Gary "The Glove" Payton

[travis2]

The problem here is that you homers overestimate "what is left besides Robinson, Duncan and Parker".

No, the problem is that you overestimate your own "brilliance".

You can argue all you want about what "shouda coulda woulda" happened. The fact remains that you can't go back. And frankly, you show yourself to be a sad little boy for constantly harping on it.

Sorta like my oldest did as a 5 year old. Many years ago.

A five year old NBA fan could see the Spurs made the conservative mistake in 2001 by Holt-ing on to several okay players instead of acepting the trade for an elite one.

Ah, so you admit your age finally.

You're the only one who sees this. That should tell you something. With as much basketball knowledge as is in this forum, the fact that your drug-induced rants have failed to generate any support shows how flawed and sad your reasoning is.

Come back to 2003. Maybe you can learn something about present days.

[Admiral]

The bottom line is that Parker is going to have to turn out to be REALLY good to justify not making that trade. I like Parker a lot, and think he will be just that good. However, it would've been hard to look at a team with Robinson and Duncan and not do everything possible to make them a dynasty. We weren't far from that level, and obtaining Payton for virtually nothing seems like a no-brainer.

Remember, the Spurs had no idea what Parker would turn out to be when they turned down that trade. That makes the non-trade even that much more disturbing, doesn't it?

I like Parker and am not as mad as Ghost that we didn't pull the trigger, but I don't think an objective mind can deny that obtaining Payton would've put us in position to win more than just the one le. Parker's improvement makes it palpable, but it was still a poor decision for the most part.

[travis2]

I'm sorry, I disagree. Payton was and still is a locker room hazard waiting to happen.

And I'm sorry, I just don't see him as being that much better than Parker. Better, yes. But not enough to dump that much money his way.

If you can get him on a short term contract at bargain rates...I'll think about that one. Otherwise...see my analogy about the pickup truck and the Ferrari.

[travis2]

Oh, and...

Remember, the Spurs had no idea what Parker would turn out to be when they turned down that trade.

I disagree.

[picnroll]

Bottomline is Ghost has a win now worry later mindset.

Botttomline is the only money Ghost plays with is monopoly money whereas Holt is playing with real money.

Bottomline is Pop, et. al. saw a gem in Parker and it remains to be seen if they were right. So far no one can say they were definitely wrong but they get paid to make the decision and ultiamtely get fired if they made the wrong decision. Everybody else is just whackin off on their keyboard.

[genghisrex]

Remember, the Spurs had no idea what Parker would turn out to be when they turned down that trade. That makes the non-trade even that much more disturbing, doesn't it?

Fans like you and me may have had no idea what Parker would become, but your assumption that Pop/RC had no idea is laughable. They had no guarantee, yes, but they obviously saw something special and so they took a risk. Just because we the fans were living in a vacuum of information about Parker doesn't mean that Pop/RC were in that vacuum with us.

[Ghost Writer]

"I'm sorry, I disagree. Payton was and still is a locker room hazard waiting to happen.

And I'm sorry, I just don't see him as being that much better than Parker. Better, yes. But not enough to dump that much money his way." — travis

travis, you are right. You are sorry.

You keep harping on non-issues that I've already dissected.

If you scan this thread, you see me making a compelling argument with lenghty points and counterpoints. And all you do is say "I disagree" and bring up things I've already countered. Kepp up, travis.

How is Payton a lockerroom cancer when McMillain applauded him for being a team leader last season despite Payton wanting an extension?

What do you mean about throwing money at Payton?

In a trade, he would've cost the combined salaries of Parker, Daniels, Rose and Smitty. Only Parker and Rose are worth thinking about. And those two simply are not on Gary Payton's level.

You ask any casual fan outside of San Antonio if they'd trade those four for Payton in 2001 and they'd say "without a doubt". If you haven't noticed, the front office hasn't done anything to put the team over the top, because we've been stuck in a Holt-ing Pattern until 2003 presumably. Better be worth it.

Payton still doesn't have that extension, fools.

Parker still l can't tie Payton's shoes. Half the reason Parker is worth a d@mn is because NBA coaches don't respect him enough with Duncan being the focal point of defenses. You put Parker on the Sonics last year instead of Payton and he'll suddenly llok very Whitney-esque once again.

Payton had 14 assists in his last playoff game. Does Parker have that many in 4 playoff games?

The more this argument rages on, the more I see that I am dealing with ignorant homers who overvalue their own and blindly support whatever decisions their favorite team makes.

I'm trying to educate the labotomized.

[travis2]

You blithering idiot...he would have cost money because we still would have had to fill the slots we traded away. With people who couldn't play.

It's real simple, jerk. It's called math. You know, that subject you failed every year since 3rd grade.

The only thing you've dissected is yourself. The only thing you've earned is my pity.

Game, set, match.

[picnroll]

Half the reason Parker is worth a d@mn is because NBA coaches don't respect him enough with Duncan being the focal point of defenses.

Watch a game Ghost. Parker's been getting doubled and jumped this entire series and is starting to adjust. The other night he scored some damn nice balls on quick Js with Williams and Outlaw flying at him. Sign of things to come.

Pop > Ghost.
But get back in touch when somebody votes you coach or executive of the year.

[travis2]

picnroll, I chose to ignore that one...the idiocy spoke for itself and needed no highlighting on my part...

[MagicMurdock]

Have to say..I agree with Ghost, just not with the same passion. Spurs turning down that trade in '01 would have upset me had I been a Spurs fan. Also, I still think Payton will be better than Parker for the next 3 years or so. I think people here DO overrate Rose and Parker, , you guys overrate every spur, but that's not the point. Payton would be better to taking the Spurs to a championship than Parker. To dismiss Ghost's points as stupid, is stupid. But that's not to say his argument is flawless either. Let's just not forget, Manu is not Michael Jordan, TP did not make the all-star game and Malik Rose is too short to play center.

GO MAVS!!!

[Ghost Writer]

travis and picnroll, after distilling your tired rhetoric and grade-school insults, I've isolated that you both:

• Overestimate Parker

• Overrate the importnace of a bench

• Underestimate Payton

I have taken the time to educate you to the contrary.

Who exactly do you think is irresplaceable out of:

Parker
Rose
Daniels
Smith?

Why?


Try to answer me for once.

Re-read. Again.

travis, you poor, misguided soul.

What do you think we have now?

We have Duncan, Robinson, Parker and a carton of eggs.

My way, we would have Duncan, Robinson, Payton and a carton of eggs, dope.

Benches don't win les, moron! Stars do.

Re-read and learn:
<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>For the amount of time and posts I've devoted to the Gary Payton '01 topic, I am constantly amazed at how many people still don't get it.

In monkey terms:

• In the summer of 2001, the Spurs turned down a deal that would've brought Gary Payton to San Antonio for the rights to Tony Parker, Antonio Daniels, Malik Rose and the salary spot that eventually resulted in Steve Smith vis the Derek Anderson and Steve Kerr trade

• In the playoffs of 2002, Sonics Coach Nate McMillain had Gary Payton double down on Tim Duncan and leave Tony Parker open. His exact words were, "... we're gonna make Tony Parker beat us. I need my best defender [Payton] helping on Duncan..."

• In the summer of 2002, I insisted that Spurs fans should shift focus from Jason Kidd and Jermaine O'Neal and settle on Michael Olowokandi for significantly less than the max in 2003.

• Now, Gary Payton may also be available to the Spurs this summer for significantly less than the max.

• To this day, I maintain that trading Parker, Daniels and Rose and the salary slot that yeilded Smith to get Payton in 2001 would've gotten the Spurs closer to a le than the status quo as we know it.

Breaking it down like an organic compound:

• Again, Parker was an unproven commodity who is still not a top 10 PG today.

• Rose is a bench 'tweener.

• Daniels is no longer on the Spurs.

• Smith no longer sees time for the Spurs.

• The Spurs have a long history of filling out benches with castoffs and neverweres who become serviceable players under cheap contracts.

• In 2002, Gary Payton — a perennial All-Star who took a Sonics team to the Finals — recorded his best season statistically and leadership-wise as a pro.

• To date, Gary Payton has not signed a long-term contract.

Conclusion:

The Spurs could've had the best PG of the last decade for the low cost of a late first rounder, a combo guard who we later traded, an overachieving frontcourt sub, and an old guard who rides the pine today.

If we didn't win a le or two with Payton from 2001-03, then we simply could let him walk, as he will probably do this summer after his contract expires.

Apology Accepted™

:coo

<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END-->

The problem here is that you homers overestimate "what is left besides Robinson, Duncan and Parker".

The fact is that the rest of the Spurs are players nobody wanted before or don't want anymore now.

The bench guys have come and gone for the Spurs over the years.

Only Malik Rose remains as a consistent holdover from the 1999* team!

That should tell you that the Spurs can easily fill out a bench and get decent players to perform better.

At the end of the day, it all boils down to:

Payton '01 > Parker '01 + Rose '01

A five year old NBA fan could see the Spurs made the conservative mistake in 2001 by Holt-ing on to several okay players instead of acepting the trade for an elite one.

"I'm sorry, I disagree. Payton was and still is a locker room hazard waiting to happen.

And I'm sorry, I just don't see him as being that much better than Parker. Better, yes. But not enough to dump that much money his way." — travis

travis, you are right. You are sorry.

You keep harping on non-issues that I've already dissected.

If you scan this thread, you see me making a compelling argument with lenghty points and counterpoints. And all you do is say "I disagree" and bring up things I've already countered. Kepp up, travis.

How is Payton a lockerroom cancer when McMillain applauded him for being a team leader last season despite Payton wanting an extension?

What do you mean about throwing money at Payton?

In a trade, he would've cost the combined salaries of Parker, Daniels, Rose and Smitty. Only Parker and Rose are worth thinking about. And those two simply are not on Gary Payton's level.

You ask any casual fan outside of San Antonio if they'd trade those four for Payton in 2001 and they'd say "without a doubt". If you haven't noticed, the front office hasn't done anything to put the team over the top, because we've been stuck in a Holt-ing Pattern until 2003 presumably. Better be worth it.

Payton still doesn't have that extension, fools.

Parker still l can't tie Payton's shoes. Half the reason Parker is worth a d@mn is because NBA coaches don't respect him enough with Duncan being the focal point of defenses. You put Parker on the Sonics last year instead of Payton and he'll suddenly llok very Whitney-esque once again.

Payton had 14 assists in his last playoff game. Does Parker have that many in 4 playoff games?

The more this argument rages on, the more I see that I am dealing with ignorant homers who overvalue their own and blindly support whatever decisions their favorite team makes.

I'm trying to educate the labotomized.


[/quote]

[travis2]

message deleted because it's just not worth the effort

[Ghost Writer]

Re-read. Again.

travis, you poor, misguided soul.

What do you think we have now?

We have Duncan, Robinson, Parker and a carton of eggs.

My way, we would have Duncan, Robinson, Payton and a carton of eggs, dope.

Benches don't win les, moron! Stars do.

Re-read and learn:

The problem here is that you homers overestimate what is left besides Robinson, Duncan and Parker.

The fact is that the rest of the Spurs are players nobody wanted before or don't want anymore now.

The bench guys have come and gone for the Spurs over the years.

Only Malik Rose remains as a consistent holdover from the 1999* team!

That should tell you that the Spurs can easily fill out a bench and get decent players to perform better.

At the end of the day, it all boils down to:

Payton '01 > Parker '01 + Rose '01

A five year old NBA fan could see the Spurs made the conservative mistake in 2001 by Holt-ing on to several okay players instead of acepting the trade for an elite one.

I'm sorry, I disagree. Payton was and still is a locker room hazard waiting to happen.

And I'm sorry, I just don't see him as being that much better than Parker. Better, yes. But not enough to dump that much money his way.&quot; — travis

travis, you are right. You are sorry.

You keep harping on non-issues that I've already dissected.

If you scan this thread, you see me making a compelling argument with lenghty points and counterpoints. And all you do is say "I disagree" and bring up things I've already countered. Kepp up, travis.

How is Payton a lockerroom cancer when McMillain applauded him for being a team leader last season despite Payton wanting an extension?

What do you mean about throwing money at Payton?

In a trade, he would've cost the combined salaries of Parker, Daniels, Rose and Smitty. Only Parker and Rose are worth thinking about. And those two simply are not on Gary Payton's level.

You ask any casual fan outside of San Antonio if they'd trade those four for Payton in 2001 and they'd say "without a doubt". If you haven't noticed, the front office hasn't done anything to put the team over the top, because we've been stuck in a Holt-ing Pattern until 2003 presumably. Better be worth it.

Payton still doesn't have that extension, fools.

Parker still l can't tie Payton's shoes. Half the reason Parker is worth a d@mn is because NBA coaches don't respect him enough with Duncan being the focal point of defenses. You put Parker on the Sonics last year instead of Payton and he'll suddenly llok very Whitney-esque once again.

Payton had 14 assists in his last playoff game. Does Parker have that many in 4 playoff games?

The more this argument rages on, the more I see that I am dealing with ignorant homers who overvalue their own and blindly support whatever decisions their favorite team makes.

I'm trying to educate the labotomized.








ANSWER ME, COWARD!:

travis and picnroll, after distilling your tired rhetoric and grade-school insults, I've isolated that you both:

• Overestimate Parker

• Overrate the importnace of a bench

• Underestimate Payton

I have taken the time to educate you to the contrary.

Who exactly do you think is irresplaceable out of:

Parker
Rose
Daniels
Smith?

Why?

[travis2]

I will not answer.

travis and picnroll, after distilling your tired rhetoric and grade-school insults, I've isolated that you both:

Only after you threw the first punch, wad.

You have no desire to debate issues. Only to call people names. Which is typical of people who don't have the truth on their side.

You want debate? You want respect? Start showing it. You dish out crap...expect it back. In spades. And if you don't like it...

Learn to be a human being.

[Jimcs50]

Rose is irreplacable on the Spurs.

[timvp]

Ghost doesn't understand one basic concept:

Payton has one or two good years left. Parker has 15.

Even though Parker isn't of Payton's level yet, there is no way you make that trade. Parker will become one of the better point guards in the leauge and will remain so for a long, long time. Payton is going down hill.

You can say you want to win now and worry later, but if you thought Chucky Brown was bad ... you ain't seen nothing yet. Who would the Spurs get to replace Gary Payton in one or two years?

Doug Overton.

Answer.

[picnroll]

Agree Travis. Waste of time. I think I'll live in the present.

[Big Syke]

I have to agree with Ghost Writer in this thread. If you have a chance to get Gary Payton you do it and think the "WHAT IFS" later. Winning rings now beats any future wet dreams.

[Admiral]

I do not see how it can be justified that a team with Robinson and Duncan should be denied its opportunity to be a dynasty. DAVID ROBINSON AND TIM DUNCAN!! Two of the best big men to ever lace 'em up! On the SAME team!! Stop and think about it for a moment.

No matter how good Parker becomes...

Duncan + Parker < Duncan + Robinson + Payton

On top of not realizing what we had, some of you are saying that adding Payton would have been a dumb move?!? You did see how close we were to beating the Lakers in several of those playoff games, right? Surely you aren't suggesting that Payton wouldn't have gotten us over the top.

I am going to assume that everyone against the trade agrees that Payton would've greatly helped us, but that they are just that enamored with Parker. I can certainly live with that. But please, don't try to justify not doing the trade by citing stuff like "Payton's a cancer" and "hey, Daniels did a great statue of liberty dunk!"

Also, many of you are assuming that Parker and Duncan staying here is guaranteed. I see that the Holting pattern has already brainwashed some people into thinking that everyone will always want to be a Spur. What guarantees Parker staying here past his rookie contract? That question is especially prudent if we sign Kidd this summer.

On the other end of the spectrum, trading for Payton was a certainty.

I can enjoy watching Parker develop into an All-Star, but 1999-2003 will always be years of unfulfilled potential for Spurs basketball. It could've been really special.

[timvp]

DAVID ROBINSON AND TIM DUNCAN!! Two of the best big men to ever lace 'em up! On the SAME team!! Stop and think about it for a moment.

Stop and think about Kobe and Shaq on the same team. They might be the two best players in the league and they are teammates. No matter how you try to twist it, it would have been close to impossible to beat them any of the last three years.

Duncan and Robinson have been a great tandem, but Duncan is on his way to his peak and Robinson is on the way down. If they would have played while they were both at their best, that would have been a different story.

Duncan, Robinson and Payton would not have won a ring. With no bench and no shooting guard, the Lakers would have easily beat them.

Don't fool yourself.

[Admiral]

Stop and think about Kobe and Shaq on the same team. They might be the two best players in the league and they are teammates. No matter how you try to twist it, it would have been close to impossible to beat them any of the last three years. -timvp

I agree that Kobe and Shaq are the two best players in the league, and I understand that Robinson and Duncan alone aren't quite enough to beat Kobe and Shaq. But are you actually saying that Robinson, Duncan, AND Payton wouldn't have been enough to beat the Lakers? I know it's not a given, but those three guys on the same team would give us a very realistic shot - too realistic to say that there is no way.

Duncan and Robinson have been a great tandem, but Duncan is on his way to his peak and Robinson is on the way down. If they would have played while they were both at their best, that would have been a different story. -timvp

That would have been one nasty duo if Duncan had come along about five years sooner. I realize that the twilight of DRob's career is here, but he is still by far our best post defender and a solid rebounder. He can still anchor or defense and gets out high on picks better than anyone in the league. Even though he's not a 28/12 guy like once was, a team with DRob, Duncan, and Payton would've been awesome. Those three would've been perfect complements to one another.

Duncan, Robinson and Payton would not have won a ring. With no bench and no shooting guard, the Lakers would have easily beat them. Don't fool yourself. -timvp

You know I respect you a lot, timvp, but that is a pretty ballsy statement. First of all, that trio is more talented than any other trio in recent memory. Second, I am not so convinced that we would've had no bench and no shooting guard. The Spurs have proven to be able to get solid players despite a small budget over the years. The Lakers don't have great players aside from Shaq and Kobe, but it doesn't matter. The Spurs with Robinson, Duncan, and Payton would've been a similar story.

But as I said, Parker is cool and will only get better. It's just a shame that we couldn't capitalize more on the Twin Towers. Such a situation will never happen again.

[baseline bum]

Come on, Admiral. David's been a role player since 2001. Pop isn't the reason he's not putting up 15 and 10. On top of that, David's been too injury prone these last two seasons for the Spurs to be banking heavily on his play. Without Malik Rose this team would have been screwed last playoffs and this one too. Could you imagine having Mark Bryant and Danny Ferry defending Shaq the whole time until the 4th quarter in games 1 and 2 last year... because that's what would have happened in your scenario.

GP is one of my favorite players in the game, but it's a bit strange that Seattle becomes a much better team overnight after trading him for Ray Allen despite having no point guard.

There's just no way that was ever the right move to make. You're delusional if you think Robinson is one of the great centers of all time based on only these past two seasons. Malik is the better player between the two right now, and losing him would have been devastating, not to mention losing the best young point prospect in the league.

Pop loved Tony from the start, and if you can't recognize Pop's eye for talent after what he saw has been realized in Rose and Jax I don't know what to say.

You're looking at a 2002 team with no frontcourt aside from Duncan in the playoffs and a 2003 team that has an overrated player like Keon Clark at best (after using the MCX) and no money to sign a max player with a point guard who's almost done in this league.

[timvp]

Admiral, I think you are overrating both Robinson and Payton. I've defended Robinson countless times over the years, but you can't deny that he's now a role player. That isn't a bad thing; that's just the way things are. He can dominate on defense and play smart on offense, but he can only do that for stretches and in certain matchups. Robinson's last superstar year was the 1999 season. After that, he's been a star. But as I've said, there is no shame in that.

Payton is a very good player, but some in here think too highly of him. As BBum alluded to, it's no coincidence that the Sonics got better with the addition of Ray Allen. Payton, for all his greatness, is a ball-hawk. He demands the ball and needs it to be effective. I don't see how his game and Duncan's game would coexist without one of them taking a backseat. If you've watch Payton since about 1997, the ball is in his hands like 75% of the time. Duncan demands the ball about the same amount for the Spurs. Who is going to take that backseat? Would you want to turn Payton into a role-player or would you want Duncan to play more off the ball? And even if you figure that out, any shots Robinson would have had would be gone.

Adding Payton would have trickle down effects to the whole roster. That's why you can't just look at his stats and proclaim greatness.

Parker and Rose are going to make people forget about Payton in a couple years.

[Marcus Bryant]

Giving up most of your young core for a guy when you can get him 2 years later at a reduced rate makes no sense whatsoever.