Tony Parker as 6th man, 25 minutes a game. Fresh for playoffs. Not injured. Not tired. Doesn't have to worry about much, except scoring points.
Sounds good to me.
Printable View
Tony Parker as 6th man, 25 minutes a game. Fresh for playoffs. Not injured. Not tired. Doesn't have to worry about much, except scoring points.
Sounds good to me.
Sure, but only if you've completely given up on re-signing TP to a long=term contract and are OK with him walking way next summer for nothing in return.Quote:
Originally Posted by TJastal
The guy couldn't stand watching Hill play in front of him.
That comment was was, specifically, directed at TJ. I wasn't talking to you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chomag
That comment was, specifically, directed at you. I was talking to you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Obstructed_View
The attitude remains for anyone that doesn't share your opinion or dares to challenge your bogus facts.Quote:
Originally Posted by ohmwrecker
That's absolutely untrue, there were no bogus "facts" and we are having the same argument on two different threads now. I answered you already and I'm not threatened by the stalking.Quote:
Originally Posted by Obstructed_View
You utter this like its some kind of gospel truth. If true, then it's very simple.. he's not a team player, and the spurs don't need him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dunc n Dave
Or, you could be misinterpreting the comment. Tony is obviously a team player and has proven it time and time again. He doesn't want to lose his starting job because he is a fierce competitor and undoubtedly believes he is the best man for the job. Which he is. It has absolutely nothing to with George Hill.Quote:
Originally Posted by TJastal
Quote:
Originally Posted by ulosturedge
+1.Quote:
Originally Posted by ohmwrecker
People seem to forget that before his injury plagued season he had his best season. Two years ago people were talking about Duncan handing the reigns to TP. If Tony is healthy he should return to the top 5 pg he was 2 years ago. There is 0% chance Tony comes off the bench unless he gets injured again.
But he wasn't the best man for the job, last year. Hill was the best man for the job because he (along with Ginobili) opened up the court with their 3pt range (which created driving lanes for RJ) and also allowed Jefferson to become more active in the offense (via Manu's passing). What people need to understand is this does not mean Hill>Parker, all this is saying is Hill fits in the starting lineup better with those two players.Quote:
Originally Posted by ohmwrecker
And since Popovich brought essentially the same cast of characters back (IE Jefferson) its not going to be any different this year. Unless Pop is planning to have RJ/Manu come off the bench as a pair (which could be an option too but then who is the starting sf, Hairston or Gee? Bonner!?)
Just seems like every way I look at it, Parker as 6th man makes sense. 24 year old George Hill is only going to keep getting better and better as a point guard and will over time start to develop some playmaking skills so he's at least at a respectable 5-6 assists a game.
If Tony gets injured and can't play, how will he come off the bench?Quote:
Originally Posted by Trimble87
Tony came off the bench last season when he was returning from injury or when he had a minor injury and couldn't play big minutes. Same thing could happen next year if he has more minor injuries.Quote:
Originally Posted by TJastal
I love Hill, but expecting him to make the jump to 5-6 apg next season is crazy. Hill has in no way shown he can play PG in the NBA yet. I believe Tony will start and Hill will come off the bench, but I also believe most nights we will have Tony and Hill on the floor to end the game with RJ on the bench. Regardless of who starts Tony is going to get 33+ minutes and Hill is going to get 20-30 (depending on how many minutes Anderson, Neal etc get at SG.)Quote:
Originally Posted by TJastal
You're using a lot of words to say nothing. The reason the Spurs were able to improve when Tony was out was more due to Manu getting healthy and peaking at an opportune time than anything George Hill did as a point guard. Don't get me wrong George Hill is a great young talent, but he is still learning the position. You don't put a kid who hasn't quite grasped the position ahead of a (when healthy) Top 5 PG.Quote:
Originally Posted by TJastal
How did it happen last year?Quote:
Originally Posted by TJastal
Well now that you brought up Parker's injuries, planar fascitis is not a "minor" injury and could flare up again this year (hopefully not).Quote:
Originally Posted by Trimble87
Given Parker's history of injuries combined with his relative age and mileage, it's really all the more reason to keep his minutes pruned, which should help keep him fresh and injury free all year. What better way to do this than by having him step back into the spurs' 6th man role?
Are we talking about Manu Ginobili or Tony Parker here? What kind of history of injuries was there before last season? He's had an ankle sprain or two, but other than that he's been pretty healthy for the Spurs. He's only 28.Quote:
Originally Posted by TJastal
You mean before he opted out right?Quote:
Originally Posted by cheguevara
Quote:
Originally Posted by TJastal
Quote:
Originally Posted by ohmwrecker
Welcome to the wild, wolly and wonderful world of TJastal. Everything's either exaggerated, hated upon, or just plain incorrect.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dunc n Dave
In this instance, it's all of the above. :tu
The Spurs re-sign Richard Jefferson for a great deal of money
By Kelly Dwyer
http://a323.yahoofs.com/ymg/ept_spor...YnjfDD4LIJ7bx9
You would think you've been around the block a few times when it comes to the NBA. That you've whittled the league down to two things you can count on, time and again.
Players will always overrate their own value. And the San Antonio Spurs do everything right.
So that's why the news, which hit late last month about Richard Jefferson opting out of the last year of a contract that would pay him $15 million next season, always made sense. Not for Jefferson -- it was possible he could have snagged a nice deal on the open market, but by and large it was assumed he was nuts because nobody would overpay for someone who was so miserable on the court last season -- but in NBA terms. It made sense because the guy was overrating his own value.
And even when it became apparent the Spurs would be the team to re-sign Jefferson -- that they had been working in concert with him to encourage the opt out, and would be engineering a penny-foolish, pound-wise deal to aid him into his 30s -- it still made sense. The Spurs, you watch, will do everything right.
Then the news hits yesterday. Jefferson re-signs for four years, $38.8 million. Guh. And the fourth year, which everyone assumed to be non-guaranteed, is actually a player option. As if Jefferson is going to think twice about wanting to be paid $11 million in 2013-14.
But the Spurs ... the Spurs did this? The rules! THE RULES!
How many fouls do you get a game, again?
This was a pretty nice move from the Spurs, to say the least. Swell guys, those Spurs. They had all the bargaining power on their side, and still went ahead and gave the guy a ton of dough. Why?
Teams have hubris, too. They think they can shoehorn any type of player into their system no matter how much on-court struggles are around as proof to the contrary. Jefferson looked absolutely clueless with the Spurs last season. But they're forgetting last season, which they're right to do, and thinking about last summer. When we lauded them incessantly for grabbing Jefferson, a corner 3-point shootin' machine who can defend and get to the line.
They think, with another year's tutelage, that this guy can come back for them. And I can't blame them for this. They're more than likely right. And not just in the "they're the Spurs" context.
What's become obvious is that Jefferson the player, even if overpaid, is worth more to the Spurs than that empty slot and the potential for cap and payroll flexibility. That's not always the case in this league, and with so many players disappointing or contracts going over the top (in order to mitigate that "hey, they need a warm body there"-ness). It's something we often forget.
What I just wonder about, still, is the length and the terms.
Jefferson is 30. Now, the Spurs are his buddy, right? And just to be real, real cool buddies, they're operating under the pre-2011 mindset. The one that tells you that guys like Richard can always get something close to the average salary on the open market. Because that's what Jefferson, if shopping himself this year or next, would have probably been offered. Even with a team like Chicago needing wing help.
So let's say Jefferson opts in, makes his $15 million, and then signs a three-year deal next summer with some other team for $16 million total. That's $31 million over four years, and again, this is working under the assumption that the current salary rules hold up. Which they won't. Next year, all those three-year, $16 million contracts we've seen for years could be three-year, $9 million contracts.
But just for Jefferson's sake, let's assume he was going to grab a near-average deal under the current landscape. Combine the two deals? Overall, four years, $31 million. A bit of a disconnect from four years, $38.8 million, eh?
The Spurs did this guy a favor. He turned 30 earlier this summer and has seen his per-minute contributions decline two years in a row. He could bounce back for a season or even two, and the Spurs need someone at his position. But nearly eight-figures-a-year "need"?
What a summer!
Is it an exaggeration to say that Parker has accumulated a good chunk of mileage ... combined reg season/playoffs almost 27,000 minutes + a ton of mileage from playing w/ France in past world cups?Quote:
Originally Posted by Agloco
Is it incorrect to point out that Parker's style (which has always been full throttle and hit the deck hard), probably isn't conducive to a long career, and his body is already showing signs of breaking down the past two years with numerous injuries?
And the hatred.. oh the hatred!! .. for Tjastal to suggest the spurs might be best served by actually monitoring Parker's minutes to keep him fresh and healthy all year just as they have done with Ginobili and Duncan.
Blow-me-co... you are the messiah... you must unite the brethren against this evil!
TP did seem tired and fatigued most of last year - at least when he wasn't injured. However, what affected his play the most, was NOT having taken the summer off and resting his body. Couple that with the fact the got injured too and one can see why his production waned. As a result, he never quite got back to his All-NBA status from 2009.Quote:
Originally Posted by TJastal
As the youngest member of the Spurs' Big Three, Parker is only 28 (maybe 29)years old. His minutes doesn't need to be preserved. He simply needed to do what he's done - REST. Starting working out and dedicated himself toward getting back to that all-star level of 2009.
As for the notion of him coming off the bench, if you think TP will be content with that proposal - think again. He's as much as told us all that this offseason. During all the swirling hoopla about him being traded away, he claimed that his "heart was still in San Antonio" and that "this is the place he wanted to be". IIRC, he went onto say that so long as he was back in the starting lineup, he'd be ok. Unlike Manu, who has grown accustomed to the 6th man role, the starting job is something that is very important to Tony. He would never be content if Pop benched him again.