On Highsight: Our FO Could Have Done Better
San Antonio’s front office, underrated as it is, is considered by many as one of the best in the league. Whether in terms of drafting relatively unknown players, or pulling off shrewd trades and signings, the Spurs organization is a model that everyone else wants to emulate. I, on the other hand, am a grumpy fan and want to nitpick: I think we could have done better. Read on to find more reasons to crucify me.
Since that fateful day in 1997, when the balls bounced our way, the Spurs, in my opinion, have had six quality picks. Yes, just six in almost thirty picks. Two of those, we all know, turned out to be coups--Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili. Here are my other four.
In 2002 the Spurs drafted John Salmons, who has recently proved to be a decent player, albeit playing for the Kings. That seems to be a decent draft pick, except when you realize (which you actually already know) that the Spurs immediately traded him. This could easily be seen as a mistake. But the fact that the person he was traded for, Speedy Claxton, was used extensively in the 2003 playoffs--including the championship-clinching game--balances it out a bit.
Claxton’s semi-heroics, however, would not have been too necessary had the Spurs not traded their next quality draft pick, the Brazilian Blur, Leandro Barbosa. One could argue that trading that pick eventually landed us a championship. We traded Barbosa to the Suns for a 2005 pick. Then, we used that pick to trade for Nazr Mohammed, who helped us win the 2005 championship. This is valid, but weak: Although he started a lot of games, Nazr’s numbers could have easily been replaced by Rasho and Horry and/or another big. Besides, that 2005 pick turned out to be David Lee. I would definitely take Barbosa over Claxton, and David Lee over Mohammed.
George Hill also proved to be a good pick at the end of the first round in 2008--certainly a lot better than the PG picked at around the same spot four years earlier, Beno Udrih. The Slovenian guard hasn’t been quite the player that the Spurs had hoped he would be. Hill, on the other hand, seems to impress his coaches more and more each day.
The sixth quality pick, of course, is Luis Scola. We messed that up. Enough said.
That gives us the six quality picks I was talking about: Manu, Tony, Salmons, Scola, Barbosa, and Hill. Three of those, we traded. What makes it worse is that aside from those draft hits that we traded, there is a number of draft misses that could have been used for very good players instead. In 1998, we passed on Earl Boykins, Mike James and Brad Miller. That could’ve been 10 pts 4 assists, or 12-8-3. Instead, we got Derrick Dial, who as an NBA veteran, barely made noise in the D-League. In 2000 we picked Chris Carrawell, who never played, over Michael Redd. In 2001 we drafted Bryan Bracey instead of Carlos Arroyo, Jamario Moon, or Andres Nocioni. I could go on, but I’m sure you get the point. Of course, as this post’s title suggests, I know that highsight is 50/50. But still, looking back, I can say that we could have done so much better.
People, Spurs fans or not, have been praising the Spurs FO for their wily picks and excellent moves. But this shows how the FO isn’t really the draft thief everyone made them out to be. We’re still on a wait-and-see approach on the verdict on Ian Mahinmi, Tiago Splitter and our 2009 draftees. Blair seems promising and will probably contribute a lot this season, but even if you count him, that makes the FO seven for 28, or 25%. Considering that a team basically has two draft picks a year, that means that we’ll get one good player every two years. That’s just not good enough for this hypercritical fan.
Go ahead, Spurs FO. Keep that up and I’ll take to rooting for the Knicks.
Okay, maybe not.
Here's the raw (i.e., unaesthetically formatted) data I used. What I deem were good moves are in bold, similarly colored cells are corollary moves, and players in parentheses were drafted by another team.
PLAYER CLASS PICK NOTES Tim Duncan 1997 1 (Charles O'Bannon) 1997 32 Traded to Detroit; We could've gotten Capt Jack Felipe Lopez 1998 24 Traded to Vancouver for Antonio Daniels Derrick Dial 1998 52 D League; Over Earl Boykins, Mike James, Brad Miller Leon Smith 1999 29 Traded to Dallas for the rights to Gordon Giricek and draft pick; over Chris Andersen, Raja Bell Manu Ginobili 1999 57 (Dalibor Bagaric) 2000 24 Pick traded to Chi Chris Carrawell 2000 41 Over Michael Redd, Brian Cardinal, Jason Hart; didn’t play Cory Hightower 2000 54 Traded to LA for future picks Tony Parker 2001 28 Robertas Javtokas 2001 56 Still in Europe (born in 1980); from LA Bryan Bracey 2001 58 Over Carlos Arroyo, Maurice Evans, Jamario Moon, Andres Nocioni John Salmons 2002 26 Traded to Philly for Speedy Claxton Luis Scola 2002 55 From LA Randy Holcomb 2002 56 Traded to Philly for Speedy Claxton Leandro Barbosa 2003 28 Traded to Suns for the pick that turned out to be David Lee (Andreas Glyniadakis) 2003 30 Pick traded to Detroit for Menkee Bateer Beno Udrih 2004 28 Over Varejao, Chris Duhon, Trevor Ariza Viktor Sanikidze 2004 42 From Atlanta for the pick that turned out to be Cenk Akyol Romain Sato 2004 52 Pick from Grizz for Gordon Giricek; He has been waived Sergei Karaulov 2004 57 Overseas Ian Mahinmi 2005 28 Over David Lee, Brandon Bass, Ronny Turiaf, Von Wafer, Monta Ellis (David Lee) 2005 30 Pick traded to NY, along with Malik Rose, for Nazr (Cenk Akyol) 2005 59 Traded for Sanikidze (Mardy Collins) 2006 29 Pick traded to NY, along with Malik Rose, for Nazr; we could've gotten Steve Novak, Boobie Gibson, Leon Powe, Paul Millsap Damir Markota 2006 59 Traded to Bucks for 2007 pick (Marcus Williams); over JJ Barea, Walter Herrmann Tiago Splitter 2007 28 Over Carl Landry Marcus Williams 2007 33 From Bucks; Over Glen Davis, Josh McRoberts, Marc Gasol Giorgos Printezis 2007 58 Traded to Toronto for 2008 pick George Hill 2008 26 Over Mario Chalmers Goran Dragic 2008 45 From Toronto, traded to Phoenix for Malik Hairston and 2009 pick (Blair) James Gist 2008 57 Over Joe Crawford* (Rodrigue Beaubois) 2009 25 Pick traded to OK, along with Barry and Elson, for KT DeJuan Blair 2009 37 Jack McClinton 2009 51 Nando De Colo 2009 53 Who we got for Scola (Robert Vaden) 2009 54 Pick traded to Cha for Ely
30 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Good point, TOR (not Toronto). It makes my curious about how (poorly) the other teams have drafted. (BTW, it’s hindsight, not highsight)
Yeah, I’m pretty sure most other teams did worse.
And around here, they use “highsight.” I’m sure it has been used prior to this, but it’s the earliest I saw: http://www.poundingtherock.com/2009/7/1/931594/the-wonder-years-2#17687835 (linking doesn’t work, for some reason). I also said 50/50, if you noticed (I might still be mistaken even if I’m just looking back =p).
by theonlyromeo on Aug 31, 2009 4:37 AM CDT up reply actions
I used “highsight” in my post, and of course the anal retentive members of this blog picked it up immediately. :)
Straight from the No-Stat Zone to your computer!
Dunkin' Cheerleaders
LD, Ive noticed myself that the advent of technology like firefoxs automatic spellcheck has made English professors of a couple of the PTR’ers….
That being said, I should think about upgrading to fire fox
I have Firefox’s spellchecker, but I have to switch between English and Spanish. Sometimes I don’t bother. Stuff happens.
Straight from the No-Stat Zone to your computer!
Dunkin' Cheerleaders
I was of course kidding when I said “anal retentive”.
Straight from the No-Stat Zone to your computer!
Dunkin' Cheerleaders
I didn’t get too upset. Mostly because I don’t look down on the misspellings — I celebrate them and look forward to promoting them to be used over and over!
The cool misspellings, that is. There’s no room for uninteresting typos in The Lexicon … coming soon to a sidebar near you.
From under the radar to hanging in the rafters - Big50
5 in 10
You’re picking nits, nitpicker.
Straight from the No-Stat Zone to your computer!
Dunkin' Cheerleaders
Romeo, thanks for pointing out the less than shrewd moments in the history of the front office.
In truth, from time to time , ive felt exactly the same way as you.
The Barbosa and Salmons blunders are particulary painfull. I always thought that maybe the spurs traded those guys because of some previous obligation from another deal…
Too Harsh on FO
Looking at your chart, it looks like the Spurs have selected somewhere between 25 -31 for their first pick and in the 52-58 range for their second pick. Not exactly prime positions for selecting solid, long term NBA-level contributors.
However, as you rightly pointed out, they have been spot on in evaluating this talent on at least 7 occasions from 2002-2008. Parker, Barbosa, Scola, Beno, Salmons and Hill were all drafted between 26-57.
To me, that demonstrates superior scouting relative to other FO’s. Considering that the Spurs won 3 titles between 2002-2008, the fact that some of those players were traded or not retained by the Spurs also implies superior general managing and overall basketball operations (again, relative to other NBA FO’s).
Also, I can’t think of another team which has won at least three titles with at least three starters being players drafted by the team in the past 20 years. To me, this is also highly impressive and speaks to the Spurs FO relative superiority.
I agree with the general idea that the FO has not been perfect when making personnel decisions, but they have been better than all of the other FO’s, and that is all that really counts.
"It's not that the Irish are cynical. It's rather that they have a wonderful lack of respect for everything and everybody."
-- Brendan Behan --
by Zeno of Citium on Aug 31, 2009 12:13 PM CDT reply actions 1 recs
Agreed.
I wanted to add that the chart doesn’t account for position either. If our team need is a big like Ian, passing on Monta Ellis isn’t as big of a blunder. Ian could still prove better than Bass and Turiaf.
This next comment gives the FO a lot of credit which I’m not sure they deserve or not. You don’t want the best 15 players. You want a 15 player roster that you can afford and can play. Scouting Barbosa and Salmons and drafting them is easy. Paying them and finding playing time for them is more problematic. It is possible the Spurs scouted them as trade assets from the beginning and knew exactly what they were trading away.
Scola is the unfortunate bystander of dumping Jackie Butler. The Mardy Collins and David Lee picks were what we had to give up get rid of Malik Rose’s terrible contract.
This brings up drafting based on team needs or getting the most talented player available. You would think that a fundamentally sound team such as the Spurs would draft based on needs.
With Claxton a free agent in 2003, and just off a pretty good run as (more-than-)back-up PG through the Finals, the Spurs surely recognized that his stock was high and could leave. They drafted a quick combo with a Princely wingspan but quickly traded him without so much as training camp. About a month later, Claxton signs with the warriors. We end up stuck with Charlie Ward and Jason Hart (who we passed on in 2000 for Chris Carrawell. I’m sure his is a household name by now…). I’m sure we could’ve found playing time for Barbosa. As a rookie, he wouldn’t have commanded a lot of money too.
Part of the Spurs’ problem with Scola was his contract negotiations. So along with the Butler dump, we gave our interstate rivals the rights to the Argentine. Five days later, he signs with the Rockets. Oh and about a month prior, we drafted Tiago, so it’s not like we didn’t need a big.
But y’all are right. I AM nitpicking, just like I said. The Spurs FO might actually still be the best in the league. But being the best doesn’t mean you can’t be better.
(And I can’t think of another team whose top three players were their draftees.)
by theonlyromeo on Aug 31, 2009 8:38 PM CDT up reply actions
Scouting isn’t always completely accurate. Perfect example; Kwame Brown went 1st overall. Spurs FO never failed that hard so give them a break.
"I've got Tim (Duncan) and you don't. That's the difference." -Gregg Popovich
As a Kings fan I have nothing to lose or gain in this conversation but......
I think this argument is completely, and wholly, inane. First, players you miss is that big of a deal? Every team passes up a player. As Zeno has noted above, the Spurs have had the worst OVERALL drafting position of any team this decade. Yet, they continue to manage to have players that work in their overall scheme. There are times where they do not do things as well as others. Yes, they could have probably done something to plan for bring Scola over, or really found a way to bring Tiago Splitter over in 2008 or something. But, hindsight is 20/20 and I don’t think there is a better front office than the one that currently exists headed by RC Buford.
Personally? I think a player like Barbosa would have had as many problems as Udrih did. Barbosa has played in an uptempo system his entire career. Last I checked, he’s very similar to Tony Parker. Would you rather have Barbosa or Parker? I may be a Kings fan (and hence idiot), but I’d rather have Parker. (Even with being married to Eva Longoria which I consider a negative given Barbosa’s recent marital status.)
The long & short of it is that unless you’re gettng complementary talent that can co-exist with the players you already have through the draft, they likely won’t make much of an impact.
I think that’s long enough and I’ve made my point. I can appreciate wanting to look at the Spurs FO critically and not giving them a free pass. It’s just that they’re so good that right now they’ve LITERALLY earned it.
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....
Good points, pookey. The FO has done a great job over the past decade and has earned our respect. But we’re Spurs fans and PtRers. We major in inane arguments, what-if scenarios, and geeky discussions about the wonders of Excel. It’s what we do best. Plus, we’re bored, and personally, I’m really cranky.
My people call it "sarcasm." - Lauri
Exactly. In fact, you can say “inane” is just part of the PTR Lexicon for “insane.” Works both ways.
"Yes, it's important that I have good numbers, and I'm well-respected as a player. But I think it's more important that I'm respected as a man." - Some Tall Guy Who Wore #50
by theonlyromeo on Sep 8, 2009 10:35 PM CDT up reply actions
If I could have a PtR only quote it would be this:
The FO has done a great job over the past decade and has earned our respect. But we’re Spurs fans and PtRers. We major in inane arguments, what-if scenarios, and geeky discussions about the wonders of Excel. It’s what we do best. Plus, we’re bored, and personally, I’m really cranky.
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....
I might say
This is the worst drawback about SBN 2.0. I liked having different signatures on each site.
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....
Wow. I wish I’d been around for 1.0. That’d have been unfathomably wonderful.
My favorite thing about 2.0? The tango; b/c there’s no mistakes in it.
From under the radar to hanging in the rafters - Big50
5 in 10
Just be blind and wear sunglasses
Then you’ll really love it.
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....
Awww, you’re bringing cranky back. I love it.
Superman wears Manu Ginobili pajamas to bed. - CMoney
I don't like chatty. I don't do chatty. I like quiet. Quiet and mean. Those are my people. - Nurse Jackie
Those other moods just don’t know how to act.
Check it.
From under the radar to hanging in the rafters - Big50
5 in 10

by 

































