Reply With Quote
We do know his price was apparently the minimum for one season.
Right. One season.Same as Evans, but for $5 million this season.
Marcus, you give an opinion and thats cool. However, you turn into, "Marcus knows what he is talking about and no one else does. Marcus is right and the Spurs front office is wrong."
If you're looking for us to say, "Dang, Marcus is soooo right, maybe the Spurs are in trouble. I mean the Spurs have ONLY WON THREE SHPS in SEVEN YEARS. Let's write the Spurs and have them give Marcus full control of the Spurs management." It ain't going to happen.
If you were meant to be in charge of a sports franchise you'd be doing it right now, but you're not and I thank God for that.
We do know his price was apparently the minimum for one season.
Right. One season.Same as Evans, but for $5 million this season.
I'd kill myself if I were one of your friends or associates. You are so worried about something you can't control its not even funny. You are worse than a woman. You are panicking over nothing.
Why do the Spurs have to answer to you as to why they didn't sign Evans, Barnes, Brown, and Joe Blow? They don't you freak. The Spurs didn't sign Brown because someone more proven like Finley decided to come to the Spurs. Its that simple.
Yes, I have argument and I make them. Welcome to the internets.
Again, I have no problem with what the player-personnel folks and the coaching staff have done. That's not the issue here.If you're looking for us to say, "Dang, Marcus is soooo right, maybe the Spurs are in trouble. I mean the Spurs have ONLY WON THREE SHPS in SEVEN YEARS. Let's write the Spurs and have them give Marcus full control of the Spurs management." It ain't going to happen.
Funny. We can't criticize anything because we have not or are not in that role. I guess one cannot engage in political criticism because they are not an elected public official either.If you were meant to be in charge of a sports franchise you'd be doing it right now, but you're not and I thank God for that.
Somehow, you fail to grasp what is abundantly clear.
Hasn't there been a lot of talk in other threads about all the 'talented' players the Spurs failed to sign for the end of the bench. Some of which, like Glenn Robinson, were also somewhat too over-the-hill agewise to fill the bill for young developmental players.
Isn't this a perrenial about the owner being cheap with names of players being plugged in as 'being wanted by Pop and RC." or 'unwise basketball decisions.?"
We'd have a twenty five player roster of marginal players if all these guys had been signed.
No, you claimed the Spurs didn't even make an offer to him, and then got you ass handed to you by BH of all people.Yeah, I asked why the Spurs didn't sign Evans.So you can't answer the question, Understood.We do know his price was apparently the minimum for one season.Again, show me a deal where a non-rookie free agent had $5 million committed to him to expressly not see the floor. Surely you've had time to catalog all the 3-yr/$4.5 million IR signings -- the $5 million ones should be fresh on your mind.Right. One season.
Barnes took $700K in NYC. That's like $50K in Texas.
/shrug Thought we discussed Devin Brown ad nauseum, but what the heck. I personally don't think he was worth $2.5 million to sit in a nice suit every night. I sure as heck don't think he was worth $5 million - due to luxury tax - to not see a minute of playing time. With Devin Brown there are legitimate injury issues. I didn't see the Utah game last night, but Brown's stats weren't that great. 16 mins. 4 points, 2 reb, 2 asst., 3 TO, and 2 PF is a pretty weak stat line. Again, I didn't see the game, and it's just the 1st game of the season - so I say it's best to go with a wait-and-see approach.
As for Matt Barnes. I got nothing. I don't really support 1-year minimum deals for future-developemental players on this particular team because I don't think it would benefit the Spurs at all. They would sit on the bench. Have a hard time developing due to limited playing time (maybe they could grow by playing in the NBDL??), and the Spurs would be very hard-pressed to bring them back next year.
If there are some future prospects willing to accept a 2-year minimum deal that would be better. Next year age may catch up with Barry, Finley, and Bowen - and NVE will be gone - so they could possibly get more playing time, and the Spurs would hold their Early Bird Rights giving them some leverage. If there were a player that could help the Spurs THIS year (maybe Glenn Robinson ??) then sure, sign them to a 1-year deal. Again just my opinion.
coopdogg3
How many points did Devin Brown score? Played 16 minutes and scored four points.
What about Barnes? He played 24 minutes (by the way he started) and scored nine points.
What about Evans? Played 22 minutes and scored seven points.
What about our Michael Finley? Played 27 minutes (didn't start) and scored 16 points
Brown was good enough to pass over Barry to be the Spurs' primary backup swing. He was worth keeping around for another season. At least you'd have another option next summer. As it stands the Spurs have 4 swings. They've always had at least 5.
There you go. Why aren't the Spurs taking advantage of that? Are we to believe the Spurs don't have anyone on their radar they'd like to put through that?As for Matt Barnes. I got nothing. I don't really support 1-year minimum deals for future-developemental players on this particular team because I don't think it would benefit the Spurs at all. They would sit on the bench. Have a hard time developing due to limited playing time (maybe they could grow by playing in the NBDL??), and the Spurs would be very hard-pressed to bring them back next year.
This is about finding guys who can help them down the road. They've taken young guys and groomed them into vital role players before. That is not unheard of. I'm not saying that whoever they brought in would turn into a rotation player, but again, the opportunity is there. Ownership is limiting that and I don't think that's a good thing.If there are some future prospects willing to accept a 2-year minimum deal that would be better. Next year age may catch up with Barry, Finley, and Bowen - and NVE will be gone - so they could possibly get more playing time, and the Spurs would hold their Early Bird Rights giving them some leverage. If there were a player that could help the Spurs THIS year (maybe Glenn Robinson ??) then sure, sign them to a 1-year deal. Again just my opinion.
coopdogg3
So at worst I didn't recall that the Spurs made an unacceptable offer to him.
If I could be infalliable like you, then all would be swell.
Well, if Evans is a good enough figure for you to quote, then the same would seem to hold for Barnes.So you can't answer the question, Understood.
The Spurs have committed more to players they didn't use.Again, show me a deal where a non-rookie free agent had $5 million committed to him to expressly not see the floor. Surely you've had time to catalog all the 3-yr/$4.5 million IR signings -- the $5 million ones should be fresh on your mind.
What are you so worried about Marcus? The Spurs are young. The CORE, which is the most important thing is still young with the exception of Bruce Bowen. Other than that you don't have to worry.
I bet your woman wears the pants in your house if you have one.
Look at the swing rotation. It's old. Oh, let's not think about next season. It'll always be easy to refresh that.
Nah, she worries about that hasn't happened or will never happen.I bet your woman wears the pants in your house if you have one.
so why dont MB and Timvp raise the funds to buy the Spurs and then they can spend spend spend...oh yea cause they're not smart enough to do that but they sure are good at ing about spending someone elses money
Do you have control as to what will happen to you today? No? Tomorrow? Less of a chance. I know its good to be prepared for certain things. No doubt. However, you are taking to the extreme by saying Rasho will be traded for nothing, Nazr will walk, and Oberto is going to blow his knee.
How do you know all that will happen?
Give us a couple years.
They tried to trade Radoslav for Tariq Abdul-Wahad and his partially guaranteed deal a couple months back.
I said Barnes is a different situation -- you simply can't say there wasn't a camp invite, so give it a rest.So you admit you can't find a similar free agent signing.The Spurs have committed more to players they didn't use.
Or do you need more time?
Ha. Barnes was available for 1 year at the minimum.
Haven't looked. You can do that if you like.So you admit you can't find a similar free agent signing.
Or do you need more time?
Yes, it's about finding guys who can help us in 2-3 years. Signing guys to 1-year minimum deals, and having no leverage to resign them next year IMO won't do that. And I will still like proof that Holt is the sole reason that Pop and RC haven't signed some scrub to a min deal. There is still plenty of time to sign some guy, I refuse to go Chicken Little because the Spurs haven't signed, yet, a 14th player.
coopdogg3
What's this ha crap? Show me the Spurs didn't invite him to camp. That's all he ended up taking.It's not my job to support your argument. You act like this kind of signing is made all the time.Haven't looked. You can do that if you like.
Prove it.
Right. He was available for that amount.
Nah, you aren't the boss o' me.It's not my job to support your argument. You act like this kind of signing is made all the time.
Prove it.
And?Right. He was available for that amount.It's ok to admit you're wrong. It's not a huge stretch to think you could be wrong about this after being punked by BH mere pages ago.Nah, you aren't the boss o' me.
So he was available for nothing.
Nah, not wrong.
I know, you've never erred and have a fetish for nitpicking.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
