Spurs dump Scola's rights to avoid paying luxtax

[Chaplin]

Actually if I remember correctly Steph had the DUI in December of '01 and as a result was suspended the 1st game of the '02-'03 season since he did jail time. He ended up signing and extention in '03 so I don't think the DUI had as much to do with it as how poor the team was doing.

Aah, you may be right--those down years are kind of a blur...

 

[Cheesebeef]

Point being, their fans complain its just because they are stupid. Our fans complain and its because the FO is stupid.

their fans are complaining about a FO that HAS WON TITLES and have consistently shown the ability to put a team on the floor that wins titles - thus they are being IDIOTS. Our fans are complaining because our FO HASN'T accomplished the same thing. Not sure how there's a comparison there, but to each his own dude.

and for the record, I don't believe the FO is stupid and I don't think most of the board does either. Just because someone criticizes something about someone doesn't mean they're criticizing EVERYTHING. Shades of grey people. Shades of grey.

 

[ArizonaSportsFan]

their fans are complaining about a FO that HAS WON TITLES and have consistently shown the ability to put a team on the floor that wins titles - thus they are being IDIOTS. Our fans are complaining because our FO HASN'T accomplished the same thing. Not sure how there's a comparison there, but to each his own dude.

and for the record, I don't believe the FO is stupid and I don't think most of the board does either. Just because someone criticizes something about someone doesn't mean they're criticizing EVERYTHING. Shades of grey people. Shades of grey.

Fine, exaggeration on my part. You said their fans weren't upset about the trade. I said they were and gave an example - more than what you gave. I will leave it at that.

 

[Cheesebeef]

Fine, exaggeration on my part. You said their fans weren't upset about the trade. I said they were and gave an example - more than what you gave. I will leave it at that.

and once you pointed that out, I said if they were upset than they were idiots. what's the issue here? You'll leave what at that? That I was wrong? Uh, yeah. I was wrong.

 

[Cheesebeef]

Fine, exaggeration on my part. You said their fans weren't upset about the trade.

and actually, you're putting words into my mouth because i NEVER said anything about the fans not being upset about the trade. I SPECIFICALLY said "they're fans aren't up in arms about the financial moves OVER THE YEARS". You do realize that "over the years" implies a larger scale comment, right? Forrest from the treets.

But if you want to keep putting words into my mouth and exaggerating things, be my guest, but it doesn't really lend itself to healthy discussion.

 

[ArizonaSportsFan]

and once you pointed that out, I said if they were upset than they were idiots. what's the issue here? You'll leave what at that? That I was wrong? Uh, yeah. I was wrong.

Thanks, but no need.

I will leave it at that saying I think they are upset about it. Not saying they should or shouldn't be, but that they are disappointed with the salary dump. Not sure why you felt the need to counter an example with conjecture, but whatever.

 

[ArizonaSportsFan]

and actually, you're putting words into my mouth because i NEVER said anything about the fans not being upset about the trade. I SPECIFICALLY said "they're fans aren't up in arms about the financial moves OVER THE YEARS". You do realize that "over the years" implies a larger scale comment, right? Forrest from the treets.

But if you want to keep putting words into my mouth and exaggerating things, be my guest, but it doesn't really lend itself to healthy discussion.

Pick out as many salary dumps "over the years" as you can from the Spurs, and there will be fans upset about it. Getting someone to take a bad contract is not a "salary dump" as far as this conversation is concerned. Every fan is happy about those. I was just over there after this trade reading about their "cheapskate owners"...

 

[F-Dog]

their fans are complaining about a FO that HAS WON TITLES and have consistently shown the ability to put a team on the floor that wins titles - thus they are being IDIOTS. Our fans are complaining because our FO HASN'T accomplished the same thing. Not sure how there's a comparison there, but to each his own dude.

They won titles because they were gifted with Duncan, not because of their front office.

Are they spoiled? Yes, but I'm sure an Atlanta fan blowing through here would be happy to say the same thing about you.

 

[azirish]

They won titles because they were gifted with Duncan, not because of their front office.

I disagree. They have breen brilliant at getting international players who can play: Parker, Manu, and Oberto plus getting milage out of aging wings like Barry and Finley.

Still, Duncan permits them to play relatively mediocre bigs at PF and have a good offene with only three scorers on the floor at any point in time, so it is hard to escape that Duncan is still the key. But they have certainly done a better job than the Wolves in building around their key guy.

 

[F-Dog]

I disagree. They have breen brilliant at getting international players who can play: Parker, Manu, and Oberto plus getting milage out of aging wings like Barry and Finley.

Still, Duncan permits them to play relatively mediocre bigs at PF and have a good offene with only three scorers on the floor at any point in time, so it is hard to escape that Duncan is still the key. But they have certainly done a better job than the Wolves in building around their key guy.

Was their FO better than Joe Dumars the year they beat Detroit? No, so why give them the credit?


Hell, were they better than the Suns last year? While the Spurs were building around Duncan the last nine years, the Suns have been building around Shawn Marion. It doesn't exactly take a FO full of brilliant geniuses to come out ahead at the end of that race...

 

[azirish]

Was their FO better than Joe Dumars the year they beat Detroit? No, so why give them the credit?


Hell, were they better than the Suns last year? While the Spurs were building around Duncan the last nine years, the Suns have been building around Shawn Marion. It doesn't exactly take a FO full of brilliant geniuses to come out ahead at the end of that race...

Too true. Still, it is amazing how many teams screw it up.

 

[Griffin]

I've lost track of what the Spurs did with the first they got for Barbosa pick, but I'm pretty sure it has not turned into a Sixth Man of the Year.

For what it's worth, that pick ended up going to NY and they drafted David Lee with it. I'd still rather have Barbosa though.

 

[Mainstreet]

I disagree. They have breen brilliant at getting international players who can play: Parker, Manu, and Oberto plus getting milage out of aging wings like Barry and Finley.

The Spurs would not have been winning any NBA Championships without the help of two overall #1 picks (David Robinson and Tim Duncan) unless your thinking Parker, Manu and Oberto could get them there (plus the aging Barry and Finley). I think not.

Also if the Suns would have won the coin flip for Kareem everyone would undoubtedly be talking about the Suns dynasty and the geniuses of their FO.

 

[elindholm]

The other big difference is that the Spurs are returning their entire 12-man roster, all of whom are at least marginally productive. They sold someone they can't use, not a potential rotation player on a team desperately in need of one.

 

[Cheesebeef]

They won titles because they were gifted with Duncan, not because of their front office.

sorry, but when you have a FO that can transition an entire team around ONE guy and have them just as title-competitive in year 1 as year 9, they're doing something right, especially considering how low they're drafting every year and the rosters have been completely different from their first title to their last.

that's like saying Jerry West had nothing to do with Showtime because the Lakers were gifted with Magic. I don't buy that for a second.

 

[Cheesebeef]

Was their FO better than Joe Dumars the year they beat Detroit? No, so why give them the credit?

why were they not better than Dumars the year they beat Detroit? Didn't Dumars just completely blow the Darko pick and didn't the Spurs add a couple pieces to make them better whereas the previous year they got knocked out in the second round in 6 games?

 

[Mainstreet]

sorry, but when you have a FO that can transition an entire team around ONE guy and have them just as title-competitive in year 1 as year 9, they're doing something right, especially considering how low they're drafting every year and the rosters have been completely different from their first title to their last.

that's like saying Jerry West had nothing to do with Showtime because the Lakers were gifted with Magic. I don't buy that for a second.

IMO, it would not be very hard to build a Championship caliber team around a couple of great big men like David Robinson and Tim Duncan. Just need to add a quality PG (the Suns are great at this) and some nice role players. I know there are exceptions to the rule like KG but I think this is because the Timberwolves FO has been inept.

 

[Cheesebeef]

IMO, it would not be very hard to build a Championship caliber team around a couple of great big men like David Robinson and Tim Duncan. Just need to add a quality PG (the Suns are great at this) and some nice role players. I know there are exceptions to the rule like KG but I think this is because the Timberwolves FO has been inept.

you think it's easy getting a quality PG with the last pick in the first round? How many times has that happened? Or how about a great SG late in the second? That doesn't happen too often either. How about how getting pretty much the perfect vets needed, like Horry, Barry and Finley? Especially Barry and Horry who everyone thought was completely washed up at that point? Point is, they didn't just add "role players" - they added two stars (some would even say superstars) and did so without having the benefit of having anything resembling a high pick.

There's no doubt, their front office lucked outand the first couple Spurs title teams had a huge advantage with both D Rob and Duncan, but that team is LONG gone, especially the first one and the team they have now is VASTLY superior to the first group - they somehow got BETTER after winning titles - that's extremely rare. And they're not even close to being finishedand this is ater 9 years - that's even more impressive.

 

[Stargazer]

The other big difference is that the Spurs are returning their entire 12-man roster, all of whom are at least marginally productive. They sold someone they can't use, not a potential rotation player on a team desperately in need of one.

I think the Spurs are tempting fate here. How many times do we read about teams who either made it or were right on the cusp who sit tight during the offseason thinking they are golden only to come up short the next year? In theory, it's perfectly possible that the Spurs could improve without changing any players -- individual players might get better during the offseason, and team chemistry improve as well.

Still, there are several older players on the roster who are on the way down, and even the younger players with room to grow might not be motivated to do so. After all, their places are secure in the roster, and the team won the championship, so why sweat it?

Contrast that to the Suns, where even some minor jostling of the roster gives a lot of guys an extra reason to prove themselves, and the team as a whole will hopefully come out with a serious chip on their shoulder.

 

[Mainstreet]

you think it's easy getting a quality PG with the last pick in the first round? How many times has that happened? Or how about a great SG late in the second? That doesn't happen too often either. How about how getting pretty much the perfect vets needed, like Horry, Barry and Finley? Especially Barry and Horry who everyone thought was completely washed up at that point? Point is, they didn't just add "role players" - they added two stars (some would even say superstars) and did so without having the benefit of having anything resembling a high pick.

There's no doubt, their front office lucked outand the first couple Spurs title teams had a huge advantage with both D Rob and Duncan, but that team is LONG gone, especially the first one and the team they have now is VASTLY superior to the first group - they somehow got BETTER after winning titles - that's extremely rare. And they're not even close to being finishedand this is ater 9 years - that's even more impressive.

The Spurs just transitioned from David Robinson to Tim Duncan so all they needed was to add a quality PG and some nice role players. This can be done by trade, drafting or FA. Not terribly difficult. Nash and even Avery Johnson were at one time FA's maybe even Billups (not sure). Anyway, it's so much easier to obtain a PG to go with a big man rather than find a big man to go with a PG. Please tell me in all sincerity than you would not expect a team having player(s) like Kareem, Akeem, David Robinson and Tim Duncan winning Championship(s). The Suns have had some extremely good PG's but not that one dominant big man. It must be nice for the Spurs to reload every year with role players to play beside TD. IMO, the Wolves FO is an example of a team that does not know what to do with a dominant big man.

Also the Suns have a history of drafting late but never having an overall #1 draft pick... because they have consistently been a winning franchise. The Suns used to be quite good at picking plums late in the draft. That has been their tradition until recent years.

 

[elindholm]

Please tell me in all sincerity than you would not expect a team having player(s) like Kareem, Akeem, David Robinson and Tim Duncan winning Championship(s). The Suns have had some extremely good PG's but not that one dominant big man.

But the reason that those players are seen as "dominant big men" is that they won titles. If the Suns had won a title or two recently, your line of thinking would force us to say "Well, they lucked into Amare Stoudemire." There are plenty of would-be dominant big men who didn't win titles because their teams weren't good enough: Ewing, Mourning (as a starter), Karl Malone (if you count PFs), etc. Your definition is circular. Even Olajuwon would have had a hard time winning titles had Jordan not developed a sudden passion for baseball.

 

[Cheesebeef]

But the reason that those players are seen as "dominant big men" is that they won titles. If the Suns had won a title or two recently, your line of thinking would force us to say "Well, they lucked into Amare Stoudemire." There are plenty of would-be dominant big men who didn't win titles because their teams weren't good enough: Ewing, Mourning (as a starter), Karl Malone (if you count PFs), etc. Your definition is circular. Even Olajuwon would have had a hard time winning titles had Jordan not developed a sudden passion for baseball.

hell, even David Robinson fits the bill - they never won jack until they got Duncan and never would have with the Admiral. Just having a dominant big man doesn't guarantee titles, much less being able to be a contender AND win 4 titles over a 9 year stretch. I mean, look back at the Sixers or the Bucks with Wilt and Kareem - arguably the most dominant big men of all time - they won TWO titles between them on their first teams and that was with good talent around them - nothing close to 4 titles. So yeah, getting a big man is an incredible help, but being able to completely wipe away a team that surrounded that big man which won a title and in the process COMPLETELY transition with COMPLETELY different players while getting better is pretty damn impressive.

 

[elindholm]

I mean, look back at the Sixers or the Bucks with Wilt and Kareem - arguably the most dominant big men of all time - they won TWO titles between them on their first teams and that was with good talent around them - nothing close to 4 titles.

And not only that, but the league had half as many teams then, so winning a title was twice as easy. Basically a Finals appearance now is like a title 30-40 years ago.

 

[azirish]

And not only that, but the league had half as many teams then, so winning a title was twice as easy. Basically a Finals appearance now is like a title 30-40 years ago.

Despite that, 40 years ago it really helped if you playing in Boston.

The sad part about professional sports is that every year there is one winner and every one else is a pathetic loser. In college football you get to finish the seaon with a bowl win. In college basketball there is a major honor being in the "final four". But in professional sports, every team is denigrated as being garbage if somebody else won.

It's not really fair. But no other sport has as many dynasties as NBA basketball.

Lakers 1979-1991 5 Championships - 4 Times lost in the Finals
Celtics 1980-1987 3 Championships - 2 Times lost in the Finals
Sixers 1979-1983 1 Championship - 2 Times lost in the Finals

Between 1979 and 1986-1987, the only other team to even make the finals was Houston in 1985-86

After that a lot of different teams got to the finals, but there was a very long string where very few teams won:

1988-1989/1990 Pistons (2)
1990-1992/1993 Bulls (3)
1993-1994/1995 Rockets (2)
1995-1997/1998 Bulls (3)

1999-2001/2002 Lakers (3)

Spurs never did it back to back but won (4) times
1998-1999
2002-2003
2004-2005
2006-2007

Unlike in the 70's when a lot of different teams won, the only "One Time Winners" have been

Sixers 1982-83
Pistons 2003-04 (no players remained from previous wins)
Heat 2005-06

Franchises:

Lakers 8
Bulls 6
Spurs 4
Celtics 3
Pistons 3
Sixers 1
Heat 1

Seven teams in 28 years. It is amazingly hard to crack in and takes a fair amount of luck. If Karl Malone does not get injuried in the 2003-04 playoffs, the Lakers probably would have won. If Duncan doesn't get hurt in the 2005-06 Conference Semi-Finals, then the Spurs would have gone to the Finals and beat the Heat.

Not since the learly 80's have there two dynasty teams in each conference. For the past 20 years, the number one and number two best teams have generally been in the same conference.

On the plus side, no dynasty lasts forever. The trick is to get to that level.

 

[Mainstreet]

But the reason that those players are seen as "dominant big men" is that they won titles. If the Suns had won a title or two recently, your line of thinking would force us to say "Well, they lucked into Amare Stoudemire." There are plenty of would-be dominant big men who didn't win titles because their teams weren't good enough: Ewing, Mourning (as a starter), Karl Malone (if you count PFs), etc. Your definition is circular. Even Olajuwon would have had a hard time winning titles had Jordan not developed a sudden passion for baseball.

This could be tossed around forever, however, the gist of what I'm saying is it is far easier to build a NBA Championship team around a dominant big man that a PG. There are certainly exceptions to the rule like KG and the other players you mention. However, if a team has a dominant big man and a quality PG (plus some nice role players) they should be in contention for a Championship most every year.

Anyway, if the Suns had TD to build around every year I think there would be some Championship banners flying in Phoenix. Perhaps this should be looked at in terms of probabilities. Also the success of Kobe playing with Shaq and without Shaq might be an example of my thinking although Kobe is not a PG.