Austin Toros Contribution to the Spurs Thread

Maybe I'm just a little disappointed that Malik is gone now but I think it's time to draw a line and evaluate the true contribution of the Toros to the big team.

We used the system to develop Marcus Williams, Ian Mahimni, Malik Hairston among others (those three were the ones that spent more time there) and no results for the big team thus far.

Can someone please remind me of the value of having the franchise run the Spurs system if they haven't been able to produce contributors?

Hopefully this thread will make me eat crow this year with Jerrells and Gee; hopefully. I'll gladly do so.

ian was a bust. we'll see what happens with gee but for now the toros are yet to really produce a player that has proven to make a solid rotation player.

Austin is a way for the Spurs to stash guys long enough to get rid of them without complaint from the fanbase. Beno cost too much money to get rid of. It would have been much simpler to just let him rot in Austin for a few years and let him fade away.

People really need to accept the reality that the d-league is for guys who don't belong in the nba. Sure, every now and then there's an exception, but they're very few and very far between.

Honestly, the Toros have been a waste of time so far. They haven't provided anything of use.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

People really need to accept the reality that the d-league is for guys who don't belong in the nba. Sure, every now and then there's an exception, but they're very few and very far between.

---

this is very true. the d-league is a haven for tweeners or very unpolished bigs. the CBA was actually a better venue but now it seems the players who used to occupy the ranks of that league more often than not end up playing in europe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

People really need to accept the reality that the d-league is for guys who don't belong in the nba. Sure, every now and then there's an exception, but they're very few and very far between.

---

So far, the D-league is cover for poor draft picks.

In baseball, hockey, and American football, farm teams are useful because teams' line-ups are vast by comparison with NBA teams. This means they can hire guys to spell their horses, or who have one quirk that makes them valuable in certain situations. In the NBA, the size limitations of the team mean any player taken on must be competent enough to play at a fairly high level to justify his membership, and most of the D-leaguers just aren't up to it. It's cool that people have an opportunity to see more basketball in this country because of the NBDL, but the current gulf of skill between the D-league and the NBA is an argument for sending players abroad and letting them compete in leagues that allow them to challenge themselves.

If the NBDL has a difficulty level of, say, 5, then the NBA has a 10. Developing players need to be able to get through 6,7,8 and 9 depending on their skill so that the real cream can rise to the top.

D-league isn't really working out.

I think a lot of players are unpolished when they leave college. They've all got the same athleticism, however the skill is just not there. D-league apparently doesn't improve one's skill set.

It's just a place to evaluate a pool of players that didn't get drafted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by timvp

Honestly, the Toros have been a waste of time so far. They haven't provided anything of use.

---

This.

Stashing players overseas, while riskier... is still the better option if you really want their game to develop

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stnick2261

Stashing players overseas, while riskier... is still the better option if you really want their game to develop

---

How has that worked out better for the Spurs? No draft and stash has fared any better than the D-league guys. In fact, the Spurs' recent draft record is growing more and more dismal by the day.

They all looked like superstars in the D-League. Which tells you a whole lot more about the D-League than anything else. I do agree that a trip to Europe probably provides better competition, but it's not a sure thing either. See: Gist, James.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Obstructed_View

How has that worked out better for the Spurs? No draft and stash has fared any better than the D-league guys. In fact, the Spurs' recent draft record is growing more and more dismal by the day.

---

Well I totally disagree about that. The Spurs have done pretty well in the draft lately. If a later round guy doesn't work out, is that really an indicator of failure? Not in my estimation.

I've read that the new CBA agreement will probably end the one year NCAA rule. If so a D-team would make sense for recent HS players who aren't college material.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Obstructed_View

How has that worked out better for the Spurs? No draft and stash has fared any better than the D-league guys. In fact, the Spurs' recent draft record is growing more and more dismal by the day.

---

Yep. That draft record is just awful. The last 4 drafts have only produced 4 guys who are going to be rotation players this year. Can't get much worse than that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Obstructed_View

How has that worked out better for the Spurs? No draft and stash has fared any better than the D-league guys. In fact, the Spurs' recent draft record is growing more and more dismal by the day.

---

Wasn't Ginobili a "draft and stash" player?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

Yep. That draft record is just awful. The last 4 drafts have only produced 4 guys who are going to be rotation players this year. Can't get much worse than that.

---

Must not be that good when two of those guys have never played a second in the NBA. Make sure not to go back an extra five years to find that the number of rotation players doesn't increase.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kindergarten Cop

Wasn't Ginobili a "draft and stash" player?

---

Opinions vary, but I wouldn't call him that anymore than I'd call David Robinson a draft and stash player.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Obstructed_View

Opinions vary, but I wouldn't call him that anymore than I'd call David Robinson a draft and stash player.

---

You honestly think that is even remotely comparable? :wow

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kindergarten Cop

Wasn't Ginobili a "draft and stash" player?

---

And Splitter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Obstructed_View

Must not be that good when two of those guys have never played a second in the NBA.

---

Unfortunately for the Spurs that's kinda how this whole draft thing works. First you get drafted and then you get to play in the NBA. Not the other way around.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Obstructed_View

How has that worked out better for the Spurs? No draft and stash has fared any better than the D-league guys. In fact, the Spurs' recent draft record is growing more and more dismal by the day.

---

Of course it's no guarantee (Gist, Javtokas, Sanikidze).... but then again, nothing in life is.

Manu, Splitter, technically Scola.... how has any D-leaguer done better than those guys?

The fact is that most leagues in Europe are better than D-league and guys will become better players by playing there than by playing here. Yeah, it's riskier... but better to watch them get better and not take up a roster space, than have them hold a roster spot and watch them score 30ppg against scrubs and not get any better

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

Unfortunately for the Spurs that's kinda how this whole draft thing works. First you get drafted and then you get to play in the NBA. Not the other way around.

---

:lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kindergarten Cop

You honestly think that is even remotely comparable? :wow

---

Manu was under contract with Kinder Bologna, was he not? Unless I'm remembering things incorrectly the Spurs didn't have any choice about how long it was going to take for him to join the team.

If we're talking about guys that the Spurs drafted based on potential and sent to Europe to improve, then Splitter, Scola and Manu aren't on that list. They were all NBA talents with questionable availibility due to obligations to other teams. That's closer to David Robinson than Romain Sato. So far, James Gist hasn't outshone Malik Hairston.

Maybe so in case of injury or if Pop wants to rest some stars.....we can bring in average talent that is familiar with the Spurs System....ala Temple, Hairston, and other....we all think they have a future on the Spurs bench....but maybe they just did very well because they knew where to be on the court both offense and defense..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

Unfortunately for the Spurs that's kinda how this whole draft thing works. First you get drafted and then you get to play in the NBA. Not the other way around.

---

:rollin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

Unfortunately for the Spurs that's kinda how this whole draft thing works. First you get drafted and then you get to play in the NBA. Not the other way around.

---

And by the same token, in order for someone to be a rotation player they have to first play in a single game. The fact that you had to project half of the guys you mentioned into positions they haven't yet attained to try to make your case shows that it's a pretty weak case.

The fact is the last 13 Spurs drafts have produced four rotation players. Hopefully Splitter and Anderson turn out to be great, but they aren't yet.

D-League players are bottom of the barrel players, Toros don't work with awesome prospects. Turning them into legit NBA players isn't easy.

Spurs haven't draw an edge with owning Toros but at the same time it hasn't really hurt them. From what I've understood, a D-League team isn't that expensive.

Spurs just need to keep working with the Toros. It could generate one day a legit NBA player. Heck, maybe Gee is that player...

I don't expect much from the Toros. They work with scrubs. And it's hard to make a legit NBA player working with scrubs.

i've heard they make around 25/30k/year. It's not much considering NBA standarts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Obstructed_View

And by the same token, in order for someone to be a rotation player they have to first play in a single game. The fact that you had to project half of the guys you mentioned into positions they haven't yet attained to try to make your case shows that it's a pretty weak case.

The fact is the last 13 Spurs drafts have produced four rotation players. Hopefully Splitter and Anderson turn out to be great, but they aren't yet.

---

Doesn't the fact that having the highest winning percentage during that same time frame, translating into always picking late in the first round, have SOME impact on not picking up many rotational players?

Since picking up Sean Elliott in '89, the Spurs have only drafted in the top 20 of the first round three time: #18 in '92, #1 in '97 and #20 this year. Only 2 other times have they had a pick in the top 25. That leaves 16 years where they had at best the 26th pick. In 25 years they used 3 lottery picks to win four titles, when some teams get lottery picks every year.

How many times can we expect them to catch lightning in a bottle? How many other teams have had more success this deep in the draft? Not defending the FO, just trying to understand some of the what appear to be extremely high expectations on picking long odds winners.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Obstructed_View

And by the same token, in order for someone to be a rotation player they have to first play in a single game. The fact that you had to project half of the guys you mentioned into positions they haven't yet attained to try to make your case shows that it's a pretty weak case.

---

If you'd like to argue the point that Splitter and Anderson are not going to be in the rotation this year then go ahead.

Quote:

---

The fact is the last 13 Spurs drafts have produced four rotation players. Hopefully Splitter and Anderson turn out to be great, but they aren't yet.

---

Again, feel free to argue otherwise, but Splitter and Anderson would make 6 guys in the rotation this year.

On top of that the Spurs also used several of their picks to acquire players who went on to help the Spurs win rings. The 1998 1st rounder brought Antonio Daniels to town. The 2000 1st rounder got Steve Kerr. The 2002 pick got Speedy Claxton. The 2003 and 2006 picks got Nazr Mohammed. Considering the roles those guys played in helping the Spurs win rings, I'm more than okay with the return on those investments. Afterall, the whole point is to win championships, right? Or is the point to just see how many of your own draft picks you can put on your roster so that you can pat yourself on the back and say "look how awesome we are at drafting"?

Austin Toros make Austinites Spurs fans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 20beastie45

Austin Toros make Austinites Spurs fans.

---

We didn't need the Toros for that.

I've been to some Toros games and they are entertaining, but the level of play between D-League and NBA is really disparate. You don't really notice when watching, but seeing those guys play in the NBA you realize how different it is. It will probably take some time until we see a real star player come out of the D-League and I don't know if it's profitable enough to allow that to happen. So far, the farm team is not yielding crops.

Should open up the d-league to anyone who is not in the NBA including aging veterans. That would be fun plus you could see if some players still have something left in the tank for game time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

If you'd like to argue the point that Splitter and Anderson are not going to be in the rotation this year then go ahead.

---

Hill and Blair weren't their first year. There's no guarantee that Anderson and Splitter will, though the dwindling list of options is giving both a better shot. Going by history, Pop doesn't trust or play rookies, even really good ones. In other words, don't count your chickens.

They may have lost minutes, but they both played.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

If you'd like to argue the point that Splitter and Anderson are not going to be in the rotation this year then go ahead.



Again, feel free to argue otherwise, but Splitter and Anderson would make 6 guys in the rotation this year.

On top of that the Spurs also used several of their picks to acquire players who went on to help the Spurs win rings. The 1998 1st rounder brought Antonio Daniels to town. The 2000 1st rounder got Steve Kerr. The 2002 pick got Speedy Claxton. The 2003 and 2006 picks got Nazr Mohammed. Considering the roles those guys played in helping the Spurs win rings, I'm more than okay with the return on those investments. Afterall, the whole point is to win championships, right? Or is the point to just see how many of your own draft picks you can put on your roster so that you can pat yourself on the back and say "look how awesome we are at drafting"?

---

I think people need to realize that outside of the top 10-12 picks in the draft, its unbelievably hard to find good players. 90% of players not drafted in the lottery are out of the league or warming a bench within 3 years. And only 3-4 guys each year are "sure things." Spurs fans need to get some perspective and realize how good our FO has done so far... As coyotes said we got Kerr, Daniels and Speedy from picks we dealt and drafted Manu, Tony, Hill, Blair, Splitter and Anderson without once picking higher than 20, not many other teams can claim that kind of success in the draft.

That said, The Toros have not given us anything of worth yet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Obstructed_View

Hill and Blair weren't their first year. There's no guarantee that Anderson and Splitter will, though the dwindling list of options is giving both a better shot. Going by history, Pop doesn't trust or play rookies, even really good ones. In other words, don't count your chickens.

---

splitter was always going to be a rotation player and he would be on any one's roster, even the lakers. as to anderson, no one mentioned that he was going to be a 25 minute per game player. he is there to fill the void of roger mason or finley which most of us will consider an upgrade.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dbestpro

Should open up the d-league to anyone who is not in the NBA including aging veterans. That would be fun plus you could see if some players still have something left in the tank for game time.

---

It is already that way.

Given the financial constraints of the teams and the steep talent and skill dropoff after the first round of the draft, I don't see why anyone expects so much from the D-League. I think the average number of real rotation players produced by the D-League is probably about one a year if you look back over its history.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Obstructed_View

Hill and Blair weren't their first year.

---

Hill played 77 games his first year, and 78 games his second year.
Blair played all 82 games his first year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by toki9

Hill played 77 games his first year, and 78 games his second year.
Blair played all 82 games his first year.

---

:toast

There are lots of pro-basketball leagues in the world.

There are only two reasons why a legit NBA player will be found playing in the D-league:

(1) His team assigned him to the D-league.
(2) He wasn't drafted and is using the D-league to show off his skills. He should be picked up within the first year otherwise he simply isn't NBA ready.

There is no other reason to be in the D-league, unless you can't make it elsewhere.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Obstructed_View

Hill and Blair weren't their first year. There's no guarantee that Anderson and Splitter will, though the dwindling list of options is giving both a better shot. Going by history, Pop doesn't trust or play rookies, even really good ones. In other words, don't count your chickens.

---

Blair...
Hill...
Beno...
Manu...
Parker...

Basically all the guys who eventually proved good enough to stick in the NBA got playing time as rookies under Pop.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by toki9

Hill played 77 games his first year, and 78 games his second year.
Blair played all 82 games his first year.

---

I assumed OV meant in the playoffs, but, yeah, wrong either way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Obstructed_View

So far, the D-league is cover for poor draft picks.

---

:toast

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ohmwrecker

I assumed OV meant in the playoffs, but, yeah, wrong either way.

---

No, Pop benched them in the playoffs and he parked them behind inferior vets and gimmicky lineups. When a guy gets 20 minutes one night and then no more than six minutes for the next five games, he's not a rotation player.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

Blair...
Hill...
Beno...
Manu...
Parker...

Basically all the guys who eventually proved good enough to stick in the NBA got playing time as rookies under Pop.

---

:lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Obstructed_View

:lol

---

True or False? Beno was in Pop's rotation as a rookie.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

Blair...
Hill...
Beno...
Manu...
Parker...

Basically all the guys who eventually proved good enough to stick in the NBA got playing time as rookies under Pop.

---

Ginobili played most of the fourth quarter in the clinching finals game.:toast:toast:toast

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Obstructed_View

No, Pop benched them in the playoffs and he parked them behind inferior vets and gimmicky lineups. When a guy gets 20 minutes one night and then no more than six minutes for the next five games, he's not a rotation player.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ohmwrecker

They may have lost minutes, but they both played.

---

This IS Pop we're talking about . . .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 20beastie45

Ginobili played most of the fourth quarter in the clinching finals game.:toast:toast:toast

---

All those guys got a chance to contribute in the playoffs.

Of course apparently none of it means anything now that Malik Hairston is gone.............

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ohmwrecker

I assumed OV meant in the playoffs, but, yeah, wrong either way.

---

Hill played 4 playoff games at 19 minutes per game his rookie year (First round loss), and Blair played in 10 games at 9.1 minutes per game (Second round loss).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

All those guys got a chance to contribute in the playoffs.

Of course apparently none of it means anything now that Malik Hairston is gone.............

---

He's not called Obstructed View for nothing. :lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Obstructed_View

How has that worked out better for the Spurs? No draft and stash has fared any better than the D-league guys. In fact, the Spurs' recent draft record is growing more and more dismal by the day.

---

:rolleyes Spurs recent draft record is growing more dismal? So John Solomon, Luis Scola, Leonardo BarBosa, Beno Udrih, Tiago Splitter, George Hill, and Dejuan Blair, are dismal huh?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Obstructed_View

Going by history, Pop doesn't trust or play rookies, even really good ones.

---

Except recent history says your wrong. Hill, Blair, and Temple did play as rookies. And Pop does play "even really good ones". Wern't Duncan and to a lesser extent, Parker "really good ones" that Pop played their rookie seasons?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cane

He's not called Obstructed View for nothing. :lol

---

I'm just curious what exactly obstructs his view? :downspin:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jjktkk

Except recent history says your wrong. Hill, Blair, and Temple did play as rookies. And Pop does play "even really good ones". Wern't Duncan and to a lesser extent, Parker "really good ones" that Pop played their rookie seasons?

---

If you have to include Duncan and Parker to make your point, then you probably know that Pop didn't give Blair or Hill enough playing time and you just want to be argumentative.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Obstructed_View

If you have to include Duncan and Parker to make your point, then you probably know that Pop didn't give Blair or Hill enough playing time and you just want to be argumentative.

---

Actually, if you are talking about rookies drafted by the Spurs then Duncan and Parker should be included...otherwise you're cherry picking your sample to suit your conclusion...

I live in Austin and even though Toros games are cheap I would much rather spend my money seeing the Spurs. D-League games are painful to watch... kind of like watching pickup games at the Y.

The Toros may create added "Spurs interest" in Austin. Austinites may be more loyal to the Spurs with that connection. (Don't be surprised if that's why the Spurs keep them on.)

In fact, that may actually justify their existence. Nothing else does.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Russ

The Toros may create added "Spurs interest" in Austin. Austinites may be more loyal to the Spurs with that connection. (Don't be surprised if that's why the Spurs keep them on.)

In fact, that may actually justify their existence. Nothing else does.

---

The Toros don't create Spurs interest in Austin. Those residents of Austin who were already Spurs fans create Toros interest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

The Toros don't create Spurs interest in Austin. Those residents of Austin who were already Spurs fans create Toros interest.

---

Damn straight.

Several people in this thread have hit on the main point that should be made: the Toros aren't the problem, the D-League as a whole is. It's a very low level league with very low level salaries. Thus, you get very low level talent. On rare occasions you find players who are near NBA-ready, but it's really hard to evaluate because they're playing against scrubs for the most part.

I hope major details about the D-League change in the new CBA. As it is, it's the equivalent of baseball teams trying to bring guys up from Class-A ball.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Obstructed_View

Manu was under contract with Kinder Bologna, was he not? Unless I'm remembering things incorrectly the Spurs didn't have any choice about how long it was going to take for him to join the team.

If we're talking about guys that the Spurs drafted based on potential and sent to Europe to improve, then Splitter, Scola and Manu aren't on that list. They were all NBA talents with questionable availibility due to obligations to other teams. That's closer to David Robinson than Romain Sato. So far, James Gist hasn't outshone Malik Hairston.

---

Right. Manu was such an NBA ready talent that the Spurs used their THIRD pick of the draft,and second of the second round, to make sure that they got him. He didn't even play for just one team in Italy while they were waiting and evaluating him. He was with Reggio Calabria when drafted, and signed with Kinder Bolognia in 2000 (meaning he was available, if not yet NBA ready).

You remembered wrong. Manu was a draft and stash.

Can someone provide a list of DLeaguers who have made a legit contribution to any NBA team?

Not trying to be facetious, I really am curious

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gospursgojas

Can someone provide a list of DLeaguers who have made a legit contribution to any NBA team?

---

Sundiata James of the Jazz is the only one I can think of and that's not a great example.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gospursgojas

Can someone provide a list of DLeaguers who have made a legit contribution to any NBA team?

Not trying to be facetious, I really am curious

---

Go down Golden State's roster: Azabuike and Morrow come to mind.

yup, d league seems pretty worthless. hairston dominated the league, dropping 40 pt games left and right. yet he hasn't improved enough to play in the nba? don't see how much more he can improve in the d league.

In a roundabout way (and by that I mean, it honestly has nothing to do with the Toros' contribution to the Spurs), I'd have to go with ChumpDumper.

He'd definitely get my vote.

What do you expect to get from D-League players?

I saw plenty of people clamoring for Matt Barnes recently, would you have wanted him?

Chris Anderson, how 'bout him?

Kelenna Azubuike?

Bobby Simmons when he was Most Improved Player of the Year?

Anthony Morrow got out of a contract at the last minute playing overseas because the Warriors took a shot on him after going undrafted.

There are players to be found that can play a role for a team if just given the opportunity. That's really all that sets a lot of the role players of teams apart from some of these D-League and overseas players: opportunity.

If the NBA could ever build the D-League into a 30 team league, where every NBA team owns its own NBDL team, then I think you will see more benefits. You will see teams being able to use the DLeague as a farm system and even a valuable rehab option for players coming back from injury.

I'm not even sold on there being 30 NBA teams.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by urunobili

Maybe I'm just a little disappointed that Malik is gone now but I think it's time to draw a line and evaluate the true contribution of the Toros to the big team.

We used the system to develop Marcus Williams, Ian Mahimni, Malik Hairston among others (those three were the ones that spent more time there) and no results for the big team thus far.

Can someone please remind me of the value of having the franchise run the Spurs system if they haven't been able to produce contributors?

Hopefully this thread will make me eat crow this year with Jerrells and Gee; hopefully. I'll gladly do so.

---

One positive take is if a particular D-League player is not good enough for Pop & the Spurs but, is good enough to make a team like Dallas then I'd say we are ahead of the game.

One other thing is it allows the Spurs management a good evaluation period before they get in too deep with what most of these guys will end up being...the 10th, 11th, 12th or lo and behold, the 13th option.

How did we miss this?


http://www.48minutesofhell.com/2010/...antonio-spurs/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Biggems

If the NBA could ever build the D-League into a 30 team league, where every NBA team owns its own NBDL team, then I think you will see more benefits. You will see teams being able to use the DLeague as a farm system and even a valuable rehab option for players coming back from injury.

---

I posted some thoughts on what I felt the D-League should do about 6 months ago. By no means is this an exhaustive list, but it's a start.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lurker23

I always felt the D-League would eventually expand in scope. I personally would like to see any player be able to sent down there on a voluntary basis, such as for injury rehab (similar to MLB). However, I can see why the players union would fight hard against that; 8-year vets being subtly forced to go down to the D-League or be waived would be a very bad situation.

As far as non-NBA players in the D-League, I think there's a few changes that would benefit the league as a whole:

1.) Salaries need to be improved across the board to make money closer to at least the low-to-mid level European leagues. Right now the D-League is only a viable alternative to Europe for players who a.) have extenuating circumstances, real or imagined, for why they can't leave the states, or b.) are (for good reasons or not) convinced that they can be a legitimate NBA players in 4 months or less, and don't want to risk that chance for a longer-term commitment in Europe. I'm not saying these guys should make half a million dollars; I'm just saying the quality of players you get could potentially rise a lot if you changed the salary range from $27,500-40,000 to $50,000-150,000.

2.) The league should continue to expand until it is a true minor league, with one team per NBA team (or, at the very least, there should be no more than 2 NBA teams per D-League team). I think this is already in the plans.

3.) Teams in general need to move to bigger cities to become more financially viable (see #1). I'm not saying every team should have their D-League affiliate in their own town (see LA D-Fenders) or the absolute largest markets they can find, but they should be in decent sized markets in the same general vicinity as their parent club. The Toros/Spurs set-up is perfect. I'd like to see more teams follow that model. Examples: The Wizards should have a team in Baltimore, the Grizzlies should have a team in Nashville, the Cavaliers should have a team in Akron, etc.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lurker23

The more I think about this, the more I think it could be a great idea. How much money could the teams make just from rehab assignments alone? "For two nights only, come see Tim Duncan play for the Austin Toros." Even if he only plays 10 minutes a night to get back into some kind of game-rhythm, they'd sell-out the house and make a ton in concessions and merchandise.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gospursgojas

Can someone provide a list of DLeaguers who have made a legit contribution to any NBA team?

Not trying to be facetious, I really am curious

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ohmwrecker

Sundiata James of the Jazz is the only one I can think of and that's not a great example.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChuckD

Go down Golden State's roster: Azabuike and Morrow come to mind.

---

You guys seriously forgot about Devin Brown?

Jamario Moon
Rafer Alston
Aaron Brooks
Marcin Gortat
Jose Barea
Brandon Bass
Ime Udoka
and Ian Mahinmi of course

I think we should also recognize that it takes time for any organization to build a succesful player development system in every sport that has minor league organizations. Half of the battle w/ this sort of franchise is putting the right people in place to manage it (coaching, etc.) and then developing the corporate knowledge to incorporate players into the line-up from it. The toros' issue is they are committed to winning at the lower level, not produce NBA players--the two are slightly different.

In any event, I see the Toros as a long term investment, and w/ the NBA and it's roster restrictions, it would only take one or two rotation players developed every 5 or 6 years to make the Toros a success.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RobinsontoDuncan

I think we should also recognize that it takes time for any organization to build a succesful player development system in every sport that has minor league organizations.

---

The problem with this statement is that the d-league is nowhere near the equivalent to the NBA that triple-A baseball is to MLB. Most kids who played D-1 college basketball are probably taking a step backwards in terms of competition when they end up in the d-league.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

Most kids who played D-1 college basketball are probably taking a step backwards in terms of competition when they end up in the d-league.

---

so true. this is also often ignored when discussing if a player should go to Europe or play D-league. the D-league is better than not play at all, it makes some sense to get players used to heavy minutes per game, but that's it. the D-league isn't a natural step from college to NBA. Europe, only the better leagues of course, is such a step, if a player can't find his niche immediately.

btw. nice post count number.