most overrated FO in the NBA?..

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?