Loyalty

Pop went with Fin because we needed firepower. Plain and simple.

Sure, you could say his "loyalty" to fin was the issue, but that makes no sense; his loyalty to the big 3, and to bruce, would make sense, since he has been with them longer.

Pop made a judgment call, and thought firepower (fin, relative to bruce) was more important than trying to stop one player on the other team (bruce).

Dang, this is SO ancient history now. You really need to move on. This team is going to be great, but you are f-ing up my grove.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spursfaninla

Pop went with Fin because we needed firepower. Plain and simple.

Sure, you could say his "loyalty" to fin was the issue, but that makes no sense; his loyalty to the big 3, and to bruce, would make sense, since he has been with them longer.

Pop made a judgment call, and thought firepower (fin, relative to bruce) was more important than trying to stop one player on the other team (bruce).

Dang, this is SO ancient history now. You really need to move on. This team is going to be great, but you are f-ing up my grove.

---

Agreed:lobt2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fabbs

But ploto you are oh so wrong about the PoppySpurs and loyalty. His and their overblown loyalty to Finley has been and is gagging and has brought down the Spurs we came to know and love. It can't be spun any other way.

---

The only "loyalty" to Fin was that he had a contract situation that prevented him from being traded and Bruce didn't. Reverse their contracts and it's Finley who gets shipped out instead of Bowen. Quit trying to make this more complicated than it is.

fin has got deadline trade bait written all over him, hes never done well off the bench and we shouldnt expect this year to be any different. I dont recall the Spurs making any public statements wanting him to pick up his option, and if they had their way he probably wouldnt have. But noone is going to walk away from 2.5 million. He knew when he took it he was essentially buying himself a one way ticket out of town. This team still has one move left, and its gonna be near the deadline once they see how things come together over the first half of the season. Fin, Bonner, Ian, or some combination of the 3 is probably gone by Feb.

As for Bruce, he was done. If Pop chose to DNP him, thats all I need to know about Bruce's abilities at 39. Thanks for the memories, come back and do play by play with Sean, but thats it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown

So do you want the Spurs to go small late in games against LA and get raped on the boards or do you think the Spurs should sit Jefferson in those portions of games and just try to survive their notorious scoring droughts?

---

Who would you say is better, Finley? :lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SA210

Who would you say is better, Finley? :lol

---

No. I'm saying that the discussion is largely academic because Pop's most likely going to play Parker, Ginobili, Jefferson, Duncan and another big in crunch time and the hope of having a "defensive stopper" who can shut down a scorer like Kobe during those times ignores that basic fact. Basically, you're dickering over players who are most likely going to get 10-12 minutes a night off the bench, dealing with players other than the great scorers. Do you really think the Spurs' title chances turn on the identity of that player?

The Finley/Bowen canard is silly, too. The Spurs wanted to deal for Jefferson. They couldn't, at the time, use Finley as a chip to get him. So, fundamentally, in using what assets they did have, it's not as if they made a choice between Bowen and Finley. They dealt what they had to get what they wanted (and needed).

And the notion that the Spurs could just jettison Finley right now and bring back Bowen is fanciful, given how far the Spurs are already extended financially.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown

No. I'm saying that the discussion is largely academic because Pop's most likely going to play Parker, Ginobili, Jefferson, Duncan and another big in crunch time and the hope of having a "defensive stopper" who can shut down a scorer like Kobe during those times ignores that basic fact. Basically, you're dickering over players who are most likely going to get 10-12 minutes a night off the bench, dealing with players other than the great scorers. Do you really think the Spurs' title chances turn on the identity of that player?

The Finley/Bowen canard is silly, too. The Spurs wanted to deal for Jefferson. They couldn't, at the time, use Finley as a chip to get him. So, fundamentally, in using what assets they did have, it's not as if they made a choice between Bowen and Finley. They dealt what they had to get what they wanted (and needed).

And the notion that the Spurs could just jettison Finley right now and bring back Bowen is fanciful, given how far the Spurs are already extended financially.

---

Imagine we have a great season, we run teams out of the arena all year long like the Mavs and Suns from a few years ago, a fantastic season and the RJ signing looks great, which btw, I love RJ.

Then the playoffs come around and things are a bit different. Imagine we play the Lakers or another team where we get torched by a guy like Kobe and noone on our team can stop him, and we don't have Bruce to call on even for just 10 minutes to stop him (which I know he can still do better than ANYONE).

Then we get booted from the playoffs because of this, was the RJ trade worth it? If we lose because of that reason, what did the trade matter?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SA210

Imagine we have a great season, we run teams out of the arena all year long like the Mavs and Suns from a few years ago, a fantastic season and the RJ signing looks great, which btw, I love RJ.

Then the playoffs come around and things are a bit different. Imagine we play the Lakers or another team where we get torched by a guy like Kobe and noone on our team can stop him, and we don't have Bruce to call on even for just 10 minutes to stop him (which I know he can still do better than ANYONE).

Then we get booted from the playoffs because of this, was the RJ trade worth it? If we lose because of that reason, what did the trade matter?

---

I've already told you this, we lost WITH bruce the last two years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Muser

I've already told you this, we lost WITH bruce the last two years.

---

Yea, I don't think Pop was at his best coaching-wise either, and hasn't been recently. Bruce is the best guy to defend anyone on the perimiter, still.

Kobe Bryant's Field Goal Percentage Against the Spurs in the Playoffs 2001-08

Year.......Bowen on team?.....Bryant FG%
2001.......No.......................51.4
2002.......Yes......................45.4
2003.......Yes......................43.4
2004.......Yes......................46.1
2008.......Yes......................53.3

Differential Between Kobe Bryant's FG% Against the Spurs in the Playoffs, and His Regular Season FG%

Year.......Reg Season.......Spurs Playoff Series.....Differential
2001.......46.4................51.4............... ...........+5.0
2002.......46.9................45.4............... ...........-1.5
2003.......45.1................43.4............... ...........-1.7
2004.......43.8................46.1............... ...........+2.3
2008.......45.9................53.3............... ...........+7.4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fabbs

We hear a lot about how the Spurs FO and Coaching dictator -i mean coach and staff are loyal.

Q. Why was Bowen let go and Finley retained?

I know Bowens 4 mill might be considered too much, but matador D Finley will be getting 2.5 so its only a 1.5 difference.

Bowen:
With the team for all 3 2000+ decade championships.
Does whatever the team asked of him. Played almost every game for every year he was here.

Coatails Fin was superb in 2007, otherwise all he has done is stole minutes, gone 1-4 including two lost playoff series to the team that paid him $20 million a year to go away. All the blather about Fins shooting, Bowen matched him in the reg season and outshot him in last years playoffs. Now lets talk defense. No lets not.
"Spurs are a defense first team and military Pop demands defense." Save that b.s. Was true 2005 and back. Since then its a joke.

So i know Milwaukee can buy out Bowen and we can get him back and I'd welcome Bruce back.
If we don't, and Finley stays,

What loyalty?

---

fuck loyalty. this shits about winning

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fabbs

You mean they weren't. And that is a lot of what drew myself (2001-2 altho i always liked Dunkar) and a lot of others to the Spurs. The no superstar attitude, Timmy Dunks especially, Pop being a seeming non ego tripper.

But ploto you are oh so wrong about the PoppySpurs and loyalty. His and their overblown loyalty to Finley has been and is gagging and has brought down the Spurs we came to know and love. It can't be spun any other way.

Bruce is not the key to this season. Pops marriage to Finley was a key to the 2006, and certainly 2008 and 09 downfall tho.

---

finley played absolutely awesome in 06 against dallas. by no means was that the reason we lost that series to dallas..... finley also played great in 07.. particularly in the playoffs. and no finley bashers were anywhere to be found.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DesignatedT

fuck loyalty. this shits about winning

---

If that's the case, we should bring Bruce back then.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SA210

If that's the case, we should bring Bruce back then.

---

38 reasons not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CubanMustGo

38 reasons not.

---

We can afford to rest him a lot during the regular season

Just put him on the court for the last seconds of a game on Kobe and Lebron

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown

No. I'm saying that the discussion is largely academic because Pop's most likely going to play Parker, Ginobili, Jefferson, Duncan and another big in crunch time and the hope of having a "defensive stopper" who can shut down a scorer like Kobe during those times ignores that basic fact. Basically, you're dickering over players who are most likely going to get 10-12 minutes a night off the bench, dealing with players other than the great scorers. Do you really think the Spurs' title chances turn on the identity of that player?

The Finley/Bowen canard is silly, too. The Spurs wanted to deal for Jefferson. They couldn't, at the time, use Finley as a chip to get him. So, fundamentally, in using what assets they did have, it's not as if they made a choice between Bowen and Finley. They dealt what they had to get what they wanted (and needed).

And the notion that the Spurs could just jettison Finley right now and bring back Bowen is fanciful, given how far the Spurs are already extended financially.

---

Nice post. :tu

Not sure how much more it can be spelled out for people that it wasn't a case of choosing Finley over Bowen.

Not only was Finley not available to trade but the Bucks most likely wouldn't have wanted him. They wanted Bowen's partially guaranteed contract. Not to mention Oberto's as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lefty

We can afford to rest him a lot during the regular season

Just put him on the court for the last seconds of a game on Kobe and Lebron

---

:tu

Yea basically when our other guys are getting torched.

Obviously, the rest of the league agrees with SA210 and Fabbs, and that explains why so many teams are lining up to offer Bowen MLE money....

Damn, these fools ironically would make the same mistake with Bowen, great as he WAS, that was done with Horry and Finley...riding a championship horse one race too many.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spursfaninla

Obviously, the rest of the league agrees with SA210 and Fabbs, and that explains why so many teams are lining up to offer Bowen MLE money....

Damn, these fools ironically would make the same mistake with Bowen, great as he WAS, that was done with Horry and Finley...riding a championship horse one race too many.

---

this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown

No. I'm saying that the discussion is largely academic because Pop's most likely going to play Parker, Ginobili, Jefferson, Duncan and another big in crunch time and the hope of having a "defensive stopper" who can shut down a scorer like Kobe during those times ignores that basic fact. Basically, you're dickering over players who are most likely going to get 10-12 minutes a night off the bench, dealing with players other than the great scorers. Do you really think the Spurs' title chances turn on the identity of that player?

The Finley/Bowen canard is silly, too. The Spurs wanted to deal for Jefferson. They couldn't, at the time, use Finley as a chip to get him. So, fundamentally, in using what assets they did have, it's not as if they made a choice between Bowen and Finley. They dealt what they had to get what they wanted (and needed).

And the notion that the Spurs could just jettison Finley right now and bring back Bowen is fanciful, given how far the Spurs are already extended financially.

---

13 minutes off the bench from SuperStevie Kerr in the 2003 Championship run in Gm 6 vs the Mavs.
Late 3rd qtr, Spurs down 13, Parker sick, Speedy sucking bad, unable to even get an entry pass into Timmy Dunks. Enter Stevie Kerr.

To be sure, it's entirely possible the Mavs win not only this Game 6 but even Gm 7. Dumbassovich had NO intention to play Kerr, had not Parker gotten sick and Speedy sucked badly.
Oh by the way, Kerr was 37. And Michael Finley was on the Mavs. :rollin
You need to learn your Spurs history and the value of a 10 minute a game role player.

Bowen was bought out by the Bucks. Move forward. The lame excuse that the Spurs had to trade Bowen therefore Finley now has to stay on the roster is lame. Old. True they had to include Bruce to get Jefferson. That is done. Bruce is now a free agent, Finley is on the roster as well as Pops organ.

Financially extended Spurs cannot sign Bruce. Please.

spursfaninla

Quote:

---

Obviously, the rest of the league agrees with SA210 and Fabbs, and that explains why so many teams are lining up to offer Bowen MLE money....

---

I think it was Pete Burns who reported Bowen has received offers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Extra Stout

Kobe Bryant's Field Goal Percentage Against the Spurs in the Playoffs 2001-08

Year.......Bowen on team?.....Bryant FG%
2001.......No.......................51.4
2002.......Yes......................45.4
2003.......Yes......................43.4
2004.......Yes......................46.1
2008.......Yes......................53.3

---

Thanks for supporting SA210, my and other knowledgeable Spurs point.
The years Bruce got big minutes on Kobme, Kobmes percentages were held in check.
Specifically game 1 of 2008. Bruce on Kobme, Spurs up freakin 20 mid 3rd qtr.
DumbassOvich takes Bowen out, Lakers and Kobme go on immediate run and win! :lol :depressed

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fabbs

Thanks for supporting SA210, my and other knowledgeable Spurs point.
The years Bruce got big minutes on Kobme, Kobmes percentages were held in check.
Specifically game 1 of 2008. Bruce on Kobme, Spurs up freakin 20 mid 3rd qtr.
DumbassOvich takes Bowen out, Lakers and Kobme go on immediate run and win! :lol :depressed

---

This :lol

People will have to learn the hard way Fabbs.

well, the power of your argument is that you can't be disproven: bowen will not be on the Spurs, and if the Spurs lose to the Lakers (which the odds say should happen), you can say is was because we didn't have a 38 year old "defensive stopper" to prevent a near-prime Kobe from being, well, kobe. This is a very safe argument to make.

I did not see any refutation to the observations made about last year, though: that Bruce was getting called for lots of fouls because he needed to grab in order to keep up with players; that the staff thought he was no longer effective (which seems to confirm the stats provided just above); and that, contrary to the two posters in question here, he is human, ages, slows down, and eventually went the way of Horry (and hopefully Finley...) great, loved, but done.

You guys need to step off of the funeral pyre; the spurs improved, and you guys are ready to burn the team and yourselves, because we are burying a loved but ineffective player.

If the Spurs win the championship, this thread will be long buried.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spursfaninla

well, the power of your argument is that you can't be disproven: bowen will not be on the Spurs, and if the Spurs lose to the Lakers (which the odds say should happen), you can say is was because we didn't have a 38 year old "defensive stopper" to prevent a near-prime Kobe from being, well, kobe. This is a very safe argument to make.

---

Nor did we ever claim if the Spurs lose to the Lakers this upcoming 2010 playoffs that the sole reason will be because we are Bruceless. That notion originates with you, even if you do not agree with it.

Quote:

---

I did not see any refutation to the observations made about last year, though: that Bruce was getting called for lots of fouls because he needed to grab in order to keep up with players; that the staff thought he was no longer effective (which seems to confirm the stats provided just above); and that, contrary to the two posters in question here, he is human, ages, slows down, and eventually went the way of Horry (and hopefully Finley...) great, loved, but done.

---

I agree Bruce looked a half step slower last year. Which is 5 steps faster then Finley. On O, Bruce matched or exceeded Finley. Thus our points.

Quote:

---

You guys need to step off of the funeral pyre; the spurs improved, and you guys are ready to burn the team and yourselves, because we are burying a loved but ineffective player.

If the Spurs win the championship, this thread will be long buried.

---

If the Spurs win a championship, it will be because DumbassOvich does not play Bonner and Finley 30 minutes a game in most games and certainly not in critical series changing games.

I will gladly take a championship this year with or without Bruce. If its without Bruce and with Finley, that is disloyalty to the max.