Go ahead.
You're comparing the best PG in the game right now to a kid you couldn't shake the almighty defense of Kerry Kittles.
And yet he managed to put up 21ppg on the All-NBA Defensive Teamer who you purport to replace him with.
And yet our team defensive performance is going to somehow improve or remain constant when the man who got burned by Tony Parker (who couldn't get past Kerry Kittles, as you put it) comes in.
And yet you still don't understand that Kidd is the superstar of his team while Parker has the luxury of freewheeling behind Tim "MVP" Duncan.
Duncan is there to command the defensive focus of the other team and erase any mistakes Parker may make while guarding opponents.
Swap Parker for Kidd and the Nets get bounced in the first round.
Now use that brain of yours and imagine what a superstar PG could do playing off of Duncan.
Next.
I hope he's not--Kidd can't shoot or defend quick guards.because Tony Parker will not be on Kidd's level in two years
:p
What were you saying about flawed logic? Signing superstars is more important than winning les? Physician, heal thyself!What has BAMA been wrong about? The philosophy was that waiting to sign a superstar in summer 2003 instead of making a major move to win before then was flawed logic. I don't see a superstar signed yet, pal. A funny thing did happen along the way, though. The Spurs won a le!
50+ wins/season and Division les is a little better than treading water. It is true that nobody was expecting a le. On the other hand, HOYA was willing to trust the Spurs front office, while BAMA complained. Guess what? HOYA was right to trust, and BAMA was wrong to complain.HOYA was happy to tread water until summer 2003. None of you people expected a le before then either!
If so, that still leaves a hole in the rotation to be filled.Stephen Jackson is Bruce Bowen's SF replacement.
Not at that price. If that is what happens, it will be a big disappointment.Michael Olowokandi will be a suitable replacement for Robinson for between $7 and $10 million if all esle fails.
Scott, you're failing to see the point.
Kidd >> Parker.
Always.
Put Parker on the Nets, and they might not even make the playoffs, IN THE EAST.
This is once again homers overrating Tony Parker, thinking he is more than what his talent truly merits. Tony has the benefit of a dominate big man to draw double teams, so that all he has to do is hit jump shots, and penetrate with little pressure on him. Put him on a team where he is the focus of everything, and then you'll see how "talented" he is.
I agree with you on the Kidd issue, scott. Parker is 21, and Kidd is 30. Parker is already good enough, and his improvement after just two years in the league bodes well for the rest of his career. Even Kidd himself said that Tony is probably better than he was at 21.
And Ghost, why are you now on the Kidd bandwagon? Just a few months ago you were saying that we should not go after Kidd, because Parker was adequate and only going to get better (which is correct). Now, you're talking as if you've had your seat reserved on the Kidd bandwagon all along.
What gives?
Who in BAMA was pushing for short term deals that made no sense? BAMA was against the philosophy of basically tanking it for two years in order to bide our time until 2003. BAMA was against refusing to pull the trigger on trades that helped us win. If I remember correctly, you are the one who always posted trade proposal threads out of boredom - sometimes as many as 8 or 10 a day.Right. HOYA preached patience. BAMA whined about the Spurs not making a bunch of short term minded deals that made no sense for a team that was 2 years away from life without David Robinson. And you claim we are the ones who wanted to "gamble"???? Get a clue, Sherlock. -Marcus Bryant
The laws of supply and demand in your economics classes can explain our repe ion, Marcus. Your failure to understand these basic concepts demands us to continue to supply it.You've posted this nonsense time and time again. Just like with Ghost Writer, repe ion on your part does not breed correctness. It is not gambling to recognize that you need to give yourself flexibility to adjust the team after David Robinson leaves, it is common ing sense. - Marcus Bryant
Based on your revisionist history with respect to what BAMA wanted, the repe ion has obviously not helped much. Please get the facts straight.
You are right. I did want to see David win a second le. I also wanted to see Tim Duncan win a second le. Both David and Tim have given enough to the team and the city to deserve the best. The Holting Pattern, as it was originally presented two years ago, didn't care about maximizing the talent we had (at least the way I understood it). Many of its supporters just wanted to assemble a great fantasy league team in 2003. I thought our current players, and especially David and Tim, deserved better. Fortunately, we won the le this year anyway. From that standpoint, I have no problem with the Holting Pattern. It's the philosophy that I disagree with.The Holting Pattern is a mindless phrase that means nothing except to a couple of simpletons...one who complains about "ballas" and subtle racist comments about the Spurs not having enough African-American coaches who can relate to young African-American players and the other an individual so fixated on seeing his favorite player go out as a champion that he wanted to see this franchise make a lot of nearsighted short term moves that would have hindered this franchise over the next decade. -Marcus Bryant
Stating the way I feel and feeling confident about it is called an opinion. Obviously, not everyone else will agree with me. I am comfortable with that. However, if you can't deal with opposing views, then I suggest you check out the Spurs board on WOAI. :winkDon't act like you have some sort of wise vision while the rest of us advocated a reckless POV. The reverse is true and you can take your arrogant 20/10 hindsight and choke on it. -Marcus Bryant
How good Tony Parker would be without Tim Duncan is irrelevant because he isn't on a team without Tim Duncan.
Scott, you're failing to see the point.
Kidd >> Parker.
Always.
Put Parker on the Nets, and they might not even make the playoffs, IN THE EAST.
This is once again homers overrating Tony Parker, thinking he is more than what his talent truly merits. Tony has the benefit of a dominate big man to draw double teams, so that all he has to do is hit jump shots, and penetrate with little pressure on him. Put him on a team where he is the focus of everything, and then you'll see how "talented" he is.
The fact is that he is a 15.5 ppg scorer in his second year in the league as a 20 year old.
In Kobe Bryant's second season (as a 19 year old) he put up 15.4 ppg. I'm pretty sure that Laker boards weren't innudated with "Let's replace Kobe because he has the luxury of playing with Shaq" threads.
Jason Kidd brings what to this team? Rebounds from the perimeter? Better entry passes? It certainly won't be better shooting or defense.
The fact is that he is already on the decline. Last season he posted the lowest assist average in his career since his rookie year. His scoring was up, but not surprisingly so were his shots per game (15.5 shots a game, second highest total in his career). It takes that many shots when you only shoot 41% though.
Who in BAMA was pushing for short term deals that made no sense? BAMA was against the philosophy of basically tanking it for two years in order to bide our time until 2003. BAMA was against refusing to pull the trigger on trades that helped us win. If I remember correctly, you are the one who always posted trade proposal threads out of boredom - sometimes as many as 8 or 10 a day.
I would say that wanting to see the Spurs deal away their youth and cap flexibility for an older guard (ie The Payton Urban Legend) is fairly nearsighted. But let me guess, you didn't want that but you wanted the Spurs to do everything that they could to win it in those two years regardless of the long term implications. Right. You can't have it both ways.
The main problem is your assumption that Duncan would be happy in a situation in which the Spurs are capped out with limited young talent with David Robinson retiring. Should the Spurs be unable to improve themselves with a retiring DRob you can be rest assured that Duncan would be tempted to look elsewhere. Sorry for bringing this up, I'd hate to increase the complexity of this argument for your sake. But this is what those of us who are Spurs fans and not simply DRob fans like you understood...there is life after David Robinson. Tim Duncan has eight to ten years left in this game after DRob. You don't **** that up just to gamble for the last two years of DRob's career. It doesn't make sense from a basketball perspective and it doesn't make sense from a business perspective. You have to do what you can do to keep The Franchise happy long term. That isn't accomplished by saddling the team with fat contracts for marginal talents and trading away your young talent. And don't tell me the Spurs didn't know what they had in Parker.
BAMA assured us that the Spurs were not doing what was necessary to win a le in 2001-03. All that HOYA said was that they may or may not win. But BAMA was certain that the Spurs would not win.
Now they spin.
why replace a learning 21 year old who averages 21 points a game.
WIth a 30 year old point guard who shoots like Lloyd Daniels????
The other thing you con artists seem to forget is that the plan for life without DRob had been in place since 1996. The Spurs had the summer in which DRob's contract expired targeted as early as five years before it did as the time when the Spurs would be able to bring in a significant free agent. Yes, even before Duncan.
Anyways, the Spurs desire to maximize their cap flexibility this summer has cost the Spurs Derek Anderson, Lamond Murray (he just spent a season...watching the action), and Chris Mihm. It's rather foolish to complain about this and act like you have a point but that won't stop GW and GW Jr.
What about it? That was predicated on the Spurs preparing for life without DRob. You guys act like Tim Duncan would simply accept being on a team with no cap flexibility and undesirable contracts without reviewing his options. Even before the Spurs won this le this season it was taken as a given that he was staying. Think about why that was the case. Unlike you guys he was happy with what the front office did. Don't pretend that you were. You and everyone else here knows that you didn't want this. You didn't want the Spurs to have a young team just learning the game as the Spurs rebuilt and prepared for this offseason. You wanted them to add all the experienced talent they could without any regard for what that meant capwise. Just so they could maximize their chances of winning during the 2001-02 and 2002-03 seasons with DRob. All I ever said was that if Webber wanted to be a Spur you cannot turn that down. Why? Because the focus was not on DRob it was on Tim Duncan and the Spurs after DRob (who only had two years left in his career). You don't make long term moves to build around a guy who is gone in 2 years. With Webber there is no DRob. But at least Webber would ensure that Duncan has a real go-to teammate for the next 7 seasons (at that time). I find it curious that GhostWhiner Jr is parroting GhostWhiner because GhostWhiner's sole basis for his criticism of Peter Holt is that Peter Holt didn't tell DRob to go to NY and F himself back in 2001. I don't believe that GW Jr wanted to see that at all. So you guys need to get your story straight...did you want to see DRob gone or not?Mr. NO LIMIT himself...
Anyways, I suppose that the Spurs front office doesn't know what it's doing and you do. You guys are obviously letting your talents go to waste.
T-Park, you are a mole (cute and lovable in an Internet sort of way), but .....why replace a learning 21 year old who averages 21 points a game.
WIth a 30 year old point guard who shoots like Lloyd Daniels????
WHACK!
Your numbers are wrong and your take is .... stunning.
Kidd is coming to SA, now its just a matter of who is staying with him.. Parker or Claxton? I wouldn't be surprised if Karl Malone isn't here as well...
Claxton is probably gone unless Kidd doesn't come, but the more and more Kidd talks to the media, he is coming.
Kidd is not coming. Will you please stop thinking this idiotic thought?
Despite wanting Jermaine O'Neal way more than Kidd I am really starting to believe Kidd is coming...
Kidd is really talking making a move to a team where he can win championships...and the Spurs are the only option available this summer that qualify in that area...he did more interviews yesterday...sounds like he is trying to get the Jerseyites used to the idea...
the other reason is that although Don Harris is not a total insider he probably has more inside access than anyone else in San Antonio...He is absolutely adament that the Spurs have told him that Jason Kidd is, was, and always has been the Spurs first option in this offseason...this might be CIA Pop in action but the guy is just so damn sure of himself....
I hope we sign Jermaine just so I can see Harris cry when his love affair with Jason Kidd is not realized.
Every day on the radio there is at least a segment or two on Harris' mancrush on Jason Kidd.
He even drops the line that "Tony Parker will stay here. He can't go anywhere. He'll be a great backup."
That'll be great for team chemistry.
I keep hearing the rationalization that we can play Kidd and Parker together in the backcourt...yeah right...Kidd may be the ultimate ball distributor but Tony Parker is damn sure not the ultimate shooting guard...that tandem might work with some teams (like when Dallas goes small) but would be way undersized for most team matchups...
When has Pop/RC/Schuler told anyone what they are going to do?
This includes Harris and it certainly includes someone else...from the Jason Blair School of Journalism no doubt.
Derrick Dial will be unleashed. ©2000 Modesto, Inc.
How are the Spurs undersized? Kidd guards opposing 2s, Parker draws the other team's point.
Why do the Spurs have to have a prototypical NBA lineup?
How exactly does TP's game change from where it is now? It's not like he was dropping a lot of dimes, people. His impact has been primarily through his scoring. You guys act like he is this primo playmaker. He isn't. But he has great scoring ability. And in the open court he and Kidd would be lethal.
Matt, you don't get to hear this guy on the radio in Austin...Harris keeps saying over and over that the Spurs have told him Kidd is the #1 option and he has never waivered from this position...
that being said, you are right...Pop and RC have never leaked anything like this before...but remember...If they get Kidd they are talking about replacing a VERY popular player...maybe they ARE trying to get us used to the idea...
guess we will know soon...
easy...Parker is shorter than 2/3 of the points in the league and kidd is shorter than at least 3/4 of the shooting guards in the league...jumpshooting 2 guards would kick our ass...How are the Spurs undersized? Kidd guards opposing 2s, Parker draws the other team's point.
What dimes are Jason Kidd going to drop by feeding the ball to Tim Duncan in the post?
Are we going to change our offensive scheme?
Oh how exciting it will be to watch us go away from the strength of the best player in the world.
Kidd's certainly big enough to defend the 2. TP is big enough to defend the 1.
As for Kidd and Duncan in the halfcourt Kidd's value will be in getting the other guys involved moreso than just waiting for the pitchout from TD. Pop works with the talent he has. Thinking that he would relegate Kidd to simply pitching the ball into TD is a bit unrealistic.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote