Which is what the problem is, the sweeping generalization is disturbing and unfair. Spurs had Sean Elliott, an insane Dennis Rodman, Avery Johnson and Vinny Del Negro (plus no bench), the Mavs have Howard, Terry, Stackhouse, Harris, and a few bruising big man. And for a player with no go to move down low to lead, or be one of the top in FTAs year in and year out, you have to wonder why.
Robinson was never ran out of town, I would love to read a few articles talking about how DRob does not belong to SA, it was much much more the crowd unhappy with what FO was doing.The differences are also obvious -- DRob didn't have a low post move because he relied strictly on athleticism around the hoop, Dirk because he has a great mid-range jumper. RDob was a great defensive player (who simply couldn't stop the unstoppable Hakeem), Dirk has no D.
The article is uncontroversial and merely acknowledges what many have been observing for years, including Steve Kerr and Dr. Jack Ramsey.
More to the point, where was all this support for DRob when the same "let's run 'im outta town" crowd was seething at DRob for simply re-signing with the Spurs in 2001? Herd mentality and conventional wisdom run amok, just with a different target.
Actually, it was season ticket holders that complained, that's the reason the Spurs cared.
Actually, the Spurs were recruiting him. They even prepared a custom videotape to try to get him to visit. It was in all the papers.
Actually, Robinson only went public after the Spurs launched a PR offensive of their own, leaking word that Popovich thought DRob was through.
Right you are.
I am only criticizing message board posters who wanted DRob gone and acted like he was a persona non grata after all he did for the Spurs franchise. In fact, one of the posters in this very thread, during the siummer of 2001, posted a thread purporting to "indict" DRob for crimes against the Spurs. His crime? Instead of sulking off into retiremnet he forced the Spurs to re-sign him, thus robbing the Spurs of the money to sign the great savior Webber (which, of course, was never going happen.)
After 2003, these people jumped back on the bandwagon and attacked everryone who criticized Robinson -- like this Finger article -- as if none of their prior tirades had ever happened.
I don't believe anyone contemplated Pop visiting DRob in Maui and putting a $1 mil annual offer in front of him while telling him he was "done." Let's not forget that the Spurs were coming off what was easily the most embarrassing postseason performance in Spurs history, and that includes when Nellie worked his magic in 1991.
No question, it was a disastrous postseason and we were all frustrated.
But Pop's flight to Maui happened only after the season-ticketholder revolt -- the Spurs had to do it at that point.
Season ticket holders = fans...surprise!
Oh I have no doubt the Spurs would have signed him...but there would not have been a whlole lot of support for it...Actually, the Spurs were recruiting him. They even prepared a custom videotape to try to get him to visit. It was in all the papers.
See Rose, Malilk.
And CWebb wanted no part of SA....other than to get him paid and perks...see Kidd, Jason.
And that changes my point that Drob got what he wanted after going public, how?Actually, Robinson only went public after the Spurs launched a PR offensive of their own, leaking word that Popovich thought DRob was through.
I'm saying 2+2=4
You are saying, no, 2+2 is math.
Doesn't change the fact that 2+2 still =4.
There were quite a few "Spurs fans" who thought Robinson was done (or "broken" as they liked to say at the time) and wanted him gone. I still remember laughing at those who said Webber was the answer.
As I said at the time, Webber would have ruined this franchise. He was a playoff choker to the utmost degree and on top of that, didn't make sense next to Duncan.
I do forgive some of the Spurs fans back then for bashing Robinson and backing Webber as that was the stance taken by the untouchable DG at the time. The sheep mentality was in full effect in 2001.
I forgot exactly who was and wasn't on the Webber bandwagon. Care to name names, Russ?
Good lord. This game tomorrow can't start soon enough.
DG = Dusty Garza?
And BTW, I pretty much agree with the sentiment here...but the fan reaction was just the opposite. The people wanting to Drob were the minority.
At the time I favored the Webber pursuit along with retaining DRob. Unfeasible, perhaps, but in 2001 we witnessed this:
So I was pretty much open to whatever.
This was the sentiment by most people even then....including fans of other teams.
You mean aside from Ghostwriter and base?I do forgive some of the Spurs fans back then for bashing Robinson and backing Webber as that was the stance taken by the untouchable DG at the time. The sheep mentality was in full effect in 2001.
I forgot exactly who was and wasn't on the Webber bandwagon. Care to name names, Russ?
It's probably the same people that say we should trade Duncan, Parker sucks, Bruce sucks, Manu sucks...
A minority of the fans.
Most of the fans said DA.
And most of them said Webber.
This excludes Pop of course who salivates after unrealistic FA pretty much every chance he gets...although in my gut I think Duncan was the impetus for the Kidd pursuit.
Since you mention it, here were my thoughts at the time. This was a long email I sent to one DG in the summer of '01 because I was too angry about the DRob thing to post.I forgot exactly who was and wasn't on the Webber bandwagon. Care to name names, Russ?
D —
I haven't posted this because, frankly, I don't like to speak negatively and I sense that the phenomenon of negativity on your page needs no boost from me at this point. I am sending you this message because I greatly respect your efforts and I think you have one of the best sports- related web pages that I have seen. Having said that, I would like to give you my constructive criticism.
Last night in the "chat" room (and on the bulletin board) I was surprised by the negative, defeatist, and, ultimately, irrational tenor of the discussion. Such pessimism was particularly hard to stomach from persons who otherwise incessantly (and graphically) boast of their limitless bravado and machismo. Even sober, sane and intelligent souls such as Mike Harmon seemed to be in on the orgy of despair.
In short, the world seemed to be turned upside down in the manner that a foolish husband might briefly perceive the world when his head is turned by a "home wrecker." Usually he comes to his senses — hopefully not too late. I use that analogy because I think that it is particularly applicable here. It seems to be an article of faith, beyond any doubt, and certainly beyond any criticism or rational analysis, that the Spurs could have had Chris Webber had the Spurs just played along — that he was in "the palm of our hands." From this unassailable premise do all other arguments, criticisms and, now, plaintive laments, flow. I must admit, I would agree with, or at least be more sympathetic to, many of the brickbats being hurled at Peter Holt, the Spurs, and David Robinson, if I believed the underlying premise that spawned them. For example, it makes perfect sense to me that having Webber rather than Robinson might increase the chances of Tim's staying in 2003. If so, then the Spurs can be criticized for giving in to public pressure of the moment (i.e., public outcry over the treatment of the Admiral) rather than seeing the "big picture" — keeping Tim long term.
The problem is, of course, the premise from which everything flows — that Webber was there to be had and the Spurs blew it. In the case of our little group, it seems to have been based upon one part wishful thinking, one part interpreting even the smallest morsel of information in the most favorable possible manner, and, perhaps, one part collective fantasy. I could never see at the time that it was happening, nor can I see now, any reason to believe that the Spurs could have obtained Webber. The evidence to the contrary was, and is, overwhelming. Despite what was reported as the Spurs going "hard" after Webber, harder than any other team, making "pleas" to Webber, sending videotapes, begging for telephone conversations (much less meetings), the Express-News finally reported that "ironically, the most enthusiastic" response we got from Webber was after the announcement of Robinson's signing. And what was this "most enthusiastic" response? — "a call from Webber's camp" — this, after days during which the Spurs "never spoke to Webber personally" and "were forced to gauge Webber's interest through his representatives and media reports." (Express-News). In short, Weber treated San Antonio and the Spurs precisely the way a person who has repeatedly stated his preference for big cities and his dislike for smaller towns could have been predicted to treat us — with a detachment bordering upon disdain. Did he even watch the video? As I may have mentioned in one of the chats — the Spurs sending a video to Webber in lieu of actually being able to set up a meeting with him was telling. It smacks of the same desperation and "beseeching" behavior that characterized Pop's ill-fated desperate flight to Detroit to try to get Grant Hill (after he'd stated he'd go to Orlando) . I didn't think that was one of the Spurs' finer hours and I don't think that continuing our desperate quest for an "audience" with Chris Webber would have ultimately served us, or our reputations, well either. Remember, the "home wrecker" analogy — if the foolish husband persists too long, he may lose those who really care about him and have been loyal to him in the past, i.e., the current Spurs who, after all, helped us win a World Championship.
Which brings us to Chris Webber, himself — the object of such unrequited adulation. Actually, I don't think his motives were malicious or, even, insincere. I think that his interest in the Spurs may have been sincere in the way that you or I might sincerely, albeit momentarily, want one item on a lunch menu and then decide upon another item as we are blurting out our order. It's not that we weren't serious about our desire to order the first item — its just that it wasn't that big a deal either way. I believe that is the way Mr. Webber operates and it has stood him in good stead so far, so who's to argue. The fact of the matter is, Webber should stay in Sacramento for a variety of reasons that are of no moment here. And he will likely stay in Sacramento. But probably not for any of those many good and compelling reasons — he'll stay because its the easiest course of action and he's made a habit of taking such easiest courses. Call it inertia, if you wish. I would imagine that Webber's thought process was something like this — I'm a good guy who likes to keep all options open and not hurt anyone's feelings (remember, I got burned by heat ESPN the Mag story where I trashed Sacramento). Therefore, I'll make the appropriate rounds, go through the motions, press the flesh (except in San Antonio) and pay respects to my hometown (Detroit), my friends (Billy Owens — Detroit), Jalen Rose (Indiana), and Tim Duncan (San Antonio) — no sense making anyone feel left out — and, who knows, maybe I'll change my order at the last minute. But, in the meantime, I won't let any of it interfere with my vacation plans and I won't waste a lot of time hiring agents who could make such a move really happen — if it ever gets serious, I can always ask my brother to step aside in favor of a pro.
None of this is particularly remarkable except that the Spurs could have lost their "family," i.e., the ever-faithful David Robinson, the season ticket holders who pay the bills and many other loyal fans, if their pursuit of Chris Webber had persisted after it became painfully obvious that it was in vain. The longtime Spurs, the season ticket holders, the owner, himself — they are not the villains here — they are the ones who brought the dreamers back to reality in the nick of time, before the family was wrecked over an unworthy object of affection. Nor are they the stupid and shortsighted ones who lack the common sense to truly perceive the "only" way to keep Tim Duncan. They are, in fact, the ones who possess all the more common sense (like the dutiful family as opposed to the foolish husband). Yet they are condemned as "stupid" (or worse) and unworthy of even our most tepid respect, much less admiration or gra ude. David Robinson has repeatedly taken less money and the chance to go larger markets to stay with the Spurs — he spent $5 million of his own money to start a school — yet David Robinson is a villain, nothing more than an impediment to our otherwise certain signing of the great and wonderful Chris Webber — Webber, of course, a true and worthy Spur. And the insults continue to pour out unabated. Nothing is too low to call the "Admiral." We comment sarcastically, "Thanks, David, you (fill in the vile term)." Or Holt. "Great thinking, Holt, you screwed us out of Webber just to keep Robinson. Good choice."
And even now that it is over, the party line continues. Now, with the same unquestioned certainty that the Spurs would, of course, sign Chris Webber (and Grant Hill, before him), we are now asked to believe that, no doubt, Tim Duncan will leave in 2003. We apparently are not allowed to consider the possibility that something good might actually happen within the next two years to cause Tim to stay, such as, the team gets some good young players or finds a new "fire" from an unexpected source (did anyone expect Mario Ellie to be our biggest pickup the year we won the le?). Or Tim starts to think of an San Antonio as "home" (maybe his girlfriend will have some sway) and wants to stay even if the team might have a tough year or two. Maybe Tim even starts to feel a position of responsibility and leadership so that rather than constantly watching the Spurs walk on eggs s to try to please him, he feels an obligation to the Spurs to make the team better and has no desire to leave in the face of adversity. In our little world, however, such thoughts are forbidden. Coach Dom posts a nice argument for David over Chris Webber, at least in some aspects, and he is called all but stupid, i.e., "people like you are why the Spurs ownership just screwed the pooch." David Robinson is purportedly "indicted" in another post. Anyone who disagrees is a "Joe six-pack fan," presumably not an esteemed le.
Think of it another way. What if we actually had signed Grant Hill, as predicted? We were all assured that it would, without a doubt, have meant an inevitable second le in 2001. With what we know now, however, would it have? What if we signed Chris Webber? Who can say how it all would have turned out? Who can say that Tim would certainly have stayed then? Perhaps Webber and Duncan would have fought for the ball and the glory and grown to dislike each other. Then, perhaps, in 2003, when Webber had 3-4 years left on his contract and Duncan's contract was up, Duncan would see no choice but to be the one to leave. The beauty (and tragedy) of sports, and of life, is often in its unpredictability.
It is the unpredictable that is the beauty of sports — that is why we watch. Sports is the closest thing to a drama in which there is no guarantee that the good guys will win (but, boy, when they do, how much more wonderful and rewarding) . And remember that the two years between now and 2003, when Tim must decide, is an eternity in the NBA — enjoy the ride. Odds are, it won't be anything we could have predicted.
Last edited by Russ; 05-05-2007 at 10:57 PM.
Mr. Fingers fails to mention the following.
"the mavericks choke job in the 2006 finals"
Yeah. The Spurs know how to seal the deal when they reach the final round.
just in general... Drob and spurs didn't choke in the finals the previous year as did the mavs only to lose in the first round this year to an 8th seed...
DRob goes to church and was in the military. Dirk is white.
Nicely done
That was a low point in Spurs fan history when David Robinson was the enemy and a playoff choker like Chris Webber was the hero. It does actually seem unfair that those same Spurs fans who wanted David Robinson shipped out of town ended up getting to celebrate the 2003 Perfect Ending alongside the Spurs fans who saw through the BS.
I would have rather the Spurs gotten Karl Malone than Webber. Webber made no sense for so many reasons - insane contract, playoff choker, poor defender, poor at ude, poor work ethic, etc.
The Spurs got lucky (again) that Webber turned them down and Spurs fans got lucky that Robinson was able to end his career in a perfect manner.
/end2001rant
The way I remember it, David had played through his contract which had paid him more than anyone in the league over that period, and he was going to take less money to "help the team" to sign someone. I guess when that someone turned out to play his position, he balked and went public that he didn't think it was fair that he was being lowballed. The fans who were angry at Robinson were the ones who were of the understanding that he was going to take a pay cut to help the team, and thought he reneged on his previous public stance.There were quite a few "Spurs fans" who thought Robinson was done (or "broken" as they liked to say at the time) and wanted him gone. I still remember laughing at those who said Webber was the answer.
As I said at the time, Webber would have ruined this franchise. He was a playoff choker to the utmost degree and on top of that, didn't make sense next to Duncan.
I do forgive some of the Spurs fans back then for bashing Robinson and backing Webber as that was the stance taken by the untouchable DG at the time. The sheep mentality was in full effect in 2001.
I forgot exactly who was and wasn't on the Webber bandwagon. Care to name names, Russ?
I don't recall anyone saying that Robinson should be lowballed, or allowed to go. It just made having to pay him a slightly bitter pill.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
