-
I watched the 2003 finals game 6 last night
Was on nbatv. Let's take a quick stroll down memory.
I completely totally forgot how HORRIBLE Parker played in that game. I always remember him playing bad, but this was the most pitiful performance out of the young PG I've ever seen. He looked terrified. His spin move was as slow as if Rasho was doing it, and he let Kerry fucking Kittles force turnover after turnover.
If parker had a game this bad these days, he would be crucified, died, and buried. And his rep would be forever tainted. Its as if Pop had tried to pump him up before the game, and just ended up scaring the bejeezus out of him. It is absolutely amazing how much he has progressed.
As overrated as Speedy Claxton's tenure here was, could he have hit any less clutch long range jumpers?
Nothing will ever be funnier than watching Kevin Willis slip on those elbow pads with a big smile on his face, as he enters the game with about 30 seconds to go. Nothing.
And we are fucking idiots beyond all comprehension for ever lowballing Jackson and letting him go. Fucking. Idiots.
-
Re: I watched the 2003 finals game 6 last night
I remember during the press conference afterwards, jackson and manu were up on the press podium together and jackson said something to the effect of "We're (meaning him and Manu) gonna be doing this for a long time"
:depressed:
-
Re: I watched the 2003 finals game 6 last night
I started watching it halfway through the 3rd quarter and found myself saying "how the hell did we ever win this game?". That being said, its a lot less stressful when you already know who's going to win.....
Obviously we won that game because TD and D-Rob played out of their minds, especially TD. That has to be one of the greatest finals performances ever. Especially considering how weak the rest of the team was.
That being said, boy did NJ crap the bed at the end of that game. I know our D was great, but they went so cold it was ridiculous.
You gotta think that being benched at the end of that game made Parker really mad at himself and was part of what motivated him to get better so it wouldn't happen again.
-
Re: I watched the 2003 finals game 6 last night
I can't hate on Parker for that game after his first 3 games in that series. Plus he was a 21 year old second year player going against a prime Jason Kidd...
Kenyon Martin on the other hand. 3-23, bitch.
(Stephen Jackson made dirty, kinky love to pressure in that game)
-
Re: I watched the 2003 finals game 6 last night
Duncan was F'N Incredible.
-
Re: I watched the 2003 finals game 6 last night
I wish there was some way to get Cap'n Jack back. I've heard Golden State is looking to dump payroll like many other teams and I think Don Nelson has pissed Jackson (among many others) off with his bizarre rotations (or lack thereof). That being said, I think he just makes too much money for too many years for us to take him. Maybe in a salary dump like Oberto and Bowen for Jackson and then GS would buy those two out, but its so unlikely.
Can any of you fantasy GMs figure out how we could make this happen??
-
Re: I watched the 2003 finals game 6 last night
Quote:
Originally Posted by
VI_Massive
I wish there was some way to get Cap'n Jack back. I've heard Golden State is looking to dump payroll like many other teams and I think Don Nelson has pissed Jackson (among many others) off with his bizarre rotations (or lack thereof). That being said, I think he just makes too much money for too many years for us to take him. Maybe in a salary dump like Oberto and Bowen for Jackson and then GS would buy those two out, but its so unlikely.
Can any of you fantasy GMs figure out how we could make this happen??
I can see Jackson going to Cleveland next year....that would be a great spot for him :tu
-
Re: I watched the 2003 finals game 6 last night
I'm not sure Buckets would be welcome in Cleveland, I believe there is some bad blood between he and LeBron.
-
Re: I watched the 2003 finals game 6 last night
Quote:
Originally Posted by
xtremesteven33
I can see Jackson going to Cleveland next year....that would be a great spot for him :tu
And yikes for everyone else. But where would Jackson play in Cleveland? They have Pavlovic, LeBron, Gibson, West, and Williams under contract. Plus, I don't think they'll be taking on any serious money or years (of which Jackson has both) since they have to pay LeBron in two years.
That being said, if LeBron wants him or someone like him, Cleveland will make it happen to keep LBJ happy.
-
Re: I watched the 2003 finals game 6 last night
Recorded all 3 games on NBATV last night on my DVR '99 Finals last game, '03 Finals last game, '07 Finals last game. Can't wait to watch it. Though I can't tonight..I'll be watching the Spurs lay a big deuce on the Celtics. :)
-
Re: I watched the 2003 finals game 6 last night
1) He said taint.
2) Jackson... if only.
-
Re: I watched the 2003 finals game 6 last night
No way the Spurs don't repeat in '04 if they re-sign Jack. No way they ever lose to Dallas if they still have Stephen Jackson.
-
Re: I watched the 2003 finals game 6 last night
I was so high and drunk at the end of that game I was on cloud 9. Speedy stepped in nicely for Parker who was totally worthless. Thank God we never got Kidd though and Parker went on to become who he is today.
-
Re: I watched the 2003 finals game 6 last night
Oh and... totally agreed about Jack. It still makes me sick that we let him go over something so dumb. He was a Spur through and through.
-
Re: I watched the 2003 finals game 6 last night
I still hear crap being levelled at Parker for this game. Really ... like getting outplayed by Jason Kidd a couple of times, at age 19 is anything to be ashamed of.
I'm so sure we would have won titles in 2003, 05, and 07 with Claxton at point instead of Parker. In fact, Claxton would have won it for us in 04, too. :lmao
The kid [Parker] had one bad game.
-
Re: I watched the 2003 finals game 6 last night
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Cant_Be_Faded
If parker had a game this bad these days, he would be crucified, died, and buried. And his rep would be forever tainted.
Uh, have you been following along in the last six years? Parker's rep has been forever tainted by that game. And he's still crucified to this day about it. Parker is connected to that game more than any player in Spurs history is connected to any game.
The number one reason Parker will never gain superstar status among Spurs fan is the lone game. He could play in five more All-Star games and Spurs fans will still connect him to Game 6 against the Nets.
No doubt he was horrible in that game but it's pretty amazing to me that the storyline from that series isn't how a first ballot Hall of Fame point guard at his absolute peak of performance couldn't handle a 20-year-old second year player ... to the point that the Nets were forced to put Kittles on him.
Going into that series, a lot of people were not only saying Kidd should have been the MVP but that he was actually better than Duncan. Parker basically outplayed him in the first three games but the only thing that will be remember is Parker sucked in Game 6.
I can't think of a scenario in which TP's rep ever fully recovers. Duncan's rep was hurt after his Game 5 performance against the Pistons but after the Spurs won the championship, the criticism he got for that game disappeared.
The closest rep destroyer in Spurs history is probably David Robinson losing to the Warriors in his second season. That loss hung over his head for a long time but it's mostly gone now ... but it took two championships to recover.
-
Re: I watched the 2003 finals game 6 last night
Good points TIMVP :tu
The one game that really stood out for me that told me Parker could take over a Playoff game was Game 3 against the Suns last year....Parker dominated like i have never seen a Spurs player dominate (since Duncan in 2003). That to me should say what kind of a special player we have on this team.
-
Re: I watched the 2003 finals game 6 last night
Quote:
Originally Posted by
timvp
Uh, have you been following along in the last six years? Parker's rep has been forever tainted by that game. And he's still crucified to this day about it. Parker is connected to that game more than any player in Spurs history is connected to any game.
The number one reason Parker will never gain superstar status among Spurs fan is the lone game. He could play in five more All-Star games and Spurs fans will still connect him to Game 6 against the Nets.
No doubt he was horrible in that game but it's pretty amazing to me that the storyline from that series isn't how a first ballot Hall of Fame point guard at his absolute peak of performance couldn't handle a 20-year-old second year player ... to the point that the Nets were forced to put Kittles on him.
Going into that series, a lot of people were not only saying Kidd should have been the MVP but that he was actually better than Duncan. Parker basically outplayed him in the first three games but the only thing that will be remember is Parker sucked in Game 6.
I can't think of a scenario in which TP's rep ever fully recovers. Duncan's rep was hurt after his Game 5 performance against the Pistons but after the Spurs won the championship, the criticism he got for that game disappeared.
The closest rep destroyer in Spurs history is probably David Robinson losing to the Warriors in his second season. That loss hung over his head for a long time but it's mostly gone now ... but it took two championships to recover.
It wasn't just that we won the championship, Duncan literally carried the Spurs in Game 7.
BTW i don't think many fans (not just Spurs) can question a player' rep when he was the reason why the Spurs have 4 championships.
-
Re: I watched the 2003 finals game 6 last night
Quote:
Originally Posted by
xtremesteven33
Good points TIMVP :tu
The one game that really stood out for me that told me Parker could take over a Playoff game was Game 3 against the Suns last year....Parker dominated like i have never seen a Spurs player dominate (since Duncan in 2003). That to me should say what kind of a special player we have on this team.
I agree but when you have Shaq defending the pick n roll and Nash (of all people) defending Tony, you're bound to have a good game. Tony however had a monster game and too bad the Suns never recovered from that game.
-
Re: I watched the 2003 finals game 6 last night
I watched it too... I think that team is my favorite Spurs team. Duncan, DRob, Jax, Malik, Bruce, Manu, Tony, Kerr all on the team at the same time.
Plus the 3 consecutive awesome game 6 4th quarters vs. LA, the Mavs and NJ. There was something about that team that just made them seem like wildfire... they could go from inept on offense to seemingly unstopable in a matter of minutes.
-
Re: I watched the 2003 finals game 6 last night
Quote:
Originally Posted by
timvp
Uh, have you been following along in the last six years? Parker's rep has been forever tainted by that game. And he's still crucified to this day about it. Parker is connected to that game more than any player in Spurs history is connected to any game.
The number one reason Parker will never gain superstar status among Spurs fan is the lone game. He could play in five more All-Star games and Spurs fans will still connect him to Game 6 against the Nets.
No doubt he was horrible in that game but it's pretty amazing to me that the storyline from that series isn't how a first ballot Hall of Fame point guard at his absolute peak of performance couldn't handle a 20-year-old second year player ... to the point that the Nets were forced to put Kittles on him.
Going into that series, a lot of people were not only saying Kidd should have been the MVP but that he was actually better than Duncan. Parker basically outplayed him in the first three games but the only thing that will be remember is Parker sucked in Game 6.
I can't think of a scenario in which TP's rep ever fully recovers. Duncan's rep was hurt after his Game 5 performance against the Pistons but after the Spurs won the championship, the criticism he got for that game disappeared.
The closest rep destroyer in Spurs history is probably David Robinson losing to the Warriors in his second season. That loss hung over his head for a long time but it's mostly gone now ... but it took two championships to recover.
Every star has very bad games, even in PO. Manu in game 3 against Cleveland in 07 was 0-7 with 3 pts. Tim last year in G1 against NOH was 1-9 with 5 pts and 3 rbds !!!!!
Then, TP was far from a star and you said clearly how stupid it would be to bash him for having a bad game when he was so young, against one of the best and after having played rather well the three first games.
so, basically, when you look at it, there's no reason that would explain why this game would have something to do with TP's lack of recognition by spurs fans.
You say this game is the reason why there are some haters. I say the haters use this game, and every bad one he could have, to hate. not the same thing.
-
Re: I watched the 2003 finals game 6 last night
Quote:
Originally Posted by
timvp
The closest rep destroyer in Spurs history is probably David Robinson losing to the Warriors in his second season. That loss hung over his head for a long time but it's mostly gone now ... but it took two championships to recover.
D-Rob's stock dropped a lot when he got outplayed by Hakeem in the 95 WCF. Not among Spurs fans, but leaguewide.
-
Re: I watched the 2003 finals game 6 last night
The Nets completely crapped the bed in the 4th because Duncan was a beast in the lane on defense. Once Tim got his 8th block, the Nets didn't step near the paint the rest of the game.
They knew that if they kept attacking, they'd be on the wrong end of the only quadruple-double in Finals history, and possibly the single greatest Finals performance ever.
-
Re: I watched the 2003 finals game 6 last night
BTW, while I love Jax, the Spurs weren't idiots for letting him go. They did win 2 titles after he was gone, while Jackson hasn't come close.
Anything else about repeats is just speculation.
-
Re: I watched the 2003 finals game 6 last night
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Nathan Explosion
They knew that if they kept attacking, they'd be on the wrong end of the only quadruple-double in Finals history, and possibly the single greatest Finals performance ever.
Duncan's 2003 season was arguably one of the top 5 best overall single player seasons ever.
-
Re: I watched the 2003 finals game 6 last night
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Nathan Explosion
BTW, while I love Jax, the Spurs weren't idiots for letting him go. They did win 2 titles after he was gone, while Jackson hasn't come close.
Anything else about repeats is just speculation.
:rollin
yeah, don't ever think about what could have been, don't ever re-evaluate decisions, just be happy with whatever you get.
and the arguement that because Jackson never won any titles since, he wouldn't have helped us get any... :lmao :lmao
-
Re: I watched the 2003 finals game 6 last night
Quote:
Originally Posted by
vander
:rollin
yeah, don't ever think about what could have been, don't ever re-evaluate decisions, just be happy with whatever you get.
and the arguement that because Jackson never won any titles since, he wouldn't have helped us get any... :lmao :lmao
The argument was that people know that the Spurs would have won in 04 and 06 if Jackson was still on the team. That's just conjecture, and has no basis in fact.
Fact is, Jackson ended up on the wrong end of that deal. Gino has 3 rings while Jackson has 1.
-
Re: I watched the 2003 finals game 6 last night
Quote:
Originally Posted by
baseline bum
No way the Spurs don't repeat in '04 if they re-sign Jack. No way they ever lose to Dallas if they still have Stephen Jackson.
I think the case could be made for Jack making a difference in both '04 and '06. But especially '06. That's the most bitter playoff loss in the Duncan era for me.
-
Re: I watched the 2003 finals game 6 last night
Weeee are the champions, my friends... yah, i remember that song. all the confetti falling, yeah, i was in the 7th grade. very gooooood times :D
-
Re: I watched the 2003 finals game 6 last night
If Jackson resigns for what he wanted, maybe the Spurs don't resign Gino who was a free agent in 04. Gino was a Finals MVP candidate in 05 and I think it's safe to say the Spurs don't win without him.
So signing Jackson meant losing Gino. How was keeping Jackson going to win titles in 06 and 07? The Spurs would have one less title if you think about it.
-
Re: I watched the 2003 finals game 6 last night
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Nathan Explosion
The argument was that people know that the Spurs would have won in 04 and 06 if Jackson was still on the team. That's just conjecture, and has no basis in fact.
Fact is, Jackson ended up on the wrong end of that deal. Gino has 3 rings while Jackson has 1.
and the arguement that the Bulls would have won 0 titles without MJ, that's also just conjecture, and has no basis in fact, there's no way of knowing, there's never any way of knowing how or why teams did or didn't win championships. it's a total crapshoot, front offices might as well put the free agents up on a dart board to decide which to sign.
:lol
-
Re: I watched the 2003 finals game 6 last night
Quote:
Originally Posted by
vander
and the arguement that the Bulls would have won 0 titles without MJ, that's also just conjecture, and has no basis in fact, there's no way of knowing, there's never any way of knowing how or why teams did or didn't win championships. it's a total crapshoot, front offices might as well put the free agents up on a dart board to decide which to sign.
:lol
Did you read my other post, you know, the one where it says that signing Jackson would have meant forgoeing the cap room necessary to sign Gino.
Therefore, after the 04 season, Gino goes somewhere else, probably Denver, and you can kiss the 05 and 07 titles goodbye.
And comparing signing Stephen Jackson to taking the greatest player of all time off a team is totally different and downright idiotic.
-
Re: I watched the 2003 finals game 6 last night
2003 was epic..that's the year you point at when it comes to defining Duncan's dominance..MVP and finals MVP in the same season..carried a team of role players to a title with averages of 25 PPG, 15 RPG, 5(!) APG, 3 BPG, leading the team in all those categories..IIRC, he set an NBA record for BPG in the finals..just an unbelievable run..
-
Re: I watched the 2003 finals game 6 last night
Quote:
Originally Posted by
HarlemHeat37
...IIRC, he set an NBA record for BPG in the finals..
If I'm remembering right, Duncan's eight blocks in game six tied a Finals record. His 32 for the series set a record.
(I don't have it in front of me, I think it was 32).
-
Re: I watched the 2003 finals game 6 last night
Quote:
Originally Posted by
HarlemHeat37
2003 was epic..that's the year you point at when it comes to defining Duncan's dominance..MVP and finals MVP in the same season..carried a team of role players to a title with averages of 25 PPG, 15 RPG, 5(!) APG, 3 BPG, leading the team in all those categories..IIRC, he set an NBA record for BPG in the finals..just an unbelievable run..
In 6 games no less. The previous record was set in 7 games.
-
Re: I watched the 2003 finals game 6 last night
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Cant_Be_Faded
Was on nbatv. Let's take a quick stroll down memory.
I completely totally forgot how HORRIBLE Parker played in that game. I always remember him playing bad, but this was the most pitiful performance out of the young PG I've ever seen. He looked terrified. His spin move was as slow as if Rasho was doing it, and he let Kerry fucking Kittles force turnover after turnover.
If parker had a game this bad these days, he would be crucified, died, and buried. And his rep would be forever tainted. Its as if Pop had tried to pump him up before the game, and just ended up scaring the bejeezus out of him. It is absolutely amazing how much he has progressed.
As overrated as Speedy Claxton's tenure here was, could he have hit any less clutch long range jumpers?
Nothing will ever be funnier than watching Kevin Willis slip on those elbow pads with a big smile on his face, as he enters the game with about 30 seconds to go. Nothing.
And we are fucking idiots beyond all comprehension for ever lowballing Jackson and letting him go. Fucking. Idiots.
There was another Jackson that was money in the run to a championship. He stiffed as soon as he got paid. I'm sure the Spurs were thinking that when they made their offer. In hindsight, it looks like a no-brainer, but Jack had one half of one decent season, and a nice playoff run, and was asking for MLE money.
People make their choices. Money was obviously more important to Jack than winning, and he got paid. When you're dead, though, no one remembers how much money you made, they remember your legacy. Jack's will be "Chucker on bad teams, was in that fight in Detroit", and will be lesser than Tony, Manu, and Bruce's multiple ring legacy, all of whom worked with the Spurs at one time or other and took less than they could have on the open market.
-
Re: I watched the 2003 finals game 6 last night
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Nathan Explosion
Did you read my other post, you know, the one where it says that signing Jackson would have meant forgoeing the cap room necessary to sign Gino.
Therefore, after the 04 season, Gino goes somewhere else, probably Denver, and you can kiss the 05 and 07 titles goodbye.
And comparing signing Stephen Jackson to taking the greatest player of all time off a team is totally different and downright idiotic.
manu doesn't leave if we keep SJAX, that's just conjecture and has no basis in fact.
-
Re: I watched the 2003 finals game 6 last night
Quote:
Originally Posted by
vander
manu doesn't leave if we keep SJAX, that's just conjecture and has no basis in fact.
Actually, that's fact. Is Jackson got paid, the Spurs couldn't afford to give Gino his money. There wouldn't have been room under the cap to do so. Check Gino's 05 salary and add Jackson's 05 salary and you'll see what I'm getting at.
The Spurs guessed that Gino would pay higher dividends than Jackson, hence why they lowballed Jackson and kept Gino later. That's the second time they guessed right in favor of Gino.
Can anyone name the first time?
-
Re: I watched the 2003 finals game 6 last night
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Nathan Explosion
Actually, that's fact. Is Jackson got paid, the Spurs couldn't afford to give Gino his money. There wouldn't have been room under the cap to do so. Check Gino's 05 salary and add Jackson's 05 salary and you'll see what I'm getting at.
The Spurs guessed that Gino would pay higher dividends than Jackson, hence why they lowballed Jackson and kept Gino later. That's the second time they guessed right in favor of Gino.
Can anyone name the first time?
Trading his draft-mate Giricek.
-
Re: I watched the 2003 finals game 6 last night
Quote:
Originally Posted by
vander
manu doesn't leave if we keep SJAX, that's just conjecture and has no basis in fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Nathan Explosion
Actually, that's fact. Is Jackson got paid, the Spurs couldn't afford to give Gino his money. There wouldn't have been room under the cap to do so. Check Gino's 05 salary and add Jackson's 05 salary and you'll see what I'm getting at.
Damn, vander, he just beat your ass and took your lunch money.
-
Re: I watched the 2003 finals game 6 last night
Quote:
Originally Posted by
timvp
Uh, have you been following along in the last six years? Parker's rep has been forever tainted by that game. And he's still crucified to this day about it. Parker is connected to that game more than any player in Spurs history is connected to any game.
The number one reason Parker will never gain superstar status among Spurs fan is the lone game. He could play in five more All-Star games and Spurs fans will still connect him to Game 6 against the Nets.
No doubt he was horrible in that game but it's pretty amazing to me that the storyline from that series isn't how a first ballot Hall of Fame point guard at his absolute peak of performance couldn't handle a 20-year-old second year player ... to the point that the Nets were forced to put Kittles on him.
Going into that series, a lot of people were not only saying Kidd should have been the MVP but that he was actually better than Duncan. Parker basically outplayed him in the first three games but the only thing that will be remember is Parker sucked in Game 6.
I can't think of a scenario in which TP's rep ever fully recovers. Duncan's rep was hurt after his Game 5 performance against the Pistons but after the Spurs won the championship, the criticism he got for that game disappeared.
The closest rep destroyer in Spurs history is probably David Robinson losing to the Warriors in his second season. That loss hung over his head for a long time but it's mostly gone now ... but it took two championships to recover.
Wow I don't believe I've ever seen such a homer post by timvp. Are you being serious?
First of all, are we talking strictly in the opinions of Spurfan or the nation as a whole? Because that can change the core of what you or I are saying.
I fully agree about being tied to the game amongst spurfan, and spurfan giving him shit about it to this day, but I don't see that as the whole picture.
Parker gained a reputation for not being able to step up during the playoffs after that series, to the nbafan as a whole...no doubt. From the summer Pro's of acquiring Kidd, through to 2004. It somewhat faded in Parker's first 6 games of the 2004 playoffs, but returned when the Lakers dared him to shoot.
Parker fully killed this national view after 2005, and continues to show the nation he is a top 3 point guard in the league. All you hear on the national line is how amazing Parker is...and if you think they still hold back in their praise of him, you're just living too close to ground zero to get the big picture.
Parker also played shitty in game 5 IIRC.
I don't even know if I agree that spurfan forever gives parker shit for this game. I don't...I forgot it after game 4 of the memphis series in 2004. And I am hard on Parker. Is this true? I don't get to listen or watch much hometown media coverage...
And as for Spur rep destroyers, you really really R E A L L Y underestimate the impact on Robinson's rep his MVP award ceremony/Olajuwan raping performance had.
Basically I think you're exaggerating.
Parker's rep is leap and bounds beyond anything most spurfans would ever have imagined right now at this point in time.
BTW, more thoughts from that game I could not fit in cause of time constraints...
-Tom Tolbert was the most horrible broadcaster in nba history, and he almost ruined the game experience for spurfan and nbafan alike.
-the SA crowd made the nets choke.
-
Re: I watched the 2003 finals game 6 last night
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Nathan Explosion
Actually, that's fact. Is Jackson got paid, the Spurs couldn't afford to give Gino his money. There wouldn't have been room under the cap to do so. Check Gino's 05 salary and add Jackson's 05 salary and you'll see what I'm getting at.
The Spurs guessed that Gino would pay higher dividends than Jackson, hence why they lowballed Jackson and kept Gino later. That's the second time they guessed right in favor of Gino.
Can anyone name the first time?
we're not under the cap now either, OMG how did that happen?
-
Re: I watched the 2003 finals game 6 last night
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Cant_Be_Faded
Wow I don't believe I've ever seen such a homer post by timvp. Are you being serious?
First of all, are we talking strictly in the opinions of Spurfan or the nation as a whole? Because that can change the core of what you or I are saying.
I fully agree about being tied to the game amongst spurfan, and spurfan giving him shit about it to this day, but I don't see that as the whole picture.
Parker gained a reputation for not being able to step up during the playoffs after that series, to the nbafan as a whole...no doubt. From the summer Pro's of acquiring Kidd, through to 2004. It somewhat faded in Parker's first 6 games of the 2004 playoffs, but returned when the Lakers dared him to shoot.
Parker fully killed this national view after 2005, and continues to show the nation he is a top 3 point guard in the league. All you hear on the national line is how amazing Parker is...and if you think they still hold back in their praise of him, you're just living too close to ground zero to get the big picture.
Parker also played shitty in game 5 IIRC.
I don't even know if I agree that spurfan forever gives parker shit for this game. I don't...I forgot it after game 4 of the memphis series in 2004. And I am hard on Parker. Is this true? I don't get to listen or watch much hometown media coverage...
And as for Spur rep destroyers, you really really R E A L L Y underestimate the impact on Robinson's rep his MVP award ceremony/Olajuwan raping performance had.
Basically I think you're exaggerating.
Parker's rep is leap and bounds beyond anything most spurfans would ever have imagined right now at this point in time.
BTW, more thoughts from that game I could not fit in cause of time constraints...
-Tom Tolbert was the most horrible broadcaster in nba history, and he almost ruined the game experience for spurfan and nbafan alike.
-the SA crowd made the nets choke.
Robinson's legacy was forever tarnished after the 95 series with Houston.
Parker more than made up for 2003's performance with 2007's Finals MVP trophy.
That crowd in Game 6 was so loud you could barely hear the announcers at one point.
Finally, Vander, you've been dealt with and are now grasping at straws. I'm done with you.
-
Re: I watched the 2003 finals game 6 last night
Quote:
Originally Posted by
exstatic
Trading his draft-mate Giricek.
Good to see people know their trivia.
-
Re: I watched the 2003 finals game 6 last night
Quote:
Originally Posted by
exstatic
Damn, vander, he just beat your ass and took your lunch money.
really? or are the both of you enjoying the same ignorance?
:lol
-
Re: I watched the 2003 finals game 6 last night
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Nathan Explosion
If Jackson resigns for what he wanted, maybe the Spurs don't resign Gino who was a free agent in 04. Gino was a Finals MVP candidate in 05 and I think it's safe to say the Spurs don't win without him.
So signing Jackson meant losing Gino. How was keeping Jackson going to win titles in 06 and 07? The Spurs would have one less title if you think about it.
Jackson wasn't asking for much; he just wanted 5 years and Pop only wanted to give 3.
-
Re: I watched the 2003 finals game 6 last night
Quote:
Originally Posted by
timvp
The closest rep destroyer in Spurs history is probably David Robinson losing to the Warriors in his second season. That loss hung over his head for a long time but it's mostly gone now ... but it took two championships to recover.
That sucks; hard to blame David for that series, when his stats were:
GAMES: 4
PPG: 25.8
FG%: 68.6
3FG%: 0.0
FT%: 86.8
RPG: 13.5
APG: 2.0
SPG: 1.5
BPG: 3.8
TOPG: 3.8
EFF: 37.5
To put it in context, Duncan's 03 playoff efficiency was 34.9 and Olajuwon's 95 playoff efficiency was 33.8 (using NBA.com's efficiency stat)
-
Re: I watched the 2003 finals game 6 last night
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Nathan Explosion
The argument was that people know that the Spurs would have won in 04 and 06 if Jackson was still on the team. That's just conjecture, and has no basis in fact.
Fact is, Jackson ended up on the wrong end of that deal. Gino has 3 rings while Jackson has 1.
The Spurs were knocked out in '04 because Bowen went cold from the arc and Turkoglu could not hit a pressure shot no matter how wide open he was (and he was consistently left with no one within 5 feet of him the whole series).
Jackson is the greatest clutch shooter this team has ever had, so it's no stretch to say the Spurs likely beat LA at the least with Jack instead of Turkoglu. As for '06, the Spurs lost that series because they didn't have anyone big who could keep up with Dirk and hold him in check... someone like... hmmm, Stephen Jackson, the guy who made Dirk shit all over himself in the 07 playoffs in that massive choke-job. Maybe Detroit still wins in '04, but no way the Spurs are losing to Phoenix or Miami in '06.
-
Re: I watched the 2003 finals game 6 last night
Quote:
Originally Posted by
scanry
It wasn't just that we won the championship, Duncan literally carried the Spurs in Game 7.
Sometimes when I need a lift I watch the third quarter of that game and the way Duncan struggles and struggles and struggles but carries us back into the game all on his own, then Manu takes over - that game exemplifies persistence, and then team.
As for reputations, the fact that any of us questions the reputations of guys like Parker, who have brought so much success and basketball joy to this franchise, is absurd to me. WTF more do you want??? Some people are never satisfied.
-
Re: I watched the 2003 finals game 6 last night
Quote:
Originally Posted by
vander
we're not under the cap now either, OMG how did that happen?
Ginobili had only been under contract for 2 years, and therefor had no Bird rights. We had to use cap room to re-sign him, cap room that we wouldn't have had if Jack were signed to a large deal like he wanted. Are you following any of this?
-
Re: I watched the 2003 finals game 6 last night
Quote:
Originally Posted by
baseline bum
Jackson wasn't asking for much; he just wanted 5 years and Pop only wanted to give 3.
5 Years $25M, versus 3 years $9M. A bit of a difference.
If you perform for the Spurs over time, you pay goes up over time, but they will not break the bank on the first FA contract. They'll leave accruing those kind of awful contracts to the Knicks.
I'm glad they chose Manu, for what it's worth, and yes, that ultimately was the choice.
-
Re: I watched the 2003 finals game 6 last night
Quote:
Originally Posted by
baseline bum
Jackson is the greatest clutch shooter this team has ever had...
Excuse me? I never arrive here if Stephen Jackson is re-signed.
http://blogs.mysanantonio.com/weblog...ngin/horry.jpg
-
Re: I watched the 2003 finals game 6 last night
Quote:
Originally Posted by
timvp
Uh, have you been following along in the last six years? Parker's rep has been forever tainted by that game. And he's still crucified to this day about it. Parker is connected to that game more than any player in Spurs history is connected to any game.
The number one reason Parker will never gain superstar status among Spurs fan is the lone game. He could play in five more All-Star games and Spurs fans will still connect him to Game 6 against the Nets.
No doubt he was horrible in that game but it's pretty amazing to me that the storyline from that series isn't how a first ballot Hall of Fame point guard at his absolute peak of performance couldn't handle a 20-year-old second year player ... to the point that the Nets were forced to put Kittles on him.
Going into that series, a lot of people were not only saying Kidd should have been the MVP but that he was actually better than Duncan. Parker basically outplayed him in the first three games but the only thing that will be remember is Parker sucked in Game 6.
I can't think of a scenario in which TP's rep ever fully recovers. Duncan's rep was hurt after his Game 5 performance against the Pistons but after the Spurs won the championship, the criticism he got for that game disappeared.
The closest rep destroyer in Spurs history is probably David Robinson losing to the Warriors in his second season. That loss hung over his head for a long time but it's mostly gone now ... but it took two championships to recover.
Hakeem sodomizing D-Rob in '95 was much, much worse than the Warriors series. Most casual NBA fans have never heard of the Warriors series, but a ton remember what Hakeem did to Shaq, Ewing, and Robinson in 94 and 95. Save me the refereeing, double versus single b.s. arguments by the way. I watched every game of that series and Robinson got owned by Hakeem.
-
Re: I watched the 2003 finals game 6 last night
Quote:
Originally Posted by
exstatic
Ginobili had only been under contract for 2 years, and therefor had no Bird rights. We had to use cap room to re-sign him, cap room that we wouldn't have had if Jack were signed to a large deal like he wanted. Are you following any of this?
there were plenty of ways we could have kept Manu in 04 even with SJAX on the payroll, the easiest way would have been the early bird exemption, you knew about the early bird exemption right? :lol
-
Re: I watched the 2003 finals game 6 last night
Quote:
Originally Posted by
exstatic
Or maybe you do and Rasho doesn't.
-
Re: I watched the 2003 finals game 6 last night
Quote:
Originally Posted by
vander
there were plenty of ways we could have kept Manu in 04 even with SJAX on the payroll, the easiest way would have been the early bird exemption, you knew about the early bird exemption right? :lol
Early Bird would only have allowed the team to sign Manu up to the MLE. I don't think it's crazy to think Manu would pull a Bowen and resign at a discount for one year until he was Full Bird though.
-
Re: I watched the 2003 finals game 6 last night
Quote:
Originally Posted by
baseline bum
Early Bird would only have allowed the team to sign Manu up to the MLE.
no the MLE would have allowed the Spurs to sign manu up to the MLE
early bird is 150% of MLE
edit: or rather, 175% of average NBA salary, which was 4.9 mill in 04-05
-
Re: I watched the 2003 finals game 6 last night
Quote:
Originally Posted by
vander
no the MLE would have allowed the Spurs to sign manu up to the MLE
early bird is 150% of MLE
That's not the way I remember it with Gilbert Arenas in Golden State.
-
Re: I watched the 2003 finals game 6 last night
Quote:
Originally Posted by
baseline bum
That's not the way I remember it with Gilbert Arenas in Golden State.
Arenas started at 8.5 in 03, much more then the MLE
-
Re: I watched the 2003 finals game 6 last night
Quote:
Originally Posted by
vander
no the MLE would have allowed the Spurs to sign manu up to the MLE
early bird is 150% of MLE
edit: or rather, 175% of average NBA salary, which was 4.9 mill in 04-05
Quote:
Originally Posted by NBA CBA
http://www.nbpa.com/downloads/CBA.pdf
(3) If the player is an Early Qualifying Veteran Free Agent, the new Player Contract must cover at least two
Seasons (not including a Season covered by an Option Year) and, subject to Article II, Section 7, may provide in
the first Season up to the greater of: (i) 175% of the Regular Salary for the final Season covered by his prior
Contract, plus 175% of any Likely Bonuses and Unlikely Bonuses, respectively, called for in the final Season
covered by the player’s prior Contract, or (ii) 108% of the Average Player Salary for the prior Season (or if the
prior Season’s Average Player Salary has not been determined, 108% of the Estimated Average Player Salary for
the prior Season). Annual increases and decreases in Salary and Unlikely Bonuses shall be governed by Section
5(c)(2) above.
...
...
...
(q) “Early Qualifying Veteran Free Agent” means a Veteran Free Agent who, prior to becoming a Veteran
Free Agent, played under one or more Player Contracts covering some or all of each of the two preceding
Seasons, and who: (i) either exclusively played with his Prior Team during such two Seasons, or, if he played for
more than one Team during such period, changed Teams only (x) by means of assignment, or (y) by signing with
his Prior Team during the first of the two Seasons; or (ii) became a Veteran Free Agent on July 1, 1998 and
played with his Prior Team for some or all of each of the preceding two Seasons, and who did not change Teams
during such two Seasons by signing with his Prior Team as a Veteran Free Agent.
So it's the maximum of 108% of the MLE and 175% of his previous year's salary. If it was 175% of a $4.9 million MLE, then the Warriors could have given Arenas more than the $8.3 million you said he signed in Washington for.
-
Re: I watched the 2003 finals game 6 last night
Quote:
Originally Posted by
baseline bum
So it's the maximum of 108% of the MLE and 175% of his previous year's salary. If it was 175% of a $4.9 million MLE, then the Warriors could have given Arenas more than the $8.3 million you said he signed in Washington for.
hmm, 4.9 x 1.75 = 8.575 and the 4.9 is a rounded figure, probably rounded up, so my way works out nicely
edit: also, 4.9 might not be the right number, that was for the 04-05 season, 03-04 was probably less
-
Re: I watched the 2003 finals game 6 last night
Quote:
Originally Posted by
vander
hmm, 4.9 x 1.75 = 8.575 and the 4.9 is a rounded figure, probably rounded up, so my way works out nicely
http://www.nbpa.com/downloads/CBA.pdf
(3) If the player is an Early Qualifying Veteran Free Agent, the new Player Contract must cover at least two Seasons (not including a Season covered by an Option Year) and, subject to Article II, Section 7, may provide in the first Season up to the greater of: (i) 175% of the Regular Salary for the final Season covered by his prior Contract, plus 175% of any Likely Bonuses and Unlikely Bonuses, respectively, called for in the final Season covered by the player’s prior Contract, or (ii) 108% of the Average Player Salary for the prior Season (or if the prior Season’s Average Player Salary has not been determined, 108% of the Estimated Average Player Salary for the prior Season). Annual increases and decreases in Salary and Unlikely Bonuses shall be governed by Section 5(c)(2) above.
Here's the definition of Regular Salary, straight from the CBA:
Quote:
Originally Posted by nba cba
(rr) “Regular Salary” means a player’s Salary, less any component thereof that is a signing bonus (or deemed a signing bonus in accordance with Article VII) and any component thereof that is Incentive Compensation.
-
Re: I watched the 2003 finals game 6 last night
Quote:
Originally Posted by
baseline bum
http://www.nbpa.com/downloads/CBA.pdf
(3) If the player is an Early Qualifying Veteran Free Agent, the new Player Contract must cover at least two Seasons (not including a Season covered by an Option Year) and, subject to Article II, Section 7,
may provide in the first Season up to the greater of: (i) 175% of the Regular Salary for the final Season covered by his prior Contract, plus 175% of any Likely Bonuses and Unlikely Bonuses, respectively, called for in the final Season covered by the player’s prior Contract, or (ii) 108% of the Average Player Salary for the prior Season (or if the prior Season’s Average Player Salary has not been determined, 108% of the Estimated Average Player Salary for the prior Season). Annual increases and decreases in Salary and Unlikely Bonuses shall be governed by Section 5(c)(2) above.
Here's the definition of
Regular Salary, straight from the CBA:
hmm, well I read 175% in many other places, could be that the 05 deal changed to 108% and the old CBA was 175%
whether it was 108 or 175 in 04, it still would have been plenty easy to keep manu with SJAX on the payroll
-
Re: I watched the 2003 finals game 6 last night
with jackson I think it was as much about years as dollars. The Spurs don't like to sign non big 3 guys to longer deals and jackson wanted that security.
-
Re: I watched the 2003 finals game 6 last night
Quote:
Originally Posted by
vander
hmm, well I read 175% in many other places, could be that the 05 deal changed to 108% and the old CBA was 175%
whether it was 108 or 175 in 04, it still would have been plenty easy to keep manu with SJAX on the payroll
I usually dont post anything and just read. I remember a lot of talk that clearly explained that sjax couldnt be signed if we wanted to keep manu.
Vander, you have compared MJ with SJAX in this post and posted nonsenses all over, time for a break for you, go take a walk.
-
Re: I watched the 2003 finals game 6 last night
Quote:
Originally Posted by
santymrc
I usually dont post anything and just read. I remember a lot of talk that clearly explained that sjax couldnt be signed if we wanted to keep manu.
Vander, you have compared MJ with SJAX in this post and posted nonsenses all over, time for a break for you, go take a walk.
The Spurs fucked up bigtime picking Rasho over Jackson, but they were itching to blow that money after being turned down by Kidd and O'Neal.
I can't understand the rationale that said you don't sign Stephen Jackson for 5 years but you go and blow twice as much on a known vagina.
