Screw Holt* [Archive] - SpursTalk.com Forums

Marcus Bryant

10-31-2004, 11:34 AM

*Provided he doesn't come to his senses today.

Fuck him.

He's been one lucky NBA owner. He ended up with the best player in the NBA through the draft, a player who is gracious and conscientious enough to stick with the team who originally drafted him when he's twice had the option to leave.

He had another superstar who also stuck in small market San Antonio when he could have left for bigger and brighter things.

He got his way and the NBA adopted small market friendly rules on player contracts, screwing his best player out of roughly half of his otherwise lifetime earnings in the process.

He had a city give him a sweetheart arena deal.

His front office gave him a championship level supporting cast through pluck and luck, with some of the talent costing relative peanuts for years.

He has some talented players who are willing to stay in small market San Antonio and play for less than they could make elsewhere even now.

He has fellow members of his ownership group who allow him to control a NBA team and enjoy the prestige of being a 'NBA owner' through their economic clout and connections.

Pretty fucking good for a bulldozer salesman, I'd say.

No excuses.

GINNNNNNNNNNNNOBILI

10-31-2004, 11:52 AM

2 million dollars might keep us from a dynasty

Mark in Austin

10-31-2004, 12:04 PM

Agreed.

Fuck that fucking fucker.

E20

10-31-2004, 12:36 PM

Calm down now. Holt is just a bit drunk and isn't what we think right now. Alcohol can do evil things to a person.

Guru of Nothing

10-31-2004, 01:03 PM

[Jumps on Wagon]

BronxCowboy

10-31-2004, 01:13 PM

(Jumps off wagon) :drunk :drunk :smokin :drunk

timvp

10-31-2004, 01:19 PM

Myself, MB and select other number of posters have been calling for Holt's head for some time now. If he wasn't willing to spend his money, he needs to find someone who will. Or at least step down as chairman.

Now he's on the verge of destroying a potential dynasty over $2M.

Enough is enough.

GoSpurs21

10-31-2004, 01:54 PM

timvp, while I dont like Holt at this moment, who do you suggest would buy the team and keep it in SA? The list I have is empty. There just isnt those types of people in SA. Maybe Michael Dell in Austin, but I dont think hes interested.

T Park

10-31-2004, 02:14 PM

dont be making sense now gospurs.

timvp

10-31-2004, 02:32 PM

SBC, HEB, USAA and several other huge corporations have stakes in the Spurs. In fact, Holt doesn't even own half the team. He either needs to sell off his shares or step down as chairman.

Simple.

SequSpur

10-31-2004, 02:54 PM

:lol

FUCK HOLT!

:lol

Sequ's Alias

10-31-2004, 02:58 PM

Don't worry. The Spurs have total control and they have a long history of being successful in this league. Parker's agent is known to cause trouble and is actually messing up chances for a new contract. I put my faith in this organization to do the right thing even if Terry Porter, Malik Rose and Antonio Daniels have to fill in for Tony Parker.

Go Longhorns!

Das Texan

10-31-2004, 03:02 PM

Fuck you Holt.

Be a man Peter. If you truly have any passion for the Spurs you will pony up the dough.

Its not like Parker is asking for the world thus cripping the franchise economically speaking.

Stop playing this hardline financial stance. It works for some players....it doesnt work as a hardline rule.

How the fuck did this bulldozer salesman become so successful if he remains unopen to going 'outside the box'

God damn.

mouse

10-31-2004, 03:17 PM

MB And I don't agree much in the political forum, BTW go check it out,

But here in the Spurs Forum? I agree with himm 100% screw that beer drinking Dean Martin wannabe Peter Holt. He is the reason you did not ge Kobe.

polandprzem

10-31-2004, 03:33 PM

Nie powiem jestem wkurwiony i jak Holt tego nie zmieni to będę wkurwiony przez cały sezon. Pierdolić to i jego decyzje.

I won't translate this because it could place me in Jail.

(I'm little worried about that Parker situation :))

GrandeDavid

10-31-2004, 04:12 PM

MB, I couldn't agree with you more. Holt is being a d!ck and is really jobbing the San Antonio phans. What an a-hole!

whottt

10-31-2004, 04:39 PM

polski wyrobi

redeye

10-31-2004, 04:57 PM

Holt need to spark one up :smokin and reconsider things. He will be a hated man in San Antonio if this becomes a distraction to the team and even worse; if Tony leaves after this season. Question I have, will we lose Pop after this season too.

KEDA

10-31-2004, 05:03 PM

Tightwad ass Holt needs to posny up some $ to keep TP

you know its bad when Pop says something!!!

GoSpurs21

10-31-2004, 06:16 PM

SBC, HEB, USAA and several other huge corporations have stakes in the Spurs. In fact, Holt doesn't even own half the team. He either needs to sell off his shares or step down as chairman.

Simple.

If these companies have so much power then why cant they just remove Holt from the chairman spot and buy him out?

I dont agree with what Holt is doing, but I am not sure what anyone can do about it.

I suggest season ticket holders call the Spurs office and threaten to cancel next years renewal. I would be willing to go this far would you TIMVP?

TMTTRIO

10-31-2004, 06:51 PM

I just wish we could sign him right now so that we can move on and enjoy the season rather than having this hang over us for the rest of the year.

Marcus Bryant

10-31-2004, 07:04 PM

It doesn't matter whether there are other prospective owners or not. There is no excuse as to why this owner has made this decision. Perhaps it is the luxury tax. Well, the Spurs have received at least $20 million in payments from the league over the last 3 years. Maybe it's hard to wean himself off of that.

My guess is that Holt has picked this fight for a number of reasons. First off it is posturing for next summer's CBA negotiations (the 'gee, I can't afford to keep good players under the current rules' argument). Secondly, my guess is that Holt (and possibly Pop, despite his public protestations) believes that if they lose Parker then they can get some talent back in a sign and trade, he believes that Parker is not a key to the long term success of the club, that with Tim Duncan and Ginobili this team will always be a serious contender and that every season will yield some playoff cash, and that perhaps Udrih can be the starter for the 3 years after Parker leaves (you know that 28th pick rookie contract of Udrih's looks mighty tempting to Holt).

Brodels

10-31-2004, 07:15 PM

I trust Pop in these matters. I respect the Spurs' insistence upon drawing a line, and the contract offered to Parker would still make him the third highest paid pg in the league.

But if Pop says that two million more is fair, I think Holt needs to trust him. Parker should be content with what was offered to him, but if Pop needs a couple million to get it done, it's a shame that Holt won't even consider budging.

Holt isn't going to step down. It might be best for the franchise in the long term, though.

smeagol

10-31-2004, 08:01 PM

Holt:

La reconcha de tu madre! Dos palos no es nada para tu billetera llena de verdes, re mil hijo de puta. Pone la guita y dejate de hinchar las bolas. La ciudad de San Antonio, y los fans de todo el mundo, te lo demandan.

Gordo conchudo!

Ahhh . . . now I feel better . . .

ZStomp

10-31-2004, 08:21 PM

scott

10-31-2004, 10:36 PM

All this time Ghost was right...

"We're the Spurs."

SenorSpur

11-01-2004, 02:09 AM

Brodels

11-01-2004, 06:48 AM

For a FO that, for whatever reason, openly courted Jason Kidd two summers ago, I'm not all that surprised at this "hardline" stance. For some reason, they've not truly respected Parker's upside nor his ability.

Instead, they coveted an aging 32 year-old PG who, while great in his own right, commanded a max contract (102 mil), who, despite being in his 11th season, still can't shoot and is clearly approaching the downside of his illustrious career. They favored him over a 22 year-old, lightening quick, PG, who can breakdown any defense and who can basically get his shot off whenever he chooses - for about 2/3 of the price.

Again, with all the crazy money thrown around this past summer....a la Steve Nash....you would think ownership would recognize value and see the importance of keeping this talented core intact. The 66 mil desired by Parker and the 52 mil Manu earned will both be considered steals by next season.

I'm with all of you. I don't trust these fuckers at all. I truly believe the ownership brass feels as though they could somehow be successful wo/Parker - as ridiculous as that sounds.

Holt, what the fu@k are you waiting for? Sign this kid and let's move onto more championships.

You act like going after Kidd was a mistake. Kidd was (and probably still is) the best point guard in the league. It's hard to argue with that. To many, he was a top-five player. To everyone, he was certainly top-ten. If you can add one of the best players in the entire league, you do it. Parker is young, but he hasn't done anything close to what Kidd has done.

It wasn't about appreciating Parker's ability. It was about getting the best point guard and one of the top-ten players in the game instead of keeping a then-average young point guard.

BronxCowboy

11-01-2004, 07:50 AM

You act like going after Kidd was a mistake. Kidd was (and probably still is) the best point guard in the league. It's hard to argue with that. To many, he was a top-five player. To everyone, he was certainly top-ten. If you can add one of the best players in the entire league, you do it. Parker is young, but he hasn't done anything close to what Kidd has done.

It wasn't about appreciating Parker's ability. It was about getting the best point guard and one of the top-ten players in the game instead of keeping a then-average young point guard.

Even if he wasn't subsequently injured (which could arguably have been anticipated), Kidd was already to old to be a max-contract player at the PG position when the Spurs were courting him. AND if the Spurs had managed to land him, not only would the whole TP discussion be out the window at this point, but Ginobili would be gone and it's very likely that the Spurs would be settling for someone even worse than Rasho at center. Also, TP was already a much more than average pg. You can't look at stats alone. Maybe the whole fiasco wasn't about underappreciating Parker's ability, but it WAS a huge mistake, and the Spurs are just lucky that they didn't get stuck with Kidd and a hundred-million dollar contract.

tekdragon

11-01-2004, 08:55 AM

I just don't get what all the fuss is about.

Let's see what Tony does in a contract year.

If he plays up to it, then we pay the man (and win a championship in the process).

If he whines and complains and generally acts like a spoiled little brat, creating distractions in the clubhouse and costing us a championship, then he's restricted (and will have a lower value on the open market) so we can still keep him, or he leaves, and we're not stuck with a prima donna who becomes a lockerroom cancer every time he doesn't get his way (I don't see this happening).

Either way, the pressure of a contract year will expose Tony's true character.

Then the organization is free to make a sound fiscal business decision having all the necessary knowledge required to make it an informed decision.

Put his ass in the fire. If he walks through having proven his integrity and manhood, then pay him accordingly. If he's going to wilt in that kind of situation, wouldn't you want to know that?

How about we hold an athlete responsible for earning their pay for once. I personally think Tony's going to be worth a lot more than $64, $66, or $68M. I think he's going to be a max player, and I think he should get paid accordingly.

Give him the chance to prove me right.

Don't flinch. Call him. If he wins the pot, he wins it. If he doesn't have the hand, don't just fold and give it to him.

boutons

11-01-2004, 09:38 AM

Brodels

11-01-2004, 09:40 AM

Even if he wasn't subsequently injured (which could arguably have been anticipated),

As a Spur, Kidd may or may not have become injured. He had been relatively healthy. Nobody knows...perhaps he would have stayed healthy and the Spurs would have won the title last season. We just don't know.

Kidd was already to old to be a max-contract player at the PG position when the Spurs were courting him.

Too old? He doesn't rely on exceptional athleticism to get the job done. He's fairly quick up and down the court, but court vision and smarts define him. Those things don't deteriorate with age. And you're talking about giving him a contract until he's in his mid-30s. Cassell and Payton were "too old" by your measure, but they had some of their best seasons when they were older than Kidd is right now.

AND if the Spurs had managed to land him, not only would the whole TP discussion be out the window at this point, but Ginobili would be gone and it's very likely that the Spurs would be settling for someone even worse than Rasho at center.

The Parker discussion might still be valid. Suppose that Parker made a successful transition to two guard and the Spurs won the championship? That might convince Holt to offer Parker $60 million, and with Kidd at the point, that might have been enough to keep him in that situation. You just don't know.

Ginobili probably would be gone. But you would still have the best point guard in the game.

And Malik Rose can put up 9 and 7 just as easily as Rasho is able to. In fact, he's already shown that he can. Rasho is no stud. There is a reason why he gets ripped on more than any other player.

Also, TP was already a much more than average pg. You can't look at stats alone.

Before last season, efficiency rating, playoff performances, and statistics do not suggest that he was "much more than average." What criteria are you using? After two years in the league Parker was inconsistent, average defensively, and an average distributor.

Maybe the whole fiasco wasn't about underappreciating Parker's ability, but it WAS a huge mistake, and the Spurs are just lucky that they didn't get stuck with Kidd and a hundred-million dollar contract.

Any GM will tell you that if you have the opportunity to add one of the top five or ten players in the game, you do it. It is silly to think that adding the best point guard in the league to your team is a bad thing. Before the injury, Kidd was clearly superior to Parker and we don't know if he would have gotten injured in San Antonio. Pop and Holt did the right thing by pursuing Kidd.

Brodels

11-01-2004, 09:47 AM

"the contract offered to Parker would still make him the third highest paid pg in the league."

ok, but in this summer of total salary nuttiness, such comparisons aren't very precise or indicative of much at all.

It's the best that we've got. Besides, after the new CBA is agreed upon, it's possible that Parker will remain the third highest-paid point guard for quite some time if he signs this contract.

You can't judge his value by what happened this summer because he wasn't a free agent. His market value is now $0 to every other team in the league because nobody can sign him. He isn't worth anything to anybody except the Spurs because he's under contract with them.

Suppose Parker was a free agent this past summer. If he signs an early contract for, say, $65 million, there is no way that Foyle gets a contract quite as large. It's hard to say.

Because he wasn't a free agent and because the CBA is about to expire, the only way to even guess at his value is to compare him to other point guards.

And besides, bad decisions by other GMs doesn't mean that the Spurs should react by making another bad decision. They are working under essentially the same salary cap that they worked under last season and the season before. Some of the contracts from the past summer were bad decisions for the teams, and they'll pay for it down the road.

Sportcamper

11-01-2004, 09:59 AM

If I may take Mr. Holts side for a moment...The Spurs offered Tony Parker a bundle of cash, (66 million) & he turned it down...Tony Parker is a dandy of a PG but it is debatable if he is worth the extra two million that he is holding out for... He is asking ($68 million)...

The guy does disappear during crunch time...He is a Euro player whose toughness in the playoffs is still in question...

Obviously Mr. Holt knows something about the NBA and a player’s value...

mysterious_elf26

11-01-2004, 10:06 AM

If he whines and complains and generally acts like a spoiled little brat, creating distractions in the clubhouse and costing us a championship, then he's restricted (and will have a lower value on the open market) so we can still keep him, or he leaves, and we're not stuck with a prima donna who becomes a lockerroom cancer every time he doesn't get his way (I don't see this happening).

If he enters free-agency, his value could be sky-rocketting. Next summer, New Jersey has been wanting Parker and may be able to throw a top dollar margin at him. Denver has been known to be throwing their money around which almost took away Manu. Don't forget the lakers. They don't have a true pg yet. Letting him enter free agency over 2M is not worth it. This causes a distraction because a player that is building in one of the best in his positions is getting under payed. It causes the potential to break up their core players at a title. Parker was a steal, are you willing to wai for Beno to come along in his career and hope to expect he's a steal?
Right now they are skrewing Parker over and this could damage the relationship between Duncan and the Spurs as well.

Remember when Derrick Anderson was also screwed by the Spurs. He was one of Duncan's best friends, and don't forget another friend of Duncan who the spurs also let go. Antonio Daniels. And now Parker? I personally believe Duncan chose SA over the rest was because of loyalty, but when there not being loyal to him just by keeping a group of players he enjoys playing with is really pushing his buttons.

Marcus Bryant

11-01-2004, 10:07 AM

He is a Euro player whose toughness in the playoffs is still in question...

Um he's the guy who ripped up your team in the first two games of last season's playoff series, the guy which your team had to rearrange their entire defensive scheme to stop, and who was a big part of the Spurs' comeback in Game 5.

mysterious_elf26

11-01-2004, 10:10 AM

Obviously Mr. Holt knows something about the NBA and a player’s value...

Obviously not. He let Derrick Anderson get away over money again when he had a solid year and they worked so hard to get him. There are many teams that are willing to pay him way above market value just to get a solid pg.

Oh and check your numbers. Holt offered him 64M. Parkers GM wanted 68M and Parker was willing to go down to 66M just so he could get this damn thing done.

Brodels

11-01-2004, 10:23 AM

While it would be best if Parker was signed now, it isn't the worst thing that he's going to be a free agent next summer. The Spurs remain in the driver's seat.

If he enters free-agency, his value could be sky-rocketting.

Could. You don't make decisions on what a player could do. You make decisions based on what he has done.

Next summer, New Jersey has been wanting Parker and may be able to throw a top dollar margin at him.

New Jersey is paying Kidd max dollars and Jefferson almost-max dollars. They wouldn't shell out for Martin. Their future in New Jersey is in doubt. Nobody goes to their games. There is no way they are going to shell out big dollars for Parker, even if they have the salary cap space to do so, which seems unlikely.

Denver has been known to be throwing their money around which almost took away Manu.

Andre Miller distributes the ball better than Parker and they are very happy with him. He's under a long-term contract. The Nuggets won't have the cap space. The Nugs will not be able to sign Parker and they won't want to.

Don't forget the lakers. They don't have a true pg yet.

They don't, but they won't be able to finagle the salary cap room necessary to pay Parker until the summer after. Parker will not be able to sign with the Lakers.

This causes a distraction because a player that is building in one of the best in his positions is getting under payed.

Parker would be the third hightest paid point guard if he accepted Holt's offer. He is clearly not the third best pg in the league. How would that make him underpaid?

And as for now, he's under a rookie contract. The amount of the contract was predetermined by the league. The Spurs and Parker could do nothing about the contract he's under right now.

Remember when Derrick Anderson was also screwed by the Spurs.

He wasn't. Anderson wanted another year of guaranteed money on the deal. The Spurs didn't want to pay it. He had a history of injury, and it turned out to be a smart decision.

The offered Anderson a very fair deal. Would you really want him on the team now? Having Anderson around would have limited the team's financial ability to pay Manu and Parker and it certainly would have limited Manu's development. I'd rather have Manu than DA.

He was one of Duncan's best friends, and don't forget another friend of Duncan who the spurs also let go. Antonio Daniels.

Who cares? You don't make basketball and business decisions based on who is friends with who. The Spurs got Steve Kerr for Daniels. He helped them win a championship. It was a good deal for the Spurs.

And now Parker? I personally believe Duncan chose SA over the rest was because of loyalty, but when there not being loyal to him just by keeping a group of players he enjoys playing with is really pushing his buttons.

How do you know who Duncan enjoys playing with? Duncan seemed to be in favor of the Kidd trade. Does that mean that Duncan would rather play with Kidd than with Parker? You bet it does. It would have made his job easier and given him a better chance to win. You don't keep a team together because you think that they get along. That's ridiculouos.

It would be nice to sign him now, but there are some positives to having Parker become a free agent. The sky isn't falling yet.

Brodels

11-01-2004, 10:27 AM

Obviously not. He let Derrick Anderson get away over money again when he had a solid year and they worked so hard to get him. There are many teams that are willing to pay him way above market value just to get a solid pg.

Oh and check your numbers. Holt offered him 64M. Parkers GM wanted 68M and Parker was willing to go down to 66M just so he could get this damn thing done.

Derek Anderson is a china doll and he sucks. The Spurs decision to refuse to overpay DA was one of the best they ever made. Portland would love to unload him.

And how do you know that Holt didn't begin by offering $56 million? Maybe Holt has already compromised by $6 million and Parker will only budge by $2 million. That doesn't mean that Holt shouldn't sign him, but don't pretend that Parker and Pop are the good guys and Holt is the bad guy. We don't know the details.

There are many teams that are willing to pay him way above market value just to get a solid pg.

Name "many" teams with cap room next summer that are willing to pay him "way above market value."

Sportcamper

11-01-2004, 10:29 AM

Marcus- Tony had two good games in the Lakers/ Spurs series & then disappeared like he has for the past couple seasons...He is not a “go to guy” in the playoffs....

Marcus Bryant

11-01-2004, 10:35 AM

Um re-read my post.

2pac

11-01-2004, 10:41 AM

Sportcamper

11-01-2004, 10:41 AM

http://www.timelesstrinkets.com/OtherBoyToys/Images/GBGhostStayPuffMarsh.jpg

#9

mysterious_elf26

11-01-2004, 10:59 AM

New Jersey is paying Kidd max dollars and Jefferson almost-max dollars. They wouldn't shell out for Martin. Their future in New Jersey is in doubt. Nobody goes to their games. There is no way they are going to shell out big dollars for Parker, even if they have the salary cap space to do so, which seems unlikely.

There's a rumor that Kidd has already been traded to Portland for Shareef and right now they are currently waiting for a confimation of the deal.

Parker would be the third hightest paid point guard if he accepted Holt's offer. He is clearly not the third best pg in the league. How would that make him underpaid?

Name some better ones. He's not the top three, but top 10. Definately. And the teams I listed were just examples. there are still many teams willing to dish out the cash.

The offered Anderson a very fair deal. Would you really want him on the team now? Having Anderson around would have limited the team's financial ability to pay Manu and Parker and it certainly would have limited Manu's development. I'd rather have Manu than DA.

It's easy to say that now, but how many people even knew about what manu could do back then? They promised DA a long-term deal if he will take a pay cut and sign for a year.

How do you know who Duncan enjoys playing with? Duncan seemed to be in favor of the Kidd trade. Does that mean that Duncan would rather play with Kidd than with Parker? You bet it does. It would have made his job easier and given him a better chance to win. You don't keep a team together because you think that they get along. That's ridiculouos.

So your suggesting we build a Lakers team? Speaking of a good decision to not sign DA. Don't you think it was a blessing in disguise that kidd chose to return to NJ?

Brodels

11-01-2004, 11:00 AM

Atlanta Hawks, Charlotte Bobcats - Thats enough crappy teams with money to scare me into signing TP.

After the contract, PGs paid more than TP
Damon Stoutmire
Jason Kidd
Stephon Marbury
Penny Hardaway (SG too)
Allen Iverson
Jalen Rose (multi-position)
Steve Francis
Baron Davis
Nick Van Exel
Mike Bibby
------------
All those guys will make more this year than TP's average salary at 66M.

Gilbert Arenas will make about 9.5M this year.
Steve Nash will make 9M this year.

Tell me - who that I listed would you rather have over Tony Parker. Who that is listed would you trade him for?

I think you're taking some guys with seven-year deals and comparing them to Parker's six-year deal being discussed.

But that's besides the point. It would trade him for Bibby, Marbury, and Iverson. I would trade him for a healthy Kidd. I would trade him for Baron Davis. I don't like Francis, but he's a franchise player and Tony is not. It's hard to argue against all of those players being better than Parker.

NVE is nearing the end. The Stoudamire contract is an awful one. Penny Hardaway isn't a shooting guard. Jalen Rose isn't really a point guard and he isn't going to be the starting point guard this season.

So it's down to NVE and Stoudamire. Those are the point guards above that I wouldn't trade Parker for. NVE would have been worth it three years ago, but he's had terrible injury problems. Stoudamire's contract is just awful. I don't think that the Spurs should agree to pay Parker whatever he wants because some other general manager ruined his team's chances of winning a title by paying way too much for Damon.

With a smaller salary cap than anyone else and a desire to build from within, the Bobcats are very unlikely to offer Parker a max contract. If Parker wants to make a few more million to play in Atlanta, so be it. The Hawks are going to suck for a long time. If Parker wants to be a loser, so be it.

Brodels

11-01-2004, 11:08 AM

There's a rumor that Kidd has already been traded to Portland for Shareef and right now they are currently waiting for a confimation of the deal.

So now you're telling me that Holt should pay more money because of a rumor you heard involving two other teams? That's a terrible way to run an NBA franchise. The Spurs should sign Tony, but not because you heard some rumor.

Name some better ones. He's not the top three, but top 10. Definately. And the teams I listed were just examples. there are still many teams willing to dish out the cash.

Well, Baron Davis, Jason Kidd, Stephon Marbury, Steve Nash, Mike Bibby, Sam Cassell, Allen Iverson, and Steve Francis are some names that come to mind. You may choose to disagree with some of those, but I would think you would have to agree with most of them.

And you still haven't revealed these "many" teams that have cap space and will be able to sign Tony under the salary cap.

It's easy to say that now, but how many people even knew about what manu could do back then? They promised DA a long-term deal if he will take a pay cut and sign for a year.

So the Spurs pulled a Joe Smith/Minny? That's funny. If you know that the Spurs did that, I would think that the league would find out and the Spurs would be reprimanded. The Spurs didn't promise DA anything for certain. As far as I can tell, they generally don't risk the future of the franchise by breaking league rules. What is your source on this one?

And the Spurs didn't know about Manu, but they did know this: Offering a maximum-length contract to an injury-prone player was a bad idea. The Spurs did the prudent thing.

So your suggesting we build a Lakers team? Speaking of a good decision to not sign DA. Don't you think it was a blessing in disguise that kidd chose to return to NJ?

What? What is a "Lakers" team? I would like to see the Spurs good enough to win three titles in a row. I'm not sure what you mean by that, but if the Spurs can win three titles in a row by getting two superstars, I'm all for it.

What does DA have to do with the Lakers? I don't get it.

I DO think it was a blessing in disguise that the Spurs didn't sign Kidd. But that doesn't change the fact that the Spurs would have been crazy not to go after the best point guard in the game.

2pac

11-01-2004, 11:29 AM

I think you're taking some guys with seven-year deals and comparing them to Parker's six-year deal being discussed.

Nope - I was looking at what they are getting paid this year. Damon's contract is up this year, and NVE's is a team option for next year.

But that's besides the point. It would trade him for Bibby, Marbury, and Iverson. I would trade him for a healthy Kidd. I would trade him for Baron Davis. I don't like Francis, but he's a franchise player and Tony is not. It's hard to argue against all of those players being better than Parker.

I can't argue with that. Bibby would make us better immediately. Marbury isnt a team player, and Iverson goes for the steal and doesnt play team D. His shooting and ball-hoggery would hurt. Baron would be awesome.

However - Marbury, Francis and Iverson dont make teams better. Baron and Kidd are injury problems.

If we knew these guys would be injury free, Baron, Bibby and Kidd - no problem. But I dont think our team would be as good with a me-first PG like Iverson, Francis and Marbury. We need the PG to know that Timmay is the man.

TP doesnt have a long history of injury problems. That is worth some extra money to me.

NVE is nearing the end. The Stoudamire contract is an awful one. Penny Hardaway isn't a shooting guard. Jalen Rose isn't really a point guard and he isn't going to be the starting point guard this season.
Penny probably plays more SG than PG now. Rose plays 1, 2, and 3. Hard to define him, but I threw him up for fun.

So it's down to NVE and Stoudamire. Those are the point guards above that I wouldn't trade Parker for. NVE would have been worth it three years ago, but he's had terrible injury problems. Stoudamire's contract is just awful. I don't think that the Spurs should agree to pay Parker whatever he wants because some other general manager ruined his team's chances of winning a title by paying way too much for Damon.

I have never been a fan of NVE. He is trouble everywhere he goes. Lots of talent, but no one wants him. LA>Denver>Dallas>GSW>Portland

With a smaller salary cap than anyone else and a desire to build from within, the Bobcats are very unlikely to offer Parker a max contract. If Parker wants to make a few more million to play in Atlanta, so be it. The Hawks are going to suck for a long time. If Parker wants to be a loser, so be it.

You can never tell with teams. Two years ago, we would have all said the same about Denver. They make some big signings, draft Melo, trade for KMart, and they are a top team.

Brodels

11-01-2004, 01:15 PM

Nope - I was looking at what they are getting paid this year. Damon's contract is up this year, and NVE's is a team option for next year.

That's the issue, then. You have to look at the entire length of their contracts and compare them to other contracts that are the same length. You're looking at the bloated final couple of years for some of those players. It's more useful to compare average $$$ per season for contracts of similar length.

I can't argue with that. Bibby would make us better immediately. Marbury isnt a team player, and Iverson goes for the steal and doesnt play team D. His shooting and ball-hoggery would hurt. Baron would be awesome.

I'll admit that I'm not the biggest Iverson fan and Marbury isn't my favorite, but we're talking about franchise players here. They might not fit very well in the Spurs' scheme, but they are certainly better players.

However - Marbury, Francis and Iverson dont make teams better. Baron and Kidd are injury problems.

Those players carry the load. Marbury has carried crappy teams to the playoffs. Iverson took a pretty average team to the finals.

If we knew these guys would be injury free, Baron, Bibby and Kidd - no problem. But I dont think our team would be as good with a me-first PG like Iverson, Francis and Marbury. We need the PG to know that Timmay is the man.

If the Spurs were to replace Tony, I would hope that Manu and Devin and Barry could pick up the scoring load enough so that they could get a true point guard in the Andre Miller mold.

Penny probably plays more SG than PG now. Rose plays 1, 2, and 3. Hard to define him, but I threw him up for fun.

You're right about Penny. I typed the wrong words. Rose isn't going to see a lot of time at the point this season I don't believe.

I have never been a fan of NVE. He is trouble everywhere he goes. Lots of talent, but no one wants him. LA>Denver>Dallas>GSW>Portland

He's too fragile. But that still doesn't mean that Tony should make more just because he stays healthy. NVE was a mistake some GM would like to take back.

You can never tell with teams. Two years ago, we would have all said the same about Denver. They make some big signings, draft Melo, trade for KMart, and they are a top team.

That's true, but there simply aren't many teams that will be under the cap. Denver made a commitment to winning. Even with new ownership in Atlanta, we haven't seen much evidence of them trying to improve the team. TP is going to have crappy options next summer. He's going to find himself either coming back to the Spurs or playing on a crappy team.

2pac

11-01-2004, 02:19 PM

Those players may carry the load, but that doesnt mean the Spurs would be better with them rather than Tony.

Brodels

11-01-2004, 02:30 PM

Those players may carry the load, but that doesnt mean the Spurs would be better with them rather than Tony.

And likewise, that doesn't mean that the Spurs should overpay for Parker.

tekdragon

11-01-2004, 02:31 PM

Remember when Derrick Anderson was also screwed by the Spurs. He was one of Duncan's best friends, and don't forget another friend of Duncan who the spurs also let go. Antonio Daniels. And now Parker? I personally believe Duncan chose SA over the rest was because of loyalty, but when there not being loyal to him just by keeping a group of players he enjoys playing with is really pushing his buttons.

By using this logic to say we should pay TP now you're saying we should have paid to keep DA and AD. In which case, we wouldn't have any available money to keep TP and we definitely couldn't have kept Manu. DA would probably be hurt half the time and crying the other. I loved DA when he was here and thought they should have paid him to keep him here at the time.

The Spurs chose to act with fiscal responsibility, and guess what?

They turned out to be right.

Marcus Bryant

11-01-2004, 02:43 PM

The issue with DAnderson and AD was that DRob was going to be retiring within the next couple of years when they were free agents. The Spurs wanted the flexibility to be able to build around Duncan once DRob retired, including potentially adding a second superstar.

As it stands now the Spurs are pretty much locked in to their current roster. Also, again, the struggles the Spurs had in free agency from 2001-2004 pretty much cast doubt on the desirability of pursuing other teams' free agents for the small market Spurs. With Parker you do have a significant young talent who is quite willing to stay long term in San Antonio. That's not exactly easy to come by.