Reply With Quote
4/9
Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me:
I lift my lamp beside the golden door.
4/9
So I had a change of heart about Tony's work with his National Team...Mike Finger told me to
Cuz, we don't like AmeriKKKans, and if you don't like that then get of the USA son.Why don't the Spurs have more American players?
j/k
Why the would the Spurs want Josh Howard and David Lee? They suck and wouldn't fit in the Spurs system at all. The Spurs were better off not getting those U.S. American hacks and just drafting guys from Kickbackistan and Spankola or just trading late first round picks away.
Oh, and JamStone:
Oh, and JamStone:
LMAO!!!!!
you Shoogar. you and your family!
There is no Algerien player
Damn, I loved that episode
Day tuk ur jubs!
In French it was : Ils nous volent notre travail ! nous volent notre travaail....
See what happened to Elson!?!
The Spurs are reflecting what the NBA has become, an International sport.
They have had much success with International players so why change it?
LMAO this Consigliere guy cant be serious.
To answer the question (because no one else has, they just keep talking about how it's not a bad thing even though no one said it was), the Spurs generally draft very late. At the 28th pick of the first round, they generally go with the best available player who is more often than not an international player. The Spurs have lots of scouts and while they get tons of credit for their international drafting, the reality is that only Parker and Ginobili have panned out.
However, I'd believe that if it came down to the 28th pick and there were two players, one American and one international and they were of equal ability, the Spurs would still pick the international player. As far as I know, there's no reason why, but that's the way it is.
Oh there's a reason why. It's because with international players, it's easier for the Spurs to keep that player overseas and not have to pay the guaranteed rookie contract. While Holt is not as bad as Sarver, he's still a penny pincher sometimes. When the Spurs have been close to the luxury tax, they have made moves with players in order to stay under it. One way to stay under the luxury tax is to not pay a guaranteed rookie salary. That's why the Spurs traded away the rights to John Salmons and Leandro Barbosa. That's why they didn't draft Josh Howard. That's why they went with Ian Mahinmi instead of David Lee.
Some people can say that the Spurs are the best at scouting and then developing international talent. And, that's probably true. But, there's absolutely a factor of using late first round draft picks as future assets while not having to pay those rookies with guaranteed money unless the Spurs are ready to bring them over from overseas.
With as dominant as Duncan has been and how he's shown the ability to win with many different teammates, the Spurs have been more and more comfortable with taking chances on international talent that will be able to blend in win Duncan easily and not have to take an American college player and give him a guaranteed contract.
But, think about it. The Spurs could boast a team that also featured the likes of Josh Howard, Carlos Boozer, David Lee, and Chris Duhon if the Spurs would actually spend late first rounders on quality American college players.
Detroit could have boasted a team that still had Okur if they wanted to pay the luxury tax badly enough.
Only one team doesn't care about the tax.
as a heart attack....or a broken face
Actually a false statement. Once the Jazz offered Okur what they did, the Pistons could not afford both Okur and Rasheed in the summer of 2004 how the CBA was structured back then. It was one or the other. The Pistons chose Rasheed.
And, even so, what does that have to do with why the Spurs don't draft Americans? Just because I gave my opinion as to why the Spurs don't draft Americans, you don't have to get sensitive and try to take a shot at Detroit. It has nothing to do with the topic.
I'm not sure that most of those assertions are correct. The Spurs traded away the rights to John Salmons to acquire Speedy Claxton, who played a significant role in the 2003 championship.
The Barbosa transaction was a money decision, but it wasn't one made to avoid the luxury tax; it was a move designed to maintain room to make a pitch to Jason Kidd -- hardly a penny-pinching desire, even if not one that was ultimately fulfilled. Since the Spurs traded away the Barbosa pick to make a run at Kidd and since Josh Howard was selected immediately after Barbosa, citing to Howard fails for the same reason, I think. Each may have proven to be a dumb move, but neither was a decision made in an effort to avoid the luxury tax, as best I recall.
I'll give you that the Mahinmi over Lee decision is certainly closer to the contention that you make.
In the post-lockout era, I'm not sure that the Spurs have used too many late first round picks in that manner. They've dealt picks in some cir stances to acquire future assets -- the pick that became Barbosa, for instance -- but other than Mahinmi and Splitter (who was arguably the best player available when he was selected), the Spurs haven't done what you say:
2000 -- no #1
2001 -- Tony Parker
2002 -- John Salmons (traded for Claxton)
2003 -- Leandro Barbosa (traded to PNX)
2004 -- Beno Udrih
2005 -- Ian Mahinmi
2006 -- traded pick to NY for Nazr Mohammed
2007 -- Tiago Splitter
Spurs are contenders for past 10 seasons. So they really do not need much contributions from rookies (considering that Spurs always have late first round picks). If Spurs pick international talent, they can always let them grow in other leagues and bring them back later. Rather than brining a college kid whose only other place to go is NBDL. Euro league is better than NBDL, considering talents each of them produced to NBA over the years.
Does anyone think that players like Lee would have got more opportunities with us than Knicks? I do not think so. He would have to play behind our established forwards. So Lee would not become a player that he is if he is with Spurs. Look what happened to Butler. Guys like Lee would be buried under somewhere. Spurs management knows that if we pick American college players, they have to be in NBDL or in casual dress because of team's talent. To keep them in NBDL we have to pay $$$.
Other reason I can think of is that (just may be) Spurs do not want too many egos in locker room. It is generally conceived that international players come with less ego and less maintenance. So management just tries to balance out. That does not mean all our American players has big ego. Look at Gino,we are bouncing him back and forth between bench and starting line-ups. He does not complain. Not many American players would do it. So Spurs might have thought it is not worth taking risk at the late round.
Having said all these, I wonder how Spurs missed Josh Howard. He won one major award (I do not remember which one) and rumors were that Duncan wanted Josh. I really feel that Josh would have been a nice addition but would have cost more money during re-signing. May be a blessing now.
Last edited by timmy21_4rings; 08-29-2007 at 11:53 PM.
The Pistons could have kept both Sheed and Okur. There was nothing in the CBA that made it impossible.And, even so, what does that have to do with why the Spurs don't draft Americans? Just because I gave my opinion as to why the Spurs don't draft Americans, you don't have to get sensitive and try to take a shot at Detroit. It has nothing to do with the topic.
Argies are American. They're just not from the United States.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
