We signed Finley and NVE for about what Devin would have cost if you include the luxury tax. Finley and NVE > Devin. That's what put Devin on the bubble.
If Isaiah Thomas signed a 6'5" 12th man with a questionable back for 5 million dollars, this place would be awash with posters giggling about how dumb the Knicks GM is.
Have a little faith in the FO. Haven't they taken pretty good care of the future of the Spurs by locking up our core players?
I already said the same thing back on page one or two. But I was still accused of whining and overreacting.
I think you are still missing the point. We only have Finley for ONE season. So people who are "overreacting" are just saying that they are worried about the future. I don't know what's wrong with admitting that.
As for the "nuts" comments -- that's ONE poster saying that. So I'm not sure why everyone else who had a slight concern on this topic is lumped into that same group of "haters".
So has the one-season-contract of Finley been confirmed? I have not read anything official yet.
Now I'm going to have to root for the Knicks AND the Jazz on the side.Except for when their playing the Spurs, of course.
When does the vBookie get settled, Kori?
Cool.
My point was let's not go very critical of ownership/FO for not doing 'enough' to keep Devin. Most of us here like Devin very much and I understand he has age on his side compared to our current swingmen rotation of Finely/Barry/Bowen. IMHO, Devin would've been still plan B for the spurs (with his back still a concern) even if Finley wasn't signed. I may be wrong, but it'd have been a huge risk going in with Devin as primary backup for Bowen. If not Finely, they still would have tried getting a young SF into the rotation first (either by using the money Fin got or by trading Barry) before signing Devin.
I don't think comparing this situation to the Lakers 2003-04 signings is justified. The Lakers had absolutely no depth, and were depending on old legs to carry them from the starting lineup. We're not asking Van Exel to play 35 minutes a game, or Finley to start at our weakest position. We're talking 15-20 minutes a game for Cancun and 20-25 per for Fin probably.I swear, Spurs fans have turned into Laker fans.
"We have Gary Payton AND Karl Malone, WTF would we need a backup power forward? Stop whining Karl Malone is >>>>>>> Robert Horry. We are going to roll to a championship this season. The future? What is that? We don't need no young backup."
--Laker fan circa September 2003
True, but NBA swingmen with Devin Brown's talent are a dime a dozen in the NBA. Let's not forget that Antonio Daniels had a playoff series versus the Lakers in 2001 like Devin did in 2004, but he wasn't the answer either.No one else is slightly worried that the Spurs have the very real possibility of having Brent Barry with a cane as the only back viable backup after this season? It's always easy to say the Spurs can go out and find a young stud to groom, but where was that young stud when Antonio Daniels was guarding Kobe Bryant?
I don't see a place for Devin when the Spurs need to save every cent they can to sign Nazr next summer. I know Devin's deal was 2 years with a team option on the second, but there's no way the Spurs could afford to keep him @ $2.7 million, leaving them only $2-$3 million below the luxury tax threshhold. They could decline the option, but then what's the point of signing him at all? He's not good enough to get into this team's rotation for 2005-06... not when it's 2-deep with borderline starters or better at every position on the floor.
The Spurs have plenty of options. In 2007 they have Horry's expiring contract to ship out after he retires like they did with Ferry to land Turkoglu. In 2006 they'll still have the rights to Luis Scola as trade-bait. If he can get a buyout next year he'll have higher trade value than Devin in a sign-and-trade.
As much as we all love Devin, guys with his skill set are a dime a dozen. I'd be more concerned that the Spurs would only have a guy with questionable back problems down the road.o one else is slightly worried that the Spurs have the very real possibility of having Brent Barry with a cane as the only back viable backup after this season? It's always easy to say the Spurs can go out and find a young stud to groom, but where was that young stud when Antonio Daniels was guarding Kobe Bryant?
We still got 2 Euro wings waiting in the wings, and you'll have the full MLE to work with next year.
When he actually signs. He hasn't had a physical yet.
Who is the other Euro wing besides Sanikidze?We still got 2 Euro wings waiting in the wings, and you'll have the full MLE to work with next year.
10-4, roger roger
The Spurs lost talent for nothing because ownership are cheapskates and some 'fans' here accept it like its nothing. That's disturbing. Don't we want good basketball decisions? We don't cheer the Spurs' profit margin, do we?
The organization is not perfect. Take its nuts off your chins already.
Getting a Groundhog Day vibe for the next five pages or so....
My bad, was thinking there was someone else besides him for some reason.Who is the other Euro wing besides Sanikidze?
The point still remains the same though - you can find a Devin Brown all over this league at the end of rosters, in the NBDL, etc., and the Spurs are great in cherry picking Europe.
*shrugs*
The funny thing about this thread is that for all the cheap shots Marcus took at me for "hating" on Rose, my "hate" for Malik's play doesn't even come close to Marcus crying in this thread for the Spurs to pony up over 5 million a year for their 12th man.
Put things into the proper context, Marcus. You keep hammering on and on about how they lost him for nothing but that isn't the case. If everything was equal then yes, it would have been a foolish decision but all things considered it was a very understandable decision.
They got Finley which is a better option for at least the next year. They don't have a replacement for him after that but that doesn't mean they can't resign him or bring in a player in a simillar situation.
As much as you want to be critical of them for being cheap, you can't expect them to spend 5 million dollars on a player that may not see much court time. That isn't being cheap, it is running a business intelligently.
And as for Devin being an answer, that wasn't a lock either. Devin has shown flashes, but thats all he's shown. He's not a lock to be a future star or even consitent starter in this leauge.
So quit your damn crying about them giving him up for nothing because they were cheap. You can use that line on ever free agent the Spurs have ever let walk away. I mean , they let Massenburg walk away for nothing. The HORRAH! Mike Wilks is gone for nothing! My god the insanity! So disturbing!
I don't think anyone here ever claimed this organization was perfect. But I challenge you to find another organization that is able to maintain a le contender year after year while being very well managed financialy.
Yeah, it's a great decision, if you're a fan of the Spurs' profit margin.
And its a horrible decision if you're a fan of paying the 12th man 5 million dollars to ride the pine.
But, if you're somewhere intbtween those 2 extremes, you probably see it as an understandable if undesirable decision.
Considering that a bunch of other guys on the perimeter are old, under contract for one season and/or both, it was an even more horrid decision.
Considering there is a season and another offseason to go before that is the situation we are facing, that remains to be seen.
If Devin Brown blows up and if the Spurs don't pick up another young player then it will be a bad decision but not untill that happens. If Devin goes to Utah and is a bust, what then?
spurs really can't lose... if devin kicks ass, good for him... if he is all screwed up bc of his back or lack of playing time, then the spurs will look like geniuses again.
Devin will have more chances to play in Utah, than he would have with the Spurs. Good luck to him. He contributed a lot in his time with the Spurs. I liked him, because he played great in big games and always played good defense.
Not to fan any flames-- but aren't some of the same people lamenting this decision not to match Devin for financial reasons, some of the same people dying to dump Rasho for financial reasons? Cause- from a basketball perspective, wouldn't it be great as a fan to have Brent and Devin and Finley and NVE-- Rasho and Nazr and Oberto and Horry?
I can't imagine why anyone is complaining about letting Devin go. Letting him go for nothing is exactly what free agency is all about. We got NVE for nothing, we got Finley for nothing, we got Oberto for nothing, we let Devin (who would have been our 12th man) go for nothing. It would not have made sense to trade Devin before Finley made up his mind, and teams knew we had no leverage after we signed Finley. The Spurs waited the full 7 days waiting to see if anything developed for a trade, nothing did.
The Spurs can't be blamed for not trading him, as there was nobody willing to trade for him. In the end arguing that the Spurs should have spent $5 million for him to ride the pine is foolish. He would have cost the Spurs more than Bowen (a starter) and nearly every person riding the bench. How can you pay a man that much who would only get garbage minutes? The Knicks might do something like that, but that's why the Spurs win championships and the Knicks fight for a play-off spot.
The Spurs are hardly cheap-skates, the pay money to players who will produce for the team. Mostly anyways, Rash and Brent might be exceptions (arguable) and that's why they have trade rumors swirling around them. The team has been irresponsible with money in the past, and it cost the team dearly.
I liked Devin's game, but he was hardly the man to replace Bowen. Next year we may lose NVE and Finley - Brent and Bowen will be a year older, but they should still be effective. The Spurs have always managed to find promising, young, cheap players to fill in the weak points.
Here is a link to team salaries before Finley's deal took place, puts us right around #10 when Finley's deal is included, http://www.hoopshype.com/salaries.htm - we are the 3rd smallest market (give or take) but #10 (or thereabouts) in salary after the Finley deal is added. So I think it's very unfair to call Holt a cheap owner, but he has to be responsible with a small-market club. It's just that simple. In 2 years we may have more need for Devin's services and he will be a free agent. We should also have some cap room then. So I guess we'll see. I wish Devin all the luck in the world and hope he thrives in Utah, but it simply does not make any sense to sign him back in San Antonio.
coopdogg3
Yes, it's whining.
Whining? It's called pointing out that it'd be wise for the Spurs to roll with more than four swingman ... especially considering that two of them will be 35 next season and one of them has an expiring contract.
So you're comfortable running four swingman and surviving the very real possibility that one could *gasp* get injured? In that scenario, that'd force a player that is currently not on the team into a spot in the rotation.
If the Spurs can fill that role with a Matt Barnes or a Theron Smith, then they'd most likely just be fine even in that worst case situation.
But whatever happened to the thinking man's Spurs fan? They've gotten y and think that the Spurs will win a championship in September no matter the possible twists the season may take.
But if the Spurs primary weakness is their 12 man, their 5th swingman (though van Exel could fill in as a 5th, though small), life as a Spurs fan is looking really, really good. Yes, lots of things could happen (all our old players get the rheumatiz or something (though Devin's back acting up seems more likely to me)), but the Spurs will be the team to catch up with.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
