Are the Spurs on the decline?

[JamStone]

FromWayDownTown,

I think Chauncey Billups is a realist. He's outperformed his contract. But, all three starters so far (Rip, Rasheed, and Tayshaun) took less than market value to re-up with the Pistons. I think if the Pistons give Chauncey a five year commitment, he'll sign for roughly $10 million a year.

Those young players are precisely the reason I think the Pistons are in better position in a few years. Of course there is no guarantee the Pistons will be able to keep all of them, but it's reasonable to think they will be able to keep some of them. Spurs will have to not only look for a new starting small forward and possibly a new starting center, but they'll have to look for an entirely NEW BENCH. That's why I think the Pistons are positioned better than the Spurs for the future.

I don't think Spurs were true le contenders in 2000 or 2001. Even Portland and Sacramento were better bets as true contenders. And, even if the Spurs WERE considered the only true le contenders since 1999, I don't believe it was due to the "savvy" of the Spurs scouts to identify talents. I think it was due to TIM DUNCAN, and TIM DUNCAN only.

I udnerstand your faith in the Spurs' organization. But, you talk like the Spurs will be le contenders for the next decade. I don't see that happening. As some Spurs fan already mentioned, the Spurs' le hopes will end when Tim Duncan is gone, and maybe even sooner, when he starts to decline in his level of play.

The Pistons will probably not be le contenders in a few years either. But, I think they will have better building blocks when they try to form another contending roster, whereas I feel the Spurs will have a very long way to go in getting back to that level.

[JamStone]

Really, just one trade would change everything for either team - so this is rather academic right now.

The "one trade" comment I made was in response to the above.

[ChumpDumper]

The "one trade" comment I made was in response to the above.

And? If "changing everything" just means getting a couple of scrubs young enough for you to like, that would have to be true.

[jochhejaam]

FromWayDownTown,

I think Chauncey Billups is a realist. He's outperformed his contract. But, all three starters so far (Rip, Rasheed, and Tayshaun) took less than market value to re-up with the Pistons. I think if the Pistons give Chauncey a five year commitment, he'll sign for roughly $10 million a year.

The problem with that is there'll be teams out there willing to give him the max contract so we'll be lucky IMO to sign him for closer to $65-70 mil for 5 years.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Maybe the spurs can get billups. How many years does TP have on his deal?

[JamStone]

ChumpDumper,

What kind of quality guy are you going to get for about $3 million a year to replace a starting small forward? Even if you combine Bowen's contract with Horry's or Finley's, you get an MLE type talent for two of your core players. Expiring contracts are valuable sure, but a team is not going to just give you a Ron Artest (worth more than his contract) value type player just to get an expiring contract.

Pistons will have to deal with salary cap and luxury tax issues also. I didn't say they wouldn't have to deal with those problems. I said they are in a better position than the Spurs are in the future. The Pistons will have a better financial situation and have young players to develop. But, sure, if the Pistons re-sign Ben and Chauncey, they'll also have financial issues to deal with. I don't disagree. I merely believe their situation is better than the Spurs' situation.

Darko does not have the value he had when he was drafted, but there will be teams that are interested in an athletic and talented 7-footer in his early twenties. There's value in that kind of player, whether you want to believe it or not. We're not talking about a Sean Marks talent or a Peter John Ramos talent. As bad as their careers have been, Steven Hunter and DeSagana Diop were able to secure multiple year contracts. Darko will still have "some" value, albeit not as high as a #2 draft pick should have.

Having Devin Brown rather than Michael Finley I think would be better for the Spurs' future. Sharrod Ford would be a better 13th man than Sean Marks, yes. I'd take Maurice Evans over Brent Barry, absolutely. If you just had young scrubs at the end of the bench, would it be a brighter future? No. But, if the Spurs had younger players who were almost as good as the veterans the Spurs have, they'd have a brighter future in my opinion.


Chauncey Billups appreciates his situation in Detroit. If he seeks max money, I don't think the Pistons give it to him. If he can accept about $10 million a year, I think he'll be a Piston for the next 6-7 years. As I said before, Rip, Rasheed, and Tayshaun all negotiated contracts LESS than their market value at the time.

[Bruno]

I guess it depends, Bruno.
If the young players are learning a lot from the coaches even though they aren't getting a lot of in-game experience, it might be better to be on the team instead of overseas or the NBDL. If those young players are learning by playing against Rasheed, Ben, Dice, and Dale Davis in practice, it might be just as good as getting more minutes in Europe with coaching the NBA team has no control over. I think if the players stashed away in Europe are getting very good coaching and getting consistent minutes and learning from their mistakes, sure it's good to be over there. Are the Spurs' players who are overseas getting just that? Who knows.

With the 82 games season, there are few practice during the regular season.
Between a nba practice and an euro games. Coaching in europe is very good. I agree that you learn a lot with great nba players during practice but I don't think it's enough.
Mahinmi, Javtokas and Scola are starters in their teams.

What do you mean you don't learn what it's like to win from the bench??? You learn how to be a team player, how to handle yourselves in a winning environment, the at ude, approach, and hard work it takes to win. It takes some young players a few years to grow into their bodies and learn from veteran mentors to know how to play, to lead, and to win. Jermaine O'Neal took four years in Portland learning from Rasheed Wallace and he became a very good player. Amir Johnson is 18 years old. He is getting taught by Rasheed, Tayshaun, and Dice how to play in the league. Give him four years like Jermaine, he may have a similar development. Darko is competing against Ben and Rasheed and Dice and Dale Davis everyday in practice. He is still immature and pouts about playing time, but he also has beefed up his body and has become a better shot-blocker. If he can just become mentally tougher, he can be adequate and look at his experience as something that made him better. Delfino will play in the playoffs. Jason Maxiell is learning likewise from the Pistons big men. He doesn't have as far to go as Darko, but he can still get better.

Tou learn the same thing if you stay in Europe and more since you play. The BB in Europe is even more a team BB than in nba. Darko hasn't really improved in two years.
In Europe, there are fewer games but more practice. i don't know haw it is with Pistons but there is practice everyday with Spurs.

Nick Van Exel and Brent Barry, with all their starter and playing time and playoff experience, have SUCKED for the Spurs so far. So, really, which is better? Fabricio Oberto, with his European success and Olympic experience, can't even compete with a very pedetrian Rasho Nesterovic or a less-than-impressive Nazr Mohammed to make a push for more playing time. Where is that playing time experience advantage there?

By the time Scola gets out of his contract, will he even be worth adding to the Spurs roster? Javtokas had a great year? Link please. News reports I've seen say he's still NO WHERE CLOSE to the player he was before his motorcycle accident.

It really depends on the player as to what is more beneficial for his development.

Oberto isn't enough athletic to be more than a role player in nba. he wasn't Spurs first choice this summer (it was Scola).
Scola will be a FA in 2007 or 2008 (I'm not sure). Spurs can find an agreement with his team before.
For Javtokas :Stats Scouting report He looks like he has fully recover.

I don't say they are starting material but Pistons's prospect aren't too.
Spurs have less SG/SF propsect than pistons but I'm not worried about that. You can sign each year via FA, young SG/SF with less the MLE : Bell, james Jones, Maurice Evans or Devin Brown this year.

[Bruno]

Having Devin Brown rather than Michael Finley I think would be better for the Spurs' future. Sharrod Ford would be a better 13th man than Sean Marks, yes. I'd take Maurice Evans over Brent Barry, absolutely. If you just had young scrubs at the end of the bench, would it be a brighter future? No. But, if the Spurs had younger players who were almost as good as the veterans the Spurs have, they'd have a brighter future in my opinion.

I'd take Maurice Evans over barry but not over Finley.
The only guy, I think Spurs should trade is Barry.
Sharrod Ford is so good that Suns waived him 5 days ago.
The truth is that, If Spurs need a guy like Evans/Brown they will sign him via FA, you have tons of guys like that each year.

[ChumpDumper]

What kind of quality guy are you going to get for about $3 million a year to replace a starting small forward?

How much do you need?

Having Devin Brown rather than Michael Finley I think would be better for the Spurs' future.

So you're saying if we just pick up Ime Udoka or Erik Daniels we'll be fine as far as youth goes. It's not like there aren't alot of young available guys out there.

Sharrod Ford would be a better 13th man than Sean Marks

Not in a million years once you actually figure out what Sean Marks does for this team. Maybe if Ford tried to learn the system as completely as Sean already knew it, you might have a point.

If you just had young scrubs at the end of the bench, would it be a brighter future? No. But, if the Spurs had younger players who were almost as good as the veterans the Spurs have, they'd have a brighter future in my opinion.

Yes, it would be great if we had a high schooler as good as Duncan.

[5ToolMan]

You're correct in that we haven't had "ONE" single injury; Ben Wallace has had two sore ankles (since recovered), Rip had a sore back and jammed 3 fingers on his shooting hand, Lindsay Hunter has missed the entire season so far due to surgery...what's lucky about that?

The Pistons starters have missed less games to injury than any team in the NBA for the last three years. When you have the same core of startes for most of that time, that leads to great consistancy.

By the way, I don't consider the Pistons as lucky in avoiding injury. Rather than luck, I would say the Pistons are proven to be durable and tough as nails.

Although I also think Pop, if he were Detroit's coach, would have made the Pistons' starters miss more games during this time when they did have nagging or minor injury, just to evalate and develop the bench, with a focus only on the playoffs.

[picnroll]

I sure am worried that the Spurs don't have their young players dveloping in their system. Afterall look at what a bust Manu turned out to be since he didn't develop with the Spurs.

[Solid D]

Rip had a sore back and jammed 3 fingers on his shooting hand...

Rip went 4-15....so maybe Flip should have sat him and protected him if he wasn't going to be effective. Pop did with Manu.

[jochhejaam]

Rip went 4-15....so maybe Flip should have sat him and protected him if he wasn't going to be effective. Pop did with Manu.

I think the 4-15 was due to Bruce, the fingers were jammed about a week ago and weren't injured badly enough to bench him.

[ChumpDumper]

I didn't see too much of Javtokas before the wreck, but I have seen him after as recently as two weeks ago. He does have NBA game though he won't be a star here. He was MVP of the second most prestigious international compe ion in Europe last season and his team is tied for second this year in the most prestigious international compe ion. You can judge whether these are good years.

[FromWayDowntown]

FromWayDownTown,

I think Chauncey Billups is a realist. He's outperformed his contract. But, all three starters so far (Rip, Rasheed, and Tayshaun) took less than market value to re-up with the Pistons. I think if the Pistons give Chauncey a five year commitment, he'll sign for roughly $10 million a year.

Chauncey is also going to be available to an open market. He could give the Pistons a discount, I suppose, but the idea that Chauncey would be willing to take $2 M less per year than Ben Wallace seems to assume a lot of altruism to me, particularly with a guy who is looking at his last big contract.

Those young players are precisely the reason I think the Pistons are in better position in a few years. Of course there is no guarantee the Pistons will be able to keep all of them, but it's reasonable to think they will be able to keep some of them. Spurs will have to not only look for a new starting small forward and possibly a new starting center, but they'll have to look for an entirely NEW BENCH. That's why I think the Pistons are positioned better than the Spurs for the future.

But my point is that in the Duncan era, the Spurs have accomplished those things -- not once, but twice. And throughout that time, the Spurs have been one of 2 or 3 legitimate le contenders.

I don't think Spurs were true le contenders in 2000 or 2001. Even Portland and Sacramento were better bets as true contenders.

That's an interesting assertion, particularly with regard to 2001, since the Spurs had the league's best record that season, reached the West Finals, and were picked by many, many experts to knock off the Lakers in that series. Obviously, they didn't get it done, but they were viewed as the only team with any real chance to beat LA in 2001.

In 2000, the Spurs didn't advance past Round 1, but then again, Tim Duncan didn't play any playoff games. There was a great deal of speculation at that time, however, that had Duncan been able to play, the Spurs would have been good enough to hang with both Portland and LA in the West. We'll never know, but to say that those Spurs weren't true le contenders strikes me as a bit of selective memory.

And, even if the Spurs WERE considered the only true le contenders since 1999, I don't believe it was due to the "savvy" of the Spurs scouts to identify talents. I think it was due to TIM DUNCAN, and TIM DUNCAN only.

Look, you'll never get me to discount the importance of Tim Duncan to this franchise. In the last several years, I've maintained in this and other Spurs forums that the Spurs fate is directly related to Tim Duncan's play. But with that said, the organization has done an amazing job of identifying and developing young and talented players. Steven Jackson, Speedy Claxton, Devin Brown, Antonio Daniels, Jason Hart, Ira Newble, and Malik Rose immediately come to mind as projects that have come to the Spurs and turned into NBA players. The Spurs have also found guys like Raja Bell, who didn't make the team in 2000-01, but who has certainly gone on to have a nice career. The point is that the Spurs have, in the Duncan era, consistently found young players with skills and found ways to develop them into NBA-quality players. I don't see why that is suddenly unlikely to continue.

I udnerstand your faith in the Spurs' organization. But, you talk like the Spurs will be le contenders for the next decade. I don't see that happening. As some Spurs fan already mentioned, the Spurs' le hopes will end when Tim Duncan is gone, and maybe even sooner, when he starts to decline in his level of play.

I haven't ever said that I expect the Spurs to be true contenders past the Duncan era (absent extenuating cir stances). Where I differ from you, however, is in my belief that the Spurs will continue to be a legitimate contender for a number of years, until the Duncan era ends. You seem to suggest that the end of that era is coming sooner than the end of the Pistons' purported reign.

The Pistons will probably not be le contenders in a few years either. But, I think they will have better building blocks when they try to form another contending roster, whereas I feel the Spurs will have a very long way to go in getting back to that level.

After they lose Tim Duncan and Manu Ginobili, yes, the Spurs will be a ways from a le. But in a salary cap and free agency era, that happens to most teams that maintain a championship level for a decade or so, as the Spurs have. I'm not exactly sure what your point is, given this last paragraph -- obviously, both teams are going to be compe ive for a few more years; at that point, each will decline because the stalwarts of their le teams will be at the end of the road. If you're trying to say that guys like Jason Maxiell, Darko Milicic, Maurice Evans, and Carlos Delfino are going to combine with Tayshaun Prince to be the guts of a second generation le contender, I'll politely say that you're en led to your opinion.

[naveah27]

thispego,

That's great that you support your team and that you have great faith in their ability to remain the best team in the league. I did not write my post to start a smack talking war or to cause a controvery. I was just sharing an opinion from a less subjective and biased point of view. The Spurs are still one of the best teams in the NBA and will remain one of the best teams over the next few years. If you want to believe that the Spurs' future is brighter than the Pistons' future, that's great. I just said try to look at it objectively.

Bruce Bowen is 34. Nick Van Exel is 34. Brent Barry is almost 34. Robert Horry is 35. Michael Finley is almost 33. Those are your top four reserves and your starting small forward. Your franchise has some young talent overseas. Are any of those players GUARANTEED to be steady contributors as soon as two years into the future? The Spurs are hovering around the luxury tax threshhold for next year and the following year. And, in the 2008-2009 season, Tim Duncan, Manu Ginobili, Tony Parker, and Rasho Nesterovic will make $50 million ... just those four players. The salary cap is around $52-53 million currently. It will maybe be around $54-55 million by then, maybe. Those four players will be just a few million dollars away from the salary cap by themselves ... just those four players. The Spurs first round draft pick next summer belongs to the New York Knicks.

You don't have any problems with the Spurs' collective age, salary cap, and roster situation over the next three years? Seriously?

The Pistons have younger bench players who are maturing, developing, and learning from a championship core of players. Carlos Arroyo is 26. Maurice Evans is 27. Carlos Delfino is 23. Darko Milicic is 20. Jason Maxiell is 22. And, the Pistons have two projects in Alex Acker (22) and Amir Johnson (18) to develop over the next few seasons. Over the next two seasons, the Pistons will be over the salary cap but not in the luxury tax. And, in the 2008-09 season, even with Tayshaun Prince and Ben Wallace re-signed, the Pistons will still be just under the salary cap.

You can argue all you want about how the Spurs will be better every year. That's fine. But, to outright say the Spurs have a brighter future than the Pistons is a naive and not very well-thought-out contention.

Take some perspective and some constructive criticism. The Spurs are the defending champions, and they are a great, great team. So were the LA Lakers in 2002, the Chicago Bulls in 1997, the Boston Celtics in 1986. All good things eventually come to an end. And, when Tim Duncan starts to decline, the Spurs' franchise will suffer a down era where they will have to rebuild, despite over-paying three of its current stars on a team with untested, unproven European players.

Again, I didn't post to merely smack talk. Look at the situation rationally and you'll see there are some disheartening facts about the Spurs roster and salary cap situation over the next few years. Really be unbiased about it, and you'll see that my points have definite merit.

Look, I understand where you're coming from with regards to the Spurs bench. No one can argue that these veterans are on the decline in terms of age if not experience and intangibles and however much you ask a Spurs fan for there take without the homer glasses please be sure you follow your own stellar advice.

You’ve taken a lot of time to talk about the merits of Detroit’s younger (and presumably?) better bench.

You start by referring to the maturing development of such young players as Carlos Arroyo (26) and Maurice Evans (27)

I'm sorry but HUH?

How much more "maturing" do you want from two players who are already heading dangerously into that 'over the peak' age?? (If you subscribe to the Tim Duncan School of Decline at age TWENTY-NINE)

I'm sorry but the inconsistent and underachieving play of Carlos Arroyo doesn't worry me and honestly, as a Piston fan, I'd have to wonder if he wasn't able to "develop" any new skills under the legendary Larry Brown..how much more can you realistically (homer glasses off please) expect?

Maurice Evans? At 27, the most complimentary term applied to Evans is STILL the word potential. Not encouraging for a 27 year old. Yet, in my book, he still gets the edge over Arroyo.

Carlos Delfino and Darko Milicic are the only two young and developing players who are currently on your bench. I think Delfino will develop into quite a good player, not as well as Manu of course, but I have my doubts as to whether Detroit can keep him long term. As he improves he will demand more playing time and a bigger contract. I can’t see him breaking into the starting line up or accepting a 6th man role. Darko has so much ground to catch up it's ridiculous. I don't know if he can ever live down (or up to) the expectations of his going #2 in the draft. I don't know. He's a big fat question mark a lot like Kwame Brown. And that's not to be insulting. A lot of people expected Kwame to be worlds better than what he is. It happens. It could happen to Darko, too.

So really from what I can see, Detroit doesn't have a whole lot to brag about. And in the end it’s really a matter of perceptions; a different point of view.

Van Excel, Barry, Finley, Horry. You know what you're going to get with these guys and it's not that they are going to get any younger. The only difference between our bench and your bench more than simply AGE is the Spurs aren't counting on our guys to develop and mature. There done. Cooked to perfection. We are playing guys who want to feast at the banquet NOW, not later.

HOWEVER

That doesn't mean the Spurs are blind to the future. As much as you'd like to discount our young prospects with our history..YOU CAN'T.

Luis Scola..I'm sure you've heard of him. I don't know if he'll ever wear the silver and black but he sure gives me a lot of confidence in the Spurs ability to pick outstanding foreign players (as if I needed more proof!).

We've got quite a few developing--not on our BENCH or in the NBDL but where I would argue is better. Playing on their Euro teams competing, improving defense and getting better on offense.

This is what the Spurs understand. You can have all the talent in the world riding your bench but if the guy never gets an opportunity to play it doesn't matter. You can't develop a contributing player in practice. He needs minutes.

None of our young player would get those minutes. Sean Marks doesn't need those minutes. Ford would have and it wouldn't have been fair to sign him. Sean is well liked and is a great team mate, well worth his $1million salary for what he does off the court.

As for salary cap and luxury taxes and such. You're right. The Spurs will be over the cap and MIGHT go into luxury territory. There are things that could change that and when you are a team as fiscally responsible as the Spurs you have to expect that they'll make moves for that reason.

The Pistons will be in the same position. Soon. No great team with plans to keep their core in tact can escape that. It's inevitable. Like a Spurs/Pistons final in 2006!

[clubalien]

keep in mmind what makes SPurs great recently has been big man

we have had David then tim and next we will have david reborn and one of the best buig man ever in ian mahmi

so once tim is in declin which he is. he isn;t as good as he used to be. he cannot even hit a bank shot to save hise life anymore. we soon will have ian to save us once again

[boutons_]

"makes SPurs great"

... has been defense. and What makes the Spurs so ordinary now is lack of defense, esp in the paint, and defensive rebounding.

[ducks]

better fix the spur problems now then in june

[JamStone]

There have been a lot of great posts on this subject by many of you Spurs fans. Look, I was just stating an opinion. None of us can predict what's going to happen this summer, much less in a few years, so a lot of things can change. I was just expressing an opinion.

For the record, I didn't even bring up the Detroit Pistons. It was one of the less civil Spurs fans who had to make a snide remark about the Spurs having a brighter future that even spurred on the involvement and comparison of the Detroit Pistons' bench.

Spurs fans should have a lot of confidence in the management, scouting, and financial supervision of the Spurs basketball team. But, you can't ignore that there are some future problems this team will face, especially financially with respect to the salary cap. And, maybe all of the Spurs' international prospects will turn out to be studs. It wouldn't be completely surprising. But, there is no guarantee of that either.

My initial post was not intended to be a smack talking articulation of why I think "my team is better than your team." I don't even believe that to be true. I think the two teams are comparable if not equal. My initial post simply was pointing at some future problems the Spurs will face as soon as two seasons from now with respect to assembling a compe ive team with the salary cap restrictions the organization will face, prior to the 2008-09 season. And, I was definitely pointing out the unenviable task of replacing key players to this current Spurs' team who may be past their prime, retired, or not good enough to continue to contribute by then.

Hey, if the Spurs somehow find a way to stay one of the elite teams in the NBA for the rest of Tim Duncan's career, more power to them and to you Spurs fans. I think it will be more difficult than some of you believe.

Any way we can archive this thread so that in the summer of 2008 we can revisit this? It will be very interesting to see how accurate all of our forecasts are by then.

[ChumpDumper]

Well, if you look at the rosters for each of the championship teams, there's only one constant. I think the Spurs have been blessed to have a player who might be the easiest to build a team around ever. I used to get scared less by the holes in our roster every summer, but every summer they get filled by quality players.

Here's hoping a Pistons/Spurs rivalry will bore the rest of the country for years to come.

[Vashner]

NUKE ALL DOUBTERS

BOOM..... incoming shockwave you BEEEPers!!! (insert scene of Lt Dan on boat)..

[Marcus Bryant]

The Spurs' Big 3 are all under 30 yrs old. Decline?

PS...Championships are not won in December.

[SequSpur]

Eastern Conference > San Antonio Spurs.

[5ToolMan]

Anyone who thinks the Spurs are in decline is seriously uninformed or in denial. I can understand the press wishfull thinking, as it would allow them to throw more ink the way of their media sweathearts and big market teams.

But lets get real.

The Spurs core of Duncan, Manu and Tony are the core of the team. They as a group are very young, very healthy in terms of serious injury, and they are simply the three best combination of players on any one team in the NBA.

The press, at least those many who don't really follow or understand the game in general or the Spurs in particular, and the clueless fans who parrot trash that is spewed are way off base here. Yes, Tim and Manu have had some nagging injuries. And yes, these "injuries" have combined to slow down the assimulation of three new regulars into the Spurs rotation since last years playoffs. But if you know the Spurs, you also know that Pop is more interested in working his system into the entire team, all of who may contribute in the playoffs, than he is in squeezing out a single victory in November or December.

Once Pop has his system working, his rotation set and the players he wants healthy, the Spurs will again be the cream rising to the top of the NBA when it counts.

Pop and RC are also light years ahead of the rest of the NBA is locating and stashing future NBA level players. They have 2 stars and a solid young future point on their current roster. In addition, they have drafted or recuited other talent into the league such as Bell, Giriceck and Barbosa. And, they have four potential future players developing in Europe, at least three of whom would be lottery picks in past and/or future drafts if the Spurs did not have them tied up.

They can bring them in for peanuts if they want them and need them, like they did with Parker and Manu. Or they can trade them for more established players with expiring contracts, or future picks like they did with Giriceck and Barbosa. A core of Duncan, Manu and Parker will make it easy to plug in 2 - 4 new players per year over the next few years and still be ready to compete after an 82+ game warmup as Pop will have.

The question to the Spurs championship level future will only come after seeing what is on the table after Duncan and Manu have left the building for good.