Spurs, Not Pistons, Need Major Retooling

[duncan228]

http://www.nysun.com/sports/spurs-not-pistons-need-major-retooling/79176/

Spurs, Not Pistons, Need Major Retooling
By JOHN HOLLINGER

It's the Lakers and the Celtics in the NBA Finals, and the world is rejoicing.

We'll get into all that starting tomorrow. But for now, let's have some words for the losers.

Both San Antonio and Detroit find themselves in similar straights today, coming off disappointing conference finals defeats and staring down Father Time in the mirror. It promises to be an interesting offseason for each team.

For the past six seasons, these have been the two most successful franchises in basketball. Detroit made the conference finals every one of those years — ponder for a second how consistently good a team must be to pull that feat off — and won the title in 2004. San Antonio won three championships in that time; in each of the other three, they lost to the eventual conference champ.

Yet, each has to be questioning whether they'll make it back to this point anytime soon. Both clubs are rife with age issues. If they stand pat, each will enter 2008-09 with only one starter under the age of 30 (oddly, they have the same initials). San Antonio's Tony Parker (26) and Detroit's Tayshaun Prince (28) are what passes for youth on these two clubs, while the other eight starters are almost certain to decline in the coming seasons.

To hear most people tell it, the Spurs are the ones more likely to stand pat, while the Pistons are the ones who need to perform major surgery. Alas, this has everything to do with the halo of being a recent champion and nothing to do with the facts of the two teams. The way I see it, the exact opposite is true.

The consternation in Detroit is understandable. This is the third straight year they've lost in the conference finals, and in two of these three they were overwhelming favorites entering the series. Additionally, the Pistons haven't achieved the ultimate goal of winning the title since 2004, while San Antonio has tasted glory twice since then.

It seems, then, that all options are on the table. For starters, speculation is rampant that Detroit will fire head coach Flip Saunders. At the very least, he's unlikely to get an extension and will enter next year as a lame duck.

That's unfortunate, because Saunders appeared to do one of his best coaching jobs this season. He guided the club to 59 wins while bending over backward to keep his vets fresh for the postseason — no player averaged more than 34 minutes per game. He also played the kids and developed the bench much more than in past seasons, with the result that youngsters such as Rodney Stuckey and Jason Maxiell were huge contributors come playoff time.

If you really wanted to quibble, you could point to his use of decrepit vet Theo Ratliff ahead of rising star Amir Johnson in the postseason, but given the small number of minutes that were at stake, it's hard to see how this altered Detroit's destiny much. And his other moves — such as benching the ineffective Jarvis Hayes and reinstating Antonio McDyess as a starter — were spot-on.

Beyond that, the sentiment in Motown is that they have to make some kind of move — something, anything-- as a result of falling short three straight years. Within 48 hours, I read different opinion pieces in Detroit papers advocating trading Prince, Richard Hamilton, and Rasheed Wallace. In no case was it made clear what the Pistons would gain by such a move.

This is when it's useful to take a step back and remind people that only one of the league's 30 teams wins a title each year, and that Detroit was in as good as position as anyone to claim it before Chauncey Billups hurt his hamstring. Yes, it's frustrating, but that's the league.

Undoubtedly, there are age concerns. When next season tips off, Billups will be 32, Hamilton will be 30, and Wallace and McDyess will both be 34. But Pistons general manager Joe Dumars has done an outstanding job of managing his cap and bringing in younger players.

As a result, Maxiell (25), Stuckey (22), Johnson (21), and Arron Afflalo (who will be 23 next season) are ready to ride in to the rescue. Stuckey and Johnson in particular appear to be stars in the making, and within a year or two could be pushing their older mates for starting gigs. Moreover, Dumars will have his cap exceptions ready to wield because he's kept the Pistons well below the league's luxury tax threshold.

The alternative is to focus on the unhappy ending rather than the process of building a team. There's another word for that, and it's called panic. If Dumars wants a couple examples to dissuade him from that course, he need only look at Phoenix and Dallas. Each thought they had to do something after a series of near-misses, and each made foolish gambles on fading superstars that only hastened their demise.

The Spurs, on the other hand, stand on much shakier ground. Like Dumars, general manager R.C. Buford has managed his cap extremely well and heads into the summer ready to use his exceptions — and remember, these are powerful weapons for strong teams because most quality vets want to play for a winner.

But the rest of the picture is much bleaker. Like the Pistons, the Spurs have serious age problems among the starters. When the 2008-09 season begins, Tim Duncan will be 32, Manu Ginobili 31, Bruce Bowen 37, and Fabricio Oberto 33.

Unlike the Pistons, however, the Spurs have virtually no youth in reserve. In fact, the bench is even older than the starters. Michael Finley (35), Kurt Thomas (35), Brent Barry (36), Ime Udoka (who will be 31), and Jacque Vaughn (33) all are likely to decline rapidly, while Robert Horry (who will be 38) is likely to retire and no longer good enough to help if he doesn't.

Moreover, San Antonio's strategy of stockpiling players in Europe until they are needed has hit a snag thanks to the dollar's decline against the euro, all but eliminating the financial incentive to cross the pond. 2006 first-round pick Tiago Splitter reportedly decided to rebuff their advances to sign in Spain for two more years, where he can make a lot more money than under the NBA's rookie salary scale. Other than Parker, the only player under 27 is 2005 first-rounder Ian Mahinmi, a raw big man who spent most of the year in the D-League.

So when you look at the futures of these two incredibly successful teams, don't let the champions' halo fool you. Looking backward, it may seem as if Detroit is the team in need of urgent action. But looking forward, it's the Spurs who require much more radical surgery to stay at the league's forefront

[Mr.Bottomtooth]

I read this earlier. I disagreed with it.

[BlackSwordsMan]

hollinger is shit

[duncan228]

I read this earlier.

Sorry if it was posted already. I looked but didn't see it.

[Mr.Bottomtooth]

Sorry if it was posted already. I looked but didn't see it.

Oh no, it wasn't posted, I read the actual article from the paper's website.

[AFBlue]

Not a terrible take, but this is what happens when a stat-geek starts to talk strategy.

[Mr.Bottomtooth]

Spurs, Not Pistons, Need Major Retooling
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=3423956

Apparently the Pistons themselves don't agree with this.

[Lake_show]

I read this earlier. I disagreed with it.

Spurs fans are always in denial.

[Mr.Bottomtooth]

Spurs fans are always in denial.

Not necessarily.

[K-State Spur]

Me thinks the complaints from Spurs fans are getting to him.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

Hollinger finally gets it right. Of course he is on the money. The Pistons have two young guards, and two young forwards ready to come in and take over. We have Ian, and we don't even know if he's ready, and that's it.

I think the Pistons will offload Sheed to make time for Johnson and Maxiell, and really, that's all they need to do.

OTOH, we need to find 2 young swings, another young big, and a backup PG, with very few trade assets and a tight cap situation.

[xcoriate]

What's not to agree with?

The Pistons are in a much better spot that the Spurs youth wise, I'm not sure on there cap figure but I imagine thats decent as well.

Pop and RC have neglected developing any youth since Parker... there are young benches around the league performing valuably now... and will perform even better in the future. See the Lakers and Pistons as the prominent examples.

Spurs need a major youth injection now, arguing against this is naive. Pop needs to bring some kids at low cost, develop them and not wall them up in the dog house at every turnover. They'll make mistakes but you live with them for the future rewards.

[bdubya]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=3423956

Apparently the Pistons themselves don't agree with this.

For the Pistons, sacking the coach doesn't qualify as major retooling; it's closer to "routine housekeeping." (Not saying that's a good thing...it's just not unusual).

[ShoogarBear]

Hollinger certainly was right about Manu declining in 2008, wasn't he?

[lefty]

Hollinger needs major retooling

[K-State Spur]

Hollinger finally gets it right. Of course he is on the money. The Pistons have two young guards, and two young forwards ready to come in and take over. We have Ian, and we don't even know if he's ready, and that's it.

I think the Pistons will offload Sheed to make time for Johnson and Maxiell, and really, that's all they need to do.

OTOH, we need to find 2 young swings, another young big, and a backup PG, with very few trade assets and a tight cap situation.

Ready to take over? They've got a younger bench than us, obviously. But there is no reason to believe that these guys can come in and be championship caliber starters any time soon.

Maxiell is a great effort guy - but he's basically just their version of Malik Rose.

I like Affalo and Stuckey, but they are a long ways off from being dependable on a team competing for the crown.

[td4mvp21]

Honestly, we need better role players. That's what fucked us over this postseason. Manu's injury wouldn't have been a problem had our role players been able to step up like the Lakers' role players did for them. The Big Three + Bowen are fine, but we can't keep getting shitty role players who are all defense orientated yet somehow get lit up by younger players while offering no consistent production on offense.

[timvp]

Hollinger is wrong once again. Completely healthy, Spurs >>> Pistons. Hollinger's article reads as if he's saying Spurs = Pistons right now. Give me a 100% healthy Spurs squad and I'm pretty damn confident against anyone.

Secondly, calling Stuckey and Johnson "stars in the making" is a bit of a stretch. I'm a fan of both players and I think they can be really good but neither one is going to be a star in the next few years. By the time that duo comes into their prime, their current real stars will be washed up.

And then when you look at the two teams, I'd say Rasheed is the Pistons' best player and Duncan is the Spurs' best player. Rasheed not only is getting up there in age, he seems to have burned bridges. Without Rasheed, it'd be difficult for the Pistons to be a championship contender. They could pull off a trade and try to turn Rasheed into a comparable part ... but that's not easy.

Truth be told, neither team is in horrible shape. But it's much easier for the Spurs to make the moves they need to do to make another championship run. The Spurs have no chemistry issues. Their best three players are happy and locked up contractually. Finding a scoring swingman, a backup point guard and a perhaps a backup big isn't exactly that tough. Sure, we'd like those players to be young, but they don't have to be young.

The Pistons, on the other hand, have to work in a new coach. Probably trade Rasheed. Find a starting center. The chemistry on the team isn't the greatest. Due to all the deep runs into the playoffs, their main players have a ton of mileage on them. Stuckey and Johnson will help but both will just quality as good bench players next year.

If we're talking about which of the two teams remains in the better position to win championships in the next 2-4 years, it's easily the Spurs. Pistons have a brighter future if you look 5+ years down the line but I don't think anyone really cares about 2013 right now.

[The Truth #6]

Hollinger is wrong once again. Completely healthy, Spurs >>> Pistons. Hollinger's article reads as if he's saying Spurs = Pistons right now. Give me a 100% healthy Spurs squad and I'm pretty damn confident against anyone.

Secondly, calling Stuckey and Johnson "stars in the making" is a bit of a stretch. I'm a fan of both players and I think they can be really good but neither one is going to be a star in the next few years. By the time that duo comes into their prime, their current real stars will be washed up.

And then when you look at the two teams, I'd say Rasheed is the Pistons' best player and Duncan is the Spurs' best player. Rasheed not only is getting up there in age, he seems to have burned bridges. Without Rasheed, it'd be difficult for the Pistons to be a championship contender. They could pull off a trade and try to turn Rasheed into a comparable part ... but that's not easy.

Truth be told, neither team is in horrible shape. But it's much easier for the Spurs to make the moves they need to do to make another championship run. The Spurs have no chemistry issues. Their best three players are happy and locked up contractually. Finding a scoring swingman, a backup point guard and a perhaps a backup big isn't exactly that tough. Sure, we'd like those players to be young, but they don't have to be young.

The Pistons, on the other hand, have to work in a new coach. Probably trade Rasheed. Find a starting center. The chemistry on the team isn't the greatest. Due to all the deep runs into the playoffs, their main players have a ton of mileage on them. Stuckey and Johnson will help but both will just quality as good bench players next year.

If we're talking about which of the two teams remains in the better position to win championships in the next 2-4 years, it's easily the Spurs. Pistons have a brighter future if you look 5+ years down the line but I don't think anyone really cares about 2013 right now.


In regards to your point about being healthy, I think it's going to be a challenge for our Big 3 to be healthy/rested for the playoffs if they have to do all the heavy lifting in the regular season. A productive bench is crucial to take the stress off our core. Without that, we're creating a negative feedback loop of wearing out Tony, Tim, and Manu. The Pistons have a young productive bench to develop and give relief to their stars. Stuckey may not be a star in the making, but he sure isn't Beno who folded under pressure.

Yes, we need to fill in a few spots. How difficult will that be? For our new players to be legitimate additions, I think it will be not as easy as you describe, nonetheless, I hope the FO can make the right decisions.

[K-State Spur]

Hollinger is wrong once again. Completely healthy, Spurs >>> Pistons. Hollinger's article reads as if he's saying Spurs = Pistons right now. Give me a 100% healthy Spurs squad and I'm pretty damn confident against anyone.

Secondly, calling Stuckey and Johnson "stars in the making" is a bit of a stretch. I'm a fan of both players and I think they can be really good but neither one is going to be a star in the next few years. By the time that duo comes into their prime, their current real stars will be washed up.

And then when you look at the two teams, I'd say Rasheed is the Pistons' best player and Duncan is the Spurs' best player. Rasheed not only is getting up there in age, he seems to have burned bridges. Without Rasheed, it'd be difficult for the Pistons to be a championship contender. They could pull off a trade and try to turn Rasheed into a comparable part ... but that's not easy.

Truth be told, neither team is in horrible shape. But it's much easier for the Spurs to make the moves they need to do to make another championship run. The Spurs have no chemistry issues. Their best three players are happy and locked up contractually. Finding a scoring swingman, a backup point guard and a perhaps a backup big isn't exactly that tough. Sure, we'd like those players to be young, but they don't have to be young.

The Pistons, on the other hand, have to work in a new coach. Probably trade Rasheed. Find a starting center. The chemistry on the team isn't the greatest. Due to all the deep runs into the playoffs, their main players have a ton of mileage on them. Stuckey and Johnson will help but both will just quality as good bench players next year.

If we're talking about which of the two teams remains in the better position to win championships in the next 2-4 years, it's easily the Spurs. Pistons have a brighter future if you look 5+ years down the line but I don't think anyone really cares about 2013 right now.

exactly. yes, based on current personnel, the pistons are looking at a brighter distant future than the Spurs. but would it shock anyone if a Stuckey/Affalo/Maxiell triumverate along with their younger role guys top out as a bottom tier playoff team (or less)?

In terms of the core guys who you can build a championship team around, the Spurs have a longer shelf life.

[angelbelow]

the media has been all over lakers and celtics all year. im not surprised were getting all these articles and analsysts picking against us.

[timmydidit]

interesting

[mytespurs]

The only thing I agree with is that the Spurs need to add youth to this team.

[SenorSpur]

As of right now, I'd take the Pistons bench over ours easily. As far as his take on the Spurs, it's not like he is lying - especially in reference to the FO's "Euro-only" drafting philosophy taking a huge hit. That, above all else, has contributed to the fact that there is no current pipeline of younger talent ready to come aboard.

The Spurs may be able to retool the holes over the offseason (and I hope they do). Yet the age and skill limitations of the current roster were obvious even before reading this article.

[K-State Spur]

As of right now, I'd take the Pistons bench over ours easily. As far as his take on the Spurs, it's not like he is lying - especially in reference to the FO's "Euro-only" drafting philosophy taking a huge hit. That, above all else, has contributed to the fact that there is no current pipeline of younger talent ready to come aboard.


And - moving forward - I'd take our core over theirs. It's much easier to retool benches and role players on the fly than it is to find guys you can build your championship team around.

[wildbill2u]

Hollinger is wrong once again. Completely healthy, Spurs >>> Pistons. Hollinger's article reads as if he's saying Spurs = Pistons right now. Give me a 100% healthy Spurs squad and I'm pretty damn confident against anyone.

Secondly, calling Stuckey and Johnson "stars in the making" is a bit of a stretch. I'm a fan of both players and I think they can be really good but neither one is going to be a star in the next few years. By the time that duo comes into their prime, their current real stars will be washed up.

And then when you look at the two teams, I'd say Rasheed is the Pistons' best player and Duncan is the Spurs' best player. Rasheed not only is getting up there in age, he seems to have burned bridges. Without Rasheed, it'd be difficult for the Pistons to be a championship contender. They could pull off a trade and try to turn Rasheed into a comparable part ... but that's not easy.

Truth be told, neither team is in horrible shape. But it's much easier for the Spurs to make the moves they need to do to make another championship run. The Spurs have no chemistry issues. Their best three players are happy and locked up contractually. Finding a scoring swingman, a backup point guard and a perhaps a backup big isn't exactly that tough. Sure, we'd like those players to be young, but they don't have to be young.

The Pistons, on the other hand, have to work in a new coach. Probably trade Rasheed. Find a starting center. The chemistry on the team isn't the greatest. Due to all the deep runs into the playoffs, their main players have a ton of mileage on them. Stuckey and Johnson will help but both will just quality as good bench players next year.

If we're talking about which of the two teams remains in the better position to win championships in the next 2-4 years, it's easily the Spurs. Pistons have a brighter future if you look 5+ years down the line but I don't think anyone really cares about 2013 right now.


I think you misread the point of the article. This wasn't about who could beat who in a game today. It was about who will have the easiest job to retool.

1.He's right that Detroit has some good, if not spectacular, young players to backup their stars while we have nothing but aging vets who are even older than our starters.

2. He's right that the Spurs have no young good players with proven ability if Splitter stays in Europe. Ian is still a crapshoot and we cling to the idea he'll be a Messiah--because we have to. We have no one else.

3. He's right that our Euro 'draft and stash' strategy has crashed due to the change in financial position of the Euro teams vs. the NBA.

4. He's right that most of our backups "is even older than the starters. Michael Finley (35), Kurt Thomas (35), Brent Barry (36), Ime Udoka (who will be 31), and Jacque Vaughn (33) all are likely to decline rapidly, while Robert Horry (who will be 38) is likely to retire and no longer good enough to help if he doesn't." Who among them has trade value to get a good bench player--or to replace Oberto and Finley/Barry as starters if resting Manu continues to be the preferred option.

5. What about our own deep runs into the playoffs wearing our players out? In addition we have at least three players, OBerto, Manu and Tony who continue to put on extra miles as reps for their countries in international play. I'd say you took the bad side of that argument.

6. While neither team is in horrible shape and can rest on its systems and signed stars to keep them in contention during the regular season (barring injuries) and relatively deep into the playoffs, the lack of past good drafts and drafting position is not in the Spurs favor for various reasons.

7. While we have plenty of cap space in 2010, we have too many spots to fill. You wrote that "finding a scoring swing man, backup PG and perhaps a backup big isn't exactly that tough." Not tough? Let me refer you to the failures:

PG: Beno, Stoudamire, NVE, Washington
C/PF: Elson, James White, Bonner, Ely, Scola/Splitter disasters
SF: Sato, Williams, Hedo, all those bums they brought in for a ten day look this year? Udoka's grade is still in doubt. Who else have they found and signed? This position seems to be the toughest of all.

You're overly optimistic. The FO MAY be able to find some FA with talent and a few good years left--but right now we have too many holes to fill to rely on luck and the judgment we've demonstrated lately.

[FromWayDowntown]

If anything, I think the conference finals make timvp's point quite well.

Think about it, each team played with an injured star (Billups and Ginobili). With that being the case, the Spurs group of aged role players was perilously close to winning Games 1 and 4 of that series -- that with virtually no contribution from those players. One could make an argument, I think, that with slight upgrades and the infusion of just a bit more athleticism, the Spurs could be (should be) preparing for the Celtics and the Finals. Upgrading from getting nothing from your role players isn't a very hard thing to do and the Spurs have flexibility to make moves to modify their roster accordingly. Duncan showed again during the playoffs that: (1) the monitoring of his minutes allows him to continue to be at his best at playoff time; and (2) he remains a dominant player on both ends in big moments. There are certainly questions about the possibility of an erosion in Ginobili's health (or at least the delicacy of his body) but those questions can be met, to some extent at least by minute conservation during the regular season. And Parker is truly just entering his prime as a player. That Big 3 might not be all that it once was, but it's still among the elite trios in the association and the ability of those guys to play through just about anything is probably unparalleled in the league at the moment. Get them some consistent help and it seems reasonable to assume that they can be even more effective.

Meanwhile, the Pistons have their youth and athleticism to go along with their veteran core of guys who've been there and done that. The Pistons got production from their youth (at least from Stuckey and Maxiell) during the ECF and still lost. While it's likely that Stuckey and Maxiell and Johnson will show improvement into next season, the Pistons' successes have been built on a core that is showing signs of deterioration. Can Stuckey and Maxiell ever give the Pistons the same sort of production that they got from Billups and Wallace? If not, the Pistons need to upgrade involves finding stars (or at least starters) who can match what they got from the old guard.

I'm not sure that any of this is very clear, but I guess I think that the Spurs can truly believe that with some tweaking of the identities of their role players, they're really close to the current incarnation of the Lakers, who seem likely to end up with the gold ball. And the tweaking the Spurs need seems to be quite do-able. I wonder if the Pistons are going to be able to do the same.

There's no doubt that the Spurs need to make some changes, but at this point, it might be more about purchasing new furniture than building a new house.

[TypicalSpursHater]

Since the Spurs got eliminated they will have to make major changes if they want to match up to the lakers

[spursfan98]

Since the Spurs got eliminated they will have to make major changes if they want to match up to the lakers

You're a fucking idiot. Who's troll is this?

[1Parker1]

You can argue that as long as the Spurs have Pop, Duncan, Parker, and Ginobili, they'll always have a chance at a title.

You can't argue that as long as the Pistons have Coach X, Rasheed, Billips, and Hamilton that they'll always have a chance at a title. For one, because their coaching carosel continues and it's always hard for a team to adjust to a new coach. Secondly, Rasheed is about as inconsistent and volatile as you can get. His play dictates how the Pistons will do.

[bdubya]

Spurs' core is only 3 guys instead of 5, so it's easier to upgrade. Upgrading from Finley or Oberto without touching the big 3 is doable. But upgrading any Pistons starter without taking a step back at another position or gutting a promising bench is much trickier.

The X-factor is the new fine for flopping. Manu's game is going to take a big hit. The Pistons' big flopper is Rip, and no more flopping will probably make him MORE productive (the refs never buy his shit anyway, so he might as well give it a rest.)

[timvp]

As of right now, I'd take the Pistons bench over ours easily.Yeah that is pretty obvious. If this article was solely about how the Spurs have a harder job retooling their bench, then yeah I'd agree. But in terms of total retooling, the Spurs have a much, much easier time. It's a lot easier to sign a couple needed role players than to bring in a new coach and alter the main core like the Pistons have to do.

[Ocotillo]

On Houston radio today they are addressing a rumor about a trade with Detroit.

According to the hosts, it would be Rip Hamilton and Sheed for TMac. Not sure about required filler but those would be the big names involved. I don't think Detroit helps itself with that trade. I like TMac but has he ever put a team on his back and gotten beyond the first round? Can he stay healthy?

Also, they said Battier may be available if the Rockets keep Yao and TMac. There is your Bowen Jr. although the Rockets are probably smart enough not to help out a division rival even if they do owe us one. :lol

If the Detroit trade were to happen, ironically Scola might be available as they would be deep at power forward with Sheed, Landry and Scola.

[timvp]

I think you misread the point of the article. This wasn't about who could beat who in a game today. It was about who will have the easiest job to retool.I understand that but if the object of retooling is winning a championship, their current state has to be taken into account. Unless the goal is something other than championship, you don't just automatically start both teams out at the same level.


1.He's right that Detroit has some good, if not spectacular, young players to backup their stars while we have nothing but aging vets who are even older than our starters. Never disagreed with that. That's a pretty obvious statement, though. But a lot of lottery teams have a better bench than the Spurs. That doesn't mean they're closer to retooling for a championship.


2. He's right that the Spurs have no young good players with proven ability if Splitter stays in Europe. Ian is still a crapshoot and we cling to the idea he'll be a Messiah--because we have to. We have no one else.Spurs had no young players last year and won the championship. Young players are nice but not a mandatory part of winning.


3. He's right that our Euro 'draft and stash' strategy has crashed due to the change in financial position of the Euro teams vs. the NBA. It's mostly crashed because the players they've drafted weren't good enough. Splitter is the only one that has been affected by the devaluation of the dollar.


4. He's right that most of our backups "is even older than the starters. Michael Finley (35), Kurt Thomas (35), Brent Barry (36), Ime Udoka (who will be 31), and Jacque Vaughn (33) all are likely to decline rapidly, while Robert Horry (who will be 38) is likely to retire and no longer good enough to help if he doesn't." Who among them has trade value to get a good bench player--or to replace Oberto and Finley/Barry as starters if resting Manu continues to be the preferred option.When is the last time the Spurs made a trade that sent away someone with trade value? The Spurs make trades to either salary dump players or receive salary dump players. I can't even remember the last time the Spurs made a trade in which they sent out someone with value to receive value. That's not the Spurs way, for whatever reason.


5. What about our own deep runs into the playoffs wearing our players out? In addition we have at least three players, OBerto, Manu and Tony who continue to put on extra miles as reps for their countries in international play. I'd say you took the bad side of that argument.The Pistons' starters have played a lot more minutes during their runs. Pop not only limits minutes but on top of that, the Spurs haven't always made it to the conference finals. The Pistons have always made it and their starters play bigger minutes.


6. While neither team is in horrible shape and can rest on its systems and signed stars to keep them in contention during the regular season (barring injuries) and relatively deep into the playoffs, the lack of past good drafts and drafting position is not in the Spurs favor for various reasons.It'd be nice to have rookies in the pipeline ready to roll in San Antonio. But it's a hundred times more important to have a successful core and a coach with working knowledge of leading that core to multiple championships. What Spurs fan would trade three or four solid young players in exchange for Pop being fired and one of the Big Three being unhappy?


7. While we have plenty of cap space in 2010, we have too many spots to fill. You wrote that "finding a scoring swing man, backup PG and perhaps a backup big isn't exactly that tough." Not tough? Let me refer you to the failures:

PG: Beno, Stoudamire, NVE, Washington
C/PF: Elson, James White, Bonner, Ely, Scola/Splitter disasters
SF: Sato, Williams, Hedo, all those bums they brought in for a ten day look this year? Udoka's grade is still in doubt. Who else have they found and signed? This position seems to be the toughest of all.

You're overly optimistic. The FO MAY be able to find some FA with talent and a few good years left--but right now we have too many holes to fill to rely on luck and the judgment we've demonstrated lately.Finding a scoring wing, a backup PG and maybe a backup big isn't that hard. The hardest one is finding the scoring wing but perimeter players who can score are a dime a dozen in the NBA. If you must have a need in the NBA, you'd want the need to be a swingman who can score 9-11 points per game. Those guys are everywhere and it's the easiest thing to get your hands on.

Backup point guard isn't too difficult. You can always find a couple good ones ... even if you aren't offering over the minimum. And heck, if you don't find one you can always use Barry/Ginobili as the backup PG. Even Vaughn could steal some regular season minutes.

The backup big isn't too mandatory either. If the Spurs enter next season with Oberto, Thomas, Bonner, Horry and Mahinmi next to Duncan ... that'd be good enough.

I just don't see the doom and gloom a lot of Spurs fans see. If TD, Manu and TP are healthy next year in the playoffs, the Spurs will have another very good shot. They need to add some role players but all the important pieces are in place. The Spurs know they need to add the role players and I think they'll figure out a way to do it. The full MLE and three draft picks isn't a whole lot to work with but it's the most assets the Spurs have had in a while.

And yeah, I'd take the Spurs' retooling of having to find a couple role players to the alternative of having to replace Pop and trade Tim.

[SenorSpur]

Yeah that is pretty obvious. If this article was solely about how the Spurs have a harder job retooling their bench, then yeah I'd agree. But in terms of total retooling, the Spurs have a much, much easier time. It's a lot easier to sign a couple needed role players than to bring in a new coach and alter the main core like the Pistons have to do.

That's also obvious. Wouldn't it be sweet if the Spurs had their existing core and the Pistons bench depth? Okay, now I'm awake. :lol

[timvp]

If anything, I think the conference finals make timvp's point quite well.

Think about it, each team played with an injured star (Billups and Ginobili). With that being the case, the Spurs group of aged role players was perilously close to winning Games 1 and 4 of that series -- that with virtually no contribution from those players. One could make an argument, I think, that with slight upgrades and the infusion of just a bit more athleticism, the Spurs could be (should be) preparing for the Celtics and the Finals. Upgrading from getting nothing from your role players isn't a very hard thing to do and the Spurs have flexibility to make moves to modify their roster accordingly. Duncan showed again during the playoffs that: (1) the monitoring of his minutes allows him to continue to be at his best at playoff time; and (2) he remains a dominant player on both ends in big moments. There are certainly questions about the possibility of an erosion in Ginobili's health (or at least the delicacy of his body) but those questions can be met, to some extent at least by minute conservation during the regular season. And Parker is truly just entering his prime as a player. That Big 3 might not be all that it once was, but it's still among the elite trios in the association and the ability of those guys to play through just about anything is probably unparalleled in the league at the moment. Get them some consistent help and it seems reasonable to assume that they can be even more effective.

Meanwhile, the Pistons have their youth and athleticism to go along with their veteran core of guys who've been there and done that. The Pistons got production from their youth (at least from Stuckey and Maxiell) during the ECF and still lost. While it's likely that Stuckey and Maxiell and Johnson will show improvement into next season, the Pistons' successes have been built on a core that is showing signs of deterioration. Can Stuckey and Maxiell ever give the Pistons the same sort of production that they got from Billups and Wallace? If not, the Pistons need to upgrade involves finding stars (or at least starters) who can match what they got from the old guard.

I'm not sure that any of this is very clear, but I guess I think that the Spurs can truly believe that with some tweaking of the identities of their role players, they're really close to the current incarnation of the Lakers, who seem likely to end up with the gold ball. And the tweaking the Spurs need seems to be quite do-able. I wonder if the Pistons are going to be able to do the same.

There's no doubt that the Spurs need to make some changes, but at this point, it might be more about purchasing new furniture than building a new house.Exactly :tu








I shouldn't have wasted my typing and just quoted this to begin with :bang

[Spurs Brazil]

Holinger sucks

[JamStone]

As objective as I can be, I think both the Spurs and the Pistons are pretty much close to the end of any championship run with each respective core group of players. I think the Spurs have a better chance of making one more run if they add the right few pieces, but it's possible they don't ever make it back to the top. And, with the Lakers, Jazz, Hornets, and possibly the Blazers and Rockets all becoming bigger and bigger threats over the next few years, I would actually be surprised if the Spurs even make it back to the NBA Finals.

As for the Pistons, I think they're done. I don't think it's time for any tweaking. It's time for major changes. They stopped being a championship caliber after the 2005 NBA Finals. The steep decline in Ben Wallace was followed by lack of focus and a sense of entitlement. I think before then, they over-achieved. The last three years, they played right about to their capabilities as a very good playoff team, but not a real threat to win a championship. Now, I think they need to make major change to the front court even if it's just trading Rasheed for nothing and allowing McDyess to retire so the young players can just develop more. If they can get something out of Rasheed in a trade, then that would be even better. I also think they need to trade Tayshaun and replace him with a more physical small forward in the Ron Artest or Josh Smith mold to match up with the likes of LeBron James and Paul Pierce. With Rodney Stuckey, I think a back court rotation of Billups and Hamilton can still be effective for a few more years, especially if they cut down their minutes in favor of Stuckey. But, I don't see the Pistons contending for a championship any time soon over the next 3-4 years if at all with any of the core group of veterans that won a title in 2004.

[Bob Lanier]

Duncan showed again during the playoffs that: (1) the monitoring of his minutes allows him to continue to be at his best at playoff time; and (2) he remains a dominant player on both ends in big moments.
Given that Duncan shot 42% against Pau Gasol (including a 36% outing in Game 7, a game during which he was also outrebounded by Gasol), and that Duncan's poor pick-and-roll defense against Kobe Bryant was a key factor in Bryant's shooting 53% for the series (much like Shaquille O'Neal's poor pick-and-roll defense against Chauncey Billups resulted in Billups winning Finals MVP in 2004), how can this be true in anything but the most homerish of senses?

Duncan's great. I love watching Tim Duncan play. But Tim Duncan was largely ineffective in both the New Orleans and L.A. series, and most certainly not
dominant in any game in the L.A. series, on either end, much less both.

[Ocotillo]

^^ Tim Duncan three years ago dominates the Laker series and we win. He is still better than 95% of the league but he has a lost a little. That is why we need the weak side shot blocking presence. It might be ok to go against Bynum/Gasol, O-Neal/Stoudamire, Okur/Boozer, West/Chandler back in his hey day but Timmy needs a little help now with more defensive ability than Fab. Hopefully Mahinmi grows by leaps and bounds next season.

[Bob Lanier]

Yes, I agree with that.

[Capt Bringdown]

Given that Duncan shot 42% against Pau Gasol (including a 36% outing in Game 7, a game during which he was also outrebounded by Gasol), and that Duncan's poor pick-and-roll defense against Kobe Bryant was a key factor in Bryant's shooting 53% for the series (much like Shaquille O'Neal's poor pick-and-roll defense against Chauncey Billups resulted in Billups winning Finals MVP in 2004), how can this be true in anything but the most homerish of senses?


Good points and comparison to Shaq's performance against the Pistons.

With the Spurs age and health issues it remains to be seen if we still have a big 3 or not.

[Allanon]

I think the article is pretty spot on. Both teams have a tough road ahead to return back to contention but the Spurs have it rougher.

The Pistons most certainly are ahead of the Spurs because of their bench. Not so much that they can make them champions next year but moreso, the Pistons have tradeable pieces. The Spurs tradeable pieces really are just the big 3, the others would be fillers.

1) Any of the 4 stars can be traded without problems since the Pistons don't really have a singular face, they're a team. Even today I can't tell you who's the star of that team. So they don't have the emotional baggage. Piston fans don't have that much attachment to the Core of the Pistons. Trade Rip? Sure. How about Prince? Done deal. Spur fans on the other hand can't bear the thought of trading any of the Big 3.

2) Their young bench players are valuable trading pieces that can be bundled up with a vet and get an All-Star in return. The Clippers will be the most sought out trading partner. Stuckey & Affalo for Maggette? Stuckey and Sheed for Elton Brand? Chris Kaman for ?

3) The Pistons have an excellent trading mix....solid veterans and talented young players who saw playing time (as oppossed to young bench-warmers).

The Pistons can easily trade one of their top 4 players + young guy for a 2nd tier star (Brand, Vince Carter, Richardson, Monta, Boozer, Carmelo) and still be back in the Finals next year.

The Spurs on the other hand are a loyalty franchise and stubbornly won't part with one of their Big 3 so they will have to rebuild with the MLE and aging role players.

[21_Blessings]

I'm not sure that any of this is very clear, but I guess I think that the Spurs can truly believe that with some tweaking of the identities of their role players, they're really close to the current incarnation of the Lakers, who seem likely to end up with the gold ball. And the tweaking the Spurs need seems to be quite do-able. I wonder if the Pistons are going to be able to do the same.

There's no doubt that the Spurs need to make some changes, but at this point, it might be more about purchasing new furniture than building a new house.

You lost 4-1 to a team without Andrew Bynum/Ariza that just incorporated Gasol mid-way through the season. Huuuge stretch there considering the Spurs average age.

[21_Blessings]

As objective as I can be, I think both the Spurs and the Pistons are pretty much close to the end of any championship run with each respective core group of players. I think the Spurs have a better chance of making one more run if they add the right few pieces, but it's possible they don't ever make it back to the top. And, with the Lakers, Jazz, Hornets, and possibly the Blazers and Rockets all becoming bigger and bigger threats over the next few years, I would actually be surprised if the Spurs even make it back to the NBA Finals.

As for the Pistons, I think they're done. I don't think it's time for any tweaking. It's time for major changes. They stopped being a championship caliber after the 2005 NBA Finals. The steep decline in Ben Wallace was followed by lack of focus and a sense of entitlement. I think before then, they over-achieved. The last three years, they played right about to their capabilities as a very good playoff team, but not a real threat to win a championship. Now, I think they need to make major change to the front court even if it's just trading Rasheed for nothing and allowing McDyess to retire so the young players can just develop more. If they can get something out of Rasheed in a trade, then that would be even better. I also think they need to trade Tayshaun and replace him with a more physical small forward in the Ron Artest or Josh Smith mold to match up with the likes of LeBron James and Paul Pierce. With Rodney Stuckey, I think a back court rotation of Billups and Hamilton can still be effective for a few more years, especially if they cut down their minutes in favor of Stuckey. But, I don't see the Pistons contending for a championship any time soon over the next 3-4 years if at all with any of the core group of veterans that won a title in 2004.

Imagine if you guys drafted Melo

[SequSpur]

The Spurs are not in the Finals for a reason. They didn't have home court advantage for a reason. This dude is just pointing out the objective obviousness of the Spurs situation and you homers are saying he is wrong. :lmao You act like everyone wants to come to san antonio, make less and win a championship. I'm sorry I haven't seen anyone in that category. I seriously doubt that is going to change because Pop is not going to develop shit outside of Duncan and Parker. Ginobili is a fricking joke and I'm sick of you dipshits not calling a spade a fucking spade.

Bowen?? Come on.. what a liability.. there is a reason the spurs can't score.

The Spurs need to be completely retooled. They have a solid foundation but there are at least 7 players that need to move out of san antonio quickly. How does that not make this article correct?

The spurs fucking sucked this year. They lost because they weren't the best, they got just to where they needed to be. Some of you need to sack up and accept the fact that reality is here and the spurs are done with this group.

Shit.

[SequSpur]

You go into next season with this same team and you can count on an 8th seed at best. Retool this motha.

[NewJerSpur]

Whenever this team doesn't win a championship the entire organization needs to be gutted...:rolleyes:lol. The longest drought we've had between rings the last 9 years has been 3 seasons....and that was amidst the infusion of youth and subtle roster turnovers. I think this team will be okay with a few tweaks because of all in the teams in the West their style of play is the most consistent.

[JamStone]

Imagine if you guys drafted Melo

No championship and they'd be trying to trade Melo just like the Nuggets.

[timvp]

I think the article is pretty spot on. Both teams have a tough road ahead to return back to contention but the Spurs have it rougher.

The Pistons most certainly are ahead of the Spurs because of their bench. Not so much that they can make them champions next year but moreso, the Pistons have tradeable pieces. The Spurs tradeable pieces really are just the big 3, the others would be fillers.Trading talent for talent usually results in a lateral move. Unless, of course, the team you are trading with is run by an "adviser" who would like nothing more to help out his former team.


1) Any of the 4 stars can be traded without problems since the Pistons don't really have a singular face, they're a team. Even today I can't tell you who's the star of that team. So they don't have the emotional baggage. Piston fans don't have that much attachment to the Core of the Pistons. Trade Rip? Sure. How about Prince? Done deal. Spur fans on the other hand can't bear the thought of trading any of the Big 3.Luckily Spurs fans aren't responsible for trades.


2) Their young bench players are valuable trading pieces that can be bundled up with a vet and get an All-Star in return. The Clippers will be the most sought out trading partner. Stuckey & Affalo for Maggette? Stuckey and Sheed for Elton Brand? Chris Kaman for ?

3) The Pistons have an excellent trading mix....solid veterans and talented young players who saw playing time (as oppossed to young bench-warmers).How are these points different?


The Pistons can easily trade one of their top 4 players + young guy for a 2nd tier star (Brand, Vince Carter, Richardson, Monta, Boozer, Carmelo) and still be back in the Finals next year.Again, those would be lateral moves. Going from Rasheed to any of those players isn't that much of an improvement ... if it is at all.

My point is the Pistons have a lot more holes, including at coach, and while they have more assets, they also have more concerns. The Spurs have just a few concerns that could easily be handled without doing any major reshuffling.


The Spurs on the other hand are a loyalty franchise and stubbornly won't part with one of their Big 3 so they will have to rebuild with the MLE and aging role players.Spurs aren't that loyal. They were ready to dump Robinson for Webber. They were ready to dump Parker and Ginobili for Kidd. The only player who the Spurs are loyal to is Duncan. Outside of him, anyone is expendable. Spurs fans are clingy but the management doesn't really factor in loyalty at all. The front office has watched players win championships and then let them walk the next summer without batting an eyelash.

[NewJerSpur]

No championship and they'd be trying to trade Melo just like the Nuggets.

Yup...Melo can score and that's about it which is why he and Karl are at odds. With his talent he should be more well-rounded as a player.

[Allanon]

Trading talent for talent usually results in a lateral move. Unless, of course, the team you are trading with is run by an "adviser" who would like nothing more to help out his former team.

Luckily Spurs fans aren't responsible for trades.

How are these points different?

Again, those would be lateral moves. Going from Rasheed to any of those players isn't that much of an improvement ... if it is at all.

My point is the Pistons have a lot more holes, including at coach, and while they have more assets, they also have more concerns. The Spurs have just a few concerns that could easily be handled without doing any major reshuffling.

Spurs aren't that loyal. They were ready to dump Robinson for Webber. They were ready to dump Parker and Ginobili for Kidd. The only player who the Spurs are loyal to is Duncan. Outside of him, anyone is expendable. Spurs fans are clingy but the management doesn't really factor in loyalty at all. The front office has watched players win championships and then let them walk the next summer without batting an eyelash.

I'd like to think the Spurs would pull a trade but the past history shows they stay loyal to their players. I can't remember any big trades in the last decade from the Spurs. They always feel this same core can do it again. Which to their credit, it worked. So maybe they feel it will work again.

Tim Duncan himself said he likes their team this year. When your franchise player says that, I have a feeling they'll try to retool on the fly as usual.

As for the Pistons, there's nothing wrong with them where a lateral move won't work. The Pistons are an excellent team with excellent balance. They have a perfect blend of veterans, talent, athleticism. youth and strength.

Their issue is chemistry and being bored the hell out of their minds playing with the same guys and same agenda for 5 years. They need new blood (including the coach), their team is still wildly talented and balanced enough to win it all...except the hunger has left the stars.

[JamStone]

My point is the Pistons have a lot more holes, including at coach, and while they have more assets, they also have more concerns. The Spurs have just a few concerns that could easily be handled without doing any major reshuffling.

I don't think the Pistons are any closer to a championship than the Spurs, but how do the Pistons have more holes?

Aside from getting a new coach, if they stood pat, they would still be fine. Now, we know that they will likely make changes, but it's more so due to chemistry and the staleness of the core than it is "holes."

The Spurs have a lot of holes on their roster: athletic big man to play alongside Duncan, back-up point guard, long combo forward to match up with the likes of Boris Diaw and Lamar Odom, a wing scorer in the starting line-up if Manu stays on the bench, overall youth and athleticism, a bench scorer in the front court.

The Spurs will probably be a better team than the Pistons when next season arrives, but they have a lot more holes and concerns to address than the Pistons.

[T Park]

:lol

Keep convincing yourselves the Spurs are dead people.

[timvp]

I'd like to think the Spurs would pull a trade but the past history shows they stay loyal to their players. I can't remember any big trades in the last decade from the Spurs. They always feel this same core can do it again. Which to their credit, it worked. So maybe they feel it will work again.How is letting Robinson or Manu and TP walk showing loyalty to their players? The Spurs haven't made big trades as far as giving up core pieces but mostly because it's never made sense.

TD, Robinson, Manu and TP have been the core pieces and there has never been a trade that has come along that made sense to move them.


Tim Duncan himself said he likes their team this year. When your franchise player says that, I have a feeling they'll try to retool on the fly as usual.Which is what they should do. The Spurs don't need to trade their proven and established foundation.


As for the Pistons, there's nothing wrong with them where a lateral move won't work. The Pistons are an excellent team with excellent balance. They have a perfect blend of veterans, talent, athleticism. and strength.

Their issue is chemistry and being bored the hell out of their minds playing with the same guys and same agenda for 5 years. They need new blood (including the coach), their team is still wildly talented and balanced.The Pistons are good but that's going too far. I don't think a Piston Fan would even say they have the "perfect blend" and are "wildly talented". The Pistons win because they are a smart team that plays good basketball.

The Pistons can retool but again, needing to trade their core pieces and changing their coach are higher hurdles than the Spurs face this summer.

[timvp]

I don't think the Pistons are any closer to a championship than the Spurs, but how do the Pistons have more holes?

Aside from getting a new coach, if they stood pat, they would still be fine.True. If the Pistons stood pat. But everything coming out of Detroit indicates they aren't going to stand pat .... so the rest of your post doesn't really come into play.

[JamStone]

It comes into play as it relates to having "holes," which you said the Pistons have more of.

They don't.

[T Park]

They aren't standing pat.

They are trading key players. After they trade said players, they will have more holes....

[Allanon]

How is letting Robinson or Manu and TP walk showing loyalty to their players? The Spurs haven't made big trades as far as giving up core pieces but mostly because it's never made sense.

TD, Robinson, Manu and TP have been the core pieces and there has never been a trade that has come along that made sense to move them.

That seems pretty loyal to me.



Which is what they should do. The Spurs don't need to trade their proven and established foundation.
Further establishing that the franchise is loyal to their players.



The Pistons are good but that's going too far. I don't think a Piston Fan would even say they have the "perfect blend" and are "wildly talented". The Pistons win because they are a smart team that plays good basketball.
They have the most talented starting 5 and possibly the 2nd best bench. It would not have surprised me if they won it all this year.

[timvp]

It comes into play as it relates to having "holes," which you said the Pistons have more of.

They don't.Having to trade one of your main pieces isn't a hole? Not having a coach isn't a hole?

If you want to list them all out, I could say that the Pistons need a point guard who hasn't begun a steep decline in his career, a shooting guard that doesn't have an overinflated ego who also seems to be declining, a small forward that doesn't disappear like clockwork in the ECF, a power forward who isn't a one-man chemistry problem and a center that is actually a center. And a bench player that isn't either too young or too old.

Those assessments are about as fair as the ones you gave the Spurs :hat

[timvp]

That seems pretty loyal to me. Being on the verge of letting DRob, TP and Manu walk is loyal? What would be unloyal?



Further establishing that the franchise is loyal to their players.?

What does that even mean?


They have the most talented starting 5 and possibly the 2nd best bench.ROFL. If any team in the league had the most talented starting five and the second best bench, they'd win every championship.

[K-State Spur]

That seems pretty loyal to me.


Further establishing that the franchise is loyal to their players.


They have the most talented starting 5 and possibly the 2nd best bench.

You're confusing loyalty with intelligence. Should they move the guys who are key pieces on a championship team for lesser talent just to prove that they are not always loyal?

[Allanon]

Being on the verge of letting DRob, TP and Manu walk is loyal? What would be unloyal?

Being on the verge is different than pulling the trigger. Like the Lakers were on the verge of trading Kobe but it didn't happen. The Lakers stuck with Kobe even through his whining and demands. Just like DRob, TP and Manu were never traded or let go...the franchise stayed loyal to its guys. You can say the Lakers just didn't find a better offer but realistically, they could have gotten any NBA player outside of LeBron and Duncan for Kobe. Shoot, they traded Shaq for Lamar and Caron Butler.



ROFL. If any team in the league had the most talented starting five and the second best bench, they'd win every championship.
I don't think you can find a better starting five out there solely based on talent. Most teams have 2-3 good players and 2-3 mediocre starters...every one of the Piston's 5 is solid. And outside of the Lakers, I can't think of a deeper bench than the Pistons have. I think alot of people thought the Pistons would end up winning it all this year.

[NewJerSpur]

What I believe KS and Timvp mean is that the Spurs not being able to trade some of their more weighted names/talent in the past has more to do with the deal falling through than it does with the Spurs feeling nostalgic...they've tried to trade Brent Barry (a Spur fan favorite and key contributor) multiple times, and thank God those trades fell through, otherwise we might be missing a trophy.

[timvp]

Being on the verge is different than pulling the trigger. Like the Lakers were on the verge of trading Kobe but it didn't happen. The Lakers stuck with Kobe even through his whining and demands. Just like DRob, TP and Manu were never traded or let go...the franchise stayed loyal to its guys. You can say the Lakers just didn't find a better offer but realistically, they could have gotten any NBA player outside of LeBron and Duncan for Kobe. Shoot, they traded Shaq for Lamar and Caron Butler.The difference is the Spurs had already cut the cord. The Spurs didn't back out ... those players just didn't sign. If Webber would have signed, Robinson would have been gone. If Kidd would have signed, Parker and Ginobili would have been gone.

That's a whole lot different than thinking about trading someone and then deciding against it.



I don't think you can find a better starting five out there solely based on talent. Most teams have 2-3 good players and 2-3 mediocre starters...every one of the Piston's 5 is solid. And outside of the Lakers, I can't think of a deeper bench than the Pistons have. I think alot of people thought the Pistons would end up winning it all this year.Starting five, yeah the Pistons have no doubt the deepest starters. One through five they are good. I don't know if they have the best starters because they don't really have one superstar so it's hard to gauge.

But bench? No way in hell they have the second best bench in the NBA. That's laughable. Their bench in the playoffs was basically Stuckey and Maxiell. A little bit of Ratliff and Hunter but that's about it. How could you consider that the second best bench in the NBA?

If you want to say their bench has a lot of potential, that's fine. But in actual play, they didn't produce too much in the playoffs.

[Allanon]

The difference is the Spurs had already cut the cord. The Spurs didn't back out ... those players just didn't sign. If Webber would have signed, Robinson would have been gone. If Kidd would have signed, Parker and Ginobili would have been gone.

That's a whole lot different than thinking about trading someone and then deciding against it.

To be honest, I don't know the entire story behind these trades, you probably know about the back story than I do. From an outsider view, it looked like the Spurs stayed loyal to their players.



Starting five, yeah the Pistons have no doubt the deepest starters. One through five they are good. I don't know if they have the best starters because they don't really have one superstar so it's hard to gauge.

But bench? No way in hell they have the second best bench in the NBA. That's laughable. Their bench in the playoffs was basically Stuckey and Maxiell. A little bit of Ratliff and Hunter but that's about it. How could you consider that the second best bench in the NBA?

If you want to say their bench has a lot of potential, that's fine. But in actual play, they didn't produce too much in the playoffs.

Yes, the bench didn't play much of a role during the Playoffs but played well in the season, especially in the last leg. I was surprised that Flip went with Theo Ratliff in the Playoffs, probably throwing off the bench mojo. Differing views on the bench but fair enough.

[NewJerSpur]

For further evidence of the Spurs lack of loyalty (business mindset): They dumped the "Little General" Avery Johnson soon after he captured his first and only ring with the team....this is the same guy who bossed the Admirale around and hit the shot that won the Spurs their first championship in franchise history.

Pop leaning heavy on his vets at times doesn't really equate to loyalty either. He went to Horry over KT in the LA series because of Horry's knowledge of Phil's system and his defensive flexibility in guarding a matchup problem like Odom....he forgot that Rob barely played any of the season. He also had no choice but to go to Finley, who played decently in stretches throughout the playoffs and hit some major shots in the team's 1st two series. Unfortunately Michael got worked on defense, missed the other quarter of his big shots, and started to pass up open jumpers as a result.

[T Park]

Yes, the bench didn't play much of a role during the Playoffs but played well in the season, especially in the last leg. I was surprised that Flip went with Theo Ratliff in the Playoffs, probably throwing off the bench mojo. Differing views on the bench but fair enough.


Why would that differ from his past moves?

[T Park]

For further evidence of the Spurs lack of loyalty (business mindset): They dumped the "Little General" Avery Johnson soon after he captured his first and only ring with the team....this is the same guy who bossed the Admirale around and hit the shot that won the Spurs their first championship in franchise history.


It was 2 years after, he was a free agent, and uh, Pop encouraged him to take the contract....

[NewJerSpur]

It was 2 years after, he was a free agent, and uh, Pop encouraged him to take the contract....

An "and 1" for T Park. Lost track of the time and situation in that instance, but nevertheless my overall point still stands...and its not as if they were begging Avery to come back for Nostalgic purposes.

[JamStone]

Having to trade one of your main pieces isn't a hole? Not having a coach isn't a hole?

If you want to list them all out, I could say that the Pistons need a point guard who hasn't begun a steep decline in his career, a shooting guard that doesn't have an overinflated ego who also seems to be declining, a small forward that doesn't disappear like clockwork in the ECF, a power forward who isn't a one-man chemistry problem and a center that is actually a center. And a bench player that isn't either too young or too old.

Those assessments are about as fair as the ones you gave the Spurs :hat

timvp,

Generally, I find you very objective and fair. This is a case where you're not.

So, I'll leave it at that.

[Allanon]

Why would that differ from his past moves?

This was supposed to be the "New and Improved" Flip Saunders who developed his bench so they can contribute in the Playoffs. So much for that.