Ghost who guards shaq when DRob goes down and plays 5 minutes in game 6 because of foul trouble? Mark Bryant???
You are a lightweight dreamer... THANK GOD THAT TRADE DIDN"T HAPPEN...
Payton > Parker, Rose, Daniels and SSmith
You're comparing the best PG of our time to a teenager from France, a 'tweener who was dumped by the Hornets, a combo guard who doesn't see minutes anymore and an old guard who can't crack our rotation anymore.
Wake up.
You act like we wouldn't have been able to find more cheap fill-ins to rise to the occasion before the 2001-02 season started.
The trade would take away any bench advantage the Spurs would have had. So I ask again:
Shaq + Kobe < Duncan + Payton ?
Question.
Again.
yeah we'll just pick from ALL those players that can guard shaq.
I already answered you.
I think benches are overrated anyway. Look at our teams over the years. It's always been one superstar surrounded by some pretty good guys we got in the first round of the draft and a bunch of castoffs you played better than ever for our Spurs.
I am supremely confident that Rose, Daniels and Smitty could've not only been replaced, but even improved upon.
Daniels is gone and Smitty doesn't play today in reality.
Rose is an overachiever. There's a lot of big men we could've picked up on the cheap, just like we picked up Kevin Willis and Mark Bryant before him and Jerome Jersey before him.
So ultimately, it comes down to Payton or Parker.
That's a no-brainer.
you didn't explain :
if Kobe + Shaq > Payton + Duncan
and
Lakers Bench > Spurs Bench
and
Lakers have home court, and DRob played about half the series...
=
spurs win
only in ghost world (tm). where you decide your right and then figure out why...
Are you re ed, pfc?
Since when is LA's bench better than ours?
Role playing bench guys are a dime a dozen and the Spurs happen to be excellent at filling out a bench. Bench guys don't win les; stars do. Payton + Duncan puts us closer to Shaq + Kobe than the crap we've been putting out there since 1999.
Re-read the thread and only post something intelligent.
Don't eat at the adult's table if you'e gonna choke on the food, kid.
If you do a four-for-one trade, the bench talent shall suffer. No?
Question.
Are you screwing with me, timmy?
I already acknowledged the bench three times.
On the surface, the bench may seem like it would suffer.
But think...
Steve Smith doesn't play anymore.
Antonio Daniels hardly plays anymore.
Malik Rose would be the only guy that we'd probably miss, but there's plenty of hardworking bigs that we could have gotten — and cheaper I might add — to fulfill his "big man off the bench" status.
For the last time, it comes back to an upgrade of Payton over Parker.
Plus the benefits of starting Stephen Jackson a year earlier.
It's common sense that if you can grab a franchise player like Payton in his prime at the cost of two bench guys, an unknown rookie and an old guard, you do it and win.
Since Payton also wanted an extension at that point in time if he were traded, would you have been willing to give up those four players AND any possible cap room this offseaon?
Question.
Absolutely.
As I've said before, I am about winning now and worrying later.
Payton still doesn't have that extension, now does he?
Now you add in the fact that signing a star free agent this summer is not a guarantee and my contenton makes even more sense.
A trade gets you talent you can play immediately. Cap space grants you the ability to sign talent at a later date.
Coming off a le in 1999, the Spurs with the Twin Towers were built to win from 2000-2003, not after Robinson retires.
I take no pleasure in being right about this.
If Pop had of worried about winning now and not later then we also would not be in the cap position we are in now to sign some very nice player(s).
:gun
Spursman, please re-read what I wrote.
Who guarantees we're going to sign some "very nice players" this summer?
We could've been winning with the best PG of our time the past two seasons.
There are no guarantees in life. Or in the NBA.Who guarantees we're going to sign some "very nice players" this summer?
Read my lips...There are no guarantees in life. Or in the NBA.We could've been winning with the best PG of our time the past two seasons.
Trying to pull the "no guarantees" card with Spursman (and others) and then skimming right over the same situation in your scenario shows a shocking lack of logical thinking.
Know your role, travis.
Notice my usage of the words, "...we could've...".
Not "would've".
Don't talk to me about guarantees, pal.
I'd take the past two years with Payton over rolling the dice this summer.
But then again, I like to win and stuff.
I know my role. It's to keep you honest.
I'll ing talk to you about anything I damn well please, pal...Don't talk to me about guarantees, pal.
Translation into reality: "I wanted to roll the dice MY way two years ago and take a chance on an aging PG with a bad locker room rep and a huge contract, but the people who actually get paid to roll the dice went another way."I'd take the past two years with Payton over rolling the dice this summer.
travis, pay attention or STFU.
Your comeback reminds me of the stupidity I addressed back in 2001. At least timvp has the creativity to keep the argument fresh.
You don't know the NBA if you think Payton wouldn't have immediately improved our chances over the past two years.
We're talking about a perennial All-Star who had his best season as a pro last year.
And he's still a free agent this summer, folks.
Get with the f'ing program.
The Spurs f'ed up.
Refresh your tired rhetoric or STFU.
A 1 for 4 trade would NOT...listen VERY closely here...NOT have improved this team. Period.
No drug-induced ranting on your part will make it so.
Once again you merely show you live in your own Rod Serling-created universe, while the rest of us slog it out here in the real world.
The Spurs didn't get Payton for 4 players. That was the correct move.
Get that through your head, or move along, little boy...
Where is Marcus Bryant when you need him?
:brotha
Casper, who was your replacement for Rose that would have been available with the minimum exception the team would have left after trading for Payton?
Question
and if you'll ing read anything besides your own post's you'll see time after time SJax saying he wasn't ready last year.
There is another article on the front page of mysa.com/spurs which he alludes to this also. DUDE, Pop says SJax wasn't ready last year, SJax says it yet you continue to say he was... What the **** is wrong with you????
Silence, travis and pfc. Reading your posts makes me feel like I'm huffing.
Everyone loved Charles Smith when he started for the Spurs in 2001-02. You could've started him at the 2.
baseline bum, I would have to see who was available in the summer of 2001 to see what minimum salaried big we'd use to replace the almighty Malik Rose. The funny thing is, how do you think Rose became Rose? He was picked off the scrap heap after he was discarded from Charlotte.
We're talking about the best PG of the past ten years in exchange for two guys who don't play anymore, a nbench 'tweener and an young PG.
Trade accpeted.
It's two years later and I don't see any more les. folks.
Silence yourself, GhostWriter. Reading your posts makes me know you're huffing...
What are you gonna do about it, huh? C'mon, silence me.
Try actually having a logical take, instead...
travis, do yourself a favor and put the Nets/Bucks game on right now.
Watch Gary Payton play and then maybe you'll understand why he'd be more valuable to us than Parker, Rose off the bench and Daniels and Smitty (who don't play anymore).
Dope.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote