Reply With Quote
Why not become a fan of another team with a better front office?
After all, you can't have been on the Spurs bandwagon for that long.
maybe I should dumb myself down to your level
let's see if you can understand this: The Spurs FO is not good. Does your pea size brain comprehend that? are you having a headache right now reading?
Why not become a fan of another team with a better front office?
After all, you can't have been on the Spurs bandwagon for that long.
I'm glad I think your opinion is about as worthy as a e Girls reunion tour.
yes.are you having a headache right now reading?
Because he's too lazy to change his bookmarks.
Jesus H. Christ.
I would have quoted your post, but my eyeballs started to bleed the first time I looked at it.
Apparently, single-celled idiots like you think winning a championship every other year sucks. Apparently, nimrods like yourself buy into the media garbage about how repeating is better than separate championships. Apparently, stimulus-response dolts like you can't get over the fact that a fellow mindless chump like Stephen "Bullets" Jackson wouldn't sign the best offer he had on the table in the summer of 2003. And because your brain has less recall than Ronald Reagan's corpse, you forgot that Popovich took the job in midseason 1996-97, the season before Duncan arrived. It's not like he knew the Spurs would get the #1 pick, you brainless .
I can't ban anyone, and I wouldn't normally call for the ban of someone who happens to be a little bit ignorant about certain basketball matters. But this is different. You don't have a goddamn brain in your ing head. You don't deserve a mere ban from this site; you should be on permanent house arrest. No access to the outside world, no TV's, computers, or phones - just a cage, lots of straw, a water dish, an exercise wheel, and a maze with a fresh piece of cheese daily. You don't deserve the same rights the rest of us have.
i have no idea who you're talking to, but that was funny as .
It was about the original poster and his first abortion of a post.
Yawn...OP bores me with his lack of intellect. Hey Spurs Dynasty(aka Lakerbandwagon and Sunsjocksupporter) ...this is your version of messageboard masturbation. People, Why help the guy gets off on inane ?
Other than this lone post, I ain't going to be part of this whack ass bukake.
funny how bandwagon fans like you say I like the Lakers and Suns when I don't praise everything my fav. team does
OK, everybody, here's the real skinny.
Scola is scared less to play in the NBA. He's afraid his ass is so slow he'll run out breath. He is slow and doesn't jump very well. He's the one playing games, and the Spurs have too much class to tell all you uninformed Monday morning quarterbacks and spoiled-as- fans (you could be Knicks fans and then what would you be saying?). He isn't coming. Spurs? Rockets?
Neither. It's same-o same-o. Spurs got tired of the whole mess.
"Kettle? Yeah, this is Pot. Hey look -- I've been meaning to tell you that you're black."
It's not about praising every move or refusing to be critical. Those are the things that separate fans from homers. What you've done here is to suggest that your interest in a single player (Tim Duncan) exceeds your interest in the entire franchise (the Spurs). I don't really pretend to understand why you have so little faith in the Spurs organization, though I surmise that you're now in panic mode because you're unsure about which bandwagon you should jump on -- it would, of course, be easier to make that choice if Tim Duncan left San Antonio, right?
In any event, I'd genuinely suggest to you that if you think Spurs' management is the worst in the NBA (or not very good), you might use your bandwagon hopping skills and follow another team for the next couple of seasons. When you're done with that, you can report back to us comparing and contrasting the management styles employed by other teams.
For instance, it might be fun to follow Orlando for a few years and see just how wonderful life is when your front office maxes out a guy who doesn't deserve the max and can't make other moves that are necessary to take the step from pretty good team to championship contender. Or maybe you can follow the Nuggets, who have devoted such a huge percentage of their payroll to star-level starters that they have no bench to speak of and are going to rely on Chucky Atkins (apparently) to drive the boat this year.
Think about what a wonderful exercise that would be -- you could be saved from being constantly angry about the Spurs' poor management while actually learning something about how the NBA works.
Well duh!!
Ewing=Knicks
Magic=Bulls
Bird=Celtics
Jordan=Bulls
Spurs won't lose TD after next year, but I'm not as confident on their chances of a repeat given their recent roster moves.
I understand that neither of the pieces traded away thus far had an impact on last year's team, but I also don't think that the Spurs had the most difficult road to the finals. I know it's not their fault, but the Spurs didn't have to face the Mavericks, had an Amare-less Suns team for one game, and didn't face the Pistons, Heat, or Bulls out of the East.
Add to that, Houston has added another legitimate scoring guard in James and legitimate low-post PFs in Scola & Butler. If they stay healthy, I think they surpass Utah and step into the conversation to turn what was clearly "top 3" last year into "top 4" next year.
All the while, the Spurs have elected to stand pat and extend the players that helped them to the win last year. Not a dumb decision, but I wouldn't argue that it was a smart one either.
I suppose time will tell, but I don't share the level of confidence in the current group that the Spurs FO seems to...
FromWayDowntown again puts it in perspective.
Thank You FWD.
You play who you play. I don't see how the Spurs could have made a financially-sound play for needed free agents without making a deal to get rid of some back end contracts. If getting Houston to take Butler required including Scola in the deal, I'm confident that the Spurs felt like the price was one that they could afford at this point.
I suppose that depends on your definition of "legitimate." Butler wasn't a legitimate anything in 2006-07. His reputation in the league isn't the best -- after all, Sacramento balked at a deal that would have had them acquiring Butler, and it's not like the Kings are just flush with legitimate bigs at this point. Butler strikes me as more like a throw-in in this deal. The notion that he'll be some significant contributor to the Rockets, at this moment, is optimism without thinking about numbers.
As for Scola, it remains to be seen. Again, I'm sure that no franchise has evaluated Scola more than the Spurs have. It's intriguing to me that for a guy who is claimed to be the best available free agent, nobody in the NBA was willing to give up a first rounder to get him. To some extent, that market was shallowed out by the disagreements between Scola's people and Spurs management. But you'd think -- wouldn't you -- that, if Scola was some sublime talent and everyone was convinced that he would become a major contributor at the NBA level, teams in bidding against each other would have eventually agreed to tender a 1st Rounder in hopes of obtaining such a player. Somehow, through (apparently) a couple of summers of this, no team has been willing to part with such a commodity to get Scola. The asking price always remained at a 2nd rounder. That tells me that there's some doubt among NBA teams about just what Scola will be able to do.
Now there's a bold prediction -- when the Rockets were healthy in the early stages of last season, that's exactly what most "experts" were saying about the West. I put zero credence into power rankings and other such things, but the Rockets were clearly in the West's Top 4 for most of last season. I understand that you're talking about being considered a legitimate contender as opposed to simply being the 4th best team in the conference, but I don't exactly see your forecast as unlikely.
Let's be clear about this, though -- the Spurs have elected to stand pat TO THIS POINT. Signing Udoka, if that happens, isn't just standing pat. And signing Udoka would seem to necessitate another deal to break up the logjam at the wing positions. Such a move, again, would not be standing pat.
If it's true that the Spurs are close to signing Udoka, it suggests to me that the FO is aware that minor tweaks are needed. But I can't see any argument would lead me to conclude that wholesale changes are necessary for this team to compete for another le in 2007-08.
Tim Duncan aint leave especially after a championship season.
Damn....I meant Magic=Lakers
I was thinking of Jordan when I typed that...got ahead of myself.
The complete dearth of logical reasoning in the OP's diatribes actually makes me sad for the future of our species.
FWD,
Okay, so lets take this step by step.....
On addressing needs,
I agree with you that who the Spurs played in the playoffs was none of their doing, and I even agree that the Spurs can't make moves based off who they might play.
What the Spurs CAN do is work to solidify the weakeness they do have so that they match up well with as many teams as possible. They actually went away from that by dealing their only low-post players outside of Duncan. So, they in fact, created a weakness. There's also the issue of a small-ball 4 and backup PG. However small these weaknesses are, the Spurs have not dealt with them....and thus have not improved.
I also understand that the off-season is far from over, but I never claimed that my assessment was anything other than present-tense. I WANT to see the Spurs improve and address those needs...but thus far I haven't seen it.
On Butler,
To say that he wasn't good last year is to completely miss the point. He was good in limited minutes as a raw, out-of-shape prospect with the Knicks. And he spent the majority of last year without the opportunity to prove himself while he reshaped his body and adjusted to that lost weight. I understand his numbers weren't mindblowing in Summer League this year, but he was clearly the best player on the floor for the Spurs and showed good/great offensive potential.
About him being a throw-in....you know there was this throw-in for the Joe Johnson deal to Atlanta, and he played well enough in a new system to earn a $10M/yr contract. Not saying Butler is Diaw, but I do disagree with the Spurs giving up on this kid and his mind-blowigng $3M salary for NOTHING.
On Scola,
He didn't have any trade value because no team was going to pay too high a price for a guy they weren't sure was ever going to come overseas and play for them. His trade value (Spurs reportedly always asked for a FIRST rounder, BTW) was never based on his talent. What's so hard to understand about that?
On my prediction,
If you don't see it as unlikely, then why take the time to criticize me for saying it? My point was to say that the Rockets will be an improved team over last year to the point that they will be considered legitimate championship contenders. If you disagree, state that. If you don't...STFU!
Bottom Line: I don't think the Spurs need to make wholesale changes. After all, they won with this team last year. But that doesn't mean they're the favorite to win it this year with the same team. There are still holes in this roster (i.e. backup PG, legitimate small-ball 4, backup low-post player) and there are still teams out there that match up VERY WELL with this team and can exploit some of those weaknesses. They're still in contention, but I can't label them the clear favorites.
Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili, both extremely late round draft picks, would like a word with you. In private.
With the current roster, and the way the game is played right now, I don't think there's a pressing need to have groups of guys on a roster who play on the low block. Unless those guys are players like Tim Duncan or Yao, low-post players aren't proving to be very successful in the new era of the NBA.
I'm not sure that the Spurs most pressing need is the development of 2 guys who might be able to occasionally score on the low block. This team needs some youth and athleticism on the wings far more than it needs low-block scoring, IMO. I'd agree that this team needs rebounding, too, but I'm not sure that the Spurs ever believed that they would get that from either Butler or Scola. And I'll trust their judgments over yours or mine -- they're the ones who get paid for this stuff and they're the ones who've seen both of those players up close and for extended periods of time. I'm quite certain that the Spurs have a better handle on the upside of either player than you or I do.
My point was merely to suggest that we all give this some time, rather than becoming apoplectic at the first sign of a move that one of us might not make. The unwillingness of some around this forum to trust this front office is simply amazing to me. This management group has re-shaped this team at least 3 times since 1999, building around a core but working hard to find the right role players to support them. The lumbering team of 1999 gave way to a nice mixture of youth and age in 2003 and that gave way to a team that added more veteran savvy, some plodding bigs, and a group of marksmen in 2005. They learned from their mistakes in 2006 and built a team that was capable of playing both traditional lineups and smallball lineups and won another le.
I realize that focusing on les is somehow too results-oriented for some in this forum, but it strikes me as fairly concrete evidence that Spurs' management has a really good idea about what it's doing. That this club is literally just a couple of plays away from legitimate thoughts of being a 5-time defending NBA champion is testament to how astute the basketball judgments of Spurs brass have been. I'm not sure when that metric became an invalid measurement of managerial success and wisdom. But, somehow, around this forum, that's exactly the case.
Jackie Butler didn't get an opportunity to show himself at a lot of moments when it would have seemed likely that a promising player might have gotten a chance. At that, I still find it intriguing that other teams balked at acquiring Butler -- for such a promising player, there seem to be few GM's in the association who are willing to take a chance on him.
I put absolutely no weight on summer league numbers or performances.
Butler put up numbers with the Knicks, but, again, I don't see any translation to a full-time contributor. In fact, skimming the game log from his 2005-06 season, it appears that he did a lot of his statistical ac ulation in moments when his team was being blown out. Butler was sold as a Hollinger-type star -- great per 48's; but great per 48's mean very little without proper context. When I watch Jackie Butler, though, I don't see a guy who has the ability to put up significant numbers in NBA games over long periods of time. At least not yet. Maybe he'll prove me wrong, and if so, more power to him; but it probably says something about the kid that the Rockets will already be his 3rd organization in 4 seasons.
You completely missed my point. My argument goes like this:
1. Scola is reputed to be a great talent
2. Ostensibly, teams in the NBA would be interested in acquiring a great talent
3. The Spurs offered Scola for trade and asked for a 1st Round pick for him
4. The Spurs talked to several teams about Scola
5. No team would offer the Spurs more than a 2nd round pick
6. In a rational market, teams bidding on a player with great talent will increase their offers; teams didn't increase their offers
There are two ways that you can look at that scenario: (1) teams were willing to let a great talent pass them by because they didn't want to pay too steep a price to acquire that talent; or (2) teams believed that paying the Spurs price for Scola was giving up value that exceeded what they'd get in return. I suspect the latter is what truly happened.
I understand the point about the uncertainty with Scola's future. But if Luisito was truly a guy who would make an immediate difference upon coming to the NBA, I suspect that upper-echelon teams would have been quite willing to part with a late first rounder to get a shot at a guy who would be better than anyone they might draft at that point.
Did Scola have the Spurs over a barrel in a sense? Sure. But the Spurs were equally capable of screwing Scola over as well -- after all, if they viewed him as a guy who might hurt them down the road, they could have just marooned him in Europe. In any event, for all of the articles of faith that comprise your argument, here's on of my own: I don't buy that Scola's price was down solely because of his cir stances.
I criticized you for saying it because while offered as a bold prediction because of the ramifications of this trade, it really mirrors what already existed. If the Rockets stay healthy, they'll be in the mix for one of the top 4 seeds in 2007-08.
That's like me predicting that the Spurs and Mavericks will finish 1-2 in the Southwest.
And I wasn't actually criticizing you; I just thought it was curious that anyone would think that the Rockets as the 4th best team in the West would be some sort of quantum leap. It's clearly not.
There aren't that many teams that matchup VERY WELL with the Spurs. The Mavericks do. The Rockets already did. Maybe the Lakers. To some degree the Suns.
I couldn't care less if the Spurs are the favorites to win in 2007-08 or not. Whether they're favored or not has absolutely no bearing on whether they'll win the le or not. As 2007 shows, it's all about making the most of your opportunities. I disagree with your assessments of this team's biggest needs, too. I don't think that a backup PG is that pressing for the Spurs; it would be nice to find a guy who can provide some offensive punch, but Vaughn was substantially better in 2007 than Van Exel was in 2006 and I think that had the Spurs had Vaughn instead of NVE in 2006, they likely would have beaten the Mavericks.
I also don't think that this team needs a smallball 4 as much as it needs youth and athleticism on the wings. I don't think it's necessary to have a 6'9" or 6'10" wing player to compete for a le. It's about being able to defend 5 positions in small ball groups, which to me means adding some depth on the wings. Other than perhaps rebounding, I see that as the Spurs most pressing need. I have no idea why they would need a backup low post player. Aside from my opening point about the relative ineffectiveness of all but the greatest low post players, I don't think that it would be conducive to the rest of this Spurs' roster to have a guy on the block who doesn't command a double team. With a roster (and a bench) full of shooters, having a guy who just sits on the block without making defenses move and rotate seems counterproductive. But that's probably just me.
FWD,
So you're okay with having one guy on the entire team and in the entire system with the ability to play the low-post? I understand the rationale for not having both, but not having either doesn't make much sense....especially when you have duplicate talent (Bonner/Horry and Finley/Barry) at other positions. Wouldn't the logical thing be to have a diverse group of players with varying ability?
My rebuttal on Scola is simply...if all the Spurs could get for him is a likely late-second round pick in 2009, what was the use of trading him in the first place. He may not have been worth a first round pick talent-wise, but it's hard to argue that he's less of a problem getting 10 and 5 with the Rockets than not playing in the NBA for any team....
Regarding the prediction, I thought you got my point based on the first response but with your second response it clearly isn't the case. I wasn't implying just that the Rockets solidified the #4 spot in the west, but moreso that they vaulted themselves to being included in the conversation with the top 3....whereas before it was Dallas, San Antonio, Phoenix....and everyone else. Disagree with that assessment if you want...
And disagree with me on team needs if you want as well. I could care less. Oh, and I never said any of the needs were "pressing", even going as far as to acknowledge that the Spurs won without them, but that doesn't mean they'll win without them again this year.
BTW, I also happen to think this team would be better off if they replaced one of the "shooters" with another guy that can slash to the basket and create via penetration....but that's just me.
Finally, you can go on trusting in the Spurs FO all you want and think whatever you want of me criticizing them. I don't care what you think.
IN MY OPINION, the Spurs screwed up in this last deal giving up too much, getting too little in return, and they're no better off in their quest for a repeat.
those 2 will go down as some of the best steal in NBA draft history, especially Manu, who is my 2nd fav player
but besides those 2 picks, which are starting to look more and more like damn flukes, the Spurs haven't done
Scola.............my God what could have been
Well, let's analyze that for one second. I don't disagree about maintaining diversity within a roster. I quarrel, though, with your assessment that either Scola or Butler (or both) were going to provide that diversity.
It seems evident to me that the Spurs weren't interested in paying Scola what he wanted to be paid -- perhaps as a consequence of their internal evaluations of his upside. In any event, the result of that truth is this: the notion that Scola would ever diversify this roster is ludicrous. If the Spurs hadn't traded Scola, he would have remained in Europe for the next 5 years and would have never provided any value whatsoever to the Spurs.
That leaves Butler. I'm steadfast in my belief that Butler would have never seen big minutes (or even meaningful minutes) for the Spurs in the near term. I'll say it again -- I think Butler is a Hollinger Hero. Nothing more. To believe that Butler was somehow destined to provide key contributions as a second low-post threat is purely wishful thinking.
If he proves to be not worth a first round pick talent-wise, I don't think we'll see him putting up 10 and 5 for the Rockets.
I did get your point. I don't think that there was any question last year that the Rockets were a top 4 team and I don't think there was any question entering this season that the same would hold true. You think they might vault one of the Big 3 -- I'm saying I don't think that's a terribly bold statement.
You're awfully defensive about this. I don't see that finding a low-post presence is essential to defending this championship. And, in any event, I don't think that Luis Scola or Jackie Butler were ever going to fill that need. You do -- fair enough.
I used the word pressing to indicate that in terms of the relative nature of the Spurs need, the need that should be addressed with the most urgency is the need for some youth and useful (see, I injected another new word) athleticism on the wing. Again, we disagree -- that's what a message board is about, I think.
Nope. That's not just you. But I don't think you benefit a slasher by playing him alongside a guy who, in real terms, is a mediocre-to-poor offensive threat on the low box. . . . but that's just me.
I'm not trying to get you to care what I think. I'm merely expressing opinions that refer to those that you've offered. You can do with my opinions as you wish. I think it's odd for Spurs fans to criticize this front office at this point in time, because the franchise has been so sublimely successful for the last decade and has made very, very few bad moves. They don't always make the splashy moves that some front office wonk/fans would like to see, but I think Spurs management always makes rational moves aimed at being compe ive in the short term while retaining flexibility in the long term. There's a reason they're the model front office right now -- there's a reason that everyone is clamoring to duplicate their plan. It's funny to me that the only people who don't seem to appreciate the good work that Spurs management does are, by and large, Spurs fans.
I'm glad you're able to express your opinion. And I'm glad that I'm able to disagree with you.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions