The Doghouse Effect

[mrose31]

I think a lot of what it boils down to is Defense. If you don't play defense Pop is just not going to play you. No matter how good your offense. That is why Vaughn plays and Beno did not. I knew that as soon as Beno left he would do really well if he had played for an offensive type team like Suns, Warriors, or Kings. Hedo is pretty much same thing a really good shooter but not very defensive type player. That is why a lot of point guards who are pretty good offensive players but not good defense players did not play well or much for Van Exel, Carter, Damon. Rose and Rasho were actually good for spurs but slightly overpaid and we shipped them of at any chance we were given.

[objective]

Oh, didn't see this one. Thanks for mangling my words and ignoring the salient points. I wasn't trying to justify anything by comparing Jackson to Bonner. I pointed out that 3 years/ $9 mil is a pretty reasonable for a guard with some definite flaws in his game and only one good postseason on his resume. Especially in the wake of Jaren Jackson's failure (whose game and achievements in '99 were on par with Jax's in 03) and especially if the Spurs were keeping an eye on the horizon with regards to the potential Manu showed them in 03 as well. Bottom line for any free agent is that the market dictates your worth. Where were all the other teams waiting to swoop in and capitalize on the cheap Spurs "lowball" offer and lock Jax up long term? I'm sure there were other contenders with at least the MLE who were kicking down his door to give him what the Spurs wouldn't.

As for the impact on resigning Manu, it becomes a what if game. Make no mistake the priority in the '04 offseason was to sign Manu, see what they could get with the rest. If the Spurs go to the negotiating table with a few less million to offer and another SG who still has multiple seasons left on his contract, who knows what happens? Well, I guess Manu could still have signed with the Spurs, or he could have shown the sort of professionalism and commitment to winning that Jax did...

That seems a poor comparison to Jaren Jackson. Jaren Jackson was going to be 32 when the 99-00 season started, Stephen Jackson was going to be 25 at the start of the 03-04 season. Jaren's playoff scoring was 2/3rds that of Stephen Jackson. Stephen Jackson was much younger, bigger and could do more. And Stephen Jackson was a starter, Jaren was a back-up.

Speaking of market forces, what exactly were the market pressures that forced the Spurs to pay Bonner 3/9? That's right, there weren't any. No other bidders driving the Spurs to give 3/9 to a player who wasn't had zero impact on the 07 le. Again, there is no excusing the Spurs for underbidding on Jackson even though his agent was a jerk and their's was the highest offer among no offers.

[spurs_fan_in_exile]

That seems a poor comparison to Jaren Jackson. Jaren Jackson was going to be 32 when the 99-00 season started, Stephen Jackson was going to be 25 at the start of the 03-04 season. Jaren's playoff scoring was 2/3rds that of Stephen Jackson. Stephen Jackson was much younger, bigger and could do more. And Stephen Jackson was a starter, Jaren was a back-up.

There's some valid points there that make the contract they gave JJ look even dumber, but it doesn't change the very real deficiencies in Jax's game and that the Spurs were making this decision on the basis of one contract year performance. Some of the worst contracts get given out under those cir stances. 3/9 was reasonable for a player with Jax's skill set. Especially from a small market team that had it's eye on Jason Kidd and had another SG guard that had shown some very intriguing potential.

Speaking of market forces, what exactly were the market pressures that forced the Spurs to pay Bonner 3/9? That's right, there weren't any. No other bidders driving the Spurs to give 3/9 to a player who wasn't had zero impact on the 07 le.

Who in this thread is defending the Bonner contract? You keep bringing it up like the Spurs traded Jackson to open up a roster spot for Bonner. At the time he was not playing like a $3 million dollar man. BONNER'S CONTRACT WASN'T A GREAT MOVE. Happy?

Again, there is no excusing the Spurs for underbidding on Jackson even though his agent was a jerk and their's was the highest offer among no offers.

How do you underbid when no one else is pushing up the price? You say that the Bonner contract stinks for them giving him money when no one else wanted Bonner that at that price, but then on the Spurs for not doing precisely that for Jackson? They knew what Jax was worth to them and to every other team in the league. Jax and his agent didn't. Whose up is that?

[objective]

Bonner is being brought up in the context of what how performance plays a role in contract offers. Very easy. It illustrates poor or at least decision making from the Spurs because you have one player who performed very well and another player who did nothing yet both got the same offer, more than other teams offered either.

They knew what Jax was worth to them and to every other team in the league. Jax and his agent didn't. Whose up is that?

I don't care if Jax's agent ed up and screwed him over (though in the long run Jackson has in fact made more money than he would have if he accepted the Spurs offer, so it's hard to to say Jackson or his agent were stupid in the longterm when it comes to money). I care about the moves the Spurs make with regards to their roster and how it helps their chances to win a le in any given year.

In that regard, it is the Spurs' -up. The moves they make and the contracts they offer are their responsibility. And they -up sometimes. Every team does. Nothing wrong with admitting it.

--------------

Regardless, these contract matters have nothing to do overall with any doghouse so it's just pro-longing the thread.

However, there is something to be said about Jackson being doghoused the whole first season while Smith and Porter were stumbling all over themselves. And it should be noted that Jackson was well on his way to again being doghoused in 02-03, it wasn't until injuries to both Smith and Manu happened that forced Pop to play Jackson. No injuries to Smith = who knows.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Rasho plays much better as a #1 option when it comes to the bigman rotation. If anything, his inability to play with TD where he was a secondary man on the floor hurt him much more than simply "bad coaching".

And Stephen Jackson wanted too much money initially, and by the time he tried to go back to SA, they had already used up their cap space. If you look at his 1 year deal with Atlanta for the 2003-2004 season, it wasn't exactly big money when compared to what he was hoping to get.

Agree and disagree.

Rasho plays well as the primary big, but in a complimentary role he sucks... which is why he didn't hang here in SA. When Duncan went down that one season and Rasho was our low post presence, he was averaging a double double.

Disagree on Buckets. The Spurs low balled his ass, and it was a multi-year low ball offer. If they would have given him a one year offer with the idea of a longer term deal the year after, he'd still be here.

But they wanted him to take a sweetheart Bruce Bowen-esque deal when he was just entering the prime of his career. It was cheap, and the Spurs deserved to be called out for it.