Chalmers, Arthur caught with marijuana at rookie camp

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.