Thomas Gardner invited to training camp

[TD 21]

Alex Kennedy: Thomas Gardner will be attending the San Antonio Spurs training camp after working out for the team earlier this month, according to source.


The bizarre obsession with 6-5, one dimensional (and it's always the same dimension), non athletic SG's continues.

[Bruno]

It comes from hoopsworld, so I taking it with a grain of salt even if it would eb weird to lie on something as marginal as that.

Something I just read on RU and that is very important when looking at training camp invite is that the D-League affiliation rules have changed: a D-League team can get 3 players that have been cut from his parent team(s). It, of course, requires that the D-League players rights aren't owned by another team.

Gardner D-League rights aren't owned by another team. Signing him makes few sense for Spurs but this move could be a Toros related. It could be also the case with Marcus Cousin even if having an extra big body for practice, while Duncan and Dice takes it easy, will also be useful.

[Halberto]

[ohmwrecker]

The bizarre obsession with 6-5, one dimensional (and it's always the same dimension), non athletic SG's continues.

The only possible explanation is that Pop wants to put pressure on Anderson/Gee/Neal/Temple to play balls out in training camp, or the are just scrimmage scrubs.

[ChumpDumper]

The only possible explanation is that Pop wants to put pressure on Anderson/Gee/Neal/Temple to play balls out in training camp, or they are just scrimmage scrubs.

The latter.

[TD 21]

The only possible explanation is that Pop wants to put pressure on Anderson/Gee/Neal/Temple to play balls out in training camp, or the are just scrimmage scrubs.

Other than Gee, who stands a good chance himself, those guys know that, barring something unforeseen (and by that I mean, a veteran being brought in or a trade occurring; both of which appear to be highly unlikely) they're on the team and they also know that there's going to be at least one rotation spot available for them to claim, since there is no veteran wing to turn to.

I'm not going to make too big a deal out of training camp invites, but the amount of redundancy is ridiculous. Why have they not invited at least one SF yet?

Since they're so obsessed with shooters, why did they not invite Novak? Sure, he can't guard his own shadow, but he is an SF. Simmons is another SF that they could have invited. I don't want either on the team, but I think it would make more sense to invite guys like that than the guys they've invited so far.

[ChumpDumper]

If they aren't going to be on the team anyway, why does it matter?

[TD 21]

Because they should be bringing in guys who have a chance to make the team and who could fill a potential hole. Right now, all they're doing is stacking the same players on top of each other. It's pointless.

Just because I don't want guys like Novak and Simmons on the team, if either were to have came in and had a good camp, there's potentially a spot for one of them. Gardner and Penney, their fate is probably already sealed.

[ChumpDumper]

Because they should be bringing in guys who have a chance to make the team and who could fill a potential hole. Right now, all they're doing is stacking the same players on top of each other. It's pointless.

Just because I don't want guys like Novak and Simmons on the team, if either were to have came in and had a good camp, there's potentially a spot for one of them. Gardner and Penney, their fate is probably already sealed.

Novak would have no chance because he sucks.

Simmons would have no chance because he's too expensive.

Just because you think someone would have a chance to make the team because he's over 6'6" doesn't actually mean he would.

[TD 21]

Novak would have no chance because he sucks.

Simmons would have no chance because he's too expensive.

Just because you think someone would have a chance to make the team because he's over 6'6" doesn't actually mean he would.

He'd have a chance. The front office is obsessed with shooters and he can not only play the three, but play some four.

Too expensive? He'd cost the veteran's minimum and at this point, he could more than likely be had for a non-guaranteed contract.

Just because you think someone wouldn't have a chance to make the team because he's over 6-6 doesn't actually mean he wouldn't.

I'm talking about making the team out of camp, not necessarily sticking the entire season. If one of those guys came in and played well, I think they'd be open to keeping one until January 10th. Whereas with guys like Gardner and Penney, I don't think it's going to matter how well they play, because they can only play the same position that the Spurs are most stocked at.

[MaNu4Tres]

Who cares who else is brought in at this point.

The active roster is set as premature as that may sound.. It's obvious

Front court : Duncan, Splitter, McDyess, Blair, Bonner

SF : Jefferson, Anderson,

SG: Manu, Hill, Temple,

PG : Parker, (Hill), (Temple)

And the winner of the Gee/ Neal compe ion will get the 12 spot

Inactive roster will most likely be Gist/Loser of Gee, Neal compe ion/ the best of the rest (Jerrels, Penney, Gardner)

[Russ]

Because they should be bringing in guys who have a chance to make the team and who could fill a potential hole.

Gardner and Penney, their fate is probably already sealed.

Chance? Gardner? Fate?

You may not make the team, but sometimes the key to success is just Being There.

[ChumpDumper]

He'd have a chance.

Because you say so? He sucks. Period.

Too expensive? He'd cost the veteran's minimum

Which is too expensive.

Just because you think someone wouldn't have a chance to make the team because he's over 6-6 doesn't actually mean he wouldn't.

Right.

It's because he sucks or is too expensive.

I'm talking about making the team out of camp, not necessarily sticking the entire season. If one of those guys came in and played well, I think they'd be open to keeping one until January 10th. Whereas with guys like Gardner and Penney, I don't think it's going to matter how well they play, because they can only play the same position that the Spurs are most stocked at.

Same thing with Novak and Simmons, really.

They just aren't that good, and there is really only one choice to make in training camp: keep Gist or leave the #15 spot empty.

[TD 21]

Because you say so? He sucks. Period.

If you follow my reasoning, it makes sense that he'd have a chance. He does suck, though, but I never claimed anything to the contrary.

Which is too expensive.

It's not too expensive if they cut him by January 10th, so as to avoid his contract becoming guaranteed for the entire season.

Right.

It's because he sucks or is too expensive.

It means very little that they both suck. They can both shoot (clearly, something this front office is obsessed with) and they can both play a position this team is thin at. Gardner and Penney don't and while I'd prefer they retain Gee over someone like Simmons, it's not like Gee is the most established player in the world. Neither is Anderson, or Neal, or Temple and outside of Anderson, they're all fringe prospects. It couldn't hurt to have a veteran around, at least for a few months.

Same thing with Novak and Simmons, really.

They just aren't that good, and there is really only one choice to make in training camp: keep Gist or leave the #15 spot empty.

I disagree. Clearly, they want to get younger and more athletic, but what if Anderson struggles and Gee doesn't look like an NBA player, then what? I think a guy like Simmons would have a chance.

"Really only one choice to make"? Why, because you said so? Hypocrite.

[ChumpDumper]

If you follow my reasoning, it makes sense that he'd have a chance. He does suck, though, but I never claimed anything to the contrary.

He doesn't stand a chance because he sucks.

It's not too expensive if they cut him by January 10th, so as to avoid his contract becoming guaranteed for the entire season.

So there is really no reason to sign him.

It means very little that they both suck.

That they suck means everything.

I disagree. Clearly, they want to get younger and more athletic, but what if Anderson struggles and Gee doesn't look like an NBA player, then what? I think a guy like Simmons would have a chance.

There you go again.

"Really only one choice to make"? Why, because you said so? Hypocrite.

Nah, that's pretty much the only decision to make at this point, and they will almost certainly leave the spot open at this point. It's a money thing. Gist probably sucks too much to keep as well.

[TD 21]

He doesn't stand a chance because he sucks.

Who's to say Neal, Temple, Gee and even Anderson don't, at this juncture? And if they do, then what? Just play Jefferson 48 mpg or use Ginobili as strictly a backup SF?

So there is really no reason to sign him.

The reason is simple: to have a fallback option in case the cadre of young, unproven players, fall flat.

Like I said (and you've ignored), I don't want Simmons or Novak to make the team. I just think it makes more sense to invite them to camp than to invite Gardner and Penney. You know I'm right, which is why you continue to resort to saying "they suck". As if Gardner and Penney don't.

That they suck means everything.

Not really. Do Gardner and Penney not suck? And no one can say with certainty at this point that Neal, Temple, Gee and even Anderson, don't suck, either.

There you go again.

?

Nah, that's pretty much the only decision to make at this point, and they will almost certainly leave the spot open at this point. It's a money thing. Gist probably sucks too much to keep as well.

Oh, so it's okay for you to make an educated guess, but it's not okay for me to do the same.

I get that it's a money thing and that by January 10th, say they signed Simmons and he made the team out of camp, it would likely come down to a decision between Gee and him and that he'd probably be on the outs. But that doesn't mean it doesn't make sense to have a veteran SF around, at least for a few months.

[ChumpDumper]

Who's to say Neal, Temple, Gee and even Anderson don't, at this juncture? And if they do, then what? Just play Jefferson 48 mpg or use Ginobili as strictly a backup SF?

Or pick up some other sucky player during the season.

The reason is simple: to have a fallback option in case the cadre of young, unproven players, fall flat.

Can be done at any time.

Like I said (and you've ignored), I don't want Simmons or Novak to make the team. I just think it makes more sense to invite them to camp than to invite Gardner and Penney. You know I'm right, which is why you continue to resort to saying "they suck". As if Gardner and Penney don't.

I'm saying they all suck and it really doesn't matter whom is invited after spot 14.

Not really. Do Gardner and Penney not suck? And no one can say with certainty at this point that Neal, Temple, Gee and even Anderson, don't suck, either.

Anderson is guaranteed. If they all suck then there is Penney and Gardner. If they suck there is some other sucky player out there.

There always is.

?

Thinking.

Oh, so it's okay for you to make an educated guess, but it's not okay for me to do the same.

Depends on how educated the guess.

I get that it's a money thing and that by January 10th, say they signed Simmons and he made the team out of camp, it would likely come down to a decision between Gee and him and that he'd probably be on the outs. But that doesn't mean it doesn't make sense to have a veteran SF around, at least for a few months.

Because they veteran sucks and several similar players could be found in the second half of the season.

There is simply far too much gnashing of teeth over players who won't play on this board.

[MaNu4Tres]

There is simply far too much gnashing of teeth over players who won't play on this board.

Amen..

[TD 21]

Or pick up some other sucky player during the season.

By then, the pickings could be even more slim, as far as veteran options go.

Can be done at any time.

Yeah, if they want to turn to some other D-Leaguer.

I'm saying they all suck and it really doesn't matter whom is invited after spot 14.

I'm saying spots 11-13 are currently filled with three fringe prospects, who are unproven at this level.

Anderson is guaranteed. If they all suck then there is Penney and Gardner. If they suck there is some other sucky player out there.

There always is.

Guaranteed to be on the team, not guaranteed to be good as a rookie or good period at this level.

They supposedly have serious aspirations about winning a championship. If that's the case, it makes sense to have a proven backup wing, even if that player is mediocre or slightly worse.

Depends on how educated the guess.

It was so educated, it had a PhD.

Because they veteran sucks and several similar players could be found in the second half of the season.

There is simply far too much gnashing of teeth over players who won't play on this board.

By then, some of the veterans could be signed elsewhere in the NBA, some could be in Europe and even if they aren't, who wants to bring in some veteran half way through the season, when they haven't been playing at a high level? The best time to do it is now.

There is with every fan base in every sport. That's what fans do, particularly during times of the year like this, when there's very little to discuss. The irony is you think this is much ado about nothing, yet here you are going back and forth discussing it.

[ChumpDumper]

By then, the pickings could be even more slim, as far as veteran options go.

Probably about the same as far as sucky players go.

Yeah, if they want to turn to some other D-Leaguer.

Compared to Bobby Simmons, there is little difference. That's the whole point.

I'm saying spots 11-13 are currently filled with three fringe prospects, who are unproven at this level.

Yep, and they can be replaced by three more fringe prospects very easily. That's the whole point.

Guaranteed to be on the team, not guaranteed to be good as a rookie or good period at this level.

You can stop at guaranteed to be on the team. That's the whole point.

They supposedly have serious aspirations about winning a championship. If that's the case, it makes sense to have a proven backup wing, even if that player is mediocre or slightly worse.

You are aspiring to proven mediocrity?

Nice.

It was so educated, it had a PhD.

No.

By then, some of the veterans could be signed elsewhere in the NBA, some could be in Europe and even if they aren't, who wants to bring in some veteran half way through the season, when they haven't been playing at a high level? The best time to do it is now.

The Spurs have won championships bringing in veterans halfway through the season. PhD indeed.

There is with every fan base in every sport. That's what fans do, particularly during times of the year like this, when there's very little to discuss. The irony is you think this is much ado about nothing, yet here you are going back and forth discussing it.

That only amplifies my point. You are the one getting worked up about the #15 spot. I'm telling you why it's stupid to get worked up about the #15 spot, and I follow that level of player more than most people on this board.

[TD 21]

Probably about the same as far as sucky players go.

Why, because you said so? The reality is there's a good chance more veterans will be signed elsewhere by then. That's how it goes.

Compared to Bobby Simmons, there is little difference. That's the whole point.

If you had actually read and comprehended what I said, instead of glossing over it, you'd realize that I don't want Simmons. All I'm saying is that it makes more sense to bring him to camp than to bring Gardner or Penney.

Yep, and they can be replaced by three more fringe prospects very easily. That's the whole point.

So you want the Spurs to transform into the Warriors? Rotating D-Leaguers in and out? They're supposedly trying to win a championship. That's not how you do it.

You are aspiring to proven mediocrity?

Nice.

I'm not aspiring to it, but it's probably the best they can do. Unless they want to sacrifice a key, young asset(s).

No.

Yes.

The Spurs have won championships bringing in veterans halfway through the season. PhD indeed.

Out of work veterans?

That only amplifies my point. You are the one getting worked up about the #15 spot. I'm telling you why it's stupid to get worked up about the #15 spot, and I follow that level of player more than most people on this board

No, I'm not. Once again, glossing over what I said. "I'm not going to make too big a deal out of training camp invites, but the amount of redundancy is ridiculous."

It's not about the 15th spot, genius. It's the fact that spots 11-13 are largely unproven, which is why it makes sense to bring in a proven veteran to compete (not be handed a spot or playing time) with them.

It doesn't look like the front office is going to in that direction, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't.

[ChumpDumper]

Why, because you said so? The reality is there's a good chance more veterans will be signed elsewhere by then. That's how it goes.

We're talking about sucky players. There are always sucky players available.

If you had actually read and comprehended what I said, instead of glossing over it, you'd realize that I don't want Simmons. All I'm saying is that it makes more sense to bring him to camp than to bring Gardner or Penney.

It makes the same amount of sense because none of them are making the team.

So you want the Spurs to transform into the Warriors? Rotating D-Leaguers in and out? They're supposedly trying to win a championship. That's not how you do it.

It's clear you haven't followed the Spurs or the NBA in general. The Spurs routinely rotate D-Leaguers in and out, as do other championship contending teams.

I'm not aspiring to it, but it's probably the best they can do. Unless they want to sacrifice a key, young asset(s).

So the players we are talking about suck so much they aren't going to make a difference.

Yes.

No.

Out of work veterans?

Again, you really don't know much about the San Antonio Spurs.

No, I'm not. Once again, glossing over what I said. "I'm not going to make too big a deal out of training camp invites, but the amount of redundancy is ridiculous."

So you are making a big deal out of training camp invites. These posts and your next posts in this thread will prove it.

It's not about the 15th spot, genius. It's the fact that spots 11-13 are largely unproven, which is why it makes sense to bring in a proven veteran to compete (not be handed a spot or playing time) with them.

Veterans who have been proved to suck. Yippee!

It doesn't look like the front office is going to in that direction, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't.

According to whom?

[Ditty]

i drafted a running back in madden 10 last years game who's name was thomas gardner he was fast

[TD 21]

We're talking about sucky players. There are always sucky players available.

No, we're talking about veteran players and how, as the season goes along, the chances are more and more will be signed elsewhere, thus making the pickings even more slim. Even in the highly unlikely event they weren't, why wouldn't you want a player from the beginning of training camp? More time to learn the system.

It makes the same amount of sense because none of them are making the team.

So, you're saying the Spurs are set at SF?

It's clear you haven't followed the Spurs or the NBA in general. The Spurs routinely rotate D-Leaguers in and out, as do other championship contending teams.

Wow, you have serious comprehension problems. I'm not talking about inactive roster spots, genius. I'm talking about a possible rotation spot. You want them rotating D-Leaguers in and out of a possible rotation spot? Championship contending teams don't do that.

So the players we are talking about suck so much they aren't going to make a difference.

Depends on the player, of course, but a veteran SF could make a slight difference.

No.

Yes.

Again, you really don't know much about the San Antonio Spurs.

So let me get this straight. You think it's a good idea to go with a cadre of largely unproven players and fringe prospects on a supposed team with serious championship aspirations and if they fail, then just bring in other D-Leaguers or some out of work veteran mid-way through the season? And that makes more sense than bringing in a veteran now, right? It's one thing to do that with the 14th and 15th spots, it's another to do that with a possible rotation spot.

Veterans who have been proved to suck. Yippee!

At least they've been in the league for more than a minute. A guy like Simmons may suck, but at least we know for a fact he can make three's at a high percentage at this level. We're not guessing or hoping.

Veteran teams win championships. At this point, this team appears to be too reliant on too many young players to be a serious contender.

According to whom?

Well, media day is Monday. Which means they have roughly two days to bring in the type of player they've so far neglected to bring in throughout an off season that's spanned months. At this point, I think it's safe to say, they're not going that route.

[ChumpDumper]

No, we're talking about veteran players and how, as the season goes along, the chances are more and more will be signed elsewhere, thus making the pickings even more slim. Even in the highly unlikely event they weren't, why wouldn't you want a player from the beginning of training camp? More time to learn the system.

You keep forgetting that these players suck and won't make the team.

So, you're saying the Spurs are set at SF?

For now, yes. If they need to, someone as sucky as the training camp invites will be available.

Wow, you have serious comprehension problems. I'm not talking about inactive roster spots, genius. I'm talking about a possible rotation spot. You want them rotating D-Leaguers in and out of a possible rotation spot? Championship contending teams don't do that.

Wow, you have serious comprehension problems. The players in spots 11-13 are not in the rotation. That's why they are players 11-13.

Depends on the player, of course, but a veteran SF could make a slight difference.

As in not enough to be in the rotation.

As in suck.

Yes.

No.

So let me get this straight. You think it's a good idea to go with a cadre of largely unproven players and fringe prospects on a supposed team with serious championship aspirations and if they fail, then just bring in other D-Leaguers or some out of work veteran mid-way through the season? And that makes more sense than bringing in a veteran now, right? It's one thing to do that with the 14th and 15th spots, it's another to do that with a possible rotation spot.

Again, by your own definition they aren't in the rotation. Either say you think one of these sucky players can be a rotation player or quit acting like it.

At least they've been in the league for more than a minute. A guy like Simmons may suck, but at least we know for a fact he can make three's at a high percentage at this level. We're not guessing or hoping.

.317 is not a high percentage. You are definitely hoping at this point. He's so awesome nobody actually wants him.

Veteran teams win championships. At this point, this team appears to be too reliant on too many young players to be a serious contender.

And you want them to rely on the .317 shooting of Bobby Simmons.

Well, media day is Monday. Which means they have roughly two days to bring in the type of player they've so far neglected to bring in throughout an off season that's spanned months. At this point, I think it's safe to say, they're not going that route.

Again, you have reading comprehension problems. This time you can't even comprehend what you wrote yourself.

Congratulations.