^ lol Team Kawhi neutrality, eh? /jk
Pop alluded to as much back in January, but then there's a redress of balance:
Please note that the 'read slower' was directed at a tweet responding to the first one. The point is context.
inDe_eD wrote:I appreciate you being so articulate, it’s a breath of fresh air from the general board. That being said, I still disagree. I’d be willing to side with you about Pop and RC not being concerned about image if they hadn’t said anything, but the fact is, they didn’t stay tight-lipped on this, and instead spoke multiple times about how weird this injury was, and that Kawhi was responding slowly, and whatever else I’m forgetting. This is a front office that has never felt the need to explain themselves to anybody, and yet they did here, why? Is it because Kawhi’s a prima donna? Is it because they suddenly feel the need to air out dirty laundry? I can’t think of a reason for doing this that doesn’t involve protecting the Spurs brand. Speaking about Kawhi doesn’t improve team morale, or help with winning games, this was clearly an image thing. By the way, we were actually projected to win 6 fewer games than we did last year, and that was with the assumption of a healthy Kawhi.
I guess we’re talking about team success in different terms. If you want to say that having a winning record is successful, in a league were 8/30 teams are intentionally losing, then cool, I guess we’ve had a successful season. Success to me, is actually contending. Without Kawhi, we’re on pace to drop from a 7.13 SRS last year to a 2.4 SRS this year, an SRS mark that would be the worst in the last 20 years, when we tanked for Duncan in 97’. The dropoff hasn’t just been bad, it’s been colossal. In fact, it proves that Kawhi is one of, if not the most impactful ceiling raisers in the game. If we had gotten to see it, I think we could have had healthy Kawhi, but the same number of lost games to injuries (distributed to other key players), the same number of different lineups, and the same sucky schedule, and we’d be fighting for the 1st and 2nd seeds. My point is, it’s not that we’ve had a bad year, it’s that we’ve been without Kawhi.
Sure, likewise, thank you. Civility even - or especially - in disagreement is a good guide.
The issue with your conclusion about Pop and R.C. is timing. For four months, nobody on the Spurs said a word even though they knew Kawhi was cleared and were baffled at how unusually this injury was manifesting itself. Then in January, the Woj ESPN report was published stating that Kawhi and his camp were at great odds with Pop and the Spurs medical staff, citing 'sources'. Pop had every right, then, to respond when asked about the report. And even then, he simply quashed the reports of discord rather than revealing any info the Spurs already knew, even then he didn't throw anyone under the bus by defending the unjustly criticized Spurs medical staff when he could have. He instead defended Kawhi's decision to seek a second medical opinion, that the Spurs encouraged it. Kawhi's uncle also refuted the report about there being a schism between the two sides. It turns out from Wright's tweet above, that each side was indeed frustrated with the other in the context of the situation at the time.
Then in February when R.C. was interviewed around AS break, he chose his words carefully (this around the time of another ESPN report that Kawhi had been 'away from the team', rather a dramatic description of a simple fact, and getting a second second medical opinion, with Spurs personnel in tow. Also in this article was the news that Kawhi had been medically cleared 'for a while' and it was his decision to return). R.C. was asked about the progress of Rudy - he'd return when medically cleared, and Kawhi - he'd return when he was ready. That's it. Again, nobody got thrown under the bus. Just statements of fact.
After the rodeo road trip, and the AS break when there was some anticipation of Kawhi's return based on his last public interview in January, there was still no sign of him, so when asked about Kawhi's progress, Pop said he'd be surprised if Kawhi returned. Seasoned Spurs reporters in the know such as Jeff McDonald tweeted that Pop always chose his words carefully, and this was a deliberate statement not only to the players but to Kawhi. Should the team have no measure or expectation of progress? Sure enough, Jabari Young tweeted that Kawhi was looking to return in March.
So there's no 'clearly' that this was just an image thing. This was a truth thing, and there's value in calling a thing for what it is. If anything, Pop and R.C. showed restraint in timing and revelation, but make no mistake, they have a right to say what they did, to defend the integrity of team and its medical staff, and protect, frankly, Kawhi in the process even if the message of expectations was put out.
As to team success, sure, the Spurs standards have been high for two decades, and yes, the strength of schedule early versus late is catching up with us, but you can't ignore the context of injuries because there have been so many to so many players which has affected how others have had to step up. Had we been healthy and still played like we do now, I'd agree with you about the strength of the team. But it's a fallacy to argue a hypothetical - that we'd be going for first or second simply with Kawhi playing, all other factors like injuries being equal - as a legitimate conclusion.
inDe_eD wrote:The thing that's so unreasonable about this entire Kawhi situation, and let me be clear that I'm not accusing you individually Grey, is that we have almost slave-level expectations of these guys, and the general fan response is always to identify with the team. Almost every fan will use terms like "My Spurs", "My team", and pronouns like "us", "we", "our", and then demand that a guy be loyal, or re-sign with us because we drafted him, or whatever else. It's really weird to me that the first instinct isn't to put ourselves in the guy's shoes. From everything I've read on Tendinopathy, it hurts like hell. You can be cleared for any physical activity, but that doesn't mean that it won't be painful. If I'm Kawhi and everyone on the Spurs is telling me it's fine, it's just going to hurt for a while, my eyebrows shoot up and off my head. No doubt Kawhi knows what happened to Isaiah Thomas last year (played through injury). Where was the loyalty there? Because IT cannibalized himself for his team (losing his sister and his tooth, and then experiencing serious hip pain), he lost out on probably $100-$150 million dollars. Any one criticizing Kawhi for being as careful as possible about this lacks empathy imo. 99.99999% of the population in his situation, would do the same thing.
It's an interesting point about word choice and connection to the team, and its effects on expectations of players, and I agree so long as it's not equated wholesale with blind fandom. I like expressing feelings of affinity for the Spurs, it's genuinely how I feel, cheesy though it may be, but I don't take your point about it personally, thanks. You're right in that word choices can frame a position. To that end, I think using words like 'slave-level expectations' or 'demand that a guy be loyal' slants the argument about Kawhi here. It's not a case of overbearing expectations on the player because of identifying with the team, but a case of looking at how long his return is taking and at some point asking why, because his situation, by several medical accounts, is an outlier. Not only had he been cleared before pre-season, but subsequent outside medical opinions in January and February did not deviate from clearance. So the team's expectations and frustrations are not based just on the Spurs medical staff giving their diagnosis, but on that of at least two others. Dr. Garrett's insights on the ESPN-SA radio interview further highlights how unusual Kawhi's return is.
Using personal injury experience or that of IT's situation is also not a meaningful comparison. IT is wholly different in temperament, type of injury, and team situation. Kawhi and the Spurs had already agreed on a max contract. Each knows what they have in the other (although this situation has likely given some other insights). IT may indeed lose out on a max contract, but there are factors beyond his return from injury, a return, by the way, that was cleared far sooner than Kawhi's (another way their situations vary). If people think the Spurs are the type of team to chew Kawhi up and spit him out then they haven't looked at the team's history with player injuries and loyalty to those players. Tony Parker, who had the same injury, had surgery, is ten years older, and has returned, is a better comparison. Is there another example of a NBA player taking this long to return from this injury? Yes, every player is different, but if we talk about the effects of this injury, let's consider what medical staff are concluding; if we talk about player or injury comparisons, let's consider players with the same one instead.
Also, presenting either/or scenarios skews the discussion. It's not either he returns when he is ready or he risks a career or contract-threatening injury. The worst case scenario does not mean the likeliest one. Just because a team thinks a player in these circumstances ought to give it a go, doesn't mean they're being too demanding. So it's not a lack of empathy, but an inquiry about an outlier of a situation. The longer it has gone on, the stranger is has become, even if after some frustrating back and forth it seems like Kawhi's long-awaited return is close. I just don't think it is outside the realm of plausibility for the Spurs to have expectations and frustrations towards their best player given the weirdly prolonged pain and return. The Spurs, staff and teammates, have dealt with Kawhi's absence with support and discretion and class; he's got a lot to prove upon his return.
It was good to hear him speak, but better to read about his efforts:
