Your smart-ass posting style is not congruent with your debating skills. Why would you use an example that is not relevant to the topic?
The original question was why does it matter that the Spurs have not made any big trades. Your response referenced the Celtics. If you didn't intend to draw a comparison between the two you should have chosen a better "example."
You have yet to address the reasons that have been given to you that detail WHY the Spurs have not been as active in trades.
Exactly. Some focus a tad bit much on the means. The franchise found a way to win championships and keep Duncan here for most likely his entire career. , they managed to persuade him to take a little less on his extension. Duncan's given the front office a big vote of confidence, but obviously he doesn't have as much at stake as these numbnuts.
Trading just for trading's sake is silly.
If the last 9 years have shown anything, it's that the Veteran team wins Championships. Whenever a team tries to stack the deck (the 2004 Lakers for example), they lose to a better team.
You're right when you say building winning rosters matters. You're wrong when you say trades don't matter. How do you explain Miami winning the Championship in 2006 if you say that the trade for Shaq "didn't matter". You are being obtuse on purpose.
And once again, you put words in my mouth. I don't play RealGM and I don't get a woody from roster-churning.
I'm psyched the Spurs have won 4 Championships in 10 years. But wouldn't 5 or 6 or 7 been better? Wouldn't a repeat have been awesome?
So you're guaranteeing retroactive imaginary championships.
Bold.
I'll say it didn't matter as much as you think...
Wade kicks _allas ass even without Shaq.
And if Shaq was so important to the Heat, why did they trade him in?
One interesting thing that has been brought to light is that you could argue that because the front office drafted Duncan, Parker and Manu, the did not feel the urgency to sign or trade for another star/starting quality player.
I just bemoan that they have not done so the virtually ensure the Spurs dominance.
A repeat le this year is important to me as a simple fan.
The Spurs have built a roster based upon a nucleus of 3 relatively young players, with veteran role players as the supporting cast. Typically, those role players have more value to the Spurs than they would to other teams, because of their "corporate knowledge" of the Spurs' system. This strategy is not amenable to making "major trades" because the Spurs aren't going to break up the Big 3, and the role-player veterans are not that enticing to other teams.
You're bringing up other teams that obviously weren't going anywhere, and traded away their young talent to teams that were holding fire sales for their superstars. This cannot be held as comparable to the Spurs' situation. What, were the Timberwolves going to trade Kevin Garnett for Elson, Barry, Mahinmi, and the 29th pick in the draft?
It should not be necessary to argue why breaking up the big 3 is a bad idea. If you're entertaining the thought that they should, just do everyone a favor and stick a gun in your mouth.
It is patently absurd to claim that some unspecified "trade" would have garnered the Spurs multiple championships. Such a claim is not only speculative, it is unfalsifiable. You don't even have to dwell in the reality of what was even possible to make such a claim. You just say that the Spurs lost, and the reason is that they didn't make a trade. You sound like one of those Republicans who think that if anything goes bad with the economy, the reason is that there weren't enough tax cuts.
And you think I'm the obtuse one?
man, I remember the Spurs unable to put together any semblance of a supporting cast around DRob back in the 90s. Of course, a lot of that was driven by the old cap rules (similiar to MLB cap rules), some unfortunate injuries, and one unfortunate owner (though he was good at keeping the Spurs in SA). Those were truly frustrating days. You new age Spurs fans have it good.
Rodman for Elliott and the player the Spurs drafted in the first round that year.
That rocked me. Sean was one of my favorite players back then. Rodman was my favorite player after his first season in SA. Luckly we got Sean back. I still think if we kept Rodman, we would've won a le in 96, 97, or 98. Then again, we may not have Duncan.
One interesting thing that has been brought to light is that you could argue that because the front office drafted Duncan, Parker and Manu, the did not feel the urgency to sign or trade for another star/starting quality player.
I just bemoan that they have not done so the virtually ensure the Spurs dominance.
A repeat le this year is important to me as a simple fan.
They've also spent a lot of money on those guys they drafted, which leaves less for other FA possibilities.
Yeah, nevermind stuff like the salary cap, contracts, draft picks, and the fact the Spurs build supporting casts to win, not to make trades.
True that.
As fans, we sometimes make criticism in a vacuum without studying the cir stances surrounding why moves were or were not made.
Ignoring the fact that those cir stances are pointed out repeatedly.
Oh, jeezus krist, dude.
You can't even follow the logical flow of a thread, let alone take credit for illustrating the chess-like machinations of how teams are built and moves are made.
You can kidnly STFU if this Popportunistic Artest deal is made and the Spurs actually make a move to improve the team's chances outside the draft.
Well, this season the cap issues create the conditions for the Spurs' being able to be involved in many more potential trades than in previous years.
Smart people had that figured out in October.
Are you calling Holt's Cat "dumb"?
And don't get it twisted... there is more urgency to get a deal done this time around.
Nah, he understood what the cap watchers like Bruno pointed out in October.
It's not twisted. It's merely possible this year when in years past it was not.And don't get it twisted... there is more urgency to get a deal done this time around.
The only constant has been your ing regardless of the cir stances.
Taking exception with your nonsense is difficult to do without interrupting whatever "logical flow" you anticipate.
By the way, excellent discussion yesterday about sign-and-trades. Serious knowledge.
Acquiring Artest doesn't really address what the Spurs have been trying to do this season in acquiring another swingman. Ideally they are looking for someone like, well, Barry or Finley. Someone who can swing between the 2 and 3. With the weak free agent swingman market and Barry and Finley's contracts ending, as well as their age, this made a lot of sense. Bringing in Artest doesn't really address that. I would expect to see some shuffling this summer and probably the Spurs bringing Finley back for one more year.
Fvck you.
Don't act like a midseason trade was never possible.
It often was not. Especially the kind of crap trades you were squeezing out on a regular basis.
Fvck you.
Don't act like a midseason trade was never possible.
What?
Please, I beg you to read the posts within a thread and stick to the topics at hand.
What will you do if the Spurs trade for Artest?
One example, please.
Good talk.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
