i was just reading buck harvey's column in the san antonio express news about the spurs offseason moves (http://www.mysanantonio.com/sports/columnists/bharvey/
stories/MYSA072706.1C.COL.BKNharvey.spurs.32a5c57.html) and couldn't help but think.
i have tried to keep my enthusiasm in check with regard to the mavs' offseason moves as compared with those of the spurs. that 2nd round playoff series could have, after all, gone either way with a different bounce of the ball. but it seems like avery is starting to get more of the team he wants. i liked marquis daniels and always wondered exactly what it was about him that didn't mesh with avery (i was told by sefko it was a "lack of fire"), but they did get an arguably better backup for dirk in croshere. and they probably benefited, if only from a chemistry standpoint, in getting anthony johnson as opposed to mike james. i'm still a little (pleasantly) surprised they were able to keep mbenga. add in the reacquisition of buckner and the draft and progress of ager, and one could say they've upgraded their roster. i'm curious to see the experts' offseason grades.
the spurs, on the other hand...i can't believe pryzbilla chose the blazers. i stepped back and reminded myself that they still have the rest of their starting five, plus finley, in place from last year. but add their overall age to the center situation and i just got a weird vibe so far this offseason.
i say all this with the knowledge that the spurs will have more future draft picks than they had this year and they are setting themselves up to be able to sign some free agents in a couple of years. given duncan's age, is it fair to say, with all due respect to parker and ginobili, that they will be making a final push in that time span (a couple years from now) to win once or twice more around duncan?
No comments:
Post a Comment