Have the Spurs EVER made a good, major trade?

[rascal]

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.

That guy must be in politics or he isn't very smart. The meaning of your post or your line of thinking in your post was clear to anyone with half a brain.

[FromWayDowntown]

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.

Nice -- namecalling is definitely a powerful rhetorical strategy.

I was just trying to synthesize all of the nonsense you've been posting for the last week. You want to the Spurs to make a trade for a superstar, which I assume to mean a guy more like Duncan than Ginobili or Parker. Then, you suggest that they might be able to make such a trade by dealing guys like Ginobili and Parker. Unless there's some incredible nuance in your argument, what I take from it is a position that the Spurs have failed because they refuse to trade guys like Ginobili and Parker to acquire superstars.

Now, if you've been making some other point, I'd be interested in hearing it. But from where I read, you're either: (1) bent that the Spurs don't acquire superstars because they won't give up their stars; or (2) bent that the Spurs won't make lateral moves by dealing their stars to get guys who you claim are essentially equal players. I don't think that #1 is plausible even if the Spurs were willing to move their stars (which I don't think they should). I also don't see the point in doing #2, particularly if (as your friend rascal has suggested) the bounty for dealing Ginobili is a journeyman big like Dalembert.

I assume that the only other possibility that you have in mind is dealing out spare parts to acquire either a superstar or another star, but it takes two to tango on those sorts of deals and, if published reports are correct, the Spurs have been unsuccessful in their efforts to convince teams (at least in the recent past) that their spare parts are worth giving up a star-level player. And the Spurs are, I think, understandably reticent to deal for guys who are going to be on the books for very long.

I get glib one time and I get killed for it!! Forgive me for trying to be concise; I'll be far, far more expansive from this point forward in responding to you Casper. I feel bad that I hurt your feelings.

[Holt's Cat]

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.
The only team that had recent championship success without one was the bulls but they had the greatest player of all time.

Because clearly if there were a couple more Duncans in the league someone would give the Champs one for scraps.

[Holt's Cat]

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.

6 minutes to go. 4th quarter. Spurs down by 3. Championship on the line. Do you really not want Manu Ginobili on that court wearing the Silver and Black?

[Ghost Writer]

You put words in my mouth that were off the page to say the least.

It was hurtful and I expect more from one of the more fair and balanced homers.

You're better than that, FWD.

I apologize for the harsh words, but I have enough trouble defending what I do say, let alone what I don't.




All I am suggesting is capitalizing on Artest's reputation to get a very talented player without disrupting the Big Three.

[rascal]

6 minutes to go. 4th quarter. Spurs down by 3. Championship on the line. Do you really not want Manu Ginobili on that court wearing the Silver and Black?

Yes. There are many players in the league just as capable as Manu. I've seen manu blow playoff games.

[Holt's Cat]

Yes. There are many players in the league just as capable as Manu.

Name them.

[FromWayDowntown]

You put words in my mouth that were off the page to say the least.

Trying to put together all of your posts is somehow putting words in your mouth? I'm trying to find cohesion in your arguments, not endeavoring to push discussions down countless rabbit trails. Let's talk about it as a big picture philosophy and not just a bunch of isolated posts in different threads.

It was hurtful and I expect more from one of the more fair and balanced homers.

Calling me a homer (with the negative connotation you give to that word) should, I guess, just slide right off my back, though.

You're better than that, FWD.

I'm doing what I always do.

I apologize for the harsh words, but I have enough trouble defending what I do say, let alone what I don't.

I accept your apology and reciprocate to the extent that my efforts were hurtful to you. I still would like for this discussion to be a bit more big picture than this thread (apparently) will allow, because I really must not understand the philosophical team-building approach you're advocating here.

All I am suggesting is capitalizing on Artest's reputation to get a very talented player without disrupting the Big Three.

But in other threads, you're all for dealing out Parker/Ginobili to get Kidd or to get other players with superstar credentials. And in others, you seem to be all about making a deal -- any deal -- to shake things up. I don't honestly see the point in having a bunch of discussions in isolation where there is no real coherent approach on your part (other than that some trade, any trade, is necessary).

[Holt's Cat]

Ghost es because he needs to . This board is his outlet. Don't bother trying to find any consistency in his rants, for there is none.

[BonnerDynasty]

Why do trades matter? Umm, let's see, why don't you ask the Celtics why trades matter, you nut.

They drafted Robinson, Parker, Manu, and Tim. They don't need any ing major trades.

Spurs have 4 rings.

[Solid D]

Name them.

Well, there is Ditka.

[FromWayDowntown]

Well, there is Ditka.

Manu > Ditka

[Ghost Writer]

No, FWD.

You'll never find a post from me that ever involved sending away Manu.

And the only time I have advocated trading Parker since 2002 was in an imaginary example where we'd be getting back Kidd for the next season and a half and then be able to sign a superstar with the max.

Summarize if you must, but please stop surmising.

I hope this has been clear and concise enough for you, friend.

[Reggie Miller]

If you don't want to be a fan of a successful team why don't you pick a new one? It's not hard. We won't miss you that much.

Seriously, pick a nice mediocre team like the Pacers or the Clippers and you'll get to see more glorious trades than you could ever imagine.

True that.

[Ghost Writer]

Ghost es because he needs to . This board is his outlet. Don't bother trying to find any consistency in his rants, for there is none.

Nah.

You homers can't keep up and like to skew a dissenting opinion into unsubstantiated nonsense.

Is it too much to ask for the front office to capitalize on the good fortune of drafting Duncan (and Manu and Parker).

Just one free agent signing or trade where we can all be like, "Wow... the front office just got us some real help."

Not veteran minimum guys or waiver wire pick ups.

Just one.

[FromWayDowntown]

Just four (or more) [ les].

[FromWayDowntown]

Just one free agent signing or trade where we can all be like, "Wow... the front office just got us some real help."

The last time the front office did that, they got Derek Anderson who played the team-first guy for a season and then ed about the Spurs unwillingness to cave into his demands for a contract.

I wonder who proved to be right on that one?

[spursrule32]

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.

They're franchise players b/c they are two of a very small group of players that are willing to take less money to win championships. Your all-stars rarely do that and come playoff time their performances are are very near what TP and Manu put out. Spurs win b/c they play a great team concept of offense and defense that is not reliant upon all-star player caliber (other than Duncan.) You could easily argue that if Manu was on another team, he would be an all-star year in and year out.

[Reggie Miller]

Since I can't be accused of being a "homer," here's my take.

1. Duncan and Ginobili are singular, unique talents. By definition, you cannot get "equal" value for them. You will be getting more or less value. Reasonable minds would agree that you would probably get less, unless you overvalue youth and "potential." Parker may or may not fit into this category.

2. None of the Spurs' Big Three have bad contracts. Ginobili's contract alone makes him untradeable in my mind. Why deal one of your best players when he is grossly underpaid? Similarly, Duncan has shown willingness to rework his contract as necessary.

3. The Spurs don't overpay their roleplayers. In practical terms, this means that acquiring even a second tier star would destroy the Spurs' depth, assuming a team would even take a bunch of roleplayers at 1-5 million per year each. Matching salaries becomes very difficult.

4. The theory of diminishing returns. When a system is perfect or near-perfect, tinkering with the parts tends to degrade the system, not improve it. The Spurs' only real problem is age, in my mind. On the other hand, there are a lot of immature, half-skilled players in the NBA right now. Not too many teams want older players with declining skills, unless they have an expiring contract or other exigent cir stances. However, older players with high basketball IQs and declining skills actually have value to the Spurs.

Let's look at Robert Horry. Robert may have still had a lot in the tank back in 2005, but his value was higher on the Spurs. Just to give one concrete example, let's look at Game 5 of the Finals that year. If Robert isn't in the one spot where Ginobili has a passing lane, if Ginobili is too immature to recognize the situation and find Horry, or if Ginobili doesn't demand a double team in that situation, "Big Shot Bob" never takes and makes that shot. As a fan of historically bad basketball teams, I can tell you NONE of those things are given. (Spurs fans may think so, but you are spoiled.) You may argue that Wallace should not have left Horry in that situation (and you'd be right), but the fact is Ginobili was in the Pistons' heads by that point and had demonstrated the ability to create his own 3 point shot.

[Hemotivo]

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...89/ai_18053723
San Antoniuo Spurs makes trade for forward Charles Smith
Jet, March 4, 1996

[Holt's Cat]

Nah.

You homers can't keep up and like to skew a dissenting opinion into unsubstantiated nonsense.

Nobody needs to "skew" your "nonsense". It is what it is. You about dumb and then whine about the Spurs not pursuing dumb ideas.

Is it too much to ask for the front office to capitalize on the good fortune of drafting Duncan (and Manu and Parker).

How have they not? They have 3 les in the 5 years that all 3 of those have been together.

Just one free agent signing or trade where we can all be like, "Wow... the front office just got us some real help."

Not veteran minimum guys or waiver wire pick ups.

Just one.

Horry wasn't a vet minimum guy and I'd say he had a real impact on winning a championship. Neither Finley nor Barry were signed for the vet minimum.

What great move are they supposed to accomplish? They made a move for Turkoglu, which you seem to forget. Of course, that didn't work out so well. I'm not sure what you have against signing veterans to flesh out the supporting cast. Given the constraints that's been a wise strategy, especially when you look at the results (ie 3 les in 5 years).

Why does it matter so much that fans orgasm over their moves? I thought the goal was to win championships.

[Ghost Writer]

The last time the front office did that, they got Derek Anderson who played the team-first guy for a season and then ed about the Spurs unwillingness to cave into his demands for a contract.

I wonder who proved to be right on that one?

Don't lay Derek Anderson at my feet.

I was never a DA guy.

I was happy to have the help, but I never confused him with being a star.

At least the Spurs made the effort there.

It was worth trying.

And guess what?

He wasn't worth what he demanded, so good for the front office!

[Holt's Cat]

So the Spurs opportunistically pick up Robert Horry for a non-vet minimum contract but we can't give the front office any credit for that?

If it had been a vet minimum contract wouldn't that have been even better?

[Ghost Writer]

Bravo!

We signed Robert Horry.

Well done.

[Holt's Cat]

I'd rather see the Spurs acquire a proven veteran with playoff and championship experience for the vet min or close to that instead of blowing $5 mil here and $10 mil there on players who maybe could be good someday. Those vets know how to play. They've been there and done that. They know how to execute. They don't need their diaper changed. The less drama the better.

The gist of all of your ing is that you want the Spurs' roster to create more drama. that. The Spurs are about dispensing with the drama and playing championship winning basketball.