Spurs dump Scola's rights to avoid paying luxtax

[azirish]

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.

Amare is the closest thing to a "dominant big man" the Suns have ever had. He's still developing his defense, etc., but he's a big reason the Suns are viewed a real contender. 2005-06 was wonderful and exciting but it was a long shot to win it without Amare.

 

[Errntknght]

The Suns used to be quite good at picking plums late in the draft. That has been their tradition until recent years.

The Suns good years at drafting correspond to the years their chief of scouting was Dick Percudani - before him and since they were average, at best.

 

[azirish]

The Suns good years at drafting correspond to the years their chief of scouting was Dick Percudani - before him and since they were average, at best.

I agree. Teams don't draft, people do.

None the less, I'm getting pretty excited about this year's group. Strawberry had 8 assists tonight to go with 27 points. I feel like lightning is going to strike me if I even suggest the impossible: they may have found a point guard AT 59.

 

[Mainstreet]

I agree. Teams don't draft, people do.

None the less, I'm getting pretty excited about this year's group. Strawberry had 8 assists tonight to go with 27 points. I feel like lightning is going to strike me if I even suggest the impossible: they may have found a point guard AT 59.

Go ahead George. I'll stand there with you and let lightning strike us both.

 

[azirish]

Go ahead George. I'll stand there with you and let lightning strike us both.

He had 7 assists but 10 turnovers tonight (it will the main issue besides shooting for him), but it still suggests he has the makings of a pass first PG. We need an icon for crossing our fingers.

 

[schutd]

MUCH superior talent? I think of it as a way to keep a team that just won a title together while notpaying the tax. That's the difference here.

What have the Suns done then? Kept together a team that was an arguable call of a suspension away from winning a championship together. With the exception of dumping of a low 1st rd pick and a player who shot less than 40% from the field. Very little difference actually.

Im so sick and tired of the Savers with the $ and all the complaining about how Saver is cheap. ITS OLD PEOPLE! And its wrong.

But then Ill probably get banned for arguing in favor of letting people who know what their doing do their jobs, and the armchair quarterbacks will continue their reign over the board...

 

[schutd]

Shades of grey people. Shades of grey.

What shade? CHARCOAL?

 

[elindholm]

But then Ill probably get banned for arguing in favor of letting people who know what their doing do their jobs, and the armchair quarterbacks will continue their reign over the board...

So when GMs or coaches get fired -- as they often do -- and poor performance is the reason, what's your explanation? Does the owner just wake up one day and say, "Eh, I've had it with this dude, he's gone"? Or is it possible that the performance has been flawed for quite some time, and perceptive fans are able to see some of the ways and reasons even before the situation becomes critical?

The fact that someone has a job is not proof that he is doing it well.

 

[Chris_Sanders]

But then Ill probably get banned for arguing in favor of letting people who know what their doing do their jobs, and the armchair quarterbacks will continue their reign over the board...

#6. Moderator decisions are final. Publicly complaining about them will only result in further action.

I suggest you let this drop. The posted rules are considered to be your only warning.

 

[schutd]

So when GMs or coaches get fired -- as they often do -- and poor performance is the reason, what's your explanation? Does the owner just wake up one day and say, "Eh, I've had it with this dude, he's gone"? Or is it possible that the performance has been flawed for quite some time, and perceptive fans are able to see some of the ways and reasons even before the situation becomes critical?

The fact that someone has a job is not proof that he is doing it well.

Of course I agree with you, but Id still take a dumped NBA coach's opinion over some ya ya on a sports forum. My only point is that the overwhelming tone of this board has taken a turn towards the frustratingly negative lately, and the vast majority of opinion isnt necessarily backed up with any real argument, its just grnadstanding and emotional meltdowns with name calling and pettiness towards the organization. Im just having a hard time reading it all the time and a harder time figuring out what is an isnt appropriate dialogue on this boad. its OK apparently to rip the Owner in a name calling tirade, but not OK to refute that post by a little calling out of poor attitude. Its frustrating. And to re address your point, Sure, GMs and coaches get fired for poor performance all the time, and there are a TON of very well educated posters on this board, but there doesnt seem to be any middle ground. The board is either giddy with title dreams (with no levity) or running around yelling $aver this and cheapskate that. With nothing in the middle, the board itself looks rather manaical and loses a lot of credibility as a whole.

 

[F-Dog]

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.

Were you seriously equating Duncan to Ewing and Mourning, or were you just throwing out names so that Karl Malone didn't feel quite as lonely?

 

[elindholm]

Were you seriously equating Duncan to Ewing and Mourning, or were you just throwing out names so that Karl Malone didn't feel quite as lonely?

I'm not sure what you mean by "equating," but I think it's fair to put them in the same broad category of "potentially dominating big men."

Ewing was such a top prospect that many fans (myself excluded) insist that Stern rigged the lottery to land him in New York. His career was something of a disappointment, I suppose, but he's on the Fifty Greatest list and did get to the Finals once, with a fairly crappy supporting cast.

Mourning would have been a lock for the #1 overall pick behind virtually anyone other than Shaquille O'Neal. His early Charlotte teams were pretty good, which is impressive considering that their second best player was basically a very poor man's Charles Barkley.

Duncan is better than either of those two, but I'm not confident that I can distinguish between the different levels of the actual players and the different circumstances that they happened to find themselves in.

 

[elindholm]

The board is either giddy with title dreams (with no levity) or running around yelling $aver this and cheapskate that. With nothing in the middle, the board itself looks rather manaical and loses a lot of credibility as a whole.

Indeed. But finding any middle ground requires actually thinking about things carefully, which the vast majority of this board refuses to do; and engaging in substantive discussion of actual issues, which the general climate of the board discourages.

 

[F-Dog]

Ewing was such a top prospect that many fans (myself excluded) insist that Stern rigged the lottery to land him in New York. His career was something of a disappointment, I suppose, but he's on the Fifty Greatest list and did get to the Finals once, with a fairly crappy supporting cast.

That crappy supporting cast was good enough to make the finals without him one of those years--he was 1-for-12, and his teammates were 1-for-1 without him. That's the genesis of Bill Simmons' famous "Ewing Theory".


What I see on Duncan's title teams are key contributors--Avery Johnson, Jaren Jackson, Devin Brown, Rasho Nesterovic--who wouldn't have been able to crack the rotation in the teams Malone, Ewing and Mourning were attempting to contend with. That lack of support separates Olajuwon and Duncan from their peers almost as much as their titles do.

 

[Cheesebeef]

That crappy supporting cast was good enough to make the finals without him one of those years--he was 1-for-12, and his teammates were 1-for-1 without him. That's the genesis of Bill Simmons' famous "Ewing Theory".

uh, forgive me if I'm wrong here, but didn't Patrick play all the way through the playoffs until Game 3 of the Conference Finals, leaving after the Knicks had already taken home-court away from the Pacers and then were gifted with that ridiculous 4 point play to LJ in Game 4? You make it seem like he had nothing to do with them getting to the ECF, which he did. I think the phrase "the supporting cast was good enough to make the finals without him" is a pretty specious argument considering all they had to do was win two games without him to get there and one was handed to them on a silver platter.

 

[elindholm]

That crappy supporting cast was good enough to make the finals without him one of those years--he was 1-for-12, and his teammates were 1-for-1 without him. That's the genesis of Bill Simmons' famous "Ewing Theory".

Yeah, but that was the postseason that Camby and Sprewell went nuts. Were they even on Ewing's other Finals team? (I don't remember.)

What I see on Duncan's title teams are key contributors--Avery Johnson, Jaren Jackson, Devin Brown, Rasho Nesterovic--who wouldn't have been able to crack the rotation

I suppose. I find it almost impossible to compare the contributions of deep-rotation role players, because they are all so fit- and system-dependent. Generally speaking, championship teams get more out of less, but is that because their star player is more dominant, their coach is better, their pieces fit better together, etc....?

 

[Cheesebeef]

Yeah, but that was the postseason that Camby and Sprewell went nuts. Were they even on Ewing's other Finals team? (I don't remember.)

they weren't even close. Guys like Charles Smith, John Starks, an older than dirt Derek Harper, Herb Williams, Oak and Mason made up that big ball of drek.

 

[F-Dog]

uh, forgive me if I'm wrong here, but didn't Patrick play all the way through the playoffs until Game 3 of the Conference Finals, leaving after the Knicks had already taken home-court away from the Pacers and then were gifted with that ridiculous 4 point play to LJ in Game 4?

I forgive you.

Ewing was done after game 2 in that (7-game) series, after which they were tied 1-1. Then, they won game 3 on that play, lost game 4 (giving up home-court advantage), and closed out the last two.


Ewing was hurt throughout that playoffs, I believe. He only averaged 13 and 9.

 

[F-Dog]

they weren't even close. Guys like Charles Smith, John Starks, an older than dirt Derek Harper, Herb Williams, Oak and Mason made up that big ball of drek.

I believe Harper, Starks, Charles Smith and Oakley rounded out the starting lineup, with Anthony Mason and Greg Anthony as 6th and 7th man, respectively.

 

[Cheesebeef]

I forgive you.

Ewing was done after game 2 in that (7-game) series, after which they were tied 1-1. Then, they won game 3 on that play, lost game 4 (giving up home-court advantage), and closed out the last two.


Ewing was hurt throughout that playoffs, I believe. He only averaged 13 and 9.

so, then, yes, it's a specious argument saying that those guys got to the Finals without Patrick when he contributed a double-double throughout the first two rounds and into the third before he got hurt, no?

 

[Mulli]

I have to start using the word, specious, more.

 

[Cheesebeef]

I have to start using the word, specious, more.

it's one of my favorites and it's pretty much all I have to show for studying an entire summer for the GRE considering I found out that all the schools I applied to for Grad school DIDN'T require it when I started doing their applications (missed the deadlines for the schools that did require it - oh hapy days!). man, what a waste of a summer that was!

 

[F-Dog]

so, then, yes, it's a specious argument saying that those guys got to the Finals without Patrick when he contributed a double-double throughout the first two rounds and into the third before he got hurt, no?

Not at all.

The Knicks weren't expected to do anything that playoffs (8th seed), squeaked past the first round because David Stern suspended most of the Heat players for the deciding game, and Ewing's teammates did all of the work in the second round.

Finishing the Pacers series 3-1 (and more specifically, winning game 5 on the road) was the Knicks' accomplishment that year, and Ewing wasn't on the floor for it.

 

[Cheesebeef]

Not at all.

The Knicks weren't expected to do anything that playoffs (8th seed), squeaked past the first round because David Stern suspended most of the Heat players for the deciding game, and Ewing's teammates did all of the work in the second round.

Finishing the Pacers series 3-1 (and more specifically, winning game 5 on the road) was the Knicks' accomplishment that year, and Ewing wasn't on the floor for it.

I'm sorry, that's a joke. They were an 8 seed that went through the 1 and 4 seeds (and players were suspended from BOTH teams in that first round) all while Ewing was averaging a double-double. To say he had nothing to do with them getting where they got is pretty ridiculous IMO, especially considering the gift they were given in the ECF with that ridiculous 4 point play.

they don't even get out of the first or second round without Patrick. To say he had nothing to do with their accomplishment is just foolish IMO because they wouldn't have had the opportunity to get where they were without him and it showed as they got their asses absolutely kicked in the Finals.

 

[F-Dog]

they don't even get out of the first or second round without Patrick. To say he had nothing to do with their accomplishment is just foolish IMO because they wouldn't have had the opportunity to get where they were without him and it showed as they got their asses absolutely kicked in the Finals.

People watching the games said that the team was better without Ewing.


Eh, I'm bored. Want to argue, take it up with this guy.

What's the Ewing Theory? Where did it come from?

The theory was created in the mid-'90s by Dave Cirilli, a friend of mine who was convinced that Patrick Ewing's teams (both at Georgetown and with New York) inexplicably played better when Ewing was either injured or missing extended stretches because of foul trouble.

Curious to see if this phenomenon applied to other stars/teams, Dave noticed people were pencilling in the '94-'95 UConn Huskies for a .500 season because "superstar" Donyell Marshall had departed for the NBA. Dave knew better; a lifelong UConn fan, he thought the Huskies relied too much on Marshall the previous season and could survive without him. Like Ali predicting the first Liston knockout, Dave told friends the Huskies would thrive in Marshall's absence -- and that's exactly what happened. By midseason, UConn was ranked No. 1 in the country for the first time in school history; the Ewing Theory had been hatched.

Dave introduced me to the Ewing Theory three years ago, and we've been tinkering with it like Voltaire and Thoreau ever since. Eventually, we decided that two crucial elements needed to be in place for any situation to qualify for "Ewing" status:

A star athlete receives an inordinate amount of media attention and fan interest, and yet his teams never win anything substantial with him (other than maybe some early-round playoff series).

That same athlete leaves his team (either by injury, trade, graduation, free agency or retirement) -- and both the media and fans immediately write off the team for the following season.

When those elements collide, you have the Ewing Theory.

What's the best example of the Ewing Theory?

That's easy. During the '99 NBA Playoffs, Ewing tore an Achilles tendon during the second game of the Eastern finals against Indiana. With Ewing finished for the playoffs and nobody else on the Knicks who could handle Rik Smits, the series seemed like a foregone conclusion. As an added bonus, since Ewing himself was involved, that made this the ultimate test of the Ewing Theory; in fact, I e-mailed Dave that week to say, "This is the greatest test yet."

Dave's return e-mail oozed with confidence, as he told me in no uncertain terms, "Ewing's injury is the best thing that ever could have happened to the Knicks -- they're definitely making the Finals now."

So what happened? The Knicks won three of the next four and advanced to the NBA Finals for only the second time in 26 years. Had Jeff Van Gundy's crew shocked the Spurs in the Finals without Ewing, Dave might have his own line of "How-To" videos out right now (a Knicks upset was simply too tall of a task against Duncan and Robinson, Ewing Theory or no Ewing Theory).