How Come Buford and Gregg Popovich Get a Pass for Blowing the Kawhi Leonard Trade?

[Midw35t]

Popovich stuck to his morals. It was the correct decision. More men should learn to do the same.

[Prokorov]

Why do they get a pass? probably the 5 rings they won and being contentder relative for 2 decades

5 rings because they tanked for Duncan. ZERO rings without Duncan.

Kawhi trade aside, there are questionable roster moves from that front office in the last 5-10 years:

Past-prime FA acquisitions: LMA, Rudy Gay, Pau Gasol, DeMarre Carroll.

Drafting PGs who can't shoot 3's: White, Murray,

3 point shooters with no-defense: Forbes, Bertans

Trading for Kawhi on draft night was pretty much the last great move Buford and Pop made, and that was almost a decade ago now. It's pretty clear that Spurs front office has been waaay behind the pace & space and two-way 3&D player trends.

Buford and Pop deserve some flack for their poor roster management, post-Kawhi draft. There's no rhyme and reason to it, other than it feels like they are stuck in the early 2000's. Perhaps this is more on Buford, because a lesser coach than Pop would have been in the lottery for years.

alot of teams tank. few win 1 ring, let alone 5 rings.

duncan did the heavy lifting for the first few. they found a top 3-5 player in kawhi later in the draft and developed him into a stud. Its not like duncan was the #1 guy for 20 years either. he had to deal with the kobe/shaq lakers and lebrons heat.

[SF_Warriors]

Why on earth would the Spurs and Pop hand the Lakers (one of their most heated rivals) a dynasty on a silver platter? Ingram averaged 1 point more than Deronzan last season with 10% less FG percentage. Pelicans even with that package weren’t winning enough games or making any kind of noise until Zion stepped on the court. Pop dealing with Toronto giving Canada their first basketball championship and blocking the Lakers from getting an unprecedented trio (Lebron, Khawi, and AD) was much better for the rest of the sport and the league.

When has Ingram averaged 10% less FG% than Derozan? I think you are waaaaay misinterpreting their stats

[Baski]

When you win the 3rd most title in the last 20 years you get quite a bit of pass. especially when you also never have a truly bad season in between. Yeah they got Duncan, who's like a top 10 all time player, but he also existed in a period with several similar level or better all timers and still managed that while being a small market team, that give you a lot of credit.

Phil Jackson's success all came with awesome players, and once he gets handed a team with only a top 50 all time player and not like.. a top 10 or top 1 all time player, he turns into a pumpkin,

2nd actually, just to add to your point. And if this thread was started 3 months ago, it wouldn't even be a discussion who the most successful organization of the last 20 years is.

[Baski]

Why do they get a pass? probably the 5 rings they won and being contentder relative for 2 decades

5 rings because they tanked for Duncan. ZERO rings without Duncan.

Kawhi trade aside, there are questionable roster moves from that front office in the last 5-10 years:

Past-prime FA acquisitions: LMA, Rudy Gay, Pau Gasol, DeMarre Carroll.

Drafting PGs who can't shoot 3's: White, Murray,

3 point shooters with no-defense: Forbes, Bertans

Trading for Kawhi on draft night was pretty much the last great move Buford and Pop made, and that was almost a decade ago now. It's pretty clear that Spurs front office has been waaay behind the pace & space and two-way 3&D player trends.

Buford and Pop deserve some flack for their poor roster management, post-Kawhi draft. There's no rhyme and reason to it, other than it feels like they are stuck in the early 2000's. Perhaps this is more on Buford, because a lesser coach than Pop would have been in the lottery for years.

Yeah but how does that take away from the fact that they have 5 rings as he said? Are the Spurs the only team to have a top 10 All Time player throughout that period?

[theonlyclutch]

Popovich stuck to his morals. It was the correct decision. More men should learn to do the same.

Masai sent away loyal and well-liked Derozan and got a championship out of it. It was the correct decision and TOR fans would prefer this over the alternative 100/100 times.

Ainge sent away likable (but injured) IT4 and got two years of Kyrie out of it. It was the correct decision and BOS fans would prefer this over the alternative 100/100 times.

GSW recruited KD to form a super team and got two rings out of it. It was the correct decision and GSW fans would prefer this over the alternative 100/100 times.

Morals don't win games in the NBA.

[Midw35t]

Popovich stuck to his morals. It was the correct decision. More men should learn to do the same.

Masai sent away loyal and well-liked Derozan and got a championship out of it. It was the correct decision and TOR fans would prefer this over the alternative 100/100 times.

Ainge sent away likable (but injured) IT4 and got two years of Kyrie out of it. It was the correct decision and BOS fans would prefer this over the alternative 100/100 times.

GSW recruited KD to form a super team and got two rings out of it. It was the correct decision and GSW fans would prefer this over the alternative 100/100 times.

Morals don't win games in the NBA.

You're disregarding reality. Pop's morality lies with refusing to make a western conference team stronger, especially the lakers. I never stated a disagreement with any other team's moves. Just agreed with what Popovich did.

[cccmonteiro]

They shouldn't really. I can understand the SAS's front office logic but I always thought it was an awful business decision.

[G R E Y]

Why do they get a pass? probably the 5 rings they won and being contentder relative for 2 decades

5 rings because they tanked for Duncan. ZERO rings without Duncan.

Kawhi trade aside, there are questionable roster moves from that front office in the last 5-10 years:

Past-prime FA acquisitions: LMA, Rudy Gay, Pau Gasol, DeMarre Carroll.

Drafting PGs who can't shoot 3's: White, Murray,

3 point shooters with no-defense: Forbes, Bertans

Trading for Kawhi on draft night was pretty much the last great move Buford and Pop made, and that was almost a decade ago now. It's pretty clear that Spurs front office has been waaay behind the pace & space and two-way 3&D player trends.

Buford and Pop deserve some flack for their poor roster management, post-Kawhi draft. There's no rhyme and reason to it, other than it feels like they are stuck in the early 2000's. Perhaps this is more on Buford, because a lesser coach than Pop would have been in the lottery for years.

This is such a skewed POV about both team success and player acquisitions that it reads like wanting the Spurs to look bad. I've read other posts where you wrote that the Duncan WAS the system, and after he left the game it all fell apart.
Well let's take a look.

The ABA Chaparrals/Spurs had two of nine seasons under .500. The ABA Spurs - all three seasons above .500. The NBA Spurs have had five under .500 seasons in 44 years. That's a combined .599 winning percentage and a combined 47 playoff appearances, 39 in the NBA.

Pop era as a coach begins where Bob Hill's ends, a 3-15 start and a 17-47 the rest of the way in which David missed all but six games and Sean Elliott played 39. Spurs had the third worst record (followed by Cs and Vancouver), meaning they could have dropped to at worst sixth, I think. The Duncan sweepstakes fall to our lap. Now, what was done with it? Five championships in 23 years. Compare that to other teams with generational stars, and it stands up very well. The point being that a generational talent is great to have, but his years can also be wasted if the team doesn't set itself up right.

To that end, Pop will be and has been the first to say he'd be coaching the beer league somewhere had it not been for Timmy. But both David and Timmy after him credit Pop for instilling and entirely different culture when he came on board. When TD arrived, there was already a system in place, one of accountability being a foundation. That's not to take anything away from TD - his deameanour and character and putting himself first in terms of accountability made instilling it throughout the rest of the team a lot easier. No question.

But it's false to suggest there was no success without him unless the only standard is championship or bust. So does that mean all other TO seasons are irrelevant because they only won with #2? See? Of course pushing aside and invalidating all the seasons of improvement and competitiveness doesn't make sense. After winning in 2014, the following season the Spurs had a disappointing first round exit. Then bounced back to reach the conference finals in TD's final season, and then reach the same level in the playoffs after posting a 61-21 record in our first season without him.

Then it was two years of absolute disarray from the #2 fiasco in the 2017-18 season, one in which we had over 200 games lost due to player injury and used our projected starting line-up only once. The 2018-19 season saw more of the same with nearly 200 games lost due to player injuries. In each of those two seasons, we also saw Manu and Tony leave the game. In each of those years we fought our way to the playoffs, tying the consecutive NBA streak for it. This has been a lot to deal with over the last four seasons. A lot. That we stayed buoyed as well as we could and did is a huge testament to the culture and system in place, exemplified by Timmy, but ready for him and sustaining others after him.

As to our FA acquisitions: the 2015-16 season we got LMA was the first in I don't know how long that we actually had significant cap space. I think LMA was a huge get. He was 29 and coming off his best ever season in Portland with 23/10 and was to be a transition piece from TD. With us he's become more efficient, a better defender, and a 3-point shooter. He really carried the team in that 2017-18 debacle with his steady play on court and steady presence in the locker room. I will forever be grateful to him for how he handled himself and how it helped the team that season.

Pau. I still think he ought to have signed with us when he chose Chicago instead but whatever. We signed him at 36 for $15M/yr with cap space. A lot, right? He was third in scoring for us and and provided 12/8. The following season he provided 10/8 and then got injured after that and we moved on. Incredibly smart player, and as you saw with Marc, these stay and can help a team after athleticism goes. It's interesting to compare the two seasons each brother for SAS and TO respectively and for the salaries paid.

Rudy. Coming off a big injury, we signed him using MLE for around $8M I think, then we re-signed him for $16M/2 and he's been serviceable in the three seasons for us, this past year taking a disappointing dip in efficiency before having a resurgence in the bubble. Switched to PF, great vet. Coming off the books after this season.

Carroll. Agree completely. I've never seen a player that one fan base said was at least serviceable for them and they were sad to see him go but understood and wished him well to looking like he just started playing basketball a month before. Like out of place on plays, not passing when he had the ball, taking errant shots, to the point where I thought me might be doing it on purpose until he went to the Rockets where all he had to do was run out to the wings and wait for a pass to take a 3 and he still got tons of DNPs.

The players you list with 3 point shooting and no D is perhaps the most disingenuous: Bryn was an undrafted player who made his way to a NBA career because of his shooting. Had he had anything else he's likely have been drafted, right? And we moved on from him now. Davis just got himself a fat contract for the one thing he does well. He came over in the #2 deal and was a #42 pick. Good value for what he does really well, but again, because his D hadn't improved we moved on - not how we'd have liked, but he has been handsomely rewarded for his specialty.

Derrick White shot 39% from 3 at 8 attempts as a starter in the bubble; Keldon Johnson shot 40% from 3 in the bubble. Bryn had a poor off year at 38.8% after hitting it 42.6% the year prior; Trey - 38.7%; LMA - 38.9%; Patty - 38.2%; Lonnie 40%. I'm probably missing one or two players, but the point is that but for DD and Jakob, there's a lot of 3 shooting from across 1-5 positions. And funny enough, without LMA, Trey, and Bryn, we shot better in the bubble from 3! Plus we just drafted two guys who can hit it.

The stuck in the early 2000s and way behind pace and space as well as poor roster construction post-#2 ignores the fact that the Spurs ARE changing over, just at their own pace. And it's not like we weren't succeeding with the rosters in the two seasons when #2 was more of the focal point. Transitions take time, and Spurs have chosen the compete while developing route throughout.

Look at our roster now and with or without the four vets (all of whose contracts are up after this season) we have versatile, switchable, two-way, 3-point shooting players 1 though 4, with LMA being the only C who shoots them now, but even with Jakob in the middle we were more than capable of scoring and spacing well and increasing our pace. Plus we have tons of cap space coming up. How we use it, we'll see, but anyone who's playing attention can see that in three seasons we have a far younger, more versatile, better developed roster. Success can't simply be measured by championships but development and culture and sustainability, and it doesn't do to cherry pick points to fit a position. There are broader contexts, and given those, and how we've turned our roster around, most other teams would be thrilled with the longevity of success and development throughout and now most recent turnaround. Let's give it a minute to gel together and see how we continue to transition.

[AlexanderRight]

Gotta say. The arrogance of some Laker fans is laughable but not surprising. So unwilling to label any franchise but themselves as successful. Since 95, the Spurs and Lakers are 4-4 in playoff match ups. Duncan and Rob won a championship before Shaq and Kobe ever did and ended the their three peat Dynasty. Since 99 SA won 1 less ring with than LA with 2 less all time greats but still making more conference finals than LA. SA has a better winning percentage than LA in their history and missed the playoffs once in the past 22 years while LA has missed them 8 times since then. SA were contenders in the league during 5 out of LA’s last 6 championship years. LA weren’t even in the playoffs during SA’s last 3 championship runs. SA started LA’s six year playoff drought by sweeping them in the first round while SA were on the fast track to back to back Finals appearances. Now if Laker fans want to beat their meat over the rings they hoarded with Boston half a century ago with a stacked roster in a 10 Team league when half of today’s franchises didn’t even exist, by all means go ahead. But to pretend that in the last two decades SA has just been this fly on the wall for LA and that the Lakers have been in this rare air field of success with no other team even close to sniffing their mojo is just self delusion at its finest.

[Jabroni Lames]

Why do they get a pass? probably the 5 rings they won and being contentder relative for 2 decades

5 rings because they tanked for Duncan. ZERO rings without Duncan.

Kawhi trade aside, there are questionable roster moves from that front office in the last 5-10 years:

Past-prime FA acquisitions: LMA, Rudy Gay, Pau Gasol, DeMarre Carroll.

Drafting PGs who can't shoot 3's: White, Murray,

3 point shooters with no-defense: Forbes, Bertans

Trading for Kawhi on draft night was pretty much the last great move Buford and Pop made, and that was almost a decade ago now. It's pretty clear that Spurs front office has been waaay behind the pace & space and two-way 3&D player trends.

Buford and Pop deserve some flack for their poor roster management, post-Kawhi draft. There's no rhyme and reason to it, other than it feels like they are stuck in the early 2000's. Perhaps this is more on Buford, because a lesser coach than Pop would have been in the lottery for years.

Yeah but how does that take away from the fact that they have 5 rings as he said? Are the Spurs the only team to have a top 10 All Time player throughout that period?

Doesn't take away from the 5 rings. It just adds to the degree to which Tim Duncan is massively under-appreciated.

Tim Duncan WAS the Spurs Way. Popovich (the Coach) was also really good. Everybody else was just holding their beer. Post-Duncan... the Spurs front office (i.e. Buford and whatever input Pop has into personnel acquisition) has been exposed.

[G R E Y]

5 rings because they tanked for Duncan. ZERO rings without Duncan.

Kawhi trade aside, there are questionable roster moves from that front office in the last 5-10 years:

Past-prime FA acquisitions: LMA, Rudy Gay, Pau Gasol, DeMarre Carroll.

Drafting PGs who can't shoot 3's: White, Murray,

3 point shooters with no-defense: Forbes, Bertans

Trading for Kawhi on draft night was pretty much the last great move Buford and Pop made, and that was almost a decade ago now. It's pretty clear that Spurs front office has been waaay behind the pace & space and two-way 3&D player trends.

Buford and Pop deserve some flack for their poor roster management, post-Kawhi draft. There's no rhyme and reason to it, other than it feels like they are stuck in the early 2000's. Perhaps this is more on Buford, because a lesser coach than Pop would have been in the lottery for years.

Yeah but how does that take away from the fact that they have 5 rings as he said? Are the Spurs the only team to have a top 10 All Time player throughout that period?

Doesn't take away from the 5 rings. It just adds to the degree to which Tim Duncan is massively under-appreciated.

Tim Duncan WAS the Spurs Way. Popovich (the Coach) was also really good. Everybody else was just holding their beer. Post-Duncan... the Spurs front office (i.e. Buford and whatever input Pop has into personnel acquisition) has been exposed.

Underappreciated by who?

And the italicized is false. You know who disagrees with you? David Robinson AND Tim Duncan, both of whom attribute a system of accountability already in place. There's no question Tim embodied it and when the best player does usually everyone else falls in line.

But as I've taken the time to lay out in a previous post above, your last line is patently false. You only used points to support that position ignoring all else that refutes it. Like we don't have a much younger, versatile team full of two-way 3&D players, like that happened by chance and not conscious careful construction looking at long-term sustainability and transitioning to it. All with some huge cap space. Need to look beyond the points made to fit your conclusion.

[dhsilv2]

5 rings because they tanked for Duncan. ZERO rings without Duncan.

Kawhi trade aside, there are questionable roster moves from that front office in the last 5-10 years:

Past-prime FA acquisitions: LMA, Rudy Gay, Pau Gasol, DeMarre Carroll.

Drafting PGs who can't shoot 3's: White, Murray,

3 point shooters with no-defense: Forbes, Bertans

Trading for Kawhi on draft night was pretty much the last great move Buford and Pop made, and that was almost a decade ago now. It's pretty clear that Spurs front office has been waaay behind the pace & space and two-way 3&D player trends.

Buford and Pop deserve some flack for their poor roster management, post-Kawhi draft. There's no rhyme and reason to it, other than it feels like they are stuck in the early 2000's. Perhaps this is more on Buford, because a lesser coach than Pop would have been in the lottery for years.

Yeah but how does that take away from the fact that they have 5 rings as he said? Are the Spurs the only team to have a top 10 All Time player throughout that period?

Doesn't take away from the 5 rings. It just adds to the degree to which Tim Duncan is massively under-appreciated.

Tim Duncan WAS the Spurs Way. Popovich (the Coach) was also really good. Everybody else was just holding their beer. Post-Duncan... the Spurs front office (i.e. Buford and whatever input Pop has into personnel acquisition) has been exposed.

Why did you say Poovich (the Coach)? He's more than the coach and always has been. He's the president of basketball operations. He's both the coach and a key member of the back office.

[Baski]

5 rings because they tanked for Duncan. ZERO rings without Duncan.

Kawhi trade aside, there are questionable roster moves from that front office in the last 5-10 years:

Past-prime FA acquisitions: LMA, Rudy Gay, Pau Gasol, DeMarre Carroll.

Drafting PGs who can't shoot 3's: White, Murray,

3 point shooters with no-defense: Forbes, Bertans

Trading for Kawhi on draft night was pretty much the last great move Buford and Pop made, and that was almost a decade ago now. It's pretty clear that Spurs front office has been waaay behind the pace & space and two-way 3&D player trends.

Buford and Pop deserve some flack for their poor roster management, post-Kawhi draft. There's no rhyme and reason to it, other than it feels like they are stuck in the early 2000's. Perhaps this is more on Buford, because a lesser coach than Pop would have been in the lottery for years.

Yeah but how does that take away from the fact that they have 5 rings as he said? Are the Spurs the only team to have a top 10 All Time player throughout that period?

Doesn't take away from the 5 rings. It just adds to the degree to which Tim Duncan is massively under-appreciated.

Tim Duncan WAS the Spurs Way. Popovich (the Coach) was also really good. Everybody else was just holding their beer. Post-Duncan... the Spurs front office (i.e. Buford and whatever input Pop has into personnel acquisition) has been exposed.

I feel that both are true in that Tim Duncan was by far the biggest reason for the Spurs success and that the Spurs' model is by far the best in the league (among small market teams at least). When you bring Duncan up in response to a declaration of the Spurs' team success, you unnecessarily undermine the point. Especially in a league where Superstars are what win you championships. You could say the same thing about any team that won a title ever , "zero titles without player x", so my question is what's the relevance here?
There isn't a team that has as a good a track record of drafting gems with low picks and squeezing the most talent out of vets and unwanted players. I mean, the Spurs gave kneeless Dejuan Blair a serviceable NBA career, and had Manu and Duncan playing well into their late 30s and even 40 for Manu. This stuff makes the difference between staying competitive and fading into 4-8th seed status.
The Spurs won 5 titles on the back of just Duncan and the back end of Robinson as notable ATGs, in the same time period that the Lakers did the same on the backs of Shaq, Kobe, LeBron, Davis, Gasol (his prime should at least warrant comparsion to the back end of DRob) while developing only Kobe. Every other team has won less while relying on more HOFs than the Spurs have.

[rasta_marley]

I salute pop for saying hell no to the lakers!!! Pop has integrity something that is lacked by alot if people these days.
For instance if blazers were looking to trade dame I dont care how great of a package lakers were to offer. Wed better not trade him there.

[Capn'O]

What does "getting a pass" entail, anyways? When was Pop's pass issued? What would not getting a pass look like? What would happen to Pop Is there somewhere where these passes are recorded? Can the pass be revoked?

Somebody please answer. There are other situations where I need to know if a pass was issued or not and how to respond.

[Baski]

Yeah but how does that take away from the fact that they have 5 rings as he said? Are the Spurs the only team to have a top 10 All Time player throughout that period?

Doesn't take away from the 5 rings. It just adds to the degree to which Tim Duncan is massively under-appreciated.

Tim Duncan WAS the Spurs Way. Popovich (the Coach) was also really good. Everybody else was just holding their beer. Post-Duncan... the Spurs front office (i.e. Buford and whatever input Pop has into personnel acquisition) has been exposed.

Underappreciated by who?

And the italicized is false. You know who disagrees with you? David Robinson AND Tim Duncan, both of whom attribute a system of accountability already in place. There's no question Tim embodied it and when the best player does usually everyone else falls in line.

But as I've taken the time to lay out in a previous post above, your last line is patently false. You only used points to support that position ignoring all else that refutes it. Like we don't have a much younger, versatile team full of two-way 3&D players, like that happened by chance and not conscious careful construction looking at long-term sustainability and transitioning to it. All with some huge cap space. Need to look beyond the points made to fit your conclusion.

Not to mention, it's not unique to the Spurs, so I'm not even sure what the point is. The Lakers have zero rings without Shaq and Kobe, Heat have 0 without LeBron and Wade, GSW have 0 without Curry, OKC have 0 even with KD and Westbrook, it goes on and on.

[MyBoyBlu]

I didn't realize Spurs fans were so unrealistic and how much they overrated their young players. AT BEST RIGHT NOW all the spurs young players look like high end role players in the absolute best case scenario. Not one of them is even close for all star consideration let alone franchise player. BIG OLE YIKES.

[Baski]

I didn't realize Spurs fans were so unrealistic and how much they overrated their young players. AT BEST RIGHT NOW all the spurs young players look like high end role players in the absolute best case scenario. Not one of them is even close for all star consideration let alone franchise player. BIG OLE YIKES.

That's kind of the thing about the Spurs though. They develop high end role players that know how to play smart and fit in one of the best offensive and defensive systems in the league. When you have a generational talent like Duncan, that's what allows you to stay successful for 2 decades even while he declines heavily right before our eyes. The 2013 and 2014 finals was filled withmassive contributions from high end role players. Without that, you have situations like the 2014 Heat, 2015 Cavs, 2018 Cavs, 2019 Warriors, 2015 Clippers, where role players just break down and or simply can't do **** when the Star needs some help. The NBA finals record for 3s that Steph Curry has was previously held by Danny Green, drafted by the LeBron Cavs and tossed aside and left to bounce around before finding his way to the Spurs and then........ you know.
As a Spurs fan I'd be highly surprised if any one of these young guys becomes an all star so I agree with you there, but just on their collective talent, IQ and how they fit the team, the team is a solid PO contender that just needs the megastar to take them to the promised land. That should be the goal for every team. Just ask the Raptors.

[mixerball]

did you not experience this situation as it was happening or are you just now getting involved in nba basketball?