The Tony Parker situation

[Walton Buys Off Me]

According to inside reports, the clock is ticking on whether or not the Spurs' brass will come to terms with their young point guard Tony Parker on a six-year extension that will keep the talented Frenchman in Texas through the 2010-11 season. Sources indicate that the Spurs have set a deadline early next week before deciding to table talks until next summer. Parker, drafted with the final selection in the 2001 entry draft, has outperformed 80% of those drafted before him in his class, has won an NBA championship and has showed signs of developing what all young players take time to develop, consistency. Unfortunately, Parker and his agent, Marc Fleischer so far can't agree with Gregg Popovich on what the young man is worth, even though Tony has publicly stated his isn't seeking a maximum contract and that his wish is to stay in San Antonio.

I just listed some of Tony's favorable attributes, which he and his agent would be grateful for. For the sake of realism, let's look at some of the weaknesses in Parker's game. First off, what bothers me the most about Tony (and I'm sure I'm not alone-see games 3-6 in the Laker series last May) is his incredible level of inconsistency. The guy can come out firing with Isiah Thomas-like aggression some nights and run this team like it's his own and the very next game, phone it in with a performance that makes Spurs fans long for the days of Rod Strickland. This is normal for young players but Tony hasn't shown an understanding of what it takes to be a player every night in the NBA. That's not to say he needs to score 18 points and dish out 7 assists per game, but he needs to understand that in order for this team to be successful, he must be an aggressive leader every night, not just when Pop rips into him and forces him to be. More incentive from a leadership standpoint is what this kid needs to develop in order to reach the next level and warrant the big dollars.

Some of the deals signed this past summer have been nothing short of asinine and quite frankly, are exactly what throws a professional sport into turmoil from a financial perspective. Teams like Oakland with their ridiculous payoff to Adonal Foyle (58 million over 6 years) and New Jersey, curiously letting all-star power forward Kenyon Martin walk but extending shooting guard Richard Jefferson to the tune of 78 million over six years are wetting the proverbial chops of agents all over the league and driving the cost of much better players through the roof. Just this week, our friend Dan Fegan, who's made an art out of getting great value for mediocrity, has signaled to the Warriors' brass that soon-to-be free agent Jason Richardson will be seeking max dollars next summer. At some point people, the owners and the league need to start acting like owners and gain control of an organization where overpaid, often injured 'stars' are asking for trades as often as they change sponsors. I don’t know if I'm the only one that sees the dark black cloud that is the expiring CBA hovering over the NBA like the Iraq war over the Bush administration.

This brings me to my point. Tony Parker is a better player than both Richard Jefferson and Adonal Foyle but I don’t want to see this team lose their penchant for fiscal responsibility because some idiot like Danny Ainge needs a point guard next summer. If the NBA were smart, they would market the Spurs as THE example of how being fiscally responsibly can in fact lead to great success, but instead the New York Knicks and their 104 million dollar payroll get some press because they finally made the playoffs. It's that kind of stupidity that is to blame for the NHL being out of business this year because dumb owners don’t know when to set limits, then point their enormous financial and athletic failures on greedy players.

The Spurs are completely in the driver's seat with the Parker situation. They know he isn’t worth max dollars and they're smart enough to set responsible parameters to what they’re willing to pay. At some point in business, you have to draw the line, not only for your sake but for the sake and future of the industry you operate in.

I work in marketing and my company has two major competitors, both public enterprises that are willing to take deals at extremely minimal profit margins in order to just get the business. What they don't understand is that with that kind of philosophy, all they're doing is eroding resale and down the road, ensuring nothing but financial failure for all involved, including thmselves. It's funny how teams like the Portand Traiblazers, Dallas Mavericks and New York Knicks now realize that they've been drinking from the fire hose for the past four, five years and have to finally cut back, hence Steve Nash the Sun, not the Maverick.

To the Tony Parker fans out there, don’t worry, he’ll get his deal either this year or next, but if he's naive enough to believe that the Spurs need him more than he needs them, he'll watch the NBA playoffs every summer with guys like Ricky Davis and ten years from now be remembered for one thing only, being drafted by the San Antonio Spurs in 2001 and playing alongside Tim Duncan for four years.

Hold firm Pop, don’t over pay and don’t play jump ball with overzealous agents.

[exstatic]

In some situations, you may have to overpay, just a little. If the Spurs are truly dragging their feet, and Tony is willing to take 6 yrs/65 M, then the Spurs are fools. That's market rate for a quality starting PG, and about $20M below MAX. Bibby got 7 years 80.5M. Has he ever won a title?

[timvp]

Walton, what do you think a fair deal is?

[Kori Ellis]

Nice write-up.

One thing though ...


Adonal Foyle (58 million over 6 years)

I think he got around 6years/$42M.

Nevertheless, you are right. The amount that players got this summer was ridiculous. And just because the market has gone crazy doesn't mean the Spurs have to follow suit. The Spurs have a number in mind for Tony, they aren't going to go nuts and go way beyond that number. The same was true with Manu.

I'd like this to get settled now, so that the media doesn't turn it into a distraction all season for Tony. If both sides keep working, they should be able to hammer out something with the next few days or so.

[ducks]

I agree this needs to be settles especially if kidd s healthy talks about tp for kidd could heat up and things could get very ugly

[Kori Ellis]

Don't worry about that, Kidd is not healthy.

[Walton Buys Off Me]

Walton, what do you think a fair deal is?

At the risk of dropping a cliché, I think a a fair deal is a deal both parties can agree on, not a deal that's brokered by leverage from a third party, which will end up happening if this drags on to next summer.

Look, I hope that the deal gets done, but when you combine a relatively young, fresh agent with a 22 year-old player, things can, and have gotten complicated.

In terms of numbers, I think Tony deserves slightly more than Manu, but nowhere near what Jefferson got. My figure ends at 65 million.

[ducks]

do you think jefferson deserved his deal?

[timvp]

In terms of numbers, I think Tony deserves slightly more than Manu, but nowhere near what Jefferson got. My figure ends at 65 million.

If the Spurs offer Parker $65 million, I doubt he turns it down.

[Walton Buys Off Me]

do you think jefferson deserved his deal?


I said it before, I'll say it again; take Jason Kidd away from Richard Jefferson and he goes back to asking people if they "want fries with that".

In short, no.

And it makes less sense considering New Jersey is supposed to be in cost-cutting mode.

[Kori Ellis]

Walton, can I use this post for a "One Fan's Opinion" article on WOAI?

[picnroll]

One correction. It seems Dallas and Portland may be starting to buy into financial responsibility but New York contnues its profligate ways. Unfortunately, unlike the Spurs management, most owners don't have the discipline individually to maintain a healthy financial organization which means it will have to be institutionalized by herding the cats together and hammering it out painfully in a CBA agreement. I expect a long and painful shutout. The people who say "just pay Parker" have never come anywhere close to trying to run a business.

[Duff McCartney]

I think the only thing that pisses me off so much about Tony...is his inability to do one thing at a time. I notice that there is never a game when he scores 25 and drops down 8-10 assists.

It's if he isn't scoring then it seems like he just says "Fuck it I'm outta this game." He doesn't try to do other things like dishing it out for 10 assists.

[SequSpur]

he’ll get his deal either this year or next, but if he's naive enough to believe that the Spurs need him more than he needs them, he'll watch the NBA playoffs every summer with guys like Ricky Davis and ten years from now be remembered for one thing only, being drafted by the San Antonio Spurs in 2001 and playing alongside Tim Duncan for four years.

WTF?? WGAF? Tony Parker is the one who has the cards. His ass is going to get the max either here or somewhere else. LMAO.

Dude, is in the top 10 guards in the NBA and all of the top 10 are getting max! WTF is wrong with that? If the Spurs don't like doing NBA business, then the Spurs need to fucking move or sell their team.

Tony Parker has 15+ left in his career. Do you actually think it will all be in San Antonio? Also, is Pop going to be here for the next 15 years?? I doubt it.

Dude, Parker holds all the cards. ALL OF THEM. He can get a max contract if he wants to.

He could start pissing off the Spurs right now and start talking shit and force a trade. Guess what? the Spurs would get nothing in return. Definitely not a top 10 point guard. So please STFU already and hope that Popacan'trecruitpgs signs young Tony Parker to a max deal and then markets the hell out of him so they can recoup on the investment.

Wake up.

[picnroll]

Dude, is in the top 10 guards in the NBA and all of the top 10 are getting max!
There aren't 10 point guards in the NBA getting max.

[Duff McCartney]

There aren't 10 point guards in the NBA getting max.

Don't confuse Sequ with facts.

[SequSpur]

Duff, is like a forum backpack, never has his own opinion just likes to get shit stuffed in him and jump on the back and go for a ride.

Okay, so there aren't 10 point guards getting the max. If you look at most of the point guards who have gotten deals within the last few years, they have received what...10 mil per?????????? Isn't that almost max for Parker? Same difference... Also, Parker already has the ring, he doesn't have to play the Malone game and jump on a championship bandwagon. Parker will be one of the few players who doesn't require a Tim Duncan to get his minutes and statistics. Comprende?

Last time I checked San Antonio is not a prime NBA spot for players.

Pop needs to do the deed and pay him the jack or resign.

[Kori Ellis]

Are you talking about paying Parker an average of $10M per? (6years/$60M)
Or starting at around $10M per? (that would be his max - around $6years/$86M)

Sure, some point guards make around the six years/$60M.

But I think the only two that make in the max range would be Kidd and Marbury.

[Kaster]

I agree that Parker holds most of the cards here. He can easily walk away from the Spurs and is going to be guaranteed to $10M per, assuming he doesn't sustain any debilitating injuries. However, since Parker actually seems like a smart guy and wants to stay in SA with Duncan for at least another 5 years, he'll take a little less to stay with a title contender.

[SequSpur]

Parker should get at least $10. It's quite simple, either the Spurs do it or someone else will.

[timvp]

The weird thing about this thread is Sequ is dead right.

:wtf

[Kori Ellis]

Parker should get at least $10. It's quite simple, either the Spurs do it or someone else will.

Starting at $10M and max him out? Or averaging $10M?

I agree that he should average $10M. A contract valued at between $60-65M is definitely fair. I don't think they should give him the max ($86M).

[xcoriate]

It's a shithouse situatiopn either way.

But I think we got to bite the bullet. If other teams overpay, it's hard to stay a contender. It's all very well and good to take the moral high ground but at the end of the day, we'll be the ones without a starting point guard and only manu to help out TD. Whatever happens spurs must keep TP. He's not asking the max but rest assured if this goes onto next year someone will pay it.

Just let RC handle it Pop.

[ducks]

I do not think giving him the max or 70 million is going to change much for the spurs

holt needs to pay and if he needs to pay the tax one season so be it
he got the new place and luxuray suites
and the difference between 70 million and 86 million is a whopping 2.5 million a year
tp may not deserve the max but the other players that got the money does not deserve what they got either
kidd deserves atleast what the wizzard point guard got if not more
he is much more mature

[Kori Ellis]

First of all, like I said earlier, there aren't many point guards making even close to the max. Also, you can't just overpay because other teams overpay. In the French paper, it said Tony's agent was looking for something near Gilbert Arenas contract. If that's the case and the Spurs can't work it out right now, then the Spurs don't want Tony Parker here. Because giving him a contract for around $64M should be a no-brainer.

If they aren't willing to do that, then they aren't going to match anything he's offered next summer either, unless he simply blows up to All-Star level or beyond.

A lot of people are assuming that Tony is looking for a contract much higher than that and that the Spurs are looking around $60M. What if Tony's only looking for around $60M and the Spurs aren't "close at all" (according to some reports) in what they are offering him? If they are offering him $50M or something, isn't it safe to assume they really just don't want to get a contract done unless it's at that bargain rate?

[timvp]

It would be damn classic if the Spurs hold out on him and he goes out and has an all-star season. I'd pay to see the look on Holt's face when he's putting his signature on that max contract.

[slayermin]

Tony has been making crap(in NBA terms) the last three seasons. He deserves to get paid.

I don't know what the CBA has in store for the league but if Tony is worth 9-10mil a year today, he will be worth close to the max next summer.

I hope they get his extension done. We all saw glimpses of what he is going to be against Memphis and LA. He strikes me as a hard worker and losing him would be horrible.

[Brodels]

Great job, Walton. I wholeheartedly agree.

Sequ:


Tony Parker has 15+ left in his career. Do you actually think it will all be in San Antonio? Also, is Pop going to be here for the next 15 years?? I doubt it.

Oh? So what about Parker has convinced you that he's more durable than almost every other point guard in the history of the NBA? Name five point guards in the last twenty years that have played for nineteen years. I bet you can't do it.

And when you're losing an argument? You just make up things to support your POV. There aren't ten point guards making max dollars in the NBA.

It's no secret that many Spurs players could get more money elsewhere. Does that mean that the Spurs should pay more than each is worth in order to keep the team together?

If you want to be cheering for a Portland Trailblazers or New York Knicks clone, continue not to care about money. If you want to cheer for a successful team that wins by making shrewd moves and maintaining fiscal responsibility, cheer for the Spurs.

[ShoogarBear]

timvp, if TP goes out and has an All-Star season because the Spurs held out on him, then I would say a) he deserves a max contract and b) the Spurs were smart to hold out on him.

If you give him a max contract now, I doubt he has an All-Star season.

[ducks]

if I was tp and they offerred me 50 million
I would go out next summer and have a team front end load a deal for the max and make holt pay
especially with what they did with kidd

[SequSpur]

Brodels,

Son, if the Parker gets the max, he deserves it. WTF is wrong with that? Dude, last time I checked, I don't think you are actually an owner of an NBA franchise. Look here, if the owners want NBA teams, then they have to fucking pay. Period.

I don't give a crap if the payroll is 100 million. That is not my concern. My concern is that I am entertained.

Portland? Dude, that is a lame argument. Please don't bring stupid crap up. It would take me more than 30 seconds. Okay Haliburton.

Straight up. Parker is worth whatever he asks for. You aren't going to find a better replacement.

Beno? What a joke.

[picnroll]

I don't give a crap if the payroll is 100 million. That is not my concern. My concern is that I am entertained.

I showed this to Holt's family and they told me to tell SequSpur to "GFY".

[Brodels]

You seem to not be able to grasp the basic idea that how owners spend their money has a direct influence on the success of their NBA teams.

If the Spurs make poor financial decisions, they will have less ability to bring in other players in the future. Overpay an unimproved Parker and risk not being able to use the MLE in future years, having an untradeable player, and being caught with no quality second scorer and no way to obtain one. If Parker comes out and has a max-worth year, he should make the max. Otherwise, he shouldn't.

If an owner wants a quality NBA team, he needs to pay players what they are worth and resist the urge to go on a spending spree for average talent.


I don't give a crap if the payroll is 100 million. That is not my concern. My concern is that I am entertained.

I don't know about you, but I'm more entertained when the Spurs are successful. And in my opinion, the Spurs would be better off over the next three to five years if they don't overpay Parker. We both want the Spurs to win and we both want to be entertained, but we disagree on how it should happen. That's fine.


Portland? Dude, that is a lame argument. Please don't bring stupid crap up. It would take me more than 30 seconds. Okay Haliburton.

Well, Portland was unable to change the makeup of their team because they didn't have the financial flexibility to do so. The same happened in New York.


Straight up. Parker is worth whatever he asks for. You aren't going to find a better replacement.

That's a bad way of looking at it. The Spurs aren't going to find a better center than Rasho this season, so should they pay him the max if he asks for it? They won't find a better backup swing player than Barry, so should he have asked for the max? They couldn't have gotten a better starting shooting guard this season, so should Manu be making the max?

You can't just pay players whatever they ask for because a better player isn't available.


Beno? What a joke

Hey, I never claimed that Beno is going to be the second coming. Frankly, I'm nervous with the Spurs going into the season with him as the primary backup point guard. He might turn out to be a very good player, but he's an unproven rookie right now. Nobody really knows what he is going to do. He could be great, but he could be terrible.

[SequSpur]

Brodels................

This is what success in the NBA is:

Chicago Bulls: Michael Jordan and Scottie Pippen
Houston Rockets: Akeem Olajuwon and Drexler
San Antonio Spurs: David Robinson and Tim Duncan
LA Lakers: Shaq and Kobe
Detroit Pistons: A Spurless Western Conference Representation

You see, the Trailblazers didn't have these fellas. If they did, they would have been on my list as well. Dude, 90% of the NBA will play the cap or be over the cap, and you know what?? They will never win DICK.

So your formulas and your reasoning doesn't mean shit unless you get lucky to pull a SUPERSTAR from the draft or get lucky and someone gives you one.

It doesn't matter bro. It really doesn't... 50 mill, 100 mill, 20 mill.... If you don't have the superstar, you ain't winning shit.

Now, would you like to continue to throw Portland in the mix, New York, Dallas, etc. etc. etc.... No superstars there....

Also, we are talking about Parker not Rasho. Perdue > Rasho. Where does that analogy come from?

As for Spurs entertainment... Last time I checked Duncan is still on the Spurs, that should be worth at least 50 wins.

Pay Parker the max and raise ticket and food prices. I am watching it on TV.

[Brodels]

You're right, the Spurs won't win a championship without a superstar. But that doesn't mean that Portland wasn't disappointing with all the talent there.

And while many teams are over the cap, you seem to not understand that there are two caps involved here: the NBA salary cap and the Holt salary cap. No matter what the salary cap is, Holt isn't going to exceed a certain level of salary. Whether you like it or not, Holt isn't going to offer an unlimited amount of funds to Spurs management.

That means that a $50 million payroll might handcuff the Spurs, but a $42 million payroll might allow them to acquire other players. Don't underestimate the effect of the Holt Cap.

Besides, if Duncan is what makes the Spurs great as you claim, than what is the harm in letting supporting players go? According to you, superstars win championships. And the Spurs have one.

But in reality, the Spurs need a strong supporting cast. And if you pay Parker the max, you're accepting that the current core will the be the core in five years. And if the current core isn't good enough? The Spurs lose every year and nothing can be done about it.

That's why you pay players what they are worth. If Parker performs like a max player, the Spurs will be great and Parker should be paid. If he doesn't, you can't overpay him. You need to use the financial flexibility gained by letting Parker walk to get better. It's not the best situation, but it's better than the alternative.

[ducks]

No matter what the salary cap is, Holt isn't going to exceed a certain level of salary.

has he ever had as many luxury suites now?
in the past he has a limit
but this team is younger
it is not like he is paying major money for a bunch of older close to has been players
that is why I do not see them touching kidd now
spurs have been over the cap before but not into luxury tax thresfold


I am not for maxing tp but I would if I had to

[SequSpur]

Exactly....

But.....

It isn't my fault, your fault or Holt's fault that the salaries are escalating to the point of destruction.

I would guess that Parker is in or close to the top tier of NBA talent. Therefore, he should be paid accordingly. It's not Parker's fault that 12+ million is wrapped up in an overpaid Malik Rose and an underachiever Rasho Nesterovic.

It's kind of like this... If Holt can't keep up with the big boys, he should sell the team to someone that can. This is 2004. Big money, international talent and the NBA expanding worldwide as every minute comes and goes.

Parker is a big time player. Straight up. He has more playoff games as a starting point guard than damn near any point guard in the NBA. As the saying goes.... you earn your name in the regular season, you earn your fame in the playoffs......

Parker is going to be awesome this year. Lock him up.

[Brodels]

It isn't my fault, your fault or Holt's fault that the salaries are escalating to the point of destruction.

True, but that's the way it is. It just has to be dealt with.


I would guess that Parker is in or close to the top tier of NBA talent. Therefore, he should be paid accordingly. It's not Parker's fault that 12+ million is wrapped up in an overpaid Malik Rose and an underachiever Rasho Nesterovic.

Parker isn't in the top tier of NBA talent. There is clearly a group of players, maybe two groups, that are better than him. The top tier includes players of similar abilities: Duncan, Garnett, Kobe, Shaq, etc. The second tier would probably include Ray Allen, Tracy McGrady, etc. As far as I'm concerned, Parker is a third-tier player because he isn't as good as any of the best players in the game and he isn't as good as any of the players that are just a step down from the top. He should get paid like that.

While it isn't Holt's fault that Rasho and Malik are overpaid, he still needs to deal with that reality. You can't make a financial obligation disappear just because you think it was a bad decision to engage in it in the first place.


like this... If Holt can't keep up with the big boys, he should sell the team to someone that can. This is 2004. Big money, international talent and the NBA expanding worldwide as every minute comes and goes.

In theory, that's true. The Spurs would best off being owned by someone with very deep pockets. But until Holt sells the team, management has to make smart financial decisions. You need to deal with the financial cards you are dealt.




I'll let you take that one back if you wish.

[quote]As the saying goes.... you earn your name in the regular season, you earn your fame in the playoffs......

That's true. And while Parker has been good in some playoff games, he's been terrible in others. He just hasn't gotten the job done each and every game. He's got an immense amount of talent, but nobody really knows which Parker is going to show up. He's not a playoff hero or anything. He's been solid but inconsistent in the playoffs.


Parker is going to be awesome this year. Lock him up.

If he's really that awesome this season, you can pay him the max next summer.

[timvp]

timvp, if TP goes out and has an All-Star season because the Spurs held out on him, then I would say a) he deserves a max contract and b) the Spurs were smart to hold out on him.

If you give him a max contract now, I doubt he has an All-Star season.

I think Parker will play the same this season whether he gets his contract or not. He isn't someone that would buckle under the pressure of a new contract or go out and try too hard to prove he earned it.

It would be wise for the Spurs just lock him up now. If the Spurs wait until next summer, who knows if Holt will be willing to match a max contract. Maybe revenue will be down and the luxury tax will be lowered ... then Holt might have second thoughts.

Lock him up now and the franchise is set for the next 6 years.

[T Park]

damn sequ has broke out of the dumb shell and posted intelligent posts.


I agree, gotta lock Parker up now. Screwing around and waiting till next year is foolish.

give him 10 mill a year, and get it over with.

[Kori Ellis]

If he's really that awesome this season, you can pay him the max next summer.

Why not just offer him something reasonable ($60-65M) now instead of waiting until next summer? You seem to be under the pretense that the Spurs are offering him that, and he's looking for more. No one knows if that's the case. Maybe the Spurs are low-balling him right now.

[ShoogarBear]

Y'know, I get the sense that quite a few really don't know what a max contract is.

$10M a year x 6 years isn't a max contract. Almost no one here would have a problem with Parker at that money.

[picnroll]

I'm doing a little research on who's clutch in the crunch. The setting is in the last two minutes of games decided by five points or less, who scored the ball. In the 2004 season Parker was 4 for 15 in that setting. Not max material and as a cruch time performer he has a hell of a lot of room for improvement.

[Brodels]

Why not just offer him something reasonable ($60-65M) now instead of waiting until next summer? You seem to be under the pretense that the Spurs are offering him that, and he's looking for more. No one knows if that's the case. Maybe the Spurs are low-balling him right now.

The Spurs should be doing that. I'm not against signing him to that kind of contract right now. I think it would be great. And the Spurs could have a really low offer on the table right now. I'm not hoping for them to be cheap with him, I'm just stating that Parker isn't a max player. If Parker is demanding max dollars or something close to it, under no circumstances do you sign him to that kind of contract right now. If he's asking for $60-65 million, you send him the contract and have him sign right away.

I don't want to see them pay Parker more than he should get. That doesn't mean I don't want them to sign him to a reasonable contract right now.

[Brodels]

damn sequ has broke out of the dumb shell and posted intelligent posts.


I agree, gotta lock Parker up now. Screwing around and waiting till next year is foolish.

give him 10 mill a year, and get it over with.

Theoretically speaking, if Parker asks for the max right now, do you lock him up? what if asks for $11 million per season? Is that too much? Would you lock him up right now at any cost?

[polandprzem]

Parker is not a max contract player, though he can improve to one.
Why the hell this negotiatios tooking so long? TP want's to be in San Antonio, and the Spurs want the same. Why can't they tak about the contract? Tony is saing that he is concentrating on basketball,and he is lettig his agent to speak for him (as I noticed). If they don't lock him now there is a big chance the Spurs will be forced to pay max. And that wouldn't be the best solution to the proble called PG.

Sign it now TONY!

[Walton Buys Off Me]

What started as a personal rant has turned into a pretty good thread. People are actually disagreeing without calling each other Saddam Hussein- rare.

Kori, if you want to use anything I write, you don't have to ask, just go ahead.

As for the contract, I'm talking an average of 10 million a year, not a deal starting at 10 million.

And to the people saying Tony's been underpaid for the past three seasons; please get your facts straight. The CBA determines how much a player drafted in the bottom tier will make, the Spurs or Tony have no say in that. Parker and Udrih have identical contracts because of the fact that San Antonio is an elite team and drafts near the end of the first round every year.

[genghisrex]

A lot of people are assuming that Tony is looking for a contract much higher than that and that the Spurs are looking around $60M. What if Tony's only looking for around $60M and the Spurs aren't "close at all" (according to some reports) in what they are offering him? If they are offering him $50M or something, isn't it safe to assume they really just don't want to get a contract done unless it's at that bargain rate?
Although I don't have an ear in the bargaining room, I'm guessing that Tony's asking for around $65 million (an Arenas contract) and the Spurs are offering around $55 million (a Manu+ contract). From your reports and others I really doubt TP is asking for more than $65 million and if the Spurs were up to $60 million then the reports that the two sides are far apart in their negotiations wouldn't make sense (says a man who will never make $5 million in his life ;)). I hope the two sides can meet somewhere in the middle in the next week.

[ducks]

tp played well for the most part to prove that he was the right point guard for spurs and not kidd. he thought if they won it all it would end the kidd talk.
I call that playing well under pressure

[spursfaninla]

I think the scenario where they offer tony 55 and his agent asks for 65 is quite likely.

Think about this. The Spurs, using the leverage of the possible CBA, are trying to pressure Tony into taking what Manu took.

Parker and Manu's contributions to the team are very similar in stature; they score close to the same, they both (will) start and play similar minutes. Both are capable of being the second option on this team.

The main reason people think Tony deserves more than his current productivity demands is his potential to improve because of his age.

How likely is improvement for Parker from this point in his career?
Well, I looked at a few of the pg's that are around the league, and checked how much they improved from age 22 to 28 (that is where most players physically peak, I think most would agree).

Kidd: His fg% improved steadily from 22 to 28, from around .38 to .44. His rebounding also went up from around 5 to closer to 7. His assists were about 9 per game for most of his career. Most of his early years he scored 11 per game, and after age 27 he scored about 16 per.

Conclusion: So Kidd improved in rebounding, scoring and fg% over those years of age, but not monsterously.

Eric snow: was a 4 ppg player from age 21 to about 24, then went to 8ppg from 25 to 28. 12 ppg from 29-31. Fg% stayed the same, but his minutes doubled, which explains the increased scoring exactly. Assists also doubled with double the minutes, as did steals.

Conclusion: He stayed more or less the same player, just able to play more minutes.

Marbury; fg % went up .15 from his rookie age of about 20 to age 24, where he peaked, but that is a very small improvement. He started scoring at about 15-17 ppg from ages 20-23, then scored 20 every year since. Assists have been about 8pg his whole career, and his rebounding stayed the same.

Conclusion: He improved about 3-4ppg, and minimal fg%, thats it.

Nash: he started playing at age 23, and got fewer minutes his first few years, so when his minutes went up, his scoring doubled from about 7 to 15. However, his fg% went up from about .42 to closer to .48 from age 26-28, when it went down a tad to today. APg steadily increased almost every year to about age 29, though rebounds stayed the same.

Conclusion; Became a significantly better scorer and shooter, as well as passer, with age.

I would put Nash as much better, Marbury and Kidd as slightly better, and Snow as about the same player from age 22 to 28. I will do a better study to see how much the rest of the pg's changed, and give overall stats on this.

[Iron Giant]

I would put Nash as much better, Marbury and Kidd as slightly better, and Snow as about the same player from age 22 to 28. I will do a better study to see how much the rest of the pg's changed, and give overall stats on this.A good analysis (and I appreciate your taking the time to do it). One thing I try to keep in mind (when talking about TP) is the fact that he plays with TD. Assists, given the offense that SA runs, should come in bunches for a quality PG paired with TD. In this respect, I would expect to see TP's APG improving as he learns to see the floor better. Damn--I don't expect the point to score every night, but I do expect him to dish effectively even when shooting poorly. If his APG is staying roughly the same (and it appears to be pretty stable) I would hope to see a decline in turnovers (i.e., a better APG/TO ratio). The best example of improvement in this area I can think of lately is Jason Williams (check his ratios for the past few years).

Bottom line, if TP doesn't improve much on his 5.5/2.39, I don't see him being worth max PG dollars. Should Manu improve as advertised, we just don't need to depend as much on TP to score.

More assists, less turnovers por favor--dude ranked 38th on the ratio last year.

[ChumpDumper]

We would so suck without Parker.

You can bitch about clutch play, but we wouldn't even be in those close situations without Tony.

Anyone wanting to let him go must let us know whom they would want to replace him and his impact and how much they would cost.

[Iron Giant]

Who said I wanted to let him go? If he'll take 60, sign him now. At that price he's a steal given what he does for the team currently.

My point is in illuminating the area I feel he most has to improve: a 2.30 ratio doesn't make for a max PG contract. If a PG gets that for a team, it's because he has to carry the scoring load (aka Starbury). That just isn't the case here...

[ChumpDumper]

Unfortunately the market determines contract levels, not ratios.

Either give Tony close to the max now or match a max offer next summer.

Or let him go....

[spurster]

The reason you do the extension now is to avoid a larger contract later. There will be likely be some team next offseason that wants/needs a young, established, improving PG like TP. To avoid a Spurs match, they will make a front-loaded max or near-max offer.

Or if you don't want a big payroll, you let TP walk. I don't think Spurs fans are going to like that move very much.

[Iron Giant]

Unfortunately the market determines contract levels, not ratios.
That's only true in a contract year. What the Spurs offer right now, stupidly or not, is entirely up to them to choose. If Tony walks, it'll be hugely unpopular.

[picnroll]

To me, as much as everyone likes Parker, it's not inconceivable that Pop doesn't view him as the Spurs PG of the future. That a low offer may be deliberate knowing that Parker and his agent won't accept. Pop has always wanted a playmaking PG, a guard in the Stockton, Kidd mold. Parker is a scoring PG, potentially a gifted scoring PG but it's very doubtful he'll be a very gifted playmaking PG. Pop may view a potentially great scoring PG with average playmaking skills a good fit for what he wants his team to be. Then again maybe not.

Pop has a system and he likes his players to fit his system. He's refered to Udrih as having Stockton-like abilities. It could be that Pop wants to see how he develops this year and to decide whether Udrih for the next 4 years at $1 million or so might be better than Parker at $10 million, using the limited shekels Holt gives him in other areas.

If Parker leaves the lemmings will be diving over the cliff. At least those lemmings that are still left and didn't dive when Derek Anderson or Steve Jackson left. I trust Pop knows what he's doing. If Parker stays great. If he doesn't the Spurs will still be a contender for the title.

[Iron Giant]

If Pop didn't have any reservations, and the numbers being tossed about are as reasonable-appearing as everyone believes, I think he'd be signed already. This means either they're either a) leveraging him a bit to save a few pesos or b) the scenario you presented is true (they'd rather have a PG in the historical sense of the word). I think a combination of the two is likely true--they'd prefer someone in a pure PG mold, but for the right money he'll most certainly do.

Regardless, failure to establish an effective plan for Tony's replacement (if that's the intention here) is going to bite them. If they don't sign him now, and the other options don't pan out, they'll be punished for it when he goes restricted next year. Even if he doesn't improve, more than a few teams will drop max sheets on him. That being the case, I hope the dopey buggers sign him up now. Gambling at the PG position, these days, is a really stupid thing to do.

[spursfaninla]

Afew other pg's improvement:

Bdavis went from a 13ppg player to 22ppg at 25 today, with about the same mpg and the same fg%. Rebounds have been about 4 throught his short career so far. Assists have been up and down, between 6 and 9 from year to year.

Conclusion: Scoring at the same percentage, but went from being a role player scorer to a go-to scorer, significant improvement. Takes too many shots, though.

Cassell: Was the same scorer his whole career in terms of fg%, but went from 15 ppg to about 19 with added minutes. Productivity increased more markedly with assists, able to go from role player minutes to starter minutes and doubled assists averages. Shoots a crazy good fg%.

Conclusion: With added minutes was able to produce proportionally more, came closer to allstar caliber.

Francis: The same player from age 23 to today (27). PPg, rebounds, assists all the same, and fg% actually went DOWN.

conclusion: Stayed the same.

A. Miller

Started playing at age 24!? With increased minutes, after his rookie year his scoring went from 11ppg to 15, but dipped slightly from year to year FG% has been about .45 the whole time, as has his rebounds. Assists DECREASED after peaking at age 26.

Conclusion; Slight improvement in some areas, slipped in others, about the same.

Stoudamire: His best scoring years were from age 23-25, then decreased! This is explained by fewer minutes after those years. Inconsistent trend in fg%. Assists went down with fewer minutes as well.

Conclusion: Stoudamire regressed generally from his early production!

Mcinnis: Went from betwen 5-7ppg to about 12 with added minutes. fg% stayed about the same with added shots.

Conclusion: slight improvement.

Damon Jones: from age 23 to 28, about the same player down the line.

Conlcusion: stayed the same.

Billups: Scored about 12 ppg until he was 26, then went to 16ppg with slightly more minutes. fg% rose slightly on average from his early years to late years. Assists usually slightly above 3 most years, between 4-5 the last 2. Rebounds went up slightly with minutes.

Conclusion: Improvement with minutes, slight improvement overall.

Bibbly: Scoring went up a point or 2 each year from age 21 (13ppg) to 28 (18ppg). FG% stayed about the same, and assists peaked early at 23 (8apg) then went down to 5 every year after! Everything else about the same, with the same minutes every year.

Conclusion: Became a better scorer, but his assists have suffered for it. Counter to the popular perception, probably about the same to slightly better.

Jason Terry: Same player after his rookie year, from age 24 to 27 19ppg. Increased minutes from his rookie year.

Conclusion: Other than rookie year, about the same.

Payton: From 24 to 28 had his best fg%, and from age 25 and up handled big minutes, and increased production from that. His fg% went down with increased minutes after age 28.

Conclusion: With added age, was able to handle greater minutes and thus more productivity.

Fischer: With increased minutes went up from 5 to 11 ppg. FG sucked badly mostly early, and improved slightly with age.

Conclusion: slight improvement.

L. Hunter: Increased minutes, increased points, peaked about 28 like the others.


Now, Tony's stats the last 3 years:

Went from 9ppg to about 15 the last 2 years. Assists went up from 4 his first year to 5 this year. Fg% went up from .41 to about .46, then back to .44. Rebounding slightly better last year than the 2 years before. Slightly more minutes this year.



Here some general conclusions I can make from reviewing the little data I collected here.

1) Player's increased productivity correlates with increased age up 28 or so years old, but also just as much on greater playing time; the scoring pg's with around 16-22ppg usually play 33-38, and up to 41 mpg. (tony averaged 33 and 34 the last 2 years).

2) Players around Tony's current age, from age 22-28, tend to increase their scoring, some slightly and some greatly, with just a few staying the same. There is a slight increase usually in assists as well.

3) Though not stated in the above data, from reviewing these pg's, the best scoring pg's either :1) Shoot 3's very well (bibby, Nash), 2) Shoot well in general(Marbury, Cassell, Nash), or 3) Just take alot of shots(Arneas, B Davis, Francis). Unless tony is one of the first 2, we don't need him just throwing up a bunch to get numbers.

4)Obvious perhaps, but this data verifies the conclusion that as players get more experienced, they are able to produce for longer stretches of a game, and with added age from 22 to around 30, many are able to be durable enough to play added minutes and not break down.

Conclusion regarding Tony's improvement:?

If Tony goes from 33-34 minutes to 38 or 40 and can be durable, he will likely increase his ppg from 15 to 19 IMO, with a similar increase in apg. If not, with the same minutes he is likely to get about the same shots per game, and thus the same productivity.

However, as stated before, productivity is correlated with increased playing time except for just 1 or 2 players (Nash, for instance), and that had to do with a change in team offensive philosophy IMO.

I doubt Tony with change his scoring more than 1-2 points a game unless he can handle more minutes. Can his body and playing style handle those minutes? That is the key to his further development as a scorer and passer.

The data I looked at shows that players increase their productivity with age, but when they do so, it is often going from 20-something minutes to 30-something, and Tony already has those minutes for the most part; he needs more shot attempts to get more points now. If he gets another 3 shots a game, which would only be justified if he shoots better than whomever he is taking shots from, he will add maybe 2 points (generous considering his fg%.

If Tony is actually able to become a better fg% shooter (like Cassell and Nash), or is able to handle getting to the line more (like Francis and AI), then he could become a better scorer. Something to remember, though; scorers like B Davis gets WAY MORE SHOTS than tony is ever going to get (Baron shoots more for his team than Timmy!).

Also as an asside, I thought I would put Tony's fg, 3pt fg, and adjusted fg% next to the pg's that most would consider the top 15:

Tony: .44 .32 .48%

Kidd .38 .32 .43
marbury .43 .32 .46
nash .47 .40 .53!
francis .40 .29 .43
arneas .39 .37 .46
bdavis .39 .32 .46
billups .39 .38 .45
cassell .48! .39 .51!
bjackson .44 .37 .51!
A. Miller .45 .18? .46
J. Williams .40 .33 .49
j. Terry .41 .34 .47
bibby .45 .39 .51!

We can't assume these guys all get equal attention from defenses, or that playing style doesn't come into account here. But in general, Tony has a great fg%, adjusted; he is 5th!, 6hth in regular fg%. PPg, he is in the top 50 in the league, with only some of these top 10 pg's also in the top 50.

With Manu also shooting more next year (likely), unless Tony shooting improved dramatically, he doesn't really have a chance to score 19-20ppg IMO, which considering his skill set, is the only way he is deserving a max contract (he's not going to double his assists next year).

[Iron Giant]

With Manu also shooting more next year (likely), unless Tony shooting improved dramatically, he doesn't really have a chance to score 19-20ppg IMO, which considering his skill set, is the only way he is deserving a max contract (he's not going to double his assists next year).

I'm happy with what he's scoring now--bump up the APG and drop the TOs a bit, and he's max-worthy to me.

The question here, I think, is what kind of PG Tony is going to be and, more importantly, what kind of PG the Spurs want on the team.

[spursfaninla]

Tony is not going to turn into an assist machine. He might slightly improve, but it will probably not be dramatic.

His assist to turnover ratio sounds bad, but between 3/1 and 2/1 is the average. He is on the lower end of that, but when you consider how small the difference is between that, really, its not that big of a deal.

Antonio Daniels leads the league in Assist to Turnover Ratio; how important can it really be!

top 10 assist to turnover ratio:

ad
Damon Jones
reggie miller
j. Will (the first potenitally even top 15 pg)
j. Mcinnis
Nash (top 5)
eric snow
gary payton
earl boykins
rafer alston

Assist to turnover ratio, unless out of control, is too sensitive of an indicator to take very seriously; we are talking a .6 atr difference between #10 and #38.

[SequSpur]

I wish people would post under their previous screen names that they originally had or at least introduce themselves to everyone and the change they made.

Who the hell are you?

Straight up. Pop doesn't know how to recruit a point guard. He wacked off to the thought of having Jason Kidd and he failed.

He then thought he made some stellar deals last year and came up empty.

He again is taking a stupid risk by signing Beno.

The Spurs should lock up Parker. Players win games not the damn Coach.

[Duff McCartney]

Pop doesn't know how to recruit a point guard.

How do you think he got Parker in the first place? Moron.

[Brodels]

How do you think he got Parker in the first place?

I think he's trying to say that Parker was drafted, not recruited as a free agent.

[ducks]

pop did not want him
rc convinced him to look at him more
and then they picked him

[SequSpur]

Duff,

The short bus has been waiting outside for 10 minutes. Please exit immediately and go home.

[ChumpDumper]

That's only true in a contract year. What the Spurs offer right now, stupidly or not, is entirely up to them to choose.It WILL be true if they don't get a deal done now, which is the situation you seem to be advocating.

Bottom line, I think Bibby/Nash money is the floor for Parker. And these guys have no rings and don't happen to be the fastest point guard in the league at 23.

I still haven't heard any names of folks who are going to get us 18 pts and 7 assists in the playoffs for less.

Waiting.

[Duff McCartney]

Duff,

The short bus has been waiting outside for 10 minutes. Please exit immediately and go home.

The short bus? Are you the driver?

[Brodels]

You know, teams have won championships without getting 18 and 7 from their point guards in the playoffs. Maybe a player of Tony's caliber isn't available, but that doesn't mean that Tony should be maxed out simply because he happens to be better than what's available.

The Spurs probably aren't going to find a better perimeter defender out there than Bowen. But that doesn't mean that he should get paid whatever he wants, and it doesn't mean that the Spurs can't win without him.

And come to think of it, Rasho was the best available center last summer. I didn't hear you saying that the Spurs should pay Rasho whatever it takes to pry him away from Minny. You don't overpay a player simply because a better player doesn't happen to be available at any given time.

The Spurs would contend without Tony. It's better if he stays, but the Spurs will do fine if he goes. They'll likely have a little bit of financial flexibility and would be able to add a couple of decent parts over the next couple of seasons. One of those parts could be a point guard. And we don't know what Beno is going to do. He could be a bust...but then again, he could tear it up.

I will be thrilled if the Spurs and Tony come to an agreement this week. But if they don't, it won't mean that the Spurs won't contend in three years. It could allow them to be even better. It's possible. We simply don't know what could happen.

I hope that each side is willing to discuss a fair offer this week. It would be great to have Parker around, but I still believe that fiscal sanity is the best policy.


It WILL be true if they don't get a deal done now, which is the situation you seem to be advocating.

Bottom line, I think Bibby/Nash money is the floor for Parker. And these guys have no rings and don't happen to be the fastest point guard in the league at 23.

I still haven't heard any names of folks who are going to get us 18 pts and 7 assists in the playoffs for less.

Waiting.

[ChumpDumper]

You know, teams have won championships without getting 18 and 7 from their point guards in the playoffs.Ok, ANYONE else who would replace the 18 and 7.

Waiting.

[SequSpur]

Brodels is reaching now.

Dude, they need to resign Parker. Straight up. Its a proven fact that top free agents don't want to come here.

[Brodels]

Ok, ANYONE else who would replace the 18 and 7.

Waiting.

Probably nobody could. But you act like "18 and 7" is the magical number that will bring a championship. Maybe the Spurs can win without that kind of production. It could even turn out that the Spurs end up better off with a couple of other support players instead. Say, for instance, that Manu blows up this season. A solid distributing point guard and another quality swing player or decent big could certainly put the Spurs over the top.

The fact remains that the Spurs might not necessarily win with what they've got. And what if the Spurs got "17 and 6" production from their point guard. Is that simply not good enough?

I really want Tony to stay, but the Spurs would be better off without him if he gets a max dollar deal next summer and he doesn't improve a good bit this season.

[Brodels]

Brodels is reaching now.

Dude, they need to resign Parker. Straight up. Its a proven fact that top free agents don't want to come here.

Why am I reaching? Prove that its impossible for the Spurs to win a title without Parker.

[SequSpur]

Of course they can win a title without him. But... You have to replace him first and just like Chump Dumper asked you...........

Name a replacement that is going to get you 18 and 7?

[ChumpDumper]

Probably nobody could. But you act like "18 and 7" is the magical number that will bring a championship.No, that's enough to get eliminated in the second round. You propose going backwards from there.
Maybe the Spurs can win without that kind of production.I guarantee you they couldn't.
It could even turn out that the Spurs end up better off with a couple of other support players instead. Say, for instance, that Manu blows up this season. A solid distributing point guard and another quality swing player or decent big could certainly put the Spurs over the top.And how do you propose to pay these solid and quality players?
The fact remains that the Spurs might not necessarily win with what they've got.And they might not win with your cheap plan either. So what?
And what if the Spurs got "17 and 6" production from their point guard.Which one? For how much?
I really want Tony to stay, but the Spurs would be better off without him if he gets a max dollar deal next summer and he doesn't improve a good bit this season.Better off in that they won't have a starting point guard or a guy who can score 18 and 7 in the playoffs. Sorry man, point guards are hard to find in this league. I can't believe anyone with knowledge of the Spurs between Strickland and AJ can discount this so easily.

Go back to Vinny Del Negro and Greg Sutton if you like. I refuse.

[Brodels]

No, that's enough to get eliminated in the second round.

So if Parker doesn't improve much, and he really didn't improve by a great amount last season, the Spurs are basically a second round team with no hope of improving. If the Spurs lost because Tony only produced 18 and 7 in the playoffs, they are going to continue to lose. Tony isn't going to give this team 22 and 10. It just isn't going to happen. There are many reasons the Spurs lost in the second round. And by stating that Parker's production was enough to only get them to the second round, you're putting too much of the blame on Parker for the team's playoff failure last season. And if you're going to put that much blame on him, why do you want to pay him max dollars?


You propose going backwards from there.I guarantee you they couldn't.

Parker isn't the only player in the league. You act as if the Spurs would be stuck with the same roster they have now sans Parker for the next five years. That simply isn't true. And as for your guarantee? You simply don't know what would happen.


And how do you propose to pay these solid and quality players?

With the MLE. Financial flexibility also helps the team make trades. There are ways to improve the team.


And they might not win with your cheap plan either.

So hoping that Parker gets a contract averaging over $10 million per season is cheap? If that's cheap, than matching him at the max is purely insane. The few point guards currently making the max are true superstars. If you match a max deal for Parker, you better hope that he improves to the level of a max player. If the Spurs are a second round team with the current core, it's going to stay that way unless Parker and others improve. If you overpay Parker, you're not going to be able to improve the roster.


So what?Which one? For how much?

I can't answer that. Nobody knows what's going to be out there next summer. Nobody knows how Beno is going to respond to playing in the NBA. And Parker might sign a contract this week anyway.


Better off in that they won't have a starting point guard or a guy who can score 18 and 7 in the playoffs.

So you're saying that the Spurs need a guy to score 18 and 7 in the playoffs, but you're also saying that 18 and 7 isn't good enough in the playoffs? Which is it? If Parker isn't good enough to make the Spurs a championship team, than they better have a plan to get better. And they aren't going to improve if Parker is locked up for the max.


Sorry man, point guards are hard to find in this league. I can't believe anyone with knowledge of the Spurs between Strickland and AJ can discount this so easily.

AJ was a pretty crappy point guard by NBA standards. And last time I checked, the Spurs won their first NBA title with him at the helm. And he didn't average 18 and 7 at any point in his career.

[ChumpDumper]

So if Parker doesn't improve much, and he really didn't improve by a great amount last season, the Spurs are basically a second round team with no hope of improving.If he was the only player on the team, this stupidly simplistic viewpoint would be pure gold.
Parker isn't the only player in the league.And yet you can't name one guy to replace his role and production. In that case he might as well be the only player in the league available to the Spurs.
With the MLE. Financial flexibility also helps the team make trades.The Spurs will have the MLE if they keep Parker too. And Parker is completely tradeable -- even at the max -- even if he doesn't improve at all over last year.

Parker + MLE > Nothing + MLE
So hoping that Parker gets a contract averaging over $10 million per season is cheap?Your plan is letting him go if the price looks high. Don't pretend it isn't.
I can't answer that.Exactly. Bring an alternative or bring nothing. You brought nothing but maybe some MLE pg who will split that money with a swing man.
AJ was a pretty crappy point guard by NBA standards. And last time I checked, the Spurs won their first NBA title with him at the helm.In what way was AJ a crappy point guard when the Spurs won? How many rings did Vinny Del Negro and Greg Sutton get the Spurs?

You said you'd rather take the chance of some sub-MLE point guard for fear of overpaying Parker.

Back that up.

Name names.

Who are we going to sign to start at the point for less than Derek Fisher?

[timvp]

If you say the Spurs can lose Parker and still win championships, you're crazy. Without Parker, the Spurs would be back to the Terry Porter walk-it-up-the-court-and-get-blown-out-in-the-playoffs stye. His speed is what allows the offense to be effective in the playoffs.

The Spurs lose Tony, they lose their championship hopes.

[picnroll]

Ok, ANYONE else who would replace the 18 and 7.

Waiting.
I'll take Carlos Arroyo and his contract over Parker and a $65-70 million deal at his current level of play, and see what I can get for the change.

[ChumpDumper]

Try to stick with someone who is available next summer

[timvp]

We need to put this thread in the classics. I wonder what these people will be saying when Parker takes his game to the next level.

[Brodels]

If he was the only player on the team, this stupidly simplistic viewpoint would be pure gold.

You said that at Tony's current level of play the Spurs are a second-round team.


And yet you can't name one guy to replace his role and production.

Unfortunately, I don't have the ability to call every GM around the league to ask who might be available via trade next summer. I can't accurately predict who is going to have a breakout season this year. I don't know what other teams are going to do. I can't say how Beno will play. When I become an NBA GM and also develop the ability to predict the future, I'll let you know.


The Spurs will have the MLE if they keep Parker too. And Parker is completely tradeable -- even at the max -- even if he doesn't improve at all over last year.

The Spurs are much more likely to use the MLE if they have a lower payroll. We both know that Holt isn't going to open his wallet and pay an unlimited number of dollars. And Parker is not going to be tradeable at the max two years from now if he's the same kind of player. He'll only get a max offer because some team thinks he'll become a max player, not because anyone actually believes that he's worth the contract right now.


Parker + MLE > Nothing + MLE

That's not the situation.


Your plan is letting him go if the price looks high. Don't pretend it isn't.Exactly.

My plan is to pay him what other players get that produce similarly. Unless he's as good as most of the max players, he shouldn't get the max. Teams always regret overpaying players. Just like you don't pay Rasho the max because the Spurs could find it difficult to find a center with his ability, you don't overpay Parker until he shows that he's in the top-tier of players at his position.


Bring an alternative or bring nothing. You brought nothing but maybe some MLE pg who will split that money with a swing man.

The fact is, nobody in the entire world knows what the alternatives will be. But there are always alternatives. I can't predict the future. Who knows what the Spurs could get? We simply don't.


In what way was AJ a crappy point guard when the Spurs won? How many rings did Vinny Del Negro and Greg Sutton get the Spurs?

Well, AJ certainly didn't produce 18 and 7 and the Spurs still won with him. He wasn't considered to be among the better point guards in the league. And Vinny and Greg don't play in the league anymore.


You said you'd rather take the chance of some sub-MLE point guard for fear of overpaying Parker.

Yes. Financial flexibility will allow the Spurs to get better at some point. If the Spurs weren't good enough last season to win the title, than they aren't ever going to be unless Parker and Manu improve or Barry proves to be the missing piece. We'll see if those things happen. If you sign Parker to the max, you're accepting the fact that the roster that wasn't good enough to make it to the conference finals last season is practically the same one you'll be seeing for the next several years. If you sign Parker to the max, you better hope that he gets better. Or hope that Manu improves. Or hope that Barry makes a huge difference. If those things don't happen, the Spurs are going to keep losing in the postseason.

If you don't overpay Parker, you stay a good bit under the Holt Cap and you'll have the financial flexibility to at least potentially improve. And if the current team isn't good enough, that's the best scenario.

The Spurs are better off with Parker, but only if he get paid what his production dictates he's worth.

I very much hope that Parker signs a nice, six-year, $60 million deal this week. But you don't give him whatever he wants. That's a bad way to run a basketball team.

[Brodels]

We need to put this thread in the classics. I wonder what these people will be saying when Parker takes his game to the next level.

Who is saying that Parker won't take his game to the next level? He might, but he might not. If he gets better, he should get paid more. If he has a monster season, he should get the max. I'm not saying that he won't. I'm just saying that it's not guaranteed that he will. I hope he does.

[ChumpDumper]

You said that at Tony's current level of play the Spurs are a second-round team.I can't help you if you can't understand English. Try a tutor.
Unfortunately, I don't have the ability to call every GM around the league to ask who might be available via trade next summer. I can't accurately predict who is going to have a breakout season this year. I don't know what other teams are going to do. I can't say how Beno will play. When I become an NBA GM and also develop the ability to predict the future, I'll let you know.Maybe then I'll accept your take that we're better off without Tony, too.
The Spurs are much more likely to use the MLE if they have a lower payroll. We both know that Holt isn't going to open his wallet and pay an unlimited number of dollars. And Parker is not going to be tradeable at the max two years from now if he's the same kind of player. He'll only get a max offer because some team thinks he'll become a max player, not because anyone actually believes that he's worth the contract right now.I thought you said you couldn't predict the future. And yet, here you are doing just that. If Marbury and Stoudamire can be traded, so could Tony.
That's not the situation.It certainly could be. Why act like it isn't a possiblity?
My plan is to pay him what other players get that produce similarly.Bibby. Nash. Next.
Well, AJ certainly didn't produce 18 and 7 and the Spurs still won with him. He wasn't considered to be among the better point guards in the league.You might want to check on AJ's numbers back in the day. Try to think about what it would take to even get that level of competence at the point. Then look at Derek Fisher's contract. Then think about how truly flexble that kind of contract is. Then sign Parker for close to the max.
And Vinny and Greg don't play in the league anymore.Do you really need this spelled out to you?
Financial flexibility will allow the Spurs to get better at some point.What point? When Malik's deal is over? Again, just plug in Derek Fisher's deal into the Spur's payroll for the next six years and tell me how much more flexible that makes things.
I very much hope that Parker signs a nice, six-year, $60 million deal this week. But you don't give him whatever he wants. That's a bad way to run a basketball team.Duh.

But you gotta pay him.

Or lose him.

The market is VERY clear on his value. This is beyond question. The only question is if the Spurs think they can get him at or below market. He will be paid either way.

[Brodels]

I can't help you if you can't understand English. Try a tutor.Maybe then I'll accept your take that we're better off without Tony, too.

You said:


No, that's enough to get eliminated in the second round.

...when asked if 18 and 7 were stats that the Spurs needed from Tony to succeed. You're saying that those number will get the Spurs eliminated. So Tony needs to do better. But you're also saying that the Spurs need those numbers to win. Can they or can't they win with Tony producing at 18 and 7?


I thought you said you couldn't predict the future.

I can't predict who is going to blow up. I can't predict what direction teams will go in. But I can say with relative certainty that the good players will generally get more money than the bad players.


If Marbury and Stoudamire can be traded, so could Tony.It certainly could be.

It could happen. But Marbury was a very, very good player and Damon was thought to be a "potential" guy at the time.


Bibby. Nash.

If statistics really are that important, as the 18/7 talk suggests, then Tony should get less than Nash. He's never produced the same numbers.

In my opinion, a 6-year, $66 million deal isn't out of the realm of possibility. That's what Nash got, and it isn't that close to the max. I could accept a contract like that for Tony.


Next.You might want to check on AJ's numbers back in the day. Try to think about what it would take to even get that level of competence at the point.

AJ averaged thirteen points per game in his best years. He averaged a good number of assists, but he did so in a time when everyone got more assists.

Again, the Spurs don't necessarily need a superstar at the point. It would be better if Tony stayed and they could rely on his production. But that production doesn't need to come from that position.


Then look at Derek Fisher's contract. Then think about how truly flexble that kind of contract is.

I'm in favor of signing Parker to a contract that approaches twice as much as Fisher's contract.


Again, just plug in Derek Fisher's deal into the Spur's payroll for the next six years and tell me how much more flexible that makes things.Duh.

Well, $40 million is a lot of money. And if you don't think that $40 million makes a difference, think again. It could very well be the difference between the Spurs being able to improve a team incapable of getting it done or the Spurs being stuck with a team incapable of getting it done.


But you gotta pay him.

Or lose him.

I agree. Give him a Nash-type contract. You seem to think that Tony has similar value. So if Nash didn't get the max, why should Parker?


The market is VERY clear on his value. This is beyond question. The only question is if the Spurs think they can get him at or below market. He will be paid either way.

As it was with Allan Houston, Keith Van Horn, and Tariq Abdul-Wahad. That's why you don't overpay players and pray that they improve enough to live up to the contract. You pay players based on what they can do or what they might reasonably be able to do if they improve a small bit.

[ChumpDumper]

...when asked if 18 and 7 were stats that the Spurs needed from Tony to succeed. You're saying that those number will get the Spurs eliminated. So Tony needs to do better. But you're also saying that the Spurs need those numbers to win. Can they or can't they win with Tony producing at 18 and 7?Sure they can. Taking him and his production all but ensures the Spurs don't win anything.
It could happen. But Marbury was a very, very good player and Damon was thought to be a "potential" guy at the time.And they are different from Parker how? That they are older and slower?
If statistics really are that important, as the 18/7 talk suggests, then Tony should get less than Nash. He's never produced the same numbers.Nash got 14 and 9 in the playoffs, so Parker should get more. Bibby got 20 and 7. Not much difference, eh? Parker also has a ring and was the consensus Finals MVP for 2 or 3 games.
AJ averaged thirteen points per game in his best years. He averaged a good number of assists, but he did so in a time when everyone got more assists.So how much money would it take to get even that production -- even if that mystery FA could be attracted to SA.
I'm in favor of signing Parker to a contract that approaches twice as much as Fisher's contract. Twice would be the max. Why are we having this discussion if you agree with me?
Well, $40 million is a lot of money. And if you don't think that $40 million makes a difference, think again.It doesn't if your team is already over the cap to the degree the Spurs will be with the deals they made with Duncan, Rasho, Manu and Malik. At the most that difference is one MLE player. Whoop de do.
I agree. Give him a Nash-type contract. You seem to think that Tony has similar value. So if Nash didn't get the max, why should Parker?Tony performs better in the playoffs, has a ring and is eight years younger with upside. End of story.
As it was with Allan Houston, Keith Van Horn, and Tariq Abdul-Wahad. That's why you don't overpay players and pray that they improve enough to live up to the contract. You pay players based on what they can do or what they might reasonably be able to do if they improve a small bit.Sorry, Parker is already at that level. Everyone but Spurs fans seem to realize that.

[Man Mountain]

TOny Parker is a once in a lifetime steal at point guard. The Spurs had no right to get him how they did at the end of the first round. If you think the Spurs can go out and do that again you are crazy. They are lucky to have Parker and like that guy said anyone who Pop goes out and tries to get at point guard as been hooooooorrrrrrrriiiiiiiiibbbbbble. Parker fell into their lap after other teams had biases against foriegn point guards and an overall lack of euro scouting available. To think that this is an everyday occurence is crazy. Point guards like Parker take lottery picks or trades for big time talent. THe Spurs fluked into Parker (and to Ginobili for the matter) so they need to do what they need to do to keep him right here in San ANtonio. I don't know what they are offering but if its less than sixty million dollars then Parker should walk away. He is worth AT LEAST what Nash got and probably a little more. For a fare contract you are look sixty to seventy million. This isn't a spurs fan talking this is reality. You have to take advantage when a fluke happens you can't just let him leave. Sign him now and then worry about winning championships. We have gone thru too many seasons with doubt hanging over our heads like a black cloud. Just get it over with and move on. We have bigger fish to fry!!!

[Brodels]

Sure they can. Taking him and his production all but ensures the Spurs don't win anything.

You seem to believe that the Spurs will score eighteen less points if Parker leaves. That production is made up by both new and existing players. The Spurs would suffer right now without Tony, but losing him wouldn't mean that the Spurs couldn't win in the future.


And they are different from Parker how?

Marbury is simply a better player. Damon was paid based on his potential. He didn't turn into the type of player he was expected to be, and Portland regrets trading for him and hates his contract. What's to say the same couldn't happen with Parker? Now that Damon isn't a "potential" kind of guy anymore, he's untradeable. Parker would be tradeable as long as he remained a "potential" guy, but after several years in the league, people wonder if you'll ever pan out.


That they are older and slower?Nash got 14 and 9 in the playoffs, so Parker should get more. Bibby got 20 and 7. Not much difference, eh?

Players don't get paid solely on what they do in the playoffs. You have to pay a player based on what he can do in the playoffs and during the regular season. You don't actually believe that regular season production should have no impact on what a player gets paid, do you?


Parker also has a ring and was the consensus Finals MVP for 2 or 3 games.So how much money would it take to get even that production -- even if that mystery FA could be attracted to SA.

You can get similar production by paying players based upon what they actually produce. You can get that production by developing young players. And you can get that production by getting more from the players you already have.


Twice would be the max. Why are we having this discussion if you agree with me?

$74 million is not the max for Parker. And I did specify that I would accept something approaching that number, not that actual number. $70 million is the absolute most that would be acceptable.


It doesn't if your team is already over the cap to the degree the Spurs will be with the deals they made with Duncan, Rasho, Manu and Malik.

Yes it does. The Spurs would have more flexibility with their exceptions, can work to get under the cap easier, and will have an easier time making trades.


Tony performs better in the playoffs, has a ring and is eight years younger with upside.

You don't pay for upside after someone has already been in the league for multiple seasons. Tony has a ring because he plays with Tim Duncan. Nash has never played with a player of Tim's caliber.


Sorry, Parker is already at that level. Everyone but Spurs fans seem to realize that.

Most players making the max have been all-stars or all NBA first, second, or third team members. If Parker was really a max player, he would have achieved one of those honors. Those things are decided by people outside of San Antonio for the most part. He's not even clearly the second best player on his own team.

[ChumpDumper]

You seem to believe that the Spurs will score eighteen less points if Parker leaves. That production is made up by both new and existing players.Who? For how much? Will he be the fastest player in the league? Terry Porter? Greg Sutton?
Marbury is simply a better player. Damon was paid based on his potential. He didn't turn into the type of player he was expected to be, and Portland regrets trading for him and hates his contract. What's to say the same couldn't happen with Parker? Now that Damon isn't a "potential" kind of guy anymore, he's untradeable. Parker would be tradeable as long as he remained a "potential" guy, but after several years in the league, people wonder if you'll ever pan out.Again, you completely undervalue what Tony does NOW. These maical replacements you have for Tony simply aren't out there.
Players don't get paid solely on what they do in the playoffs. You have to pay a player based on what he can do in the playoffs and during the regular season. You don't actually believe that regular season production should have no impact on what a player gets paid, do you?
Bibby. Next.
You can get similar production by paying players based upon what they actually produce. You can get that production by developing young players. And you can get that production by getting more from the players you already have.Who? For how much? Who is going to develop? Why act like it's going to happen when you admit to not knowing who will develop. Tony is there NOW.
$74 million is not the max for Parker. And I did specify that I would accept something approaching that number, not that actual number. $70 million is the absolute most that would be acceptable.Damn, make up your mind. Twice the MLE, $74 million or $70 million? Which is it. Year to year, it doesn't make a lot of difference when you're talking 12.5% raises.
Yes it does. The Spurs would have more flexibility with their exceptions, can work to get under the cap easier, and will have an easier time making trades.Please, you're talking about Parker or 1 and some fraction of an MLE player. The Spurs will not be close to being under any cap until 2009 since Malik picked up his option, so that argument is crap.
You don't pay for upside after someone has already been in the league for multiple seasons.You do if they still have upside. I know it's unusual but there it is.
Most players making the max have been all-stars or all NBA first, second, or third team members. If Parker was really a max player, he would have achieved one of those honors. Those things are decided by people outside of San Antonio for the most part. He's not even clearly the second best player on his own team.Sorry, the market has spoken and you're whistling past the graveyard.

Parker now > your phantom MLE signings and development of Spurs to whom you'll give the benefit of the doubt though you can't do the same with Parker.

It'll be a miracle if the Spurs can get Parker below Bibby money.

[Das Texan]

any word on whether they are going to get it done?


or are things being tabled till the offseason?



i fear that this could cost the spurs in the long run financially.

[Kori Ellis]

Pop says it is going to happen within a couple days, or wait until the summer. Tony seems to think they'll keep negotiating until month's end.

[ChumpDumper]

This artificial deadline is crap. It's not like they wouldn't take any calls from the agent if he relented.