Why Three Pro Teams Stand Ahead Of The Rest

Patriots, Spurs, Red Sox.
We prevented a Boston sweep. :)

I love how he calls Ginobili one of the best draft picks in NBA history.

http://media.www.dailyemerald.com/me...-3154158.shtml

Why three pro teams stand ahead of the rest
By: Robert Husseman

In their respective sports they stand alone. Three professional franchises have ushered in a new era marked by efficiency and innovation that have personnel departments across the country scrambling to keep up. Success has eluded them in the past, but the wins and titles keep coming in ... and they show no signs of slowing.

The New England Patriots have led the charge, becoming the NFL's poster child for successful operations. In case you haven't heard (and, if you haven't, ESPN would like to know how they missed you), the Patriots haven't done much ... just winning every game they've played in the past year except one (the AFC Championship Game against the Super Bowl XLI champion Colts). They've joined the 1972 Miami Dolphins as the only teams with a perfect regular season record, and they're a mere two wins away from their fourth Super Bowl championship.

On and off the field, the Patriots are the proverbial well-oiled machine. Team owner Robert Kraft and Vice President of Player Personnel Scott Pioli have had exemplary success in the NFL draft and the free agency market. Over the last five NFL drafts, 22 of the Patriots' 44 picks remain on the roster, including nine starters - an impressive number for an NFL team. Star quarterback Tom Brady was drafted not first, not second, but 199th overall in the 2000 draft. A fourth-round pick this past April, used on Cincinnati cornerback John Bowie, was traded to Oakland for some wide receiver from Marshall University. (His name escapes me.)

The Patriots' draft days usually garner most of the off-the-field attention, as Pioli and coach Bill Belichick notoriously defy conventional (read: armchair) wisdom when making draft selections. Still, they achieve balance with savvy free agent hires: Adalius Thomas, Mike Vrabel, and Rodney Harrison now anchor one of the NFL's toughest defenses. Role players such as Kyle Brady, Sammy Morris and Donte' Stallworth have stepped up when needed on offense. Belichick and Co. have been single-minded, driven, and, yes, disciplined, leaving the other 31 teams in the dust as the Patriots seek their fourth Super Bowl victory in seven years.

The San Antonio Spurs, meanwhile, look to exert dominance in the form of four NBA championships in eight years. While the Phoenix Suns dazzle NBA fans with their breakneck-paced play and the Boston Celtics' collection of stars dominates the East, Tim Duncan, Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili have the Spurs sitting pretty at 25-11, good for third in the Western Conference and first in the Southwest Division. They're on pace to make the playoffs for the 28th time in their 32 years in the NBA, with a 19-3 home record and a 6-3 divisional record.

The Spurs are perhaps most notorious (outside of last year's Western Conference finals) for setting the bar high in the NBA draft. In 1999, San Antonio had the 57th overall pick, unlikely to acquire anyone or anything of value. They settled for some Argentinian kid named Ginobili - arguably one of the best draft picks in NBA history.

A scouting department headed by general manager R.C. Buford (with Portland general manager Kevin Pritchard and Seattle general manager Sam Presti as former members) that's considered the class of the NBA has found players like Parker, Leandro Barbosa and Luis Scola. You may not recognize their names (Ian Mahinmi? Tiago Splitter?), but the Spurs complement their star players with enough talent through drafts and free agent signings (Francisco Elson, Michael Finley, Argentina's Fabricio Oberto) to remain on top in a tough conference and league.

Last, but not least, I present to you the Boston Red Sox. Eighty-six years of curses were lifted in one dynamic playoff performance in 2004, and the Sox have never looked back. Wunderkind general manager Theo Epstein, who has fought valiantly in spending wars with the New York Yankees, has added a new wrinkle to the Red Sox organization - prospect development. Developing a farm system is obviously not a new concept, but Epstein has used Red Sox owner John Henry's deep pockets to build a system that creates more than trade fodder for superstars. Former Oregon State Beaver Jacoby Ellsbury, Clay Buchholz, and Jonathan Papelbon are three early success stories of Boston's farm system, which has given them a leg up on the Yankees - and a talent pool envied by baseball executives across the country.

When it comes down to it, the most efficient organizations have built themselves up with the tools most readily available. Scouting departments and general managers everywhere are feeling the strain as these teams set themselves apart. Unless drastic events occur, expect the Patriots, Spurs, and Red Sox to be named the preeminent organizations in their leagues for a few years to come.

The Spurs drafting has always been amazing, we never have high picks (with the exception of Duncan - thank God) and yet we seem to always pick up solid, if not amazing, players. Grooming their own talent just seems like such a Spurs thing to do, unlike Boston trading for 2/3 of their big three, etc.
It makes me so proud to be a fan of the Great San Antonio Spurs.

The spurs have not been good with trades or with free agents. So many good players have changed teams but they don't land with the spurs.

Two excellent draft picks in Parker and Manu but little else from the draft is helping the team. Its basically a team that rides on the greatness of Duncan.

Elson, Oberto and Finley are average players at best and Scola and Barbosa are not on the spurs so those draft picks did not amount to much.

I have seen little from the front office in player acquisistions to convince me that the spurs can remain a playoff team when Duncan retires.

Patriots: Talent

Spurs: Teamwork

Sox: Money

don't underestimate the Spurs talent - they have highest winning percentage of any pro team ever over a ten year period and that takes underappreciated talent.

They may not have the pure athletes some misguided fans think wins, but they have inane basketball talent by the droves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rascal

The spurs have not been good with trades or with free agents. So many good players have changed teams but they don't land with the spurs.

I have seen little from the front office in player acquisistions to convince me that the spurs can remain a playoff team when Duncan retires.

---

Free agent acquisition of star players seldom works. The Miami pickup of Shaq being an exception, but it may have doomed them for the future because of the cost. Another exception MIGHT be the Celtics but let's see if they win it all before we award them a gold star.

[Quote] Elson, Oberto and Finley are average players at best[quote/] We can't afford any more superstars than 3 on the payroll. These 'average players' acquitisitons helped us to a Championship. This is bad?

[Quote]
Two excellent draft picks in Parker and Manu but little else from the draft is helping the team. Its basically a team that rides on the greatness of Duncan.[quote/]

You won't find much superstar talent in the draft at the Championship levels the Spurs are in every year. It's amazing they do as well as they have. There is no way we won't have a let down when Duncan leaves. You can't lose the best in the business and immediately go forward at this team's high level.

Expect a year or two as a lottery team and then we'll see what the FO is made of. { Pop is no fool and will retire with Duncan.)

It is what it is. The author of the article is a sophomore at University of Oregon, writing for his school paper. Not that there is anything wrong with that...


http://www.dailyemerald.com/user/ind...thorid=2664056
Author Profile
Robert Husseman - Sports Copy Editor
View Robert's Articles
Sports copy editor Robert Husseman is a sophomore at the University of Oregon. He plans on majoring in business administration (concentration in sports business) and journalism and minoring in mathematics. Outside of loads of schoolwork and his coveted ODE job, he loves anything and everything sports as an active participant in the University of Oregon Pit Crew and the Warsaw Sports Business Club.

Robert worked as an intern for the Keizertimes, in Keizer, Ore., for two summers of professional journalistic experience. He was assigned to the beat for the Salem-Keizer Volcanoes (class-A short-season affiliate of the San Francisco Giants). It was a great learning experience and the guys on the team were great subjects for articles.

A graduate of McNary High School in Keizer, Robert used to compete in spelling bees, which contributed to his love and enjoyment of writing and copy editing. Robert also enjoys drawing house plans, useless trivia, 12+ hours of quality sleep, and screaming at the opposing team in Mac Court until his voice is hoarse.

Robert Husseman's Articles
1/16/08
Why three pro teams stand ahead of the rest
11/30/07
Multitude of serious injuries leave Duck trainers scrambling
11/28/07
Dixon still Heisman worthy in my mind
10/17/07
Make Dirty Ducks an NCAA team to save wrestling

:lmao

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rummpd

don't underestimate the Spurs talent - they have highest winning percentage of any pro team ever over a ten year period and that takes underappreciated talent.

They may not have the pure athletes some misguided fans think wins, but they have inane basketball talent by the droves.

---

ummmmm....I like your stuff normally, but...:lmao

I think you mean innate...

in·ane
–adjective
1. lacking sense, significance, or ideas; silly: inane questions.
2. empty; void.
–noun
3. something that is empty or void, esp. the void of infinite space.

—Synonyms 1. pointless. See foolish.

Or at least I think you mean innate...:lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rascal

The spurs have not been good with trades or with free agents. So many good players have changed teams but they don't land with the spurs.

Two excellent draft picks in Parker and Manu but little else from the draft is helping the team. Its basically a team that rides on the greatness of Duncan.

Elson, Oberto and Finley are average players at best and Scola and Barbosa are not on the spurs so those draft picks did not amount to much.

I have seen little from the front office in player acquisistions to convince me that the spurs can remain a playoff team when Duncan retires.

---

I agree with Rascal completely.

No one can argue with the unheralded success of the FO and they deserve all the praise fo their approach. Duncan's brilliance (on and off the court) certainly makes the Spurs scouting and drafting strategy palatable. Even still, the FO has largely ignored the domestic talent pool. That's the reason that Duncan is THE only "home-grown" player on the roster that was originally drafted by the Spurs.

I'll say this again. As brillant and adept as the Spurs have become in scouting and drafting international talent, I'd like to see them spend a similar amount of effort tapping into the domestic market. Contrary to popular belief, there can be value found in the later rounds of these drafts.

nice article...

Ginobili was drafted 9 years ago and Parker 7 years ago. Since then the success of the FO and drafting has not been so stellar.

:lol

Yeah drafting a starting center that will average close to a double double at the 28th pick, is signs a FO is horrible.

The signing of Michael Finley was huge, due to him being a HUGE name, they beat out Miami, Chicago, and many others FOR him.

Ime Udoka after he performs in the playoffs, will make you haters straighten out and think "man thats a good signing"

Of course you won't admit it, cause Ploto and Rascal are never wrong.

The fo sucks, the championships they've won are flukes blah blah blah.

Of course Rascal is the same dumbfuck who wanted to trade Ginobili for Vince fucking Carter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ploto

Ginobili was drafted 9 years ago and Parker 7 years ago. Since then the success of the FO and drafting has not been so stellar.

---

Spurs FO gets unilateral kudos for drafting Parker, Ginobili and Duncan, as well as the surrounding talent around them. Well deserved. However, let's not go overboard.

Starting this offseason and the next couple of seasons thereafter will determine if the FO can continue to field the type of talent around the Big Three to remain a championship contender.

Looking forward to seeing the future development and contributions of Ian and Tiago.

I agree that Duncan makes them look alot better than they really are. They have done a great job of finding cheap role players on the free agent market or via trade that helped them win championships, such as:

FA: Mario Elie, Danny Ferry, Robert Horry, Fabricio Oberto, Kevin Willis, Jerome Kersey, Malik Rose
Trades: Speedy Claxton, Antonio Daniels, Steve Kerr, Nazr, Will Perdue

And on scouting talent their FO found and signed all the players below to 10 day contracts:
Raja Bell, Stephen Jackson, Ira Newble, Devin Brown, Matt Carroll, Jamie Feick, Jason Hart, Jaren Jackson

Drafted in the second round Gordon Giricek, Manu Ginobili, Luis Scola.

They passed and didnt overpay for Derek Andersonand Nazr Mohammad . The teams those two players did sign with greatly regretted it.

They do at times make mistakes but again are quite skilled at the ability to get rid of those mistakes they have made, such as trading Rasho to Toronto and Malik Rose to NY

Our FO drafted but did not select Leandro Barbosa or John Salmons. Those players were selected by Phoenix and Philly and shiped out via trade right afterwards

It's always amusing to see people bitch about not having 15 stars on this team.

Once a team has three guys who put them over the cap and consistently drafts around #30, there aren't going to be many star acquisitions.

spurfans are spoiled.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Civilfatman

Our FO drafted but did not select Leandro Barbosa or John Salmons. Those players were selected by Phoenix and Philly and shiped out via trade right afterwards

---

Salmons is having quite a breakout year.

i was under the impression that the spurs drafted leandro barbossa in behalf of the suns.

In 1999, San Antonio had the 57th overall pick, unlikely to acquire anyone or anything of value. They settled for some Argentinian kid named Ginobili - arguably one of the best draft picks in NBA history.
:clap :clap :clap

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by T Park

:lol

Yeah drafting a starting center that will average close to a double double at the 28th pick, is signs a FO is horrible.

The signing of Michael Finley was huge, due to him being a HUGE name, they beat out Miami, Chicago, and many others FOR him.

Ime Udoka after he performs in the playoffs, will make you haters straighten out and think "man thats a good signing"

Of course you won't admit it, cause Ploto and Rascal are never wrong.

The fo sucks, the championships they've won are flukes blah blah blah.

---

T Park (and Civilfatman) are on the money. Add to his egs - Malik and his overpaid contract for Mohammed to help us win in 2005, Kevin Willis, Steve Kerr, Horry, etc etc. The Spurs don't make FLASHY signings, they make smart ones and that has been a big part of 4 rings.

The draft has been a little less successful recently, but drafting in the late first round is never a lock, and we've also traded a bunch of picks over the last decade. Beno, for example, was a great draftee who just didn't work out here. And Splitter will be good, not to mention Mahinmi and all the guys we've got stashed overseas, some of whom will make it over.

I think you're dead wrong on this one, rascal.

A big part of 4 rings is Duncan. Without Duncan there are no championships in San Antonio. As soon as Duncan stepped on the floor in his first game the spurs became instant contenders. He is that good.

That lucky lottery ball that got the spurs Duncan defined the spurs success not any front office signings or trades that they made. Because the moves that they have made or haven't made have produced very little talent as compared to what other teams have done.

Since there has not really been any dominate teams inj the league like the Bulls of the 90's or Lakers of the 80's or Celtics when they had Parrish /Bird/ McHale or even the lakers teams with Kobe and Shaq the spurs have been able to win with a great player like Duncan and two great late draft picks and a bunch of role players. Its all about timing in life and the spurs were fortunate to have Duncan during an era where there are not any really dominate teams.


All the front office had to do is surround Duncan with average players (which they did)and they were good enough to win. Yes Horry Kerr and S Jackson hit some big key clutch shots during the playoffs to help win games but exchange those guys with similar talented players and the results come out the same. There are many nba players that could have played with Duncan and won.

Why didn't the spurs land R Wallace when he was given away for next to nothing or V Carter? Or the future star C Butler when he was availabe at a discount price.

The spurs made two great draft picks to get manu and Parker where they did in the draft and got the lucky bounce of a couple ping pong balls to get Duncan and Robinson and that is where lies their success it isn't because there is anything special about their front office moves because generally their front office moves have not been overall very good. They have won despite them not because of them because Duncan is that good.

Someone listed Perdue as a good move. I remember he wsn't even good enough to play in a championship series game his last year in SA. Steve Smith was a bad move. Hedo Turk did not work out. A Daniels was supose to be a star that never happened. Nesterovic (who was not even worth playing in the playoffs his last year) ended up a bust and was the big free agent signing they waited two years for because they targeted Kidd and could not get him. Muhammed and Claxton had short stays. Kerr had one or two good playoff games and he is listed as one of the better moves the team has made.

Overall the spurs success at getting players through trades or free agency has not been good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by T Park

:lol



The fo sucks, the championships they've won are flukes blah blah blah.

---

:lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rascal

The spurs have not been good with trades or with free agents. So many good players have changed teams but they don't land with the spurs.

Two excellent draft picks in Parker and Manu but little else from the draft is helping the team. Its basically a team that rides on the greatness of Duncan.

Elson, Oberto and Finley are average players at best and Scola and Barbosa are not on the spurs so those draft picks did not amount to much.

I have seen little from the front office in player acquisistions to convince me that the spurs can remain a playoff team when Duncan retires.

---

I couldn't agree with this more. Tim Duncan's greatness is what carries the franchise more than anything else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

It's always amusing to see people bitch about not having 15 stars on this team.

Once a team has three guys who put them over the cap and consistently drafts around #30, there aren't going to be many star acquisitions.

spurfans are spoiled.

---

:tu Agreed - it's pretty difficult to get a star player when drafting that low for so many years. And the reason for that low draft position is obvious.

Though I would have liked to have gotten our hands on Josh Howard when he was available but you can't win them all.

Does the Spurs front office deserve credit for the Barbosa deal?

I thought we just picked him for Phoenix and sent him there way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rascal

A big part of 4 rings is Duncan. Without Duncan there are no championships in San Antonio. As soon as Duncan stepped on the floor in his first game the spurs became instant contenders. He is that good.

That lucky lottery ball that got the spurs Duncan defined the spurs success not any front office signings or trades that they made. Because the moves that they have made or haven't made have produced very little talent as compared to what other teams have done.

Since there has not really been any dominate teams inj the league like the Bulls of the 90's or Lakers of the 80's or Celtics when they had Parrish /Bird/ McHale or even the lakers teams with Kobe and Shaq the spurs have been able to win with a great player like Duncan and two great late draft picks and a bunch of role players. Its all about timing in life and the spurs were fortunate to have Duncan during an era where there are not any really dominate teams.


All the front office had to do is surround Duncan with average players (which they did)and they were good enough to win. Yes Horry Kerr and S Jackson hit some big key clutch shots during the playoffs to help win games but exchange those guys with similar talented players and the results come out the same. There are many nba players that could have played with Duncan and won.

Why didn't the spurs land R Wallace when he was given away for next to nothing or V Carter? Or the future star C Butler when he was availabe at a discount price.

The spurs made two great draft picks to get manu and Parker where they did in the draft and got the lucky bounce of a couple ping pong balls to get Duncan and Robinson and that is where lies their success it isn't because there is anything special about their front office moves because generally their front office moves have not been overall very good. They have won despite them not because of them because Duncan is that good.

Someone listed Perdue as a good move. I remember he wsn't even good enough to play in a championship series game his last year in SA. Steve Smith was a bad move. Hedo Turk did not work out. A Daniels was supose to be a star that never happened. Nesterovic (who was not even worth playing in the playoffs his last year) ended up a bust and was the big free agent signing they waited two years for because they targeted Kidd and could not get him. Muhammed and Claxton had short stays. Kerr had one or two good playoff games and he is listed as one of the better moves the team has made.

Overall the spurs success at getting players through trades or free agency has not been good.

---

You definitely have a good arguement. I was always frustrated with the FO intil Duncan came along. Way too furgal and conservative at times. Duncan definitely makes them look alot better than they really are


other random thoughts...

They should have kept Stephen Jackson around. If he would have stayed I think we would have beaten the Mavericks two years ago and repeated.

Robert Horry's stint with the Spurs is completely overrated. Even in the piston playoff series that everybody remembers, he was extremely inconsistent. He was being owned by the pistons for three quarters and finally decided to play in the fourth quarter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Civilfatman

They should have kept Stephen Jackson around. If he would have stayed I think we would have beaten the Mavericks two years ago and repeated.

---

This has been addressed many times.

Jax wasn't let go. He left. The Spurs made an offer which he rejected...and ended up taking less money in the end.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nfg3

:tu Agreed - it's pretty difficult to get a star player when drafting that low for so many years. And the reason for that low draft position is obvious.

Though I would have liked to have gotten our hands on Josh Howard when he was available but you can't win them all.

---

Amen and Amen again :tu

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by travis2

This has been addressed many times.

Jax wasn't let go. He left. The Spurs made an offer which he rejected...and ended up taking less money in the end.

---

If you consider a low ball offer an offer than yeah. Tony Parker almost left too because of this same tactic

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rascal

A big part of 4 rings is Duncan. Without Duncan there are no championships in San Antonio. As soon as Duncan stepped on the floor in his first game the spurs became instant contenders. He is that good.

That lucky lottery ball that got the spurs Duncan defined the spurs success not any front office signings or trades that they made. Because the moves that they have made or haven't made have produced very little talent as compared to what other teams have done.

---

I would tend to disagree with this. Yes, Duncan is that good and can make most teams instant contenders, but the FO has done subtle moves that aims to increase team chemistry rather than on talent.

You don't need 8 tower speakers at home when you already have two great ones, all you need are satellite speakers, a subwoofer, good cables, etc ... to make the system work. If you put 8 tower speakers in, the sound would be terrible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rascal

Since there has not really been any dominate teams inj the league like the Bulls of the 90's or Lakers of the 80's or Celtics when they had Parrish /Bird/ McHale or even the lakers teams with Kobe and Shaq the spurs have been able to win with a great player like Duncan and two great late draft picks and a bunch of role players. Its all about timing in life and the spurs were fortunate to have Duncan during an era where there are not any really dominate teams.

---

The league has changed, and it would be extremely difficult to build teams with talent that is head and shoulders above everybody else due to luxury taxes, salary cap and maximum salaries. Back in the 80s, players were being paid much less than now. Jordan was paid $3m/ during his days with the Bulls in the late 80s, Magic had a 25 year $25 mil deal that was preposterous back in the day. Shaq makes about that in 1 year today.
There are still teams that are burning money for a supposedly talented roster, but not all of them are getting the expected results (NY, Miami), only the Suns and Mavs are enjoying the level of success that a large payroll would come to expect.

The Spurs were not fortunate to live in an era with no "dominant" team, they adapted, and drafted two all-star level players very late in the draft and built a team that accentuates the talents of its franchise player(s).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rascal

All the front office had to do is surround Duncan with average players (which they did)and they were good enough to win. Yes Horry Kerr and S Jackson hit some big key clutch shots during the playoffs to help win games but exchange those guys with similar talented players and the results come out the same. There are many nba players that could have played with Duncan and won.

Why didn't the spurs land R Wallace when he was given away for next to nothing or V Carter? Or the future star C Butler when he was availabe at a discount price.

---

Rasheed Wallace was making close to $17 million when he was traded from the Blazers to the Hawks, and subsequently to Detroit. The Spurs just didn't have the cap space or the chips to acquire him.

Carter was traded for Mourning (who subsequently screwed the Raptors by forcing a buyout) and cap relief, which could trump whatever the Spurs could offer at the time, unless you want them to give up Parker and a young Ginobili, which I doubt the Raptors would bite back then with their development.

Butler was traded for a former #1 pick in Brown. While it is now confirmed he is a bust, back then, there were still those who believe he was a victim of Jordan's scorn and a change of scenery could unlock his potential. Again, that was way more than the Spurs could offer.

As strange as it sound, outside of the big 3, the Spurs have very little in terms of trade value, and that is not much of a surprise, since:
1) to have 3 franchise level players, you are lucky to be able to afford anything else.
2) to win championships require experienced veterans, while they are great for immediate term success, they are generally terrible trade chips, unless they have large expiring contracts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rascal

The spurs made two great draft picks to get manu and Parker where they did in the draft and got the lucky bounce of a couple ping pong balls to get Duncan and Robinson and that is where lies their success it isn't because there is anything special about their front office moves because generally their front office moves have not been overall very good. They have won despite them not because of them because Duncan is that good.

---

The acquisition of Finley (obviously due to Duncan), Barry (again, due to Duncan) has been spot on to fill the outside shooting woes the Spurs had in the early 00's.
Bowen's signing has been fantastic.
Horry provided immense value.
Rasho, though disappointing ultimately, provided short-term help in 04 and 05.
Malik Rose provided great help in the early 00's.
Stephen Jackson was acquired for nothing and provided obvious help. Though he ultimately decided to leave, it was his decision and his decision alone.
Speedy Claxton was a great given his salary. Again, he opted for greener pastures.

There are some that didn't pan out, like Ron Mercer, Derek Anderson and Hedo Turkoglu, but overall, it appears you are short-changing the Spurs FOs ability.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rascal

Someone listed Perdue as a good move. I remember he wsn't even good enough to play in a championship series game his last year in SA. Steve Smith was a bad move. Hedo Turk did not work out. A Daniels was supose to be a star that never happened. Nesterovic (who was not even worth playing in the playoffs his last year) ended up a bust and was the big free agent signing they waited two years for because they targeted Kidd and could not get him. Muhammed and Claxton had short stays. Kerr had one or two good playoff games and he is listed as one of the better moves the team has made.

---

A Daniels was a star that never was, but he was acquired for Carl Herrera and Felipe Lopez, what more could you ask for? Most of the players you rant about comes with VERY little in terms of cost, it's not like they traded a #5 pick for any of them. And I would expect any FO, no matter how good they are, to make a couple of bummer trades.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rascal

Overall the spurs success at getting players through trades or free agency has not been good.

---

On the contrary, I would like to hear what possible trades or acquisitions (reasonable ones of course), that could have significantly improved the Spurs, now that you have the benefit of hindsight.

Quote:

---

Why didn't the spurs land R Wallace when he was given away for next to nothing or V Carter? Or the future star C Butler when he was availabe at a discount price.

---

Because at the time he was available, Sheed was an unhappy nutcase who had just led the league with 41 techs - also, he wanted to play in Detroit. Vince Carter - who wants him? Ego-driven, over-rated and overpaid. Caron Butler - you can't get it right every time.

You say Nazr and Claxton were short-term signings - yes, but they were short term signings that were crucial in the 2003 and 2005 rings.

And what about the contracts Manu and TP are on? Two of the best value for $ contracts in the NBA.

Once again, the Spurs FO isn't flashy, but they've done a great job of surrounding Timmy with low-ego, high chemistry guys who'll do anything to win, and that has resulted in 4 rings. You simply can't argue with those results.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Civilfatman

If you consider a low ball offer an offer than yeah. Tony Parker almost left too because of this same tactic

---

:rolleyes

Read my lips...HE TOOK LESS MONEY!!

Nice to see Boston representing well. The Spurs should be up there as they won 4 titles this past decade.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Civilfatman

If you consider a low ball offer an offer than yeah. Tony Parker almost left too because of this same tactic

---

Talk about revisionist history. Jax took less money elsewhere and Tony wasn't even close to leaving.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Melmart1

Talk about revisionist history. Jax took less money elsewhere and Tony wasn't even close to leaving.

---

But Jax took less because he felt he wasn't getting enough here, and hoped to play for one year and earn the real deal he felt he deserve.

R Wallace would have been great on the Spurs. He still would be playing and helping the team. He has a nice perimeter jump shot and plays enough defense to not be a liability on the defensive end. He is better then what the spurs have now along side Duncan. He was a player the spurs should have targeted hard for and a great front office would have made it work.


The spurs had enough on the roster to make some type of package offer (Hedo, Rasho, Horry, Rose etc.) for Wallace. If Portland took any offer the spurs made thats another story but at least the spurs should have tried to get him and I didn't hear that they even tried or had any interest.

He was traded twice that year so they had two chances to try to make something work out but I heard nothing that they were even interested in Wallace. And I remember most on this board did not want to take a chance with Wallace. So Det. gets him and goes on to win the championship that year. Det. also had 3 top players on the team at the time with Billups, Hamilton and B Wallace so the excuse the spurs could not get him because they had 3 top players is just that, an excuse.

When I see the results of player acquisitions from trades and free agent signings under the Pop/RC era the spurs are not even close to what other teams have done. Their success is riding Duncans greatness.

I knew C Butler was going to be a great player as soon as he came into the league and was a bargain to trade for but I never heard the spurs even attempted to get him.

NE took a chance with Moss and look how that has worked out. Thats a great move by a great front office. The spurs don't take any chances and would rather choose the conservative route and not make a trade, thats why they have very little to show for in player acquisistions through trades. And the free agents they choose to sign have been weak. S Smith and Rasho are good examples. Neither of those guys were anything better than backup role players.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rascal

R Wallace would have been great on the Spurs. He still would be playing and helping the team. He has a nice perimeter jump shot and plays enough defense to not be a liability on the defensive end. He is better then what the spurs have now along side Duncan. He was a player the spurs should have targeted hard for and a great front office would have made it work.


The spurs had enough on the roster to make some type of package offer (Hedo, Rasho, Horry, Rose etc.) for Wallace. If Portland took any offer the spurs made thats another story but at least the spurs should have tried to get him and I didn't hear that they even tried or had any interest.

---

Rasho and Horry signed that summer, I am not sure if they could be traded that soon after signing. But even if they were, Rasho, and Rose were both on the books for a while, and there is no way Atlanta or Portland would take on those contracts.

Atlanta specifically acquired Wallace to clear cap space http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=1739128, and there is no way they would take on those contracts either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rascal

He was traded twice that year so they had two chances to try to make something work out but I heard nothing that they were even interested in Wallace. And I remember most on this board did not want to take a chance with Wallace. So Det. gets him and goes on to win the championship that year. Det. also had 3 top players on the team at the time with Billups, Hamilton and B Wallace so the excuse the spurs could not get him because they had 3 top players is just that, an excuse.

---

The Spurs didn't have the necessary expiring contracts to make that trade. Getting Rasheed Wallace that year would have killed any cap flexibility down the road, and would make it extremely difficult to sign Manu Ginobili (summer of 04) and Parker (summer of 05) when they contracts were up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rascal

When I see the results of player acquisitions from trades and free agent signings under the Pop/RC era the spurs are not even close to what other teams have done. Their success is riding Duncans greatness.

I knew C Butler was going to be a great player as soon as he came into the league and was a bargain to trade for but I never heard the spurs even attempted to get him.

NE took a chance with Moss and look how that has worked out. Thats a great move by a great front office. The spurs don't take any chances and would rather choose the conservative route and not make a trade, thats why they have very little to show for in player acquisistions through trades. And the free agents they choose to sign have been weak. S Smith and Rasho are good examples. Neither of those guys were anything better than backup role players.

---

Again, Butler was traded for a former #1 pick who many felt still had potential (those proved to be wrong). Who would have the spurs traded to get Butler? It's nice that you chose an NFL team as a franchise that took risks, but last time I checked, the Spurs were in the NBA and has won 4 titles by building a versatile team that can score inside and out, can run, play half-court, defend and score.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Melmart1

Talk about revisionist history. Jax took less money elsewhere and Tony wasn't even close to leaving.

---

Spurs offered Stephon around the same they gave Matt Bonner & Jaren Jackson (3 yrs/ 9 mil). By the time him and his agent realized they werent going to get what they wanted (the mid-level exception) from the Spurs the market had dried up so he signed with Atlanta for the vet minimum. The following year he got 6 year/ 36 million from Indiana through a sign and trade.

How is that less money?

The Spurs FO gaged the free agent market well that year and knew that was the best offer he was going to get that summer. Knowing this the Spurs FO thougt they could take advantage of the situation and get him to accept a low ball offer. This apparently alienated him so much that he decided to accept an even lower offer from Atlanta.

A couple things.

You can't always measure the success of a move based on his stats or playing time in a specific series. The playoffs in the NBA are about matchups and certain players over the years for the Spurs have not fit into the plan against the likes of Dallas or Phoenix or the Lakers. Nine times out of ten it came down to defensive matchups and if you start to sacrifice offense for defense in the playoffs you go home early and often.

Guys like Will Perdue, Steve Smith, Jerome Kersey, Danny Ferry and even Kerr who had a hard time getting alot of time were vital cogs in terms of experience, leadership, maturity in the locker room and on the road and certainly helping in the player development and on the bench.

Other players who have been very important to this franchise have been great practice players and energy guys who force the likes of Bowen and Duncan to work constantly and in the same respect control that intensity with calculated and focused efforts to help them develop.

Anybody can argue this player never did squat. Perfect example is Steve Smith in the playoff run years ago. Go back and ask the players and coaches how much experience and knowledge this man has of the game. He and Ferry used to call out the other teams in bounds plays and half court sets in practice and from the bench during the game. In the NBA practice time is very limited so Pop has always had the philosophy that he focuses on the team and what the Spurs do rather than over prepare for an opponent and allow bad habits to dictate a lack in their execution.

Pop has done several things to turn this franchise into an example league wide. However his greatest quality is knowing that the TEAM is bigger than any one individual including himself. That type of attitude has trickled down from the very top on down. Everybody has a role and it's not always about a big name but the right attitude. :toast

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SenorSpur

Spurs FO gets unilateral kudos for drafting Parker, Ginobili and Duncan,

---

What else would you have done with the #1 pick that year?