most overrated FO in the NBA?..

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.