Reply With Quote
Thank God they didn't get Cook. Can we believe a OSU fansite?
Who was number one?
Props to zepn for finding this.According to Powell, San Antonio attempted to grab Cook as high as the No. 16-pick. However, the Spurs were unable to work out a suitable deal with Washington to grab Cook that early.
http://ohiostate.scout.com/2/655332.html
Cook was a freshman on Ohio State who has big potential. He's only 6-foot-5 and 19-years-old, but he's a guy who could develop into a very good scorer in the NBA.
Some mock drafts had him dropping near the Spurs, but it would have been surprising to see him drop that far. It'll be very interesting to see if Cook pans out over the next couple seasons.
So if Cook was one and Splitter was two, I guess the Spurs came out decently considering Cook was a longshot to begin with.
Thank God they didn't get Cook. Can we believe a OSU fansite?
I would have liked Cook. But he's a player who'd be like three or four years away from being ready to contribute.
It says according to Powell and Powell is an assistant coach on Ohio State, so it has to be accurate.
And a special shout out to pad300 for trying to call me out when I said Cook could be an intriguing pick for the Spurs.
I'm mostly pleased. We took the best talent over scrambing to throw a possibly worse rookie in as a Bowen replacement or backup PG. By the time this all pans out we will be restructuring around the 2008 plan anyways while we keep out team together with bandaid FAs for a repeat chance right now.
I'm not sure these two articles show that Cook was No. 1.
Buford said:
On the other hand, the Spurs tried to move up to 16 to get Cook. So Cook may not have been No. 1 on the Spurs "realistic" (circa pick # 28) list -- the players they might have gotten without trading up.Splitter was No. 2 on our draft board of the picks that were realistic for us, so we were excited to get him.
My guess is that the No. 1 on that list may have been Rudy Fernandez or Marco Bellinini. (Or maybe Almond.)
Agreed. Much happier with Tiago and Williams.
Thank you for the shout out TIMVP.
I'll simply say that I currently agree with Mr. Body and Kyleo.
Good remark.
Cook was number one. If you listen to the Buford audio, he says that Splitter became their number one soon after the 20th pick. Cook was the 21st pick.
Plus, most mocks had Cook sliding right around where the Spurs were picking. It would have been shocking to see Cook go at 16. I didn't see any mock that had him rated that high.
Be afraid and yet relieved.
That OSU article was worth reading for this quote alone:
"I'm just putting the work in now. That's the biggest thing," he concluded. "Tomorrow is a new day...I've got a bullet on my back now and everyone is gunning for me."
If Cook was the #1 choice and they were negotiating something with Washington was there a trade involved for us to get the #16 pick?According to Powell, San Antonio attempted to grab Cook as high as the No. 16-pick. However, the Spurs were unable to work out a suitable deal with Washington to grab Cook that early
Who was the player Washington wanted from the Spurs or they just wanted a Spurs future pick or cash?
The Spurs seems like to keep their 2007 roster intact afterall.
glad that didn't work out
Washington needs a big man I wonder if that player was Oberto or Butler? just wondering...
BTW, any updates on Oberto's contract? I lost track. Has he been re-signed already?
Last edited by milkyway21; 06-29-2007 at 08:53 PM.
They wanted Tim Duncan.
Here's an interesting Cook/Rudy tidbit:
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/sports/4934088.html
Jonathon Feigen, Houston Chronicle
Trades fall through
In putting together their regular-season team, the Rockets were tantalizingly close to getting the player they targeted, Spain's Rudy Fernandez.
The Wizards were planning to take Daequan Cook with the 16th pick, but instead found Nick Young available. If they had taken Cook off the board, the Heat would have traded their pick to the Rockets, who would have used it to take Fernandez.
The Rockets also had a trade with the Knicks dissolve while New York was on the clock.
^^
Interesting. Sounds like the Spurs were close to getting Cook. It took Young falling to 16 for the Spurs not to land Cook.
Hopefully Cook doesn't turn into a stud
as long as Tiago turns into our starting center for years to come, Cook can in whatever he wants.Hopefully Cook doesn't turn into a stud
DAEQUAN DISAPPOINTING
So, would you say this means that we should be relieved that Daequan didn't slide to us, or concerned that his Duncan-esque debut suggests great things lie ahead?MOST DISAPPOINTING: Miami rookie guard Daequan Cook once again looked uncomfortable on the wing and struggled mightily with his shot selection.
The Heat are hoping that Cook can prove himself worthy of being Dwyane Wade's backup at shooting guard, but so far Cook seems to be shooting himself right out of contention for that job.
The 20-year-old Cook, who left Ohio State after one season, has made just five of 22 in two games so far this week. He missed 11 of 13 tries on Tuesday against New Jersey. His only two field goals came on 3-pointers.
Last edited by DisciplinaryOffice; 07-11-2007 at 03:30 AM. Reason: Thought the Duncan reference deserved to be linked...
^ worth repeating here.
Again, why the are we believing this haphazard, unsubstantiated report from some distant, marginal guy, that Daequan Cook was the Spurs' #1 target?
It is far more likely their #1 was Jared Dudley, who went at pick 22, Chandler at 23, or Fernandez at 24.Cook was number one. If you listen to the Buford audio, he says that Splitter became their number one soon after the 20th pick. Cook was the 21st pick.
Can't speak for everyone else, but I'm not sure what the motive for fabricating the story would be... Couple that with timvp's powers of deductive reasoning and I think you're going to need at least one haphazard, unsubstantiated report from some distant, marginal guy that Dudley, Chandler, or Fernandez was our first choice to put this baby to bed.Again, why the are we believing this haphazard, unsubstantiated report from some distant, marginal guy, that Daequan Cook was the Spurs' #1 target?
9 post chum, the only claim that Daequan Cook was #1 on the Spurs' board comes from HIS FORMER HIGH SCHOOL COACH. Not like those guys aren't notorious for talking up their proteges and themselves taking unsubstantiated rumor as fact.
That's it. Nobody else reported it. The rest is conjecture.
End of story.
Why the other players? Dudley and Chandler are SFs, a position of need. Fernandez is a foreign player with talent, nuff said. Cook would be meaningless on this team, since he's too small for the swingman position, and his at ude and talent are too questionable to make sense, unless the Spurs truly do suck at judging talent.
If we don't watch out, this crap about Cook as #1 is gonna solidify as Spurstalk mythology and somehow become fact. It's nothing of the sort.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
