What exactly have those players developed into? Complements to Duncan, Parker, and Ginobili. Let's not pretend they have any other guys they've developed over the years. The spurs have had their share of turnover when it comes to role players. They get experienced vets that fit, use them for 2-3 years and then bring in "younger" ones. Other than the big 3, Bonner and Hill are the only ones that come close. Neal and Leonard are 2nd year guys. They gave up on Green two times before and he's only in his third year. Maybe Splitter, but how much have they really developed him vs him just adjusting to the league?
We have the talent. It's just we don't have the experience required. Seeing Rockets reach the playoffs without too much experience, it's not that hard to see that there's talent. A tweak here and there should be enough but it doesn't need to be drastic at least until proven otherwise. To prove it, you have to give them a chance or risk starting all over again.
It's not about a winning culture but more of a "disciplined" culture. Once you acquire that culture, there's no reset button. There's only "fire" button and "reload" button for players and none for the system. The system must not conform with the players. Instead it's the players that must conform to the system.
You're right because the Spurs didn't flip their players (AHEM GEORGE HILL). This argument is absurd. Order needed to win a title: 1) GET TALENT. WITHOUT TALENT ALL THE CHEMISTRY IN THE WORLD ISN'T GOING TO WIN A TITLE. 2) Create a system that works with the TALENT THAT YOU HAVE ACQUIRED. 3) Get a coach that can coach that system (a coach that can adapt is fine as well). Keep the CORE in tact (for the Spurs it is Duncan, Parker, Gino, and Pop, THAT IS IT). BUT Keep flipping role players because role players don't win titles and this will keep you within reason salary cap range. Players after their rookie contract cost A LOT more, and are NOT A LOT more valuable. I'd rather have 5-7 $3 mill dollar role players that can do their role (maybe it is shooting 3s for 1, playing D for the other, being tall to guard specific players for another). Than having 2 guys that cost the team 8-10 mill/yr, and ARE NOT superstars, that will kill your cap ability to get a quality bench, and players that you need. Then you are stuck hoping older players choose your team (it works for Miami because they have Lebron + South Beach, but it likely wouldn't work for places like SA or Houston without having Lebron). Pop used to say George Hill was the future, and he flipped him for a guy that filled a need (3 pt shooting, ability to guard Durant and Lebron). Now he is saying Leonard is the future. If I had to guess, he'll gladly flip Leonard too if he can find the right fit. When you aren't the IDEAL location (NY, Miami, LA), you need to find talent, keep that talent, build a system around that talent, then keep moving role players around because THEY ARE EASY TO REPLACE without breaking the bank for any of them.
Isn't SA the team that kept signing and replacing veterans year after year? Role players get replaced all the time. Case in point, George Hill got replaced by Leonard right before he was about to be paid. Seems like the perfect Morey's approach to viewing role players. Besides, Morey's roster turnover is what allowed the perennial 1st round exit Rockets to finally put together a team that got to game 7 of round 2. This despite T-Mac quitting and Yao missing the last 4 games of the Lakers series. Seems like replacing crappy talent with real talent is much more important than stability to me.
If we had a good culture but no foundation, we'd just be another losing team that tries hard. Settling for good attitude is fine for little league play ("hey, we may have lost but at least we're good sports"), but if you want to win then you can't settle for these minor accomplishments. You do what gives you the best chance to win it all.
