SI article mentioning the spurs and tanking in 97

[K-State Spur]

The risk was in hoping the balls to bounce in their favor for the consensus #1 pick. What's your consolation prize? Keith Van Horn?

but there was NOTHING to be gained by rushing robinson back. any way you slice it, he was unavailable for most games and wouldn't have been near 100% for others. playoffs were out of the question.

there was no added risk to "tanking" vs. not tanking.

for it to be a gamble - we would have had to be risking on losing out on something of value by not rushing David back.

i may be arguing semantics here, but i don't think "gamble" was the right word.

[Blake]

The risk was in hoping the balls to bounce in their favor for the consensus #1 pick. What's your consolation prize? Keith Van Horn?

that makes no sense.

I agreed that holding back Robinson was wise. Did you not read that part?

I agree that you agreed it was wise.

I disagree that there was a gamble to do so.

If anything, the gamble would have been to play Robinson and risk injury.

[ohmwrecker]

but there was NOTHING to be gained by rushing robinson back. any way you slice it, he was unavailable for most games and wouldn't have been near 100% for others. playoffs were out of the question..

I'm not arguing this point. I don't see what is so difficult to understand here.

there was no added risk to "tanking" vs. not tanking.

Exactly what I said . . . again, you are arguing a moot point.

for it to be a gamble - we would have had to be risking on losing out on something of value by not rushing David back.

i may be arguing semantics here, but i don't think "gamble" was the right word.

Apparently so . . . the "gamble' they took was on the future of the franchise. Tim Duncan was the only franchise player in the draft. If they wanted to hedge their bets, they could have lost more games. They played out the season with their best hand (not risking Robinson) and let the ping pong balls fall were they may.

[ohmwrecker]

that makes no sense.

Why? Boston had the greatest chance of getting the #1 pick.

I agree that you agreed it was wise.

I disagree that there was a gamble to do so.

If anything, the gamble would have been to play Robinson and risk injury.

I'm talking about gambling on the lottery, not the season.

[Blake]

I'm talking about gambling on the lottery, not the season.

They were already in the lottery. There was no gambling involved.

[ohmwrecker]

They were already in the lottery. There was no gambling involved.

They certainly weren't guaranteed Duncan at #1. The rest of the draft was not going to yield a franchise player. That's the risk they took. Playing a lottery game with one prize is technically gambling.

It seems kind of pointless to argue the semantics of language when we basically agree on the whole of the argument.

[Blake]

They certainly weren't guaranteed Duncan at #1. The rest of the draft was not going to yield a franchise player. That's the risk they took. Playing a lottery game with one prize is technically gambling.

It seems kind of pointless to argue the semantics of language when we basically agree on the whole of the argument.

They took a pretty big gamble and they won.

If it was a big gamble on the Spurs part to sit Robinson, then I'm wondering what the safe bet would have been.

If we are in agreement, then it's really not an issue of semantics.......you just misspoke.

[wontstartdumbthreads]

ing . Can we just move on? Richard Jefferson's gayness wasn't debated this heavily.

[ohmwrecker]

If it was a big gamble on the Spurs part to sit Robinson, then I'm wondering what the safe bet would have been.

Again . . . never said it was a gamble to keep Robinson out.

If we are in agreement, then it's really not an issue of semantics.......you just misspoke.

How many championships do the Spurs win if they picked Keith Van Horn or Chauncey Billups in '97?

[wontstartdumbthreads]

OMG. Has anyone seen this yet?
Makes me wonder if RJ might be gay...

[Blake]

Again . . . never said it was a gamble to keep Robinson out.

Then what exactly was the big gamble the Spurs took?

[wontstartdumbthreads]

Then what exactly was the big gamble the Spurs took?

Extending Tony Parker.

[ohmwrecker]

Then what exactly was the big gamble the Spurs took?

I'm pretty sure I answered that question several times already. Don't you ever get tired of pointless arguing?

[wontstartdumbthreads]

I'm pretty sure I answered that question several times already. Don't you ever get tired of pointless arguing?

Did you watch the Criminal Minds spinoff last night? I'm curious about wheter to watch it. Forrest Whittaker is a great actor and I'm wondering how he does on TV.

[Blake]

I'm pretty sure I answered that question several times already. Don't you ever get tired of pointless arguing?

I already told you your explanation makes no sense.

You said sitting Robinson was no gamble.

Since they did just that, what exactly was the gamble the Spurs took?

[wontstartdumbthreads]

I already told you your explanation makes no sense.

You said sitting Robinson was no gamble.

Since they did just that, what exactly was the gamble the Spurs took?

There was no gamble. Now shut the up.

[wontstartdumbthreads]

Let's agree to disagree and just enjoy the rest of this great season.

Sounds like a plan. GO SPURS.

[Blake]

Did you watch the Criminal Minds spinoff last night? I'm curious about wheter to watch it. Forrest Whittaker is a great actor and I'm wondering how he does on TV.

I'm betting there are plenty of trolls that will give you all the attention you are craving downstairs in the nba forum.

[wontstartdumbthreads]

I'm betting there are plenty of trolls that will give you all the attention you are craving downstairs in the nba forum.

I don't ever post in the NBA forum.

[ohmwrecker]

Since they did just that, what exactly was the gamble the Spurs took?

That they would get Duncan with a lucky ping pong ball bounce. If we can agree that was indeed the goal, and we can agree that, other than keeping Robinson out, they did not intentionally lose games to increase their odds of selecting the #1 pick, then I fail to see why we are still arguing.

[Blake]

I don't ever post in the NBA forum.

since you are a begging for attention, I recommend you try it.

[wontstartdumbthreads]

since you are a begging for attention, I recommend you try it.

I'm begging for attention? I'm just bored. You're the one that is craving to be told "you were right".

[Blake]

That they would get Duncan with a lucky ping pong ball bounce. If we can agree that was indeed the goal, and we can agree that, other than keeping Robinson out, they did not intentionally lose games to increase their odds of selecting the #1 pick, then I fail to see why we are still arguing.

I'm not arguing just yet. I'm asking for clarification on your use of the word "gamble".

Keeping Robinson out was no gamble. Tanking games was no gamble.
You stated the Spurs took a big gamble.

I'm asking you to specifcally state what the gamble was.

[ohmwrecker]

I'm asking you to specifcally state what the gamble was.

That they would get Tim Duncan. I just can't state it any more simply. Sorry.

[Blake]

I'm begging for attention? I'm just bored.

Great, the NBA forum downstairs will give you all the attention you need to relieve your boredom.

You're the one that is craving to be told "you were right".

Na, attention telling me I'm right means nothing to me.