PDA

View Full Version : Gary "The Glove" Payton



Ghost Writer
04-28-2003, 11:48 AM
What happened to that nice Free Agent: Gary Payton thread?

I believe I encouraged travis and the other dopes to watch Game 4 of the Bucks/Nets game.

Gary Payton dropped a career playoff high 14 assists versus Jason Kidd in a win over the Nets.

Conversely, Tony Parker had 0 assists versus Stephon Marbury in a loss to the Suns.

Parker ain't ready, folks.

Imagine the past two playoffs with the benefit of Payton.

The Twin Towers might've been able to validate that 1999 title.

Oh well, here's to getting Rasho Nesterovic this summer! :cry



:cooldevil

travis2
04-28-2003, 11:50 AM
If you had been paying attention like I told you, you would have noticed that Kori moved all those threads to their own forum.

But then you never have been much for paying attention...you're too busy being enamored with the sound of your own voice.

KoriEllis
04-28-2003, 11:52 AM
Ghost, I only moved them to the FreeAgency/Draft forum, so we wouldn't lose them. But feel free to keep posting free agent/draft stuff in this forum.

Ghost Writer
04-28-2003, 11:54 AM
So, did you watch the game, travistwitt?

I figured that would give you a crash course in Paytonology 101.

Class Dismissed.

:cooldevil

travis2
04-28-2003, 12:01 PM
Proving my case nicely, GhostWhiner...

Ghost Writer
04-28-2003, 12:11 PM
What's your case?

That you don't know about the NBA outside of the Spurs?

Payton > Parker + Rose + Daniels - Smith

Dope.

:cooldevil

SequSpur
04-28-2003, 12:13 PM
Right now we could use Payton, probably him and Parker in the backcourt, that would be sweet..

Manu is great, but homeboy needs to learn how to play the other 50% of the game.... called the rightside...

Ghost Writer
04-28-2003, 12:16 PM
You might get your wish for a Payton/Parker backcourt next season, Sequ.

Me? I would've let Parker develop in Seattle the past two years and, like, seriously compete for title with Payton instead.

Smitty and Daniels hardly come off the bench anymore.

Rose was a piece of crap until he came to the Spurs.

Sorry, those four players aren't worth turning down a perennial All-Star PG. We're talking three bench guys and an unproven PG for the best PG of the past decade.

Incredulous.

:cooldevil

travis2
04-28-2003, 12:16 PM
Let me put it in small words so you can understand. Maybe.

Payton < Parker + Rose + Daniels + Smith

Payton <> championships in '01 and '02

Payton <> necessary

Now run along, little boy, and ponder the truth of those statements.

SequSpur
04-28-2003, 12:18 PM
Agreed....

Payton > Rose, Smith, Parker, Bateer, Buford, M. Brown, M Budenholzer, Ferry, Bowen, Manu, Jax

Ghost Writer
04-28-2003, 12:46 PM
travis failed his homework assignment. You can't tell me that Payton is not better than 3 bench guys and Parker.

That's just dumb.

:cooldevil

travis2
04-28-2003, 12:48 PM
I can say that the deal is not worth it. Not for the SCRUBS we would have had to pick up to fill out the roster.

But as usual, you don't think.

You can't go through an entire season with 8 players. Idiot.

Now go back to your comic books.

Ghost Writer
04-28-2003, 12:53 PM
travis, you make me laugh.

Even a casual NBA fan could tell ou that most playoff teams do not go much deeper than an 8-man rotation.

You do realize that Daniels and Smitty hardly play today, right?

Stick with Rose and Parker over Payton, travis. Since 2001, that's worked like a charm. :rolleyes

travis2
04-28-2003, 12:55 PM
You are truly a legend in your own mind...

Look again. The Spurs haven't gone with an 8-man regular season rotation in years.

But again...actually paying attention has never been your strong suit.

And I have yet to see your proof of guaranteed championships in '01 and '02. Could it be that it can't be done?

For that answer...I await what will probably be a deafening silence.

MI21
04-28-2003, 12:59 PM
Payton > Parker,Rose,Daniels,Smith

Don't underestimate how good Payton is, and would be with a dominant post player.

Believe it or not, there is other PG's are out there, that could put up Tony's numbers on this team, that dont have big names. Tony is good but he aint Payton good.

Claxton could probably put up 13/7 with this team, not to far off of Tony's numbers. What if the Spurs had of picked Clax up to back up Payton till 2005 and then he would be starting in his prime after Gary was riding off into the sunset.

If that deal was indeed on the table, Spurs should have accepted.

Ghost Writer
04-28-2003, 12:59 PM
travis, as you should know by the last couple years in the playoffs, the regular season is worthless. All the #1 seeds in the world don't mean you're winning the title.

One thing that is guaranteed is that your way did not work. We'll never know if we would've won last year or this year with Payton.

And that's a shame.


travis, you make me laugh.

Even a casual NBA fan could tell ou that most playoff teams do not go much deeper than an 8-man rotation.

You do realize that Daniels and Smitty hardly play today, right?

Stick with Rose and Parker over Payton, travis. Since 2001, that's worked like a charm.

:cooldevil

SequSpur
04-28-2003, 01:14 PM
BTW, Daniels doesn't play for the Spurs anymore... I guess you haven't been paying attention... :lol


:rollin

travis2
04-28-2003, 01:14 PM
So tell me...how many rings has Payton brought the team(s) he's been on?




Game, set, match...

sportcamper1
04-28-2003, 01:21 PM
Ghost- don’t hate me for this post. I am from LA & a Lakers fan and some folks on this board consider me a bit challenged...

Payton is great. Nobody disputes that. But he is getting up in years & he commands a high salary. If he was 10 years younger I could see spending the high dollars and moving players to get him, but not at this stage in his career.

Parker is the youngest PG in the NBA right? He will continue to improve, although many folks consider him a premier point guard already.

Big Syke
04-28-2003, 02:24 PM
Payton is good but we can have him this season without losing Parker. Isn't that better?

T Park Num 9
04-28-2003, 02:54 PM
Soooo


we want payton to play with parker when???


Before he stops throwing dumbells and weights at teammates??

Or after he grows up and stops assaulting women and other people???


Just a










Question.

Ghost Writer
04-28-2003, 04:30 PM
travis, Payton took a horsesh1t Sonics team to the NBA Finals to lose to Jordan's Bulls.

Learn something™.

:cooldevil

timvp
04-28-2003, 04:32 PM
Payton had a lot of talent on that team. He wasn't even a superstar yet in that year. It took him another couple of seasons to hit his peak.

baseline bum
04-28-2003, 04:34 PM
Horseshit Seattle team? Casper, Kemp was arguably the best 4 in the game in 96. Hersey Hawkins and Detlef Schrempf were dead-eye shooters. Seattle had serious talent at 4 out of 5 positions, and that's why they won 64 games.

**** Payton now. He's too old, and I'd rather pull Kidd.

travis2
04-28-2003, 04:37 PM
Learn something™.

I've forgotten more than you'll ever learn. And I'm still light-years ahead.

That Sonics team was pretty kick-ass. Sounds like mealy-mouthed whining coming from you...

Stick to your comic books.

Ghost Writer
04-28-2003, 04:47 PM
travis, for every non-point you've thrown at me, I've trumped you with a factual response and an amusing insult for the fun of it.

You're way has failed.

Understand that 3 bench guys and a 20 year old PG are not worth having over a perennial All-Star.

You'd probably inist on keeping Kevin Willis, Danny Ferry, Bruce Bowen and Speedy Claxton if the Nets wanted them for Jason Kidd.

You're that much of a hopeless homer.

Watch some NBA sometime, dope.



:cooldevil

travis2
04-28-2003, 04:55 PM
for every non-point you've thrown at me, I've trumped you with a factual response and an amusing insult for the fun of it.

You wouldn't know a fact if it jumped up and kicked you in the balls. (ahhhhhhh....I now understand the problem....)


You'd probably inist on keeping Kevin Willis, Danny Ferry, Bruce Bowen and Speedy Claxton if the Nets wanted them for Jason Kidd.

You're on a roll with your incorrect assumptions. A string of ineptitude possibly never to be equalled. That is, until you post again.


Watch some NBA sometime, dope.

I'm surprised you even know how to spell NBA. Idiot.

Ghost Writer
04-28-2003, 05:02 PM
Still waiting for some substance, travis.

Let's start at the beginning:

Do you know who Gary Payton is and are you familiar with the kind of career he's had to date?


:)

travis2
04-28-2003, 05:03 PM
I am.

And I'm still waiting for you to have the balls to answer my original question.

What makes you think Payton guarantees the Spurs a title?

I have yet to have you answer it. Coward.

Put up or STFU.

sportcamper1
04-28-2003, 05:14 PM
Welcome to the FSP.com Message Board.

While we promote and support conversation about basketball and other sports topics, we will not support topics that promote or contain violence, hatred, and excessive profanity. Those types of posts will not be tolerated.

travis2
04-28-2003, 05:19 PM
While we promote and support conversation about basketball and other sports topics, we will not support topics that promote or contain violence, hatred, and excessive profanity. Those types of posts will not be tolerated.

That's right, and if you don't f*cking like it we will come down there and kick your yellow @$$, just on general principles. Because we hate idiots like you.

:drunk

sportcamper1
04-28-2003, 05:22 PM
I just thought that as long as I was up I could get everyone a cocktail…So we can all chill a bit…:lol

And you did not hear it from me but I also heard that Payton was Quoted as saying that he was willing to take a pay cut to play with Shaq & Kobe...

Ducking for cover!!!!!!

Ghost Writer
04-28-2003, 05:37 PM
"What makes you think Payton guarantees the Spurs a title?" — travis
Show me where I guaranteed that, twit.

All I guaranteed is that your way has failed thus far.

We will never know if Payton would've gotten us over the hump last year or this year.

We've covered this.

I still don't know why you value Parker and Rose (Smitty doesn't play and will be gone and Daniels is gone and doesn't play) more than Payton.

You obviously doubt the Spurs front office's ability to fill out a bench.

Sad, considering that is what this franchise excels in.

Sadder, when a strong starting five, predicated upon at least two stars, seems to be the formula for success today.

And with that, travis has left the building.



:cooldevil

sportcamper1
04-28-2003, 06:25 PM
Actually Ghost, Travis keeps a rigid schedule... I think he teaches physics on Monday Evenings….

KoriEllis
04-28-2003, 11:46 PM
Honestly, I don't get all the Payton talk.

If you are talking about adding Payton at a reduced rate for a short-term contract, then I guess I see it. But if you are talking about Payton being the coveted 2003 free agent, then I think I'd rather have Olowokandi. :vomit

baseline bum
04-29-2003, 12:03 AM
I really see Payton in Portland next season. Whitsett is in love with Randolph and wants to move Rasheed. I could see them making a Sheed for Payton + Tim Thomas kind of deal.

travis2
04-29-2003, 08:41 AM
If you are talking about adding Payton at a reduced rate for a short-term contract, then I guess I see it. But if you are talking about Payton being the coveted 2003 free agent, then I think I'd rather have Olowokandi.

Bingo, Kori. Very reduced rate.

When you need a pickup truck it is the height of idiocy to go out and buy a Ferrari. Especially when you already have a newer-model Corvette in the garage.

But then, Ghost, actually using your head and thinking things through never was your strong suit. As long as you get a name, you're happy. Name = championship as far as you're concerned.

As far as "filling out the bench"...with what, bozo? Good wishes? People aren't going to play for free, you know (or you would if you had paid attention in school), and the "bench" the Spurs would have been forced to buy given the amount of money they would have had left...well, you may be a Mengke Bateer fan, but the rest of us aren't. And you wanted 4 stiffs.

I guess that's why you aren't an NBA GM...complete lack of qualifications or ability. Are you actually qualified to do anything?


And with that, travis has left the building.

You wish...I realize you're tired of me kicking your ass all over this forum. But there's an easy way to get me to stop.

Learn something.

Walton Buys Off Me
04-29-2003, 11:39 AM
I guess somebody forgot the images of Gary Payton getting ABUSED by Tony Parker in last year's first round.......

Walton Buys Off Me
04-29-2003, 11:46 AM
You know you're in trouble when your DAD comes on the air and says he's gonna smack you around tonight..............

Hey Gary's a great player and a future hall-of-famer and if he had been on the Spurs squad last year, we might have beaten the Lakers but I'm not too sure- Parker was pretty good against LA in the playoffs remember?

Bottom line is Gary's on the decline and Parker just might be the best twenty-year old in the game today, playing for the best team, at arguably the toughest position- why get rid of Tony?

Ghost Writer
04-29-2003, 01:13 PM
For the amount of time and posts I've devoted to the Gary Payton '01 topic, I am constantly amazed at how many people still don't get it.

In monkey terms:

• In the summer of 2001, the Spurs turned down a deal that would've brought Gary Payton to San Antonio for the rights to Tony Parker, Antonio Daniels, Malik Rose and the salary spot that eventually resulted in Steve Smith vis the Derek Anderson and Steve Kerr trade

• In the playoffs of 2002, Sonics Coach Nate McMillain had Gary Payton double down on Tim Duncan and leave Tony Parker open. His exact words were, "... we're gonna make Tony Parker beat us. I need my best defender [Payton] helping on Duncan..."

• In the summer of 2002, I insisted that Spurs fans should shift focus from Jason Kidd and Jermaine O'Neal and settle on Michael Olowokandi for significantly less than the max in 2003.

• Now, Gary Payton may also be available to the Spurs this summer for significantly less than the max.

• To this day, I maintain that trading Parker, Daniels and Rose and the salary slot that yeilded Smith to get Payton in 2001 would've gotten the Spurs closer to a title than the status quo as we know it.

Breaking it down like an organic compound:

• Again, Parker was an unproven commodity who is still not a top 10 PG today.

• Rose is a bench 'tweener.

• Daniels is no longer on the Spurs.

• Smith no longer sees time for the Spurs.

• The Spurs have a long history of filling out benches with castoffs and neverweres who become serviceable players under cheap contracts.

• In 2002, Gary Payton — a perennial All-Star who took a Sonics team to the Finals — recorded his best season statistically and leadership-wise as a pro.

• To date, Gary Payton has not signed a long-term contract.

Conclusion:

The Spurs could've had the best PG of the last decade for the low cost of a late first rounder, a combo guard who we later traded, an overachieving frontcourt sub, and an old guard who rides the pine today.

If we didn't win a title or two with Payton from 2001-03, then we simply could let him walk, as he will probably do this summer after his contract expires.

Apology Accepted™

:cooldevil

travis2
04-29-2003, 01:21 PM
And I maintain that Duncan, Payton, and a carton of eggs would have done nothing to bring a title to SA.

Apology not given...none required

Ghost Writer
04-29-2003, 01:28 PM
travis, you poor, misguided soul.

What do you think we have now?

We have Duncan, Robinson, Parker and a carton of eggs.

My way, we would have Duncan, Robinson, Payton and a carton of eggs, dope.

Benches don't win titles, moron! Stars do.

Re-read and learn:

For the amount of time and posts I've devoted to the Gary Payton '01 topic, I am constantly amazed at how many people still don't get it.

In monkey terms:

• In the summer of 2001, the Spurs turned down a deal that would've brought Gary Payton to San Antonio for the rights to Tony Parker, Antonio Daniels, Malik Rose and the salary spot that eventually resulted in Steve Smith vis the Derek Anderson and Steve Kerr trade

• In the playoffs of 2002, Sonics Coach Nate McMillain had Gary Payton double down on Tim Duncan and leave Tony Parker open. His exact words were, "... we're gonna make Tony Parker beat us. I need my best defender [Payton] helping on Duncan..."

• In the summer of 2002, I insisted that Spurs fans should shift focus from Jason Kidd and Jermaine O'Neal and settle on Michael Olowokandi for significantly less than the max in 2003.

• Now, Gary Payton may also be available to the Spurs this summer for significantly less than the max.

• To this day, I maintain that trading Parker, Daniels and Rose and the salary slot that yeilded Smith to get Payton in 2001 would've gotten the Spurs closer to a title than the status quo as we know it.

Breaking it down like an organic compound:

• Again, Parker was an unproven commodity who is still not a top 10 PG today.

• Rose is a bench 'tweener.

• Daniels is no longer on the Spurs.

• Smith no longer sees time for the Spurs.

• The Spurs have a long history of filling out benches with castoffs and neverweres who become serviceable players under cheap contracts.

• In 2002, Gary Payton — a perennial All-Star who took a Sonics team to the Finals — recorded his best season statistically and leadership-wise as a pro.

• To date, Gary Payton has not signed a long-term contract.

Conclusion:

The Spurs could've had the best PG of the last decade for the low cost of a late first rounder, a combo guard who we later traded, an overachieving frontcourt sub, and an old guard who rides the pine today.

If we didn't win a title or two with Payton from 2001-03, then we simply could let him walk, as he will probably do this summer after his contract expires.

Apology Accepted™

:cooldevil

picnroll
04-29-2003, 01:33 PM
I'm sure Holt was just dying to endure the pouting, pissing, and moaning regarding a contract extension that Payton has dished out the last two years.

travis2
04-29-2003, 01:41 PM
Benches don't win titles, moron! Stars do.

Remind me how many rings Payton has again?

Idiot.

Game, set, match.

Ghost Writer
04-29-2003, 01:41 PM
picnroll, you mean like with Steve Smith?

By the way, Payton doesn't have that contract and he's still kicking @ss.

Try again™

:cooldevil

sportcamper1
04-29-2003, 01:49 PM
We have Duncan, Robinson, Parker and a carton of eggs.

Can we at least get a courtesy laugh at that one? :lol

picnroll
04-29-2003, 01:54 PM
I don't think Smith's P&Ming has been as persitent or public.

You have chronic Payton delusions and short term vision.

romsho
04-29-2003, 02:35 PM
For chrissakes, we get it already! Obviously the Spurs organization did not think getting Gary Payton for a couple of years would be enough to put them over the top with what was left over outside of Tim and David.

Furthermore, they also obviously really like the idea of not only contending for the next five or six years with young athletic talent, but having the cap space to put whatever pieces are needed in place to have a dominant starting five and bench help that is not just table scraps. Steve Smith could have been moved easily by now, but they wanted the cap space-results still pending.

The "win now with Payton" argument would make alot more sense if Tim Duncan were locked into a long term contract. Why would Duncan stay with little more than an aging point guard, Dave retiring and that same"carton of eggs"? He wouldn't, the Spurs would have no future, and all that and still a championship ring to show for it would be questionable at best.

As it is they may win a championship this year, they are in the best shape of any NBA team in regards to the cap, all while in a "rebuilding" mode. In short, they have their cake and will eat it too. I think I'll go with Popovich and the like on this one.

travis2
04-29-2003, 02:39 PM
Everybody gets it, romsho.

Everyone except one, that is...

Ghost Writer
04-29-2003, 02:47 PM
The problem here is that you homers overestimate "what is left besides Robinson, Duncan and Parker".

The fact is that the rest of the Spurs are players nobody wanted before or don't want anymore now.

The bench guys have come and gone for the Spurs over the years.

Only Malik Rose remains as a consistent holdover from the 1999* team!

That should tell you that the Spurs can easily fill out a bench and get decent players to perform better.

At the end of the day, it all boils down to:

Payton '01 > Parker '01 + Rose '01

A five year old NBA fan could see the Spurs made the conservative mistake in 2001 by Holt-ing on to several okay players instead of acepting the trade for an elite one.

:cooldevil

travis2
04-29-2003, 02:53 PM
The problem here is that you homers overestimate "what is left besides Robinson, Duncan and Parker".

No, the problem is that you overestimate your own "brilliance".

You can argue all you want about what "shouda coulda woulda" happened. The fact remains that you can't go back. And frankly, you show yourself to be a sad little boy for constantly harping on it.

Sorta like my oldest did as a 5 year old. Many years ago.


A five year old NBA fan could see the Spurs made the conservative mistake in 2001 by Holt-ing on to several okay players instead of acepting the trade for an elite one.

Ah, so you admit your age finally.

You're the only one who sees this. That should tell you something. With as much basketball knowledge as is in this forum, the fact that your drug-induced rants have failed to generate any support shows how flawed and sad your reasoning is.

Come back to 2003. Maybe you can learn something about present days.

Admiral
04-29-2003, 02:53 PM
The bottom line is that Parker is going to have to turn out to be REALLY good to justify not making that trade. I like Parker a lot, and think he will be just that good. However, it would've been hard to look at a team with Robinson and Duncan and not do everything possible to make them a dynasty. We weren't far from that level, and obtaining Payton for virtually nothing seems like a no-brainer.

Remember, the Spurs had no idea what Parker would turn out to be when they turned down that trade. That makes the non-trade even that much more disturbing, doesn't it?

I like Parker and am not as mad as Ghost that we didn't pull the trigger, but I don't think an objective mind can deny that obtaining Payton would've put us in position to win more than just the one title. Parker's improvement makes it palpable, but it was still a poor decision for the most part.

travis2
04-29-2003, 02:58 PM
I'm sorry, I disagree. Payton was and still is a locker room hazard waiting to happen.

And I'm sorry, I just don't see him as being that much better than Parker. Better, yes. But not enough to dump that much money his way.

If you can get him on a short term contract at bargain rates...I'll think about that one. Otherwise...see my analogy about the pickup truck and the Ferrari.

travis2
04-29-2003, 03:01 PM
Oh, and...


Remember, the Spurs had no idea what Parker would turn out to be when they turned down that trade.

I disagree.

picnroll
04-29-2003, 03:03 PM
Bottomline is Ghost has a win now worry later mindset.

Botttomline is the only money Ghost plays with is monopoly money whereas Holt is playing with real money.

Bottomline is Pop, et. al. saw a gem in Parker and it remains to be seen if they were right. So far no one can say they were definitely wrong but they get paid to make the decision and ultiamtely get fired if they made the wrong decision. Everybody else is just whackin off on their keyboard.

genghisrex
04-29-2003, 03:42 PM
Remember, the Spurs had no idea what Parker would turn out to be when they turned down that trade. That makes the non-trade even that much more disturbing, doesn't it?Fans like you and me may have had no idea what Parker would become, but your assumption that Pop/RC had no idea is laughable. They had no guarantee, yes, but they obviously saw something special and so they took a risk. Just because we the fans were living in a vacuum of information about Parker doesn't mean that Pop/RC were in that vacuum with us.

Ghost Writer
04-29-2003, 03:45 PM
"I'm sorry, I disagree. Payton was and still is a locker room hazard waiting to happen.

And I'm sorry, I just don't see him as being that much better than Parker. Better, yes. But not enough to dump that much money his way." — travis
travis, you are right. You are sorry.

You keep harping on non-issues that I've already dissected.

If you scan this thread, you see me making a compelling argument with lenghty points and counterpoints. And all you do is say "I disagree" and bring up things I've already countered. Kepp up, travis.

How is Payton a lockerroom cancer when McMillain applauded him for being a team leader last season despite Payton wanting an extension?

What do you mean about throwing money at Payton?

In a trade, he would've cost the combined salaries of Parker, Daniels, Rose and Smitty. Only Parker and Rose are worth thinking about. And those two simply are not on Gary Payton's level.

You ask any casual fan outside of San Antonio if they'd trade those four for Payton in 2001 and they'd say "without a doubt". If you haven't noticed, the front office hasn't done anything to put the team over the top, because we've been stuck in a Holt-ing Pattern until 2003 presumably. Better be worth it.

Payton still doesn't have that extension, fools.

Parker still l can't tie Payton's shoes. Half the reason Parker is worth a d@mn is because NBA coaches don't respect him enough with Duncan being the focal point of defenses. You put Parker on the Sonics last year instead of Payton and he'll suddenly llok very Whitney-esque once again.

Payton had 14 assists in his last playoff game. Does Parker have that many in 4 playoff games?

The more this argument rages on, the more I see that I am dealing with ignorant homers who overvalue their own and blindly support whatever decisions their favorite team makes.

I'm trying to educate the labotomized.


:cooldevil

travis2
04-29-2003, 03:50 PM
You blithering idiot...he would have cost money because we still would have had to fill the slots we traded away. With people who couldn't play.

It's real simple, jerk. It's called math. You know, that subject you failed every year since 3rd grade.

The only thing you've dissected is yourself. The only thing you've earned is my pity.

Game, set, match.

picnroll
04-29-2003, 03:53 PM
Half the reason Parker is worth a d@mn is because NBA coaches don't respect him enough with Duncan being the focal point of defenses.

Watch a game Ghost. Parker's been getting doubled and jumped this entire series and is starting to adjust. The other night he scored some damn nice balls on quick Js with Williams and Outlaw flying at him. Sign of things to come.

Pop > Ghost.
But get back in touch when somebody votes you coach or executive of the year.

travis2
04-29-2003, 03:58 PM
picnroll, I chose to ignore that one...the idiocy spoke for itself and needed no highlighting on my part...

MagicMurdock
04-29-2003, 05:30 PM
Have to say..I agree with Ghost, just not with the same passion. Spurs turning down that trade in '01 would have upset me had I been a Spurs fan. Also, I still think Payton will be better than Parker for the next 3 years or so. I think people here DO overrate Rose and Parker, hell, you guys overrate every spur, but that's not the point. Payton would be better to taking the Spurs to a championship than Parker. To dismiss Ghost's points as stupid, is stupid. But that's not to say his argument is flawless either. Let's just not forget, Manu is not Michael Jordan, TP did not make the all-star game and Malik Rose is too short to play center.

GO MAVS!!!

Ghost Writer
04-29-2003, 06:25 PM
travis and picnroll, after distilling your tired rhetoric and grade-school insults, I've isolated that you both:

• Overestimate Parker

• Overrate the importnace of a bench

• Underestimate Payton

I have taken the time to educate you to the contrary.

Who exactly do you think is irresplaceable out of:

Parker
Rose
Daniels
Smith?

Why?


Try to answer me for once.

Re-read. Again.


travis, you poor, misguided soul.

What do you think we have now?

We have Duncan, Robinson, Parker and a carton of eggs.

My way, we would have Duncan, Robinson, Payton and a carton of eggs, dope.

Benches don't win titles, moron! Stars do.

Re-read and learn:
<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>For the amount of time and posts I've devoted to the Gary Payton '01 topic, I am constantly amazed at how many people still don't get it.

In monkey terms:

• In the summer of 2001, the Spurs turned down a deal that would've brought Gary Payton to San Antonio for the rights to Tony Parker, Antonio Daniels, Malik Rose and the salary spot that eventually resulted in Steve Smith vis the Derek Anderson and Steve Kerr trade

• In the playoffs of 2002, Sonics Coach Nate McMillain had Gary Payton double down on Tim Duncan and leave Tony Parker open. His exact words were, "... we're gonna make Tony Parker beat us. I need my best defender [Payton] helping on Duncan..."

• In the summer of 2002, I insisted that Spurs fans should shift focus from Jason Kidd and Jermaine O'Neal and settle on Michael Olowokandi for significantly less than the max in 2003.

• Now, Gary Payton may also be available to the Spurs this summer for significantly less than the max.

• To this day, I maintain that trading Parker, Daniels and Rose and the salary slot that yeilded Smith to get Payton in 2001 would've gotten the Spurs closer to a title than the status quo as we know it.

Breaking it down like an organic compound:

• Again, Parker was an unproven commodity who is still not a top 10 PG today.

• Rose is a bench 'tweener.

• Daniels is no longer on the Spurs.

• Smith no longer sees time for the Spurs.

• The Spurs have a long history of filling out benches with castoffs and neverweres who become serviceable players under cheap contracts.

• In 2002, Gary Payton — a perennial All-Star who took a Sonics team to the Finals — recorded his best season statistically and leadership-wise as a pro.

• To date, Gary Payton has not signed a long-term contract.

Conclusion:

The Spurs could've had the best PG of the last decade for the low cost of a late first rounder, a combo guard who we later traded, an overachieving frontcourt sub, and an old guard who rides the pine today.

If we didn't win a title or two with Payton from 2001-03, then we simply could let him walk, as he will probably do this summer after his contract expires.

Apology Accepted™

:coo<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END-->

The problem here is that you homers overestimate "what is left besides Robinson, Duncan and Parker".

The fact is that the rest of the Spurs are players nobody wanted before or don't want anymore now.

The bench guys have come and gone for the Spurs over the years.

Only Malik Rose remains as a consistent holdover from the 1999* team!

That should tell you that the Spurs can easily fill out a bench and get decent players to perform better.

At the end of the day, it all boils down to:

Payton '01 > Parker '01 + Rose '01

A five year old NBA fan could see the Spurs made the conservative mistake in 2001 by Holt-ing on to several okay players instead of acepting the trade for an elite one.

:cooldevil


"I'm sorry, I disagree. Payton was and still is a locker room hazard waiting to happen.

And I'm sorry, I just don't see him as being that much better than Parker. Better, yes. But not enough to dump that much money his way." — travis
travis, you are right. You are sorry.

You keep harping on non-issues that I've already dissected.

If you scan this thread, you see me making a compelling argument with lenghty points and counterpoints. And all you do is say "I disagree" and bring up things I've already countered. Kepp up, travis.

How is Payton a lockerroom cancer when McMillain applauded him for being a team leader last season despite Payton wanting an extension?

What do you mean about throwing money at Payton?

In a trade, he would've cost the combined salaries of Parker, Daniels, Rose and Smitty. Only Parker and Rose are worth thinking about. And those two simply are not on Gary Payton's level.

You ask any casual fan outside of San Antonio if they'd trade those four for Payton in 2001 and they'd say "without a doubt". If you haven't noticed, the front office hasn't done anything to put the team over the top, because we've been stuck in a Holt-ing Pattern until 2003 presumably. Better be worth it.

Payton still doesn't have that extension, fools.

Parker still l can't tie Payton's shoes. Half the reason Parker is worth a d@mn is because NBA coaches don't respect him enough with Duncan being the focal point of defenses. You put Parker on the Sonics last year instead of Payton and he'll suddenly llok very Whitney-esque once again.

Payton had 14 assists in his last playoff game. Does Parker have that many in 4 playoff games?

The more this argument rages on, the more I see that I am dealing with ignorant homers who overvalue their own and blindly support whatever decisions their favorite team makes.

I'm trying to educate the labotomized.


:cooldevil [/quote]

:cooldevil

travis2
04-29-2003, 06:44 PM
message deleted because it's just not worth the effort

Ghost Writer
04-30-2003, 10:56 AM
Re-read. Again.

travis, you poor, misguided soul.

What do you think we have now?

We have Duncan, Robinson, Parker and a carton of eggs.

My way, we would have Duncan, Robinson, Payton and a carton of eggs, dope.

Benches don't win titles, moron! Stars do.

Re-read and learn:

The problem here is that you homers overestimate what is left besides Robinson, Duncan and Parker.

The fact is that the rest of the Spurs are players nobody wanted before or don't want anymore now.

The bench guys have come and gone for the Spurs over the years.

Only Malik Rose remains as a consistent holdover from the 1999* team!

That should tell you that the Spurs can easily fill out a bench and get decent players to perform better.

At the end of the day, it all boils down to:

Payton '01 > Parker '01 + Rose '01

A five year old NBA fan could see the Spurs made the conservative mistake in 2001 by Holt-ing on to several okay players instead of acepting the trade for an elite one.

:cooldevil


I'm sorry, I disagree. Payton was and still is a locker room hazard waiting to happen.

And I'm sorry, I just don't see him as being that much better than Parker. Better, yes. But not enough to dump that much money his way.&quot; — travis
travis, you are right. You are sorry.

You keep harping on non-issues that I've already dissected.

If you scan this thread, you see me making a compelling argument with lenghty points and counterpoints. And all you do is say "I disagree" and bring up things I've already countered. Kepp up, travis.

How is Payton a lockerroom cancer when McMillain applauded him for being a team leader last season despite Payton wanting an extension?

What do you mean about throwing money at Payton?

In a trade, he would've cost the combined salaries of Parker, Daniels, Rose and Smitty. Only Parker and Rose are worth thinking about. And those two simply are not on Gary Payton's level.

You ask any casual fan outside of San Antonio if they'd trade those four for Payton in 2001 and they'd say "without a doubt". If you haven't noticed, the front office hasn't done anything to put the team over the top, because we've been stuck in a Holt-ing Pattern until 2003 presumably. Better be worth it.

Payton still doesn't have that extension, fools.

Parker still l can't tie Payton's shoes. Half the reason Parker is worth a d@mn is because NBA coaches don't respect him enough with Duncan being the focal point of defenses. You put Parker on the Sonics last year instead of Payton and he'll suddenly llok very Whitney-esque once again.

Payton had 14 assists in his last playoff game. Does Parker have that many in 4 playoff games?

The more this argument rages on, the more I see that I am dealing with ignorant homers who overvalue their own and blindly support whatever decisions their favorite team makes.

I'm trying to educate the labotomized.


:cooldevil





ANSWER ME, COWARD!:

travis and picnroll, after distilling your tired rhetoric and grade-school insults, I've isolated that you both:

• Overestimate Parker

• Overrate the importnace of a bench

• Underestimate Payton

I have taken the time to educate you to the contrary.

Who exactly do you think is irresplaceable out of:

Parker
Rose
Daniels
Smith?

Why?

travis2
04-30-2003, 11:03 AM
I will not answer.


travis and picnroll, after distilling your tired rhetoric and grade-school insults, I've isolated that you both:

Only after you threw the first punch, fuckwad.

You have no desire to debate issues. Only to call people names. Which is typical of people who don't have the truth on their side.

You want debate? You want respect? Start showing it. You dish out crap...expect it back. In spades. And if you don't like it...:flipoff

Learn to be a human being.

Jimcs50
04-30-2003, 11:05 AM
Rose is irreplacable on the Spurs.

timvp
04-30-2003, 11:12 AM
Ghost doesn't understand one basic concept:

Payton has one or two good years left. Parker has 15.

Even though Parker isn't of Payton's level yet, there is no way you make that trade. Parker will become one of the better point guards in the leauge and will remain so for a long, long time. Payton is going down hill.

You can say you want to win now and worry later, but if you thought Chucky Brown was bad ... you ain't seen nothing yet. Who would the Spurs get to replace Gary Payton in one or two years?

Doug Overton.

Answer.

picnroll
04-30-2003, 11:23 AM
Agree Travis. Waste of time. I think I'll live in the present.

Big Syke
04-30-2003, 01:13 PM
I have to agree with Ghost Writer in this thread. If you have a chance to get Gary Payton you do it and think the "WHAT IFS" later. Winning rings now beats any future wet dreams.

Admiral
04-30-2003, 02:47 PM
I do not see how it can be justified that a team with Robinson and Duncan should be denied its opportunity to be a dynasty. DAVID ROBINSON AND TIM DUNCAN!! Two of the best big men to ever lace 'em up! On the SAME team!! Stop and think about it for a moment.

No matter how good Parker becomes...

Duncan + Parker < Duncan + Robinson + Payton

On top of not realizing what we had, some of you are saying that adding Payton would have been a dumb move?!? You did see how close we were to beating the Lakers in several of those playoff games, right? Surely you aren't suggesting that Payton wouldn't have gotten us over the top.

I am going to assume that everyone against the trade agrees that Payton would've greatly helped us, but that they are just that enamored with Parker. I can certainly live with that. But please, don't try to justify not doing the trade by citing stuff like "Payton's a cancer" and "hey, Daniels did a great statue of liberty dunk!"

Also, many of you are assuming that Parker and Duncan staying here is guaranteed. I see that the Holting pattern has already brainwashed some people into thinking that everyone will always want to be a Spur. What guarantees Parker staying here past his rookie contract? That question is especially prudent if we sign Kidd this summer.

On the other end of the spectrum, trading for Payton was a certainty.

I can enjoy watching Parker develop into an All-Star, but 1999-2003 will always be years of unfulfilled potential for Spurs basketball. It could've been really special.

timvp
04-30-2003, 03:58 PM
DAVID ROBINSON AND TIM DUNCAN!! Two of the best big men to ever lace 'em up! On the SAME team!! Stop and think about it for a moment.

Stop and think about Kobe and Shaq on the same team. They might be the two best players in the league and they are teammates. No matter how you try to twist it, it would have been close to impossible to beat them any of the last three years.

Duncan and Robinson have been a great tandem, but Duncan is on his way to his peak and Robinson is on the way down. If they would have played while they were both at their best, that would have been a different story.

Duncan, Robinson and Payton would not have won a ring. With no bench and no shooting guard, the Lakers would have easily beat them.

Don't fool yourself.

Admiral
04-30-2003, 11:46 PM
Stop and think about Kobe and Shaq on the same team. They might be the two best players in the league and they are teammates. No matter how you try to twist it, it would have been close to impossible to beat them any of the last three years. -timvp

I agree that Kobe and Shaq are the two best players in the league, and I understand that Robinson and Duncan alone aren't quite enough to beat Kobe and Shaq. But are you actually saying that Robinson, Duncan, AND Payton wouldn't have been enough to beat the Lakers? I know it's not a given, but those three guys on the same team would give us a very realistic shot - too realistic to say that there is no way.



Duncan and Robinson have been a great tandem, but Duncan is on his way to his peak and Robinson is on the way down. If they would have played while they were both at their best, that would have been a different story. -timvp

That would have been one nasty duo if Duncan had come along about five years sooner. I realize that the twilight of DRob's career is here, but he is still by far our best post defender and a solid rebounder. He can still anchor or defense and gets out high on picks better than anyone in the league. Even though he's not a 28/12 guy like once was, a team with DRob, Duncan, and Payton would've been awesome. Those three would've been perfect complements to one another.



Duncan, Robinson and Payton would not have won a ring. With no bench and no shooting guard, the Lakers would have easily beat them. Don't fool yourself. -timvp

You know I respect you a lot, timvp, but that is a pretty ballsy statement. First of all, that trio is more talented than any other trio in recent memory. Second, I am not so convinced that we would've had no bench and no shooting guard. The Spurs have proven to be able to get solid players despite a small budget over the years. The Lakers don't have great players aside from Shaq and Kobe, but it doesn't matter. The Spurs with Robinson, Duncan, and Payton would've been a similar story.

But as I said, Parker is cool and will only get better. It's just a shame that we couldn't capitalize more on the Twin Towers. Such a situation will never happen again.

baseline bum
05-01-2003, 12:34 AM
Come on, Admiral. David's been a role player since 2001. Pop isn't the reason he's not putting up 15 and 10. On top of that, David's been too injury prone these last two seasons for the Spurs to be banking heavily on his play. Without Malik Rose this team would have been screwed last playoffs and this one too. Could you imagine having Mark Bryant and Danny Ferry defending Shaq the whole time until the 4th quarter in games 1 and 2 last year... because that's what would have happened in your scenario.

GP is one of my favorite players in the game, but it's a bit strange that Seattle becomes a much better team overnight after trading him for Ray Allen despite having no point guard.

There's just no way that was ever the right move to make. You're delusional if you think Robinson is one of the great centers of all time based on only these past two seasons. Malik is the better player between the two right now, and losing him would have been devastating, not to mention losing the best young point prospect in the league.

Pop loved Tony from the start, and if you can't recognize Pop's eye for talent after what he saw has been realized in Rose and Jax I don't know what to say.

You're looking at a 2002 team with no frontcourt aside from Duncan in the playoffs and a 2003 team that has an overrated player like Keon Clark at best (after using the MCX) and no money to sign a max player with a point guard who's almost done in this league.

timvp
05-01-2003, 12:48 AM
Admiral, I think you are overrating both Robinson and Payton. I've defended Robinson countless times over the years, but you can't deny that he's now a role player. That isn't a bad thing; that's just the way things are. He can dominate on defense and play smart on offense, but he can only do that for stretches and in certain matchups. Robinson's last superstar year was the 1999 season. After that, he's been a star. But as I've said, there is no shame in that.

Payton is a very good player, but some in here think too highly of him. As BBum alluded to, it's no coincidence that the Sonics got better with the addition of Ray Allen. Payton, for all his greatness, is a ball-hawk. He demands the ball and needs it to be effective. I don't see how his game and Duncan's game would coexist without one of them taking a backseat. If you've watch Payton since about 1997, the ball is in his hands like 75% of the time. Duncan demands the ball about the same amount for the Spurs. Who is going to take that backseat? Would you want to turn Payton into a role-player or would you want Duncan to play more off the ball? And even if you figure that out, any shots Robinson would have had would be gone.

Adding Payton would have trickle down effects to the whole roster. That's why you can't just look at his stats and proclaim greatness.

Parker and Rose are going to make people forget about Payton in a couple years.

Marcus Bryant
05-01-2003, 01:01 AM
Giving up most of your young core for a guy when you can get him 2 years later at a reduced rate makes no sense whatsoever.

Ghost Writer
05-01-2003, 02:54 PM
It makes plenty of sense.

What has Tony Parker done to put us over the top?

Gee, do you really think that Payton demands the ball to be effective, timvp? Why would the best point guard of our time need the ball to be effective?

:rolleyes

If Parker was so d@mn good, we could try to get him back when he'd become a free agent. No one said we had to give Payton an extension or re-sign him this summer. The Sonics didn't and Milwaukee won't

Payton > Rose + Parker

Smart basketball people know that if you can complement your only star with another star at the cost of an unproven drfat selection and three bench guys, you do it.

Suckas.

:cooldevil

pfc2002
05-01-2003, 03:13 PM
Baseline that was a great post. very eloquent. I totally agree.

IF we win the title this year that will be listed by 97% of the people who know basketball as a blessing that it didn't happen (the other 3% had the idea and were too stubborn to admit it). Best possible situation with that trade (although highly unlikely with DRob, MBryant and Ferry guarding Shaq) is we win 2 rings with an ageing team. If we win this year we have a YOUNG team with huge salary space looking like a dynasty.

baseline bum
05-01-2003, 03:22 PM
Gost and Admiral, do you really think the Spurs win a title last year with Mark Bryant and Danny Ferry as their only other bigs aside from Duncan? The way you two underestimate what Rose does for this team is ridiculous.

Payton gave his team 5 more points and 3 more assists than Parker. Is that worth sacrificing the the 10 points and 6 1/2 boards Malik gives the Spurs as well as the team's whole future? Is that worth having Danny Ferry and Kevin Willis as your only other bigs, or paying Keon Clark when they have a shot at Kidd, Jermaine O'Neal, or Odom?

I don't get this whole argument. Everytime I say I want Kidd you bitch about needing a big but now that frontcourt doesn't matter at all to get a guy with 2 more years left like Payton?

If the Spurs have 1998 or 1999 David Robinson you make that trade in a second. The sad fact is that David isn't the player he was 4-5 years ago and he's been a role player sine 2000-01.

Payton + Duncan + DRob for 25 minutes + no bench < Shaq + Kobe + Fisher + Phil Jackson + championship supporting cast

Why do you act like Parker was nothing in 2001. Pop obviously saw that he was going to be a hell of a player or he would have probably made that trade. Looking back how was he wrong to pass on it? Parker's a top-10 point guard with tons of potential. After he made Rose and Jax into effective players how can you question his eye for talent?

Ghost Writer
05-01-2003, 03:23 PM
base and pfc, those are great points. We very well may win it all this year without adding that superstar this summer.

I just am an impatient person that saw an opportunity to add a superstar to the Twin Towers duo that got us a title in 1999.

Robinson retires this summer and we wouldn't have to re-sign Payton this summer either.

That would mean even more money off the books this summer than we are slated for now.


:cooldevil

timvp
05-01-2003, 03:25 PM
Gee, do you really think that Payton demands the ball to be effective, timvp? Why would the best point guard of our time need the ball to be effective?

Read.

If Payton and Duncan both need the ball 75% of the time to be effective, how can they both be effective on the same team? Payton is a ball-hawk. Period.

Re-read.

SAmikeyp
05-01-2003, 03:25 PM
What has Tony Parker done to put us over the top?

I think it still remains to be seen. But I would rather win now and be in a position to win later than just win now and be screwed after that.

baseline bum
05-01-2003, 03:28 PM
[qiuote]What has Tony Parker done to put us over the top?[/quote]

Raised his scoring average to 15.5ppg on 46% shooting. Tony Parker is the reason this team won 60 games, and he's the reason this team has a legit shot at a title. He's played the second star since the start of 2003. He's done well against (and outplayed many of ) every elite point in the game except Marbury. After this series I thi,kn we'll see the Tony Parker we saw the second half of this season.

timvp
05-01-2003, 04:28 PM
How can someone be so blinded by a fantasy about GP that they can't see what Tony Parker accomplished this season?

Admiral
05-01-2003, 06:39 PM
Okay, so who would you guys have traded Parker for? Anyone?

baseline bum
05-01-2003, 06:54 PM
You're dying here, Admiral. Your reason for making that trade assumed a superstar DRob, which the Spurs haven't had since 1999-2000. A bunch of good players for a great one is almost always a good deal unless it's for someone at the end of the road like Payton. Do you really think the Spurs could fill a championship roster in two seasons with no money to spend the first, no bench, no SG, and with David injured in crucial periods? Payton and Duncan together aren't going to score 95 a game.

ducks
05-01-2003, 06:56 PM
kobe

Admiral
05-01-2003, 07:28 PM
You're dying here, Admiral. Your reason for making that trade assumed a superstar DRob, which the Spurs haven't had since 1999-2000. A bunch of good players for a great one is almost always a good deal unless it's for someone at the end of the road like Payton. Do you really think the Spurs could fill a championship roster in two seasons with no money to spend the first, no bench, no SG, and with David injured in crucial periods? Payton and Duncan together aren't going to score 95 a game. -baseline bum

:lol

The last year I would consider DRob a star would be 1999-2000, when he averaged 18 and 10. However, if it makes you feel better I will not mention him again.

Imagine it's the summer of 2001, and the Payton deal is on the table...

Things you KNOW:

1. By accepting the offer, Payton will definitely be a Spur.
2. Duncan is definitely a Spur for several more years.
3. Malik Rose, Tony Parker, and Antonio Daniels have varying degrees of potential.

Things you DO NOT know:

1. Whether Rose, Parker, and Daniels will continue to improve and fulfill their potential.
2. If Duncan will re-sign when his current contract is up.
3. If Parker will re-sign when his rookie contract is up.

We often read about businesses that go under because they overestimated their potential for success to shareholders. The Spurs had a chance to put their money on something definite. Instead, they chose to gamble on potential and hope for the best despite the tangible assets they had in their possession. From a business standpoint, as well as a common sense standpoint, that was not the right move to make.

It is still amazing how so many Spurs fans assume that every player wants to end his career in San Antonio. :rolleyes

baseline bum
05-01-2003, 07:46 PM
Pop obviously saw something he liked in Parker. How can you call him out for not making that trade when he's been shown to be right by the quality of Parker's play? You act like Parker was just some lucky pick that no one saw developing into a legit player. The front office knew better and they were right.

SequSpur
05-01-2003, 07:52 PM
I agree with a lot of these takes.. I am all about Scoreboard..

I honestly don't care about charities, the off court shit, the nice guy crap, the bandwagon, the manu mania, etc. etc..

If you can't get it done whether player or coach, then gtfo.. because once you are gone, I probably won't remember you anyway and you will be a flash in the past..

Honestly, Tim Duncan equals at least 50 wins. so anyone around him is going to benefit from him alone. So to get 60+ and win a championship you have to have real players.. not damn potential...

I hate this time of the year sometimes... It seems this series should have been over along time ago if it wasn't for potential....

Word.

baseline bum
05-01-2003, 07:55 PM
Screw the potential then...

Rose + Parker > Payton + no decent big next to Duncan for 25 minutes every game

timvp
05-01-2003, 08:16 PM
Admiral, with the rookie contracts how they are, it is pretty hard not to re-sign a player who you want.

Re-signing Parker will not be a problem.

Payton is a good player, but not worth mortgaging your future for.

pfc2002
05-01-2003, 08:18 PM
The point is of course now we have the benifit of hindsight. We know now that TP is a star and possible superstar, we know how valuable Malik is, we see Payton slipping ... If TP had been a bust and Malik also we could look back and say "Why the hell didn't we make that trade?!?!" or others could say "I was right!! told you so!!!". BUT Everything that the front office assumed would happen did 2 fold -- that's why they didn't make the trade, that's why many here didn't want to make the trade. At least on this one, some people can pretty much say now we were right (that moves to 99.9% if we win the title this year).

Peter
05-01-2003, 08:28 PM
No way this team does jack without Rose. Who the F is the starting 2, Jaren Jackson? I'm tired of these damn fantasies. It's a team game mofos.

Ghost Writer
05-02-2003, 12:10 PM
You Parker Bros. don't realize that the future is now. If we're always looking at a year or two down the road, when will we ever win again?

And I'm sick of the dopes who say Payton is all done. He had his best season as a pro last year. Look at some statistics and read some old articles on Payton before you make absurd comments like that.

And timvp, your insistance that Payton is a ballhawk is ludicrous. Of course Payton demmands touches. That's why he's a superstar. Payton routinely registers double-digit assists that young PArker can only aspire to someday.

:cooldevil

Admiral
05-02-2003, 02:48 PM
No one has answered my question. If you wouldn't have traded Parker plus bench players for Payton, who would you have traded him for? This not a loaded question; I am simply curious to know what value you placed on Parker back in the summer of 2001, given our cap situation, existing players, etc.

timvp
05-02-2003, 02:54 PM
Ghost:


Read.

If Payton and Duncan both need the ball 75% of the time to be effective, how can they both be effective on the same team? Payton is a ball-hawk. Period.

Re-read.

Answer and Question.





Admiral, there were no other options on the table that would have made sense. Payton was the best player available at the time, but that trade wasn’t logical.

Making up factitious trades does no good. What do you want me to say … Michael Jordan and a pair of pink boxers from Isaih Thomas' 1989 wardrobe for Parker and company?

Admiral
05-02-2003, 02:59 PM
Admiral, with the rookie contracts how they are, it is pretty hard not to re-sign a player who you want.

Re-signing Parker will not be a problem.

Payton is a good player, but not worth mortgaging your future for. -timvp

The issue is not whether we will be able to re-sign Parker, but whether or not he will WANT to be here. I don't want Kidd - that's how highly I think of Parker - but if Kidd does sign here, Parker would be dumb not to strongly consider leaving.

As for the future, I am thrilled that we have one. The Spurs have done a great job finding diamonds in the rough, and we would obviously not be nearly as good without Rose, Jackson, Parker, etc. I really like these players, but still have a hard time understanding why we turned down the Payton deal back then, not knowing what we know now.

I don't agree with taking the present for granted just to possibly have a bright future. Trading for Payton was a guarantee. Free agency is not.

travis2
05-02-2003, 03:00 PM
Admiral...timvp speaks for me. Also see my previous Ferarri/Corvette/truck analogy.

timvp
05-02-2003, 03:04 PM
Parker is a guarantee. Payton is one the backside of his career.

Just because you didn't know the upside of a player like Parker, doesn't change the factors of the trade back then. The Spurs knew they had something special. So did the Sonics. That is why they wanted Parker so badly.

I'll repeat -- the Spurs can keep Parker no matter what. Nowadays it's almost impossible to get out of the rookie contracts because the players become a restricted free-agent at the end of the term.

Admiral
05-02-2003, 03:04 PM
Admiral, there were no other options on the table that would have made sense. Payton was the best player available at the time, but that trade wasn’t logical. -timvp

If Payton was not logical then, then I really don't see how signing Kidd with our hard-earned cap room is logical now.

By the way, this board is SO much better than WOAI! We actually have intelligent discussion going! Thanks again Kori and timothyvp for bringing back the old school spursreport.com style board and making it even better. :smokin2

timvp
05-02-2003, 03:08 PM
If Payton was not logical then, then I really don't see how signing Kidd with our hard-earned cap room is logical now.

Look towards Indiana, tiger:)


By the way, this board is SO much better than WOAI! We actually have intelligent discussion going! Thanks again Kori and timothyvp for bringing back the old school spursreport.com style board and making it even better.

Thanks. This is what happens when you put the Spurs first ahead of money, drama, lies and power struggles.

It's awesome to see Admiral navigating these parts. I hope you stick around and sail in here as much as possible.

Will you? How is med school?









Questions.

genghisrex
05-02-2003, 03:14 PM
If Payton was not logical then, then I really don't see how signing Kidd with our hard-earned cap room is logical now.If the Spurs sign Kidd, they can do so without losing any of their young talent. That wasn't true with the Payton deal. Parker + Rose + Kidd >>> Payton. Maybe Kidd eventually forces Parker out, but maybe not and we can have Parker for at least 3 more years anyway unless Pop/RC trade him or choose to let him go (third year of rookie contract + fourth year option + RFA Q.O.).

Admiral
05-02-2003, 03:24 PM
It's awesome to see Admiral navigating these parts. I hope you stick around and sail in here as much as possible. Will you? How is med school? -timvp

Med school has not started yet. I took a "leave of absence" to really focus on my studying for the MCAT, which is required as part of the application process. It is nice to be back. :)



Thanks. This is what happens when you put the Spurs first ahead of money, drama, lies and power struggles. -timvp

I am not surprised that it was that way with WOAI. Dusty is a good guy, and I am glad that he was able to profit from the success of Spurs Report, but it was never the same after the merger. I don't know about most other people here, but I don't even go to WOAI anymore. If most of the people here have left WOAI, they have lost a ton of great posters.

It's as if this board is a school for the "gifted and talented" posters, and the honors posters were taken from the ungrouped classes (WOAI) and put into the honors class (Full Sport Press) to accelerate their learning.


:hat

genghisrex
05-02-2003, 03:39 PM
Let me add to my last post that I think Parker + Kidd + Rose > Payton + Robinson, which is really more to the point of the issue.

Ghost Writer
05-02-2003, 04:07 PM
"Trading for Payton was a guarantee. Free agency is not." — Admiral
This man "gets it".



timvp, you are being uncharacteristically obstinate here.

Payton has always been the best player on his team. That's why he gets the most touches, GZA.

Payton is twice the playmaker that Parker is and you don't recognize that.

Payton made an All-Star out of a power forward named Kemp. I think he'd find a way to enhance Duncan's game.

What you are painting as a weakness for Payton is a strength.

How could Payton be on the backside of his career when he registered his best season as a pro in 2001-02?

When exactly are we going to be rewarded for insisting on the status quo?

Questions


:cooldevil

timvp
05-02-2003, 04:14 PM
Payton is a ball-hawk. He needs the ball to be effective. He's never shown the ability to play off the ball. Fact.

Kemp stood on his own two feet. Fact.

Where is Payton now? Question.

Where is Parker now? Question 2.

Would a Championship be reward enough for you? Question 3.

Ghost Writer
05-02-2003, 04:34 PM
Payton is a ball-hawk. He needs the ball to be effective. He's never shown the ability to play off the ball. Fact.
So what? Acknowledge that he also sets up his teammates better than any PG outside of Jason Kidd.


Kemp stood on his own two feet. Fact.
Oh, yeah. He threw all those alley-oops to himself.


Where is Payton now? Question.
At a strip club wondering what team he's going to help get a ring next season.


Where is Parker now? Question 2.
At a church thanking God that he has Tim Duncan as a teammate.


Would a Championship be reward enough for you? Question 3.
A title this season would help me tremendously, but I'll still point to last year as a missed opportunity for a title.

My midset is always Win Now, Worry Later.

timvp
05-02-2003, 04:38 PM
So what? Acknowledge that he also sets up his teammates better than any PG outside of Jason Kidd.

I'll acknowledge that. But also remember that Brent Barry had like 17 assists the game after Payton was traded. That tied Payton's career-high, IIRC.

Oops.


Oh, yeah. He threw all those alley-oops to himself.

Kemp was the orignial man-child. Go watch tapes of that guy. The league had never seen a player that big with that much athletic power.


First victim: Phoenix Suns

Can we get an update of your sig?







Question.
:)

baseline bum
05-02-2003, 04:40 PM
I'll still point to last year as a missed opportunity for a title.

Brilliant... Charles Smith is your starting 2 and all you have to defend Shaq in the playoffs is Mark Bryant and Danny Ferry.

Ghost Writer
05-02-2003, 04:45 PM
timvp, I can't believe you still hate on Gary Payton. Are you that desperate to put over Parker?

baseline, excuse me, but did we win it last year and I missed something.

The staus quo failed.

And who do you think is going to waltz through that door this summer that's gonna make the Hot-ing Pattern worth it?

pfc2002
05-02-2003, 04:53 PM
the point is we wouldn't have won with GP anyway. GO read the lakerboard. there is a topic called "Malik Rose" and everyone talks about him killing them. It's mentioned all over the place about how to stop rose and him being the X-Factor.

NEWSFLASH:
- You can't just pick up a guy at the minimum and say he replaces rose.
- You can't expect SJax this year numbers last year when POP, Duncan and SJAX himself and everyone else says he wasn't ready
- You can't use SSmiths play this year as to how he played last year.

IF we had Payton we'd have no championships AND LITTLE cap room...

timvp
05-02-2003, 05:32 PM
timvp, I can't believe you still hate on Gary Payton. Are you that desperate to put over Parker?

I've said that Payton was probably the top 3 point guard of the '90s.

But every puzzle piece doesn't fit every puzzle.

Play the Parker Bros board game.

Next.

Ghost Writer
05-02-2003, 05:45 PM
pfc, you're late and I already pissed on those non-points when travis brought them up a couple pages ago. Thanks anyway.

timvp, if the best PG of the past decade can't put the Spurs over the top, I wonder who in the blue hell could.

:cooldevil

timvp
05-02-2003, 06:15 PM
timvp, if the best PG of the past decade can't put the Spurs over the top, I wonder who in the blue hell could.

:parker
:rose
:jackson
:ginobili

Answers.

Ghost Writer
05-02-2003, 06:19 PM
And that my friends, is FullSportPress.com's interpretation of a "Stockton to Malone", courtesy of GhostWriter and timvp.

:cooldevil

timvp
05-02-2003, 06:24 PM
*points to Ghost Writer for assist*

Admiral
05-02-2003, 06:56 PM
:claxton

And 1.

timvp
05-03-2003, 02:02 AM
Payton says in three or four weeks, he'll reveal future

Associated Press

ST. FRANCIS, Wis. -- Gary Payton was a quick fix, helping the Milwaukee Bucks reach the postseason and play a competitive series with the reigning Eastern Conference champion New Jersey Nets.

The question now is whether the Bucks employed him only as a highly-qualified "temp'' or whether his short stint in Milwaukee a tantalizing taste of the future.

The All-Star point guard, who joined the Bucks 2½ months ago in the blockbuster trade that sent Ray Allen to Seattle, becomes a free agent this summer and his final NBA wish is to get a championship ring.

After the Bucks were eliminated with a 113-101 loss at home Thursday night, Payton said he'll take about a month to decide where he wants to end his career.

"I'm going to take my time with it. And the right decision is going to be my last decision,'' Payton said. "Three weeks or four weeks will come and I'll make it known where I want to be."

If that isn't Milwaukee, coach George Karl hopes Payton, whom he coached for five seasons in Seattle, will at least agree to a sign-and-trade deal so the Bucks get compensation.

"I really feel whatever piece we get in that situation, I have tremendous confidence in Sen. Kohl and Ernie,'' Karl said of owner Herb Kohl and general manager Ernie Grunfeld.

"My first choice would be to bring Gary back and build the team around Payton and some of our young guys and continue on the path we've been on for the last six or eight weeks. But if we have to go another way, there's still a lot of hope here.''

Karl deemed the trade a success regardless of Payton's decision.

"I feel as though we made two really good steps,'' Karl said. "I think in general our organization was fearful that we wouldn't make the playoffs if we didn't make the move. And we competed against one of the premier teams in the East on a pretty even level.''

Karl, who has one year and $7 million left on his own contract, said he's looking forward to working again with emerging players such as Michael Redd, Dan Gadzuric, Marcus Haislip and Desmond Mason, who came over from Seattle with Payton.

"The core guys we have here, I think we can make some noise,'' Redd agreed. "We said all along the Eastern Conference is wide open and we're still going to have a chance next season to have an impact.''

The Bucks replaced their perimeter game with a penetrating style after trading away Allen and Glenn Robinson. But they still lack a low-post presence to make enough stops or grab enough rebounds to compete for the crown in the East.

"If we rebound and play defense, I think this team can be great because I don't think anyone can deal with us on the offensive end,'' Payton said. "But we have to stop people. We have to get rebounds. And that's a big thorn in our foot.''

Grunfeld said he knew Payton was disappointed that the Bucks didn't advance, "but I think he sees some positive things about this situation. We have some good, young players and he also felt like maybe we could have won if we had a little more time with him and Desmond.''

A pressing need is a true power forward, as evidenced by the Nets' 46-29 rebounding advantage in Game 6.

Karl has some things to straighten out himself, notably to repair his relationship with forward Tim Thomas, who was benched over the final month after refusing to re-enter a game at Denver in March.


Thomas said during the playoffs that there was more to the rift than the public knew and he promised to tell all after the season was over.

But he changed his mind Friday.

"I don't feel like talking,'' he said as he meandered out to his car.

Redd said he thought Thomas and Karl would patch things up.

"George really cares for Tim and Tim really cares for George,'' Redd said. "Every relationship is not going to be perfect, but they genuinely like each other.''

So do Karl and Payton, but they might have worked their last game together.

espn.go.com/nba/news/2003...48593.html (http://espn.go.com/nba/news/2003/0502/1548593.html)

Ghost Writer
05-03-2003, 01:31 PM
timvp, I hope you can stomach it if the "ballhawk" Payton lands with our Spurs for signifigantly less than the max.

I know that I won't be happy if he goes to the Lakers, pal.

:cooldevil

timvp
05-04-2003, 03:17 AM
Well, it would be hard for Payton to be a ball-hawk if he is playing the two next to Parker:smokin2

He'd be a pretty good fit and would give the Spurs another clutch shooter, but there are other options that the Spurs should look at first.

Ghost Writer
05-04-2003, 12:10 PM
:rollin

A career 7 APG all-star PG being considered a ballhawk.

Next thing you know, timvp is gonna be down on Iverson for being a gunner or Shaq for taking too many high percentage shots.

:rolleyes

timvp
05-04-2003, 12:26 PM
Oscar Robertson was a notorious ball-hawk and he averaged a triple double over his first three seasons in the NBA.

Learn.

Something.

Ghost Writer
05-04-2003, 12:31 PM
So you wouldn't have wanted the Big 'O' on the Spurs?

I don't give a what if a player is a ballhawk or not. If he can elevate the team's chances of winning, then that's the bottom line for me.

:cooldevil

Big Syke
05-04-2003, 04:17 PM
Ghost you are losing it. Payton is good but look what happened to Seattle when he left -- they got better! he goes east and the bucks flame out. There is a common denominator in both instances -- GP. He is too slow to be a PG any longer. didn't you see Sam I AM Cassell play the point for most of the series? He'd have to play the two on san antonio and i don't think he can. he's not tall enough or strong enough. he doesn't have the game to just be a gunner.

Ghost Writer
05-05-2003, 12:42 PM
Big Sucke, I've lost nothing.

Milwaukee and Seattle benefitted from the trade.

Did Seattle make the playoffs? What?

Did Milwaukee make the playoffs? What?

Good night. :sleep

baseline bum
05-05-2003, 12:48 PM
I'm not sure that Payton would get his much-needed post opportunities playing next to Duncan. Look at that bitch Steve Smtih, a guy who killed people in the post in Portland. Now he just sits on the bench jerking off and waiting for the day he can go back to Atlanta.

Ghost Writer
05-05-2003, 12:55 PM
Steve Smith was never a priority for Popovich. His $9 million off the books this summer was.

:cooldevil

timvp
05-05-2003, 01:01 PM
Your GP dreams of the past have rung hollow.

Your GP dreams of the future are okay, but surely not in the top five options.

GP, hopefully you're not with me:brotha

timvp
05-06-2003, 01:07 PM
Too bad we didn't trade all our depth for one player. We could be just like the Lakers.

:sleep

Ghost Writer
05-06-2003, 01:19 PM
"Too bad we didn't trade all our depth for one player. We could be just like the Lakers." — timvp
You mean winners of the last 3 titles since we last won?

Parker, Rose, Smitty and Daniels did a lot to help us win last night.


:rolleyes

Next.

:cooldevil

timvp
05-06-2003, 01:28 PM
You mean winners of the last 3 titles since we last won?

No, I mean four (4) bench points.

Ghost Writer
05-06-2003, 01:49 PM
Do you think the Lakers worried about that while winning thepast three titles and bouncing our @sses and all our depth out the past two playoffs?


Question.

:cooldevil

timvp
05-06-2003, 11:01 PM
Win now, worry later©

:cooldevil

travis2
05-07-2003, 09:04 AM
Can I get a CLOSS?

Jimcs50
05-07-2003, 10:15 AM
Ghost, you are something else. *shaking head*

Ghost Writer
05-07-2003, 01:39 PM
:sleep

Just get me another Popd@mn ring, alright?

:cooldevil

Morphgizmo
05-07-2003, 01:44 PM
Archive this bitch! :)

KoriEllis
05-07-2003, 01:52 PM
In the Laker forums, they are coveting Payton as well.

I wonder what type of money it's going to take to sign Gary this summer.