The official "legit chris paul trade" thread

The only way we could get Chris Paul is if we get involved in a three team trade. One would think that the other team would just try to get Paul because he is better than Parker but they would be wrong. Lets say the three teams are Spurs,Hornets and Blazers. This trade could work if we could get Tony to agree to a long-term contract and then he would go to the Blazers. The Blazers would take Parker for a guaranteed six years over Paul for two years. We of course get Paul in the trade. The Hornets get a bunch of young prospects from the Blazers and maybe something like temple from the Spurs. After two years with the Spurs Paul could then go to the Knicks to join his super team with Amare and Melo.

Blazers-Roy,Aldridge,Parker-Three very nice pieces to build around, plus they would not have to give away all of their young talent.

Spurs-Get Chris Paul for the remainder of the Duncan era.

Hornets-Get to rebuild with a bunch of nice young pieces from both the Spurs and Blazers.

Actual proposed players:

Spurs-Chris Paul 14.9mil/2yrs

Blazers-Tony Parker new contract 6/yrs,Emeka Okafor 11.4mil/4yrs,J.Wright 2.8mil/1yr

Hornets-R.Fernandez 1.2mil/1yr, N.Batum 1.1mil/1yr, M.Camby 11.7mil/2yrs, J.Pryzybilla 7.2mil/1yr, A.Miller 7.2mil/2yrs

The money works

Wish the front office was working on this trade right now but their probably still looking at the contract they gave to rj.

Who would decline this trade? What do you guys think?

Ibtl

The Tres' special (or close to).

http://es.pn/d2HRF4

the other threads weren't official? Or legit enough for you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jaffies

the other threads weren't official? Or legit enough for you?

---

Dammit, jaffers!

I read 'official' and deemed it necessary to post.

If people don't want me to do and say things they shouldn't suggest that I do and say things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jaffies

the other threads weren't official? Or legit enough for you?

---

No one proposed any logical trades and some thought three team trades were out of the question because the other team would just go after chris paul.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nathan89

Who would decline this trade? What do you guys think?

---

Blazers and Hornets.

The only possible "legit" Chris Paul trades do not involve the Spurs. Move this to the NBA forum, mods.

Edit: The only way NO would trade Paul is in a salary dump, so any proposed trades have to involve the Hornets getting rid of Okafor's contract and probably Posey as well.

Here's to you OP. I salute your attempt to cover up your unoriginality in starting a thread about a topic that's been beaten to death by declaring your thread as "the official" one.

Now if you'll excuse me I'm off to go start "the official" Richard Jefferson thread............

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nathan89

No one proposed any logical trades...

---

You could have.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blackjack

Dammit, jaffers!

---

:chestbump

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nathan89

The only way we could get Chris Paul is if we get involved in a three team trade. One would think that the other team would just try to get Paul because he is better than Parker but they would be wrong. Lets say the three teams are Spurs,Hornets and Blazers. This trade could work if we could get Tony to agree to a long-term contract and then he would go to the Blazers. The Blazers would take Parker for a guaranteed six years over Paul for two years. We of course get Paul in the trade. The Hornets get a bunch of young prospects from the Blazers and maybe something like temple from the Spurs. After two years with the Spurs Paul could then go to the Knicks to join his super team with Amare and Melo.

Blazers-Roy,Aldridge,Parker-Three very nice pieces to build around, plus they would not have to give away all of their young talent.

Spurs-Get Chris Paul for the remainder of the Duncan era.

Hornets-Get to rebuild with a bunch of nice young pieces from both the Spurs and Blazers.

Actual proposed players:

Spurs-Chris Paul 14.9mil/2yrs

Blazers-Tony Parker new contract 6/yrs,Emeka Okafor 11.4mil/4yrs,J.Wright 2.8mil/1yr

Hornets-R.Fernandez 1.2mil/1yr, N.Batum 1.1mil/1yr, M.Camby 11.7mil/2yrs, J.Pryzybilla 7.2mil/1yr, A.Miller 7.2mil/2yrs

The money works

Wish the front office was working on this trade right now but their probably still looking at the contract they gave to rj.

Who would decline this trade? What do you guys think?

---

obligatory

http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u...007/cpflop.gif

If you could get Parker to agree to a long term contract, why trade him?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Obstructed_View

If you could get Parker to agree to a long term contract, why trade him?

---

He would not agree to a long-term contract with the spurs but for the blazers he might. The starting lineup Parker,Roy,Babbit,Aldrige,Oden and 6th man Okafor. That is a young and competitive team for many years.

Quote:

---

The official "legit chris paul trade"

---

*crickets

This is never going to happen, so there is no "legit Chris Paul trade" i cant see the hornets trading him inside the division

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Btown Spur

This is never going to happen, so there is no "legit Chris Paul trade" i cant see the hornets trading him inside the division

---

He will only be on the spurs for the next two years. Their not competing for the championship anyways.

Hornets next year-collison,fernandez,batum,west,camby-bench- pryzbilla,posey, stojakovic, and some other sorry players not terribe but not great but by getthing rid of okafor will mean all their contracts will be done within the next two years. This trade allows them to get almost all the big contracts off the books and hit the FA market in two years while already having a nice pg,sg,sf, and pf if they resign west in two years the age of 32.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nathan89

He would not agree to a long-term contract with the spurs but for the blazers he might.

---

Does your ass have a twitter account? You certainly seem to be pulling a lot of theories from it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nathan89

He would not agree to a long-term contract with the spurs

---

Why would he not? He already said he would. If the Spurs pay him he will. Stop this nonsense.

Also, I don't see how you come up with "the money works" when Parker wans to sign an extension for max money (i.e. roughly what Paul is getting). And also Batum's value to the Blazers is A LOT higher than his $1m per year current salary. Batum will make at least $5m/y in his next contract.

lol legit

Why does Spurstalk still let new people start threads?

Paul is obviously much better then Parker, but would the Hornets take him especially knowing he's going to bolt out of there at the end of the season anyway


Paul comes to SA and Spurs are favorites to win it all

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by will_spurs

Why would he not? He already said he would. If the Spurs pay him he will. Stop this nonsense.

Also, I don't see how you come up with "the money works" when Parker wans to sign an extension for max money (i.e. roughly what Paul is getting). And also Batum's value to the Blazers is A LOT higher than his $1m per year current salary. Batum will make at least $5m/y in his next contract.

---

Okay maybe the money isn't perfect but they can make it work. Who cares what Batums value is they will get parker and okafor in the trade. The line up parker,roy,babbit,aldrige,oden and bench okafor,bayless,wright, and some other pieces to fill in a much better team for years to come. One or two bench players away from being serious contenders this year. Next with mle the will definitely be contenders. On top of that this is a team that will attract the old vets like miami to win a ring.

Also I didn't know that Parker said that he would sign with the spurs if we offered him one. Why would the spurs not want to get him at his lowest value possible right now? Perhaps they do not want to sign him to a long-term contract and the chris paul for two years would be the perfect way to end the duncan era. After that ghill could be the starter and we could get a trade exception from the knicks to pick up a new player. If he will take a contract then that is what I think we should do that but the spurs might not be willing to offer him this a contract. If that is the case then this trade can be a good solution to all the teams involved.

Blazers- Become extremely competitive for years to come.

Spurs-Get to end the duncan era without offering parker a huge contract. Big trade exception after paul from the knicks for a new player of our own.

Hornets-Get rid of a longer contract in okafor which means all their contracts will be up within two years. They get some nice young players with a lot of potential and maybe some draft picks as well to rebuild.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nathan89

Also I didn't know that Parker said that he would sign with the spurs if we offered him one. Why would the spurs not want to get him at his lowest value possible right now?

---

Parker said he wanted max money, and wanted to stay with the Spurs. The Spurs said they wanted him to stay, but I guess they haven't put an offer on the table for max money yet. And I don't think paying RJ $10 million per year is going to help in negotiating a pay cut from Parker. He wants his $15 million per year or so, and will probably get them even with the new CBA. It might come with a S&T if the Spurs decide they can't pay him that much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Basketball Power

Paul is obviously much better then Parker, but would the Hornets take him especially knowing he's going to bolt out of there at the end of the season anyway


Paul comes to SA and Spurs are favorites to win it all

---

Please read again. It is a three team trade and hornets do not get parker.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by will_spurs

Parker said he wanted max money, and wanted to stay with the Spurs. The Spurs said they wanted him to stay, but I guess they haven't put an offer on the table for max money yet. And I don't think paying RJ $10 million per year is going to help in negotiating a pay cut from Parker. He wants his $15 million per year or so, and will probably get them even with the new CBA. It might come with a S&T if the Spurs decide they can't pay him that much.

---

A six year max contract for parker might not sound to good to the spurs front office because after timmy the team will have a significant drop. A two year 14 mil contract is just what the doctor ordered. Like I said we could then get a trade exception and Hill will be a much better point guard to take over.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by will_spurs

Parker said he wanted max money, and wanted to stay with the Spurs. The Spurs said they wanted him to stay, but I guess they haven't put an offer on the table for max money yet. And I don't think paying RJ $10 million per year is going to help in negotiating a pay cut from Parker. He wants his $15 million per year or so, and will probably get them even with the new CBA. It might come with a S&T if the Spurs decide they can't pay him that much.

---

You pretty much said it, so allow me to restate it: The Spurs paid RJ 10 million a year. There's no deciding you can't pay Parker the max once you've done that.

It all depends at what year will Parker have. He already pass on WC, so he wants to show that he deserves max. I hope he will have great year.

I`ll trade Parker for Paul, but a motivated player in contract year is all that you want

I dont see any way we keep Tony if he wants max money. We have to much money tied up and Duncan coming around for an extension. And with Hill and Blair as our future...I dont see how we give Tony a 100 mil contract.

This post is for those people who think that the trade of Parker for Paul would not result in much improvement of the spurs team overall. Although some people think Paul would make us contenders, others think that Paul is only slightly better than Parker and therefore would no make us much better. So lets breakdown some of the attributes that both players have.

Quickness-maybe a slight edge to Parker but it is real close

Passing/Assisting-Paul is much better in this area even if he were on the spurs

Shooting fg%/ft%/3pt%-Paul is better in all of these areas

Rebounding-Paul gets two more per game

Defense/steals-Paul is better at defense and he gets averages two more steals per game over Parker

The breakdown clearly show that Paul is much better than Parker. It seem like a slight difference though because they are both top six point guards in the nba.

The gist of why Paul would improve us so much is in the attributes but that is to vague. The biggest improvement will come because he will be able to bring the best out of R.Jefferson on the offensive end. This will increase rj's confidence. That confidence should improve his shooting% and increase his defensive involvement. With Parker and rj we almost always have two bad shooters on the court, sometimes three if bonner/dice are on the bench. With Paul the defense can't space rj/parker making it difficult for tim to opperate and manu to penetrate without getting another defender on him instantly.

Paul would significantly increase the spurs chance of winning a :lobt:.

Your breakdown clearly shows you're on crack.

Is Paul a better assist man? Almost certainly, but the Spurs' offense doesn't require a point guard to create shots for other people. The offense either has the ball swinging around the perimeter set up from the post, or uses kickouts. Parker's assists come from pick and rolls a lot because he has two teammates who are two of the better players in the league at getting their own shots, so Paul's numbers would suffer. Parker is so good at breaking down defenses and the pick and roll that I don't know if Paul would be an improvement.

Parker's field goal percentage has been better than Paul's every year. Paul's been over fifty percent shooting once since he's been in the league. Parker has averaged more than that since Paul was drafted.

Paul's better at steals. Parker's a far better defender. Pop wouldn't like a guy gambling in passing lanes to get stats for himself, and we all know that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BadMotorscooter

I dont see any way we keep Tony if he wants max money. We have to much money tied up and Duncan coming around for an extension. And with Hill and Blair as our future...I dont see how we give Tony a 100 mil contract.

---

why spurs paid a very paid player last year a new contract worth 40
tp is atleast work 60 million more then him

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Obstructed_View

Your breakdown clearly shows you're on crack.

Is Paul a better assist man? Almost certainly, but the Spurs' offense doesn't require a point guard to create shots for other people. The offense either has the ball swinging around the perimeter set up from the post, or uses kickouts. Parker's assists come from pick and rolls a lot because he has two teammates who are two of the better players in the league at getting their own shots, so Paul's numbers would suffer. Parker is so good at breaking down defenses and the pick and roll that I don't know if Paul would be an improvement.

Parker's field goal percentage has been better than Paul's every year. Paul's been over fifty percent shooting once since he's been in the league. Parker has averaged more than that since Paul was drafted.

Paul's better at steals. Parker's a far better defender. Pop wouldn't like a guy gambling in passing lanes to get stats for himself, and we all know that.

---

1. I am not on crack and I never even tried it.

2. Paul's assist numbers will definitely suffer in the spurs system but he would still get 2 more per game. This would happen because Paul is a better passer than Parker. Expect rj to get a lot more alleys. Shooters will get the ball right where they want it. Tim would not get the alley but the when fronted he will get ball passed to him in the perfect spot. Slashers will get the ball in the right spot at the right time.

3. I would argue that Paul is just as good if not better than Parker at breaking down the defense. Paul can also run the pick and roll. Why would he not be able to do these things? He can pass,dribble(great handles), and he is quick. That is all needs to be able to run the pick n' roll.

4. Paul has a really high fg% and he is the focus of every defense he goes up against. So if he played with the spurs the fg% will increase. Paul's ft% is also better than Parker's, so we will have less wasted points.

5. Parker being a better defender than Paul is debatable but he is definitely not far better than him. I would say Paul is better than Parker at defense. Paul makes calculated gambles on defense to get steals. He does not get all of them in passing lanes either he is just a pest on defense. He comes from behind on a big man and other situation that Parker does not capitalize on.

Bonus. I noticed that you didn't want to criticize Paul's ability to shoot threes and mid range shots. This is important because the opponent will not be able to leave rj and parker to help on defense. They will not sit in Duncan's lap either. Making everybodies life easier on the court. Thus, boosting everyones confidence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blackjack

The Tres' special (or close to).

http://es.pn/d2HRF4

---

lol -15 wins

Shit is straight-up legit in this thread.

:bang

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

lol -15 wins

---

Hollinger's never, and I mean NEVER, wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blackjack

Hollinger's never, and I mean NEVER, wrong.

---

Word. He is 2 legit 2 quit.

Like this thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ducks

why spurs paid a very paid player last year a new contract worth 40
tp is atleast work 60 million more then him

---

Post from the future.:)

Quote:

---

Blazers-Roy,Aldridge,Parker-Three very nice pieces to build around, plus they would not have to give away all of their young talent.

Spurs-Get Chris Paul for the remainder of the Duncan era.

Hornets-Get to rebuild with a bunch of nice young pieces from both the Spurs and Blazers.

---

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2485/...cc3fb6aa_o.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Basketball Power

Paul is obviously much better then Parker, but would the Hornets take him especially knowing he's going to bolt out of there at the end of the season anyway


Paul comes to SA and Spurs are favorites to win it all

---

You are wrong.. If Paul comes to SA, Spurs will not win it all and have to give in to all the bull-shit that is Paul's ego

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nathan89

Bonus. I noticed that you didn't want to criticize Paul's ability to shoot threes and mid range shots. This is important because the opponent will not be able to leave rj and parker to help on defense. They will not sit in Duncan's lap either. Making everybodies life easier on the court. Thus, boosting everyones confidence.

---

Paul is a better three point shooter. Parker's a a far better midrange shooter. That's why Parker's better at the pick and roll than Paul is.

Apparently the Knicks will "trade anyone except Amar'e" for CP3.

Any chance Demps does his old team a favor and pull this trade?

NOH: send CP3 to NY/receive Eddy Curry, Malik Hairston, Alonzo Gee, Curtis Jerrels
NY: send Eddy Curry to NOH and Anthony Randolph to SA/receive CP3
SA: send Malik Hairston, Alonzo Gee, and Curtis Jerrels to NOH and draft picks to NY/receive Anthony Randolph


NOH gets a trade chip in Curry and three young talents (all with no or partial guarantees) that they can choose to waive or give them an extended try out

SA gets a young athletic big with huge upside to help matchup with LA and help Duncan ease out of his career a la The Admiral

NY gets Chris Paul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by riverwalkparade

noh gets a bunch of crap.

sa gets something for nothing.

ny gets to be the beneficiary of one of the most lopsided trades in nba history.

---

fify.

I think the OP qualifies as type 7 among the obnoxious fans categories:

"7. The Trade Machine Maniac – Ever played with ESPN’s NBA Trade Machine? It’s a fun little tool that allows you to try out various configurations of trades and see if they work under the NBA’s complicated salary cap rules. It’s so fun that it can become quite addictive to a certain type of fan who can’t stop posting ridiculous trade scenarios that somehow manage to bring a player like Chris Paul to the fan’s favorite team without giving up any of that team’s valuable assets. For example, I bet you a Knicks fan somewhere has proposed trading Eddy Curry and Wilson Chandler for Chris Paul because it works in the Trade Machine and the Hornets would be happy with Chandler’s “potential” and Curry’s $11 million expiring contract. If you run a message board, you should give these fans their own thread or section where they can make their insane proposals without bothering everyone else."

http://blogs.thescore.com/tbj/2010/0...-the-internet/

Chris Paul would never go to the Spurs. Why is anyone even bothering?

So Portland gets a lot of salary and Parker.
Spurs exchange Parker with Paul
Hornets get Rudy fuckin' Fernandez, Batum, Miller + Scrubs?

This trade makes no sense for either team.

The Hornets would only listen to that if they get either Roy + Filler or Aldrige + Oden + Picks + Filler for Paul and Okafor.

There are virtually no teams who have the assets to get Paul via a trade without parting with their franchise players. And most teams would look worse if the traded for Paul giving up those players.

Anything else than another Star + Filler or Young, proven, promising players + Fillers for Paul is redundant.

If I am NO and we are talking with Portland about Paul the first player of interest will be Aldridge. The young players of Portland have thinned out a bit and do not look that interesting.

I don't think CP3 is better than TP for the Spurs at this point. End of story.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nathan89

1. I am not on crack and I never even tried it.

2. Paul's assist numbers will definitely suffer in the spurs system but he would still get 2 more per game. This would happen because Paul is a better passer than Parker. Expect rj to get a lot more alleys. Shooters will get the ball right where they want it. Tim would not get the alley but the when fronted he will get ball passed to him in the perfect spot. Slashers will get the ball in the right spot at the right time.

3. I would argue that Paul is just as good if not better than Parker at breaking down the defense. Paul can also run the pick and roll. Why would he not be able to do these things? He can pass,dribble(great handles), and he is quick. That is all needs to be able to run the pick n' roll.

4. Paul has a really high fg% and he is the focus of every defense he goes up against. So if he played with the spurs the fg% will increase. Paul's ft% is also better than Parker's, so we will have less wasted points.

5. Parker being a better defender than Paul is debatable but he is definitely not far better than him. I would say Paul is better than Parker at defense. Paul makes calculated gambles on defense to get steals. He does not get all of them in passing lanes either he is just a pest on defense. He comes from behind on a big man and other situation that Parker does not capitalize on.

Bonus. I noticed that you didn't want to criticize Paul's ability to shoot threes and mid range shots. This is important because the opponent will not be able to leave rj and parker to help on defense. They will not sit in Duncan's lap either. Making everybodies life easier on the court. Thus, boosting everyones confidence.

---

Talking without numbers is useless; lets back some of this up to see who is full of it.

according to hoopdata, effective fg%:
2007 parker 52.7 paul 46
2008 parket 49 paul 52
2009 parker 50 paul 52
2010 parker 48 paul 53

mid-range jump shot (numbers from 2007 and up)

parker's % within 10 feet: 55, 52, 44, 53
parker's % outside 10 feet: 39, 42, 29, 39

Pauls % within 10: 40, 52, 50, 53
pauls outside 10: 43, 48, 51, 51

according to 82games.com, parker shoots 39% within close range, while Paul shoots only 20% close range; hence, parker does not need to shoot as well from the outside to shoot about the same effective percentage. He can't do that forever, though. Paul clearly is a FAR better outside shooter, even without considering the 3.

If we look at the 3, it becomes ridiculous.

Rebounding: Paul does NOT average 2 more per game than Parker.
Parker the last 4 years averages about 3 per game, and Paul about 4 per game. But paul averages about 37mpg, and parker about 33; that makes the difference not very significant.


Trying to have an objective discussion about defense or assists in different systems is futile.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Danny.Zhu

I don't think CP3 is better than TP for the Spurs at this point. End of story.

---

Disagree, but Paul most likely will never be able to play for SA. The story continues.........

paul gets 2 or 3 assist at home when he does not deserve it
during a game clearly another player made the finally pass to the player that made the shot but paul got the assist

A legitimate trade for Chris Paul...
I shouldn't let myself get sucked into this, but

SAS out - Parker, McDyess (18.3$M out), rights to James Anderson, 2011 1st, 2013 1st
SAS in - Paul, Gallinari (18.2$M in)

NYK out - Curry, Turiaf, Gallinari, Azabuike (21.8$M out)
NYK in - Parker, Okafor ($24.9M in)

NOH out - Paul, Okafor ($26.3M out)
NOH In - Curry, Turiaf, Azabuike, McDyess (23.3 $M in), rights to James Anderson, 2011 1st (SAS), 2013 1st (SAS)


Why for NYK - They don't have enough assets to get Paul straight up - they have no 1st rounders to trade. But moving Eddy Curry (junk expiring), Turiaf (Expiring backup center), Azabuike (expiring backup SF), and Gallinari (decent Prospect) for Parker and Okafor, 2 high level starters is a acceptable deal (and they can very likely resign Parker - it is my understanding that he was to be one of their FA targets in 2011).

Why for NOH - They move the discontented Paul, the long term contract of Okafor which they want to dump if they move Paul for expirings and 3 1st rounders...If they are forced to move Paul, that is about as good as they will get.

Why for SAS - They get Paul. They also get Gallinari, which gives them a decent SF/PF prospect behind Jefferson.

PS. As a follow up, from the money POV, (Chandler + Walker), Azabuike, and Gallinari are all interchangeable pieces. Depending on what value parties are willing to accept, they could be sent to any of the participants...

not a Dallas fan, but they could make a good offer if NO wants to dump salary and plan ahead

Butler, Chandler, Barea, Stevenson

For

CP3, Okafor, Posey

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pad300

SAS out - Parker, McDyess (18.3$M out), rights to James Anderson, 2011 1st, 2013 1st
SAS in - Paul, Gallinari (18.2$M in)

---

Parker + good vet center + 3 draft picks for barely an upgrade at PG position. Can I play in your fantasy basketball league?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eisfeld

So Portland gets a lot of salary and Parker.
Spurs exchange Parker with Paul
Hornets get Rudy fuckin' Fernandez, Batum, Miller + Scrubs?

This trade makes no sense for either team.

The Hornets would only listen to that if they get either Roy + Filler or Aldrige + Oden + Picks + Filler for Paul and Okafor.

There are virtually no teams who have the assets to get Paul via a trade without parting with their franchise players. And most teams would look worse if the traded for Paul giving up those players.

Anything else than another Star + Filler or Young, proven, promising players + Fillers for Paul is redundant.

---

Hornets get-
3vets(miller,camby,pryzbilla)
2youngplayers(fernandez,batum)
Maybe some draft picks for some more young players

Hornets get rid of-
Paul- Who wants out
Okafor- Who they want out,so they get to lose his long overpaid contract.

I doubt that the hornets are going to get a better deal than this. No team is going to give hornets a player as good as roy or aldrige. They can not demand a big time player in return. They have to get some young pieces+picks+vets. This will save them money in the longrun and make the rebuilding process go faster.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by will_spurs

Parker + good vet center + 3 draft picks for barely an upgrade at PG position. Can I play in your fantasy basketball league?

---

1) Parker is an expiring who may just leave on us. Whereas Paul is under contract for 2 more seasons (minimum, the 3ed year is a player option, which take given the new CBA). The contract situation is MUCH better fit with Duncan and Manu's remaining years.
2) Paul is not "barely" an upgrade at PG. By most summary stats, CP is a significant upgrade over TP. Compare say career PER and Ws/48. CP 25.6 and .233 TP 18.3 and .143. This is a star driven league. TP is one of the top 10 and possibly top 5 PG's in the league. CP is top 3. The step up is significant.
3) Gallinari is not nothing. Gallinari is worth one of those 3 draft picks equivalents. He may be a good fit in our system - a big SF who can shoot...
4) You missed the biggest value from SAS and NOH's POV. The 2013 pick. That season, Duncan is retired, Manu is either really old (35) or retired, and possibly CP has left as a FA looking for a better situation than a rebuilding team.

I'm goign to stop discussing soon but just for the record.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pad300

1) Parker is an expiring who may just leave on us. Whereas Paul is under contract for 2 more seasons (minimum, the 3ed year is a player option, which take given the new CBA). The contract situation is MUCH better fit with Duncan and Manu's remaining years.

---

So it's Parker for one year or Paul for two. Doesn't any kind of difference, especially given the fact that if the Spurs offer Paul's salary to Parker next year he will sign.

Quote:

---

2) Paul is not "barely" an upgrade at PG. By most summary stats, CP is a significant upgrade over TP. Compare say career PER and Ws/48. CP 25.6 and .233 TP 18.3 and .143. This is a star driven league. TP is one of the top 10 and possibly top 5 PG's in the league. CP is top 3. The step up is significant.

---

It is barely an upgrade. First of all you're comparing one player whose whole game right now centers around padding his stats, with another player who has proven he can play in the Spurs system and check his ego at the door. Second, Parker is also a top 3 PG in the league when not injured. As for people say Parker is a fringe top 15 player in the league, they conveniently forget he got ranked #8 and #9 in different MVP votes.

Quote:

---

3) Gallinari is not nothing. Gallinari is worth one of those 3 draft picks equivalents. He may be a good fit in our system - a big SF who can shoot...
4) You missed the biggest value from SAS and NOH's POV. The 2013 pick. That season, Duncan is retired, Manu is either really old (35) or retired, and possibly CP has left as a FA looking for a better situation than a rebuilding team.

---

Yeah... and you're sending that 2013 pick (and 2011 and 2010) to NOLA. Which means the Spurs would have to rebuild without a 1st round pick for 4 straight years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by will_spurs

Parker + good vet center + 3 draft picks for barely an upgrade at PG position. Can I play in your fantasy basketball league?

---

:lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by will_spurs

So it's Parker for one year or Paul for two. Doesn't any kind of difference, especially given the fact that if the Spurs offer Paul's salary to Parker next year he will sign.

---

Yes it does make a difference, a huge one. 2 serious championship shots vs 1, and for Duncan's last 2 year (SAS owes it to Duncan to try and make it two shots vs one). A 100% increase in quantity. As well as a significant increase in quality of those shots.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by will_spurs

It is barely an upgrade. First of all you're comparing one player whose whole game right now centers around padding his stats, with another player who has proven he can play in the Spurs system and check his ego at the door. Second, Parker is also a top 3 PG in the league when not injured. As for people say Parker is a fringe top 15 player in the league, they conveniently forget he got ranked #8 and #9 in different MVP votes.

---

You want to talk MVP votes...
Parker MVP vote share and ranking:
2005-06 NBA 0.007 (9)
2006-07 NBA 0.001 (15)
2008-09 NBA 0.007 (8)
Career 0.015 (141)
Paul MVP vote shares and Ranking
2007-08 NBA 0.706 (2)
2008-09 NBA 0.159 (5)
Career 0.864 (33)

CP's had 5 years in the league so far, and TP's had 9. TP gets fringe votes from the homers at the SAEN. That's where those .00x's come from. Chris Paul, on the other hand is being recognized nationally to get enough vote shares to get .xxx, three orders of magnitude more votes. TPs in the top 150 all time on his career to date. CP's in the top 50!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by will_spurs

Yeah... and you're sending that 2013 pick (and 2011 and 2010) to NOLA. Which means the Spurs would have to rebuild without a 1st round pick for 4 straight years.

---

a) you can't count. 3 traded pick equivalents <> 4 years without picks.
b) It's really only 2 - its effectively a trade of Anderson for Gallinari.
c) The real price is potentially delaying the rebuild for a year of sucking in 13-14. That is if 1) we got a high lottery pick that year, which would really depend on the future development of Hill, Blair, Splitter and Gallinari 2) also assumes that 2013 was a good draft year, with a potential franchise cornerstone available when our pick came up 3) that we were smart enough to pick said franchise cornerstone when our turn came; I've seen enough high draft picks blown...
I say that a potential one year delay in rebuilding is worth doubling current championship shots.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pad300

I say that a potential one year delay in rebuilding is worth doubling current championship shots.

---

Let's say you win. Unfortunately for you Paul is still not coming to SA. And the Spurs are going to sign Parker to a max extension, so at least you have a great future arguing pointless Parker trade scenarios to look forward to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by will_spurs

I'm goign to stop discussing soon but just for the record.



So it's Parker for one year or Paul for two. Doesn't any kind of difference, especially given the fact that if the Spurs offer Paul's salary to Parker next year he will sign.

It is barely an upgrade. First of all you're comparing one player whose whole game right now centers around padding his stats, with another player who has proven he can play in the Spurs system and check his ego at the door. Second, Parker is also a top 3 PG in the league when not injured. As for people say Parker is a fringe top 15 player in the league, they conveniently forget he got ranked #8 and #9 in different MVP votes.

Yeah... and you're sending that 2013 pick (and 2011 and 2010) to NOLA. Which means the Spurs would have to rebuild without a 1st round pick for 4 straight years.

---

Thats pushing it a bit far bro, because he is not a top 3 PG....& he is a fringe top 15 player.

I would love CP3, but it wont happen. Pointless threads that argue for unrealistic outcomes are tiring. Just because money matches up, doesnt mean its realistic!!! AHHHH!!!! Obekaybe?

But good job working it out. :tu

Hornets Want Okafor Included In Any Paul Deal

If the Hornets are going to trade All-Star point guard Chris Paul, they reportedly want teams to take on the contract of Emeka Okafor.

Okafor's contract has four years and $52 million left on it.

The second overall pick in the 2004 NBA Draft, Okafor has career averages of 13.3 points, 10.3 rebounds and 1.8 blocks.

http://www.realgm.com/src_wiretap_ar...any_paul_deal/


Kill this thread. No way the spurs will want to absorb Okafor's contract as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UnWantedTheory

Thats pushing it a bit far bro, because he is not a top 3 PG....& he is a fringe top 15 player.

---

There are only two names ahead of him that are point guards.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Obstructed_View

There are only two names ahead of him that are point guards.

---

Only 2?

Top 3
Chris Paul
Deron Williams
Rajon Rondo

A clear step below:

Steve Nash
Chauncy Billups
TP (is in this second group somewhere)

And there are up and comers
Collison
Tyreke Evans (although is he a PG?)
Derrick Rose

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pad300

Only 2?

Top 3
Chris Paul
Deron Williams
Rajon Rondo

A clear step below:

Steve Nash
Chauncy Billups
TP (is in this second group somewhere)

And there are up and comers
Collison
Tyreke Evans (although is he a PG?)
Derrick Rose

---

Yeah, there are two point guards in the league that are above him. Rondo is not one of them. At worst you've got him one spot below that, so I'm assuming you agree that calling him a "fringe top fifteen player" was a weak attempt to paint Parker in a negative light.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Obstructed_View

Yeah, there are two point guards in the league that are above him. Rondo is not one of them. At worst you've got him one spot below that, so I'm assuming you agree that calling him a "fringe top fifteen player" was a weak attempt to paint Parker in a negative light.

---

No, your underestimating my " Parker Hate" as it's referred to around here; although I think it's not wearing rose colored glasses. I said:

Quote:

---

TP is one of the top 10 and possibly top 5 PG's in the league.

---

I'm not calling Parker one of the top 15 players in the league. I'm serious when I say Rondo is ahead of him. Rondo is a monstrous defender and has demonstrated that he's good at running an offence. Rondo gets a jumpshot and he's winning the argument for being TOP pg in the league. Parker, IMO, is in the 2nd tier of PG's,with Nash and Billups. Now either of those guys might drop out due to age, but some of those up and comers might jump up or even over that second tier.

I would never have called Parker a fringe top 15 player in the league. Just start listing names, in no particular order

Rondo, CP, Deron Williams
Kobe, Wade, Roy, Ginobili
Lebron, Paul Pierce, Durant
Bosh, Dirk, KG, Josh Smith
Howard, TD, Pau Gasol

More Maybe Ahead of TP: Kevin Love, Gerald Wallace, Bogut, Noah, Nash, Horford, David Lee (we are going to see if his numbers are simply from the D'antoni system)

Some more thought might lead to more players...
(Also note, a lot of bigs - simply because bigs are move valuable than smalls...)

i thought it was about ru paul.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Obstructed_View

There are only two names ahead of him that are point guards.

---

Just 2? Wow. I love TP, but Damn.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Obstructed_View

Yeah, there are two point guards in the league that are above him. Rondo is not one of them. At worst you've got him one spot below that, so I'm assuming you agree that calling him a "fringe top fifteen player" was a weak attempt to paint Parker in a negative light.

---

Fringe Top 15 player...not fringe top 15 PG...Anyone who thinks TP is not a fringe top 15 player is a homer.


Durant
LeBron
Bosh
Wade
Dirk
TD
Pierce
Melo
Roy
Howard
Paul
D Williams
Kobe
Gasol


Thats just 14....Fringe 15? Yes TP is. I think after that it kinda goes to second tier players, but there are many arguments to be made....perhaps J Johnson, Amare, Rose, Boozer, Rondo, Nash, KG, Gino, Nelson, Lewis, VC, Allen, Arenas, Etc,... for the top 25. Who knows...All I am saying is "fringe" top 15 is realistic and not all that bad with the talent we have in the NBA today.


It is not meant to cast TP in a negative light, but to face the fact he isnt but a possible top 15 player if that. 2 years ago he was defintately not,...today?...Perhaps. That is still great btw. TP is a great player, who fits our system...but let us not be silly about it.

if we really decide to trade Parker for Paul, her's a trade that works for everybody at espn trade machine :

Spurs take Paul from NO and give Parker to NY

N.O. takes Chandler, Gallinari, Azubuike, Randolph and Curry and give Paul to Spurs and Okafor to NY

NY takes Parker from spurs and Okafor from NO and give Chandler, Gallinari, Azubuike, Randolph and Curry to NO



for Spurs and Knicks the advantage is obvious

for NO, the advantages are :

1) they can get rid of Okafor contract;
2) they can play from the beginning the young duo of Collison and Thompson in the back court
3) they receive all contracts for a short term, so in case they can clean house in max two years
4) all pieces they receive are young guns and all in different roles, some of them with rookie contracts and a lot of potential to become the starters for a long long time (see Gallinari like small forward and Randolph like power forward);
5) some draft choices dcan also be included

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by venitian navigator

if we really decide to trade Parker for Paul, her's a trade that works for everybody at espn trade machine :

Spurs take Paul from NO and give Parker to NY

N.O. takes Chandler, Gallinari, Azubuike, Randolph and Curry and give Paul to Spurs and Okafor to NY

NY takes Parker from spurs and Okafor from NO and give Chandler, Gallinari, Azubuike, Randolph and Curry to NO



for Spurs and Knicks the advantage is obvious

for NO, the advantages are :

1) they can get rid of Okafor contract;
2) they can play from the beginning the young duo of Collison and Thompson in the back court
3) they receive all contracts for a short term, so in case they can clean house in max two years
4) all pieces they receive are young guns and all in different roles, some of them with rookie contracts and a lot of potential to become the starters for a long long time (see Gallinari like small forward and Randolph like power forward);
5) some draft choices dcan also be included

---

I don't see how New York giving away all of their young talent plus Eddy Curry's expiring contract gets only Tony Parker ans Okafor's shit contract is some sort of advantage. :lmao

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chieflion

I don't see how New York giving away all of their young talent plus Eddy Curry's expiring contract gets only Tony Parker ans Okafor's shit contract is some sort of advantage. :lmao

---

The "stoud project" in NY is not for this season, but for next...
The goal is to have some big three made of Staud, one of Parker or Paul and Anthony.
In case that's still the project and ther's somethin in works with Anthony for next year, NY need some cap space...consequantly, thay have to get rid of some money already counting on the cap, and Gallinari and Randolph are next season for more than 7 millions bucks...

Following Miami exemple, first you need the big three, then the other pieces come consequently...and consider that NY, also if giving the players mentioned, alredy has other pieces to retain or trade (Mozgov, Douglas, Felton, Turiaf...) while, on the other side, Anthony is the some role of Gallinari and Randolph the some role of Staud.... while Okafor can be an ideal center to complement Staud (that wants to play PF) and, if it's true that his contract is orrible, is also true that he's still young and capable to give in these years quite the some contribution he always has given in the years past (good defense, rebouding, shot blocking, running of the floor, and all that with no game lost for injuries).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UnWantedTheory

Just 2? Wow. I love TP, but Damn.

---

Who then? You've now explained your "fringe top 15 player" which is actually a compliment. I still only see two names on that list that are point guards.

Spurs should say, take ANYONE you want except Duncan and Manu

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by venitian navigator

The "stoud project" in NY is not for this season, but for next...
The goal is to have some big three made of Staud, one of Parker or Paul and Anthony.
In case that's still the project and ther's somethin in works with Anthony for next year, NY need some cap space...consequantly, thay have to get rid of some money already counting on the cap, and Gallinari and Randolph are next season for more than 7 millions bucks...

Following Miami exemple, first you need the big three, then the other pieces come consequently...and consider that NY, also if giving the players mentioned, alredy has other pieces to retain or trade (Mozgov, Douglas, Felton, Turiaf...) while, on the other side, Anthony is the some role of Gallinari and Randolph the some role of Staud.... while Okafor can be an ideal center to complement Staud (that wants to play PF) and, if it's true that his contract is orrible, is also true that he's still young and capable to give in these years quite the some contribution he always has given in the years past (good defense, rebouding, shot blocking, running of the floor, and all that with no game lost for injuries).

---

Uh no, Chris Paul has expressed interest in New York as well so they would cut the Spurs out of the deal and take CP3 for themselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vander

obligatory

http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u...007/cpflop.gif

---

Nice elbow, Oberto! Fuck CP3!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chieflion

Uh no, Chris Paul has expressed interest in New York as well so they would cut the Spurs out of the deal and take CP3 for themselves.

---

right...but is also true that NY is not a contender next year...and if Paul main goal is to win as soon as possible he could see the option of signing with us a little more intriguing...