Chalmers, Arthur caught with marijuana at rookie camp

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=3567481

By Chris Broussard
ESPN The Magazine
(Archive)

Updated: September 3, 2008, 2:45 PM ET

Rookies Mario Chalmers of the Miami Heat and Darrell Arthur of the Memphis Grizzlies were thrown out of the NBA's Rookie Transition Program on Wednesday morning after being caught in their hotel room at Doral Arrowwood in Rye Brook, N.Y., with marijuana, according to sources.

"Yes, they were sent home for violating program rules,'' NBA spokesman Brian McIntyre said.

According to a source, the players were also fined $20,000 each and will begin the season on the suspended list. McIntyre would not confirm that, but he said the league will continue to investigate the matter and that appropriate sanctions will take place.

Chalmers and Arthur were both members of last year's NCAA champion Kansas Jayhawks.

Rookies

Damn. Maybe RC had some good info on those Jayhawks. If you are dumb enough to try to smoke a little W in a setting where the NBA watches your every move, that doesn't sound like Spurs material.

Sounds like they're having a hard time coping with George Hill getting drafted ahead of them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by timvp

Damn. Maybe RC had some good info on those Jayhawks. If you are dumb enough to try to smoke a little W in a setting where the NBA watches your every move, that doesn't sound like Spurs material.

---

:tu

There are rookie mistakes, and then there's just being stupid. Geez.

:wow

Legalize it

Looks like J-Ho has some new buddies in the league

LMAO at thinking this justifies the Spurs picking Hill! :lol

The rookie transition program is like 10 days.. they couldn't even hold out til it was over. :lol

Dumbasses.

wish i had some bud right now... :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by timvp

Damn. Maybe RC had some good info on those Jayhawks. If you are dumb enough to try to smoke a little W in a setting where the NBA watches your every move, that doesn't sound like Spurs material.

---

I guess some posters owe rc some respect

If Chalmers is the next Billups no one will care if he smokes weed.

People who smoke weed are not bad people. They showed an obvious error in judgment, but they will learn. It would be no worse than seeing them at the club drinking in the same time frame. It is just a weird sense of drinking being ok and smoking not.

And I do not even smoke or advocate it; just makes no sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DPG21920

People who smoke weed are not bad people. They showed an obvious error in judgment, but they will learn. It would be no worse than seeing them at the club drinking in the same time frame. It is just a weird sense of drinking being ok and smoking not.

And I do not even smoke or advocate it; just makes no sense.

---

the dude abides

I drink Caucasians man, I don't do j's

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

Sounds like they're having a hard time coping with George Hill getting drafted ahead of them.

---

:lmao

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DPG21920

People who smoke weed are not bad people. They showed an obvious error in judgment, but they will learn. It would be no worse than seeing them at the club drinking in the same time frame. It is just a weird sense of drinking being ok and smoking not.

And I do not even smoke or advocate it; just makes no sense.

---

That wierd sense of drinking being okay and smoking not is exactly the reason why this IS worse than if they had been spotted at a club boozing it up. Forget any health/legal aspects to all this. One activity puts your NBA career at risk, one doesn't.

At least these guys have a chance at becoming legitimate players in the League.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DPG21920

If Chalmers is the next Billups no one will care if he smokes weed.

---

to be honest with ya...i doubt anyone gives a damn as it is anyhow except the media.

i would lay odds that more then 1/2 the league burns during the season and off season. who gives a shit if they smoke herb? as long as they don't smoke while theyre at practice, during games, or at special events then why should it matter? they don't get handed suspensions for drinking and we all know ballers love to club it up. such hypocrisy in this bs democracy.

you can have a coke head in the white house who drives drunk but you can't have a baller who gets his hops by smoking a little bud. our society is a bunch of pussies!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DPG21920

People who smoke weed are not bad people. They showed an obvious error in judgment, but they will learn. It would be no worse than seeing them at the club drinking in the same time frame. It is just a weird sense of drinking being ok and smoking not.

And I do not even smoke or advocate it; just makes no sense.

---

It's not a matter of legality. It's a matter of stupidity.

In this rookie program, multiple days are set aside to talk about the drug policy, drug use and the such. To listen to that and go back to a room and get your W on is pretty damn dumb. Especially since they have a policy where the program directors have free range to go into the hotel rooms and even conduct drug tests if they are suspicious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

That wierd sense of drinking being okay and smoking not is exactly the reason why this IS worse than if they had been spotted at a club boozing it up. Forget any health/legal aspects to all this. One activity puts your NBA career at risk, one doesn't.

---

Ya, I already said it was an error in judgment. I did not say it was not worse. I said society has this view that drinking is ok and smoking is not. Obviously a dumb decision, but in MY eyes going out and drinking is just as bad, especially to your employer. If you go to a business lunch with your boss and start throwing down shots of Patron, even though it is legal, it can put your career at risk.

Also, this really does not put their careers in jeopardy. Plenty of people get caught and still play. People can go into the stands and beat the crap out of fans and they still play. People can fire guns into crowds at night clubs and still play.

Both Chalmers and Arthur have slipped a lot during the draft. Arthur was projected at a lottery pick and end up at #28. Chalmers was projected as a first round pick and was picked at #34.
While there was the kidney trouble with Arthur, I wonder if they haven't also slipped because some teams were concerned about their attitude.

And this news doesn't change that if Hill sucks, he would have been a bad draft pick.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by timvp

It's not a matter of legality. It's a matter of stupidity.

In this rookie program, multiple days are set aside to talk about the drug policy, drug use and the such. To listen to that and go back to a room and get your W on is pretty damn dumb. Especially since they have a policy where the program directors have free range to go into the hotel rooms and even conduct drug tests if they are suspicious.

---

That is exactly what I referred to. I said it was an error in judgment, which implies stupidity. My reference to it being better/worse than drinking was only to say that whether weed is illegal and drinking legal, that they both are frowned upon if you do it at the wrong time. Hence, when I said it would be just as bad if they were caught in the club getting wasted while at the meeting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kori Ellis

The rookie transition program is like 10 days.. they couldn't even hold out til it was over. :lol

---

I can barely hold out until getting home tonight. I have half a mind to bring a j to work to smoke in the parking garage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by koriwhat

to be honest with ya...i doubt anyone gives a damn as it is anyhow except the media.

i would lay odds that more then 1/2 the league burns during the season and off season. who gives a shit if they smoke herb? as long as they don't smoke while theyre at practice, during games, or at special events then why should it matter? they don't get handed suspensions for drinking and we all know ballers love to club it up. such hypocrisy in this bs democracy.

you can have a coke head in the white house who drives drunk but you can't have a baller who gets his hops by smoking a little bud. our society is a bunch of pussies!

---

That's the problem with this, they got caught at a special event.

I don't get society's hang ups over marijuana. I don't mean to turn this into a pro-legalization thread, but they're not hurting anybody.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by koriwhat

to be honest with ya...i doubt anyone gives a damn as it is anyhow except the media.

---

I meant that people on here jumping to the conclusion that R.C. did not draft him because he knew he smoked is just weird. If Chalmers turns out to be a stud and Hill is a bust, then everyone will forget the weed, bust a u-turn and rip R.C. a new one.

I still think that it's impossible that R.C. Buford didn't visit with Bill Self (Kansas basketball coach) about players like Chalmers and Arthur before the draft. I think there's some pretty good chance that Self offered Buford some pretty significant concerns about Chalmers and Arthur -- the sort of criticism that a college coach would know about and the sort of things he might only share with a good friend. And, after all, Self and Buford are good friends; so close that Self gave Buford's son a preferred walk-on spot at KU.

For all of the criticisms about missing on Chalmers and Arthur -- and those may still prove to be valid -- the Spurs aren't an organization that skips too many steps and due diligence would seem to be a big part of their processes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DPG21920

Ya, I already said it was an error in judgment. I did not say it was not worse. I said society has this view that drinking is ok and smoking is not. Obviously a dumb decision, but in MY eyes going out and drinking is just as bad, especially to your employer. If you go to a business lunch with your boss and start throwing down shots of Patron, even though it is legal, it can put your career at risk.

---

It's different here though because Chalmers and Arthur's employers are now likely to temporarily lose the services of their players because of something stupid they did, irregardless of any feeling over the dangers of pot compared to the dangers of alcohol. I agree with you that in the grand scheme of life this isn't a big deal. If neither guy gets caught again in the future this incident is probably forgotten by the allstar break, if not sooner. But, if you're a GM who's investing lots of money into Chalmers, Arthur, or any other player who likes to smoke pot, this is a big deal because that player smoking pot is putting that investment at risk.

Quote:

---

Also, this really does not put their careers in jeopardy. Plenty of people get caught and still play. People can go into the stands and beat the crap out of fans and they still play. People can fire guns into crowds at night clubs and still play.

---

No doubt, that's true. As long as you have game, you'll have another chance waiting for you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

It's different here though because Chalmers and Arthur's employers are now likely to temporarily lose the services of their players because of something stupid they did, irregardless of any feeling over the dangers of pot compared to the dangers of alcohol. I agree with you that in the grand scheme of life this isn't a big deal. If neither guy gets caught again in the future this incident is probably forgotten by the allstar break, if not sooner. But, if you're a GM who's investing lots of money into Chalmers, Arthur, or any other player who likes to smoke pot, this is a big deal because that player smoking pot is putting that investment at risk.



No doubt, that's true. As long as you have game, you'll have another chance waiting for you.

---

Which is kind of sad.. But I get what you are saying now. It is different being a superstar that is proven and messing up. You probably won't endanger your career. But to be a rookie who has not played a single minute, that is a much larger risk.

Due-diligence, my friends. Due-diligence.

BAMA's members will now say "Spurs should have drafted Donté Greene".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown

I still think that it's impossible that R.C. Buford didn't visit with Bill Self (Kansas basketball coach) about players like Chalmers and Arthur before the draft. I think there's some pretty good chance that Self offered Buford some pretty significant concerns about Chalmers and Arthur -- the sort of criticism that a college coach would know about and the sort of things he might only share with a good friend. And, after all, Self and Buford are good friends; so close that Self gave Buford's son a preferred walk-on spot at KU.

For all of the criticisms about missing on Chalmers and Arthur -- and those may still prove to be valid -- the Spurs aren't an organization that skips too many steps and due diligence would seem to be a big part of their processes.

---

I agree. I am not saying that R.C. did not put in the time for proper due diligence, I am just saying if the kid was really good I do not think they would have passed because of this. They must of really liked Hill to take him. I do not think they picked Hill over Chalmers or Arthur because of attitude, just because they liked him, thats all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bruno

BAMA's members will now say "Spurs should have drafted Donté Greene".

---

Donte Greene has Lamar Odom written all over him. Which would not be a bad haul from the draft.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown

I still think that it's impossible that R.C. Buford didn't visit with Bill Self (Kansas basketball coach) about players like Chalmers and Arthur before the draft. I think there's some pretty good chance that Self offered Buford some pretty significant concerns about Chalmers and Arthur -- the sort of criticism that a college coach would know about and the sort of things he might only share with a good friend. And, after all, Self and Buford are good friends; so close that Self gave Buford's son a preferred walk-on spot at KU.

For all of the criticisms about missing on Chalmers and Arthur -- and those may still prove to be valid -- the Spurs aren't an organization that skips too many steps and due diligence would seem to be a big part of their processes.

---

I would say that the evidence over the last 6 or 7 years would argue otherwise. If they are so into due diligence you would think that they could have drafted somebody that could contribute to the team.

At one point I was a bigger weed head than everybody in this place and I don't think there is anything wrong with burning but I was never offered a multimillion dollar contract to play a game. If I had been an athlete and about to get paid millions, I would gladly put away the sack for a good decade to earn my pay and do what it takes to be the best. Smoking weed at a rookie camp is just stupid and just shows bad character.

This is hilarious. Now they will have to attend the session again next season. What a brilliant policy -- the guys who violate the rules at a seminar about the dangers of drugs and women in the NBA life are immediately sent home and denied the counseling that they obviously are in need of most.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tlongII

I would say that the evidence over the last 6 or 7 years would argue otherwise. If they are so into due diligence you would think that they could have drafted somebody that could contribute to the team.

---

How are you supposed to just pull rabbits out of a hat? When your team is constantly picking in the end of the 1st and the second rounds there is not much there. Odds are against what you are saying because the vast majority of picks in that region only last in the league for 3 years or less. That is not much contribution.

The Spurs have draft picks that take time and will/have helped. They are forced to do much of their player additions through free agency. The players they draft do help in many ways and they way the go about the draft has helped them win. They have a combination of players who come in and help win titles (Manu, Tim, Robinson, Parker), they have players they draft that can fill in later down the road (Splitter, Mahinmi) and they develop them in Europe so they do not take up roster spots, which frees them up to sign the crucial FA's that help them win titles.

How did they know they had bud?? Did they show up to camp smelling like weed and with their eyes red as the devils dick? Pendejos! George Hill probably snitched them out..:lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bruno

And this news doesn't change that if Hill sucks, he would have been a bad draft pick.

---

Read: Why didn't they go for CDR?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DPG21920

People who smoke weed are not bad people. They showed an obvious error in judgment, but they will learn. It would be no worse than seeing them at the club drinking in the same time frame. It is just a weird sense of drinking being ok and smoking not.

And I do not even smoke or advocate it; just makes no sense.

---

:tu +1

They weren't drafted high in the traditional sense of the word.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DPG21920

It would be no worse than seeing them at the club drinking in the same time frame. It is just a weird sense of drinking being ok and smoking not.

---

Weed is against the law and against the rules of the league. Drinking isn't. That's the difference.

I'm not saying weed should or shouldn't be legal. I'm saying currently it's illegal and currently it's against the rules of the league. So it's not the same as being seen at a club drinking, (except Arthur who I don't think is 21 yet).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kori Ellis

Weed is against the law and against the rules of the league. Drinking isn't. That's the difference.

I'm not saying weed should or shouldn't be legal. I'm saying currently it's illegal and currently it's against the rules of the league. So it's not the same as being seen at a club drinking, (except Arthur who I don't think is 21 yet).

---

It is not the same in a legal sense, but it is in the eye's of an employer. Do you think that if reports came out that they were drinking during the seminar in their rooms right before the meetings and showing up drunk that people would not care because it is legal?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DPG21920

It is not the same in a legal sense, but it is in the eye's of an employer. Do you think that if reports came out that they were drinking during the seminar in their rooms right before the meetings and showing up drunk that people would not care because it is legal?

---

Showed up drunk to meetings? Or were seen at a club drinking? That's a big difference.

Your first post said it's the same as beeing seen at a club drinking. Now you are changing the scenario. Being seen at a night club drinking in the evening - I don't think anyone cares. Drinking in their hotel room and coming to a seminar drunk - yes, I think people care.

When millions of dollars are at stake and you are attending the first orientation session of your NBA career, taking doobage* with you is just stupid, legal or not.

*Yes, I'm that old, and yes it's been that long.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DPG21920

How are you supposed to just pull rabbits out of a hat? When your team is constantly picking in the end of the 1st and the second rounds there is not much there. Odds are against what you are saying because the vast majority of picks in that region only last in the league for 3 years or less. That is not much contribution.

The Spurs have draft picks that take time and will/have helped. They are forced to do much of their player additions through free agency. The players they draft do help in many ways and they way the go about the draft has helped them win. They have a combination of players who come in and help win titles (Manu, Tim, Robinson, Parker), they have players they draft that can fill in later down the road (Splitter, Mahinmi) and they develop them in Europe so they do not take up roster spots, which frees them up to sign the crucial FA's that help them win titles.

---

Ginobili and Parker are the most recent players the Spurs have acquired through the draft that have contributed to the team and they were picked 7 years ago I believe. I realize they pick late in the draft, but I believe they should have been able to pick somebody within the last 7 years that could contribute. We'll never know about Splitter since he bolted, but it's clear to me that Mahinmi won't amount to anything. That doesn't sound like due diligence to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kori Ellis

Showed up drunk to meetings? Or were seen at a club drinking? That's a big difference.

Your first post said it's the same as beeing seen at a club drinking. Now you are changing the scenario.

---

I already defined what I meant by saying it would be just as bad seeing them at the club. I was speaking from their employers viewpoint. If these rookies were at the meetings for drug and alcohol for 10 days and were seen getting wasted at the clubs on a nightly basis and showing up to the meeting hung over that would leave a bad impression. It would show their level of judgment and focus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tlongII

Ginobili and Parker are the most recent players the Spurs have acquired through the draft that have contributed to the team and they were picked 7 years ago I believe. I realize they pick late in the draft, but I believe they should have been able to pick somebody within the last 7 years that could contribute. We'll never know about Splitter since he bolted, but it's clear to me that Mahinmi won't amount to anything. That doesn't sound like due diligence to me.

---

Who has Portland drafted in the past 5 years that has "contributed"? If you define contributing as being on the team and just playing, then Portland has done better. If you are talking about playing meaningful minutes and making the playoffs, and having a legit chance to win a title, then Portland<<<<<<<<Spurs

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DPG21920

I already defined what I meant by saying it would be just as bad seeing them at the club. I was speaking from their employers viewpoint. If these rookies were at the meetings for drug and alcohol for 10 days and were seen getting wasted at the clubs on a nightly basis and showing up to the meeting hung over that would leave a bad impression. It would show their level of judgment and focus.

---

Again - you are changing the scenario to make your point... "Getting wasted at clubs on a nightly basis and showing up to meeting hung over" or getting sloshed in their hotel rooms and showing up drunk is completely different than just being seen at a night club drinking .. which is what you originally said.

Anyway, it's dumb as hell to smoke weed during rookie orientation camp when you are set to embark on a potentially multi-million dollar career especially when:

1) You are drug tested when you go to rookie orientation
2) Weed is illegal
3) Weed is against the rules of the league
4) Several days are spent there talking about the dangers of drugs

It shows incredibly poor judgement and it wouldn't be the same at all as going to a nightclub and drinking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kori Ellis

Again - you are changing the scenario to make your point... "Getting wasted at clubs on a nightly basis and showing up to meeting hung over" or getting sloshed in their hotel rooms and showing up drunk is completely different than just being seen at a night club drinking .. which is what you originally said.

Anyway, it's dumb as hell to smoke weed during rookie orientation camp when you are set to embark on a potentially multi-million dollar career especially when:

1) You are drug tested when you go to rookie orientation
2) Weed is illegal
3) Weed is against the rules of the league
4) Several days are spent there talking about the dangers of drugs

It shows incredibly poor judgement and it wouldn't be the same at all as going to a nightclub and drinking.

---

I agree it is stupid to smoke weed, especially in this scenario. You keep focusing on the scenario "changing" and not the point. They should not be going out and drinking or smoking weed, whether or not one is legal and the other is illegal.

If you can not go to meetings about drug and alcohol for your career without doing either, you do not have good judgment and your employer will see that. Is it a big deal if you have talent, no. But if you are a rookie and on the cusp it would not be wise.

Let me outline a scenario I brought up earlier. If your boss takes you lunch, and you order 2 shots of Patron will that reflect well on you? You will not be doing anything illegal, you will not be drunk, but you will create a perception. That goes along with the point I was making about going out to the clubs. So what if I added on to the scenario to make a point? One is legal and one is not right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DPG21920

Who has Portland drafted in the past 5 years that has "contributed"? If you define contributing as being on the team and just playing, then Portland has done better. If you are talking about playing meaningful minutes and making the playoffs, and having a legit chance to win a title, then Portland<<<<<<<<Spurs

---

Huh? That post makes no sense at all. The Spurs success is directly attributable to Duncan, Parker, and Ginobili. Players that were drafted 7 or more years ago. During the last few years the Blazers have been able to acquire Sergio Rodriquez and Rudy Fernandez who were late draft picks. I believe both of these players could make a positive impact with the Spurs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DPG21920

I agree it is stupid to smoke weed, especially in this scenario. You keep focusing on the scenario "changing" and not the point. They should not be going out and drinking or smoking weed, whether or not one is legal and the other is illegal.

If you can not go to meetings about drug and alcohol for your career without doing either, you do not have good judgment and your employer will see that. Is it a big deal if you have talent, no. But if you are a rookie and on the cusp it would not be wise.

Let me outline a scenario I brought up earlier. If your boss takes you lunch, and you order 2 shots of Patron will that look reflect well on you? You will not be doing anything illegal, you will not be drunk, but you will create a perception. That goes along with the point I was making about going out to the clubs. So what if I added on to the scenario to make a point? One is legal and one is not right?

---

Well I don't think anyone cares if they go out and have a couple drinks at a night club in the evening during their time at the orientation. I don't think that reflects on them poorly at all if they are old enough to drink. It's not against the league rules and as long as they aren't sloshed, obnoxious, hung over etc at the meetings the next day - who cares?

The reason weed is different than that is because it's against the rules of the league.

And drinking with your boss at lunch is again, very different than going out in the evening with friends for a couple drinks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DPG21920

I agree it is stupid to smoke weed, especially in this scenario. You keep focusing on the scenario "changing" and not the point. They should not be going out and drinking or smoking weed, whether or not one is legal and the other is illegal.

If you can not go to meetings about drug and alcohol for your career without doing either, you do not have good judgment and your employer will see that. Is it a big deal if you have talent, no. But if you are a rookie and on the cusp it would not be wise.

Let me outline a scenario I brought up earlier. If your boss takes you lunch, and you order 2 shots of Patron will that reflect well on you? You will not be doing anything illegal, you will not be drunk, but you will create a perception. That goes along with the point I was making about going out to the clubs. So what if I added on to the scenario to make a point? One is legal and one is not right?

---

Are you High?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tlongII

Huh? That post makes no sense at all. The Spurs success is directly attributable to Duncan, Parker, and Ginobili. Players that were drafted 7 or more years ago. During the last few years the Blazers have been able to acquire Sergio Rodriquez and Rudy Fernandez who were late draft picks. I believe both of these players could make a positive impact with the Spurs.

---

It makes perfect sense. The Spurs still have players on their team that they drafted that are contributing to winning titles. The Blazer have drafted no one that has even led them into the playoffs in 5 years. Rudy and Sergio have proven nothing, so you do not know if they can help. Could they, sure, but you do not know. How can you count out Mahinmi and Hill but throw out Sergio and Rudy?

The point I was making with the Blazer scenario is that almost no teams draft guys late that come in and help. Ya the Blazers have drafted Rudy and Sergio, but they have not done anything yet. Just like the Spurs draft picks.

Should and shouldn't is different than can a cannot. You are arguing an entirely different thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kori Ellis

Well I don't think anyone cares if they go out and have a couple drinks at a night club in the evening during their time at the orientation. I don't think that reflects on them poorly at all if they are old enough to drink. It's not against the league rules and as long as they aren't sloshed, obnoxious, hung over etc at the meetings the next day - who cares?

The reason weed is different than that is because it's against the rules of the league.

And drinking with your boss at lunch is again, very different than going out in the evening with friends for a couple drinks.

---

I get what you are saying. I already said it was stupid what they did. I know it is against league rules, and illegal. They are not going to hurt their careers by doing this though. I was just saying that it might not reflect well on them if they are going out to the clubs. Thats all. I do not have personal problem with it. I would just think that no one wants to hear about that stuff either way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DPG21920

They are not going to hurt their careers by doing this though.

---

Really? How do you know?

They'll probably be put in the league's Marijuana Program now... which could lead to problems with further infractions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ronaldo McDonald

Should and shouldn't is different than can a cannot. You are arguing an entirely different thing.

---

Really. My whole point was based on the should and shouldn't not the can and cannot. Can you go drink if you want? Yes. Is it illegal? No. Should you drink in certain situations although you can....that is what I am talking about. You do not have to agree, but I would think rookies at a seminar about drugs and alcohol would like to keep a low profile and not even risk the slightest thing going wrong. Drugs and Alcohol both carry negative connotations.

Dumb diddy dumb dumb.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kori Ellis

Really? How do you know?

They'll probably be put in the league's Marijuana Program now... which could lead to problems with further infractions.

---

As I mentioned before, I know because I see Ron Artest still playing in the league, I see Stephen Jackson still playing in the league, I see Josh Howard in the league..........

I clearly said earlier, if they are really talented, it will not hurt them. In this case, being unproven, late picks that have never proven themselves, this was an ultra dumb move.

Just FYI (in case some people don't know) the seminar isn't all about drugs and alcohol... they talk a lot about money management, using condoms :lol, and dozens of other things. They also play basketball, get to meet with some of the legends of the games, listen to current and former players and coaches speak, etc. But a good deal of time is spent on the area of drugs, obviously.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kori Ellis

Really? How do you know?

They'll probably be put in the league's Marijuana Program now... which could lead to problems with further infractions.

---

They may, but I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt and say I don't think they will be any dumber than this............ I hope.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DPG21920

It makes perfect sense. The Spurs still have players on their team that they drafted that are contributing to winning titles. The Blazer have drafted no one that has even led them into the playoffs in 5 years. Rudy and Sergio have proven nothing, so you do not know if they can help. Could they, sure, but you do not know. How can you count out Mahinmi and Hill but throw out Sergio and Rudy?

The point I was making with the Blazer scenario is that almost no teams draft guys late that come in and help. Ya the Blazers have drafted Rudy and Sergio, but they have not done anything yet. Just like the Spurs draft picks.

---

When the Spurs picked Mahinmi they passed on David Lee, Salim Stoudamire, Brandon Bass, Ronny Turiaf, and Monta Ellis among others. I'm sure you would agree that any of those players would have helped the Spurs much more than Mahinmi.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kori Ellis

Well I don't think anyone cares if they go out and have a couple drinks at a night club in the evening during their time at the orientation.

---

How do you know? Their owner, coach or teammates could have a big problem with this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tlongII

When the Spurs picked Mahinmi they passed on David Lee, Salim Stoudamire, Brandon Bass, Ronny Turiaf, and Monta Ellis among others. I'm sure you would agree that any of those players would have helped the Spurs much more than Mahinmi.

---

How can you say that? You have not seen Mahinmi play a game yet. Come back in 4 years and we can have this conversation. With the exception of Ellis, no one has been outstanding enough to even second guess as of yet. I for one would rather have a big man with potential than a guard. That is why they chose Mahinmi. Now we have to wait and see over the next few years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DPG21920

How do you know? Their owner, coach or teammates could have a big problem with this.

---

BEcause they don't.

Give up your wrong on this.


BTW, will the haters of the FO take this into consideration?

Probobly not. They will brush it aside like politicians.

I think tlong is confusing talent evaluation (and ignoring economic constraints that can't be ignored) with due diligence. The Spurs have long been reported to undertake long and searching inquiries into the character of potential acquisitions -- that's due diligence.

That the Spurs haven't drafted a contributing player in 7 years is: (1) ignorant of the fact that the Spurs have effectively used draft picks to acquire players who've contributed (Speedy Claxton in 2002-03 was acquired through the trade of a pick and, for whatever it's worth, Beno Udrih was a contributor to an NBA title winner -- both instances of using a draft pick for value in the last 7 years; the jury's out on Mahinmi and Hill, no matter what tlong says; Splitter will likely be a question mark for a while); and (2) involves an entirely different sort of an analysis than the due diligence that goes into character assessments of potential acquisitions.

So much for picking these guys...I have to agree with FWDT about the possibility of Self knowing something about these guys and giving R.C. the inside line. I am sure there are programs all over the country that had players do things that never left the locker room and got handled internally. With both players looking like a good fit for our team and our FO passing on them it seems something very well could have been said to steer us away.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DPG21920

How can you say that? You have not seen Mahinmi play a game yet. Come back in 4 years and we can have this conversation. With the exception of Ellis, no one has been outstanding enough to even second guess as of yet. I for one would rather have a big man with potential than a guard. That is why they chose Mahinmi. Now we have to wait and see over the next few years.

---

I think you would probably take David Lee too, right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DPG21920

How do you know? Their owner, coach or teammates could have a big problem with this.

---

Because generally people don't have an issue with someone drink a couple drinks on their own time, as long as they aren't getting drunk and stupid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by T Park

BEcause they don't.

Give up your wrong on this.


BTW, will the haters of the FO take this into consideration?

Probobly not. They will brush it aside like politicians.

---

How can you be wrong on something subjective?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kori Ellis

I think you would probably take David Lee too, right?

---

A bird in the hand mentality. No. with the exception of Ellis (and that is with knowing how he would turn out) I do not think taking Mahinmi was a mistake over any of the aforementioned players. David Lee is a nice player, but not enough to make you second guess taking on a project like Mahinmi imo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DPG21920

A bird in the hand mentality. No. with the exception of Ellis (and that is with knowing how he would turn out) I do not think taking Mahinmi was a mistake over any of the aforementioned players. David Lee is a nice player, but not enough to make you second guess taking on a project like Mahinmi imo.

---

Really? I'd take Lee in a heartbeat - 9 and 9 and shooting 58 percent from the floor over 200+ games in the league is a good sample size to me. I don't know if Mahnimi will ever be close to that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kori Ellis

Because generally people don't have an issue with someone drink a couple drinks on their own time, as long as they aren't getting drunk and stupid.

---

I agree with that, but putting yourself into situations where things can go wrong is not smart. That is my only point. Even if you go out to just grab a glass of wine at the club there is always the chance something goes wrong (fights, wrecks, women...) that could reflect poorly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown

I think tlong is confusing talent evaluation (and ignoring economic constraints that can't be ignored) with due diligence. The Spurs have long been reported to undertake long and searching inquiries into the character of potential acquisitions -- that's due diligence.

That the Spurs haven't drafted a contributing player in 7 years is: (1) ignorant of the fact that the Spurs have effectively used draft picks to acquire players who've contributed (Speedy Claxton in 2002-03 was acquired through the trade of a pick and, for whatever it's worth, Beno Udrih was a contributor to an NBA title winner -- both instances of using a draft pick for value in the last 7 years; the jury's out on Mahinmi and Hill, no matter what tlong says; Splitter will likely be a question mark for a while); and (2) involves an entirely different sort of an analysis than the due diligence that goes into character assessments of potential acquisitions.

---

Speedy Claxton is the closest thing you have to a valid argument in your post. Of course he was acquired in a trade though.

Udrih didn't contribute squat. In fact he did his best to try and prevent the Spurs from winning a title IIRC.

Mahinmi and Hill are both busts. It may be early for you to make that call, but it isn't for me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kori Ellis

Really? I'd take Lee in a heartbeat - 9 and 9 and shooting 58 percent from the floor over 200+ games in the league is a good sample size to me. I don't know if Mahnimi will ever be close to that.

---

I think that Ian can reach that for sure, and if not he will probably be more of an impact defender. Not to say Lee would not help, or that would of been a bad pick. I just think that is Lee's ceiling (give or take a few points). I think that is Ian's middle of the road career. Only time will tell.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tlongII

Speedy Claxton is the closest thing you have to a valid argument in your post. Of course he was acquired in a trade though.

---

He was acquired in a trade that involved shipping out a draft pick -- a savvy use of a draft pick, one could argue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tlong

Udrih didn't contribute squat. In fact he did his best to try and prevent the Spurs from winning a title IIRC.

---

Well, he played 80 games as the primary back-up point for a team that won a title. He was also one of only 8 players to average double-figure minutes in the playoffs for that team, appearing in 21 of its 23 games. He undoubtedly had a poor showing at times and was appropriately benched at nut-cutting time in the Finals, but it's not as if he was just along for the ride with that team.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tlong

Mahinmi and Hill are both busts. It may be early for you to make that call, but it isn't for me.

---

What have you seen of Mahinmi to make that judgment? Did you spend last year studying D-League games? Are you basing it on something else? If it's just a feel, then you're just pulling things out of your ass. If it's something else, I'd be curious what fount of talent evaluation you've come across to give you such clarity about the future of a kid who's played a total of 23 NBA minutes to this point.

Quote:

---

What have you seen of Mahinmi to make that judgment?

---

Pictures on the internet.

But the above things you highlighted are the reason I blocked him.

His stupidity got too annoying.

wgaf, they are both better than the shit the spurs have stoned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown

What have you seen of Mahinmi to make that judgment? Did you spend last year studying D-League games? Are you basing it on something else? If it's just a feel, then you're just pulling things out of your ass. If it's something else, I'd be curious what fount of talent evaluation you've come across to give you such clarity about the future of a kid who's played a total of 23 NBA minutes to this point.

---

The Spurs picked Mahinmi in 2005 and he hasn't made the regular roster yet. That is pretty much all you need to know. However, I have seen some video of him playing and he's too small and clumsy to be effective in the NBA.

But you guys can keeping living the lie of your GREAT FO if you want to!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tlongII

The Spurs picked Mahinmi in 2005 as he hasn't made the regular roster yet. That is pretty much all you need to know. However, I have seen some video of him playing and he's too small and clumsy to be effective in the NBA.

---

Nice simplification.

Even at that, you've completely ignored my point about the difference between talent evaluation and due diligence.

A player can be evaluated as a great talent, but if he's a bad character who can't stay out of trouble, he is generally going to be no good to that team -- Eddie Griffin was a fabulous talent with terrible character issues. Talent evaluation is recognizing that the guy can play; due diligence is discovering that the guy might have other issues that will cost him opportunities to show that talent. There's a difference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tlongII

But you guys can keeping living the lie of your GREAT FO if you want to!

---

1977, baby!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown

Nice simplification.

Even at that, you've completely ignored my point about the difference between talent evaluation and due diligence.

A player can be evaluated as a great talent, but if he's a bad character who can't stay out of trouble, he is generally going to be no good to that team -- Eddie Griffin was a fabulous talent with terrible character issues. Talent evaluation is recognizing that the guy can play; due diligence is discovering that the guy might have other issues that will cost him opportunities to show that talent. There's a difference.

---

IMO, due diligence includes talent evaluation.

i have no problem with weed and wish it were legal, but you're making a horrible argument DPG

1) drinking is legal, but being drunk in public isnt.
2) what you do in front of your boss (or anyone you want to make a good impression on) has nothing to do with what is legal. do you swear in front of your boss? depends on how your boss is right? same with drinking and drugs. you only do that in front of your boss when you KNOW you boss is cool with it.

bottomline, these guys were stupid about it. if you are going to do something illegal, you have to be smart enough to do it without getting caught.

Gino was drafted in 1999 and did not join the Spurs until 2002

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tlongII

IMO, due diligence includes talent evaluation.

---

I'd disagree with that. Teams frequently select players who have great talent but very poor character. Sometimes they express surprise when they find out about the player's character, though they know he can play ball. That would be an example of a significant difference between knowing a guy can play (talent evaluation) and knowing that a guy won't be a problem (due diligence).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diego

i have no problem with weed and wish it were legal, but you're making a horrible argument DPG

1) drinking is legal, but being drunk in public isnt.
2) what you do in front of your boss (or anyone you want to make a good impression on) has nothing to do with what is legal. do you swear in front of your boss? depends on how your boss is right? same with drinking and drugs. you only do that in front of your boss when you KNOW you boss is cool with it.

bottomline, these guys were stupid about it. if you are going to do something illegal, you have to be smart enough to do it without getting caught.

---

That is my point. You should not do things just because you can, you have to be smart about it. There is a time and place for everything. Going to a drug and alcohol seminar means you should not be partaking in either activity, legal or not. Don't even risk it at that point.

Obviously drinking is legal and weed is not, that is obvious. Like I said though, if you go to a club, generally you are there to drink, and drink quite a bit. Even if you got wasted, called a cab so that you were doing nothing illegal, if your employers new that you were doing that at the seminar there is a chance they would frown upon it.

mahinmi blows

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tlongII

The Spurs picked Mahinmi in 2005 and he hasn't made the regular roster yet. That is pretty much all you need to know. However, I have seen some video of him playing and he's too small and clumsy to be effective in the NBA.

---

http://www.nba.com/playerfile/ian_mahinmi/index.html

He is 6'11 and 230, but he is too small? I guess Amare is too small as well.

Given the solid players we passed on to draft Ian, and time we've spent to develop him, we basically have raised the expectations on him. We very much could have used any of those players mentioned who could begin playing immediately.

In choosing Ian, we basically put our hopes higher than those other players. So if Ian doesn't pan out and isn't a legitimate baller, then I would say we screwed up that draft pick. There's no reason to make a verdict yet, however, he needs to show something when the season starts, otherwise his draft pick just shortened our window.

(And this isn't to slam RC or Pop because Ian was Presti's guy.)

As for Chalmers and Arthur, I'm sure Chase had plenty of stories to tell RC. Either that or CDR got revenge and sold them down the river.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DPG21920

http://www.nba.com/playerfile/ian_mahinmi/index.html

He is 6'11 and 230, but he is too small? I guess Amare is too small as well.

---

Amare would break Mahinmi in half.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tlongII

Amare would break Mahinmi in half.

---

Ya.

Mahinmi was officially measured at 6-10 and 220 lbs. http://www.draftexpress.com/profile/Ian-Mahinmi-207/

That is too small to play the post in the NBA imo.

Amare is only 20 pounds heavier and Mahinimi looks like he put on a little weight.