:brotha
That type of -talking is strictly PAY-PER-VIEW.
2 diametrically opposed views yet they are passionate about the same team.
Its a strange world but having these 2 be as staunch as the rest helps to keep forums like this into turning into a quick circle jerk. I'm off the opinion that just because we all don't think the same that that is a good thing AS LONG AS WE LIVE SILVER & BLACK.
2
If the Spurs win the Championship, I would expect that the person who invented the phrase "The Holting Pattern" to eat supersized portions of crow for however long we have been subject to his rantings.
Don't hold your breath. He'll claim that he has been a fan of the Spurs' front office for the longest time...longer than any of the rest of us and that he likes the fact that Holt makes decisions that defy conventional wisdom in today's NBA.
I know I'm not the only one who remembers the way Ghost ed about our team's old age constantly during the 99-00 and 00-01 seasons.
Everytime I ask Ghost exactly which minimum player was going to come in and be the next Malik Rose I hear nothing. BTW, WTF is with the way you act like Parker being a good player was some freaking fluke the Spurs didn't see coming?
Exactly bbum. The Spurs were too old then. Why couldn't they be young? He ed about that forever and never bothered to understand what role the salary cap played in that. That's the standard for the little . He whines without any effort to actually understand why. And it's always the same old . 24/7. Of course that is when he isn't coming up with quality takes such as "the Spurs need some ballas" and the Spurs "need a black assistant coach". Well, at least he said black instead of "negro".
I'm not going to repeat myself. I already dissected the MarcusBryant stance.
Here's the simple recap of my thinking:
The two superstar theory is one that was endorsed by MarcusBryant before in his arguments for Kidd in 2003. I agree that two stars is better than one and a nice supporting cast. (See: Los Angeles Lakers les 2000-02)
Payton could've put the Spurs over the top the past two years.
Payton said he wanted an extension from Seattle, not the team that was trading for him. Payton still doesn't have a contract.
The front office found Malik Rose once. I'm confident they could find another Malik Rose again. The front office has a history of finding such diamonds in the rough, baseline bum. I mentioned Stephen Jackson when he became a free agent. You want me to predict every undervalued free agent that the Spurs should get? Leave filling out the bench to the expert front office staff. I can't believe I'm discussing Malik Rose and GAry Payton in the same sentence!
Payton + Robinson + Duncan 2001-03 > Parker + Rose + Robinson + Duncan 2001-03 > The Possibility of Duncan + Kidd > 2003
If Payton helped the Twin Towers to a le or two the past two seasons, they could look at extending his contract. If they felt that his skills were diminishing or they wanted to get younger or replace Robinson, they could part company with him in 2003 and go after J. O'Neal or J. Kidd.
Frankly, I'm not worried about a contract extension that never was or the sacrifice of an unproven PG or a backup big to get the best PG of our time to play with Tim Duncan and David Robinson over the last two seasons.
The only thing you have dissected is your stupidity.
Of course in your 'analysis' one has to ignore what happens beyond the 2002-03 season. Because that is when the Spurs, with limited youth, no bench, and hamstrung by Payton's contract offer Duncan limited prospects for the future in SA. Great. Take this current team and add a Jermaine O'Neal or a Kidd to it for the next 6 seasons. That is what this is about...the last opportunity to add a talent like that for virtually the next decade, not give that all up and a good portion of your current young talent for two last shots. I don't want to see Duncan locked into another situation like DRob was during 1989-96. Apparently you do.> The Possibility of Duncan + Kidd > 2003
And for the last two years you wanted the Spurs to have pulled the trigger on this possible trade with the explicit understanding that it meant that Payton would receive a max extension for the 4 seasons after 2002-03.
Don't change your tune now.
How good was Malik Rose in 1997-98 when Pop found him? How about Jax last year when Pop found him? Your lineup entering the second round last year vs LA would have been:
C Mark Bryant
PF Tim Duncan
SF Bruce Bowen
SG Charles Smith
PG Gary Payton
6 Steve Kerr
7 Brian Skinner?
8 Zarko Paspalj
9 Coyote
10 Vinny Del Negro
11 Julius Nwosu
12 IR spot for DRob
In the 1 in a million shot that beats Shaq and Kobe prepare for the sweep from the boys in Arco.
Ok, so if the Spurs win the championship in 2003, we'll still be ing about 2001.
That's a lock.
bbum, don't forget that GW never wanted Bowen to start. No starting gig for Bowen in SA means that Bowen is never in SA.
baseline bum, you normally "think outside the Pop". How fair is it for you to ask me to predict how the Spurs would fill out their bench back in 2001? By the time the playoffs rolled around in 2002, who knows who would be in the 8-man rotation, but I think that Duncan-Robinson-Payton is a good start. Throw in veterans like M. Bryant, D. Ferry, T. Porter and youngsters like A. MCaskill, S. Jackson and J. Hart and who knows what they could've accomplished given the time and opportunity.
I do like my projected lineup for the following 2002-03 season:
PF Duncan
SF Bowen
C Robinson
PG Payton
SG Jackson
Bench:
Willis
Ginobili
Don't overrate a bench. It's a two-star system that's been successful over the years in the NBA.
MarcusBryant:
For the fifth time, the contract extension was The Glove's way of either getting money out of Seattle to stay or forcing them to trade him elsewhere. Look what happened.
Boiled down, you would rather stay pat with an unproven PG and a bench big man than bring in perennial All-Star Payton for two years.
Yet two years later, you want want to throw max money at Jason Kidd.
You are an oxymoron.
Payton may have put us over the top in the past two years. It's a good argument, Payton has been studly. However, Kobe and Shaq with nothing coming off the bench is still much better than Tim and Payton with nothing coming off the bench. Plus, I don't think any possible combinations of superstars would have beat that team over the past two years, save for maybe a TMac-Duncan combo. They've just been too good.
The only reason we have a shot this year is because the Laker role players have taken a dive while ours have improved. Kobe and Shaq are still as dominating as ever but they are getting zero help.
It comes down to this.
Would we have been better served by shooting our wad during the two or three best years of the Kobe and Shaq show? Or will it be better to keep our depth and then add a superstar after the Lakers decline a little over the next six or seven years?
Had we moved Parker and Malik for a Payton two year rental and then signed Kidd or O'neal this summer we would still be in pretty good shape. I agree with Casper there. But, if we add O'neal while keeping Duncan and Parker we'll be in excellent shape. If we get Kidd and end up trading Parker for value we're still better off than the Payton option.
I'll take the possibility of six or seven years of elite contention (Parker, Dunc, FA, bench) after the Lake Show slows down, than that of a great chance at contention (Payton, Dunc, no bench) during the Lakers unbelievable run.
It's kind of a weird analogy, but I look at this situation like a hockey power play.
I would rather have a 2:00 minute 5 on 3 power play than a 4:00 minute 5 on 4.
The possibilty of Parker, Malik and their trade value plus Dunc and Max FA is far better than two years of Dunc and Payton followed by Dunc and max FA.
At the time you make a trade for Payton, you give him an extension. 2001 not 2003, chump.MarcusBryant:
For the fifth time, the contract extension was The Glove's way of either getting money out of Seattle to stay or forcing them to trade him elsewhere. Look what happened.
Boiled down, you eviscerate the Spurs future for one year of Payton, Duncan, and DRob. No bench. DRob expected to play extended minutes because you dumped Rose. One ing year.Boiled down, you would rather stay pat with an unproven PG and a bench big man than bring in perennial All-Star Payton for two years.
Sure. 30 year old JKidd not 35 year old Gary Payton.Yet two years later, you want want to throw max money at Jason Kidd.
Ha. Do us all a favor and get a ing clue.
You are an oxymoron.
Marcus, you seem to be confusing Payton's preference in 2001 with some kind of absolute law. Think back to 2001. The Sonics were a fringe playoff team, good for a 7 or 8 seed at best. Payton wanted out, because he wanted to win a le and knew that wouldn't happen in Seattle. Yes, he wanted a contract extension, but do you honestly think that he would've refused a trade to San Antonio and the chance to play alongside Robinson and Duncan simply because we wouldn't guarantee an extension? On top of that, Payton had no guarantee from Seattle with respect to an extension. If we wanted to make a deal, we could've and Payton would have an expiring contract this summer.At the time you make a trade for Payton, you give him an extension. 2001 not 2003, chump. -Marcus Bryant
A fine example of the classy work we've come to expect from Marcus Bryant....because anyone outside of you and Admiral's Payton cluster-**** society knows what is preferable. -Marcus Bryant
Payton required an extension from the Spurs.
Trading away your best backup big with an aging center with health problems makes no sense whatsoever. All you want is the Spurs to screw their future just so your boy DRob goes out on top. Sorry, I'm a Spurs fan not exclusively a DRob fan like you.
DRob could not be relied upon as we found out in the 2002 playoffs...and you expect his back to hold up when the Spurs deal away their top backup? Get real.
Alright,
we won the ring.
Is EVERYONE on teh Jermaine Oneal bandwagon???
Here's one for today.If the Spurs win the Championship, I would expect that the person who invented the phrase "The Holting Pattern" to eat supersized portions of crow for however long we have been subject to his rantings.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote