most overrated FO in the NBA?..

I love my team, I'm a die-hard fan..I appreciate the 4 titles..I love what the FO did from 1997 until 2004/2005..I'm not one of those fans that thinks the sky is falling..but I believe the Spurs front office is the most overrated in the NBA..we're always looked at for our "great" moves and subtle signings, but there hasn't been a great signing in a while..

a lot of them weren't the fault of the team(Scola, Splitter, Maggette), but it obviously adds up once you think of all the players that have been passed up in the draft or with any other opportunity to join the team..this off-season was CRUCIAL for our team with the age factor, and it was a great opportunity to get back..

Splitter doesn't re-sign..not the Spurs fault, but we could have traded him last season and got some value back for him(maybe even Artest, if we had traded the expirings/Splitter for him, and not KT)..I like Hill, but there were better players available..definitely a mistake from the FO..Maggette wasn't the FO's fault, it was an incompetent move by the Warriors..Roger Mason is a good player, but what a waste of money when you can get Azubuike or JR Smith(a long shot, probably wouldn't happen..but worth a try)..

so this off-season has been a failure so far..just like past off-seasons..our team has gotten old..the worst part is that the Spurs FO has actually drafted solid players, but haven't kept them..

as soon as next year, we're gonna be banking on Mahinmi and Hill to make ANY positive contribution to the team..those 2 are gonna be very important when it comes to rating our FO..

overrated or not?..

Quote:

---

Roger Mason is a good player, but what a waste of money when you can get Azubuike or JR Smith(a long shot, probably wouldn't happen..but worth a try)..

---

Both are RFAs and it's not at all certain either would be a greater than 20% chance to not see an offer sheet matched.

The Spurs' front office is overrated because Spurs fans have unrealistic expectations of who they can land.

Geoff Petrie.

Two words: Sam Presti

All the Spurs need to do is put TP and Manu on the market so they can make some blockbuster deals and not be deemed an "overrated" front office by their fans.

Adequately rated. When an organization without deep pockets has a lot of money tied up in several players, it's not easy to land a name player. The casual Spur fan hasn't heard or Roger Mason and had not heard of Ime Udoka last year, so they think "fail".

Many fans think an organization is better for signing guys with name value than averaging 58 wins a year. If those are the same fans doing the rating, well, that's why the FO is underappreciated.

When the Big Three are in decline/gone, then you can bash them (to a reasonable extent) for not landing the big names.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant

Both are RFAs and it's not at all certain either would be a greater than 20% chance to not see an offer sheet matched.

The Spurs' front office is overrated because Spurs fans have unrealistic expectations of who they can land.

---

Azubuike is actually not a long shot at all..

the Warriors first priority is to sign Ellis..2nd is to sign Biedrins..third is to get a backup PG..Azubuike was actually their 4th priority according to Warrior fans..

it's not unrealistic expectations at all..for a FO that gets praised SO MUCH by fans of teams across the NBA, they haven't lived up to the hype in the past few years..

we've had the same "need" for years now..

or just sign roger mason for 1/2 the mle?

No, not over-rated. The Spurs were an untwisted or unjammed ankle away from the finals last year. Udoka has played well and will take some more of Bowen's minutes next season. Two combo guards like Hill and Mason give the Spurs a lot of versatility in the back court and the option to play small ball with Duncan at center, which would be a much more successful small ball then that played by Golden State or Phoenix because they played it without an interior defensive presence. Splitter was a brilliant pick that didn't work out. Bad luck. You wouldn't call the Celtics trade for Len Bias stupid, would you? The Spurs are still ready to be big players in the 2010 market. If they land Chris Bosh or any combo of good players, everyone will go back to saying they are one of the best FOs in basketball.

I'm not bashing..I simply don't think we're the best FO in the NBA, like I hear from the media all the time..

I loved the Ime signing last year, I thought it was great..

this off-season is crucial though, and it hasn't looked good so far..I'm a fan of Roger Mason, but 7.5 is too much..I don't know how anybody can argue that..

it's crucial because the Lakers beat us WITHOUT their up and coming C..the Hornets took us to 7 and they're still maturing..Utah is still a solid team..Portland is building a great future..Houston is solid when they're healthy..

we're not the most dominant team in the West anymore like we have been in the past..we needed moves in this off-season, and the FO hasn't delivered for us..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HarlemHeat37

Azubuike is actually not a long shot at all..

the Warriors first priority is to sign Ellis..2nd is to sign Biedrins..third is to get a backup PG..Azubuike was actually their 4th priority according to Warrior fans..

it's not unrealistic expectations at all..for a FO that gets praised SO MUCH by fans of teams across the NBA, they haven't lived up to the hype in the past few years..

we've had the same "need" for years now..

---

And clearly the fans always know what a team is going to do :rolleyes

Joe Dumars....yeah he's good but passing on talents like Melo, Bosh, Wade, Kaman, Hinrich and D. West for Darko is unforgivable....now there's talk he wants Tracy McHurty and wants to get rid of Prince and Billups....yikes! I guess we can pencil the 76ers into that no.2 spot now....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SRJ

Adequately rated. When an organization without deep pockets has a lot of money tied up in several players, it's not easy to land a name player. The casual Spur fan hasn't heard or Roger Mason and had not heard of Ime Udoka last year, so they think "fail".

Many fans think an organization is better for signing guys with name value than averaging 58 wins a year. If those are the same fans doing the rating, well, that's why the FO is underappreciated.

When the Big Three are in decline/gone, then you can bash them (to a reasonable extent) for not landing the big names.

---

Pulling the starting backcourt with the #28 and 57 picks will forever keep them from being "overrated."

Quote:

---

it's crucial because the Lakers beat us WITHOUT their up and coming C

---

And they also beat us without the services of ...damn, who's that guy? ...Ginobilly, something like that.

Healthy Bynum and healthy Ginobili = Spurs in 6.

No Bynum and crippled Ginobili = Lakers in 5.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aggie Hoopsfan

And clearly the fans always know what a team is going to do :rolleyes

---

I'm pretty sure people that live in Golden State hear more from the local team news than most of us do..

also, I haven't even heard anything about Azubuike, which obviously says something as well..

we'll see how much money he ends up making, and then you can bash me..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SRJ

And they also beat us without the services of ...damn, who's that guy? ...Ginobilly, something like that.

Healthy Bynum and healthy Ginobili = Spurs in 6.

No Bynum and crippled Ginobili = Lakers in 5.

---

I agree..but the point is, the Lakers are getting better..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant

Pulling the starting backcourt with the #28 and 57 picks will forever keep them from being "overrated."

---

which is why I clearly indicated I'm talking about the last few years..

People are always quick to say "we were one sprained ankle away from ... ." I wonder if Lakers fans say "we were one sprained/torn ligament away from winning ..."

Either which way, a sign of a good team is having players ready, willing and able to step up and fill in when primary players aren't at 100%. Which is why the Mason signing is so good given that he was great against the Cavs ....

oh wait.

is anybody actually going to give an argument as to why the Spurs FO is the best or in the top 3 best FO's in the NBA right now?..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HarlemHeat37

which is why I clearly indicated I'm talking about the last few years..

---

What about it? They aren't going to do that every draft. The roster's been fairly full the last couple of years. And they did win yet another title during that timeframe.

Quote:

---

I agree..but the point is, the Lakers are getting better..

---

Well, since 2004, they've had potentially more flexibility on their roster because they've had one All-Star. We've had three. All-Stars take up years and capspace.

If you want to give up Manu and/or Tony in order to have room to maneuver, I respect your position but do not agree with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HarlemHeat37

is anybody actually going to give an argument as to why the Spurs FO is the best or in the top 3 best FO's in the NBA right now?..

---

How about 3 titles in the last 6 years while skirting the luxury tax threshold for a good portion of that time?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HarlemHeat37

I'm pretty sure people that live in Golden State hear more from the local team news than most of us do..

also, I haven't even heard anything about Azubuike, which obviously says something as well..

we'll see how much money he ends up making, and then you can bash me..

---

Chris Paul got $4 million this year. Clearly that's a reflection of his talent.

What restricted free agents have you heard anything about? Turiaf is the first one to get an offer, and that was earlier today.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HarlemHeat37

I'm not bashing..I simply don't think we're the best FO in the NBA, like I hear from the media all the time..

I loved the Ime signing last year, I thought it was great..

this off-season is crucial though, and it hasn't looked good so far..I'm a fan of Roger Mason, but 7.5 is too much..I don't know how anybody can argue that..

it's crucial because the Lakers beat us WITHOUT their up and coming C..the Hornets took us to 7 and they're still maturing..Utah is still a solid team..Portland is building a great future..Houston is solid when they're healthy..

we're not the most dominant team in the West anymore like we have been in the past..we needed moves in this off-season, and the FO hasn't delivered for us..

---

I don't know if the FO has made any mistakes this off season. Maggette was lost because Brand went to Philly and the Warriors offered him much more money than the Spurs could. Smith & Azubuike are restricted and have generated a lot of interest.... that wouldn't be a high percentage gamble. Posey I don't really know anything about, except he wants something long-term, and is 31. Mason is in his prime, just had the best year of his career, and was willing to sign a two year deal.

Do you live in Harlem? I used to live at 125th/Riverside on the 18th floor. It was amazing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HarlemHeat37

is anybody actually going to give an argument as to why the Spurs FO is the best or in the top 3 best FO's in the NBA right now?..

---

Arguing they are the best is quite a bit different than saying they are not the most overrated in the league.

Or are you saying that unless the FO is the best in the league, it's overrated? I've never seen anyone call them the best, well until your little straw man here.

Orlando circa 2000.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant

What about it? They aren't going to do that every draft. The roster's been fairly full the last couple of years. And they did win yet another title during that timeframe.

---

of course they aren't gonna do that in every draft..those are some of the best draft picks in NBA history..that's not my expectations..

my expectations is to get some good role players to surround our big 3..we need YOUNG players..we need ATHLETIC players..you can't win with an old team forever, especially with so many up and coming teams in the West..

LA is young..NO is young..Utah is young..Portland is young..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SRJ

Well, since 2004, they've had potentially more flexibility on their roster because they've had one All-Star. We've had three. All-Stars take up years and capspace.

If you want to give up Manu and/or Tony in order to have room to maneuver, I respect your position but do not agree with it.

---

I don't wanna trade Manu or TP, that's stupid..the fact that we have a big 3 should make it easier to sign the correct players for the system..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant

How about 3 titles in the last 6 years while skirting the luxury tax threshold for a good portion of that time?

---

based on past moves..Tim Duncan is a top 10 player of all-time..Manu and Parker are some of the best at their positions..those titles were won due to past additions..

you guys are also ignoring that lack of depth has been an issue, because of injuries..Manu's injury would have been much less severe to our chances this year if we had ANYBODY that can slash to the net or give us athleticism, instead of relying on all of our wing men to launch 3's all the time..

next year, the big 3 is gonna have to give even more effort during the regular season..injuries aren't going to be surprising, and neither will fatigue in the playoffs..the team needs young players..

Here's the most important factor in all of this: none of us know what has already gone on behind the scenes. For all we know, the Spurs' FO contacted the agents of Smith, Azubuike, or Pietrus, and were told "thanks, but no thanks..." Maybe they want to live near the ocean or in a bigger city with more nightlife, who knows. There's a lot of guessing that goes on in my mind as an interested fan, but I'd be silly to proclaim failure on an FO that has more titles in the last decade than all 29 of other teams. We all know more than the casual fan, but still much less than the actual FO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HarlemHeat37

of course they aren't gonna do that in every draft..those are some of the best draft picks in NBA history..that's not my expectations..

my expectations is to get some good role players to surround our big 3..we need YOUNG players..we need ATHLETIC players..you can't win with an old team forever, especially with so many up and coming teams in the West..

LA is young..NO is young..Utah is young..Portland is young..

---

And none of those have won a title since 2002. Championship teams tend to be older teams. And it's not like the Spurs' big 3 is ancient.

Quote:

---

I don't wanna trade Manu or TP, that's stupid..the fact that we have a big 3 should make it easier to sign the correct players for the system..

---

Moving one of those is the only way the Spurs are going to be able to deal for an impact player. The best way to land a star is to come up with your own through the draft. Mahinmi is next up.

Quote:

---

based on past moves..Tim Duncan is a top 10 player of all-time..Manu and Parker are some of the best at their positions..those titles were won due to past additions..

you guys are also ignoring that lack of depth has been an issue, because of injuries..Manu's injury would have been much less severe to our chances this year if we had ANYBODY that can slash to the net or give us athleticism, instead of relying on all of our wing men to launch 3's all the time..

next year, the big 3 is gonna have to give even more effort during the regular season..injuries aren't going to be surprising, and neither will fatigue in the playoffs..the team needs young players..

---

Who are all these starting quality players who the Spurs could have landed with cap exceptions while facing the luxury tax constantly while being based in a small media market?

it's not failure, bro..

it's the fact that RC has been voted the #1 GM by many places..Time, Slam, Ballhype, RealGM, NY Times..you make a thread on any NBA message board and you'll hear his name more than anybody..

I'd never say the Spurs FO isn't good, it obviously is..but definitely not as good as the hype..

I'm not hating at all, this is my favorite team..so it annoys me when people take a defensive stance in a disrespectful way..I'm not a fan of another team making outrageous remarks..I think it's a fair point..

I'm simply a die-hard fan who is tired of wasting picks on players that don't even come play for the team..wasting money, wasting picks..I've definitely been spoiled by the earlier success of our FO, and I admit it..such a great organization should be able to spend cap room wisely..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rj215

Joe Dumars....yeah he's good but passing on talents like Melo, Bosh, Wade, Kaman, Hinrich and D. West for Darko is unforgivable....now there's talk he wants Tracy McHurty and wants to get rid of Prince and Billups....yikes! I guess we can pencil the 76ers into that no.2 spot now....

---

Agree that was a monumental mistake. Disagree that alone makes him overrated, especially since he recognized the mistake, traded Darko away and turned it into cap space and Rodney Stuckey, and since he's been able to build teams as successful as they've been without one single legitimate max player superstar, not even one close to being a max player or considered to be a superstar.

The spurs front office sucks. If it wasn't for the lucky lottery balls that got them duncan and Robinson there would be no titles. I'm more impressed by what the Boston front office did this last season acquiring star talent through trades and putting a team together that wins the championship.

Duncan has masked much of the inadequacies of this front office. No significant free agent signings and no impact players acquired thru trades. Two great draft picks in 10 years and little else from the draft. Many good impact players have been traded or left to other teams and the spurs always sit on their asses and settle for safe role players.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant

And none of those have won a title since 2002. Championship teams tend to be older teams. And it's not like the Spurs' big 3 is ancient.




Moving one of those is the only way the Spurs are going to be able to deal for an impact player. The best way to land a star is to come up with your own through the draft. Mahinmi is next up.



Who are all these starting quality players who the Spurs could have landed with cap exceptions while facing the luxury tax constantly while being based in a small media market?

---

You clear cap space with trades. Rasheed Wallace

I'm tired of the excuse that the spurs can never get an impact player while teams like the Lakers and Celtics and Pistons can load up all star players.

Boston and LA have been in the lottery in recent times, hence the availability of young talent with which to work trades. When was the last time the Spurs had a lottery pick?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rascal

The spurs front office sucks. If it wasn't for the lucky lottery balls that got them duncan and Robinson there would be no titles. I'm more impressed by what the Boston front office did this last season acquiring star talent through trades and putting a team together that wins the championship.

Duncan has masked much of the inadequacies of this front office. No significant free agent signings and no impact players acquired thru trades. Two great draft picks in 10 years and little else from the draft. Many good impact players have been traded or left to other teams and the spurs always sit on their asses and settle for safe role players.

---

Because Parker and Ginobili do not exist and because the Spurs should have asked Maggette pretty please to sign with them. Excuses for fans like you make me sick.

ESPN: Chalmers, CDR playing well with chip on shoulder

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/s...do-Day3-080709

Hill > Chalmers ? :lmao

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tlongII

Hill > Chalmers ? :lmao

---

Spurs may have been a little too clever for their own good on that one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HarlemHeat37

my expectations is to get some good role players to surround our big 3..we need YOUNG players..we need ATHLETIC players..you can't win with an old team forever, especially with so many up and coming teams in the West..

LA is young..NO is young..Utah is young..Portland is young..
..

---

You're all over the place on this thread. I think drafting Hill, Hairston, Gist, and signing Mason IS AN INDICATION THAT THEY ARE TRYING TO GET YOUNGER AND MORE ATHLETIC. They tried to get Splitter...he took more money elsewhere. They tried to get Maggette...he took more money elsewhere. I don't think Azubuike or Pietrus is worth the MLE, nor do I think they are THAT much better than Mason. You make it sound like signing Azubuike would solve ALL the Spurs problems. I guess the Spurs will have to stand in line to get him since there are so many teams after his services.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HarlemHeat37

Roger Mason is a good player, but what a waste of money when you can get Azubuike or JR Smith(a long shot, probably wouldn't happen..but worth a try)..

---

First, how do you know that they didn't target either of them and they balked at the Spurs? You don't know. Secondly, and more importantly, they are Restricted. That means, if the Spurs make an offer, their teams have ONE WEEK to match. So, during that week, all the other FAs they were targeting now sign with another team. At then end of that week the team matches. What are the Spurs left with? Exactly. There's a reason teams without cap space don't chase RFAs.

If you can do a better job, by all means get in contact with them. What other teams in the past decade have done a better job?

Spurs could have had CDR PLUS Chalmers with a little finesse and hard work. They outsmarted themselves yet again by reaching for a 2nd round player.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr. Body

Spurs could have had CDR PLUS Chalmers with a little finesse and hard work. They outsmarted themselves yet again by reaching for a 2nd round player.

---

You're assuming they are both going to be better players. Spurs aren't the only team to pass them over.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oligarchy

You're assuming they are both going to be better players. Spurs aren't the only team to pass them over.

---

I'm not talking about other teams, am I? The Spurs reached for a player to be had later in the 2nd round and didn't take advantage of their position, with Greene and Arthur still there, to get more out of their pick.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr. Body

I'm not talking about other teams, am I? The Spurs reached for a player to be had later in the 2nd round and didn't take advantage of their position, with Greene and Arthur still there, to get more out of their pick.

---

No you aren't talking about other teams, but other teams both ahead and behind us, whom had the same needs, passed over the same people. You are also assuming they are going to be better players. You are also assuming that Hill would fall to the 2nd round.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oligarchy

No you aren't talking about other teams, but other teams both ahead and behind us, whom had the same needs, passed over the same people. You are also assuming they are going to be better players. You are also assuming that Hill would fall to the 2nd round.

---

Of course Hill was going to drop into the 2nd round. And no, I'm not talking about other teams. Sure, if CDR and Chalmer keep up their good play (gee, who'da thunk they'd be good?), other teams other than the Spurs would also regret it, but the Spurs had at least the opportunity to pull CDR and Hill out of the draft if they had any skill whatsoever in squeezing value out of assets. Look at what Houston did with their pick: got Greene + Dorsey.

In a section of the latest ESPN magazine, they were putting odds on the likely success of recent NBA Draft picks. The "even" was "whoever the Spurs pick". That's pretty high praise for a team that hasn't turned out a decent draft pick since early in this decade.

I don't know if they're the most overrated, but you'd have to put them in the Overrated category for sure. They have made a few nice acquisitions and manage to get decent production out of their role players....but outside of having Duncan fall into their laps and having two international players (of the 20 they've selected) pan out, I'm not sure you could say they've been that great.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PHAT TONY

In a section of the latest ESPN magazine, they were putting odds on the likely success of recent NBA Draft picks. The "even" was "whoever the Spurs pick". That's pretty high praise for a team that hasn't turned out a decent draft pick since early in this decade.

---

It's less than even money to me at this point that George Hill has what it takes even as a spot bench player. Let Buford's recent displays be your guide.

It takes a lot of errors and wastage for an overinflated reputation to correct itself. Sadly, RC Buford will be thriving off his reputation for years to come, even while San Antonio stagnates and Oklahoma City under Presti takes their place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HarlemHeat37

Azubuike was actually their 4th priority according to Warrior fans..

---

According to warriors FANS hmmmm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr. Body

It's less than even money to me at this point that George Hill has what it takes even as a spot bench player. Let Buford's recent displays be your guide.

It takes a lot of errors and wastage for an overinflated reputation to correct itself. Sadly, RC Buford will be thriving off his reputation for years to come, even while San Antonio stagnates and Oklahoma City under Presti takes their place.

---

Of course it's less than even, that was my point. They were going off San Antonio's supposed reputation to pull out quality draft picks late in rounds, which is basically an illusion at this point.

how about some perspective...

Up until this offseason, I would've said the same. I thought the Spurs FO was getting a bit too much credit for moves that occurred back in '99 & '01. Remember, this is a "what have you done for me lately" kind of league.

At the end of the Fakers series, we saw a team that was tired, injured, aged, slow and was simply devoid of an adequate supporting cast behind its 3 stars. Meanwhile a "bare cupboard" of talent was screaming for an upgrade. I vehemently blamed the FO for that.

All that said, their strategy in the recent NBA draft and the latest FA moves have caused me to augment my opinion a bit.

While we will not know the results of said draft for a couple of years, I will give the FO credit for adjusting their drafting philosophy away from the "all-Euro, all the time", "draft-n-stash" philosophy of the past several years. While I was a HUGE fan of Batum and hoped he would be in Spurs uniform, he wasn't available to them. Yet, I have no problem at all with the 3 rookies that they took. In fact, the mere fact that they took all 3 is a refreshing surprise. I'm hopeful that all three of their picks (Hill, Hairston and Gist) pan out and, more importantly, are given the ample opportunity to develop and become part of this roster. I don't want to see the Spurs make quick decisions on either and then we all wind up watching them become key contributors on another NBA team. It will also be interesting to see if the FO will come to regret passing over guys like CDR, Courtney Lee and Darrell Arthur

As for the free agency period, I've long been extremely critical of Pop's tendency to overvalue some aging players who either had nothing left (Finley, Horry) or were clearly past their primes when they arrived (NVE, Stoudamire) - even to the point of holding onto them too long. I will now give him props for making a concerted effort to infuse the team with solid, younger, mid-career, NBA players. They took a solid swing at Maggette. He was the obvious, preferred choice. The jury is out on the Mason signing, but it was the logical, low-cost, under-the-radar signing we expect.

To date, I'd say the FO is adequately rated - until further notice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr. Body

Of course Hill was going to drop into the 2nd round. And no, I'm not talking about other teams. Sure, if CDR and Chalmer keep up their good play (gee, who'da thunk they'd be good?), other teams other than the Spurs would also regret it, but the Spurs had at least the opportunity to pull CDR and Hill out of the draft if they had any skill whatsoever in squeezing value out of assets. Look at what Houston did with their pick: got Greene + Dorsey.

---

Are you an agent like spurman20? You must be to know where he would drop to. You must also be a talent scout.

Why do you keep saying "I'm not talking about other teams?" Did I say you were talking about other teams? I'm stating that you are saying the Spurs are stupid because they didn't draft these players -- the same players that many other teams didn't. That's the point. The Spurs did the same as many other teams. Many other teams are just as stupid according to you.

Let the season play out before bitching.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HarlemHeat37

I'm pretty sure people that live in Golden State hear more from the local team news than most of us do..

also, I haven't even heard anything about Azubuike, which obviously says something as well..

we'll see how much money he ends up making, and then you can bash me..

---

maybe you should not bash the front office tell you find out how much he will make
maybe you should listen to your own advise

of course who a front office signs isn't the whole story; it's also who they don't sign. When was the last free agent that the Spurs signed/traded for that was a bust?

Elson? Butler? Carl Herrera? You don't see the Spurs giving bullshit contracts to bullshit overrated players like Bobby Simmons, Dampier, Kenyon Martin, etc.

Who has had better success managing the cap and delivering a winner? Who has limiter their high-risk signings to short term, small contracts better?

The Celtics just won the title after completely re-tooling their roster last summer. But Boston had 15 years worth of lottery picks stocked up for assets to use in those trades.

Even the Lakers, with all the drawing power and money of the LA market, had pretty much surrounded Kobe with bullshit until a miracle fell in their laps with Gasol.

The FO went after Maggette with everything they had, and it looked like they had a better than average chance. The fact that Golden State overpaid for Maggette doesn't make the Spurs FO overrated. It's further proof that GS's FO is stupid. (This is the same group that signed Troy Murphy, Adonal Foyle, and Mike Dunlevey contracts that will pay a combined 28.8 million this year alone; and just let their best player walk.)

The FO can be accused of many things, but overrated is not one of them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PHAT TONY

Of course it's less than even, that was my point. They were going off San Antonio's supposed reputation to pull out quality draft picks late in rounds, which is basically an illusion at this point.

---

I know -- we're in complete agreement. Buford is pretty lousy at this point.

Spurs FO are really smart and calculative...All movement is calculated based on value,future movements and monetary terms. Owner of this club must be serious stingy businessman. Mark Cuban should learn one things or two from our operation. He's got a sick spending habit. Unfortunately we're cheap ass too, I haven't recall any forum discussing about salary cap in other team's forum but i guess i just didnt know about other forum. This is just a personal opinion so no need to reply on this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark in Austin

of course who a front office signs isn't the whole story; it's also who they don't sign. When was the last free agent that the Spurs signed/traded for that was a bust?

Elson? Butler? Carl Herrera? You don't see the Spurs giving bullshit contracts to bullshit overrated players like Bobby Simmons, Dampier, Kenyon Martin, etc.

Who has had better success managing the cap and delivering a winner? Who has limiter their high-risk signings to short term, small contracts better?

The Celtics just won the title after completely re-tooling their roster last summer. But Boston had 15 years worth of lottery picks stocked up for assets to use in those trades.

Even the Lakers, with all the drawing power and money of the LA market, had pretty much surrounded Kobe with bullshit until a miracle fell in their laps with Gasol.

The FO went after Maggette with everything they had, and it looked like they had a better than average chance. The fact that Golden State overpaid for Maggette doesn't make the Spurs FO overrated. It's further proof that GS's FO is stupid. (This is the same group that signed Troy Murphy, Adonal Foyle, and Mike Dunlevey contracts that will pay a combined 28.8 million this year alone; and just let their best player walk.)

The FO can be accused of many things, but overrated is not one of them.

---

The Spurs don't give bullshit (big) contracts to bad players because they don't have to - they have the big three locked up and can't spend money elsewhere. But the post-Duncan years will be a hoot watching Buford throw big money at one crap player after another. If they don't pull another #1 draft pick this team will be moving elsewhere within three years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oligarchy

You're assuming they are both going to be better players. Spurs aren't the only team to pass them over.

---

I don't care about the other teams passing them we are talking about the spurs passing them.

I still feel that Hill could have been selected in the 2nd round or a deal could have been worked out where they land Hill and another 1'st rounder like Arthur in the first round could have been made. other teams managed to work deals. A good front office makes it happen and gets things done. The spurs don't

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr. Body

The Spurs don't give bullshit (big) contracts to bad players because they don't have to - they have the big three locked up and can't spend money elsewhere. But the post-Duncan years will be a hoot watching Buford throw big money at one crap player after another. If they don't pull another #1 draft pick this team will be moving elsewhere within three years.

---

Oh, really? Bold statement there. Stupid, yes, but bold nonetheless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vy65

ESPN: Chalmers, CDR playing well with chip on shoulder

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/s...do-Day3-080709

---

ummm it's summer league which is a few steps down from pre-season... Hill has not played yet and I am sure he will have a big chip on his shoulder as well thanks to all the doubters like you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brettn

Oh, really? Bold statement there. Stupid, yes, but bold nonetheless.

---

:lol

If Buford had more money to spend he'd be making the same bad decisions. Bigger, more expensive decisions, but the same quality of bad to mediocre. Compare him to Presti.

I love these criticisms.

1. The Spurs don't trade for star players -- of course, this begs the question: who exactly are the Spurs going to give up to get star players? What assets have the Spurs had to acquire star players, other than their own star players? And is it really a forward move to rid the roster of Parker or Ginobili to get a player who might have a bigger name but a much smaller resume? At that, it's pretty difficult to argue with success.

2. The Spurs don't draft well -- I suppose this dovetails with the lack of assets to make a blockbuster deal, but the truth is that the Spurs (because their roster has been solid and uber-competitive for years) haven't exercised many draft picks on their own behalf. Since 1999, the Spurs have used their own #1 for their own purposes in 2001, 2002, 2004, 2005, 2007, and 2008 -- and obviously, the uses in 2005 and 2007 were not intended to provide immediate dividends. From those picks they've acquired Tony Parker, Speedy Claxton (a trade of the '02 pick), Beno Udrih, Ian Mahinmi, Tiago Splitter, and George Hill. They've also traded a pick in '03 to get another pick, which became Nazr Mohammed. So, the Spurs draft picks have netted 3 guys who were undoubtedly contributors to title teams; a 4th guy who wears to rings and is talented enough to have just had another club drop its MLE on him for 5 years; 2 guys who will be on the roster for the '08-09 season and are likely to contribute; and an asset who might or might not ever work out. All things considered, the success rate with those picks is actually incredible, given where the Spurs have drafted, the limited space available on their big-league roster, and the financial constraints they've dealt with for years. Of course, it's not as flashy as things that other teams have done -- and it's not the sort of draft haul that does much to excite those who fancy themselves draft wonks. Nonetheless, there's little doubt that the Spurs have found NBA talent with their picks and there's little doubt that they've used their picks, for the most part, effectively to remain competitive.

3. The Spurs are too old -- this is probably the most laughable idea to me, mostly because it seems to suggest that there will be a point when a younger group of players will simply take over and continue to maintain the Spurs' position in the league's elite. Of course, that isn't happening unless the Spurs again fall into the happy circumstance of being able to draft a once-in-a-generation player (like, say, Tim Duncan or David Robinson) and no amount of roster-building at this juncture is going to change that. Call me cynical, but I'd be interested in hearing about an NBA champion of recent vintage that didn't have either: (1) one of the 5 best players in the league on its roster; or (2) a roster filled with lottery-level talents. In the meantime, I guess I question which has the possibility of making the Spurs most competitive when it matters most -- a team filled with very young players who have virtually no experience playing the game at its highest levels or a team filled with accomplished veterans who are unflappable in big moments? I'm going to guess B on that one and, as the Spurs have shown in recent years, I'm going to win that argument.

4. The navel-gazing over the 2008 Draft -- aside from the fact that nobody has a clue about what any of these guys are going to do, I'd just like to take a moment to recall the widespread panic over the thought, last summer, that the Warriors had acquired Marco Bellinelli, who proceeded to tear up the summer leagues. Mario Chalmers and Chris Douglas-Roberts and Dorrell Arthur might all end up being quality players in the NBA; George Hill might as well. But we don't know any of that until we get them out of the summer leagues and into real NBA action. Pardon me if I'm not wincing at the thought that some of those guys have played well or will play well this summer. I'm not ready to call the Spurs draft a failure (or even to think it could have been better) without seeing what these guys are going to do when the bright lights are on and they're dealing with real NBA competition. You know, at the time (2005), there were draftniks on this forum who were bent that the Spurs didn't pick Wayne Simien or Salim Stoudamire and instead took Mahinmi. Does that still look to have been such a bad decision?



Given that I find the foregoing criticisms to be rather weak, I'm inclined to think the Spurs' front office is appropriately rated as one of the better groups in the league. Certainly, they've benefitted from having a once-in-a-generation piece like Tim Duncan to build around; but they've retooled this roster at least 3 times and managed to win titles in each incarnation of that group. They won with a vet-savvy team in 1999, they won with a team that blended older players with young players (but fairly established young players) in 2003, they won again with an older group in 2005 and 2007. They've reached 6 of the last 10 conference finals and haven't missed the 2nd round in 8 years. I honestly don't see many (if any) other organizations being that self-sustaining over such long stretches of time. And given those successes, it's really hard to argue, in my opinion, that those who run the organization could at all be overrated. It's all about success and nobody has been more successful.

Eh, all that typing and I'm not convinced. I'll bump them to mediocre. Regardless they should have kept Presti and booted Buford. Presti looks like a genius, Buford not so much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wisnub

Spurs FO are really smart and calculative...All movement is calculated based on value,future movements and monetary terms. Owner of this club must be serious stingy businessman. Mark Cuban should learn one things or two from our operation. He's got a sick spending habit. Unfortunately we're cheap ass too, I haven't recall any forum discussing about salary cap in other team's forum but i guess i just didnt know about other forum. This is just a personal opinion so no need to reply on this.

---

The spurs success is based on the lucky lottery balls Robinson then Duncan. Give Cuban Duncan to start with and he builds a champion.

how long did it take the lakers to get kobe more help
and west had to give the lakers gasol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rascal

I don't care about the other teams passing them we are talking about the spurs passing them.

I still feel that Hill could have been selected in the 2nd round or a deal could have been worked out where they land Hill and another 1'st rounder like Arthur in the first round could have been made. other teams managed to work deals. A good front office makes it happen and gets things done. The spurs don't

---

Hill probably could've been got in the 2nd round but that's still no guarantee. He's who the team was targeting and once he was available they grabbed him, regardless of who was still on the board. You can argue that Pop and the FO should have taken a gamble on Arthur, Greene or whoever and cross their fingers and hope Hill falls to them in the 2nd round. That's not the team's style in general though. They see what they like and go after it.

I don't necessarily agree with the pick either. If we were going after PG's I would have much rather drafted Chalmers. But 4 championships in the past decade, I think they've earned a pass. Wait till the season plays out to pass judgment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr. Body

The Spurs don't give bullshit (big) contracts to bad players because they don't have to - they have the big three locked up and can't spend money elsewhere.

---

Oh no? there's a thing called the Full MLE that NY has spent on Jerome James and Jared Jefferies; and just the other day Orlando spent theirs on Peitrus. When teams want to spend money, even over the cap, they can. The Spurs have had the discipline not to do so when the talent doesn't measure up to the money being asked for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr. Body

Eh, all that typing and I'm not convinced. I'll bump them to mediocre. Regardless they should have kept Presti and booted Buford. Presti looks like a genius, Buford not so much.

---

Build rosters that win? yes.

Revamped that roster several times over without a major trade? yes.

Complied with onerous financial limitations imposed by ownership? yes.

Used draft picks effectively? yes.

Since when does the effectiveness of the front office depend on lots of flashy wheeling-and-dealing? Why isn't on-court success the most significant metric for measuring organizational success? My only conclusion is that there are some -- the armchair GMs who believe they could actually do it better than those who are actually GMs -- who believe that they could do it better. I'd honestly dispute that.

This organization isn't in a build-for-the-future mode at this juncture; nor should it be. If they were stockpiling picks and things like that, this board would be crazy with people wondering why they're not trying to win now. The point is that they are trying to win now. And they've been successful in that mode while capitalizing on the Tim Duncan years. For crissakes, one can make a fairly reasonable argument that but for .4, the Manu foul, and bum ankle, this organization, for all of the purported inadequacies of its front office, could be trying to muster the steam to make a run at its 7th straight title. I guess I should really be discontent that they've only won 3 titles in 7 years (as many titles in that 7 year stretch than all but 3 franchises)!! And I should really be pissed that this front office hasn't been more effective. . . .

4 recent NBA titles. 3 legitimate superstars thriving on the same roster. Ability to stay under the cap practically every year while still discovering and signing some great talent.

Yeah...our front office is crap.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown

Build rosters that win? yes.

Revamped that roster several times over without a major trade? yes.

Complied with onerous financial limitations imposed by ownership? yes.

Used draft picks effectively? yes.

Since when does the effectiveness of the front office depend on lots of flashy wheeling-and-dealing? Why isn't on-court success the most significant metric for measuring organizational success? My only conclusion is that there are some -- the armchair GMs who believe they could actually do it better than those who are actually GMs -- who believe that they could do it better. I'd honestly dispute that.

This organization isn't in a build-for-the-future mode at this juncture; nor should it be. If they were stockpiling picks and things like that, this board would be crazy with people wondering why they're not trying to win now. The point is that they are trying to win now. And they've been successful in that mode while capitalizing on the Tim Duncan years. For crissakes, one can make a fairly reasonable argument that but for .4, the Manu foul, and bum ankle, this organization, for all of the purported inadequacies of its front office, could be trying to muster the steam to make a run at its 7th straight title. I guess I should really be discontent that they've only won 3 titles in 7 years (as many titles in that 7 year stretch than all but 3 franchises)!! And I should really be pissed that this front office hasn't been more effective. . . .

---

You're wasting your time. Just say the FO sucks, can't draft, don't make big splashes in free agency, don't sign terrible players to huge contracts. Spurs fans on this board apparently know better ways to spend money, draft, and win than the FO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ed Helicopter Jones

4 recent NBA titles. 3 legitimate superstars thriving on the same roster. Ability to stay under the cap practically every year while still discovering and signing some great talent.

Yeah...our front office is crap.

---

The teams success revolves around Duncan not the moves by the front office. When Duncan is gone the team will be lottery bound for many yrs if this front office is running the show.

It will take another lucky lottery bounce to land a franchise player and that may take many years. But I'm sure Pop and co. will leave when Duncan retires.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rascal

The teams success revolves around Duncan not the moves by the front office. When Duncan is gone the team will be lottery bound for many yrs if this front office is running the show.

It will take another lucky lottery bounce to land a franchise player and that may take many years. But I'm sure Pop and co. will leave when Duncan retires.

---

Question: So since the team's success revolves around Duncan, does the FO get any credit for locking him up for his entire career? Also, does the FO get credit for maintaining the same core group of all stars for several years now?

What core group of all stars? Manu is not an all star, just below star status. Parker is borderline all star.

So signing Duncan long term is a great fo move now? I'd say that was a no brainer.

Now you're just getting picky with calling them all-stars. For your purposes, I'll call them "Stars." It doesn't matter, all 3 of them are top 10 players at their positions in the entire league. The fact that the Spurs FO has maintained this same core group over the years is good work in and of itself. Call them "stars," or "all-stars," I really don't give a fuck. But they're damn good players that the Spurs have done a great job of hanging onto.

And yes, I would say signing Duncan long term is a pretty good FO move...? Wouldn't you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brettn

Now you're just getting picky with calling them all-stars. For your purposes, I'll call them "Stars." It doesn't matter, all 3 of them are top 10 players at their positions in the entire league. The fact that the Spurs FO has maintained this same core group over the years is good work in and of itself. Call them "stars," or "all-stars," I really don't give a fuck. But they're damn good players that the Spurs have done a great job of hanging onto.

And yes, I would say signing Duncan long term is a pretty good FO move...? Wouldn't you?

---

..but every team keeps their free agents. don't they?

Ginobili was Third Team All-NBA in 2007-08; there were many players who played in the All-Star game in February who didn't make any All-NBA team. And Parker is one year removed from back-to-back All-Star selections by the Western Conference coaches. Seems pretty cynical to argue that neither is an all-star.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown

Ginobili was Third Team All-NBA in 2007-08; there were many players who played in the All-Star game in February who didn't make any All-NBA team. And Parker is one year removed from back-to-back All-Star selections by the Western Conference coaches. Seems pretty cynical to argue that neither is an all-star.

---

Don't confuse him with the facts! :lol

If Duncan is succeeding despite the front office, I expect that there will be threads (by the front office cynics) discussing Tim's status as singularly the greatest player in the history of the game. I mean, the dude is winning titles despite the fact that his own front office can't figure out how to put together successful, competitive teams -- surely no great player has ever had to overcome more adversity on his way to greatness.

I'll keep checking the front page for that discussion.

Mavs FO sucks. If they're rated higher than that, then they're overrated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark in Austin

of course who a front office signs isn't the whole story; it's also who they don't sign. When was the last free agent that the Spurs signed/traded for that was a bust?

Elson? Butler? Carl Herrera? You don't see the Spurs giving bullshit contracts to bullshit overrated players like Bobby Simmons, Dampier, Kenyon Martin, etc.

Who has had better success managing the cap and delivering a winner? Who has limiter their high-risk signings to short term, small contracts better?

The Celtics just won the title after completely re-tooling their roster last summer. But Boston had 15 years worth of lottery picks stocked up for assets to use in those trades.

Even the Lakers, with all the drawing power and money of the LA market, had pretty much surrounded Kobe with bullshit until a miracle fell in their laps with Gasol.

The FO went after Maggette with everything they had, and it looked like they had a better than average chance. The fact that Golden State overpaid for Maggette doesn't make the Spurs FO overrated. It's further proof that GS's FO is stupid. (This is the same group that signed Troy Murphy, Adonal Foyle, and Mike Dunlevey contracts that will pay a combined 28.8 million this year alone; and just let their best player walk.)

The FO can be accused of many things, but overrated is not one of them.

---

Counter-argument can be made that a criticism is valid for a deal that never happened.

Spurs were ready and willing to give Jason Kidd a 7 year max contract worth I believe over $111 million and in the process trade Tony Parker to the Nets in the deal. The deal didn't happen not because the Spurs changed their minds but because Kidd chose to stay in New Jersey. Not only has Kidd seen a sharp decline in the last few years, but Tony Parker has emerged as a star player who was a major factor in winning another couple titles.

All FO make calculated moves and sometimes they don't work. That's the nature of the job though. You take the heat when things don't work out.

Look at the Detroit Pistons with the Grant Hill-Ben Wallace trade in 2000. Dumars gets credit for snagging Ben Wallace out of that trade, but he really shouldn't. It's not like he wanted to make that deal. He wanted Grant Hill to stay. And, despite Hill's injuries, that would have been the right move at the time, to convince Hill to stay in Detroit. And, Orlando gets criticized for the deal but that was the right free agent acquisition to make. Grant Hill was a top 5 player in the league at the time. And, while you can do all the medical research in the world, sometimes you can't predict the amount and to what extent an injury or injuries will affect a player. Dumars gets praised for stealing Ben Wallace in the Grant Hill trade, but Dumars didn't want that trade and it's only a good deal for Detroit because of Grant Hill's lingering injuries. Even Dumars didn't predict Ben Wallace would become who he became.

It's impossible for a FO guy to make all the right moves all the time when talking about building, improving, and reshaping a roster through the draft, free agency, and via trades. And, sometimes really good deals don't lead to titles. And, sometimes really good deals happen because of things no one could have predicted, and not just based on performance of players.

It's all a guessing game. Some are better at making smarter, more educated guesses. But, it's guessing all the same.

Quote:

---

Spurs were ready and willing to give Jason Kidd a 7 year max contract worth I believe over $111 million and in the process trade Tony Parker to the Nets in the deal.

---

I never read anything about trading Parker.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Findog

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/215/5...4ccb5cc2_o.jpg

---

do you happen to have a video of that fight?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown

I love these criticisms.

1. The Spurs don't trade for star players -- of course, this begs the question: who exactly are the Spurs going to give up to get star players? What assets have the Spurs had to acquire star players, other than their own star players? And is it really a forward move to rid the roster of Parker or Ginobili to get a player who might have a bigger name but a much smaller resume? At that, it's pretty difficult to argue with success.

2. The Spurs don't draft well -- I suppose this dovetails with the lack of assets to make a blockbuster deal, but the truth is that the Spurs (because their roster has been solid and uber-competitive for years) haven't exercised many draft picks on their own behalf. Since 1999, the Spurs have used their own #1 for their own purposes in 2001, 2002, 2004, 2005, 2007, and 2008 -- and obviously, the uses in 2005 and 2007 were not intended to provide immediate dividends. From those picks they've acquired Tony Parker, Speedy Claxton (a trade of the '02 pick), Beno Udrih, Ian Mahinmi, Tiago Splitter, and George Hill. They've also traded a pick in '03 to get another pick, which became Nazr Mohammed. So, the Spurs draft picks have netted 3 guys who were undoubtedly contributors to title teams; a 4th guy who wears to rings and is talented enough to have just had another club drop its MLE on him for 5 years; 2 guys who will be on the roster for the '08-09 season and are likely to contribute; and an asset who might or might not ever work out. All things considered, the success rate with those picks is actually incredible, given where the Spurs have drafted, the limited space available on their big-league roster, and the financial constraints they've dealt with for years. Of course, it's not as flashy as things that other teams have done -- and it's not the sort of draft haul that does much to excite those who fancy themselves draft wonks. Nonetheless, there's little doubt that the Spurs have found NBA talent with their picks and there's little doubt that they've used their picks, for the most part, effectively to remain competitive.

3. The Spurs are too old -- this is probably the most laughable idea to me, mostly because it seems to suggest that there will be a point when a younger group of players will simply take over and continue to maintain the Spurs' position in the league's elite. Of course, that isn't happening unless the Spurs again fall into the happy circumstance of being able to draft a once-in-a-generation player (like, say, Tim Duncan or David Robinson) and no amount of roster-building at this juncture is going to change that. Call me cynical, but I'd be interested in hearing about an NBA champion of recent vintage that didn't have either: (1) one of the 5 best players in the league on its roster; or (2) a roster filled with lottery-level talents. In the meantime, I guess I question which has the possibility of making the Spurs most competitive when it matters most -- a team filled with very young players who have virtually no experience playing the game at its highest levels or a team filled with accomplished veterans who are unflappable in big moments? I'm going to guess B on that one and, as the Spurs have shown in recent years, I'm going to win that argument.

4. The navel-gazing over the 2008 Draft -- aside from the fact that nobody has a clue about what any of these guys are going to do, I'd just like to take a moment to recall the widespread panic over the thought, last summer, that the Warriors had acquired Marco Bellinelli, who proceeded to tear up the summer leagues. Mario Chalmers and Chris Douglas-Roberts and Dorrell Arthur might all end up being quality players in the NBA; George Hill might as well. But we don't know any of that until we get them out of the summer leagues and into real NBA action. Pardon me if I'm not wincing at the thought that some of those guys have played well or will play well this summer. I'm not ready to call the Spurs draft a failure (or even to think it could have been better) without seeing what these guys are going to do when the bright lights are on and they're dealing with real NBA competition. You know, at the time (2005), there were draftniks on this forum who were bent that the Spurs didn't pick Wayne Simien or Salim Stoudamire and instead took Mahinmi. Does that still look to have been such a bad decision?



Given that I find the foregoing criticisms to be rather weak, I'm inclined to think the Spurs' front office is appropriately rated as one of the better groups in the league. Certainly, they've benefitted from having a once-in-a-generation piece like Tim Duncan to build around; but they've retooled this roster at least 3 times and managed to win titles in each incarnation of that group. They won with a vet-savvy team in 1999, they won with a team that blended older players with young players (but fairly established young players) in 2003, they won again with an older group in 2005 and 2007. They've reached 6 of the last 10 conference finals and haven't missed the 2nd round in 8 years. I honestly don't see many (if any) other organizations being that self-sustaining over such long stretches of time. And given those successes, it's really hard to argue, in my opinion, that those who run the organization could at all be overrated. It's all about success and nobody has been more successful.

---

Well stated. I, for one, look forward to the day when the Spurs trade Parker so we the front office can validate itself as an elite group.

rascal and Mr. Body need to find another team to follow that makes a bunch of moves every year (Knicks, Blazers, etc).

pretty hard to win 4 in 9, so no they arent overrated. they work hard every summer, sometimes luck is on your side sometimes its not. theyre still the best at building a championship team that doesnt pay the tax, every team in finals the last couple years have been in the tax except for us. thats no accident. you take risks, if they work, youre a genies, if they dont you are overrated. this type of double standard is all too common nowadays.

theyre also competing with 29 other teams, and weve been the winningest franchise among all major sports (record wise) what can you really complain about?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rascal

The spurs success is based on the lucky lottery balls Robinson then Duncan. Give Cuban Duncan to start with and he builds a champion.

---

So, the Spurs lost this year because Duncan? There are other players on the team that are needed to win a championship. One good player doesn't make a team.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oligarchy

So, the Spurs lost this year because Duncan? There are other players on the team that are needed to win a championship. One good player doesn't make a team.

---

The spurs lost because the front office decided to stand pat last summer with the old guys and the Lakers made the big trade to land Gasol. Sometimes the marginal talent surrounding Duncan is good enough and sometimes it isn't. Last year it wasn't. Thats also why you don't see back to back titles.

All you need is to surround Duncan (and don't forget the other lucky lottery bounce Robinson who helped them win two titles) with an overall team of average talented players and its enough to compete for a title. You add Duncan to any team in the league and they instantly become contenders.

Duncan is a top 10 all time player and the spurs success is due to him. Like I said earlier Duncan hides the inadequacies of the front office.

I would think that lakers got a gift when they got gasol
no front office expected such a gift

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant

rascal and Mr. Body need to find another team to follow that makes a bunch of moves every year (Knicks, Blazers, etc).

---

Uh, that's not really the point.

Actually, it is.

Otherwise you are bitching just to bitch.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rascal

The spurs lost because the front office decided to stand pat last summer with the old guys and the Lakers made the big trade to land Gasol. Sometimes the marginal talent surrounding Duncan is good enough and sometimes it isn't. Last year it wasn't. Thats also why you don't see back to back titles.

All you need is to surround Duncan (and don't forget the other lucky lottery bounce Robinson who helped them win two titles) with an overall team of average talented players and its enough to compete for a title. You add Duncan to any team in the league and they instantly become contenders.

Duncan is a top 10 all time player and the spurs success is due to him. Like I said earlier Duncan hides the inadequacies of the front office.

---

So Parker and Ginobili are average talent and can easily be replaced by other average talent and they are going to win a title?

So why is it the FOs fault if they only needed average players? According to you they could sign anyone, because with Duncan's ability it's a lock, so it's Duncan's fault.

It's good to know that Parker and Ginobili have suddenly been downgraded to "average talent" for the purpose of your argument. Whoda thunk it?

You can't compare what Boston and Portland have done to what the Spurs have done. Those teams had to suck for half a decade in order to amass young talent. So while the Spurs were lifting multiple championship trophies over their heads, those teams were wringing their hands over the likes of Zach Randolph, Antoine Walker, Rueben Patterson, and Ricky Davis. If you guys are pissed about winning 4 championships and losing in the conference finals last year, I'd love to see how you'd react to winning 27 games and having guys on the team whose free time consists of statuatory rape and multiple strip club brawls.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rascal

All you need is to surround Duncan with an overall team of average talented players and its enough to compete for a title.

---

Then how have the Spurs not exceeded your expectations? Year in and year out the Spurs have surrounded Duncan with two all-stars, vets who are proven winners and great coaching.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rascal

its enough to compete for a title.

---

They compete for a title every season, literally, every season. So wtf are you bitching about?

when i first joined, i kept hearing a poster(s) (mark bryant? chumper?) say that spurs fans were a bunch of spoiled fuckers.. to be honest i didn't agree with that... until now..

rascal.. maybe you should jump ship.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by angelbelow

when i first joined, i kept hearing a poster(s) (mark bryant? chumper?) say that spurs fans were a bunch of spoiled fuckers.. to be honest i didn't agree with that... until now..

rascal.. maybe you should jump ship.

---

So true. What is the real argument here? Is it that Duncan is the only reason the Spurs have 4 titles, but with a really good FO, they'd have 6 or 7? Those are crazy expectations. There are 25 teams in the NBA who haven't won a title in the last ten years, teams with many lottery picks, teams that have traded dozens of players-- what's the deal with them? If you are deeply dissatisfied with the single most successful franchise in American Sports over the past decade, that probably just means that you are a deeply dissatisfied person, regardless of what the Spurs do.

LOL at anybody building up the Laker front office based on the Gasol deal.

First, it was a gift, nothing less. Second, they wouldn't have even gotten that gift if they hadn't been able to include Kwame Brown, who they traded away CARON BUTLER for. Outstanding move there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tully365

You can't compare what Boston and Portland have done to what the Spurs have done. Those teams had to suck for half a decade in order to amass young talent. So while the Spurs were lifting multiple championship trophies over their heads, those teams were wringing their hands over the likes of Zach Randolph, Antoine Walker, Rueben Patterson, and Ricky Davis. If you guys are pissed about winning 4 championships and losing in the conference finals last year, I'd love to see how you'd react to winning 27 games and having guys on the team whose free time consists of statuatory rape and multiple strip club brawls.

---

The spurs would be in the same position or worse than those teams had they not landed Duncan. What impressive personal moves have this fo done in the last 10 years? Bowen(although this guy should be coming off the bench as only a defensive specialist) Parker and Manu Horry off the bench. Less than you can count on one hand. Everything else has been nothing all that great. many players who stayed for a year or two and were replaced by similar talented players. In other words players that can be called interchangeable and not that special.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rascal

The spurs would be in the same position or worse than those teams had they not landed Duncan. What impressive personal moves have this fo done in the last 10 years?

---

"If the Spurs didn't draft Duncan they wouldn't be the #1 winning franchise in all of professional sports in the past ten years and the FO would be exposed"

I think you take for granted what the FO has done with Duncan. You act as if a team receives the #1 pick they're supposed to win 4 titles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by __JaG__

You act as if a team receives the #1 pick they're supposed to win 4 titles.

---

Well, that's how it's always worked out for the Clippers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown

Well, that's how it's always worked out for the Clippers.

---

That's how it worked out for the Knicks when they drafted one of the best centers of all time with their #1 pick.