Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 101 to 125 of 146
  1. #101
    5. timvp's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Post Count
    59,748
    So how do you define 'trying to win'?
    Good question.

    The easiest and probably best way to define it as simply not trying to lose. It's pretty obvious when a team is actively tanking games.

    A good example is the 2016-17 Heat. That was the first year after the Heatles disbanded. They were 11-30 at the midway point of the season. Pundits were saying they should tank so they could get a high lottery pick and get a chance at one of the top three players in the draft: Markelle Fultz, Lonzo Ball or Josh Jackson. On multiple levels, it had to be tempting to finish off the tank. But instead of tanking, the Heat were 30-11 in the second half of the season with a team powered by Dragic and Whiteside. Miami still missed the playoffs ... but that unquestionably sustained their winning culture and laid the foundation for a team that found their way back to the finals a few years later. Oh, and even though they only ended up with the 14th pick in that draft instead of a top three pick, they ended up drafting Bam Adebayo.

    I may critique decisions made by the front office but in general I agree with their plan to avoid a full-on tank. Maybe that may be necessary at some point in the future but for the time being, the best plan is to travel down that first path as long as they can.

  2. #102
    Chopper Ed Helicopter Jones's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    14,005

    I may critique decisions made by the front office but in general I agree with their plan to avoid a full-on tank. Maybe that may be necessary at some point in the future but for the time being, the best plan is to travel down that first path as long as they can.
    Me too. A full-on tank in a small market, non-destination NBA city like San Antonio could lead to many years of mediocrity. Sometimes that hole can't be climbed out of for decades. We got lucky with Robinson and then with Duncan. My fear is that we may have used up all of our wishes getting those two.

  3. #103
    Veteran Sugus's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Post Count
    3,379
    Misery loves company. This is what many message boards devolve into. The franchise wasn't the only thing Duncan kept afloat for so long!

    I do like the ignore list, though I would also prefer that quotes from ignored posters be hidden also. Even better would be if the board didn't even show that a post was made by someone on your ignore list. Then you could just make the idiots completely disappear and not even realize they are there for the most part.



    They don't want to be happy. They want to not be alone.
    I'll take the chance to ask, since you're on the thread currently, timvp - any progress on an "Ignore 2.0" feature like the bolded part? Just curious, tbh, and seeing the in' and crying in this thread, it'll be a real necessity as soon as next season by the looks of it...

  4. #104
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    9,550
    Good question.

    The easiest and probably best way to define it as simply not trying to lose. It's pretty obvious when a team is actively tanking games.

    A good example is the 2016-17 Heat. That was the first year after the Heatles disbanded. They were 11-30 at the midway point of the season. Pundits were saying they should tank so they could get a high lottery pick and get a chance at one of the top three players in the draft: Markelle Fultz, Lonzo Ball or Josh Jackson. On multiple levels, it had to be tempting to finish off the tank. But instead of tanking, the Heat were 30-11 in the second half of the season with a team powered by Dragic and Whiteside. Miami still missed the playoffs ... but that unquestionably sustained their winning culture and laid the foundation for a team that found their way back to the finals a few years later. Oh, and even though they only ended up with the 14th pick in that draft instead of a top three pick, they ended up drafting Bam Adebayo.

    I may critique decisions made by the front office but in general I agree with their plan to avoid a full-on tank. Maybe that may be necessary at some point in the future but for the time being, the best plan is to travel down that first path as long as they can.
    Yes, well the third pick that year was Jayson Tatum, who would have been the star player they would have wanted. They could also have gotten De'Aaron Fox at 5. I think the only dud that year in the top 5 was Josh Jackson, though Fultz may end up a dud. Lonzo is a solid player that has the potential to be a really good starting point guard if he can continue to improve his shooting. Again, I'm not saying you tank every year, but this was a good year to lose, especially when your second half schedule made it nearly impossible to make the playoffs and they barely made the play-in.

    I think "tank" for the Spurs would be different than trotting out G-League players. I think the "tank" most Spurs fans wanted was to focus on playing the Vassel and Luka and Jones more. They probably didn't earn the minutes. I think Rudy Gay is better than them now. But I'd rather make the play-in playing those guys and living with the lottery if they can't step up to the challenge then barely making the play-in with a heavy dose of Rudy Gay and Patty Mills. And I like both those players, but they are clearly not the future for this team. In fact, I was hoping that Pop would cut Gay loose so he could have a chance to win a le elsewhere as I think he could be a difference-maker for a lot of playoff teams.

  5. #105
    Spurs Sage Russ's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Post Count
    9,120
    We got lucky with Robinson and then with Duncan. My fear is that we may have used up all of our wishes getting those two.
    Me too. Although pretty much every team gets their chances at great players over time.

    The key is not so much maximizing your chances as much as protecting them like once you get them.

    Look at Orlando, Shaq landed in their lap but they were too cute to draft Chris Webber and instead make some really "clever" draft trades. Shaq left.

    OKC. They had Durant, Westbrook and Hardin and managed to parlay that into nothing.

    We'll get our chances.

  6. #106
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Post Count
    5,337
    Good question.

    The easiest and probably best way to define it as simply not trying to lose. It's pretty obvious when a team is actively tanking games.

    A good example is the 2016-17 Heat. That was the first year after the Heatles disbanded. They were 11-30 at the midway point of the season. Pundits were saying they should tank so they could get a high lottery pick and get a chance at one of the top three players in the draft: Markelle Fultz, Lonzo Ball or Josh Jackson. On multiple levels, it had to be tempting to finish off the tank. But instead of tanking, the Heat were 30-11 in the second half of the season with a team powered by Dragic and Whiteside. Miami still missed the playoffs ... but that unquestionably sustained their winning culture and laid the foundation for a team that found their way back to the finals a few years later. Oh, and even though they only ended up with the 14th pick in that draft instead of a top three pick, they ended up drafting Bam Adebayo.

    I may critique decisions made by the front office but in general I agree with their plan to avoid a full-on tank. Maybe that may be necessary at some point in the future but for the time being, the best plan is to travel down that first path as long as they can.
    Good answer and in general I agree. I do think coaches and players should always try to win but, a FO can trade veterans for younger players who aren't as good but may have upside or picks and that doesn't fly in the face of 'trying to win.' They can also trade their draft pick + a player to move up in the draft trying to win in a longer term outlook. Conversely, they can go the other direction and trade young guys + picks to make the roster better and win more in the short-term. The point is this FO doesn't seem to want to do either of those things (fingers crossed that changes this summer). I think it's that 'do nothing' mentality that makes people want to tank because they think the chance of winning by catching lightning in a bottle is greater than the chance of winning by doing nothing.

  7. #107
    Chopper Ed Helicopter Jones's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    14,005
    Me too. Although pretty much every team gets their chances at great players over time.

    The key is not so much maximizing your chances as much as protecting them like once you get them.

    Look at Orlando, Shaq landed in their lap but they were too cute to draft Chris Webber and instead make some really "clever" draft trades. Shaq left.

    OKC. They had Durant, Westbrook and Hardin and managed to parlay that into nothing.
    True. And now the norm is to bolt for the bigger markets, super teams, etc., when given the first opening to leave. Team loyalty seems to not be all that important to a lot of guys now that players can basically demand whatever they want and get it. San Antonio is going to have to bottle lightning if they want to get good and stay good through getting top draft picks. We've already had one superstar abruptly leave on us. It certainly can happen again. Guys like Giannis are now the exception to the rule.

  8. #108
    Veteran SpursDynasty85's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Post Count
    2,809
    Yes, well the third pick that year was Jayson Tatum, who would have been the star player they would have wanted. They could also have gotten De'Aaron Fox at 5. I think the only dud that year in the top 5 was Josh Jackson, though Fultz may end up a dud. Lonzo is a solid player that has the potential to be a really good starting point guard if he can continue to improve his shooting. Again, I'm not saying you tank every year, but this was a good year to lose, especially when your second half schedule made it nearly impossible to make the playoffs and they barely made the play-in.

    I think "tank" for the Spurs would be different than trotting out G-League players. I think the "tank" most Spurs fans wanted was to focus on playing the Vassel and Luka and Jones more. They probably didn't earn the minutes. I think Rudy Gay is better than them now. But I'd rather make the play-in playing those guys and living with the lottery if they can't step up to the challenge then barely making the play-in with a heavy dose of Rudy Gay and Patty Mills. And I like both those players, but they are clearly not the future for this team. In fact, I was hoping that Pop would cut Gay loose so he could have a chance to win a le elsewhere as I think he could be a difference-maker for a lot of playoff teams.
    Funny cuz Boston and SA are basically at the same level but I would argue SA’s youngsters have even more room improve than Boston’s.

  9. #109
    Spurs Sage Russ's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Post Count
    9,120
    True. And now the norm is to bolt for the bigger markets, super teams, etc., when given the first opening to leave. Team loyalty seems to not be all that important to a lot of guys now that players can basically demand whatever they want and get it. San Antonio is going to have to bottle lightning if they want to get good and stay good through getting top draft picks. We've already had one superstar abruptly leave on us. It certainly can happen again. Guys like Giannis are now the exception to the rule.
    If the Spurs can get a Euro star I think they'll have a pretty good chance of keeping him. Those guys don't seem to be as much into big markets. A lot of them are from smaller places and America may be pretty much all the same to them.

    That's another reason to look at international guys in the draft.

    I'm trying not to read to much into Kawhi -- he's just strange cat. He's not that engaged or loyal to his team out here either.

  10. #110
    Veteran Poolboy5623's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Post Count
    1,455
    The Spurs arent tanking lol...crazy talk. They're just not that good. You guys are funny.

  11. #111
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    9,550
    Funny cuz Boston and SA are basically at the same level but I would argue SA’s youngsters have even more room improve than Boston’s.
    Well Boston made other bad moves, but we’d trade any and everyone on our roster for Tatum.

  12. #112
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Post Count
    13,823
    Completely agree. The last No.1 pick that led the team that drafted him to a le was... Tim Duncan. And before him - Olajuwon, so 2 in 35-40 years or so. People could argue LeBron but he won with Cavs after signing there as a FA.

    Technically it's true that you get a better chance to draft a star with a higher draft pick, however, building a team, and a championship one at that, is way more complicated (Philly).
    i think this is the part that the pro-tank crowd can't seem to fathom. they seem to think that tanking is some magical panacea when the reality is that it would likely create a losing culture.
    The Spurs arent tanking lol...crazy talk. They're just not that good. You guys are funny.
    Perfect examples of lack of basic reading comprehension, especially the last one, where the opposite was literally said in the le.


    If you take even a couple of seconds to think about the best rebuilding plan, the best path to choose is obvious.

    1) Try to extend the winning culture that was created during the Robinson/Duncan Era. Sure, the playoff streak is over but if the franchise continues to value winning, continuity, character, togetherness, etc, that culture can continue even during lulls. The Heat and to a lesser extent the Jazz are good examples of this path. You keep trying to win while remaining flexible and keeping the culture intact.

    2) You burn the franchise down to the ground and start over. While the franchise is smoldering for ~5 years, you hope that the high lottery picks that you ac ulate are good enough to rebuild your franchise.

    Even if you prefer the second path for whatever reasons, that's a path you can take at any point between now and the end of time. It's never too late to strike a match and burn it all down. Conversely, the first path is only available for a limited amount of time. If given a choice, the first path is obviously the way to go. I mean, sure, it may not end up working and you may end up on the second path regardless, but it'd be unwise to not at least give it a shot.
    Good question.

    The easiest and probably best way to define it as simply not trying to lose. It's pretty obvious when a team is actively tanking games.

    A good example is the 2016-17 Heat. That was the first year after the Heatles disbanded. They were 11-30 at the midway point of the season. Pundits were saying they should tank so they could get a high lottery pick and get a chance at one of the top three players in the draft: Markelle Fultz, Lonzo Ball or Josh Jackson. On multiple levels, it had to be tempting to finish off the tank. But instead of tanking, the Heat were 30-11 in the second half of the season with a team powered by Dragic and Whiteside. Miami still missed the playoffs ... but that unquestionably sustained their winning culture and laid the foundation for a team that found their way back to the finals a few years later. Oh, and even though they only ended up with the 14th pick in that draft instead of a top three pick, they ended up drafting Bam Adebayo.

    I may critique decisions made by the front office but in general I agree with their plan to avoid a full-on tank. Maybe that may be necessary at some point in the future but for the time being, the best plan is to travel down that first path as long as they can.
    That ship has already sailed. The Jazz and Heat got lucky bagging stars in the late lottery - late 1st and the latter is in a glamour market. Relying on being the team to pick the needle out of the haystack is both foolish and arrogant.

    Funny cuz Boston and SA are basically at the same level but I would argue SA’s youngsters have even more room improve than Boston’s.
    No, they're not. The Celtics had a bunch of COVID and injury related absences to their best players this season. They have a high quality core and have proven they can attract significant free agents.

  13. #113
    5. timvp's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Post Count
    59,748
    Yes, well the third pick that year was Jayson Tatum, who would have been the star player they would have wanted. They could also have gotten De'Aaron Fox at 5. I think the only dud that year in the top 5 was Josh Jackson, though Fultz may end up a dud.
    During that season, the top three can't-miss prospects were Fultz, Ball and Jackson and they were supposedly why the Heat should have tanked when they were 11-30. Tatum didn't start rising until later:

    https://web.archive.org/web/20170206....nbadraft.net/

    But, yeah, not resorting to tanking has paid off quite nicely for a lot of franchises, including the Heat. , even the vast majority of internet Spurs fans thought the Spurs should start tanking and rebuilding back in in like 2009. By 2011, it was almost unanimous that the Spurs would never contend and that Duncan should retire, etc:

    https://www.spurstalk.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=178659

  14. #114
    5. timvp's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Post Count
    59,748
    The Celtics had a bunch of COVID and injury related absences to their best players this season.
    While the Spurs had a weak schedule (huh?) and "clutch time luck" (provably false). Good stuff, tnbh

  15. #115
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Post Count
    13,823
    While the Spurs had a weak schedule (huh?) and "clutch time luck" (provably false). Good stuff, tnbh
    early lead courtesy of a weak schedule and rare clutch time luck

  16. #116
    Machacarredes Chinook's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Post Count
    30,990
    I think there's a massive difference between believing the roster as is should be overhauled and that the team should tank. I honestly do think the Spurs' current biggest issue is that they don't have a clean development web for their prospects. That is one of the main reasons I've argue for trading Murray. Basically keeping him, White and potentially Walker on second contracts is a bigger risk to damage the team long-term than re-upping DeRozan to a short-term deal. DeMar is what he is -- and he's good at being that. If he's there, you can build around that by getting off-ball offensive players and strong defenders. It's not going to make a great team, but those are roles where guys can develop in. But you have to run a more traditional offense to give the structure necessarily to instill good habits. Moving DeRozan only to replace him with White and try to run the same offense isn't ultimately going to cut it. Say what you want about the "new NBA" or whatever, but guys like Danny Green still find ways to be impact players despite not being ball-handlers. Johnson could use an intermediate game, but he could use a more consistent three-ball way more. Stop trying to make everybody a one-on-one star and teach them how to play team ball.

    Anyway, yeah, the Spurs should look to make smart moves to improve their long-term position, but those trades aren't as simple as getting picks for older guys and losing games. It means that basically everyone should be on the table for the right price and that they shouldn't put any player on the roster currently as the focal point of their system. Meaning that fit with any of them is basically irrelevant. How the guys on the roster fit together is obviously important, but the goal needs to be adding talent for a good price, and if a less talented in bent player doesn't fit, then too bad. The Grizzlies didn't trade Gasol until after they drafted JJJ, and they didn't trade Conley until after they drafted Morant. The Spurs have so many youngish players on the roster right now that getting multiple first-rounders this year feels like a questionable move. But it shouldn't be. Pick the two or three guys you think are your best prospects and look to make deals with the rest. Fill the gaps with vets. Don't try to draft and develop a future starting line-up. That almost never works nowadays. Just focus on a few and then try to lock in deep-bench players for really cheap deals like Eubanks and Jones.

    The Spurs should absolutely be looking for a starting wing and PF this summer, guys like Samanic and the losers of the Johnson/Walker/Vassell compe ion be damned. Obviously don't sign an awful player and put them above those guys. But getting legit players to fill out their rotation should be their top priorities, not finding a way to play as many raw guys at once.

  17. #117
    Veteran gambit1990's Avatar
    My Team
    Toronto Raptors
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Post Count
    9,576
    If you take even a couple of seconds to think about the best rebuilding plan, the best path to choose is obvious.

    1) Try to extend the winning culture that was created during the Robinson/Duncan Era. Sure, the playoff streak is over but if the franchise continues to value winning, continuity, character, togetherness, etc, that culture can continue even during lulls. The Heat and to a lesser extent the Jazz are good examples of this path. You keep trying to win while remaining flexible and keeping the culture intact.

    2) You burn the franchise down to the ground and start over. While the franchise is smoldering for ~5 years, you hope that the high lottery picks that you ac ulate are good enough to rebuild your franchise.

    Even if you prefer the second path for whatever reasons, that's a path you can take at any point between now and the end of time. It's never too late to strike a match and burn it all down. Conversely, the first path is only available for a limited amount of time. If given a choice, the first path is obviously the way to go. I mean, sure, it may not end up working and you may end up on the second path regardless, but it'd be unwise to not at least give it a shot.
    1) trading for demar = "Try to extend the winning culture that was created during the Robinson/Duncan Era" ??
    2) dude... the spurs have smoldering since moving kawhi, except without having high picks to show for it

    it's funny that you say: "it may not end up working and you may end up on the second path regardless" ... that's exactly where we're at

  18. #118
    half man half amazing
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Post Count
    6,195
    1) trading for demar = "Try to extend the winning culture that was created during the Robinson/Duncan Era" ??
    2) dude... the spurs have smoldering since moving kawhi, except without having high picks to show for it

    it's funny that you say: "it may not end up working and you may end up on the second path regardless" ... that's exactly where we're at
    These people are just delusional. Like, living in an alternate reality delusional. Somehow, the Spurs are building a winning culture by missing the playoffs and spending three years centering the offense and defense around a loser like derozan.

    If they had “burned it down” two years ago, they’d be in a much better position of being a playoff team soon. Now, they’re 3 years away, at least, with no star prospects and no path to winning.

    Also, the heat are in Miami. So it’s just stupid comparing San Antonio to them. And the jazz built around two stars. The Spurs have ZERO.

  19. #119
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    9,550
    During that season, the top three can't-miss prospects were Fultz, Ball and Jackson and they were supposedly why the Heat should have tanked when they were 11-30. Tatum didn't start rising until later:

    https://web.archive.org/web/20170206....nbadraft.net/

    But, yeah, not resorting to tanking has paid off quite nicely for a lot of franchises, including the Heat. , even the vast majority of internet Spurs fans thought the Spurs should start tanking and rebuilding back in in like 2009. By 2011, it was almost unanimous that the Spurs would never contend and that Duncan should retire, etc:

    https://www.spurstalk.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=178659
    Well I was definitely not the one thinking of tanking until last year. But I disagree on Tatum. He was on Duke and was clearly a one and done player. Now, I don't think he was likely to go no. 1, but he was definitely considered a top 3 lottery pick as I remember it. I still think Ball could end up being a really good player and I think if the Spurs were not overloaded at the position, they'd make a push for him in the offseason. Fultz has been a dud so far, but Orlando is counting on him to still reach his potential. The only real dud is Jackson, but it was well known he couldn't shoot coming out of college.

    The fact that the Heat got Bam and he turned into a player doesn't mean that getting the 14th pick and a near miss playoff run is the right way to go. Plenty of teams have drafted at 14 and got a dud player that didn't work out. Statistically, a top 5 pick is going to have a better chance of hitting. I mean we only know what happens after-the-fact, so we won't know if the Spurs made the right move until probably two or three years down the road. But as every draft expert has said, this is the best draft in a while in terms of projected star players. No guarantee, but people talk about it like it was the year to get into the lottery.

  20. #120
    5. timvp's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Post Count
    59,748
    And the jazz built around two stars.
    How did the Jazz get their two stars?

  21. #121
    Believe.
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Post Count
    1,758
    These people are just delusional. Like, living in an alternate reality delusional. Somehow, the Spurs are building a winning culture by missing the playoffs and spending three years centering the offense and defense around a loser like derozan.

    If they had “burned it down” two years ago, they’d be in a much better position of being a playoff team soon. Now, they’re 3 years away, at least, with no star prospects and no path to winning.

    Also, the heat are in Miami. So it’s just stupid comparing San Antonio to them. And the jazz built around two stars. The Spurs have ZERO.

  22. #122
    Veteran exstatic's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    40,476
    How did the Jazz get their two stars?
    Rudy Gobert, pick #27 in 2013, acquired for pick #46 in 2013, plus cash.

    Donovan Mitc , pick #13 2017 draft, acquired for pick #24 and Trey Lyles.

    Both players were drafted and traded to Utah from Denver.

  23. #123
    5. timvp's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Post Count
    59,748
    Rudy Gobert, pick #27 in 2013, acquired for pick #46 in 2013, plus cash.

    Donovan Mitc , pick #13 2017 draft, acquired for pick #24 and Trey Lyles.

    Both players were drafted and traded to Utah from Denver.
    Hmmm ... interesting. So burning down the franchise isn't the only way to rebuild, maybe.

  24. #124
    Veteran rjv's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Post Count
    9,604
    Perfect examples of lack of basic reading comprehension, especially the last one, where the opposite was literally said in the le.
    eh, my post was in reply to Chinook's observation, not to your thread starter.

  25. #125
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    9,550
    Rudy Gobert, pick #27 in 2013, acquired for pick #46 in 2013, plus cash.

    Donovan Mitc , pick #13 2017 draft, acquired for pick #24 and Trey Lyles.

    Both players were drafted and traded to Utah from Denver.
    Yes, but how many #13 picks turn into Donovan Mitc or even 50% of Donovan Mitc and how many #27 picks turn into Gobert or even 50% of Gobert? That is the problem with saying that you can win and just draft guys in the late lottery and late first round. I believe in the Spurs development program, but the only late first round picks that have hit big were Tony Parker and maybe George Hill. Other than that, they have drafted players that got minor roles in the NBA and they have drafted players overseas that never did anything. The chances of having a player hit are greater when you are in the lottery picking in the top 5. That's why people advocate some form of tanking. I am all-in on playing the youth and seeing where you end up at the end of the season when you do not have a franchise that is a contender.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •