Spot Number 4 - Top 50 Spurs

SpursTalk's Top 50 Spurs
1. Tim Duncan
2. David Robinson
3. George Gervin

------------------------------

To pass the time until the start of preseason, let's see how SpursTalk.com ranks the Top 50 Spurs. Those eligible for the list include all players, coaches and owners. I don't want to define "top" too narrowly, but I think the best way to do it would be to think of the list as a list of the 50 most influential people who have helped make the Spurs one of the most successful franchises in the history of sport.

For more information on what we are doing, check out this thread.

In this thread, we will vote for spot number four. Please place your vote. If you will, also explain in this thread why you voted how you did.

Thanks.



P.S.

Poll options listed in alphabetical order. If you want to vote for someone not on the list, post in the thread and I'll add the person.

Voting will end 2AM CST Wednesday morning. Please vote only once.

Earlier I was going to vote Drossos here but I'm converted to Pop after reading comments......Pop can sometimes be a bonehead but he was a huge part of four championships and is a lock for hall o' fame. Drossos should be five for sure but Pop at four is fair............six maybe Manu but maybe not have to think some more........hmm

Voted for Pop...

He is behind Duncan the biggest reason for all 4 championships and the best organisation in American pro sports.

Drossos. No question.

He brought basketball to the wilderness and built an elite team from almost zero. Imagine Mark Cuban doing what he did without the money.

It's safe to say that no other Spur, and very few other people period, have made such a lasting impact on the league. Drossos is the major reason for the three-point shot coming to the NBA (which was vehemently opposed by Red Auerbach) and the salary cap. If the criteria is supposed to be "influential", that ends the discussion.

Can we ban the people voting for Manu?

I'm torn between Pop and Drossos. I think both are very deserving of this spot. On one hand, you have the owner who basically ignored common sense and ignored those who wanted his downfall and just forced the Spurs into existence. San Antonio back then didn't really have the capabilities to be the home of a major sports franchise. Heck, San Antonio today can barely survive ... and the only reason for that survival is the salary cap, which Drossos helped institute.

On the other hand, Pop is a Hall of Fame coach who will go down as one of the best coaches in NBA history. It's true that he makes mistakes but judging him from 1998 to today, he's been an overwhelming success. On top of that, Pop was a very good general manager and was one of the last people to successfully juggle both coach and GM roles. Then I think he gets a couple extra bonus points for his assistant coaching job during the Larry Brown era.

I'm leaning toward Pop right now because his resume is so impressive. Hall of Fame coach. Fantastic GM. On top of that, he's instituted a no-nonsense approach to winning and his coaching style of treating everyone the same has arguably been the thing that has allowed the Spurs to have staying power because that takes away chances of chemistry issues between the stars and the role players.

And the cherry on top for me is Pop has never drama queened and has never even hinted at taking another job. Considering he cut his NBA teeth learning from Larry Brown and Don Nelson, that is damn near a miracle. Not only has Pop not tried to go out and get a higher profile job, we don't even hear of his contract negotiations or when he signs contract extension. He just goes about his job without complaint while shying away from the spotlight as much as humanly possible.

I have massive respect for Drossos (in fact I may still be swayed over to voting for him) but right now I'm leaning toward Pop for spot four.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShoogarBear

Can we ban the people voting for Manu?

---

Yeah it'd at least be nice to see one of the Manu Voters make a case for him. Seeing as they've voted him over Tim Duncan, David Robinson and George Gervin, perhaps Manu is indeed the greatest Spur of all-time and I just don't know about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShoogarBear

Can we ban the people voting for Manu?

---

Yeah, lets ban anyone who thinks diferent than you... I mean, voting for Manu at 4th... unthinkable!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by timvp

Yeah it'd at least be nice to see one of the Manu Voters make a case for him. Seeing as they've voted him over Tim Duncan, David Robinson and George Gervin, perhaps Manu is indeed the greatest Spur of all-time and I just don't know about it.

---

I would agree Timmy-DRob >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Manu, and voting anything else would be stupid, but at 4th I don't think voting Manu has anything wrong with it.

Regarding making a case for him, there are posters with much better english than me, I was hopping for one of them to do it. But just as a hint, I personally consider players>coaches>owners regarding their value to the team. Pop, as good as he may be, depended on great players like DRob and Timmy to win anything. Of course, my opinion is as personal as it gets, and I'm sure many will disagree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Deimosfobos

Yeah, lets ban anyone who thinks diferent than you

---

It has nothing to do with thinking differently, and everything to do with being a complete idiot.

Quote:

---

... I mean, voting for Manu at 4th... unthinkable!!

---

For anyone with an iota of basketball knowledge? Yes.

Drossos time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShoogarBear

It has nothing to do with thinking differently, and everything to do with being a complete idiot.



For anyone with an iota of basketball knowledge? Yes.

---

Then why even vote?

I mean... is clear you know how the list should go, don't waste the time with a senseless voting and just make the damm list. :rolleyes

For the Spot Number 5, just put the correct answer and save us from our own opinions! :lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Deimosfobos

Then why even vote?

I mean... is clear you know how the list should go, don't waste the time with a senseless voting and just make the damm list. :rolleyes

For the Spot Number 5, just put the correct answer and save us from our own opinions! :lol

---

Don't try to martyr yourself. Lots of people disagreed with me on Robinson being number 1. That doesn't make them complete idiots.

Voting for Manu #4 does.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShoogarBear

Don't try to martyr yourself. Lots of people disagreed with me on Robinson being number 1. That doesn't make them complete idiots.

Voting for Manu #4 does.

---

Not sure you know what a martyr really is, and I'm quite sure you missed my point... whatever...

You call others idiots, but you act like one... funny. :lol

Also, I'm sure you didn't notice, but by your idiotic logic, timvp is an idiot for even puting Manu on that list as a choice then. I mean... if voting manu in 4th is so clearly stupid, why even put him on the list? Just to insult those who vote him? :lol:lol:lol:lol

:flipoff @Shoogar :lol

Timvp - ask, and ye shall recieve... ;)

Manu Ginobili injected an element of random, swash-buckling excitement into Spurs basketball that I have never seen before*. With his daredevil style he has become the best European slasher the NBA has seen, and added to that he has will to win on the level of the greats (dare I say Jordanesque?). He was a large part of the transformation from the dour defensive juggernaut that won in 2003 to the multi-flavoured basketball machine of 2005, and the steam-roller of 2007. Moreover, Manu has added to his game over time by first improving his D (less gambling), and then his 3pt shooting and midrange game (although the latter is still a little streaky...). That he is flawed and human, as revealed by the foul heard around the world in 2006, only makes him greater because, unlike Dirk and countless others, he bounced back from that bitter play to win again.

I would have said Pop for all he has done since finally learning to coach in 2003 (kidding - he has always managed egos well, and run his team like a family, which I appreciate), but for me the great players come first - without them there is no game, and no need for a coach. And Manu is a truly unique talent, a rare combination of flare, guts and jedi, and a champion at all levels who plays only to win.

Manu for 4.

*Note: I am too young to judge the Gervin era, which also rules out Silas and Drossos. As for Holt and McComb, once again, it's all about the players for me on this kind of list.

To me, without Angelo Drossos, there is no Spurs.

It might have been easy, in 1976, for Drossos to take the money and run. He could have simply sold out and allowed a different ABA team to be part of the merger -- the owners of the Spirits of St. Louis did exactly that. But he didn't and ended up giving San Antonio the gift that keeps on giving. Beyond that, Drossos became a steward to the needs of small market teams and, through his efforts, ensured that a team could stay in San Antonio and be viable (at least on the court) because of rules that level the playing field. In the years that have followed, the franchise that he created has been able to develop a culture of winning, manifested by its 4 championships, its 10 appearances in the conference finals, and its 15 division crowns and 28 playoff appearances. More than that, even, the consistency of the operation that Drossos made happen is evidenced by the fact that his team has the 2nd best aggregate winning percentage in NBA history and the 2nd most playoff wins of all franchises since the merger. All of that from a team that operates in one of the smallest markets in pro sports, in an era in which the disparity between big markets and small is greater than ever.

To be sure, the Spurs have been fortunate in a number of ways that have made all of the above happen. But none of it would have been possible without Drossos and other than the 3 superstars who've toiled for the franchise and have made the Spurs viable on the court, I can't imagine that anyone has truly been more important to the Spurs' history than Angelo Drossos.

No Drossos, no Spurs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Deimosfobos

Not sure you know what a martyr really is, and I'm quite sure you missed my point... whatever...

---

You had no point. You tried to make it seem like I was infringing on your right to have an opinion, when I was doing no such thing. I was just calling that choice idiotic.

Quote:

---

Also, I'm sure you didn't notice, but by your idiotic logic, timvp is an idiot for even puting Manu on that list as a choice then. I mean... if voting manu in 4th is so clearly stupid, why even put him on the list? Just to insult those who vote him? :lol:lol:lol:lol

---

Idiot flypaper.

Number 4 should be Drossos or Pop. I don't know Drossos enough to judge which one should be number 4. i won't vote for this one unless another guy threat them to get the 4th spot.

And if people want to vote for a player at number 4, vote for Parker and not Ginobili. Both have been very close since 2005 but Parker was significantly better than Ginobili in 2003.
Anyway, given the wild love for Manu on this board, I don't expect people to be logical and we will see non-sense on this list like Manu above Tony. Two years ago, I would have been pissed at that, now it just makes me laugh.

finally my vote for Drossos will make an impact:LOL but it's a no brainer for me that he HAS to go here.

i wanted Pop to be #3... so now he got my Vote...

Agreeing with 1-3 and the probable 4, I'm guessing I'm about to diverge. Several Spurs that are nearing the top for me are not yet on the list. Different strokes for different folks. Please consider adding:

Alvin Robertson
Artis Gilmore
Avery Johnson
Doug Moe

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShoogarBear

You had no point. You tried to make it seem like I was infringing on your right to have an opinion, when I was doing no such thing. I was just calling that choice idiotic.

---

Saying that anyone voting for Manu as Number 4 should get banned and that they are all idiots no matter what is not trying to infringe their right to have an opinion... sure... :rolleyes:rollin

I voted for Pop.

It was not an easy selection for me because of the people nominated with Pop, I like several of them better than him.

However, Pop has been a crucial part in forming, training, and leading many successful Spurs squads, so fairness demanded that I vote for him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown

To me, without Angelo Drossos, there is no Spurs.

It might have been easy, in 1976, for Drossos to take the money and run. He could have simply sold out and allowed a different ABA team to be part of the merger -- the owners of the Spirits of St. Louis did exactly that. But he didn't and ended up giving San Antonio the gift that keeps on giving. Beyond that, Drossos became a steward to the needs of small market teams and, through his efforts, ensured that a team could stay in San Antonio and be viable (at least on the court) because of rules that level the playing field. In the years that have followed, the franchise that he created has been able to develop a culture of winning, manifested by its 4 championships, its 10 appearances in the conference finals, and its 15 division crowns and 28 playoff appearances. More than that, even, the consistency of the operation that Drossos made happen is evidenced by the fact that his team has the 2nd best aggregate winning percentage in NBA history and the 2nd most playoff wins of all franchises since the merger. All of that from a team that operates in one of the smallest markets in pro sports, in an era in which the disparity between big markets and small is greater than ever.

To be sure, the Spurs have been fortunate in a number of ways that have made all of the above happen. But none of it would have been possible without Drossos and other than the 3 superstars who've toiled for the franchise and have made the Spurs viable on the court, I can't imagine that anyone has truly been more important to the Spurs' history than Angelo Drossos.

No Drossos, no Spurs.

---

I nominate FWD to be in charge of completing Drossos' Wikipedia page, which as of right now is severely lacking.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angelo_Drossos

I voted for Manu.


I completely understand everything Pop and Drossos have meant to this organization, and have an appreciation for that. But without Manu Ginobili, the Spurs are three championships less than they are now. There is no dynasty, there is no legacy, and there's probably a legitimate argument for David Robinson being the best Spur of all time.

That being said, I'll probably vote for Tony Parker as number 5.

Pop ahead of Manu 27-9? No way.

I guess Pop should have been voted ahead of Tim Duncan then.

Had to go Manu here over Pop. It was tough though. Both are winners.

Gotta go for Pop

I flipped a coin. Pop won. Can we put Drossos as 4a or something? It's too hard to weigh in my opinion. The guy responsible for the franchise being here or the guy who sculpted the franchise into the model for the rest of the league? I took the Two Face way out.

Pop.

Stephen Jackson.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I Love Me Some Me

I voted for Manu.


I completely understand everything Pop and Drossos have meant to this organization, and have an appreciation for that. But without Manu Ginobili, the Spurs are three championships less than they are now. There is no dynasty, there is no legacy, and there's probably a legitimate argument for David Robinson being the best Spur of all time.

That being said, I'll probably vote for Tony Parker as number 5.

---

Without Drossos, their is no Spurs to attach a legacy and dynasty to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spurs_fan_in_exile

I flipped a coin. I took the Two Face way out.

---

:lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by timvp

I'm torn between Pop and Drossos. I think both are very deserving of this spot. On one hand, you have the owner who basically ignored common sense and ignored those who wanted his downfall and just forced the Spurs into existence. San Antonio back then didn't really have the capabilities to be the home of a major sports franchise. Heck, San Antonio today can barely survive ... and the only reason for that survival is the salary cap, which Drossos helped institute.

On the other hand, Pop is a Hall of Fame coach who will go down as one of the best coaches in NBA history. It's true that he makes mistakes but judging him from 1998 to today, he's been an overwhelming success. On top of that, Pop was a very good general manager and was one of the last people to successfully juggle both coach and GM roles. Then I think he gets a couple extra bonus points for his assistant coaching job during the Larry Brown era.

I'm leaning toward Pop right now because his resume is so impressive. Hall of Fame coach. Fantastic GM. On top of that, he's instituted a no-nonsense approach to winning and his coaching style of treating everyone the same has arguably been the thing that has allowed the Spurs to have staying power because that takes away chances of chemistry issues between the stars and the role players.

And the cherry on top for me is Pop has never drama queened and has never even hinted at taking another job. Considering he cut his NBA teeth learning from Larry Brown and Don Nelson, that is damn near a miracle. Not only has Pop not tried to go out and get a higher profile job, we don't even hear of his contract negotiations or when he signs contract extension. He just goes about his job without complaint while shying away from the spotlight as much as humanly possible.

I have massive respect for Drossos (in fact I may still be swayed over to voting for him) but right now I'm leaning toward Pop for spot four.

---

Disagree with the fantastic gm part. No star players acquired through trades in 10 years. Two great low draft picks that worked out but other than that nothing significant thru the draft.

Poor free agency decisions going for Kidd when they already had Parker and signing Rasho. Passing on Sprewell when Spree was still a great player.

Getting players who only stay for 1 year for one reason or another D Anderson, Claxton, Muhammed, Turkoglu . S Smith was not the player they thought they were getting.

And the long list of failures by the front office the last couple of years that have been noted on this site many times.

He has been a great coach but as a gm not great at all. Two titles with Robinson and Duncan in 6 years is not great.

I voted for Drossos. He built the early spurs teams from nothing without getting any lucky lottery bounces. Those teams were successful enough to get a small market like San Antonio into the NBA.No Drossos no Spurs. I am sure there are many coaches and gms who could win with Robinson and duncan given to them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I Love Me Some Me

I voted for Manu.


I completely understand everything Pop and Drossos have meant to this organization, and have an appreciation for that. But without Manu Ginobili, the Spurs are three championships less than they are now. There is no dynasty, there is no legacy, and there's probably a legitimate argument for David Robinson being the best Spur of all time.

That being said, I'll probably vote for Tony Parker as number 5.

---

without ginobili the spurs might have 1 less trophy... or maybe 1 more

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by T Park

finally my vote for Drossos will make an impact:LOL but it's a no brainer for me that he HAS to go here.

---

Drossos to the spurs is like George Washington is to America.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rascal

Disagree with the fantastic gm part. No star players acquired through trades in 10 years. Two great low draft picks that worked out but other than that nothing significant thru the draft.

Poor free agency decisions going for Kidd when they already had Parker and signing Rasho. Passing on Sprewell when Spree was still a great player.

---

The guy took a roster that always underperformed, added in some low-priced vets with experience and made his team into a champion.

When those vets withered on the vine, Pop retooled with an eye towards youth and built a roster that was half grizzled vets and half young guns -- and turned his team into a champion.

When the grizzled vets on that roster retired, and when some of the young players became higher priced, Pop retooled again with a new crew of role players -- and turned his team again into a champion.

And when the nature of the NBA game changed and made many of the pieces that won in 2005 obsolete, Pop helped to retool once more -- and once again, turned his team into a champion.

Being a good GM isn't always about flashy moves, acquiring star players, or being a draft guru. Being a good GM is about identifying the needs of your team and addressing them (in the confines permitted by the organization) in a manner that results in success. No franchise in the last decade has had as much success as the Spurs -- and it's testament to the GM that the success has been sustained while the roster has undergone pretty significant upheaval from beginning to end. I'm not sure how one can argue that he's not done his job as GM or not done it well.

The combination of Pop's coaching successes and his management efforts is why I'm going to vote him #5.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown

The guy took a roster that always underperformed, added in some low-priced vets with experience and made his team into a champion.

When those vets withered on the vine, Pop retooled with an eye towards youth and built a roster that was half grizzled vets and half young guns -- and turned his team into a champion.

When the grizzled vets on that roster retired, Pop retooled again with a new crew of role players -- and turned his team again into a champion.

And when the nature of the NBA game changed and made many of the pieces that won in 2005 obsolete, Pop helped to retool once more -- and once again, turned his team into a champion.

Being a good GM isn't always about flashy moves, acquiring star players, or being a draft guru. Being a good GM is about identifying the needs of your team and addressing them (in the confines permitted by the organization) in a manner that results in success. No franchise in the last decade has had as much success as the Spurs -- and it's testament to the GM that the success has been sustained while the roster has undergone pretty significant upheaval from beginning to end. I'm not sure how one can argue that he's not done his job as GM or not done it well.

The combination of Pop's coaching successes and his management efforts is why I'm going to vote him #5.

---

:tu

Silas for 4. Without him, does the experiment of moving the Chaps to San Antonio succeed? Or do they go back to Dallas after one season and end up as a footnote in basketball history like teams such as the Oakland Oaks, Utah Stars, Miami Floridians, and so on? It's doubtful they'd even make it to the '75-'76 season, much less survive the merger in Dallas. On top of that, he was All-ABA first Team in '75 and '76, and our first superstar.

I'm not going to vote for anyone not directly involved in the basketball operations of the team, so no Drossos, McCombs, Holt, etc.

What did George Gervin ever win in San Antonio? #3??? BS!!! Pop deserves to be #3 but I missed the cut so now Pop gets my #4 vote.

I can't argue with Pop, however I can't see how you could put Manu ahead of Tony. People are confusing likability with better. Manu has much better world accomplishments and is much more likable, but we are talking Spurs player, not person or athlete or accomplishments.

I voted for Pop

He changed the face of the franchise. In the 90’s it was the soft Spurs, after he arrived it’s the tough Spurs and the defense minded Spurs

He’s a great coach who treats every player the same and as GM he always put good supporting cast around Tim Duncan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by century

What did George Gervin ever win in San Antonio? #3??? BS!!! Pop deserves to be #3 but I missed the cut so now Pop gets my #4 vote.

---

Gervin won a great deal -- it's absurd to think that he should be anywhere lower than 3rd on this list.

But since you asked, Gervin won 4 scoring titles; he finished in the top 5 in the MVP voting for 4 straight years; his teams won division titles in 5 seasons; and those teams played in 3 conference finals in a 5 year period. That he couldn't get over the hump against a Lakers team that had both Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and Magic Johnson (and which added James Worthy for the 1983 conference finals) to go along with guys like Norm Nixon, Jamaal Wilkes, Michael Cooper, and Bob McAdoo hardly seems like a crime. The fact that the Spurs were even competitive with that team speaks volumes to Gervin's utter greatness.

There was a time when Spurs fans understood that greatness isn't directly correlated to the good fortune of winning championships. Titles are one way to sort out the great ones, but the lack of titles doesn't diminish the greatness of a great player. George Gervin was an All-Time great. As someone noted yesterday, imagine Kobe Bryant playing for these Spurs but being sickly efficient as an offensive player -- there'd be nobody here doubting the greatness of that player; it just so happened that he played here, only 25-30 years ago.

To me, Drossos laid the foundation for this team. But if he laid the foundation, Pop too that and turned it into the Sears tower. It may be very hard to appreciate from so close, but the Spurs are model for EVERY sports franchise out there currently. No team in any league has maintained the kind of success the Spurs have over the past decade and that is in no small part due to Pop.

You can make a case for either but the job that Pop has done has just been phenomenal. This is not a slight to Drossos, but an indicator of just how blessed we are with Pop.

Pop!

If Drossos doesn't get #5 then that's just wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bruno

And if people want to vote for a player at number 4, vote for Parker and not Ginobili. Both have been very close since 2005 but Parker was significantly better than Ginobili in 2003.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CaptMike

I can't argue with Pop, however I can't see how you could put Manu ahead of Tony. People are confusing likability with better. Manu has much better world accomplishments and is much more likable, but we are talking Spurs player, not person or athlete or accomplishments.

---

To me, Ginobili versus Parker is really damn close. Even though Parker has no shot at beating Ginobili in a popularity contest amongst Spurs fans, if you just look at the numbers, accomplishments and his role each year, Parker has a really good case.

First, straight up numbers, Parker has more points and more assists in both per game averages and career totals for both the regular season and the playoffs. He also has a higher field goal percentage. Ginobili leads Parker in other categories such as rebounds, steals and three-point percentage, but those margins don't look wide enough to clearly put Ginobili ahead of Parker just based on stats.

Parker's accomplishments include two All-Star Game appearances and a Finals MVP. Ginobili has one All-Star Game appearance, a third team All-NBA selection and a Sixth Man of the Year award. While the Finals MVP has to be considered the most prestigious of all those accomplishments, I think it could be successfully argued their accomplishments are close to a wash.

Even if you consider the previous two categories tied, when you look at their respective roles on championship teams, that's when Ginobili's case becomes harder to make. In 2007, I'd assume most would agree that Parker had the better playoff run. In 2005, it was Ginobili who had the better playoff run. If 2003, Parker was the third best player during that run, while Ginobili was either the fifth or sixth best player on that championship team.

If you put a gun to my head and told me to pick which one is better today if they are both 100% healthy, I'd say Ginobili. On top of that, Ginobili is no doubt much more fun to watch, his likability factor is off the charts and his international exploits are astounding. All that said, take away the emotional aspect and it is hard to say that Ginobili deserves to make the list before Parker.

Although I'd love to see that argument. :stirpot:

I agree with timvp that Manu and Tony are very close, which is why I'm shocked that at the time that I write this Manu has 15 votes for the #4 spot while Tony has 2.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by century

What did George Gervin ever win in San Antonio? #3??? BS!!! Pop deserves to be #3 but I missed the cut so now Pop gets my #4 vote.

---

Without Gervin, the Spurs do not get included in the ABA-NBA merger and the team dies.

Quote:

---

Gervin won a great deal -- it's absurd to think that he should be anywhere lower than 3rd on this list.

---

In terms of players, I'd agree, but I think it can be argued that Drossos and Pop have done more for this team than any player was capable of doing.

That introduces a lot of Chicken/Egg arguments, of course... Without Duncan, Pop isn't the Pop we know, and without Pop, Duncan isn't the Duncan we know. Without Robinson/Gervin, maybe there are no Spurs, and without the Spurs who cares about Drossos, but without Drossos, there's no Gervin/DRob on the Spurs.... and so on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by timvp

Although I'd love to see that argument. :stirpot:

---

And the flood gates open.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown

I agree with timvp that Manu and Tony are very close, which is why I'm shocked that at the time that I write this Manu has 15 votes for the #4 spot while Tony has 2.

---

I think it will be close once we're at a point where it makes sense to vote for either of them. Say, Round 6...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baseline bum

Silas for 4. Without him, does the experiment of moving the Chaps to San Antonio succeed? Or do they go back to Dallas after one season and end up as a footnote in basketball history like teams such as the Oakland Oaks, Utah Stars, Miami Floridians, and so on? It's doubtful they'd even make it to the '75-'76 season, much less survive the merger in Dallas. On top of that, he was All-ABA first Team in '75 and '76, and our first superstar.

---

Silas is tough for me to place. His best season I'd rank better than anyone's season outside of Robinson, Duncan and Gervin. The problem is he played at that level for only two seasons. Then again, he gets forefather bonus points because he helped keep the team alive, so he should definitely be coming off the board soon.

I may very well have voted for him here if he didn't miss almost two years of his prime with injury. I'm going to have to think some more on Silas because a case could be made that he belongs on the list before Ginobili or Parker. He definitely had the highest peak of the three but his injuries hurt his case . . .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spurminator

In terms of players, I'd agree, but I think it can be argued that Drossos and Pop have done more for this team than any player was capable of doing.

That introduces a lot of Chicken/Egg arguments, of course... Without Duncan, Pop isn't the Pop we know, and without Pop, Duncan isn't the Duncan we know. Without Robinson/Gervin, maybe there are no Spurs, and without the Spurs who cares about Drossos, but without Drossos, there's no Gervin/DRob on the Spurs.... and so on.

---

Absurd was probably the wrong word to use there.

I balked at the sentiment that Gervin's accomplishments are diminished because his teams didn't win titles. I also subscribe to the theory that without Gervin, the Spurs don't exist. While I think this is equally true of Drossos, I give a bump to Gervin because he ensured the Spurs' survival by what he did on the court -- it's truly an arbitrary line that I've drawn in that sense. So maybe it's not absurd to put Gervin lower than #3, but I'm offended by the suggestion that Gervin's career is somehow not as significant as the careers of players who won titles, just because those players won titles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rascal

Disagree with the fantastic gm part. No star players acquired through trades in 10 years.

---

I know you are a fan of the big flashy trade but which rumor or available player did you want the Spurs to get? And what type of players did you want the Spurs to give up?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rascal

Two great low draft picks that worked out but other than that nothing significant thru the draft.

---

Despite being a winner year in and year out, Pop managed to use the draft to get three All-Star players (Parker, Ginobili and trading Bill Curley for Sean Elliott). That's pretty good for never having anything close to a lottery pick to play with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rascal

Poor free agency decisions going for Kidd when they already had Parker and signing Rasho.

---

That was definitely a bad decision but even that mistake didn't cause a debilitating salary cap mess. Rasho was somewhat useful and then was salary dumped when his usefulness fell.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rascal

Passing on Sprewell when Spree was still a great player.

---

Which time are you talking about? The Spurs were supposedly about to trade Elliott and Perdue for him at one point ... but then Spree strangled Carlesimo and got suspended. The only other Spree trade rumor was Manu for Spree and I'm damn glad the Spurs didn't pull the trigger on that deal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rascal

Getting players who only stay for 1 year for one reason or another D Anderson, Claxton, Muhammed, Turkoglu.

---

This is exactly why Pop and the Spurs should be commended for their GMing. The Spurs ended up being dead right when it came to not giving DA, Claxton and Nazr long-term contracts. Most every team would have locked those players up. But the Spurs saw a lack of commitment from DA (they were right), an injury risk in Claxton (they were right) and a player who had already peaked in Nazr (they were right). The easy thing would have been to keep those pieces around. The hard avenue was letting proven players go because you trust that you can get a replacement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rascal

S Smith was not the player they thought they were getting.

---

The Spurs didn't think much of Smith when they got him. He was basically a salary match for DA. Their unwillingness to even discuss contract extension after the trade pretty much told the story that they saw him as a two-year rental.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rascal

And the long list of failures by the front office the last couple of years that have been noted on this site many times.

---

First of all, the failures are pretty minor in the grand scheme of things. Second of all, Buford has taken over almost all of the GM responsibilities in the last few years ... so that shouldn't really affect Pop one way or another in terms of grading his GMing skills.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by timvp

If you put a gun to my head and told me to pick which one is better today if they are both 100% healthy, I'd say Ginobili. On top of that, Ginobili is no doubt much more fun to watch, his likability factor is off the charts and his international exploits are astounding. All that said, take away the emotional aspect and it is hard to say that Ginobili deserves to make the list before Parker.

---

You had to look at the definition you have given for "top Spurs". In your own words it's someone who has helped make the Spurs one of the most successful franchises in the history of sport.
We shouldn't argue of who is better between Parker and Ginobili but who has helped the most Spurs.
Ginobili being fun to watch, likable or great with his NT hasn't really helped to make Spurs one of the most successful franchise. If you want to stick you have given for "top Spurs", you should take away the emotional aspect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown

I agree with timvp that Manu and Tony are very close, which is why I'm shocked that at the time that I write this Manu has 15 votes for the #4 spot while Tony has 2.

---

I'm sure it has something to do with international/Argentina fans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bruno

You had to look at the definition you have given for "top Spurs". In your own words it's someone who has helped make the Spurs one of the most successful franchises in the history of sport.
We shouldn't argue of who is better between Parker and Ginobili but who has helped the most Spurs.
Ginobili being fun to watch, likable or great with his NT hasn't really helped to make Spurs one of the most successful franchise. If you want to stick you have given for "top Spurs", you should take away the emotional aspect.

---

Exactly. Right now, I'm leaning toward voting for Parker over Ginobili when the time comes due to the reasoning in that post you quoted. I'm pretty confident in my breakdown but I am still open to suggestion.

:hat

And you gotta put someone other than Holt in the polls. With all his haters here, you know he ain't winning anything soon. :lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr.Bottomtooth

And you gotta put someone other than Holt in the polls. With all his haters here, you know he ain't winning anything soon. :lol

---

Well there should be plenty of Spurs/Cowboys fans who can at least recognize the value of an owner who isn't a meddling drama queen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr.Bottomtooth

And you gotta put someone other than Holt in the polls. With all his haters here, you know he ain't winning anything soon. :lol

---

Yeah, I don't think anyone has voted for Holt yet ... even as a joke :lol

However, people should start making suggestions on who to add to the list. Kenon, Mitchell and AJ immediately come to mind.

:smokin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by timvp

Yeah, I don't think anyone has voted for Holt yet ... even as a joke :lol

However, people should start making suggestions on who to add to the list. Kenon, Mitchell and AJ immediately come to mind.

:smokin

---

Well it's obvious Pop is gonna win this one, so I'd put in AJ in his spot for the next poll. Then take out Holt and put in Larry Kenon. Honestly, I don't know much about Red McCombs so I'm skeptical about having him in the polls. It could just be the lack of knowledge saying that, but if he were taken out I'd put in Johnny Moore in his place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by timvp

However, people should start making suggestions on who to add to the list. Kenon, Mitchell and AJ immediately come to mind.

:smokin

---

Alvin Robertson? Artis Gilmore? Bob Bass?

Popovich? :lmao

Bruce ?

Damn, this project makes me feel like I need to study Spurs history all over again.

I would like to wait and see Popovich successfully coach a team without Duncan or Robinson before even calling him a "good" coach.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown

Alvin Robertson? Artis Gilmore? Bob Bass?

---

Where Bob Bass is placed will be interesting. IIRC, he was the GM from 1974-75 to 1993-94. With a limited budget, he helped keep the Spurs elite for most of the years during that stretch. Add in his coaching stints and I think he deserves to be pretty high on this list.

It's going to be a tough sell though because Bass took the fall most of the time when it was the ownership being cheap.

I think it should be automatic that you put James Silas here.

For me, there's one thing that clearly separates Manu and Tony: Manu is our go-to guy at the end of games. Our best play when the game is on the line is usually 'get the ball to Manu and get the hell out of the way', and it's pretty effective.

My top 10 is:
1. Tim, 2. Dave, 3. Ice, 4. Si, 5. Pop, 6. Manu, 7. TP, 8. Special K, 9. Bruce, 10. Sean

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by timvp

Where Bob Bass is placed will be interesting. IIRC, he was the GM from 1974-75 to 1993-94. With a limited budget, he helped keep the Spurs elite for most of the years during that stretch. Add in his coaching stints and I think he deserves to be pretty high on this list.

It's going to be a tough sell though because Bass took the fall most of the time when it was the ownership being cheap.

---

Gotta love Bass for selling high on Alvin and getting TC. Gotta be a bit ticked about passing on Barkley 3 years later though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by timvp

Where Bob Bass is placed will be interesting. IIRC, he was the GM from 1974-75 to 1993-94. With a limited budget, he helped keep the Spurs elite for most of the years during that stretch. Add in his coaching stints and I think he deserves to be pretty high on this list.

It's going to be a tough sell though because Bass took the fall most of the time when it was the ownership being cheap.

---

Some info on Bass from a recent article:

http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=103208

I think Bass will always be an underrated part of what has made the Spurs. It was telling to me to be at the AT&T Center for one of those nights this past season where the halftime show was the tribute to Bob Bass -- the fact that Popovich stayed out on the floor for that ceremony (not immediately going to talk with his team) speaks volumes about what Pop thinks of Bob Bass. The fact that most of the brightest stars in the Spurs' galaxy were there is pretty telling, too. Bass kept the club afloat in the gap between Gervin's trade and Robinson's arrival (how those clubs made 2 playoff appearances is still beyond me) and built a club that should have played for a title in 1990.

He was sort of Popovich Light.

Thinking about this, shouldn't the list of nominees include the red chameleon?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown

Thinking about this, shouldn't the list of nominees include the red chameleon?

---

Good point. Without it we may instead be trying to figure out where Armon Gilliam fits into the top 50 St. Louis Spurs of all-time :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown

Absurd was probably the wrong word to use there.

I balked at the sentiment that Gervin's accomplishments are diminished because his teams didn't win titles. I also subscribe to the theory that without Gervin, the Spurs don't exist. While I think this is equally true of Drossos, I give a bump to Gervin because he ensured the Spurs' survival by what he did on the court -- it's truly an arbitrary line that I've drawn in that sense. So maybe it's not absurd to put Gervin lower than #3, but I'm offended by the suggestion that Gervin's career is somehow not as significant as the careers of players who won titles, just because those players won titles.

---

Agree. Gervin was the Spurs first star and help put the Spurs on the NBA map. He was the identity of the team around the league. The Spurs were one of the most exciting teams in the league with their up tempo run and gun style and Gervin lead the way with his scoring titles.

Gervins teams were just unfortunate to have to go up against the mighty Laker teams with Magic and Abdul-Jabber. I doubt that the last two or even 3 Spur champion teams could beat those Laker teams which are the best teams I have ever seen play.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by timvp

Good point. Without it we may instead be trying to figure out where Armon Gilliam fits into the top 50 St. Louis Spurs of all-time :)

---

I thought the red chameleon was the good luck charm in '97. Either way, he belongs on the ballot. :lol

Is Doug Moe on that list?

Doug Moe >>>> Peter Holt

Albeck too. Just don't put Cotton Fitzsimmons on that shit.

I'm having a hard time figuring out where I put Bass and Drossos....they are important, but there are a lot of players I want to put over them. I guess I figure someone had to own and run the team...Pop is different because he definitely started pushing the championship buttons.

I agree with FWDT that Bass was Pop light...he was exactly that.

How does the guy that takes the chance to moving the team to San Antonio, being THE MAN to bring the team to SA in the first place, NOT get more mention?

Baffling..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baseline bum

I thought the red chameleon was the good luck charm in '97. Either way, he belongs on the ballot. :lol

---

I thought 97 was the lucky Holt tie?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by timvp

Which time are you talking about? The Spurs were supposedly about to trade Elliott and Perdue for him at one point ... but then Spree strangled Carlesimo and got suspended. The only other Spree trade rumor was Manu for Spree and I'm damn glad the Spurs didn't pull the trigger on that deal.

This is exactly why Pop and the Spurs should be commended for their GMing. The Spurs ended up being dead right when it came to not giving DA, Claxton and Nazr long-term contracts. Most every team would have locked those players up. But the Spurs saw a lack of commitment from DA .

---

The time after the choking. GS just wanted to get rid of Spree and it didn't take much to get him.

My point is the Spurs should have not even targeted these one year rental type players in the first place. These are the players the Spurs usually settle for and get, ones that are not good enough to keep around for more than a year.

Why not target an up and coming star like C Butler when his value was low. Or go after R Wallace. All it took Det was C Atkins and L Hunter and future first round pick to get Wallace. Or get Spree in 99 when GS just wanted to see him out of town. It didn't take much to get him. I believe the spurs could have beaten some of the Laker teams with Sprewell in the backcourt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rascal

The time after the choking. GS just wanted to get rid of Spree and it didn't take much to get him.

My point is the Spurs should have not even targeted these one year rental type players in the first place. These are the players the Spurs usually settle for and get, ones that are not good enough to keep around for more than a year.

Why not target an up and coming star like C Butler when his value was low. Or go after R Wallace. All it took Det was C Atkins and L Hunter and future first round pick to get Wallace. Or get Spree in 99 when GS just wanted to see him out of town. It didn't take much to get him. I believe the spurs could have beaten some of the Laker teams with Sprewell in the backcourt.

---

I think by 99 they knew they'd never be able to make the Elliott/Perdue for Spreewell trade with Sean's kidney. There's no way he was going to pass the physical. John Starks and Chris Mills is better than what the Spurs could have put together without Elliott.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rascal

The time after the choking. GS just wanted to get rid of Spree and it didn't take much to get him.

My point is the Spurs should have not even targeted these one year rental type players in the first place. These are the players the Spurs usually settle for and get, ones that are not good enough to keep around for more than a year.

Why not target an up and coming star like C Butler when his value was low. Or go after R Wallace. All it took Det was C Atkins and L Hunter and future first round pick to get Wallace. Or get Spree in 99 when GS just wanted to see him out of town. It didn't take much to get him. I believe the spurs could have beaten some of the Laker teams with Sprewell in the backcourt.

---

It took more than that from Detroit. In order to get Wallace, the Pistons gave up Bob Sura, Zeljko Rebraca, Chucky Atkins, Lindsey Hunter, and two first round picks (their own and one they obtained from Milwaukee). In 03-04, Sura was making around $6.26M, Rebraca was at $4.2M, Atkins was at $3.9, and Hunter at $3.0.

To make that deal work, the Pistons acquired Chris Mills (who was making $6.6M) and Mike James (minimum) from Boston for Atkins and Hunter plus a #1. They then traded $17 million in salary (Sura, Rebraca, and Mills) plus a #1 to Atlanta for Rasheed.

Alvin Robertson

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baseline bum

For me, there's one thing that clearly separates Manu and Tony: Manu is our go-to guy at the end of games. Our best play when the game is on the line is usually 'get the ball to Manu and get the hell out of the way', and it's pretty effective.

---

Pretty true. During most regular seasons and during the 2005 championship run, Ginobili has put up fantastic numbers in the clutch. However, in the 2006, 2007 and 2008 playoff runs, Parker has been the one with the better clutch stats.

http://sports.espn.go.com/media/nba/...popovich_i.jpg

You have me 3 spots to low.

I'm going to go ahead and cast my vote for Pop.

#5 is going to be interesting. Looking at the voting, it looks like it'll be Drossos vs. Ginobili.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by timvp

Pretty true. During most regular seasons and during the 2005 championship run, Ginobili has put up fantastic numbers in the clutch. However, in the 2006, 2007 and 2008 playoff runs, Parker has been the one with the better clutch stats.

---

Right off the top of my head, Manu pretty much closed out game 4 in Cleveland and won us Game 6 vs Phoenix in 07 (though most of that work was late in the third), plus the get it to Manu and get out of the way play in 2OT in game 1 vs Phoenix.

A name that shouldn't be forgotten is Robert McDermott. While he was the owner for only a short period of time, he made three very key decisions.

1) Hiring Gregg Popovich
2) Instructing Pop that the first thing he has to do is bring back Sean Elliott.
3) Deciding to sell to Peter Holt instead of going for the bigger cash from the Maloof brothers or from the Oklahoma City group.

The hiring of Pop wasn't anything close to cut and dry. How many time do you see an assistant coach from a losing franchise being hired to become a GM? Pop had very little NBA experience. In fact, he had less experience when he was hired than any GM I can ever remember.

Getting Elliott for what the Spurs gave up was a great move. Pop made the trade but McDermott was the one who wanted Elliott back in town. And selling to Holt instead of the others kept the Spurs in town.

It's going to be difficult to put McDermott too high but he was very important in his time as owner.

i seriously thought about voting for the original el cheapo, angelo drossos. just because he made the spurs viable for a long time. but i have to give pop his due first.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown

It took more than that from Detroit. In order to get Wallace, the Pistons gave up Bob Sura, Zeljko Rebraca, Chucky Atkins, Lindsey Hunter, and two first round picks (their own and one they obtained from Milwaukee). In 03-04, Sura was making around $6.26M, Rebraca was at $4.2M, Atkins was at $3.9, and Hunter at $3.0.

To make that deal work, the Pistons acquired Chris Mills (who was making $6.6M) and Mike James (minimum) from Boston for Atkins and Hunter plus a #1. They then traded $17 million in salary (Sura, Rebraca, and Mills) plus a #1 to Atlanta for Rasheed.

---

I don't see any big names in that deal. It is a bunch of role players packaged together. Its a deal that won the pistons a title and an example of dumping a bunch of role players and getting a big impact difference maker type of player. Those type of deals happen all the time in the nba. The spurs never get involved in any of them.

I went with Pop, with apologies to Drossos - he is being argued as one of the top coaches in league history in some places, and he had too much of an impact on the Spurs to pass him up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown

But since you asked, Gervin won 4 scoring titles; he finished in the top 5 in the MVP voting for 4 straight years; his teams won division titles in 5 seasons; and those teams played in 3 conference finals in a 5 year period. That he couldn't get over the hump against a Lakers team that had both Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and Magic Johnson (and which added James Worthy for the 1983 conference finals) to go along with guys like Norm Nixon, Jamaal Wilkes, Michael Cooper, and Bob McAdoo hardly seems like a crime. The fact that the Spurs were even competitive with that team speaks volumes to Gervin's utter greatness.

---

BFD. I give my votes to those who WON and not those who "almost won". Nostalgia is worthless anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by century

BFD. I give my votes to those who WON and not almost won. Nostalgia is worthless anyway.

---

Gerard King > George Gervin

Tony Massenburg > George Gervin

Jacque Vaughn > George Gervin

Matt Bonner > George Gervin

:lol

Antoine Walker > Charles Barkley

Rascal's typical stupidity on full view here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by timvp

Yeah it'd at least be nice to see one of the Manu Voters make a case for him. Seeing as they've voted him over Tim Duncan, David Robinson and George Gervin, perhaps Manu is indeed the greatest Spur of all-time and I just don't know about it.

---

I missed the poll. But I'm confused. Doesn't it ask who should get spot four in this particular thread/poll? So the people who now voted for Manu picked him over Pop and Tony and others on the list of choices basically? Not Tim or David or George since they already got the top three spots?

Or am I missing something here? I didn't get the chance to vote since the poll is now closed.

EDIT: Never mind. I get it. You mean the people who voted for Manu in all the prior polls too for the other spots.