Nathan89]

The thing is I would still take Tim Duncan by far over anyone of those bigs unfortunately the Spurs FO surrounds him with some of the worst bigs in the league.

[ChuckD]

Sure I might jinx them, but right now OKC looks like their front court is coming together and will end up overtaking Memphis. It's absolutely puzzling how having a big front court pays dividends in the playoffs vs. a small front court.

If OKC starts to play more consistently as a team, they'll finish out this series and should take Dallas - OKC has the better front court.

They might not be that spectacular on paper, but Perkins, Ibaka, Nazr and Collison are a pretty formidable front court group and their total salary (my #'s might be wrong) is only $26 mil or $6 mil per player (Collison's is half that total.)

We can do that too, once we burn our team to the ground and draft in the top 5 for like three years. Those three or four shitty years are the price of admission to the young, athletic, and talented players club.

[FromWayDowntown]

We can do that too, once we burn our team to the ground and draft in the top 5 for like three years. Those three or four shitty years are the price of admission to the young, athletic, and talented players club.

How quaint -- interjecting facts into the daily diatribe about the stupidity of the Spurs front office.

By the way, Collison's salary in 2010-11 is huge -- about 13.3 million.

[underdawg]

We can do that too, once we burn our team to the ground and draft in the top 5 for like three years. Those three or four shitty years are the price of admission to the young, athletic, and talented players club.

Ibaka was the 24th pick and the rest were through trades. Collison's contract is bad this year, but it's 3.5 mil for the next 3 years - not too bad.

What one good move has the FO done in the past 4 years that makes up for the bad moves they've made?

[pjjrfan]

We can do that too, once we burn our team to the ground and draft in the top 5 for like three years. Those three or four shitty years are the price of admission to the young, athletic, and talented players club.

This in a nutshell is what got this team and Chicago, and Memphis this far. You have to give the GM's credit but they got a stockpile of good young talent from having losing records being able to trade young talent for more experienced talent.

[ChuckD]

Ibaka was the 24th pick and the rest were through trades. Collison's contract is bad this year, but it's 3.5 mil for the next 3 years - not too bad.

What one good move has the FO done in the past 4 years that makes up for the bad moves they've made?

We've picked as high as 24th once in the Duncan era, and IIRC that #24 pick was part of the Sonics teardown, as well. Ibaka isn't shit if you don't have Durant (#2), Westbrook (#4) and Hardin (#3).

[ChuckD]

Ibaka was the 24th pick and the rest were through trades. Collison's contract is bad this year, but it's 3.5 mil for the next 3 years - not too bad.

What one good move has the FO done in the past 4 years that makes up for the bad moves they've made?

Sorry, forgot to answer your question: RC pulled an All Rookie first team guard out of his ass last summer.

[underdawg]

We've picked as high as 24th once in the Duncan era, and IIRC that #24 pick was part of the Sonics teardown, as well. Ibaka isn't shit if you don't have Durant (#2), Westbrook (#4) and Hardin (#3).

there have been times that Ibaka's not even the 2nd best big for OKC in this series and the other bigs make him better too - not just Durant and Westbrook.

OKC has been good because of Durant and Westbrook - I get that and how OKC got those picks, but my point was entirely based on the advantage of having big front court players vs. running out with the Blair/Bonner combo.

Make excuses for the FO if you want, but I'm still waiting on an answer on what they've done in the past 4 years. What moves have been good enough to offset the bad ones they've made?

[Capt Bringdown]

Nazr performing better than Dice against Memphis.

[underdawg]

Sorry, forgot to answer your question: RC pulled an All Rookie first team guard out of his ass last summer.

good move, but it probably shocked RC more than it did Spurs fans.

Still doesn't make up for Bonner, Jefferson, Mason, Udoka, Hairston, Hill (that's marginal,) probably throw in Scola, Butler, holding on to Finley too long, etc.

[ChuckD]

there have been times that Ibaka's not even the 2nd best big for OKC in this series and the other bigs make him better too - not just Durant and Westbrook.

OKC has been good because of Durant and Westbrook - I get that and how OKC got those picks, but my point was entirely based on the advantage of having big front court players vs. running out with the Blair/Bonner combo.

Make excuses for the FO if you want, but I'm still waiting on an answer on what they've done in the past 4 years. What moves have been good enough to offset the bad ones they've made?

I don't have to make excuses for our front office. They are considered the gold standard in the league in cap management and late draft picks, and teams eagerly hire from it. See: Thunder, OKC.

[underdawg]

I don't have to make excuses for our front office. They are considered the gold standard in the league in cap management and late draft picks, and teams eagerly hire from it. See: Thunder, OKC.

maybe the Spurs kept the wrong personnel - especially if their best move relied upon a summer league invite.

[ChuckD]

'dawg, right now, the only player making any money at all in OKC is Durant. Get back to me in 2-3 years when they start having to pay the other high picks 8 figures, and we'll talk about the kinds of moves they're making then. It's a lot easier to build a really good team than it is to try to maintain one when players are making bank like T,T,&M.

[jjktkk]

Ibaka was the 24th pick and the rest were through trades. Collison's contract is bad this year, but it's 3.5 mil for the next 3 years - not too bad.

What one good move has the FO done in the past 4 years that makes up for the bad moves they've made?

Resigned Ginoboli and Parker. WTF do you exactly want the Spurs FO to do, giving limited finiances, consistantly picking in the lower rounds for years, lack of tradable assets, etc...?

[underdawg]

'dawg, right now, the only player making any money at all in OKC is Durant. Get back to me in 2-3 years when they start having to pay the other high picks 8 figures, and we'll talk about the kinds of moves they're making then. It's a lot easier to build a really good team than it is to try to maintain one when players are making bank like T,T,&M.

actually Collison was their highest salary, but Durant's contract is pretty good for the next few years. Spurs were 12 million higher than OKC this year in payroll - they have some room to move and Westbrook's their only player they have to worry about in a couple of years in terms of a contract.

but you're right - the poor decisions by the FO are totally excusable because it's hard to maintain a team like the Spurs. Keep in mind that T,T & M have taken less money to stay with the team and have been rewarded with the likes of Bonner, Jefferson, Udoka, etc.

[underdawg]

Resigned Ginoboli and Parker. WTF do you exactly want the Spurs FO to do, giving limited finiances, consistantly picking in the lower rounds for years, lack of tradable assets, etc...?

how about not stand pat in '07 and '08 - maybe get longer instead of older and less athletic

go ahead and make excuses - doesn't hide the fact that they've made poor decisions for the past 4 years

[underdawg]

Resigned Ginoboli and Parker. WTF do you exactly want the Spurs FO to do, giving limited finiances, consistantly picking in the lower rounds for years, lack of tradable assets, etc...?

should have traded Parker - I understand loyalty, but as a business it was a bad move to resign him with the miles on his body and his decision to play international basketball in the future. He will not get better - this year would have been a good time to unload him with the regular season success.

[LongtimeSpursFan]

Sure I might jinx them, but right now OKC looks like their front court is coming together and will end up overtaking Memphis. It's absolutely puzzling how having a big front court pays dividends in the playoffs vs. a small front court.

If OKC starts to play more consistently as a team, they'll finish out this series and should take Dallas - OKC has the better front court.

They might not be that spectacular on paper, but Perkins, Ibaka, Nazr and Collison are a pretty formidable front court group and their total salary (my #'s might be wrong) is only $26 mil or $6 mil per player (Collison's is half that total.)

You are giving Nazr and Collison way too much credit. While the Thunders front court has had some success against Memphis it is their backcourt that is giving Memphis difficulties. In the past 3 three years the Spurs have picked up Splitter and Blair. Not bad when you consider that Splitter was taken late in the first round and Blair a late second round pick. Plus both their combined salaries are less than four million dollars.

It may be a little premature to be comparing success of FO in selecting front court players as both Splitter and Blair have only one and two years NBA experience. Had Splitter come to the Spurs right after he was drafted the comparisons would probably favor the Spurs. Blair just turned 22 years old so he still very young with lots of potential. He has vastly improved his game in the short amount of time he has been here.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Nazr performing better than Dice against Memphis.

Underrated post.

Very surprised by Nazr's performance against Memphis the last two games.

[Caeman]

I see a couple Popsuckers in this thread. I'm not surprised.

[underdawg]

You are giving Nazr and Collison way too much credit. While the Thunders front court has had some success against Memphis it is their backcourt that is giving Memphis difficulties. In the past 3 three years the Spurs have picked up Splitter and Blair. Not bad when you consider that Splitter was taken late in the first round and Blair a late second round pick. Plus both their combined salaries are less than four million dollars.

It may be a little premature to be comparing success of FO in selecting front court players as both Splitter and Blair have only one and two years NBA experience. Had Splitter come to the Spurs right after he was drafted the comparisons would probably favor the Spurs. Blair just turned 22 years old so he still very young with lots of potential. He has vastly improved his game in the short amount of time he has been here.

Randolph - 9pts and Gasol - 15 pts; I think they did a pretty good job.

Keep in mind Gasol was picked 20 picks after Tiago (hindsight 20/20)

[underdawg]

Underrated post.

Very surprised by Nazr's performance against Memphis the last two games.

but he has stone hands...

[ChuckD]

actually Collison was their highest salary, but Durant's contract is pretty good for the next few years. Spurs were 12 million higher than OKC this year in payroll - they have some room to move and Westbrook's their only player they have to worry about in a couple of years in terms of a contract.

but you're right - the poor decisions by the FO are totally excusable because it's hard to maintain a team like the Spurs. Keep in mind that T,T & M have taken less money to stay with the team and have been rewarded with the likes of Bonner, Jefferson, Udoka, etc.

They're going to have to pay Harden, too, and eventually (2-3 years) make decisions on Ibaka, Maynor, Cook, Sefalosha, and a bevy of other young players.

As for the "mistakes", at least we never made any Eddie Curry, Jarred Jeffries, Danny Fortson New York debacles. Bonner makes half the league average salary. Udoka made nothing. Jefferson is a bad contract, but it was an abomination before the re-negotiation that allowed other moves like Splitter's signing and Neal.

[ChuckD]

but he has stone hands...

When he was here, he had the second worst hands for a big man I had seen in 20+ years of watching the Spurs, behind only Cadillac Anderson.

[LongtimeSpursFan]

Randolph - 9pts and Gasol - 15 pts; I think they did a pretty good job.

Keep in mind Gasol was picked 20 picks after Tiago (hindsight 20/20)


Game 5: Ibaka - 9 pts, Perkins - 5 pts, Collison - 9 pts. Again, OKC strength is backcourt not frontcourt.

Game 1 - Gasol 20/13; Randolph - 34/10:
Game 2 - Gasol 13/10; Randolph - 15/9
Game 3 - Gasol 16/7; Randolph - 21/21
Game 4 - Gasol 26/21; Randolph - 34/16

As you can see it would be a stretch to say that OKC frontcourt is outplaying Memphis . For the series Collison is averaging about 5 pts, Perkins about 4 points, Nazr about 5 points. Only Ibaka is averaging double figures.

[pad300]

Resigned Ginoboli and Parker. WTF do you exactly want the Spurs FO to do, giving limited finiances, consistantly picking in the lower rounds for years, lack of tradable assets, etc...?

Learn from their mistakes and quit bidding against themselves. Look RJ was a lousy fit it turned out, so why resign him to that ridiculous contract, when no one else was bidding anywhere beyond the MLE. Same with Bonner - nobody else had so much as put an offer on the table for his choking in the playoffs for the last 3 years ass...So the spurs run up and offer him 3 million a year or so.

And if you say we committed a collusion and RJ wouldn't have opted out - eat the short term pain and then trade his expiring ass for say Iguolda or Deng (who was probably available at the time, before Chicago blew up this season) or SJax or whoever...

To go back another season, don't do stupid things like keeping Finley instead of Barry, or signing Bogans instead of offering Bowen a vet min.

[underdawg]

They're going to have to pay Harden, too, and eventually (2-3 years) make decisions on Ibaka, Maynor, Cook, Sefalosha, and a bevy of other young players.

As for the "mistakes", at least we never made any Eddie Curry, Jarred Jeffries, Danny Fortson New York debacles. Bonner makes half the league average salary. Udoka made nothing. Jefferson is a bad contract, but it was an abomination before the re-negotiation that allowed other moves like Splitter's signing and Neal.

not until 2014 - that's not too bad.

Udoka was a bad move because that was pretty much the Spurs only move in '07 and bringing him back was more salt on the wound. Resigning Finley in '08 was pretty bad too.

Yes, you are corect though - the Spurs FO (post 2007) has not been as bad as Isaiah Thomas' Knicks.

[Strike]

Bad enough moves to keep chodes like Bonner and Jefferson in spurs uniforms, though. Pop/RC must have been doing mountains of blow or getting some epic blows to think those were good ideas.

[underdawg]

Game 5: Ibaka - 9 pts, Perkins - 5 pts, Collison - 9 pts. Again, OKC strength is backcourt not frontcourt.

Game 1 - Gasol 20/13; Randolph - 34/10:
Game 2 - Gasol 13/10; Randolph - 15/9
Game 3 - Gasol 16/7; Randolph - 21/21
Game 4 - Gasol 26/21; Randolph - 34/16

As you can see it would be a stretch to say that OKC frontcourt is outplaying Memphis . For the series Collison is averaging about 5 pts, Perkins about 4 points, Nazr about 5 points. Only Ibaka is averaging double figures.

Nazr didn't get more than 9 minutes until game 4 and 5 - that's what I'm talking about. They're starting to play well as a 4 player rotation of bigs. Collison's not going to score alot of points, but he's playing pretty good D on Randolph (even the commentator have pointed that out.)

Also, where's Conley's easy drives to the rim? I'd reckon good interior D has something to do with that.

[LongtimeSpursFan]

not until 2014 - that's not too bad.

Udoka was a bad move because that was pretty much the Spurs only move in '07 and bringing him back was more salt on the wound. Resigning Finley in '08 was pretty bad too.

Yes, you are corect though - the Spurs FO (post 2007) has not been as bad as Isaiah Thomas' Knicks.

'07 Splitter
'08 Hill
'09 Blair
'10 Neal and Anderson

Those are hardly bad pickups. Especially for late first and second round picks.

[Josepatches_]

'07 Splitter
'08 Hill
'09 Blair
'10 Neal and Anderson

Those are hardly bad pickups. Especially for late first and second round picks.

Surely outside TP they are the only players with trade value we have in the roster so they are good pickups for late first and second round draft picks

[underdawg]

'07 Splitter
'08 Hill
'09 Blair
'10 Neal and Anderson

Those are hardly bad pickups. Especially for late first and second round picks.

the picks aren't necessarily bad, but it's the other moves (Bonner, Jefferson, Butler, Scola, Finley, etc.)

Hindsight is 20/20, but here's some food for thought

2007 - after Tiago, players still available: Carl Landry, Glen Davis, Josh McRoberts, Marc Gasol, Ramon Sessions

2008 - after Hill, players still available: Darrell Arthur, Mario Chalmers, Luc Mbah a Moute, Chris Douglas Roberts, Goran Dragic

2009 - after Blair, players still available: Marcus Thornton, Chase Budinger, picks just before Blair - Dante Cunningham, Sam Young and Jeff Pendergraph

2010 - after Anderson, players still available: Jordan Crawford, Greivis Vasquez, Landry Fields and maybe trading a couple of spots up to get Eric Bledsoe or Kevin Seraphin

[rmt]

Doesn't matter who we have if Pop is going to let them rot on the bench (see Splitter '11 & Nazr and Rasho '06). The way I see it - it's a philosophical move toward small ball - re-signing Bonner and benching any "7 footer" (not named Duncan).

[BG_Spurs_Fan]

And if you say we committed a collusion and RJ wouldn't have opted out - eat the short term pain and then trade his expiring ass for say Iguolda or Deng (who was probably available at the time, before Chicago blew up this season) or SJax or whoever...



It's easy to spend someone else's millions, isn't it? Especially for posters on a fan message board :)

[Capt Bringdown]

Also, where's Conley's easy drives to the rim? I'd reckon good interior D has something to do with that.

:tu Sooo frustrating to watch him do layup drills against the Spurs, hit jumpers etc.

Gotta give him credit for playing well in these playoffs, but isn't he playing over his head?

It seemed like he was always there with a back-breaking play against the Spurs.

[TE]

It's so frustrating reading this thread. There are tons of things the FO could have improved on but failed to do so over the years, all starting with Pop shifting to more small ball.
Fucking stupid.

[ElNono]

Presti has done a great job in OKC, IMO. They're on a very different boat than the Spurs though. They have a young superstar in Durant, another young great talent in Westbrook and now they mixed in some veteran savvy and size with Perkins and Nazr. Harden is another gem in that team, which is as good a scorer as anybody coming off the bench.

The Spurs are trying to fit pieces to maximize the potential of an older core. It's a different situation.

[Capt Bringdown]

Presti has done a great job in OKC, IMO. They're on a very different boat than the Spurs though. They have a young superstar in Durant, another young great talent in Westbrook and now they mixed in some veteran savvy and size with Perkins and Nazr. Harden is another gem in that team, which is as good a scorer as anybody coming off the bench.

The Spurs are trying to fit pieces to maximize the potential of an older core. It's a different situation.

What about our situation dictates Pop's decision to elevate Bonnerball over Spursball?
Of course our situation is different, it's a matter of understanding what works. Defense and size has proven to be a pretty good bet in the post season. Bonnerball not so much.

[TE]

Presti has done a great job in OKC, IMO. They're on a very different boat than the Spurs though. They have a young superstar in Durant, another young great talent in Westbrook and now they mixed in some veteran savvy and size with Perkins and Nazr. Harden is another gem in that team, which is as good a scorer as anybody coming off the bench.

The Spurs are trying to fit pieces to maximize the potential of an older core. It's a different situation.

Any situation that includes a Bonner and Blair frontcourt being a central component to a system is due to fail, even at the college level.

...


Any situation that includes Bonner to play more than 10+ minutes is due to fail. Just fail. Just fucking fail.

...

Any situation that includes Jefferson to be a significant offensive contributor in crunch situations is due to fail.

[Capt Bringdown]

Any situation that includes a Bonner and Blair frontcourt being a central component to a system is due to fail, even at the college level.


Yes, and in addition, Dice was a starter for us in the playoffs. I don't understand how such a successful organization could be so delusional.

[temujin]

Centerpiece going to the East Finals as a starter.
G5, 11 points (JJ taken out of his game), shooting 50% from 3 in PO.
Making 1,6 M/year.

Jefferson says hi.
Pop says hi to Thibadeau.

[ploto]

Sam was the one behind many of the Spurs best moves during the time he was here. He was extremely responsible for Pop finally being convinced to draft Tony Parker and he is the "cap master."

[G-Dawgg]

We've picked as high as 24th once in the Duncan era, and IIRC that #24 pick was part of the Sonics teardown, as well. Ibaka isn't shit if you don't have Durant (#2), Westbrook (#4) and Hardin (#3).

Bullshit. Ibaka is an excellent shotblocker/defender, strong for his size, excellent athelete, quick, has rebounding skills and has pretty good range on his jumper. Ibaka is a pretty sick talent.
And he's pretty young and can still improve alot....

Not trying to call you out or anything but what more do you want from a frontcourt player?

I'd be blowing my load if we could ever get a player like Ibaka on the Spurs.

[G-Dawgg]

Centerpiece going to the East Finals as a starter.
G5, 11 points (JJ taken out of his game), shooting 50% from 3 in PO.
Making 1,6 M/year.

Jefferson says hi.
Pop says hi to Thibadeau.

This may sound stupid, but the Spurs perimeter defense has really suffered since they lost Bogans....

[TJastal]

You are giving Nazr and Collison way too much credit. While the Thunders front court has had some success against Memphis it is their backcourt that is giving Memphis difficulties. In the past 3 three years the Spurs have picked up Splitter and Blair. Not bad when you consider that Splitter was taken late in the first round and Blair a late second round pick. Plus both their combined salaries are less than four million dollars.

It may be a little premature to be comparing success of FO in selecting front court players as both Splitter and Blair have only one and two years NBA experience. Had Splitter come to the Spurs right after he was drafted the comparisons would probably favor the Spurs. Blair just turned 22 years old so he still very young with lots of potential. He has vastly improved his game in the short amount of time he has been here.

So who do you think held Gasol & Randolph to 1 offensive rebound total in game 5? Maynard & Nate Robinson?

:lol

[TJastal]

Bullshit. Ibaka is an excellent shotblocker/defender, strong for his size, excellent athelete, quick, has rebounding skills and has pretty good range on his jumper. Ibaka is a pretty sick talent.
And he's pretty young and can still improve alot....

Not trying to call you out or anything but what more do you want from a frontcourt player?

I'd be blowing my load if we could ever get a player like Ibaka on the Spurs.

We had a similar version, name was Mahinmi IIRC, not sure what happened to him

[TJastal]

It's so frustrating reading this thread. There are tons of things the FO could have improved on but failed to do so over the years, all starting with Pop shifting to more small ball.
Fucking stupid.

Well this is spurstalk. Popsuckers everywhere and all of em make excuses, trivialize bad FO moves, or just flat out pull stuff out of their asses to keep Pop's image unblemished.

[spurspokesman]

The thing is I would still take Tim Duncan by far over anyone of those bigs unfortunately the Spurs FO surrounds him with some of the worst bigs in the league.
This

[TJastal]

Game 5: Ibaka - 9 pts, Perkins - 5 pts, Collison - 9 pts. Again, OKC strength is backcourt not frontcourt.

Game 1 - Gasol 20/13; Randolph - 34/10:
Game 2 - Gasol 13/10; Randolph - 15/9
Game 3 - Gasol 16/7; Randolph - 21/21
Game 4 - Gasol 26/21; Randolph - 34/16

As you can see it would be a stretch to say that OKC frontcourt is outplaying Memphis . For the series Collison is averaging about 5 pts, Perkins about 4 points, Nazr about 5 points. Only Ibaka is averaging double figures.

Memphis gets most of its scoring from Gasol & Randolph, OKC gets theirs from Durant and Westbrook. So of course those two are going to be outscoring their OKC counterparts. Bad comparison IMO.

[spurspokesman]

Well this is spurstalk. Popsuckers everywhere and all of em make excuses, trivialize bad FO moves, or just flat out pull stuff out of their asses to keep Pop's image unblemished.

This. And the typical comment "the FO knows better than us". Right but they are getting embarrased year in and out with first round exits with three premier players declining on their roster investing trust in bums like bonner and rj who are proven mental midgets

[TJastal]

When he was here, he had the second worst hands for a big man I had seen in 20+ years of watching the Spurs, behind only Cadillac Anderson.

The statistics really don't support your "claim".

In 2005 (his 1 full year as a spur) he averaged 17 minutes a game and had roughly 1 turnover per game. That's not bad at all.

[dbestpro]

good move, but it probably shocked RC more than it did Spurs fans.

Still doesn't make up for Bonner, Jefferson, Mason, Udoka, Hairston, Hill (that's marginal,) probably throw in Scola, Butler, holding on to Finley too long, etc.

The bad out weighs the good by a large margin.

[K-State Spur]

Sure I might jinx them, but right now OKC looks like their front court is coming together and will end up overtaking Memphis. It's absolutely puzzling how having a big front court pays dividends in the playoffs vs. a small front court.

If OKC starts to play more consistently as a team, they'll finish out this series and should take Dallas - OKC has the better front court.

They might not be that spectacular on paper, but Perkins, Ibaka, Nazr and Collison are a pretty formidable front court group and their total salary (my #'s might be wrong) is only $26 mil or $6 mil per player (Collison's is half that total.)

OKC does NOT have a better front court than Memphis - outside of the eliminated Lakers, nobody does.

Now, a lot of teams should have a better PG/wings than the Grizz (which is where OKC is winning this series). But Parker let Conley play him to a standstill and their shooters hit shots while our shooters missed them left and right - that's where we should have won the series on paper, but lost it on the court.

[temujin]

Presti had his Bonner-like loser in Green.
Actually younger and more athletic.

Where is he, again?

[K-State Spur]

the picks aren't necessarily bad, but it's the other moves (Bonner, Jefferson, Butler, Scola, Finley, etc.)

Hindsight is 20/20, but here's some food for thought

2007 - after Tiago, players still available: Carl Landry, Glen Davis, Josh McRoberts, Marc Gasol, Ramon Sessions

2008 - after Hill, players still available: Darrell Arthur, Mario Chalmers, Luc Mbah a Moute, Chris Douglas Roberts, Goran Dragic

2009 - after Blair, players still available: Marcus Thornton, Chase Budinger, picks just before Blair - Dante Cunningham, Sam Young and Jeff Pendergraph

2010 - after Anderson, players still available: Jordan Crawford, Greivis Vasquez, Landry Fields and maybe trading a couple of spots up to get Eric Bledsoe or Kevin Seraphin

Are you implying that the Spurs would have been better off taking some of the guys picked after the players they took? Because, with a few exceptions, your provided examples don't show that at all.

With Tiago and Anderson, the grades are still incomplete. FWIW, I think both (barring injury, which may be an issue for JA) will have better careers than any of those names behind them - save for the younger Gasol.

Hill is a superior player to any of the names you listed thereafter.

While Thornton and Budding both had numerically better years than Blair, both did so on lottery teams. On a bad team with guaranteed 30+ mpg, DeJuan would be a double/double machine.

[dbestpro]

the picks aren't necessarily bad, but it's the other moves (Bonner, Jefferson, Butler, Scola, Finley, etc.)

Hindsight is 20/20, but here's some food for thought

2007 - after Tiago, players still available: Carl Landry, Glen Davis, Josh McRoberts, Marc Gasol, Ramon Sessions

2008 - after Hill, players still available: Darrell Arthur, Mario Chalmers, Luc Mbah a Moute, Chris Douglas Roberts, Goran Dragic

2009 - after Blair, players still available: Marcus Thornton, Chase Budinger, picks just before Blair - Dante Cunningham, Sam Young and Jeff Pendergraph

2010 - after Anderson, players still available: Jordan Crawford, Greivis Vasquez, Landry Fields and maybe trading a couple of spots up to get Eric Bledsoe or Kevin Seraphin

Nothing glaring here. Splitter given time on the court will be as effective as Marc Gasol.

The real issues of the past few years that has crashed this team is the reliance on Bonner and RJ, playing RJ at PF, running RMJ at pg, telling Blair he has an offensive game, and never giving TD some help at the center position.

Dice helped at PF, but we never got help of size or would not play the help available at the center position. TD in turn simply wore out being the only big man on the court and at his age.

Hind sight says RMJ should have never been a PG, we should have rode out RJs contract, and we should have let Bonner go and instead found a servicable backup center. The jury is still out on Blair but if he does not go back to being a rebounding force he will have played himself out of this league.

[Ice009]

Underrated post.

Very surprised by Nazr's performance against Memphis the last two games.

I'm not. I actually think in game 4 Nazr defended Randolph pretty good. Nazr has also had big games against the Lakers the last season or two. He can be pretty good on a decent team if used properly.

I am actually getting a little pissed off how the commentators and analysts keep going on about the trade for Perkins, the upgrade at center that they needed, a big with championship experience, but no one ever mentions Nazr being a starting center on a Championship team. Why does no one want to acknowledge that? Seriously, do they not want to talk about the Spurs at all so they won't give Nazr any props?

[TJastal]

OKC does NOT have a better front court than Memphis - outside of the eliminated Lakers, nobody does.

Now, a lot of teams should have a better PG/wings than the Grizz (which is where OKC is winning this series). But Parker let Conley play him to a standstill and their shooters hit shots while our shooters missed them left and right - that's where we should have won the series on paper, but lost it on the court.

You overrate the memphis frontcourt. Sure they can score but they are not all that good defensively. Both Gasol & Randolph are good rebounders but neither one is particularily good at protecting the paint. Gasol will block a shot every now and then, long as he doesn't have to move much. And Randolph is terrible.

Otoh, OKC has stellar paint protection and defense with Ibaka, Perkins, Nazr, Durant, & Collison. Their combined strength in the paint is what has turned this series around, because it has really shut down the easy baskets in the paint and forced other players on the grizz to step up their scoring, which are roles they are not used to (see: Conley). So really, IMO the thunder frontcourt > grizz frontcourt.

[Obstructed_View]

The Spurs have to make do with what they've got, which is bad contracts to undersized forwards who play the center position next to an aging hall of famer. Can't have guys like Nazr Mohammed and Ian Mahinmi because we judge defensive frontcourt players by their offensive performance. The Spurs need shooters, or haven't you heard? Now they just need more of them. It's called "basket" ball, which means the only way to win is to outscore your opponent.

[underdawg]

Nothing glaring here. Splitter given time on the court will be as effective as Marc Gasol.

The real issues of the past few years that has crashed this team is the reliance on Bonner and RJ, playing RJ at PF, running RMJ at pg, telling Blair he has an offensive game, and never giving TD some help at the center position.

Dice helped at PF, but we never got help of size or would not play the help available at the center position. TD in turn simply wore out being the only big man on the court and at his age.

Hind sight says RMJ should have never been a PG, we should have rode out RJs contract, and we should have let Bonner go and instead found a servicable backup center. The jury is still out on Blair but if he does not go back to being a rebounding force he will have played himself out of this league.

By the time Splitter is as good as Gasol, the big 3 will be long gone. My question is could the FO have picked differently to help the Spurs right away (in 2007) instead of 5 or 6 years later to have an impact.

Darrell Arthur, Mario Chalmers or Luc Mbah a Moute would probably been better for the Spurs than Hill.

Budinger probably would have been better for the Spurs than Blair

Landry Fields and Jordan Crawford probably would have been better for the Spurs than Anderson.

I do understand that a lot of other teams passed on the above players too, I also don't think that the FO did a stellar job with the Spurs picks.

[Obstructed_View]

Nothing glaring here. Splitter given time on the court will be as effective as Marc Gasol.

The real issues of the past few years that has crashed this team is the reliance on Bonner and RJ, playing RJ at PF, running RMJ at pg, telling Blair he has an offensive game, and never giving TD some help at the center position.

Dice helped at PF, but we never got help of size or would not play the help available at the center position. TD in turn simply wore out being the only big man on the court and at his age.

Hind sight says RMJ should have never been a PG, we should have rode out RJs contract, and we should have let Bonner go and instead found a servicable backup center. The jury is still out on Blair but if he does not go back to being a rebounding force he will have played himself out of this league.

^this

[underdawg]

Are you implying that the Spurs would have been better off taking some of the guys picked after the players they took? Because, with a few exceptions, your provided examples don't show that at all.

With Tiago and Anderson, the grades are still incomplete. FWIW, I think both (barring injury, which may be an issue for JA) will have better careers than any of those names behind them - save for the younger Gasol.

Hill is a superior player to any of the names you listed thereafter.

While Thornton and Budding both had numerically better years than Blair, both did so on lottery teams. On a bad team with guaranteed 30+ mpg, DeJuan would be a double/double machine.

Hill is not superior to the players I listed, but even more important he didn't fill the need the Spurs have. Darrell Arthur would have helped the Spurs more than Hill.

Thornton spent most of his time on the Hornets and did pretty well; Budinger seems to have decent games against the Spurs - what does that say? DeJuan's height will be an issue on any team he plays - could he get good point totals in the regular season? Probably, but not in the playoffs. Glen Davis struggles to get his and he's a far better player than Blair. Spurs needed a 3 and Budinger would have helped in that area.

Landry Fields should have a better career than Anderson.

[Obstructed_View]

Hindsight on draft picks would be an effective criticism if it were obvious that the other players were better at the time, if the players the Spurs had drafted turned out to completely suck, or if the players the Spurs acquired in the draft were the problem.

None of that is the case. The Spurs' biggest weaknesses were guys they acquired via trade and then chose to re-sign, as well as guys the Spurs let go for nothing and two rookies who look like solid NBA players who the Spurs absolutely failed to get into/get back into the rotation.

[Obstructed_View]

Landry Fields should have a better career than Anderson.

:lmao

Stupid on so many levels...

[underdawg]

:lmao

Stupid on so many levels...

because he plays a different positiion? explain yourself - he put up some pretty good numbers for a rookie.

[underdawg]

Hindsight on draft picks would be an effective criticism if it were obvious that the other players were better at the time, if the players the Spurs had drafted turned out to completely suck, or if the players the Spurs acquired in the draft were the problem.

None of that is the case. The Spurs' biggest weaknesses were guys they acquired via trade and then chose to re-sign, as well as guys the Spurs let go for nothing and two rookies who look like solid NBA players who the Spurs absolutely failed to get into/get back into the rotation.

it's really not my original criticism - my original point was that the OKC frontline was a true front line vs. the midgets that the Spurs use and of better quality.

I never said the picks sucked, but I don't believe they were that great - especially for a team that relies on the draft to improve personnel.

[Capt Bringdown]

There's lots of ways to talk around the problem: Pop.
Mason as a point guard, Blair as a starter, Finley-ism, Bonnerball, benching Splitter...
I've never considered myself part of the anti-Pop crowd, but when you step back and look at his post-2007 moves, jeez.
I'm grateful what he's done, but I don't have any faith in him going forward.

[K-State Spur]

Hill is not superior to the players I listed, but even more important he didn't fill the need the Spurs have. Darrell Arthur would have helped the Spurs more than Hill.

Thornton spent most of his time on the Hornets and did pretty well; Budinger seems to have decent games against the Spurs - what does that say? DeJuan's height will be an issue on any team he plays - could he get good point totals in the regular season? Probably, but not in the playoffs. Glen Davis struggles to get his and he's a far better player than Blair. Spurs needed a 3 and Budinger would have helped in that area.

Landry Fields should have a better career than Anderson.

A lot to disagree with:

* I think you are over-valuing Arthur and de-valuing Hill based solely on how they played in the first round series. Overall, Arthur is an adequate bench big with a decent mid-range jump shot, but poor defender and doesn't rebound. He played very well against the Spurs, but in 5 games against OKC - he's shooting 36% and has grabbed 11 boards (TOTAL). What role would he fill on the Spurs the past 2 years? He's a lesser version of McDyess with significantly worse defense.

Hill, despite his struggles against Memphis, is one of the best bench wings in the league (although often misplayed as a backup PG). He was the best player in a series that eliminated a contending Mavericks team. Hell, that series alone made him a more valuable pick than Arthur (who will NEVER be the best player in any series) will ever provide.

Prior to drafting Hill, our biggest weakness was another guard/wing who could attack the rim. That we are currently focusing on other issues is a testament to how well George has filled that role.

* As for the other guys you listed behind Hill - it's laughable that you would rather have Chalmers (6 ppg, 40% FG, same Assists on a team where he gets open shot after open shot after open shot), Mbah a Moute (good defender, but non-existent offensive player who kills floor spacing), CDR (7 ppg, 42%/32% on a lottery team), or Dragic (yes, Dragic had a great series against the Spurs last year, but did you just stop paying attention to him after that? when PHX needed him this year, he was flat out awful. he did rebound a bit for Houston down the stretch - but again, better numbers on a lottery team).

* Thornton - put up good numbers on a bad NOH team as a rookie and post-trade to lottery bound Sacramento this year. For the 46 games that he played for a playoff bound NOH team this year - he was 8 ppg, 3 rpg, 41% shooting. Not terrible, but nothing that makes me regret taking Blair instead.

There's a huge difference between compiling numbers on a lottery team vs. a playoff team.

* Budinger - shows flashes, but again shot 42%/32% on a lottery team this year. Nothing extremely impressive there that makes me think we should have taken him. Budinger is also a terrible defender. He may wind up to be a good player, but - as of right now - there is no evidence that drafting Blair instead was a mistake.

* Fields could wind up being a better player than JA, a lot of people would agree with that. However, his production did fall off significantly in the second half (was non-existent in the playoffs) and you do have to view the numbers that he did accumulate through a D'Antoni inflation filter. I still would view this comparison as "incomplete."

[Maddog]

Are you implying that the Spurs would have been better off taking some of the guys picked after the players they took? Because, with a few exceptions, your provided examples don't show that at all.

With Tiago and Anderson, the grades are still incomplete. FWIW, I think both (barring injury, which may be an issue for JA) will have better careers than any of those names behind them - save for the younger Gasol.

Hill is a superior player to any of the names you listed thereafter.

While Thornton and Budding both had numerically better years than Blair, both did so on lottery teams. On a bad team with guaranteed 30+ mpg, DeJuan would be a double/double machine.
For the most part the Spurs have recently done well in the draft.
Especially if you compare to any other team consistently drafting late and not having the financial resources to be significantly over the luxury cap for any length of time.
That said - I think the Spurs have made mistakes. However I am not certain things would be any better without them.
Bottom line Tim has gotten older.
OKC has a young Durant- cap space because all their young guys are still on rookie contracts. Thus they have ability to make moves.

[underdawg]

A lot to disagree with:

* I think you are over-valuing Arthur and de-valuing Hill based solely on how they played in the first round series. Overall, Arthur is an adequate bench big with a decent mid-range jump shot, but poor defender and doesn't rebound. He played very well against the Spurs, but in 5 games against OKC - he's shooting 36% and has grabbed 11 boards (TOTAL). What role would he fill on the Spurs the past 2 years? He's a lesser version of McDyess with significantly worse defense.

Hill, despite his struggles against Memphis, is one of the best bench wings in the league (although often misplayed as a backup PG). He was the best player in a series that eliminated a contending Mavericks team. Hell, that series alone made him a more valuable pick than Arthur (who will NEVER be the best player in any series) will ever provide.

Prior to drafting Hill, our biggest weakness was another guard/wing who could attack the rim. That we are currently focusing on other issues is a testament to how well George has filled that role.

* As for the other guys you listed behind Hill - it's laughable that you would rather have Chalmers (6 ppg, 40% FG, same Assists on a team where he gets open shot after open shot after open shot), Mbah a Moute (good defender, but non-existent offensive player who kills floor spacing), CDR (7 ppg, 42%/32% on a lottery team), or Dragic (yes, Dragic had a great series against the Spurs last year, but did you just stop paying attention to him after that? when PHX needed him this year, he was flat out awful. he did rebound a bit for Houston down the stretch - but again, better numbers on a lottery team).

* Thornton - put up good numbers on a bad NOH team as a rookie and post-trade to lottery bound Sacramento this year. For the 46 games that he played for a playoff bound NOH team this year - he was 8 ppg, 3 rpg, 41% shooting. Not terrible, but nothing that makes me regret taking Blair instead.

There's a huge difference between compiling numbers on a lottery team vs. a playoff team.

* Budinger - shows flashes, but again shot 42%/32% on a lottery team this year. Nothing extremely impressive there that makes me think we should have taken him. Budinger is also a terrible defender. He may wind up to be a good player, but - as of right now - there is no evidence that drafting Blair instead was a mistake.

* Fields could wind up being a better player than JA, a lot of people would agree with that. However, his production did fall off significantly in the second half (was non-existent in the playoffs) and you do have to view the numbers that he did accumulate through a D'Antoni inflation filter. I still would view this comparison as "incomplete."

you undersell Thonrton - he averaged 14.5 his first year and yes Sacramento is a lottery team, but he still averaged 21.3 pts p/game in his second year. That's pretty good.

I understand your thinking, but I don't believe Hill was drafted as a wing. He was drafted to be a back up point guard and Chalmers has shown a better ability to fill that position. The Spurs actually needed to get bigger when Hill was drafted and they didn't. I still believe that Arthur would have been a better fit because of that.

[K-State Spur]

you undersell Thonrton - he averaged 14.5 his first year and yes Sacramento is a lottery team, but he still averaged 21.3 pts p/game in his second year. That's pretty good.

I understand your thinking, but I don't believe Hill was drafted as a wing. He was drafted to be a back up point guard and Chalmers has shown a better ability to fill that position. The Spurs actually needed to get bigger when Hill was drafted and they didn't. I still believe that Arthur would have been a better fit because of that.

What kind of numbers did Jefferson post on lottery teams? I rest my case on that issue.

What role Hill was drafted to fill is debatable (although back-up PG hasn't been a huge issue for this team, as Manu fills it for large portions anyways) - but how well he fills the back-up PG role is a valid criticism.

However, have you seen Chalmers play? What evidence are you using to say that he would be a better option in that role?

Mario is essentially the exact same player as Hill (decent 3 point shooting, good defense in the right matchup, mediocre passing, too many TOs) - only Hill is significantly better at creating his own shot.

On top of that, Chalmers role in Miami is essentially the same as Hill's in San Antonio. Man the second unit PG for short stretches early in each half, then play off the ball as the playmakers run the point for crunch time (Tony/Manu for SAS, James/Wade for MIA).

If you offered Riley Hill for Chalmers straight up, Rile's response would be: "ABSOLUTELY, YES, NO TAKE BACKS!"

[cd98]

The difference between Presti and the Spurs front office is that Presti has had a bunch of lottery picks, include no. 2 Kevin Durrant to work with. The Spurs, on the other hand, are limited to late first round picks and second round picks since Tim Duncan (whom we were very fortunate to get).

It's only logical that eventually the Spurs would run their course and deteriorate. Yes, its tough to watch, but no tougher than watch the 80s Celtics and Lakers teams deteriorate and get run by the younger NBA competition. Same thing happend with the Bulls, who disbanded before things got ugly, though we have a hint of how bad things would have gone with seeing Pippen in Portland and Houston and Jordan with the Wizards.

Give Pop and RC the same tools Presti had, and they would have done equally well. As is, Spurs front office is the best in the business at putting together contenders on late first round picks and cheap signings. Good thing for us.

As a side, Phil Jackson is leaving the Lakers when it is obvious that they won't contend anymore. But he remains open to coaching a different team (I'd say Miami so he can yet again coach the best players in the league). Good thing Pop and R.C. aren't opportunists like Phil or the Spurs would soon be run by the Kevin McHales and the Isaiah Thomases of the world and everyone here would respect R.C. and Pop a lot more.

[K-State Spur]

The difference between Presti and the Spurs front office is that Presti has had a bunch of lottery picks, include no. 2 Kevin Durrant to work with. The Spurs, on the other hand, are limited to late first round picks and second round picks since Tim Duncan (whom we were very fortunate to get).

It's only logical that eventually the Spurs would run their course and deteriorate. Yes, its tough to watch, but no tougher than watch the 80s Celtics and Lakers teams deteriorate and get run by the younger NBA competition. Same thing happend with the Bulls, who disbanded before things got ugly, though we have a hint of how bad things would have gone with seeing Pippen in Portland and Houston and Jordan with the Wizards.

Give Pop and RC the same tools Presti had, and they would have done equally well. As is, Spurs front office is the best in the business at putting together contenders on late first round picks and cheap signings. Good thing for us.

As a side, Phil Jackson is leaving the Lakers when it is obvious that they won't contend anymore. But he remains open to coaching a different team (I'd say Miami so he can yet again coach the best players in the league). Good thing Pop and R.C. aren't opportunists like Phil or the Spurs would soon be run by the Kevin McHales and the Isaiah Thomases of the world and everyone here would respect R.C. and Pop a lot more.

Agree with most of that. Everybody wants to focus on the failure of the first round - which was extremely disappointing, as opposed to how the front office was able to retool a team that was deemed dead after last year back into a 60 win club. That, in and of itself, is one hell of an accomplishment.

The fact of the matter is that, with an aging big 3, the team really isn't likely to contend without catching a lot of breaks. Manu's injury in game 1, poor shooting by the Spurs, and Memphis catching fire for stretches from jump shots (which isn't their forte) - shows how quickly a few bad breaks in the other direction could knock San Antonio out.

But if people are looking for roster moves that make us the favorites on paper and/or give us some leeway to play poorly, but still advance - those don't exist at this juncture (and really haven't since '08).

[rascal]

Presti > RC

The spurs should have kept Presti and shipped RC out.

[rascal]

should have traded Parker - I understand loyalty, but as a business it was a bad move to resign him with the miles on his body and his decision to play international basketball in the future. He will not get better - this year would have been a good time to unload him with the regular season success.

Should have got rid of Manu. he will rapidly decline in the next year or two and he can't be relied on staying healthy all year.

Relying on manu to carry the team in the playoffs is failure.

[temujin]

The Spurs are an above average organization at the moment, nothing more than that.
They used to be the very best, off and consequently on the court, before making some inexcusable mistakes.
That was when Presti was on the organization, incidentally.
Mistake #1 Sign Oberto (extension) > Scola. Major.
Mistake #2 Sign Jefferson.
Mistake #3 Re-sign Jefferson (after he opted out!!). Very Major.
Mistake #4 Sign Bonner to an absurd extension.
Mistake #5 Let Centerpiece walk. Anderson hurt. Excusable.
Mistake #6 Sign Splitter AND never really play him. Major.

I can see an accelerating trend of mistakes, even though it is true that Spurs did relatively well with their picks and FA.

There might be an ultimate mistake, and that might be, I hate to say it, keeping Popovich if he is not seriously interested anymore.

The point is that if you are a small market organization you are simply not allowed to make too many mistakes.

I just don't see Presti making all these mistakes at the moment.

[temujin]

Should have got rid of Manu. he will rapidly decline in the next year or two and he can't be relied on staying healthy all year.

Relying on manu to carry the team in the playoffs is failure.

This post could have been written in 2008.

Instead, others decline more rapidly than Mr. Ginobili.

[TJastal]

The difference between Presti and the Spurs front office is that Presti has had a bunch of lottery picks, include no. 2 Kevin Durrant to work with. The Spurs, on the other hand, are limited to late first round picks and second round picks since Tim Duncan (whom we were very fortunate to get).

It's only logical that eventually the Spurs would run their course and deteriorate. Yes, its tough to watch, but no tougher than watch the 80s Celtics and Lakers teams deteriorate and get run by the younger NBA competition. Same thing happend with the Bulls, who disbanded before things got ugly, though we have a hint of how bad things would have gone with seeing Pippen in Portland and Houston and Jordan with the Wizards.

Give Pop and RC the same tools Presti had, and they would have done equally well. As is, Spurs front office is the best in the business at putting together contenders on late first round picks and cheap signings. Good thing for us.

As a side, Phil Jackson is leaving the Lakers when it is obvious that they won't contend anymore. But he remains open to coaching a different team (I'd say Miami so he can yet again coach the best players in the league). Good thing Pop and R.C. aren't opportunists like Phil or the Spurs would soon be run by the Kevin McHales and the Isaiah Thomases of the world and everyone here would respect R.C. and Pop a lot more.

So resigning Jefferson & Bonner to long term deals was the coup of the year apparently. Presti eat your heart out.

:lol

[LongtimeSpursFan]

Should have got rid of Manu. he will rapidly decline in the next year or two and he can't be relied on staying healthy all year.

Relying on manu to carry the team in the playoffs is failure.

There is absolutely no way the Spurs would get rid of Manu. If the Spurs traded Manu or let him sign somewhere else then i and others would cancel our season tickets. Gervin, Robinson, Duncan, Ginobili and Parker have been the face of the Spurs franchise and should not be traded. Yes, I know Gervin was traded but look what happened to the team after that. Four years of bottom dwelling.

[Horse]

good move, but it probably shocked RC more than it did Spurs fans.

Still doesn't make up for Bonner, Jefferson, Mason, Udoka, Hairston, Hill (that's marginal,) probably throw in Scola, Butler, holding on to Finley too long, etc.
Are you serious throwing Hill in with that group? He's had the ups and downs of any young player, but he's probly been our best player the last 3 years outside of the big 3. He just about beat dallas for us last season in the playoffs.

[LongtimeSpursFan]

So resigning Jefferson & Bonner to long term deals was the coup of the year apparently. Presti eat your heart out.

:lol

Didnt Presti trade or sign for Center Byron Mullens? Kevin Ollie? Etan Thomas? These are hardly stellar moves and all recent moves in the past three years. Byron Mullens was taken with the 24th pick. That was a waste.

[Obstructed_View]

because he plays a different positiion? explain yourself - he put up some pretty good numbers for a rookie.

Stupid because you went back and looked at the draft (among looking back at multiple drafts) and picked the only guy who went lower than Anderson whose name you recognize and act like the Spurs should have picked him at 20. Landry Fields wasn't even expected to be picked in the draft at all, and Anderson is still considered to have lottery talent.

Fields didn't just put up pretty good numbers for a rookie, he put up great numbers for a rookie that nobody expected to be a player. He also put up more minutes per game than any Spur except Tony Parker. Being healthy for all 82 games on a Mike D'Antoni team helps with your stats. Being an injured rookie on a Gregg Popovich team is the kiss of death.

If you said this before the draft, then simply produce the post and I'll apologize. Otherwise, your posts are the ultimate in hindsight bias and completely ignorant of the actual causes of the Spurs' failures this season, and therefore worthy of ridicule.

[cd98]

Should have got rid of Manu. he will rapidly decline in the next year or two and he can't be relied on staying healthy all year.

Relying on manu to carry the team in the playoffs is failure.

You mean we should have traded away our best regular season and playoff performer?

[TJastal]

Didnt Presti trade or sign for Center Byron Mullens? Kevin Ollie? Etan Thomas? These are hardly stellar moves and all recent moves in the past three years. Byron Mullens was taken with the 24th pick. That was a waste.

So a very young athletic 7-footer on a cheap extended contract who was the Big 10's 6th man of the year and set records for FG% is a waste of money?

Score another shrewd move by Presti. Gimme a f'ing break. Great signing, and insurance for Perkins & Mohammed, two oft-injured players.

[ChumpDumper]

We had a similar version, name was Mahinmi IIRC, not sure what happened to him:lmao

[cd98]

The Spurs are an above average organization at the moment, nothing more than that.
They used to be the very best, off and consequently on the court, before making some inexcusable mistakes.
That was when Presti was on the organization, incidentally.
Mistake #1 Sign Oberto (extension) > Scola. Major.
Mistake #2 Sign Jefferson.
Mistake #3 Re-sign Jefferson (after he opted out!!). Very Major.
Mistake #4 Sign Bonner to an absurd extension.
Mistake #5 Let Centerpiece walk. Anderson hurt. Excusable.
Mistake #6 Sign Splitter AND never really play him. Major.

I can see an accelerating trend of mistakes, even though it is true that Spurs did relatively well with their picks and FA.

There might be an ultimate mistake, and that might be, I hate to say it, keeping Popovich if he is not seriously interested anymore.

The point is that if you are a small market organization you are simply not allowed to make too many mistakes.

I just don't see Presti making all these mistakes at the moment.

Scola was a mistake, but in fairness to the Spurs, not another GM other than Houston saw value in Scola, so it's hard to fault them for making that move after the fact.

Jefferson trade was also hailed by everybody as a great move, so again, it's easy to criticize after the fact, but at the time the move was made, most thought it was a great move.

Resigning RJ was a no brainer and shouldn't be criticized. (1) we had no small forward; (2) he opted out so we could pay him more money over several years, a move which allowed us to get under the salary cap and have flexibility to make other moves, like signing Splitter and staying under the cap.

Splitter did play and did okay. He still has a long way to go to be reliable in the playoffs. Hopefully next season.

[cd98]

So resigning Jefferson & Bonner to long term deals was the coup of the year apparently. Presti eat your heart out.

:lol

Bonner's deal isn't that ridiculous. His play was a big factor in us getting the number one seed. Same wth Jefferson. And while they may be to blame for not playing better in the playoffs, they certainly weren't the only ones and Memphis played really well against the Spurs.

[cd98]

Didnt Presti trade or sign for Center Byron Mullens? Kevin Ollie? Etan Thomas? These are hardly stellar moves and all recent moves in the past three years. Byron Mullens was taken with the 24th pick. That was a waste.

Some would argue that Presti blew it by taking James Harden over Tyreke Evans.

[TJastal]

:lmao

Oh, hey Chump, nice to see ya roll in this morning with your usual
lol@randomTjastalposting

How'd the rub go? Matty probably needs a little extra after all that ass-pounding he took in the series..

[ChumpDumper]

I'm going to talk about homosexual acts again. It's all I know and all I think about.

[TJastal]

Bonner's deal isn't that ridiculous. His play was a big factor in us getting the number one seed. Same wth Jefferson. And while they may be to blame for not playing better in the playoffs, they certainly weren't the only ones and Memphis played really well against the Spurs.

Let's be real here, if the spurs hadn't resigned Bonner he'd be lucky to have a job right now. Some team might have picked him up for the minimum salary. And Jefferson would be lucky to be making the mid level exception.

And don't mince words, they were the two biggest culprits why Memphis "really played well".

[ChumpDumper]

Bonner would probably make what he makes now.

I still don't understand the Spurs' bidding against themselves with Jefferson.

[cd98]

Bonner would probably make what he makes now.

I still don't understand the Spurs' bidding against themselves with Jefferson.

Backroom dealing. Given the Spurs's history, no way they resign Jefferson to a long-term deal. But what probably happened, but can't be officially said, is that the Spurs asked Jefferson to opt out and they guaranteed they would resign him for a longer deal with more money so they could use the savings to sign Splitter and stay under the cap.

Spurs are hoping to make the same deal with Duncan most likely. Instead of paying him one large payment this year, spread it out over a couple years so you can sign players now and avoid salary cap issues.

Spurs are not Dallas. They can't absorb bad contracts and make due with paying hugh salary cap penalties.

[Vic Petro]

There are rare exceptions, but to win an NBA title you need a top 10 player in the NBA. You can argue about Bonner or Blair or Tiago or other role players, but the sad truth is, at this age, the Duncan-Parker-Ginobili core isn't good enough to win a title. Even if we could go back in time and make all the absolute perfect role player moves and draft picks some people here are suggesting, age has caught up.

Bottom line is that this team, with its current core, will give us competitive basketball in the regular season and in the playoffs, but they won't win a title. Ginobili on an iso with the clock winding down is no longer automatic. Duncan in the post is no longer automatic.

The point about picking in the top 5 is a good one. The team needs another great, core player to reach championship level.

[TJastal]

Bonner would probably make what he makes now.

I still don't understand the Spurs' bidding against themselves with Jefferson.

Name one team that would have given Bonner a 4 year/13m type contract.

[ChumpDumper]

Name one team that would have given Bonner a 4 year/13m type contract.Quite a few of them, actually.

You're acting like it's a maximum contract.

[ChumpDumper]

Backroom dealing. Given the Spurs's history, no way they resign Jefferson to a long-term deal. But what probably happened, but can't be officially said, is that the Spurs asked Jefferson to opt out and they guaranteed they would resign him for a longer deal with more money so they could use the savings to sign Splitter and stay under the cap.

Spurs are hoping to make the same deal with Duncan most likely. Instead of paying him one large payment this year, spread it out over a couple years so you can sign players now and avoid salary cap issues.

Spurs are not Dallas. They can't absorb bad contracts and make due with paying hugh salary cap penalties.Were it not for so many years, that would be easier to understand.

[dbestpro]

Quite a few of them, actually.

You're acting like it's a maximum contract.

I agree, playoff conteders like Minnesota, Toronto, New Jersey, and Golden State would have all paid him considerably more.

[Obstructed_View]

Resigning RJ was a no brainer and shouldn't be criticized. (1) we had no small forward; (2) he opted out so we could pay him more money over several years, a move which allowed us to get under the salary cap and have flexibility to make other moves, like signing Splitter and staying under the cap.

Splitter did play and did okay. He still has a long way to go to be reliable in the playoffs. Hopefully next season.

Fail, fail, fail. Trading for RJ was a great move, but resigning him was stupid, both before and after the fact. The Spurs drafted a small forward, have a glut of swingmen on a team where the coach loves three guard lineups, and could have traded RJ's expiring for just about anything they wanted, particularly since RJ was playing out of his mind at the beginning of the season.

Also, hasn't the whole RJ-helping-to-sign Splitter myth been debunked? It's been so long since someone tried to use it that I've forgotten.

Splitter was statistically the second best player on the Spurs in the playoffs. If that's not reliable, then I'm not sure what you folks call it.

[TJastal]

Backroom dealing. Given the Spurs's history, no way they resign Jefferson to a long-term deal. But what probably happened, but can't be officially said, is that the Spurs asked Jefferson to opt out and they guaranteed they would resign him for a longer deal with more money so they could use the savings to sign Splitter and stay under the cap.

Spurs are hoping to make the same deal with Duncan most likely. Instead of paying him one large payment this year, spread it out over a couple years so you can sign players now and avoid salary cap issues.

Spurs are not Dallas. They can't absorb bad contracts and make due with paying hugh salary cap penalties.

Spurs could have just used Bonner's money to sign Splitter and paid the got damn tax 1 got damn year and don't pretend otherwise.

Holt is worth 80m according to USAToday. Considering Jerry Buss @ 380m spent 21m in tax in 2010 (and regularily spends over the tax) I think Holt could (for one measly year) pay 1/5 of that, or 4m... which would have been roughly the difference in Jefferson's salary. And had the spurs not resigned Bonner, that difference becomes even smaller, to almost paying no tax at all.

[ChumpDumper]

I agree, playoff conteders like Minnesota, Toronto, New Jersey, and Golden State would have all paid him considerably more.Nobody said anything about paying him more.

[rascal]

This post could have been written in 2008.

Instead, others decline more rapidly than Mr. Ginobili.

It was written in 2008.

[ChumpDumper]

Spurs could have just used Bonner's money to sign Splitter and paid the got damn tax 1 got damn year and don't pretend otherwise.

Holt is worth 80m according to USAToday. Considering Jerry Buss @ 380m spent 21m in tax in 2010 (and regularily spends over the tax I think Holt could (for one measly year) pay 1/5 of that, or 4m... which would have been roughly the difference in Jefferson's salary. And had the spurs not resigned Bonner, that difference becomes even smaller, to almost paying no tax at all.That's really bad math.

[Maddog]

Backroom dealing. Given the Spurs's history, no way they resign Jefferson to a long-term deal. But what probably happened, but can't be officially said, is that the Spurs asked Jefferson to opt out and they guaranteed they would resign him for a longer deal with more money so they could use the savings to sign Splitter and stay under the cap.

Spurs are hoping to make the same deal with Duncan most likely. Instead of paying him one large payment this year, spread it out over a couple years so you can sign players now and avoid salary cap issues.

Spurs are not Dallas. They can't absorb bad contracts and make due with paying hugh salary cap penalties.
I would wager cash that this is the truth and would also suspect that this was done way before the summer.

[rascal]

By the time Splitter is as good as Gasol, the big 3 will be long gone. My question is could the FO have picked differently to help the Spurs right away (in 2007) instead of 5 or 6 years later to have an impact.

Darrell Arthur, Mario Chalmers or Luc Mbah a Moute would probably been better for the Spurs than Hill.

Budinger probably would have been better for the Spurs than Blair

Landry Fields and Jordan Crawford probably would have been better for the Spurs than Anderson.

I do understand that a lot of other teams passed on the above players too, I also don't think that the FO did a stellar job with the Spurs picks.

It's not the draft that is killing the spurs it's the lack of key trades to upgrade the talent level and good free agent signings. Too much standing pat with the same roster year after year and watching the key players get older.

[TJastal]

That's really bad math.

Not really.

I rounded everything down, not up. Figuring in the stinginess factor of Peter Holt I figured this would only be appropriate.

[ChumpDumper]

Not really.

I rounded everything down, not up. Figuring in the stinginess factor of Peter Holt I figured this would only be appropriate.It's bad math because it's stupidly simplistic. One can tell you have never run a business and never will.

lol appropriate

[rascal]

There is absolutely no way the Spurs would get rid of Manu. If the Spurs traded Manu or let him sign somewhere else then i and others would cancel our season tickets. Gervin, Robinson, Duncan, Ginobili and Parker have been the face of the Spurs franchise and should not be traded. Yes, I know Gervin was traded but look what happened to the team after that. Four years of bottom dwelling.

You are a fan of a player and not of the team.
If the spurs get back players that make them better then trading manu is a good deal. Manu is way overrated here.

The guy has always been very inconsistent, can hardly log big minutes like the true stars of the league and has been injured 4 years in a row during the playoffs now. he is on the wrong side of 30 and will be in rapid decline as a player.

[ChumpDumper]

You are a fan of a player and not of the team.Many of the people who actually pay money to the team feel the same way about Manu.

[TJastal]

It's bad math because it's stupidly simplistic. One can tell you have never run a business and never will.

lol appropriate

Why is a simple math formula bad math? And stupid on top of that. For a guy bitching about simple, maybe you should try words other than "bad" and "stupid'...

[ChumpDumper]

Why is a simple math formula bad math? And stupid on top of that. For a guy bitching about simple, maybe you should try words other than "bad" and "stupid'...The words simply fit you so well.

Thanks for the confirmation.

[K-State Spur]

Fcould have traded RJ's expiring for just about anything they wanted,

Only if 'what they wanted' was an equally bad - but longer term - contract.

[Fabbs]

Originally Posted by Rump Humper


Quite a few of them, actually.

You're acting like it's a maximum contract.


I agree, playoff conteders like Minnesota, Toronto, New Jersey, and Golden State would have all paid him considerably more.
:lol nicely done.

[ChumpDumper]

:lol nicely done.Who said anything about paying him more?

[TJastal]

The words simply fit you so well.

Thanks for the confirmation.

Such sophistry you have.

[ChumpDumper]

Such sophistry you have.There's nothing deceptive about what I said.

It's quite straightforward.

Do you even know what sophistry is?

[TJastal]

There's nothing deceptive about what I said.

It's quite straightforward.

Do you even know what sophistry is?

Yes, and I think it fits you quite well. You've accomplished your goal here, which was to distract the forum readers from the hard facts I presented to your little word games. Congrats.

[ChumpDumper]

Yes, and I think it fits you quite well. You've accomplished your goal here, which was to distract the forum readers from the hard facts I presented to your little word games. Congrats.Nope, your "hard facts" consisted of your opinion based a stupid little equation you made up that means absolutely nothing.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

lol hard facts

[cd98]

Fail, fail, fail. Trading for RJ was a great move, but resigning him was stupid, both before and after the fact. The Spurs drafted a small forward, have a glut of swingmen on a team where the coach loves three guard lineups, and could have traded RJ's expiring for just about anything they wanted, particularly since RJ was playing out of his mind at the beginning of the season.

Also, hasn't the whole RJ-helping-to-sign Splitter myth been debunked? It's been so long since someone tried to use it that I've forgotten.

Splitter was statistically the second best player on the Spurs in the playoffs. If that's not reliable, then I'm not sure what you folks call it.

The only way for the Spurs to get below the salary cap was to get rid of RJ's contract. One can only infer that RJ opted out of his contract on a deal that the Spurs would sign him for multiple years. They'll have more flexibility going forward because of his contract.

And RJ didn't have a bad season, just a bad playoffs. He provided us with decent defense and timely three point shooting. Without his contributions, we wouldn't have won as many games as we did.

Splitter was good in limited minutes. Given more playing time, he might not have been so. I can't say what he would have done, but Pop knows way more than I do.

[ChumpDumper]

Seriously TJ, show me which CEO makes decisions on how much money his business should lose based solely on his personal net worth.

Give us the hard facts.

[cd98]

Spurs could have just used Bonner's money to sign Splitter and paid the got damn tax 1 got damn year and don't pretend otherwise.

Holt is worth 80m according to USAToday. Considering Jerry Buss @ 380m spent 21m in tax in 2010 (and regularily spends over the tax) I think Holt could (for one measly year) pay 1/5 of that, or 4m... which would have been roughly the difference in Jefferson's salary. And had the spurs not resigned Bonner, that difference becomes even smaller, to almost paying no tax at all.

It isn't just about personal income, it's income the team generates. The Lakers will more than pay for themselves. The Spurs, not as much. Small market team vs. big market team. Holt doesn't want to take million dollar losses. I can't blame him.

Bonner was not a bad signing. Look at how much money he makes and it is reasonable when you compare him to veteran players around the league. The problem is that we have higher expectations given the minutes he receives. But again, without his near 50% three point shooting, we don't get the seeding we got. He won quite a few regular season games for us.

[rmt]

Presti had his Bonner-like loser in Green.
Actually younger and more athletic.

Where is he, again?

And who did he get for Green - that's right - Perkins.



It's only logical that eventually the Spurs would run their course and deteriorate. Yes, its tough to watch, but no tougher than watch the 80s Celtics and Lakers teams deteriorate and get run by the younger NBA competition. Same thing happend with the Bulls, who disbanded before things got ugly, though we have a hint of how bad things would have gone with seeing Pippen in Portland and Houston and Jordan with the Wizards.

Give Pop and RC the same tools Presti had, and they would have done equally well. As is, Spurs front office is the best in the business at putting together contenders on late first round picks and cheap signings. Good thing for us.

As a side, Phil Jackson is leaving the Lakers when it is obvious that they won't contend anymore. But he remains open to coaching a different team (I'd say Miami so he can yet again coach the best players in the league). Good thing Pop and R.C. aren't opportunists like Phil or the Spurs would soon be run by the Kevin McHales and the Isaiah Thomases of the world and everyone here would respect R.C. and Pop a lot more.

They could have continued to contend by signing Scola, by not resigning Bonner and RJ, and by integrating Splitter.

What makes you think LA won't contend anymore? They get an athletic point guard and they're right back in business.


Scola was a mistake, but in fairness to the Spurs, not another GM other than Houston saw value in Scola, so it's hard to fault them for making that move after the fact.

Jefferson trade was also hailed by everybody as a great move, so again, it's easy to criticize after the fact, but at the time the move was made, most thought it was a great move.

Resigning RJ was a no brainer and shouldn't be criticized. (1) we had no small forward; (2) he opted out so we could pay him more money over several years, a move which allowed us to get under the salary cap and have flexibility to make other moves, like signing Splitter and staying under the cap.

Splitter did play and did okay. He still has a long way to go to be reliable in the playoffs. Hopefully next season.

Better to play SF by committee - Novak, Anderson, whatever scrub they could pick up than pay $10m for the disappearing act that was RJ.

You have a strange idea of what is reliable. IMO Splitter played very well considering the lack of time he had on the court during the regular season.


Bonner's deal isn't that ridiculous. His play was a big factor in us getting the number one seed. Same wth Jefferson. And while they may be to blame for not playing better in the playoffs, they certainly weren't the only ones and Memphis played really well against the Spurs.

A lot of good that #1 seed did them with Gasol/Randolph abusing Bonner in the paint. RJ was a complete disaster in the playoffs. Why do you think MEM played really well against the Spurs? Spurs had inferior interior defense which opened up the perimeter shots.

Bonner and RJ are going to be the cement block around the Spurs neck for the next 3 years.


It's not the draft that is killing the spurs it's the lack of key trades to upgrade the talent level and good free agent signings. Too much standing pat with the same roster year after year and watching the key players get older.

Totally agree.

[TJastal]

Nope, your "hard facts" consisted of your opinion based a stupid little equation you made up that means absolutely nothing.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

lol hard facts

Well why don't u explain exactly why my "stupid little equation" means absolutely nothing.

[ChumpDumper]

Well why don't u explain exactly why my "stupid little equation" means absolutely nothing.


Seriously TJ, show me which CEO makes decisions on how much money his business should lose based solely on his personal net worth.

Give us the hard facts.

[cd98]

It's not the draft that is killing the spurs it's the lack of key trades to upgrade the talent level and good free agent signings. Too much standing pat with the same roster year after year and watching the key players get older.

Hard to make good trades when you don't have assets. Spurs pick late every year, which denies them the chance to stockpile youth. They try and find late round gems and Euro talent. But that only works every once in a while. Furthermore, Spurs don't sign bad contracts, so they rarely have expiring contracts to get good players. Don't forget the Spurs had to trade three players to get Jefferson. That's part of their problem, they'd have to trade five of their young players on low paying contracts to get a quality player in return. That's too much to pay for most any player.

[ChumpDumper]

Seriously TJ, show me which CEO makes decisions on how much money his business should lose based solely on his personal net worth.

Give us the hard facts.You don't have an answer yet, TJ?

Maybe another of your sophisms could delay things.

[ChumpDumper]

I'll be back in a few hours TJ. Maybe you will have googled something appropriate by then.

[cd98]

And who did he get for Green - that's right - Perkins.



They could have continued to contend by signing Scola, by not resigning Bonner and RJ, and by integrating Splitter.

What makes you think LA won't contend anymore? They get an athletic point guard and they're right back in business.



Better to play SF by committee - Novak, Anderson, whatever scrub they could pick up than pay $10m for the disappearing act that was RJ.

You have a strange idea of what is reliable. IMO Splitter played very well considering the lack of time he had on the court during the regular season.



A lot of good that #1 seed did them with Gasol/Randolph abusing Bonner in the paint. RJ was a complete disaster in the playoffs. Why do you think MEM played really well against the Spurs? Spurs had inferior interior defense which opened up the perimeter shots.

Bonner and RJ are going to be the cement block around the Spurs neck for the next 3 years.



Totally agree.

1. Talking Scola is working backwards through the equation. Hindsight is 20/20. Nobody knew Scola would be the player he is or we would have had a ton of people interested in trading for him.

2. LA may contend, but Phil isn't going to wait around to find out. His star is now on the downside. Time for him to go to Heat so he can keep his winning reputation.

3. By committee? Novak? He is way worse than Jefferson. If he gets major minutes, we wouldn't make the playoffs. I'm not a big fan of Jefferson, but we didn't and do not have many options. He is better than the scrubs you suggest we play. Anderson was injured, so he doesn't really factor into the conversation.

4. Splitter had good games. Splitter had bad games. He was inconsistent, which made him unreliable in Pop's eyes. Maybe he should have played more, or maybe playing him more would have showed he was still too young. Hard to say, but Pop is in the best position to know.

5. Last year we barely made the playoffs. This year, we were the number one seed. Richardson and Bonner were a big reason for the jump. Us losing in the playoffs? Well, we're a flawed team. We gave our best effort, but Memphis played better. Memphis defense was tremendous.

6. Bonner contract is exaggerated. He's not overpaid. Jefferson, while overpaid, will be servicable next year and tradable after that as his contract becomes more attractive to teams looking for expirables. I doubt he finishes his career as a Spur.

[TJastal]

It isn't just about personal income, it's income the team generates. The Lakers will more than pay for themselves. The Spurs, not as much. Small market team vs. big market team. Holt doesn't want to take million dollar losses. I can't blame him.

Bonner was not a bad signing. Look at how much money he makes and it is reasonable when you compare him to veteran players around the league. The problem is that we have higher expectations given the minutes he receives. But again, without his near 50% three point shooting, we don't get the seeding we got. He won quite a few regular season games for us.

I'm bolding this portion of your post because in the end its the only thing that really matters. You can't win with a 1 dimensional chucker in the playoffs, its been proven 4 times in a row now. I don't care if the spurs go 82-0 and Bonner hits 82 game winners, I don't want him on the team if can't deliver anything come playoff time.

[TJastal]

Seriously TJ, show me which CEO makes decisions on how much money his business should lose based solely on his personal net worth.

Give us the hard facts.

Peter Holt owns a franchise called the "San Antonio Spurs".. whose net worth is currently 404 million according to Hoopshype.

Obviously, taking a loss is a tough thing to swallow in any calendar year, but if it benefits the franchise' in the long term then its not "losing", its "winning".

Of course, this is all just business 101. And I should be getting paid for my time.

[K-State Spur]

Peter Holt owns a franchise called the "San Antonio Spurs".. whose net worth is currently 404 million according to Hoopshype.

Obviously, taking a loss is a tough thing to swallow in any calendar year, but if it benefits the franchise' in the long term then its not "losing", its "winning".

Of course, this is all just business 101. And I should be getting paid for my time.

You understand that means he could [maybe] expect to get $404M if he sold it?

That does not mean that they have $404M sitting in the bank account. You get that, right?

[TJastal]

You understand that means he could [maybe] expect to get $404M if he sold it?

That does not mean that they have $404M sitting in the bank account. You get that, right?

Yes, so? It's still an asset. Would you trash and burn your house and property if someone gave you a hundred bucks? After all, you'd have that hundred bucks in your hand afterward, right?

[lowdown]

I'm not sure what the debate is about. Bonner & Jefferson contracts are not good ones. It was mistake to sign those guys for the amount of years they were given. However, the front office is one of the best at finding young talent without having high draft picks. The Scola trade was dumb - every scout knew he was a very good player. His success in Europe & Argentina was not a secret. Pop was a stubborn asshole for not playing Splitter (& Anderson) more as the regular season wound down and for continuing to play Bonner all those minutes. I'm sure the off-season will be another good one but what really is going to matter is who Pop decides to play in the main rotation. This is the key if the Spurs have any chance of getting another title. Yes, they need another impact player. Yes, we need more Splitter, Blair, Anderson, Neal, & Hill (unless 1 or more are part of deal) to play impact minutes. The original core should never be traded. Loyalty is important for winning franchises. It's just not good if you always have to rely on the aging veterans for all the key plays. I'm not being naive either. Parker is the only one with real trade value but it would be a swap. The Lakers had a lot of "lucky" things go their way to build their team. Boston had a lot of lottery picks to move. We all know what Miami did. Dallas always makes trades and overpays every year. OKC has a lot of lottery talent and hasn't won the prize yet. They also don't have that great of a roster - Collison, D.Cook, Maynor, Mohammed aren't that great.

[K-State Spur]

I really have no desire to venture into the head where that analogy makes sense...

[wildbill2u]

Sure I might jinx them, but right now OKC looks like their front court is coming together and will end up overtaking Memphis. It's absolutely puzzling how having a big front court pays dividends in the playoffs vs. a small front court.

If OKC starts to play more consistently as a team, they'll finish out this series and should take Dallas - OKC has the better front court.

They might not be that spectacular on paper, but Perkins, Ibaka, Nazr and Collison are a pretty formidable front court group and their total salary (my #'s might be wrong) is only $26 mil or $6 mil per player (Collison's is half that total.)

The talk in Dallas is about they'd rather play OKC than Memphis. They played well against OKC in regular season and not so well against Memphis.

[K-State Spur]

The Jefferson years may not even be much of an issue if rumors of another Allan Houston/Michael Finley amnesty rule are true.

[rmt]

1. Talking Scola is working backwards through the equation. Hindsight is 20/20. Nobody knew Scola would be the player he is or we would have had a ton of people interested in trading for him.

You don't think that a player with this type of resume is worth $3m:

2000 Spanish League Rookie of the Year
2000 FIBA Americas Under-20 Championship MVP
2005 Spanish Supercup MVP
2× Spanish League MVP 2005, 2007
All-Euroleague Second Team 2005
2× All-Euroleague First Team 2006, 2007
2× FIBA Americas Championship MVP 2007

I'd take a chance on him especially as they gave about the same amount to Jackie Butler who had done squat. Everyone knew what Scola was going to be. For God sake, Manu - his national team mate for how many years - could have told them (just as he's been saying all season long about Splitter).


2. LA may contend, but Phil isn't going to wait around to find out. His star is now on the downside. Time for him to go to Heat so he can keep his winning reputation.

I think it's naive of you to think that they may contend - Kobe's got lots left in the tank. They are going to contend. They still have the best front line in the league, Kobe Bryant and an owner willing to spend to win rings. Kobe will never play with Lebron.


3. By committee? Novak? He is way worse than Jefferson. If he gets major minutes, we wouldn't make the playoffs. I'm not a big fan of Jefferson, but we didn't and do not have many options. He is better than the scrubs you suggest we play. Anderson was injured, so he doesn't really factor into the conversation.

Yes, by committee, the way they played the last game vs MEM. The useless POS RJ was played only 10 mins. and the rest of the SF mins. were absorbed by other players. They could have picked up a vet for the min or imagine Peja and the wonderful job he's done on the Mavs.


4. Splitter had good games. Splitter had bad games. He was inconsistent, which made him unreliable in Pop's eyes. Maybe he should have played more, or maybe playing him more would have showed he was still too young. Hard to say, but Pop is in the best position to know.

Still too young? At 26 with what - 10 years of pro ball behind him? By finally playing Splitter (in desperation) in game 4 and benching Blair, Pop essentially admitted that he'd made a mistake in not integrating Splitter.


5. Last year we barely made the playoffs. This year, we were the number one seed. Richardson and Bonner were a big reason for the jump. Us losing in the playoffs? Well, we're a flawed team. We gave our best effort, but Memphis played better. Memphis defense was tremendous.

Even though we barely made the playoffs last year, we went further into the playoffs then than this year. It's the playoffs that matter after all - not the regular season. We're a flawed team because we have Bonner and RJ playing major minutes. And no we didn't give our best effort. Our second best defensive big was sitting on the bench for 3 games.


6. Bonner contract is exaggerated. He's not overpaid. Jefferson, while overpaid, will be servicable next year and tradable after that as his contract becomes more attractive to teams looking for expirables. I doubt he finishes his career as a Spur.

What starting SF plays for 10 minutes in a playoff elimination game? RJ's contract is for 4 years - there are still 3 years left of this useless POS.

[TJastal]

I really have no desire to venture into the head where that analogy makes sense...

http://blogs.forbes.com/kurtbadenhausen/2011/01/26/nbas-best-teams-for-buck-2/


Owner Peter Holt has seen the value of his team soar from $122 million to $404 million since Duncan arrived as the consistent winning helped get AT&T Center built mostly with public money.

Let's see... lose a few million in 2010 .. or lose almost 300 million by turning the franchise into rubbish... tough choices... don't strain yourselves too hard with this..oh wait we can't withdraw the spurs from the bank.. never mind..

[ChumpDumper]

You didn't respond to this, TJ. You just engaged in nonstop sophistry.
Seriously TJ, show me which CEO makes decisions on how much money his business should lose based solely on his personal net worth.

Give us the hard facts.You also confused Holt's personal net worth with the valuation of the San Antonio Spurs.

I'll let you know if you ever get anything right.

[ChumpDumper]

Peter Holt owns a franchise called the "San Antonio Spurs".. whose net worth is currently 404 million according to Hoopshype.So why is his net worth you listed earlier so much lower, genius?


Obviously, taking a loss is a tough thing to swallow in any calendar year, but if it benefits the franchise' in the long term then its not "losing", its "winning".Sorry, winning on the court and profit do not go hand in hand.


Of course, this is all just business 101. And I should be getting paid for my time.Who would pay for this kind of bullshit?

[ElNono]

What about our situation dictates Pop's decision to elevate Bonnerball over Spursball?
Of course our situation is different, it's a matter of understanding what works. Defense and size has proven to be a pretty good bet in the post season. Bonnerball not so much.


Any situation that includes a Bonner and Blair frontcourt being a central component to a system is due to fail, even at the college level.

Any situation that includes Bonner to play more than 10+ minutes is due to fail. Just fail. Just fucking fail.

Any situation that includes Jefferson to be a significant offensive contributor in crunch situations is due to fail.

What I mean is Presti has a young franchise superstar and a talented young core surrounding him, which is really the harder part. He has done a good job of pulling the right deals and plugging good vets in that team.

We're conceptually in the opposite side of the spectrum. We have an aging core on the decline and we're trying to find talented young pieces on the cheap to try to extend the window.

[cd98]

You don't think that a player with this type of resume is worth $3m:

2000 Spanish League Rookie of the Year
2000 FIBA Americas Under-20 Championship MVP
2005 Spanish Supercup MVP
2× Spanish League MVP 2005, 2007
All-Euroleague Second Team 2005
2× All-Euroleague First Team 2006, 2007
2× FIBA Americas Championship MVP 2007

I'd take a chance on him especially as they gave about the same amount to Jackie Butler who had done squat. Everyone knew what Scola was going to be. For God sake, Manu - his national team mate for how many years - could have told them (just as he's been saying all season long about Splitter).


Euro resume isn't the same to the NBA. Sorry. And if everyone knew how good Scola would be in the NBA, then why didn't more teams make a play for him? Manta teams could have beat Houston's offer. Hindsight 20/20. A lot of quality Eurp players couldnt make it in the NBA.


I think it's naive of you to think that they may contend - Kobe's got lots left in the tank. They are going to contend. They still have the best front line in the league, Kobe Bryant and an owner willing to spend to win rings. Kobe will never play with Lebron.



Yes, by committee, the way they played the last game vs MEM. The useless POS RJ was played only 10 mins. and the rest of the SF mins. were absorbed by other players. They could have picked up a vet for the min or imagine Peja and the wonderful job he's done on the Mavs.



Still too young? At 26 with what - 10 years of pro ball behind him? By finally playing Splitter (in desperation) in game 4 and benching Blair, Pop essentially admitted that he'd made a mistake in not integrating Splitter.



Even though we barely made the playoffs last year, we went further into the playoffs then than this year. It's the playoffs that matter after all - not the regular season. We're a flawed team because we have Bonner and RJ playing major minutes. And no we didn't give our best effort. Our second best defensive big was sitting on the bench for 3 games.



What starting SF plays for 10 minutes in a playoff elimination game? RJ's contract is for 4 years - there are still 3 years left of this useless POS.

[Nathan89]

Backroom dealing. Given the Spurs's history, no way they resign Jefferson to a long-term deal. But what probably happened, but can't be officially said, is that the Spurs asked Jefferson to opt out and they guaranteed they would resign him for a longer deal with more money so they could use the savings to sign Splitter and stay under the cap.

Spurs are hoping to make the same deal with Duncan most likely. Instead of paying him one large payment this year, spread it out over a couple years so you can sign players now and avoid salary cap issues.

Spurs are not Dallas. They can't absorb bad contracts and make due with paying hugh salary cap penalties.

If the Spurs are the type of organization to "backroom deal" then they should have had no problem going back on their unofficial word. A contract can't be binding if it is illegal.

If Rj came back to me looking for a long-term contract my reaction is:lol.

[Nathan89]

Splitter given time on the court will be as effective as Marc Gasol.



Couldn't disagree with any comment on this thread more than this.

[Nathan89]

Quite a few of them, actually.

You're acting like it's a maximum contract.

Agree with ChumpDumper. I think Bonner could easily get his contract from other teams.


Spurs could have just used Bonner's money to sign Splitter and paid the got damn tax 1 got damn year and don't pretend otherwise.

Holt is worth 80m according to USAToday. Considering Jerry Buss @ 380m spent 21m in tax in 2010 (and regularily spends over the tax) I think Holt could (for one measly year) pay 1/5 of that, or 4m... which would have been roughly the difference in Jefferson's salary. And had the spurs not resigned Bonner, that difference becomes even smaller, to almost paying no tax at all.
:depressed
I want a new owner.

[ChumpDumper]

If the Spurs are the type of organization to "backroom deal" then they should have had no problem going back on their unofficial word. A contract can't be binding if it is illegal.And the Spurs could never work with an agent ever again.

[ChuckD]

What I mean is Presti has a young franchise superstar and a talented young core surrounding him, which is really the harder part. He has done a good job of pulling the right deals and plugging good vets in that team.

We're conceptually in the opposite side of the spectrum. We have an aging core on the decline and we're trying to find talented young pieces on the cheap to try to extend the window.

Trying to convince them that they're comparing apples and oranges won't get you very far. They're convinced that the FO is broken, and there's no "unconvincing" them.

[rascal]

The words simply fit you so well.

Thanks for the confirmation.

I don't know how Chumpo got an all star 2nd team from this site.
This guy offers nothing but to argue with people.

[Man In Black]

Pete's not worth that much. He's tied for lowest net worth out of every NBA owner.

Also, he is Chairman of the San Antonio Spurs. He's the principal guy but he doesn't own the team just by himself like say Paul Allen or Mickey Arison.
http://www.lipstickalley.com/f19/nba-listing-net-worth-nbas-owners-122150/

This list doesn't include Russian Billionaire Mikhail Prokhorov. Owner of the Nets.
Pete is tied with Les Alexander, owner of the Houston Rockets. And they have LESS than 100 Million. At the time of the list, they were both at $80M respectively.

http://www.forbes.com/2010/12/16/lakers-nets-blazers-magic-business-sports-nba-billionaires.html
If you go by the Forbes list of Billionaire's in the NBA, Prokhorov has the most money now, followed by Paul Allen. Since that list is only of Billionaires, the last guy to get in was Herb Simon, at 1.25B. That means that the Spurs aren't as Cash Rich as some people think. They do it as best as they can, small market bootstrapping at it's finest.

[rascal]

Hard to make good trades when you don't have assets. Spurs pick late every year, which denies them the chance to stockpile youth. They try and find late round gems and Euro talent. But that only works every once in a while. Furthermore, Spurs don't sign bad contracts, so they rarely have expiring contracts to get good players. Don't forget the Spurs had to trade three players to get Jefferson. That's part of their problem, they'd have to trade five of their young players on low paying contracts to get a quality player in return. That's too much to pay for most any player.

The spurs have had plenty of assets. They don't want to part with anything.

[DMC]

Sure I might jinx them, but right now OKC looks like their front court is coming together and will end up overtaking Memphis. It's absolutely puzzling how having a big front court pays dividends in the playoffs vs. a small front court.

If OKC starts to play more consistently as a team, they'll finish out this series and should take Dallas - OKC has the better front court.

They might not be that spectacular on paper, but Perkins, Ibaka, Nazr and Collison are a pretty formidable front court group and their total salary (my #'s might be wrong) is only $26 mil or $6 mil per player (Collison's is half that total.)
All Holt needs to do now is move the team to another state, get another top draft pick and have a few really low win years to stack his team. Great.

[ChumpDumper]

I don't know how Chumpo got an all star 2nd team from this site.
This guy offers nothing but to argue with people.Nice grammar and envious much?

You're a bit of a one note poster, if you hadn't noticed.

[underdawg]

All Holt needs to do now is move the team to another state, get another top draft pick and have a few really low win years to stack his team. Great.

what does that have to do with the decision to go with true big players for their frontline instead of opting for smaller players (one that can "stretch" the floor)?

That was my original point - although I did comment on the Spurs draft picks and I said that any criticism on their draft picks is completey based on hindsight being 20/20. That was just to show the picks weren't as stellar as they needed to be.

My main criticism is that the Spurs FO decided to go away from size in the frontcourt and never reloaded the team with athleticism and length. The Spurs had 5 players over 6'7", but I'd almost exclude Bonner and Novak from that number because they don't play like a player above 6'8".

A lot of Spurs fans have made the same excuses for the past 4 years on why the needs haven't been addressed and it's usually the same excuses - small market team, not enough money, hard to add players with the big 3's salaries, etc.

I could be wrong, but the Spurs were able to get good supporting players before 2007 and not spend a lot of money. That said, the Spurs had the 11th highest payroll and even though Tim has the 4th highest salary, Manu and Tony aren't in the top 30. The big 3 made up 63% of the Spurs payroll - that left 25.5 million to make up the remaining 12 or so spots. Is that really that small of an amount?

[K-State Spur]

Except even with 20/20 hindsight - those were pretty damn good picks. C'mon, in the face of the evidence presented, you have to admit that a lot of the names you mentioned would not have been upgrades (most would have been downgrades).

OKC is giving 92% of their front court minutes to 3 guys. Given that the Spurs have 3 legitimate post players by any definition (albeit one inexperienced) - isn't a criticism of Splitter's PT - or lack of - more apt than complaints on roster management?

[underdawg]

Except even with 20/20 hindsight - those were pretty damn good picks. C'mon, in the face of the evidence presented, you have to admit that a lot of the names you mentioned would not have been upgrades (most would have been downgrades).

OKC is giving 92% of their front court minutes to 3 guys. Given that the Spurs have 3 legitimate post players by any definition (albeit one inexperienced) - isn't a criticism of Splitter's PT - or lack of - more apt than complaints on roster management?

not in the last 2 games - Nazr's minutes have doubled and it has resulted in better defense for OKC Also, it's not just Splitter's PT, but Bonner's excessive PT and role in general and Blair might be a good player, but he doesn't help the Spurs in terms of playoff defensive capabilities.

As far as the draft picks, even in light of your arguments, I still believe the Spurs would have been better off adressing their need for immediate help vs. waiting for Splitter and addressing the lack of size vs. picking Hill, Blair and Anderson. Splitter's a good player and his contract is pretty good for a player like him, but waiting 5 years for a pick to help the team seems long - especially with the big 3 on the backside of their careers.

[K-State Spur]

As far as the draft picks, even in light of your arguments, I still believe the Spurs would have been better off adressing their need for immediate help vs. waiting for Splitter and addressing the lack of size vs. picking Hill, Blair and Anderson. Splitter's a good player and his contract is pretty good for a player like him, but waiting 5 years for a pick to help the team seems long - especially with the big 3 on the backside of their careers.

With regards to Hill - if we draft size there (i.e. Arthur), maybe we're a bit better positioned on the front line (although we'd find plenty of things to complain about Arthur's game if he were a Spur - poor defense, inconsistent offense, terrible rebounding), but then we'd be sorely lacking for another attacking wing. Neal doesn't fill that role.

You'd potentially close up one hole (and i'm not really sure it would be closed), just to open another.

As for Anderson, still way too early to evaluate that pick after an injury riddled season with no real obvious contributors available behind him. If Splitter couldn't crack the lineup this year, then there's no way any rookie drafted after Anderson would have.

It's interesting that you complain about lack of immediate help in one sentence, then complain about the Anderson pick in the next. Anderson's injuries + the emergence of Neal to that degree couldn't be foreseen, but JA was viewed as one of the more developed/ready players in the entire draft.

[ChumpDumper]

Still nothing, TJ?
Seriously TJ, show me which CEO makes decisions on how much money his business should lose based solely on his personal net worth.

Give us the hard facts.C'mon -- it should be easy since you teach college business courses.

[underdawg]

With regards to Hill - if we draft size there (i.e. Arthur), maybe we're a bit better positioned on the front line (although we'd find plenty of things to complain about Arthur's game if he were a Spur - poor defense, inconsistent offense, terrible rebounding), but then we'd be sorely lacking for another attacking wing. Neal doesn't fill that role.

You'd potentially close up one hole (and i'm not really sure it would be closed), just to open another.

As for Anderson, still way too early to evaluate that pick after an injury riddled season with no real obvious contributors available behind him. If Splitter couldn't crack the lineup this year, then there's no way any rookie drafted after Anderson would have.

It's interesting that you complain about lack of immediate help in one sentence, then complain about the Anderson pick in the next. Anderson's injuries + the emergence of Neal to that degree couldn't be foreseen, but JA was viewed as one of the more developed/ready players in the entire draft.

2 different scenarios for drafting Tiago and Anderson and each one I think the Spurs probably should have gone a different direction. Don't get me wrong - Tiago should be a decent big, Pop chose to stay pat in 2007 and I know it's easy to look back and say I told you so, but the Spurs weren't exactly dominant in 2007.

I don't have the specifics, but I do remember the FO trading some picks - even though they were 2nd round picks, it still seemed like a bad move given the inability to trade for good players or sign good free agents.

Anderson should be a good player, but him being out of shape hopefully isn't an indicator of his work ethic. I also think finding size in the draft was the better option - Anderson isn't exactly big for his position.

Hill's a good player, but I don't believe he's what the Spurs need and he's starting to show a trend of shrinking in the playoffs. If he's the Spurs 3rd best scorer (like someone mentioned) - is that really a good thing or is that a sign of where the Spurs are at talentwise?

Blair is a good player, but doesn't address the Spurs needs for size and defense.

Compound the above draft picks with standing pat when they shouldn't have, extending Finley, not signing Scola and signing Butler, and the Jefferson/Bonner contracts - the FO has not been good for a while.

Bottom line - the FO has failed to acquire players to support an aging big 3 and potentially have wasted the Spurs last few opportunities to win a championship with the big 3.

[K-State Spur]

2 different scenarios for drafting Tiago and Anderson and each one I think the Spurs probably should have gone a different direction. Don't get me wrong - Tiago should be a decent big, Pop chose to stay pat in 2007 and I know it's easy to look back and say I told you so, but the Spurs weren't exactly dominant in 2007.

I don't have the specifics, but I do remember the FO trading some picks - even though they were 2nd round picks, it still seemed like a bad move given the inability to trade for good players or sign good free agents.

Anderson should be a good player, but him being out of shape hopefully isn't an indicator of his work ethic. I also think finding size in the draft was the better option - Anderson isn't exactly big for his position.

Hill's a good player, but I don't believe he's what the Spurs need and he's starting to show a trend of shrinking in the playoffs. If he's the Spurs 3rd best scorer (like someone mentioned) - is that really a good thing or is that a sign of where the Spurs are at talentwise?

Blair is a good player, but doesn't address the Spurs needs for size and defense.

Compound the above draft picks with standing pat when they shouldn't have, extending Finley, not signing Scola and signing Butler, and the Jefferson/Bonner contracts - the FO has not been good for a while.

Bottom line - the FO has failed to acquire players to support an aging big 3 and potentially have wasted the Spurs last few opportunities to win a championship with the big 3.

I think you gotta give Hill more leeway - while he wasn't great against PHX (which was a bad match-up for him) or Memphis (which should have been a better one for him), his performance against Dallas last year should earn him quite a bit more of a buffer from being labeled a playoff choker.

Blair was easily the best size available at that spot in the draft. Despite being 6'6, his standing reach is better than Blake Griffin and almost as long as Darrell Arthur's. Offensively, while it is tough to watch him get blocked as much as he does, he's still pretty productive for a player selected where he was. Defensively, his issues are due more to poor footwork and over-gambling than they are a lack of size.

I think the front office has done a lot better than you think of retooling on the fly and maintaining a 50-60 win club while limiting the Big 3s regular season minutes - that's not easy.

And, before we pin all the blame on the supporting cast - look at where the big 3 should have excelled. Last year against PHX, our biggest advantage should have been Duncan vs. their post defense, yet they were able to guard Timmy straight up and keep him in check for 4 straight games (unfathomable that their 2005-2009 teams could have gotten away with that). This year against Memphis, we (or at least those of us who were paying attention) all knew that they had a frontcourt advantage coming into the series. However, our backcourt advantage should have greatly negated that. Randolph's production wouldn't have been such an issue if Parker was giving Conley/Vasquez fits on the other end like he should have. That Conley/Allen/Young could play Parker/Manu/Jefferson to a standstill is greatly disappointing.

At this point of the franchise, there is no recipe for championship basketball that doesn't start with the Big 3 all producing to the levels that they are capable of.

[LongtimeSpursFan]

2 different scenarios for drafting Tiago and Anderson and each one I think the Spurs probably should have gone a different direction. Don't get me wrong - Tiago should be a decent big, Pop chose to stay pat in 2007 and I know it's easy to look back and say I told you so, but the Spurs weren't exactly dominant in 2007.

I don't have the specifics, but I do remember the FO trading some picks - even though they were 2nd round picks, it still seemed like a bad move given the inability to trade for good players or sign good free agents.

Anderson should be a good player, but him being out of shape hopefully isn't an indicator of his work ethic. I also think finding size in the draft was the better option - Anderson isn't exactly big for his position.

Hill's a good player, but I don't believe he's what the Spurs need and he's starting to show a trend of shrinking in the playoffs. If he's the Spurs 3rd best scorer (like someone mentioned) - is that really a good thing or is that a sign of where the Spurs are at talentwise?

Blair is a good player, but doesn't address the Spurs needs for size and defense.

Compound the above draft picks with standing pat when they shouldn't have, extending Finley, not signing Scola and signing Butler, and the Jefferson/Bonner contracts - the FO has not been good for a while.

Bottom line - the FO has failed to acquire players to support an aging big 3 and potentially have wasted the Spurs last few opportunities to win a championship with the big 3.

Since 2007 the Spurs picked up bigs Splitter (although he stayed in Europe for three more years), Andrew McDyess and DeJuan Blair. Considering the Spurs 'inability to draw big name free agents' McDyess was a huge pick up and able to select Splitter and Blair in the draft I would say those are some great pickups.

[ChumpDumper]

Bump since he's had a couple of days to research this.
Seriously TJ, show me which CEO makes decisions on how much money his business should lose based solely on his personal net worth.

Give us the hard facts.

[Agloco]

Being an injured rookie on a Gregg Popovich team is the kiss of death.

[Agloco]

Peter Holt owns a franchise called the "San Antonio Spurs".. whose net worth is currently 404 million according to Hoopshype.



Holt is worth 80m according to USAToday.



Of course, this is all just business 101. And I should be getting paid for my time.

:lol

So what is it? Or is it all the same in TJastal's Business 101 class?

[DMC]

I think there's a difference between the net worth of an LLC and that of the individual.
Holt is the principal owner, but not the sole owner, if I recall correctly. There are other investors.

[Obstructed_View]

Only if 'what they wanted' was an equally bad - but longer term - contract.

They'd have to take on a longer contract, but there's no rule that it has to be a bad contract, and it would be tied to a player that fills a need for the team, so it's automatically not "equally bad".

[Obstructed_View]

And RJ didn't have a bad season, just a bad playoffs. He provided us with decent defense and timely three point shooting. Without his contributions, we wouldn't have won as many games as we did.

So his role on this team going forward is to cost them spots in the draft. Um, yay?

This is sort of why it would have been nice to trade his expiring contract during the regular season while he was playing well and looked like he had some value.

[ChumpDumper]

Another day....
Seriously TJ, show me which CEO makes decisions on how much money his business should lose based solely on his personal net worth.

Give us the hard facts.