Why don't the Spurs have more American players?

[JamStone]

The Pistons could have kept both Sheed and Okur. There was nothing in the CBA that made it impossible. I knew you'd get angry, that's why I brought it up. But it looks like you learned something about your team too, so you're welcome.

False.

If the Pistons matched the type of offer Memo got from Utah, they would have had to waive the Bird rights to Rasheed. At that point, they would not have been under the salary cap enough to offer Rasheed the type of contract he received.. Not angry at all. It was an inaccurate statement, and it had nothing to do with the topic.

The way the CBA was structured back then, there was no limit on what second draft picks could be offered by teams that didn't draft them. Now, they can't be offered more than the MLE after two seasons in the league, and the teams that draft them can match up to the MLE. That's the early Bird rights clause. In 2004, Memo had just finished his second season in the League and Utah offered him a contract starting at a salary way above the MLE. The Pistons would have had to waive Rasheed's Bird rights to match that contract to keep Memo. No Bird rights on Rasheed, they would not have been $10+ million under the salary cap to give Rasheed the contract he got.

Thanks for trying.

[ChumpDumper]

If the Pistons matched the type of offer Memo got from Utah, they would have had to waive the Bird rights to Rasheed

Oh yeah, my bad.

Spurs suck and are cheap.

[JamStone]

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

Good explanation. I didn't know that about Salmons. And, good point about Barbosa. I guess I looked at it differently not knowing all of those things.

[JamStone]

False. Bird Rights exist so teams can go over the cap to re-sign a player. Since you stipulate the Pistons had Bird Rights on Rasheed from the trade and they definitely had Bird Rights on Okur, they could have signed both.

If a team is under the cap and has Bird rights to an unrestricted free agent, and they end up using that cap space to sign another free agent first, they have to waive the Bird rights to that free agent first.

Had they signed Rasheed first using his Bird rights, they would not have been under the cap enough to match the deal Okur got from Utah.

[ChumpDumper]

Too late. I already edited.

[JamStone]

Except I quoted you.

[ChumpDumper]

And? I said my bad once I was reminded Okur was a second rounder.

I was wrong.

I apologize profusely.

I have never been more wrong in my life except for earlier tonight.

And this afternoon.

And yesterday.

You get the picture.

[smeagol]

And? I said my bad once I was reminded Okur was a second rounder.

I was wrong.

I apologize profusely.

I have never been more wrong in my life except for earlier tonight.

And this afternoon.

And yesterday.

You get the picture.

C'mon chump, you've been wrong many times.

May I remind you of a certain thread . . . three years ago . . .

[wildchild]

Cuz, we don't like AmeriKKKans, and if you don't like that then get of the USA son.














j/k

Your ironic is offensive. No more KKK

[ChumpDumper]

C'mon chump, you've been wrong many times.

May I remind you of a certain thread . . . three years ago . . .

Link? Of course that thread is anything you want it to be. It has entered the realm of myth.

[E20]

LMAO I love Chumpdumpers signature response:

Link?

Chump you gotta copyright that and place it on a shirt: Link? Got Links? LMAO

[Reggie Miller]

Just My Opinion Deptartment:

International players do not come from the AAU or Nike camp environment. (Actually, there are now camps like this starting in parts of Europe, so look out.) I am convinced that Duncan would not be the great player he is today if he had spent his formative years being told he was going to be an NBA superstar. Whether true or not, the Spurs' management appears to think that international players are more coachable. Many of the international players come from a national team background or other environment more compatible with the Spurs' managment (many of whom have military backgrounds). International players seem to understand how they fit into a team system better than U.S. players, but there are many exceptions, obviously.

Many international players became professionals as soon as the law would allow them to be paid. My best guess is that a player who began playing professionally and travelling internationally at 16 is going to be more mature at 19 than a typical American college freshman leaving for the NBA.

The Spurs have a reputation for winning and for developing/facilitating international players. In other words, both sides (team and player) feel more comfortable than an organization that has never really had an impact international player. Many organizations may take an American player over a foreign player more reasons of marketing or "comfort." (Just as a random example, the Bobcats are loaded with UNC players. The Pacers will always take an IU or Purdue graduate, all else being equal.)

San Antonio has the reputation for doing just the opposite, but I am not sure how deserved it is. A lot of teams are doing the same sorts of things, with varying degrees of success for a long time. For many years, the Pacers led the way in this trend (Schrempf and Smits). The most well-known foreign player in the NBA doesn't even play for San Antonio (Yao Ming), for example. What would impress me, assuming I was an international player myself, is the fact that the Spurs have taken good players that were not obvious first-rounders (i.e. not "bigs") and facilitated their development in the league. Not too many teams can claim that.