Is there anyone else who gets tired of hearing how bad our offseason was?

I know I'm relatively new to the board, but I just read the 43,369th thread talking about our failure this offseason as a franchise.

Anyone else out there like front office did? I did. Going into the offseason, I thought we needed to address three things:

1.) An eventual replacement to Timmy down low.

2.) A younger bench player (or starter, depending on where Pop puts Manu) who can put the ball on the floor and attack the hoop.

3.) Backup PG


Our post of the future wiped his ass with our hundreds, and finding a decent 4 or 5 considering what we had to work with just wasn't going to happen. As far as a looking for a capable G/F, Maggette was offered twice what we could pay and J.R. Smith's hands were tied as a RFA, so we picked up a decent wing who can attack the rim and were smart with our money in the process. I may not be 100% sold on Hill, but our worst-case scenario is that we wind up exactly where we left off last year--with Jacque Vaughn backing up TP.

In the grand scheme of things, I don't think Jannero Pargo is the difference between a title and an early exit. I think we did as much as we could with what we had, and we filled our needs without being stupid.

Please tell me I'm not the only one who feels this way.

1. Mahinmi is unproven
2. Are you talking about Roger Mason?
3. George Hill still has much to learn

Even though we may not have had the greatest offseason (though Mason, Jr. was a great pickup and I think Hill will provide some leverage off the bench) can we just stop forgetting that we still have 3 all-star worthy players? Maybe not all make it simultaneously every year, but come on. Tim maybe getting older, but he's still putting up the numbers we need him and he's DEFINITELY a solid presence in the paint on D. Manu is having a heck of an olympics, good ankle or not. and tony? He's on the cover of this years NBA Live. that's all i gotta say about him.

FAITH, PEOPLE! HAVE SOME!

this offseason was unspectacular, but perfectly fine. The FO can't produce players out of thin air, and all I ask is that they try to put us in position to contend every year. They just did a little offseason pruning, and we are legit title contenders for the eleventh season in a row (pretty amazing). I like our chances over any other team, and I trust the FO because of their extreme success in the past.

if you are a real spurs fan you have to criticize the FO moves, it's show that you care from your team and it's show that the FO mistaks hurt you.

Just a typical offseason for Spurstalk...

so most of us kinda we used to it... new people... we understand why'd you'd be this fraustrated

This is how it is every summer. The summer we got Finley everyone went into championship conversation though.

To answer the thread title: yes, even the truth gets tiresome

The typical ST climate generally has the number of cliffjumpers peaking around February and August.

The Van Exel-Finley summer of 2006 was a bit of a freak weather anomaly, as stated above.

im gonna take a guess and say i dont think its what our spurs are doing. I think its what the rest of the nba is doing. We only needed a few games to win HCA. And imo, with HCA we would won it all last season. With pargo not signing with NO and not signing with us, it made us better in our division. With that in mind, im guessing another point to backup tony will be important to relieve manu from playing that 1 spot. Other then roger i still dont think that spot is filled. If i know pop he will be looking for a cheap, but veteran point, if for anything, insurance in case tony or jacque go down.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sense

Just a typical offseason for Spurstalk...

so most of us kinda we used to it... new people... we understand why'd you'd be this fraustrated

---

But I am very fraustrated

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sense

Just a typical offseason for Spurstalk...

so most of us kinda we used to it... new people... we understand why'd you'd be this fraustrated

---

Pretty much.

The Spurs FO could have done every move mentioned on this board and someone would still find a reason to bitch. :)

What amuses me is the fact that there's still complaining even though the Spurs have tried to do many things that so many of those who bitch are upset about. It's not as if the Spurs decided that they wouldn't make a run at Maggette; it's not as if the Spurs didn't try to find a backup point in the draft; it's not as if the Spurs didn't make an effort to deal with Splitter; it's not as if the Spurs didn't make runs at Pargo, Najera, Giricek, and several others. The front office did all of those things.

That those acquisitions didn't happen isn't a matter of the front office coming up short, though; the Spurs couldn't match the offers that Maggette, Pargo, Najera, and Giricek got and the Spurs might have lost out on opportunities to find at least some youth if they had tied up the full MLE someone like J.R. Smith. Mason over Barry sounds bad to those who like the familiar, but if Barry's aging body breaks down again or if Mason's youth adds something to the Spurs roster (as it is reasonable to hope it will), that deal is, at worst, a wash. It might prove to be a decision that actually makes the Spurs better. The jury's out on Hill, as it is on the darlings of the various draftniks around here who criticize the front office for not making 1000 trades on draft night or for passing on players from bigger schools like Kansas. With respect to the Kansas kids, the criticism is interesting given the tight relationship between R.C. Buford and Bill Self (R.C.'s kid was allowed to walk on at Kansas because of that relationship). It would defy logic to think that the Spurs' due diligence on Chalmers and Arthur didn't include long talks with their collegiate coach; it might very well be that Self had some concerns about how well either of those guys will transition to the next level.

All in all, the criticisms are par for the course around here; Mikey's right that the complainers would have complained no matter what. But it's a ridiculous argument to say that the Spurs aren't trying or that it's their fault that they haven't succeeded this summer (to the extent that such a claim is valid). Clearly, they've attempted to do quite a bit; you can't blame the front office when players decide to chase money rather than a relatively low-paying bit part for a team chasing a ring.

Spur fans have heard this for 20 years. SA is not the best place to live. Surprise! Not.

I'm not frustrated with the FO's effort in making moves to actively improve the roster. They used the draft to get younger and finally focused on domestic talent for the first time in many years. They sought to upgrade the hole at the SG position via free agency. While they were unable to get their preferred choice (Maggette), I believe Mason will be a solid pickup.

My frustration is the fact that several targeted players chose to go elsewhere. All of which led to a much quieter offseason that we would have hoped. Personally, I would never want to see the Spurs throw the type of crazy $$$ at some of these marginal FAs as do other teams.

The only other thing I believe the FO should have done was try to match the additional year and $$$ that Najera received by the Nets, which were very close. Other than that, I cannot fault their activity this summer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown

What amuses me is the fact that there's still complaining even though the Spurs have tried to do many things that so many of those who bitch are upset about. It's not as if the Spurs decided that they wouldn't make a run at Maggette; it's not as if the Spurs didn't try to find a backup point in the draft; it's not as if the Spurs didn't make an effort to deal with Splitter; it's not as if the Spurs didn't make runs at Pargo, Najera, Giricek, and several others. The front office did all of those things.

That those acquisitions didn't happen isn't a matter of the front office coming up short, though; the Spurs couldn't match the offers that Maggette, Pargo, Najera, and Giricek got and the Spurs might have lost out on opportunities to find at least some youth if they had tied up the full MLE someone like J.R. Smith. Mason over Barry sounds bad to those who like the familiar, but if Barry's aging body breaks down again or if Mason's youth adds something to the Spurs roster (as it is reasonable to hope it will), that deal is, at worst, a wash. It might prove to be a decision that actually makes the Spurs better. The jury's out on Hill, as it is on the darlings of the various draftniks around here who criticize the front office for not making 1000 trades on draft night or for passing on players from bigger schools like Kansas. With respect to the Kansas kids, the criticism is interesting given the tight relationship between R.C. Buford and Bill Self (R.C.'s kid was allowed to walk on at Kansas because of that relationship). It would defy logic to think that the Spurs' due diligence on Chalmers and Arthur didn't include long talks with their collegiate coach; it might very well be that Self had some concerns about how well either of those guys will transition to the next level.

All in all, the criticisms are par for the course around here; Mikey's right that the complainers would have complained no matter what. But it's a ridiculous argument to say that the Spurs aren't trying or that it's their fault that they haven't succeeded this summer (to the extent that such a claim is valid). Clearly, they've attempted to do quite a bit; you can't blame the front office when players decide to chase money rather than a relatively low-paying bit part for a team chasing a ring.

---

As always FWD makes a fantastic post and is the intelligent calm voice :tu

i cant believe people actually think we are gonna suck this year. ginobili has been wreckin in olympic play. tim duncan gets a full offseason to rest up, as well as tony p. if ginobili wasnt hurt against the lakers we would be a dynasty. also cheer up everyone 2009 is an odd year...we have the statistics on our side

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by v2freak

To answer the thread title: yes, even the truth gets tiresome

---

Concur and that's why i like how its morphed into some funny stuff.
Originally Posted by Spurs Information Minister
http://www.nigelhaversalliance.com/p...ominister.jpeg
"no need to panic Spurs fans....
the organization is making great offseason moves..."

Can someone 'chop me a Spurs logo on PollyAnna posters sweater and/or forehead?
http://www.michaelbarrier.com/Commen.../Pollyanna.jpg
Or her "jersey"?
http://www.ebooksonthe.net/catalog/P...over_large.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by big daddy russ

I know I'm relatively new to the board, but I just read the 43,369th thread talking about our failure this offseason as a franchise.

Anyone else out there like front office did? I did. Going into the offseason, I thought we needed to address three things:

1.) An eventual replacement to Timmy down low.

---

Spurs fans might have a problem understanding this, but franchise seven footers don't grow on trees.

I'm still pissed over them passing on Keith Van Horn in the draft.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gino

Spurs fans might have a problem understanding this, but franchise seven footers don't grow on trees.

---

Yes, well many Spurs fans seem to believe that the franchise will just seamlessly move from the days of championship with Tim Duncan on the roster to the days of championship contention after Tim Duncan retires.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kobyz

if you are a real spurs fan you have to criticize the FO moves, it's show that you care from your team and it's show that the FO mistaks hurt you.

---

AGREE !!!! We all want the best of our team and one bad offseason moves WILL affect a team performance in one full year. That is important considering Spurs have strong tradition of EXCELLENCE. Spurs management considered the best run according to ESPN judging from 4 of most popular sports in US. Losing good players after players for any reasons should bother you, if not then its either your in denial or you underestimate the progress of Wild West Conf.
I admit that FO did try to pull some things this offseason and that should be the least expectation from great organization. If we're talking about lousy organization than its whole different story,this offseason is great. I dont want to remember about Scola departure to Rockets, offer Fin better deal than Bonnes, the risk of letting Splitter contract expired to sign him with rookie salary knowing that he projected to lead us in future (now he's a scrub),etc. How about passing on Chalmers and CDR? We only want to motivate them to work better, otherwise FO didnt live up to their reputation.
If somebody in forum said we should be more grateful for past performances, I hear you and grateful for past records.BUt all we want is the best for our own future (did Pop irrated TP in his early years? Look at the result). Playing safe did not push us to the next level. As any investment product would claim: past performance did not guarantee future results.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wisnub

Playing safe did not push us to the next level. As any investment product would claim: past performance did not guarantee future results.

---

So what moves did the Spurs not try to make that you wish they had tried to make? Something specific.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kobyz

if you are a real spurs fan you have to criticize the FO moves, it's show that you care from your team and it's show that the FO mistaks hurt you.

---

I disagree...
you don't criticize every move just because we didn't get a star..

if you are a real spurs fan you keep your mouth shut for the most part and trust that the Spurs will do their best to stay successful...

it's not like your criticizing will make a difference

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown

So what moves did the Spurs not try to make that you wish they had tried to make? Something specific.

---

I know im still grudging for letting Rockets buy "expensive" Scola contract, I should let that one go coz thats not this offseason. Im bit dissapointed that they pass on Chalmers and CDR in draft...and so far Hill didnt show good games in SUmmer but hopefully that changes. I also didnt believe that we didnt increase offer on Bonnes; he end up signing w/ Rockets and I heard that Rockets offer difference in terms of money is not that great. He did put up 23 points one time on playoffs and almost win Lakers game for us. If he's not injured i think he will be beneficial for us better than Vaughn and Bonner combined. Everything else just bad luck..at least we try to throw sumthin on CM

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown

So what moves did the Spurs not try to make that you wish they had tried to make? Something specific.

---

1) Chosing not to make an attempt to keep Barry
2) Resigning Finley (of the 3 old guys whose contracts were up; Barry, Finley, Horry; he was the last of the 3 to keep IMO)
3) Draft Picks - I'm not in love with hill, IMO the Dragic trade (assuming it was pre-arranged before PHO's draft) was an error - why Hairston? I'd have preferred Hendrix, or straight picking Bill Walker. Gist, I will admit, has been impressive.
4) Gist going to Italy for seasoning...We still don't have a long 3. We could send him to the Toros (what the we bought them for, right...) if he needed development time.
5) No attempt to get in on the Balkman giveaway by the Knicks...

Going back a season, the FO clearly needs to keep Marginal value in mind. They were turned down last season by Mason at $3M/3Yrs. They might want to consider that paying even $6M/3yrs would look like a bargain today, given they paid $7.5M/2yrs this offseason. We spent all last-season looking for a 3ed pg, when Mason was playing significant minutes at PG in WAS. In terms of Lux tax, Stoudamire and Johnson (who wouldn't have been signed either), both counted over $1M each at the end of the year when the cap was checked...Finally, we really needed another SG in the playoffs. Replacing Finley cardboard cutout defense and perhaps allowing us to minimize Manu's minutes would have been a real plus for us in the playoffs.

Yeah, offering Mason twice as much would have been a much better deal.

Not to mention Scola, bringing in Elson and Butler over Javtokas, Bonner for 10M$/3years...

Thanks for actually taking me up on this -- concrete examples tend to move conversation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pad300

1) Chosing not to make an attempt to keep Barry

---

Are we sure they didn't make an attempt? And if not, don't you think that the naysayers around here would have been bent if the offseason had ended with the Spurs bringing back the same old guys from last year?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pad300

2) Resigning Finley (of the 3 old guys whose contracts were up; Barry, Finley, Horry; he was the last of the 3 to keep IMO)

---

I'd agree generally with the notion that keeping Barry might have been the preferable move, but I also don't think bringing back Finley was the ideal outcome for the Spurs when the offseason started. The fact that they've chased wings all summer suggests to me that Finley was the ultimate fall-back option. Perhaps he would have come back anyway, had the Spurs been successful in their pursuits of Pargo or Giricek, but something tells me that the Spurs got serious about making an offer to Finley only when they realized that their other options had gone by the board.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pad300

3) Draft Picks - I'm not in love with hill, IMO the Dragic trade (assuming it was pre-arranged before PHO's draft) was an error - why Hairston? I'd have preferred Hendrix, or straight picking Bill Walker. Gist, I will admit, has been impressive.

---

As I've said before, I think the jury is out on Hill. As for the Dragic trade, there are certainly many who wonder if he's worth all that Phoenix is apparently shelling out to get him -- I'm not a big subscriber to much of what Hollinger says, but Hollinger projects him to be a well below-average producer, given his European numbers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pad300

4) Gist going to Italy for seasoning...We still don't have a long 3. We could send him to the Toros (what the we bought them for, right...) if he needed development time.

---

I think the Spurs own the Toros to be able to direct the development of players who are there; they might also have decided that Gist needed to play against a different type of competition. Or maybe Gist was offered more money to go to Europe than to be the Spurs' 15th guy. Or maybe the Spurs didn't want to eat up a roster spot with a guy who has no chance of playing for them in 2008-09. All of those would be sensible reasons for Gist going to Europe -- none of them, however, cost the Spurs the chance to keep Gist available as an option on a going-forward basis.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pad300

5) No attempt to get in on the Balkman giveaway by the Knicks...

---

This is the closest thing to the criticism that the Spurs haven't done anything, but it makes sense to me that the Spurs wouldn't be terribly interseted in still another guy who is a defensive witch but who has virtually no offensive ability. Certainly, the critics would be screaming if the Spurs went to war with 3 wings who struggle to score -- and what time would Balkman get on a team that already has Bowen and Udoka, to say nothing of Ginobili and Mason?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pad300

Going back a season, the FO clearly needs to keep Marginal value in mind. They were turned down last season by Mason at $3M/3Yrs. They might want to consider that paying even $6M/3yrs would look like a bargain today, given they paid $7.5M/2yrs this offseason. We spent all last-season looking for a 3ed pg, when Mason was playing significant minutes at PG in WAS.

* * * *

Finally, we really needed another SG in the playoffs. Replacing Finley cardboard cutout defense and perhaps allowing us to minimize Manu's minutes would have been a real plus for us in the playoffs.

Yeah, offering Mason twice as much would have been a much better deal.

---

So they rectified last year's bad decision for a player who improved his market value? Offering Mason twice as much last year would have been seriously overpaying relative to his resume -- and the same sorts of criticisms being heaped on the Spurs now would have been heaped on them back then, only for overpaying a guy like Mason.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pad300

Not to mention Scola, bringing in Elson and Butler over Javtokas, Bonner for 10M$/3years...

---

Those are entirely different criticisms that don't deal with what the front office has done this offseason. I don't know the problem with choosing Elson + Butler over Javtokas is anything more than speculation -- much like the concern for not choosing Dragic for themselves. I'd agree with you that the Bonner deal is baffling and has proven to be constraining in some senses, but all front offices make occasional bad decisions.

I guess, in the end, I don't see a front office that isn't trying and I don't see a front office that hasn't been effective, particularly given that the Spurs just seem to keep winning games every year.

We improved greatly, losing barry and horry while adding mason, hill , ian and toliver. I still would have loved to see us add a big guy or a better sf, but hard for me to say we didnt get better from last season.

To what degree will depend on the scoring ian, hill and mason can give us. I have a feeling that by mid season Mason will be giving us 12-14 ppg and ian will be avg 6 and 4. I think hill may come along as the season goes on and may surprise people but if he struggles I can see mason taking his mins at pg with the second team with manu and fin on the wings, this will give us a stronger scoring second unit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown

I think the Spurs own the Toros to be able to direct the development of players who are there; they might also have decided that Gist needed to play against a different type of competition. Or maybe Gist was offered more money to go to Europe than to be the Spurs' 15th guy. Or maybe the Spurs didn't want to eat up a roster spot with a guy who has no chance of playing for them in 2008-09. All of those would be sensible reasons for Gist going to Europe -- none of them, however, cost the Spurs the chance to keep Gist available as an option on a going-forward basis.

---

This is the only point I disagree with. I think if they would have offered Gist a contract when they offered Tolliver one, he would have signed. I really do. And I actually think that sending him to Europe does cost the Spurs the possibility to have him back in a year or so, especially with the monetary situation as it is. Now you're in the situation where the Euros can offer a substantial amount after one year if he does good, and the Spurs would be hesitant to match or better the offer, considering the guy has not played in the NBA at all yet. And as far as the roster spot, sending him to the Toros won't eat a spot. And honestly, from what I saw in the summer league and his coach comments, he's probably more deserving of an opportunity than Tolliver and even Mahinmi.

whatever...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

And as far as the roster spot, sending him to the Toros won't eat a spot.

---

In order to assign him to the Toros, he would sign an NBA contract, which would use one of the Spurs 15 roster spots.

The other option would be for him to sign directly with the Toros, but those salaries aren't even close to competitive to most of Europe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lurker23

In order to assign him to the Toros, he would sign an NBA contract, which would use one of the Spurs 15 roster spots.

The other option would be for him to sign directly with the Toros, but those salaries aren't even close to competitive to most of Europe.

---

Thanks. I stand corrected, then.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown

Thanks for actually taking me up on this -- concrete examples tend to move conversation.



Are we sure they didn't make an attempt? And if not, don't you think that the naysayers around here would have been bent if the offseason had ended with the Spurs bringing back the same old guys from last year?



I'd agree generally with the notion that keeping Barry might have been the preferable move, but I also don't think bringing back Finley was the ideal outcome for the Spurs when the offseason started. The fact that they've chased wings all summer suggests to me that Finley was the ultimate fall-back option. Perhaps he would have come back anyway, had the Spurs been successful in their pursuits of Pargo or Giricek, but something tells me that the Spurs got serious about making an offer to Finley only when they realized that their other options had gone by the board.



As I've said before, I think the jury is out on Hill. As for the Dragic trade, there are certainly many who wonder if he's worth all that Phoenix is apparently shelling out to get him -- I'm not a big subscriber to much of what Hollinger says, but Hollinger projects him to be a well below-average producer, given his European numbers.



I think the Spurs own the Toros to be able to direct the development of players who are there; they might also have decided that Gist needed to play against a different type of competition. Or maybe Gist was offered more money to go to Europe than to be the Spurs' 15th guy. Or maybe the Spurs didn't want to eat up a roster spot with a guy who has no chance of playing for them in 2008-09. All of those would be sensible reasons for Gist going to Europe -- none of them, however, cost the Spurs the chance to keep Gist available as an option on a going-forward basis.



This is the closest thing to the criticism that the Spurs haven't done anything, but it makes sense to me that the Spurs wouldn't be terribly interseted in still another guy who is a defensive witch but who has virtually no offensive ability. Certainly, the critics would be screaming if the Spurs went to war with 3 wings who struggle to score -- and what time would Balkman get on a team that already has Bowen and Udoka, to say nothing of Ginobili and Mason?



So they rectified last year's bad decision for a player who improved his market value? Offering Mason twice as much last year would have been seriously overpaying relative to his resume -- and the same sorts of criticisms being heaped on the Spurs now would have been heaped on them back then, only for overpaying a guy like Mason.



Those are entirely different criticisms that don't deal with what the front office has done this offseason. I don't know the problem with choosing Elson + Butler over Javtokas is anything more than speculation -- much like the concern for not choosing Dragic for themselves. I'd agree with you that the Bonner deal is baffling and has proven to be constraining in some senses, but all front offices make occasional bad decisions.

I guess, in the end, I don't see a front office that isn't trying and I don't see a front office that hasn't been effective, particularly given that the Spurs just seem to keep winning games every year.

---

Okay, I think we need to discuss premises here. I don't think that the FO isn't trying. I think they are trying and FAILING, due to a tendency to make questionable decisions...Some of which appear to be dictated by Pop's personal (non-basketball) likes and dislikes - he is peculiarly overfond of some long-term vets (van Excel, Finley, being recent examples). As far as ineffective, the objective is to maintain/build a dynasty. Given the core players the Spurs have: DUNCAN, Manu, Parker; that is the line of success/failure. The Spurs haven't haven't repeated. With the core they have the line isn't winning games...It's Championships. It appears that some of the failure to repeat years are due to structural problems that the Spurs do not address - that is a problem in the FO. We regularly have horrible problems defending mobile 4's (eg. Dirk, West) because no one on the roster has a decent physical match up. The FO doesn't try to fill the hole. (Yes, in the championship years, we beat teams with these weapons, but it's a case of overwhelming the other parts of the opposition, not having the ability to defend that match-up in a practical fashion.)

Now then, to review your comments.

1) Barry - Yeah, I don't think they tried to keep him. There was NOTHING reported about the Spurs negotiating with him... Even on players we have subsequently missed out on (eg. Pargo, Giricek, Maguette), there has been media coverage of the Spurs interest in the player. Barry - ZILCH. As far as naysayers around here, I could give a flying fuck. Seriously, this forum has proposed trading Gino, Parker, bringing in Darko Milicic, bringing back D-Rob, and every other kind of crazy idea. Some people around here will cheer every move the FO makes, some will criticize every move. It means nothing...

2) Finley as the last fallback option. A couple of days ago I posted a list of 7 guys off the top of my head who I thought were better options for pursuit before signing Finley...
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...4&postcount=80
There are more players out there. We apparently did try Giricek. Finley wasn't a last option...Seriously, a bad player that Pop has a mancrush on, is a worse option than some kid from the NBDL, or even no signing at all.

3) This years draft. While a bit early, it is clear from assorted Spurs public statements, the plan was to get players who could contribute right away. I don't think they have done that. I don't think they have hit any homeruns (longer term starter or better players) except maybe Gist... This draft, does not, at this point, look good according to the Spurs stated objectives. While I cannot say for certain, yet, that my choice of picks would have provided more immediate or long term value, I can say with some confidence that some valuable players will come from later than 26 in this draft. I just don't think we got them... It's the FO's responsibility that we do. We haven't had a 1st round pick contribute since 2004 (Udrih) and for significant contributions you have to go back to 2001 (Parker). You want to be a dynasty, then the draft has to be a source of useable players... We might have a guy like that in Mahinmi... But this years draft, it doesn't make me happy at all...

4)Gist to Europe. Yeah, those are all possible reasons to send Gist to Europe. That does not make sending him to Europe the correct decision. They are ALL speculation on your part. Sending him to Europe on the other hand guarantees he's not providing any value this season. It also eliminates another possibility for remedying one of the Spurs structural weaknesses - Mobile 4s/ Big 3s.

5) Balkman. You continue to treat public criticism as if it is of value, rather pure noise in decision making... WHO GIVES A FUCK ABOUT THE CRITICS, THE SPORTSWRITERS, ETC. The question is did the correct decision get made... As far as Balkman getting floor time. Come on! He'd play small ball 4. He play 3 in big lineups. Udoka simply does not have Bowen's versatility on D. There are matchups where Balkman would be exceedingly useful. As far as non-scoring wings, we usually play configurations that combine a defensive wing and a scoring wing. My way (keep Barry) we'd have 3 effective scoring wings Manu, Barry, Mason. (vs. Last year Manu, Barry, Finley).
Last Year
Player----- pts/36 ----- EFG%
Finley----- 13.5---------.501
Barry------14.4---------.631
Mason -----15.3---------.552
Which one of these players do you want serving as a scoring option?
Meanwhile:
Player----- pts/36 ----- EFG% ----- % of made shots assisted
Udoka -----11.6---------.505---------------85.38
Bowen -----7.9----------.512---------------90
Balkman ----8.5----------.492---------------66.03
If Balkman actually had a PG & teammates who'd set him up with chances, not having to make them off of broken plays, I think his percentages might go up. Besides, there is more to offensive value than just pts - theres passing, o-rebounding, and doing the dirty work like setting screens...
Player----- AST% ----- OReb% ----- ORtg
Udoka -----7.7----------3.3----------101
Bowen -----5.5----------1.6---------105
Balkman ----6.5----------9.6---------104
(ORtg is a catch all summary stat - it ain't perfect, but it illustrates the point)

6)"Overpaying" Mason a year earlier. What I'm trying to suggest here is that a) the spurs scouts have got it right - we usually do with player who have been in the league a couple of years (Horry, Udoka, Bowen, Mason *hopefully*, ).
b)Rather than try an hold such a scouted FA to a minimum cost contract, eg what happened with Udoka, we might be better off to open the purse strings a little more, and get more net value off the contract... Assume for a minute that the $3.75M/yr we signed him for is fair value for his play last year, and will be for the next 2... The $1M/Yr contract would have been a great deal for the team. However, a $2M/yr contract would still have been a good deal. This is the concept of marginal value - yeah, $1M/yr would have been great but $2M/yr would 1) have been good, and 2) got the job done. It's clear from last seasons results (no championship) that the job needed doing. The Spurs might have been able to do it for $1.5M/yr - that would have been really good. But it is not necessary that every contract be a steal. The contracts just have to be collectively good enough...
c)The thing about NBA contracts is that due to the CBA they really fit into 3 tiers LLE or less (most rookie contracts), LLE to MLE , and more than MLE. The bottom tier is almost noise relative to a team payroll. Being generous in this tier may well be a very positive attribute, as opposed to the typical Spurs pinch each dollar attitude ...Particulary if 1) it gets you that signing (particulary keeping in mind the team demographics and need to teach players the system for a year really), and 2) if it gets you longer contracts. For example Udoka got $2M/2yrs...Signing him for $4.5M/3yrs would likely be a better long term financial bargain. That 3ed year will cost us if we want to keep him...3) So long as you are in that bottom tier, cheap contracts are easy to trade if you've made a mistake. After all, how much a mistake can it be for less than $2M/yr in NBA salary terms...

7) What I am suggesting is that there are lots of historical decisions that could be questioned in hindsight. There seem to be more of them recently. While it is easy to see them in hindsight, it's the FO's responsibility to get these decisions right when they come up - that's why they get the big bucks...
You, and many others on this forum would exempt the FO because the Spurs have 4 championships and do well each year. I prefer to look at if the actual potential of the team is being realized...It's like saying overall, CLE's FO is doing well for that team, because they got Lebron. Inherently, championship windows will be limited in the NBA for each team - time catches up to every player in the end...IMO the correct way to assess the value of an FO is how much of the potential of the team has been fulfilled.

It is sort of tiring hearing how "bad" our offseason was, but most of it stems from high expectations that the Spurs have put into place. I know I would have been thrilled to see our first-rounder Splitter playing with Duncan, and maybe Thomas, Maggette who was leaning toward the Spurs would have arguably put us over the top, etc. It was all there, but fell apart. Personally, the Spurs getting trumped by other, more lucrative, offers from around the world or stateside isn't the "beginning of the end", but is a reality they'll have to face and learn from (Scola, Splitter, etc). Losing Barry was less drastic than some on here think, IMO. Outside of precision three point shooting, he didn't bring much to the table, and his decision making was questionable at times. Finley's clutchness, despite being old, is underrated, and he seems like a good guy to have around. He still holds the Spurs record for most three's made in a PO game (8), and that was only a year ago. Not done yet I don't think.

I don't mind the Mason signing, as long as he isn't strictly a spot up shooter (which I'm afraid he'll become in our system of "shooters standing on the perimeter waiting for the kickout"). We need guys who can get to the rim, and to the FT line, when the big 3 aren't necassarilly creating for others. Over half the shots Mason took last season were three's (albeit at near 40%), well more than half were three's the season prior. That impresses me and scares me at the same time. I'm glad to hear he can put the ball on the floor, at the least. We need that - from him.

My biggest gripe (or only real gripe really) is that the Spurs need to draft first-round-talent with their first round pick, even if it means potentially losing out on a player, or having to trade down in the draft to get who they want. George Hill looks pretty active in other areas beside offense (which is nice), but would it have killed to take a chance on Donte Greene, or CDR, or even Chalmers if we're going the back-up PG route? Simply put, Spurs should aim for potential starters in the first round, OR find a way to beneficially trade the pick. I can't see Hill ever starting in the near future, as long as Parker and Ginobili are around. It will certainly be interesting to see how Hill compares to the other late first round picks... You look at some of the guys drafted around Mahinmi for instance, and you see Jason Maxiell, David Lee, Linas Kleiza, Brandon Bass, etc - guys who are making an impact. Would be nice to see something like that for us at least once every couple of years.

Yes, I'm tired of it but in one way, there is a difference in the off-season. The international competition for money is very different. The NBA no longer has the leverage it once had for the skilled role-players. It has become a Sports' Agent's dream come true.

The Spurs must be disappointed and are probably having to re-think how to handle the shift in competition for talent. It's a new dynamic.

Taking a snap-shot of the roster as it stands in August, the top 8 rotation players for the Spurs are okay if Fin isn't one of the 8 and Mason is. They won't win the West on paper. Until their defense improves, they won't be the favorite in the west on wood.

From the outside, it appears that many fans just understand the game and knows that the West will be even tougher next year at the top of the conference.

Lakers, Hornets, Jazz, and now Rockets are along with the Spurs with legit shots at winning it all and every little bit helps.

The age (and mileage) of the key players of SA can't be ignored. They aren't going to fall apart next year but arguing health alone will take care of it won't cut it.

Any Spurs fans who understands the game has the right to be frustrated but I haven't seen anyone knowledgable holler the sky is falling.

The games are won on the floor, not on paper as Solid D said. SA is in for a fight but they have the moxie to win it. Question is do they have the firepower and legs but only next spring will decide that.

But this, like last year, will be the toughest for SA to win a title in the Duncan era because of the number of top echelon teams in the West. Usualy its 2-3, now 5 teams have the talent, coaching, starpower to win the title in the West.

But to support what was mentioned before - biggest problem for SA was the other economic source they had to compete with. From the start, SA didn't have the contracts that could easily be traded and wasn't willing to break up the big 3. FA was the only savior for the team this summer and it failed them. With they interested in 2010 like about 25 other teams, its only going to be worse next year.

Its 2010 before I can see SA making major improvements and at that time they are competing with everyone else in the NBA - and the fact no one can come to SA and be the "man" hurts them in recruiting.

I do get tired of hearing how bad the off season has been, but I also get tired of hearing that CIA Pop is up to something and "In Pop we trust"...This organziation has kicked ass, but they do make mistakes and should be called out when they do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spurs50_

I do get tired of hearing how bad the off season has been, but I also get tired of hearing that CIA Pop is up to something and "In Pop we trust"...This organziation has kicked ass, but they do make mistakes and should be called out when they do.

---

Amen

FORGET 2010 thing....I can't remember last time we get all star player through FA, maybe in stone age???

It is going to be much harder in 2010 to get franchise player through FA. MY PREDICTION IS IN 2010 IT IS HARD TO GET LEBRON,BOSH OR WADE. WHY?? BECAUSE ALL TEAMS IN NBA MADE PREPARATION FOR THEM. NJ is clearing up cap and try to fill roster with solid future players in Jianlan. I suspect they will add more in 2009. Raptors made money preparation as well,Raptors is his team.. Heat is adding lottery pick and got no salary cap problem. I also suspect they will make huge moves on 2009 to satisfy Wade. Cavs also try to build strong supporting cast for Lebron (Big Ben, Mo Will,etc).
West is getting stronger and this offseason tell us that Spurs is not a favourite destination. Go ask CM if u dont believe me, there's also bunch of other names as well. I will punch myself if Lakers trade their huge contracts players to get cap room to try to match Lebron with Kobe. i dont think it will happen though.
I trust FO is trying to work for the best and I think we still chmapionship contender and always got a good chance...but I didnt really hope anything big happen in 2010. Please prove me wrong and land Bosch or Wade; then we can go party together!!!!! GO SA

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wisnub

FORGET 2010 thing....I can't remember last time we get all star player through FA, maybe in stone age???

It is going to be much harder in 2010 to get franchise player through FA. MY PREDICTION IS IN 2010 IT IS HARD TO GET LEBRON,BOSH OR WADE. WHY?? BECAUSE ALL TEAMS IN NBA MADE PREPARATION FOR THEM. NJ is clearing up cap and try to fill roster with solid future players in Jianlan. I suspect they will add more in 2009. Raptors made money preparation as well,Raptors is his team.. Heat is adding lottery pick and got no salary cap problem. I also suspect they will make huge moves on 2009 to satisfy Wade. Cavs also try to build strong supporting cast for Lebron (Big Ben, Mo Will,etc).
West is getting stronger and this offseason tell us that Spurs is not a favourite destination. Go ask CM if u dont believe me, there's also bunch of other names as well. I will punch myself if Lakers trade their huge contracts players to get cap room to try to match Lebron with Kobe. i dont think it will happen though.
I trust FO is trying to work for the best and I think we still chmapionship contender and always got a good chance...but I didnt really hope anything big happen in 2010. Please prove me wrong and land Bosch or Wade; then we can go party together!!!!! GO SA

---

Another thing with 2010 is Ginobili's contract is up then as well.

I for one hope in 2010 the Spurs sign Scalabrine and keep Bonner, that would be a sweet combo.