Marcus, it's a lost cause with these guys. They're thick. Move on.
You're missing the point, it seems. The question is not Butler. Butler is a separate issue. The issue is Bonner. They paid Bonner the money they could have paid Scola, thinking Bonner could play for them. He had already been on the team for a year, so how they got that impression is beyond me, but the point you're missing is that Scola's money went to Bonner.
Thank you Mr. Body!! Finally someone with sense.
Let's not forget that the Spurs have had VERY few #1 picks in the Duncan era as well - all of which were at the very bottom of the round.
SA traded for Nazr M., Steve Kerr, Speedy Claxton, Kurt Thomas - That accounts for 5 #1 picks for those four players. I think most of these guys played a hand in SA championships, No?
It is very difficult to stay on top given the lousy drafting position they've had. I think every team in the NBA has had at least one lottery pick in the last ten years outside of the Spurs. It is realistic to think that this can continue indefinitely? Don't think so.
SA has done a good job of rebuilding on the run several times where the roster appeared to be too old ten years ago (1999) outside of Duncan, and yet they did it.
Unfortunately, without any opportunity to draft premium players, the FO has tried to swing for the fences for foreign guys in the last five years with limited success. I hope Ian can help next year. He has to.
Let's see, they have an athletic young big coming in next season. They can draft a couple of perimeter talents at #26 and 45 in this year's draft. They have their MLE (~$5.5 mil) and LLE (~$1.9 mil) to use in free agency. And this is to add to a team which was one healthy Manu from being back in the Finals. The situation is not as dire as you portray.
no gm thought scola would rebound like he did
had ming been more healthy scola would not have seen as many minutes and not put up as good as stats
if rc can get smith this time
it would help because manu can only play half the game and gets paid like a superstar
WHY in pop's helm have the spurs never been able to move up in the draft?
The alterna-view is that only by taking Butler off the books was signing Bonner even possible, which is kind of sad. That signing Scola was never even an option.
They couldn't trade Bonner's rights to move Butler.
spurs were counting on splitter to play along side duncan
they thought he and splitter would be better then scola nd duncan
They acquired a dizzying reputation for savvy, visionary drafting. This hurt in deals because teams were afraid of getting the short end of the stick. Ironic, as the Spurs actually weren't very good at savvy, visionary drafting.
Yes. I know.
They shouldn't have signed Bonner at all.
Exactly. When forced to do so, they've managed to do it.
Right. Somehow Spurs fans have take it at a given that they can just shake out international stars out of low draft picks. Mahinmi has the best shot of any in a while.Unfortunately, without any opportunity to draft premium players, the FO has tried to swing for the fences for foreign guys in the last five years with limited success. I hope Ian can help next year. He has to.
Then they would have been stuck with Butler instead of Bonner.
I know.
They were wrong.
Never trade away talent, especially experienced talent, and especially when you are an aging dynastic team.
Never trade away talent just to save a buck, especially experience talent, and especially when you are an aging dynastic team.
If Scola proves not to fit, you can shop him around after a year.
I think spurs shopped scola
The problem with that is R.C has a knack for trading players when their stock is at their lowest.
The athletic big coming in is young, green, and unproven. You have to assume he is better than expected, and has a flat learning curve. That is just blind hope.
Given the Spurs draft history in the past five years, assuming that the #26 and #45 picks will amount to anything is likewise blind hope.
Given the players available in the free agent class, assuming the Spurs will acquire anything more than a fringe contributor is blind hope.
Meanwhile, there still will be four players over the age of 35 expected to play major roles, and the member of the Big 3 who was completely gassed in the playoffs, and whose effectiveness is most tied to his energy level, is going to log heavy Olympic minutes for Argentina. Oh, and the E-N reporter in charge of relaying official Spurs spin already shared with us that the Spurs expect big things from the corpse of Michael Finley to spell said Big 3 exhausted player.
Really, thoughts of contention next season rely almost exclusively on blind hope.
Best-case scenario is that my guess of 48 wins is too optimistic, and they fall further down the standings and get a better draft pick in '09... oh, wait, they already gave away that pick.
Really, the best chances at championships are already past. The window may get pried back open a little bit for the '10-'11 season, but for the next two years the Spurs are just playoff fodder.
That's a cop out and an excuse. Other perennial playoff teams like Detroit and Houston seem to routinely find talent, despite their less-than-favorable drafting position. Detroit has literally transformed their bench overnight into one of the better benches in this league. That can only happen if you do not "throw away" draft picks, invest in scouting and make the right decisions.
We all know the draft is a crap shoot, which is why teams have to do their homework. For many years now the Spurs have carefully mined the international market, at the expense of the domestic market. Now, it's coming back to haunt them. With the influx of talent pouring into the drafts from various sources, a team can be successful, if it does it homework. So don't try and convince me that lower round picks are useless.
Look, the Euro drafting strategy was not a bad one. , it yielded Parker and Ginobili. It just should not have been the ONLY strategy. The strategy of adding experienced vets was also not a bad one. It yielded players like Kerr, Willis, Smith, Finley, et all. Again, it just should not have been the ONLY one. Adding at least 1 young player, even ever other year, would've helped fortify the bench to a point that perhaps this team would have had a more balanced roster. As has been pointed out, think what a boost the potential additions of a Josh Howard, a Luis Scola and even the development of Beno, would have made to this roster.
If they make the playoffs next year. We'll see a young and tough Portland team coming up, Oden healthy and maybe a good #13 pick added. The Clippers may manage a P.O. run with Brand back.
Ginobili may be 1/2 talent next year after the Olympics. The bench will be smeared .
The teams on the decline will be fighting to stay in the race. These include Dallas, Phoenix, and San Antonio. Denver has an outside shot of collapse as well.
The upshot is the Spurs get to keep their lottery-protected pick. I think they were wise enough to do that.
Phoenix and Dallas will be falling off the face of the earth. Those were essentially .500 teams following their panic trades.
We weren't much better, were we? All year we rode on an extremely strong first two months.
If Diop goes back to Dallas they can piece it together. Phoenix has a tougher road to hoe, but has a decent draft pick.
I place San Antonio's fortunes equal to Dallas and better than Phoenix, but they should all be at the very end of the playoffs picture.
Who really gives a if Howard doesn't want the ball in the fourth, we already have Tim, Manu, and Parker for that.
Stupid argument.
Dallas shot its wad with the Kidd trade, even if they get Diop back. Kidd is done.
I expect Dallas and Phoenix both to miss the playoffs, while the Spurs qualify in the lower half of the order.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote