Reply With Quote
Yea, those spurs are stupid, quit so you do not have to bother
Spurs don't need to trade 25 (TP) for 35 (JKidd) to sign a MAX FA in 2010. Right now, they have $32.2M in salary committed to 3 players: Duncan, TP, and Mahinmi. Almost $2M of that is Ian, who may or may not be here. The cap has been in the mid $50M area, maybe $55-56M. Add three more summers to that figure, and it may approach $60M. If Ian's gone, that gives SA close to $30M to sign a MAX FA and fill out the roster.
Yea, those spurs are stupid, quit so you do not have to bother
Name one good take
The point is that the lack of max free agent signings has nothing to do with the willingness of Spurs management to pursue those sorts of players. Max free agents have to face at least 4 significant facts in thinking about signing in SA:
1. Playing second banana to Duncan.
2. Taking less money (absent a sign-and-trade)
3. Moving to one of the league's smallest markets
4. Subserviating individual goals to team goals
Now, unless you're willing to argue that the Spurs team-first at ude is somehow so problematic that it must be changed, it seems to me that there's very little the Spurs can do to lure a max free agent other than to make an offer and suggest that all of the above facts will be irrelevant as said player wins rings. But, in truth, guys who are max level free agents are not guys (generally) who are most focused on winning a le as a part of a team concept. That's not to say that those guys don't want to win, it's just that guys who have the age and skills to be max level guys tend to be guys who: (1) don't want to play second banana to anyone; (2) who want to maximize their earnings; (3) who have substantial individual goals; and (4) tend not to want to play in smaller markets if they can avoid it. Those aren't facts that the Spurs can change. So, instead, they've focused on surrounding their formidable Big 3 with role players who willingly accept those roles and are motivated by the desire to win les.
To this point, that strategy has been a huge success (3 les in 5 years and, perhaps, two fluke plays from 5 straight), so I can see why someone would want to suggest that it should change.
Who gives a what he has forgoten?
What about you being screwed and owned on the luke jackson hahaha
Maybe if the Spurs make a big trade or finally sign that max free agent they'll be able to win their first championship.
Don't bother him with logic and facts, FWD. Blissful ing makes his pain go away.
How was I owned?
His name was lucus, you said Luke.
Theres a Luke Jackson playing with the heat.
Get over yourself and learn how to spell forgotten.
I haven't seen anybody more pathetic.
You are not even a man to addmitt it a suck it up
Luke Jackson played with Wilton Norman Chamberlain as I said an average NBA fan should know this.
And everybody is calling Earvin Johnson a Magic Johnson, why are they doing it? His name is not Magic.
Owned on every single post there!
btw. Did I wrote Wilton Norman?
Bob Pet s first name is Robert. But who am I talking to? You don't even know who Bob Pet was.
btw2. Luke jackson AD.1981 is not playing for the heat
bling bling - you wanna talk about this in the radio?
Call me
You wanna check the Heat's roster?btw2. Luke jackson AD.1981 is not playing for the heat
You've got an old one?
You mean one of the first MVPs of the 1950s who played for the St Louis Hawks and considered one of the best power forwards ever to play?You don't even know who Bob Pet was
nah dont know him.
STFU and stop acting like a .
Charles Oakley?
Kori said it perfectly.
you dont make any ing sense.
STFU.
You are saying these words when you are helpless.
Ricky Davis - TParke got woned
haslem - got owned
oakley - owned
luke jackson - ownage owned
said and done, let us end on that note.
One out, who's next?
1. I think this won't be an issue by 2010. I'm pretty sure Tim will be ready to step into the "David" role by then.
2. Most teams will take the trade exception rather than have nothing to show for losing a player. They have up to a year to use it. It also keeps them in the good graces of the top agents.
3. It is what it is.
4. If they don't want to do this, they're not worth signing.
What the max free agent are the Spurs going to sign when Kidd's deal runs out? Andre Iguodala? Luol Deng? Parker's way better than anyone with any chance of being available in 2009, except for Kobe Bryant or Baron Davis. Like Kobe's going to leave a team with Bynum and Gasol on it in the media capital of the world to come play in San Antonio. Parker for Davis is a lateral move at best without even considering Davis' injury history.
Last edited by baseline bum; 02-16-2008 at 04:25 PM.
Plus Parker is way younger than Baron Davis.
Some quality posts from FWD and ex.
I did not think it would be possible to sign a max free agent and retain the Big Three (Duncan, Parker, Ginobili).
In that "either/or" assumption that I was running under, the Kidd trade scenario seemed like a tough business decision.
For the long-term success of this franchise, I don't think we can afford to "grow old" with the Big Three.
You all don't have to hate me for having this opinion.
I just look at how the Spurs were good, but deteriorating with Robinson, Elliott, Johnson until injuries ultimately led to a renaissance under Duncan.
I think the Spurs will eventually need to reboot with another superstar to continue being top contenders in 3-5 years as Duncan draws closer to retirement.
Again... the whole impetus behind the admittedly tough decision to do Holt's Cat's Kidd scenario.
If you are telling me there is a way to bring in another star via free agency around 2010 or so, then forget the imaginary trade now.
Like I said before, even though I am not convinced that Parker can be a star in this league on his own individual talent, he is perfect in this Spurs system.
I don't hate you for your opinion, I just disagree with your opinion. I think the things that I pointed to are factors that will exist here for at least as long as Tim Duncan plays, whether the Spurs break up their big 3 or not. I just don't see the point in breaking up the big 3 when they continue to be among the most successful acts in the NBA and (as you mention with the Rose deal) are three of the most popular players in the history of this franchise.
It will be extremely difficult for the Spurs to find a dominating player like Tim Duncan again. That a player is a max-level guy doesn't make him the difference-maker between being pretty okay and being a contender. Guys like Tim Duncan are rarely available, period, much less through free agency or even the draft.
Frankly, I think it's dreamworld thinking to believe that the Spurs will be able to stay at the top of the NBA after Tim Duncan retires, regardless of the trades they might make now or the free agents they might try to lure. You don't replace Tim Duncan -- particularly not in a small market like San Antonio -- without getting extraordinarily fortunate. I hope that I'm wrong, but it does seem that in a few years, after 20 years of le contention, the Spurs will be in for some lean times, regardless of how they do business in the here-and-now. And I still think that in the here-and-now, the best bet to win les is to keep the Big 3 together and fill in around them with team-first role players who are most interested in winning les and not worried at all about building individual resumes.
So because the Spurs might not be able to keep the Big 3 together past 2010 (odd since the Spurs will have all of 3 players under contract and will have Manu's Bird Rights) the Spurs need to blow up what won the team a championship last year today?
Why are the Spurs preparing for the 2010-11 season? They have three playoffs to go before they reach that bridge.
exstatic led me to believe that we can keep the Big 3 together and go after a max free agent in 2010.
Instead of being so negative, please follow the logical path of the thread.
It would be foolish not to entertain ways to secure the long-term success of the team on the court.
Unless you are telling me that you see us extending this run by obtaining another star by means other than a trade, then we could do worse than trading our thrid-best player (Parker) for a superior PG (Kidd) for two years and then have the ability to land a superstar as early as 2009 when Kidd's contract is up.
I am still dying to know your plan to stay a top contender... you counting on lottery balls again (you'll need to tank a season with Duncan and at least Manu or Parker under contract).
So the Spurs can keep a championship trio together until 2010 at least and perhaps make some noise in free agency then. So what's the problem? They keep together what works and then have cap room in 2010.
FWD, your at ude saddens me in its defeatist nature.
If you won the lotto, would you blow all the cash, because, after all, you were middle class before striking it rich?
Question.
How much cap room in 2010 with the Big Three under contract?
What exactly is your plan? Deal Parker now for a player with two seasons left in his career and then try to replace him in free agency in 2009? Sticking with what has won you 3 les in 5 years through 2010 seems pretty good, considering the alternative you have argued for is moving the youngest member of that trio (currently 25 years of age) today.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
