Reply With Quote
He's obviously wrong.
I mean, when has Minnesota ever had a chance at a le?
These teams need to win ... or reboot
Charley Rosen / Special to FOXSports.com
http://msn.foxsports.com/nba/story/6077332
In the real world, a generation lasts for 20 years. That's the period in which a newborn is deemed to have reached full maturity.
But time is so compressed in the skewed world of pro sports that an NBA generation extends for only three to five years. That's the period given to the players on any given roster to reach their collective maturity.
Given this definition, there are several NBA teams that are at, or near, the end of their respective maturation processes. In other words, the upcoming season represents the last chance for these ball clubs to achieve their goals — which range from being serious contenders to winning the championship.
If these specific goals are not reached in 2006-07, then it will be necessary for each team to reboot its roster and to rethink its underlying basketball philosophy.
Philadelphia
In truth, the Sixers are so far past their compe ive maturity as to be on the verge of extinction. But the front office believes that dreams never die, that the glorious playoff run in the spring of 2001 can be resurrected, and that Allen Iverson can still inspire visions of a championship.
The Sixers might still have faith in Allen Iverson. But the veteran guard has logged lots of minutes heading into this season. (Michael Sohn / Associated Press)
Back then, however, when the Sixers scratched their way into the Finals (where they were downed in five games by the Shaq-Kobe Lakers), their roster featured the likes of Theo Ratliff, Aaron McKie, Dikembe Mutombo, Eric Snow, George Lynch, and Tyrone Hill. That's six complementary players who could play earnest defense, covering up A.I.'s disinclination to do the same.
Nowadays, the only current Sixers who can adequately defend are Andre Iguodala, Kevin Ollie, and occasionally Sam Dalembert. Meanwhile, Chris Webber and Kyle Korver couldn't guard their own lunchboxes at a kindergarteners' recess.
To make matters worse, the Sixers' two top guns are rapidly approaching their dotage. Webber is a 33-year-old with the knees of a septuagenarian. If Iverson is "only" 31, he has far too many miles (and minutes) on his drive-o-meter.
Moreover, the thrill of watching Iverson take on opponents one-on-five is long gone, and home attendance is way down. And if Webber is virtually untradeable, Iverson is likewise on the verge of becoming an immovable object. Billy King blew it big-time when he chickened out and failed to deal Iverson over the summer.
Now it's too late to do anything more than play out the string and watch the Sixers fade into irrelevance.
Minnesota
Contrary to popular opinion, the Big Ticket is actually a complementary player. On his own, he offers nothing more than an aggravating ride to oblivion. Yes, Kevin Garnett is forever complaining about the Wolves roster and begging for help. And the other faces have changed — but Ricky Davis and Mike James are the wrong guys on the wrong team.
Simply put, K.G. needs to play in the shadow of a top-flight big man. Granted that such middle-men are a rare species, the biggest hindrance to enlisting one is Garnett himself. Indeed, it's K.G.'s disproportionately large salary that prohibits the Wolves from having the wherewithal to sign a quality center without vaulting over the salary cap.
Kevin Garnett's best chance to win a championship would be to play a complimentary role to a supremely talented big man. (Dave Weaver / Associated Press)
In the long run, the Wolves are (and have been) headed nowhere fast as long as Garnett is reputed to be a franchise player. Also to be considered is that the guy's on the wrong side of 30, and leansome players like him tend to age quickly. So why not resolve the will-he-or-won't-he want-to-stay dilemma by finally cutting the cord?
Despite the contractual road-block, the only remedy is to somehow trade Garnett ASAP for a batch of young flyers. While they're at it, Ricky Davis, Mark Blount, Mark Madsen, Troy Hudson, and Marko Jaric should also be discounted and sent elsewhere. Otherwise, Garnett will continue to lead the Wolves in never-ending circles.
San Antonio
While Tony Parker (24), Manu Ginobili (29), and Tim Duncan (30) are still at the top of their games, the Spurs roster is clogged with too many aging veterans — like Robert Horry (36), Michael Finley (closer to 34 than to 33), Brent Barry (almost 36), and Bruce Bowen (35). Too bad these vets are required to play such prominent roles as the Spurs chase another championship.
At the same time, the Spurs bench shows nary a young stud with enough skills to keep their mini-dynasty extant. Matt Bonner, Jackie Butler, Francisco Elson, and Fabricio Oberto are all role players.
At best, the Spurs have two more seasons to seriously challenge for another championship. At worst, Bowen's game goes quickly downhill, and this season will be do or die.
The Spurs failure to obtain and develop young star-quality players (besides Parker), proves that in the NBA the future is now.
New Jersey
For sure, the Nets lineup showcases plenty of current and potential young All-Stars — namely Richard Jefferson, Nenad Krstic, and Marcus Williams. Moreover, Vince Carter is still a spry 31. But Jason Kidd is 33, and his surgically repaired knee has perpetuated his career at the expense of what used to be his exceptional speed and quickness.
Jason Kidd is 33 years old, and has had his knee repaired by surgery. Obviously, he is not getting any faster. (Jason DeCrow / Associated Press)
The Nets' problem is two-fold: Kidd won't be getting any quicker, and Carter is making noises about opting out of his contract at season's end and signing with Orlando. Given these cir stances — plus the fact that Carter is a highly overrated performer, particularly in clutch situations — New Jersey is in an awful bind.
As it is, the Nets have enough juice to approach 50 wins and once again venture into the second round of the playoffs. To expect anything more is delusional.
So, are the above goals sufficient? Or does Rod Thorn aspire to his team's being an authentic championship contender? And what will happen in 2007-08 when Kidd will need a walker to navigate his way up and down the court, and when Carter will be a 33-year-old choker playing either here or there?
The accepted wisdom in other sports is to deal a player the year before his wheels fall off, and the Nets should take this methodology to heart. Carter should be traded to the highest bidder. And so should J-Kidd.
The trouble is that New York-area fans loathe the very prospect of rebuilding. Why should they pay top-of-the-line prices to witness a young team struggle with growing pains? Still, rebuilding can't be done on a gradual basis. The Nets need to take the risk and turnover their roster while Kidd and Carter can still fetch high-quality players in return.
Waiting for another dissatisfying season to pass is an exercise in futility.
Indiana
The Pacers are stuck with too many undesirable players. Jamaal Tinsley is a loser, Stephen Jackson is a loose cannon, and Sarunas Jasikevicus is fatally slow.
It's already past time to back up the truck and unload these guys. Trouble is that Jackson is a pariah, Tinsley is best suited to be a backup on a second-rate team, and Jasikevicus has little value.
The X-factor is that Jermaine O'Neal has done all he can do in Indiana, which makes him the Pacers' only attractive trade bait. Rather than agonize through another pointless season of disappointments and emotional explosions, Larry Bird should have cleaned house last summer.
Denver
It's now or never for the Nuggets. And the smart money is on the latter possibility.
Kenyon Martin is a fraud. Earl Boykins gives away more than he contributes. Will Marcus Camby's next physical breakdown be his last? Joe Smith is the oldest 31-year-old on the planet. George Karl's endless mind games, perpetual emphasis on full-speed-ahead offense and his profound disregard for defense may be successful for short stretches, but are counter-productive over the long haul.
One more season of could-haves should-haves, and might-haves will just leave the Nuggets mired in mediocrity.
Cleveland
The Cavs players, fans, and management continue to fanaticize about winning a championship. While this fantasy might someday come true, it certainly won't so long as the current roster is intact.
The problem, of course, is to surround LeBron James with guys who can complement his unique (and considerable) talents. What the Cavs need is the proper mix of shooters, defenders, and big men who are mobile.
Zydrunas Ilgauskas isn't a good match for LBJ, but Anderson Varejao is. Eric Snow is on his last legs. Larry Hughes is an erratic shooter and a risk-taker on defense, but has the potential of developing into a passable partner for LeBron. Drew Gooden is an adequate spare part. Donyell Marshall is too old (33) and too defenseless. Damon Jones talks the talk yet can barely crawl.
All in all, this is a mismatched team that can barely afford another unsatisfactory season before frustration becomes ins utional.
Detroit
Even had Ben Wallace chosen to remain in Detroit, the Pistons' run was already over. If Ben was noticeably wearing down, what was left of Rasheed Wallace's tender psyche was also disintegrating. Joe Dumars should have noted that, as a Piston, Rasheed only played hard and conducted himself with integrity during the 22 regular season and 23 postseason games he played with the team in 2004. Waiting for Rasheed to reprise the maturity he exhibited back then is about as fruitless as waiting for Godot.
Yes, it's worth one more season to see how Chauncey Billups, Richard Hamilton, and Tayshaun Prince can function along-side a dysfunctional Wallace. Too bad the other big s are also problematic — the ancient Dale Davis and the flabby-fingers of Nazr Mohammed make for a brace of severely flawed big men. But with Billups already proclaiming his eagerness to investigate free agency at season's end, this will similarly be the Pistons' last chance for glory.
Charley Rosen is a frequent dumbass contributor to FOXSports.com.
He's obviously wrong.
I mean, when has Minnesota ever had a chance at a le?
the championship team of 99 was pretty old too. Didn't stop em from winning more. As long as the big 3 are in theri prime, the FO will put together the pieces to keep the team contending.
Charlie Rosen is a dumbass. You don't break a championship team fully you make changes, but you don't make it so you have to start at the bottom again.
This is the same line that was propagated when Robinson was about to retire. The Spurs are so old -- why would Duncan want to stick around instead of going to a franchise with a platinum-plated future. Like Orlando.
What writers (as opposed to GMs) don't understand is that the age of a team's nucleus is the only age consideration that really matters.
Get some young role players (not all that difficult) and you go from too old to dynasty in no time.
The Spurs have made it happen before and they have at least a chance to do it again. If all goes well, in two years, they'll talk about how the Spurs have lost their ability to find young role players like they used to. Then they'll probably use Melzer and Butler as examples of how the Spurs used to be able to do it.
Last edited by Russ; 10-19-2006 at 09:02 PM.
Isn't he the same guy that said he thought the Spurs were gonna fire Pop?
The '03 team had some graybeards on it too. Those guys played big roles.
If Shaq can still win championships at 33 with a different cast of players, why can't Duncan?
If Shaq can win a championship at 33 with THAT cast of players, anything is possible, and age is the least of anyone's problems.
Charley Rosen is a bag, he is a Nuggets hater through and through. Never has anything positive to say
Seriously, how does this guy get a job?
One more crap article from Charley Rosen. How is that guy still getting published?
he basically said any team with more than 3 players over 30 is done after this year. He discounts anyone with an inconsistent past. He is also basically saying they all need "the proper mix of shooters, defenders, and big men who are mobile." That's like a John Madden football comment i.e. after a sack, "you can't take too many of those!" This article makes me wonder what kind of bs he wrote before last season.
The guy might indeed be a " bag" and a "dumb ass", with a reputation for writing "crap articles, but I don't see anything "untrue" or non-factual about what he wrote.
The Spurs do have their "big three" and a core group of aging veterans without a young, developing stud talent or two to balance it out. The goal is clear. The time IS now for the Spurs - and has been that way for the last couple of years.
Like everyone else, I believe the Spurs can and will win it all this year. However if they don't, many (including some on this board - myself included) will point back to the age factor, high injury quotient that usually comes with older players and the "perceived" matchup limitations against younger, more athletic teams as reasons.
, we spent most of the summer discussing these very things following the Mavs series.
Dude has make a good point. There will come a time the Spurs will have to "pay the piper" for their failure to acquire and develop, a potential stud or two along the way - especially that of the domestic variety. I just hope it's not this year.
bags sure do have a poor reputation in our society.
How do you obtain "young star-quality players?"
Trade your core and spend $170M or suck bad enough to get a top 3-5 pick.
The Spurs have proven that they are able to "obtain and develop" players that no one else would have heard of.
Has he never heard of Javtokas? Not that Javtokas will be star-quality but I think he can be some one who will play very well for several years.
Agreed. The guys comments are right on and if you think otherwise you are in for a rude awakening in the next couple of years. The Spurs have maintained a level of consistency with their current roster but they have not drafted well and they have not developed anyone. The last player to fit in that category is Parker and he made mention of that in his comments.
For those that want to cite Parker as an example of the Spurs drafting and developing young talent, know that he is entering his 6th NBA season. That means for the past 5 season, the only player the Spurs have really developed is Parker. Everyone else is a flop. And when you look at some of the players the Spurs passed on in the draft, namely Josh Howard, it makes the sting even worse.
The Spurs best chance of sustaining this success in the future is to draft and develop bargian-priced players. That, or signing some underachieving free agents (Stephen Jackson) and developing them. As it stands today, the big three will take up a huge chunk of their salary and they will not be able to afford major free-agent signings in the future.
If you are looking 2-3 years down the road, which is what the article is all about, the Spurs are not in great position. The only young player with promise is Butler and we have no idea how he will develop. The Spurs also tried to go after Josh Smith, another young, athletic player with some potential. So at least the front office knows they need to get younger ASAP. Things just haven't worked out.
One positive is that the Spurs do have some young talent developing overseas and NBA analysts have no idea what is happening on that front (neither do we). The real problem is that the Spurs need young talent on their team NOW so in two years it can contribute when these aging role players retire.
The front office knows it is an issue. They are trying to upgrade the roster. But much to the chagrin of Spurs fans the front office does not always get what they want. And if they Mavs have continued success it will be evenn harder for the Spurs to compete for top free agents.
Maybe the fans don't want to admit that but the front office knows what needs to happen. The article is right on. With the current roster the Spurs are looking at a 1-2 year window. Of course, no one on the roster is under contract beyond two years except four players: Duncan, Parker, Ginobili, and Butler. Financially, they could be in very good position. But to do what? Sign a top free agent? Like I said, they need bargain-priced talent that won't take up all their salary. And I think the Spurs are well aware of their situation...
Rosen is absolutely right. Of course the Spurs have a chance this year, but it doesn't look that great. Their team is largely geriatric, and the only two young players they have other than the big three are injury-prone, doghouse ridden Beno Udrih and longterm prospect and third-string center Jackie Butler, neither of whom lights hearts on fire.
This is a pretty dire situation. Any other team, they'd already be toast. At least we have Manu, Parker, and Duncan - two of whom had big injury problems last year. The Spurs will be at least in the second round this year - that much is certain - but beyond that, we'll have to see.
The F.O. has not done a good job of getting young talent on this team in the last several years.
AT THIS POINT the Spurs' future doesn't look great. The team is built to compete for the next two years right now. But who is to say that the Spurs FO won't make moves to pick up young talent during this season, next off-season, or the season after that?
They almost swung a deal for J.R. Smith by offering Barry. Maybe Mickeal Pietrus goes in the coaches doghouse and they offer Barry in exchange...only this time they BEAT the deadline.
They also have the expiring contract of Eric Williams.
Beno Udrih can develop as a solid backup PG or off-guard in a small-ball lineup...or he could be packaged in a trade as an "change-of-scenery" type prospect.
They'll have the mid-level next year and should have little bit of dough to make some moves the following year.
The point is that RIGHT NOW, the Spurs are built for "now", but as long as the major pieces (tim, tony, manu) are functioning like major pieces, it's not time to panic. Next season he could be writing about how the Spurs re-loaded with young talent and ensured their future as a long-term dynasty for the next ten years....at least I hope that's what they're writing.
If Charlie Rosen knew so much about the game, he'd be a GM/coach, instead of writing half-assed analyses for the Web.
Hey, when are you going to have your guy quit the race so I can be the next Governor of the Great State of Texas?
But Chuckly Rosen is an idiot, that's one thing all Texans can agree on!
Man, just like a politician....make a bid for governor and tie it back to the topic so you can say your post was legit...
You, you're good....
That's a TOUCHDOWN! Very well said!
Let's not forget that always-important element in talent development - that is the process of integration. Infusing young players into the culture of both the team and the league. Learning the nuances of their teammates; learning the plays; learning how to conduct themselves as pro players. This process can often take upwards of a couple of years before they become productive.
No matter what players the Spurs have in their overseas incubator, the fact remains that these players are far removed from the system, the daily regimen and culture of the team. It will take time for them to fit in before they can begin producing - no matter how mature they are.
With that said, I believe the FO has failed in their attempts to replenish this roster with young. developing talent. Nothing says they have to sacrifice championship contention in the process. I cannot emphasize enough the importance of having at least 1 or 2 young, talented, domestic players that are on the roster and in the system learning and developing and getting precious practice time and "garbage time" minutes would be a good thing. The Spurs FO may see this as a "waste of money" but it's no secret that the core of this team is still OLD.
Let's hope they bring the championship home. If so, my points are moot - at least for now.
Last edited by SenorSpur; 10-20-2006 at 05:16 PM.
spurs drafted manu
idiot
...in 1999.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
