Those Knicks are just too damn good, huh?

[Millennial_Messiah]

Yeah, the SA Shits:cry triiiiiiiiiiied :lmao oh such a valiant effort, such a remarkable job against such a heavyweight team in the mighty Knicks, an elite team that is virtually impossible to be beaten at home.....

:cry :lmao :cry but they triiiiiiiiied, right? :cry


:lmao Joke franchise
:cry pls relocate to save the Robinson/Duncan legacies (srs)

[daslicer]

Yeah, the SA Shits:cry triiiiiiiiiiied :lmao oh such a valiant effort, such a remarkable job against such a heavyweight team in the mighty Knicks, an elite team that is virtually impossible to be beaten at home.....

:cry :lmao :cry but they triiiiiiiiied, right? :cry


:lmao Joke franchise
:cry pls relocate to save the Robinson/Duncan legacies (srs)

A retard like you doesn't understand that legacies are destroyed once a team relocates. Nobody remembers Payton-Kemp after the Sonics relocated to OKC. Nobody remembers the George Mikan Lakers after they relocated to LA. Same would happen with Drob/Duncan.

[slick'81]

Its only march tbh

[TheGreatYacht]

A retard like you doesn't understand that legacies are destroyed once a team relocates. Nobody remembers Payton-Kemp after the Sonics relocated to OKC. Nobody remembers the George Mikan Lakers after they relocated to LA. Same would happen with Drob/Duncan.
Austin's armpit, Fat Antonio, seems to forget what Parker and Leonard did for the city. Who gives a shit.

[Millennial_Messiah]

A retard like you doesn't understand that legacies are destroyed once a team relocates. Nobody remembers Payton-Kemp after the Sonics relocated to OKC. Nobody remembers the George Mikan Lakers after they relocated to LA. Same would happen with Drob/Duncan.

Nobody forgot the Payton years and Ray Allen's prime, don't be a dummy. But the bigger picture is that the Sonics never won anything noteworthy (usually cockblocked by the Jazz and such) while the Spurs won 5 titles -- that will NEVER EVER be forgotten by any. Also, Tim Duncan is arguably the greatest player of all time and certainly the best as his position.

As long as the history is preserved in SA and the franchise begins a new history in a new city (or resumes from 2008- in the case of Seattle) nobody will forget the all-time winningest franchise that was the Spurs from the Gervin years up to 2017.

[Millennial_Messiah]

Austin's armpit, Fat Antonio, seems to forget what Parker and Leonard did for the city. Who gives a shit.

Leonard? :lmao just like American historians remember what Benedict Arnold did to help the U.S. in the Revolutionary War, huh?


You certainly must mean Duncan and Robinson... Gervin 3rd... after that it's a debate between Parker and Ginobili at 4th and 5th. But guys like Leonard and Rod Strickland are forgotten and rightfully so.

[Pavlov]

This thread makes no sense.

The Cowboys should've moved over a decade ago using this logic.

[Genovaswitness]

team isn’t moving until at least the mid 2030s per the agreement from the AT&T center remodel. by then, SA will be a bona fide city. Austin can only get so big. Houston and Dallas are what they are

[Millennial_Messiah]

This thread makes no sense.

The Cowboys should've moved over a decade ago using this logic.
Cowboys aren't a small market team. Apples and oranges. :lmao

[cjw]

This thread makes no sense.

The Cowboys should've moved over a decade ago using this logic.

You mean two decades ago. Last conference championship appearance was 2 years ago vs. 23 years ago.

[Millennial_Messiah]

team isn’t moving until at least the mid 2030s per the agreement from the AT&T center remodel. by then, SA will be a bona fide city. Austin can only get so big. Houston and Dallas are what they are

2033,

but the new buyers after the Holts sell will indeed have brain cells and easily pay the penalty to break the lease and relocate. The Sonics broke a lease to relocate, too, and they played in a city that actually cared. You didn't see empty seats in the lower decks in the 3rd quarter in Seattle because they were out getting Starbucks, huh? But San Antonio and Whatabooger, on the other hand... :lmao . Seattle has arguably the loudest fans in sports, see CenturyLink Field.

San Antonio has nonchalant fat mexican fucks who mostly just care about booze and food and who's fucking who tonight. Sports are secondary... it's like the college fraternity culture with regards to college football. Sure the game is all ok or whatever, but the real story is who's prepping the house for the rage fest tonight! Who's buying the roofies for when the chicks get in, etc.

Mark my words. San Antonio will NOT support a perennially losing team like, say, the Kings over the past 13 years or the Bobcats of the late 2000s or the Browns of the NFL. Should they fall to the 20-25 win range that represents the NBA's cellar, the average attendance will fall to roughly 4,000 mostly in the mid and upper decks. The team will have to be sold. And relocated. And the taxpayers will like it. Prices will go down in SA, and all will be well again. And we'll still always have the legacy of George Gervin, David Robinson, Manu, TP9, and most importantly... the GOAT, TD.

[Millennial_Messiah]

You mean two decades ago. Last conference championship appearance was 2 years ago vs. 23 years ago.

:lmao You're missing a couple huge points. Basketball relies on a 82-game schedule, and NBA stadiums hold around 25-30% of what NFL stadiums hold in terms of max occupancy. Football prices are much higher because it's a 16-game schedule and the NFL is the #1 sport in the #1 nation in the world. And the Dallas Cowboys, like it or not, are the Celtics/Lakers of the NFL. They'll always have hundreds of millions of fans no matter what, traveling from across the country to see them play in Dallas. Additionally, away team fans scalp seats to watch their favorite team play in Dallas because the stadium holds 94,000 people. Not to mention, DFW is the 4th largest metro area in the USA. Even if the Cowboys went 2-14 for the next 10 years, they'd be at or near sellout because of all the combined factors.

The Spurs are a small market team in a small metro area that has a bad rap as a military epicenter, and not really many pure private sector jobs. It's not likely to grow all that much. People don't want to move there, they want to visit to see the Alamo and riverwalk and SeaWorld, maybe try an authentic taqueria or two. House prices remain very low for a reason. Crime continues to soar. And the white population continues to fall at a rate of 3% per year. People don't want to live there.

San Antonio WILL NOT financially be able to support a worse than mediocre team for any significant length of years.

[TheGreatYacht]

2033,

but the new buyers after the Holts sell will indeed have brain cells and easily pay the penalty to break the lease and relocate. The Sonics broke a lease to relocate, too, and they played in a city that actually cared. You didn't see empty seats in the lower decks in the 3rd quarter in Seattle because they were out getting Starbucks, huh? But San Antonio and Whatabooger, on the other hand... :lmao . Seattle has arguably the loudest fans in sports, see CenturyLink Field.

San Antonio has nonchalant fat mexican fucks who mostly just care about booze and food and who's fucking who tonight. Sports are secondary... it's like the college fraternity culture with regards to college football. Sure the game is all ok or whatever, but the real story is who's prepping the house for the rage fest tonight! Who's buying the roofies for when the chicks get in, etc.

Mark my words. San Antonio will NOT support a perennially losing team like, say, the Kings over the past 13 years or the Bobcats of the late 2000s or the Browns of the NFL. Should they fall to the 20-25 win range that represents the NBA's cellar, the average attendance will fall to roughly 4,000 mostly in the mid and upper decks. The team will have to be sold. And relocated. And the taxpayers will like it. Prices will go down in SA, and all will be well again. And we'll still always have the legacy of George Gervin, David Robinson, Manu, TP9, and most importantly... the GOAT, TD.
Good post up until the mention of role player Manure in the same sentence as legends.

[Genovaswitness]

2033,

but the new buyers after the Holts sell will indeed have brain cells and easily pay the penalty to break the lease and relocate. The Sonics broke a lease to relocate, too, and they played in a city that actually cared. You didn't see empty seats in the lower decks in the 3rd quarter in Seattle because they were out getting Starbucks, huh? But San Antonio and Whatabooger, on the other hand... :lmao . Seattle has arguably the loudest fans in sports, see CenturyLink Field.

San Antonio has nonchalant fat mexican fucks who mostly just care about booze and food and who's fucking who tonight. Sports are secondary... it's like the college fraternity culture with regards to college football. Sure the game is all ok or whatever, but the real story is who's prepping the house for the rage fest tonight! Who's buying the roofies for when the chicks get in, etc.

Mark my words. San Antonio will NOT support a perennially losing team like, say, the Kings over the past 13 years or the Bobcats of the late 2000s or the Browns of the NFL. Should they fall to the 20-25 win range that represents the NBA's cellar, the average attendance will fall to roughly 4,000 mostly in the mid and upper decks. The team will have to be sold. And relocated. And the taxpayers will like it. Prices will go down in SA, and all will be well again. And we'll still always have the legacy of George Gervin, David Robinson, Manu, TP9, and most importantly... the GOAT, TD.


where would the spurs get relocated?

[Millennial_Messiah]

where would the spurs get relocated?

Seattle would be an obvious choice if the Pelicans don't go first, the betrayal of Anthony Davis doesn't bode well for a team that has been struggling with major attendance issues throughout its post-Katrina existence in NOLA..

But if not Seattle there's plenty of better options than San Antonio. KC is quite Seattle-like with its rowdiness. Cincinnati is a good choice, better than SA, and their metro area extends all the way down to Louisville and Lexington, KY. And up to Columbus. Basketball loving folks, huh? Other options include STL (meh, baseball town), BAL (would avoid), Nashville (too small), Tampa or Jacksonville (too small/crappy fan support), and Vegas (certainly the "in" thing lately).

I'd probably avoid the deep South as a general rule when considering a destination for my sports team.

San Antonio isn't a big enough market to support a pro sports team through thick and thin, sadly. Even the GB Packers struggle despite all their prestige when they're not winning (but they have enough old-rich fan support across the USA to make it work, and besides, when do they ever struggle for too long? They always luck into great QBs).

[DieHardSpursFan1537]

Blow. It. Up.

[Millennial_Messiah]

Blow. It. Up.

Make a food pantry out of the AT&T center... no wait, that would amplify the problem.

[Pavlov]

Cowboys aren't a small market team. Apples and oranges. :lmaoThe Packers would have moved forty years ago.

[Millennial_Messiah]

The Packers would have moved forty years ago.

Packers are owned by a group of 15-20+ elite shareholders with serious Wisconsin ties, silly. That's the only way they've survived (or haven't relocated to say, Milwaukee). Also, their great QBs and fan support. For some reason they have the majority of their season ticket holders from all the way down in Madison and Milwaukee. But they have strong fan support in Texas, California, Florida, New England, etc. They just have an odd legacy, "titletown", the first great NFL franchise... there's an aura about that franchise that cannot be duplicated by any other sports team in the world.

On the flipside... virtually nobody in, say, Austin is going to be a Spurs season ticket holder, even if they're a diehard fan. The logistics don't work out over a 41 game home schedule. 8 Sundays a year is very doable regardless of distance, but 41 random days including mostly weeknights? Hell no!

[Pavlov]

Packers are owned by a group of 15-20+ elite shareholders with serious Wisconsin ties, silly..Green Bay is publicly owned.

You just described the Spurs' ownership group.

Who do you think owns the Spurs?

People from Seattle?

:lmao

[Millennial_Messiah]

Who do you think owns the Spurs?

People from Seattle?

:lmao
The Holts, based in SA, of course, but the point completely flew over your head. The Packers are the only team in US major pro sports owned by a collective group of stockholders as opposed to traditional autocratic ownership. They're also consistently among the lowest payroll teams in the NFL and they haven't significantly renovated Lambeau Field in its roughly 100 year history. They keep their costs to a minimum, and rely on their prestige and legacy as one of the greatest, most world-renowned all-time sports franchises in history to survive.

The Spurs don't have that. They have 5 titles in a relatively short span, yes, and a top 5 all-time player, but they're a relatively new team in a newer sport. When you think... NFL, what teams come to mind? Dallas Cowboys... Pittsburgh Steelers... Green Bay Packers... etc, in any order, but the Packers are one of the first teams that comes to mind. They have an all-world legacy that is impossible to duplicate.

What do the Spurs have?

There's a reason the NBA didn't schedule a Heatles game in San Antonio during the shortened 2012 season despite it being a "marquee" matchup, folks.

[GAustex]

The Holts, based in SA, of course, but the point completely flew over your head. The Packers are the only team in US major pro sports owned by a collective group of stockholders as opposed to traditional autocratic ownership. They're also consistently among the lowest payroll teams in the NFL and they haven't significantly renovated Lambeau Field in its roughly 100 year history. They keep their costs to a minimum, and rely on their prestige and legacy as one of the greatest, most world-renowned all-time sports franchises in history to survive.

The Spurs don't have that. They have 5 titles in a relatively short span, yes, and a top 5 all-time player, but they're a relatively new team in a newer sport. When you think... NFL, what teams come to mind? Dallas Cowboys... Pittsburgh Steelers... Green Bay Packers... etc, in any order, but the Packers are one of the first teams that comes to mind. They have an all-world legacy that is impossible to duplicate.

What do the Spurs have?

There's a reason the NBA didn't schedule a Heatles game in San Antonio during the shortened 2012 season despite it being a "marquee" matchup, folks.
Sorry some of this things you say are wrong about Packers. Lambeau Field has had significant renovations and is a mega commercial enterprise. They are owned by stockholders.

[Pavlov]

The Holts, based in SA, of course, but the point completely flew over your head. The Packers are the only team in US major pro sports owned by a collective group of stockholders as opposed to traditional autocratic ownership. They're also consistently among the lowest payroll teams in the NFL and they haven't significantly renovated Lambeau Field in its roughly 100 year history. They keep their costs to a minimum, and rely on their prestige and legacy as one of the greatest, most world-renowned all-time sports franchises in history to survive.

The Spurs don't have that. They have 5 titles in a relatively short span, yes, and a top 5 all-time player, but they're a relatively new team in a newer sport. When you think... NFL, what teams come to mind? Dallas Cowboys... Pittsburgh Steelers... Green Bay Packers... etc, in any order, but the Packers are one of the first teams that comes to mind. They have an all-world legacy that is impossible to duplicate.

What do the Spurs have?

There's a reason the NBA didn't schedule a Heatles game in San Antonio during the shortened 2012 season despite it being a "marquee" matchup, folks.:lol the Holts are major shareholders along with a small group of locals.

hundreds of thousands of people own the Packers.

You're missing even the basic facts.

As long as the local ownership group can make money in SA, they'll keep the team in SA. That was the whole point of their buying the franchise.

[Dverde]

I was busy today. Spurs lost to the Knicks!? They have scrubs playing. I love people thought these NY and Brooklyn games were automatic Ws. This team finds a way. Silly me thought this one was W and Brooklyn was L

[Millennial_Messiah]

Sorry some of this things you say are wrong about Packers. Lambeau Field has had significant renovations and is a mega commercial enterprise. They are owned by stockholders.

Isn't that what I said about the stockholders? It's basically a corporation playing amongst 31 fascist dictatorship companies. Yes, they've had renovations to add lighting and modern technology, but the place is largely the same as it was in 1920. And Wisconsinites like it that way. That's their team. It's their culture. People in Milwaukee love the Packers and don't want a team of their own, why? Because the Packers are their team and they don't mind the drive north 8 times per year. It's their tradition. People all over the USA love the Packers because it's the first dynasty the NFL ever had in its earliest paleozoic days, sort of like the Celtics before the NBA championships were played. That franchise brought millions of Americans across the USA's grandparents and great-grandparents to love football.

[Millennial_Messiah]

I was busy today. Spurs lost to the Knicks!? They have scrubs playing. I love people thought these NY and Brooklyn games were automatic Ws. This team finds a way. Silly me thought this one was W and Brooklyn was L

You're half right, actually. This one was L, and Brooklyn is also L.

[Pavlov]

Isn't that what I said about the stockholders?No.

Packers are owned by a group of 15-20+ elite shareholders with serious Wisconsin ties, silly
That is not hundreds of thousands of owners of a publicly traded nonprofit.

[Millennial_Messiah]

:lol the Holts are major shareholders along with a small group of locals.

hundreds of thousands of people own the Packers.

You're missing even the basic facts.

As long as the local ownership group can make money in SA, they'll keep the team in SA. That was the whole point of their buying the franchise.

:lol you don't think they can't make more money in a better, richer city? Because business is all about maximizing profit, not making a profit, as you know. :)

If the team suffers a string of several 23-59 type seasons, the stadium will be around a quarter full on average if you know anything about San Antonio as a culture and the sports "fans" there. It'll be about like the Hawks' Phillips Arena of the early '00s, for a reference point. They won't survive financially there.

[Pavlov]

:lol you don't think they can't make more money in a better, richer city? Because business is all about maximizing profit, not making a profit, as you know. :)They would've already moved in that case, as you know.

[BackHome]

What kinda drugs are you all using cause I want some dammit. Lol :p:

[TDMVPDPOY]

lol popabitch only concern with his own playoff appearance history record, then the spurms franchise

[J_Paco]

Nobody forgot the Payton years and Ray Allen's prime, don't be a dummy. But the bigger picture is that the Sonics never won anything noteworthy (usually cockblocked by the Jazz and such) while the Spurs won 5 titles -- that will NEVER EVER be forgotten by any. Also, Tim Duncan is arguably the greatest player of all time and certainly the best as his position.

As long as the history is preserved in SA and the franchise begins a new history in a new city (or resumes from 2008- in the case of Seattle) nobody will forget the all-time winningest franchise that was the Spurs from the Gervin years up to 2017.

You idiot, the Sonics won in '79 and were in a top 20 (I believe) media market. If the Spurs relocated the "Duncan Years" would be forgotten instantly to try and build a new identity in the (newly) residing city.


See: Titans moving from Houston to Tennessee, Browns moving to Baltimore, Colts moving to Indianapolis, Thunder moving to OKC, etc., etc.....

[DMC]

Ja Rozan tbh

[SouthTexasRancher]

Good post up until the mention of role player Manure in the same sentence as legends.

Awww, the little dinghy is upset because his lover, KaWhitter wasn't mentioned and the Great Manu was. Little dinghy, you are a joke! :ihit

[Millennial_Messiah]

You idiot, the Sonics won in '79 and were in a top 20 (I believe) media market. If the Spurs relocated the "Duncan Years" would be forgotten instantly to try and build a new identity in the (newly) residing city.


See: Titans moving from Houston to Tennessee, Browns moving to Baltimore, Colts moving to Indianapolis, Thunder moving to OKC, etc., etc.....

Nope. The San Antonio Spurs would keep their history as a separate entity from 1976-whenever they relocate. The relocated team would have a different name and start a completely new history, as if it were a brand new franchise.

[BD24]

SPurs fans are such spoiled faggots tbh.

One “bad” season and you have cliff jumpers like Andy talking about moving the team. The Spurs are never leaving SA, the quicker you dumb asses accept that the easier thing and will be for you.

there is a laundry list of other cities that will lose their team before SA. Orlando, Memphis, Charlotte, New Orleans, Sacramento just to name a few. Franchises in small markets that don’t have titles and have been been very bad historically when compared to the Spurs.

Hopefully one of the racks of candles falls on you today at work Andy

[superbigtime]

Can you relocation fools please shut the hell up once and for all.

[TDomination]

I'm guessing those who keep bringing this topic up are ones that want it to happen? Not sure. But its already gotten tiresome.

If we only make the playoffs 1 more time in the next 10 years and attendance drops to below 16k, then yeah I would start getting worried.
But after Pop leaves, the new coach will be hungry, have some fire. We have some good young talent that i'm pretty excited about. I think we'll be just fine.

[Pavlov]

I'm guessing those who keep bringing this topic up are ones that want it to happen? Not sure. But its already gotten tiresome.There's only like four or five edgelord shticks on this site:

Relocation.

PATFO bashing.

Individual player bashing.

Spur player X vs. Spur player Y.

Retcon fantasy scoreboard.

And of course bashing anyone who is just a fan of the Spurs.

[rascal]

where would the spurs get relocated?

St. Louis Spurs

[Arcadian]

The franchise has gone to shit, but nothing can ever take away what Robinson and the Big 3 accomplished. That's not even a concern.

[Millennial_Messiah]

The franchise has gone to shit, but nothing can ever take away what Robinson and the Big 3 accomplished. That's not even a concern.

Exactly. The history will be preserved in San Antonio just like the Payton era, Ray Allen era, and before that in Seattle. Only critical difference is... whelp, the Spurs won FIVE rings, and the Sonics won one, a long time ago when the league was at its lowest point in history.

[Millennial_Messiah]

I'm guessing those who keep bringing this topic up are ones that want it to happen? Not sure. But its already gotten tiresome.

If we only make the playoffs 1 more time in the next 10 years and attendance drops to below 16k, then yeah I would start getting worried.
But after Pop leaves, the new coach will be hungry, have some fire. We have some good young talent that i'm pretty excited about. I think we'll be just fine.
Yes, absolutely.

I want the Spurs to be remembered for the winningest % team of all time and the greatness of Duncan/Big3, Robinson and Gervin.

I don't want the legacy to be tarnished by a long string of mediocre to bad years post Duncan/Zaza Pachulia.

It's a lot like when an all-time great TV show reaches a great ending point, but the directors realize it's a cash cow and they can get more cash by just continuing the show for many extra seasons even if it means watering the series down and quickly jumping the shark. Like diluting a great show by making it into a soap opera of sorts. Or a great movie series that has a few too many sequels... same thing. You don't want to do that. It waters down the entire legacy. Even "The Hobbit" trilogy, while not horrible, was a bit of a stain on Peter Jackson's legacy because it wasn't nearly as good as the all-time GOAT LOTR trilogy.

Raw, young, non-elite talent without elite stars and experience to build around translates to nothing but mediocrity, futility, and lottery picks. And in a small market, you can't do that. You think dropping below 16k is bad? Wait until attendance drops below 10k average for a season. And who says the next coach will have fire? The more likely outcome is a turnstile of coaches getting hired and fired every few years like most other teams. The Patriots will have to face it (most likely) after the GOAT Belichick retires. No franchise in pro sports is exempt. But the Patriots a) play football and b) play in a jumbo market. The Spurs don't have any luxury like that.

[Genovaswitness]

St. Louis Spurs
St. Louis is an ungentrifiable American Baghdad

[BD24]

St. Louis is an ungentrifiable American Baghdad
tbh, I'm originally from the midwest and stl blows.

:lol at them being a destination for a basketball team. The only team STL cares about is the Cardinals tbh.

[BackHome]

Lol they couldn’t even keep there football team

[Millennial_Messiah]

tbh, I'm originally from the midwest and stl blows.

:lol at them being a destination for a basketball team. The only team STL cares about is the Cardinals tbh.

Exactly. Ran their crappy NFL team out of town and they all of a sudden got good after they left. It's a baseball and meth town.

[rascal]

Exactly. Ran their crappy NFL team out of town and they all of a sudden got good after they left. It's a baseball and meth town.

LA was a better market for the Rams because that is where they were originally.