Can you link me to do entation of that? I'm not saying it doesn't exsist or it didn't happen, I've just never heard about it.
Howard had to do with targeting an offseason to have substantial cap space and make a big move in free agency.
Not extensions. Trades. The Spurs have expiring contracts, which are rather valuable in today's NBA.Which contract would you have wanted extended past 2008? Who would have come here had they been offered a long term contract which they weren't offered?
I'm not sure I ever saw this one exactly, but there's been a lot of talk of GSW dumping large contracts by coupling them with inexpensive talented younger players.
Ok, but thats all speculation. Why aren't other teams trading for a guy like Troy Murphy? And as much as I liked what I saw from him in a few games, he's not looking all that great and Troy Murphy here doesn't give the Spurs a HUGE increase in their le chances.
The Spurs don't need a huge boost.
I didn't say they needed a huge boost. I said adding Troy Murphy doesn't significantly increase their chances at winning a le.
What championship team needs a center who shoots jumpers to make room for a post bigman? Miami and Detroit has that covered. Dallas and Phoenix don't need him. He makes perfect sense for the Spurs because he'd be the rebounding bigman who could space the floor.
And I'd say Murphy >>>>> Elson or Oberto.
Golden State would do Barry and Williams for Murphy in half a second. But the Spurs wouldn't do it because it doesn't jive with 2008.
Another example is Derek Fisher. Golden State salary dumped him to Utah. Imagine if the Spurs had a real backup point guard.
The Los Angeles Spurs of Anaheim. Get used to it.
What do you think the chances would be of a Spurs championship with Troy Murphy as opposed to without him. Quantify them. The same with Fisher.
I just don't see how trading for an injured not very athletic big man is going to significantly improve the Spurs for this year much less down the line for 2 or 3. Fisher would have made more sense to me, however. I've liked what I've seen from Troy Murphy in the past, but he's lost his starting job in GS and has not played well this year. I'm not sure the Warriors would just give him away either. In a league where even decent big men usually bring back something decent, I'm not sure they're not willing to try to get a better deal than Williams and Barry. Spurs fans can speculate all they want about what a franchise would or wouldn't accept, but the vast majority of the time that speculation is wrong.
I could point you to articles saying that GS would give away Murphy for expiring contract, but Fisher is probably the better example anyways.
There's no speculating about whether they would have given him away for expiring contracts, because they did. You don't think going from the worst backup point guard in the league to the best wouldn't help this team? I think the Spurs' chances would be much, much better ... especially considering that their main compe ion likes to run a two point guard set.
A Tony and Fisher backcourt would end any advantage the Mavs have by running Terry and Harris together.
Maybe, but Murphy = Bonner!
Ok maybe they're not equal, but Bonner and Horry have the same offensive strength with their outside shooting as Murphy, AND they get paid much less for a shorter time.
Besides, the "other" big that creates space in the low post by clearing out to the perimeter is overrated, mostly because Tim Duncan can be the "other" big!
"Top 5" was a bad way to put in on my part. Say "Top 10", there are lots of entertaining teams out there that we all know have no realistic shot at the le.
a) In the past ten years, only 11 different teams have gone to the Finals (and two new ones were last year).
b) Only five different teams have won the le. Detroit was the only team without Tim Duncan or Shaquille O'Neal.
c) The last time there was an NBA Final without either Tim Duncan or Shaquille O'Neal was 1998.
This isn't MLB or the NFL.
That's not what I said. Nobody "chooses to not win championships". What they choose is to not maximize their short-term chances in place of long-term success.Anyhow, I'm moving off my original point that the way you phrased your question was flawed because the front office hasn't choosen to not win championships.
Um, you realize with your last statements you just underscored the entire point of our argument.The truth is that the NBA isn't run like a fantasy league and there are considerations outside of basketball. While Marcus and other may disagree, I don't see as accepting that and still being happy that the Spurs are in a position to compete for a le as settling. This is not mediocrity. Have Spurs fans forgotten what it was like before Tim Duncan got here? That was mediocrity.
When Tim Duncan leaves, it'll be back to mediocrity and it won't matter how much cap room we have.
Let me restate my questions in a declarative fashion:
The only time the San Antonio Spurs will win an NBA championship between now and 2017 is in the next three years.
Agree or not? And if you agree, then why not try to maximize those short-term chances?
And OMG I would kill for Derek Fisher at backup, are you kidding?
After I finished puking, of course.
Why didn't the Spurs get Fisher? He's going to make $7M in 2010.
Only reason. Yeah, it's a pretty bad contract ... but sadly enough, Fisher would be an amazing fit on this team.
I still can't get over us missing out on Trevor Ariza
He woulda been a stud on this team
Hustle defender, not offensively inept, long-term contract....think I'd rather have another PG that fits that description. His name is Earl Watson.
Earl Watson would work for the Spurs too, and he is younger, but Fish is a proven playoff performer and more reliable shooter. Plus, it's not clear Watson would be happy with a backup role.
Earl Watson costs nearly as much as Derek Fisher, without all the, you know, accomplishments.
I flat out don't agree. I don't believe Duncan is nessecarily done in 3 years. In fact I doubt he's done in 3 years. And while Duncan looks like he's on the decline, I'm far more a believer in LJ's theory that the man is simply sleepwalking through the season again.
In addition with that, I truely believe that Parker has the potential to become a dominating player in the game. I think that the Spurs could very well add a good player and still have a very solid shot at a le with Parker leading the team and Duncan playing as the 2nd star on offense and the first on defense.
Now, I'm not saying our chaces extened until 2017, but I do believe that they extend further out than 2008.
Tim may or may not be done in 3 years, but he will certainly be past his peak. So will Manu.
If the Spurs had a track record of making the big Free Agent scores, maybe this would make sense, but they don't.
Parker could become a dominating point guard. I don't think so, but for the sake of argument let's say he becomes the best point guard in the game.
Dominating point guards don't win you championships. Not unless Mark Cuban still has some more left to his improvement plan.
The Spurs may be a good, entertaining team with Tony Parker as a first-team All-NBA, I just don't see them winning les past this three-year window.
I guess Isiah Thomas disagrees with you.
Anyhow, I've gotten sidetracked from my original point to begin with. In all honestly, I would love it if the Spurs would be willing to make moves. But its ironic that the people that are now calling for moves are the ones that argued long ago not to make moves for the sake of making moves. If there were a move out there to make that gave this team significantly larger chances to win, then regardless of bad contracts I have a feeling they would make it. All speculation, but of course thats all anyone has in this thread.
In the end, if they are passing on trades or deals due to a 2008 plan, then it is what it is. These are the San Antonio Spurs and not the New York Spurs. The NBA is what it is. I'll just sit back and wait for the next MB thread on the subject.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote