Pop & RC - take note as Mr. Presti gets it

[rascal]

Hard to make good trades when you don't have assets. Spurs pick late every year, which denies them the chance to stockpile youth. They try and find late round gems and Euro talent. But that only works every once in a while. Furthermore, Spurs don't sign bad contracts, so they rarely have expiring contracts to get good players. Don't forget the Spurs had to trade three players to get Jefferson. That's part of their problem, they'd have to trade five of their young players on low paying contracts to get a quality player in return. That's too much to pay for most any player.

The spurs have had plenty of assets. They don't want to part with anything.

[DMC]

Sure I might jinx them, but right now OKC looks like their front court is coming together and will end up overtaking Memphis. It's absolutely puzzling how having a big front court pays dividends in the playoffs vs. a small front court.

If OKC starts to play more consistently as a team, they'll finish out this series and should take Dallas - OKC has the better front court.

They might not be that spectacular on paper, but Perkins, Ibaka, Nazr and Collison are a pretty formidable front court group and their total salary (my #'s might be wrong) is only $26 mil or $6 mil per player (Collison's is half that total.)

All Holt needs to do now is move the team to another state, get another top draft pick and have a few really low win years to stack his team. Great.

[ChumpDumper]

I don't know how Chumpo got an all star 2nd team from this site.
This guy offers nothing but to argue with people.

Nice grammar and envious much?

You're a bit of a one note poster, if you hadn't noticed.

[underdawg]

All Holt needs to do now is move the team to another state, get another top draft pick and have a few really low win years to stack his team. Great.

what does that have to do with the decision to go with true big players for their frontline instead of opting for smaller players (one that can "stretch" the floor)?

That was my original point - although I did comment on the Spurs draft picks and I said that any criticism on their draft picks is completey based on hindsight being 20/20. That was just to show the picks weren't as stellar as they needed to be.

My main criticism is that the Spurs FO decided to go away from size in the frontcourt and never reloaded the team with athleticism and length. The Spurs had 5 players over 6'7", but I'd almost exclude Bonner and Novak from that number because they don't play like a player above 6'8".

A lot of Spurs fans have made the same excuses for the past 4 years on why the needs haven't been addressed and it's usually the same excuses - small market team, not enough money, hard to add players with the big 3's salaries, etc.

I could be wrong, but the Spurs were able to get good supporting players before 2007 and not spend a lot of money. That said, the Spurs had the 11th highest payroll and even though Tim has the 4th highest salary, Manu and Tony aren't in the top 30. The big 3 made up 63% of the Spurs payroll - that left 25.5 million to make up the remaining 12 or so spots. Is that really that small of an amount?

[K-State Spur]

Except even with 20/20 hindsight - those were pretty damn good picks. C'mon, in the face of the evidence presented, you have to admit that a lot of the names you mentioned would not have been upgrades (most would have been downgrades).

OKC is giving 92% of their front court minutes to 3 guys. Given that the Spurs have 3 legitimate post players by any definition (albeit one inexperienced) - isn't a criticism of Splitter's PT - or lack of - more apt than complaints on roster management?

[underdawg]

Except even with 20/20 hindsight - those were pretty damn good picks. C'mon, in the face of the evidence presented, you have to admit that a lot of the names you mentioned would not have been upgrades (most would have been downgrades).

OKC is giving 92% of their front court minutes to 3 guys. Given that the Spurs have 3 legitimate post players by any definition (albeit one inexperienced) - isn't a criticism of Splitter's PT - or lack of - more apt than complaints on roster management?

not in the last 2 games - Nazr's minutes have doubled and it has resulted in better defense for OKC Also, it's not just Splitter's PT, but Bonner's excessive PT and role in general and Blair might be a good player, but he doesn't help the Spurs in terms of playoff defensive capabilities.

As far as the draft picks, even in light of your arguments, I still believe the Spurs would have been better off adressing their need for immediate help vs. waiting for Splitter and addressing the lack of size vs. picking Hill, Blair and Anderson. Splitter's a good player and his contract is pretty good for a player like him, but waiting 5 years for a pick to help the team seems long - especially with the big 3 on the backside of their careers.

[K-State Spur]

As far as the draft picks, even in light of your arguments, I still believe the Spurs would have been better off adressing their need for immediate help vs. waiting for Splitter and addressing the lack of size vs. picking Hill, Blair and Anderson. Splitter's a good player and his contract is pretty good for a player like him, but waiting 5 years for a pick to help the team seems long - especially with the big 3 on the backside of their careers.

With regards to Hill - if we draft size there (i.e. Arthur), maybe we're a bit better positioned on the front line (although we'd find plenty of things to complain about Arthur's game if he were a Spur - poor defense, inconsistent offense, terrible rebounding), but then we'd be sorely lacking for another attacking wing. Neal doesn't fill that role.

You'd potentially close up one hole (and i'm not really sure it would be closed), just to open another.

As for Anderson, still way too early to evaluate that pick after an injury riddled season with no real obvious contributors available behind him. If Splitter couldn't crack the lineup this year, then there's no way any rookie drafted after Anderson would have.

It's interesting that you complain about lack of immediate help in one sentence, then complain about the Anderson pick in the next. Anderson's injuries + the emergence of Neal to that degree couldn't be foreseen, but JA was viewed as one of the more developed/ready players in the entire draft.

[ChumpDumper]

Still nothing, TJ?

Seriously TJ, show me which CEO makes decisions on how much money his business should lose based solely on his personal net worth.

Give us the hard facts.

C'mon -- it should be easy since you teach college business courses.

[underdawg]

With regards to Hill - if we draft size there (i.e. Arthur), maybe we're a bit better positioned on the front line (although we'd find plenty of things to complain about Arthur's game if he were a Spur - poor defense, inconsistent offense, terrible rebounding), but then we'd be sorely lacking for another attacking wing. Neal doesn't fill that role.

You'd potentially close up one hole (and i'm not really sure it would be closed), just to open another.

As for Anderson, still way too early to evaluate that pick after an injury riddled season with no real obvious contributors available behind him. If Splitter couldn't crack the lineup this year, then there's no way any rookie drafted after Anderson would have.

It's interesting that you complain about lack of immediate help in one sentence, then complain about the Anderson pick in the next. Anderson's injuries + the emergence of Neal to that degree couldn't be foreseen, but JA was viewed as one of the more developed/ready players in the entire draft.

2 different scenarios for drafting Tiago and Anderson and each one I think the Spurs probably should have gone a different direction. Don't get me wrong - Tiago should be a decent big, Pop chose to stay pat in 2007 and I know it's easy to look back and say I told you so, but the Spurs weren't exactly dominant in 2007.

I don't have the specifics, but I do remember the FO trading some picks - even though they were 2nd round picks, it still seemed like a bad move given the inability to trade for good players or sign good free agents.

Anderson should be a good player, but him being out of shape hopefully isn't an indicator of his work ethic. I also think finding size in the draft was the better option - Anderson isn't exactly big for his position.

Hill's a good player, but I don't believe he's what the Spurs need and he's starting to show a trend of shrinking in the playoffs. If he's the Spurs 3rd best scorer (like someone mentioned) - is that really a good thing or is that a sign of where the Spurs are at talentwise?

Blair is a good player, but doesn't address the Spurs needs for size and defense.

Compound the above draft picks with standing pat when they shouldn't have, extending Finley, not signing Scola and signing Butler, and the Jefferson/Bonner contracts - the FO has not been good for a while.

Bottom line - the FO has failed to acquire players to support an aging big 3 and potentially have wasted the Spurs last few opportunities to win a championship with the big 3.

[K-State Spur]

2 different scenarios for drafting Tiago and Anderson and each one I think the Spurs probably should have gone a different direction. Don't get me wrong - Tiago should be a decent big, Pop chose to stay pat in 2007 and I know it's easy to look back and say I told you so, but the Spurs weren't exactly dominant in 2007.

I don't have the specifics, but I do remember the FO trading some picks - even though they were 2nd round picks, it still seemed like a bad move given the inability to trade for good players or sign good free agents.

Anderson should be a good player, but him being out of shape hopefully isn't an indicator of his work ethic. I also think finding size in the draft was the better option - Anderson isn't exactly big for his position.

Hill's a good player, but I don't believe he's what the Spurs need and he's starting to show a trend of shrinking in the playoffs. If he's the Spurs 3rd best scorer (like someone mentioned) - is that really a good thing or is that a sign of where the Spurs are at talentwise?

Blair is a good player, but doesn't address the Spurs needs for size and defense.

Compound the above draft picks with standing pat when they shouldn't have, extending Finley, not signing Scola and signing Butler, and the Jefferson/Bonner contracts - the FO has not been good for a while.

Bottom line - the FO has failed to acquire players to support an aging big 3 and potentially have wasted the Spurs last few opportunities to win a championship with the big 3.

I think you gotta give Hill more leeway - while he wasn't great against PHX (which was a bad match-up for him) or Memphis (which should have been a better one for him), his performance against Dallas last year should earn him quite a bit more of a buffer from being labeled a playoff choker.

Blair was easily the best size available at that spot in the draft. Despite being 6'6, his standing reach is better than Blake Griffin and almost as long as Darrell Arthur's. Offensively, while it is tough to watch him get blocked as much as he does, he's still pretty productive for a player selected where he was. Defensively, his issues are due more to poor footwork and over-gambling than they are a lack of size.

I think the front office has done a lot better than you think of retooling on the fly and maintaining a 50-60 win club while limiting the Big 3s regular season minutes - that's not easy.

And, before we pin all the blame on the supporting cast - look at where the big 3 should have excelled. Last year against PHX, our biggest advantage should have been Duncan vs. their post defense, yet they were able to guard Timmy straight up and keep him in check for 4 straight games (unfathomable that their 2005-2009 teams could have gotten away with that). This year against Memphis, we (or at least those of us who were paying attention) all knew that they had a frontcourt advantage coming into the series. However, our backcourt advantage should have greatly negated that. Randolph's production wouldn't have been such an issue if Parker was giving Conley/Vasquez fits on the other end like he should have. That Conley/Allen/Young could play Parker/Manu/Jefferson to a standstill is greatly disappointing.

At this point of the franchise, there is no recipe for championship basketball that doesn't start with the Big 3 all producing to the levels that they are capable of.

[LongtimeSpursFan]

2 different scenarios for drafting Tiago and Anderson and each one I think the Spurs probably should have gone a different direction. Don't get me wrong - Tiago should be a decent big, Pop chose to stay pat in 2007 and I know it's easy to look back and say I told you so, but the Spurs weren't exactly dominant in 2007.

I don't have the specifics, but I do remember the FO trading some picks - even though they were 2nd round picks, it still seemed like a bad move given the inability to trade for good players or sign good free agents.

Anderson should be a good player, but him being out of shape hopefully isn't an indicator of his work ethic. I also think finding size in the draft was the better option - Anderson isn't exactly big for his position.

Hill's a good player, but I don't believe he's what the Spurs need and he's starting to show a trend of shrinking in the playoffs. If he's the Spurs 3rd best scorer (like someone mentioned) - is that really a good thing or is that a sign of where the Spurs are at talentwise?

Blair is a good player, but doesn't address the Spurs needs for size and defense.

Compound the above draft picks with standing pat when they shouldn't have, extending Finley, not signing Scola and signing Butler, and the Jefferson/Bonner contracts - the FO has not been good for a while.

Bottom line - the FO has failed to acquire players to support an aging big 3 and potentially have wasted the Spurs last few opportunities to win a championship with the big 3.

Since 2007 the Spurs picked up bigs Splitter (although he stayed in Europe for three more years), Andrew McDyess and DeJuan Blair. Considering the Spurs 'inability to draw big name free agents' McDyess was a huge pick up and able to select Splitter and Blair in the draft I would say those are some great pickups.

[ChumpDumper]

Bump since he's had a couple of days to research this.

Seriously TJ, show me which CEO makes decisions on how much money his business should lose based solely on his personal net worth.

Give us the hard facts.

[Agloco]

Being an injured rookie on a Gregg Popovich team is the kiss of death.

[Agloco]

Peter Holt owns a franchise called the "San Antonio Spurs".. whose net worth is currently 404 million according to Hoopshype.

Holt is worth 80m according to USAToday.

Of course, this is all just business 101. And I should be getting paid for my time.

So what is it? Or is it all the same in TJastal's Business 101 class?

[DMC]

I think there's a difference between the net worth of an LLC and that of the individual.
Holt is the principal owner, but not the sole owner, if I recall correctly. There are other investors.

[Obstructed_View]

Only if 'what they wanted' was an equally bad - but longer term - contract.

They'd have to take on a longer contract, but there's no rule that it has to be a bad contract, and it would be tied to a player that fills a need for the team, so it's automatically not "equally bad".

[Obstructed_View]

And RJ didn't have a bad season, just a bad playoffs. He provided us with decent defense and timely three point shooting. Without his contributions, we wouldn't have won as many games as we did.

So his role on this team going forward is to cost them spots in the draft. Um, yay?

This is sort of why it would have been nice to trade his expiring contract during the regular season while he was playing well and looked like he had some value.

[ChumpDumper]

Another day....

Seriously TJ, show me which CEO makes decisions on how much money his business should lose based solely on his personal net worth.

Give us the hard facts.