I think if the Spurs had to deal with the Scola situation again they would do it differently. I don't think they really thought the Rocks would get him to sign the deal he signed. We've heard Pop say that he wants to spit everytime he sees Scola play over there. Clearly he hated the move from day one. It was only remotely justifiable by accounting for the risk in dealing with Scola's buyout. That risk turned out to be nill so the move becomes idiotic in hindsight. I'm sure if they tried hard enough they could have found another way to get under the lux tax threshold. Hell, if they were really in a bind they could probably just pay the damn tax and raise ticket prices or pass around a hat or something.

quote:

---

attack on my business

---

man, i had no idea you were this difficult to communicate with.

you call that an attack on your business?

I'm telling you for somebody that puts his name and business out on the net, i'd watch how you come across as an individual. that's not a threat, it's friendly unsolicited "don't act like such an a-hole when you're on a public site and work in a service industry" advice. you're not the only Ag I've seen solicit business on here. But you're the only one I've seen do it that can be a real jerkoff...but no worries, your ability to get gigs has nothing to do with you being a ***** apparently.

Yes, most of what you have posted on this thread has been quite friendly.

No matter how I act on here, or try to change the tone in which I use, you bringing up my business and calling me the things you have on this thread IS an attack on my business.

I can't change the things I have said in the past, but I can make an effort to act differently today. You have personally and professionally attacked me throughout this thread without me responding in kind.

And don't act like your condescending last post of 'advice' wasn't an attack as well.

So back to the topic,

I think the Spurs have a lot of parallels with the 80s Lakers. They both stayed very good, but not good enough for a while after their peak.

man, i'm telling you in all honesty there is nothing meant condescending in my post. i'm writing as i'm thinking. in email or other written mediums, you can infer any tone you want. maybe i'm reading you wrong, maybe you're reading me wrong.

whatever the case, peace

>>I think he could trudge through another 5-6 years and not see much decline<<

2-3, and that's really pushing it.

as evidenced by the game tonight, the decline won't be in Duncan's night-to-night stats, the decline will be in Duncan's ability to take game overs and will his team to win. he can't do that any more.

Good analysis Dan. Look how tonight Duncan was clutch shooting in the 4th, hitting his final like 8 shots. But he didn't have enough of an effect in other areas, as he let Dampier out rebound him.

I agree, Duncan was great down the stretch. He hit a couple of jumpers from about the free throw line and I thought "oh Lord here goes Duncan. The Mavs are in trouble." But Duncan just never hit that next gear like he did in big games in the past

The Spurs did not lost in the first round because of Duncan or Parker or Manu.

The Spurs lost because they have nobody worth a damn outside of three two players. Bonner, Mason, Hill, Udoka, an older than dirt Finley...?

Duncan is going to be fine. He will go get healthy and continue his 20/10 for another 2 years. Stating that he does not play at 33 the way he played at 29 is pointless. Did you expect something different?

Just like TP said, a healthy Manu, and a few changes to the role players and the Spurs are right back in it.