I do, provided Parker is healthy. As it stands now, anyway. I retain the right to change my mind should the teams make more moves.
It'd be nice to bring in a Big for defense and shot-blocking, but I don't see it as necessary. I also wouldn't mind bring in a solid backup wing with 1-2 years left after this year, since otherwise we have to spend a good chunk of the MLE over the summer and bring in vet-min players, or players we own the draft rights to.
At the same time, I believe any trade we make would be aimed at next year, and if the trade includes a contributor on this year's team, it would make us more vulnerable. It's stupid to bring in a star player to be our FOURTH option. Their ego won't take it, in all liklihood. Having 3 star players seems to be the optimum judging by the last decade or two, and we have our 3 stars. I'd also hate to ship off either Mahinmi or Splitter, as both have the potential to be solid long term contributers.
Dallas losing to the Warriors was a lucky break. I will give you that one.
The Suns were going to lose with us anyways, regardles of Amare's stupid move or not.
In any case, at this time last year, we were playing the same ball and had a similar record. But come June 2007, there was a parade going through the "muddy" river.
Fair enough.
I just hope the Spurs being not quite as good as last year and the other teams being better doesn't mean we lose.
Seriously, why do you keep starting multiple threads that say exactly the same thing?
Please post a link to the other thread that I started that states the same thing.
I'll help.
The closest was "Playoff Matchups" from over a week ago.
Why do you still respond with venomous nonsense, instead of a take?
Do you think the Spurs have enough to keep pace with the improved West?
Question.
What the reaction do you want? I mean, we as fans can't do about what the FO does so what the dip ?
I want to see a cage fight between Casper and SpursDynasty.
Are you ing kidding me?
All you have said in every thread since you returned is the Spurs must trade.
That's it.
You think there is some nuance of the Spurs trading or not trading in this thread that had yet to be explored in others? What is it?
Question.
Please post a link to the other thread that I started that states the same thing.
I'll help.
The closest was "Playoff Matchups" from over a week ago.
Why do you still respond with venomous nonsense, instead of a take?
Do you think the Spurs have enough to keep pace with the improved West?
Question.
Fine. You post the same again and again.
I'm not sure how Artest's aggregate skills make him a viable choice to defend Bynum/Gasol or Shaq/Amare, if that's the biggest concern that faces the Spurs. In fact, acquiring Artest immediately gives the Spurs three guys who play the same spot and are more effective defenders than scorers (Artest, Bowen, Udoka) while at the same time relieving them of another big man (Elson, ineffective though he may be) who could at least offer up some token resistance in a matchup with a Gasol or Amare. And if you're going to keep Artest on a short leash, you HAVE TO keep Bowen and Udoka around, just in case the absolute worst happens. So, arguably, instead of dealing with the very thing that you've identified as the most significant concern, you've weakened yourself at that spot in favor of acquring a redundant part with a big name.
Certainly the Spurs caught a break or two in the 2007 Playoffs, but as you're so fond of saying, this isn't 2007. The Spurs might have needed a guy like Artest to deal with a smallball Mavs' lineup last spring, but they won't face the same sort of lineup this spring if the teams meet again. This spring, size is back in vogue in the West and getting Artest (instead of a guy like Thomas or some other big) essentially means that the Spurs will be forced to play smallball lineups with great regularity. I don't know that many Spurs fans would favor that idea -- particularly because it ensures that Duncan will spend long, long minutes defending Shaq or Bynum or Yao or Boozer.
Again, I can certainly see an argument that the moves by Phoenix and LA might necessitate a reshuffling of the roster, but I don't see how those moves suggest a countermove to acquire another wing player. I think that if those moves are the impetus for doing something to the Spurs roster, the only logical move is one to get a big man.
If there was an award for the person that annoyed the out of me the most on this board... you would be the 5 time repeat champion.
You're a fair weather poster and fan. You have the basketball mentality and knowledge of a Sun Fan.
In fact, you WOULD be a Sun fan if you were born anywhere else.
No one likes you.
No one gives a what you think.
The only reason people post on your threads is because of how much you ing suck and they want to be a part of the train wreck.
You're the Sanjia Malakar of Spurstalk posters.
The Mavs just traded away the two reasons they could take out the Spurs in a 7 game series. So the relevance of their fortunate 1st round playoff demise last year is gone.
Okay.
Elson doesn't play anymore. Non-issue.
We know Artest does not play a prototypical PF/C, but he can play PF in small ball scenarios, as he has this season.
What I said before is that his overall skills gives us more talent (no... not at defending big men, but at the 3) that I believe we can live with Oberto and Horry at the 4.
In other words, the Spurs as a whole would improve enough to make up for the inadequacies at the PF/C.
That said, I agree that you can either make a modest move for a PF/C upgrade like Thomas or a more impactful move for the superior player, the SF Artest.
When we are talking the same basic package to get either player, I would rather get the more talented Artest, given the Spurs reputation for not being able to acquire star-quality players.
To each his own.
Either way, (Thomas or Artest), I'd be happy if the Spurs addressed something.
How'd they end up with 3 of them?given the Spurs reputation for not being able to acquire star-quality players.
It's more important to make a move in order to address the Spurs' reputation for not being able to attract star-quality players than it is to field a lineup with the best chance for winning a championship. Appearance > substance.
Good teams have 15.
and manage to keep them 2 of them who shopped around for free agent deals?
Man, I'll be glad when this trade deadline passes so Ghost will disappear until the summer when he can tell us that the Spurs won't win championship #6 without a trade...
The draft.
And I'd argue that the thing that has made the Spurs the dominant franchise in the league for the past decade is realizing that the key to winning isn't surrounding Tim Duncan just with talented guys, but is, instead, surrounding Tim Duncan with talented guys who fill particular roles and are unquestionably accountable and professional.
Winning isn't just about aggregating talent.
Making a move for Ron Artest, who doesn't address the Spurs' needs, and who introduces an element of needless chemistry risk on a team which has absolutely no cause for such desperation, will cause future players to discount the fact that San Antonio is a small city in flyover country with next to nothing for an NBA player to do, and therefore sign in San Antonio as free agents.
Um, what does that have to do with this thread?
We're talking about adding talent, not keeping it.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote