10 R(S)easons to question the R.C. Buford

[tlongII]

the lakers are a 4-8 seed and not in contention for the le if not for the Gasol give-away. This would have been the fourth first round loss in a row if not for the grizzlies imho.

Well the fact of the matter is that they DID get Gasol. San Antonio hasn't done anything as far as acquiring top level talent in the last 7 years. I agree that you should enjoy the team you have, but giving the FO a free pass is a joke. Do you think we gave our FO a free pass during these recent 5 years that we didn't make the playoffs? NO! We pay good money for tickets to the games and these guys make MILLIONS of dollars! It's the job of the FO to stay compe ive at all times.

[Mel_13]

The lakers reloaded quickly. I don't care if its through trades or free agency a good front office will use all the necessary tools to get the players and trades and free agency are great ways to reload a team. The spurs have a bad track record getting players through trades and free agency.

Well if four years is quickly, then OK. Following the Shaq trade the Lakers went:

04-05 34-48 (Lottery, selected Bynum)
05-06 45-37 (1st round exit)
06-07 42-40 (1st round exit)

Do you remember the summer of 2007 and Kobe going on every talk show in the country criticizing the Laker FO and demanding to be traded? They only returned to the top of the NBA after acquiring Fisher and Gasol without having to give up any talent in return.

The Spurs have won 50 games (or the '99 equivalent) for 12 straight years.

You should at least give them the same timeframe to rebuild from this disastrous 54 win season that you appear to give the Lakers such credit for.

[Trimble87]

Well the fact of the matter is that they DID get Gasol. San Antonio hasn't done anything as far as acquiring top level talent in the last 7 years. I agree that you should enjoy the team you have, but giving the FO a free pass is a joke. Do you think we gave our FO a free pass during these recent 5 years that we didn't make the playoffs? NO! We pay good money for tickets to the games and these guys make MILLIONS of dollars! It's the job of the FO to stay compe ive at all times.

The lakers front office was smart enough to know A. How to answer a phone and B. how to say "OMG YES PLEASE!" They were doing nothing to "keep compte ive" until then. They were headed for another mid 40 win season and Kobe Bryant demanding another trade.

We dont give our FO a pass, but that same FO that everyone is dogging also picked up Roger Mason Jr and Drew Gooden. Two of the most influential pick ups of any team this year.

They missed some opportunities in the draft, but you know what so did 90% of the other teams. It isnt a science and we cant get it right every time.

[poop]

The front office sucks. No significant trades for an all star or even borderline star, no free agent difference makers. You hand Robinson and Duncan to any other front office to build around and they would win.

The Lakers won 3 les during Robinson and Duncans prime years together. The spurs are a pitiful front office getting handed Robinson and Duncan thru lottery luck and still getting outdone by the Lakers during Robinson and Duncans prime years together.

this is a good point.

also they made incredibly good picks with Parker and Ginobili but after that, their decisions have been overwhelmingly stupid. giving lots promising young guys away for nothing or flat out waiving them, because they arent grizzled 35 yr old veterans

[Mel_13]

Well the fact of the matter is that they DID get Gasol. San Antonio hasn't done anything as far as acquiring top level talent in the last 7 years. I agree that you should enjoy the team you have, but giving the FO a free pass is a joke. Do you think we gave our FO a free pass during these recent 5 years that we didn't make the playoffs? NO! We pay good money for tickets to the games and these guys make MILLIONS of dollars! It's the job of the FO to stay compe ive at all times.

Help me out here. You didn't give your front office a free pass during the 4 years your team missed the playoffs. Before that your team made the playoffs for 21 straight years. If I follow you, 21 straight years met your standard of compe iveness.

Now the Spurs have made the playoffs in 19 of the last 20 years, with only one season with less than 47 wins or its '99 equivalent. Please tell me how the Spurs FO have failed to, in your words, "do the job of the FO to stay compe ive at all times"?

[pjjrfan]

There can only be one champion every year, so for the last 10 years the Spurs, Lakers, Detroit, Miami and Boston can lay claim to being the lone survivor and the Spurs have done it 4 times without the benefit of high draft picks, perennial losers who have a wealth of talent haven't done squat, the draft has not produced a true blue chip player except for the 2003 trio of James, Wade and Carmelo and Paul and Williams in 2005. No other rookies have made a drastic change on any team. I think the track record is good and for the fact that when Tim retires this team regardless of how well Tony is playing will become just another good team that will contend but won't win anything. I can't argue with the Spurs current or past philosphy because they have those 4 les. While 29 other teams don't.

[Trimble87]

We have a lot of work to do this off season, and I mean a lot. But the fact is this is the first year since 99 that we arent serious contendors for the le, and thats only because of injuries (Duncan and Ginobili). Even 100% healthy the lakers would have been tough, but it would have been compe ive. We wont be compe ive with this same team next year imo, but if not for injuries we would be right where we want to be in this years playoffs.

There must be a lot of tired people on this board, what with all the hopping on and off the bandwagon.

[ProjectGSX]

Drafting late is a crap shoot, at best. Its very easy to look in the rear view mirror 2 or 3 years later and say 'hey, should have picked that other guy instead'. I think the real issue here is that the Spurs FO got an overblown reputation for picking Tony and Manu with late draft picks. It was good scouting, sure, but it was also a bit of luck that no one else picked them.

[spurspokesman]

I agree with some points you make. It sickens me when people talk about tim tony and manu winning rings.( Though they are the prime reason) The last time I checked it's five players on the court at A time. And in the winning years the role players were significantly better than those playing now.( Claxton. S jax antonio daniels,steve smith/Kerr rose barry horry just to name A few. I remember beind down to dallas 14 going into the fourth quarter when stephen jackson and steve kerr shot us back in. ( A time when the big three really couldn't get going.) If dallas had won that game who knows. But its the role players who often don't get the glory that make or break A team and our role players this year have let us down. This can be the reason for the tims decline. You can only put so much on A person and tim tony and manu cant do it alone. We won rings when we had real good role players. As much as the spurs have my loyalty I gotta face reality. They need help.

[BadOne]

I agree with some points you make. It sickens me when people talk about tim tony and manu winning rings.( Though they are the prime reason) The last time I checked it's five players on the court at A time. And in the winning years the role players were significantly better than those playing now.( Claxton. S jax antonio daniels,steve smith/Kerr rose barry horry just to name A few. I remember beind down to dallas 14 going into the fourth quarter when stephen jackson and steve kerr shot us back in. ( A time when the big three really couldn't get going.) If dallas had won that game who knows. But its the role players who often don't get the glory that make or break A team and our role players this year have let us down. This can be the reason for the tims decline. You can only put so much on A person and tim tony and manu cant do it alone. We won rings when we had real good role players. As much as the spurs have my loyalty I gotta face reality. They need help.

This, my friends was my ultimate point here. It's always gonna be till the day I die. But the team must evolve with the rest of the league. The big 3 will always be untouchable in my eyes and yes, Mason and Gooden were great pick ups, but their other players have become obsolete.


ALSO...

Sorry folkz, didn't mean to cause a ruckus...the post isn't saying that the FO doesn't find talent. There is no arguement there. The problem is them not utilizing or molding it.
I still say it loud and proud peeps! GO SPURS GO.
I just can't help but wonder what a difference it'd be right now if our starting team was this:

PG: G. Hill
SG: R. Mason [with Manu hurt and all]
SF: T. Ariza
PF: T. Duncan
C: D. Lee or Carl Landry

My bad on that. I totally meant Tony Parker as the starter. not George Hill.

Before my coffee intake for the morning. Forgive me.

[SenorSpur]

Not to overlook the current playoffs or anything like that, the Spurs are as resilient now as they've ever been before. There breakdown this season and post season is not at all at the fault of their players. not when you look at the bigger picture.

With an aging unit and injury plagued season, these San Antonio Spurs may look like the least talented group of Spurs we’ve seen since before Tim Duncan was drafted. What of, then, the supporting cast. How can the bench and role players be summarized? Age alone cannot be to blame for their inconsistencies, can it?

Oh, but YES!

If it were simply a matter of their offense being absent, then the same ol’ “too old” argument would not be an adequate explanation. Sometimes, the ball just won’t go in the hole. This is, however, not the case since both their offense and defense have significantly plunged this season. The losses last season and this season alike cannot be blamed on shoddy officiating alone. With the exception of a hobbled Manu Ginobili, the team’s stars were playing as their usual selves. It was their supporting cast that was clearly out matched against the Lakers, and in some games the Hornets. ]

I harped on this fact after the conclusion of last year's WCF. The Ginobili injury was a convenient excuse for many, but it masked the truly relevant issue - their supporting cast is simply overmatched from a skills, age and athleticism perspective. There's no question that Ginobili's injury and absence are HUGE. His greatness and contributions cannot be replaced. However, the fact that he is absent exposes this team for what they really are: OLD, SLOW and TALENT POOR. It's a sobering realization, but one that many Spurs fans, and the FO, need to realize.

There is no question that in their youth and early 30’s, the likes of a Michael Finley, Bruce Bowen, Fabricio Oberto, Jauque Vaughn Robert Horry and a Kurt Thomas were formidable players as teammates. The fact, however, is that all of these players are beyond their prime time years. Well beyond. Half of these guys are knocking on the door to 40. Bowen used to be the prime Kobe stopper in 03, even in 04, however he was barely in his early 30’s then. There is no disputing that for men at their ages, they are athletic, finely tuned hard working basketball players. Their basketball intelligence alone is superior to many. But they are up against, younger, faster, and sometimes more stronger players.

That is the key right there. We see evidence of this several times during the past two regular seasons, against teams like Philly, Orlando, OKC and Portland, who basically destroy the Spurs with a devastating blend of quickness, rebounding and athleticism. We saw it again in last year's playoffs versus the Hornets and Fakers. The Spurs have devolved into a team that routinely gets outquicked, outhustled and outrebounded by younger, quicker, healthier teams. Case in point: The Celtics and the Mavs ARE and older teams. However, they're not as old as the Spurs. The Spurs have gone too far on the other side of the bracket and have become a team that has a 3 bonafide superstar players, but one with a poor supporting cast.

So why is it that a perennial team whose standard of winning is almost always expected, never evolves? Unfortunately the one reason that the Spurs have been so great for the past decade, is the same reason they are declining…the front office. As General Manager, R.C. Buford has brought in some of the best role players this team has known to help out the big 3, and earlier on, the twin towers. The off season addition of Roger Mason Jr. is clearly a gamble he won. There have been many other role players in this teams past that have made the difference during their time in S.A. When you look at, however, what Buford has given to obtain these role players, one can’t help but wonder if it was worth it all. Yes the Spurs have 4 championships. Heck, had it not been for bad calls made down the stretch, they might have had 7 by now. Yet it is reckless in my opinion to only build a team around the veteran free-agent market, and not the draft.

Personally, I don't think "all eggs should be in a single basket". I think you need both. Solid veteran players, that still have some years of remaining shelf-life, can provide the necessary bench contributions needed to win championships. We've seen that. The operative words there are remaining shelf-life", rather acquiring them when they are past their prime. Additionally, there is value in having 2-3 younger players that can provide the much-needed, end-of-the-bench energy and productivity to offset the tired, veteran legs. In that way, you are building your next round of core contributors, which can help mitigate the type of sudden dropoff that we are apparently seeing now, in addition to helping extend the championship window.

With the exception of Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili, the Spurs have made nothing of their prospects from their drafts within this past decade since they drafted Duncan in 97. Why is it, that Buford and Pop only seek those who are seasoned [some over-seasoned] in their careers? They freely trade away invaluable picks every season of what could eventually become well proven leaders and all stars during the long run. And for what? 2-3 years MAX of consistent contributions as opposed to 1-2 years of serious molding and up to 10 years of consistent contributions.

Pop and RC continue to live and reap the benefits (and kudos) of the Manu and Tony drafts - and rightfully so. However that was 10 years ago. That's a long time without having infused at least one single contributor from a previous draft. I'm not counting Ian, because he's been injured and still a question mark. Beno's and Scola also don't count because both are both gone, so it was as though they were never here.

Could it be that Pop has grown too impatient with molding players and chooses to win now? Any and all true contingency plans in draft picks this team has had in the past 10 years, might have been traded if not given away to other teams. Other draft picks were spent on foreign players who were likely under contract with their respective overseas teams. Some of which may never play in an NBA game despite being drafted.

A good GM keeps one eye on the present, the other on the future. Pop the coach, certainly wants to win now. It's unclear what Pop the GM wishes to do. Perhaps we're seeing one of the disadvantage of having one individual with those dual roles.

As we look back, you’ve gotta wonder what could’ve been had it not been for the whole Jason Kidd free agent fiasco in 03-04. Even now, the Spurs 08 draft pick, George Hill, sees very limited playing time. [Although he’s seen a lot more than expected thanks to earlier injuries to Parker and Ginobili] Patience is truly a virtue, but it’s one we all know Pop has very little of. So what’s Buford’s excuse?

My personal rant on the Jason Kidd flirtation, and the subsequent passing over of Josh Howard, are well-do ented. The effects and end result of that combined decision, in my opinion, is unquestionably the biggest blunder of the the Pop/RC era. I will give the FO credit for taking some small steps in trying to get younger over this past offseason. However, it's painfully apparent that they've not done enough. Some hard decisions will need to be made this offseason.

[spurspokesman]

Cheers +1

[rascal]

There can only be one champion every year, so for the last 10 years the Spurs, Lakers, Detroit, Miami and Boston can lay claim to being the lone survivor and the Spurs have done it 4 times without the benefit of high draft picks, perennial losers who have a wealth of talent haven't done squat, the draft has not produced a true blue chip player except for the 2003 trio of James, Wade and Carmelo and Paul and Williams in 2005. No other rookies have made a drastic change on any team. I think the track record is good and for the fact that when Tim retires this team regardless of how well Tony is playing will become just another good team that will contend but won't win anything. I can't argue with the Spurs current or past philosphy because they have those 4 les. While 29 other teams don't.

Why do you say the spurs win without the benefit of high draft picks. Why do you fail to include Robinson and Duncan as high draft picks?

[Spursmania]

hindsight is 20/20.

[Kori Ellis]

Sorry folkz, didn't mean to cause a ruckus...the post isn't saying that the FO doesn't find talent. There is no arguement there. The problem is them not utilizing or molding it.
I still say it loud and proud peeps! GO SPURS GO.
I just can't help but wonder what a difference it'd be right now if our starting team was this:

PG: G. Hill
SG: R. Mason [with Manu hurt and all]
SF: T. Ariza
PF: T. Duncan
C: D. Lee or Carl Landry

Why would you want Hill starting over Parker?

(never mind, I just saw your later post)

[EricB]

Parker was drafted in 2001. It is now 2009. You realize that the person most credited with the drafting of Tony does not even work for the Spurs anymore.

RC Buford works somewhere else?

[Johnny RIngo]

I agree that the FO has been inept the past few years(standing pat after '07/letting Scola go). Buford and Pop must have been out of their minds when they thought they could make another playoff run with garbage like Bonner, Udoka, Vaughn, Finley, and Oberto on the team.

[Johnny RIngo]

The F.O. sucks. Still can't believe they'd thought the team would have a shot at a championship with the crap that's cluttering the Spurs bench.

[Marcus Bryant]

What's missing from this analysis is any mention of the fact that the Spurs are generally reluctant to pay the Luxury Tax and prefer to receive the payments instead. That kind of puts a crimp in the wheeling and dealing, no matter how much the armchair GMs want to pretend otherwise. Of course, it also forces bad basketball deals such as the Rose and Scola trades which were salary dumps. If you want to find fault in the FO, start with ownership.

How many deals have the Spurs had set up in which someone was willing to gift them talent for nothing?

And tlong, shut the up. The Spurs aren't owned by one of the wealthiest men on Earth who regards his sports franchises as hobbies he's willing to blow $ on.

[HarlemHeat37]

This front office HAS ed up many times..they have a big task this off-season, and we'll see how they respond..

most of you are idiots though..you guys don't realize how tough it is to succeed in the NBA..the Spurs have the NBA all-time record for most consecutive 50 win seasons in a row..4 les during that time span..do you guys realize how tough that is? do you realize how tough it is to continue that kind of success without having ANY good draft picks?..

Rascal is a Lakers fan, so ignore him..

David Robinson was washed up in 2001 and 2002..so why would it be surprising that a Spurs team with 1 superstar in Duncan, couldn't beat a Lakers team with 2 superstars and a similar supporting cast? Just because you drop the name David Robinson, it doesn't mean it's the same guy from the 90's..

The Lakers front office has rarely had to do too much..they've benefited heavily from the location and attraction of Los Angeles..from Kareem to Kobe..

how did the Lakers get Gasol? they got him from MISSING the playoffs, being eliminated early, and from Shaq signing due to location of the city..they traded Shaq and got Caron Butler..they traded Butler for Kwame Brown's big contract..they traded Brown, a prospect, and expirings for Pau Gasol..the Lakers paid their dues by missing the playoffs, and they benefited from their location, as usual..

where was the love for the Lakers front office when Kobe was asking for a trade? when they missed the playoffs in 2005? sorry, but the Lakers in 2002-2003 were in the same position that we are now..

the Celtics had to have multiple years of being horrible so they could stock up on prospects and picks, and they traded it for KG and Ray Allen..before last year, they were mediocre for a long time..

the Blazers have now just finally built a good team, after many years of mediocrity..

every front office is criticized..this team had an excuse last year with Manu, even if a lot of us don't believe it would have made a difference..they don't have an excuse for being eliminated in the 1st round this year, so we'll see how they respond..if we have a mediocre off-season, then I'll join all of you..

[Marcus Bryant]

Anyways, the Spurs struck gold early with international picks necessitated by the fact that they were working with low 1st and 2nd round picks. The rest of the league caught up with them in that department, based partly on the success the Spurs had with Ginobili and Parker (recall Auerbach or whoever laughing at the notion of drafting a French point guard).

Further, Duncan wanted them to chase Kidd in '03. Considering that he was also a free agent then, the Spurs did what they had to do.

Signing Scola when he was available would have cost the Spurs something like $13 mil in the 2007-08 season, between his salary, Butler's salary, the Lux Tax on both of their salaries, and Lux Tax distributions foregone. That's why we saw that dumb trade go down.

Then, of course, we have the fact that Pop basically wants experienced players on his team who can be counted on to perform. Yes, that can certainly create a situation in which you are stuck with an over the hill supporting cast and not much young talent in the wings waiting to take over. And then we had them put in the spot of having to replace David Robinson when he retired. As if that was easy. And, of course, people need to realize that high profile free agents may not find playing in the shadow of Duncan, Parker, and Ginobili that appealing in small market San Antonio.

[Marcus Bryant]

The Spurs gave up 3 picks due to them giving Duncan what he wanted ('03 with the Kidd chase and the two 1st rounders in the Rose trade - TD wanted him re-signed in 2002 & considering he was a free agent the following year, the Spurs did it. Then they dealt his contract when they found a taker and TD wasn't going to be a free agent soon). Ultimately, the Beno pick was a bust due to Pop's treatment of Beno and Beno's own baggery. But he's still in the league. I don't know if that's necessarily a failure on the part of the GM. Plus the Spurs had to deal him when his value was at its absolute lowest.

I think the trouble fans have is that they look back over the FO's history without any context and through the lens of simply what would create the largest collection of raw talent. Restrictions on payroll set in place by ownership and demands of the coach seem to be forgotten. If you want to find someone to criticize, start with the ownership. Then move on to Pop and criticize him for the formula that has brought home 4 Larry O'Briens.

[rascal]

The Spurs gave up 3 picks due to them giving Duncan what he wanted ('03 with the Kidd chase and the two 1st rounders in the Rose trade - TD wanted him re-signed in 2002 & considering he was a free agent the following year, the Spurs did it. Then they dealt his contract when they found a taker and TD wasn't going to be a free agent soon). Ultimately, the Beno pick was a bust due to Pop's treatment of Beno and Beno's own baggery. But he's still in the league. I don't know if that's necessarily a failure on the part of the GM. Plus the Spurs had to deal him when his value was at its absolute lowest.

I think the trouble fans have is that they look back over the FO's history without any context and through the lens of simply what would create the largest collection of raw talent. Restrictions on payroll set in place by ownership and demands of the coach seem to be forgotten. If you want to find someone to criticize, start with the ownership. Then move on to Pop and criticize him for the formula that has brought home 4 Larry O'Briens.

No doubt ownership is a problem. if they are too cheap to acquire young talent they need to step aside and get some owners in who have the money and are willing to pay to get the necessary talent.

The window has closed with assembling a team of over the hill players that will be successful enough to win another le for the spurs anymore.

[BadOne]

Sometimes I wonder if they could scrap the whole 2010 plans and use the money they've saved so far to make an offer to Carlos Boozer this offseason. Maybe work out a sign and trade deal with Toronto to get Shawn Marion too.

[Ocotillo]

I try (unsuccessfully) to restrain myself from getting into personnel and internet GMing until the Spurs are done with the playoffs but I am going to jump in here.

The Spurs by and large in the last decade have tried to use international leagues for development of younger players and signed free agent vets to fill out their roster. By having a roster of aging vets rather than having a mix of young'uns and vets, it is more difficult to make trades as well. George Hill is an exception this season.

Michael Finley, Bruce Bowen, Jacque Vaughn, Fab Oberto and Kurt Thomas are not going to fetch you much in the trade market. Now if you had put Hairston, Gist, Hill and an injured Mahinmi on the roster, they may bust and have zero trade value but if they show improvement and the ability to play in the league, all of a sudden, you have an asset for a trade if you deem one of the younger players is not a good fit for your team. Or at best, you have a future player developing within the system that will be a solid role player or maybe even starter down the road.

Bonner might be tradeable but his stock (never that high) is dropping and I hope the Spurs don't get caught the way they were with Beno and selling while he was a penny stock.

It is time to see what the "furiners" can offer to the team. If possible, in addition to Gist and Mahinmi in training camp, we need to do what it takes to get Javtokas and Sankidze in for a look. Splitter needs to feel some serious love in 2010 when he can opt out of Tau's deal.

As much as Roger Mason Jr. has done for the team, him and Bonner (plus prospects or picks) are our most tradeable assets. The front office has to make a hard choice about whether he is going to develop into a post-season performer. Based on the 4 games we have seen of him thus far, you have to trade him if the right deal comes along.

I'm at work, so I am just rambling and once the off-seaons starts, will put together a better post regarding my thoughts on what we should or should not do.