One Fan's Opinion: Penny For Your Thoughts

[Kori Ellis]

One Fan's Opinion: Penny For Your Thoughts

By Scott Blackwell
Spurs Fan

A scary thing happened this week. I picked up the paper to read that negotiations between the Spurs and point guard Tony Parker and his agent had broken down.

Now certainly Parker was asking for a huge deal -- something on the order of Andrei Kirilenko’s six-year, $86 million dollar deal with the Jazz or Kenyon Martin’s $92 million dollar money grab, that was making the Spurs ownership think twice.

But come to find out, it’s all over two million dollars. The best point guard in Spurs history and his agent are asking for $68 million (with Tony reportedly willing to come down to $66 million) while the “noble” Spurs ownership, led by one Peter Holt, won’t go one penny higher than $64 million.

So this is what it’s come to Spurs fans. A franchise that has thrown max dollars, the chance to play with the league’s best in Tim Duncan, a rabid fan base, and the opportunity to win multiple championships at the likes of Chris Webber, Jason Kidd, Jermaine O’Neal, and Kobe Bryant only to come up empty is risking a dynasty over two million dollars.

Let’s break that down a little more. Two million dollars over six years -- that’s roughly $333,000 per year over the life of the contract. Using the Spurs 2003-04 attendance figures, spreading that measly $330,000 and change out over 41 home games (not even including playoff outings) at 18,042 Spurs fans per contest, the cost to Spurs fans over the next six years would be a whopping forty-five cents a person.

Forty-five cents to each silver and black loving, wannabe French speaking Spurs fan to see a 22-year-old point guard whom some NBA general managers already have pegged as a top five point guard pick and roll his way to league titles over the next six years with “Teemmie.”

The other four standing in way of Tony laying claim to the title of best PG in the league? A rapidly aging Jason Kidd, soon to be 35-year-old Sam Cassell, former Maverick Steve Nash, and Brooklyn baller Stephon Marbury (the latter being the only one under the age of 30).

Not exactly bad company for one of the league’s youngest point guards, if not the fastest. (Did I mention he already has a Championship ring?).

Let’s face it -- the Spurs aren’t going to get the league’s max players to come to San Antonio, for whatever the reason. And with the Spurs locking up Tim Duncan, Rasho Nesterovic, Manu Ginobili, Malik Rose, Bruce Bowen, and Brent Barry to long-term deals in recent summers, the Spurs organization is effectively capped out for the remainder of the Tim Duncan era.

So why not give Tony his money, and give Tim, Manu, and the rest of the Spurs team, let alone the city of San Antonio and Spurs fans everywhere, reassurance that winning is a priority in San Antonio, not just a nice benefit while Holt waits in line at NBA headquarters to pick up that luxury tax check?

There’s only one answer to that question, and it’s that Peter Holt is cheap.

You can’t spin this any other way. The Spurs ownership group has pulled in over $25 million in league payouts in recent years thanks to the NBA’s luxury tax. They have a sweetheart arena deal and they would be guaranteed ample playoff revenue every year with the Tim-Manu-Tony triumvirate. They boast an ownership group that includes USAA, HEB, and SBC Communications.

Mr. Holt, the fans of the Spurs have come to expect the best from you and the ownership group. The franchise is regarded by Forbes as one of the most valuable in all of sports, and has already laid claim to two NBA championships with the possibility of more on the horizon. And yet you’re ready to nickel and dime one of the keys to a ring (possibly several) because “it's the right thing to do."

Penny for your thoughts? I’ve got forty-five.

[whottt]

Who is Scott on this board? That was really an excellent article. Point made.

[Kori Ellis]

AggieHoopsFan

[whottt]

I take back my previous statement...even though we have a shared political view right now...I can't go around praising a damn aggie like that. Forget I mentioned it :).

[Brodels]

We can say that Holt is being a cheap bastard, and that may be true. But I think it's a little more complex than this.

Even if Holt give up another two million, it isn't certain that the deal will get done. Equally hard is figuring out incentives, deferred payments, and other details. And we really don't know that Parker would have taken $66 million anyway. Once the Spurs agree to pay $66 million, does the price jump to $70 million once Parker's agent smells blood?

We know exactly how much the Spurs were willing to pay, but we aren't entirely sure about what Parker would accept.

I think that Holt should get a lot of the blame, but I think it's also a lot more complicated than simply blaming Holt for allegedly refusing to pay $2 million more.

[ZStomp]

Great article AggieHoopsFan. Unlike whott, I'm an Aggie supporter.

Gig 'em!

[aidaem]

While I am not a big fan of the young Parker boy, due to his ego being bigger than his current skills, I do think they should sign him. The spurs have demonstrated in the past 3 years how hard it is to find a point guard.

Don't throw a pebble into our pond by creating a stressful year for the players. Sign with the boy, and lets get ready to win a 3rd ring.

[BronxCowboy]

...due to his ego being bigger than his current skills...
What the fuck?!?!

[gophergeorge]

What the fuck?!?!


He does have somewhat of a point....

I love TP, but I his 4th quarter meltdowns could be a reason Holt won't pull the trigger just yet...

[bigzak25]

I find it hard to believe Pop is not on board with the "Holt" decision.

as some have mentioned, sugar bear, and someone else, it's a case of good cop bad cop....

but i do agree that if 66 million would get it done, then, yeah...GET IT DONE....

worst case scenario is you have a Golden nugget in all future trade talks....i.e. parker/malik or parker/rasho for a legit big....yeah, i have wetdreams of ben wallace next to TD....sue me....and yes i realize it's just a dream....

[BigVee]

I am so sick of reading about Parker's "4th quarter meltdowns." What games are you watching? The Spurs games of the past few years I watch take on a familiar pattern in the 4th quarter. The Spurs come out to shut down the opponent with generally their best defensive team on the floor. The opposing team makes a concentrated effort to clog the middle and shutdown Duncan, knowing he is the only real scoring threat in crunch time. With Duncan being unselfish the ball comes back out to Tony much more often than in the first three quarters, usually with limited time on the shot clock. That means Tony now has to make quicker decisions, create something for himself with the middle clogged up, or (and this is what usually happens) creates an opportunity for Bowen, Rasho, or maybe Hedo or Rose and watch them gag and either clank the ball off the rim or turn it over.

Now the score starts to tightens up. As it does, Pop demands perfect execution and even more pressure is on Tony to make perfect decisions with the clock always winding down. The answer is to have other players who can make plays and hit shots that will keep the middle open. To be more creative with the 4th quarter offense and not the predictable...throw it in to #21.

Tony doesn't melt down, the game changes. The defense changes. Our offense doesn't. Sure he takes some bad shots, but most of the other guys are just standing around at this point. My God, last year Hedo couldn't even catch a pass if he had to move his arms more than a few inches.

There is plenty of 4th quarter blame to go around, starting with the coach.

[Karl Mundt]

Let’s break that down a little more. Two million dollars over six years -- that’s roughly $333,000 per year over the life of the contract. Using the Spurs 2003-04 attendance figures, spreading that measly $330,000 and change out over 41 home games (not even including playoff outings) at 18,042 Spurs fans per contest, the cost to Spurs fans over the next six years would be a whopping forty-five cents a person.

Actually, 2.000.000$ for 6 years is 333.333$/year, is 8130$ for every home game, divided by 18,042 tickets sold every home game that comes to 45 cents per ticket

So 45 cents per person would only count if that person were only to buy one ticket in the next 6 years. However a season ticket holder would pay 18,48$ a season and 110,85$ during the next 6 years.

Just a penny for your thought. Or should i say 11.085 of them :p

[Brodels]

I am so sick of reading about Parker's "4th quarter meltdowns." What games are you watching? The Spurs games of the past few years I watch take on a familiar pattern in the 4th quarter. The Spurs come out to shut down the opponent with generally their best defensive team on the floor. The opposing team makes a concentrated effort to clog the middle and shutdown Duncan, knowing he is the only real scoring threat in crunch time. With Duncan being unselfish the ball comes back out to Tony much more often than in the first three quarters, usually with limited time on the shot clock. That means Tony now has to make quicker decisions, create something for himself with the middle clogged up, or (and this is what usually happens) creates an opportunity for Bowen, Rasho, or maybe Hedo or Rose and watch them gag and either clank the ball off the rim or turn it over.

Now the score starts to tightens up. As it does, Pop demands perfect execution and even more pressure is on Tony to make perfect decisions with the clock always winding down. The answer is to have other players who can make plays and hit shots that will keep the middle open. To be more creative with the 4th quarter offense and not the predictable...throw it in to #21.

Tony doesn't melt down, the game changes. The defense changes. Our offense doesn't. Sure he takes some bad shots, but most of the other guys are just standing around at this point. My God, last year Hedo couldn't even catch a pass if he had to move his arms more than a few inches.

There is plenty of 4th quarter blame to go around, starting with the coach.

When opponents want to neutralize Tony, they can do it by simply paying more attention to him like the Lakers did. That's the thing that concerns me. The best players can still be effective in some way even if defenses tighten up on them. Parker hasn't been able to score or get opportunities for others when the defense has tightened up on him.

What if he never overcomes that? Now teams have a blueprint on how to stop the Spurs. Tony needs to adjust on the court, and he's never really been very good at that. To me, that's what distinguishes the top-tier point guards from guys a step or two below like Tony.

[BigVee]

That's fair. But, he still needs help. No one can do it alone.

[boutons]

"paying more attention to him like the Lakers did. That's the thing that concerns me."

I would put only MJ and Kobe in that class who could, sometimes, single-handedly escape special treatment on the perimeter.

The rest need help from the entire team, and the coaching, to avoid being neutralized.

And vs Lakers, all of the Spurs and coaching failed simultaneously in the most spectacular, mysterious ways, not just Tony.

[Solid D]

They didn't just pay more attention to Tony. They packed the lane and played him very physical.

The poor showings that Tony has had, and he has had a few, tend to coincide with when his outside shot isn't falling and the transition offense is limited. NJ did it and so did LA in certain games, so Speedy and Steve Kerr had to come to the rescue in 2003 but neither were there to rescue him in 2004...only Jason Hart and Charlie Ward.

[Brodels]

"paying more attention to him like the Lakers did. That's the thing that concerns me."

I would put only MJ and Kobe in that class who could, sometimes, single-handedly escape special treatment on the perimeter.

The rest need help from the entire team, and the coaching, to avoid being neutralized.

And vs Lakers, all of the Spurs and coaching failed simultaneously in the most spectacular, mysterious ways, not just Tony.

It's not so much that he couldn't score. I'm more concerned with the fact that once the Lakers took away the lane, Parker wasn't able to help his team much at all. If the defense is paying more attention to you, as a point guard, you should be able to get other players easy baskets.

[Solid D]

Quotes from game 3 last year: "Today we made a conscious effort to focus on him," Payton said. "Anytime he moved to the basket we collided on him, and it made a big difference when everybody is jumping at you."

"They played physical, but the team that's playing more aggressive wins," Parker said. "And L.A. did both today, physical and aggressive."

[Kori Ellis]

When opponents want to neutralize Tony, they can do it by simply paying more attention to him like the Lakers did. That's the thing that concerns me. The best players can still be effective in some way even if defenses tighten up on them. Parker hasn't been able to score or get opportunities for others when the defense has tightened up on him.

What if he never overcomes that? Now teams have a blueprint on how to stop the Spurs. Tony needs to adjust on the court, and he's never really been very good at that. To me, that's what distinguishes the top-tier point guards from guys a step or two below like Tony.

Brodels, you are one of the better posters on the forum. But I can't believe you pin that all on Tony. Go look at the tapes. Pin it on the coaching staff for not running anything else. NOBODY could have done anything in that situation. It's not on Tony.

[Brodels]

Brodels, you are one of the better posters on the forum. But I can't believe you pin that all on Tony. Go look at the tapes. Pin it on the coaching staff for not running anything else. NOBODY could have done anything in that situation. It's not on Tony.

I'm not putting all the blame on Tony. Tim, Pop, Hedo, and other struggled to make adjustments. But Tony is supposed to be the on-court leader. I would have liked to see him do something to get his team some baskets. Too often, he continued to get trapped in the lane or he took bad jumpers. I simply think he could have done more. That's what great point guards do.

Tony is a very good point guard and he certainly isn't the only one to blame, but do you really believe that he couldn't have made some on-court adjustments after recognizing that the defense would be geared towards stopping him? He's the floor leader. Aside from Tim Duncan, Tony was in the best position to make adjustments, get opportunities for his teammates, and change the outcome of the series.

Again, that doesn't mean that I don't like Tony. I appreciate what he can do. But I'm hoping he'll become better able to deal with those types of situations.

[Kori Ellis]

I just don't think there was much he could do when they just kept running the same crap plays over and over. Tony to penetrate or Tim to post up. It wasn't working and the coaching staff should have adjusted.

By the way, all the guys you are naming it that other thread that you'd "rather have" here than Tony are laughable. You are naming franchise guys and ballhogs that would never fit into the Spurs system. To put Baron Davis on your list is a freakin' joke, do you realize how much he shoots and how he can't be reined in to play team ball? You can't just pick out guys with more talent and say they are better fits. You should know Spurs basketball better than that. It's about the parts fitting together to run the machine.

[Solid D]

One of the problems in last year's playoff shooting debacle is gone - "Hedon't"

Horry's shooting was also part of the problem but he's back this year. The other things Robert did were very good but his shooting versus the Lakers was abyssmal.

No Stephen Jackson. No Steve Kerr. No Speedy Claxton...last year.

It's a new year so Brent Barry replaces Hedo and Beno replaces Jason-Ward. Tony needs to shoot better, or somebody had better shoot better, when the opposition packs it in or the Spurs will suffer a similar fate this season.

[BigVee]

Kori is right. That's why I asked the question, "how many PG's would trade Tony for straight up? " Very few, if any, in my opinion. By the way is the bookie money right for you Kori, $3?

[Kori Ellis]

I bet the rest of my money on the election.

[Brodels]

I just don't think there was much he could do when they just kept running the same crap plays over and over. Tony to penetrate or Tim to post up. It wasn't working and the coaching staff should have adjusted.

In-game adjustments are the responsibility of both the coaches and the players. While Pop should have made some adjustments, the point guard is in the best position to actually make the little changes that can make a difference. Pop keeps a tight leash on his players sometimes, but Tony still had the chance to read the defense and put the ball where it needed to go.


By the way, all the guys you are naming it that other thread that you'd "rather have" here than Tony are laughable. You are naming franchise guys and ballhogs that would never fit into the Spurs system. To put Baron Davis on your list is a freakin' joke, do you realize how much he shoots and how he can't be reined in to play team ball? You can't just pick out guys with more talent and say they are better fits. You should know Spurs basketball better than that. It's about the parts fitting together to run the machine.

I'll stick with Bibby and a healthy Kidd for certain. Iverson would be interesting, and I think he could be a good fit. I'll admit that Marbury and Davis are a stretch.

Despite all the talk about a new motion offense and the growth of Tony and Manu, the problem last season was the one that has plagued the Spurs for years: nobody could consistently put the ball in the hole other than Duncan, and even wasn't aggressive enough and it showed.

The Spurs needed a pure scorer. Manu really doesn't fit that mold. Tony was the closest thing they had to a pure scorer, but once the defense turned up the heat, he couldn't score or get his teammates baskets.

Marbury, Davis, and Iverson would be questionable fits in the Spurs' system, but they would have addressed the problem that has limited the team for years.

If a core of Parker, Manu, Duncan, and Rasho wasn't good enough last season, are the Spurs simply a role player or two away from winning a title or does the core need to improve? I'm going to believe the latter. Can Parker and Manu improve enough to provide the consistent offense the team will need to win a title? I don't know. I think it's certainly possible, but it's not a given.

And if it doesn't happen, you need to at least consider adding some more offensively-minded players. And Marbury, Iverson, and Davis can score. Even if we think they wouldn't be a good fit, it certainly is valid to wonder if the Spurs would be better off with their offensive abilities.

[Kori Ellis]

I might give you Bibby and AI. I've always thought if AI was in a situation where he didn't have to do everything on his own, he'd be awesome. But either way, I think for $64-68M Tony Parker is the perfect long-term fit for the Spurs.

[boutons]

The Spurs played NBA Championship basketball throughout a season-ending SPAM streak (includes @SAC, @LAL, etc), plus an embarrassing sweep of MEM whom a lot here simply didn't want to face in the playoffs.

ie, the Spurs last season had what it takes, offense and defense, to win it all.

Now if one new shooter can shoot his career avgs for the Spurs, and the Spurs shoot their 03/04 season averages again this season AND AND AND do it in the playoffs, we win.

The unending pre-occupation with finding new talent is a fun and sterile distraction, but detracts from what we have now.

[Brodels]

I might give you Bibby and AI. I've always thought if AI was in a situation where he didn't have to do everything on his own, he'd be awesome. But either way, I think for $64-68M Tony Parker is the perfect long-term fit for the Spurs.

I think Parker is good fit, too.

But if the Spurs happen to lose in the playoffs again because they don't have enough offensive talent, what do you do then?

If Parker signs, the Spurs will either be creating a dynasty or building a team that comes up short every year and can't be fixed. There is a fine line between the two. I'm not comfortable believing that signing Tony will lead to multiple championships. I'm also not comfortable believing that signing Tony would make it difficult for the Spurs to do what it takes to win in the future. It's just too early to tell.

But if one, two, three years pass and the Spurs don't win - and I'm not saying that it will happen or that it's likely to happen, only that it might happen - I'll be willing to try a Stephon Marbury.

[Brodels]

The Spurs played NBA Championship basketball throughout a season-ending SPAM streak (includes @SAC, @LAL, etc), plus an embarrassing sweep of MEM whom a lot here simply didn't want to face in the playoffs.

ie, the Spurs last season had what it takes, offense and defense, to win it all.

Now if one new shooter can shoot his career avgs for the Spurs, and the Spurs shoot their 03/04 season averages again this season AND AND AND do it in the playoffs, we win.

The unending pre-occupation with finding new talent is a fun and sterile distraction, but detracts from what we have now.

It's more than a distraction, it's a fact: the offense couldn't provide enough punch when it counted most. There is a reason why the Spurs' shooters failed, and it had little to do with luck. Proven playoff performers don't pull a Hedo for an entire series.

The Mavs and Kings play great during the regular season, too, but they shrivel up when it matters most. I'm not comparing the Spurs to those teams, but it's interesting to note that the Spurs collapsed at the precise moment that the most talented team in the conference turned up the heat. The Spurs lost because the Lakers were better.

Championship basketball doesn't mean anything during the regular season. If you don't play championship basketball in the playoffs, you'll lose. It's that simple.

The Spurs will have another chance this season. I hope that they win. I think they have a decent chance. But if they don't, and if the offense struggles in the playoff, the Spurs will quite possibly be able to blame a lack of offensive firepower for their struggles yet again.

[BigVee]

This issue will eventually be answered on the court. I too would like to see more offense, but that is not the coaching mindset. Too bad we don't have off and def coordinators like in FB. That way we wouldn't have our point guard in the corner with the ball at the end of a game needing to shoot but too screwed up from the coach's BS to take the shot.