Reply With Quote
ok
To think the Spurs could have had Stephen Jackson back instead. The Spurs could have avoided the potential free agent bust and Jackson would've avoided being out two million dollars.
Think about this lineup Spurs fans:
Jackson/Duncan/Nesterovic/Ginobili/Parker
Oldest one would have been Duncan at age 28. Good job, Peter McCombs.
ok
Sparky,
youd have sacraficed Ginobili and Barry to get Jackson?
You sign jackson?? NO money for Ginobili.
FACT!
Barry seems rushed on everything he does this season, like he's trying to prove too much too fast. Udrih is scoring more because he's a good shooter who's willing to take crazy shots. Barry is a bit anal with his shot selection. he's a perfectionist on an almost perfect team. He is defintely putting too much pressure on himself, and this may very well be a bad sign for the playoffs. If he's the worst player on the team though, then we're not doing too darn bad. But he's not the worst player. I still hold hope that he will improve.
In the few games I've seen Beno's shot decisions were pretty good and he did shoot in bad positions only when the shot clock was winding down. But I haven't seen enough games to really dispute this. Anybody else agrees with that?
The bigger risk is jumping to conclusions before you know what your talking about, and until barry plays in the playoffs, none of us do. Its funny, why weren't people saying these things when Barry was averaging 15 points a game and parker was stinking up the joint? Basketball players are streaky, especially early in the year guys, the thing is after Christmas and the all-star break we will start to see the Barry that we have, not the slumping shooter.
ALL GREAT SHOOTERS HAVE THEIR SLUMPS, JUST LIKE GOOD HITTERS AND BIG GOAL SCORERS!
TPark that is not a fact only Barry would have not been signed.
thanks kori
I was trying to forget that game
We did not have the cap space to pay Jack what he wanted, with or without Barry. It's not hard to figure out since Jack makes more money than Barry and the Spurs were over the cap even before we resigned Parker. Deduct Barry and Parker's contracts from the Spurs payroll, we're over the cap.
Jack priced himself out of our range...if you want to blame someone for this, blame Jack...he's the main reason he is no longer on this team.
Sincerely, a Jack fan
I wanted barry over jack because barry could play backup one
I am not sure anymore though
his d is terrible
spurs have passers
barry's job is to hit the three like steve kerr
and play d
if he does not do that he deserves to be benched tell he shows signs he is coming out of it
and if someone calls about barry you have to consider it. barry can not play d now
what will hsi d like be in 3 years? when he is slower
Who cares about 3 years from now? I care about this season...it takes a while get the Spurs defensive system...it even took Manu a full season to get it.
And the Spurs passers aren't that good...I'd still say that Barry is the best on the team at it...maybe tied with Manu but Barry doesn't make the insane passes...you need at least 1 guy making sane passes. I think Barry is a big reason the Spurs are such a good passing team this year.
Stop the Barry hate just because Barry is shooting 30% from 3 point range....
If you doubt he can shoot just look at the fact that he is in a slump and he is still shooting 30%. Better than Parker.
if barry can not bring anything this year
would it not be better if spurs could trade him for someone who could help spurs this season to win a le?
or does barry play have nothing to do with a le
barry is not a rookie or a young guy like manu and tp
he is a vet
he has almost 20 games, preason, and training camp to get it.
one think about young players and rookies they make mistakes but they have hardly no bad habits. Spurs staff is not great at correcting shots. steve smith had to correct tp's shot and tell him to use his legs. spurs have no vets to go up to barry and tell him to quit rushing your shot? who on this team could. duncan could but I am not sure he knows barry is rushing his shot.
how were the Spurs able to sign Barry? The salary cap wasn't an issue ownership didnt want to commit to Jack on a multiyear big money deal.We did not have the cap space to pay Jack what he wanted, with or without Barry. It's not hard to figure out since Jack makes more money than Barry and the Spurs were over the cap even before we resigned Parker. Deduct Barry and Parker's contracts from the Spurs payroll, we're over the cap.
The Spurs were like 300k under the cap....Jax makes about 500k more than Barry this season...We went over this on the forum at the time it was happening...I might be wrong but I am pretty sure Jax wanted more than the Spurs had available after signing Manu...that's why I finally shut up about it.
And I think they used the difference to sign Sato...
Barry took what the Spurs could offer within their cap structure...was they that knew their cap...
If the Spurs were under the cap by only 300k how did they manage to sign Barry?
Stephen's contract started at a salary that is roughly 300k more than Barry's. It was never a salary cap matter.
After they signed Barry.
Well the Spurs tried to get Jack before they tried to get Barry...so you figure out why it didn't happen then...Why did the Spurs offer Barry what they offered?Stephen's contract started at a salary that is roughly 300k more than Barry's. It was never a salary cap matter.
Sure, after signing Barry they had little left.
I am telling you why it didn't happen and it had nothing to do with the salary cap.
Barry only got 3 years guaranteed with a team option for a fourth year. The Spurs were certainly able to give him or anyone else a 6 year deal like Stephen got
Why the? I am arguing that they should have signed Jackson instead of Barry.
Not at the price Jax wanted...and Jax makes 500k more than Barry this season, at least according to the numbers I just saw.
Because I raised about it at the time and every capologist on the board was saying Jax was beyond the cap space.Why the
The price Jackson wanted was a 6 year deal and you yourself just said that that the Spurs had 300k left over after signing Barry so that brings your difference down to 200k. Factor in taxes, cost of living, playing where you enjoyed your greatest professional glory and it's not much of a difference.
What was the difference was that the Spurs would not give him a 6 year deal.
You put too much stock in what those capologists had to say.
I really hope you do not find this surprising in light of Peter Holt's reluctance to lock up Tony Parker for a reasonable NBA price a month ago.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
