Reply With Quote
Manu and Parker came through the lottery?
The answer is "no."
We get good by the lottery.
Manu and Parker came through the lottery?
Those two don't make us contenders without Duncan, pal.
Virtually every team in the league has a Manu and Parker.
Get a grip.
You just lost half the people here!!! They don't understand "logic".
They "think" they understand "trade", but none can tell you why. Well, other than Phoenix, LA, Boston, Chicago, Miami have all done it at some point in time. And if we could trade Elson for Foster, man that would be a "major" trade, don't you know......
is someone ready to ban this guy? please man stop infecting the threads with this bull
What don't you agree with?
Look across the NBA and you can equate at least two (2) players from every team that are on par with Manu and Parker.
It's Duncan that makes the difference.
It's time for you to hand in the modem.
Sig-worthy for those given to humor and not self-defilement.
I'm sorry... you guys glorify these two, but every team has at least two "stars".
We're not winning les without Duncan via the #1 lottery pick.
Period.
that is no question man. but saying timmee might have won 3 championships with Terry and Howard is yet to be seen. What a bright new aspect you are brining?
And you're still convinced that the Spurs can just go find a guy like that -- a difference maker of Duncan's caliber -- in free agency or via trade.
Remarkable.
what's remarkable about it?
Naturally another team would give the Champs a franchise player for the Champ's scraps.
Ghost Writer's belief that players like Tim Duncan are readily available in the NBA and can easily be acquired via trade or in free agency, coupled with this new statement that every team has at least 2 players like Parker and Ginobili. One wonders, if every team already has at least 2 of those guys, why any team would be willing to give up a Duncan-quality player to pick up what is essentially (in Casper's own words) a redundant part.
Seriously, if I already have 2 Manu Ginobilis and 1 Tim Duncan, why on Earth am I going to be willing to trade my Tim Duncan to get another Manu Ginobili?
It's more like...why would a team trade its Tim Duncan to land Francisco Elson and Brent Barry?
Don't put fvcking words in my mouth.
Parker and Ginobili are not franchise players.
Duncan is.
You can't easily acquire a Duncan-level player.
Every team in the NBA has a couple Parker or Ginobili.
Every team has 1-3 stars.
Not every team has a franchise player, like a Duncan.
Jeezus, FWD, at least argue with something I actually said.
You fvcking p1ss me 0ff when you make up your own spin on my actual take.
WTF?
Who said anything about trading for a Duncan?
We're not the Celtics!
Are you arguing that Ginobili and Parker aren't second-tier stars?
Most every team has 1-3 stars on their team like Ginobili and Parker.
I defy you to quote me as trying to bring even a second-tier star in for scraps.
The best player I have targeted this season via a trade is Artest and if he wasn't bipolar, I wouldn't even dream of landing him.
That was bullsh1t, FWD. Stick to the parameters of what I am saying, not where you want to go with my post.
Every team doesn't have a Parker and a Ginobili.
But you have to act like they aren't that good, because their existence destroys the rationale behind your incessant ing.
The Spurs just won 3 les in the last 5 years by doing everything you argued against. It gnaws at you, obviously. That's fine by me.
Wrong.
I've acknowledged that Parker and Ginobili are second-tier stars, not franchise players like Duncan.
Every team drafts a couple of Parker and Ginobilis that become their stars, but it's not enough to win it all.
I can point to virtually any team in the NBA - even the sh1tty ones - and tell you who their Parker and Ginobili is:
Knicks: Randolph / Crawford
Hawks: J. Smith / J. Johnson
Bobcats: G. Wallace / J. Richardson
Nets: Carter / Jefferson
All these teams are lacking their Duncan.
to anwser this topic, no
but Ron Artest in SA would change all that
Man, you really don't get it.
Duncan is the reason the spurs have won championships. Getting a great franchise big is key to success in the league thats why so many bigs that end up being busts but may have some potential are drafted too early in the first round of nba drafts.
There are many great pgs and sf and sg at the level of Manu and Parker but few great big men. Duncan is the only franchise player on the spurs.
There just aren't enough top big men especially at the level of Duncan in the league. The teams that have a player like Duncan have the definite advantage. A strong post player is vital to championship success in the league.
Man, you really don't get it.
The only team that had recent championship success without one was the bulls but they had the greatest player of all time.
I agree. Some here on this board are claiming that Manu and Parker are franchise players. Those two didn't even make the all star game. They are 2nd level stars and very good complimentary players but just about every team in the league has those type of 2nd level stars.
Don't bother, rascal.
They're homers, not analytic fans.
That cowardly pr1ck FWD completely changed my post to create a non-sensical argument that wasn't even there.
These guys think you can build a team around Manu or Parker.
There's 28 also-rans built on that premise.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
