Ludden: Parker, Spurs end contract talks

[Kori Ellis]

Parker, Spurs end contract talks
Web Posted: 10/28/2004 12:00 AM CDT

Johnny Ludden
Express-News Staff Writer

http://www.mysanantonio.com/sports/basketball/nba/spurs/stories/MYSA102804.1C.BKNspurs.parker.3075a0d0.html

With five days left to extend Tony Parker's contract before an NBA deadline, the point guard's agent said Wednesday he has ended talks with the Spurs after team officials declined to increase their six-year, $64 million offer.

"We've been told (Spurs chairman) Peter Holt won't pay a penny above $64 million," said Marc Fleisher, Parker's agent. "We respectfully think Tony's value is higher and that it just makes more sense for him to wait until the summer."

If the Spurs do not extend Parker's contract by Sunday, he will become a restricted free agent at the end of the season. The team will have the right to match any other offer he receives.

Spurs' officials, as is usually their policy during contract negotiations, declined comment.

The breakdown in negotiations comes with the two sides separated by no more than $4 million. Parker had been seeking $68 million, though a source close to the talks indicated he would be willing to compromise at $66 million.

Fleisher had been awaiting a new proposal from the Spurs this week, but was informed the team's ownership group would not increase its offer. Parker, who said last week he was "very confident" an agreement could be reached, remains hopeful the Spurs will reconsider.

"I would like to get it done, but I don't know if we will be able to," Parker said. "Marc says the Spurs' offer isn't fair. He thinks we can do better in the summer. He might be right."

The Spurs' $64 million offer would eclipse the six-year, $52 million deal Manu Ginobili signed this summer as the third-largest in the franchise's history. Only Tim Duncan (seven years, $122 million) and David Robinson (six years, $66 million) have received larger contracts.

Last summer, Washington lured Gilbert Arenas, another of the league's top young point guards, away from Golden State with a six-year, $64 million deal.

However, with NBA contract values escalating sharply over the past four months, the money Parker is seeking is substantially less than what other members of his rookie class have received. Memphis recently gave forward Pau Gasol a six-year, $86 million extension, the maximum he could have received. Utah forward Andrei Kirilenko, another of Fleisher's clients, also is close to signing an $86 million extension. New Jersey forward Richard Jefferson signed for $76 million over six years.

"At those numbers, it just seems better for him to wait," Fleisher said. "I think there's a good chance he could get a max deal next summer."

Some Spurs' officials privately agree, though the team and Parker will both be taking a gamble by waiting until the summer because the league's collective bargaining agreement expires at the end of the season.

The NBA is expected to try to reduce the maximum length of guaranteed contracts as well as reduce the maximum annual raise a player can receive in the new CBA. The players' union will likely resist, depending on what other concessions are made.

By waiting, Parker also puts himself at risk of injury. Any insurance policy he signs probably won't come close to guaranteeing what the Spurs are offering.

It remains to be seen how Parker will react if he enters the season without a new deal. He will earn $1.5 million this season regardless of whether he signs an extension.

"Tony went through a tough time two summers ago," Fleisher said, referring to the Spurs' failed pursuit of New Jersey point guard Jason Kidd. "And he came out of that just fine.

"He's going to have even more incentive to play well and be the max-type of player he is. What makes Tony great is that he has a lot of confidence in himself."

Spurs officials postponed negotiating with Parker until the end of September then quickly set their own Oct. 10 deadline for completing talks. Though a deal was not reached, the team continued negotiating.

Fleisher said he doubts talks will resume a second time. Even if the two sides agree on the total value of the extension, they still have to negotiate the structure of the contract, which could lead to other stumbling points.

"This is sort of what they indicated they wanted all along," Fleisher said. "I think this was specifically designed that if they got a great deal for themselves they would do it. But if they didn't, they would wait.

"I made it very clear to Tony that he has to assume when (team officials) say Peter Holt is not going to pay a penny more than $64 million, they're men of their words.

"It's not for us to tell Peter he's wrong. But at the same time we don't have to take a deal we think isn't fair value."

[timvp]

Over $2M?

WTF? :wtf :wtf :wtf

Damn it. Sell some damn tractors and get this over with.

[timvp]

"At those numbers, it just seems better for him to wait," Fleisher said. "I think there's a good chance he could get a max deal next summer."

Some Spurs' officials privately agree

Nice logic there, Spurs.

If Holt can't come up with $2 million, then he needs to sell the team.

[Marcus Bryant]

Clearly the Spurs think that next summer that they can make out alright with the potential changes in the CBA and with Parker being a restricted free agent (would he remain so under the next CBA?)

Still, this does seem somewhat odd. The Spurs are clearly making a big gamble right now. I suppose they believe that they can make out better if the new CBA does reduce contract lengths and the max annual raises. They wouldn't have to carry insurance for Parker's deal starting this summer as well. Plus the last years of any guaranteed deal usually comprise a disproportionate amount of the total value so the cost of insuring such a shorter, smaller deal would be significantly less.

They did a decent job of handling Manu's foray into free agency. They seem to think they can do it again.

[timvp]

(would he remain so under the next CBA?)

Good point. If the new CBA dicates that Parker is an unrestricted free agent, the Spurs will be even more screwed.

So if Parker is offered the max next summer ... do the Spurs match?

If Holt is still the owner, I think not. Even if that max is only over four or five years.

[Marcus Bryant]

One does wonder if Holt isn't looking to exit now.

[slayermin]

It's 2million to the Spurs, but 4million to Tony, if he does decide to take the Spurs offer.

There are a few more days before the deadline. Maybe, someone will come to their senses.

[Iron Giant]

Parker had been seeking $68 million, though a source close to the talks indicated he would be willing to compromise at $66 million.

He was asking more than the rumored $65 million to begin with, apparently. Still, I'm surprised they didn't want to sign him for $66 mill. This makes me think they're not as high on him as the rest of us hope (or believe).

[timvp]

$64 million is still a lot of money. They know how good he will be ... they just want to pinch pennies.

To me, Parker for $68 million is a better deal than Ginobili for $52 million.

[Marcus Bryant]

What's in it for the Spurs waiting until next summer? Potenitally they can sign him to a shorter deal, with lower annual raises. In addition to the reduction in expense over those years for Parker the amount of guaranteed money would be significantly less, which is important for carrying that contract. The difference between a 6 year extension now under the current CBA versus a new contract next summer for say, 4 years with lower annual raises is significant.

[pooh]

One thing is for sure...it will be an interesting year for Parker and the Spurs.

[Iron Giant]

I wonder if it's the money, or just the fact they'd prefer to spend their money elsewhere. They made an offer to Tony, and that's encouraging, but did they make it knowing he'd never accept it? Less than Gilbert Arenas? Sheesh.

[Marcus Bryant]

One would think that if the owners got shorter contracts and lower max annual raises that perhaps the players would get restricted free agency pared back.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

$66 million

WTF? Two million? Gimme a friggin' break!

Okay, Holt's the majority owner, but have you seen the ownership list?

Bank of America. USAA. I think even Clear Channel and HEB have part ownership. DRob has part ownership. They can't find two million dollars in there?

[pooh]

Don't be surprised if Robinson steps in and Parker gets that extra money...watch.

[Kori Ellis]

I don't think it's a matter of the $2M. The Spurs have their limit with everyone. They set it and they don't go beyond it. There was a limit with Manu too -- they weren't willing to go a dollar over it.

I just think they set their limit with Tony and if it doesn't get done at that amount, they are willing to just take their chances next summer.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

You're right Kori, it's really not a matter of 2 million. It's a matter of what, 230K or so the first year, plus 12.5% of that the rest of the contract.

Cue David Robinson to save the franchise, again.

As much as this franchise has been plagued by shitty point guards in its history, what the hell were we doing thinking we might actually want to pony up and keep the first damn good one we got.

[Kori Ellis]

"I would like to get it done, but I don't know if we will be able to," Parker said. "Marc says the Spurs' offer isn't fair. He thinks we can do better in the summer. He might be right."

Tony doesn't sound positive that his agent is right. I wonder if Tony (without any agent influence) would just take the $64M.

[pooh]

I wonder if Tony (without any agent influence) would just take the $64M.

Would anyone take it? Knowing you could possibly get more somewhere else?

[ZStomp]

Damn..this sux. I actually didn't think they were gonna have it done before 10/31...thena couple of days ago I changed my mind.

Guess I was right the first time.

[maxpower]

Dammit....are the Spurs really considering pissing off this extremely young point guard with all his upside both on and off the court? I'd bet so many people (ahem, women) buy parker merchandise that would have never bought it before he came along.

And to think the management is risking their goodwill with the players in general...for a freaking 333,333 thousand per year?!??! Don't they throw more than that away on a pinerider every year? Go with one less Jack Haley for the next few seasons.

[xcoriate]

simply depressing...

[Brodels]

Tony had a limit and the Spurs had a limit. The Spurs made a fair offer. It wasn't cheap. They offered him the largest contract in team history for a non-franchise player.

Successful teams don't play players whatever they want to make. Rasho would be hard to replace, but should the Spurs have offered him the max if he wanted it?


And to think the management is risking their goodwill with the players in general...for a freaking 333,333 thousand per year?!??! Don't they throw more than that away on a pinerider every year? Go with one less Jack Haley for the next few seasons.

Risking their good will? That's silly. How can they be risking their good will after offering him $64 million? Most people in here seemed to think that $64 million was fair.

The Spurs made a finanical decision, but it was also a basketball decision. Pop and RC know more than anyone that handcuffing your team for seasons to come is bad basketball management. Sure, it was "only" $2 million. But what if it was $6 million? $8 million? You have to establish a limit, and the Spurs did that.

Tony will get a chance to prove himself. If he improves his game and leads the team deep into the postseason, he can be considered for a larger contract next summer. The Spurs can wait and see how he does. Just because he didn't sign now doesn't mean that he won't sign next summer.

I'm optimistic that Tony will remain with the franchise.

[Phenomanul]

Would anyone take it? Knowing you could possibly get more somewhere else?

[mattyc]

Pass the collection plate round at a Spurs game for a few mil. :pctoss

[Useruser666]

I wish they wouldn't let this be a distraction this year.

[jcrod]

This sucks, over two million. Pay the boy!!!

Ok, they wait for next summer. Another team will offer him the max, you can bank that. Even if it's for only 4 yrs. Lets say we match it, it might be for less considering its only 4 yrs........BUT, won't he be a unrestricted free agent after???????????

I mean we only have him tied up for 4yrs, then he can chose to go where ever he wants, extremley bad move if you ask me. Considering, I think he'll be on of the top five PG in the league, 6 yr 68 or 66 is a very good deal. Damn it.

[Brodels]

This sucks, over two million. Pay the boy!!!

Ok, they wait for next summer. Another team will offer him the max, you can bank that. Even if it's for only 4 yrs. Lets say we match it, it might be for less considering its only 4 yrs........BUT, won't he be a unrestricted free agent after???????????

I mean we only have him tied up for 4yrs, then he can chose to go where ever he wants, extremley bad move if you ask me. Considering, I think he'll be on of the top five PG in the league, 6 yr 68 or 66 is a very good deal. Damn it.

That's the thing. You think he'll be this and you think he'll be that. He's already a very good player. But what if you pay him a ton of money (like, say, the max next summer) and he doesn't do what you think he's going to do? If that happens, you're looking at Allan Houston all over again.

Having Tony for four years guaranteed wouldn't be a bad thing. If he only signs for four years next summer, I won't be disappointed. The next four years are when the Spurs are going to have to get it done on the court.

Don't pay for potential. Pay for performance. Give Tony a max contract next summer if he plays like a franchise player this season. If not, offer him another fair contract.

[TwoHandJam]

I don't give a shit what Arenas or anyone else got, 64 Million is a fair deal. Parker has a lot of upside but he hasn't proved that he's worth more than 64 Million after three years in the league yet and the management can't assume blindly that he will. Fiscal mismanagement like that is how bad teams are born.

What depresses me is how very few players in the league anymore give a damn about winning. All they seem to want to do is pad their bank accounts as much as possible. Tony has a chance to continue playing with an elite contender for years at a very good salary. If he doesn't think playing with a once-in-a-generation type of player like Tim is worth a 2 million dollar compromise and having a clear chance at a dynasty then maybe he isn't as intelligent as I thought. The ad revenue and exposure from being in the finals every year alone would be worth far more than 2 million dollars.

A true MVP caliber player like Kidd spurned his opportunity to play with the Spurs for a little more cash from a lesser franchise and look at the results. AFAIK, no serious contending team worth a damn can offer Tony max money next year, if he even proves that he merits it. If Tony wants to land max dollars from some bullshit franchise and be a perennial loser then so be it. I personally thought he was smarter than that and I hope he comes to his senses and does the right thing instead of listening to his "I-want-a-better-comission-and-could-give-a-damn-about-your-welfare" agent.

[spurster]

I agree $64M (first year $8.13M) is more than fair, but TP is free to find a better offer in the summer. If he gets a max offer, I think the Spurs will let him go.

[jcrod]

That's the thing. You think he'll be this and you think he'll be that. He's already a very good player. But what if you pay him a ton of money (like, say, the max next summer) and he doesn't do what you think he's going to do? If that happens, you're looking at Allan Houston all over again.

Having Tony for four years guaranteed wouldn't be a bad thing. If he only signs for four years next summer, I won't be disappointed. The next four years are when the Spurs are going to have to get it done on the court.

Don't pay for potential. Pay for performance. Give Tony a max contract next summer if he plays like a franchise player this season. If not, offer him another fair contract.

It not just pontential, he's already one of the top PG in the league and only 22. I totally disagree, you pay now and lock him up for as long as you can. If nothing changes with the CBA, or it slightly better for the owners, either way he'll get the max from another team.

The Spurs are over the cap regardless of what they do with TP, so why not just lock him up for 6yrs and have your core set up with TP, Manu and Tim.

[Marcus Bryant]

If the next incarnation of the CBA does reduce the maximum length of contracts as well as the maximum allowable annual raises then for the six seasons beginning with the 2005-06 season Parker would end up costing the Spurs less than if they sign him to an extension under the current CBA now.

This is about a bit more than the $2 million difference between the reported positions of the Spurs and Parker.

[2pac]

64Million + $1Mil incentive every year the Spurs win the Championship.

If we win it all, that million will mean nothing. I am sure the Spurs would be happy to pay him that in each of the next 6 years.

Alternatively, make a 500k incentive for making the AS team.

[maxpower]

Risking their good will? That's silly. How can they be risking their good will after offering him $64 million? Most people in here seemed to think that $64 million was fair. Most people here don't play in the NBA. NBA players don't see money like we do. To them 2 million over life of a contract is nothing ...AND MORESO ..it might even be a personal swipe at them to have management not value them so.


Sure, it was "only" $2 million. But what if it was $6 million? $8 million? BUT IT IS NOT.

[BigVee]

It is so difficult to win an NBA championship with all the things that happen during a season....injuries and such. The last thing needed is a contract controversy. This is a real shame. Who knows whether Tony will play his ass off because he is auditioning for other teams and is pissed off at the Spurs or will have an off season because he believes the team does not fully appreciate his value and it weighs on his mind. It can go either way. Hard to believe with the money some of these other clowns on other teams got this summer that Parker isn't worth what he is asking by comparision. It could be a long and frustrating season.

[Notorious H.O.P.]

Guys, I'm beginning to think that this issue may be my fault. Holt must have found out that I pegged the value of Parker's contract at exactly $64 million in our vBookie contest. He knows the value of a buck and obviously doesn't want to see me lose my $25 in vBookie cash. Let me talk to him and I'll see what I can do about getting this resolved.

I can semi see the Spurs point here. First of all, I think if it was up to Tony, he would sign right now. His agent is either a greedy bastard who is thinking that a $2 mliion dollar bump represents getting another Mercedes for one of his kids, and/or he wants to keep building a rep for squeezing every last penny our of teams for his players (go with both here). I was thinking that we were lucky that we didn't have a Dan Fegan here but if the deal doesn't get done, the point is moot anyway. In my opinion, just give Parker the $66 million. Even if he has an less than stellar season, someone will always pay for potential and there is no way (barring major injury) that Tony gets less on a per year basis regardless of what happens in the new CBA. The players will make concessions but not the type that will bring a player like Tony at a cheaper price. It's a gamble but the Spurs probably see it as a "give Tony max money if he performs like a max player or let someone else give him max money if they want if he doesn't perform that way". But are they right gambling over a couple of million dollars with the man that represents the present and future of our point guard position? I don't think so. Pay the man.

[ducks]

if parker goes to cavs next year I will be PISSED

[Walton Buys Off Me]

I completely agree with TwoHandJam's assessment of the situation and made similar statements in a post about three weeks ago. The Spurs 64 million dollar offer is more than generous for a guy that has showed exactly what in pressure situations? How soon we forget that this kid was completely and totally useless once Phil Jackson convinced his team to pay attention to him in last year's series. For The Spurs to even offer him that kind of money shows me they are more than committed to retaining him and actually care about their fans.

Spare me the bullshit about Holt being cheap, that kind of mindset is exactly what will have basketball fans tuning into Canadian fucking football 1 year from now because the NBA will be locked out. You have to draw the line at some point and that is what Holt has done- all the power to him!

Tony Parker is a fine young player but he's nowhere bloody near a 64 million dollar player, let alone a 68 million dollar guy when time after time, he displays levels of inconsistency that would make most high school players blush.

I'm proud of my team for making the offer now the ball's in Parker and what's his face's court. If they wanna play hardball with CIA Pop, then the pansy bitch can go back to France or go play for some dogshit franchise like the Bucks instead of being side-by-side with the game's best player and the game's best coach.

Fuck you Parker and stop wasting everyone's time- we have players that bring it on a nightly basis to attend to.

[Brodels]

Perhaps a little harsh, but there is some truth in there.

Parker hasn't been nearly as consistent, as say, Steve Nash, yet he's been offered a Steve Nash type of contract (and Nash's deal was signed in 2004). According to the people who are best at evaluating talent, Steve Nash is the second best point guard in the NBA. $64 million seems fair to me considering that the second best point guard in the NBA just signed a deal for $65 million. And Nash has been more consistent.

I want Tony to stick around, but until he shows that he can bring it every night and in the playoffs the Spurs shouldn't even think about matching a max deal for him next summer. We'll see how he does this season. If he improves by a large amount, he should get the max. But if he's essentially the same player - and many argue that he didn't improve by much last season - he shouldn't get franchise player dollars.

It's more that Holt's willingness to only pay what he thinks he can afford. Overpaying Parker will have significant basketball ramifications.

I still hope the two sides can come to an agreement before the deadline. It's unlikely, I know, but maybe somebody will reconsider.


I completely agree with TwoHandJam's assessment of the situation and made similar statements in a post about three weeks ago. The Spurs 64 million dollar offer is more than generous for a guy that has showed exactly what in pressure situations? How soon we forget that this kid was completely and totally useless once Phil Jackson convinced his team to pay attention to him in last year's series. For The Spurs to even offer him that kind of money shows me they are more than committed to retaining him and actually care about their fans.

Spare me the bullshit about Holt being cheap, that kind of mindset is exactly what will have basketball fans tuning into Canadian fucking football 1 year from now because the NBA will be locked out. You have to draw the line at some point and that is what Holt has done- all the power to him!

Tony Parker is a fine young player but he's nowhere bloody near a 64 million dollar player, let alone a 68 million dollar guy when time after time, he displays levels of inconsistency that would make most high school players blush.

I'm proud of my team for making the offer now the ball's in Parker and what's his face's court. If they wanna play hardball with CIA Pop, then the pansy bitch can go back to France or go play for some dogshit franchise like the Bucks instead of being side-by-side with the game's best player and the game's best coach.

Fuck you Parker and stop wasting everyone's time- we have players that bring it on a nightly basis to attend to.

[timvp]

First of all, Nash got $65 over five years. The Spurs offered Parker $64 over six.

You can bag on Parker all you want, but without him the Spurs won't win another championship in the Tim Duncan Era. Besides Duncan himself, he's the only person that can't be replaced. You lose him next summer and you have Sue Bird errr Beno Udrih as your starting point guard ... well, at least until he finds something else to bruise.

In the playoffs last season, it can be argued that Parker was playing at a higher level than even Duncan through the first 6 postseason games. He flopped in the last 4 games, but so did Duncan and so did everyone else not named Devin Brown.

The Parker doubters can have it there way for now ... just don't be crying when they lose him to a team willing to give him the max next summer.

It's looking like 2004-05 is going to be the Spurs' last chance.

[BigVee]

Completely and totally useless? Why is it that people make excuses for Duncan when Phoenix completely takes him out of the game, but when the Lakers decided that someone other than Parker was going to beat them he is therefore useless. Who do you think was still dishing the ball to Hedo and Bowen and Horry so they could clank the ball off the rim? Had they made a few of the shots he set-up for them, you would be saying what a great job he did of altering his game from scoring to setting up his teammates based on the Laker defense. They mugged him every time he penetrated. Give him the same break you give the superstar.

[timvp]

Completely and totally useless? Why is it that people make excuses for Duncan when Phoenix completely takes him out of the game, but when the Lakers decided that someone other than Parker was going to beat them he is therefore useless. Who do you think was still dishing the ball to Hedo and Bowen and Horry so they could clank the ball off the rim? Had they made a few of the shots he set-up for them, you would be saying what a great job he did of altering his game from scoring to setting up his teammates based on the Laker defense. They mugged him every time he penetrated. Give him the same break you give the superstar.

Damn true.

No one says anything about how Duncan was sucking just as bad as Parker in the last four games.

[xapatan2]

Hi evrybody here,

well, losing my pasword made me lost the benefits of my former 25 post( :elephant ) during the past season so, i have just put a "2" after my former name for this great forum :smokin

and i am now back for the new season
:spin
and i am very proud to inform you that we now have "nba tv" on the cable in France, which makes me very very :elephant

but :

Walton, Two Hand Jam, i do not agree with you guys...
:nope

I am sure we do not have all the information about the negociations, and i will listen in a few hours ( 3 exactly) to the TP show and give you all the information ( feelings of TP,etc....) on this particular situation for us, spurs fan...

But i do not get the way you are talking about him, it's pissing me off.
Just have a fucking look at the stats of every top five PG now when they were 22, you'll be surprised.

You are talking about S. Nash. Ok, ok, what was the offense that run S. Nash that made him famous ???
I am sorry man, but the offense of Dallas is the perfect one to be sure that the point gard will deliver, on a CONSISTENT ( important word, isn't it .....) basis 7 assists per match.
What has made Nash against Parker ? At 21 Parker was overmatching Nash during a playoff serie...

So please stop with your stupid comparison, and give Parker the respect he deserves. First.

I'll post later on about the TP show

Xapatan

[Marcus Bryant]

I agree with timvp. The Spurs are going to be capped out through the rest of Tim Duncan's prime. You cannot afford to lose talent at this point. When Steve Nash was 22 years old just exactly what had he done in the NBA?

If I am not mistaken it was Parker who lit up the Lakers in the first 2 games of the 04 series and it was the Lakers who had to adjust by clogging the lane with Shaq and Evil.

Parker also led the charge back against the Lakers in the 4th quarter of the pivotal 5th game of that series.

22 years old.

Shut the fuck up Walton.

[BronxCowboy]

Just put my two cents in: for all you who think Parker was useless in the last four games of the playoffs, you're barking up the wrong tree. Useless is a coach who is to stubborn to adapt. Useless is management that offers 90 mil to an over the hill PG (we'd be in great shape now if Kidd had signed, wouldn't we?) who only pretends to want to play for your team to bump up his value, and in the process slapping your biggest up and coming star in the face. Useless is the inability to compromise to the tune of less than a minimum-salary bench dressing, and setting up the real possibility of costing your team 20 million dollars more or losing an irreplaceable player. Come on.

[Brodels]

Just put my two cents in: for all you who think Parker was useless in the last four games of the playoffs, you're barking up the wrong tree. Useless is a coach who is to stubborn to adapt. Useless is management that offers 90 mil to an over the hill PG (we'd be in great shape now if Kidd had signed, wouldn't we?) who only pretends to want to play for your team to bump up his value, and in the process slapping your biggest up and coming star in the face. Useless is the inability to compromise to the tune of less than a minimum-salary bench dressing, and setting up the real possibility of costing your team 20 million dollars more or losing an irreplaceable player. Come on.

How do you know that the Spurs originally wanted to pay a lot less and have already compromised a great deal? You have to draw the line somewhere.

[Brodels]

The Spurs weren't good enough to win a championship last season. To improve, there are three things you can do:

1. Sign all of your players, overpaying them if you have to, go over the salary cap by a good bit, and hope that your big-dollar players improve.

Tony is a good point guard, but he hasn't put up the numbers of other point guards ('numbers' don't always matter anyway) and he hasn't had the impact of some other point guards. If you're going to pay Parker a whole bunch of money, you have to hope that he grows into his contract. Many want to pay him because he's young.

Believe this: Tony didn't improve by leaps and bounds last season. He learned to run the offense better, but in my opinion, he didn't improve his offensive or defensive abilities more than just a very small amount.

Based on the small amount of growing that Parker did last season, it's entirely possibly that he's simply not going to become a much better player than he already is now. You may be looking at something close to Tony's best. We don't know that, but it is entirely possible.

Given that a core of Parker, Manu, Duncan, and Rasho wasn't good enough last season, Tony's continues growth could be the difference between the Spurs winning and losing. Duncan isn't going to improve by a ton. Neither is Rasho. Ginobili could, but he's still somewhat of an unknown. If you overpay Parker, you limit the team's ability to make moves in the future. If you match a max-dollar contract next summer and Tony continues to improve very slowly, the Spurs aren't going anywhere unless you feel that the role players Pop and R.C. add every year will truly make the difference. In my mind, the core players were largely responsible for the collapse against the Lakers.

2. Be fiscally responsible, don't overpay players, and retain some financial flexibility.

The New York Knicks can be over the cap by millions and still be willing to spend the MLE. The Spurs can't do that. Holt isn't going to spend more than a certain amount of money, and overpaying Parker makes it all the more unlikely that the Spurs will be able to use exceptions, if they even exist in the next CBA. Every dollar spent on paying Parker more than he should get is a dollar that won't be spent in other areas.

Many keep saying that the Spurs will be over the salary cap for years to come. That isn't necessarily the case. We simply don't know what the new CBA will bring, and we don't know if basketball revenue is going to increase by a large or small amount over the next few seasons. The Spurs may actually be slightly under the cap at some point. It's too early to tell.

Either way, finanical flexibility will make it more likely that the Spurs use their exceptions. It will also help with trades.

3. Of course, the Spurs can overpay Parker and hope that Rasho, Beno, Devin, and others become better. Devin Brown could certainly become a starter, but Rasho isn't going to improve by leaps and bounds and the only thing we really know about Beno is that he can't stay healthy. I'm not willing to pin the team's future title hopes on Beno, Brown, and Rasho.

The Spurs have remained competitive by making smart financial decisions. If you like teams that overpay players and are willing to give players whatever they want, I suggest you become a Knicks fan. New York has been in cap hell for years because they paid players based on potential and those players never met expectations.

There is only one irreplaceable player on the Spurs, and his name is Tim Duncan. The Spurs should continue to negotiate a fair contract with Parker, but if he doesn't sign, they can wait until next summer and re-assess his progress. Even if he leaves, they will have the financial flexibility, scouting prowess, and MVP power to contend for a title.

Pop, RC, and Holt: don't turn the Spurs into the New York Knicks. I can't take six years of failure, unmet expectations, and lack of roster flexibility. Pay players based upon what they have proven that they can do.

$64 million for Parker is fair.


First of all, Nash got $65 over five years. The Spurs offered Parker $64 over six.

You can bag on Parker all you want, but without him the Spurs won't win another championship in the Tim Duncan Era. Besides Duncan himself, he's the only person that can't be replaced. You lose him next summer and you have Sue Bird errr Beno Udrih as your starting point guard ... well, at least until he finds something else to bruise.

In the playoffs last season, it can be argued that Parker was playing at a higher level than even Duncan through the first 6 postseason games. He flopped in the last 4 games, but so did Duncan and so did everyone else not named Devin Brown.

The Parker doubters can have it there way for now ... just don't be crying when they lose him to a team willing to give him the max next summer.

It's looking like 2004-05 is going to be the Spurs' last chance.

[Brodels]

and in the process slapping your biggest up and coming star in the face.

That's what I don't understand. People want to pay Parker like a superstar because they think he'll become what.

Question: what aspects of his game did Parker improve last season by a large enough amount to convince you that he's "an up and coming star?"

[Nikos]

22 years old, but also with 3 seasons under his belt.

He might become an elite PG very soon, but its not like he is going to improve every single year until he is 30. Eventually he will hit his plateau probably in about 2-3 years and level off from there.

I want TP to come back of course but I still don't think the 22 year old argument should be the basis as to why the Spurs should resign him -- sure he will improve and its nice that hes young and has several productive years ahead of him. But he still has to convince the Spurs hes worth it.

I was hoping for the extension, but what can you do at this point? You know if the team found a way to win a title last season they would have extended him, even if he didn't have great games like he did against Memphis and at the start of the LA series. But thats how it goes.

[GoSpurs21]

Have fun on a lottery team Tony you ingrate, I hear the clippers have $10M per year lying around.

I don't see how new CBA would change Tony Restricted Free Agent status.

[Brodels]

Have fun on a lottery team Tony you ingrate, I hear the clippers have $10M per year lying around.

I don't see how new CBA would change Tony Restricted Free Agent status.

It's possible that restricted free agency could be eliminated completely. I don't know how likely that is to happen, but it's possible.

I don't blame Parker for going after the benjamins. Both the Spurs and Tony are looking out for their best interests, and I appreciate that both appeared to negotiate in good faith to try to get a deal done.

[goliath]

Dissapointing news. Its sad on both sides if they're 5 mill apart and cant reach a deal. Yeah, I know there are reported other hurdles but the main issue is first and foremost $$$. I really doubt that if both sides agreed on the money that the other issues wouldnt be worked out.

From TPs quotes it sounds almost like he's willing to do the deal but his agent is talking him out of it and his agent wants him to hold out till next year and hope for a max deal.

Plus what is the deal with the Spurs bad luck with agents. First Lamont Murray, then DA, then Sjax, now Parker

[FromWayDowntown]

Many keep saying that the Spurs will be over the salary cap for years to come. That isn't necessarily the case. We simply don't know what the new CBA will bring, and we don't know if basketball revenue is going to increase by a large or small amount over the next few seasons. The Spurs may actually be slightly under the cap at some point. It's too early to tell.

That's true -- to an extent. Unless the new CBA either dramatically redefines basketball related income (or the percentage of BRI that will determine the cap) or indexes the cap to some other measure, I'd say its a pretty fair bet that the Spurs know and have accepted that they will be over the cap for the next 6 or so years.

With that, they're willing to pay $64 million for 6 years to Parker, but won't budge on another $2 million -$4 million over the same span. At this point, it's not a matter of staying under the cap or assuring financial flexibility. It's a matter of how much they want to be over the cap -- more accurately, it's a matter of financial austerity. I could certainly see the objection if the additional money would invoke luxury tax payments, but it won't.

Being over the cap is going to tax this team's ability to add big-time talent on a going forward basis. I agree that Parker isn't a superstar player and that $64 million is a more-than-fair offer. But over the course of a 6-year deal, is $66 million really a ridiculous outlay for a team that just got a new building on a promise of increased revenues and a greater ability to spend to ensure the competitiveness of the franchise? I mean this team spent an amount equal to almost half of that $2 million difference on Anthony Carter last season.

[Brodels]

I guess the point is that I can't blame the Spurs for drawing the line. For all we know, they could have started at $50 million and been weary of considering anything over $60 million. We just don't know how much they've already compromised.

On the reverse side, isn't playing on a perennial contender in a city that you like worth giving up an extra $2 million over several years?

Without knowing how much compromising each side did, it's hard to assign blame. I'm not comfortable criticizing Spurs management until I know exactly what went into determining what that final offer would be.


That's true -- to an extent. Unless the new CBA either dramatically redefines basketball related income (or the percentage of BRI that will determine the cap) or indexes the cap to some other measure, I'd say its a pretty fair bet that the Spurs know and have accepted that they will be over the cap for the next 6 or so years.

With that, they're willing to pay $64 million for 6 years to Parker, but won't budge on another $2 million -$4 million over the same span. At this point, it's not a matter of staying under the cap or assuring financial flexibility. It's a matter of how much they want to be over the cap -- more accurately, it's a matter of financial austerity. I could certainly see the objection if the additional money would invoke luxury tax payments, but it won't.

Being over the cap is going to tax this team's ability to add big-time talent on a going forward basis. I agree that Parker isn't a superstar player and that $64 million is a more-than-fair offer. But over the course of a 6-year deal, is $66 million really a ridiculous outlay for a team that just got a new building on a promise of increased revenues and a greater ability to spend to ensure the competitiveness of the franchise? I mean this team spent an amount equal to almost half of that $2 million difference on Anthony Carter last season.

[jcrod]

First of all, Nash got $65 over five years. The Spurs offered Parker $64 over six.

You can bag on Parker all you want, but without him the Spurs won't win another championship in the Tim Duncan Era. Besides Duncan himself, he's the only person that can't be replaced. You lose him next summer and you have Sue Bird errr Beno Udrih as your starting point guard ... well, at least until he finds something else to bruise.

In the playoffs last season, it can be argued that Parker was playing at a higher level than even Duncan through the first 6 postseason games. He flopped in the last 4 games, but so did Duncan and so did everyone else not named Devin Brown.

The Parker doubters can have it there way for now ... just don't be crying when they lose him to a team willing to give him the max next summer.

It's looking like 2004-05 is going to be the Spurs' last chance.


Completely and totally useless? Why is it that people make excuses for Duncan when Phoenix completely takes him out of the game, but when the Lakers decided that someone other than Parker was going to beat them he is therefore useless. Who do you think was still dishing the ball to Hedo and Bowen and Horry so they could clank the ball off the rim? Had they made a few of the shots he set-up for them, you would be saying what a great job he did of altering his game from scoring to setting up his teammates based on the Laker defense. They mugged him every time he penetrated. Give him the same break you give the superstar


:smokin Damn Skippee. Couldn't have said it better myself.

Question, Name other PG's that our better than TP, and lets check to see what they make.

[FromWayDowntown]

Without knowing how much compromising each side did, it's hard to assign blame. I'm not comfortable criticizing Spurs management until I know exactly what went into determining what that final offer would be.

I agree, and will acknowledge that at this point, we're only getting Fleisher's side of the stoy. But, I'm working from the assumption that most of what we know is true. Assuming it to be true, I don't think the cap concerns are valid since there is virtually no difference between $64/6 years and $66/6 years. Assuming the story to be true, the account makes the Spurs seem a bit petty -- they've put Parker through the ringer on more than one occasion, yet the dude (who is widely agreed to be a burgeoning talent) is still willing to sign on the dotted line if the ante is marginally increased.

There were some concerns about how the Spurs would be perceived by future FA's after the Derek Anderson fiasco a couple of summers ago (plus, whottt's favorite: the "squeezing" of David Robinson). I just wonder if the same doubts about the Spurs will begin to crop up based on this situation. If Fleisher's account is true, this could cost the Spurs down the road.

[Brodels]

:smokin Damn Skippee. Couldn't have said it better myself.

Question, Name other PG's that our better than TP, and lets check to see what they make.

According to NBA GMs, these are a few point guards better than Parker and what they'll make (salaries are for last season):

Kidd: $13.1 million
Cassell: $5.0 million
Marbury: $13.5 million

Other top point guards:

Bibby: $9.5 million
Nash: $5.7 million (he recently saw his payday)
Miller: $8 million
Billups: $5 million
Francis: $10.5 million
Williams: $6.1 million
Davis: $10.9 million

Parker probably isn't as good as the top three, and he's probably somewhere close to the middle to upper end of the bottom group in my opinion.

[aka_USAPA]

That's a big mistake. Parker could go "south" with this.

[bigzak25]

if parker can't man up this season, he doesn't deserve the money.

if he does man up, then he earns it. no losers here....yet.

[TwoHandJam]

Damn true.

No one says anything about how Duncan was sucking just as bad as Parker in the last four games.
That is not true and you can go back and look at the posts to prove it. I remember Walton bitching about Tim's lack of aggressiveness even throughout games 1&2 of the Laker series and even your beautiful wife was criticising Tim for his performance in the playoffs. I don't remember if I posted about being disappointed with Tim at the time but I think I did.

The bottom line is that $64M for Parker is more than fair. Just because he's young doesn't automatically mean he won't plateau as a less than max-worthy player. Tony had been playing professionally for at least 2 years before entering the NBA and has already played in the NBA for 3 seasons on a well run team. If you start paying guys based on their unrealized potential then you end up paying the max for players like Allen Houston. Youth isn't everything.

I personally don't think the failure to reach a deal is just about $2M dollars as has already been insinuated. The Spurs probably have performance targets that Fleisher or Tony don't want to agree to for whatever reasons. Again, I think $64M is more than fair and if Tony believes he's a max player then he'll have to prove it this year. Four years in the league should be enough time to determine this. So far, he's not proven to be max-worthy.

There will always be some retard GM who'll pay the max for a player that hasn't yet proven to be max-worthy so I guess if Tony's ok with playing on some bottom feeder instead of building a dynasty, so be it.

[TwoHandJam]

It's possible that restricted free agency could be eliminated completely. I don't know how likely that is to happen, but it's possible.

I don't blame Parker for going after the benjamins. Both the Spurs and Tony are looking out for their best interests, and I appreciate that both appeared to negotiate in good faith to try to get a deal done.I have to disagree here a little bit. I think that the money Tony could make from endorsements alone by making perennial finals appearances or winning multiple titles alongside Tim should more than make up for the gap in negotiations with the Spurs.

I don't think Tony has Lebron-type talent that he could get endorsements on a team as bad as the Cavs. Would Tony have become as popular as he is now if he didn't play alongside Tim Duncan?

[Brodels]

I have to disagree here a little bit. I think that the money Tony could make from endorsements alone by making perennial finals appearances or winning multiple titles alongside Tim should more than make up for the gap in negotiations with the Spurs.

I don't think Tony has Lebron-type talent that he could get endorsements on a team as bad as the Cavs. Would Tony have become as popular as he is now if he didn't play alongside Tim Duncan?

If he gets to a big market, he could certainly make more in endorsements. Especially if he gets more shots and puts up a lot of points.

The Spurs did the right thing. And if money is the primary motivator for Parker, I can't say much about that. That's the way it is for a lot of players now. The Spurs just need to not overpay him.

[aka_USAPA]

The the Spurs feel like Parker is the money, huh? IMO, Parker is better than Bibby and look at how much the Kings paid. Why are the Spurs going cheap on Parker?

[ducks]

I bet atleast 15 million of the money is not even guaranteed

I bet spurs want him as an alstar next year
and his agent knows there is alot of competion next year

[BigVee]

Who on that list, Cassell, Kidd, Marbury, etc. would you trade Parker straight up for?

[jcrod]

Look, he's not asking for the MAX, he's asking for 20 million, below the MAX.

Gasol, got the MAX. He doesn't even crack being one of the top five PF in the league, with Duncan, J Oneil, Garnett, Dirk and Webber being a whole lot better.

AK47 got the MAX, Little hazy on my SF's in the league. But I don't think he deserves the MAX.

Jefferson got 78 million. You think Jefferson is 14 million dollars better than Parker.

I don't think Parker in being unreasonable, considering the market. I would've paid up to 70.

[Brodels]

The the Spurs feel like Parker is the money, huh? IMO, Parker is better than Bibby and look at how much the Kings paid. Why are the Spurs going cheap on Parker?

What makes you think that Parker is better? Bibby has been great in the playoffs, he's unarguably a better shooter, and he distributes the ball better. Parker is probably a better defender and is quicker. They are both similar players. I'd like you to explain why you think that Parker is better.

Bibby isn't making that much more than Parker was offered. And based on statistics and playoff performance, one could certainly argue that Bibby is still a little bit superior to Bibby.

[Brodels]

Who on that list, Cassell, Kidd, Marbury, etc. would you trade Parker straight up for?

Cassell is certainly better, but I wouldn't trade him straight up unless I knew that Parker was leaving. Sam is getting a bit long in the tooth, even though he is coming off his best season ever.

I wouldn't trade Marbury for Parker, but it isn't because Marbury isn't better. I just don't think Marbury would thrive in the Spurs system. He's clearly the superior player, just as the other two are superior.

[jcrod]

What makes you think that Parker is better? Bibby has been great in the playoffs, he's unarguably a better shooter, and he distributes the ball better. Parker is probably a better defender and is quicker. They are both similar players. I'd like you to explain why you think that Parker is better.

Bibby isn't making that much more than Parker was offered. And based on statistics and playoff performance, one could certainly argue that Bibby is still a little bit superior to Bibby.


Only thing Bibby has going better is his shooting. Parker is about the same or better passer, and absolutley quicker and defender.

Bibby has been off and on in the playoffs. He had his up and downs this past playoffs, but the last year he was HORRIBLE. The year before that he was awesome, thats how he earned his paycheck. By that Laker series alone.

[BigVee]

Because of upside, age, etc. Bibby is the only one I would consider trading for. So here is my point. If I read hoopshype correctly, Bibby got $72mil. I agree Tony is a slight notch behind...Bibby is clutch. And I agree $64mil is a fair offer. But geez, guys like Parker don't come along everyday. Let's not let a $600k a year get in the way of locking him up.

[Brodels]

Look, he's not asking for the MAX, he's asking for 20 million, below the MAX.

So the Spurs should just give him what he wants? Should they give him more than what similar players are making?


Gasol, got the MAX. He doesn't even crack being one of the top five PF in the league, with Duncan, J Oneil, Garnett, Dirk and Webber being a whole lot better.

Gasol continues to improve by a lot every single year. He's better than today's Webber. Webber can't even jump anymore. He's close to being as good as Dirk and he might even be better. Pau is undoubtedly a better defender and rebounder. He's probably more flexible on the offensive end, too. He was the best player at the Olympics. Jermaine O'Neal is solid, but you won't see Pao shooting 43% from the field in a conference with very few other power forwards. Pao is going to be a monster. He's arguably the third best power forward in the league right now.


AK47 got the MAX, Little hazy on my SF's in the league. But I don't think he deserves the MAX.

Why not? He's an all-star, he's the best player on a decent team, and he can defend, rebound, pass, and score with anyone. And most telling of all, he was fourth in the league in plus/minus rating behind Duncan, Shaq, and Garnett. That's a true measure of his value to that team.


Jefferson got 78 million. You think Jefferson is 14 million dollars better than Parker.

No. But I don't think that Shaq is worth more than twice as much as Duncan either. And I don't think that Tariq Abdul Wahad is better than Lebron James. The Nets made a big mistake with Jefferson and they will pay for it. Just because other teams make mistakes doesn't mean that the Spurs should do the same.


I don't think Parker in being unreasonable, considering the market. I would've paid up to 70.

It's easy to say that you would have paid. It's not your money. Parker wasn't being unreasonable, but the Spurs weren't being unreasonable by deciding to set a limit and sticking to it. The Spurs have been successful as a business and as a basketball team by making smart financial decisions. I can't blame them for sticking to what got them this far. Neither side is being unreasonable, they just can't find common ground. And that's O.K.

[Brodels]

Only thing Bibby has going better is his shooting. Parker is about the same or better passer, and absolutley quicker and defender.

Bibby has been off and on in the playoffs. He had his up and downs this past playoffs, but the last year he was HORRIBLE. The year before that he was awesome, thats how he earned his paycheck. By that Laker series alone.

Bibby is a better passer and he sees the floor better. Parker is no better than average in that category compared to other point guards. Parker is a better defender. He isn't clearly better than Bibby in any other category.

Bibby will give you 18-5.6-43% in the playoffs. Those are his career playoff stats. He came very close to almost singlehandedly carrying his team to a victory over one of the greatest teams of the past several years.

Parker gives you 16-4.4-42% in the playoffs. Those are solid numbers, but they are inferior to Bibby's. Don't forget that Parker has been known to disappear for games at a time in the playoffs. Don't forget that he's been bailed out by backups.

Parker is a very good player, but Bibby has done more in the playoffs and he's done more during the regular season. His statistics and reputation tell the whole story.

[jcrod]

True they've made things happen being the way they are. But they also haven't had this many good players at once. Guys like Parker don't come around very often. And I disagree, he's gotten better every yr.

His first yr, he couldn't finish around the rim. He worked on it all that summer and can finish at the rim with the best of them.

Then he developed his tear drop in the lane.

The Lakers just proved a way to stop him. So he has stayed he all summer and worked on his jump shot. And from what everybody has said, his form is noticably better. We also hear that his defense has improved.

I'm sorry this kid has dedication and is worth it.

[Brodels]

True they've made things happen being the way they are. But they also haven't had this many good players at once. Guys like Parker don't come around very often. And I disagree, he's gotten better every yr.

His first yr, he couldn't finish around the rim. He worked on it all that summer and can finish at the rim with the best of them.

Then he developed his tear drop in the lane.

The Lakers just proved a way to stop him. So he has stayed he all summer and worked on his jump shot. And from what everybody has said, his form is noticably better. We also hear that his defense has improved.

I'm sorry this kid has dedication and is worth it.

He wasn't any better last season than he was the year before.

The people who get paid to evaluate talent believe that he's not worth it. I'm with them: if Tony doesn't want to sign for what player with similar capabilities make, give him the chance to show that he deserves a larger contract.

The Spurs can sign him this summer. The Spurs are taking a calculated risk, and while it may backfire, it's not entirely a bad one.

Another question: If good players overcome obstacles like other teams gearing their defense towards stopping them, what should Tony do to overcome that? The better players adjust. Why couldn't Tony adjust, and why do you think that he will this season? Now every team in the league has a blueprint on how to stop him.

[Rick Von Braun]

if parker can't man up this season, he doesn't deserve the money.

if he does man up, then he earns it. no losers here....yet.Bingo! http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smidrunk.gif

[jcrod]

You're going to make me show you proff.


Bibby is a better passer and he sees the floor better. Parker is no better than average in that category compared to other point guards. Parker is a better defender. He isn't clearly better than Bibby in any other category.

Bibby is not a better passer. Parker just doesn't get to show his passing skills that often, because of 4 down is used so much.

Last yr in the regular season Bibby avr 5.4 assits a game, Parker........5.5

In the Playoffs Bibby avr 7 assists a game, Parker.................7.

Parker would've avr more if people would've hit their shots.



Bibby will give you 18-5.6-43% in the playoffs. Those are his career playoff stats.

Bibby avr 20 pts a game in the playoffs, Parker........18.4. 1.6 more than Parker.


He came very close to almost singlehandedly carrying his team to a victory over one of the greatest teams of the past several years.
Parker is a very good player, but Bibby has done more in the playoffs and he's done more during the regular season. His statistics and reputation tell the whole story.


That was three yrs ago that he almost beat the Lakers. I'll admit he was awesome that series. But he disappeared the following yr and everybody was saying he didn't deserve his contract and he was a one yr wonder. Granted he had his moments last yr, but hardley what it was three yrs before.


Parker is better IMO.

[jcrod]

He wasn't any better last season than he was the year before.

The people who get paid to evaluate talent believe that he's not worth it. I'm with them: if Tony doesn't want to sign for what player with similar capabilities make, give him the chance to show that he deserves a larger contract.

The Spurs can sign him this summer. The Spurs are taking a calculated risk, and while it may backfire, it's not entirely a bad one.

Another question: If good players overcome obstacles like other teams gearing their defense towards stopping them, what should Tony do to overcome that? The better players adjust. Why couldn't Tony adjust, and why do you think that he will this season? Now every team in the league has a blueprint on how to stop him.

What people are you talking about? Every NBA anaylist is saying TP is top 5 PG in the league and can easliy be top 2 when it's all said and done. Tell me who's saying he's not worth it.

And read my previous post to receive you answer on Parker improving.


His first yr, he couldn't finish around the rim. He worked on it all that summer and can finish at the rim with the best of them.
Then he developed his tear drop in the lane.

The Lakers just proved a way to stop him. So he has stayed he all summer and worked on his jump shot. And from what everybody has said, his form is noticably better. We also hear that his defense has improved.

[Brodels]

Bibby is not a better passer. Parker just doesn't get to show his passing skills that often, because of 4 down is used so much.

Last yr in the regular season Bibby avr 5.4 assits a game, Parker........5.5

In the Playoffs Bibby avr 7 assists a game, Parker.................7.

The offense opened up a lot last season. And besides, assists don't necessarily tell us that one player is a better passer than another. Assists are a result of how much someone handles the ball, what kind of players are on the team, court vision, tempo, and many other things.

I can't come up with a statistic to truly measure passing ability and neither can you. I'm just going on what is generally considered to be the case by people who know. Bibby is just considered to be a good passing point guard. Parker is considered to be average. That's just the way it is.


Parker would've avr more if people would've hit their shots.

:lol So would Bibby. In fact, so would every point guard in the league.

Don't forget, Bibby plays with one of the greatest playoff choke artists of all time: Peja.


Bibby avr 20 pts a game in the playoffs, Parker........18.4. 1.6 more than Parker.

To get a good feel for what the players can do over time and to increase the sample size, please use more than one season to back up your point. What happened last season is one thing (and Bibby had the better stats anyway), but what happened over the past several years is another. And Bibby scores more, has more assists, and shoots a higher percentage from the field in the playoffs.


That was three yrs ago that he almost beat the Lakers. I'll admit he was awesome that series. But he disappeared the following yr and everybody was saying he didn't deserve his contract and he was a one yr wonder. Granted he had his moments last yr, but hardley what it was three yrs before.

Oh? He "disappeared" by shooting 47% from the field (a career high) and averaging 16 points per game. Parker has never shot the ball that well or averaged that many points. And we're talking about the year that you claim Bibby "disappeared" in. Please define what you mean by "disappearing." What stats or sources are you referring to?

He had one of the greatest postseason series by a point guard in the last several years and he almost led the Kings by the Lakers. The fact remains that while Bibby has done that, Parker has played well in some series and disappeared for games at a time, only to be bailed out by his backups.


Parker is better IMO.

Statistics and playoff performances suggest otherwise.

[Brodels]

What people are you talking about? Every NBA anaylist is saying TP is top 5 PG in the league and can easliy be top 2 when it's all said and done.

I haven't read that. Please show me where every single NBA analyst is saying that Parker can easily be a top-two point guard. At least show me a few different sources.


Tell me who's saying he's not worth it

Not worth what? The max? Something else?

Who's saying he is worth the max?


And read my previous post to receive you answer on Parker improving.

Show me how he improved last year. Point to comments by writers or coaches, find some statistics, give me something to show he improved. I maintain that other than becoming a little bit better at running the team, he didn't improve that much.

[jcrod]

I haven't read that. Please show me where every single NBA analyst is saying that Parker can easily be a top-two point guard. At least show me a few different sources.



Not worth what? The max? Something else?

Who's saying he is worth the max?



Show me how he improved last year. Point to comments by writers or coaches, find some statistics, give me something to show he improved. I maintain that other than becoming a little bit better at running the team, he didn't improve that much.

People to come to mind is D. Aldridge, Dr. Jack and Stein. I'll try to look for qoutes, but i think a couple were tv interviews.

Besides, your the one saying people who evaluate talent are saying he's not worth it. I'm asking you to tell me who said that. I never said he was worth the MAX.

[Brodels]

People to come to mind is D. Aldridge, Dr. Jack and Stein. I'll try to look for qoutes, but i think a couple were tv interviews.

If you can, I'll believe you and apologize. I just can't believe that every NBA analyst thinks Tony will become a top-two point guard.


Besides, your the one saying people who evaluate talent are saying he's not worth it. I'm asking you to tell me who said that. I never said he was worth the MAX.

Pop, RC, and to a lesser extent Holt, evaluate talent. That's what they do. Their decisions have something to do with Holt's pocketbook, but the Spurs have shown they will give out big contracts when they feel that a player is worth it.

And to one of the best ownership-coach-GM trios in the league, Parker isn't worth $68 million, let alone the max.

He isn't even worth Bibby dollars. And there is a reason for that. As of right now, Bibby is better.

What is Parker worth in your opinion?

[jcrod]

The offense opened up a lot last season. And besides, assists don't necessarily tell us that one player is a better passer than another. Assists are a result of how much someone handles the ball, what kind of players are on the team, court vision, tempo, and many other things.

I can't come up with a statistic to truly measure passing ability and neither can you. I'm just going on what is generally considered to be the case by people who know. Bibby is just considered to be a good passing point guard. Parker is considered to be average. That's just the way it is.

There you go again......who's these people you keep talking about. :rolleyes



:lol So would Bibby. In fact, so would every point guard in the league.

Don't forget, Bibby plays with one of the greatest playoff choke artists of all time: Peja.

I'm talking about last yr playoffs. I guess you forgot, nobody could hit their shots. Bibby has better shooters to work with than Parker.



To get a good feel for what the players can do over time and to increase the sample size, please use more than one season to back up your point. What happened last season is one thing (and Bibby had the better stats anyway), but what happened over the past several years is another. And Bibby scores more, has more assists, and shoots a higher percentage from the field in the playoffs

All that matters is last yr. If they were in the league the same amount of time, then yes their carrer avr would mean something. SO NO, I'm going by last yrs stats. And it proved my point, Bibby was the better shooter that's it, Parker execls on every other category.

[King]

Question for everybody:

If Parker doesn't ever improve, and has already leveled out, is he worth 6 yr, 64M?

[jcrod]

Brodels,
Here's my last take on this.

If all that seperating the Spurs and TP is 2 million, if your the Spurs you should pay it. What's 2 million over six yrs. TP is a top five PG in this league. Prove to me otherwise, below is mine. At least a couple of GM's think he's the best.


link (http://www.nba.com/preview2004/gmsurvey_position.html)

NBA General Managers make their picks for 2004-05
GM Survey: Position-by-Position

Oct. 25 -- In 2004-05, who will be the MVP? Rookie of the Year? Most improved team? And who's going to win it all?

NBA.com posed these questions and more to the league's general managers, and a high majority of the GM's responded to our survey.* Here's what the guys who call the shots think about the new season.


Jason Kidd, New Jersey 78.6%
Steve Nash, Phoenix 9.5%
Sam Cassell, Minnesota 4.8%
Stephon Marbury, New York 4.8%
Others receiving votes: Tony Parker, San Antonio :angel

[Brodels]

I don't consider articles to be the ultimate say on any issue, but you wanted examples, so here goes:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/basketball/nba/2002/playoffs/news/2002/04/22/bibby_stockton_ap/

"Bibby never overtly patterned his game after Stockton, but the similarities are obvious. Like Stockton, Bibby is a solid all-around player with outstanding court vision, a normally reliable outside shot and a toughness that belies his 6-foot-1 frame."

http://proxy.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/020606 - Bill Simmons

"Bibby makes his teammates better, he rises to the occasion when it truly matters (something he also did in college), and he possesses the ultra-rare, Isiah-like ability to get his teammates involved for three quarters, then take the game over offensively when you need him most. What else would you want from a point guard (other than maybe a Moochie Norris-size 'fro)?

After the first round, I compared Bibby to an evolutionary version of Mo Cheeks, but Mo couldn't consistently take over games like Bibby. There's a little John Stockton in his game (how he always makes the correct decision, how he comes off picks firing that 20-footer), and enough similarities between him and Isiah warrant at least broaching the discussion."

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playoffs2004/columns/story?columnist=bucher_ric&id=1801661

This one is about Bibby's ability to run the squad and his status as the on and off court leader of the Kings. It doesn't apply to his court vision, but it's intersting.

http://espn.go.com/nba/columns/kreidler_mark/1420551.html - A note that some feel that Bibby is overpaid anyway, and some good stuff about his leadership.

"The Kings probably overpaid for Bibby"

A reference to Bibby's "deft passing ability:" http://www.usatoday.com/sports/basketball/playoffs/2003-05-04-kings-mavericks-second-round_x.htm

There are a few references to his passing ability.

[Brodels]

I'm talking about last yr playoffs. I guess you forgot, nobody could hit their shots. Bibby has better shooters to work with than Parker.

Oh? You mean Peja, one of the greatest playoff choke artists ever? How about Christie, a player known to airball threes in tight situations? Bobby Jackson? He barely played in the playoffs. Bibby didn't have better shooters to work with last year. The Kings didn't hit their shots either, and they lost.


All that matters is last yr. If they were in the league the same amount of time, then yes their carrer avr would mean something. SO NO, I'm going by last yrs stats. And it proved my point, Bibby was the better shooter that's it, Parker execls on every other category.

You need to look at the last few seasons. Why are you limiting the sample size? They both have significant playoff experience. A few postseason games over the course of a month do not tell you as much as looking at their entire playoff careers or at least a few seasons.

Parker, for instance, averaged seven assists in the playoffs last season. That's a statistical anomaly. He's never done anything like that before. If you want to get a feel for what they can do, look at more than a very small slice of time.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Pop, RC, and to a lesser extent Holt, evaluate talent

You had something until you mentioned Holt. Holt wouldn't take a piss in a urinal until Pop, RC, and the Spurs scouting crew checked it out and told him it was clear.

[timvp]

Yeah ... the only talent Holt evaluates is which pen to use to when signing the contracts.

[Brodels]

Brodels,
Here's my last take on this.

If all that seperating the Spurs and TP is 2 million, if your the Spurs you should pay it. What's 2 million over six yrs. TP is a top five PG in this league. Prove to me otherwise, below is mine. At least a couple of GM's think he's the best.


link (http://www.nba.com/preview2004/gmsurvey_position.html)

NBA General Managers make their picks for 2004-05
GM Survey: Position-by-Position

Oct. 25 -- In 2004-05, who will be the MVP? Rookie of the Year? Most improved team? And who's going to win it all?

NBA.com posed these questions and more to the league's general managers, and a high majority of the GM's responded to our survey.* Here's what the guys who call the shots think about the new season.


Jason Kidd, New Jersey 78.6%
Steve Nash, Phoenix 9.5%
Sam Cassell, Minnesota 4.8%
Stephon Marbury, New York 4.8%
Others receiving votes: Tony Parker, San Antonio :angel

So your proof of Parker being top-five is that one general manager gave him a vote? It could have been RC. And the poll doesn't reflect that Parker is top 5. If you want to determine that, you need to ask GMs who the top 5 point guards in the league are.

If not everybody participated, the 4.8% given to Marbury and Cassell must have been from only two voters. So if Parker wasn't on the list, it's clear that he only got one vote.

I can't prove that Parker isn't a top-five point guard. That's impossible to prove. Statistically, Parker isn't in the top five. That's all I know.

If you want some "expert" opinions, I'll give them to you, and you can take them as you will (2004 rankings):

Kahn ranks Parker ninth in the league - http://cbs.sportsline.com/nba/story/7708485

Here's a statistical comparison, but it was done last December. Parker is not in the top ten: http://www.usatoday.com/sports/basketball/nba/2003-12-30-scorers_x.htm

Finally, many people like to look at efficiency ratings. They can be very useful when comparing players playing the same position. The following point guards are in the top fifty: Cassell, Kidd, Marbury, Davis, James, Nash, Bibby, Miller, and Francis.

Parker isn't even in the top fifty.

Efficiency ratings, statistics, and sportswriter opinions don't really prove anything, but they sure are a lot better than turning to one general manager's vote.

I personally feel that Cassell, Kidd, Marbury, Davis, Nash, and Bibby are better. I don't consider James to be a point guard and I think Parker is better than Miller and Francis.

The real question:

so what?

Even if you put Parker in the top five and I put him in the top seven, that doesn't really do anything to justify what he should make. I think he's a great player too. But I respect the management's decision to set a limit and make smart basketball decisions. I don't think he's worth much more than the Spurs offered. If they would budge, it would be nice. But I respect their decision not to. If Parker becomes more consistent, runs the team better, shoots the ball better, and plays better defense I'm all for paying him more.

Statistics, professional writers, and efficiency rankings clash with your assertion that Parker is a top five point guard based upon what one GM voted. I hope Parker has a monster year and gets a big contract from the Spurs. But he's got to prove he's worth it first.

[Brodels]

You had something until you mentioned Holt. Holt wouldn't take a piss in a urinal until Pop, RC, and the Spurs scouting crew checked it out and told him it was clear.

While he doesn't tell Pop and RC who to sign, he's certainly going to be more willing to shell out money for a player he likes. And he's more likely to like players he considers to be talented. At least I think so.

I don't know. Maybe Holt doesn't really care all that much. But I would guess that he has preferences and that they make at least a little bit of difference.

[jcrod]

One more time Brodels.

I've already proved my point by showing you a survery by NBA.com to current GM's. Parker received at least one vote. I don't see Bibbys name there.

Most of those articles are from two yrs ago when he had that one awesome series against the lakers.

But here's one, from one of the all time best coaches.

link (http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/wire?section=nba&id=1790893)

Afterward Grizzlies coach Hubie Brown gushed about Parker, saying his ability to split defenders, penetrate and score puts him among the league's elite at his position.

"You have point guards that can get into the paint, but they can't finish," Brown said. "He can not only get into the paint because of his God-given quickness off the the dribble, but he finishes. You go through the NBA right now and you don't have five point guards that can do that." :smokin

[Brodels]

So your proof of Parker being top-five is that one general manager gave him a vote? It could have been RC. And the poll doesn't reflect that Parker is top 5. If you want to determine that, you need to ask GMs who the top 5 point guards in the league are.

If not everybody participated, the 4.8% given to Marbury and Cassell must have been from only two voters. So if Parker wasn't on the list, it's clear that he only got one vote.

I can't prove that Parker isn't a top-five point guard. That's impossible to prove. Statistically, Parker isn't in the top five. That's all I know.

If you want some "expert" opinions, I'll give them to you, and you can take them as you will (2004 rankings):

Kahn ranks Parker ninth in the league - http://cbs.sportsline.com/nba/story/7708485

Here's a statistical comparison, but it was done last December. Parker is not in the top ten: http://www.usatoday.com/sports/basketball/nba/2003-12-30-scorers_x.htm

Finally, many people like to look at efficiency ratings. They can be very useful when comparing players playing the same position. The following point guards are in the top fifty: Cassell, Kidd, Marbury, Davis, James, Nash, Bibby, Miller, and Francis.

Parker isn't even in the top fifty.

Efficiency ratings, statistics, and sportswriter opinions don't really prove anything, but they sure are a lot better than turning to one general manager's vote.

I personally feel that Cassell, Kidd, Marbury, Davis, Nash, and Bibby are better. I don't consider James to be a point guard and I think Parker is better than Miller and Francis.

The real question:

so what?

Even if you put Parker in the top five and I put him in the top seven, that doesn't really do anything to justify what he should make. I think he's a great player too. But I respect the management's decision to set a limit and make smart basketball decisions. I don't think he's worth much more than the Spurs offered. If they would budge, it would be nice. But I respect their decision not to. If Parker becomes more consistent, runs the team better, shoots the ball better, and plays better defense I'm all for paying him more.

You went from stating that every single NBA writer believes that Parker will be top 2 point guard to saying that one GM convinced you that he's top 5.

Statistics, professional writers, and efficiency rankings clash with your assertion that Parker is a top five point guard based upon what one GM voted. I hope Parker has a monster year and gets a big contract from the Spurs. But he's got to prove he's worth it first.

Good talk. We'll have to see what happens. I know we both hope he'll be back. Thanks for a civil discussion.

[jcrod]

Another one.

link (http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playoffs2004/columns/story?columnist=hughes_frank&id=1793101)


This is going to sound like an indictment of Payton, though it is not meant to be. Instead, it is a glowing tribute to the ever-improving Parker, who has become one of the top three point guards in the league and is on the verge of becoming the elite player at his position. :fro

[Brodels]

You showed that one general manager voted for him. And that vote had absolutely nothing to do with Parker being in the top five. The question had nothing to do with Parker being in the top five.

One general manager voting for Parker doesn't mean he's a top five point guard, and it doesn't mean that the rest of the general managers would put him in the top five.

You can't twist a poll that has nothing to do with what you're trying to defend and make it look like it's actually supporting your point.


One more time Brodels.

I've already proved my point by showing you a survery by NBA.com to current GM's. Parker received a couple of votes. I don't see Bibbys name there.

Most of those articles are from two yrs ago when he had that one awesome series against the lakers.

But here's one, from one of the all time best coaches.

link (http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/wire?section=nba&id=1790893)

Afterward Grizzlies coach Hubie Brown gushed about Parker, saying his ability to split defenders, penetrate and score puts him among the league's elite at his position.

"You have point guards that can get into the paint, but they can't finish," Brown said. "He can not only get into the paint because of his God-given quickness off the the dribble, but he finishes. You go through the NBA right now and you don't have five point guards that can do that." :smokin

So you're telling me that because Hubie Brown thinks that five other players in the league can't get into the lane and finish, Parker is a top 5 point guard? The only thing you've proven is that Hubie thinks he's quick and can finish. The article says nothing about Parker's ability to do other things on the court, and it's just one person anyway.

Parker isn't in the top five in efficiency ratings. I've explained why I think you're evidence isn't legit. Why do you consider efficiency ratings to be a poor indicator of performance? There are also five other point guards in the league with better statistical numbers. Why don't you consider statistics to be a good indicator?

Do you really believe that a Hubie Brown comment about Parker's quickness and finishing ability is a better indicator of Parker's position among the top point guards than all of this other stuff?

[Brodels]

Another one.

link (http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playoffs2004/columns/story?columnist=hughes_frank&id=1793101)


This is going to sound like an indictment of Payton, though it is not meant to be. Instead, it is a glowing tribute to the ever-improving Parker, who has become one of the top three point guards in the league and is on the verge of becoming the elite player at his position. :fro

O.K. So you found a sportswriter to support your point of view. Find some more, and come up with some statistics.

Look, I think Parker is good, too. But one Frank Hughes citation simply isn't convincing.

Using sportswriter opinions as evidence is a little shaky. I posted some opinions just so you could read them. I never asserted that Parker is at a certain level just because a sportswriter says so, and I hope that you won't either.

[Kori Ellis]

Bottom line is that if the Spurs pay Tony Parker now, they are (at least in part) paying for his potential. So, of course, that's a risk. If Tony gets $68M, they'll only be 2 point guards in the league (Kidd/Marbury) making more money than him. He's obviously not the 3rd best point guard in the league.

So it just comes down to if you think the Spurs should pay for potential, or wait to see how he does this season.

Though the difference is only $4M, that money may put the Spurs into luxury tax territory (if the CBA doesn't change) and that may be why the Spurs have a hard number of $64M. If the CBA does change, the Spurs could actual end up paying less for Tony next summer if things change in that direction. Whatever happens, it's a risk for both sides. But I feel confident that Tony wants to be a Spur, and the Spurs want Tony to be a Spur. So whether it gets done now or later, I think Tony will end up signing.

[jcrod]

Ok that's enough. I'm not going to keep looking. Good talk Brodels.

I won't go by stats and eff. Because in the Spurs system everybody looks bad except Duncan. If TP were in another system he would really shine.

That one GM shows people do think of him as being one of the elites. Come one, why would you say anything else. Who would you rather see playing with the Spurs????????

For the money he's asking....its a steal if you ask me. He would command a MAX contact next yr, very few PG would. Name me others.

[jcrod]

Bottom line is that if the Spurs pay Tony Parker now, they are (at least in part) paying for his potential. So, of course, that's a risk. If Tony gets $68M, they'll only be 2 point guards in the league (Kidd/Marbury) making more money than him. He's obviously not the 3rd best point guard in the league.

So it just comes down to if you think the Spurs should pay for potential, or wait to see how he does this season.

Though the difference is only $4M, that money may put the Spurs into luxury tax territory (if the CBA doesn't change) and that may be why the Spurs have a hard number of $64M. If the CBA does change, the Spurs could actual end up paying less for Tony next summer if things change in that direction. Whatever happens, it's a risk for both sides. But I feel confident that Tony wants to be a Spur, and the Spurs want Tony to be a Spur. So whether it gets done now or later, I think Tony will end up signing.

Wouldn't he be the fith highest paid. Nash and Bibby also have larger contracts. But yes it's part potential. Is it 4 mil or 2?

[Kori Ellis]

Nash is six years/$66M according to Patricia's site. Bibby's contract is 7-years/$80.5M. So at 6-years/$68M, Tony's contract would start within 100K of what Bibby's contract started at.

[Brodels]

Ok that's enough. I'm not going to keep looking. Good talk Brodels.

Agreed.


I won't go by stats and eff. Because in the Spurs system everybody looks bad except Duncan. If TP were in another system he would really shine.

I can see your point, but since efficiency ratings take into consideration almost every statistical category of significance, I think it still applies. Spurs players may not get as many offensive opportunities, but they can still get rebounds, not turn the ball over, block some shots, and make their free throws. And it's arguable (although I'm not certain that it's necessarily true) that the Spurs would make up anything lost by their style in the efficiency ratings by getting more points for shooting the ball better. If Duncan limits their opportunities, he's going to help their efficiency ratings by allowing them to shoot a higher percentage.


That one GM shows people do think of him as being one of the elites. Come one, why would you say anything else. Who would you rather see playing with the Spurs????????

What if that one GM is RC being a homer? I don't buy it.

And I don't want to see anyone else playing for the Spurs. I want to see Tony in a Spurs uniform for years to come, and I hope they can reach an agreement.


For the money he's asking....its a steal if you ask me. He would command a MAX contact next yr, very few PG would. Name me others.

You know, he might not command a max deal next summer. The only teams that would pay him that would be desperate NBA outposts like Atlanta or, well, I can't think of anybody else. Everyone talks about him getting a max offer next summer, but other than the Hawks, who is going to offer him that? It's not certain that anyone will.

Other max-worthy point guards: Cassell (obviously not for a lot of years), Kidd, Marbury, Davis. That's it as far as I'm concerned. And I don't think that Tony is yet in that group of point guards. Will he get there? It's hard to say.

[Walton Buys Off Me]

Damn true.

No one says anything about how Duncan was sucking just as bad as Parker in the last four games.


Are you on acid there son?

When I rag on Duncan, I'm dismissed as just being 'Walton', but now according to you, I've never called him out?

You're about as consistent as Parker when it comes to calling people out timvp

Get some sleep, this forum re-designing thing has you tired and cranky.

[timvp]

Well if Parker and Duncan sucked with the rest of the team, how are you going to hold that against Parker? The team folded ... not Parker.

If you use that logic, the Spurs might as well trade away everyone on the team.








P.S.

What happened to Canada's finest making a San Antonio appearance during the summer? I guess you got scared.

Again.

[Walton Buys Off Me]

What happened to Canada's finest making a San Antonio appearance during the summer? I guess you got scared.

Again.

Actually, there was a tragic occurence if you really must know....we'll leave it at that ok?

Sorry, should have called but I had other things on my mind.

As for the Parker thing, look you know I'm a Tony supporter but fans kill me on this one. We'd be bitching and bitching if we cheered for a team that didn't even make these kind of commitments- see the LA Clippers for instance- but the bottom line is that Peter Holt has, in the last two summers, (the 64 million to Parker included) agreed to spend 238 million dollars on three players alone. To me, that's called building and rebuilding a winner and really fucking looking out for your fans and your city. Yet now people are ripping Holt for not spending 4 million more? You see where I'm going? NHL owners have made those mistakes and now the sport is literally on ice. The NBA is heading towards the same fate if every new contract is negotiated under the premise that "I want what he got". We've got zeros like Eddy Curry looking for max dollars now and wastes of carbon like Allan Houston making max money.

Why isn't anyone blaming Tony's agent?

[timvp]

Why isn't anyone blaming Tony's agent?

Because he's right. He'd be doing the Spurs a favor be letting Parker accept a $66M deal. On the open market, Parker is a max player.

[timvp]

Actually, there was a tragic occurence if you really must know....we'll leave it at that ok?

Condolences.

[Kori Ellis]

I blame Parker's agent. Tony should be happy with the $64M and sign. Tony needs to think about his long-term future. Six years with a team that you know is going to have Tim Duncan and Manu Ginobili and going to contend. Six years of insurance. Six years of security. God knows what is going to happen with the CBA, maybe a potential strike, etc. Just take the money.

We can all say the extra $2M doesn't make a difference to the Spurs, but that's not the point. They set a limit -- they need to stick to it. You can't let players and agents push you around. Or else it will become ridiculous, if the Spurs would have offered $68M, then I guarantee that Fleischer would be holding out for $72M right now. He's trying to get the most he can get. And I'm not sure that's in Tony's best interest.

What's better, six years/$64M or potentially getting injured this season, having a horrible year, a lockout, lower contracts or whatever else might happen.

If Tony doesn't sign, I don't blame the Spurs -- I blame Fleischer. $64M is more than enough.

[ChumpDumper]

I don't think there's anyone to blame. Yet.

There's a reason he went to the press with three days left.

Now all we need to do is see if someone blinks.

I think someone will.

[Nikos]

Right now Bibby is better than Tony Parker.

Parker is quicker, a better defender and has the ability to make Bibby look BAD one on one (and has). But thats NOT the point.

Bibby is the more well rounded PG. He is a better distributor and generally has risen to the occasion more often than Parker has.

In 2002 he stepped up EVERY SINGLE series, not just against LA. Sure he was a bit off in 2003, but the Kings were missing their best player in Cwebb. In 2004 he played very well in certain games, but again he wasn't perfect -- but neither were the Kings with a choking Peja, no BoJax, a 50% Webber, and still taking it to Game 7 vs Minnesotta. Sure some guys choked, but I don't consider Bibby to be one of them.

If Parker can make his jumpshot more reliable, get to the line more and hit his FTs, and be a bit more consistent overall he can be better than Mike Bibby.

But as of now I think Bibby is the better player in the grand scheme of things.

[TwoHandJam]

We can all say the extra $2M doesn't make a difference to the Spurs, but that's not the point. They set a limit -- they need to stick to it. You can't let players and agents push you around. Or else it will become ridiculous, if the Spurs would have offered $68M, then I guarantee that Fleischer would be holding out for $72M right now. He's trying to get the most he can get. And I'm not sure that's in Tony's best interest.Exactly. You've got a smart woman there timvp, you should listen to her more often.

The league's salaries are spiraling out of control right now. Players are demanding salaries that they aren't even close to deserving. Just because some fool GM will pay Tony max dollars doesn't mean he's earned it yet.

There is a looming power struggle coming between management and the players and things don't look good for the next CBA being hammered out by next year right now. Players are getting paid way too much and on top of that they're pouting and demanding trades while still under contract. It's coming to a head and unfortunately it looks like there'll be a lockout next year.

All this to say that the timing fucking sucks. We're the favorites to win the title this year and I have a feeling Tony may come to his senses and sign an extension. If we win it all this year only to suffer a lockout the next, that would totally blow.

[SequSpur]

Parker is doing the right thing. Homeboy deserves a max contract. PERIOD. The NBA is a business Kori. Last time I checked, Parker doesn't sleep with Manu and Tim. Tim got his and Manu got his. Now its Parker's turn. He is completely justified in holding out for the max or close to it. Dude is not going to get hurt and if he does, he is so damn young he has plenty of time to recover and come back. Last time I checked, San Antonio was not a major free agent draw. Why would Parker want to stay here? Pop screams at him. Pop rags on him. Pop tried to sign Kidd. Parker needs to take every fricking penny Holt has.

I don't feel sorry for the Spurs. They want to be in the business of basketball then fucking pay up. Popovich is the dickhead that signed Rose and Rasho to stupid long term deals and neither one of them is worth a shit. Why should Parker settle? Because of a ring? What guarantees a ring? Not Tim and Rasho.

As for Manu, dude is overrated because he is the Olympic Gold Man. Lets see if he can ave. over 10ppg this year.

This whole thing causes a problem. Parker needs touches because he needs to keep his value. Manu needs touches to make up for his contract. Tim well, uh... he is the MVP... and what about the rest?

Pop is taking this team into another season with turmoil. No backup pointguard, your starter is going media on his organization... The Spurs should just pay up.

I blame Pop and Peter.

Remember, its a PLAYER'S LEAGUE.

[SequSpur]

Besides, Parker has been using a fricking lone star card the last 3 years while the Spurs won a championship, they are a consistent winner, the organization is making money off of his ass...

Not only do they need to pony up for the upcoming years, they ought to reimburse him for the crap he has done in the past that has enabled this organization to do the things it has. MAXIMIZE!

[xcoriate]

Whoa, some of Sequ's points were not onlt relevent but potentially viable...

Good Talk

[Marcus Bryant]

Since Tim Duncan's rookie year the free agents the Spurs have signed away from other teams to long term contracts have been Brent Barry and Radosoft Nesterobitch. That, despite having offering max contracts and playing alongside Tim Duncan for the next 6 years. As much as you guys want to debate whether or not Parker should get paid $64 mil versus $64.05 mil the cold hard reality is that the San Antonio Spurs cannot afford to lose real talent. The town just cannot attract top level free agent talent. Whether or not Parker is a top 5 or a top 10 point guard if they lose him, then they are going to be hard pressed to replace him.

Now you may say they can draft a replacement. Perhaps. But the success of international players in the NBA has sparked a boon in the international scouting efforts of every franchise in the league.

About the only way the Spurs lose Parker and come close to making up for what they lost next summer is if they work out a sign and trade. But that's a big IF.

Again, the young man in 22 years old, has 3 years of NBA starting experience, plenty of playoff experience, and he has improved markedly every season. 22 years old.

In the past I argued for pursuing cap flexibility because of DRob's impending retirement and because I wanted Duncan to have real talent surrounding him through the rest of his prime. Now the Spurs have that talent.

Fucking lock him up and be done with it already.

[Brodels]

I blame Parker's agent. Tony should be happy with the $64M and sign. Tony needs to think about his long-term future. Six years with a team that you know is going to have Tim Duncan and Manu Ginobili and going to contend. Six years of insurance. Six years of security. God knows what is going to happen with the CBA, maybe a potential strike, etc. Just take the money.

We can all say the extra $2M doesn't make a difference to the Spurs, but that's not the point. They set a limit -- they need to stick to it. You can't let players and agents push you around. Or else it will become ridiculous, if the Spurs would have offered $68M, then I guarantee that Fleischer would be holding out for $72M right now. He's trying to get the most he can get. And I'm not sure that's in Tony's best interest.

What's better, six years/$64M or potentially getting injured this season, having a horrible year, a lockout, lower contracts or whatever else might happen.

If Tony doesn't sign, I don't blame the Spurs -- I blame Fleischer. $64M is more than enough.

Word.


Or else it will become ridiculous, if the Spurs would have offered $68M, then I guarantee that Fleischer would be holding out for $72M right now.

That's the thing. Who knows where this could end up if the Spurs concede a few million?

Smart basketball decisions with an emphasis on fiscal responsibility = a quality team.

[E20]

We should sign Tony during the off season now that negotiations are over now.

[spurster]

The best thing about TP not signing is that I'll win a vBookie dollar! WOOHOO!

Edit: Stupid me, I forget about the odd. That'll be vBookie $4 for me. That will be almost enough to buy a vBookie lunch!

[sickdsm]

To all of those arguing that players are overpaid.

Go sign a replacement then, that's right, you can't. Maybe YOU think there getting too much money but until there's another guy or two available that will equal Shaq, Kobe, TD, KG's contracts, they're worth whatever the hell they want. Being a GM is basically keeping up with the Jones's, and Kupchak's, McHale's, Buford's, etc... What THEY pay DOES dictate what you have to pay to keep that level of talent around.

[northerner@heart]

I'm new to this group, but come on people! The Spurs management has to deal with a financial limit at some point. They offered what they felt they could at this time and no more. They still have the option to match later if Parker proves himself. Those of you who think that's already happened are lively a fantasy. He's had some great games, but he's also had some considerable down periods. It's business. If he comes through this season and gets a big offer, the Spurs can match it. If he sucks, we can let him go somewhere else. Where's the down side?

[timvp]

Welcome to the forum, northerner@heart.


If he comes through this season and gets a big offer, the Spurs can match it. If he sucks, we can let him go somewhere else. Where's the down side?

If that is their mindset, then that makes sense.

But I think their mindset is if they can get him for a bargain this summer, they'll do it. If not, they'll go into next summer and hope that no one overpays for Parker because they just won't match anything.

[SequSpur]

To all of those arguing that players are overpaid.

Go sign a replacement then, that's right, you can't. Maybe YOU think there getting too much money but until there's another guy or two available that will equal Shaq, Kobe, TD, KG's contracts, they're worth whatever the hell they want. Being a GM is basically keeping up with the Jones's, and Kupchak's, McHale's, Buford's, etc... What THEY pay DOES dictate what you have to pay to keep that level of talent around.


Exactly. You actually have a good point for a minny fan.

:drunk

[timvp]

Since Tim Duncan's rookie year the free agents the Spurs have signed away from other teams to long term contracts have been Brent Barry and Radosoft Nesterobitch. That, despite having offering max contracts and playing alongside Tim Duncan for the next 6 years. As much as you guys want to debate whether or not Parker should get paid $64 mil versus $64.05 mil the cold hard reality is that the San Antonio Spurs cannot afford to lose real talent. The town just cannot attract top level free agent talent. Whether or not Parker is a top 5 or a top 10 point guard if they lose him, then they are going to be hard pressed to replace him.

Now you may say they can draft a replacement. Perhaps. But the success of international players in the NBA has sparked a boon in the international scouting efforts of every franchise in the league.

About the only way the Spurs lose Parker and come close to making up for what they lost next summer is if they work out a sign and trade. But that's a big IF.

Again, the young man in 22 years old, has 3 years of NBA starting experience, plenty of playoff experience, and he has improved markedly every season. 22 years old.

In the past I argued for pursuing cap flexibility because of DRob's impending retirement and because I wanted Duncan to have real talent surrounding him through the rest of his prime. Now the Spurs have that talent.

Fucking lock him up and be done with it already.

Exactly.

:hat

[toosmallshoes]

" the bottom line is that Peter Holt has, in the last two summers, (the 64 million to Parker included) agreed to spend 238 million dollars on three players alone. To me, that's called building and rebuilding a winner "

That's why it seems so stingy that they're letting 2 million dollars keep them from signing parker. "oh no, i just spent 238 million dollars. 240 is inconceivable!!!!!" considering the way parker came on at the end of last season, with his assists going way up and his leadership improving, and how hard he's worked on his game in the offseason, 66 million doesn't sound like too much to chisel the best ever group of three spurs into stone. Holt is being too stubborn. parker's market value next year will be MAX no matter how he does this season. he'd have to seriously tank to drop his pricetag. and he's been practicing too much in the offseason to tank. with his speed he'd fit in great on the Mavericks or the Cavs. the spurs are making a huge mistake. they will probably lose him if they don't sign him before halloween. BOO!

[toosmallshoes]

The rest of the NBA is currently salivating over Peter Holt's stingy mistake. You still have three days. 2 million more dollars. give it to him or lose him. bottom line.

[polandprzem]

I don't understand.
Why the Spurs should sign Parker for 66mln. ?
Instead of : Why Parker shouldn't sign with the Spurs for 62mln.?

[Brodels]

To all of those arguing that players are overpaid.

Go sign a replacement then, that's right, you can't. Maybe YOU think there getting too much money but until there's another guy or two available that will equal Shaq, Kobe, TD, KG's contracts, they're worth whatever the hell they want. Being a GM is basically keeping up with the Jones's, and Kupchak's, McHale's, Buford's, etc... What THEY pay DOES dictate what you have to pay to keep that level of talent around.

So do you always play your players whatever they want? If Rasho asks for a max contract, do you pay it? Do you pay any attention to the salary cap at all?

[Brodels]

" the bottom line is that Peter Holt has, in the last two summers, (the 64 million to Parker included) agreed to spend 238 million dollars on three players alone. To me, that's called building and rebuilding a winner "

That's why it seems so stingy that they're letting 2 million dollars keep them from signing parker. "oh no, i just spent 238 million dollars. 240 is inconceivable!!!!!" considering the way parker came on at the end of last season, with his assists going way up and his leadership improving, and how hard he's worked on his game in the offseason, 66 million doesn't sound like too much to chisel the best ever group of three spurs into stone. Holt is being too stubborn. parker's market value next year will be MAX no matter how he does this season. he'd have to seriously tank to drop his pricetag. and he's been practicing too much in the offseason to tank. with his speed he'd fit in great on the Mavericks or the Cavs. the spurs are making a huge mistake. they will probably lose him if they don't sign him before halloween. BOO!

So what if the Spurs offer $66 million and Parker demands $72? That's 'only' six million dollars. Do you pay that? And what happens if he then asks for $76?

What team has cap room to offer him the max? What team can put an attractive enough package together to lure Tony away? And don't say the Mavs. They would need to do some serious trading to make it happen.

His stats and efficiency ratings don't show that he's a max player, so what criteria are you using? Don't assume that teams are going to line up to offer him the max. There aren't even that many teams that will even have that capability.

The Spurs still hold all the cards.

[Brodels]

The rest of the NBA is currently salivating over Peter Holt's stingy mistake. You still have three days. 2 million more dollars. give it to him or lose him. bottom line.

I wasn't aware that Tony was gone if the Spurs don't sign him in the next three days. The Spurs have all the power next summer.

[mattyc]

Fucking lock him up and be done with it already.
Preach it. :cooldevil

[TwoHandJam]

Again, the young man in 22 years old, has 3 years of NBA starting experience, plenty of playoff experience, and he has improved markedly every season. 22 years old.No, he hasn't. Parker improved from his rookie year to his sophmore year but last year's stats show little if any improvement over his sophmore year. You can't just throw around money based on potential. That's how you become Portland or New York or Dallas. $64Mil is more than a fair price based on what other point guards in the league are making. Parker has 5 years of professional ball under his belt with 3 of them being in the NBA. That is a long time to be playing professional ball regardless of his age. There is no guarantee that his skills haven't already plateaued or will plateau shortly. He is still very inconsistent and his numbers are not irreplaceable.

If he earns more value this year then you pay him, otherwise let some other GM overpay for him. I love Tony and I hope he stays but his agent is doing him a great disservice right now. There's more than just a $2M difference in price going on right now as well. These other "stumbling blocks" that were alluded to probably include some non-guaranteed money that is based on incentives.

The Spurs are still in the driver's seat. Let Tony show us the goods and the Spurs will show him more money.




To all of those arguing that players are overpaid.
Go sign a replacement then, that's right, you can't. Maybe YOU think there getting too much money but until there's another guy or two available that will equal Shaq, Kobe, TD, KG's contracts, they're worth whatever the hell they want. Being a GM is basically keeping up with the Jones's, and Kupchak's, McHale's, Buford's, etc... What THEY pay DOES dictate what you have to pay to keep that level of talent around.

Only to a certain extent. A line in the sand dictated by the cap and informed decisions on player value has to be drawn sometime. By your logic any GM should pay as much as the most ignorant GM in the league would to keep their FA's. It doesn't work that way. Is Spreewell worth $14M/yr like he thinks he is because another GM would pay that? Was Kandi worth his price? Should the Wolves match any other GM's price for Szcerbiak?

[Marcus Bryant]

No, he hasn't. Parker improved from his rookie year to his sophmore year but last year's stats show little if any improvement over his sophmore year.

He clearly improved in his on court leadership. His assists totals are always going to be limited by the style of offense the Spurs run. Look at the LA series, Parker torched the Lakers in the first two games and it was LA who had to make the adjustment. That is how good he is. He also led the comeback against LA in Game 5. LA had to change up their entire defensive scheme to deal with Parker and force other Spurs to beat them.



You can't just throw around money based on potential. That's how you become Portland or New York or Dallas.

Absurd. The Spurs are nowhere near that. The Spurs' Big 3 right now are Duncan, Parker, and Ginobili. You don't lose any of those guys without something commensurable coming back in return. Should Parker get this deal the Spurs' payroll would still be nowhere what Portland, Dallas, or NY have, for Parker is the last major piece to the puzzle.

Also, the Spurs are the Spurs because of a little lottery luck. Yes, they did do what they had to do to keep Duncan happy but in the NBA if you draft a player then you have the inside track on keeping him there. It's not like the Spurs have some kind of secret formula for building a contender that other teams like NY, Dallas, and Portland don't have. It was luck to a certain extent. At the personnel level, the Spurs have done well in using low draft picks, and minor trades and yes, their cap management has been good. At some point you have to pay for the talent you have in the NBA. That's a fact of life. The problem in the past for the Spurs was that it was difficult for them to get young talent worthy of long term deals. Now they have that talent. Time to pay up.

But the Spurs have been spared the struggles that the Knicks, Mavs, and Blazers have had to go through in trying to put together a contender without landing one of the top 2 players in the NBA through the draft. Think of the resources that each of those franchises have at their disposal and what they have had to go through because they didn't end up with the #1 pick in the NBA draft back in 1997. The Spurs' good fortune has served them well. But that doesn't mean you start making bad decisions because you think that fortune will always be on your side. There are no guarantees that you will ever find a talent like Parker at #28 or Ginobili at #57 in future drafts. Given the amount of attention international talent is receiving today in the NBA the degree of difficulty just increased.

And again, given the Spurs' track record in free agency you don't start losing talent for cap flexibility.

Parker is definitely a top 10 point guard in this league, if not top 5. He's clearly worth it.

Bird in the hand.



$64Mil is more than a fair price based on what other point guards in the league are making.


Such as? This is over 6 years not 5 like Nash. And Parker has already demonstrated much more at one of the most difficult positions in the NBA at age 22 than Nash.



Parker has 5 years of professional ball under his belt with 3 of them being in the NBA. That is a long time to be playing professional ball regardless of his age. There is no guarantee that his skills haven't already plateaued or will plateau shortly. He is still very inconsistent and his numbers are not irreplaceable.


His experience is one of the reasons to give him the deal. You know what he can do and you know he is mature enough to continue to work on developing his talent. There is no guarantee that any young player's skills or consistency will improve. That doesn't mean you let him go, especially when you are small market San Antonio and free agency isn't a real option to replace a talent like Parker.



If he earns more value this year then you pay him, otherwise let some other GM overpay for him. I love Tony and I hope he stays but his agent is doing him a great disservice right now.

If you don't lock him up then you indeed go into next summer with the rather significant potential for him to end up at a much higher salary level than you could lock him in for right now, and that will cost you. For the next season you will have the distraction of his impending free agency hanging over you. Next summer he may be inclined to leave and while he is a restricted free agent the Spurs would think long and hard about matching the contract offer of a player who doesn't want to be there anymore. The likely resolution would be some kind of sign and trade with the Spurs getting less than full value for Parker. So then you just saw your talent base drop because you were fearful of actually paying for talent that was happy to stay in San Antonio.

You're right, San Antonio isn't New York. The Spurs can't afford to miss out on real talent that actually wants to live and play there. Especially during the rest of Tim Duncan's career.

[ducks]

have you guys noticed all these quotes are from tp's agent
and tp said he still hoped to get a deal done.
I still think if the money is guaranteed it will be done

[xapatan2]

I won't quote what saidMarcus just before but i just have to say that his arguments made him the perfect battle blog winner :elephant of this discussion concerning :

should the spurs pay now or not for the price asked by Parker....


( quiet, Timvp i am not asking yet to be a judge of battleblog wether if i know you could be able to jump on this occasion...:)

Parker has to be locked up now because he is gonna be All Star in february... ( i promise to bet 50% of my Vbookie Cash on this :)

Xap

[TwoHandJam]

He clearly improved in his on court leadership. His assists totals are always going to be limited by the style of offense the Spurs run. Look at the LA series, Parker torched the Lakers in the first two games and it was LA who had to make the adjustment. That is how good he is. He also led the comeback against LA in Game 5. LA had to change up their entire defensive scheme to deal with Parker and force other Spurs to beat them. Parker has disappeared in probably as many big playoff games as he's shined in. Inconsistency is one of his biggest weaknesses, even after 3 years in the NBA and 5 years total professional experience. You can't just look at the glass as half full. His age isn't a universal trump card and some players just don't get better. Not that Parker is one of them but you're certainly assuming that he isn't. His improvement in "on court leadership" from year 2 to year 3 didn't net us a title last year and doesn't guarantee future improvement or titles.


Absurd. The Spurs are nowhere near that. The Spurs' Big 3 right now are Duncan, Parker, and Ginobili. You don't lose any of those guys without something commensurable coming back in return. Should Parker get this deal the Spurs' payroll would still be nowhere what Portland, Dallas, or NY have, for Parker is the last major piece to the puzzle. The Spurs are not in financial trouble precisely because they know where to draw the line with player salaries. I think there's more to the stall in negotiations than just an extra $2M. Where do you draw the line with Parker? The Spurs obviously feel they're already paying a premium to keep him. Is he truly worth a contract $14M dollars more than Manu? If they pay him $66M and he plateaus marginally better than he is now, what then?


Parker is definitely a top 10 point guard in this league, if not top 5. He's clearly worth it.

Bird in the hand.He is in the top ten and the salary the Spurs are offering him is commensurate with that. I believe Brodels listed some pg salaries a couple of pages ago.


His experience is one of the reasons to give him the deal. You know what he can do and you know he is mature enough to continue to work on developing his talent. There is no guarantee that any young player's skills or consistency will improve. That doesn't mean you let him go, especially when you are small market San Antonio and free agency isn't a real option to replace a talent like Parker. You also have to temper your willingness to pay Parker with what appears to be a lack of marked improvement over the last two years. Given that he's already been playing professionally for 5 years, the chances for large improvements is declining. He is young but he already has many years of play under his belt. His youth alone doesn't guarantee future improvement.


If you don't lock him up then you indeed go into next summer with the rather significant potential for him to end up at a much higher salary level than you could lock him in for right now, and that will cost you. For the next season you will have the distraction of his impending free agency hanging over you. Next summer he may be inclined to leave and while he is a restricted free agent the Spurs would think long and hard about matching the contract offer of a player who doesn't want to be there anymore. The likely resolution would be some kind of sign and trade with the Spurs getting less than full value for Parker.I love Tony but sometimes it's better to let talent go than overpay for it. Again, the Spurs must feel they've already factored in a premium for him. The line in the sand is drawn.


You're right, San Antonio isn't New York. The Spurs can't afford to miss out on real talent that actually wants to live and play there. Especially during the rest of Tim Duncan's career.By the same token, Tony should smarten up and realize there's more to his career than squeezing money out of a GM but playing on a team like the hawks. The Spurs' deal is not unfair and he has a chance to play with a once-in-a-lifetime player as you say. The potential for a dynasty is real. Is that worth a few million dollars to him?

[Marcus Bryant]

What talent are they going to get that is worth not giving Parker, a player who actually wants to play here, $4 more mil over 6 years?

That's what it boils down to.

The major long term free agent signings the Spurs have enjoyed have been Rasho Nesterovic and a 32 year old Brent Barry. That, despite 3 offseasons in which the Spurs had enough cap flexibility to offer a max contract and playing alongside Tim Duncan. That just about says it all. You don't count on that changing just to save $4 mil over the next 6 years.

The franchise can't afford not to pay him.

Parker's age is quite relevant, considering the history of other point guards in the NBA, and where they were at his age. He has shown significant improvement between his 2nd and 3rd years, especially in his leadership.

[TwoHandJam]

What talent are they going to get that is worth not giving Parker, a player who actually wants to play here, $4 more mil over 6 years?

That's what it boils down to. Again, I think there may be more to it than just that monetary difference. This was alluded to by Ludden or Fleisher I believe. It wouldn't surprise me if the Spurs are trying to have some of that money contingent on certain performance criteria ie. not guaranteed.

And if it is just $4M over 6 years, why doesn't Parker capitulate? You can't just blame the Spurs front office.


Parker's age is quite relevant, considering the history of other point guards in the NBA, and where they were at his age.I don't think it's that simple. Age is a factor but I think experience might count for more. When you compare them in terms of experience in the league, Parker doesn't appear that exceptional.


He has shown significant improvement between his 2nd and 3rd years, especially in his leadership.His leadership may have improved but his numbers don't show much that's tangible from year 2 to year 3. Again, I'm not saying he won't improve but his stats don't show marked improvement after year 2.

[Emeyin]

I'm kinda split on this but I think they should just go ahead and pay him the 66 mil if nothing else than for trying to recruit Jason Kidd last year after they won the championship. He compromised so they need to meet him halfway. The big three needs to be set so they can win this thing for the next few years.

[Marcus Bryant]

Again, the offense the Spurs employ will limit Parker's assist average. His offensive opportunities are going to be dictated by how much Pop wants him shooting the rock.

He's a 3rd year point guard and he's considered around the league to be one of the best ones and on the brink of breaking out into a star.

What's the alternative? I mean yeah, it would be great if he was better in some areas but he's pretty damn solid right now. And yes, he does have the potential to become something much more. I just don't see a clear alternative to letting him walk.

[aka_USAPA]

I don't think the Spurs believed that Parker would hold his grounds. I'm glad he did because I'm sick of big corporations trying to low-ball their employees and using their power to pay the least amount of money possible when it is clearly in their power to make their employees happy. Parker and the Spurs are no exception. In the long run, it will cost the Spurs more than $4 million to make Parker happy. He probably wants the max next year. I hope he gets the max from the Spurs or elsewhere. He deserves it.

[Kori Ellis]

I hope he gets the max from the Spurs or elsewhere. He deserves it.

Tony Parker is not consistent enough to be considered a max player. The Spurs $64M offer is fair in the market.

[aka_USAPA]

How do you qualify what is "fair" when there are no set rules for it? After this year, when Parkers gets off to a contract year, he'll be worth the max. Just watch. The other thing about this is that will his quest for the max become cancerous to the Spurs' season? That's another angle the Spurs didn't consider when they tried to penny pinch $4 million.

[BigVee]

Even though I swore to myself I was done with this subject......I don't think the fairness of the offer is the point (no pun intended). The question revolves around getting him signed now versus the possibility of losing him and what that is worth in terms of money. A couple of million to insure his services long term seems prudent in every conceivable way.

[Rynospursfan]

It all seems pretty clear to me. If Parker signs an offer sheet at the end of the year with another team that plans on paying him more than $68 million, the Spurs messed up. If not, they didn't. Time will tell. At this point without a CBA who knows if this is even a possibility.

[aka_USAPA]

Take it too the bank - somebody will sign Parker if the Spurs don't wise up.

[ChumpDumper]

I'm so scared....

Except there's nothing to be afraid about until next summer.

I refuse to wring my hands over this.

[samikeyp]

No reason to panic...I firmly believe that the only way the Spurs lose Parker is that someone overpays him. If that is the case, the Spurs would be better off anyway.

[SequSpur]

Tony Parker is not consistent enough to be considered a max player. The Spurs $64M offer is fair in the market.


Really? Is consistency the requirement for a max contract? Kevin Garnett makes 28 million and has never won a ring.

Now I know Parker is not Garnett but, I would guess he could make 50% of what Garnett makes.

The price is set by supply and demand. For Tony, it's quite obvious the Spurs can't even find a point guard within 2000 miles of this country.. It's quite easy. Maximize.

You want to own an NBA team, then act like an NBA owner.

[Brodels]

I don't think the Spurs believed that Parker would hold his grounds. I'm glad he did because I'm sick of big corporations trying to low-ball their employees and using their power to pay the least amount of money possible when it is clearly in their power to make their employees happy.

The Spurs number one priority needs to be with their customers. If the customers aren't kept happy, there won't even be a team in San Antonio. The Spurs have been successful because they retained flexbility over the years by making smart financial moves. It's not just about paying Parker. It's also about keeping the financial flexibility to have a successful team.

And if you think that offering a point guard who clearly isn't the third best point guard in the league a contract that pays him like he's the third best, you really have no concept of what lowballing is about.


Parker and the Spurs are no exception. In the long run, it will cost the Spurs more than $4 million to make Parker happy. He probably wants the max next year. I hope he gets the max from the Spurs or elsewhere. He deserves it.

Just because you like him doesn't mean he deserves the max. Aside from a few mistake contracts, maximum contracts still generally go to franchise players only. Every player probably wants the max. But if he isn't even in the top tier of point guards, it's silly to think he should get the max.

[SequSpur]

The Spurs still have tickets available for opening day and thousands of tickets to the rest of the games. That speaks volumes.

The fans are not going to pay the ticket prices or they don't like the product thats on the court.

I am telling you. If Pop and RC company fuck this up, they might as well leave with Tony.

[Brodels]

How do you qualify what is "fair" when there are no set rules for it? After this year, when Parkers gets off to a contract year, he'll be worth the max. Just watch. The other thing about this is that will his quest for the max become cancerous to the Spurs' season? That's another angle the Spurs didn't consider when they tried to penny pinch $4 million.

Look at his statistics. Look at his efficiency ratings. And if those don't convince you that he's not in the top tier of point guards, consider his playoff performances. Truly great players can get the job done even when defenses are designed to stop them. The best players can adjust. Tim Duncan adjusts and finds ways to get it done. Tony Parker was a huge failure after the Lakers focused on stopping him. He needs to learn to adjust if he wants to be a top player.

You're talking about a good player, but a player that hasn't been an allstar, has declined statistically, hasn't shown much improvement in his game, and gets shut down when other teams decide to stop him. He's simply not the third best point guard in the league at this time.


After this year, when Parkers gets off to a contract year, he'll be worth the max. Just watch.

Again, just because you think that Parker might get better doesn't mean it will actually happen. What did he do over the past season to convince you that he's going to blow up this season? I'll trust GMs and coaches over your opinion.


That's another angle the Spurs didn't consider when they tried to penny pinch $4 million.

Wrong. You can bet that the Spurs considered that. They aren't dumb.

[ducks]

spurs have messed up in past with contracts
they went after kidd did they not
they also overpaid other players
they traded for hedo
let jackson go
they got mercer

spurs front office is not above mistakes they have made them in the past

[Brodels]

Take it too the bank - somebody will sign Parker if the Spurs don't wise up.

Tony will be a Spur this season and next season at the very least if the Spurs want him to be. The Spurs can decide Tony's future unless he's willing to sign a low-dollar one-year contract next summer so he can become unrestricted.

Somebody may overpay Parker and the Spurs might not match. But for a non-all star, 14 ppg player who gets shut down when other teams want to shut him down, that other team may not be getting the best deal.

He's been in the league a few years. Teams paid Keith Van Horn and Allan Houston on potential, too. And those teams severely reduced their chances of succeeding because they overpaid.

Answer this: If the Spurs are already willing to make Parker the third-highest point guard in the game even if he isn't the third best player, why should they pay him even more than that?

"Because I think he'll be good" simply isn't a good enough answer for me.

[Brodels]

spurs have messed up in past with contracts
they went after kidd did they not

You can't possibly say that Kidd was a mistake because he didn't end up in San Antonio. It's entirely possible that he wouldn't have gotten hurt last season and the Spurs would have won the title with him on the team. Nobody knows.


they also overpaid other players

Exactly. I hope they learn from their mistakes.


they traded for hedo

Hedo was a playoff disaster, but he was a good deal last year.


let jackson go

And no other team though enough of him to even offer what the Spurs offered him.


they got mercer

They got Mercer in a trade, and they gave up absolutely nothing to get him.

[Brodels]

The price is set by supply and demand. For Tony, it's quite obvious the Spurs can't even find a point guard within 2000 miles of this country.. It's quite easy. Maximize.

So let me get this straight: you want to pay Parker based on supply and demand even though it's impossible to know what he would get on the open market?

What has supply and demand determined the price to be? You have no idea. Neither do I. He hasn't received one offer from another team because he's under contract.

[SequSpur]

Parker can walk and wait til his contract his over.

[ducks]

parker can not walk without spurs being able to match next year now he coudl sign a one year deal but he will not

[SequSpur]

The player holds all the cards Ducks. Without Parker, the Spurs would be forced to start Beno.

Ummm, I would say Parker has control.

[ducks]

if they let parker go they could sign and trade him to the pacers for tinsely and oneal

[toosmallshoes]

So what if the Spurs offer $66 million and Parker demands $72? That's 'only' six million dollars. Do you pay that? And what happens if he then asks for $76?

What team has cap room to offer him the max? What team can put an attractive enough package together to lure Tony away? And don't say the Mavs. They would need to do some serious trading to make it happen.

His stats and efficiency ratings don't show that he's a max player, so what criteria are you using? Don't assume that teams are going to line up to offer him the max. There aren't even that many teams that will even have that capability.

The Spurs still hold all the cards.

Seems a little cocky to assume the spurs hold all he cards. They don't hold all of the cards until he's signed.

the thing is you're using a slippery sloap argument when you say that if you offer him 66 million he'll wind up asking for 76. he's already said he'd take 66 and that seems reasonable compared to the 64 million they're offering.

and despite all of your efficiency ratings, it was obvious in the last quarter of last season that he was really improving in all areas of his game-- especially with his assists and leadership. he didn't officially improve much between 03 and 04, but between February and May he improved a great deal. And while consistency is still an issue, he showed improvement in that area as well before the Lakers collapse.

don't forget that Tim Duncan was also shut down by the Lakers defense and couldn't adjust. And Parker may have fared better if the coaching staff had made any adjustments. the whole team lost that series, not just tony.

P.S. I would never be surprised by any move the Mavs make. That team has A.D.D.

[TwoHandJam]

What's the alternative? I mean yeah, it would be great if he was better in some areas but he's pretty damn solid right now. And yes, he does have the potential to become something much more. I just don't see a clear alternative to letting him walk.I know, it's a tough call and we as fans are working with a lot less than perfect information. I'm not Holt and it's not my money so as a fan, I'm tempted to say just give him the extra couple of million he wants and lets hope for the best but I'm sure it's more complicated than that when you actually own the team. The $64M figure may have been arrived at with much deliberation and is based on information to which we're not privy. I think the offer is fair and I hope Tony sees it that way too before Sunday. Tony's language in the press still seems to suggest he wants the deal done. I really hope some kind of compromise can be reached.

[IceColdBrewski]

Dammit....are the Spurs really considering pissing off this extremely young point guard with all his upside both on and off the court?

Off the court??? Oh. You mean when he created that media sh!tstorm during the Jason Kidd offseason?

[IceColdBrewski]

I don't give a shit what Arenas or anyone else got, 64 Million is a fair deal. Parker has a lot of upside but he hasn't proved that he's worth more than 64 Million after three years in the league yet and the management can't assume blindly that he will. Fiscal mismanagement like that is how bad teams are born.

Bingo. And if he pulls yet another disappearing act in this years playoffs, don't be suprised if they let him walk.

[Marcus Bryant]

Let him walk for what? That's fucking stupid.

[IceColdBrewski]

Let him walk for what?

Because he always disappears when it matters most. And his passion for the game sucks. I can't remember how many times I've seen him smile with this "oh well" look on his face when he has made a mistake. Thats not the kind of passion I'm looking for in our floor leader.

I've been tellin y'all for a year now that you were overrating him. Maybe now you'll listen.

[Kori Ellis]

And his passion for the game sucks

:wtf

I don't see at all how you can see that in him. He has more passion for the game than most.

[Marcus Bryant]

Did he disappear in games 1 and 2 of the LA series? No. What happened? LA fucking changed up their entire defensive scheme to stop him.

But of course you knew that.

Dammit I hate Spurs fans.

[IceColdBrewski]

:wtf

I don't see at all how you can see that in him. He has more passion for the game than most.

Please tell him to wipe that stupid shit eating grin off his face every time he makes a big mistake and then I'll start to believe you.

[Kori Ellis]

Sorry, but you are just a hater if you actually believe Tony doesn't give a damn about the game, winning, or improving.

[IceColdBrewski]

Did he disappear in games 1 and 2 of the LA series? No. What happened? LA fucking changed up their entire defensive scheme to stop him.

Uh huh. And whats the excuse for the season before when Kerr and Claxton had to bail him out?

[Marcus Bryant]

Who the fuck played before then? 21 years old. Who exactly do you suggest the Spurs replace him with that they can get when they are capped out? What free agent are they going to magically sign? Get some perspective already.