sorry, had to go back to my old name, since i'm on a different computer and don't remember my new password off hand. back to that disgusting name later... TheFreak: it WAS the clippers that turned down the sign and trade. it sounds ridiculous (until you consider that it IS donald sterling) but the clippers were refusing to 1) take back any kind of salary, and 2) accomodate d anderson. good try, little dave. try again. as for kendall gill, please. la has long been a haven for free agents. and perhaps pt and money and who knows what else went into gill's decision. honestly, i don't remember much about gill and los angeles last year. nevertheless, it's irrelevant to the discussion about san antonio and it's long standing history of not attracting premier free agents. care to go for strike two???
Gill got a 7 million one year contract from the Nets last summer. Mango ------------------ Get it right or just don't do it! Resistance is futile....you will be assimilated. Start more Webber threads!
You know a lot of players want to be able to actualy play. It doesn't matter who you root for S.A. is still a good team. And many free agents want to establish themselves and not be a bench player. I don't think that its that S.A. is second rate but most of the time its just not the situation many players want to be in. I mean its not a huge city like LA and H-town or NY. ------------------ yeah aight whatever
vere/Shandon -- you did nothing to address the two points. Continually making personal attacks is not good BBS etiquette, you really should work on that. Good posters shouldn't have to resort to personal attacks. I believe the original statement was that D Anderson was not a highly sought after free agent. What does the Clippers refusing to give him a sign and trade do to support that? Portland wanted to give him 10 million a year, but the Clippers wouldn't trade him. That doesn't change the fact that a top team wanted to give Anderson a huge deal--which makes him highly sought after. No amount of name-calling changes that. As The Cat already pointed out, it's hard to attract free agents when you have no cap room (you can still re-sign your own free agents, however, which the Spurs are repeatedly able to do, despite being a "2nd-rate city for free agents"). You've also done nothing to prove that D Anderson wasn't a highly sought after free agent. The Gill situation is relevant to this thread because someone posted that because Shandon Anderson opted not to play for the Spurs for 2 mil, that it proved that SA couldn't attract free agents. Gill turned that money down from LA, does that mean LA can't attract free agents either? That is entirely relevant to Cato=Bum's original statement. Notice, vere/Shandon, that I didn't need to take one personal shot to make any of my points.
Stop talking about LA not being a free agent destination. They signed the biggest free agent of the decade, and Kobe forced a trade there. San Antonio is NO LA. ------------------ Protrolls.com! "I want to be like Olajon." -Sagana Diop has the right idea... Keep the ???? alive!
They signed the biggest free agent of the decade, and Kobe forced a trade there. The Lakers had the cap room to sign Shaq to a deal of about 18 million per season. The Spurs have never had that kind of cap room in the 90's, so you cannot fairly compare the Lakers acquisition of Shaq to what the Spurs have done, because they haven't had the chance. And Kobe did not force a trade there. He had no leverage. He was a draft pick. The Lakers loved the potential they saw in him before the draft, and in a pre-draft trade (announced afterwards) they agreed to send Divac to the Hornets for that 13th pick. The Lakers got Kobe based on good scouting and a poor move by Charlotte, not because of LA. ------------------ Draftsource.net-- the premier source for draft info. Profiles, rankings, mock drafts, and more! The Mo Taylor Fan Site
TheFrek, although your sudden taking of the high road is unconvincing (i know you'll be back to your sarcastic self in no time flat), i'll address you without directly insulting you: BASKETBALL STUFF: TheFrek, just because one team who is reputed for overpaying and overevaluating talented players offers a contract to derrick anderson, does not mean he is a "highly sought after" free agent. i don't know how you can (in right mind) put derrick anderson in the same category as major free agents of the past 5 years or so. give me 5 teams that HEAVILY pursued anderson. teams who were willing to outbid each other for his services. so far you've given me one. and judging from the salaries portland is paying for overrated players currently, i don't think i'd use them as a league barometer for player evaluation! LOL! as for the lakers and kendall gill, i did not originally realize that you directing that to Cato=Bum. nonetheless, i will say this: just because one player turns down a team, does not mean the team is 2nd rate. we are talking about a history of major free agents (see webber, brian grant, eddie robinson [you'll see], shaq, mcdyess, mcgrady, hill, rice, or any other FA the league clamored for) that have never even been mentioned in a serious discussion about landing in san antonio. now, you can say (as The Cat has) that it is hard to sign players when you don't have cap room. this is true. however, good teams - 1ST RATE TEAMS - find ways to "clear" cap money. they find ways to get players to sign for less. they find ways to get the major free agents. it may be through S&T, or whatever, but the 1st rate teams find a way to get it done. the salary cap means nothing, if your willing to "go to the mattresses". aren't you a rocket's fan??? you should know this. for more examples... see: the rockets w/barkley, clyde, francis, griffin. see: the lakers w/shaq, kobe, glen rice, elden campbell, NVE, etc. see: new york w/allan houston, latrell sprewell, c webber (won't get him but seriously desired on both sides). see: orlando w/hill, mcgrady, davis (soon), duncan (came VERY close) PERSONAL STUFF TheFrek, as for the "personal" stuff...i take sarcasm as an open sign of disrespect. give it, get it. get it? and you're sudden "turn" will convince me, and warrant something other than my ire, only if you can sustain it. everyone here knows i like a good discussion, and am MORE THAN WILLING to sustain it. even if they don't disagree with me, they know i'm always open to discussion and *possible* change. it is only you that i respond to like this, because it is only you that responds 99% of the time (not just to me) with sarcasm. take the high road after you torched the low one. good one. hey, we'll see. it's better on the high road. just don't fall off....
The Cat: kobe did force the trade to the lakers. i don't specifically remember if he said "I WANT THE LAKERS," but i do remember him saying he would not play for charlotte. see: francis, steve either way, it was a coup for the lakers, and something you will NEVER see the spurs do...as you never HAVE seen them do. i mean, have you ever even thought of the spurs pulling something like that off? seriously? i mean, it's not even a thought. the spurs just don't do stuff like that. it's like, do you even consider the clippers hanging on to a premier player for more than his 1st contract?! LOL! some teams just can't escape their own character. the only thing that DOES change their character is a change in ownersihp. see: Cuban, Mark
When did the Blazers gain cap room to acquire DA? Seems like the 10 million sign-n-trade offer is not the same as the outright signing of Shaq in which the Magic got zip. The Blazers have a huge payroll and the 10 million deal would have just been a rotation of contracts. No cap space implications and zero increase in payroll from a DA sign-n-trade. The Lakers had the cap space for Shaq because they dumped some contracts (players) cheap beforehand to create room. Lets ask the question several different ways. (1) If the Blazers would have had to dump some contracts to offer DA a straight free agent offer of 10 million, would they do it? (2) If the Blazers would have been in the same situation as Orlando was last summer, would they have offered DA 10 million as a straight free agent? If DA was a top tier free agent, then he should have been on the same level as Hill, TMac and Duncan in regards to press last summer. He was roughly on the same level as Mo. Mango ------------------ Get it right or just don't do it! Resistance is futile....you will be assimilated. Start more Webber threads!
Shandon -- this is good. I'm much more likely to respond to someone who doesn't personally attack me. I can't say that I know what you mean by the "high road", though, because I never use personal attacks myself, so in that respect I'm always on the high road. Glad to see you could join me. I do use sarcasm freely, and it is not intended as disrespect. I'm sorry you feel that way, but I'm not responsible for your misinterpretations. Why do I need to give you 5 teams? What kind of criteria is that? Why don't you give me 5 teams that both had the cap space to sign an Anderson, as well as the need for his services on their depth chart. I consider someone who comes in and immediately starts for the best team in the NBA, and becomes their best perimeter player, to be a major free agent. You apparently don't, unless you're letting your anti-Spur bias get the best of you here. I'll go ahead and assume you're sincere (it's hard to assume that, though, when you go on to list Eddie Robinson as a major free agent this year). Now you've mentioned Eddie Robinson, Van Exel, Elden Campbell, and Glen Rice as "major free agents", but Anderson isn't? What does all this have to do with free agents wanting to play for the Spurs? That is your contention, right, that free agents never want to come to San Antonio? Or is it just that anything that has to do with the Spurs sucks? That sounds like a personal bias that I can't really argue with. First off, Eddie Robinson is a borderline scrub. DA is so much better right now it's not even funny. Second, why would the Spurs want Brian Grant? Is he going to beat out Tim Duncan? Ditto McDyess. Why would they have wanted Shaq, already having the twin towers? Why even mention Glen Rice? DA is better and much younger. McGrady and Hill both went to Orlando, surprise, because they had the cap space. You don't think Hill would've come to SA in a second to play with Duncan and Robinson had the Spurs had enough money to sign him? I'm a little puzzled at the case you're trying to make.
exactamundo. the blazers have a dirth of overpaid walruses, nutcases, and slugs on their roster. why not exchange an overpaid player who has proven NOT to be the man for a player who just might be better? for portland it made perfect sense. for the clips, it made no sense. plus, they weren't in the mood to accomodate DA, just like MoTay. RE: #1... well, i'm sure portland would LUUUUUUUV to dump some of the players on their roster. unfortunately, it hasn't been that easy. that said...if they were able to, or would have been able to, would they offer derrick anderson 10 million per??? not just no, but HEEEEEEEELLLLL NAAAAWWWW! trade 10 mill of PROVEN SLUGS for an unknown quantity? sure. RE: #2... have 10 mill of cap room and offer it to an unproven free agent from the la clippers? ludicrous. truth be told, DA probably wishes he went to portland. there's no other way he'd have commanded that kind of money. looks like the clips got the last laugh on that one. ....... and i agree with your comparison to motay. these are players that are looked at, yes, but only after the big boys have been spoken for. if you strike it rich with one, you look like a genius. if not, hey, let'em go. the funny (hilarious) thing about the spurs is that anderson had a damn fine season. but they won't look like geniuses if they cannot manage to resign him. i know i'm on the outside looking in (thanx fred durst), but as an organization how do you allow this to happen??? how did you not see this free agent/cap room problem coming? did they not think that they'd have to unload some people to create enough room to sign DA and DRob to market value contracts? someone must have been sleeping on the job. that or that classic san delusional arrogance (hidden not-to-well as "class" ) made them think everything would work out on its own.
I agree that Anderson is on the same level as Mo. Mo was offered about 20 million to play for Toronto. I consider that a major free agent. They're both 2nd-tier free agents, which I consider major.
Verse, The point I was making was that the Lakers did not attract Kobe because it was Los Angeles and because of their organization. If I remember correctly, Kobe let the Hornets know ahead of time (like Steve and Vancouver, as you mentioned) that he did not prefer to play there, and they had a trade worked out before the draft with the Lakers. The Lakers got Kobe because of good scouting, not because of their ability to attract free agents. And something else you leave out is that the Spurs have never been in the position to do such a thing. The Lakers did that move to clear Divac's salary off the cap, and get a good young player to help in the rebuilding process. And, of course, they couldn't have gotten Shaq with Divac's contract on the team. Not many opportunities exist for those types of moves, and can you really blame the Spurs for not doing them? The Spurs were a top team almost every year in the 90's... why should they take the risk of blowing up chemistry, the team they were building, etc. to rebuild? They were contenders every year, unlike the Lakers. What reason would they have to give up a quality player and important part in team chemistry for a young high schooler or potential type player in the draft? It has nothing to do with the character of the Spurs-- it's the character of contending teams. If you have a legit shot at a championship, which the Spurs had and still do, you don't give up on the team and rebuild around a young project. The Lakers had the luxury of trying such a move because they were not contenders, and were in the process of rebuilding anyway. ------------------ Draftsource.net-- the premier source for draft info. Profiles, rankings, mock drafts, and more! The Mo Taylor Fan Site
DA is a mid/upper level FA, not an elite one compared with others over the last couple of years. When all the teams with available cap space pursue TD, McGrady, Hill, Webber, etc., and this doesn't apply to DA or his former stablemate with the Bulls or Mobley or Mo or Antoine Davis or (the present) D Rob, this shows there is a clear difference between those class of players. The latter players are all good, but you don't see every team who can throw the max out to them doing it (I don't believe for an instant if the Rockets really thought Webber would come here they would not throw down a 6/90 mil. contract at his feet). You may not even find any of the latter guys get the max from any team, even though some like DA or Mo are young. Despite the fact DA is not an elite FA, he was a very good one FA acquisition that very much helped SA. While SA is not the most sought after BB haven, it is not the lowest of the low--especially as long as they are good/have TD. Utah and Sac can't even bring in FAs the level of DA and they also have been good for a while.
I joined this thread late, but will catch up now. He had plenty of options... in fact, Portland offered him 60 million over 6 years in a sign and trade. And he turned down the offer of 10 million a year from the team that everybody predicted would win it all to play with David and Tim for 2 million in San Antonio. Also, it's fairly difficult to lure stars when you have no cap room. The Clippers were not interested in taking on aging overpaid players from the Blazers, so that was not a true test of the free agent market value of DA. The Lakers were coming off a title last season and wanted Kendall Gill...I guess the city of LA is a poor market, in bad-shape as well...Perhaps things such as money and playing time are factored into the decision of free agents as well. Gill had a 1 year contract for 7 million and I don't think the Lakers would have matched it if they had the cap space available. TheFreak, Your clock is now running on answering my questions posted earlier. clock Mango ------------------ Get it right or just don't do it! Resistance is futile....you will be assimilated. Start more Webber threads! [This message has been edited by Mango (edited July 09, 2001).]
at this point, i'd agree with you about derek anderson v eddie robinson. however, at the time of DA's free agency, he had not proven *yet* the things you state. there was a widespread perception of DA that he was seriously lacking on defense (which he still is), injury prone, and had a poor work ethic. in fact, several spurs commented (avery, tim, etc.) that he had a poor work ethic at the beginning of the season. the credited it to clipper-syndrome. point being, at their respective times of free agency, eddie robinson and DA were BOTH athletic freaks who had *yet* to prove themselves. DA has, now. eddie might, too. so to compare them now isn't really fair. eddie has to put himself in a better situation for his skills, much as DA did. then we can compare them in the present tense. my point was to compare them at their respective times of free agency. Re: kobe, you're right. and re: spur management, you're right. they suck. however, the city of san antonio doesn't exactly offer a whole lot either for a young, single, black male - especially one who enjoys city life. and, as we've seen, that makes a difference in a player's decision. ------------------ here's a verse: hating this name is a full time job for me; shandon in the nba is highway robbery!
I think that SA management/ownership has done pretty well despite your opinion that they "suck". Pop has certainly made some deft moves, such as trading for Daniels and Elliott. And usually the cap exception acquisitions they make are good, such as Elie, Porter, and Ferry. The lone black mark was Charles Smith and his neverending contract. As for the "Spurs are bad in free agency" argument, the Spurs have never had the potential for cap space like they have this summer. For the free agents that they could afford, they've done rather well. I see Shandon Anderson mentioned, but from what I recall, there was not serious Spurs interest in him in '99. The Spurs main target to replace Elliott was Lamond Murray, who backed out of a deal when the Cavs were able to give him more $$$ by trading Derek Anderson. And then it was Tyrone Nesby, a restricted free agent...and the Clippers actually bothered to match the Spurs' offer. Yes, the Spurs made a pitch to Grant Hill last summer, but he was unwilling to go with the one-year exception deal and then get paid this summer...plus, Orlando was better for his wife's career and maybe he wanted to live near Tiger Woods, who knows? SA has done pretty well in free agency given a number of factors, including lack of cap space, limited revenues due to lack of luxury suites, ownership unwilling to commit to long term deals for mulitple players, the future of the franchise in SA in doubt because of the arena issue, the old cap rules, etc... Oh well, we'll see what the cap space yields this summer. DA may be a casuality, but no doubt the Spurs will make sure he gets paid. ------------------ It's a cool site, this clutchcity.net [This message has been edited by MrSpur (edited July 09, 2001).]
I don't know. Doubtful. I don't know. Doubtful. I said I thought he was a major free agent acquisition. I don't think he is a franchise player. I'm through arguing semantics. Is DA a franchise player? No. Do I think he was a major acquisition? Yes. Is it possible that two people view the term "major" differently? Yes. There is no evidence to support the claim that, when the money is equal, players consistently prefer not to go to San Antonio. None. That's the bottom line. In fact, it's been quite the opposite, with players continuing to choose to go to SA when offered the same money (exceptions, namely) from other teams. If anyone wants to continue to argue the ineptitude of the front office of a team that was one of only four to win a championship in the 90s, well, gee, go right ahead. [This message has been edited by TheFreak (edited July 09, 2001).]
The Freak, just curious. Are you in SA and do you have any radio experience? You sound like a dedicated Spurs fan I remember. As stated in another thread, I think the Spurs are/have been less likely to make big, splashy deals and I agree they could plan/manage the cap much better than they do or work around it to make MAJOR deals. The Charles Smith fiasco was an excellent example as mentioned earlier. However, I must give them credit for DA in the sense that when they were chasing him, the buzz here in SA was that he was on the verge or certainly had the potential, in their opinion, to be the player he was this past season. And he certainly is a more desirable player this time around. At any rate getting him to sign THIS time IS of "major" importance to the Spurs. Unless they're really going to dump him and DRob to sign a "marquee" free agent. Oh no, now we're going to argue about who is and isn't marquee and whether marquee would come to SA... ------------------
TheFreak, trust me when i say there is no place on this planet - or any other, for that matter - where i want to "join you". moving on... 1) i asked you to give me "5 teams" because MAJOR free agents - by definition - have multiple teams looking at them. that player is good enough to supplant the player you have at that spot on your roster. for example...when vince carter is a free agent next summer, do you think the only teams that will consider him will be teams that "currently" have cap space and no starter at the 2? hell no. teams will offer their right nut for him if need be. teams will create space. by definition he is a top free agent, because multiple teams will be it HOT pursuit. 5 is an arbitrary number. 2) so if pig miller ends up with the lakers next year, and becomes an effective starter, did that make him a "major free agent" pickup? no. when teams are looking at free agents, they don't have the luxury of Ms. Cleo. LOL! they can't "know" what kind of year he's going to have. all they can go by is past performance. past performance by DA w/the cavs and clips was that of an average, yet athletic, oft-injured, unproven 2 guard. he was not a major free agent by any means. do you think he was regarded in the same light as hill, mcgrady, duncan, et al? 3) regarding your comment on NVE, campbell, robinson, etc., please read my post again: i listed those players because multiple teams were after them, and it took some pursuit to acquire them. who did san antonio beat out to get derrick anderson??? 4) don't read me so simple, please. what The Cat was pointing out (it seemed) is that the spurs seem to be "non-major" free agent players because they are often hindered by lack of cap room. my point was that "cap room" is no excuse. 1st rate teams find a way to get the job done. san antonio has not/does not find a way to get it done. 5) now THIS is funny!!! you call derrick anderson a major free agent, yet not eddie robinson. eddie robinson has already had multiple suitors (houston, charlotte - of course -, chicago, san antonio, etc.). derrick anderson had.... based on what DA did with the clips, show me how he was a major free agent (who just so happened to not be fielding many offers LOL!), but eddie robinson is not (despite the offers mentioned above.) 6) please retract this statement. please, please, please, before someone else sees it. 7) san antonio DID want grant hill. grant hill didn't want san antonio. same went for latrell sprewell after PeeJaygate. i'm going to go ahead and assume you didn't hear about that because news didn't travel past loop 1604. that's because no one in their right mind believed the spurs were actually going to sign grant or latrell. and, of course, they didn't. but i'll be damned if every freak'n newspaper in san antonio and talk show talked about the spurs and grant hill &/or the spurs and latrell sprewell. 8) no you're not. don't lie.
