Ludden: Spurs, Parker at impasse

[Kori Ellis]

Spurs, Parker at impasse
Web Posted: 11/01/2004 12:00 AM CST

Johnny Ludden
Express-News Staff Writer

http://www.mysanantonio.com/sports/basketball/nba/spurs/stories/MYSA110104.3D.BKNspurs.parker.11583cac.html

The Spurs and Tony Parker moved no closer Sunday to agreeing on a contract extension, leaving them less than 24 hours to complete negotiations before the NBA's deadline expires late tonight.

Spurs officials spoke again with team chairman Peter Holt on Sunday, but he has so far refused to increase his $64 million offer. Parker is seeking at least an additional $2 million for the six-year deal.

If an agreement is not reached by 11 p.m. today, Parker will become a restricted free agent at the end of the season.

"We'll see what happens (today)," said Spurs coach Gregg Popovich, who has said he is disappointed with ownership's decision to not improve its offer.

"But we're all professionals and we're all trying to do the best we can. Everything is clear. Everybody has been honest with everybody. Everything has been above-board, as it always is in our organization.

"Either a contract gets done or it doesn't. But Tony is a guy who is going to be here for a long time."

That remains to be seen. The Spurs will have the right to match any offer sheet Parker signs this summer, but Holt has admitted the team may have to pay more than what Parker is currently seeking.

Spurs officials think they might be able to get Parker to agree on a $66 million deal, but Holt said Saturday he does not want to increase the team's offer because the NBA's collective bargaining agreement expires at the end of the season. At the least, league officials hope to shorten the maximum length of guaranteed contracts in the new agreement.

Because Parker is only 22 and might still be years away from entering his prime, a shorter deal probably wouldn't impact him as much as it would other players. Regardless, even Holt admitted there's a good chance Parker will command a larger annual salary next summer — and perhaps force the Spurs to pay a greater luxury-tax penalty.

Holt is a member of the league's labor committee, which is negotiating with the players' union on a new agreement. One source involved in the negotiations between Parker and the Spurs speculated Holt might be reluctant to increase his offer in part because of his position on the committee.

After saying early last week he was "very confident" a deal could be reached by the deadline, Parker has grown increasingly frustrated in recent days.

"Either we get it done now or we get it done later," Popovich said. "Obviously, I'd rather get it done now, but if ownership decides otherwise then we'll live with that, too, and we'll go on like big boys. That's the name of the game."

[Kori Ellis]

If an agreement is not reached by 11 p.m. today, Parker will become a restricted free agent at the end of the season.

Well they have another full day to get it done, but it doesn't seem hopeful at all. :(

[timvp]

One source involved in the negotiations between Parker and the Spurs speculated Holt might be reluctant to increase his offer in part because of his position on the committee.

Exactly what I've been saying. It is all political. Holt knows that if he pays up, you loses his voice at the owners meetings.

And he'd rather live up to his responsibilities to the owners than his responosibilities to the Spurs.

Pathetic.

[mattyc]

"Either a contract gets done or it doesn't. But Tony is a guy who is going to be here for a long time."


Hmmm. I hope so...

[Rick Von Braun]

Exactly what I've been saying. It is all political. Holt knows that if he pays up, you loses his voice at the owners meetings.

And he'd rather live up to his responsibilities to the owners than his responosibilities to the Spurs.

Pathetic. With the little information we have, I would tend to agree. Holt seemed to have made his decision based on the money he could save by not getting into the luxury tax territory, and by his political position in the upcoming CBA negotiation.

I also strongly believe that Pop is playing the good guy to leave open bridges in a future negotiation with Parker and his agent next Summer. I do think Pop and Holt are perfectly in synch with this decision.

This can only motivate Tony to have a spectacular year. After the new CBA is done next Summer, I think Holt will agree to a nice contract for Tony.

[ShoogarBear]

I also strongly believe that Pop is playing the good guy to leave open bridges in a future negotiation with Parker and his agent next Summer. I do think Pop and Holt are perfectly in synch with this decision.


That's what I've been saying all along. Pop and Holt have this whole thing choreographed. What surprises me is how many people have swallowed that Pop actually "disagrees" with Holt. Can you name one other instance where Pop and Holt had a public disagreement? No. Believe me, if Pop really wanted TP to be signed now, he would be.

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

"Either we get it done now or we get it done later," Popovich said. "Obviously, I'd rather get it done now, but if ownership decides otherwise then we'll live with that, too, and we'll go on like big boys. That's the name of the game."

Paging Mr. Park. Paging Mr. T-Park.

Yeah, Parker's being VERY selfish there, isn't he? Just another millionaire arguing over 2-4 million.

Technically, isn't Holt an even bigger millionaire arguing over a couple M?

[spurster]

I guess we should all enjoy TP's last year as a Spur.

[ajwonderboy]

All you downhearted SpursFans sound like a bunch of disenfranchised Libs........Tony's not going anywhere.

One thing throwing a wrench into not only the TP/Spurs talks but also other team/player negotiations right now is the collective bargaining agreement coming to an end this summer; years for guaranteed contracts could end up decreasing, which would affect contact negotiations like Tony's.

I admire Tony for wanting to get the contract done now instead of later. Most players would wait to have a breakout year and then in July demand bigger bucks. If we were players, we'd probably be doing the same thing.

And don't forget Popovich, he's definitely in the mix here. He knows what players he needs to be successful.

Obviously, it's all just millionaires squabbling with millionaires. If we as NBA fans let stuff like this upset us, we'll never EVER get to appreciate the game.

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

All you downhearted SpursFans sound like a bunch of disenfranchised Libs

TPark?

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

:cuss

[FromWayDowntown]

I'm not really sure that I understand what Holt's thinking. Somehow, shelling out the bargain value of $66 million over 6 years to a young, talented PG with a track record is selling out the other owners and costing him voice at league meetings, but shelling out $64 million over 6 years won't?

I'm a bit skeptical that Holt's fellow owners are going to applaud that stance -- in reality, what Holt is doing is ensuring that someone else will shell out big money to Parker next summer, thereby inflating the market again and ultimately hurting the ability of small-market franchises to compete.

Think of it this way, if the market value of Tony Parker's contract is roughly $11 million per year, there are a lot of other point guards whose future contracts will come in below that number. If Parker signs a deal next summer to pay him more like $12-14 million per year, some pretty average points are going to be commanding the kind of money that Tony's willing to take right now. (if the CBA is modified to reduce max years, you can be sure that the players will demand that max dollars is increased or, at the very least, maintained).

[Spurminator]

Let's see... 390 SpursTalk members... divide $2 million... 6 years...

If everybody forks over $855 per year for the next 6, we can do this thing.

[Marcus Bryant]

Perhaps the Spurs are willing to see what level Parker can take it to in a contract year. Still, it's kind of hard to ignore Holt's role in pushing for cap rules that favor smaller markets among NBA owners. Also it seems rather foolish to give up a chance to lock up a player long term now for a reasonable price if you really are inclined to keep him long term.

My guess is that the Spurs have decided to let him go. They can use Parker's restricted free agency next summer to get back something in return for him. I bet Udrih gets significant PT this season and the Spurs hype him all year long.

The Spurs have decided that a team with Duncan is good enough to make them a serious contender every season and that getting those annual $10 mil+ luxury tax payments is rather nice. Unless, perhaps, they can pare down their long term payroll between now and next summer.

[timvp]

That's what I've been saying all along. Pop and Holt have this whole thing choreographed. What surprises me is how many people have swallowed that Pop actually "disagrees" with Holt. Can you name one other instance where Pop and Holt had a public disagreement? No. Believe me, if Pop really wanted TP to be signed now, he would be.

Negative.

[FromWayDowntown]

Still, it's kind of hard to ignore Holt's role in pushing for cap rules that favor smaller markets among NBA owners.

But again, isn't he basically screwing those guys over by ensuring that a player who will command a large salary is available in the free market, rather than signing him at a below market contract?

[Marcus Bryant]

Think about it. Next summer Holt will be pushing his agenda for a new CBA and he will be able to point to Parker as an example of how a small market franchise like his is not able to keep talent under the current rules...

[CosmicCowboy]

yep...sure looks like "good cop, bad cop" to me too.. :oops

[FromWayDowntown]

Think about it. Next summer Holt will be pushing his agenda for a new CBA and he will be able to point to Parker as an example of how a small market franchise like his is not able to keep talent under the current rules...

And all the big market boys will say "well, Peter, you offered him $64 million and all he wanted was $66 million. Do you really expect us to believe that another $2 million over 6 years was going to put you under?" I could understand the reconciliation if Holt's stance had been concrete at some much lower figure on the Spurs' side. I could understand the reconciliation if Parker was asking for Bibby money. But I can't understand the reconciliation when the difference is so minor.

And again, if you're so worried about inflated salaries, why not take this step to lock up a high-dollar type player at an amount that is apparently well below his market value. Isn't that the most prudent and helpful thing to do for his fellow small-market owners -- to readjust the marketplace?

[ChumpDumper]

Crazy, the difference is less than one rookie minimum salary per year. Very tough to justify to anyone.

[Marcus Bryant]

And all the big market boys will say "well, Peter, you offered him $64 million and all he wanted was $66 million. Do you really expect us to believe that another $2 million over 6 years was going to put you under?" I could understand the reconciliation if Holt's stance had been concrete at some much lower figure on the Spurs' side. I could understand the reconciliation if Parker was asking for Bibby money. But I can't understand the reconciliation when the difference is so minor.

It's still great cover for his argument and no doubt will engender sympathy from the 26 other ownership groups excluding NY, Portland, and Dallas. And of course it is a great way to pave Parker's exit out of SA ('I can't afford to pay the max/close to max' for him).

What Holt and other owners want is to reduce the maximum contract length as well as the maximum annual raises. If you think about what can hurt the long term profitability of a team well being stuck with long term contracts is probably at or close to the top of the list. Overall, that would have a greater impact for the smaller market owners than the outcome of Parker's contract negotiations.

San Antonio almost always believes the crap that the Spurs advance about having operating losses and also the 'greediness' of their own free agents. Parker will be made out to be a greedy little bastard and of course 'that Oodrick boy ain't tew bad' will be an oft heard sentiment next summer.




And again, if you're so worried about inflated salaries, why not take this step to lock up a high-dollar type player at an amount that is apparently well below his market value. Isn't that the most prudent and helpful thing to do for his fellow small-market owners -- to readjust the marketplace?

Well sure, that might make sense. Now why has he decided not to do that? See above.

[Spurminator]

We may be speculating a bit too much on the $66 million figure... That's just an estimate of what Parker and Fleisher might agree to. Their standing offer is $70 million, or $1 million more per season. Still a reasonable offer, IMO, but I don't know that we can expect Holt to approach that number if necessary.

[FromWayDowntown]

It's still great cover for his argument and no doubt will engender sympathy from the 26 other ownership groups excluding NY, Portland, and Dallas. And of course it is a great way to pave Parker's exit out of SA ('I can't afford to pay the max/close to max' for him).

Except, of course, that many of those other 26 ownership groups would gladly pay $66-68 million over 6 years to lock up Tony Parker.


What Holt and other owners want is to reduce the maximum contract length as well as the maximum annual raises. If you think about can hurt the long term profitability of a team well being stuck with long term contracts is probably at the top of the list.

I agree, but I'm also willing to bet that if the owners get shorter max contracts and lower max raises, the players are going to demand that the max salary structure be reworked in their favor. There's no way (short of abject desperation) that the players are going to give in on contract length, contract raises, AND contract maximums. If the owners think they're going to get all of that, I'd be fairly certain that we won't see much NBA basketball for a long period after June of 2005.

I also don't see the albatross issue here. The Spurs gave a 6 year deal to Ginobili, a 6 year deal to Rose, a 6 year deal to Nesterovic, a 7 year deal to Duncan, and a 4 year deal to Bowen without any real public concerns about the length of those commitments. Now all of a sudden, with the youngest and (I think) second most-talented of that group, they're taking a stance on contract lengths?

I'm much more willing to buy the idea that there is some faction within the organization that has decided that Parker needs to go elsewhere. Whoever they are, they should be divested of whatever interests they have in this franchise.

[Marcus Bryant]

Except, of course, that many of those other 26 ownership groups would gladly pay $66-68 million over 6 years to lock up Tony Parker.

How many are enthused about paying $40 million for Brian Cardinal or Adonal Foyle?


I agree, but I'm also willing to bet that if the owners get shorter max contracts and lower max raises, the players are going to demand that the max salary structure be reworked in their favor. There's no way (short of abject desperation) that the players are going to give in on contract length, contract raises, AND contract maximums. If the owners think they're going to get all of that, I'd be fairly certain that we won't see much NBA basketball for a long period after June of 2005.

Sure, the likely area in which the owners will give up will be the starting annual salary ceilings. But what I suspect would happen is that would benefit star and superstar level talent the most. Also, while players would be giving up guaranteed years, they would also be gaining the opportunity to not be locked into a long term deal paying them a below market rate.

[Marcus Bryant]

Putting the best 'hopeful the Spurs re-sign Parker next summer' spin on it that I can, perhaps the Spurs simply want to re-sign him under the next CBA because they would rather reduce the total amount guaranteed to him and they would rather have a contract that escalates less severely than contracts do under the current rules.

Sure, I think overall they would end up paying more for him long term, which is why I am becoming exceedingly pessimistic about Parker's future in SA.

Also, with respect to Ginobili, the Spurs didn't have the option of signing him under the next CBA.

[Spurminator]

Hopefully Parker will WANT to come back next summer.

Considering the Soap Opera that has been his first three seasons with the Spurs, I'm not so sure how confident I am about it.

[FromWayDowntown]

Sure, the likely area in which the owners will give up will be the starting annual salary ceilings. But what I suspect would happen is that would benefit star and superstar level talent the most. Also, while players would be giving up guaranteed years, they would also be gaining the opportunity to not be locked into a long term deal paying them a below market rate.

But, in a case like Parker's that's precisely the point. Parker goes onto the open market with the perception that he is a star or superstar talent. Fleisher can certainly sell him that way because GMs across the NBA have told us that Parker is that kind of talent. If you increase the max salary to benefit star and superstar talent, you're in Fleischer' wheelhouse as a negotiator. His tack, I suspect, would be to argue that Parker is worth somewhere between $64 and $84 million, whether it be over 6 years or 4. Now, I'm not going to buy that any NBA owner will drop $84/4 on Parker, but it's conceivable to me, that Parker could draw pretty close to $64/4 from somebody who's interested in a young, talented point guard. For crissakes, teams may not be that enthused about paying big bucks to the Brian Cardinals, Adonal Foyles, and Malik Roses of the world, but they've been paid that because somebody has set the market at those values (often, teams seeking to vulture those players). In a fairly free market with scarce supply and decided incentives for those who put together the best product, spending on talent speculation will continue, regardless of how the owners try to constrain themselves.

[Marcus Bryant]

Again, it's not star and superstar level talent that concerns Holt and other owners. It's the role player contracts that are the primary concern.

Holt's argument would be something along the lines of...'I can't afford to pay for the star level talent I have because of the long term contracts I had to give to role players in order to stay competitive.'

[FromWayDowntown]

Holt's argument would be something along the lines of...'I can't afford to pay for the star level talent I have because of the long term contracts I had to give to role players in order to stay competitive.'

I can see that point, but it still doesn't seem to be a point that would engender much sympathy from other owners, given the slight margin between what he's offered Tony and what Tony is willing to take.

[maxpower]

Going with the CIA Pop speculation...I would have to say that it is odd that Pop would break his CARDINAL rule of in-house situations and contract talks. Before today, it was not his MO to speak publicly about negotiations.
Moreso the total lack of any mention of the General Manager, R.C. Buford makes it appear that there is a very visible divisibility between the owner and the defacto GM. As others have mentioned this diverts the "Blame" to the owner. Management can now appeal to the player with the argument that they tried everything they could even as far as to go to the media to air their displeasure and disagreement with the owner.

[Marcus Bryant]

But next summer it's probably going to be a Tony Parker who is likely looking at near-max to max offers. I think most people, at least outside of SA, will forget the rather narrow public difference between the two sides of today. Honestly, I believe the Spurs' real goal in these negotiations all along was to reach an impasse, no matter how absurd.

This is the main reason the Spurs suddenly discovered problems last season with Malik Rose and tried to move him for nothing in return. It's been about the long term payroll all along.

[Brodels]

Going with the CIA Pop speculation...I would have to say that it is odd that Pop would break his CARDINAL rule of in-house situations and contract talks. Before today, it was not his MO to speak publicly about negotiations.
Moreso the total lack of any mention of the General Manager, R.C. Buford makes it appear that there is a very visible divisibility between the owner and the defacto GM. As others have mentioned this diverts the "Blame" to the owner. Management can now appeal to the player with the argument that they tried everything they could even as far as to go to the media to air their displeasure and disagreement with the owner.

I think it's more likely that R.C. is a bit of a lame duck GM with Pop in control and that R.C. has less say than both Pop and Holt in matters like this.

[Rick Von Braun]

I think it's more likely that R.C. is a bit of a lame duck GM with Pop in control and that R.C. has less say than both Pop and Holt in matters like this.The Spurs organization is very secretive. We don't know if RC is a figurehead or he just hasn't gone public exercising some restrain.

[ShoogarBear]

The problem with the "lame duck" R. C. theory is that (assuming that R. C. wouldn't want a figurehead position), R. C. could have had (and probably still can get) another GM slot if he wished (you think the Lakers, for instance, wouldn't be interested?).

The way it's currently set up, Pop is blameless, R. C. is blameless, it's all on evil Holt. Since I presume Holt is never actually in the room with any of the agents, that will help smooth any future negotiations between TP or other players.

Pop and R. C. have always had as much power with regard to personnel as they want. I find it difficult to believe that they suddenly have no power in a $2 million decision.

[Brodels]

The problem with the "lame duck" R. C. theory is that (assuming that R. C. wouldn't want a figurehead position), R. C. could have had (and probably still can get) another GM slot if he wished (you think the Lakers, for instance, wouldn't be interested?).

The way it's currently set up, Pop is blameless, R. C. is blameless, it's all on evil Holt. Since I presume Holt is never actually in the room with any of the agents, that will help smooth any future negotiations between TP or other players.

Pop and R. C. have always had as much power with regard to personnel as they want. I find it difficult to believe that they suddenly have no power in a $2 million decision.

I dunno. Maybe you're right. It's tough to say without knowing more about the situation.

[maxpower]

How likely or unlikely is it that the luxury tax will remain in the next CBA? I was under the impression it seemed likely not to be.