Okay. The Spurs didn’t have a great offseason by any statistical measure or subjective conjecture. That is entirely true and anyone who is not enthused with their front office decisions this past summer are mostly justified.
Matt Moore took it a step further and ranked the Spurs’ offseason as the worst in the NBA.
“(Crickets.) This is more of an “NA” than it is anything. It’s not that the Spurs did anything bad. They just didn’t do anything, period. How do you judge them against other teams when they made no significant moves?”
There is nothing wrong with Moore’s sentiment except that admonishing the Spurs for not screwing up their future while putting the Chicago Bulls on a higher platform seems shortsighted. They eliminated a bench unit that was emblematic of their true strengths — rebounding and defense — in one offseason.
Yes, Moore knows a lot more basketball than I do but the Bulls didn’t make any moves to cultivate a positive supporting cast around Derrick Rose, aside from freeing up cap space to make more financial expenditures in the future. The previous supporting cast weren’t elite talents but collectively they were tenacious and bought into a system that turned Chicago into an elite defensive team.
And yet somehow they had a “better” offseason than the Spurs. This isn’t to say that San Antonio was great this offseason, either; putting them in the bottom third would have drawn no complaints.
Call me crazy but I don’t concur with Moore in this instance. (Unfortunately, he was unwavering in his support of the Oklahoma City Thunder even when they returned home with a 0-2 deficit. So there is that.)