Spurs Insider Podcast, 2026-06-17 03:38:00
专栏作家迈克·芬格 (Mike Finger) 以及跟队记者杰夫·麦克唐纳 (Jeff McDonald) 和汤姆·奥斯本 (Tom Orsborn) 共同探讨了马刺在NBA总决赛中输给尼克斯的系列赛，回顾了这一超越所有现实预期的赛季，并展望了维克托·文班亚马 (Victor Wembanyama) 和达龙·福克斯 (De’Aaron Fox) 的未来。
推荐阅读：
以下是播客的文字实录：
迈克·芬格：本期《马刺内幕》（Spurs Insider）由美国鼻窦研究所（American Sinus Institute）赞助播出。
[音乐]
迈克·芬格：这里是《马刺内幕》“我们工作到了六月”特别版，节目信号源自德克萨斯州南部高度安全的绝密地点网络。我是迈克·芬格，身边依然是我们的老朋友——《圣安东尼奥快报》马刺跟队记者汤姆·奥斯本。让许多人高兴、也让少数人失望的是，另一位马刺跟队记者杰夫·麦克唐纳在缺席了总决赛特辑后，今天也回归了。在经历了九个月、一百多场比赛之后，我们需要一些大局观。我们需要对刚刚目睹的一切理出个头绪。为此，我们有请“淡定先生”本人——汤姆·奥斯本。你有什么想说的？过去这一百多场比赛意味着什么？
汤姆·奥斯本：天呐，我是说，这依然是一个不可思议的赛季。我知道这令人失望，我知道这很痛，我知道这像是一记重拳，就像是踢到了……你懂的那个部位，但是 [笑声] 你必须审视这个赛季并感叹，这是一次多么神奇的征程。而且他们的进度大大超前了。在第五场比赛之后，最核心的启示就是保持耐心、坚守方向。呃，做一些补强，在某些领域有所提升，但要坚持走下去。看看尼克斯做了什么，他们是如何建队的，又是如何走到这一步的。他们保持了阵容的稳定性，现在他们拿到了总冠军。所以，保持方向，试着把痛苦放在一边，朋友，去拥抱这个伟大的赛季吧。
迈克·芬格：这就是我想要的淡定。谢谢你，汤姆。现在让我们转向——
汤姆·奥斯本：现在杰夫可以来泼冷水了。[笑声]
杰夫·麦克唐纳：不，我非常同意汤姆的看法。而且我觉得自总决赛结束以来，舆论风向有点奇怪。呃，就好像如果马刺像我们所有人预期的那样，在第二轮就输掉，有些人反而会更高兴似的。[笑声] 你看，他们打进了总决赛，结果大家却在说：“天呐，他们掉链子了。他们太烂了。米奇·约翰逊 (Mitch Johnson) 太差了。达龙·福克斯，我们得把他交易走。”我是说，这真的很有意思。其实发生在大伙身上的，正是我们一直以来预测会发生的事——虽然我一度也开始相信这不会发生，但它确实发生了——那就是他们终于打到了一个自己无法承受的季后赛轮次。对手实力太强了。也许不是天赋上的差距，而是汤姆刚才提到的那种连续性、那种长期并肩作战的默契、那种历经沙场的经验，以及知道如何赢球。马刺在季后赛中遇到了这样一个对手，到了这个阶段，仅仅依靠维克托·文班亚马、迪伦·哈珀 (Dylan Harper) 和斯蒂芬·卡斯尔 (Stephon Castle) 的绝对天赋，已经不足以弥补经验的劣势了。因为对手同样拥有天赋，而且还有杰伦·布伦森 (Jalen Brunson) 这样一位MVP级别的领头羊，并且他们知道如何赢下比赛。马刺在那个系列赛中大概有72%到74%的时间都处于领先，除了最关键的四次——也就是终场哨响的时刻。这就是尼克斯作为一支更有经验、在第四节更沉稳、准备更充分的球队所展现出的优势。马刺终于走到了一个他们还没准备好应对的季后赛阶段。我们很多人以为这在第二轮就会发生，很多人以为这在西部决赛会发生。它最终在总决赛发生了，这没什么大不了的。这是最关键的一点，没关系的。他们本赛季走得比你想象的要远得多，你应该为此感到满意。完全没有理由恐慌或失去理智。而且，虽然不能保证下赛季还能回到这里——但我现在可以明确表态，除非维克托·文班亚马身上发生什么极其诡异的意外，否则这绝对不会是他最后一次打总决赛。他迟早会回来的。这不一定能保证是下个赛季，我们大家都清楚这一点。但是，未来是光明的。因为输掉了一个你甚至都没指望能打进的总决赛，就表现得好像这个赛季不是一次彻头彻尾的成功一样，这在我看来是不可思议的。
迈克·芬格：考虑到……其实也不算不可思议，不——
杰夫·麦克唐纳：就是很不可思议。
迈克·芬格：不，其实不是。因为我觉得，你是对的，如果马刺在第二轮输了，这本可以让他们跟上蒂姆·邓肯 (Tim Duncan) 的步伐——你知道，邓肯第一次打季后赛也是在第二轮出局，那——
杰夫·麦克唐纳：但那样的话，我们现在讨论的就会是：“明年小心这支马刺！他们要来了！”
迈克·芬格：没错。没错。如果他们在抢七大战中输了，比如……好吧，我往回退一步。当他们打进季后赛，状态如此火热，并且大大超出了人们的预期时，如果他们在第二轮输给森林狼，我觉得还是会有些失望的，因为马刺是比森林狼更好的球队。尽管输给一支成型已久的球队是可以解释的，但那依然会带来一种让人抓狂的失望感。不过，我确实认为，如果是抢七输给亚历山大 (SGA) 和雷霆，大家的接受度可能会比第五场输给尼克斯要高一些 [笑声]。因为在对阵雷霆的抢七大战中发生的一切——你甚至能从马刺球员自己身上看到，你看到文班亚马在场上流下了眼泪，你看到那种“这是历史性突破，我的天呐，他们真的做到了，他们打进了总决赛”的庆祝。我觉得对阵雷霆的抢七，是大家会觉得“好吧，这就是他们的终点。他们输给了西部第一，输给了卫冕冠军，这很正常”的一场比赛。可一旦你赢了那场比赛，我认为一个城市、一个更衣室、整个NBA，所有人都在某种程度上期待马刺能一鼓作气拿下总冠军，这并不奇怪。虽然汤姆和杰夫说得都对，也很有道理——我是说，人们确实应该放眼大局，应该保持淡定，看到这是一个巨大的进步。但我理解这种失望，我也理解这样一个事实：在马刺击败俄克拉荷马城之后，本期播客的许多听众（大概都是马刺球迷）都开始相信他们能夺冠了。甚至那些保持了八个月理智的人，在总决赛前也忍不住让自己的期望值拔得太高了。所以，我觉得我们只是在字眼上争论。
杰夫·麦克唐纳：我只是说——
迈克·芬格：我只是说，感到失望是正常的。失望合情合理。但我无法理解有些人像个巨婴一样抱怨。
迈克·芬格：你应该——不，那是球迷的一部分权利。允许自己像个巨婴一样宣泄，是当体育迷的一部分乐趣，我想我们三个人已经忘了这一点。
杰夫·麦克唐纳：这看起来太痛苦了。谁想变成那样？那谁还想当体育迷啊？
汤姆·奥斯本：他们难道没看到尼克斯在前三轮是怎么打的吗？他们难道没看到过去两个赛季尼克斯对阵马刺时的表现吗？他们难道没看NBA季中锦标赛吗？我是说，这从来都不会轻松，绝对不会。
迈克·芬格：当然不轻松。当然不。我的意思是，去全盘否定球迷的感受——而我们都不是球迷 [笑声]。我们都脱离普通球迷太久了。我只是想说，我不是来对我们的听众指手画脚，说他们不可思议或者荒谬的。
杰夫·麦克唐纳：我可能不是在说普通球迷。我可能是在说那些电视评论员、社交媒体，以及所有的舆论风向——就好像突然之间文班亚马成了一个愚蠢的软蛋，米奇·约翰逊成了世界上最差的教练。这很奇怪。这支球队因为走得比预期更远而遭到如此多的口诛笔伐，这真的很奇怪。
迈克·芬格：这确实很蠢。很蠢。 But，你知道，我理解大家想找替罪羊的心态。事情就是这样，人们总想归咎于某个人。而且不只是电视评论员——我读了我的邮件，很多一整年都在给我们发邮件、阅读我们报道的读者也是这么想的。我不同意他们的看法，一点也不赞同，但我能理解我收到的那些邮件，比如“米奇到底在想什么，怎么会做出这种决定？”还有一封来自厄瓜多尔的邮件，我想汤姆可能也收到了，我们几个人都收到了，信里说我们应该调查福克斯是不是参与了博彩 [笑声]，因为他显然是在故意放水。那封信挺有意思的。
杰夫·麦克唐纳：是啊，你也看到那封邮件了？太荒谬了。
迈克·芬格：这确实很荒谬，但当你的期望值被拉高时，就会发生这种事。人们总想找个借口。我认为我们这个播客的作用，不仅是去责备大家有这种情绪——
杰夫·麦克唐纳：好吧，但有时候人们确实需要一些逆耳忠言，老兄。
迈克·芬格：——也是为了向他们解释，提醒他们，这支球队正朝着更大、更好的目标迈进。正如杰夫所说，这虽然无法保证，但对这支球队来说是一个巨大的、积极的进步。话虽如此，我们也必须承认，这原本是一个有机会赢下的系列赛。
杰夫·麦克唐纳：当然。
迈克·芬格：呃，如果文班亚马在第四节打得更好一点，如果福克斯在几场比赛中表现得更好一点，如果他没有在几场比赛的最后关头做出一些令人大跌眼镜的决定，也许结果就会不同。米奇·约翰逊在上一轮系列赛中击败了俄克拉荷马城雷霆的主教练马克·戴格诺特 (Mark Daigneault)——我记得在这个播客上，我特别强调过这一点。他是马刺能走得这么远、大大超出预期的关键原因，他整个赛季都有着神来之笔。但我觉得也应该承认，他在这个系列赛中也有需要吸取的教训，无论是暂停的使用、轮换阵容的安排，还是其他方面。这些都是需要学习的。我想这也是球迷感到沮丧的部分原因：不仅是因为他们输给了一支经验更丰富、统治了他们两年、拥有杰伦·布伦森、卡尔-安东尼·唐斯 (Karl-Anthony Towns) 和OG·阿奴诺比 (OG Anunoby) 的球队，更因为那支球队在他们交手的全部五场比赛中，其实都是可以被击败的 [笑声]。我能理解这种心情。但我确实认为，总的来说，更配得上胜利的球队赢了，而输掉的球队也有很多非常美好的未来值得期待。
汤姆·奥斯本：是的，我们有点……我是说，别用“我们”，把“我们”去掉。我觉得这样说有点对不起尼克斯。我昨晚又看了一遍第四场比赛——噢，我是说第四场——是的，马刺在下半场很早就出手了很多球，在进攻时间还剩很多时就投了。而且，是的，福克斯确实有一些失误，很大的失误。但是天呐，阿奴诺比在那场比赛中的表现太出色了，简直令人难以置信。不仅是那个补篮，他全场砍下33分，15投10中，我记得他投进了7个三分球，罚球一个没丢。布伦森也很棒。阿尔瓦拉多 (Alvarado) 投进了一个在篮筐上转圈后落入网窝的关键三分 [笑声]，这就是命运，球最终还是进了。我是说，那是一支极其出色的球队。是的，马刺在每场比赛中都咬住了比分，但尼克斯让他们为自己的失误付出了代价，而且他们在关键时刻表现得太棒了。所以，向纽约尼克斯致敬。
迈克·芬格：呃，是的。关于你提到的过早出手，以及人们一直在抱怨的一些问题——比如马刺在比赛最后阶段打得不好，米奇没有及时做出调整。这也是米奇·约翰逊在这个系列赛、上个系列赛以及整个季后赛中多次提到过的事情：一方面要坚持让你走到这一步的打法，另一方面也要乐于做出改变，这是你在季后赛中必须学会处理的微妙平衡。当汤姆提到马刺在第四场最后阶段在进攻时间还剩很多时就投三分时，这恰恰是让他们走到今天的重要原因 [笑声]——那就是推速度。他们想打快，他们在打快时表现最好。米奇一遍又一遍地强调过，队里的每个人也都说过：当你打得快时，你就能掌控节奏。当三分线外出现空档时，你就要信任你的投手，因为这就是你努力创造的机会。如果你一直把时间消耗到23秒，你可能就得不到这种质量的出手了。我理解其中的纠结。我也明白，当你在季后赛中领先25分时，你可能确实想消耗一些时间，可能确实想改变打法。但我的意思是，这往往是说起来容易做起来难。当你的风格、你的心态、你的篮球哲学已经如此根深蒂固，并且是你们打进总决赛的关键原因时，你很难在总决赛的第三节突然关掉这个开关，然后说：“好吧，现在我们要压节奏，开始打得保守一些。”那根本不是他们的风格。在某些情况下他们应该那样做吗？是的。但这很难。我想这就是我的观点，这也回到了杰夫之前说的话：米奇·约翰逊不是白痴。汤姆和我在上一期播客中也说过，米奇不是白痴，他今年做得很出色。是的，他会从中吸取教训，就像文班亚马会从中吸取教训，就像这支球队的每个人都会从中吸取教训一样。说到文班亚马，杰夫，你刚才也提到了，我们已经进入了他职业生涯中不可避免的阶段——每个NBA巨星都会经历的阶段，那就是舆论的反弹。现在开始出现这种声音：“他可能不是那个天选之子，这家伙有缺陷，他要么太软，要么打球脏，要么垃圾话太多却拿不出表现。”现在他必须面对扮演反派的角色，并应对这些质疑。我想知道你认为他会如何应对，不仅是在这个休赛期，而是在他的余下职业生涯中？
杰夫·麦克唐纳：为什么……为什么他成了反派？为什么他必须当反派？
汤姆·奥斯本：啊。
迈克·芬格：因为事情就是这样发展的，杰夫！
杰夫·麦克唐纳：不，不，他到底做了什么坏事？
汤姆·奥斯本：呃，从——
迈克·芬格：他差点被驱逐—— [笑声] 他被驱逐了！他有一场比赛被驱逐了，而且他甚至有可能无法在第六场上场。好吧。
杰夫·麦克唐纳：好吧，从我们正在讨论的舆论反弹来看。行吧。
汤姆·奥斯本：从尼克斯的角度来看，他把布伦森推倒了，这真的激怒了他们。
杰夫·麦克唐纳：也许吧，但如果你是尼克斯，说实话，你们也一直在推文班。你们也在用小动作还击。我是说，我不认为尼克斯打心底里觉得文班亚马是个肮脏的球员。
迈克·芬格：不，但是——
杰夫·麦克唐纳：我觉得他们就是这么想的。我觉得尼克斯球迷就是这么想的。这跟……你现在太像个教授了 [笑声]，还在问“为什么他必须当反派？”因为俄克拉荷马城认为他是反派，因为明尼苏达认为他是反派，因为纽约认为……我不是说他是个坏人，我也不是说他真的是个恶棍，客观上我不认为他是反派，但他可以扮演这个角色。就像——汤姆、杰夫，我们都记得在他职业生涯的前几年报道他时，他在任何客场球馆都从未被嘘过，因为他当时还不是威胁，对吧？
杰夫·麦克唐纳：他当时只赢了22场比赛。当你只赢22场比赛时，没人会在乎你。
迈克·芬格：没人会在乎。但当你打进总决赛，当你淘汰了森林狼，淘汰了雷霆，淘汰了尼克斯，并且当你指着自己的脑袋对米切尔·罗宾逊 (Mitchell Robinson) 说“我已经在你脑子里了”的时候——这很棒，我很喜欢，我非常喜欢文班在这个季后赛中所做的一切——你就会制造出一种氛围，突然之间你成了人们嘘的对象，成了被《纽约邮报》放在头版当成“法外之徒”宣传的人。而且，正如杰夫之前所说，你将成为所有电视辩论节目（我真不敢相信居然有人看这些节目）里那些评论员疯狂吐槽的对象。我并不是在为这些行为辩护。我是说——而且我认为尽管杰夫刚才一直在“严刑拷问”我，但他其实也同意——明年人们看待文班的方式会完全不同，会有更多类似“你能用行动证明自己吗？”这样的质疑。我非常期待看到他如何应对职业生涯的这个新篇章。我觉得这会很有意思。
杰夫·麦克唐纳：我觉得他会没事的。但这绝对会把像我这样的人逼疯，因为你会遇到这样的事情，比如文班在——
迈克·芬格：只要有人在你的主菜里多放了一颗洋葱，你就会抓狂，你太容易被逼疯了。[笑声] 你继续。
杰夫·麦克唐纳：就是这样的事情，比如文班在第五场赛后的采访中，他在谈到这个系列赛和比赛时说：“你知道，我们在那个系列赛的大部分时间里都占据了主导地位。”然后视频就被断章取义地剪辑了，变成了“看这家伙有多傲慢，他一点也不给尼克斯面子”，诸如此类——
迈克·芬格：这就是我的意思！
杰夫·麦克唐纳：这让我抓狂，因为他那句话还没说完。那句话还没完。“但是，”文班接着说，“我们的上限真的很高，但我们的下限也真的很低，尼克斯让我们为每一个失误都付出了代价。”这其实是对系列赛非常客观、公正的评估，但他却因为用第二语言表达时的措辞而遭到口诛笔伐。这真让我抓狂。所以，你问他会如何应对，我相信他会没事的。他根本不看这些东西。但我会看，这让我非常抓狂。现在这个世界的运转方式让我抓狂，所以这会把我逼疯。文班自己倒不会有事。
汤姆·奥斯本：如果他们赢了，舆论风向就会变成他是一个多么冷酷无情、极具竞争心、胆识过人的家伙 [笑声]，就像迈克尔·乔丹 (Michael Jordan) 或科比·布莱恩特 (Kobe Bryant) 那样的竞争者。如果他们赢了，风向很容易就会发生转变。
杰夫·麦克唐纳：我只是……我不知道为什么舆论不能是—— [笑声] 我的意思是，其实我知道原因。但总决赛结束后的正常叙事应该是：“尼克斯打出了一个伟大的系列赛。太棒了。他们半个多世纪以来首次夺冠，这对尼克斯和纽约市来说都是一件伟大的事情。马刺也打出了一个伟大的赛季，他们正在崛起，未来将是一支不可忽视的力量，文班亚马也将成为不可忽视的力量。句号。”然后我们进入下个赛季。但是，这样写就没有劲爆的观点了。没有点击量，没有标题党，没有引战内容，没有播放量。所以我们必须认定这家伙是反派，是那个人的错，这个教练不会执教，那个人太垃圾，或者这家伙打球脏。我只是不喜欢这个世界必须是这个样子，但它就是这样，我也无能为力。
汤姆·奥斯本：这个世界上有太多的痛苦了，太多的痛苦。[笑声]
迈克·芬格：你不喜欢我们不能和谐共处？老兄，这就是现实世界。顺便说一句，虽然社交媒体和那些博眼球的言论让情况变得更糟，但这种现象一直都存在。对吧，只是我们以前不知道罢了。你想想，勒布朗·詹姆斯 (LeBron James) 输掉前几次季后赛时，社交媒体还不存在，但每个人都在讨论他永远赢不了关键比赛。还有沙奎尔·奥尼尔 (Shaquille O’Neal) 第一次打总决赛就被横扫。你想想那些被断章取义引用的话。我记得奥尼尔曾说过：“我在每个级别都赢过，”这句话被播放了多少次？除了 [笑声] “大学和职业联赛”。我是说，总会有一些小片段被人们拿来攻击超级巨星。我是说，很久以前，汤姆，在迈克尔·乔丹打进总决赛之前，大概有七八年的时间吧？现在人们把他视为历史最佳，但曾经有一段时间，他只是一个无法打进总决赛或赢下总冠军的超级得分手。我认为除了邓肯之外，每个超级巨星都会经历这种转变，因为邓肯在第二年就夺冠了。他们都会面临这样的质疑：“是的，但他足够好到能赢下总冠军吗？”这就是我的观点——我不是说这公平或不公平，荒谬或不荒谬，合适或不合适，但除了邓肯，每个超级巨星都必须面对文班亚马现在正在面对的事情。就像杰夫说的，也许他并没有受到影响，因为他听不到也看不到，但总会有这样的疑问：“是的，他很伟大，但他真的能赢下关键比赛吗？”这其实是一个有点愚蠢的问题，因为篮球不是一个人的运动。是的，球员们最终要么做到了，要么没做到。这不需要上升到对一个球员价值的终极拷问。但是，是的，我的意思是，明年球队周围的氛围肯定会完全不同。
杰夫·麦克唐纳：我明白。他才22岁。詹姆斯22岁时在做什么？
迈克·芬格：没有赢得总冠军。
杰夫·麦克唐纳：那……那……
迈克·芬格：顺便说一句，邓肯22岁时也没有。
杰夫·麦克唐纳：是的，邓肯没有，卡里姆·阿卜杜尔-贾巴尔 (Kareem Abdul-Jabbar) 也没有，卡里姆当时还在上大学。呃，你知道，奥尼尔22岁时在做什么？没有赢得总冠军。斯蒂芬·库里 (Steph Curry)、凯文·杜兰特 (Kevin Durant)，以此类推，他们22岁时都没有赢得总冠军。奥尼尔第一次总决赛被横扫，詹姆斯第一次总决赛被横扫。呃，新晋NBA冠军教头迈克·布朗 (Mike Brown) 第一次总决赛也被横扫了。[笑声]
迈克·芬格：为什么要把迈克·布朗也列在这个名单里？[笑声] 这太逗了。
杰夫·麦克唐纳：如果迈克·布朗能做到，那任何人都可以。[笑声]
迈克·芬格：是的。是的。呃，还有必要回顾第五场比赛的细节吗？还是说那已经是陈年旧事了？
杰夫·麦克唐纳：我是说，听着，观众和听众可能想让我们谈谈那些显而易见却被回避的话题，尽管这会让我抓狂。比如，我们该如何看待福克斯，他的系列赛表现，以及他在这支球队的未来？就像我们提到的，有些球迷想把他赶出城，我觉得这有点愚蠢，但确实存在——我是说，我们过去几天在私底下也讨论过，他们可能在福克斯的合同到期前，在某个时间点不得不送走他。我觉得这几乎是板上钉钉的事，对吧？
迈克·芬格：是的，而且——
杰夫·麦克唐纳：但这不会是因为他打了一个糟糕的总决赛。而是因为他已经28岁了，他的时间线和这群年轻球员不匹配——他跟其他人的成长轨迹不同，哈珀的成长势头极其迅猛，而且，你知道，福克斯最终会变得太贵。这就是你送走他的原因，而不是因为他总决赛打得不好就交易他。事情不是这么运作的。
汤姆·奥斯本：他在他们赢下的唯一那场比赛中投进了一个关键球，在还剩12秒时投中了关键一击。没有那一球他们根本赢不了。所以。
迈克·芬格：我想说的正是杰夫刚才提到的意思。我们在总决赛之前就讨论过这个问题。呃，从冷酷、理智、不带感情色彩的角度来看，这个夏天可能就是那个时候。这可能是你长痛不如短痛、并说“这迟早要发生”的夏天。哈珀太让人惊喜了。你很难让这样一个球员在长达几年的时间里一直坐在替补席上。我想说的是，甚至在总决赛之前，正如杰夫所说，无论福克斯在总决赛中表现如何，这都会成为一个讨论点。马刺什么时候送走福克斯？他们什么时候能将他的交易价值最大化？呃，我这里不是在报道什么内幕，请不要断章取义。因为我认为这不符合马刺一贯的行事风格。我之前提到过，福克斯是自拉马库斯·阿尔德里奇 (LaMarcus Aldridge) 以来——那几乎是十年前了，杰夫——
杰夫·麦克唐纳：嗯，十多年了。
迈克·芬格：——第一个在有其他选择、且被视为全明星级别球员的情况下，主动选择马刺的人。在阿尔德里奇和福克斯之间，我不确定是否还有其他人。他们得到的其他球员，比如德玛尔·德罗赞 (DeMar DeRozan)，都是通过交易得到的。福克斯当时虽然不是自由球员，但他对萨克拉门托国王队说：“这是我的下家名单，只有一支球队。我想被交易，而且我想被交易到马刺。”这在圣安东尼奥很少发生。如果圣安东尼奥转过头来说：“嘿，我们现在有哈珀了，我们不再需要你了，我们要把你送到孟菲斯，”这很不符合马刺的作风。我有点不确定他们是否会在这个休赛期把他送走。我的观点是，这值得考虑，因为考虑到未来要面对的各种合同，以及需要给哈珀更多的时间，在某个时间点送走他可能对马刺是一件好事。我认为对福克斯来说，去其他地方掌管一支球队也是一件好事。如果他留下来，杰夫，你在私底下多次提到过这个问题：谁来消化那些控卫时间？谁来推速度并掌控全局，用带领马刺打进总决赛的方式来梳理进攻？我是说，福克斯打出了一个非常棒的赛季。他今年入选了全明星。他是球队打进总决赛的重要原因。
汤姆·奥斯本：别忘了他的脚踝伤势。别忘了他的脚踝伤势。
迈克·芬格：别忘了脚踝伤势。呃，我只是觉得这是一个很尴尬的处境。我不是说——我不认为你应该因为福克斯打了一次糟糕的总决赛就送走他，我也不认为应该因为他是个糟糕的球员而送走他。但如果你在负责任地管理一个组织，你必须考虑到在未来一两年内送走福克斯可能非常有道理。我真的很想看看马刺会如何处理这件事。
杰夫·麦克唐纳：是的，我是说，从他签下那份合同的那一刻起，你大概就知道他可能不会在圣安东尼奥履行完这份合同。当他们在去年的选秀中拿到榜眼签时，这一点变得更加真实；当那个榜眼签变成哈珀时，这一点更加真实；而当哈珀展现出他如今的实力时，这一点就再真实不过了。所以，你可能迟早得送走他，我想你的意思是，为什么不现在就做呢？为什么不这个夏天就做？为什么不长痛不如短痛呢？
迈克·芬格：是的。是的。我并不是在全盘支持这个决定。我只是极力主张去考虑这种可能性，你明白我的意思吧。
杰夫·麦克唐纳：没错。我是说，我完全不否认这一点，我理解其中的逻辑，如果他们真的这么做了，我也能理解。我今天在这里发表一个犀利的观点：如果因为某种原因福克斯明年不在队里了，我认为马刺赢不了62场比赛。他们会赢更少。我不认为他们会变烂，也不认为他们会大幅退步，但我觉得，如果你说“嘿，新秀哈珀打出了一个伟大的赛季，伟大的总决赛，伟大的季后赛。我们要把球队的钥匙交给他。”我认为这会伴随着大量的成长阵痛。如果没有福克斯在身边，你可能会比原本多输掉几场比赛。这并不意味着这是个错误的决定。我是说，你依然可以打进季后赛，并以这种方式向总决赛发起冲击。我只是觉得，如果你要以这种方式完成从老将到年轻球员的过渡，你可能会牺牲一些原本可以拿下的胜利。
汤姆·奥斯本：我们看到了——
杰夫·麦克唐纳：我再次强调，我不认为这一定是世界上最糟糕的主意。但是，人们喜欢哈珀的那些特质——他的冲击力、他在篮筐附近的灵巧、他撕裂防线和杀入禁区的能力——他在场时并不需要真正去组织球队。他不需要梳理进攻，他不需要做福克斯所做的事情。这两个球员给球队带来了两种不同的东西。在我的理想世界里，你可以同时使用这三个人——他们两个加上斯蒂芬·卡斯尔。他们都为球队带来了不同的东西，不同的技能包。他们是不同类型的后卫，尽管他们都属于冲击型后卫。但是，这涉及到了人际关系的因素：他们三个都需要首发，你该怎么安排？我不知道该怎么做，也许你必须送走一个才能解决这个问题。如果没有任何情感因素，你可以继续保持现状，也许让哈珀在替补席上多打一些时间，在福克斯或卡斯尔下场时多用他，而哈珀也愿意继续打替补——如果这一切都成立，那么现在确实没有任何理由送走他们中的任何一个。但我认为，这一切都源于一个想法：你不能让哈珀这个孩子再在替补席上待一个赛季了，对吧？如果答案是“是的，不能”，那么你就必须找到某种解决方案。他们三个能同时上场吗？我不知道。我是说，他们有时会一起打一会儿，但作为首发阵容，能行吗？我不确定。
汤姆·奥斯本：我们看到了当他不在场时，他们在对阵俄克拉荷马城时出现的失误问题。
杰夫·麦克唐纳：没有福克斯，他们根本进不了总决赛。如果福克斯在对阵俄克拉荷马城的系列赛中没有上场，那将会是一场失误连连的灾难，我认为马刺赢不下来。
汤姆·奥斯本：但是迈克，迈克用了一个词来形容马刺的管理层，他用了“负责任”这个词。他们确实很负责任。他们会评估这件事。至于做不做，我们不知道，但他们一定会进行评估。
迈克·芬格：关于杰夫提到的阵容问题，我想补充一点，我想慢慢梳理一些事实，或者说一些被广泛接受的假设。如果说这次季后赛暴露了马刺在阵容构建上的某个明显短板，我认为其中之一就是他们非常缺乏一个能与文班亚马搭档的大个子。我觉得无论是通过选秀还是自由市场，这都是他们未来想要得到的拼图。我是说，朱利安·尚帕尼 (Julian Champagnie) 是本赛季最励志的故事之一。尚帕尼的表现太棒了，他整个赛季都是如此重要的球员，简直是联盟最大的捡漏。我是说，他的合同性价比高得离谱。在打进总决赛的历程中，他一直是你们的首发大前锋，这在遇到瓶颈之前一直行之有效。但是，马刺对阿奴诺比毫无办法。呃，[叹气] 是的。这就是当你憧憬马刺需要什么时，你需要的正是这样一个能与文班搭档的大个子。所以假设在某个时间点，无论那个人是谁，无论卡特·布莱恩特 (Carter Bryant) 是否能成长为那个人，还是你在选秀、自由市场、交易中找到的人，假设你找到了一个未命名的大前锋来与文班亚马搭档。现在你的首发阵容还剩三个位置。卡斯尔是其中之一。我们都同意，哈珀最终也会是其中之一。现在，对于最后一个位置 [笑声]，你可以选择福克斯。但别忘了德文·瓦塞尔 (Devin Vassell)——他是一个被低估的、令人难以置信的球员。瓦塞尔展现出了马刺所能想象的最好版本的自己。在这次季后赛以及本赛季的大部分时间里，瓦塞尔完美地扮演了球队需要他扮演的角色。所以，为了那个位置，你拥有福克斯、瓦塞尔以及前面提到的尚帕尼。基本上，我们的意思是，如果你增加一个大前锋，这两个人就必须去打替补。这当然可以做到，而且这些家伙的态度都很好，我们个人没有听到任何不和谐的声音。在第五场赛后，瓦塞尔有一句有点奇怪的话——他只是简单提了一句，说哈珀不喜欢，或者说很难接受他被赋予的角色。但我没有听到更多相关的消息。我不想对瓦塞尔的一句无心之言做过度解读。
杰夫·麦克唐纳：是的。
迈克·芬格：但我的观点是，球员的自尊心最终会产生影响，不一定是自私，而是好胜心，以及想要为球队做贡献的渴望。因此，让其中两个人去打替补，事情就会变得有些复杂。你还有凯尔登·约翰逊 (Keldon Johnson)，他这次季后赛打得不好，而且他之前被放到替补席时也经历了一段艰难的适应期。你要求这么多球员都做出一些牺牲。呃，这是一个漫长、冗长、甚至可能有些无聊的铺垫，但我想表达的重点是，你可能不得不送走某个人。
杰夫·麦克唐纳：是的。
迈克·芬格：而且，如果福克斯的合同导致球队未来很难给文班亚马、卡斯尔、哈珀、布莱恩特发工资，而且尚帕尼未来也即将面临续约，那么送走福克斯就是最合理的选择。虽然杰夫和汤姆所说的关于他对这次总决赛之旅有多么重要的每一句话都是对的，但福克斯今年确实完成了他的任务。他做到了球队要求他做的一切。我想，当你在去年二月与萨克拉门托国王队完成那笔交易时，如果有人告诉你，在一年零四个月后，福克斯将站在总决赛的舞台上，虽然可能会有一些失误，你一定会说：“嘿，这简直是巨大的成功！”[笑声]
杰夫·麦克唐纳：是的。
迈克·芬格：“你是在告诉我，我们交易来福克斯，而当时我们只是一支22胜的球队，在一年零四个月后，我们居然会因为他在该死的总决赛中失误太多而对他生气？”如果是这样，你绝对会毫不犹豫地做一百次这样的交易。那是一笔非常成功的交易。呃，现在，也许你们会重新评估未来并送走他，我们在这件事上花了很多时间，因为我知道这是大家最关心的。但，呃，我很庆幸我不需要做这个决定。而且我认为汤姆是对的，马刺会像往常一样权衡利弊，我想结果会好起来的。我认为无论发生什么，马刺都将处于非常有利的位置，去争取打进更多次总决赛。
杰夫·麦克唐纳：我们之前也提到了他，但总决赛的另一个替罪羊是米奇。我们对米奇没意见吧？我们对米奇没意见吧？我是说，他显然没有打出一个伟大的系列赛。我们不需要粉饰这一点。在总决赛中，尼克斯赢得了教练之间的对决。但我只是觉得你不能……我是说，一切都是学习的过程，对吧？就像我们说的，对于这支以前从未打过季后赛、从未进过总决赛的球队来说，这是一次学习的经历，对教练来说也是如此。我们看到他在其他系列赛中取得了长足的进步。但在总决赛中，我认为他没能完全把准脉搏，这很正常。但我认为，就像球员和球队一样，教练也许也需要经历这些才能真正开窍。他明年会变得更好。
迈克·芬格：我不是在偏袒自家球队，我知道我们是《马刺内幕》播客，但你们也知道，今年在联盟各处，我们和多少篮球界人士（那些与马刺毫无关系的人）聊天时，他们都会说：“天呐，那支球队执教得太棒了”？
杰夫·麦克唐纳：是的。
迈克·芬格：“运营得太好了。”米奇、肖恩·斯威尼 (Sean Sweeney)、科利斯·威廉姆森 (Corliss Williamson) 以及教练组的每一个人，他们所做的工作让这支球队因为出色的管理而真正成为了最好的自己。这是否意味着那些以前从未在总决赛执教过的教练，在进入总决赛后就不会犯错？当然不是。正如杰夫所说，这显然是一次学习的过程。但这个联盟里充满了这样的故事：一个人今年赢得了年度最佳教练，或者成为了宠儿，第二年就被解雇了。但基于这支球队30年来的运营方式——
杰夫·麦克唐纳：是的，确实——
迈克·芬格：——我认为这不会发生。我认为这不会发生。
汤姆·奥斯本：看看迈克·布朗。
迈克·芬格：我可以非常确信地说，马刺管理层的重要决策者对米奇·约翰逊有着绝对的信心和信任，而且这在短期内不会动摇。他们知道当初聘请他是有原因的。在马刺的组织架构中，从上到下都是米奇·约翰逊的坚定支持者。因为一个系列赛中的几次战术失误就全盘否定他，我认为是疯狂的，而且我认为这不会发生。
杰夫·麦克唐纳：是的，只是在季后赛中，尤其是总决赛中，每一个具体的决定都会被无限放大。
迈克·芬格：确实如此。
杰夫·麦克唐纳：比如，在第四场大比分领先时可能过度使用了文班——当时领先29分，你却找不到超过四分钟的时间让文班休息，导致他在最后阶段精疲力竭。我是说，我们之前也讨论过，有人认为鉴于福克斯和哈珀当时的表现，也许球不应该一直放在福克斯手里。我理解这两种观点，你只是在坚持你一整年都在做的事情，那就是信任你的老将控卫——这就是纠结所在。在比赛最后阶段，球在福克斯手里而不是哈珀手里，是因为他是经验丰富的老将控卫，会做出所有正确的决定。结果，[笑声] 凭借他相比年轻的哈珀唯一的优势，他却没有做出正确的决定。呃，还有轮换安排、暂停的使用。在情况变得棘手时，没有太多的战术呼叫。但我认为这是一支年轻球队的通病。我认为很多执教年轻球队的教练都会受到这种批评，因为他们没有那么多可以信手拈来的战术储备。当我们谈论邓肯、托尼（帕克）、马努（吉诺比利）的时代时，那些球队都是老将，他们在一起打了十年，他们有无数的应对方案。“我们现在可以打这个战术。这个战术我们已经一年半没用了，现在可以拿出来了。”今年的马刺没有这些，因为他们太年轻了，你必须坚持一些最基本的战术。所以，这可能会显得有点单调，我不认为这是教练的问题，这只是年轻的代价。所以，虽然米奇没有打出一个伟大的总决赛，但他会从中学习。而且，你几乎不能指望他在总决赛中击败一位经验丰富的老帅。我不知道，我不知道，我开始语无伦次了。
汤姆·奥斯本：好吧，他跟第一场比赛中文班的失误也没有关系，就是砸到卡斯尔后背的那个球。我不认为——
迈克·芬格：我是说，很多人希望他叫暂停。像那样的回合，他应该叫暂停。我不同意这种看法，我绝对不会在那个时候叫暂停，但那确实是他本可以做的事情，以防止文班亚马把球传给一个根本没看球的球员。
汤姆·奥斯本：而且我不认为他跟漏掉阿奴诺比有什么关系，虽然我不能完全确定，但昨晚重看比赛时，我觉得可能是福克斯在那次防守中出现了失误。呃，我也不确定。
杰夫·麦克唐纳：等等，我想澄清一件事。我们刚刚报道了一百场比赛，一直工作到六月中旬，我们几乎是精疲力竭地拖着步子跨过了终点线，好不容易结束了，你居然又看了一遍第四场比赛？这就是你庆祝的方式？重温第四场？[笑声] 你真是个工作狂，汤姆。
汤姆·奥斯本：好吧，在完成一些工作任务的间隙，你知道，我们被要求做的事情，然后从顶层看台坐电梯下来。是的，我错过了很多细节，而且媒体室当时一片混乱。[笑声] 所以，我只是想再看一遍。
杰夫·麦克唐纳：呃，我看了《星际宝贝》（Lilo & Stitch）。
汤姆·奥斯本：我懂你。[笑声]
杰夫·麦克唐纳：我懂。
迈克·芬格：呃，谁能想到——谁能想到我们会走到这一步，一直工作到六月，工作到六月中旬？我觉得这值得铭记，不是吗？没有人预料到这一点。
汤姆·奥斯本：德维恩·兰金 (Dwayne Rankin) 没有错，他只是说早了。当他们在未来的岁月里赢得多个总冠军时，他们会回首这段往事并说：“如果没有经历过这次挫折，我们就不可能赢得那些总冠军。”所以。
迈克·芬格：我确实认为，这听起来可能有点俗套，但我前几天在报纸上写过，虽然现在没人想听这个，但这让故事变得更精彩了，老兄。我只是觉得——
汤姆·奥斯本：很好的素材。
迈克·芬格：——与其一开始就顺风顺水，最棒的夺冠故事往往是那些需要克服重重困难、伴随着质疑、冲突、痛苦和动摇时刻的故事。而且，你知道，回想一下——
汤姆·奥斯本：看看2014年。
迈克·芬格：正如汤姆刚才所说，回到2014年。人们说他们本可以实现两连冠。我不确定是不是这样，杰夫，我想你之前也提到过。如果他们在2013年赢了，如果雷·阿伦 (Ray Allen) 在底角的那记三分球弹筐而出，当时场边的黄色警戒线已经拉起，如果马刺坚持到最后，击败了勒布朗·詹姆斯、克里斯·波什 (Chris Bosh) 和德维恩·韦德 (Dwyane Wade) 赢得了总冠军，他们第二年还会如此专注、如此充满动力吗？我们还能见证2014年那段行云流水的“团队篮球”神奇之旅吗？还是他们会说：“嘿，我们做到了。在距离上一次夺冠六年之后，我们在2013年又拿了一个，这就是我们的传奇。”世界还能看到马刺在第二年展现出的那种伟大、美妙的团队篮球打法吗？我不太确定。我认为，今年输给纽约尼克斯这样一支伟大而神奇的球队，也是有其意义的。这也许会在未来引领我们走向更好、更不同的境地。能保证他们明年一定会回来吗？当然不能。他们明年可能会在第一轮输给太阳。但是——
汤姆·奥斯本：是的。
迈克·芬格：——我认为这其中有积极的一面。无论如何，这都是一个极其精彩的故事。
杰夫·麦克唐纳：你也可能会像2012年的雷霆一样，他们终于打进了总决赛，你以为“他们要来了，他们会统治这里很久”，但那套阵容之后再也没能重返总决赛。
迈克·芬格：这就是硬币的另一面。所以，说到这里——
杰夫·麦克唐纳：我们就聊到这吧。
迈克·芬格：最后，我想大家应该记住，永远保持感恩之心大于期望值，彼此照顾，保持真实。
[音乐]
由生成式 AI 翻译，译文内容可能不准确或不完整，以原文为准。
点击查看原文：After Finals heartbreak, what comes next?
After Finals heartbreak, what comes next?
Columnist Mike Finger and beat writers Jeff McDonald and Tom Orsborn discuss the Spurs’ loss to the Knicks in the NBA Finals, look back at a season that exceeded all realistic expectations, and examine what the future might hold for Victor Wembanyama and De’Aaron Fox.
Suggested reading:
How the Spurs hope to gain fuel from Knicks’ celebration
Why Spurs are in control of what they take from the NBA Finals
Why the Spurs’ biggest offseason question is the easiest to answer
Here is the transcript of the podcast:
Mike Finger: This episode of Spurs Insider is brought to you by the American Sinus Institute.
[music]
Mike Finger: From a highly secure network of top secret locations across South Texas, this is the Spurs Insider, we-work-till-June edition. I am Mike Finger, joined, as always, by San Antonio Express-News Spurs beat writer, Tom Orsborn. To the delight of many, to the disappointment of a few, fellow Spurs beat writer, Jeff McDonald, is back after missing the NBA Finals bonus edition. And after nine months, after a hundred-plus games, we need some perspective. We need some semblance of an idea about what we’ve just witnessed. And so for that, we turn to Mr. Serenity himself, Tom Orsborn. What have you got for us? What did the last hundred-plus games mean?
Tom Orsborn: Man, I mean, still, what a season. I mean, I know it’s disappointing, I know it hurts, I know it’s a gut punch, I know it’s a kick to the you-know-whats, but [laughter] you just—you got to look at this season and say, what a—what a magical run it was. And they’re way ahead of schedule. And the overriding thing coming out of that, coming out of Game 5, is just stay the course. Uh, add some things, you know, get better in some areas, but stay the course, and look at what the Knicks did. What—how they built it, how they got to this point. You know, they—they kept the team together, and here they are with the championship. So, just stay the course, and—and try to put the pain aside and just, man, just embrace what a great season it was.
Mike Finger: That’s the serenity I was looking for. Thank you, Tom. And now let’s turn to—
Tom Orsborn: Now Jeff can tear it apart. [laughter]
Jeff McDonald: No, I—I—I agree with Tom, and I think there’s been a little bit of a weird discourse since the Finals ended, um, like, it’s almost like some people would have been happier if the Spurs had just done what we all thought they were going to do and lost in the second round. [laughter] You know, they get to the Finals, and it’s like, “Oh my god, they choked. They’re terrible. Mitch Johnson’s terrible. De’Aaron Fox, we got to trade him.” I mean, it’s—it’s—it’s just interesting. I mean, what happened to them is what we said was going to happen all along, uh, which I finally—I—I had finally got to the point where I believed it was not going to happen, but it did happen, where they finally got to a round of the playoffs where it was too much for them. The other team was too much for them. Maybe not talent-wise, but, um, you know, in terms of what Tom was talking about, that continuity, that—that, um, being together for so long, having been through the battles, knowing how to do it. Um, the Spurs reached a—reached a point and an opponent in the playoffs where just the—the sheer talent of your Victor Wembanyamas and your Dylan Harpers and your Stephon Castles was—was not enough to overcome the fact that this team also had some talent, also had a head of the snake in Jalen Brunson, that’s—that’s an MVP candidate, and, uh, knew how to get it done. I mean, you talk about a team on the Spurs that led that series for like 72, 74 percent of the time, except, you know, four times when it mattered the most, at the final horn. And that was the Knicks being the more experienced team, the—the more fourth-quarter, the more ready team. The Spurs got to a point in the playoffs they just weren’t ready for, finally. A lot of us thought that was going to happen the second round. A lot of us—a lot of us thought that was going to happen in the Western Conference Finals. It finally happened in the Finals, and it’s okay. That’s the main thing. It’s okay. They—they got further than you thought this season, and you should—should be okay with that. Like, there’s no reason to—to panic or lose your minds. And, um, I mean, you know, there’s no guarantees you get back here next—I, you know, I will go on record right now, unless something really weird happens with Victor Wembanyama, this will not be his—the—his final NBA Finals series. He’ll get back at some point. That doesn’t necessarily guarantee next season. We all know—we all know that. But, um, you know, the future’s bright, and—and acting like this season was anything short of an unmitigated success because you lost in a Finals series you didn’t even expect to be in is, uh, bizarre to me.
Mike Finger: It’s—it’s not bizarre when you consider—well, no—
Jeff McDonald: It is bizarre.
Mike Finger: Well, no, it’s—it’s not, because I think, you’re right, if—if the Spurs had lost in the second round, which is—would have put them on pace of the Tim Duncan, you know, Tim Duncan, his first time in the playoffs lost in the second round, that’s—
Jeff McDonald: But then we’d be talking about, “Look out for those Spurs next year! Here they come!”
Mike Finger: Right. Right. If they would have lost in the—in Game 7, like, okay, by the time—I’m going to backtrack a little bit. By the time they got into the playoffs and were rolling so well and—and—and were—were exceeding expectations by so much, I think there would have been some disappointment if—if they had lost to the Timberwolves in the second round, because the Spurs were a better team than the Timberwolves. And even if though that would have been explainable to lose to a team that’s been together, there would have been some legitimate, uh, hair-pulling disappointment there. I do think, though, if you lose Game 7 to SGA and the Thunder, the—the reaction to that is a little more accepting [laughter] than it would have been to lose in Game 5 to the Knicks. Because what happened in Game 7 against the Thunder—and you saw it even from the Spurs themselves, you saw Victor Wembanyama breaking down in tears on the court and you saw that celebration as to, “This was the breakthrough, this was the holy cow, um, they really did it, they made it to the NBA Finals” thing. Um, that was—Game 7 against the Thunder is the one that I think people would have been like, “Okay, that’s—that’s where they should have been. They lost to the team that was the first seed. They lost to the defending champs. That’s fine.” Once you won that game, I don’t think—I don’t think it’s bizarre to think that a city, a locker room, um, the NBA, everybody kind of expected the Spurs were going to finish this off, and—and the—the disappointment, while everything that Tom and Jeff said is accurate, and—and, uh, makes a lot of sense and is true—I mean, like, like, uh, people should have a bigger perspective, people should have the serenity to see that this was a huge step forward. I understand the disappointment, and I understand the—the fact that I think a lot of listeners of this podcast, who presumably are Spurs fans, allowed themselves to believe, after the Spurs beat Oklahoma City, that this thing was going to be a championship. And even those who maintained the proper perspective for eight months, um, allowed their—their hopes to get up just a little—little too high before the NBA Finals. So, I think we’re quibbling over—we’re quibbling over words.
Jeff McDonald: I’m just saying—
Mike Finger: I’m just saying, it’s fine to be—it’s fine to be disappointed. It makes sense to be disappointed. I don’t understand people being big babies about it.
Mike Finger: You should—no, that’s—that’s part—being—being allowed to be a big baby is part of being a sports fan, and—and I think the three of us have forgotten that.
Jeff McDonald: It seems—it seems miserable. Who would want to be that? Who would want to be a sports fan then?
Tom Orsborn: Did they not—did they not see what the Knicks did in the previous three rounds? Did they not see how the Knicks played against the Spurs for the last two seasons? Did they not see the NBA Cup? I mean, this was not going to be easy. It was never going to be easy.
Mike Finger: Of course not. Of course not. My—my point is to—to dismiss the feelings of—of—of the fans—and none of us are fans. [laughter] None of us are—we—we’ve lost touch with the common fan. I’m just saying, I’m—I’m not here to—to sit in judgment of our listeners and call them bizarre and, uh, and, uh, ridiculous.
Jeff McDonald: I may not be talking about fans. I may be talking about, like, talking heads, like social media, like all this—all this—the—the narrative that is—like all of a sudden Victor Wembanyama is some kind of stupid choker, and Mitch Johnson’s the worst coach in the world, and—like, it’s weird. It’s weird, some of the backlash this team has gotten for going further than you think they were going to get.
Mike Finger: It’s dumb. It’s dumb. But, you know, I—I—I get the looking for a—a scapegoat. That’s what happens. People want to blame somebody. And it’s not like—I—I read my emails. It’s not just talking heads. It’s a lot of people who have been emailing and reading all year long that are like—and I—and I—and I disagree with it. I’m not—I’m not agreeing with it, but I understand the—the emails that I’m getting like, “What the heck was Mitch thinking doing this?” The email from—the email from Ecuador that I think Tom might have gotten too, a few—few of us got it, about how we need to investigate De’Aaron Fox for gambling [laughter] because he clearly threw the series. That was—that was a fun one.
Jeff McDonald: Yeah, you see that in the email? Ridiculous.
Mike Finger: It’s—it’s—it’s ridiculous, but—but—but—but this is what hap—this is what happens when you get your expectations up. People want to look for—people want to look for an excuse. And I think part of this podcast is not just to—to scold people for feeling that way—
Jeff McDonald: Well, sometimes people need some tough love, man.
Mike Finger: —but to, uh, to, uh, explain to them, to remind them that, uh, that this team is well on its way to bigger and better things, which, as Jeff said, is not guaranteed, but this was a—a hugely positive step forward for this team. Um, all that being said, um, it’s worth acknowledging that this was a winnable series.
Jeff McDonald: Sure.
Mike Finger: Um, and that if Victor Wembanyama plays a little better in the fourth quarters, and if De’Aaron Fox plays a little better in—in several games, if he does not, uh, uh, make a couple of, sort of, flabbergasting decisions down the stretch in a couple games, maybe things are different. If Mitch Johnson, who out-coached—I remember on this podcast, I made a point of saying out-coach Mark Daigneault of the Oklahoma City Thunder in the previous round, who was a huge reason why the Spurs made it this far and exceeded all those expectations, one masterstroke after another from Mitch Johnson all season long—I think it’s worth acknowledging there are some things that he will learn from in this series, whether it’s the usage of timeouts or the—the—the substitution patterns, what have you. Like, there’s things to learn from, and I—I think that’s part of the frustration of the fans, is not just that they were outclassed by a team that had been there before, and that had dominated them for two years, and had Jalen Brunson and Karl-Anthony Towns and OG Anunoby, but that that team was still beatable [laughter] in all five of the games that they played. Um, it’s— I—I—I—I get that. Um, but I do think, overall, the team that deserved to win won, and the team that lost has a lot of really good things to look forward to.
Tom Orsborn: Yeah, we’re—we’re doing a little bit—I mean, I’m not saying we, take the “we” out. I think it’s a little bit of a disservice to the Knicks. I watched Game 6—I mean, Game 6—I watched Game 4 again last night, and yeah, the Spurs took a lot of shots early and, uh, in—in the second half, early in the shot clock, and—and, yeah, Fox, you know, there were some gaffes, big gaffes, you know, but my gosh, that OG was outstanding in that game. It was unbelievable. I mean, not just the tip-in, but 33 points, 10-of-15, uh, I think he had seven threes, didn’t miss a free throw. Um, Brunson was great. Alvarado threw in a—a huge three that went in and out, [laughter] you know, talk about fate, and ultimately went in. I mean, that’s a damn good team, and, uh, yeah, the—the Spurs were in each game, but, you know, the—the Knicks made them pay for their mistakes, and, uh, and they were great in—in crunch time. So, tip of the hat to the New York Knicks.
Mike Finger: Um, yes, and—and—one thing you mentioned about taking shots early and, um, some of the—some of the things that—that people are harping on, the Spurs for not playing well down the stretch in games, for Mitch for not changing things up, that’s something that Mitch Johnson talked about a couple of times, uh, this series, last series, throughout the playoffs, about that idea of sticking with what got you to a place, and also being willing to change things up, and kind of the—the fine line that you have to learn how to to deal with in the playoffs. And when Tom talks about the Spurs throwing up three-pointers early in the shot clock down the stretch in Game 4, that’s so—so much a part of what got them here, [laughter] is pushing—is they want to play—they’re at their best—Mitch has said it over and over and over again, everyone on the team has said that—is when you’re playing fast, you’re dictating the tempo. When a shot is open from three-point range, you trust your shooters to make it because that’s the shot that you’re working to get. And if you take it till 23 seconds into the shot clock, you might not get a shot of that—of that quality. I understand the struggle there. I also understand that when you’re leading by 25 points in a playoff game, maybe you do want to take some time off the clock and maybe you do want to change things, but I—I—my point is, it’s sometimes easier said than done. And when it’s your—your— personality, your mentality, your—your— your philosophy in how you play basketball, that’s so ingrained and—and is so much a part of—of why you got to the NBA Finals, it’s hard to just turn that off in the third quarter of a Finals game and say, “Okay, now we’re going to take the air out of the ball and start being conservative.” That’s just not who they were. Is that should—is that who they should have been in some of those situations? Yes. But that’s—that’s difficult, and I guess that’s my point there, and it—it gets back to what Jeff was talking about earlier, like, it’s not a—it’s not—Mitch Johnson’s not an idiot. Tom and I talked about on the last podcast, Mitch Johnson’s not an idiot, he’s done a brilliant job this year. Yes. Um, there—he—he will learn from this, much like Victor will learn from this, much like everybody on this team will learn from this. And on the Victor note, uh, Jeff, uh, you—you alluded to some of it earlier, there is—we have entered the inevitable, the—the—the portion of Victor’s career that always was going to come because it comes for every NBA star, the portion of his career where there’s the backlash. And there is that, “This—this might not be the golden child, this guy has flaws, this guy is either soft or dirty or, uh, talks too much trash or can’t back it up.” Now he’s going to deal with being a bit of the villain and dealing with some of this backlash, and I’m wondering how you anticipate him, uh, handling that, not only this offseason but, uh, for the rest of his career.
Jeff McDonald: Why—why is he a villain? Why does he have to be a villain?
Tom Orsborn: Ah.
Mike Finger: Because that’s what happens, Jeff!
Jeff McDonald: No, no, what—what—what has he done that’s villainous?
Tom Orsborn: Well, from—
Mike Finger: He almost got ejected from— [laughter] He got ejected! He got ejected from a game, and there’s a chance he might not play in Game 6. Okay.
Jeff McDonald: Okay. From the backlash we’re talking about. Okay.
Tom Orsborn: From the Knicks’ perspective, pushing Brunson down, that—that really angered them.
Jeff McDonald: I guess, but if you’re the Knicks and you’re being honest, you were pushing on Vic too the whole time. You’re being dirty back. Like, I don’t—I don’t—I don’t think the Knicks in their heart of hearts think Victor Wembanyama’s a dirty player.
Mike Finger: No, but—
Jeff McDonald: I think they do. I think the Knicks fans do. This is not about—you’re being very professorial here [laughter] and being, “Well, why does he have to be a villain?” Because— because Oklahoma City thinks he’s a villain, because Minnesota thinks he’s a villain, because New York think—I’m not saying he’s a bad guy, I’m not saying he’s a villain, I don’t think that objectively he’s a villain, but he can play that role. Like, instead of—you—we remember, Tom, Jeff, covering Victor his first couple of years, there—he was never booed in any rival arena because he was not—he was not a threat, right?
Jeff McDonald: He was winning 22 games. No one cares when you’re winning 22.
Mike Finger: No one cares. Whenever you go to the NBA Finals, and whenever you knock out the—the Timberwolves, whenever you knock out the Thunder, whenever you knock out the Knicks, and when—and—and as you’re pointing to your head saying, “I’m in your head,” talking to Mitchell Robinson as you’re doing it, which is great, I love that, I loved so much about what Victor did this postseason, you are going to create some atmosphere—atmospheres now where all of a sudden you’re the guy that people boo, and you’re the guy that people put on the front page of the New York Post as a—as an outlaw, and that kind of stuff. And you’re going to—you’re the guy who, to Jeff’s point earlier, all the talking heads are going to be talking crap about on all the debate shows, that I can’t believe people watch. But, um, and—and—and I’m not defending any of that. I’m saying—and I think despite Jeff’s, uh, uh, third degree here, I think he agrees too—that next year, Victor’s going to be, uh, perceived in a different way, and there’s going to be more, like, “Can you back it up?” uh, type of deal. And I just—I—I—I am looking forward to seeing him, uh, deal with that new chapter in his career. I think it could be fun.
Jeff McDonald: And I think—I think he’ll be fine. I think it’s going to drive people like me absolutely nuts, because you get things like this, like Victor having—
Mike Finger: You’re driven nuts whenever someone puts a—a spare onion in your—in your entrée, like, you’re easily driven nuts. [laughter] Go ahead.
Jeff McDonald: It’s things—it’s things like this, like Victor—Victor has that—that postgame after Game 5, and he’s talking about the series and the game, and he says, “You know, we dominated most of that series.” And then the clip gets clipped there, and it’s, “Look how arrogant this guy is. He won’t give the Knicks any credit,” and this kind of—
Mike Finger: That’s my point!
Jeff McDonald: It drives me crazy, because the sentence wasn’t over. The sentence wasn’t over. “But,” but, Victor says, “Our highs were really—” His point is, “Our highs were really high, but our lows were really—really low, and the Knicks made us pay for everything.” It’s—it’s very much a very fair assessment of the series, but he gets crucified for the words he chooses in his second language. And it drives me nuts. So, you asked how people handle it, I’m sure he’ll be fine. He doesn’t—he doesn’t see most of this stuff. Uh, but—but I do, and it drive—it drives me nuts. Just the—the world, the way—the way the world works now drives me nuts, so it’s going to drive me crazy. Victor will be fine.
Tom Orsborn: If they had won, the narrative shifts to him being what a—what a cutthroat, competitive, brassy, [laughter] you know, guy, you know, just—just a—just, you know, a Michael Jordan, uh, Kobe Bryant competitor. Uh, it—it would shift so easily if they had won.
Jeff McDonald: I just—I just—I don’t know why it can’t be the—the— [laughter] I mean, I do know why. But the narrative coming out of the Finals are, “What a great series the Knicks played. That’s awesome. They won a title for the first time in over half a century. What a great thing for the Knicks and the city of New York. And the Spurs played—had a great season, too, and they’re on their way up, and they’re going to be a force to be reckoned with, and Victor Wembanyama’s going to be a force to be reckoned with. Full stop.” And we go into next season. Like, that’s—but there’s no hot takes there. There’s no clicks there, there’s no clickbait there, there’s no rage bait there, there’s no views there. So we have to decide this guy’s a villain, it’s this guy’s fault, this guy can’t coach, this guy sucks, um, this guy’s, uh, dirty, that kind of stuff. I—I just—I don’t like that the world has to be that way, but it is that way, and I can’t change it.
Tom Orsborn: There’s a lot of pain in the world, a lot of pain. [laughter]
Mike Finger: You don’t like that we all can’t live in harmony together? Like, that’s—that’s the world, man. And by the way, like, social media and the hot takes and all the stuff has made it worse, but it’s always existed. Right, we just didn’t know about it. You go back to, I mean, social media wasn’t a thing whenever LeBron James was—was losing his first few playoff runs and everyone was talking about how he’d never big—win the big one. Um, Shaquille O’Neal getting swept out of the Finals his first time. There—and and you you think of the things that are quoted, um, out of context. I think Shaq had said, “I’ve won at every level,” how many times did that get played, other than, uh, [laughter] “college and the pros”? And I mean, there’s always been like little clips that people have—have railed on superstars for. I mean, way back in the day, Tom, uh, what was it, seven, eight years before, uh, uh, Michael Jordan made it to the Finals? And he’s people, you know, look at him as the greatest of all time, and there was a time when he was just a great scorer who couldn’t get to the big one or win it. Um, I think there’s always been this shift for every superstar player, other than maybe Tim Duncan, because Tim Duncan won it in his second year. Um, where there was the question of, “Yeah, but is he good enough to win it all?” And that’s my only—I’m not saying it’s fair or unfair or ridiculous or not ridiculous or, um, or appropriate or inappropriate, but every superstar, maybe other than Tim Duncan, has had to deal with what Victor Wembanyama is dealing with now. And like Jeff said, maybe he’s not dealing with it because he’s not hearing it or seeing it, but there’s always this—this—this question about, “Yeah, he’s great, but can he—can he really win the big one?” Which is a kind of a silly question because it’s not just about one person. Um, yeah, and—and eventually players get there or they don’t. Um, it doesn’t have to be an existential question about a player’s worth, what have you. But, um, but yeah, it’s—it’s going to be, my point is, it’s going to be a different vibe around the local locations next year.
Jeff McDonald: I—I understand. He’s 22. What—what—what was LeBron doing at 22?
Mike Finger: Not winning a title.
Jeff McDonald: What was— what was—
Mike Finger: Nor was Tim Duncan, by the way.
Jeff McDonald: Yeah, nor was Tim Duncan, nor was Kareem. Kareem was still in college. Um, you know, Shaq at 22, what was he doing? Not winning a title. Steph Curry, Kevin Durant, on down the line, none of them won titles at 22. Shaq gets swept in his first one, LeBron gets swept in his first one. Uh, newly crowned NBA champion, Mike Brown, gets swept in his first one. [laughter]
Mike Finger: Why are we putting Mike Brown on this list? [laughter] That’s pretty good.
Jeff McDonald: If Mike Brown can do it, anybody can. [laughter]
Mike Finger: Yeah. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Um, is there worth—is it worth, uh, reviewing any part of Game 5, or do we—that’s like ancient history now, right?
Jeff McDonald: I mean, look, the—the viewers and listeners want us to talk about the elephants in the room probably, even though it’s going to drive me crazy, but like, what do we make of De’Aaron Fox, his series, his future with the team going forward? Like, we did mention there’s some fans that want to run him out of town on a rail, which I think is a little silly, but there are—I mean, we were talking about it off-air, in the last couple days, like they’re probably going to have to move off De’Aaron Fox at some point before his contract is out. Like, I think that’s almost guaranteed, right?
Mike Finger: Yes, and—
Jeff McDonald: But it won’t be because, oh, he had a bad Finals series. It’ll be because he’s 28, he’s off the timeline—he’s not on the same timeline as the other—these other guys, Dylan Harper is coming along like gangbusters, and, uh, you know, De’Aaron’s going to get too expensive eventually. That’s why you move off of him, not because he had a bad Finals, trade him. Like, that’s—that’s not how this works.
Tom Orsborn: He had a huge shot in Game—the one game they win, he hits a clutch shot with 12 seconds left. They don’t win the game without that. So.
Mike Finger: The point I was going to make is along the lines of what Jeff just said. We were talking about this before the Finals. Um, and—and, like, this might be the summer, from a cold, calculated, emotionless, um, perspective. This might be the summer when you rip the band-aid off and—and say, “This needs to happen at some point.” Um, Dylan Harper is such a revelation. Um, it’s hard to keep a guy like that on the bench for, uh, multiple years. Um, and I—I—I—what I’m getting at is, is even before, regardless, like Jeff said, regardless of how De’Aaron Fox played in the Finals, I think this was going to be a talking point. When do the Spurs move off of De’Aaron Fox? When can they maximize his trade value? Um, I’m not reporting anything here, this should not get aggregated. Um, because I think that this—this is something that the Spurs—it’s not very Spurs-like for them to do this. I’ve mentioned this before. De’Aaron Fox is the first player since LaMarcus Aldridge, which was almost a decade ago, Jeff—
Jeff McDonald: Mhm. More than a decade.
Mike Finger: —to to have had options, to have been considered an All-Star type player, that—that chose the Spurs. Like, between LaMarcus Aldridge and De’Aaron Fox, I’m not sure there was one, um, the other guys they acquired were—were like DeMar DeRozan in a trade, things like that. Um, De’Aaron Fox could have—he wasn’t a free agent, but he chose to say, “This is my list. It’s one team,” to the Sacramento Kings. “I want to be traded, and I want to be traded to the Spurs.” That rarely happens in San Antonio. And for San Antonio then to turn around and say, “Hey, we have Dylan Harper now, we don’t need you anymore, we’re going to ship you off to Memphis,” that’s not very Spurs-like, and I’m—I am a bit unsure that that’s—that they’re going to ship him anywhere this offseason. My point is, it is worth considering, because I think it would be a good thing for the Spurs at some point because of all the contracts they have coming, because you need more time for Dylan Harper, what have you. I think it would be a good thing for De’Aaron Fox, uh, to go be in charge of a team somewhere else. And if he comes back, Jeff, you’ve made this point off-air multiple times, and like, who’s going to get—who’s going to take all those point guard minutes? Who’s— Who’s going to—who’s going to push the tempo and run the show in a way that got the Spurs to the Finals? I mean, like, De’Aaron Fox had a really good year. He was an All-Star this year. He was a reason why they got to the NBA Finals.
Tom Orsborn: Let’s not forget the ankle injury. Let’s not forget the ankle injury.
Mike Finger: Let’s not forget the ankle injury. Um, I—I—I just—it’s—it’s a weird, um, fence to straddle here. I’m not saying—I do not think you move De’Aaron Fox because he had a bad Finals, I don’t think you move De’Aaron Fox because he’s a terrible player, but I think it is worth—if you’re—if you’re—if you’re running, if you’re responsibly running an organization, you have to consider the possibility that moving off of De’Aaron Fox at some point in the next year or two probably makes a lot of sense. And I—I—I’m really interested to see how the Spurs handle this.
Jeff McDonald: Yeah, I—I mean, I think the second he signed that contract, you kind of knew he wasn’t going to probably play out the—the length of it here in San Antonio. And that became especially true when they got the number two pick in last year’s draft, and especially true when that turned out to be Dylan Harper, and especially true when Dylan Harper turned out to be the kind of player that he seems to be. Um, so, you—you’re going to have to move him at some point, probably, and so I guess what you’re saying is, why not now? Why not this summer? Why not rip the band-aid off, as you—as you—the phrase goes.
Mike Finger: Yeah. Yeah. And I’m not—I’m not, like, I’m not wholeheartedly advocating for that. I’m wholeheartedly advocating for considering it, if that makes sense.
Jeff McDonald: Right. I mean, I— yeah, I don’t discount that at all, and I understand the logic of it, and if—if—if they do it, I will understand the logic of it. My hot take would be, uh, sitting here today, if De’Aaron Fox is not on the team next year for some reason, I think the Spurs don’t win 62 games. I think they win fewer. I don’t think they’re terrible, I don’t think they take some massive step back, but I think I think there—I think if you’re going to say, “Hey, Dylan—the rookie Dylan Harper had a great year, great Finals, great playoffs. We’re going to hand him the keys to the team.” I think there’s going to be a lot of growing pains with that, that if you don’t have De’Aaron Fox around, you’re going to probably lose a—a few more games than, uh, than—than you would have otherwise. Um, and—and that doesn’t mean that’s the wrong move. I mean, you can still make the playoffs and everything and—and make a Finals push that way. I just think if you—if you’re going to shift from a veteran to a young player, in that manner, you’re probably going to sacrifice some wins there that you probably could have gotten otherwise.
Tom Orsborn: We saw the—
Jeff McDonald: I don’t think I don’t—again, I don’t think that’s necessarily the worst idea in the world. But, the things people like about Dylan Harper, this downhill ability, this—this craftiness around the rim, this ability to attack seams and get get to the paint, um, he—he’s doing that without having to actually run the team in the minutes that he’s on the floor. He’s not—he’s not setting the offense, he’s not doing the things De’Aaron Fox does. Those two players bring two different things to the team. And, my opinion is, in a perfect world, you can use all three of those guys, those two and and Stephon Castle. They all bring different things to the—to the—to the table, different skill sets. They’re different kinds of guards, even though they’re all kind of downhill attacking guards. But, you’re getting to the human element of it of, all three of them need to start, and how do you do that? And I don’t know how you do that, and maybe you need to move one in order to make that happen. Like if if if there were no human emotions involved and you could just keep doing what you’re doing, maybe give Harper a little more minutes off the bench, uh, and and choose him in favor of Fox or Castle more often, and Harper would be fine with that coming off the bench a second—and like, if all that were true, there’s really no reason to—to move off of any of those guys right now, right now. But, I think this all stems from this idea that you can’t keep Dylan—this kid, Dylan Harper, on the bench for another season, can you? And if the answer to that is, “No, you can’t,” then you have to figure out some kind of solution for that. And I—can you play them all three together? I don’t know. I, you know, I mean, they do a little, but as a starting group, could you do that? I—I’m not sure.
Tom Orsborn: We saw the turnover problems they had against Oklahoma City when he was out.
Jeff McDonald: They don’t get to the Finals without De’Aaron Fox. If De’Aaron Fox does not play in that Oklahoma City series, it is a turnover-filled mess, and I don’t think the Spurs win it.
Tom Orsborn: But Mike, uh, Mike used the word, uh, to describe the Spurs front office, uh, he used the word “responsible.” They are responsible. They’re going to look at it, um, you know. Whether they do it or not, don’t know, but they are going to look at it, yeah.
Mike Finger: Here’s—here’s, um, something to add to Jeff’s question about lineup, and I just want to slowly, um, go through some truths here. Uh, or or some widely held assumptions. Um, if this postseason, um, made glaring any particular need that the Spurs have in their lineup, in their roster construction, what have you, I think that one of them is they really lack a big man sidekick for Victor Wembanyama. And I think that is, if you’re looking in the draft, if you’re looking just on the marketplace, uh, if that was be—that would be something they would like to have in the future. Um, I mean, Julian Champagnie, one of the stories of basketball this season. What a great story Julian Champagnie was. What an important player he was all season long, the steal of the league. I mean, the—his contract is ridiculous. Um, he was your starting power forward throughout your run to the NBA Finals, and that worked until it didn’t. And, uh, like they— they—OG—the Spurs had no answer for OG Anunoby. Um, [sighs] yeah. That—that’s the kind of player, when you’re dreaming of what the— what the Spurs need, you need just a big man sidekick for Victor. So let’s say at some point, whoever that is, whether Carter Bryant turns into that, whether you find somebody in the draft, whether you find somebody in free agency, trade, whatever, let’s say that there—you find an unnamed power forward to play alongside Victor Wembanyama. Now you have three spots in the—in the starting lineup. And, uh, Stephon Castle is one of them. Um, Dylan Harper, we all agree, is going to be one of them eventually. Now, for that last one, [laughter] you have—it could be De’Aaron Fox. Don’t forget about Devin Vassell, who— just an unheralded, just an unbelievable—Devin Vassell was the best version of Devin Vassell that the Spurs ever could have imagined. Devin Vassell was exactly who they needed Devin Vassell to be for this playoff run and for most of this season. Um, so you have De’Aaron Fox, you have Devin Vassell, you have the aforementioned Julian Champagnie, like, for that spot. Like, basically what we’re saying is, if you add a power forward, two of those guys have to go to the bench. And that can be done, but—and all these guys have great attitudes, we have not heard a whisper of discontent from anybody personally. There was a—there was kind of an odd Devin Vassell quote postgame Game 5 where he said—like, just one quick line about how Dylan Harper didn’t like, um, or or or how he had a hard time with the role he was given. But I haven’t heard much more of that. I don’t want to make too much of one throwaway Devin Vassell quote.
Jeff McDonald: Yeah.
Mike Finger: But my point is that, like, egos do get involved eventually, and not necessarily ego, but pride, and like wanting to contribute, and so you—to ask two of those guys to go to the bench, it just becomes a little complicated. You still have Keldon Johnson, who did not have a great playoffs, who had a hard time getting moved to the bench when he was moved to the bench. Like, it’s a lot of guys who you’re asking to swallow a little bit of their egos. Um, and this was a long, drawn-out, maybe boring, uh, way of getting to the point that you probably have to move off of somebody.
Jeff McDonald: Yeah.
Mike Finger: And if—if—and if—if the contract of De’Aaron Fox makes it difficult to pay Victor Wembanyama, Stephon Castle, Dylan Harper, Carter Bryant, Julian Champagnie’s about to get an extension down the road, like De’Aaron just makes the most sense to move off of. And while everything that Jeff and Tom have said about how important he was to this run is true, like, De’Aaron Fox filled his role this year. He did what they asked him to do. I think when you make that trade a year ago February with the Sacramento Kings, if you are told that in a year and what is that, four months, that De’Aaron Fox is going to be playing in the NBA Finals and maybe turning the ball over too much, you’re like, “Hey, that’s a huge success!” [laughter]
Jeff McDonald: Yeah.
Mike Finger: “You’re telling me we can trade for De’Aaron Fox and in a year—” when we’re a 22-win team, “and in a year and four months, we’re going to be mad at De’Aaron Fox for turning the ball over in the NBA freaking Finals?” Like, you’d take that a hundred times out of a hundred. That was a pretty good trade. Um, now, maybe you re-evaluate the future and you move off of him, and we’re spending a lot of time on this because I think that’s what people care about, but, um, I—I—I’m glad I don’t have to make the decision. Um, and—and I think Tom is right, the Spurs are going to weigh it the way the Spurs always do, and, uh, uh, I think it’ll be okay. I think no matter what happens, the Spurs are going to be in really good position to, uh, go to a lot more of these.
Jeff McDonald: And we—we touched on him earlier, but the other scapegoat of the Finals was Mitch. We’re we’re all right with Mitch? We’re all right with Mitch? I mean, he clearly did not have a—his great—a great series. Like, we’re not going to sugarcoat that. It was—it was, you know, the Knicks won that coaching battle in the NBA Finals. But I—I—I just don’t think you— I mean, it—everything’s a learning experience, right? Like, we talked about it was a learning experience for the team that had never been in the playoffs before, never been to the Finals before, it was for the coach, too, and we saw him, uh, you know, make make some, uh, strides in other series. Couldn’t quite—couldn’t quite get his finger on the pulse, I don’t think, in the Finals, and it happens. I think— I but I think, much like much like the players, much like teams, I think coaches maybe need to go through this before they figure it out, too. And he’ll be better next year.
Mike Finger: I’m not—I’m not trying to be a homer here, I know we’re the Spurs Insider podcast, but you guys know, going around the league this year, how many places did we talk to basketball people, just people that weren’t affiliated with the Spurs, and say, “Man, that team is so well-coached”?
Jeff McDonald: Yep.
Mike Finger: “It’s so well-run.” Like, the—the—the job that—that Mitch and Sean Sweeney, Corliss Williamson, up and down the—up and down the line there, uh, that team, um, really became the best version of itself, uh, because of the way it was run. And does that mean that the—the guys in charge, who have not coached in an NBA Finals before, aren’t going to make some mistakes once they get to the NBA Finals? No. They clearly—like—like Jeff said, there was a learning experience there. But this league is just full of those stories over and over and over again of a guy winning Coach of the Year, or a guy being the darling one—one year, and the next year getting fired. And based on the way this franchise has been run for 30 years,
Jeff McDonald: Yeah, that’s—
Mike Finger: —like, I don’t see that happening. I don’t see that happening, yeah.
Tom Orsborn: See Mike Brown.
Mike Finger: They—I—I can speak with, um, some pretty good authority that the people who matter in the Spurs organization have the utmost faith and trust in Mitch Johnson, and I—that’s not wavering anytime soon. Um, they know they—they gave him that job for a reason. Um, they are all, up and down the—the organizational chart, uh, huge Mitch Johnson fans over there with the Spurs, and, uh, to—to throw that out the window because of a couple of moves here and there in one series, I think would be insane, and I don’t—I don’t see that happening.
Jeff McDonald: Yeah, it’s just—it’s just that individual decisions get magnified in a—in a playoff series, and especially in the NBA Finals.
Mike Finger: They do.
Jeff McDonald: Things like, you know, overplaying Victor probably in that—in that blowout—well, it was going to be, you know, you’re up 29 in Game 4 and you can’t find more than four minutes of rest for Victor, and then he’s, and then he’s, um, gassed down the stretch. I mean, we kind of talked about a little, you—there were arguments to be made like maybe the ball shouldn’t be in Fox’s hands so much the way he’s playing, and the way Dylan Harper’s playing. I understand both sides of that equation, you know, you do what you’ve done all year, which is your veteran point guard—that’s the—the—the—kind of the—the rub of it. The reason the ball is in Fox’s hands down the stretch of games instead of Dylan’s is because he’s the savvy, veteran point guard who’s going to make all the right decisions. And then he ended up, [laughter] with his one advantage over the—over the young Dylan Harper, he didn’t make the right decisions. Um, you know, things like that, substitution patterns, uh, you know, use of timeouts. Not—there wasn’t a lot of play-calling when things got dicey. I think that’s a function of a young team, though. I think that would be a criticism of of a lot of coaches that coach really young teams because they just don’t have the, um, role of decks of stuff you can go to. When—when we talk about the Tim, Tony, Manu teams, like those were teams that were veterans and they had played together for a decade, and and they had counters over counters over counters. “We can go to this play now. This play we haven’t run in a year and a half, we can pull this out now.” This year’s Spurs don’t have that because they’re so young, you have to stick to kind of some basics. And, um, you know, it gets a—it can be a little, it can look a little vanilla, and I don’t think that’s a coaching problem, I just think that’s a youth problem. Um, so all that, you know, Mitch didn’t have a great Finals series, but he’ll learn from it, and I mean, you almost don’t expect him to. You don’t expect him to out-coach a veteran coach in the—in the Finals, maybe. I don’t know, I don’t know. I’m babbling now.
Tom Orsborn: Well, he also didn’t have anything to do with Victor’s turnover in Game 1, um, hitting Castle on the back. I don’t think—
Mike Finger: Well, I mean, a lot of people wanted him to call timeout. The plays like that is he should have called timeout. I—I disagree with that. I would never call timeout there, but that was something he could have done to prevent Victor Wembanyama from throwing a ball to a player that wasn’t looking.
Tom Orsborn: And I don’t think he had anything to do, and I don’t know this for sure, but leaving OG unguarded. Uh, watching it again last night, I—I—I think they just—they—I think De’Aaron might have screwed up on that. Um, I—I don’t know.
Jeff McDonald: Well, wait, I want—I want to clarify something here. We just covered like a hundred games of basketball, all the way into the middle of June, we’re we’re kind of just like dragging to the finish line, we finally get there, and you watch Game 4 over? That’s how you celebrate? You re-watch Game 4? [laughter] You’re an animal, Tom.
Tom Orsborn: Well, in—in between—in between doing some of the job requirements, um, you know, that we were called on to do, and—and—and then getting down that elevator from the upper echelons, from—from the nosebleed seats. Yeah, it—it—it—I missed a lot of it, and then the, uh, the media room was mayhem. [laughter] And, uh, you know, so I—I just wanted to see it again.
Jeff McDonald: Um, I watched Lilo & Stitch.
Tom Orsborn: I got you. [laughter]
Jeff McDonald: I got you.
Mike Finger: Um, who’d have thunk—who’d have thunk we’d be here and work until June, work until mid-June? I think it’s worth remembering, don’t you? That nobody expected this.
Tom Orsborn: Dwayne Rankin wasn’t wrong, he was just early. When they win multiple titles in—in the years to come, they’re going to look back at this and say, “We wouldn’t have won those multiple titles without going through this.” So.
Mike Finger: I do think, um, it’s—it’s verging on corny, but, uh, I wrote this in the news—in the newspaper the other day, that, uh, like this—this—nobody wants to hear it, that this makes the story better, man. Like, I—I—I just think that—
Tom Orsborn: Good tape.
Mike Finger: —in—instead of just immediately having everything go right, the best—the best championship stories are the ones that where there’s a little bit to overcome, where there’s some—there’s a bit of doubt there, there’s—there’s something there, there’s conflict, there’s—there’s agony, there’s—there’s just moments of doubt. And, uh, you know, you go back to—
Tom Orsborn: See 2014.
Mike Finger: You go back to 2014, as Tom just said. Like, I— people say they could have won back-to-back titles. I’m not so sure about that, Jeff, I think you’ve mentioned this before. Like, if you win in 2013, if Ray Allen, if—if that shot rims out from the corner with the yellow rope up around the side lines, and, uh, and the Spurs hang on and win that championship against LeBron James and Chris Bosh and Dwyane Wade, are they as compelled, focused, driven to win the next year? Do we get to witness that beautiful game, 2014 run, that magical run down the stretch, or do they kind of just say, “Hey, we did it”? After six years after our last title, we won a—another one in 2013 and we don’t—and—and—and that’s our legacy. Like, does—does—does the world get to see the great way, the beautiful way that the Spurs played the next year? I’m not so sure. And I think that, um, there’s something to be said for—for coming up short against a really great, magical team in the New York Knicks this year. And, uh, this maybe this will lead to something better, something different down the line. And is there any guarantee that they’ll be back next year? Of course not. They might lose in the first round next year to Phoenix. Um, but—
Tom Orsborn: Yep.
Mike Finger: —it makes—I—I—I think there are positives here. It—it—it makes for a heck of a story either way.
Jeff McDonald: You could be the 2012 Thunder, where they they finally get there to the—to the Finals, and you think, “Here they come, they’re going to be here forever,” and then they never get back with that group.
Mike Finger: That’s the downside. And so on that note—
Jeff McDonald: Let’s leave it there.
Mike Finger: On that note, I think the people should just remember that it’s always wise to keep your gratitude greater than your expectations, to take care of each other, and to keep it real.
[music]