I agree. It seems that Barry plays better with more playing time, especially when he starts. Should we pull another Hedo scheme?Quote:
Originally Posted by BigVee
Printable View
I agree. It seems that Barry plays better with more playing time, especially when he starts. Should we pull another Hedo scheme?Quote:
Originally Posted by BigVee
I'd still be worried about our ability to retain Sean Marks.Quote:
Originally Posted by timvp
Sure, IN THEORY.Quote:
Originally Posted by timvp
But the reality of the situation was that resigning Parker came down to Pop and Duncan convincing/begging Holt to pay out an extra $2 million over 6 years. Can you honestly tell me that Peter Holt would have anted up (even if permitted to under the cap) enough money to cover big contracts this summer for Jackson, Manu, AND Parker. Given the hand-wringing over that fairly-insignificant $2 million dollars, I'm skeptical.
That's what i'm thinking...Quote:
Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown
No. I would say stop signing players for who they are and then expect them to be something they are not. After 10 years Barry is what he is, his game is what it is, and Pop is not going to change that. Either let him play his game or sit him down/get rid.Quote:
Originally Posted by usckk
We really shouldn't judge what we did then. It was a different situation, so comparing that year with this year is a non-issue.
If the Spurs would have given him that 5-year, $24M he wanted after the championship, that is LESS money than they have tied up in Brent Barry and in the same amount of years. How would that have made a difference in re-signing Parker and/or Manu.Quote:
Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown
First of all, the only team that was willing to pay what the Spurs wanted to pay Manu was Denver. But Denver got their number one option in Kenyon Martin. Who else was going to break the bank for Manu? Second of all, if Manu is just about starting, that isn't the type of team player you want on a championship team. But if he really, really want to start, you could either started both Manu and SJax or demote SJax to the bench.Quote:
Just as an example, I can't see how the Spurs would have been able to keep Manu last summer if they had kept Stephen Jackson in 2003. You say it wouldn't matter who started, and in a basketball sense, that's probably true. But in dealing with Manu this summer, I think the decisional calculus would have been much different if Manu knew that he wasn't assured a starting role. Had the Spurs been unable to tell Manu that he would definitely start after Year 2, I think Manu would have walked. Given the choice between the two players, I definitely take Manu over SJ.
Then this is a problem going back to Holt. If he doesn't want to pony up $2M for Parker because a player like Jackson has two more years on his contract than a player like Brent Barry. What are the Spurs planning to not sign anyone else after Barry's contract is up?Quote:
Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown
I loved Jackson's fire. I don't think it's the Spurs fault for not resigning him. He had rather risked getting less in free agency that taking an offer that was less than what he wanted. And if it's true that it wasn't that big of a difference between what was offered and what he was asking, then it's even more of a no brainer. The Spurs' system really developed him into to something. Does anyone think he would have gotten that contract with Indy if it weren't for the opportunity given to him by the Spurs.
Even in hindsight, this was a risk worth taking.Quote:
Bottom line was that the Spurs were saving cap space for Jason Kidd.
And if you want to make it into a Jackson/Barry choice, I'd still take my chances on Barry. That's basically a choice between a shooter and heart/killer instinct. As desparately as we need more heart/killer instinct, just having the shot at a pure shooter playing well with Tim is worth a little patience. I think it's ridiculous to say this team has no heart. Tony has occasional confidence issues, but he definitely has a huge heart. Manu is a stone cold killer...and he's only getting more confident. Plus, where Jackson will tear your heart out with a cold blooded score, Manu can kill you in any number of ways. I'm good with letting him be a primary focal point and giving Barry some time. If/when he gets comfortable in the system and gets his stroke back, it's going to be a nightmare for opposing teams. A confident, contributing Brent Barry would make this team pretty much unbeatable. Don't count him out yet. He is not Hedo Turkoglu.
Sure, but there were so many other moving pieces that summer and no real guarantee that you'd get anything close to the same production out of Stephen Jackson in years to come. It's not unlike their unwillingness to kowtow to Derek Anderson in the Summer of 2001. Why give in to a guy who's produced schitzophrenically in a single season? Why, in particular, when they had seemingly already decided, as 2003-04 loomed, to make Manu a starter in an effort to get him on the floor for more minutes? To me, it looks a whole lot like the Spurs had decided that Manu was their guy and they made a market offer to Jackson. Actually, a better-than-market offer, given the deal that SJ actually got last year.Quote:
Originally Posted by timvp
I'm not talking about breaking the bank, I'm talking about offering Manu more mintues and more opportunities to shine. Even great team players aren't entirely altruistic. They have to have some element of selfishness to them, particularly where they are dealing with short careers and diminishing returns.Quote:
Originally Posted by timvp
Besides, if you argue that Manu would have been selfish for seeking a starting spot somewhere, wasn't Jackson equally selfish for demanding more money and years than the Spurs offered? Is that the type of team player you want on a championship team?
Sure it is. But you can't subtract Holt from the equation in looking back on the moves. And you can't tell me, with Holt at the controls, that the Spurs would have locked up Tony Parker this summer had they rolled out the money that you're talking about to Stephen Jackson and Manu Ginobili.Quote:
Originally Posted by timvp
Had the Spurs signed Jackson at the expense of locking up Parker, that would have been a much, much bigger mistake than what you're talking about.
Look what he did with the Hawks. That got him the contract more than anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by Useruser666
I think Brent is a better ball player.
I'm interested to see what he brings come playoff time.
I was sad that the Spurs didn't get SJax signed. I agree with Kori that he was huge during our '03 run. He didn't get the kind of props that Kerr received for some of his late game heroics, but he was clutch. Add that to the fact that SJax is young, and I think his better days are still ahead of him.
But I've seen a lot from Barry that impresses me, and I'm not willing to write him off as not being a solid contributor until I see him in the playoffs.
Heck, Steve Kerr never left the bench in '03 during the regular season, and look what he did once the REAL season began.
Any judgments before the middle of April don't really count for much.
One thing we can now say, at least, is that Stephen Jackson made the right decision in turning us down.
Get over IT! Jax left us, not the other way around. We gave him a fair offer and he refused.
This is like some loser who can't get over the girlfriend that dumped him 2 years ago, even though he's got another woman right now who's just as good or better.
And if you compare the shooting Stats, Barry and Jax are almost identical this year. Jax just happens to crank up a ton more shots and get a lot more minutes. The difference is that Barry is a good guy while Jax is a hothead gangster.
Jax Fg% .415 3pt% .362 ft% .818
Barry Fg% .428 3pt% .365 ft% .810
I think that says it all.Quote:
At the time it would have been risky, Jackson had ONE good year. They have flashbacks with Malik and the other Jackson.
I understand where you are coming from. I was a huge fan of Jackson. But I also am impressed by Barry. And here are a few reasons I still think we are better off.
1 - Even though I love raw energy, the spurs have always been a smart bball team. That is how we win. Elie and Avery were firery players, but they were also extremely smart players. I don't see Jackson as that type of player. Barry is.
2 - Barrys averages are not that far off of what Jacksons are given the difference in minutes. The difference is that Barry is ok playing 19 mins. a game. Jackson isn't.
3 - I still hope to see the January Barry more. 48.8 from the field, 50.9 from 3, 88.0 from the stripe. Maybe those will be steady numbers come May.
I guess I would like to evaluate this at the end of the year. Then I can say better, whether Barry was a better fit than Jackson.
Huh?Quote:
Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown
The Spurs offered him a three-year, $11M contract. He wanted a five-year, $23M contract. Jackson would have been dumb to sign the Spurs' offer. He eventually got a six-year, $38M.
It was a smart business move by Jackson. The Spurs didn't take a risk and lost out.
Agreed?
I don't know any player that would turn their back on $25M. Do you?Quote:
Besides, if you argue that Manu would have been selfish for seeking a starting spot somewhere, wasn't Jackson equally selfish for demanding more money and years than the Spurs offered? Is that the type of team player you want on a championship team?
I love watching LJ blow you guys out of the water. It makes me all warm and fuzzy on the inside.
How could you argue that?Quote:
Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown
Manu doesn't care about money, this guy wants to win.
In the long run, Jackson got what he wanted. In the short term, Jackson got less than 3 yrs/$11 million. At the time the Spurs made their offer, it exceeded Jackson's market value. Jackson went to Atlanta, hoisted up 500 more shots than he had the year before in San Antonio, and ended up with a better deal. But you can't say that the 6/$38 was somehow in competition with the Spurs 3/$11 offer.Quote:
Originally Posted by timvp
And I don't know too many players who would turn their backs on opportunities to move into nearly-guaranteed starting positions. The situations are similar, but with different carrots and different means of measuring commitment to team. Besides, wasn't one of the deal breakers with Jackson the Spurs' unwillingness to guarantee him a starting spot? How exactly would a hypothetical Manu move to find starting minutes be indicative of a selfish player, when you seem to posit that Jackson's demand for more money AND a guaranteed starting spot wasn't???Quote:
I don't know any player that would turn their back on $25M. Do you?
No doubt that SJax should still be a Spur but he is not anymore and probably won't be. I do miss his agression style though
timvp, have you done anything but bitch for the last two weeks?
But hey. go ahead man, it's your forum. Just don't be surprised if all you have left is LakerGod.
"I hope that someone on this season's Spurs team has the fearless, relentless attitude in the playoffs and can knock down shots from the perimeter."
heck yeah, his name is Rasho!!