What in the Magic's history suggests they could "EVER"

[Murphy13 185]

No, both of those are subjective opinions.

 

I'll admit my opinion is subjective to an extent, but the basis is purely objective. You would have a hard time arguing otherwise without disregarding some heavy fact.

[Secretly Space Jesus 670]

I'll admit my opinion is subjective to an extent, but the basis is purely objective. You would have a hard time arguing otherwise without disregarding some heavy fact.

 

 

Your opinion is based entirely on the ridiculous notion that SA has some kind of incredible organizational excellence that's existed for the last 15-20 years. They don't. They have Tim Duncan. Before that, they had David Robinson.

 

Sustained on-court excellence because you have one all-time great player is not the same thing as having systematic excellence, nor is having an all-time great player and a range of superior role players indicative of high-end scouting. Basketball is a sport where one great player makes everyone else look good. It's not like BJ Armstrong suddenly forgot how to play basketball when he left the Bulls.

 

 

It's not like in baseball where you can draft a great right fielder and a great 3rd baseman, and their respective greatness has little to do with each other beyond providing potential "cover" in the batting order. A great defensive center makes the rest of the team look better at defense, and can cover up for players who gamble too often on defense or who simply lack high-end defensive skill. A player who can guard multiple positions with effectiveness allows you to fill the other spot on your own lineup with a player who will fill the holes in your offense rather than your defense. A 20ppg scoring big man who is also a great and willing passer allows a lot more freedom for your wings by drawing a lot of attention on offense.

 

And the Spurs have had all those things in one neat little package twice. That's not organizational excellence; that's "We landed the #1 pick twice in our history, and both times there was a clear consensus #1 pick who wound up being a top 20 player of all time."

[Fultz4thewin 2,464]

Your opinion is based entirely on the ridiculous notion that SA has some kind of incredible organizational excellence that's existed for the last 15-20 years. They don't. They have Tim Duncan. Before that, they had David Robinson.

 

Sustained on-court excellence because you have one all-time great player is not the same thing as having systematic excellence, nor is having an all-time great player and a range of superior role players indicative of high-end scouting. Basketball is a sport where one great player makes everyone else look good. It's not like BJ Armstrong suddenly forgot how to play basketball when he left the Bulls.

 

 

It's not like in baseball where you can draft a great right fielder and a great 3rd baseman, and their respective greatness has little to do with each other beyond providing potential "cover" in the batting order. A great defensive center makes the rest of the team look better at defense, and can cover up for players who gamble too often on defense or who simply lack high-end defensive skill. A player who can guard multiple positions with effectiveness allows you to fill the other spot on your own lineup with a player who will fill the holes in your offense rather than your defense. A 20ppg scoring big man who is also a great and willing passer allows a lot more freedom for your wings by drawing a lot of attention on offense.

 

And the Spurs have had all those things in one neat little package twice. That's not organizational excellence; that's "We landed the #1 pick twice in our history, and both times there was a clear consensus #1 pick who wound up being a top 20 player of all time."

 

 

I don't think you give enough credit to the organization. Look at Buford/Popovich and their executive/coaching trees. That has to say something.

[CTMagicUK 1,482]

All I said is they are not on the level of SA on an organizational level, and don't have as good a future stacked up. Both of those are true. Relax.

 

We'll see how good the Spurs future is when Duncan retires and Pop goes with him.

[Marc Acres 3:16 418]

So they had a couple late first rounders pan out, including a high upside athletic center, now they have the scouting acumen to compare with SA...like I suggested? No. That was as much in response to the UK guy as you.

 

You touched on the exact reasons why they aren't what they are lauded to be...I don't understand the position of your argument. Furthermore I never mentioned signing specifically as a reason for being a 'more well rounded organization', although by nature of the game that is a part of it. I have been vocal enough over the years voicing my displeasure over most large FA signings for you to know where I stand on buying a team.

 

To me, OKC had a flurry of initially impressive moves that have not been continued. SA has a way of staggering talent, this is done through scouting that occurs outside of first round draft choices-whether it be trades, second rounders, international scouts, and yes FAs. They can certainly come in and restock the cupboard at any time, but today their trajectory does not look great...especially if you are hanging your hat on Ibaka and Jackson.

 

 

Not sure exactly what I said to set you off, I asked a question because I was not sure what you meant by more well rounded, I apologize for asking a question.

 

I'm not sure exactly how many years OKC has under the current management but I do know that it is less than SA. I think that they have had the same level of draft success and smart moves as SA has had over that same time frame. I would say that SA has had more success on the court because they have Tim Duncan and OKC does not. SA gave away Scola, I would say that was as much of an error as getting rid of Harden.

[Drain-O 369]

San Antonio's success is mostly Tim Duncan. Remove him and you probably have an over-achievers who can get into the playoffs but do not do much while there. Probably the Bulls without Rose.

 

You need great players to win championships. That is a fact. You cannot continue to build and build and build without superstars. The Magic made the Finals twice in their history because each roster had superstars. Dwight Howard and Rashard Lewis and Shaq and Penny. Remove any of those and we see where the team is.

 

I think OKC is moronic for letting Harden go. He is a top 10 NBA player. No amount of prospects can ever fill that void. Also their ownership is flush with cash and they have the highest average ticket price in the NBA. The whole small market thing to me is bunk. If you are close to a title you spend. Now you have to spend wisely but those are the breaks. At least our ownership has shown they have no problem setting multiple dumpsters of money on fire. I seriously cannot believe OKC fans are okay with what they did.

 

As for us of course we could win a title but no one is beating Lebron this season and maybe next anyway. So hopefully this year we draft our superstar and take off from there.

[Murphy13 185]

I'm not set off, I don't read it as defensive at all...not my intention! Just trying to spark conversation..

 

DOM, to add a baseball reference in response to yours: you swung and missed...sorry.

[Emory889 353]

 

 

As for us of course we could win a title but no one is beating Lebron this season and maybe next anyway. So hopefully this year we draft our superstar and take off from there.

 

I think Indiana can definitely beat him but your overall point is well taken.

[Secretly Space Jesus 670]

DOM, to add a baseball reference in response to yours: you swung and missed...sorry.

 

I like how you've just repeated that you're right, without ever bothering to explain or justify that opinion. Or acknowledge that what you were saying was an opinion in the first place.

 

 

[nCoolness 79]

So they had a couple late first rounders pan out, including a high upside athletic center, now they have the scouting acumen to compare with SA...like I suggested? No. That was as much in response to the UK guy as you.

 

You touched on the exact reasons why they aren't what they are lauded to be...I don't understand the position of your argument. Furthermore I never mentioned signing specifically as a reason for being a 'more well rounded organization', although by nature of the game that is a part of it. I have been vocal enough over the years voicing my displeasure over most large FA signings for you to know where I stand on buying a team.

 

To me, OKC had a flurry of initially impressive moves that have not been continued. SA has a way of staggering talent, this is done through scouting that occurs outside of first round draft choices-whether it be trades, second rounders, international scouts, and yes FAs. They can certainly come in and restock the cupboard at any time, but today their trajectory does not look great...especially if you are hanging your hat on Ibaka and Jackson.

 

 

[Miller4Prez66 545]

#1 Shaq said from the get go that his dream was to be a Laker. He was gone before he even started playing.

 

#2 Penny's stardom got to him and was very selfish and hard to handle while he was here. He was trying to run the show and the organization appeased him by firing Brian Hill. Not to mention the big rumor of becoming the NBA's first $200 million player.

 

#3 T'Mac was all in until the Magic hired a hard headed hockey guy who butted heads with T'Mac.

 

#4 Howard's stardom got to him and felt he needed to go to a large market team to grow his brand. He signed with Houston because of their Chinese connection.

 

I don't blame the ownership group and they have actually given GM's the green light to spend.

 

Like a previous poster said, we went to the finals twice, maybe even a 3rd and won one if Grant Hill had not suffered his devastating injury.

 

I agree with most of it except for Dwight. As much as we all hate him (rightfully so), he left because our roster sucked, he was clashing with the HC and we had no real versatility to change things without trading him. He also didn't sign with Houston for the Chinese connection, he did it for James Harden. He is younger, better and less egotistical than Kobe.

 

As much as I hate Dwight, I fully blame Otis Smith and management for botching that situation and forcing us into another re-build instead of continuing to contend with the league's best big man. However, that has no effect on my view of the current front office here in Orlando. New people are running the show and I'm giving them time to build a roster that can compete again.

[Tough Break There 96]

I want the best for him, I just don't see the upside many of you all do. Im not alone...outside of Orlando that is. I just hope for more consistency. Offensively he can be a great cog, particularly if he is active on the boards...otherwise he is average to below average-particularly on defense which is at a minimum 50% of the time he is on the floor. As with every player on the Magic I hope the best from him and expect focus and professionalism.

 

He has shown some flashes of late offensively , I am encouraged, and have said as much following his good games. I am allowed to be skeptical, besides, I feel he plays a position that will likely be duplicated in the draft if we are in the 2-4 range, and whoever comes out will almost immediately be better than him thus he may not be long for the team. It's as much looking ahead as it is seeing what he is today. I think he has value as a piece in a greater deal and would rather see him packaged in a deal with DEN's pick to move up than Afflalo, for example.

 

 

Agree with you on just about every other post in this thread, but I see loads of potiential in Toby. Defense is the biggest negative aspect of his current game but that's a young player thing in IMO (Oladipo is an anomaly, and a future all-nba 1st team defender).