Spot Number 4 - Top 50 Spurs

[Spurminator]

I agree with timvp that Manu and Tony are very close, which is why I'm shocked that at the time that I write this Manu has 15 votes for the #4 spot while Tony has 2.

I think it will be close once we're at a point where it makes sense to vote for either of them. Say, Round 6...

[timvp]

Silas for 4. Without him, does the experiment of moving the Chaps to San Antonio succeed? Or do they go back to Dallas after one season and end up as a footnote in basketball history like teams such as the Oakland Oaks, Utah Stars, Miami Floridians, and so on? It's doubtful they'd even make it to the '75-'76 season, much less survive the merger in Dallas. On top of that, he was All-ABA first Team in '75 and '76, and our first superstar.

Silas is tough for me to place. His best season I'd rank better than anyone's season outside of Robinson, Duncan and Gervin. The problem is he played at that level for only two seasons. Then again, he gets forefather bonus points because he helped keep the team alive, so he should definitely be coming off the board soon.

I may very well have voted for him here if he didn't miss almost two years of his prime with injury. I'm going to have to think some more on Silas because a case could be made that he belongs on the list before Ginobili or Parker. He definitely had the highest peak of the three but his injuries hurt his case . . .

[FromWayDowntown]

In terms of players, I'd agree, but I think it can be argued that Drossos and Pop have done more for this team than any player was capable of doing.

That introduces a lot of Chicken/Egg arguments, of course... Without Duncan, Pop isn't the Pop we know, and without Pop, Duncan isn't the Duncan we know. Without Robinson/Gervin, maybe there are no Spurs, and without the Spurs who cares about Drossos, but without Drossos, there's no Gervin/DRob on the Spurs.... and so on.

Absurd was probably the wrong word to use there.

I balked at the sentiment that Gervin's accomplishments are diminished because his teams didn't win les. I also subscribe to the theory that without Gervin, the Spurs don't exist. While I think this is equally true of Drossos, I give a bump to Gervin because he ensured the Spurs' survival by what he did on the court -- it's truly an arbitrary line that I've drawn in that sense. So maybe it's not absurd to put Gervin lower than #3, but I'm offended by the suggestion that Gervin's career is somehow not as significant as the careers of players who won les, just because those players won les.

[timvp]

Disagree with the fantastic gm part. No star players acquired through trades in 10 years.

I know you are a fan of the big flashy trade but which rumor or available player did you want the Spurs to get? And what type of players did you want the Spurs to give up?

Two great low draft picks that worked out but other than that nothing significant thru the draft.

Despite being a winner year in and year out, Pop managed to use the draft to get three All-Star players (Parker, Ginobili and trading Bill Curley for Sean Elliott). That's pretty good for never having anything close to a lottery pick to play with.

Poor free agency decisions going for Kidd when they already had Parker and signing Rasho.

That was definitely a bad decision but even that mistake didn't cause a debilitating salary cap mess. Rasho was somewhat useful and then was salary dumped when his usefulness fell.

Passing on Sprewell when Spree was still a great player.

Which time are you talking about? The Spurs were supposedly about to trade Elliott and Perdue for him at one point ... but then Spree strangled Carlesimo and got suspended. The only other Spree trade rumor was Manu for Spree and I'm damn glad the Spurs didn't pull the trigger on that deal.

Getting players who only stay for 1 year for one reason or another D Anderson, Claxton, Muhammed, Turkoglu.

This is exactly why Pop and the Spurs should be commended for their GMing. The Spurs ended up being dead right when it came to not giving DA, Claxton and Nazr long-term contracts. Most every team would have locked those players up. But the Spurs saw a lack of commitment from DA (they were right), an injury risk in Claxton (they were right) and a player who had already peaked in Nazr (they were right). The easy thing would have been to keep those pieces around. The hard avenue was letting proven players go because you trust that you can get a replacement.

S Smith was not the player they thought they were getting.

The Spurs didn't think much of Smith when they got him. He was basically a salary match for DA. Their unwillingness to even discuss contract extension after the trade pretty much told the story that they saw him as a two-year rental.

And the long list of failures by the front office the last couple of years that have been noted on this site many times.

First of all, the failures are pretty minor in the grand scheme of things. Second of all, Buford has taken over almost all of the GM responsibilities in the last few years ... so that shouldn't really affect Pop one way or another in terms of grading his GMing skills.

[Bruno]

If you put a gun to my head and told me to pick which one is better today if they are both 100% healthy, I'd say Ginobili. On top of that, Ginobili is no doubt much more fun to watch, his likability factor is off the charts and his international exploits are astounding. All that said, take away the emotional aspect and it is hard to say that Ginobili deserves to make the list before Parker.

You had to look at the definition you have given for "top Spurs". In your own words it's someone who has helped make the Spurs one of the most successful franchises in the history of sport.
We shouldn't argue of who is better between Parker and Ginobili but who has helped the most Spurs.
Ginobili being fun to watch, likable or great with his NT hasn't really helped to make Spurs one of the most successful franchise. If you want to stick you have given for "top Spurs", you should take away the emotional aspect.

[Brutalis]

I agree with timvp that Manu and Tony are very close, which is why I'm shocked that at the time that I write this Manu has 15 votes for the #4 spot while Tony has 2.

I'm sure it has something to do with international/Argentina fans.

[timvp]

You had to look at the definition you have given for "top Spurs". In your own words it's someone who has helped make the Spurs one of the most successful franchises in the history of sport.
We shouldn't argue of who is better between Parker and Ginobili but who has helped the most Spurs.
Ginobili being fun to watch, likable or great with his NT hasn't really helped to make Spurs one of the most successful franchise. If you want to stick you have given for "top Spurs", you should take away the emotional aspect.

Exactly. Right now, I'm leaning toward voting for Parker over Ginobili when the time comes due to the reasoning in that post you quoted. I'm pretty confident in my breakdown but I am still open to suggestion.

[Mr.Bottomtooth]

And you gotta put someone other than Holt in the polls. With all his haters here, you know he ain't winning anything soon.

[spurs_fan_in_exile]

And you gotta put someone other than Holt in the polls. With all his haters here, you know he ain't winning anything soon.

Well there should be plenty of Spurs/Cowboys fans who can at least recognize the value of an owner who isn't a meddling drama queen.

[timvp]

And you gotta put someone other than Holt in the polls. With all his haters here, you know he ain't winning anything soon.

Yeah, I don't think anyone has voted for Holt yet ... even as a joke

However, people should start making suggestions on who to add to the list. Kenon, Mitc and AJ immediately come to mind.

[Mr.Bottomtooth]

Yeah, I don't think anyone has voted for Holt yet ... even as a joke

However, people should start making suggestions on who to add to the list. Kenon, Mitc and AJ immediately come to mind.

Well it's obvious Pop is gonna win this one, so I'd put in AJ in his spot for the next poll. Then take out Holt and put in Larry Kenon. Honestly, I don't know much about Red McCombs so I'm skeptical about having him in the polls. It could just be the lack of knowledge saying that, but if he were taken out I'd put in Johnny Moore in his place.

[FromWayDowntown]

However, people should start making suggestions on who to add to the list. Kenon, Mitc and AJ immediately come to mind.

Alvin Robertson? Artis Gilmore? Bob Bass?

[tlongII]

Popovich?

[Bruno]

Bruce ?

[Mr.Bottomtooth]

Damn, this project makes me feel like I need to study Spurs history all over again.

[tlongII]

I would like to wait and see Popovich successfully coach a team without Duncan or Robinson before even calling him a "good" coach.

[timvp]

Alvin Robertson? Artis Gilmore? Bob Bass?

Where Bob Bass is placed will be interesting. IIRC, he was the GM from 1974-75 to 1993-94. With a limited budget, he helped keep the Spurs elite for most of the years during that stretch. Add in his coaching stints and I think he deserves to be pretty high on this list.

It's going to be a tough sell though because Bass took the fall most of the time when it was the ownership being cheap.

[tlongII]

I think it should be automatic that you put James Silas here.

[baseline bum]

For me, there's one thing that clearly separates Manu and Tony: Manu is our go-to guy at the end of games. Our best play when the game is on the line is usually 'get the ball to Manu and get the out of the way', and it's pretty effective.

My top 10 is:
1. Tim, 2. Dave, 3. Ice, 4. Si, 5. Pop, 6. Manu, 7. TP, 8. Special K, 9. Bruce, 10. Sean

[baseline bum]

Where Bob Bass is placed will be interesting. IIRC, he was the GM from 1974-75 to 1993-94. With a limited budget, he helped keep the Spurs elite for most of the years during that stretch. Add in his coaching stints and I think he deserves to be pretty high on this list.

It's going to be a tough sell though because Bass took the fall most of the time when it was the ownership being cheap.

Gotta love Bass for selling high on Alvin and getting TC. Gotta be a bit ticked about passing on Barkley 3 years later though.

[duncan228]

Where Bob Bass is placed will be interesting. IIRC, he was the GM from 1974-75 to 1993-94. With a limited budget, he helped keep the Spurs elite for most of the years during that stretch. Add in his coaching stints and I think he deserves to be pretty high on this list.

It's going to be a tough sell though because Bass took the fall most of the time when it was the ownership being cheap.

Some info on Bass from a recent article:

http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=103208

[FromWayDowntown]

I think Bass will always be an underrated part of what has made the Spurs. It was telling to me to be at the AT&T Center for one of those nights this past season where the halftime show was the tribute to Bob Bass -- the fact that Popovich stayed out on the floor for that ceremony (not immediately going to talk with his team) speaks volumes about what Pop thinks of Bob Bass. The fact that most of the brightest stars in the Spurs' galaxy were there is pretty telling, too. Bass kept the club afloat in the gap between Gervin's trade and Robinson's arrival (how those clubs made 2 playoff appearances is still beyond me) and built a club that should have played for a le in 1990.

He was sort of Popovich Light.

Thinking about this, shouldn't the list of nominees include the red chameleon?

[timvp]

Thinking about this, shouldn't the list of nominees include the red chameleon?

Good point. Without it we may instead be trying to figure out where Armon Gilliam fits into the top 50 St. Louis Spurs of all-time

[rascal]

Absurd was probably the wrong word to use there.

I balked at the sentiment that Gervin's accomplishments are diminished because his teams didn't win les. I also subscribe to the theory that without Gervin, the Spurs don't exist. While I think this is equally true of Drossos, I give a bump to Gervin because he ensured the Spurs' survival by what he did on the court -- it's truly an arbitrary line that I've drawn in that sense. So maybe it's not absurd to put Gervin lower than #3, but I'm offended by the suggestion that Gervin's career is somehow not as significant as the careers of players who won les, just because those players won les.

Agree. Gervin was the Spurs first star and help put the Spurs on the NBA map. He was the iden y of the team around the league. The Spurs were one of the most exciting teams in the league with their up tempo run and gun style and Gervin lead the way with his scoring les.

Gervins teams were just unfortunate to have to go up against the mighty Laker teams with Magic and Abdul-Jabber. I doubt that the last two or even 3 Spur champion teams could beat those Laker teams which are the best teams I have ever seen play.

[baseline bum]

Good point. Without it we may instead be trying to figure out where Armon Gilliam fits into the top 50 St. Louis Spurs of all-time

I thought the red chameleon was the good luck charm in '97. Either way, he belongs on the ballot.