Thursday, July 29th, 2010...9:04 am
Are the Austin Toros a failure?
For Spurs fans, the loss of Malik Hairston raises questions on multiple levels. Hairston’s departure from the Spurs gives rise to the question, “What’s up with the Toros? Are they even worth it?”
In some respects, the Toros program has been an overwhelming success. In a vacuum, the Toros are the model D-League franchise. But, as most fans know, it’s also necessary to qualify the Toros’ success. The Toros’ talent-Ian Mahinmi, Marcus Williams, Malik Hairston, Quin Snyder, Dell Demps- has mostly left Texas for better digs. This, without mention of folks like Roy Rogers, DeMarcus Nelson, Pops Mensah-Bonsu, and Dwayne Jones. Again, in a vacuum, good on the Toros.
But the Spurs are yet to develop a player in Austin who went on to make a significant impact in San Antonio.
Alonzo Gee, last season’s D-League Rookie of the Year, is this year’s version of the Great Austin Hope. Beyond Gee, the Spurs are still looking at local hero Curtis Jerrells, who played well-enough for the Spurs/Toros during his first year in the program. And the Spurs have done well scouting the D-League for talent. Garrett Temple, for example, seems poised to play meaningful minutes in San Antonio, but his prospects are still cradled in potentiality, not actuality. Will any of these players actually make a dent in the Spurs’ rotation?
Again, it’s not the Toros aren’t turning out NBA talent. It’s just that that talent is not sticking in San Antonio.
A cynic might say the Spurs’ Austin program is more of a service to the NBA, and less of a service to the San Antonio Spurs. But I’m more positive about the Toros’ place within San Antonio’s system. That overwhelming success stuff holds true.
Taking everything together-Malik Hairston’s departure, the Spurs’ inability to keep their best developed-in-Austin talent in San Antonio, and the Toros’ impressive track record of success and talent development-I like to think this reveals more about the D-League and the pace of player development than it does a failure on the part of the Spurs/Toros.
Put differently, the Toros are limited by what seems an unreasonable expectation of players-that they will develop within a two year time frame (the NBA’s stipulated number of years for D-League eligibility). But who says player development should be on a two-year plan, and why doesn’t the league do more to help team’s like the Spurs demonstrate what a proper player development program looks like? The D-League, the Toros, and players like Malik Hairston are succeeding at the task of skills development. But, in general, the CBA’s D-League regulations are in desperate need of revision. Would Malik Hairston’s tenure with the Spurs have gone differently under a less restrictive set of D-League eligibility rules?
While this discussion is concentrated on Malik Hairston and an evaluation of the Toros’ place within San Antonio’s program, it raises important questions about what the NBA can do to help teams like the Spurs develop better basketball players.
A recent study suggested that D-League call-ups provide more value to the NBA’s talent base than late first round draft picks. Imagine that. Mining for talent in the D-League is more likely to produce an NBA player than selecting 25th in the NBA draft (of course, this, in turn, might say more about the quality of some NBA front offices than it does the D-League). Perhaps part of Dell Demps’ recent appeal to NBA owners is that he comes from an NBA program with big success doing both.
The Spurs, for what it’s worth, are having success developing (understood here not in terms of developing “stars”, but players who can meaningfully contribute to professional basketball rosters) projects, second round selections, and undrafted players in Austin. The big takeaway, then, is not that Malik Hairston is not good enough for the NBA or that the Toros are failing by not developing players for the Spurs. Rather, I see Malik Hairston’s Siena contract as a sign that the NBA needs to revisit the issue of how to optimize the D-League’s value to the Association, not to mention finding ways to better reward NBA clubs who invest heavily in the project of player development.
76 Comments
July 29th, 2010 at 9:37 am
I absolutely agree here. I’ve been mulling this over for a couple of months, and I have a few suggestions that I wouldn’t mind seeing.
I’d like to see an NBA team have, in addition to its 15 roster spots, 2-3 developmental spots, contracts that can be awarded at a rate higher than the D-League pay scale, but not on the NBA pay scale. The contract would be with the team, not the league (like a standard D-League contract).
You could add some aspects similar to restricted free agency, such that a team could sign them to an NBA offer sheet, but the team with the rights has the opportunity to match and keep the player.
I would make the contracts subject to the same lengths as a standard rookie contract, with the team options and all. Players could go back and forth between the NBA and D-League, but with duration restrictions (ex. - if a player is in the NBA longer than 10 days, it converts to an NBA contract) to keep teams from trying to pay D-League prices for their NBA players.
I would also make them tradeable, similar to how baseball teams can include minor-league prospects in their big-league trades.
Hopefully this would give teams a little bit more ability to maintain a stable of players they are grooming for their own club, while still enabling enough movement that players aren’t kept from furthering their own careers when opportunities come up.
It also should eliminate the primary problem of having a good organization like the Spurs put a lot of time and effort into grooming players for other organizations, while receiving little of value in return for their investment when another team scoops their assets.
July 29th, 2010 at 9:41 am
Rick,
I can completely agree with your suggestion; I’ve beat that drum for a couple years. A little bit like a franchise tag for developmental players. 2 players that can be on assignment, and 2 that can be development franchisees. 4 players total.
And the league needs to allow D-League rehab assignments, regardless of the age/years the player has been in the league. That would help D-League ticket sales too.
July 29th, 2010 at 9:45 am
“of course, this, in turn, might say more about the quality of some NBA front offices than it does the D-League”
I saw that article and I think this is probably the key. It’s easier to evaluate these players. The D-league gives guy with question marks a chance to grow, plus you can sign them to 10 day contracts to help with the evaluation process. If you like what you see they get more minutes, if you don’t you let them go.
July 29th, 2010 at 10:09 am
Can you imagine Manu Ginobili, coming back from an injury that kept him out of the Spurs lineup for 7 weeks, having 1 “rehab” start with the Austin Toros? That would be awesome!
However, I think since basketball is more of a team game than baseball (at least on a dependency level), this doesn’t make as much sense as a star pitcher having a couple AAA starts. Maybe it would make sense for bigger/longer injuries, but a neat idea none-the-less.
July 29th, 2010 at 10:15 am
I would like to see the NBA club own the rights to the players if they outright own the D-league team (Spurs, Lakers, Thunder). That way, if they groom the player, they can get something in return if another NBA team poaches their players. Maybe a 2nd round pick or the rights to an unsigned player whether in the D-league or overseas, or even cash could be used as payment.
I also like the idea of using the D-league for rehab, and removing the 2 year limit for assignment.
July 29th, 2010 at 10:20 am
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Andrew A. McNeill, Andrew A. McNeill and San Antonio Spurs, Timothy Varner. Timothy Varner said: Are the Austin Toros a failure? http://bit.ly/bxKCOG [...]
July 29th, 2010 at 10:55 am
Good Article
@Rick and Tim,
I agree with both of your suggestions and think it would be an awesome win-win for both the teams involved and the league as a whole. Lets hope with the new CBA coming up that maybe something like this could be addressed.
Going along the lines of what you two had mentioned though….. if “prospects” could become tradeable commodities, then the duration limit would almost certainly have to stay in place to prevent teams from “stacking” exceptional players.
Another take on this could be that the duration limit could be removed, but players, as they remain in the D-league would, by rule, be forced to command a larger salary that was paid by the owning team. I think this would help promote a “use it or lose it” philosophy so teams would make the most of their talent at the NBA level or force to pay for it, in a sense, to keep them relegated to the developmental role. (A new luxury tax maybe?) As a possible benefit to the team, the owning team could sign the player to a structured NBA contract that wouldn’t penalize them for going into the luxury tax by signing the player if their roster was full or by doing so would them over the limit….. or something along those lines.
The other thing to contend with too is that there would have to be a limit on the amount of 10-day contracts a team could use within a season as well as how many players it could move down into, or move up from, the D-league. Stipulations on when these players could be moved would also have to be in place, for example, like for an injury occuring you would have a 1-week window to decide who to bring up, or move that player down as part of a rehab program. This would prevent teams from trying to do things like swapping guys in and out to do better against certain teams. (i.e. we have an awesome SF would could guard Melo in the D-League, lets call him up for this important game.)
All in all though, I really love this idea and I think it’s something we should definitely be taking a look at. It would help the league as a whole.. just the only downside would be the implementation and making sure there aren’t any loopholes or rule variations that teams could use to exploit one another on.
July 29th, 2010 at 11:25 am
@Kevin - Don’t forget that one of the most important things for a player returning from injury is rebuilding their confidence. Doing a game or two in the D-League where they can play well against inferior talent would do well for that confidence. Also, Ginobili is the type that probably wouldn’t need to do a D-League stint on his way back, but if somebody were coming back from microfracture surgery or some other injury where it would take a while to get back up to speed, this could be a good intermediate point. They can get back into shape and back up to speed without having to be a detriment to the NBA team while they get it together.
@Ryan - Good points. The point of having a limited number of spots would prevent the stockpiling you are worried about. If the team has both of their spots filled, they’d have to do a one-for-one swap to be able to absorb the developmental contract.
As for moving players up and down, I don’t necessarily have a problem with them bringing a player in, for example, to play defense against Melo for the evening. Who’s to say that’s not a valid part of the developmental process for that player? There would just need to be a control such that if the number of games played in the NBA exceeds a certain number, the player must be paid on an NBA-level contract.
By the way, as far as tax vs. cap goes, I would make the developmental contract count against the tax, but not the cap. You’d still want teams over the cap to be able to sign developing players, but it does make sense to penalize teams for going over the tax line.
I would envision this type of contract being in the $200-400k level. Not approaching an NBA salary, but sufficiently high over the D-League salary scale that it would help keep the players from looking overseas to European clubs and enable the player to do crazy things, like living in a nice apartment ($35k/year salary gets you a cardboard box in downtown Austin). The contract is with the NBA team, so they are the ones paying it, not the D-League team (important distinction for the non-NBA owned teams).
I realize this is just a pipe dream, but I’d love to see the NBA adopt something resembling this system. It’s so frustrating to see the Spurs put so much time and effort into building these players, then watch other teams poach them at no cost (not giving anything back to SA for their effort) to build out their own rosters.
July 29th, 2010 at 11:29 am
These are all really good ideas to improve the D league and help teams hold onto their projects longer.
@ ryan: some of the concerns you voiced I think would already be held in check by some of the other rules others have proposed. For example, teams couldn’t stack talent in their D-legue team if those players were signable by other teams a la restricted free agents with maybe 2-4 unpoachable guys. If a team really was hoarding talent, it wouldn’t be long before that talent departed to play on an NBA team when their D-legue contract expired.
I’m also not so worried about teams calling up guys for specific assignments. If a guy is good enough to be a kobe or mello stopper, it stands to reason that his defense would be needed on other nights as well, and a decision would have to be made to include him in the playoff roster or not.
There is a possible alternate causality for none of our Toros sticking in SA. Perhaps as a team who has a championship calibur core in place, who’s lucked out in the draft several years in a row, we just haven’t had a need to rely on our d-legue talent. On the other hand, if a rebuilding team like detroit had access to the toros it might be a big help to them. So in a way the toros are like our savings account, tucked away for a rainy day. fortunately we’ve been lucky enough not to have to depend on them, but there may come a day when our relationship with the toros keeps us out of nba talent poverty
July 29th, 2010 at 12:13 pm
I would also bring up the point of returning a third draft round in this scenario of developmental roster spots.
http://www.ridiculousupside.com/2010/6/25/1536171/nba-draft-2010-is-it-time-to
July 29th, 2010 at 12:36 pm
@ Krista
I think one stumbling block to that system right now is the players. Players in the D-League have no loyalty to the teams who are affiliated to the club they play for. They just want an opportunity to play in the NBA.
If a team owned all the rights to the players who played for their D-League team, there would be a lot of players who wouldn’t bother with the D-League because they wouldn’t have as good a shot as other players on other D-League teams. It’d be a lot easier to make the Warriors from their D-League team than making the Spurs from the Toros. Theoretically, that is. Instead, guys would play overseas where they could make more money and would have the option to signing with any NBA team when they got the chance, instead of just one.
In baseball, there are fewer competing minor leagues, so there are less options for players to sign with other leagues.
July 29th, 2010 at 12:40 pm
@ Andrew
Ultimately, a player’s ability to make a roster is based on his own talent level and not the talent level of the D League competition around him. The Spurs are looking for NBA players, not the best D League players. It’s up to a developmental player to get there independent of his competition.
I might be oversimplifying….
July 29th, 2010 at 12:44 pm
@ BlaseE
Sure, but what I’m saying is, if I’m a power forward for the Austin Toros, the odds of me getting called up to the Spurs are slim to none. There’s that Duncan guy and DeJuan Blair in my way. And if I’m playing in a system where if I’m playing for the Toros, I can’t get called up by any other team in the NBA, then that’s pretty crappy for me.
But in the current system, a guy like Dwayne Jones can play for the Spurs minor league team and get called up late in the season by the Suns. It’s a good deal for him, and it doesn’t end up hurting the Spurs all that much really, other than the fact that the Toros could’ve used Jones in the D-League Finals against Rio Grande Valley.
July 29th, 2010 at 12:46 pm
Great article, Tim.
Was a bit leery about where you were going with it judging from the headline, but you (and the comments following) said everything that needed to be said.
Anyway, one quick point to Rick: the players are provided housing, health and dental insurance while playing in the D-League. That isn’t to say that players don’t need higher salaries, but I just wanted to clarify that the majority of their salary isn’t going to rent.
July 29th, 2010 at 12:49 pm
Yeah, I get it now. I guess the error in my logic is linked with why I was so annoyed the Suns called up Dwayne Jones even though it was really good for him.
July 29th, 2010 at 12:52 pm
@BlaseE
Understandable. I wasn’t sure if my comment was clear enough after I posted it. Oh well, stuff happens when you type fast.
July 29th, 2010 at 12:53 pm
@Scott - Thanks for the correction. I wasn’t sure if those costs were born by the player or the team.
July 29th, 2010 at 1:03 pm
Well-written piece, Tim.
July 29th, 2010 at 1:47 pm
The NBA doesn’t have to reinvent the wheel. Major League Baseball has had a workable minor league system for about seventy years. Appoint a commision to study MLB’s minor league system and lift big portions of it intact. I know it wouldn’t be a 100%, one-to-one transfer; but the skeleton and much of the meat is already in place. David Stern and his hole-in-the-head gang are way behind the curve on this. The NBA hasn’t been able to use Division 1 schools as a minor league for several decades. Good luck and good health to Malik.
July 29th, 2010 at 1:57 pm
tough call on the toros. seems at one point last season we were full of toro talent with mahinmi hairston and temple all occupying roster spots. perhaps its because the nba demands a smaller number of players compared to a sport like football or baseball that all the nba level players are all ready in the NBA. my understanding is that d-league eligibility needs to be extended. according to another spurs blog called proJect spurs, pop was trying to get d league eligibility extended.
maybe since we are a veteran team with a closing championship window that we simply dont have the patience for developing talent. maybe we would have kept ian and malik if they had another year of d-league eligibility. ian could have gotten more toro time last year and would have been our “big” prospect in austin and malik could have done the same.
perimeter defense is stil lacking
July 29th, 2010 at 2:00 pm
In stern’s defense, the existing system was invented under his tenure, if it weren’t for him we still might not have any minor league at all. And before turning his attention to the d-league he was intently focused on expanding the league’s international profile, something which not only has greatly increased the competativeness and talent level of today’s league, but has also greatly benefited small market teams like the spurs who’s fan base has expanded exponentially
Let the stern bashing continue
July 29th, 2010 at 2:06 pm
@ jason
We’re not really bashing Stern here. The D-League is great for the NBA, long term. But that doesn’t mean it can’t be improved.
And one way it can be improved is if rules are put in place that are more beneficial to teams who own their own D-League team, as opposed to the teams who are simply affiliated with one.
The more the league can encourage franchises to own their own D-League team, the better.
July 29th, 2010 at 2:22 pm
Will we still have first dibs on Malik if he comes back to the NBA?
July 29th, 2010 at 2:26 pm
I think that the problem would be that it gives the NBA teams that own a D-League team an unfair advantage if they were to be able to lock up developmental players. I think the NBA tries as hard as it can to keep the league on an even playing ground.
That being said, I would love for the Spurs to be able to lock up a few quality players.
July 29th, 2010 at 2:47 pm
@ Coombsy
Nope.
@ McShane
This doesn’t so much give the teams who own their own D-League team an advantage, so much as it encourages NBA teams to own a D-League franchise. Stern and Co. want a level playing field, but they also want what’s best for the league. So while giving an advantage to NBA teams for owning their own D-League team may make for an uneven D-League for a season or two, it won’t decide the NBA champion, which is all anyone pays attention to anyway.
July 29th, 2010 at 3:51 pm
@andrew
No I didn’t mean to imply that this thread was about bashing stern, and I agree of course that the d-league needs to be improved, I was just joking that I assumed everyone would jump on me for defending the comish as its an american past time to hate the comishoner of your favorite sport. though all things considered, I think stern’s great work in expanding the NBA’s popularity and profitability often goes overlooked.
Hopefully, some of the changes we’ve discussed here will be implimented. I especially like the idea of being able to trade d-leaguers and of nba vets rehabbing in the d-league. I’d watch that hypothetical d-league game manu plays in for sure, and tickets would be dirt cheap!
July 29th, 2010 at 3:53 pm
@andrew
No I didn’t mean to imply that this thread was about bashing stern, and I agree of course that the d-league needs to be improved, I was just joking that I assumed everyone would jump on me for defending the comish as its an american past time to hate the comishoner of your favorite sport. And mainly my comments were directed @gebo, I should have clarifed that.
Though all things considered, I think stern’s great work in expanding the NBA’s popularity and profitability often goes overlooked.
Hopefully, some of the changes we’ve discussed here will be implimented. I especially like the idea of being able to trade d-leaguers and of nba vets rehabbing in the d-league. I’d watch that hypothetical d-league game manu plays in for sure, and tickets would be dirt cheap!
July 29th, 2010 at 3:56 pm
damn mobile posting, you can delete one of these
July 29th, 2010 at 4:15 pm
English wasn’t my major but… doesn’t the title sound grammatically incorrect? “Are” and “a” don’t go too well together in my opinion. Otherwise, a good piece as usual Tim.
July 29th, 2010 at 4:18 pm
I think that the “problem” lies in the fact that the Spurs, in recent years, have been too good for D League callups to make a dent in the rotation. Guys like Hairston, Mahinmi, Williams, etc, who might have gotten some run on a lower-level team, have less to offer a team in win-now mode like the Spurs than a veteran like Antonio McDyess. I expect that the Toros will become a bigger part of San Antonio’s developmental scheme as we enter the post-Duncan era when we are no longer a prime destination for veterans willing to play for the minimum looking for one more shot at a ring.
July 29th, 2010 at 4:19 pm
Hey Tim,
Doesn’t it kind of feel like you are just making excuses for the Spurs? I mean, it kind of feels like a “blame the system” type article.
Maybe the team just screwed up by letting Ian, Malik, et al., get away. Just a thought…
July 29th, 2010 at 4:47 pm
Honestly I’m concerned about one thing: who will fill the role for a backup small forward.
Some say Bobby Simmons is a good idea, I’ve also heard Jarvis Hayes and another guy named Bobby Jones… I’m not sure what we could do.
At any rate, I’m fairly convinced that our abundance of new wings aren’t equipped to take on the responsibility of the 3 mostly due to physical restraints.
If anybody hears anything about a move (which is almost impossible with our FO) I’d be very anxious to hear it. ‘Til then, it’s pins and needles.
July 29th, 2010 at 5:00 pm
@ Ian
English was my major and the title is grammatically correct. “Are” is in reference to the plural noun “Spurs.” However, “a” is in reference to the word “failure,” which is singular.
Good article in general, Tim.
July 29th, 2010 at 5:51 pm
@ThatBigGuy - Thanks for clearing that up. I always have trouble using team names in sentences… but LOL what was I thinking, questioning a sports blogger/journalist (a very adept one at that too) on grammar??
July 29th, 2010 at 7:07 pm
@AP
“Hey Tim,
Doesn’t it kind of feel like you are just making excuses for the Spurs? I mean, it kind of feels like a “blame the system” type article.
Maybe the team just screwed up by letting Ian, Malik, et al., get away. Just a thought…”
Screwed up? It’s hard to really say we let these guys get away. If you don’t recall… Mahinmi was with us for a while but could never get a shot at the pros because of his penchant for fouling and inconsistent play. When he did, he rode the bench and only really played garbage time. Hairston was relatively new who we DID move up to the pros and had a chance to possibly start this year, but chose to go to Italy instead.
The article isn’t “blaming the system” but addressing how the Spurs can potentially keep these guys while being fortunate enough to not need them right away.
July 29th, 2010 at 8:11 pm
Tp, Bonner, Gee & Neal
For
Harris, Outlaw & Morrow?
Try and contain your enthusiasm there, TradeTP.
July 29th, 2010 at 8:52 pm
I like your enthusiasm, very well written article, but I disagree that the Toros are a failure for the Spurs. It’s not the Toros fault that Hairston can’t shoot the ball, or that Mahinmi is incapable of catching the rock.
Either way, maybe the D-League’s focal point shouldn’t be to feed directly to NBA teams. There are only so many open spots in the NBA, and the D-League offers a stage for unharvested talent to be found by non-NBA teams as well.
The D-League simply offers one more opportunity for the NBA to have a hand in the cookie jar that is basketball in America.
July 29th, 2010 at 10:56 pm
Jacob
July 29th, 2010 at 8:11 pm
Can you tell me why New Jersey would do that deal?
July 29th, 2010 at 11:18 pm
The NBA just needs to let the teams sign more than 15 players so they can trade their prospects like in baseball and soccer. I say let high schoolers and college students that like basketball so much to sign with the D-league teams and sort of make it into a NBA second division. It would kinda make college pointless for kids, and the Universities wouldn’t have to have problems like USC.
July 30th, 2010 at 5:42 am
The goal of the D-League is to develop young players to the point they can be called up to an NBA team.
I like the idea of “franchising” 2 players on a D-League team (provided the NBA teams owns the team). It allows you to protect what you deem your most valuable prospects, yet doesn’t totally restrict call-ups on a league-wide basis.
I doubt the players union would allow a team to protect it’s entire D-League squad. It seems that would restrict call-ups throughout the league, which would actually hurt the entire system.
I also agree with John - it takes a special D-League talent to break into the rotation of a top tier NBA team like the Spurs. I look at it like this: It’s not that we failed; it’s that the timing wasn’t right. If we were Golden State with no hope of a playoff berth, and trying to cut salary due to the sale of the franchise, a D-League player(s) might offer a cheap way to put something out on the court.
And like John said, as we move past the TD era, it’s possible D-Leaguers will play a bigger role.
July 30th, 2010 at 8:24 am
@ThatBigGuy - so you think:
Are the students a failure?
is correct because “Are” is in reference to the plural noun “students” while “a” is in reference to the word “failure,” which is singular? Just asking. In my mind it should be:
Are the students failures?
If you want to refer to the students as a group, then you’d say:
Is the class a failure?
I don’t see a way to combine “Are” with “a failure”.
July 30th, 2010 at 11:36 am
@doggydogworld
I think one could almost make the argument that “a failure” has become a sort of idiom in American English. It may not be recognized as such but its very commonly used the way it is in the title. For example would you say to a group of rag-tag basketball players “you’re all messes” or “you’re all a mess.” The same way “a mess” can be used to describe a general state of affairs, “a failure” is also descrbing in the common vernacular some collective discription of a group rather than the idividuals that make up that group.
So in that sense you could say that “the students are a failure” as long as you’re describing all the student body collectively, not saying that each individual student is a failure.
July 30th, 2010 at 12:03 pm
Thank God for speed reading!!! Good reading though.
Go Spurs Go!!
July 30th, 2010 at 12:20 pm
From a purely grammatical perspective:
“Are the students failures?”
This is correct.
“Is the student a failure?”
That is correct.
“Are the students a failure?”
That is incorrect.
The students are a failure.
That is correct.
July 30th, 2010 at 12:59 pm
The Heat, for all intents and purposes, have completed the reconstruction of their team with the following signing:
http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/07/29/1752129/miami-heat-signs-guard-eddie-house.html
Chalmers, House
Wade, Miller
James, Jones
Bosh, Haslem
Anthony, Ilgauskas
Reserve Guard/Wings:
Arroyo, Hasbrouck
Reserve “Bigs”:
Howard, Magloire, S. Randolph, D. Pittman
As you can see, the “hype” has paid off in allowing them to assemble a decent amount of talent around the HUGE three:
Miller - 5 mil. per (way under market value)
Haslem - 4 mil. per (way under market value)
Ilgauskas - 1.4 mil. per (way under market value)
House - 1.4 mil. per (way under market value)
Jones - 1.3 mil. per (way under market value)
They signed FIVE fairly decent rotation players for about 13 million dollars per year. That’s highway robbery.
So they’ve managed to assemble enough talent around the HUGE three. Now comes the hard part: making it all work like a “team”. That’s where heart, leadership, and intangibles come into play. If they don’t get a title in the first two years, things will get a bit “chippy” in Miami. Look for the press to have a field day, look for finger-pointing, look for a scramble to find some new rotation players, and then finally, a realization for the HUGE three will begin to seep through; that looking for a scapegoat can only be found by looking in the mirror.
If the Heat were to quickly succeed, that precedent would have a negative long-term effect on the league, particularly for smaller market teams like the Spurs. As a result, I’m calling for all the playoff-caliber teams around the league to reach down deep to prevent this juggernaut from living up to the hype. We need to reach for the best stones, and the most powerful sling-shots, to take down this emerging Goliath. Do we want the Kingdom of the NBA to be ruled by the new Goliath’s of the world, or do we want the little David’s running around to have an opportunity to succeed in the fast evolving arena of professional basketball? I say to all you David’s: GET READY TO FIGHT!
July 30th, 2010 at 2:19 pm
David had the Most High on his side… it wasn’t even close. Also, David picked up 5 stones that day; one for Goliath and four more, one for each of Goliath’s four brothers! Go Spurs Go!!
July 30th, 2010 at 2:47 pm
“From a purely grammatical perspective:
“Are the students failures?”
This is correct.
“Is the student a failure?”
That is correct.
“Are the students a failure?”
That is incorrect.
The students are a failure.
That is correct.”
I disagree. The third interrogative, “Are the students a failure?”, is correct. One should realize that ‘students’ in this context functions as a collective noun. Proper usage of collective nouns is subject to context and experts may disagree as to their general correct usage.
This concept is easier to grasp when looking at the fourth example, a declarative sentence. The third example is expressed correctly in an interrogative format that parallels the fourth example, i.e. the use of the word ‘students’ as a collective noun.
The first example is correct because ‘students’ in that context functions as a plural noun and not as a collective noun.
http://www.english-the-easy-way.com/Nouns/Collective_Nouns.htm
p.s. i still would not be surprised to see splitter, blair and bonner share some floor time next season, depending on matchups.
July 30th, 2010 at 3:46 pm
@ Doggy and Jim
What you aren’t getting is that “are” is the verb and “Toros” is the noun. “Toros” is plural, which deserves the plural form of the verb “is” which is “are.” The fact that “failure” is in the sentence is a moot point.
Jim, you say “Are the students a failure?” is incorrect and yet your correction is “The students are a failure.” You just used the same form of the verb in both sentences! Merely changing the physical position of the verb by making the sentence a statement rather than a question does not change the form of the verb. “Students” remained plural in both sentences, which requires “are” in both instances.
“Is the class a failure?” is proper because “class” is singular. However, “Are the classes a failure?” is correct when you’re talking about more than one class.
Sports teams are plural, usually. For example, the Spurs are, the Jazz are, and the Heat are. On the other hand, the Stanford Cardinal is because the nickname “Cardinal” is in reference to the color, not the bird or Catholic church position.
Guys, I don’t claim to know much about many things, but I do know English and grammar, having devoted many years to the subject earning an English degree. If I sound like I’m being a douche, I’m sorry, but I know I’m right on this particular subject.
July 30th, 2010 at 4:10 pm
mikrobass3
July 30th, 2010 at 2:47 pm
“I disagree. The third interrogative, “Are the students a failure?”, is correct. One should realize that ‘students’ in this context functions as a collective noun. Proper usage of collective nouns is subject to context and experts may disagree as to their general correct usage.”
You may be correct. I’ll leave it to other English majors to debate you on that.
“p.s. i still would not be surprised to see splitter, blair and bonner share some floor time next season, depending on matchups.”
No way, none of them can be effective either offensively or defensively at the SF spot.
ThatBigGuy
July 30th, 2010 at 3:46 pm
You may very well be right. Certainly using “perfect” grammar is perplexing at times! I reached for my grammar book, but it wasn’t there! Must have gotten misplaced when I moved house. Oh well. As an English major, I’ll go with your explanation.
July 30th, 2010 at 5:32 pm
@ Jim
Grasias, amigo.
I agree with you on the subject of the Heat. I don’t see them sharing the ball selflessly, like our Big 3 did when we won titles. Combined, last year the Heat’s new Big 3 averaged 56.2 shot attempts. NBA teams averaged 81.7 shot attempts per game last year. That leaves only 25.5 shot attempts for the rest of the team. The next 7 guys most likely to be in a 10 man rotation have ’09-’10 shot-attempts-per-game as follows:
Haslem - 8.1
Miller - 8.0
Ilgauskas - 6.8
Chalmers - 6.2
Arroyo - 5.2
Howard - 5.1
Jones - 3.3
Total = 42.7
Rest of team plus Big 3 = 98.9
Realize that the GS Warriors averaged 86.5 attempts a game last season and the NBA average was only 81.7 atts per game last season. If you go with the NBA average, you have a disparity of 17.2 extra shots per game. The big question is whose attempts per game drops? Common sense would indicate that everyone will drop around 2 attempts a game, but I see the role players getting their average and the stars dropping considerably, seeing as all are used to such high usage rates.
If you read “The Jordan Rules,” you’d know that Jordan was trying to win a title, yet he always checked the stat sheet to see who had the most attempts in the first half. If Pippen had more shots, Jordan would come out firing in the second half. Keep in mind that only Jordan was used to being the alpha dog on those Bulls teams. Wade, LeBron, and Bosh are all used to being alpha dogs so far in their careers. I just don’t see them sharing like most “professional” commentators think they will.
I see playoffs for sure for the Heat, but a spectacular flaming exit to the hands of an Orlando team (emphasis on “team”) or a Celtics squad who had been maligned all year for being old, only to prove that a better team (again, emphasis on “team”) wins in a 7 game series.
July 30th, 2010 at 7:37 pm
ThatBigGuy
July 30th, 2010 at 5:32 pm
Yeah, good points. Wade & James will clearly be walking a tight rope with each other. Their usage rates were number one & two in the entire league last year, respectively. That will require a huge adjustment, and they will need a significant amount of mental toughness to navigate the transition successfully, because both players are pretty much hard-wired to be alpha-dogs. I just don’t think they have it in them to make it work at the championship level. Certainly not at first. They’ll win a lot of games, and be pretty fun to watch for the most part, but when it comes to winning it all, even after hogging all the talent, I’m not so convinced. They might be able to figure it out eventually, but the hype will be long gone by year three, and then they’ll have more of an uphill battle in that respect. People will start to doubt them.
That said, on talent alone they can run over some people, so the rest of the league needs to confidently accept the challenge, and just go out and offer some steady and intense resistance. There’s still a handful of teams that can hold them off. And really, I don’t care what the Vegas odds makers say, in my mind the Lakers are still the favorite, no question.
July 30th, 2010 at 8:31 pm
I think the heat will be the most scary if lebron changes his game a bit and does things like crash the boards, post up and generally continually forcing teams to change types of defenders to match up with the style he plays . If he stays more on the perimeter , other teams have a much better time containing him and the heat.
July 30th, 2010 at 8:49 pm
Damn, picked a bad time for grammatical errors - lazy text type style….
July 30th, 2010 at 9:49 pm
The thing is, when Lebron first got to the league, he wasn’t really the “Alpha Dog” type. He consistently made the best basketball plays (passing to Donyell Marshall for the missed corner 3 at the buzzer being the most obvious example). If he can break the habits he has formed since that time in his career, He’s Magic Johnson with Jordan and Kareem (and i know thats a big hyperbole for a Bosh comparison).
July 31st, 2010 at 2:00 pm
When you stated “Are the Austin Toros a failure?” were you referring to the Toros organization, a single entity? Or was the intent to use “Austin Toros” as short for the Spurs’ development league experiment, also singular. I think the latter, as the Toros were very successful, having excelled in their league, but had limited success developing players for the Spurs, so far. I vote that the title is correct as is. I also point out it was not a total failure. It allowed us to examine several players including draft choices. Ian and Malik were close, had they improved enough to make the team we would be singing the praises of the “Toros” (and I use that as short for the Spurs’ development league experiment.)
July 31st, 2010 at 2:22 pm
Gang,
The grammatical discussion is fun; I was treating ‘Austin Toros’ as a collective noun.
FWIW: I debated “a failure” or “failures” before hitting the publishing button. I can see both sides of the argument and should probably consult a proper grammarian. Is Grammar Girl available? I also spent quite a bit of timing considering whether the chicken came before or after the egg. I’m inclined toward the chicken. But I’d like to hear the informed opinion of a theologian and a biologist before issuing any policy statements. Life’s hard choices.
At any rate, I’ve decided to take the easy way out and plead the idiom argument.
Here’s a completely off-subject question: how would you feel about a 48MoH forum/message board? I’ve always leaned against them because, well, there are several Spurs-related boards already, and one of them, SpursTalk, is a venerable institution. Is a another board really necessary? But our post threads often produce great discussions, and many of our commenters are budding essayist-Jim Henderson’s first 1000 words are always merely introductory.
In addition to this, the idea of a 48MoH forum has been suggested from elsewhere, so I’m brooding over the idea. Thoughts?
July 31st, 2010 at 3:20 pm
SpursfanSteve
July 30th, 2010 at 9:49 pm
“If he can break the habits he has formed since that time in his career, He’s Magic Johnson with Jordan and Kareem (and i know thats a big hyperbole for a Bosh comparison).”
Number one, you’re entirely ignoring the “usage” rate of the LeBron, LAST SEASON. He is clearly an alpha-dog. And number two, the comparison of the Heat big three with Magic, MJ, and Jabbar is laughable. It’s not even close.
July 31st, 2010 at 3:58 pm
Timothy Varner
July 31st, 2010 at 2:22 pm
Hey Tim - Nice mixture of humor in your post! As to the forum idea, I don’t think we really need it, but then again, others might be getting “index finger syndrome” from regularly having to speedily scroll past my “War in Peace” posts. Perhaps a forum board could be a way to separate to some extent the shorter from the longer posts.
I guess the word “pithy” just doesn’t seem to enter my brain too often. I think I’m under a 100 words right now though, so I’m going to leave you all reeling from the outright brevity of this post! Bye for now….
July 31st, 2010 at 4:05 pm
By the way, Tim, I do get a short post in now & then!
Jim Henderson
July 29th, 2010 at 1:03 pm
Well-written piece, Tim.
August 1st, 2010 at 5:47 am
Jim, I know. Don’t take my joke too seriously. And thanks for the kind words.
August 1st, 2010 at 10:14 am
No, I don’t at all, Tim. I got a good chuckle. I’m just making a feeble attempt at playing along with the joke.
August 2nd, 2010 at 7:48 am
Time for a new story, please.
Go Spurs Go!!
August 2nd, 2010 at 3:57 pm
@ that big guy
+1
August 3rd, 2010 at 8:01 am
@ Tim
What would be the benefit of a message board over the current design?
I guess you could categorize the topics in the message board setting, but just like the comments under every post here, the comments will often wander of into some other topic.
In other words, it’s not like the comments stay on-topic too often here anyway. Even if you did categorize the comments by topic, wouldn’t you see the same exact thing? And in that case, don’t you end up in the same place?
FWIW, I’d like to keep the current setup. I like having the discussion right in front of me, instead of having to go through numerous threads to find where I last posted. Full disclosure - I’ve never been a fan of the traditional message board. It leaves a lot to be desired in my opinion.
August 3rd, 2010 at 10:11 am
I’d like to keep the current setup as well. This blog is one of the last few bastions I can turn to for reliable and in-depth Spurs coverage that hasn’t been overrun by trolling, negativity and name-calling. I feel if you do switch to something like that Tim, then its gonna turn exactly into what the regualar ESPN message boards are.
If it ain’t broke.. don’t fix it. Just write more articles.
Please and thanks.
August 3rd, 2010 at 10:19 am
Any word on a backup small forward?
August 3rd, 2010 at 12:57 pm
Not much left without a trade. Just Simmons & Hayes, from what I can tell.
August 3rd, 2010 at 4:14 pm
Crickets chirping in the background…
August 3rd, 2010 at 4:29 pm
I don’t think it matters who owns the minor league team. Most AAA baseball teams are not owned by the major league team with which they are affiliated.
I think the NBA doesn’t implement this model quickly because it would encourage more players to enter the draft out of high school, figuring they will get drafted, and either wind up in the D league or the NBA roster.
There would likely have to be at least 3 rounds in the draft in this model.
J2
August 3rd, 2010 at 6:15 pm
I’m ready for some more original posts. We’ve talked ad nauseum about everything else.
Just kidding. But….July 29 IS almost a week in the past.
August 3rd, 2010 at 7:09 pm
What about Anderson ? Is he for real as an impact player this year (George hill comment)? Is he, like Blair before him, that immediate step up in skill level, poise and NBA -ready polish from guys like Neal and Gee and fringe rotation players alike to be in pop’s plans from the get go? Really haven’t seen any of his play so wondering what his strengths are etc…
August 3rd, 2010 at 8:34 pm
If the approximate 2 mil. plus that we have available to sign a free agent (MLE/LLE) isn’t enough to get a guy like Amundson, how about seeing if the Suns would be interested in a sign & trade with Amundson (they have his bird rights) for McDyess. It has become apparent that the Suns are not interested in re-signing Amundson, so why not try to get something for him. From what I can tell, all the Suns have at the 4/5 position is Warrick (undersized), Turkoglu (a SF/PF tweener), Lopez, and the 2nd round pick, Lawal (undersized). They could use some veteran depth, rebounding, a mid-range game, & post defense on their front line, and McDyess’ contract is only partially guaranteed for the following season, leaving the Suns with decent financial flexibility for 2011. Unless they have better options for 4.5 mil. to fill that need, it would be worth a shot. With Splitter on board, McDyess’ game is not needed as much by the Spurs as Amundson’s game is, and Amundson is nine years younger.
August 4th, 2010 at 2:57 am
Timothy Varner
August 1st, 2010 at 5:47 am
“In addition to this, the idea of a 48MoH forum has been suggested from elsewhere, so I’m brooding over the idea. Thoughts?”
I like the idea if it can be kept respectable. I’ve visited some of the other sites you mentioned. Hoping to have thought provoking conversation and an ability to broaden my knowledge in the realm of the Spurs and basketball in general.
But too often many of the original posts in those forums turn in to “insult tennis” with little to do with topic and more to do with individual pride and verbal revenge.
That’s why I find this site so rewarding to visit. There isn’t a million OP’s covering the same conversation.
But if you were to operate this as a message board…I’m sure you would have one of the best in terms of integrity, knowledge and moderation.
August 4th, 2010 at 3:13 am
Jim
“and McDyess’ contract is only partially guaranteed for the following season, leaving the Suns with decent financial flexibility for 2011.”
But that very scenario could be why the Spurs would want to keep McDyess so they could use that financial flexibility.
August 4th, 2010 at 9:56 am
rob
August 4th, 2010 at 3:13 am
“But that very scenario could be why the Spurs would want to keep McDyess so they could use that financial flexibility.”
Use it for what. With Amundson we’re getting the guy we need for our front line, probably for a little less money per year. We’d have three young guys (Amundson, Blair, Splitter) and Bonner in our plans for at least the next 3-4 years. TD’s contract comes up for renewal in 2012, and will be reduced considerably at that time, if he stays, which I hope he does. Our back court would be in decent shape as well (depending on what TP does next year), with Manu & Hill. Of course, we need to develop our young guys in this area (Temple, Anderson, Neal, Gee), and if we’re over the cap, we still have an MLE to use (and an LLE if we don’t end up using it this year).
August 9th, 2010 at 9:07 am
[...] blog Ridiculous Upside joins me and Tim to talk about the Toros and other stuff. We discuss whether it’s worth it for the Spurs to own the Toros, and the coaching and general manager search in [...]
Leave a Reply