Reply With Quote
Committed almost our entire salary to 5 players?
$12 million left to sign 7 more people. That's going to be one crappy bench,
Letting Stephen Jackson go in 2003 was the beginning of the FO downfall. And nobody hardly mentions letting Turkoglu go the following year. What we could have done with those two guys the past couple of years! All I hear is that we need long athletic wings who can shoot the three. Well guess what!! We had them on roster already but were too stupid to sign them for the future. Add giving away Scola and drafting another in Splitter who probably will never sign with us continues the saga of very poor FO management.
Committed almost our entire salary to 5 players?
$12 million left to sign 7 more people. That's going to be one crappy bench,
The "stats" themselves are meaningless, on so many levels. I didn't see anyone mention that a player on the run-and-gun Suns is going to score more points than his counterparts on defensive-minded teams. The comments at the bottom of the article also sound like they gave the Lakers credit for Kobe, even though they didn't draft him. ("The Lakers secured Kobe (#13) by trade, but also had stars in...") That's especially ridiculous, given that Kobe and his agent made it clear that he would not play anywhere except for LA. And, no, Kobe wasn't a draft day trade. It was a couple of weeks before the deal was done.
There is one thing that caught my attention in the numbers. In the time period being looked at, the Spurs took a total of 30 picks. The only team with fewer picks is Toronto with 24. (The Charlotte Bobcats didn't exist for part of the time, so they don't count.) Vancouver/Memphis had 32 picks. The Knicks had 32 picks. They both sucked. Indiana had 33, and New Jersey had 35, and neither of them have been powerhouse teams. Charlotte/New Orleans managed to put together a couple of OK seasons with their 31 picks. The Spurs are the only team to have any real success by trading off a lot of their draft picks.
The article also has a link to the "Best Value Picks" from the last 20 drafts. Manu is #6 on the list, and Tony is #12. Scola is #20, and the Spurs get credit for him even though they didn't sign him. Those 3 pad the stats pretty heavily. (Oddly, Stephen Jackson is #9 on the list, and the Spurs get no credit, even though they were the ones who gave him a chance. Then you have Kobe at #4 on the list, even though the Lakers did nothing to deserve that "Value Pick".) Right behind Parker on the Best Value list is Tracy McGrady, who never has and never will win a Championship. And my favorite is #3 on the Best Value list - Dino Radja. WTF?
The article is stupid, the "stats" are stupid. Bottom line, the Spurs have drafted their Big 3 and done well with them. Everybody knew that Duncan was a winner, and their FO has gotten lots of credit for getting bargains with Parker and Manu. Other than those guys, they have nothing to show for their draft picks. Well... unless you count the trophies. You can argue that the only reason they got those was because of the Big 3, but the fact is they have the hardware. And when you get down to it, that's the only thing that counts.
I'm not sure how pointing out facts = jumping off a building. The Spurs have NOT done a good job of acquiring and developing talent, and the number of championships they've won is NOT proof that they have. All I see you doing is mischaracterizing the intent of people that are successfully dismantling both the article and the challenge in le of the thread.I love the fans like you that are ready to jump of a building b/c the Spurs aren't winning it all every year.
One Tim Duncan does not guarantee any championships, as we have seen this season, the FO has to get good players to help him, which they have consistently been doing for 10+ years.
Let's have a look at who the Spurs have been drafting since Tony Parker and evaluate their decisions.
In the 2002 draft the Spurs drafted John Salmons for Philadelphia in a pre-aranged deal, which brought us Speedy Claxton. As overrated as he was, no one can deny he was a significant piece in the 2003 championship team. A notable name drafted later was Carlos Boozer at 35 to Cleveland.
In the 2003 draft the Spurs drafted L. Barbosa for Phoenix in a pre-aranged deal which gave us a 1-st round pick later used in the trade for Nazr Mohammed. The Spurs were clearly saving every penny back in the summer of 2003 because they were after a big FA. With hindsight we all know how things turned out but at the time this seemed to be the logical decision. We could have had either Leandro, who I don't think would have blossomed in SA, or Josh Howard who would have been a nice player if he had any brains, but the truth is that the Spurs did use this draft pick for a very valuable piece and I don't see why anyone should complain.
In the 2004 draft the Spurs drafted Beno Udrih at 28. From the players projected around that pick - David Harrison, Varejao, Jackson Vroman, Peter John Ramos, Lionel Chalmers, Donta Smith and Andre Emmett, I tihnk the Spurs took the best talent. Hindsight says they could have had Varejao, or pushed it a bit and go for Chris Duhon, but in any case this is not a decision to dwell on too much. A notable mistake the Spurs did in this draft was taking Sanikidze at 42, just a pick before NY drafted Trevor Ariza, but it is difficult to critisize the FO since there were 28 other teams who didn't take him earlier as well.
In the 2005 draft the Spurs drafted Ian Mahinmi at 28, a decision engineered by none other but the genius that Sam Presti is. Notable players who could have been drafted instead are David Lee, Brandon Bass, Ronny Turiaf and Monta Ellis. The jury is still out on this kid, so we'll see if he can ever contribute, but truth is that this decision didn't affect in any way our chances to compete, just like 95% of the late first round picks for any team.
In 2006 the Spurs didn't have a 1st round pick because it had been traded to NY for Nazr. Players drafted in the late first/early second round : Maurice Ager, Mardy Collins, Joel Freeland, James White!, Steve Novak, Solomon Jones, Paul Davis, P.J. Tucker. Not a great class eh? I say this 1-st round pick was used in as good a way as there possibly could have been.
In the 2007 draft the Spurs drafted Tiago Splitter at 28. Other players we could have had instead include Carl Landry and Glen Davis. IMO this was a no-brainer decision - taking a lottery talent at 28 when it's available. We all know the implications, so it's easier to judge with hindsight, but if we're able to bring him in 2010 this will prove to be a great draft for us.
In the 2008 draft the Spurs drafted George Hill. We could have had Darrell Arthur or Mario Chalmers instead. Jury's still out. I believe Arthur would have been the better choice but it's too early to critisize.
If you're going to critisize the Fo for not using well their late first round picks, please let us know what you would have done, that would have been better. Also, please tell us which teams have drafted better than us for the last 7 years.
How Well Do the Spurs Draft?
82games.com has an interesting study that ranks how well teams have drafted over the last 20 years. According to their calculations, the Spurs rank fourth. The system they use is simple (and therefore, problematic), but it isn’t terrible. (Ed. Note: OK, so it’s kind of terrible. But it makes a decent jumping-off point for a discussion.) Basically they add a player’s career PPG, RPG, and APG, and organize the sum into 1 of 5 categories:
- Star: 20+ rating
- Solid: 15 to 19.9
- Role Player: 10 to 14.9
- Deep Bench: 5 to 9.9
- Complete Bust: Less than 5
- DNP: Never played in the NBA
Each player is also compared to the average performance by a player drafted at the same spot. So, as Roland notes, the Spurs are actually rewarded for picking Duncan at #1 (even though he was a consensus pick) because #1 picks average 16.6 ppg, 7.8 rpg, and 2.7 apg. Those comparisons are then compiled to form a general rating for the team. It is from that rating that our rank of fourth derives.
As I’m sure some commenters will note, the Spurs ranking is improved by certain players who do not actually play for the Spurs. Players like Luis Scola, who were not immediately traded but never played for the Spurs, contribute to our ranking, not their eventual team’s. If we made a draft day trade, the player we traded for contributes to our ranking, not the player we initially drafted. (For instance, the Spurs drafted Goran Dragic, but immediately traded him to the Suns for Malik Hairston. Subsequently, Hairston’s performance this past season is included in the Spurs’ ranking, not Dragic’s.) I believe the author made a mistake by including Leandro Barbosa in our ranking; I believe we traded him on draft day in 2003.
You’ll also notice that an abnormally high number of our picks receive DNPs (9 out of 30). For a lot of teams, that would be a sign of poor scouting, but for the Spurs it reflects our draft-and-dash strategy: Many players remain abroad or are assigned to Austin or a foreign team until they are ready to contribute. In some instances (such as with Robertas Javtokas and Tiago Splitter) this strategy can frustrating. But it certainly isn’t accurate to look at that number and assume 1/3 of the Spurs draft picks do not have the talent to play in the NBA.
According to the study, the Spurs have drafted 4 “stars” in the past 20 years: Tim Duncan, Tony Parker, Manu Ginobili, and Sean Elliott. Obviously David Robinson is also a star, but his draft class of 1987 puts him just outside the study’s purview. The Spurs ranking is wildly improved by the selections of Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili, and especially Manu. A quick look at 82games.com’s breakdown of expected performance shows that Manu is the only 57th pick of the last 20 years who has been anything more than a member of the deep bench.
This is a good oppportunity to reinitiate a conversation we began earlier this year: The Spurs draft well, but how well do we develop talent? While Parker is held up as the crowning achievement of our player development abilities, many of our picks have fallen flat. But as several commenters have noted, when you maintain a high level of play for an entire decade, you are not in a position to draft high-caliber prospects that often. Maybe more importantly, several of our more talented picks (John Salmons, Leandro Barbosa, Luis Scola) no longer or never did play for the Spurs. So, take a look back at the players the Spurs have drafted, and tell me, how do you think we’ve done?
http://www.48minutesof .com/2009/...e-spurs-draft/
The following blog comments were taken from Buck Harvey's blog. It is a blogger's response to Pop's proclamation of not being able to envision a scenario where Ginobili is traded. However the blogger takes it a step further and makes the strongest case for WHY the FO should indeed be criticized and held accountable for several decisions made since 2003. The blogger chronicles several questionable decisions by the FO during that period and illustrates how the failure to develop talent behind the Big Three has become evident.
http://blogs.mysanantonio.com/weblog...relax-you.html
Comments
I disagree with Pop and it's certainly not a first. I do see a scenario where Manu is traded but it won't be till during the season when healthy and flashing his old form.
Because the Spurs have done a poor job in recent seasons regarding player personnel, they are left with few assets.
If you want to get real radical, the Spurs should look to trade any or all of their Big 3 to set themselves up for another decade of success. But the Spurs aren't radical.
Since 2003 San Antonio has made so many mistakes I can't even count them all - but I'll try.
The biggest mistake was not retaining Stephen Jackson, which compounded itself by not selecting Josh Howard. Dallas, for example, now has an asset that they may trade to get into the top 10 of the draft.
And frankly, what the Spurs didn't realize was that the combination of Jax and Manu gave them the greatest combination of talent, skill, athleticism, length and versatility that they have ever had in the franchise's history manning the 2 and 3 spots. To me, that decision cost us a threepeat and maybe more.
Two smaller moves that have hurt San Antonio in different ways include Brent Barry and Kurt Thomas. Barry, ultimately was deemed to be better (for whatever reason) than a Jackson or Hedo Turkoglu even though he had only modest success on very bad NBA teams. Jackson starred in the 2003 Finals while Turk had an obvious skill set that contributed on the powerful Sacramento teams earlier this decade. While Jackson was offerred a 1 year, $5 million deal - they handed Barry a 3-year deal at about $6 per? That never made sense.
As for Thomas, I still don't understand how he was such an upgrade over Francisco Elson - who you actually won a le with on your roster. Not only did you take on double plus salaray but you gave away a first round pick for another player who had been nothing more than marginal on very bad NBA teams.
They couldn't bring over Luis Scola, trade him for nothing and he immediately starts putting up 13 and 10 for the Rockets. Don't tell me you don't doubt ever seeing Tiago Splitter in a Spurs uniform and selecting Mahimmi over David Lee, Marcus Williams over Big Baby Davis or Marc Gasol and George Hill over Mario Chalmers are also mysteries.
You can understand my concern with the overblown genius of the Spurs front office, right?
It's funny I read an article that for the past 20 years had them ranked 4th in drafting - there's a formula that needs not be paid attention to. Yes, they got credit for drafting Duncan...hilarious.
Regardless, the Spurs need to infuse TALENT back onto this roster. When they were winning les, who did they 'upset'?
No, they were front runners - the team to beat. That has changed. Look at all the teams rising in the West. From Portland to Denver to LA to Houston and even Oklahoma City and the Spurs find themselves as just another team.
Granted, the return of a healthy Manu means a lot. When healthy, he is a borderline All-NBA talent. But as much as I love Manu - I won't love seeing him playing in another uniform and getting no compensation for him.
The Spurs aren't that far away and considering a lot of contracts can be bought out or are expiring by this time next year - the Spurs are poised to make some moves. But with Duncan, the time is always now. And with their recent track record I have more than my druthers that the Spurs can make the moves necessary to be more than contenders again.
Still, you either extend Ginobili for 3 or 4 seasons or you trade him before the deadline. You do not decide to not resign him and then get nothing in return. That would be foolish considering the Spurs don't have players other teams want (unless it's a salary dump deal).
The blogger makes some sound points. Obviously, for anyone to say the FO sucks would be way over the top. However, to think the FO shouldn't be roundly criticized for some failed personnel decisions and for not having retained and developed a draft picks during that period would be just as over-the-top.
There is more than just the draft to determine how well the front office has done in getting players. How about looking at trades and free agency.
I don't disagree with much of what the blogger commented, there are few more objectively critical of the front office than me. But I do have problems taking that person seriously when their numbers are so screwed up.
My memory is that Stephen Jackson was offered 3/9, not 1/5. I wish he was offered 1/5, he would have taken it.
Brent Barry didn't sign 3/18, but 4/19 according to the one account I could find, though I believe the cash amount could have been slightly more.
Regardless, the money issues can be hard to find, but the years on the contract, there's no excuse for anyone with an internet connection to get those wrong.
So yes, the Spurs did screw up with Jax, and Barry, and poor decisions up and down the last 5-6 years which cost them several more les and has closed their contending window already.
BUT it's hard to convince people of that by screwing up basic facts like the column commenter does.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
