Have the Spurs EVER made a good, major trade?

[peskypesky]

I know everyone is freaking out and busting their brains to think of a good trade we can make. Unfortunately, it seems like no one ever wants to make a major trade with us. Major players have moved all around the league in recent years...to Boston, Miami, Los Angeles, Phoenix, Denver, Orlando, etc etc etc.

The Spurs, on the other hand, seem to be built almost exclusively on draft choices and free agents. We never seem to able to make a trade that brings us a star-caliber player.

Of course, one reason we haven't made a major trade is that we've been winning, so why mess with success, right? But it still seems weird to me that I can't think of a major trade the Spurs have done in many years. Have I forgotten one? Is it early Alzheimer's?

[cherylsteele]

Ever?? or just recently?

[NASpurs]

Steve Smith I guess although he was already declining.

[Spurminator]

You have to give something to get something. Typically blockbuster trades require giving up one or more of the following:

1. A star player. Which of the Spurs big 3 are you willing to part with?
2. A high draft pick. Not many of those to be had when you're consistently a top 3 team.
3. A big expiring contract. Since, aside for a few exceptions, the Spurs have not been known to overpay, there haven't been many options here. And it's very rare that blockbuster trades can be made by giving up only expiring contracts.

[peskypesky]

Ever?? or just recently?

Well, let's say in the past ten years.

[dallaskd]

Malik Rose is their biggest to date.

[Holt's Cat]

Malik Rose is their biggest to date.

You must have no hair on your balls.

[Ed Helicopter Jones]

Well, let's say in the past ten years.


Considering the Spurs have the best record in professional sports in the last ten years I don't think a blockbuster trade was a necessity.

In past years I think trading for A Train was a big deal. Same goes for TC. Trading for Rodman and then trading basically nothing to get Sean back was pretty slick. I'm just a youngun so I don't remember exactly, but I think we traded for Mike Mitchell...and that Gervin guy wasn't too bad of an acquisition.

[peskypesky]

Malik Rose is their biggest to date.

Doesn't count. He's a role player. And he was only averaging 3pts and 3 boards a game for Charlotte when we got him. Not really a major addition to a team.

[peskypesky]

Considering the Spurs have the best record in professional sports in the last ten years I don't think a blockbuster trade was a necessity.

In past years I think trading for A Train was a big deal. Same goes for TC. Trading for Rodman and then trading basically nothing to get Sean back was pretty slick. I'm just a youngun so I don't remember exactly, but I think we traded for Mike Mitchell...and that Gervin guy wasn't too bad of an acquisition.

Gervin was 25 years ago. Was Rodman the most recent major trade? 15 years go?????

[FromWayDowntown]

Why does it matter?

[Spurminator]

On a similar topic, why is it that the Spurs can never seem to get a Lottery pick? We haven't drafted in the top 10 since Tim Duncan!

[Holt's Cat]

Why does it matter?

Not sure. If the Spurs wanted to make a "major trade" today they could by putting one of their big 3 on the block. Does that make any sense? No.

Sometimes you wonder if these dolts understand Spurs Basketball (ie how the Spurs have won 3 titles in 5 years). Secondly, you wonder how they are able to access the internets being locked up in their padded cell.

[peskypesky]

Why does it matter?

Why do trades matter? Umm, let's see, why don't you ask the Celtics why trades matter, you fucknut.

[Ed Helicopter Jones]

Gervin was 25 years ago. Was Rodman the most recent major trade? 15 years go?????


Gervin was more like 33 years ago.


Why fix what isn't broken? Again...the Spurs are the best team in professional sports for the last 10+ years.

^^^ I typed that last sentence much slower this time so that it would sink in for you. No need to thank me.

[Holt's Cat]

On a similar topic, why is it that the Spurs can never seem to get a Lottery pick? We haven't drafted in the top 10 since Tim Duncan!


That has to change.

Do you hear me now? Popd@mn.

The Spurs never have a good lottery pick these days. Why is that?

What is the front office scared of? Something new? Something not a #1 pick?

I know more than you, I live on the East Coast.

:cooldevil

[rascal]

Considering the Spurs have the best record in professional sports in the last ten years I don't think a blockbuster trade was a necessity.

In past years I think trading for A Train was a big deal. Same goes for TC. Trading for Rodman and then trading basically nothing to get Sean back was pretty slick. I'm just a youngun so I don't remember exactly, but I think we traded for Mike Mitchell...and that Gervin guy wasn't too bad of an acquisition.

He means in the last 10 years under the Pop/RC regime. Those guys can't pull off anything with trades.

[Holt's Cat]

Why fix what isn't broken?


But...but...but...what if it is? You have to blow it up because it might be broken.

Trade Duncan

:cooldevil

[Holt's Cat]

Why do trades matter? Umm, let's see, why don't you ask the Celtics why trades matter, you fucknut.

So who has a Garnett out there that they are going to gift to the Spurs?

[Ed Helicopter Jones]

He means in the last 10 years under the Pop/RC regime. Those guys can't pull off anything with trades.

All they do is win championships. Fvck those guys!

[Holt's Cat]

I'm confused. Are not the Spurs the reigning champs? Winners of 3 out of the last 5? With their Big 3 intact?

Why the fucking drama you bitches?

[Spurminator]

If you don't want to be a fan of a successful team why don't you pick a new one? It's not hard. We won't miss you that much.

Seriously, pick a nice mediocre team like the Pacers or the Clippers and you'll get to see more glorious trades than you could ever imagine.

[Holt's Cat]

All they do is win championships. Fvck those guys!

No kidding. We need some trades so we can win the NBA Trade Championships.

Fucking retards.

[Spurminator]

Man if a Celtics fan in the 80's brought these kinds of takes in a Boston sports bar they'd get their asses kicked.

[peskypesky]

First of all, I never said in my original post that the Spurs NEED to make a trade. Did I? I just think it's pretty amazing to think that while so many people on this board and in the press are wracking their brains trying to think of trades for the Spurs, the reality is that they haven't pulled off a major trade in recent memory.

[FromWayDowntown]

Why do trades matter? Umm, let's see, why don't you ask the Celtics why trades matter, you fucknut.

My bad. I must have forgotten that the Spurs only won 18 games last season and haven't been truly competitive in years.

[peskypesky]

My bad. I must have forgotten that the Spurs only won 18 games last season and haven't been truly competitive in years.
You're stupid and you missed my point. Trades do matter. If you don't realize that, I'm sorry for your retardation.

[Holt's Cat]

You're stupid and you missed my point. Trades do matter. If you don't realize that, I'm sorry for your retardation.

Why do major trades matter for a team that has won 3 out of the last 5 NBA championships with a roster not built on such trades? And you're referring to others as 'retarded'?

[Spurminator]

Meltdown in progress.

[Ed Helicopter Jones]

First of all, I never said in my original post that the Spurs NEED to make a trade. Did I? I just think it's pretty amazing to think that while so many people on this board and in the press are wracking their brains trying to think of trades for the Spurs, the reality is that they haven't pulled off a major trade in recent memory.

That's easy to explain. The Spurs core isn't going to be traded. The Spurs core wins championships. Other teams are willing to trade their core players because they can't win a title.

As Holt's Cat already said, if the Spurs put Duncan, Parker, Manu...or Bowen on the block they'd definitely get takers.

It's hard to make a "major trade" when all you're dangling as bait is Francisco Elson or Jackie Butler.

For the third time....you don't fix what isn't broken. Ghost must be teaching 'Spurs fandom' classes somewhere online.

[FromWayDowntown]

You're stupid and you missed my point. Trades do matter. If you don't realize that, I'm sorry for your retardation.

I'm sorry -- you had a point?

[Spurminator]

You have to give something to get something. Typically blockbuster trades require giving up one or more of the following:

1. A star player. Which of the Spurs big 3 are you willing to part with?
2. A high draft pick. Not many of those to be had when you're consistently a top 3 team.
3. A big expiring contract. Since, aside for a few exceptions, the Spurs have not been known to overpay, there haven't been many options here. And it's very rare that blockbuster trades can be made by giving up only expiring contracts.

[Holt's Cat]

1. What is broken?
2. What great move have the Spurs not made that involves moving players outside of the Big 3?
3. When was the last time you had intercourse?

[rascal]

All they do is win championships. Fvck those guys!

Those guys are relying on the lucky lottery ball that is Duncan. Pop/Rc will not or cannot get top players through trades. I guarantee after Duncan this franchise is finished if Pop/RC are stil running the show. They have not proven they can make the type of deals that LA, Dallas Detroit or Boston can.

[Holt's Cat]

Did not the Spurs win the title last year?

[Holt's Cat]

Those guys are relying on the lucky lottery ball that is Duncan. Pop/Rc will not or cannot get top players through trades. I guarantee after Duncan this franchise is finished if Pop/RC are stil running the show. They have not proven they can make the type of deals that LA, Dallas Detroit or Boston can.


How'd they acquire Ginobili and Parker? You're worried about 5 years from now?

[FromWayDowntown]

1. What is broken?
2. What great move have the Spurs not made that involves moving players outside of the Big 3?
3. When was the last time you had intercourse?

Being a legitimate title contender for 18 of the last 19 seasons is really insufficient -- a team should make a big trade every now and again to legitimize its status as a dominant club.

I can see the point that it's silly to think that the Spurs will make a big trade, but the reason that's a ridiculous thought is that there's been no realistic way for the Spurs to make such a trade without risking their greatness.

[ClingingMars]

pass what you're smoking man, it must be some good shit

-Mars

[FromWayDowntown]

People should really kill the Bulls more for having acquired Michael Jordan through the draft.

[Spurminator]

Those guys are relying on the lucky lottery ball that is Duncan. Pop/Rc will not or cannot get top players through trades. I guarantee after Duncan this franchise is finished if Pop/RC are stil running the show. They have not proven they can make the type of deals that LA, Dallas Detroit or Boston can.


I guess we'll see once it becomes an issue worth our concern.

[anakha]

Those guys are relying on the lucky lottery ball that is Duncan. Pop/Rc will not or cannot get top players through trades. I guarantee after Duncan this franchise is finished if Pop/RC are stil running the show. They have not proven they can make the type of deals that LA, Dallas Detroit or Boston can.

Sigh. A classic example of an unarmed man participating in a battle of wits.

[rascal]

Being a legitimate title contender for 18 of the last 19 seasons is really insufficient -- a team should make a big trade every now and again to legitimize its status as a dominant club.

I can see the point that it's silly to think that the Spurs will make a big trade, but the reason that's a ridiculous thought is that there's been no realistic way for the Spurs to make such a trade without risking their greatness.
The fallacy here is the belief that the spurs can only win with one set of players. As long as the spurs have Duncan the surrounding players are interchangable and there are many combinations that can lead to championships. The belief that the spurs can't win if they traded Manu or Bowen is thinking in a closed box.

[Ed Helicopter Jones]

People should really kill the Bulls more for having acquired Michael Jordan through the draft.

:lol

[FromWayDowntown]

The fallacy here is the belief that the spurs can only win with one set of players. As long as the spurs have Duncan the surrounding players are interchangable and there are many combinations that can lead to championships. The belief that the spurs can't win if they traded Manu or Bowen is thinking in a closed box.

Prove that the Spurs can get equal value for Manu and I'll listen. But you're absolutely right about one thing -- I do think that the Spurs chances to win multiple titles have depended on players like Parker, Ginobili, and Bowen surrounding Duncan. I'm not sure how you can prove that to be a fallacy, though.

[Ed Helicopter Jones]

The fallacy here is the belief that the spurs can only win with one set of players. As long as the spurs have Duncan the surrounding players are interchangable and there are many combinations that can lead to championships. The belief that the spurs can't win if they traded Manu or Bowen is thinking in a closed box.

Why break up a proven winning combination??? Just so you can say you did?


The Spurs have three players that would be considered franchise players on any other team. These three guys co-exist with virtually no clashes of egos, no striving to be 'the man' on the squad, no salary, playing time, or other ripples in the fabric. To top it off they either win the championship or contend for it every year.

It's a dream team in more ways than one.

But's let's break that up just so we say we did/could have. Fvck. Spurs fans confuse me sometimes. :pctoss

[FromWayDowntown]

Why break up a proven winning combination??? Just so you can say you did?


The Spurs have three players that would be considered franchise players on any other team. These three guys co-exist with virtually no clashes of egos, no striving to be 'the man' on the squad, no salary, playing time, or other ripples in the fabric. To top it off they either win the championship or contend for it every year.

It's a dream team in more ways than one.

But's let's break that up just so we say we did/could have. Fvck. Spurs fans confuse me sometimes. :pctoss

But, but, the Spurs could have Sam Dalembert!!

[Solid D]

No major deals in the past 10 years but...at the time, the Antonio Daniels trade for Felipe Lopez and Carl Herrera was pretty sweet. Daniels was a nice contributor to their first Championship in 1998-99.

[AFBlue]

First of all, I never said in my original post that the Spurs NEED to make a trade. Did I? I just think it's pretty amazing to think that while so many people on this board and in the press are wracking their brains trying to think of trades for the Spurs, the reality is that they haven't pulled off a major trade in recent memory.

Two distinctions....

1) Ron Artest and Mike Miller, while more talented than who the Spurs have gotten in the past few years, are not "major". The Spurs already have the right mix of "major" talent, so they don't need to trade for "major" player.

Also keep in mind, Artest and Miller are at the top end of the trade talks regarding the Spurs. Most fans and columnists would be happy with and not suprised to see Kurt Thomas or Jeff Foster....and I'd hardly call that "major".

2) This is a different environment than any of those other years....

So AI got traded last year...big deal. The Nuggets gave up their only pure point guard to get him and all he added was scoring, which they were already good at.

This year, on the other hand, KG and Allen were traded for a buttload of draft picks and young (a.k.a. not ready) talent. Then Gasol to the Lakers for cap space and some young (a.k.a. not ready) talent. Then Shaq. Now Kidd to Dallas for a young (a.k.a. not ready) PG and some expiring contracts.

Again, the competitive environment is different.

Bottom Line:

Is a "major" deal going to happen? Probably Not.

Is a "major deal needed? Probably Not. Though a minor one couldn't hurt!

But are these fans and writers idiots for thinking there is pressure on the Spurs to at least try to keep pace and get something done? Absolutely Not.

[my2sons]

mike mitchel, artis gilmore, terry cummings

[rascal]

Why break up a proven winning combination??? Just so you can say you did?


The Spurs have three players that would be considered franchise players on any other team. These three guys co-exist with virtually no clashes of egos, no striving to be 'the man' on the squad, no salary, playing time, or other ripples in the fabric. To top it off they either win the championship or contend for it every year.

It's a dream team in more ways than one.

But's let's break that up just so we say we did/could have. Fvck. Spurs fans confuse me sometimes. :pctoss

The spurs only have one franchise player, Duncan.

[Solid D]

The spurs only have one franchise player, Duncan.

...and only one unguardable player, Ginobili.

"How do you guard him?" - Coach Larry Brown

[O-Factor]

Sean for Rodman is the biggest that comes to mind for me

[Ed Helicopter Jones]

The spurs only have one franchise player, Duncan.


That's THE Mr. Franchise Player, thank you very much.


If you look at what some teams are paying lesser talent, the Spurs have Manu and Parker for a steal. Parker's a Finals MVP and Manu probably should have been. All three of them are vital to the Spurs success.

[peskypesky]

So, I guess I was right in my original post when I said the Spurs' FO hasn't pulled off a major trade in the past decade. Pretty amazing actually, for a professional sports franchise.

[Findog]

Keep in mind the Spurs have already won four titles and did it last year with the roster they have now. Teams like Phoenix and Dallas are desperate to climb that mountain and are willing to shrink their title window and trade young for old to do it. The Spurs as a franchise simply aren't that desperate and don't need to be, considering all the money they have coming off their books this summer.

[Spurminator]

So, I guess I was right in my original post when I said the Spurs' FO hasn't pulled off a major trade in the past decade. Pretty amazing actually, for a professional sports franchise.


Sucks, huh?


:shootme

[peskypesky]

Keep in mind the Spurs have already won four titles and did it last year with the roster they have now. Teams like Phoenix and Dallas are desperate to climb that mountain and are willing to shrink their title window and trade young for old to do it. The Spurs as a franchise simply aren't that desperate and don't need to be, considering all the money they have coming off their books this summer.

Spurs don't need to be desperate, and I think they're still favorites to go to the Finals, but it would be nice to see them pull off a mid-season trade for once that actually made a strong team stronger.

[Holt's Cat]

because everyone else in the NBA wants to give their stars to the reigning champs for the champ's scraps.

Silly RC and Pop haven't figured out what the internets know.

[peskypesky]

because everyone else in the NBA wants to give their stars to the reigning champs for the champ's scraps.

Silly RC and Pop haven't figured out what the internets know.

So no reigning champion has ever made a good, major trade? Interesting. But I doubt that's true.

[clubalien]

the r0n artest trade is probaly the biggest trade in awhile

[Solid D]

the r0n artest trade is probaly the biggest trade in awhile

Why consider rumor as fact...at this point? Does the breeze even smell of rain, yet?

[HighLowLobForBig-50]

All they do is win championships. Fvck those guys!
all day

[spursrule32]

Maybe I dont' know my NBA history very well, but when was the last time a championship team made a "major" trade that worked out well. I remember the lakers picking up Malone and Payton via free agency, but even though they made the finals as we know that team blew up. Was it the Bulls - they picked up Rodman, but was that really a "major" trade? I guess it would have to be the Rockets with Drexler, but how did that end up after the next year? I guess the point is - which would you rather have? A championship this year at the risk of not having one for quite a while or having a chance this year and next year and the year after?

[peskypesky]

Maybe I dont' know my NBA history very well, but when was the last time a championship team made a "major" trade that worked out well.... Was it the Bulls - they picked up Rodman, but was that really a "major" trade?

I'd say picking up Rodman was a major acquisition. I mean, he only led the NBA in rebounding for SEVEN straight seasons!

5 time NBA Champion (1989 & 1990 (Detroit), 1996–98 (Chicago))
All-NBA Third Team (1992, 1995)
NBA All-Star Team (1990, 1992)
NBA Defensive Player of the Year Award (1990, 1991)
NBA All-Defensive First Team (1989–93, 1995, 1996)
NBA All-Defensive Second Team (1994)
NBA Top Rebounds Per Game (1992–98)
NBA Top Rebound Rate (1991–98)
NBA Top Total Rebounds (1992–94, 1998)
NBA Top Offensive Rebounds (1991–94, 1996, 1997)
NBA Top Defensive Rebounds (1992, 1994, 1998)

[spursrule32]

[QUOTE=peskypesky]I'd say picking up Rodman was a major acquisition. I mean, he only led the NBA in rebounding for SEVEN straight seasons!

Hard to say it was a major trade though when all you gave up was will perdue

[peskypesky]

[QUOTE=peskypesky]I'd say picking up Rodman was a major acquisition. I mean, he only led the NBA in rebounding for SEVEN straight seasons!

Hard to say it was a major trade though when all you gave up was will perdue

Is that really all they gave for Rodman?

[spursrule32]

Is that really all they gave for Rodman?


you can check it out, but that's how I remembered it. I was Rodman fan too - he used to come into the bar I worked at on 6th street. He was always pretty quiet and seemed like a nice guy. I couldn't stand purdue and his free throws.

[YODA]

Im gooing to go with some simple logic here. If your a championship caliber team for over a decade, why do u need to make a MAJOR trade? Do you think we get Finley if we werent a championship team? Or Horry. How many solid veterans have come to San antonio(non traded.. I can list alot off the top of my head.
1. Horry
2. Finley
3. Ellie
4. Moses Malone
5. Doc Rivers
6. jerome Kersey
Just a few off the top of my head. Im sure there is more.

The point if, when you have a great team, The veterans come to you. Seldom so u see good teams making big trades, but this year, it seems everyone out to matchup with TD. Years to come will decide if these trades were good or not.

[mikejones99]

yoda and the cat are wise , does getting Damon and losing beno count as trade? Both start some.

[hsxvvd]

Who needs to trade when you draft properly in the 1st place.

http://cache.viewimages.com/xc/1400607.jpg?v=1&c=ViewImages&k=2&d=17A4AD9FDB9CF1939057D9939C83F106E9B2CBD60C10C946 5A5397277B4DC33E

:toast

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Rodman was an amazing acquisition, and the spurs getting rid of him was easily the biggest abortion of a trade of all spurs history, ranking up there with trading scola for jack shit.

[smeagol]

3 out of 5 is not good enough for some.

They want 5 out of 5 for lunch and blockbuster trades for dessert.

What a bunch of fucking morons . . .

[The Truth #6]

We traded Sean to get Rodman. We traded Rodman to get Perdue.

But of course that pales in comparison to stealing Walter Berry from Portland for Kevin Duckworth.

[Solid D]

Rodman was an amazing acquisition, and the spurs getting rid of him was easily the biggest abortion of a trade of all spurs history, ranking up there with trading scola for jack shit.

The antics Rodman pulled throughout 1994-95 season were entertaining and cool...for a while. He was eccentric and reveled in his indiviuality, preferring to dream of running up and down the court naked over bringing a title to San Antonio. We, as fans, had a good time with that...as well as his rebounding and energy on the court. Dennis, however, needed a salary-slot friend - basically his only friend among teammates - to be his spokesman and interpreter. His off-court philosophy melded with his on-court philosophy more and more each week. His attitude became just whack and I guess insubordinate would be the best term for it. Even though the Spurs went 62-20 that season (they went 59-23 the next season without Rodman), the worst was reserved for the playoffs.

Don't get me wrong, the hair dying was pretty cool and he was a very entertaining player. However, he openly disagreed with coach Bob Hill and David Robinson and then resorted to doing his own thing during the Lakers and Houston playoff series'... taking off his shoes, sitting out of the team huddle, not getting dressed for the game until just prior to tipoff, shooting wild 3s early in the shot clock, forsaking team defense by not stepping out to defend (Robert Horry nor anyone else) on the perimeter...staying inside to get his rebounds instead. It seemed to affect the team trust and provided a very negative distraction at a time the team needed to focus on winning the championship. It ultimately, and directly, impacted the results of the games in the Houston series. Fans loved Dennis, up to a point where it became about Dennis and his freedom, instead of the team working together toward a goal. Regardless of whether or not Bob Hill was a good coach, you don't sell out your mates in the playoffs.

[urunobili]

getting rid of Rodman was HUGE

[Ghost Writer]

The answer is "no."

We get good by the lottery.

[smeagol]

The answer is "no."

We get good by the lottery.
Manu and Parker came through the lottery?

[Ghost Writer]

Manu and Parker came through the lottery?
Those two don't make us contenders without Duncan, pal.

Virtually every team in the league has a Manu and Parker.

Get a grip.

[SAGambler]

Im gooing to go with some simple logic here. If your a championship caliber team for over a decade, why do u need to make a MAJOR trade? Do you think we get Finley if we werent a championship team? Or Horry. How many solid veterans have come to San antonio(non traded.. I can list alot off the top of my head.
1. Horry
2. Finley
3. Ellie
4. Moses Malone
5. Doc Rivers
6. jerome Kersey
Just a few off the top of my head. Im sure there is more.

The point if, when you have a great team, The veterans come to you. Seldom so u see good teams making big trades, but this year, it seems everyone out to matchup with TD. Years to come will decide if these trades were good or not.

You just lost half the people here!!! They don't understand "logic".

They "think" they understand "trade", but none can tell you why. Well, other than Phoenix, LA, Boston, Chicago, Miami have all done it at some point in time. And if we could trade Elson for Foster, man that would be a "major" trade, don't you know......

[urunobili]

Those two don't make us contenders without Duncan, pal.

Virtually every team in the league has a Manu and Parker.

Get a grip.is someone ready to ban this guy? please man stop infecting the threads with this bullshit :ban:

[Ghost Writer]

What don't you agree with?

Look across the NBA and you can equate at least two (2) players from every team that are on par with Manu and Parker.

It's Duncan that makes the difference.

[Holt's Cat]

What don't you agree with?

Look across the NBA and you can equate at least two (2) players from every team that are on par with Manu and Parker.

It's Duncan that makes the difference.


It's time for you to hand in the modem.

[Solid D]

Virtually every team in the league has a Manu and Parker.

Sig-worthy for those given to humor and not self-defilement.

[Ghost Writer]

I'm sorry... you guys glorify these two, but every team has at least two "stars".

We're not winning titles without Duncan via the #1 lottery pick.

Period.

[urunobili]

I'm sorry... you guys glorify these two, but every team has at least two "stars".

We're not winning titles without Duncan via the #1 lottery pick.

Period. that is no question man. but saying timmee might have won 3 championships with Terry and Howard is yet to be seen. What a bright new aspect you are brining?

[FromWayDowntown]

I'm sorry... you guys glorify these two, but every team has at least two "stars".

We're not winning titles without Duncan via the #1 lottery pick.

Period.

And you're still convinced that the Spurs can just go find a guy like that -- a difference maker of Duncan's caliber -- in free agency or via trade.

Remarkable.

[Evan]

Remarkable.

what's remarkable about it?

[Holt's Cat]

And you're still convinced that the Spurs can just go find a guy like that -- a difference maker of Duncan's caliber -- in free agency or via trade.

Remarkable.

Naturally another team would give the Champs a franchise player for the Champ's scraps.

[FromWayDowntown]

what's remarkable about it?

Ghost Writer's belief that players like Tim Duncan are readily available in the NBA and can easily be acquired via trade or in free agency, coupled with this new statement that every team has at least 2 players like Parker and Ginobili. One wonders, if every team already has at least 2 of those guys, why any team would be willing to give up a Duncan-quality player to pick up what is essentially (in Casper's own words) a redundant part.

Seriously, if I already have 2 Manu Ginobilis and 1 Tim Duncan, why on Earth am I going to be willing to trade my Tim Duncan to get another Manu Ginobili?

[Holt's Cat]

Ghost Writer's belief that players like Tim Duncan are readily available in the NBA and can easily be acquired via trade or in free agency, coupled with this new statement that every team has at least 2 players like Parker and Ginobili. One wonders, if every team already has at least 2 of those guys, why any team would be willing to give up a Duncan-quality player to pick up what is essentially (in Casper's own words) a redundant part.

Seriously, if I already have 2 Manu Ginobilis and 1 Tim Duncan, why on Earth am I going to be willing to trade my Tim Duncan to get another Manu Ginobili?


It's more like...why would a team trade its Tim Duncan to land Francisco Elson and Brent Barry?

[Ghost Writer]

Ghost Writer's belief that players like Tim Duncan are readily available in the NBA and can easily be acquired via trade or in free agency, coupled with this new statement that every team has at least 2 players like Parker and Ginobili. One wonders, if every team already has at least 2 of those guys, why any team would be willing to give up a Duncan-quality player to pick up what is essentially (in Casper's own words) a redundant part.

Seriously, if I already have 2 Manu Ginobilis and 1 Tim Duncan, why on Earth am I going to be willing to trade my Tim Duncan to get another Manu Ginobili?
Don't put fvcking words in my mouth.

Parker and Ginobili are not franchise players.

Duncan is.

You can't easily acquire a Duncan-level player.

Every team in the NBA has a couple Parker or Ginobili.

Every team has 1-3 stars.

Not every team has a franchise player, like a Duncan.

Jeezus, FWD, at least argue with something I actually said.

You fvcking p1ss me 0ff when you make up your own spin on my actual take.

[Ghost Writer]

And you're still convinced that the Spurs can just go find a guy like that -- a difference maker of Duncan's caliber -- in free agency or via trade.

Remarkable.
WTF?

Who said anything about trading for a Duncan?

We're not the Celtics!

Are you arguing that Ginobili and Parker aren't second-tier stars?

Most every team has 1-3 stars on their team like Ginobili and Parker.

I defy you to quote me as trying to bring even a second-tier star in for scraps.

The best player I have targeted this season via a trade is Artest and if he wasn't bipolar, I wouldn't even dream of landing him.

That was bullsh1t, FWD. Stick to the parameters of what I am saying, not where you want to go with my post.

[Holt's Cat]

Every team doesn't have a Parker and a Ginobili.

But you have to act like they aren't that good, because their existence destroys the rationale behind your incessant bitching.

The Spurs just won 3 titles in the last 5 years by doing everything you argued against. It gnaws at you, obviously. That's fine by me.

[Ghost Writer]

Wrong.

I've acknowledged that Parker and Ginobili are second-tier stars, not franchise players like Duncan.

Every team drafts a couple of Parker and Ginobilis that become their stars, but it's not enough to win it all.

I can point to virtually any team in the NBA - even the sh1tty ones - and tell you who their Parker and Ginobili is:

Knicks: Randolph / Crawford
Hawks: J. Smith / J. Johnson
Bobcats: G. Wallace / J. Richardson
Nets: Carter / Jefferson

All these teams are lacking their Duncan.

[Spurs Dynasty 21]

to anwser this topic, no



but Ron Artest in SA would change all that

[Holt's Cat]

Wrong.

I've acknowledged that Parker and Ginobili are second-tier stars, not franchise players like Duncan.

Every team drafts a couple of Parker and Ginobilis that become their stars, but it's not enough to win it all.

I can point to virtually any team in the NBA - even the sh1tty ones - and tell you who their Parker and Ginobili is:

Knicks: Randolph / Crawford
Hawks: J. Smith / J. Johnson
Bobcats: G. Wallace / J. Richardson
Nets: Carter / Jefferson

All these teams are lacking their Duncan.

:lol

Man, you really don't get it.

[rascal]

Every team doesn't have a Parker and a Ginobili.

But you have to act like they aren't that good, because their existence destroys the rationale behind your incessant bitching.

The Spurs just won 3 titles in the last 5 years by doing everything you argued against. It gnaws at you, obviously. That's fine by me.

Duncan is the reason the spurs have won championships. Getting a great franchise big is key to success in the league thats why so many bigs that end up being busts but may have some potential are drafted too early in the first round of nba drafts.

There are many great pgs and sf and sg at the level of Manu and Parker but few great big men. Duncan is the only franchise player on the spurs.

[rascal]

:lol

Man, you really don't get it.

There just aren't enough top big men especially at the level of Duncan in the league. The teams that have a player like Duncan have the definite advantage. A strong post player is vital to championship success in the league.
The only team that had recent championship success without one was the bulls but they had the greatest player of all time.

[rascal]

Wrong.

I've acknowledged that Parker and Ginobili are second-tier stars, not franchise players like Duncan.

Every team drafts a couple of Parker and Ginobilis that become their stars, but it's not enough to win it all.

I can point to virtually any team in the NBA - even the sh1tty ones - and tell you who their Parker and Ginobili is:

Knicks: Randolph / Crawford
Hawks: J. Smith / J. Johnson
Bobcats: G. Wallace / J. Richardson
Nets: Carter / Jefferson

All these teams are lacking their Duncan.


I agree. Some here on this board are claiming that Manu and Parker are franchise players. Those two didn't even make the all star game. They are 2nd level stars and very good complimentary players but just about every team in the league has those type of 2nd level stars.

[Ghost Writer]

Don't bother, rascal.

They're homers, not analytic fans.

That cowardly pr1ck FWD completely changed my post to create a non-sensical argument that wasn't even there.

These guys think you can build a team around Manu or Parker.

There's 28 also-rans built on that premise.

[rascal]

Don't bother, rascal.

They're homers, not analytic fans.

That cowardly pr1ck FWD completely changed my post to create a non-sensical argument that wasn't even there.

These guys think you can build a team around Manu or Parker.

There's 28 also-rans built on that premise.

That guy must be in politics or he isn't very smart. The meaning of your post or your line of thinking in your post was clear to anyone with half a brain.

[FromWayDowntown]

Don't bother, rascal.

They're homers, not analytic fans.

That cowardly pr1ck FWD completely changed my post to create a non-sensical argument that wasn't even there.

These guys think you can build a team around Manu or Parker.

There's 28 also-rans built on that premise.

Nice -- namecalling is definitely a powerful rhetorical strategy.

I was just trying to synthesize all of the nonsense you've been posting for the last week. You want to the Spurs to make a trade for a superstar, which I assume to mean a guy more like Duncan than Ginobili or Parker. Then, you suggest that they might be able to make such a trade by dealing guys like Ginobili and Parker. Unless there's some incredible nuance in your argument, what I take from it is a position that the Spurs have failed because they refuse to trade guys like Ginobili and Parker to acquire superstars.

Now, if you've been making some other point, I'd be interested in hearing it. But from where I read, you're either: (1) bent that the Spurs don't acquire superstars because they won't give up their stars; or (2) bent that the Spurs won't make lateral moves by dealing their stars to get guys who you claim are essentially equal players. I don't think that #1 is plausible even if the Spurs were willing to move their stars (which I don't think they should). I also don't see the point in doing #2, particularly if (as your friend rascal has suggested) the bounty for dealing Ginobili is a journeyman big like Dalembert.

I assume that the only other possibility that you have in mind is dealing out spare parts to acquire either a superstar or another star, but it takes two to tango on those sorts of deals and, if published reports are correct, the Spurs have been unsuccessful in their efforts to convince teams (at least in the recent past) that their spare parts are worth giving up a star-level player. And the Spurs are, I think, understandably reticent to deal for guys who are going to be on the books for very long.

I get glib one time and I get killed for it!! Forgive me for trying to be concise; I'll be far, far more expansive from this point forward in responding to you Casper. I feel bad that I hurt your feelings.

[Holt's Cat]

There just aren't enough top big men especially at the level of Duncan in the league. The teams that have a player like Duncan have the definite advantage. A strong post player is vital to championship success in the league.
The only team that had recent championship success without one was the bulls but they had the greatest player of all time.


Because clearly if there were a couple more Duncans in the league someone would give the Champs one for scraps.

[Holt's Cat]

I agree. Some here on this board are claiming that Manu and Parker are franchise players. Those two didn't even make the all star game. They are 2nd level stars and very good complimentary players but just about every team in the league has those type of 2nd level stars.


6 minutes to go. 4th quarter. Spurs down by 3. Championship on the line. Do you really not want Manu Ginobili on that court wearing the Silver and Black?

[Ghost Writer]

You put words in my mouth that were off the page to say the least.

It was hurtful and I expect more from one of the more fair and balanced homers.

You're better than that, FWD.

I apologize for the harsh words, but I have enough trouble defending what I do say, let alone what I don't.




All I am suggesting is capitalizing on Artest's reputation to get a very talented player without disrupting the Big Three.

[rascal]

6 minutes to go. 4th quarter. Spurs down by 3. Championship on the line. Do you really not want Manu Ginobili on that court wearing the Silver and Black?

Yes. There are many players in the league just as capable as Manu. I've seen manu blow playoff games.

[Holt's Cat]

Yes. There are many players in the league just as capable as Manu.

Name them.

[FromWayDowntown]

You put words in my mouth that were off the page to say the least.

Trying to put together all of your posts is somehow putting words in your mouth? I'm trying to find cohesion in your arguments, not endeavoring to push discussions down countless rabbit trails. Let's talk about it as a big picture philosophy and not just a bunch of isolated posts in different threads.


It was hurtful and I expect more from one of the more fair and balanced homers.

Calling me a homer (with the negative connotation you give to that word) should, I guess, just slide right off my back, though.


You're better than that, FWD.

I'm doing what I always do.


I apologize for the harsh words, but I have enough trouble defending what I do say, let alone what I don't.

I accept your apology and reciprocate to the extent that my efforts were hurtful to you. I still would like for this discussion to be a bit more big picture than this thread (apparently) will allow, because I really must not understand the philosophical team-building approach you're advocating here.


All I am suggesting is capitalizing on Artest's reputation to get a very talented player without disrupting the Big Three.

But in other threads, you're all for dealing out Parker/Ginobili to get Kidd or to get other players with superstar credentials. And in others, you seem to be all about making a deal -- any deal -- to shake things up. I don't honestly see the point in having a bunch of discussions in isolation where there is no real coherent approach on your part (other than that some trade, any trade, is necessary).

[Holt's Cat]

Ghost bitches because he needs to bitch. This board is his outlet. Don't bother trying to find any consistency in his rants, for there is none.

[BonnerDynasty]

Why do trades matter? Umm, let's see, why don't you ask the Celtics why trades matter, you fucknut.

They drafted Robinson, Parker, Manu, and Tim. They don't need any fucking major trades.

Spurs have 4 rings.

[Solid D]

Name them.

Well, there is Ditka.

[FromWayDowntown]

Well, there is Ditka.

Manu > Ditka (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=54259&highlight=ditka)

[Ghost Writer]

No, FWD.

You'll never find a post from me that ever involved sending away Manu.

And the only time I have advocated trading Parker since 2002 was in an imaginary example where we'd be getting back Kidd for the next season and a half and then be able to sign a superstar with the max.

Summarize if you must, but please stop surmising.

I hope this has been clear and concise enough for you, friend.

[Reggie Miller]

If you don't want to be a fan of a successful team why don't you pick a new one? It's not hard. We won't miss you that much.

Seriously, pick a nice mediocre team like the Pacers or the Clippers and you'll get to see more glorious trades than you could ever imagine.


True that.

[Ghost Writer]

Ghost bitches because he needs to bitch. This board is his outlet. Don't bother trying to find any consistency in his rants, for there is none.
Nah.

You homers can't keep up and like to skew a dissenting opinion into unsubstantiated nonsense.

Is it too much to ask for the front office to capitalize on the good fortune of drafting Duncan (and Manu and Parker).

Just one free agent signing or trade where we can all be like, "Wow... the front office just got us some real help."

Not veteran minimum guys or waiver wire pick ups.

Just one.

[FromWayDowntown]

Just four (or more) [titles].

[FromWayDowntown]

Just one free agent signing or trade where we can all be like, "Wow... the front office just got us some real help."

The last time the front office did that, they got Derek Anderson who played the team-first guy for a season and then bitched about the Spurs unwillingness to cave into his demands for a contract.

I wonder who proved to be right on that one?

[spursrule32]

I agree. Some here on this board are claiming that Manu and Parker are franchise players. Those two didn't even make the all star game. They are 2nd level stars and very good complimentary players but just about every team in the league has those type of 2nd level stars.


They're franchise players b/c they are two of a very small group of players that are willing to take less money to win championships. Your all-stars rarely do that and come playoff time their performances are are very near what TP and Manu put out. Spurs win b/c they play a great team concept of offense and defense that is not reliant upon all-star player caliber (other than Duncan.) You could easily argue that if Manu was on another team, he would be an all-star year in and year out.

[Reggie Miller]

Since I can't be accused of being a "homer," here's my take.

1. Duncan and Ginobili are singular, unique talents. By definition, you cannot get "equal" value for them. You will be getting more or less value. Reasonable minds would agree that you would probably get less, unless you overvalue youth and "potential." Parker may or may not fit into this category.

2. None of the Spurs' Big Three have bad contracts. Ginobili's contract alone makes him untradeable in my mind. Why deal one of your best players when he is grossly underpaid? Similarly, Duncan has shown willingness to rework his contract as necessary.

3. The Spurs don't overpay their roleplayers. In practical terms, this means that acquiring even a second tier star would destroy the Spurs' depth, assuming a team would even take a bunch of roleplayers at 1-5 million per year each. Matching salaries becomes very difficult.

4. The theory of diminishing returns. When a system is perfect or near-perfect, tinkering with the parts tends to degrade the system, not improve it. The Spurs' only real problem is age, in my mind. On the other hand, there are a lot of immature, half-skilled players in the NBA right now. Not too many teams want older players with declining skills, unless they have an expiring contract or other exigent circumstances. However, older players with high basketball IQs and declining skills actually have value to the Spurs.

Let's look at Robert Horry. Robert may have still had a lot in the tank back in 2005, but his value was higher on the Spurs. Just to give one concrete example, let's look at Game 5 of the Finals that year. If Robert isn't in the one spot where Ginobili has a passing lane, if Ginobili is too immature to recognize the situation and find Horry, or if Ginobili doesn't demand a double team in that situation, "Big Shot Bob" never takes and makes that shot. As a fan of historically bad basketball teams, I can tell you NONE of those things are given. (Spurs fans may think so, but you are spoiled.) You may argue that Wallace should not have left Horry in that situation (and you'd be right), but the fact is Ginobili was in the Pistons' heads by that point and had demonstrated the ability to create his own 3 point shot.

[Hemotivo]

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1355/is_n15_v89/ai_18053723
San Antoniuo Spurs makes trade for forward Charles Smith
Jet, March 4, 1996

[Holt's Cat]

Nah.

You homers can't keep up and like to skew a dissenting opinion into unsubstantiated nonsense.

Nobody needs to "skew" your "nonsense". It is what it is. You bitch about dumb shit and then whine about the Spurs not pursuing dumb ideas.




Is it too much to ask for the front office to capitalize on the good fortune of drafting Duncan (and Manu and Parker).


How have they not? They have 3 titles in the 5 years that all 3 of those have been together.



Just one free agent signing or trade where we can all be like, "Wow... the front office just got us some real help."

Not veteran minimum guys or waiver wire pick ups.

Just one.

Horry wasn't a vet minimum guy and I'd say he had a real impact on winning a championship. Neither Finley nor Barry were signed for the vet minimum.

What great move are they supposed to accomplish? They made a move for Turkoglu, which you seem to forget. Of course, that didn't work out so well. I'm not sure what you have against signing veterans to flesh out the supporting cast. Given the constraints that's been a wise strategy, especially when you look at the results (ie 3 titles in 5 years).

Why does it matter so much that fans orgasm over their moves? I thought the goal was to win championships.

[Ghost Writer]

The last time the front office did that, they got Derek Anderson who played the team-first guy for a season and then bitched about the Spurs unwillingness to cave into his demands for a contract.

I wonder who proved to be right on that one?
Don't lay Derek Anderson at my feet.

I was never a DA guy.

I was happy to have the help, but I never confused him with being a star.

At least the Spurs made the effort there.

It was worth trying.

And guess what?

He wasn't worth what he demanded, so good for the front office!

[Holt's Cat]

So the Spurs opportunistically pick up Robert Horry for a non-vet minimum contract but we can't give the front office any credit for that?

If it had been a vet minimum contract wouldn't that have been even better?

[Ghost Writer]

Bravo!

We signed Robert Horry.

Well done.

[Holt's Cat]

I'd rather see the Spurs acquire a proven veteran with playoff and championship experience for the vet min or close to that instead of blowing $5 mil here and $10 mil there on players who maybe could be good someday. Those vets know how to play. They've been there and done that. They know how to execute. They don't need their diaper changed. The less drama the better.

The gist of all of your bitching is that you want the Spurs' roster to create more drama. Fuck that. The Spurs are about dispensing with the drama and playing championship winning basketball.

[Holt's Cat]

The Spurs signed Jackie Butler to a $9 mil deal and then had to package one of their talented European players with him to move him, because of that deal.

[Holt's Cat]

Bravo!

We signed Robert Horry.

Well done.

And Finley and Barry and Kerr and Elie and Kersey and Ferry etc...

The Spurs aren't going to have a supporting cast filled with All-Stars. I'd rather have a Robert Horry or a Brent Barry on that bench instead of some untested player in the postseason.

[Ghost Writer]

That's fine.

No one is arguing that the veterans are vital to the team's success.

It would be wonderful to obtain a starting-quality player (not a star) via a free agent signing or a trade... not off waivers or because no one else wants the player.

Just once.

One time.

Una vez.

[Holt's Cat]

That's fine.

No one is arguing that the veterans are vital to the team's success.

It would be wonderful to obtain a starting-quality player (not a star) via a free agent signing or a trade

Hedo Turkoglu
Bruce Bowen
Nazr Mohammed
Rasho Nesterovic
Michael Finley
Brent Barry

[Ghost Writer]

You're kidding, right.

[Holt's Cat]

You're kidding, right.


You said 'non stars' and starting quality, no?

[Ghost Writer]

Wow.

We are worlds apart.

Starting quality for who?

[Holt's Cat]

All of those guys currently start/have started for the Spurs.

What exactly is "starting quality" and how does it not end up defining an All-Star?

[Ghost Writer]

The fact that those bench role players have started for the Spurs underscores my point exactly.

The Spurs can't acquire starting quality players from other teams or via free agency.

Now here's an opportunity to do so for an undervalued, risky player in Artest for expiring contracts and a pick and you balk.

[Holt's Cat]

The fact that those bench role players have started for the Spurs underscores my point exactly.

The Spurs can't acquire starting quality players from other teams or via free agency.

Now here's an opportunity to do so for an undervalued, risky player in Artest for expiring contracts and a pick and you balk.

Is Turkoglu not starting?

Plus, I didn't realize that they had to still be starting in the NBA today. Derek Anderson was signed as a free agent and started for the Spurs.

[Ghost Writer]

Derek Anderson and Hedo Turkoglu.

Okay, you got me.

The front office is awesome at obtaining talent outside of the draft.

Just not keeping it.

[ChumpDumper]

Yeah, under the new rules we could actually have kept Turkoglu.

[Holt's Cat]

So the Spurs should have kept Turkoglu because even though the cost to re-sign him was significant and his playoff production was weak, he was acquired via a trade.

Got it.

[Ghost Writer]

If you are done digressing, Holt's Cat, I'd like to try and add a great player to the Big Three.

Trading expiring contracts and a first rounder for a risky star like Artest is a chance that I am willing to take for a franchise not known to be able to get the same quality outside of the draft.

[Holt's Cat]

If you are done digressing, Holt's Cat, I'd like to try and add a great player to the Big Three.

1. Haven't digressed.
2. Wouldn't we all? Shit, I'd like to see the Spurs add LeBron James. Stop aiming so low.





Trading expiring contracts and a first rounder for a risky star like Artest is a chance that I am willing to take for a franchise not known to be able to get the same quality outside of the draft.

The Spurs don't panic. You panic. There's no need to take on that sideshow. The Spurs aren't the Nuggets. They don't need to make risky moves to close the gap between themselves and the best in the league. The Spurs are the best in the league.

[ElNono]

Trading expiring contracts and a first rounder for a risky star like Artest is a chance that I am willing to take for a franchise not known to be able to get the same quality outside of the draft.

Nobody is stopping you from doing that in your fantasy league. I'm just glad you're not the Spurs GM.

[Reggie Miller]

"Starting quality" is sort of like "restaurant quality..."

What if it's a crappy restaurant?

[Ghost Writer]

I think Artest can make the best... better.

And the risk is worth the potential reward.

Barry, Elson and the 1st rounder would all likely not be here next year anyway.

Agree to disagree.

[ChumpDumper]

Well, if the Spurs keep the pick, there is really nothing on the payroll or roster keeping the Spurs from having that player play next season.

That said, I'm still fine with trading it. I just think Petrie is holding out for more now, just like Wallace.

[Ghost Writer]

Well, if the Spurs keep the pick, there is really nothing on the payroll or roster keeping the Spurs from having that player play next season.

That said, I'm still fine with trading it. I just think Petrie is holding out for more now, just like Wallace.
That player if they decided to have him on the active roster would be #12 on the depth chart.

[ChumpDumper]

That player if they decided to have him on the active roster would be #12 on the depth chart.And?

We only have eight players under contract next season. I'm just saying if we keep the pick, that player probably be on the team next season.

[Ghost Writer]

And I am saying that he probably won't contribute, so I could care less if we trade the pick away.

[Holt's Cat]

The Spurs have cost themselves a Josh Howard, at a minimum, by disregarding draft picks in the pursuit of a free agent. They cost themselves the shot at a David Lee by giving away a couple of draft picks in a trade.

Last year the Spurs kept their pick and were able to land of the best, if not the best bigmen in Europe. Their 1st round pick from '05, an ultra athletic big, will likely be joining the team next season. Those picks have value.

[Ghost Writer]

Good.

Let's play Tiago and Splitter and send next year's pick to Sac-Town along with expiring contracts to bring in a devalued star now.

Win now.

[ChumpDumper]

Let's play Tiago and Splitter:lol

[Holt's Cat]

Good.

Let's play Tiago and Splitter and send next year's pick to Sac-Town along with expiring contracts to bring in a devalued star now.

Win now.


The Spurs managed to draft two players with one pick? Cool.

[Reggie Miller]

The Spurs managed to draft two players with one pick? Cool.

Yep. Further proof that the Spurs' FO are just cheap bastards after all...

:fro

[misterx91578]

Good.

Let's play Tiago and Splitter and send next year's pick to Sac-Town along with expiring contracts to bring in a devalued star now.

Win now.

haven't they been winning?

[cherylsteele]

Why do trades matter? Umm, let's see, why don't you ask the Celtics why trades matter, you fucknut.
I couldn't have been because the Celtics have been god awful the last years is it? Except for a year or to.

[Ghost Writer]

WTF?

You can have next year's pick.

I'll roll with Artest.

[Mr.Bottomtooth]

Good.

Let's play Tiago and Splitter.
:lmao

[peskypesky]

Nah.

You homers can't keep up and like to skew a dissenting opinion into unsubstantiated nonsense.

Is it too much to ask for the front office to capitalize on the good fortune of drafting Duncan (and Manu and Parker).

Just one free agent signing or trade where we can all be like, "Wow... the front office just got us some real help."

Not veteran minimum guys or waiver wire pick ups.

Just one.

Ahhh.....so nice to see I'm not the only one here who's not completely blinded by homerism.

[misterx91578]

why does it matter how they get players draft, trades, waive wire, or free agents? The spurs still have 4 titles right? its not like they are the clippers or some team that is always bad

[Russ]

How about back in the ABA when the Spurs traded with the New York Nets and got center Billy Paultz, All Star forward Larry Kenon, and physical defensive guard Mike Gale (60% of their starting five the next few years) for journeyman forward Rich Jones, out to lunch center Swen Nater, and scrubs Chuck Terry, Kim Hughes, and Bobby Warren. I think it was the year before the merger.

Ironically, the Nets won the last ABA title that year with those former Spurs (and, of course, Dr. J , Super-John Williamson and Brian "Fatty" Taylor) but eventually that bad trade came back to haunt them and the Spurs continued to thrive after the ABA-NBA merger.

[rascal]

The Spurs are the best in the league.

The spurs were the best last year. Its a new year, many teams are better and have changed since last year.

[rascal]

How about back in the ABA when the Spurs traded with the New York Nets and got center Billy Paultz, All Star forward Larry Kenon, and physical defensive guard Mike Gale (60% of their starting five the next few years) for journeyman forward Rich Jones, out to lunch center Swen Nater, and scrubs Chuck Terry, Kim Hughes, and Bobby Warren. I think it was the year before the merger.

Ironically, the Nets won the last ABA title that year with those former Spurs (and, of course, Dr. J , Super-John Williamson and Brian "Fatty" Taylor) but eventually that bad trade came back to haunt them and the Spurs continued to thrive after the ABA-NBA merger.

The Spurs were run by a different front office then. I also liked the Gervin move.

[rascal]

why does it matter how they get players draft, trades, waive wire, or free agents? The spurs still have 4 titles right? its not like they are the clippers or some team that is always bad

Because it shows how competent a front office is in how they acquire their players. I'm still not so sure the spurs front office can field a winning team without the lucky lottery picks of Robinson and Duncan.

[smeagol]

Because it shows how competent a front office is in how they acquire their players. I'm still not so sure the spurs front office can field a winning team without the lucky lottery picks of Robinson and Duncan.

So you are not happy with the Spurs' 4 rings in 9 years beacuse they are the result of two first picks and stealing TP and MG in the second round?

You'd rather root for the Suns or the Mavs, who put together a team through trades?

Ok :rolleyes

[rascal]

So you are not happy with the Spurs' 4 rings in 9 years beacuse they are the result of two first picks and stealing TP and MG in the second round?

You'd rather root for the Suns or the Mavs, who put together a team through trades?

Ok :rolleyes

It has nothing to do with rooting for any team. 4 rings is nice but you better damn win some championships if you get Robinson and Duncan in the draft lottery and those two span 6 years of playing together.

This thread is about the spurs ability to make a major trade where you can really say they got a steal of a deal like some other teams are able to pull off.

[Ghost Writer]

smeag, what we are bemoaning is that if the Spurs front office was ever able to bring in a bonafide starter via a trade or free agency -- not a star, but not another team's castoff -- the team may have 6+ rings right now.

Furthermore, we're looking for evidence that the team will be a contender in 2015 A.D. (After Duncan™).

[Holt's Cat]

You're worried about 2015?

[misterx91578]

first it was this


Good.

Let's play Tiago and Splitter and send next year's pick to Sac-Town along with expiring contracts to bring in a devalued star now.

Win now.

now this


smeag, what we are bemoaning is that if the Spurs front office was ever able to bring in a bonafide starter via a trade or free agency -- not a star, but not another team's castoff -- the team may have 6+ rings right now.

Furthermore, we're looking for evidence that the team will be a contender in 2015 A.D. (After Duncan™).

make up your mind

[Holt's Cat]

Hedo Turkoglu, acquired in a trade, was a "bonafide" starter in SA and is currently so with the Magic.

Derek Anderson, signed as a free agent, was a "bonafide" starter during his time in SA.

Not that I expect this to end the mindless bitching spam attack on this forum, but for those who actually care about truth and seeing this team succeed instead of fulfilling their stupid fetishes.

[Ghost Writer]

Hedo Turkoglu, acquired in a trade, was a "bonafide" starter in SA and is currently so with the Magic.

Derek Anderson, signed as a free agent, was a "bonafide" starter during his time in SA.

Not that I expect this to end the mindless bitching spam attack on this forum, but for those who actually care about truth and seeing this team succeed instead of fulfilling their stupid fetishes.
Yeah, those guys stuck with the Spurs.

Nice cup o' coffee.

[Ghost Writer]

first it was this



now this



make up your mind
What don't you get?

Make moves to win now... every year!

In the future, I hope the Spurs don't decide to get real bad in order to get real good again.

[Holt's Cat]

Yeah, those guys stuck with the Spurs.

Nice cup o' coffee.


So now they have to stay with the Spurs? For how long?

Stop being a douchebag.

[Holt's Cat]

What don't you get?

Make moves to win now... every year!

In the future, I hope the Spurs don't decide to get real bad in order to get real good again.


Make trades every year? What are you going to do if they don't? Oh wait, we know the answer.

[Ghost Writer]

So now they have to stay with the Spurs? For how long?

Stop being a douchebag.
Hoorah... the Spurs got Hedo and D.A. for a couple of seasons.

Who needs ping-pong balls?

[Holt's Cat]

Chicago and Houston, for starters.

[Ghost Writer]

Chicago and Houston, for starters.
How did the Bulls get Pippen and Houston get Drexler again?

[Holt's Cat]

So the Spurs didn't need to trade to land their 2nd and 3rd stars. Drexler wasn't there for the 1st title. When do they hand back the trophies?

[Ghost Writer]

So the Spurs didn't need to trade to land their 2nd and 3rd stars. Drexler wasn't there for the 1st title. When do they hand back the trophies?
We're not getting anywhere.

You are happy with the past success and are ambivalent about the future.

I think the Spurs should have won more titles in the Duncan era and am concerned for Life A.D. (After Duncan™), because other than Turkoglu and D. Anderson's short stints with the Spurs, I have not seen the front office get any quality talent outside of the draft.

You'd be a fool not to be a little concerned based on 2003's cap space whiff alone.

[Holt's Cat]

Not getting anywhere?

The Spurs won 3 titles in the last 5 years by basically doing the exact opposite of everything you've bitched about before and during that time. You're the motherfucking fool.

[Ghost Writer]

Not getting anywhere?

The Spurs won 3 titles in the last 5 years by basically doing the exact opposite of everything you've bitched about before and during that time. You're the motherfucking fool.
With the slightest addition of talent, they easily could have won all of those.

[Holt's Cat]

ROFL. Of course. Why can't my team win the title every year?

[Ghost Writer]

Why can't they?

The two times they lost in this run were on last-second shots.

[rascal]

Hedo Turkoglu, acquired in a trade, was a "bonafide" starter in SA and is currently so with the Magic.

Derek Anderson, signed as a free agent, was a "bonafide" starter during his time in SA.

Not that I expect this to end the mindless bitching spam attack on this forum, but for those who actually care about truth and seeing this team succeed instead of fulfilling their stupid fetishes.

Compare those players with all the better players that have moved from team to team and you see the spurs player acquisistions don't come close to comparing. Those players were not even good enough to stick with the spurs and were with the team for a very short time, not at all impact players.

[Holt's Cat]

Why can't they?

The two times they lost in this run were on last-second shots.

So two shots from 5 in a row. Why is this bad?

[Holt's Cat]

Compare those players with all the better players that have moved from team to team and you see the spurs player acquisistions don't come close to comparing. Those players were not even good enough to stick with the spurs and were with the team for a very short time, not at all impact players.

So not every team lands an "impact player" every year and the Spurs have one of the best 'Big 3' in the league. Not to mention piddly things like contracts and cap room and retaining your own free agents.

[Extra Stout]

Excuse me, does Bruce Bowen suck or something?

[michaelwcho]

Why do trades matter? Umm, let's see, why don't you ask the Celtics why trades matter, you fucknut.
What, are you going to crown their asses already?

They traded all their prospects for some declining all-stars. Why don't we see if they can take down the Pistons before deciding how great of an idea big trades are.

[Spurminator]

Excuse me, does Bruce Bowen suck or something?


That's a whole 'nuther ten page thread...

[rascal]

What, are you going to crown their asses already?

They traded all their prospects for some declining all-stars. Why don't we see if they can take down the Pistons before deciding how great of an idea big trades are.

Don't be a moron. The Celtics are vastly improved from last year.

[Holt's Cat]

Excuse me, does Bruce Bowen suck or something?

In white man thinks all blacks should wear tats, cornrows, and headband land.

[Holt's Cat]

Don't be a moron. The Celtics are vastly improved from last year.

So because the Spurs didn't land KG with Duncan they did something wrong?

[Ghost Writer]

Excuse me, does Bruce Bowen suck or something?
Hhhhmm... yes.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Artis Gilmore

[michaelwcho]

Don't be a moron. The Celtics are vastly improved from last year.
Sure, they won the 1/2 season Championship by renting some declining all-stars. But you don't trade away the future for that award, won numerous times by the Dallasas and Phoenixes of the world. It hasn't played out yet, so it's premature to use it as proof of anything.

[Ghost Writer]

Celtics are a prime example.

They counted on landing Duncan back in 1997.

They didn't and spent the next decade mire in mediocrity until collecting enough raw talent to land a franchise player and a third star through trades.

You need a certain amount of luck to be successful, but you can create your own success, too.

I think it's a shame to not maximize great fortune in the draft.

[Holt's Cat]

So they sucked for 10 years and made a bunch of trades and what not. Yippee.

[rascal]

So because the Spurs didn't land KG with Duncan they did something wrong?

These type of top players move every year but since Pop/RC have been running the show the spurs have not been able to acquire no one through a trade that has been able to be a major contributor or has been able to stick with the team for more than a year.

[Ghost Writer]

Man alive.

Where would we be without Duncan?

[Holt's Cat]

The Spurs tried to land the 'big free agent'. Twice. In 2001 and 2003. It didn't work out. So they stuck with what they had and won 3 titles in 5 years. In addition, they are contenders this season and the eldest member of their big 3 is 31 years old. Oh my God this is horrible.

[Holt's Cat]

Man alive.

Where would we be without Duncan?


Probably in a much more enjoyable forum as you would have ditched your fandom.

[Ghost Writer]

The Spurs tried to land the 'big free agent'. Twice. In 2001 and 2003. It didn't work out. So they stuck with what they had and won 3 titles in 5 years. In addition, they are contenders this season and the eldest member of their big 3 is 31 years old. Oh my God this is horrible.
So why would you NOT entertain a trade to sustain this success if it kept the Big Three intact?

[Holt's Cat]

These type of top players move every year but since Pop/RC have been running the show the spurs have not been able to acquire no one through a trade that has been able to be a major contributor or has been able to stick with the team for more than a year.

And of course everyone is going to hand the champs great players for nothing. And of course contracts, the salary cap, and sticking with the program that has produced 3 titles in 5 years don't matter.

You numbskulls don't deserve to be fans of such a team.

[rascal]

Sure, they won the 1/2 season Championship by renting some declining all-stars. But you don't trade away the future for that award, won numerous times by the Dallasas and Phoenixes of the world. It hasn't played out yet, so it's premature to use it as proof of anything.

The bottom line is the Celtics are improved and have a legitimate chance to go far in the playoffs with the moves they have made and that is a successful offseason.

[Holt's Cat]

So why would you NOT entertain a trade to sustain this success if it kept the Big Three intact?

ROFL. I think I've been clear that there are some trades that make sense and may be available. I'm just not going to slit my wrists and whine like a little bitch if they don't happen.

[rascal]

The Spurs tried to land the 'big free agent'. Twice. In 2001 and 2003. It didn't work out. So they stuck with what they had and won 3 titles in 5 years. In addition, they are contenders this season and the eldest member of their big 3 is 31 years old. Oh my God this is horrible.

They tried and failed to land the top free agents. So there you have it the spurs are not successful in landing top free agents or making big trades and rely on lottery lucky ping pong ball bounces to be successful. Duncan has made the franchise a winner not front office personal moves.

[Spurminator]

Celtics are a prime example.

They counted on landing Duncan back in 1997.

They didn't and spent the next decade mire in mediocrity until collecting enough raw talent thru the Lottery to land a franchise player and a third star through trades.

You need a certain amount of luck to be successful, but you can create your own success, too.

I think it's a shame to not maximize great fortune in the draft.


:tu

[Ghost Writer]

Agreed, but since they didn't land a Duncan, it took years of draft lotteries and subsequent trades to "get back," Spurm.

[FromWayDowntown]

The bottom line is the Celtics are improved and have a legitimate chance to go far in the playoffs with the moves they have made and that is a successful offseason.

And the Spurs, having a legitimate chance to go far in the playoffs without having made any substantial moves, had a failure of an offseason?

[smeagol]

rascal, you must be so unhappy rooting for the Spurs.

[smeagol]

And the Spurs, having a legitimate chance to go far in the playoffs without having made any substantial moves, is a failure of an offseason?
rascal's measure of success is blockbuster trades, not rings.

He has dismissed the 4 rings the Spurs won because they were lucky in the lotto.

I think he is actually unhappy for those rings. They don't help them push his agenda.

[Ghost Writer]

And the Spurs, having a legitimate chance to go far in the playoffs without having made any substantial moves, had a failure of an offseason?
It can be argued that the front office was fooled into thinking the Spurs did not have room to improve, because they won the title.

If you really analyze the 2007 playoffs, the Spurs finally benefitted from some breaks.

[FromWayDowntown]

It can be argued that the front office was fooled into thinking the Spurs did not have room to improve, because they won the title.

If you really analyze the 2007 playoffs, the Spurs finally benefitted from some breaks.

So, without knowing what will happen in the 2008 playoffs, you're ready to say that the Spurs failed in the summer of 2007, even if they eventually have more success than the Celtics do?

[Ghost Writer]

So, without knowing what will happen in the 2008 playoffs, you're ready to say that the Spurs failed in the summer of 2007, even if they eventually have more success than the Celtics do?
Um, what?

I'm ready to say exactly what I said in my last post.

[clambake]

the spurs traded a seasons worth of playing for purposely tanking games to get a shot at duncan. savvy front office move.

[smeagol]

the spurs traded a seasons worth of playing for purposely tanking games to get a shot at duncan. savvy front office move.


That post deserves a *

[peskypesky]

What, are you going to crown their asses already?

They traded all their prospects for some declining all-stars. Why don't we see if they can take down the Pistons before deciding how great of an idea big trades are.

Compare the Celtics' record from this year with last year. If you can't see a VAST improvement, you are either stupid or dishonest.

And stop putting words in my mouth. I never "crowned" the Celtics. I was merely using them as an example of how trades can improve a team, because some douchebag (can't remember who) asked the facetious question "Why do trades matter?".

Again, if any sports fan cannot understand why trades are "important", they are either stupid or dishonest.

[Spurminator]

When have we been in a position to improve our team by 40 games in the past 10 years? The Celtics gutted their roster, which had been built on years of Lottery picks because of how bad they were. How can you possibly compare their situation to ours?

[peskypesky]

rascal's measure of success is blockbuster trades, not rings.

He has dismissed the 4 rings the Spurs won because they were lucky in the lotto.

I think he is actually unhappy for those rings. They don't help them push his agenda.

No one ever said anything about "blockbuster" trades. You are putting words in people's mouths instead of responding honestly and intelligently to their statements.

Rascal and others are talking about good trades for starting-caliber players. Not "blockbuster". Just a good, solid trade.

[Spurminator]

What's the difference between major and blockbuster? And if we're not talking about blockbuster trades, why are we talking about the Celtics?

[peskypesky]

Um, what?

I'm ready to say exactly what I said in my last post.

Isn't is amazing and sad how these losers keep putting words in our mouths instead of actually responding to what we did write?

I don't recall any of us (me, Rascal, you) saying we aren't happy with the Spurs' championships or saying that we won't win this year.

[peskypesky]

When have we been in a position to improve our team by 40 games in the past 10 years? The Celtics gutted their roster, which had been built on years of Lottery picks because of how bad they were. How can you possibly compare their situation to ours?

I never made a comparison of the Celtics to the Spurs. I used the Celtics as an example of how trades matter. Do you know what an example is? It is NOT a comparison. It is an example. If you ask me "don't all mammals live on land?", and I respond "dolphins don't", I am using dolphins as an EXAMPLE. I am not comparing them to anything.

In this case, someone asked the question "Why do trades matter?". I responded by using the Celtics as an example. Neither the question nor my response said ANYTHING about the Spurs.

I could have used MANY examples of other teams that have made trades that "matter". I just happened to use the Celtics, because anyone who's not being obtuse can clearly see that trades can and do matter.

Again, please try to comprehend the difference between an example and a comparison.

[Extra Stout]

The bottom line is the Celtics are improved and have a legitimate chance to go far in the playoffs with the moves they have made and that is a successful offseason.
And the Spurs don't have a legitimate chance to go far in the playoffs on account of their having failed to make trades.

[Holt's Cat]

It's amusing that the 1st reaction of a rather small minority is to bitch about a franchise that's delivered 3 titles in 5 years. Especially when the bitching is about something so open ended and non-specific as 'Spurs need to make trades'.

[Extra Stout]

I never made a comparison of the Celtics to the Spurs. I used the Celtics as an example of how trades matter. Do you know what an example is? It is NOT a comparison. It is an example. If you ask me "don't all mammals live on land?", and I respond "dolphins don't", I am using dolphins as an EXAMPLE. I am not comparing them to anything.

In this case, someone asked the question "Why do trades matter?". I responded by using the Celtics as an example. Neither the question nor my response said ANYTHING about the Spurs.

I could have used MANY examples of other teams that have made trades that "matter". I just happened to use the Celtics, because anyone who's not being obtuse can clearly see that trades can and do matter.

Again, please try to comprehend the difference between an example and a comparison.
Trades don't matter. Building a winning roster matters. Please explain to me what damn difference it makes whether that roster is built via the draft, via free agency, or via trades. So they haven't made a major trade in 10 years, during which time they've only won 4 freaking championships. Who gives a rat's ass? Are you just one of these RealGM geeks who gets more of a woody from your team's churning the roster than you do from their winning actual games?

[peskypesky]

What's the difference between major and blockbuster? And if we're not talking about blockbuster trades, why are we talking about the Celtics?

These are not scientific terms, but I think most of us know the difference. Shaq going to Miami was a blockbuster trade. Garnett going to Boston was a blockbuster trade.

Gasol going to the Lakers was not a blockbuster trade, but it was major. Kyle Korver going to Utah was not blockbuster, but it was major.

When a franchise player (or perennial all-star) is traded, that is usually blockbuster. A major trade is one which involves a starter. A lesser trade is one which involves bench players and scrubs. The last one is the specialty of the Spurs' FO.

[Extra Stout]

I have to say, I appreciate that Ghost Writer's presence emboldens the other nancies to out themselves.

[Spurminator]

I never made a comparison of the Celtics to the Spurs. I used the Celtics as an example of how trades matter. Do you know what an example is? It is NOT a comparison. It is an example. If you ask me "don't all mammals live on land?", and I respond "dolphins don't", I am using dolphins as an EXAMPLE. I am not comparing them to anything.

In this case, someone asked the question "Why do trades matter?". I responded by using the Celtics as an example. Neither the question nor my response said ANYTHING about the Spurs.

I could have used MANY examples of other teams that have made trades that "matter". I just happened to use the Celtics, because anyone who's not being obtuse can clearly see that trades can and do matter.

Again, please try to comprehend the difference between an example and a comparison.


Your smart-ass posting style is not congruent with your debating skills. Why would you use an example that is not relevant to the topic?

The original question was why does it matter that the Spurs have not made any big trades. Your response referenced the Celtics. If you didn't intend to draw a comparison between the two you should have chosen a better "example."

You have yet to address the reasons that have been given to you that detail WHY the Spurs have not been as active in trades.

[Holt's Cat]

Trades don't matter. Building a winning roster matters. Please explain to me what damn difference it makes whether that roster is built via the draft, via free agency, or via trades. So they haven't made a major trade in 10 years, during which time they've only won 4 freaking championships. Who gives a rat's ass? Are you just one of these RealGM geeks who gets more of a woody from your team's churning the roster than you do from their winning actual games?

Exactly. Some focus a tad bit much on the means. The franchise found a way to win championships and keep Duncan here for most likely his entire career. Shit, they managed to persuade him to take a little less on his extension. Duncan's given the front office a big vote of confidence, but obviously he doesn't have as much at stake as these numbnuts.

[MadDog73]

Trading just for trading's sake is silly.

If the last 9 years have shown anything, it's that the Veteran team wins Championships. Whenever a team tries to stack the deck (the 2004 Lakers for example), they lose to a better team.

[peskypesky]

Trades don't matter. Building a winning roster matters. Please explain to me what damn difference it makes whether that roster is built via the draft, via free agency, or via trades. So they haven't made a major trade in 10 years, during which time they've only won 4 freaking championships. Who gives a rat's ass? Are you just one of these RealGM geeks who gets more of a woody from your team's churning the roster than you do from their winning actual games?

You're right when you say building winning rosters matters. You're wrong when you say trades don't matter. How do you explain Miami winning the Championship in 2006 if you say that the trade for Shaq "didn't matter". You are being obtuse on purpose.

And once again, you put words in my mouth. I don't play RealGM and I don't get a woody from roster-churning.

I'm psyched the Spurs have won 4 Championships in 10 years. But wouldn't 5 or 6 or 7 been better? Wouldn't a repeat have been awesome?

[ChumpDumper]

You're right when you say building winning rosters matters. You're wrong when you say trades don't matter. How do you explain Miami winning the Championship in 2006 if you say that the trade for Shaq "didn't matter". You are being obtuse on purpose.

And once again, you put words in my mouth. I don't play RealGM and I don't get a woody from roster-churning.

I'm psyched the Spurs have won 4 Championships in 10 years. But wouldn't 5 or 6 or 7 been better? Wouldn't a repeat have been awesome?So you're guaranteeing retroactive imaginary championships.

Bold.

[MadDog73]

You're right when you say building winning rosters matters. You're wrong when you say trades don't matter. How do you explain Miami winning the Championship in 2006 if you say that the trade for Shaq "didn't matter". You are being obtuse on purpose.


I'll say it didn't matter as much as you think...

Wade kicks _allas ass even without Shaq.

And if Shaq was so important to the Heat, why did they trade him in?

[Ghost Writer]

I have to say, I appreciate that Ghost Writer's presence emboldens the other nancies to out themselves.
:lol


One interesting thing that has been brought to light is that you could argue that because the front office drafted Duncan, Parker and Manu, the did not feel the urgency to sign or trade for another star/starting quality player.

I just bemoan that they have not done so the virtually ensure the Spurs dominance.

A repeat title this year is important to me as a simple fan.

[Extra Stout]

You're right when you say building winning rosters matters. You're wrong when you say trades don't matter. How do you explain Miami winning the Championship in 2006 if you say that the trade for Shaq "didn't matter". You are being obtuse on purpose.

And once again, you put words in my mouth. I don't play RealGM and I don't get a woody from roster-churning.

I'm psyched the Spurs have won 4 Championships in 10 years. But wouldn't 5 or 6 or 7 been better? Wouldn't a repeat have been awesome?
The Spurs have built a roster based upon a nucleus of 3 relatively young players, with veteran role players as the supporting cast. Typically, those role players have more value to the Spurs than they would to other teams, because of their "corporate knowledge" of the Spurs' system. This strategy is not amenable to making "major trades" because the Spurs aren't going to break up the Big 3, and the role-player veterans are not that enticing to other teams.

You're bringing up other teams that obviously weren't going anywhere, and traded away their young talent to teams that were holding fire sales for their superstars. This cannot be held as comparable to the Spurs' situation. What, were the Timberwolves going to trade Kevin Garnett for Elson, Barry, Mahinmi, and the 29th pick in the draft?

It should not be necessary to argue why breaking up the big 3 is a bad idea. If you're entertaining the thought that they should, just do everyone a favor and stick a gun in your mouth.

It is patently absurd to claim that some unspecified "trade" would have garnered the Spurs multiple championships. Such a claim is not only speculative, it is unfalsifiable. You don't even have to dwell in the reality of what was even possible to make such a claim. You just say that the Spurs lost, and the reason is that they didn't make a trade. You sound like one of those Republicans who think that if anything goes bad with the economy, the reason is that there weren't enough tax cuts.

And you think I'm the obtuse one?

[Holt's Cat]

Shit man, I remember the Spurs unable to put together any semblance of a supporting cast around DRob back in the 90s. Of course, a lot of that was driven by the old cap rules (similiar to MLB cap rules), some unfortunate injuries, and one unfortunate owner (though he was good at keeping the Spurs in SA). Those were truly frustrating days. You new age Spurs fans have it good.

[Jobbs]

Rodman for Elliott and the player the Spurs drafted in the first round that year.

That rocked me. Sean was one of my favorite players back then. Rodman was my favorite player after his first season in SA. Luckly we got Sean back. I still think if we kept Rodman, we would've won a title in 96, 97, or 98. Then again, we may not have Duncan.

[Spurminator]

:lol


One interesting thing that has been brought to light is that you could argue that because the front office drafted Duncan, Parker and Manu, the did not feel the urgency to sign or trade for another star/starting quality player.

I just bemoan that they have not done so the virtually ensure the Spurs dominance.

A repeat title this year is important to me as a simple fan.


They've also spent a lot of money on those guys they drafted, which leaves less for other FA possibilities.

[Holt's Cat]

Yeah, nevermind stuff like the salary cap, contracts, draft picks, and the fact the Spurs build supporting casts to win, not to make trades.

[Ghost Writer]

They've also spent a lot of money on those guys they drafted, which leaves less for other FA possibilities.
True that.

As fans, we sometimes make criticism in a vacuum without studying the circumstances surrounding why moves were or were not made.

[FromWayDowntown]

True that.

As fans, we sometimes make criticism in a vacuum without studying the circumstances surrounding why moves were or were not made.

Ignoring the fact that those circumstances are pointed out repeatedly.

[Ghost Writer]

Ignoring the fact that those circumstances are pointed out repeatedly.
Oh, jeezus krist, dude.

You can't even follow the logical flow of a thread, let alone take credit for illustrating the chess-like machinations of how teams are built and moves are made.

[Ghost Writer]

Yeah, nevermind stuff like the salary cap, contracts, draft picks, and the fact the Spurs build supporting casts to win, not to make trades.
You can kidnly STFU if this Popportunistic Artest deal is made and the Spurs actually make a move to improve the team's chances outside the draft.

[ChumpDumper]

You can kidnly STFU if this Popportunistic Artest deal is made and the Spurs actually make a move to improve the team's chances outside the draft.Well, this season the cap issues create the conditions for the Spurs' being able to be involved in many more potential trades than in previous years.

Smart people had that figured out in October.

[Ghost Writer]

Well, this season the cap issues create the conditions for the Spurs' being able to be involved in many more potential trades than in previous years.

Smart people had that figured out in October.
Are you calling Holt's Cat "dumb"?

And don't get it twisted... there is more urgency to get a deal done this time around.

[ChumpDumper]

Are you calling Holt's Cat "dumb"?Nah, he understood what the cap watchers like Bruno pointed out in October.


And don't get it twisted... there is more urgency to get a deal done this time around.It's not twisted. It's merely possible this year when in years past it was not.

The only constant has been your bitching regardless of the circumstances.

[FromWayDowntown]

Oh, jeezus krist, dude.

You can't even follow the logical flow of a thread, let alone take credit for illustrating the chess-like machinations of how teams are built and moves are made.

Taking exception with your nonsense is difficult to do without interrupting whatever "logical flow" you anticipate.

By the way, excellent discussion yesterday about sign-and-trades. Serious knowledge.

[Holt's Cat]

Acquiring Artest doesn't really address what the Spurs have been trying to do this season in acquiring another swingman. Ideally they are looking for someone like, well, Barry or Finley. Someone who can swing between the 2 and 3. With the weak free agent swingman market and Barry and Finley's contracts ending, as well as their age, this made a lot of sense. Bringing in Artest doesn't really address that. I would expect to see some shuffling this summer and probably the Spurs bringing Finley back for one more year.

[Ghost Writer]

Nah, he understood what the cap watchers like Bruno pointed out in October.

It's not twisted. It's merely possible this year when in years past it was not.

The only constant has been your bitching regardless of the circumstances.
:lol

Fvck you.

Don't act like a midseason trade was never possible.

[ChumpDumper]

:lol

Fvck you.

Don't act like a midseason trade was never possible.It often was not. Especially the kind of crap trades you were squeezing out on a regular basis.

[Ghost Writer]

Taking exception with your nonsense is difficult to do without interrupting whatever "logical flow" you anticipate.

By the way, excellent discussion yesterday about sign-and-trades. Serious knowledge.
What?

Please, I beg you to read the posts within a thread and stick to the topics at hand.

What will you do if the Spurs trade for Artest?

[Ghost Writer]

It often was not. Especially the kind of crap trades you were squeezing out on a regular basis.
One example, please.

Good talk.