I don't care if the Spurs come back and beat the Mavs in this series, they are clearly on the decline and will be punded by the Lakers. I think Duncan has reached the "David Robinson after 1997" stage of his career. If the Spurs are to become championship contenders again, then Duncan will not be the best player. No gloating here, just recognizing the decline and wanting to discuss historical precedents.

Looking at teams that won multiple titles, they can't be compared to the 90's Bulls, 80's Lakers or 00's Lakers. Those teams were ended by voluntary retirement, forced trade, or AIDS. The 80's Pistons were more of an ensemble team that lacked big superstars.

The 2 teams that make the most sense are the 80's Celtics and 90's Rockets. I think these teams took different approaches to remaining relevant as the stars got older.

The 80's celtics lost the '88 Conf Finals to the Pistons and passed the torch to the new elite team. They lost in the 1st round to the Pistons ther next year, as Bird and McHale battled injuries. Bird missed most of the '89 season when his back gave out. They tried to have a youth movement to play along with Bird and McHale by drafting Len Bias and Reggie Lewis. Bias died right after he was drafted, and Lewis was a budding superstar for 4 years but couldn't get them past the Pistons or other teams. Lewis then tragically died in 1993 soon after Bird and McHale retired.

The Rockets approach after passing the torch to the youthful Sonics in '96 was to get older star players like Barkley and Pippen. This almost worked, but age caught up to them in the end.

I like the comparison to the 80s Celtics. Keep in mind that they seemingly made all the right moves in order to keep that run going but Len Bias and Reggie Lewis both didn't cooperate by living.

Obviously, the time is now for the Spurs to make a move. Duncan can be a servicable big man for 5 more years but they will need another big star to take some of the load. I think the miss on Maggette last offseason was big because he has the type of game that would really translate well to the Spurs style. He would have been a big star for the Spurs. And the disastrous loss of Scola continues to hurt.

Unfortunately, its going to come down to free agent acquisitions. Can the Spurs lure a big player this offseason or next? So far their track record has not been good in that department.

Problem with the Spurs this offseason is that they are already spending 66mm without resigning Gooden. The Luxury tax threshold was ~71, and will drop - 69mm is the number I have seen before.

So without trading some of the dead weight ending contracts (Bowen, Oberto) or an ending contract with some value (Manu) there is not much the Spurs can do this offseason.

In summer 2010, the Spurs only have Duncan and Parker on contract, so it could be a good offseason for the Spurs.

If the rumors are correct and Tau is in financial trouble, they may be willing to let Splitter come to America for 500k and to not have to pay him that big contract. But that is a LONG SHOT.

quote:

---

Len Bias and Reggie Lewis both didn't cooperate by living.

---

oh sheet

Had completely forgotten about Reggie Lewis. That dude was good.

Does anyone else wonder if Duncan WANTS to play another 5 years? With the nagging injuries, I just wonder if he's having that much fun anymore. Would anyone be shocked if he called it quits in a year or two?

quote:

---

Those teams were ended by voluntary retirement, forced trade, or AIDS.

---

The 80's lakers were done BEFORE Magic announced he had AIDS. In fact, I'd say the 80's lakers is as much of a valid comparison as any.
Magic = Duncan (core of the team)
Worthy = Ginobili (energy player, scorer, "big game" potential)
Coop = Finley (fairly one-dimensional, but deadly accuracy)
Byron Scott = Parker (quick, young, still had plenty of game left)

All of the great laker players of the 80's were beginning to slow down when the Pistons/Bulls started beating them in the finals. They were just too old and couldn't quite keep up.

That said, I'm not willing to put Duncan in the "David Robinson post-1997" category just yet. If he can play one more injury-free season, I think he could still be the prime mover on this team.
But he needs Splitter or somebody else to take some pressure off of him down low.

The Spurs are starting to also remind me of the Celtics of the late 1980's.

quote:

---

I think Duncan has reached the "David Robinson after 1997" stage of his career.

---

You could be right.
When David hit his contract negociations the last time I sided with Jim Rome: "What is market value for a 37 year old center who roll over in the playoffs?"

quote:

---

They lost in the 1st round to the Pistons ther next year, as Bird and McHale battled injuries.

---

I think you are dead on with this one.
Age injuries without replaced talent did them in.

I think Rome is really funny, but I'd never consider him an expert on player value.

I considered Robinson to be easily the 2nd most valuable player on the team, right up until the moment he retired. I think you could have taken any other player off of those two championships ('99 and '03) other than Duncan and Robinson and still had a shot. Rome is the kind of person that would never consider team defensive presence or locker-room leadership when they calculate the "value" of a player.

quote:

---

I think Duncan has reached the "David Robinson after 1997" stage of his career.

---

i don't see him quite there yet. the guy can still make some unbelievable shots.

thing is, TD's game is not based on athleticism and DRob's was...if tim's lost any vertical, who could tell?

the biggest factor is how much are these little injuries bugging/hurting him...does he want to put up with it? b/c I think he could trudge through another 5-6 years and not see much decline

the other problem is he, parker and manu have been surrounded by CRAP players. (manu is starting to really break down and if he does, his game is completely shot.) How much fun is it to kick the ball out to the JV, Udokas, or Fin's of the NBA? forget that, i'd be out in the Caribbean drinking rum

[This message has been edited by dreyOO (edited 4/27/2009 2:19p).]

I agree Dre.

When David was healthy he was really a joy to watch play.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S36g_AZX84M&feature=PlayList&p=C06E6C159EF3EBE7&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=12

That Karl Malone knockout game was scary.

quote:

---

the other problem is he, parker and manu have been surrounded by CRAP players.

---

Don't say that to some Spurs fans on this board. I had a debate earlier in the season about whether or not Udoka was an upgrade to the team. From where I'm sitting, there are few players for the Spurs over the past 10 years that have been MORE worthless, offensively (and most of them are currently on the roster). And his perimeter defense has been nowhere near "stopper" level.

I just don't get why there's an aversion to picking up young offensive talent.

quote:

---

I just don't get why there's an aversion to picking up young offensive talent.

---

Because the Spurs are forced to stay with strict financial guidelines.

Who would you have rather signed as a free agent over Udoka with that available 1mm/year?

nm

[This message has been edited by gougler08 (edited 4/27/2009 4:15p).]

I look at Scola and think "what might have been."

They should lay the plans to blow it up now. Get rid of Manu, Finley, Bowen, Vaughn, and Thomas. They make not be very good next year, but you'd figure out a couple things:

1.) Is Roger Mason worth keeping?
2.) Is George Hill worth keeping?
3.) Is Ian Mahinmi worth keeping?
4.) What do you do with Udoka?
5.) What does Williams have?

So you come back with:

Parker
Mason/Hill/Williams
Duncan/Gooden/Bonner
Fab/Mahinmi

Then you add a shot at a decent lottery pick and the the big free agent class, and you've probably got a pretty good team there.

Either you blow it up and take your lumps or it's going to be a long slow slide, down to at best an 8 seed next year, then out of the playoffs all together. Parker will leave if he's not got Timmy around or if he's not on a contender (I can totally see him and Eva bolting for New York or LA) , also considering Pop may leave when Timmy is done. If you lose Parker, you're back to square one.

quote:

---

So you come back with:

Parker
Mason/Hill/Williams
Duncan/Gooden/Fab/Mahinmi

---

I removed Bonner, because I don't think he's worth it.

quote:

---

When David was healthy he was really a joy to watch play.

---

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hW4uXlRGAF0

GS, who knows. but we don't get paid the big bucks do we?

I know that having Thomas, Oberto, Bonner and Gooden at the same position has yielded us very little production.

Whereas the rockets have a true defenseive specialist in Chuck Hayes, Landry for energy and explosive play, and Scola as an all around good forward. That's a deep position for them all b/c we were stupid enough to give them Scola.

Easy with the Duncan is on his way out talk.

Obviously he is not in his -prime-, but the guy was 20 and 10 this year. How many of those are in the league?

Duncan's knees are only going to get worse. If he wanted to hang around for another 2-3 years, he'd need to be a 50% of the time guy. If you play him as a starter, he'll have nothing left for the playoffs.

Bonner is interesting and the posterchild for Pop's eratic lineups. It's possible he could give you the X factor with 18 points, or could just as likely give you nothing. I don't like big men playing as guards, but Bonner has been big at times. I think you have to stay with him at least one more year until you can get more legit shooters on the team.

quote:

---

Unfortunately, its going to come down to free agent acquisitions. Can the Spurs lure a big player this offseason or next?

---

Has to be a trade this offseason. With all these expiring contracts, maybe they can do something.

quote:

---

In fact, I'd say the 80's lakers is as much of a valid comparison as any.

---

Good point. I overlooked them because they were in the Finals, but they had gone 3 years without a title and were declining. You could also say Kareem = Robinson.

quote:

---

thing is, TD's game is not based on athleticism and DRob's was

---

Good pint. Duncan should continue to be an effective post player for a long time. My comparison of Duncan to Robinson was more trying to show that Duncan was no longer the best player on the team. Parker could be the franchise player, and maybe you just need some solid role players to pay with Duncan that can rebound and play aggressive defense.

quote:

---

claym711
posted 9:06a, 04/28/09



Easy with the Duncan is on his way out talk.

Obviously he is not in his -prime-, but the guy was 20 and 10 this year. How many of those are in the league?

---

He was not 20/10..he was 19/10 and post all-star break he was 16/11. Now he is 17/8 (8 rebounds!) against the worst defense in the playoffs. I think his current knee problems are related to old age and mileage more than anything - he recently hit the landmark 1000 games on the odometer, including 159 playoff games. A lot was made in the press about how he started out the season as fresh and healthy as ever. Not saying he can't be an effective player, just that he can no longer be the only elite superstar on the team if they are going to win.

The thing about Duncan is that he could ho-hum his way to 20-10 every night, and he can still average that in the regular season. What makes (made) him special is that he could go for 40-20 in a big game when he needed to, but I don't think he has that capability any more. That's what's different about Duncan now. Sure he can still go for his 20-10, but he's no longer that special player that can put the team on his back

Magic Johnson never announced that he had AIDS, mostly because he doesn't.

quote:

---

GS, who knows. but we don't get paid the big bucks do we?

---

I think it is idiotic to trash the Spurs front office for having to settle for a guy like Udoka when they don't have the money to get anyone else.

At least say "Hey, you should have gotten XY player instead of Udoka. You thought Udoka would succeed Bowen and that didn't exactly work out well."

But the truth is that we didn't have the money for a better player. In fact, we had to trade away Scola to get another team to clear our trash on our roster because we couldn't pay the luxury tax.

quote:

---

Now he is 17/8 (8 rebounds!) against the worst defense in the playoffs.

---

Quite misleading considering he has only played 4 games and in one of them, he played just a quarter.
Game 1 27/9
Game 2 13/11/5a/3b
Game 4 25/10/7a

If you told me he would get 22/10/5a I would have been thrilled.

And the Mavs are a pretty decent rebounding team.

idiotic? the only thing idiotic is to defend the spurs front office no matter what...

lol, i won't get into a debate with you on this b/c your stance is always the same: Pop is my daddy, he can do no wrong

well go ask your daddy if he feels better having signed oberto to his deal and let scola go play for an interdivision rival

Speaking of idiotic, I just read your last post.

I wish we could have gotten JR Smith last year instead of resigning Finley. Would have been a great upgrade. But it is completely unrealistic.

I was completely unenthusiastic about the Roger Mason (who?) signing. I would have much rather had Michael Pietrus. But we got Mason for 7mm over 2 years and Pietrus went to Orlando for 21mm over 4 years. Not really the same ballpark. I thought Posey would have been a nice pickup, but he went to NO for 4y/24mm. Way overpaid. Flip Murray may have been a good choice over Mason. Who would you have gotten? http://www.nba.com/transactions/movement2008_index.html There is the full player movement last year.

Pop isn't perfect and has done some really stupid things. I was the first one in line to be critical of him when he was pushing hard to get Jason Kidd. TURRRIBLE idea.

Anyone who says I just blindly defend the Spurs front office is flat out wrong. I just wish we had an owner like Paul Allen with deep pockets that wouldn't care what they spend as long as they win. That would make it a lot better on all of us.

look, you're a spurs fan so i'm not trying do deride your opinions. we all have them.

but don't come out of left field calling people idiotic...it makes you look like a little irrational kid.

re: blindly defending all things pop...i'll pivot and point you to the scola deal. you are the only one on this board that defended that stinker. rockets get to the WCF largely due to Scola and we are in need of a PF.

quote:

---

but don't come out of left field calling people idiotic...it makes you look like a little irrational kid.

---

I called an action idiotic, not a person. It is truly sad when people cannot distinguish between the two.

When a team has just the MLE to work with, it would be idiotic to chastise them for not going after Kobe or Boozer or LeBron.

When you say things like "Pop is your daddy, so you have to support him no matter what" when that is patently false, who do you think you look to everyone else?

quote:

---

re: blindly defending all things pop...i'll pivot and point you to the scola deal. you are the only one on this board that defended that stinker. rockets get to the WCF largely due to Scola and we are in need of a PF.

---

I've called it a horrible deal if you only look at the basketball side of it many times. I hated giving up someone like Scola, especially to the Rockets. On a strictly basketball level, that trade by itself is completely indefensible.

But that trade wasn't made because it made basketball sense. It was made because Peter Holt required the Spurs front office to get below the luxury tax line and to dump salary they needed to give up a prospect. The Spurs were trying to send Scola to Cleveland, but Ferry balked at the last minute.

If you factor in the fact that giving Scola away to clear room enabled the Spurs to pickup Kurt Thomas, it makes it somewhat better.

And I don't understand your comment about the Rockets getting to the WCF. That is clearly not happening. The Rockets are up 3-1 and look to be able to get out of the first round for the first time in over a decade, but that isn't exactly the same thing as getting to the WCF. And LA is going to pound Houston.


But apparently, trying to understand a trade not only from the basketball side but also from the financial side makes me Pop's little boy. Brilliant.

quote:

---

Speaking of idiotic, I just read your last post.

---

ZING!!!

GS, nice backtrack. you know damn well that you're an abrasive, if not offensive, know-it-all on these boards. To call my post idiotic and then back off it is ridiculous. The word by definition implies that it is done by an idiot. Be a man and own up to it. geez... i have no problem stating that you probably have a Pop poster over your bed

if you want to tell us all that Pop/Buford haven't screwed up and that it's all peter holt's fault for not having deeper pockets, then say it. but your history on here doesn't say that...you go on and on rationalizing why it's never spurs mgmt fault.

ex: drafting international players that we can never get signed. How was this a smart move knowing we are so strapped financially? Why didn't we draft a Carl Landry and inject some youth? He was signable.

Meanwhile, the morey's of the world turn their team around overnight after losing the biggest cog in his team...with guys like a Landry, a lowry, wafer (who i'm sure was an impossible get) and yeah, a friggin huge gift in Scola. (Btw, I'm sure we only had the option of trading Scola to two teams...right!) the rockets are built around 1 star player...everyone else is a role player. But apparently, the spurs are strapped b/c we have the misfortune of being stuck with Tim Duncan and Tony Parker.

My contention is that you can't blame the bad financial situation we're in without laying a good portion of that at Pop's feet. F going after the veterans like finley, JV, Bonner and even oberto (all of whom cost you more whether or not they're worth it) and all the while drafting a bunch of unsignable Euros. That philosophy got us into a situation where we are drastically in need of younger players in a strict financial situation.

edit: btw, if there's an idiot amongst us, i submit it is the person who's professional success is influenced by public perception and word of mouth (referrals)...on the one hand, i think most ags would like to throw business to an Ag that does such good things as your church work. Otoh, i have a hard time (and i'm sure many others would as well) spending money towards a guy that is simply disrespectful and rude to such a degree that even other spurs fans, aggies, or houstonians cringe when you post some of the outlandish crap that you do.

2nd edit: btw, it's not that I and other don't appreciate that you try to balance the decision-making process with some financial info...that's all very necessary.

[This message has been edited by dreyOO (edited 4/28/2009 4:27p).]

quote:

---

GS, nice backtrack.

---

I'm not backtracking. I can defend it from a financial standpoint - if the guy who cuts your check says you have to do something - even if you don't like it - you do it or you leave. The Scola trade sucks, but we needed to clear cap space someway and teams aren't exactly drooling to help the Spurs out.

quote:

---

you know damn well that you're an abrasive, if not offensive, know-it-all on these boards.

---

Have my posts been like that on this thread? I called an idea idiotic. It is. Look at all of your attacks of me. Have I responded by personally attacking you?

quote:

---

To call my post idiotic and then back off it is ridiculous.

---

Your post is idiotic. I'm not backing off. You saying things that aren't true to attack me doesn't change that.

quote:

---

The word by definition implies that it is done by an idiot.

---

No it doesn't. Lots of brilliant people have said idiotic things. I wouldn't call myself brilliant, but I have said idiotic things on here. That doesn't make me an idiot. Your reasoning on here isn't up to par.

quote:

---

Be a man and own up to it. geez... i have no problem stating that you probably have a Pop poster over your bed

---

Well that says a lot more about you than me.

quote:

---

if you want to tell us all that Pop/Buford haven't screwed up and that it's all peter holt's fault for not having deeper pockets, then say it. but your history on here doesn't say that...you go on and on rationalizing why it's never spurs mgmt fault.

---

The history does hold up on that. In fact, the Spurs said the Scola trade was purely a financial decision. Everyone knew at the time that VSpan was taking a buyout to go back to Europe because he couldn't cut it in America. In fact, he said during the previous season that he was going back to Europe no matter what - even if he was traded to a Championship team like the Spurs.

I'm not rationalizing anything.

quote:

---

ex: drafting international players that we can never get signed. How was this a smart move knowing we are so strapped financially? Why didn't we draft a Carl Landry and inject some youth? He was signable.

---

Carl Landry was a great pick. Unfortunately, not every pick can be a great pick. But I would say the Spurs have been MUCH better than par when scouting foreign talent, and I don't think I would get much of a argument from any informed basketball fan on that.

Splitter had another year where he couldn't be bought out when we drafted him. He decided to sign an extension rather than come to the Spurs. He was signable, but not the year he was drafted but rather the following year. It is unfortunate that the NBA forces the rookie cap which financially straps NBA teams and keeps better talent like Splitter in Europe. That is something on the table to be changed in the offseason. But Splitter not being able to be signed happened well after he was drafted. He was expected to come over here after one more year.

Drafting players that cannot sign immediately is smart financially if you can afford to leave the player over in Europe. However, the last couple years, I would have much rather had someone who could play right away, because we needed someone right away. Splitter could have been Carl Landry or my choice, Big Baby. Drafting Ian Mahinmi over David Lee is inexcusable. Think how the team would be different if it was David Lee starting with Tim Duncan.

But you could do that with ANY team's draft picks nearly every year. Every team passed on David Lee. Everyone passed on Rashard Lewis. Everyone passed on Monta Ellis. Everyone passed on Gilbert Arenas. Everyone passed on Manu Ginobili. Nearly everyone passed on Tony Parker. A very low percentage of players drafted outside the lottery really make it as starters in the NBA. I think the Spurs have done well on their drafts considering they have have two picks better than 24th in the past 20 years.

quote:

---

Meanwhile, the morey's of the world turn their team around overnight after losing the biggest cog in his team...with guys like a Landry, a lowry, wafer (who i'm sure was an impossible get) and yeah, a friggin huge gift in Scola. (Btw, I'm sure we only had the option of trading Scola to two teams...right!) the rockets are built around 1 star player...everyone else is a role player.

---

Morey has done a good job in Houston, no question. But it isn't like Houston is going anywhere this year. They will probably win in the first round and then lose in the second round. Call me when Morey gets a team in the Finals.

quote:

---

. But apparently, the spurs are strapped b/c we have the misfortune of being stuck with Tim Duncan and Tony Parker.

---

Having three AS caliber players is something all teams would love, but you can't deny that having those big three takes up a large percentage of the Spurs available payroll. Next year the Big 3 take up 66% of what the Spurs will be able to spend on the entire team. That makes it quite a bit more difficult to find the right players to surround them with, considering they don't have a ton of money to field the rest of the team with. That is also why the players they sign to go around them are generally veterans who want a shot at the title (Brent Barry, Steve Kerr, Mario Elie, Terry Porter, Michael Finley, Kevin Willis, etc)
Hard to retool and get younger when the young, athletic guys are looking for an early payday and your team doesn't have a payday to offer.

quote:

---

My contention is that you can't blame the bad financial situation we're in without laying a good portion of that at Pop's feet.

---

Pop signed the contracts. But lets remember that SA isn't the greatest destination for a young balla.

quote:

---

F going after the veterans like finley, JV, Bonner and even oberto (all of whom cost you more whether or not they're worth it) and all the while drafting a bunch of unsignable Euros. That philosophy got us into a situation where we are drastically in need of younger players in a strict financial situation.

---

Do you think we went after only veterans, or do you think we settled for veterans? Do you think Pop WANTED to get older and slower?

quote:

---

if there's an idiot amongst us, i submit it is the person who's professional success is influenced by public perception and word of mouth (referrals)...on the one hand, i think most ags would like to throw business to an Ag that does such good things as your church work. Otoh, i have a hard time (and i'm sure many others would as well) spending money towards a guy that is simply disrespectful and rude to such a degree that even other spurs fans, aggies, or houstonians cringe when you post some of the outlandish crap that you do.

---

Awesome. Your earlier personal attacks weren't enough, so you have to take an attack on my business. Who on this thread has been rude and disrespectful? Heck, you even have to go WAY outside of this and bring up my company and attack me with that. Very nice.

When it really comes down to it, my business relies on my talent. If people want to pay for me, they do. In fact, I am shooting a wedding this weekend for a couple that found me on Texags because they were fans of my work.

I don't think that I've been rude, abrasive or disrespectful on this thread. It would be quite easy for me to do so, especially with everything you have said. It is quite sad you have to stoop to that level.

However, I would be an idiot if Texags and its users made up a significant portion of my business plan. I love shooting the weddings of fellow Ags (and am shooting two in May,) but the bulk of my business comes from shooting corporate ads and art on commission or spec.

quote:

---

btw, it's not that I and other don't appreciate that you try to balance the decision-making process with some financial info...that's all very necessary.

---

Your other quotes would lead me to believe otherwise.

[This message has been edited by Guitarsoup (edited 4/28/2009 5:58p).]

i would never have you shoot my wedding because you'd probably call someone in the wedding party an idiot if they didn't pose right to make you look good

I don't look good no matter how they pose.

My assistant poses people, not me. She is quite gentle and much prettier than me. I'm pretty quiet and shoot unobtrusively. It makes for better candid pictures if people can act naturally and forget that I am even around.