Had to go Manu here over Pop. It was tough though. Both are winners.
Printable View
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.
Without Drossos, their is no Spurs to attach a legacy and dynasty to.Quote:
Originally Posted by I Love Me Some Me
:lolQuote:
Originally Posted by spurs_fan_in_exile
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by timvp
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.
without ginobili the spurs might have 1 less trophy... or maybe 1 moreQuote:
Originally Posted by I Love Me Some Me
Drossos to the spurs is like George Washington is to America.Quote:
Originally Posted by T Park
The guy took a roster that always underperformed, added in some low-priced vets with experience and made his team into a champion.Quote:
Originally Posted by rascal
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.
:tuQuote:
Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown
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
Gervin won a great deal -- it's absurd to think that he should be anywhere lower than 3rd on this list.Quote:
Originally Posted by century
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptMike
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
Without Gervin, the Spurs do not get included in the ABA-NBA merger and the team dies.
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.Quote:
Gervin won a great deal -- it's absurd to think that he should be anywhere lower than 3rd on this list.
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.
And the flood gates open.Quote:
Originally Posted by timvp