Reply With Quote
This has been addressed many times.
Jax wasn't let go. He left. The Spurs made an offer which he rejected...and ended up taking less money in the end.
You definitely have a good arguement. I was always frustrated with the FO intil Duncan came along. Way too furgal and conservative at times. Duncan definitely makes them look alot better than they really are
other random thoughts...
They should have kept Stephen Jackson around. If he would have stayed I think we would have beaten the Mavericks two years ago and repeated.
Robert Horry's stint with the Spurs is completely overrated. Even in the piston playoff series that everybody remembers, he was extremely inconsistent. He was being owned by the pistons for three quarters and finally decided to play in the fourth quarter.
This has been addressed many times.
Jax wasn't let go. He left. The Spurs made an offer which he rejected...and ended up taking less money in the end.
Amen and Amen againAgreed - it's pretty difficult to get a star player when drafting that low for so many years. And the reason for that low draft position is obvious.
Though I would have liked to have gotten our hands on Josh Howard when he was available but you can't win them all.
If you consider a low ball offer an offer than yeah. Tony Parker almost left too because of this same tactic
I would tend to disagree with this. Yes, Duncan is that good and can make most teams instant contenders, but the FO has done subtle moves that aims to increase team chemistry rather than on talent.
You don't need 8 tower speakers at home when you already have two great ones, all you need are satellite speakers, a subwoofer, good cables, etc ... to make the system work. If you put 8 tower speakers in, the sound would be terrible.
The league has changed, and it would be extremely difficult to build teams with talent that is head and shoulders above everybody else due to luxury taxes, salary cap and maximum salaries. Back in the 80s, players were being paid much less than now. Jordan was paid $3m/ during his days with the Bulls in the late 80s, Magic had a 25 year $25 mil deal that was preposterous back in the day. Shaq makes about that in 1 year today.
There are still teams that are burning money for a supposedly talented roster, but not all of them are getting the expected results (NY, Miami), only the Suns and Mavs are enjoying the level of success that a large payroll would come to expect.
The Spurs were not fortunate to live in an era with no "dominant" team, they adapted, and drafted two all-star level players very late in the draft and built a team that accentuates the talents of its franchise player(s).
Rasheed Wallace was making close to $17 million when he was traded from the Blazers to the Hawks, and subsequently to Detroit. The Spurs just didn't have the cap space or the chips to acquire him.
Carter was traded for Mourning (who subsequently screwed the Raptors by forcing a buyout) and cap relief, which could trump whatever the Spurs could offer at the time, unless you want them to give up Parker and a young Ginobili, which I doubt the Raptors would bite back then with their development.
Butler was traded for a former #1 pick in Brown. While it is now confirmed he is a bust, back then, there were still those who believe he was a victim of Jordan's scorn and a change of scenery could unlock his potential. Again, that was way more than the Spurs could offer.
As strange as it sound, outside of the big 3, the Spurs have very little in terms of trade value, and that is not much of a surprise, since:
1) to have 3 franchise level players, you are lucky to be able to afford anything else.
2) to win championships require experienced veterans, while they are great for immediate term success, they are generally terrible trade chips, unless they have large expiring contracts.
The acquisition of Finley (obviously due to Duncan), Barry (again, due to Duncan) has been spot on to fill the outside shooting woes the Spurs had in the early 00's.
Bowen's signing has been fantastic.
Horry provided immense value.
Rasho, though disappointing ultimately, provided short-term help in 04 and 05.
Malik Rose provided great help in the early 00's.
Stephen Jackson was acquired for nothing and provided obvious help. Though he ultimately decided to leave, it was his decision and his decision alone.
Speedy Claxton was a great given his salary. Again, he opted for greener pastures.
There are some that didn't pan out, like Ron Mercer, Derek Anderson and Hedo Turkoglu, but overall, it appears you are short-changing the Spurs FOs ability.
A Daniels was a star that never was, but he was acquired for Carl Herrera and Felipe Lopez, what more could you ask for? Most of the players you rant about comes with VERY little in terms of cost, it's not like they traded a #5 pick for any of them. And I would expect any FO, no matter how good they are, to make a couple of bummer trades.
On the contrary, I would like to hear what possible trades or acquisitions (reasonable ones of course), that could have significantly improved the Spurs, now that you have the benefit of hindsight.
Because at the time he was available, Sheed was an unhappy nutcase who had just led the league with 41 techs - also, he wanted to play in Detroit. Vince Carter - who wants him? Ego-driven, over-rated and overpaid. Caron Butler - you can't get it right every time.Why didn't the spurs land R Wallace when he was given away for next to nothing or V Carter? Or the future star C Butler when he was availabe at a discount price.
You say Nazr and Claxton were short-term signings - yes, but they were short term signings that were crucial in the 2003 and 2005 rings.
And what about the contracts Manu and TP are on? Two of the best value for $ contracts in the NBA.
Once again, the Spurs FO isn't flashy, but they've done a great job of surrounding Timmy with low-ego, high chemistry guys who'll do anything to win, and that has resulted in 4 rings. You simply can't argue with those results.
Read my lips...HE TOOK LESS MONEY!!
Nice to see Boston representing well. The Spurs should be up there as they won 4 les this past decade.
Talk about revisionist history. Jax took less money elsewhere and Tony wasn't even close to leaving.
But Jax took less because he felt he wasn't getting enough here, and hoped to play for one year and earn the real deal he felt he deserve.
R Wallace would have been great on the Spurs. He still would be playing and helping the team. He has a nice perimeter jump shot and plays enough defense to not be a liability on the defensive end. He is better then what the spurs have now along side Duncan. He was a player the spurs should have targeted hard for and a great front office would have made it work.
The spurs had enough on the roster to make some type of package offer (Hedo, Rasho, Horry, Rose etc.) for Wallace. If Portland took any offer the spurs made thats another story but at least the spurs should have tried to get him and I didn't hear that they even tried or had any interest.
He was traded twice that year so they had two chances to try to make something work out but I heard nothing that they were even interested in Wallace. And I remember most on this board did not want to take a chance with Wallace. So Det. gets him and goes on to win the championship that year. Det. also had 3 top players on the team at the time with Billups, Hamilton and B Wallace so the excuse the spurs could not get him because they had 3 top players is just that, an excuse.
When I see the results of player acquisitions from trades and free agent signings under the Pop/RC era the spurs are not even close to what other teams have done. Their success is riding Duncans greatness.
I knew C Butler was going to be a great player as soon as he came into the league and was a bargain to trade for but I never heard the spurs even attempted to get him.
NE took a chance with Moss and look how that has worked out. Thats a great move by a great front office. The spurs don't take any chances and would rather choose the conservative route and not make a trade, thats why they have very little to show for in player acquisistions through trades. And the free agents they choose to sign have been weak. S Smith and Rasho are good examples. Neither of those guys were anything better than backup role players.
Rasho and Horry signed that summer, I am not sure if they could be traded that soon after signing. But even if they were, Rasho, and Rose were both on the books for a while, and there is no way Atlanta or Portland would take on those contracts.
Atlanta specifically acquired Wallace to clear cap space http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=1739128, and there is no way they would take on those contracts either.
The Spurs didn't have the necessary expiring contracts to make that trade. Getting Rasheed Wallace that year would have killed any cap flexibility down the road, and would make it extremely difficult to sign Manu Ginobili (summer of 04) and Parker (summer of 05) when they contracts were up.
Again, Butler was traded for a former #1 pick who many felt still had potential (those proved to be wrong). Who would have the spurs traded to get Butler? It's nice that you chose an NFL team as a franchise that took risks, but last time I checked, the Spurs were in the NBA and has won 4 les by building a versatile team that can score inside and out, can run, play half-court, defend and score.
Spurs offered Stephon around the same they gave Matt Bonner & Jaren Jackson (3 yrs/ 9 mil). By the time him and his agent realized they werent going to get what they wanted (the mid-level exception) from the Spurs the market had dried up so he signed with Atlanta for the vet minimum. The following year he got 6 year/ 36 million from Indiana through a sign and trade.
How is that less money?
The Spurs FO gaged the free agent market well that year and knew that was the best offer he was going to get that summer. Knowing this the Spurs FO thougt they could take advantage of the situation and get him to accept a low ball offer. This apparently alienated him so much that he decided to accept an even lower offer from Atlanta.
A couple things.
You can't always measure the success of a move based on his stats or playing time in a specific series. The playoffs in the NBA are about matchups and certain players over the years for the Spurs have not fit into the plan against the likes of Dallas or Phoenix or the Lakers. Nine times out of ten it came down to defensive matchups and if you start to sacrifice offense for defense in the playoffs you go home early and often.
Guys like Will Perdue, Steve Smith, Jerome Kersey, Danny Ferry and even Kerr who had a hard time getting alot of time were vital cogs in terms of experience, leadership, maturity in the locker room and on the road and certainly helping in the player development and on the bench.
Other players who have been very important to this franchise have been great practice players and energy guys who force the likes of Bowen and Duncan to work constantly and in the same respect control that intensity with calculated and focused efforts to help them develop.
Anybody can argue this player never did squat. Perfect example is Steve Smith in the playoff run years ago. Go back and ask the players and coaches how much experience and knowledge this man has of the game. He and Ferry used to call out the other teams in bounds plays and half court sets in practice and from the bench during the game. In the NBA practice time is very limited so Pop has always had the philosophy that he focuses on the team and what the Spurs do rather than over prepare for an opponent and allow bad habits to dictate a lack in their execution.
Pop has done several things to turn this franchise into an example league wide. However his greatest quality is knowing that the TEAM is bigger than any one individual including himself. That type of at ude has trickled down from the very top on down. Everybody has a role and it's not always about a big name but the right at ude.
What else would you have done with the #1 pick that year?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
