I'm the biggest Spur homer in the whole world? I'm assuming you don't visit the Spurs BBS, because I'm usually a pessimist to most of them. It's just that to people like yourself, anything pro-Spurs is so unheard of that it comes off that way. You're so desperate to put down Duncan that you have totally lost grasp on reality. Remember the struggles Hakeem had against Seattle in his prime? This is exactly what's happening with Duncan and the Lakers. Shaq CANNOT handle him one on one. But, any time Duncan puts a move on him and gets to the middle, there is ALWAYS one or two Laker defenders there to meet him. When he kicks it out to the perimeter, the Spurs perimeter shooters lack the athleticism to take it to the basket, and they usually end up taking a three with a hand in their face or a rushed lean-in jumper. If Duncan's performance in the fourth quarter against LA makes him timid and afraid of Shaq, then Hakeem's fourth quarters against the Sonics must be classified as the same. It's the same principle, and the same style of defense. I don't see the point in arguing with you, since you use no logic, but I will continue. Kobe dominates everyone he plays. That's the most ridiculous argument I've ever heard. There's no one in league history that could keep Kobe from getting his 25 points a game. But, a good one on one defender can make him take more shots to get those points. He can make him shoot a lower percentage. He can eliminate the need for others to play HELP defense, thus leaving no one open off double teams. Oh, and Mr. objectivity, when did I compare Ginobili to Jordan? All I said was that Ginobili is a threat. He can actually make Kobe work on both ends, instead of allowing him to sit and play the passing lanes on defense. Also, if one faulty comparison takes someone's credibility to zero, then your credibility has to be even less than mine for claiming that "Tony Parker is better than Steve Francis". The gap between Elliott and Smith has nothing on the gap between Francis and Parker. P.S. I'm not so sure I understand the comparison between the Horns and Aggies to the Rockets and Spurs. For a rivalry to exist, doesn't there have to be hate on both sides? In fact, it's usually the team that loses most of the major playoff battles that has more hate. In this case, that's the Spurs, and the majority of Spurs fans could care less about the Rockets. They don't really hate us more than they do the Nuggets or anyone else. There may have been a rivalry in the mid-90's, when Hakeem and David were in their primes, but that time is long gone. I guess because the Rockets haven't made the playoffs the last three seasons, we don't have any new rivalries and are holding onto the old ones. He's worth the lower exception. I don't think he's even worth the mid-level exception, much less the ridiculous contract he got. Practically the entire league, including the Lakers, were willing to bid the 4.5 million dollar exception on him. The Duncan theory might be valid, but did you watch game 4 against the Sonics? That was the game TD was out due to his father's death. The Sonics have an average frontcourt... Vin Baker, Jerome James, etc. They knew Malik was the top option, and they really couldn't stop him. 28 points, 13 rebounds. Rose averaged about a double double when he started in both the regular season and the playoffs. He's probably worth about the six million per year range, but for taking a contract starting low (keeping the Spurs cap room next year), he is being rewarded by the huge figures in the final years of his deal. At that point, it really doesn't matter for the Spurs since they're over the cap anyway.
Cat, I have to say I agree with Cato=Bum. You appear to be the biggest spurs homer and lakers hater on this board. There's nothing wrong with it. Just admit and go on.
Nobody outside of SA will ever say that. There was a huge gap. The Spurs don't have a lot of talented players. They have one star and a bunch of role players and maybe Tony Parker if he gets better. They must overacheive to win. (e.g. somebody who isn't talented like Rose must grab tons of offensive rebounds, or like in 1999 Jaren Jackson must hit 3 ptrs or something) The Lakers were on cruise control and were clearly underachieving relative to last year's bulldozer performance. But the underacheiving lakers easily handled the Spurs, who couldn't get any of their role players to step up and take a game or 2 or 3. If the two teams were close, like Sacramento was, the Spurs would have won more than just 1 game. Sure, sometimes you can get lucky and steal a game. But the chances of a team doing it four times in five games are low, unless that team is better than the other one by a decent amount. I don't think keeping pace with San Antonio is priority one for Mitch Kupchak and Phil Jackson. Holding off the Kings and maybe dallas for another year might be, but the Spurs? Except for Parker and Duncan they are a team on the decline. It should be clear by now that the 1999 championship formula isn't going to get it done in 2003.
Rose had a decent playoffs. And there were other teams willing to overspend on him. For me to think a big guy deserves real money though, he needs to do one of the following: A. Block shots B. Have a good jumper C. Be a remarkable defender D. Have a menacing low post game. Rose does none of this. He's a good garbage man. But he can't do any one thing particularly well. I just can't understand paying starter money to someone who lacks size AND range. I'd want to see someone like him string more good years together than he has before dishing out the money. The NBA is full of guys who averaged something like he did, then get paid... never to be heard of again. Big men are paid too easily, and too well, even when they're at best middling effective. Sure, the Spurs might be capped out. But it's the length of the deal that bothers me. In 3 years, circumstances might be drastically different, and that contract is unloadable.
Well, seeing as how the Spurs have the best bigman ouytside of Shaq in Duncan, I think Kupchak and Jackson are just a tad bit more worried about Duncan than you'd think. And, as much as I want to see the Spurs crash and burn so Duncan has more incentive to go to Orlando next year D), they aren't exactly a team on a rapid decline. Sure, Smith and Robinson have very little left - but Bowen is entering his prime, Rose is going to get the chance to be a good player in the NBA, and don't forget that they traded for Claxton and have Ginobili coming over this year. Their pick of Scola in the 2nd round this year will pay dividends in a couple of years. The best teams rebuild on the run, and the Spurs have been trying to gradually do that over the past few seasons. Next offseason, it'll either all crash apart of they'll be right back where they were in 1999. I know I'm hoping for the former, just based on the ulterior motive mentioned above.
Not a rapid decline, no, but the Duncan plus role players formula is clearly inferior to the Shaq plus Kobe plus role players formula. Unless they add another true superstar (which will be difficult unless they tank and draft one a la Duncan), their ceiling wil be below championship level. And when young NBA stars look for a place to sign a long term contract, the Riverwalk is not the first place they look.
What a joke. You are in serious denial. I watched the entire series and the Lakers only doubled Duncan in the first 3 Quarters of the game. In the 4th Q's of every game, they made up their minds that they were going to let Shaq O'Neal guard Duncan one on one and Duncan did absolutely NOTHING against him. Remember that steal Shaq had against Duncan in Game 2? Where the hell was the double team? There was none. Clean strip. Remember when Duncan went one on one and put up a weak fadeaway to win the game against Shaq and Shaq STUFFED him at the buzzer? Where the hell was the double team? Duncan was short arming shots when Shaq was on him and not taking the ball to the basket. And this despite Shaq being 60-70% healthy. Shaq is definitely in his head. Duncan made Shaq look like Bill Russell defensively. And it's not just me buddy, pretty much everyone on here recognizes you as a hardcore *purshomer. Hell, you even imply Duncan is as good as Hakeem in his prime. You should be banned from this site for making a r****ded claim like that. Duncan is not even CLOSE to Hakeem in his prime. To compare the defensive styles of Seattle on Hakeem (which was an instant triple team by very athletic players) vs. Lakers on Duncan (occasional double and not till Duncan puts the ball on the floor and Robert Horry or even Samaki Walker as the primary defender much of the game) is asinine. Even then, Hakeem really only had one bad series against Seattle: In 1996. In 93 and 97, he had 2 very good series against Seattle despite the defensive attention and he certainly never folded like a cheap lawn chair in the 4th Quarter ala Tim Duncan against LA. He never shot a Duncan like pitiful 42% FG (or whatever the "MVP" shot against LA)against Seattle. Let's face it: Duncan is just not very clutch. He SUCKED against LA in the 2000 playoffs and played a subpar series this year as well against them. When the Spurs play LA, he's the third best player on the court, behind Kobe and Shaq. That's why the *purs are always punked by LA in the playoffs. Sorry if it hurts *pur fan, I mean rocket fan. I'll admit Duncan is the third best player in the NBA and no doubt a great player, but Shaq owned him defensively in the 2001 players. To deny this is a joke.
I remember that game that Shaq HAMMERED Duncan on the arm as he released the game winning shot. To deny this, and claim it was a clean block, is a joke. Not even Laker fans are that biased. Some have said that you should have to do more to get a foul in the last 10 seconds... but there was clear contact made. It's not even debatable. I'm not sure what games you watched. In the first three quarters, the Lakers didn't double team Duncan AT ALL. They let Horry and Walker guard him one on one, and he had his way. If "playing subpar" means averaging 29 points, 17.2 rebounds, 4.6 assists, and 3.2 blocks, I will take a team full of subpar players. In the 2000 series, Duncan had 40 and 15 in one of the games. I've already said it, but the reason that Duncan doesn't take it to the basket is that Fox or Horry will always step into the lane and take the charge (the officials will always give it to them) if Duncan takes Shaq off the dribble. There has NEVER been a dominant inside player to win championships with the lack of help Duncan had last season. Hakeem, even in 93-94, had Maxwell, Cassell, and Horry, three athletic players that could put the ball on the floor and slash to the basket. Shaq, even before he had Kobe, had Penny and Nick Anderson. Duncan has spot up shooters like Steve Smith and Danny Ferry. There is no big man in NBA history that could win a title with the Spurs supporting cast last season. It is too easy to sag down on the big men and deny them the lanes to get to the basket when there is no reason to stay near perimeter players. Does it take a lot of energy for those defenders to go down low and scramble back to the three point line? Yup. It's why the Lakers can't do it all game. But, it will always work for that fourth quarter spurt unless your team has the athleticism from the perimeter to fake a three, take it inside, and draw the defense to them. Do you really think it says something if this site thinks I'm a Spurs homer? Do you really think, the way most of you despise and criticize every move the Spurs make, that you are the most objective analysts of Spurs basketball? If you do, you're being ridiculous. This isn't the only board I post on. I post on the Spurs board, the Lakers board, the Kings board, and a couple of leaguewide boards. I'm the same way on every board. It would seem that if I am really "the biggest Spur homer in the world", someone besides the anti-Spur fans here would say so. Since only who absolutely despise the Spurs have labeled me that, I can't exactly respect that as legit. If I should be banned for suggesting that Duncan is comparable to Hakeem, what does that say about someone who thinks Tony Parker is better than Steve Francis? I can guarantee you that the gap between Hakeem and Tim Duncan is miles closer than the one between Steve Francis and Tony Parker.
Forgive me, I forgot that any time a Laker makes a play it's thanks to the refs. Shaq blocked Duncan on that play. Hand is part of the ball and no way are you going to get a Pu$$y call like that with time about to expire. Maybe if Duncan ever grew a sac he could try to take the ball AT a 350 lb, slow footed Center like Hakeem did when he put up 35 a game on Shaq. I love how you make a ridiculously subjective claim like "NO BIG MAN EVER would have won with the Spurs supporting cast." Easy to throw own BS statements when they are unprovable. You sound EXACTLY like the Spurs homers here in SA who say that the only reason Hakeem obliterated DRob in 95 was because DRob was tripled every play, poor supporting cast, etc (basically every excuse in the book). What does supporting cast have with Duncan getting stripped one on one at a crucial moment by Shaq, not exactly the best defensive center ever? Sure, the Spurs supporting cast is nothing special. But the Lakers were still ripe for a defeat this year with Shaq hurting and Fisher shooting horribly. Had Duncan played better in the 4th Q's (shot better than 30%, not turned the ball over 7 times a game), the Spurs COULD have won that series. What an unbelievable homer you are for even bringing up Duncan's 40 pt, 15 reb game 2 in 2000. So you just choose to ignore that Duncan avg'd 12.5 points a game in the 2 LA games against Robert Horry? One good game makes a good series? Duncan played like $hit that series. It was pathetic. Duncan's stats against LA this year are deceiving. In the 4th Q of every game, he choked while Bryant took over. He shot an overall 44% FG which for a 7 foot "MVP" in a playoff series is horrible. As for Tony Parker vs. Steve Francis, I'll make a bet with you that within 2 years Parker is recognized leaguewide as a better overall POINT guard than Francis. I hate the Spurs, but I call it like i see it. Unlike you, who will defend every Spur player and Spur move to no end. Point blank question Cat: Who is a better player, Hakeem of his prime or Tim Duncan at his best?
Sorry Cat but this whole thread started out with people criticizing the Spurs for overpaying their supporting cast (Rose and Bowen), and you vigorously defending them. But now they are so bad they can't ever win a title under any circumstances? Well then why resign them to semi-hefty contracts? Surely steve smith cannot have had that big of a role.
Duncan is a fine offensive player and a good defender but Dream was the 2nd best defender of all time at the C position I think what hurts the Spurs the most is the rapid decline of D. Rob and the rediculous idea that Duncan can be as effective at C as he is at PF... especially if the Spurs best option at PF is Rose
One quick question: if I will "defend every Spur player and Spur move to no end", then why wouldn't I agree with you that Tony Parker is a better point guard than Steve Francis? As far as "not getting a pu$$y call when time expires", I have another question for you. Did you watch game 7 of the Western Conference Finals? Remember when the Lakers were up 2, ten seconds left, and the Kings had the ball? Kobe barely touched Bibby... much, much less than Shaq's contact with Duncan... and the refs sent Bibby to the line to tie the game, and send it to overtime. Why weren't you here complaining about that? Other teams (Sacramento) get those calls. Oh, and as far as throwing around unprovable BS statements, how about the one that Tim Duncan isn't clutch? He sure seemed clutch to me in that final week game against the Mavs for the division, when he hit the shot at the buzzer. Or the time he led his team to a dominating championship run. You use a couple of debatable examples from two series of about the fifteen Tim Duncan has played in. I noticed you conviently left out the series that Duncan totally dominated Shaq and Kobe and swept them. Duncan had it stolen one time by an average defensive player. Holy f***ing ****. What a choker. In that same Game 2, Kobe had a layup to send the game into overtime... he traveled by passing the ball to himself. But I guess you can still do that and be a top 2 player if you aren't a Spur... Also, I really want to see those excuses about Hakeem and Robinson. Go visit the Spurs BBS sometime. They did a poll about the best current player in his prime... almost every one of them had Hakeem in second, behind Jordan. Not only did they have Hakeem ahead of Robinson, they had him ahead of the current Shaq. That's how much respect they have for the guy. Hakeem in his prime was one of the greatest players in the history of this game. There's no way anyone in the NBA now, including Tim Duncan, measures up to that Hakeem. But, that Hakeem had about ten years of NBA experience. Duncan, at his age, is probably more advanced than Hakeem at this age. Hakeem also had a "peak" shorter than the average player. Duncan's not Hakeem yet... but he's close, and is still improving. As for last year, games 3 and 4 were such blowouts that Duncan did not play many minutes in those games. I thought most people would know that, but once again I underestimated your willingness to use anything to downgrade the Spurs. Once again, Duncan might have delivered the way Kobe had in the fourth quarter if he had the room to operate. You see, Kobe has this guy named Shaq on his team, and he attracts a lot of attention. He gives Kobe room to make his moves and get to the basket. Tim has these guys named Danny Ferry on his team, who attract no attention, and allow the defense to almost all converge on him. Oh, and while you may criticize Duncan for his fourth quarter performance, in the series against the Spurs and the first four games against the Kings, Shaq averaged 3.0 ppg on 19% shooting. Spare me the injury bull****. Shaq could play fine in all the other quarters. If Duncan's fourth quarter performance keeps him from being a true MVP, there is no way that the same cannot be said for Shaq. Sorry Cat but this whole thread started out with people criticizing the Spurs for overpaying their supporting cast (Rose and Bowen), and you vigorously defending them. But now they are so bad they can't ever win a title under any circumstances? Well then why resign them to semi-hefty contracts? Surely steve smith cannot have had that big of a role. If the entire supporting cast was eleven Malik Rose and Bruce Bowen quality players, they might could contend for a title. The problem is, Malik Rose, Tim Duncan, and Bruce Bowen are not a team. There is more to a supporting cast than two players. I think what hurts the Spurs the most is the rapid decline of D. Rob and the rediculous idea that Duncan can be as effective at C as he is at PF... especially if the Spurs best option at PF is Rose Ninety percent of centers are power forwards, so it's not ridiculous at all. Furthermore, Rose started quite a bit in both the playoffs and regular season due to Robinson's injuries, and Duncan's numbers were slightly improved.
I don't like the Spurs, because they are not the Rockets... but I really don't get some of the Duncan bashing. He IS surrounded by very average, very young, and decidedly very over-the-hill players. What's he supposed to do? The fact that he played so well (and at all) in the playoffs following the death of his father got a lot of respect from me. I have to say one thing about you, Cat, your damned consistent!
Cat, It's funny how on one post you completely jock Bruce Bowen as the greatest perimeter on ball defender in the NBA and then one post later say "well of course Kobe eats up SA, he has Shaq." If Bowen is such a great defender and Kobe torched him the entire SA-LA series, esp in the clutch, then as much as you hate LA, it's asinine to not give Bryant credit for stepping up to the plate when his team needed him the most. Duncan had his chances to go one on one with Shaq in the 4th Q's and choked. As for his 2000 playoff performance against SA, I've seen you post some very humorous things on this BBS but saying that Duncan's numbers were down because he wasn't getting minutes or because the games were such blowouts takes the cake. Gee, I wonder WHY the games were such blowouts. Possibly because Tim Duncan was getting shut down by Robert Horry defensively? I'll give Duncan credit for killing Horry in this year's playoffs but his 2000 playoff performance against LA was downright pitiful. I live in SA. I don't need to visit their BBS. Most Spurs fans do feel David Robinson had a better career and was a better center than Olajuwon. They also feel here that Duncan is also better than Hakeem and about 99% of the fans here think Duncan is better than Shaq, which is again laughable. That's part of the reason I hate the Spurs: Their fans are pretty damn annoying with their homerism (some of them may actually make YOU look objective which is one helluva feat).
It doesn't matter how good Bowen is... the point is, the Spurs do not double team Bryant. As good as that one defender is, he cannot be as good as two or three men put together. I suppose we will have to agree to disagree on this, because IMO, the chances Duncan had to go one on one with Shaq without any help defense were few and far between. I give Kobe credit. IMO, he's the best player in the game. But, I'm not going to overlook the fact that he doesn't deal with as many double and triple teams as Duncan. It's hard to compare what Kobe does against one defender (even one of the best in the league) to what Duncan does against multiple defenders. The games in 2001 were such blowouts because the Lakers were that damn good. Duncan could've averaged 40 and 15 for the series, and I doubt it would've mattered. I don't know if there's a team in NBA history that would've taken out that team. That team had talent, fabulous chemistry, and the desire to win. Did the Spurs fold in the second half of the last two games? Probably, but it's only the difference in losing by 15 and losing by 25. The Lakers on offense and defense were spectacular in those playoffs. The team defense, which helps to shut down Duncan, was also at its peak. Everything was. That Lakers team was just too good... if you think Hakeem or any other big man would've made a difference, you're fooling yourself. I'm not sure what Spurs fans you've run into, but they certainly aren't the ones I've met, and very few of them are online. It seems like you are labeling many with the actions of a few. I'm not sure if I've seen any of them rank Duncan ahead of Hakeem. Some of them do rank him ahead of Shaq (including myself), but there's some reasoning behind that. For all you complain about Duncan in the fourth quarter, Shaq's fourth quarters from the Spurs' and most of the Kings' series consisted of 3.0 ppg on 19% shooting. Before I proclaim someone the best in the game, I would like to know that I can go to them when the game is on the line. If you disagree with that argument, that's fine. Shaq is more dominant in the first three quarters, and I see that perspective. But the other side does have some valid points, even if you are too thick headed to accept it.
A few points I'd like to make: 1. Malik Rose is not worth 6 years and 42 million. In game four in Seattle (which I attended), with Duncan out, the Sonics jumped on top of the Spurs quickly, and the game was over by halftime. The Sonics played sloppy, uninspired ball in the second half, and really didn't put much effort into guarding anybody. They didn't have to. Rose scored most of his 25 in the second half when the game was decided. He is a mediocre player. I see this signing as another Kelvin Cato. 2. Duncan is a great player. Don't doubt it. It is true that his supporting cast is pathetic when compared to Shaq's. 3. Kobe is a great player. He would probably average 30 per game without Shaq. Would those points come as easily? Hell no! 4. Shaq is better than Duncan. 5. Tony Parker looks like Bryce Drew when compared to Steve Francis. His great Game three performance against Seattle (which everyone refers to when proclaiming Parker's "greatness") was due to Gary Payton being forced to guard two or three Spurs at a time, thanks to the pathetic defense played by the other Sonics. Also, Duncan was unstoppable in that game. The Sonics focused so much on him, that Parker was able to score at will. 6. Lay off the Cat. It's okay to have a second-favourite team, you know.
As much as I hate the Spurs, Malik Rose is 100X better than Cato. He hustles like crazy, can crash the boards, has a halfway decent J, can drive past slower defenders, and has heart. Probably the toughest player on the Spurs. I don't see how he's overpaid at all. I was hoping he'd leave the Spurs because his value to that team is underappreciated.
An entertaining thread. No doubt. Apparently the only place where that is true is this bbs. But that's ok, I wouldn't want to disrupt the war versus the Spurs here. As for "overpayment." The Spurs just inked one of the top 6th men in the league to a long term deal starting below the mid level exception. That exception is set at the average NBA salary. Bowen got even less and for 3 years. Most NBA fans are clueless when it comes to D so I'm not going to waste my time. This junior high school type loathfest some of you have for the Spurs is amusing. Yeah, Parker isn't any good. Duncan's going to Orlando because he didn't go there the last time when the Spurs' future was seemingly in worse shape, and the Spurs are desperate because they overpaid two important role players with contracts below the average NBA salary. Oh no.
