CP3 traded to Rockets

[DAF86]

Wow a fellow Manu defending another. He doesn't need your help. Anyways we had this argument in the other thread. Leave it at that it's pretty much dead.

Ok son, I will bully you no more. Next time check who you're messing with, tbh.

[SAGirl]

You were downplaying how great both Tony and Manu were, saying their success was solely a byproduct of playing alongside Duncan.

The argument was made that during their shared peak prime (Manu from 2004 - 2012, Tony from 2007 - 2013; i.e. a shared time period between 2007 - 2012) the Spurs would've managed to win 50 games (Pop, Manu and Tony).

You're the only one who tried to suggest that their prime period somehow included the 2002 - 2003 season - no one else did given the context of the statement.

Frankly perhaps I shouldn't butt in... but I will.
a team without a quality big back then would look like lillard and mccollum right now and this is a more favorable era for guards than back then, at least so I have been led to believe. cute little regular season team folds in the playoffs each time.
another analogy is derozan and Lowry and perhaps we shall see, CP3 and Harden. It's why I think GSW made sure to get KD and have boosted his ego every which way possible they can, even at the expense of saying he's more significant than Curry for them. I think you'd need one forward/center type in this era that can be your defensive anchor to have a chance but if I recall correctly, the argument was made they could have gotten one using the capspace that was given to Timmy... except all the teams I mentioned haven't secured one yet to put them in true contention and they have tried. Though the Rocketts having developed Capella and having a lot of wings and defenders with size has given them an edge they perhaps haven't had in the past.

Now I will show myself out. Timmy is one of the best players ever. I think Spurs without him would have been a cute RS team that folds in the playoffs.... that is just me I guess.

[daslicer]

Ok son, I will bully you no more. Next time check who you're messing with, tbh.

Manu please you were the one who had hurt feelings hence you bumping my old post from a few weeks ago in this thread and making a reference to the Aldridge thread. The fact that you were still bothered by the argument from a few weeks ago shows you have female tendencies hence you are a . I still stand by the way I felt about Manu and Parker in the other thread. My beliefs haven't changed I just don't re-open old arguments because all the points that needed to be made were made in the original argument and plus both sides are not going to budge with their views. It's just a waste of time.

Also I laugh at your fake internet gangster act. It's as legit as Kevin Durant's tough guy act.
Manu you are Kevin Durant in this clip

[DAF86]

Yeah, I can tell from your chill demeanor and relevant youtube vids that you are clearly the one in charge of the situation, just bullin' dem triggered posters with female tendencies.

[Phenomanul]

Frankly perhaps I shouldn't butt in... but I will.
a team without a quality big back then would look like lillard and mccollum right now and this is a more favorable era for guards than back then, at least so I have been led to believe. cute little regular season team folds in the playoffs each time.
another analogy is derozan and Lowry and perhaps we shall see, CP3 and Harden. It's why I think GSW made sure to get KD and have boosted his ego every which way possible they can, even at the expense of saying he's more significant than Curry for them. I think you'd need one forward/center type in this era that can be your defensive anchor to have a chance but if I recall correctly, the argument was made they could have gotten one using the capspace that was given to Timmy... except all the teams I mentioned haven't secured one yet to put them in true contention and they have tried. Though the Rocketts having developed Capella and having a lot of wings and defenders with size has given them an edge they perhaps haven't had in the past.

Now I will show myself out. Timmy is one of the best players ever. I think Spurs without him would have been a cute RS team that folds in the playoffs.... that is just me I guess.

The point was that Duncan's salary hold would've been enough to get a quality big to play alongside Manu and Tony (maybe even an all-star type talent). Portland doesn't have any quality bigs.

So if you supplanted Duncan with another player who would play subservient to Parker and Manu - coached under Pop, they likely could've mustered 50 wins. So yes we all agree they would not be replacing Duncan with another transcendental (once in a generation) type player - but someone with enough talent to garner inside attention. Daslicer was making an argument that Manu and Parker were nobodies outside of Duncan - a point which is cir stantially negated by clear evidence. Manu led a team of limited players to an Olympic Gold medal, a World Championship Silver medal and another Olympic Bronze medal (all without Duncan), and he led his Italian Club team to back-to-back Euroleague Finals [winning one and garnering MVP honors] (again, without Duncan). To suggest that Manu's game ONLY flourished because Duncan commanded so much attention is asinine. Manu was a star player despite Duncan's super-s om. There is a reason why Ginobili ranks 28th on the all-time Career WS/48 list.

So yes, for all intents and purposes the argument was "dead" the other salient point however was that nobody was claiming that 50 win seasons would've been attained during Manu's rookie year.

The assertion was made that they could have done this during Nash's Run and Gun Suns era...

[SAGirl]

The point was that Duncan's salary hold would've been enough to get a quality big to play alongside Manu and Tony (maybe even an all-star type talent). Portland doesn't have any quality bigs.

And absent TD maybe the Spurs never get one either. See there are many teams that want one and can't get it. That is just how it goes. Perhaps you are undervaluing Timmy D as much as some undervalued Kiwi's contribution... we shall never know bc its a hypothetical.

[Russ]

Harden and CP3 are two of the biggest post season chokers of all time.

Then mix in D'Antoni . . .

[gambit1990]

I mean other than his knee issue/ bruise CP3 has been phenomenal this year. He’s just the best pure point guard that’s played in the last 10-15 years.

people on this site who didn't want him

[daslicer]

The point was that Duncan's salary hold would've been enough to get a quality big to play alongside Manu and Tony (maybe even an all-star type talent). Portland doesn't have any quality bigs.

So if you supplanted Duncan with another player who would play subservient to Parker and Manu - coached under Pop, they likely could've mustered 50 wins. So yes we all agree they would not be replacing Duncan with another transcendental (once in a generation) type player - but someone with enough talent to garner inside attention. Daslicer was making an argument that Manu and Parker were nobodies outside of Duncan - a point which is cir stantially negated by clear evidence. Manu led a team of limited players to an Olympic Gold medal, a World Championship Silver medal and another Olympic Bronze medal (all without Duncan), and he led his Italian Club team to back-to-back Euroleague Finals [winning one and garnering MVP honors] (again, without Duncan). To suggest that Manu's game ONLY flourished because Duncan commanded so much attention is asinine. Manu was a star player despite Duncan's super-s om. There is a reason why Ginobili ranks 28th on the all-time Career WS/48 list.

So yes, for all intents and purposes the argument was "dead" the other salient point however was that nobody was claiming that 50 win seasons would've been attained during Manu's rookie year.

The assertion was made that they could have done this during Nash's Run and Gun Suns era...

Manu and Parker are not winning 50 games in the '00s era without an all-star big. Also getting an all-star big even with cap space would be difficult during that era like it is in any era. Nash and Lebron are the only two perimeter players in that era to win 50 plus wins without an all-star big. Lebron did in '10 and Nash did in '06 with Amare being injured for the whole entire season. Keep in mind both of those guys I listed won the MVP during those seasons. I don't see Parker or Manu even at their peak ever rising to become a league MVP . Wade and Kobe could not win 50 plus games once they were not playing with Shaq. Both are superstar players who I believe are superior to Manu and Parker.

I never said Parker and Manu are nobodies. I feel at their best they were all-star caliber players for many years but they were never superstars. It's a big reason why the Spurs could never win back to back. If you look at other teams that have won back to back they had 2 superstars ala 90's bulls, '00 Lakers, Lebron Heat, 90's Rockets with Drexler. Spurs only had 1 in Duncan.

[daslicer]

And absent TD maybe the Spurs never get one either. See there are many teams that want one and can't get it. That is just how it goes. Perhaps you are undervaluing Timmy D as much as some undervalued Kiwi's contribution... we shall never know bc its a hypothetical.

I remember how hard it was for the Spurs to replace Robinson after he retired. They had a lot of cap space in '03. They tried going after both Jermaine O'Neal and Elton Brand. They wanted one of those guys and struck out at both. They eventually ended up with Rasho and Horry instead. A year earlier in '02 they tried to get Webber and he also rejected them. What these posters don't realize is having cap space does not guarantee a shot at a good FA unless your LA,Miami,Houston,NYC etc. A good quality big is still very valuable in this league and I doubt they would even consider going to SA even with cap space. LMA was a fluke and he's only in SA because his son lives there. Also I laugh at the Manu who said Portland doesn't have any quality bigs. Portland was on the verge of going to the lottery last year if it wasn't for the Nurkic trade and Nurkic is a good big. Nurkic is also a huge reason why they are winning a lot of games right now.

[gambit1990]

PATFO

[gambit1990]

this is a d'antoni team but don't sleep on capela.

[Budkin]

people on this site who didn't want him

Can you imagine how pissed he'd be as a Spur this year?

[Phenomanul]

I remember how hard it was for the Spurs to replace Robinson after he retired. They had a lot of cap space in '03. They tried going after both Jermaine O'Neal and Elton Brand. They wanted one of those guys and struck out at both. They eventually ended up with Rasho and Horry instead. A year earlier in '02 they tried to get Webber and he also rejected them. What these posters don't realize is having cap space does not guarantee a shot at a good FA unless your LA,Miami,Houston,NYC etc. A good quality big is still very valuable in this league and I doubt they would even consider going to SA even with cap space. LMA was a fluke and he's only in SA because his son lives there. Also I laugh at the Manu who said Portland doesn't have any quality bigs. Portland was on the verge of going to the lottery last year if it wasn't for the Nurkic trade and Nurkic is a good big. Nurkic is also a huge reason why they are winning a lot of games right now.

You're still missing the point of the hypothetical exercise. Pop made use of an aging Oberto and although he didn't provide stellar numbers, he was nevertheless a dependable big.

I guess people here have forgotten the Spurs owned the rights to Luis Scola. Though he was not an all-star player, he was nevertheless a crafty and heady player that would've thrived playing under Manu and Parker. During Manu and Parker's shared prime period, Scola played for the Rockets and in those 5 seasons with them he averaged 14.5 PPG / 7.7 RPG / 1.9 APG / 51.0% shooting. Scola would not have balked at the opportunity of playing with his fellow countryman.

Every other statement you have made is still a back-pedaling from your contention that somehow anyone here said that the Duncan-less 2002-2003 Spurs would have won 50 games. No one here made that claim.

[Phenomanul]

And absent TD maybe the Spurs never get one either. See there are many teams that want one and can't get it. That is just how it goes. Perhaps you are undervaluing Timmy D as much as some undervalued Kiwi's contribution... we shall never know bc its a hypothetical.

In the sections you chose not to quote I called Duncan a transcendental, once-in-a-generation type player. I state that Duncan was a super-star. I don't know how much more praise you want me to give him.

The fact remains that Manu won at every stage before/without Duncan. Ginobili is a proven winner, even if he wasn't quite the superstar of Duncan's caliber.

Manu was an unstoppable force when he was "on". Even the vaulted Piston's defense had no answer for him (until Prince gave him a knee on his quad).

I witnessed first hand how Manu singlehandedly (without Duncan or Parker who were both hurt) took on the 4 all-star Lakers (Shaq / Kobe / Payton / Malone) and took them to 2 overtimes. Had Horry made his open 3point look at the end of the 2nd Overtime on an assist by Manu the Spurs would have taken the W. Phil was caught yelling at Kobe during a timeout to stay on him, and Kobe yelled back "I'm trying but his moves are chaotic and unpredictable". THAT Manu could win you 50 games paired with Parker and Pop.

[daslicer]

You're still missing the point of the hypothetical exercise. Pop made use of an aging Oberto and although he didn't provide stellar numbers, he was nevertheless a dependable big.

I guess people here have forgotten the Spurs owned the rights to Luis Scola. Though he was not an all-star player, he was nevertheless a crafty and heady player that would've thrived playing under Manu and Parker. During Manu and Parker's shared prime period, Scola played for the Rockets and in those 5 seasons with them he averaged 14.5 PPG / 7.7 RPG / 1.9 APG / 51.0% shooting. Scola would not have balked at the opportunity of playing with his fellow countryman.

Every other statement you have made is still a back-pedaling from your contention that somehow anyone here said that the Duncan-less 2002-2003 Spurs would have won 50 games. No one here made that claim.

My argument is the Spurs would not ever win 50 games without Duncan if it was just Manu and Parker whether it's in their prime or when they were young how is that backpedaling? That's what got your fellow Manu angry. Your argument is that if the Spurs found a quality big to play with Manu/Parker they could win 50. My response to that is they would need an all-star caliber big to win 50 with. I don't see that happening with Oberto or even Scola. I do believe Manu and Tony would win 50 games if they got to team up with Amare, KG, Dirk, Yao. Too bad the odds of being able to team up with those guys would be slim to zero. That's why your argument is silly. Realistically if the Spurs don't have Duncan they are stuck with a stiff like Rasho playing with Parker/Manu. Parker-Manu-Rasho ain't ever going to get 50 wins.

[Phenomanul]

My argument is the Spurs would not ever win 50 games without Duncan if it was just Manu and Parker whether it's in their prime or when they were young how is that backpedaling? That's what got your fellow Manu angry. Your argument is that if the Spurs found a quality big to play with Manu/Parker they could win 50. My response to that is they would need an all-star caliber big to win 50 with. I don't see that happening with Oberto or even Scola. I do believe Manu and Tony would win 50 games if they got to team up with Amare, KG, Dirk, Yao. Too bad the odds of being able to team up with those guys would be slim to zero. That's why your argument is silly. Realistically if the Spurs don't have Duncan they are stuck with a stiff like Rasho playing with Parker/Manu. Parker-Manu-Rasho ain't ever going to get 50 wins.

Again, the actual evidence disproves your assertions.

The Spurs' winning percentage without Duncan in that period (with both Manu and Parker playing) is still above 64%. That's a pace of 52 wins. Add Scola to that mix and he would be good for at least 3-5 more wins.

The Duncan-Ginobili-Parker Trio averaged 725-ball (60 win pace) from 2003 - 2015 (when all three took the court). SURE Duncan made them elite, that's not being debated by anyone. BUT 50 wins is not as unattainable a threshold as you keep trying to make it.

[daslicer]

In the sections you chose not to quote I called Duncan a transcendental, once-in-a-generation type player. I state that Duncan was a super-star. I don't know how much more praise you want me to give him.

The fact remains that Manu won at every stage before/without Duncan. Ginobili is a proven winner, even if he wasn't quite the superstar of Duncan's caliber.

Manu was an unstoppable force when he was "on". Even the vaulted Piston's defense had no answer for him (until Prince gave him a knee on his quad).

I witnessed first hand how Manu singlehandedly (without Duncan or Parker who were both hurt) took on the 4 all-star Lakers (Shaq / Kobe / Payton / Malone) and took them to 2 overtimes. Had Horry made his open 3point look at the end of the 2nd Overtime on an assist by Manu the Spurs would have taken the W. Phil was caught yelling at Kobe during a timeout to stay on him, and Kobe yelled back "I'm trying but his moves are chaotic and unpredictable". THAT Manu could win you 50 games paired with Parker and Pop.

Too bad that Manu could not consistently play like that a for a full season. Fact is he didn't have a great game like that when it mattered in the playoffs against the Lakers that year. If that Manu showed up in the '04 playoffs against the Lakers then the Spurs win the series. Manu could have great games like the one you described but he couldn't do it consistently like Wade,Kobe could. That's what separates a superstar from an all-star. Manu didn't have the durability and stamina to be a superstar it's why he only averaged above 30 minutes once in his career. The regular season game you hyped up in which Manu play great guys like Kobe and Wade played like that all the time and still couldn't win many games without stacked teams. Wade and Kobe could not lead teams to 50 win seasons without an all-star big and they were far superior to Manu.

I have to say who cares if Manu was a winner before he played with Duncan. You can say the same about Toni Kukoc before he played with Jordan but bull fans would not be stupid enough to say Toni is a superstar. Keep in mind I'm not saying Toni is better than Manu. Manu beat a crappy team USA and I have to say that achievement is overrated in here since the same Team USA he took out in '02 and '04 were getting their ass kicked by a bunch of teams. Carlos Arroyo beat that team so did Pau and Peja. The one time Manu had to face a legit Team USA in '03 he got curbstomped. Argentina lucked out in '04 when the the majority of the original members of the '03 team decided not to play in the Olympics.

[daslicer]

Again, the actual evidence disproves your assertions.

The Spurs' winning percentage without Duncan in that period (with both Manu and Parker playing) is still above 64%. That's a pace of 52 wins. Add Scola to that mix and he would be good for at least 3-5 more wins.

The Duncan-Ginobili-Parker Trio averaged 725-ball (60 win pace) from 2003 - 2015 (when all three took the court). SURE Duncan made them elite, that's not being debated by anyone. BUT 50 wins is not as unattainable a threshold as you keep trying to make it.

That's a small sample size to chose from considering Tim didn't miss that many games from '03-'15. The Spurs were 19-8 to start the season without Kawhi which was good for a winning percentage of 70 percent and would have had them winning around 57 games. We all saw how the spurs could not continue at the pace once the league adjusted and figured them out. I doubt a Parker-Manu lead team could play at the 64 percent pace for a whole entire year. Just like the Kawhi-Less Spurs situation the league would adapt and figure them out.

[UZER]

people on this site who didn't want him

Just wait until the playoffs. You’ll be reminded why people didn’t want him.

[Phenomanul]

Too bad that Manu could not consistently play like that a for a full season. Fact is he didn't have a great game like that when it mattered in the playoffs against the Lakers that year. If that Manu showed up in the '04 playoffs against the Lakers then the Spurs win the series. Manu could have great games like the one you described but he couldn't do it consistently like Wade,Kobe could. That's what separates a superstar from an all-star. Manu didn't have the durability and stamina to be a superstar it's why he only averaged above 30 minutes once in his career. The regular season game you hyped up in which Manu play great guys like Kobe and Wade played like that all the time and still couldn't win many games without stacked teams. Wade and Kobe could not lead teams to 50 win seasons without an all-star big and they were far superior to Manu.

I have to say who cares if Manu was a winner before he played with Duncan. You can say the same about Toni Kukoc before he played with Jordan but bull fans would not be stupid enough to say Toni is a superstar. Keep in mind I'm not saying Toni is better than Manu. Manu beat a crappy team USA and I have to say that achievement is overrated in here since the same Team USA he took out in '02 and '04 were getting their ass kicked by a bunch of teams. Carlos Arroyo beat that team so did Pau and Peja. The one time Manu had to face a legit Team USA in '03 he got curbstomped. Argentina lucked out in '04 when the the majority of the original members of the '03 team decided not to play in the Olympics.

Manu's usage rate during the 2004 playoffs was deliberately curtailed by Pop because he still had him on a short leash that season (not because of Manu's own limitations - which your post grossly implies).

When Pop finally gave Ginobili free reign, and Ginobili was fully unleashed we were all witness to what his compe ive fury could produce. The game from 2004 that I referenced was a glimpse at what Ginobili could give you when he was given more control of the playmaking decisions. In a game without Duncan or Parker, Pop couldn't micromanage Manu (i.e. Ginobili getting randomly yanked out for gambling on the passing lanes, etc...) - so Manu played the only way he knew how.

Manu's 2005 playoff run was uber-efficient and rivals any produced by either Kobe or Wade (on just about every advanced metric, VORP / WS / WS/48 / DPM / OPM / RPM / PER, etc...). Again, more revisionism on your part to try and fit your narrative that Manu's star wasn't bright enough.

I remember that 2003 game that you referenced earlier; Argentina lost their starting point guard, Pepe Sanchez at the start of the 2nd quarter and Scola at the half. No excuses needed, but the US always had more talent. That Argentina squad got the last laugh though on route to a gold medal the following year.

[daslicer]

Manu's usage rate during the 2004 playoffs was deliberately curtailed by Pop because he still had him on a short leash that season (not because of Manu's own limitations - which your post grossly implies).

When Pop finally gave Ginobili free reign, and Ginobili was fully unleashed we were all witness to what his compe ive fury could produce. The game from 2004 that I referenced was a glimpse at what Ginobili could give you when he was given more control of the playmaking decisions. In a game without Duncan or Parker, Pop couldn't micromanage Manu (i.e. Ginobili getting randomly yanked out for gambling on the passing lanes, etc...) - so Manu played the only way he knew how.

Manu's 2005 playoff run was uber-efficient and rivals any produced by either Kobe or Wade (on just about every advanced metric, VORP / WS / WS/48 / DPM / OPM / RPM / PER, etc...). Again, more revisionism on your part to try and fit your narrative that Manu's star wasn't bright enough.

I remember that 2003 game that you referenced earlier; Argentina lost their starting point guard, Pepe Sanchez at the start of the 2nd quarter and Scola at the half. No excuses needed, but the US always had more talent. That Argentina squad got the last laugh though on route to a gold medal the following year.

This is why I can't take you Manu s seriously. Manu as good as Kobe and Wade that's too funny.

[SAGirl]

PATFO

I think the tweet wouldn't say it but they probably didn't like the ticket price at his age. They allegedly wanted Kyrie really bad. I know you aren't a Kyrie fan. It's something that could be questionable. You trade Tony and don't sign Paddy and there's a start towards getting enough. One wonders if Pop was unwilling to pay up and trade guys or if CP3 was scared by the LMA situation. Considering the rift was real, the latter seems very likely. And it was leaked Harden recruited him very early in the summer. Spurs team had no chance there it seems like.

One also wonders the degree to which PATFO has bought stock in the Murray train. I know there's a lot of debate here about him but I do think Pop really likes him and is hoping he can be big time for them. Time will tell I guess.

[Phenomanul]

This is why I can't take you Manu s seriously. Manu as good as Kobe and Wade that's too funny.

And this is why YOU can't be taken seriously.

GROSS REDUCTIONISM.

I referenced Manu's 2005 Playoff Run specifically - not his entire career volume. And statistically, an argument can be made that Manu produced one of the best playoff runs in the last 15 years for a shooting guard... the same period graced by the likes of Kobe and Wade.

[Phenomanul]

Again, the actual evidence disproves your assertions.

The Spurs' winning percentage without Duncan in that period (with both Manu and Parker playing) is still above 64%. That's a pace of 52 wins. Add Scola to that mix and he would be good for at least 3-5 more wins.

The Duncan-Ginobili-Parker Trio averaged 725-ball (60 win pace) from 2003 - 2015 (when all three took the court). SURE Duncan made them elite, that's not being debated by anyone. BUT 50 wins is not as unattainable a threshold as you keep trying to make it.

That's a small sample size to chose from considering Tim didn't miss that many games from '03-'15. The Spurs were 19-8 to start the season without Kawhi which was good for a winning percentage of 70 percent and would have had them winning around 57 games. We all saw how the spurs could not continue at the pace once the league adjusted and figured them out. I doubt a Parker-Manu lead team could play at the 64 percent pace for a whole entire year. Just like the Kawhi-Less Spurs situation the league would adapt and figure them out.

Duncan missed 105 regular season games from 2003 - 2015. 16 of those missed games coincided with games missed by either Parker, Ginobili or both.

That leaves 89 games in which the duo of Parker and Ginobili coached by Pop (although he was ejected out of 2 of those games - typical) was still good for 56 wins or pro-rated down to 52 wins on 82 games (in other words no extrapolation required).

I don't care about the Kawhi effect or any other factor not outside of the control factor (i.e. Duncan not playing). The fact is the Spurs still won at a very good clip. Those are facts - based on actual events... Yet you want to build your argument on speculation alone (e.g. "the league would adapt and figure them out" - hence they would not have kept pace)? The Kawhi-less Spurs are "easy" to figure out because they aren't dynamic enough. Parker and Manu in their primes were very difficult players to contain precisely because their games were very complete - especially when Parker's jumper matured and became very dependable. Both could slash, both could shoot, both could create. You don't have to believe it, but your insistence on insulting other people's views simply because they disagree with your own is childish. I've been a Spurs fan since 1989 when I went to my very first Spurs game - your reductionism in suggesting that I am somehow a "Manu " because I can present fact-based arguments on Ginobili's behalf is ridiculous - and a clear ad hominem strawman.

Again, no one here is disputing the fact that Duncan is what made the Spurs elite, the franchise into perennial contenders. But you're the only one arguing that the team during Manu and Tony's primes, without Duncan would've been mediocre trash.