'All-in'

[ElNono]

Gooden is a bad example.
Gooden was injured when he signed with Spurs. He has started to play with the team damn late in the season because of that. And with your own words he is "a slow learner on defense", if Spurs get a new player at the deadline, he will likely get it way quicker than Gooden on the defensive end.

And in 05, Spurs got Nazr, who isn't a BB genius, at the deadline. He significantly help the team to win it all that year.

Gooden is just as good an example as Nazr. Don't forget some people claimed he would fit right in with the Spurs since he played under Mike Brown, who supposedly had a very similar system. At the very end, it's a gamble that the Spurs took and it didn't work out. Nazr would be the counter example. But this is all in hindsight.
It's hard to prognosticate how a new piece is going to fit in. People keep pointing at Haywood or Camby, but neither is really a sure thing. There's many factors to consider and some players simply don't fit in. So, from a personal perspective, I really don't put all my eggs on one basket and wait for that trade that brings the savior... I think we can compete with what we have if we can stay healthy and play considerably better on defense. I think it's possible with this roster, that's all.

[exstatic]

The West isn't really stronger other than LA, our main guys just got older and worse..

There are 11 WC teams over .500. Every team in our division is at least 3 games over .500. Think again.

[HarlemHeat37]

I disagree..their records are nice and all and they'll compete for the playoffs, but the main compe ion from years ago have all gotten worse other than the Lakers, including the Spurs..

Just a few years ago there were 3 serious contenders in the West in SA, Dallas and Phoenix..all 3 of those teams are all significantly worse IMO, and none of the current non-Lakers teams would be on the same level IMO..

Those teams from the top 6-11 currently have nice records and all, but none of them are a threat to anything, and it's also very likely that they don't all keep it up..

It doesn't really matter anyways, it's a subjective argument..

[TD 21]

The West isn't really stronger other than LA, our main guys just got older and worse..

How do you figure? Duncan is still a top five player, Parker, minus the plantar fasciitis, is a top twenty player. That just leaves Ginobili...

I always tend to hesitate when it comes to players of this caliber before saying they're fallen off, but much like Garnett, it certainly looks like Ginobili has fallen off. Is it simply a matter of his needing more time? I don't know if that excuse flies anymore. After tomorrow's game, the Spurs will have reached the half way point of the season. He's played in the majority of the games and in the past month has even played (for him) relatively heavy minutes, yet still the explosion at the rim and the shooting touch in general have not returned. Which begs the question: will they ever?

If Parker can somehow pull a Duncan in '06 and go to another level in the playoffs despite the plantar fasciitis, then you're talking about a duo that's capable of leading a team to a championship. Even with Ginobili in decline, because of the improved depth. Still, Ginobili is fairly reliable in the clutch, because he's still a good play maker and an excellent free throw shooter.

[Blackjack]

Your point is basically "Lakers are too good, Spurs need another great trade to be at their level. If there are only good but not great trades on the table, the better solution is to stand pat and to give up this season."

This is where you've misunderstood; probably a poor job on my behalf. This isn't about my opinion or me stating what needs to be done for the Spurs to win a le. I'm simply shootin' the about a very unlikely hypothetical in order to see how far this 'all-in' mindset and approach of the front office could go.

My opinion's the same as it was the day we knew what the opening-day roster: if the team stays healthy and is playing some of their better ball come April and May, they're the second best team in the West. And, no, I don't think the Lakers are too good that the Spurs need some great, spectacular trade. They just need the right trade; a legitimate number-two big man being optimum and a more well-rounded wing could be beneficial, as well.

Honestly, I don't think the Lakers are as unbeatable or great as some like to claim or assume. I do, however, think they're a bad matchup for the Spurs; like I've said in the past, the Spurs' two biggest advantages aren't necessarily things I trust to take four-out-of-seven from the Lakers: Tony's health and history against the Lakers doesn't help me to exude great confidence, and a better bench doesn't carry the amount of weight in the post-season that it does in the regular-season.

Let's suppose that Spurs try to get a defensive bigman before the deadline and the best one they can get is Collison with a Bonner+Mahinmi+Haislip for Collison trade.

To me, it's a trade that would improve Spurs chances to beat LA even if Spurs would still be the underdogs. That's why I would do this trade.

I'm all for making the best of what they can with what's available. Even if it's someone like Collison, a guy I don't believe to be a real difference-maker, I'd still want to improve the team to give them the best chance possible; there are no absolutes in pro sports and no one knows just how it will all play out. You build a roster and prepare your team to play the best at their best, but, often times, the scenario never plays out that way. Whether it's an injury, an early-exit or just a flat-out healthy bout of good fortune, there's always the possibility a team perseveres and finds a way. (The Miami Heat have a Championship..)

The Spurs aren't "all in". There is life after Duncan, and while it may not appear that way when the Spurs front office is willing to pay I seriously doubt the Spurs will simply stop operations when Duncan retires. They will still need to sell tickets at that point and there is a future after Duncan.

Literally speaking, no. They're not 'all-in'. Relatively speaking, as they've thrown caution to the wind and their business model (short-term, at least), yeah. They're 'all-in'.

What they're doing now is unsustainable. They make no secret about it and it will only last for the duration of Tim's viability as the centerpiece; as the foundation. They're savvy businessman who also happen to have the foresight to know that an opportunity to taste this kind of success doesn't come around very often. They'll take their shot while they can (even at the expense of some short-term tax or potential talent) and adjust the books and gameplan moving forward accordingly; there are going to be some big decisions to be made by the Spurs and players alike after Tim's gone, lean or less-than-stellar-years are inevitable given the hindsight of history.

The mistake you make is thinking the Spurs are in a win at all costs mindset. I would argue that isn't the case. They're in a win at higher costs mindset now but don't mistake Holt willing to pay more to win now as a lack of concern for what the Spurs team will have after Duncan.

Again, I probably did a poor job of putting forth the question. There was no mistake on my part, just an honest question about a hypothetical scenario; one that might give some insight into the mindset of the FO.

There will be life after Duncan. It's going to be a little rough and, depending on how much of the FO stays intact, it could get pretty bleak. But the Spurs aren't going about this recklessly; boldly seems better suited.

They're 'all-in' is a departure from business as usual. It's taking on tax like never before and being much more proactive and aggressive with their roster. But they're doing so in a strategic fashion, knowing this moment is fleeting; even RJ's an expiring contract next year.

They've got a gameplan they've set into motion, one that probably won't see much deviation, but one that coincides with Tim's window and won't prevent them from making just about any move that makes basketball sense over that span.

They're essentially going all-in with what they brought to the table, not all that they own.

[taps]

bruno laying down tha knowledge in general