You shouldn't. You stated your business opinion. I am now looking for your basketball opinion because this is basketball. No venom.
So then you agree the Spurs true mistake was agreeing to the deal in order to get him to opt out. They miscalculated the market for RJ, robbed Peter to pay Paul and are now only marginally better?
As Chump said, it was a good business decision, but was it a great one? With the benefit of hindsight and the apparent cold market for RJ, it appears they indeed outbid themselves.
He could get better.
Or not.
I'll go with not.
What would you say is more important, the business side or the basketball side? What do you think the Spurs basketball goal is and what are they doing to achieve it?
You wanted a battle between the underrated. You got it now.
Duder .... Chief
Let's Get It On!!!
I already said what I thought their goal was.
No, I won't link it.
You just proved you haven't read my posts.
Twice.
That's enough.
No. I have proven that when arguing with someone that does not know the facts or your arguments that it is annoying.
Does that hypothetical situation even exist? The Spurs traded for Jefferson using Bowen, Oberto and Thomas, 2 of which didn't play a lot or at all in 2009 (Bowen and Oberto). The Spurs replaced Thomas with McDyess. This is definitely an upgrade.
In the 2010 season, Parker was in and out of the lineup, even when he was in, he was giving us negative impact out there because of the nagging injuries. Richard Jefferson had an offensive rating of 110 and a defensive rating of 106 in the regular season, which is a positive. Taking Tony as an example, I love the guy but his play in 2010 didn't help people think he was a positive out there, his offensive rating was a 106 and his defensive rating was a 108 (which sucks). In the playoffs, most of the players did not have positive ratings, even Timmy. So, I wouldn't comment on that.
In the regular season, the Spurs also improved offensively. Your thinking is flawed. Bobby Simmons and Richard Jefferson is a marginal difference on the basketball court, please explain in a logical way, because according to you, it is better to not give a hoot about whether the Spurs re-sign Jefferson or sign Simmons because it doesn't serve the purpose of trying to win a championship or not.
I asked you about your opinion and your ideas to help improve the team, you said to try something different? So what is that something different? The Spurs had limited options to try to do anything that was different from last season. They got Splitter to come, got a good shooter out of the draft. What more does DPG want?
You are better poster. Hands down.You wanted a battle between the underrated. You got it now.
If you are talking about the details of RJ's deal we were referring to the exact same post, and that post proved neither of our assumptions.No. I have proven that when arguing with someone that does not know the facts or your arguments that it is annoying.
Your reposting of that proved it.
Thanks for proving you don't know the details of the deal either.
No, I am not. This ain't the Lakers vs the Grizzlies. I am not going to rip you off on this. It has got to be fair. I don't do collusion. Are you being sarcastic?
I don't hate them. Just like you, I don't like it.
Not gonna stop me from cheering for them.
Last edited by ElNono; 07-27-2010 at 08:49 PM.
I am looking at impact. I don't think that Jefferson's stats would be hard to replicate and I think if you got someone, anyone who is a clear cut good defender, then the net benefits would be positive or at least would bridge some of the talent gap. Enough to make Jefferson not worth the 40M commitment.
Again, your idea to help improve the team that got swept, that most think want to win a le is to bring back the same team plus some NBA rookies?
Obviously they overpaid. There was no market. I've been one of the most critical people of the RJ trade from the beginning and you're not gonna find me jockin' or defending the dude or the Spurs' decision to bring him aboard.
But that's pretty much beside the point at this juncture. What's done is done and the minute they threw in with RJ by trading for him, this was inevitably going to happen -- the Spurs were going to be stuck in the position of making it work with him. It really was an all-in from the basketball end.
In the end, I believe they decided to be marginally better with a little more flexibility than marginally worse with only the use of their exceptions and a market to choose from.
By whom?
What does RJ"s contract have to do with the other part? You making assumptions and not knowing my argument?If you are talking about the details of RJ's deal we were referring to the exact same post, and that post proved neither of our assumptions.
Your reposting of that proved it.
Thanks for proving you don't know the details of the deal either.
What other part? This thread is about RJ's contract.
Do you need a link to that?
By committee. By whomever they would have signed had they not signed RJ (assuming he opts out with no pre arranged deal).
Like you said, most people only look at the basketball side. Well in this case, people only look at the offensive side. I think if you just get better defenders, that is at least equal from an impact standpoint.
So who is that mythical player you are talking about? Because I don't think that player exists, at least not in my realm in the free agency market.
I didn't say Jefferson was worth the 40 million commitment, he clearly isn't in terms of basketball play. But the Spurs honored him with that contract as an agreement. The expiring in 2014 should help down the line.
I said the Spurs tried their best to improve the team with their limited assets. They can't help it if they couldn't trade for Carmelo Anthony or unrealistic stuff like that. I don't think it would lead to a championship but let us not delude ourselves into thinking the Spurs are not trying to be as good as a team they want to be. Clearly, the goal is to make the best team possible as far as financially, and realistic as it is.
That's quite an assumption. Why would he opt out with no prearranged deal?
Please explain.
Which better defender?Like you said, most people only look at the basketball side. Well in this case, people only look at the offensive side. I think if you just get better defenders, that is at least equal from an impact standpoint.
What number does Committee wear?
For the same reasons the Spurs over paid. He might have over estimated his market value? That is why it is called an assumption, but that is not the focal point of the argument. The point is, if RJ was gone, regardless of the reason, could the impact be replaced enough to make RJ's 40M a true losing proposition
Malik is a better defender. Barnes. If the Spurs were able to actively pursue some people via FA, who knows whom they could have obtained. Are you saying there are no better defenders via FA?Which better defender?
What number does Committee wear?
It's a pretty unlikely assumption. The only reason RJ opted out was because he already knew he had a deal in place.
Oh, so now you want to establish an alternate reality timeline.Malik is a better defender. Barnes. If the Spurs were able to actively pursue some people via FA, who knows whom they could have obtained. Are you saying there are no better defenders via FA?
Too late, TJastal already traded RJ for Tyrus Thomas and John Salmons last season.
There are currently 5 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 5 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
