NBA 2016-2017 Season Thread

[Mark from Plano]

Originally Posted by thinman

Steve, I'm really surprised to see this from you. Does he have any real trade value at this point in his career? Don't the Spurs owe it to him to treat him with some respect after all he's done for the franchise? He's been one of the classiest, best players, and the face of the franchise for a long time.

Yes. Duncan should be a Spur for life. The way I've seen most franchises handle this is to play him until they think they no longer can and then at the end of his contract try to "counsel him out." It then becomes up to the player to decide whether they think they can play for someone else another year or two.

I can't see the Spurs trading Duncan unless it was a situation like Malone where he went to the Lakers to win a title (Duncan already has plenty of titles). And even in that case I don't remember whether he was traded or was a free agent. Either way, Duncan is the Spurs and the Spurs are Duncan. There can be no trading him.

 

[foodguy]

Originally Posted by Mark from Plano

I can't see the Spurs trading Duncan unless it was a situation like Malone where he went to the Lakers to win a title (Duncan already has plenty of titles).
i agree with most of what you said Mark, but define "plenty". it's kind of like millionaires having "plenty" of money.

 

[Steve B.]

Originally Posted by thinman

Steve, I'm really surprised to see this from you. Does he have any real trade value at this point in his career? Don't the Spurs owe it to him to treat him with some respect after all he's done for the franchise? He's been one of the classiest, best players, and the face of the franchise for a long time.

True

Originally Posted by foodguy

+1
and that's one of those deals that if they had traded him, there probably would have been an armed revolt (perhaps led by you?), asking how they could do this to such a great guy who has been the heart of such a successful franchise.

I think Manu would raise a bigger hue and cry.

Originally Posted by whacked

That's class.

Sorry Steve, I couldnt help it. Plus, there's about as much chance of this happening as LBJ gets elected as the new mayor of Cleveland.

true

Originally Posted by HRoi

Duncan for Kobe

lol

Originally Posted by Mark from Plano

Yes. Duncan should be a Spur for life. The way I've seen most franchises handle this is to play him until they think they no longer can and then at the end of his contract try to "counsel him out." It then becomes up to the player to decide whether they think they can play for someone else another year or two.

I can't see the Spurs trading Duncan unless it was a situation like Malone where he went to the Lakers to win a title (Duncan already has plenty of titles). And even in that case I don't remember whether he was traded or was a free agent. Either way, Duncan is the Spurs and the Spurs are Duncan. There can be no trading him.

Montana got traded. Willy Mays got traded.

Duncan should retire then. Maybe I could have said it with more class, but Duncan looked old and tired most of this year.

 

[RFX45]

Lakers gives the Spurs Walton for Duncan. Do it Mitch!!!!

 

[Mark from Plano]

Originally Posted by foodguy

i agree with most of what you said Mark, but define "plenty". it's kind of like millionaires having "plenty" of money.

Ha. True. What I had in mind was:

Malone = 0 Titles

Duncan = More than 0 titles

From Malone's standpoint, Duncan has plenty of titles.

:shrug:

 

[skitlets]

Here comes the lockout.

 

[Cordwinder]

Pacers agree to deal with Vogel

Vogel, 38, is the league’s youngest head coach. The Pacers plan to hire former Los Angeles Lakers assistant Brian Shaw to be the lead assistant on Vogel’s staff.

If Shaw does decide to work with Vogel, would that close the door to him returning to Lakers to be head coach after Brown?

 

[thinman]

Originally Posted by Cordwinder

Pacers agree to deal with Vogel



If Shaw does decide to work with Vogel, would that close the door to him returning to Lakers to be head coach after Brown?

Who?

 

[Mute]

Duncan should definitely retire with the Spurs. They owe him that much. They shouldn't do a 49ers.

 

[chronoaug]

Disagree about a team owing the player to hurt the franchise by eating up all the cap room and screwing the franchise out of a chance to rebuild. It's really tough and pretty much impossible to just "reload" unless you have 1-2 core stars sticking around (what the spurs did in the early 00s, the lakers in late 00s, mavericks all of the 00s). In the NBA now, you pretty much need to bottom out and start over. You can't do what the pistons, pacers, hawks, jazz, sixers, rockets, bobcats, and to a lesser/recent extent the blazers (though injuries not really their fault) did by staying competitive for the 10th-6th playoff spots with maybe a 2nd round playoff visit or something but never getting good lottery picks and not really having the cap room to make any big moves. You'll never be bottom of the barrel but you'll never have a real chance to win anything.

Gotta pretty much bottom out, collect draft picks and young assets. Hope 1-2 of those young guys are good and can lead your team in the future, then 2-3 of the other guys are valuable to other teams and get some other players/picks for them or wait until a star is on the trade market like a melo, bosh, dwight, gasol, or something like that and then trade picks and a young player to that team looking to rebuild. Or wait until you get the top2-3 pick in the draft and get a franchise changing player like Durant, Rose, Lebron, Dwight

Keeping duncan, parker, ginobli around to grow old together is nice in a way but i don't think spurs fans will be that happy about it 2013 when they have no young talent, no good draft picks, no good vets, and no real assets. Will set the franchise back a few extra seasons for sure.


By the same token you could say that Duncan owes it to the franchise and fans to take a pay cut, or allow himself to be traded to better the franchise's future. Obviously athletes don't do that and i wouldn't expect them to, just like i don't expect a franchise to hurt the team's future for a personal favor.



If kobe can't really get it done the next 2seasons and it's obvious he's just not up to the challenge of winning a title in that #1 star role, i would hope the lakers would try to move him. Best thing for the team to get assets/picks and the star (kobe/duncan) to get a chance to move on to the next stage of their career.

 

[chronoaug]

also. lockout

 

[thinman]

Originally Posted by chronoaug

Disagree about a team owing the player to hurt the franchise by eating up all the cap room and screwing the franchise out of a chance to rebuild. ...

Keeping duncan, parker, ginobli around to grow old together is nice in a way but i don't think spurs fans will be that happy about it 2013 when they have no young talent, no good draft picks, no good vets, and no real assets. Will set the franchise back a few extra seasons for sure.


By the same token you could say that Duncan owes it to the franchise and fans to take a pay cut, or allow himself to be traded to better the franchise's future. Obviously athletes don't do that and i wouldn't expect them to, just like i don't expect a franchise to hurt the team's future for a personal favor.



If kobe can't really get it done the next 2seasons and it's obvious he's just not up to the challenge of winning a title in that #1 star role, i would hope the lakers would try to move him. Best thing for the team to get assets/picks and the star (kobe/duncan) to get a chance to move on to the next stage of their career.

When it gets to the point that Duncan is too old to contribute (and he may be there already), I really believe that all the Spurs would need to do is have a meeting with Duncan and ask if he would prefer to retire a Spur or be traded and he would retire. He has nothing left to prove and he's smart enough not to hurt his legacy by playing beyond his expiration date.

I think Parker is still one of the league's best point guards, but Ginobili has been hurt too much in recent years to be very productive. I think they're both tradeable, though, as is Kobe if he can't shake his knee problems. The Parker/Barry incident didn't help Tony's standing with the team, either.

 

[Gibonius]

Originally Posted by thinman

When it gets to the point that Duncan is too old to contribute (and he may be there already), I really believe that all the Spurs would need to do is have a meeting with Duncan and ask if he would prefer to retire a Spur or be traded and he would retire. He has nothing left to prove and he's smart enough not to hurt his legacy by playing beyond his expiration date.
Shaq jumped teams a lot at the end of his career, but one thing I have to admire about him is that he didn't let his diminishing capacity taint his reputation by demanding to be a central player near the end (*cough*Iverson*cough*). He was willing to play 10-15 minutes a game, rebound, block shots, and not be the pivot of the offense. If Duncan was willing to accept a small contract and smaller role on the Spurs, he could stay there and continue to contribute without hurting his legacy. Getting traded and forced into such a reduced role might look bad though. Maybe he'd rather just retire, who knows how much he aches when he wakes up these days.

I think Parker is still one of the league's best point guards, but Ginobili has been hurt too much in recent years to be very productive. I think they're both tradeable, though, as is Kobe if he can't shake his knee problems.

Constant international play will do that to you. Those guys have really racked up a lot of extra minutes playing in the off-season, along with not getting chances to fully heal and workout intensely to get into better shape. I'm wondering if teams will start trying to enforce off-season game limitations on players.

 

[thinman]

Originally Posted by Gibonius

...




Constant international play will do that to you. Those guys have really racked up a lot of extra minutes playing in the off-season, along with not getting chances to fully heal and workout intensely to get into better shape. I'm wondering if teams will start trying to enforce off-season game limitations on players.

I'm surprised the standard NBA contract doesn't include a clause prohibiting international play without explicit permission. From a purely business perspective, these players (and their associated playing time) are valuable corporate assets, more valuable to the team IMO than any publicity gained from international exposure.

Now, the NBA itself may prohibit such a clause, since I have to believe that the NBA's long-term marketing plan must include international expansion and having players play in venues such as the Olympics only speeds the day when the international market is ready for the NBA.

 

[Gibonius]

Originally Posted by thinman

Now, the NBA itself may prohibit such a clause, since I have to believe that the NBA's long-term marketing plan must include international expansion and having players play in venues such as the Olympics only speeds the day when the international market is ready for the NBA.
The NBA obviously benefits to a certain amount from pulling in international stars and audiences. God only knows how many new eyeballs and jersey sales the Dream Teams generated overseas, and I believe China may now buy more jerseys than the US. But for individual teams concerned about winning...it's hard to justify your stars risking injury and having guaranteed wear and tear to play for any national team, whether US or Argentina (etc). I seem to remember clauses in NFL contracts that allowed them to be fined if they got hurt playing other sports, playing in non-NFL games etc etc. Can't say that I've ever heard of such a thing in the NBA, and I have no idea if it'd be ok under the CBA or not. Maybe it'll show up in the new CBA once the lockout ends, guess we'll see.