trading our PG

[mudyez]

just for fun...

regarding a trade involving Parker or Boy George!

as we saw with the other thread there are very different oppinions on "IF to trade one of them?", "WHICH of them?" and "FOR WHAT?"

dont take it too serious! I don't think we will trade any of them, nor do I want to advocate for it!

just curious about the poll results

[tdunk21]

i wouldnt trade either....

[Dex]

Sticking with Parker is a no brainer. Despite the fact that he's one of the best point guards in the league and should be looking to have a bounce back season, he's far too enamored in San Antonio as one of the Big Three to be shipped unless some sort of miracle deal rolled around. It won't.

Too much has been invested in Hill to let him go IMO. If you do it, you do it for immediate help, but I don't like the idea of completely selling out our future (aka Blair, Hill, Splitter) for one last mad dash.

[Chieflion]

Richard Jefferson is not a bad contract.

[mudyez]

Overall we have to question us: Is the window still open?

The Lakers are rolling and if several FA's team up, it may even be worse.

I agree, that we should have a small shot anyway, especially if Splitter comes over, but if we think the window is closed, we could make several phonecalles to see, if we can get something nice for Parker (Manu+Timmy are not going anywhere anytime).
That way, we could have the old-two TD+Manu to teach guys like Hill, Blair, Splitter and whoever we draft and get in return for Parker.

[tdunk21]

yup chieflion is right.....RJ's contract could be so useful come trade deadline

[mudyez]

Richard Jefferson is not a bad contract.

I doubt, that SA would do it again!

BTW.: He is earning more than Manu or Parker right now!

[mudyez]

yup chieflion is right.....RJ's contract could be so useful come trade deadline

I have to give you that! Thought he is in the books for 2 more years!

Sorry!

[tdunk21]

I have to give you that! Thought he is in the books for 2 more years!

Sorry!

am sure RJ will show up and start playing like he was supposed to for 16mil or whatever his salary is....coz its his contract year......

[mudyez]

am sure RJ will show up and start playing like he was supposed to for 16mil or whatever his salary is....coz its his contract year......

Never liked players where you can see, when they have a contract year just by looking at ther career stats.

Ok, everybody is a little bit like that and you can't blame them (you could make a case, that Manu played better before signing the contract too), but it shouldn't be Albert Haynesworth style (which RJ would have to be, to make his contract an OKone).

I admit it: I'm not a big RJ-fan and if we are trading his expiring for a nice piece, I would throw a party! But I also couldn't blame Holt, if he just wants to safe the money, not trying to earase a mistake by making another one!

[DesignatedT]

:td trading tony

[Bruno]

At some point, the Truth needs to be told:
First, Parker is an awesome player. He is one of the best PG in the league.
Second, Hill is an average player. He is an undersized SG who isn't that talented.

The gap in level between Parker and Hill is huge, very huge. Saying Spurs should trade Parker because they have Hill is as stupid as saying Spurs should trade Duncan because they have Blair or Spurs should trade Ginobili because they have Hill.

And the whole Parker needs to be traded for prospects because this team needs to rebuild makes absolutely no sense. Spurs signed a 33 years old Ginobili to a 3 years/$39M extension three month ago. Is it a rebuilding move?
If you truly thinks Spurs should rebuild, then start a thread "trade Ginobili for expirings". I've had a strange feeling that a thread like that won't be created. There should have something else behind these " trade Parker" threads other than a true concern about Spurs' future...

[mudyez]

At some point, the Truth needs to be told:
First, Parker is an awesome player. He is one of the best PG in the league.
Second, Hill is an average player. He is an undersized SG who isn't that talented.

The gap in level between Parker and Hill is huge, very huge. Saying Spurs should trade Parker because they have Hill is as stupid as saying Spurs should trade Duncan because they have Blair or Spurs should trade Ginobili because they have Hill.

And the whole Parker needs to be traded for prospects because this team needs to rebuild makes absolutely no sense. Spurs signed a 33 years old Ginobili to a 3 years/$39M extension three month ago. Is it a rebuilding move?
If you truly thinks Spurs should rebuild, then start a thread "trade Ginobili for expirings". I've had a strange feeling that a thread like that won't be created. There should have something else behind these " trade Parker" threads other than a true concern about Spurs' future...

in general I agree with your oppinion, but I wanted to give an overview via pol, coz on the other thread things get very complicated.

I agree, that Hill hasn't shown that much, to put him in the same argument as Parker!
But stranger things have happened in the past.

[Sissiborgo]

I think we need to trade Parker! And also trade Jefferson! I think trading Parker and Monta Ellis would be nice but that is never going to happen.

[jermaine]

i wouldnt trade either....

Hill wants to be a starter or will want to be soon! Parker is a proven champion. Hill is nice but he's no Parker. An that's sayin a lot comin from me cuz I thought I wanted Parker gone but I realized he's the SHIT!

[Spursfanfromafar]

A quick description of the two - the former, an all star and among the best PG in the league, a multi -title winner and a finals MVP to boot, who is going to play a contract ending year and who, before the injury plagued season had a stellar year, carrying both sharing and scoring loads.

The latter, one of the most improved players in the league who is still playing off his rookie contract and is a very good defender against specific PGs and who has blossomed into an efficient shooter to boot.

Now why would the Spurs want to trade any one of these? If they wanted to, they would only do it to address their core weaknesses - a good 3 who can shoot well, defend other 3s and even 2s sometimes, can be an effective 4th man to the big three; a decent shot blocking center who can lift the load off Duncan.

Now for the former, we have Richard Jefferson, who in my opinion played awful last season relative to expectations on him. And for the latter we are most likely getting Tiago Splitter whose arrival is a matter of when and not if.

So, I would choose to trade George Hill (there is no way I would want to trade Parker unless I get a super star, say a Chris Bosh or a Le Bron...mostly pies in the sky), only if someone gets me a good 2/3 or a stretch 4 who is an adequate replacement for RJ, along with a weighty talent for the long term.

So I would only trade Hill in a package that features RJ and gets me in return, the needs of the hour for the Spurs along with long term good talent - mostly lottery picks. The chance of getting all of this in one trade is not very slim, neither is it fat.

[Twisted_Dawg]

If you are Parker, and you've rested your body for the first summer in years "because it's a contract year" and you have a great season, do you stick with the declining Spur's next year and limited endorsements in San Antonio? Or, do you follow the allure of a contract from a team in a glamor market? More to the point, if you are the Spurs, do you want to give a huge max contract to a 29-year-old PG who is 32 years old in dogs years who relies on his speed? I know Tony can make more money with a SA contract, but I do think he would jump at playing in NY or LA. So, I think we fuck Parker before he fucks us. Trade him while he still has value.

[mudyez]

A quick description of the two - the former, an all star and among the best PG in the league, a multi -title winner and a finals MVP to boot, who is going to play a contract ending year and who, before the injury plagued season had a stellar year, carrying both sharing and scoring loads.

The latter, one of the most improved players in the league who is still playing off his rookie contract and is a very good defender against specific PGs and who has blossomed into an efficient shooter to boot.

Now why would the Spurs want to trade any one of these? If they wanted to, they would only do it to address their core weaknesses - a good 3 who can shoot well, defend other 3s and even 2s sometimes, can be an effective 4th man to the big three; a decent shot blocking center who can lift the load off Duncan.

Now for the former, we have Richard Jefferson, who in my opinion played awful last season relative to expectations on him. And for the latter we are most likely getting Tiago Splitter whose arrival is a matter of when and not if.

So, I would choose to trade George Hill (there is no way I would want to trade Parker unless I get a super star, say a Chris Bosh or a Le Bron...mostly pies in the sky), only if someone gets me a good 2/3 or a stretch 4 who is an adequate replacement for RJ, along with a weighty talent for the long term.

So I would only trade Hill in a package that features RJ and gets me in return, the needs of the hour for the Spurs along with long term good talent - mostly lottery picks. The chance of getting all of this in one trade is not very slim, neither is it fat.

agree, and dont forget: Hill's value is at an all time high! think of us trading Udrih, when he looked like an up and coming allstar, instead of when beeing late!

[baseline bum]

At some point, the Truth needs to be told:
First, Parker is an awesome player. He is one of the best PG in the league.
Second, Hill is an average player. He is an undersized SG who isn't that talented.

The gap in level between Parker and Hill is huge, very huge. Saying Spurs should trade Parker because they have Hill is as stupid as saying Spurs should trade Duncan because they have Blair or Spurs should trade Ginobili because they have Hill.

And the whole Parker needs to be traded for prospects because this team needs to rebuild makes absolutely no sense. Spurs signed a 33 years old Ginobili to a 3 years/$39M extension three month ago. Is it a rebuilding move?
If you truly thinks Spurs should rebuild, then start a thread "trade Ginobili for expirings". I've had a strange feeling that a thread like that won't be created. There should have something else behind these " trade Parker" threads other than a true concern about Spurs' future...

http://www.pursuit.eu/rimages/hammare.jpg

[baseline bum]

The Spurs should have traded David Robinson because they had Antoine Carr.
The Spurs should have fired Pop because they had Mike Brown.

[mudyez]

The Spurs should have traded David Robinson because they had Antoine Carr.
The Spurs should have fired Pop because they had Mike Brown.

That why I say: Timmy and Manu are not going anywhere! If you compare them to Tha Admiral, I'm ok with it. I think Parker is near that department, but not in it (sorry Parker fans...I like him too). He is Sean Elliott at best (IMO Elliott was loved more in SA) and he was traded for...uhhh...lets forget about that! :rolleyes

Carr is 4 years older than David! Hill isn't compared with Parker!

I don't want to give up Parker (rather I would trade Hill, even better none of them), but for the right price I could imagine it.

[Big Empty]

only for a top three pick

[G-Dawgg]

People say that the gap between Parker and Hill are huge.... well they aren't. Maybe if you are only looking at it from an offensive standpoint. But when you consider that Hill plays BOTH sides of the ball and his defense is MUCH better than Parker's then that gap gets alot smaller. To top it off, Hill is a better athlete, has many more years to play and improve because he is younger and has a much better contract ...these factors make Parker so much more expendable.

.. of course we could just keep Parker and screw our rebuilding process over and just totally suck for a whole decade after Timmy retires, like what Boston did to themselves in the 90's when they tried to show bird, parish, mchale and crew loyalty by keeping them until they were old and worthless and got no young talent in return......

[mudyez]

People say that the gap between Parker and Hill are huge.... well they aren't. Maybe if you are only looking at it from an offensive standpoint. But when you consider that Hill plays BOTH sides of the ball and his defense is MUCH better than Parker's then that gap gets alot smaller. To top it off, Hill is a better athlete, has many more years to play and improve because he is younger and has a much better contract Parker...this makes Parker so much more expendable

Against a lot of opponents (fast quick ones) Hill looked worse than Parker. I wouldnt say, that Parker is the better defender, but Hill is neither.

[spursfaninla]

People say that the gap between Parker and Hill are huge.... well they aren't. Maybe if you are only looking at it from an offensive standpoint. But when you consider that Hill plays BOTH sides of the ball and his defense is MUCH better than Parker's then that gap gets alot smaller. To top it off, Hill is a better athlete, has many more years to play and improve because he is younger and has a much better contract ...these factors make Parker so much more expendable

Somebody did not watch the phoenix series.

Nash scored something like 12 straight points on Hill in the first quarter of the first game.

Hill curled up into the fetal position after that.


Actually, I agree with your general premise that Hill is under-rated by Bruno and Baseline. He got votes for most improved player BEFORE he torched Dallas in the first round. (for one game, but still).

[lotr1trekkie]

The only way P gets traded is with a sign and trade. He's in the drivers seat and I get the feeling the only place he would go to would be LA. The Lakers like to add without subtracting and I can't see them making any drastic moves until after next season. That leaves the Clippers. How far would you want to be from Eva?
Kinda surprised at the lack of love for Hill. He's obviously never going to be TP but he is solid.
Is there any player in this draft that can come in and start for us? If we had the #1 pick this year who would you take?
The goal should be to build a roster that can get passed the Lakers. None of the ideas here seem to address that.

[G-Dawgg]

Can't judge a dudes complete game by one game of a series. Plus pop used hill to guard guys likekobe. if parker tried, he'd get raped like he was a woman from denver.

[baseline bum]

Can't judge a dudes complete game by one game of a series. Plus pop used hill to guard guys likekobe. if parker tried, he'd get raped like he was a woman from denver.

So much fail in this post. Don't even know where to begin.

[Obstructed_View]

Parker publicly complained to get the Spurs to open the checkbook. The Spurs opened the checkbook, Parker got an extended rest in the middle of the season, and then he didn't step up at any point to lead the team. I'm perfectly happy with using him to fill some needs and retool for a final run with Duncan.

[Cane]

I'm fine with Parker being shipped out for a PG and a top 5 pick in return like Harris and the #3 Deal. Throw in Blair and a draft pick to make that happen. Hill, fine with shipping him out to Indy for the #10 pick.

The Spurs are too small and those picks can land either a big or versatile forward, two positions that the Spurs still need improvements in even with Tiago coming over. By moving up in the draft you simultaneously attack a huge weakness the Spurs have and prepare for a post-Duncan era. As is, Duncan needs a ton of help in the frontcourt and Tiago, Blair, Ian, Bonner and McDyess are not enough to contend against LA, Houston, Portland, etc.

I don't see a scenario where the Spurs offer Tony Parker a max deal or really any deal at alll unless he plays like he did this past season which was barely better than Devin Harris (meaning Parker's not getting max money or any deal unless its flexible for the Spurs future). I also could see the Spurs being hesitant to gamble on Parker's already high mileage and desire to play for the France NT - his injury-prone style likely means missing NBA games for the sake of his national team. San Antonio should be tired of that and Manu's enough to worry about when it comes to injuries overseas.

The Spurs have also proven to be very effective without Parker as seen in the most impressive run the Spurs had when Parker was injured and they won against some of the best teams in the league, on the road, to clinch a #7 playoffs spot. This had to have open eyes for the Spurs FO even more than what their near future financial situation and post-Duncan era looks like.

Manu's a better playmaker than either Hill or Parker and has also been the best guy when it comes to integrating new talent such as how he trained Blair this past season.

The Spurs don't need a max PG to be competitive as seen in their Parker-less and most impressive run in the regular season and when they eliminated the Mavs with Parker coming off the bench. What the Spurs do need is help in the frontcourt, 3 point land, overall defensive intensity, juggling between not only trying to contend NOW but also preparing for the post-Duncan era (which a high draft pick can do both), and getting taller and longer....moving Parker or Hill can help these areas.

All that said it has to be a damn good deal and not a trade for the sake of trading.

[Parker2112]

i'm fine with parker being shipped out for a pg and a top 5 pick in return like harris and the #3 deal. Throw in blair and a draft pick to make that happen. Hill, fine with shipping him out to indy for the #10 pick.

The spurs are too small and those picks can land either a big or versatile forward, two positions that the spurs still need improvements in even with tiago coming over. By moving up in the draft you simultaneously attack a huge weakness the spurs have and prepare for a post-duncan era. As is, duncan needs a ton of help in the frontcourt and tiago, blair, ian, bonner and mcdyess are not enough to contend against la, houston, portland, etc.

I don't see a scenario where the spurs offer tony parker a max deal or really any deal at alll unless he plays like he did this past season which was barely better than devin harris (meaning parker's not getting max money or any deal unless its flexible for the spurs future). I also could see the spurs being hesitant to gamble on parker's already high mileage and desire to play for the france nt - his injury-prone style likely means missing nba games for the sake of his national team. San antonio should be tired of that and manu's enough to worry about when it comes to injuries overseas.

The spurs have also proven to be very effective without parker as seen in the most impressive run the spurs had when parker was injured and they won against some of the best teams in the league, on the road, to clinch a #7 playoffs spot. This had to have open eyes for the spurs fo even more than what their near future financial situation and post-duncan era looks like.

manu's a better playmaker than either hill or parker and has also been the best guy when it comes to integrating new talent such as how he trained blair this past season.

The spurs don't need a max pg to be competitive as seen in their parker-less and most impressive run in the regular season and when they eliminated the mavs with parker coming off the bench. What the spurs do need is help in the frontcourt, 3 point land, overall defensive intensity, juggling between not only trying to contend now but also preparing for the post-duncan era (which a high draft pick can do both), and getting taller and longer....moving parker or hill can help these areas.

All that said it has to be a damn good deal and not a trade for the sake of trading.

+1

[DesignatedT]

Parker publicly complained to get the Spurs to open the checkbook. The Spurs opened the checkbook, Parker got an extended rest in the middle of the season, and then he didn't step up at any point to lead the team. I'm perfectly happy with using him to fill some needs and retool for a final run with Duncan.

Murphy, Rush and the #10?

[TheSpurglar]

Okay, I'm not really pulling in one direction or the other. I trust the front office to make the right decision, but this thread and others like it got me thinking so I came up with this:

SAN ANTONIO SPURS - with trade

C - Splitter
PF - Duncan
SF - Jefferson
SG - Ginobili
PG - Hill

C - McDyess
PF - Murphy/Blair
SF - George/Hairston? (I'm assuming Paul George is drafted at #10 here)
SG - Rush
PG - Ford/Temple

Now, I realize TJ Ford hasn't been mentioned in the trade talks, but I'm assuming he'd be available since I doubt the Pacers would want two scoring PGs on the team.

Now, for the other side of the equation...

SAN ANTONIO SPURS - without trade

C - Splitter
PF - Duncan
SF - Jefferson
SG - Hill
PG - Parker

C - Orton?/McDyess (use #20 on Daniel Orton)
PF - Blair
SF - James?/Hairston? (use #20 on Damion James)
SG - Ginobili
PG - Temple

Now once again, I'm not necessarily advocating for either scenario. I'm honestly just curious which roster seems more appealing to the posters here. For me, I see the merits in simply adding a player like Splitter and Damion James to the team and seeing what happens, but if we want to match-up with the Lakers with size and the ability to defend scoring guards and forwards, adding Splitter, Rush and a player like Paul George has its benefits too. Thoughts?

[Spurs Brazil]

stick with Parker+Hill

[Agloco]

The gap in level between Parker and Hill is huge, very huge. Saying Spurs should trade Parker because they have Hill is as stupid as saying Spurs should trade Duncan because they have Blair or Spurs should trade Ginobili because they have Hill.


:tu

Finally, someone with a few firing neurons.

This is almost good enough to get me to change my sig.........almost. :toast

[Mel_13]

Finally, someone with a few firing neurons.

:lol


This is almost good enough to get me to change my sig.........almost. :toast

Nooooooooooooooooooooo.......

[CGD]

Not a fan of trading TP generally. Only scenario I'd jump on is a trade for Chris Paul. I'm interested to see how severe NO's financial hardships is, and whether they'd swap comparable PGs in exchange for cap relief next year.

I disagree with a comment made above about resigning Manu, and that being inconsistent with "rebuilding." Extending Manu was about making sure we keep arguably the most exciting player (and fan fave) to ever suit up for the Spurs, and therefore, keeping folks in seats. The reality is that Tony doesn't have a similar status among most Spurs faithful.

[mudyez]

Extending Manu was about making sure we keep arguably the most exciting player (and fan fave) to ever suit up for the Spurs, and therefore, keeping folks in seats. The reality is that Tony doesn't have a similar status among most Spurs faithful.

+1

Lets assume our window is shut (Lakers strike a deal to improve and LeBron teams up with Bosh in the east)!
Would you rather have Manu+Timmy surrounded by some promising youngsters (Blair, Hill, Splitter(not that young anymore), a high draftpick this year, and maybe another steal at #20) or the same scenario with Parker+Timmy? Who would teach these guys better, while giving them playing time (Timmy and Manu would only lock about 65 minutes a game).

I'm not a Parker hater...I'm all for keeping him! But in comparison to Manu, he has a different status!

[beachwood]

No matter how good Parker is, and I like the guy a lot, I don't see the Spurs winning a title without a borderline all-star talented young big man. And if it would take Parker to get that, then I think it should be done.

The Lakers aren't going anywhere. They won because they have the best front line in the league. The C's also have a pretty damn good front line, which explains how they went as far as they did.

Size matters. The Lakers went through teams with some of the best PG's in the league with Fisher to throw at them.

After being swept, the Spurs as currently constructed are not in a position to win it all. People need to take off the homer glasses. Splitter is not the complete answer. He's an unproven talent.

[Mel_13]

No matter how good Parker is, and I like the guy a lot, I don't see the Spurs winning a title without a borderline all-star talented young big man. And if it would take Parker to get that, then I think it should be done.

The Lakers aren't going anywhere. They won because they have the best front line in the league. The C's also have a pretty damn good front line, which explains how they went as far as they did.

Size matters. The Lakers went through teams with some of the best PG's in the league with Fisher to throw at them.

After being swept, the Spurs as currently constructed are not in a position to win it all. People need to take off the homer glasses. Splitter is not the complete answer. He's an unproven talent.

Now all you need to do is identify a team with a "borderline all-star talented young big man" who is willing to trade that very valuable NBA commodity for Tony Parker. Troy Murphy certainly doesn't fit that description. Generally, teams that are fortunate enough to employ a "borderline all-star talented young big man" tend to keep them and are not interested in trading them for guards. (Note that this follows your line of reasoning that teams with big front lines beat teams with talented PGs)

[Fabbs]

Richard Jefferson is not a bad contract.
:rollin

[Fabbs]

just for fun...

regarding a trade involving Parker or Boy George!

as we saw with the other thread there are very different oppinions on "IF to trade one of them?", "WHICH of them?" and "FOR WHAT?"

dont take it too serious! I don't think we will trade any of them, nor do I want to advocate for it!

just curious about the poll results
Need more info.
Some "for instances" on:
trade Parker for immediate help (e.g. a big)
trade Parker for young pieces (picks, talent)
trade Hill for immediate help

1. How good of a big? Parker for Amare Poutamire, yeah I'd go for that.
Would have really gone for Kevin Durant a few years ago.
2. Top 5 pick + what talent?
3. What is "immediate help"? Give a for instance.

[Slinkyman]

Murphy, Rush and the #10?

depends on who's there at 10, if it's Paul George then i think that's a good deal.

[vander]

we've got to trade Parker
we need to trade Parker
we absolutely must trade Tony Parker
we are doomed if we don't trade Tony Parker


if we don't trade Parker, someone will overpay for him in 2011, if it's us, we're screwed, if it's someone else, we're still screwed.

it is imperative that we trade Parker

[spursfan1000]

depends on who's there at 10, if it's Paul George then i think that's a good deal.


Well they drafted George.

[ohmwrecker]

No way do you trade a player like Tony Parker in his prime. There is no team who will give us what he is worth anyway. George Hill is a good and improving player, but he is nowhere near starting PG level. He had a good series vs Dallas, but collapsed vs Phoenix. George Hill is not ready to the starting PG on a team that is still looking to compete for a championship. Without a healthy Tony Parker the Spurs don't stand a chance.

[Obstructed_View]

No way do you trade a player like Tony Parker in his prime. There is no team who will give us what he is worth anyway. George Hill is a good and improving player, but he is nowhere near starting PG level. He had a good series vs Dallas, but collapsed vs Phoenix. George Hill is not ready to the starting PG on a team that is still looking to compete for a championship. Without a healthy Tony Parker the Spurs don't stand a chance.

And when Tony Parker signs with another team next year the Spurs will have gotten nothing in return for him. The only thing dumber than trading a player like Tony Parker in his prime is not getting any value when there's an opportunity.

[Pauleta14]

And when Tony Parker signs with another team next year the Spurs will have gotten nothing in return for him. The only thing dumber than trading a player like Tony Parker in his prime is not getting any value when there's an opportunity.


There are more probabilities he stays than he leaves...

The "window" is closing for Timmy, the FO HAS to think SHORT TERM!

It is just IMPOSSIBLE to find an equal value for Tony.

Even if he is very well paid, he still is UNDERPAID for an elite PG... (any trade involving CP3 or Deron or any other top PGs... would be dumb regarding their respective salaries...)

The best option to me, is to try to convince Tony that he has to be "resonable" in the salary he will ask for.
Tony already knows he will get less from the spurs than anywhere else, but he also knows that it's easier for him to stay in a city/team/environment/system... he already knows very well, rather than going through a tougher "process" with a new team...
The decisive factor will be the ability for the Spurs to convince him they can still be competitive. If they succed, I'm sure he'll be ok to get less $$ but more rings...

PS/ The "injury prone" argument is irelevant because first it's a "risk" for EVERY players in the world and then I don't think there are more than a dozen players that have played more games than him these last 10 years, at this point it was just 1 year and it happens to every players..

[ohmwrecker]

And when Tony Parker signs with another team next year the Spurs will have gotten nothing in return for him. The only thing dumber than trading a player like Tony Parker in his prime is not getting any value when there's an opportunity.

I'm not convinced that Tony will leave and you are. Obviously, there is a fundamental difference of opinion that is informing our attitude about the subject. I don't buy into the whole "Tony Parker is a selfish player who is bound for Hollywood at the first opportunity" bullshit that seems so prevalent here. I think the Spurs foster a basketball culture that makes their players want to stick around. I think the big factor will be how long Tim can play and be effective.

[mingus]

George Hill is no where near Parker's level. and never will be. for a time i thought he would be better for the Spurs, but he was exposed when TP got hurt. yeah, the Spurs won a lot during that stretch and that may lead you to believe that Hill playing the point was a big factor in that, but it wasn't; it was actually because Manu was BALLING. he was being overworked in the process, though. fact is, long term, the Spurs absolutely need Parker. Hill is a passive player and the Spurs need Parker's offensive aggressiveness to take weight off of Ginobili.

i'm actually all for trading Hill and molding/using Temple as a back-up. i think Temple is a good prospect. and i bet you he'll come into training camp with more muscle. dude is an NBA player, and could be a rotational player if he puts on some muscle. his frame was a weakness last year. he was sort of getting pushed around. if he can add some muscle, i think he'll surprise a lot of peope wherever he goes.

[Obstructed_View]

I'm not convinced that Tony will leave and you are. Obviously, there is a fundamental difference of opinion that is informing our attitude about the subject. I don't buy into the whole "Tony Parker is a selfish player who is bound for Hollywood at the first opportunity" bullshit that seems so prevalent here. I think the Spurs foster a basketball culture that makes their players want to stick around. I think the big factor will be how long Tim can play and be effective.

I'm not sure how you take my realistic prediction that some other team is going to be able to pay more money for Parker than the Spurs are willing to pay and turn it into some strange "bound for Hollywood" groupthink. If the Spurs can't talk Parker into an extension, they need to trade him. It's that simple.

[ohmwrecker]

I'm not sure how you take my realistic prediction that some other team is going to be able to pay more money for Parker than the Spurs are willing to pay and turn it into some strange "bound for Hollywood" groupthink. If the Spurs can't talk Parker into an extension, they need to trade him. It's that simple.

When and where did this "prediction" take place? It certainly didn't happen during the course of our short debate. I'm sure you're right, Nostradamus. Tony Parker will receive a Ginobili-esque contract extension under the wire this year and he will take it.
Your assumption that, given the choice, TP would automatically leave the Spurs makes it easy to jump to the conclusion that there may be some crazier ideas harbored in your psyche.

Unless . . . Tony?

[m33p0]

where's the option for "none of the above"?

trade either one and we'd be a point-guard short unless we trade for a point guard.

[Mike D]

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_CqDk4jAv_Y4/TCLa1JuqZqI/AAAAAAAAEgU/m_Bpu5ssZFc/s400/11.jpg

[Obstructed_View]

When and where did this "prediction" take place? It certainly didn't happen during the course of our short debate. I'm sure you're right, Nostradamus. Tony Parker will receive a Ginobili-esque contract extension under the wire this year and he will take it.
Your assumption that, given the choice, TP would automatically leave the Spurs makes it easy to jump to the conclusion that there may be some crazier ideas harbored in your psyche.

Unless . . . Tony?

Wow, your reading comprehension is loaded with fail. If someone offers Parker more money than the Spurs do, there's not really much choice there. I'm still not sure how you don't see that getting value for Parker is preferable to losing him, and if you do understand that, I'm not sure why you continue with the confrontational posts.

[m33p0]

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_CqDk4jAv_Y4/TCLa1JuqZqI/AAAAAAAAEgU/m_Bpu5ssZFc/s400/11.jpg

:lol

[Biggems]

I want to keep Parker, Hill, and Temple.

However, if we were able to get a healthy Mikhail Torrance, I would have no issues with shopping Hill. He has great value right now and could potentially land us a future 1st rounder.

What I wouldn't mind at all is keeping our 3 PGs and still adding Torrance.

[galvatron3000]

Lakers won 5 championships with Fisher as their starting pg, we can trade Parker or Hill and win if we bring in the right pieces to compliment what's here and the coaching staff doesn't boggle the season with bad coaching. Fisher isn't close to be a star but he hits shots, plays hard and does what he's supposed too. The offense they run helps a lot too. We can change somethings around SPurs town but defense has to be the coat rack we hang our hats on no matter who is here and Duncan needs help on that frontline. If we can take Hill and bring Paul George, I'd do it too (off subject a bit)

[Biggems]

Wow, your reading comprehension is loaded with fail. If someone offers Parker more money than the Spurs do, there's not really much choice there. I'm still not sure how you don't see that getting value for Parker is preferable to losing him, and if you do understand that, I'm not sure why you continue with the confrontational posts.

Your avatar is freakin awesome....though do you really need LAS on the logo? I mean our regular jerseys dont say The Spurs....still that logo looks sweet.

If the Spurs would market that to the hispanic community, it would sell like hot cakes. Im not hispanic and I would buy a cap that said San Antonio Espuelas on it.

GO SPURS GO

[ohmwrecker]

Wow, your reading comprehension is loaded with fail. If someone offers Parker more money than the Spurs do, there's not really much choice there. I'm still not sure how you don't see that getting value for Parker is preferable to losing him, and if you do understand that, I'm not sure why you continue with the confrontational posts.

Well, in the scenario I proposed, the Spurs offer Tony a contract extension this year (like they did for Manu at the end of last season) and he accepts because he wants to stay here. End of story. No offer from another team.

The issue seems to be that we have diametrically opposed beliefs about the process by which Tony Parker makes his decisions. Neither one of us is right or wrong, just expressing an opinion. It's a silly argument.

[Obstructed_View]

Well, in the scenario I proposed, the Spurs offer Tony a contract extension this year (like they did for Manu at the end of last season) and he accepts because he wants to stay here. End of story. No offer from another team.

I'm right with ya on that. If the Spurs want to keep him, that's how they're going to need to do it.

[Obstructed_View]

Your avatar is freakin awesome....though do you really need LAS on the logo? I mean our regular jerseys dont say The Spurs....still that logo looks sweet.

If the Spurs would market that to the hispanic community, it would sell like hot cakes. Im not hispanic and I would buy a cap that said San Antonio Espuelas on it.

GO SPURS GO

Thank you. I spent a lot of time on it, but only over a couple of days. The reason I put that in there is that, unless I'm mistaken, Spanish pretty much requires that they be Las Espuelas de San Antonio in order for it to be clear. Also, the U is not in the center like it is in "Spurs" so I had to try to counterbalance it a bit. Seemed the most elegant way to do it.

I made it after a conversation on Spurstalk about how dumb "los spurs" is and how lame it is that the best the NBA can come up with to market to Spanish speaking fans is "ene be a" which is retarded. The NBA and the Spurs are welcome to market my logo to whomever they'd like as soon as they pay me for my design. :)

[BronxCowboy]

I read on some random blog that WOAI was reporting yesterday that Parker was traded to the Clippers, but don't see anything here. Anyone hear this? Did they report that in error then retract it or something?