Is there anyone else who gets tired of hearing how bad our offseason was?

[pad300]

So what moves did the Spurs not try to make that you wish they had tried to make? Something specific.

1) Chosing not to make an attempt to keep Barry
2) Resigning Finley (of the 3 old guys whose contracts were up; Barry, Finley, Horry; he was the last of the 3 to keep IMO)
3) Draft Picks - I'm not in love with hill, IMO the Dragic trade (assuming it was pre-arranged before PHO's draft) was an error - why Hairston? I'd have preferred Hendrix, or straight picking Bill Walker. Gist, I will admit, has been impressive.
4) Gist going to Italy for seasoning...We still don't have a long 3. We could send him to the Toros (what the we bought them for, right...) if he needed development time.
5) No attempt to get in on the Balkman giveaway by the Knicks...

Going back a season, the FO clearly needs to keep Marginal value in mind. They were turned down last season by Mason at $3M/3Yrs. They might want to consider that paying even $6M/3yrs would look like a bargain today, given they paid $7.5M/2yrs this offseason. We spent all last-season looking for a 3ed pg, when Mason was playing significant minutes at PG in WAS. In terms of Lux tax, Stoudamire and Johnson (who wouldn't have been signed either), both counted over $1M each at the end of the year when the cap was checked...Finally, we really needed another SG in the playoffs. Replacing Finley cardboard cutout defense and perhaps allowing us to minimize Manu's minutes would have been a real plus for us in the playoffs.

Yeah, offering Mason twice as much would have been a much better deal.

Not to mention Scola, bringing in Elson and Butler over Javtokas, Bonner for 10M$/3years...

[FromWayDowntown]

Thanks for actually taking me up on this -- concrete examples tend to move conversation.

1) Chosing not to make an attempt to keep Barry

Are we sure they didn't make an attempt? And if not, don't you think that the naysayers around here would have been bent if the offseason had ended with the Spurs bringing back the same old guys from last year?

2) Resigning Finley (of the 3 old guys whose contracts were up; Barry, Finley, Horry; he was the last of the 3 to keep IMO)

I'd agree generally with the notion that keeping Barry might have been the preferable move, but I also don't think bringing back Finley was the ideal outcome for the Spurs when the offseason started. The fact that they've chased wings all summer suggests to me that Finley was the ultimate fall-back option. Perhaps he would have come back anyway, had the Spurs been successful in their pursuits of Pargo or Giricek, but something tells me that the Spurs got serious about making an offer to Finley only when they realized that their other options had gone by the board.

3) Draft Picks - I'm not in love with hill, IMO the Dragic trade (assuming it was pre-arranged before PHO's draft) was an error - why Hairston? I'd have preferred Hendrix, or straight picking Bill Walker. Gist, I will admit, has been impressive.

As I've said before, I think the jury is out on Hill. As for the Dragic trade, there are certainly many who wonder if he's worth all that Phoenix is apparently s ing out to get him -- I'm not a big subscriber to much of what Hollinger says, but Hollinger projects him to be a well below-average producer, given his European numbers.

4) Gist going to Italy for seasoning...We still don't have a long 3. We could send him to the Toros (what the we bought them for, right...) if he needed development time.

I think the Spurs own the Toros to be able to direct the development of players who are there; they might also have decided that Gist needed to play against a different type of compe ion. Or maybe Gist was offered more money to go to Europe than to be the Spurs' 15th guy. Or maybe the Spurs didn't want to eat up a roster spot with a guy who has no chance of playing for them in 2008-09. All of those would be sensible reasons for Gist going to Europe -- none of them, however, cost the Spurs the chance to keep Gist available as an option on a going-forward basis.

5) No attempt to get in on the Balkman giveaway by the Knicks...

This is the closest thing to the criticism that the Spurs haven't done anything, but it makes sense to me that the Spurs wouldn't be terribly interseted in still another guy who is a defensive witch but who has virtually no offensive ability. Certainly, the critics would be screaming if the Spurs went to war with 3 wings who struggle to score -- and what time would Balkman get on a team that already has Bowen and Udoka, to say nothing of Ginobili and Mason?

Going back a season, the FO clearly needs to keep Marginal value in mind. They were turned down last season by Mason at $3M/3Yrs. They might want to consider that paying even $6M/3yrs would look like a bargain today, given they paid $7.5M/2yrs this offseason. We spent all last-season looking for a 3ed pg, when Mason was playing significant minutes at PG in WAS.

* * * *

Finally, we really needed another SG in the playoffs. Replacing Finley cardboard cutout defense and perhaps allowing us to minimize Manu's minutes would have been a real plus for us in the playoffs.

Yeah, offering Mason twice as much would have been a much better deal.

So they rectified last year's bad decision for a player who improved his market value? Offering Mason twice as much last year would have been seriously overpaying relative to his resume -- and the same sorts of criticisms being heaped on the Spurs now would have been heaped on them back then, only for overpaying a guy like Mason.

Not to mention Scola, bringing in Elson and Butler over Javtokas, Bonner for 10M$/3years...

Those are entirely different criticisms that don't deal with what the front office has done this offseason. I don't know the problem with choosing Elson + Butler over Javtokas is anything more than speculation -- much like the concern for not choosing Dragic for themselves. I'd agree with you that the Bonner deal is baffling and has proven to be constraining in some senses, but all front offices make occasional bad decisions.

I guess, in the end, I don't see a front office that isn't trying and I don't see a front office that hasn't been effective, particularly given that the Spurs just seem to keep winning games every year.

[DROB4EVER]

We improved greatly, losing barry and horry while adding mason, hill , ian and toliver. I still would have loved to see us add a big guy or a better sf, but hard for me to say we didnt get better from last season.

To what degree will depend on the scoring ian, hill and mason can give us. I have a feeling that by mid season Mason will be giving us 12-14 ppg and ian will be avg 6 and 4. I think hill may come along as the season goes on and may surprise people but if he struggles I can see mason taking his mins at pg with the second team with manu and fin on the wings, this will give us a stronger scoring second unit.

[ElNono]

I think the Spurs own the Toros to be able to direct the development of players who are there; they might also have decided that Gist needed to play against a different type of compe ion. Or maybe Gist was offered more money to go to Europe than to be the Spurs' 15th guy. Or maybe the Spurs didn't want to eat up a roster spot with a guy who has no chance of playing for them in 2008-09. All of those would be sensible reasons for Gist going to Europe -- none of them, however, cost the Spurs the chance to keep Gist available as an option on a going-forward basis.

This is the only point I disagree with. I think if they would have offered Gist a contract when they offered Tolliver one, he would have signed. I really do. And I actually think that sending him to Europe does cost the Spurs the possibility to have him back in a year or so, especially with the monetary situation as it is. Now you're in the situation where the Euros can offer a substantial amount after one year if he does good, and the Spurs would be hesitant to match or better the offer, considering the guy has not played in the NBA at all yet. And as far as the roster spot, sending him to the Toros won't eat a spot. And honestly, from what I saw in the summer league and his coach comments, he's probably more deserving of an opportunity than Tolliver and even Mahinmi.

[SequSpur]

whatever...

[lurker23]

And as far as the roster spot, sending him to the Toros won't eat a spot.

In order to assign him to the Toros, he would sign an NBA contract, which would use one of the Spurs 15 roster spots.

The other option would be for him to sign directly with the Toros, but those salaries aren't even close to compe ive to most of Europe.

[ElNono]

In order to assign him to the Toros, he would sign an NBA contract, which would use one of the Spurs 15 roster spots.

The other option would be for him to sign directly with the Toros, but those salaries aren't even close to compe ive to most of Europe.

Thanks. I stand corrected, then.

[pad300]

Thanks for actually taking me up on this -- concrete examples tend to move conversation.



Are we sure they didn't make an attempt? And if not, don't you think that the naysayers around here would have been bent if the offseason had ended with the Spurs bringing back the same old guys from last year?



I'd agree generally with the notion that keeping Barry might have been the preferable move, but I also don't think bringing back Finley was the ideal outcome for the Spurs when the offseason started. The fact that they've chased wings all summer suggests to me that Finley was the ultimate fall-back option. Perhaps he would have come back anyway, had the Spurs been successful in their pursuits of Pargo or Giricek, but something tells me that the Spurs got serious about making an offer to Finley only when they realized that their other options had gone by the board.



As I've said before, I think the jury is out on Hill. As for the Dragic trade, there are certainly many who wonder if he's worth all that Phoenix is apparently s ing out to get him -- I'm not a big subscriber to much of what Hollinger says, but Hollinger projects him to be a well below-average producer, given his European numbers.



I think the Spurs own the Toros to be able to direct the development of players who are there; they might also have decided that Gist needed to play against a different type of compe ion. Or maybe Gist was offered more money to go to Europe than to be the Spurs' 15th guy. Or maybe the Spurs didn't want to eat up a roster spot with a guy who has no chance of playing for them in 2008-09. All of those would be sensible reasons for Gist going to Europe -- none of them, however, cost the Spurs the chance to keep Gist available as an option on a going-forward basis.



This is the closest thing to the criticism that the Spurs haven't done anything, but it makes sense to me that the Spurs wouldn't be terribly interseted in still another guy who is a defensive witch but who has virtually no offensive ability. Certainly, the critics would be screaming if the Spurs went to war with 3 wings who struggle to score -- and what time would Balkman get on a team that already has Bowen and Udoka, to say nothing of Ginobili and Mason?



So they rectified last year's bad decision for a player who improved his market value? Offering Mason twice as much last year would have been seriously overpaying relative to his resume -- and the same sorts of criticisms being heaped on the Spurs now would have been heaped on them back then, only for overpaying a guy like Mason.



Those are entirely different criticisms that don't deal with what the front office has done this offseason. I don't know the problem with choosing Elson + Butler over Javtokas is anything more than speculation -- much like the concern for not choosing Dragic for themselves. I'd agree with you that the Bonner deal is baffling and has proven to be constraining in some senses, but all front offices make occasional bad decisions.

I guess, in the end, I don't see a front office that isn't trying and I don't see a front office that hasn't been effective, particularly given that the Spurs just seem to keep winning games every year.

Okay, I think we need to discuss premises here. I don't think that the FO isn't trying. I think they are trying and FAILING, due to a tendency to make questionable decisions...Some of which appear to be dictated by Pop's personal (non-basketball) likes and dislikes - he is peculiarly overfond of some long-term vets (van Excel, Finley, being recent examples). As far as ineffective, the objective is to maintain/build a dynasty. Given the core players the Spurs have: DUNCAN, Manu, Parker; that is the line of success/failure. The Spurs haven't haven't repeated. With the core they have the line isn't winning games...It's Championships. It appears that some of the failure to repeat years are due to structural problems that the Spurs do not address - that is a problem in the FO. We regularly have horrible problems defending mobile 4's (eg. Dirk, West) because no one on the roster has a decent physical match up. The FO doesn't try to fill the hole. (Yes, in the championship years, we beat teams with these weapons, but it's a case of overwhelming the other parts of the opposition, not having the ability to defend that match-up in a practical fashion.)

Now then, to review your comments.

1) Barry - Yeah, I don't think they tried to keep him. There was NOTHING reported about the Spurs negotiating with him... Even on players we have subsequently missed out on (eg. Pargo, Giricek, Maguette), there has been media coverage of the Spurs interest in the player. Barry - ZILCH. As far as naysayers around here, I could give a flying . Seriously, this forum has proposed trading Gino, Parker, bringing in Darko Milicic, bringing back D-Rob, and every other kind of crazy idea. Some people around here will cheer every move the FO makes, some will criticize every move. It means nothing...

2) Finley as the last fallback option. A couple of days ago I posted a list of 7 guys off the top of my head who I thought were better options for pursuit before signing Finley...
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...4&postcount=80
There are more players out there. We apparently did try Giricek. Finley wasn't a last option...Seriously, a bad player that Pop has a mancrush on, is a worse option than some kid from the NBDL, or even no signing at all.

3) This years draft. While a bit early, it is clear from assorted Spurs public statements, the plan was to get players who could contribute right away. I don't think they have done that. I don't think they have hit any homeruns (longer term starter or better players) except maybe Gist... This draft, does not, at this point, look good according to the Spurs stated objectives. While I cannot say for certain, yet, that my choice of picks would have provided more immediate or long term value, I can say with some confidence that some valuable players will come from later than 26 in this draft. I just don't think we got them... It's the FO's responsibility that we do. We haven't had a 1st round pick contribute since 2004 (Udrih) and for significant contributions you have to go back to 2001 (Parker). You want to be a dynasty, then the draft has to be a source of useable players... We might have a guy like that in Mahinmi... But this years draft, it doesn't make me happy at all...

4)Gist to Europe. Yeah, those are all possible reasons to send Gist to Europe. That does not make sending him to Europe the correct decision. They are ALL speculation on your part. Sending him to Europe on the other hand guarantees he's not providing any value this season. It also eliminates another possibility for remedying one of the Spurs structural weaknesses - Mobile 4s/ Big 3s.

5) Balkman. You continue to treat public criticism as if it is of value, rather pure noise in decision making... WHO GIVES A ABOUT THE CRITICS, THE SPORTSWRITERS, ETC. The question is did the correct decision get made... As far as Balkman getting floor time. Come on! He'd play small ball 4. He play 3 in big lineups. Udoka simply does not have Bowen's versatility on D. There are matchups where Balkman would be exceedingly useful. As far as non-scoring wings, we usually play configurations that combine a defensive wing and a scoring wing. My way (keep Barry) we'd have 3 effective scoring wings Manu, Barry, Mason. (vs. Last year Manu, Barry, Finley).
Last Year
Player----- pts/36 ----- EFG%
Finley----- 13.5---------.501
Barry------14.4---------.631
Mason -----15.3---------.552
Which one of these players do you want serving as a scoring option?
Meanwhile:
Player----- pts/36 ----- EFG% ----- % of made shots assisted
Udoka -----11.6---------.505---------------85.38
Bowen -----7.9----------.512---------------90
Balkman ----8.5----------.492---------------66.03
If Balkman actually had a PG & teammates who'd set him up with chances, not having to make them off of broken plays, I think his percentages might go up. Besides, there is more to offensive value than just pts - theres passing, o-rebounding, and doing the dirty work like setting screens...
Player----- AST% ----- OReb% ----- ORtg
Udoka -----7.7----------3.3----------101
Bowen -----5.5----------1.6---------105
Balkman ----6.5----------9.6---------104
(ORtg is a catch all summary stat - it ain't perfect, but it illustrates the point)

6)"Overpaying" Mason a year earlier. What I'm trying to suggest here is that a) the spurs scouts have got it right - we usually do with player who have been in the league a couple of years (Horry, Udoka, Bowen, Mason *hopefully*, ).
b)Rather than try an hold such a scouted FA to a minimum cost contract, eg what happened with Udoka, we might be better off to open the purse strings a little more, and get more net value off the contract... Assume for a minute that the $3.75M/yr we signed him for is fair value for his play last year, and will be for the next 2... The $1M/Yr contract would have been a great deal for the team. However, a $2M/yr contract would still have been a good deal. This is the concept of marginal value - yeah, $1M/yr would have been great but $2M/yr would 1) have been good, and 2) got the job done. It's clear from last seasons results (no championship) that the job needed doing. The Spurs might have been able to do it for $1.5M/yr - that would have been really good. But it is not necessary that every contract be a steal. The contracts just have to be collectively good enough...
c)The thing about NBA contracts is that due to the CBA they really fit into 3 tiers LLE or less (most rookie contracts), LLE to MLE , and more than MLE. The bottom tier is almost noise relative to a team payroll. Being generous in this tier may well be a very positive attribute, as opposed to the typical Spurs pinch each dollar at ude ...Particulary if 1) it gets you that signing (particulary keeping in mind the team demographics and need to teach players the system for a year really), and 2) if it gets you longer contracts. For example Udoka got $2M/2yrs...Signing him for $4.5M/3yrs would likely be a better long term financial bargain. That 3ed year will cost us if we want to keep him...3) So long as you are in that bottom tier, cheap contracts are easy to trade if you've made a mistake. After all, how much a mistake can it be for less than $2M/yr in NBA salary terms...

7) What I am suggesting is that there are lots of historical decisions that could be questioned in hindsight. There seem to be more of them recently. While it is easy to see them in hindsight, it's the FO's responsibility to get these decisions right when they come up - that's why they get the big bucks...
You, and many others on this forum would exempt the FO because the Spurs have 4 championships and do well each year. I prefer to look at if the actual potential of the team is being realized...It's like saying overall, CLE's FO is doing well for that team, because they got Lebron. Inherently, championship windows will be limited in the NBA for each team - time catches up to every player in the end...IMO the correct way to assess the value of an FO is how much of the potential of the team has been fulfilled.

[SCdac]

It is sort of tiring hearing how "bad" our offseason was, but most of it stems from high expectations that the Spurs have put into place. I know I would have been thrilled to see our first-rounder Splitter playing with Duncan, and maybe Thomas, Maggette who was leaning toward the Spurs would have arguably put us over the top, etc. It was all there, but fell apart. Personally, the Spurs getting trumped by other, more lucrative, offers from around the world or stateside isn't the "beginning of the end", but is a reality they'll have to face and learn from (Scola, Splitter, etc). Losing Barry was less drastic than some on here think, IMO. Outside of precision three point shooting, he didn't bring much to the table, and his decision making was questionable at times. Finley's clutchness, despite being old, is underrated, and he seems like a good guy to have around. He still holds the Spurs record for most three's made in a PO game (8), and that was only a year ago. Not done yet I don't think.

I don't mind the Mason signing, as long as he isn't strictly a spot up shooter (which I'm afraid he'll become in our system of "shooters standing on the perimeter waiting for the kickout"). We need guys who can get to the rim, and to the FT line, when the big 3 aren't necassarilly creating for others. Over half the shots Mason took last season were three's (albeit at near 40%), well more than half were three's the season prior. That impresses me and scares me at the same time. I'm glad to hear he can put the ball on the floor, at the least. We need that - from him.

My biggest gripe (or only real gripe really) is that the Spurs need to draft first-round-talent with their first round pick, even if it means potentially losing out on a player, or having to trade down in the draft to get who they want. George Hill looks pretty active in other areas beside offense (which is nice), but would it have killed to take a chance on Donte Greene, or CDR, or even Chalmers if we're going the back-up PG route? Simply put, Spurs should aim for potential starters in the first round, OR find a way to beneficially trade the pick. I can't see Hill ever starting in the near future, as long as Parker and Ginobili are around. It will certainly be interesting to see how Hill compares to the other late first round picks... You look at some of the guys drafted around Mahinmi for instance, and you see Jason Maxiell, David Lee, Linas Kleiza, Brandon Bass, etc - guys who are making an impact. Would be nice to see something like that for us at least once every couple of years.

[Solid D]

Yes, I'm tired of it but in one way, there is a difference in the off-season. The international compe ion for money is very different. The NBA no longer has the leverage it once had for the skilled role-players. It has become a Sports' Agent's dream come true.

The Spurs must be disappointed and are probably having to re-think how to handle the shift in compe ion for talent. It's a new dynamic.

Taking a snap-shot of the roster as it stands in August, the top 8 rotation players for the Spurs are okay if Fin isn't one of the 8 and Mason is. They won't win the West on paper. Until their defense improves, they won't be the favorite in the west on wood.

[2Cleva]

From the outside, it appears that many fans just understand the game and knows that the West will be even tougher next year at the top of the conference.

Lakers, Hornets, Jazz, and now Rockets are along with the Spurs with legit shots at winning it all and every little bit helps.

The age (and mileage) of the key players of SA can't be ignored. They aren't going to fall apart next year but arguing health alone will take care of it won't cut it.

Any Spurs fans who understands the game has the right to be frustrated but I haven't seen anyone knowledgable holler the sky is falling.

The games are won on the floor, not on paper as Solid D said. SA is in for a fight but they have the moxie to win it. Question is do they have the firepower and legs but only next spring will decide that.

But this, like last year, will be the toughest for SA to win a le in the Duncan era because of the number of top echelon teams in the West. Usualy its 2-3, now 5 teams have the talent, coaching, starpower to win the le in the West.

[2Cleva]

But to support what was mentioned before - biggest problem for SA was the other economic source they had to compete with. From the start, SA didn't have the contracts that could easily be traded and wasn't willing to break up the big 3. FA was the only savior for the team this summer and it failed them. With they interested in 2010 like about 25 other teams, its only going to be worse next year.

Its 2010 before I can see SA making major improvements and at that time they are competing with everyone else in the NBA - and the fact no one can come to SA and be the "man" hurts them in recruiting.

[spurs50_]

I do get tired of hearing how bad the off season has been, but I also get tired of hearing that CIA Pop is up to something and "In Pop we trust"...This organziation has kicked ass, but they do make mistakes and should be called out when they do.

[wisnub]

I do get tired of hearing how bad the off season has been, but I also get tired of hearing that CIA Pop is up to something and "In Pop we trust"...This organziation has kicked ass, but they do make mistakes and should be called out when they do.

Amen

[wisnub]

FORGET 2010 thing....I can't remember last time we get all star player through FA, maybe in stone age???

It is going to be much harder in 2010 to get franchise player through FA. MY PREDICTION IS IN 2010 IT IS HARD TO GET LEBRON,BOSH OR WADE. WHY?? BECAUSE ALL TEAMS IN NBA MADE PREPARATION FOR THEM. NJ is clearing up cap and try to fill roster with solid future players in Jianlan. I suspect they will add more in 2009. Raptors made money preparation as well,Raptors is his team.. Heat is adding lottery pick and got no salary cap problem. I also suspect they will make huge moves on 2009 to satisfy Wade. Cavs also try to build strong supporting cast for Lebron (Big Ben, Mo Will,etc).
West is getting stronger and this offseason tell us that Spurs is not a favourite destination. Go ask CM if u dont believe me, there's also bunch of other names as well. I will punch myself if Lakers trade their huge contracts players to get cap room to try to match Lebron with Kobe. i dont think it will happen though.
I trust FO is trying to work for the best and I think we still chmapionship contender and always got a good chance...but I didnt really hope anything big happen in 2010. Please prove me wrong and land Bosch or Wade; then we can go party together!!!!! GO SA

[Dramon]

FORGET 2010 thing....I can't remember last time we get all star player through FA, maybe in stone age???

It is going to be much harder in 2010 to get franchise player through FA. MY PREDICTION IS IN 2010 IT IS HARD TO GET LEBRON,BOSH OR WADE. WHY?? BECAUSE ALL TEAMS IN NBA MADE PREPARATION FOR THEM. NJ is clearing up cap and try to fill roster with solid future players in Jianlan. I suspect they will add more in 2009. Raptors made money preparation as well,Raptors is his team.. Heat is adding lottery pick and got no salary cap problem. I also suspect they will make huge moves on 2009 to satisfy Wade. Cavs also try to build strong supporting cast for Lebron (Big Ben, Mo Will,etc).
West is getting stronger and this offseason tell us that Spurs is not a favourite destination. Go ask CM if u dont believe me, there's also bunch of other names as well. I will punch myself if Lakers trade their huge contracts players to get cap room to try to match Lebron with Kobe. i dont think it will happen though.
I trust FO is trying to work for the best and I think we still chmapionship contender and always got a good chance...but I didnt really hope anything big happen in 2010. Please prove me wrong and land Bosch or Wade; then we can go party together!!!!! GO SA

Another thing with 2010 is Ginobili's contract is up then as well.

I for one hope in 2010 the Spurs sign Scalabrine and keep Bonner, that would be a sweet combo.