Printable View
It is all good. Apparently, the Spurs not playing as well as they did in 2009 as nothing to do with Tony Parker not playing up to standards like 2009, or Ginobili stinking it up for half a season. It had everything to do with a new addition like Jefferson. We will place all the fault on him replacing Bowen, Oberto and Thomas, 2 of which who did not even play regular minutes anymore.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seventyniner
What? Where did I say that. I said IMO losing RJ does not change the Spurs all that much. That is one side of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by tuncaboylu
The other side is to do something else: a trade, a gamble on a FA...something diff than RJ because we know that does not work. If the spurs did something different and struck out, ok. We have to live with that. But doing something we already know does not work makes little sense to me.
You want a link to the articles stating this, bc I will post them.Quote:
Originally Posted by BG_Spurs_Fan
Please do. I've never seen Pop, RC or Holt saying that it's title or bust or anything similar.I've seen them saying things like : we've tried to assemble the best possible team that'd give us a chance to contend ( which is what they've done this summer ) but nothing remotely close to title or bust.Quote:
Originally Posted by DPG21920
I may be wrong, so yea, pls post these articles when you find the time.
How is not re signing RJ, whom has only a marginal impact equal to tanking? There are always trades available as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by tuncaboylu
So is it better to take a step closer to winning a championship, sure it is a marginal step (Jefferson, even though he has a longer contract), or take a step back, (don't sign him and sign Bobby Simmons instead) when it is obvious the Spurs wouldn't have cap space for 2012 or 2013 anyway?
The Spurs have tried to come up with something that could help them win a title, obviously they couldn't get it done because they are at a crossroads. We had a good run and now playoff fodder. As little of a step that is, the Spurs have been trying. It is easy to fault them for signing Jefferson to a long term contract, but the experiment only happened for a year, where there were 20+ different starting line-ups.
It's not about cap space, although RJ effects flexibility. It is about paying money, a lot of money, to a guy that does not move you toward a title. He *might keep you from going backwards, but he does not move you closer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DPG21920
There are always trades available as you aid. And they're available at the moment too. Did resigning RJ avoid our trade chance? Could we do better trades if we would get Simmons instead of RJ?
The Spurs other additions and a healthy TP should make them better than last year though.
Having RJ's contract likely hinders trading.Quote:
Originally Posted by tuncaboylu
Well I guess since Lebron James, Chris Bosh, and Duane Wade, wouldn't sign with the Spurs to guarantee a title, signing RJ was the next best thing.
:flag:
I see yalls point of view. I am not saying your opinons are invalid. They are very logical I just disagree. Spurs should be a better team next year and I hope things come together.
Why? We are not going to trade neither RJ nor Simmons. That's why we can trade the other guys while RJ is still in the team. Moreover we can get a player in trade who makes RJ a better player. (We can get Paul in exchange of Parker for example, RJ can perform better)Quote:
Originally Posted by DPG21920
Why a significant talent boosting trade is highly unlikely, even without Jefferson.
The Spurs are over the salary cap or they don't have a TPE, so they cannot absorb players without giving back close to equal salary.
The Spurs have big contracts such as Tim Duncan, Manu Ginobili. We are not trading Duncan, and for a rebuilding team, they wouldn't take an old Manu, same goes for Duncan because they would not fit their plans to get a player of Chris Paul caliber (I said caliber, not Paul, he was an example).
Our most valuable trade chip is Tony Parker, who is an expiring contract. As far as that goes, teams are afraid Parker would not sign an extension and jump ship next off-season. No team will offer valuable assets for him.
Young talent. The Spurs have George Hill, DeJuan Blair and James Anderson. I doubt they will trade Splitter. Unless packaged with bigger contracts, the Spurs would not be able to get significant talent back for them. And we only have Duncan, Manu and Parker. It is really hard to trade them for equal or over value.
Assuming we didn't re-sign Matt Bonner, the Spurs have the option of a S&T of Bonner and Mason, but who the hell would do a S&T for those fellas?
Another valuable trading chip is Antonio McDyess who has a partially guaranteed contract after 2011, so his value is highest then. Why trade him now?
Un-guaranteed contracts are Temple, Hairston, Gee. Again, like Anderson, Hill and Blair, none will be able to be packaged with a big contract to get a significant top 8 NBA player to get the Spurs back in the mix.
Draft rights: Bunch of players like De Colo, Ryan Richards. These guys won't fetch significant talent either.
Draft picks: Late 1st round picks, they are not valuable at all.
Conclusion: Sure it is good the Spurs have good players on their team, but none of them are really viable, or players who can be dealed for way better significant players. They have quite little to work with in terms of current players for trades. The Spurs would essentially have to gut the whole roster just to get a big piece to the puzzle, which clearly is not the Spurs' style nor is it plausible.
Ya, I think that is all from me for now. I will get back to this some other time.
So the rule going forward is that if a guy might possibly have a chance to improve your team (but only if nobody else at the same position pans out and if he worked hard to improve his game in areas that he's never been very good) that you go ahead and sign him up for several years. Got it. Maybe the Spurs had a handshake agreement two years ago with Matt Bonner to thank him for starting all those games.
Right. So, if there are no realistic and viable options, why resign the player who was the worst fit on the team for 4 more years; 2 years past when they even have a fighting chance and would have significant cap, etc.? Some magic 2nd year voodoo where he should learn to play a half-court game and play defense, and his athleticism won't decline? Why extend him anything more than 2 years, if you are going to give him a contract?Quote:
Originally Posted by Chieflion
If you resigned Dick to 2 years, I think people wouldn't be nearly as upset, but to extend him for 4 more years, which, for someone who relies on athleticism, is stupid. To also guarantee those 4 years is ridiculous as well.
I could be reading too much into what the so called "haters" are trying to say, but I think they are saying if Dick only wants a 4-year contract, you take your loss and sign someone willing to take what the Spurs are offering this year and sign someone next year. I don't think letting Jefferson walk is going to make or break a championship next year.
No, I'm saying that Pop is smart and flexible enough to change the system to accommodate RJ, meaning that RJ will no longer be a bad fit. What would you have against RJ if he actually fits the system?Quote:
Originally Posted by benefactor
I think alot of people are forgetting why jefferson was so bad last year. It had nothing to do with him being done, or too old, or not athletic enough and everything to do with him just not trying. Thats why all of us hated him, he gave no effort. 12ppg from your 4th (and now possibly 5th behind Splitter) option is fine, in fact its great. If RJ can just commit to the idea of winning and get his head in the game he could easily turn this season around. If he averages 11ppg 4-5rpg and 1spg while finding a role in our offensive sets and becoming even a decent defender- than he was worth the money. I certainly don't think any of that is out of the question... He may never get it, he may just show no interest for the next 4 years like he did last season but given what else is available the Spurs had to take a chance on it working out.
Not re-signing BonnerQuote:
Originally Posted by Gino2882
Could someone post to the 6 offseason losers by Hollinger?
Link here: http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/insid...dlosers-100727
Thanks a lot
Except for the bonner bs I consider spurs have done the best offseason possible.
Priorities were:
1- use wisely the first round pick by picking a good shooter - check
2- sign splitter - check
3- find the best available fit for the SF spot - check
4- extend matt bonner - check... oh wait :(
The Spurs and Jefferson seemed to have an agreement to reduce luxury tax hit. There was no way Jefferson would opt out of 15 million without getting some sort of long term financial security. I don't think the Spurs franchise would have backstabbed Jefferson and not re-sign him, so as to not anger his agent and Jefferson's connections. These agent-team relationship has to be protected for the sake of the team's future. I think a lot of people have forgotten about the political side of the NBA. I don't like the deal, but it has already been done. It was a 4 year deal. This is how it breaks down.Quote:
Originally Posted by oligarchy
Tony Parker: Expires in 2011
Tim Duncan: ETO in 2011, or expires in 2012
Manu Ginobili: Expires in 2013
Richard Jefferson: Expires in 2014
I don't think it is a coincidence that all these 4 deals expire after one another. I don't know what trade the Spurs are planning to pull before the trade deadline, but they won't be going down that easily. The Spurs re-signed Jefferson because of the agreement and there were no other players better than Jefferson.
On the basketball court: RJ had a 110 offensive rating and a 106 defensive rating. One could argue that Tony Parker was more of a bad fit last season due to his extremely poor play on both sides of the court mainly due to injuries, but because he is part of the big 3, it is taboo to say this, with a 106 offensive rating and 108 defensive rating, which means the team gives up more points when he is on the court and scores less as well. But saying Jefferson's presence on the court doesn't help the team win is hilarious at its best.
Plus, I said that the experiment didn't work out for a lot of reasons that are outside of Jefferson, or the control of the Spurs like Ginobili sucking for the 1st half of the season, Parker being in and out of the lineup with his injuries, Duncan's decline in the 2nd half of the season, the 20+ different starting lineups. There wasn't any consistency at all.
In the FA market, posters act like we can sign whoever we want, which wasn't the case. The Spurs would have found a player then. They didn't. Jefferson was the best available fit and best SF talent available, as much as that sucked. Bobby Simmons isn't a talent, he doesn't even have a damn contract yet. People arguing about Simmons and Jefferson being a marginal difference, sorry, too hilarious.
I'm not saying you're wrong and I'm right, it's not even about that. The things you find funny, I can find funny as well. To say Tony Parker doesn't work with the Spurs is pretty funny. He may have had a down year due to injuries, etc., but there are many basketball pundits who say Dick didn't work. It's not just a couple of posters on here who simply hate RJ. Was he a complete albatross? Certainly not, but I can't say he was a good fit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chieflion
Also, the argument that ______ (fill in the name free agent) would work, I would say is more, how much worse would the Spurs be with that person? Conversely, how much better will the Spurs be next year with Jefferson? It's a moot point at that juncture simply because he will be part of the team. It's now a matter of everyone hoping that he fits.
If he fits and plays well, then nobody will care what his contract looks like. If he sucks, you can believe people will complain about how shitty his contract is?
Again, that leads back to RJ's contract. So, if they had pre-arranged the deal with RJ, had they planned on doing this since they traded for him? E.g, did they discuss this with him when they traded for him? If not, they had planned on being luxury tax payers again.
I think that was exactly my point, according to all the advanced statistics this season with the exception of PER, Jefferson had more of a positive impact than the injured Parker this season, also doesn't mean a healthy Parker is not better Richard Jefferson, which wasn't the point of this argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by oligarchy