Should we sign Tony for the max ?

I think this is what it comes down to, no one is suggesting Tony is not an integral part of the Spurs future, but the question is : Is he worth the max ? or close to it ? Because from all indication that's what he can get from next years FA and what he is expecting. I can easily see him getting a Carlos Boozer type of offer ( $ 75 M for 5 years) by a New York next year. The Spurs do have the advantage of offering him a 6 year contract of say $ 85. ($ 14 M a year). But would you spend that kind of money on tony ? Or are we better off going a different direction ?

Yes, he's worth the max. End of story.

Lets wait till after this season to see how he performs...

if he is in 2007 Form, id say yes




I think Tony will also take a paycut so the spurs can sign talent to build around him...

I think Timmy's ways tought Parker to do whats best for the team...


We all have to wait and see..... Im sure NY will give him a MAX Deal to play with Amare

Yes. He's pretty much our only reliable scorer that can play a full Season and into the Playoffs. When Timmy and Manu are both gone in a few years, he's gonna be our veteran leader.

Hopefully George and Tiago will be pretty good by then too. :)

Oh, and Richard Jefferson too. :wakeup

Here is the thing , George Hill is to be a FA , the year after TP? You would have to give Hill at least $ 8 M/ year to stay. So does paying two Point guards $ 25 M ( around 40 % of your cap) make good sense ?

Not my money, but I commit to Tony this season. He's freaking 28. Kobe is going on 31 with 13 NBA seasons behind him. Garnett 33, Pierce 32 and Allen 34. The Heat's Magi are younger but will have to play major minutes in order for the Heat to win. This season will be about the long grind. Teams that overuse their key players will suffer in the playoffs.

Tony Parker's not worth a Joe Johnson type max deal and its hard to shell out a crippling amount of money for a guy with his miles, patriotism, and style of play. All three of those points towards a likely steep decline in the near future and even in his 08-09 prime he's not an ideal player you want to build around. It would be interesting to see how much the Spurs would want to extend Tony Parker though whose been turning down contract extension talks according to the likes of David Aldridge and a recent SI article.....really seems like he's bound for New York too.

I'm not sure at all, I mean the reasons he didn't play for the France NT was because not only was it the final year of his contract but this is the last year the Spurs will be able to contend for a championship.

This is probably the Pop's last year should Duncan retire, that & an new max contract means nobody would be stopping Parker from playing for his NT, especially since the Spurs won't be contenders. When he plays for his NT like he did last year he suffers from fatigue and doesn't play like a Max contract player at all.

His game relies on his speed which will be declining in a few years, and his skills would decrease even faster should he play for his NT during the summer.

if memory serves me right, last time we went through this with tony he stated he would like to play where eva works (la??) if he wanted to stay here (like he's said a couple times already) don't you think something would be hammered out by now?? I guess we have to wait till July '11 when Canal+ presents 'le decicion con le Tony'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by analyzed

Here is the thing , George Hill is to be a FA , the year after TP? You would have to give Hill at least $ 8 M/ year to stay. So does paying two Point guards $ 25 M ( around 40 % of your cap) make good sense ?

---

George Hill is getting $8M a year from who? Hill's has yet to be worth anywhere near that kind of money (his best season so far PER = 14.7). Assuming Tony stays, he'll have been a backup all his career... And there will be a new CBA, which is expected to reduce salaries. Get real. The most he will get from some team is the MLE equivalent.

Eventually! TP gonna be in a whole different level this coming 2010-2011. He's gonna prove to everyone wrong, and when i mean everyone it includes the "Spurs" Trade rumor after Trade rumor, people saying he's old and has high miles blah blah blah. The point is, where going to see a totally different Tony Parker. well thats just my opinion.

Yes we should! end of discussion.

I think Tony is gone. I dont think we'll have the option. He'll give up the extra money to play in New York or LA. He'll still make 100 mil on his next contract.

healthy, yes. he's 22 and 7 on 50% when healthy.

Well if Pop continues his man love for Hill and he continues to improve (2nd in most improved 08-09) . I can't see why Hill won't be a least an $ 8M / year guy 2 years from now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pad300

George Hill is getting $8M a year from who? Hill's has yet to be worth anywhere near that kind of money (his best season so far PER = 14.7). Assuming Tony stays, he'll have been a backup all his career... And there will be a new CBA, which is expected to reduce salaries. Get real. The most he will get from some team is the MLE equivalent.

---

Is he a worth max money to some team? Yes. Is he worth it to the Spurs at this point? Probably not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FalleNxWiZarDx

Lets wait till after this season to see how he performs...

if he is in 2007 Form, id say yes

---

Why would you want 2007 Parker? Why not 2008-09 Parker - the best year of his career?

Compared to other players who got max money this summer, Parker probably deserves max money. But I think the Spurs will offer him a little less than that.

I think it would be really cool if;

the NEXT time someone posts a trade/get rid of Parker thread...

if EVERYONE just posts---YES---we should get rid of him now---for nothing---just let him go...

EVERYONE just go along---because that is what Parker haters want anyway--so all this pretense about how it makes sense...how he's leaving anyway, blah,blah,blah...

so just go along with it....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kori Ellis

Why would you want 2007 Parker? Why not 2008-09 Parker - the best year of his career?

Compared to other players who got max money this summer, Parker probably deserves max money. But I think the Spurs will offer him a little less than that.

---

agreed. Tony is a good player as much as the word good says, and I'm sure there are bosses who're willing to pay him max for his service, but the spurs have never been a wealthy club and have never offered a max contract to someone of Tony's caliber. one has to be a legend to make the Spurs pay him max IMHO. I like Tony as a spur and I always will, but I wouldn't be too sad to let him go if he wanted out to earn more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Texas 2 Step

Hes not a max player, not even close. Hes a 10mil a year guy when hes on his game. Max players make other players better and require double teams Tony does neither. I think Spurs will look to sign and trade him for a couple picks and a player or two and keep biulding through the draft. TD and Manu are about done no way we max out TP with young guys like Hill Anderson, Temple in the wings.

---

Agreed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by analyzed

Here is the thing , George Hill is to be a FA , the year after TP? You would have to give Hill at least $ 8 M/ year to stay. So does paying two Point guards $ 25 M ( around 40 % of your cap) make good sense ?

---

IMO, George Hill deserves no more than MLE.

If George Hill is worth 8 million a year then Parker's definitely a max player.

No. Max players are athletes you can build a franchise around. I think at his best Tony is a 2nd option on a contending team. I may be in the minority in this, but I think the Spurs need to take a serious look at rebuilding if they do not win the title this year. There is nothing to gain by keeping together a middle of the pack team with aging core players. I want the Spurs to keep Parker this year, but if they suffer another 2nd round exit, I would be in favor of them trading Parker for a couple of draft picks. That way they can rebuild through the draft or stockpile young and talented players and trade them later on for players that are a better fit for the team.

15 mill is the right amount IMO

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by obstructed_view

if george hill is worth 8 million a year then parker's definitely a max player.

---

+100

Yes

damn not this shit again, hell no parker is going to leave next year anyways hill is the future and imma laugh at all yall 5 years from now when hill becomes the best spurs pg ever and yall all hop on his nuts

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Obstructed_View

If George Hill is worth 8 million a year then Parker's definitely a max player.

---

Ok try convincing FO to spend $ 25 M ( 40 % of their cap) on two point guards for the next 5 years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by analyzed

I think this is what it comes down to, no one is suggesting Tony is not an integral part of the Spurs future, but the question is : Is he worth the max ? or close to it ? Because from all indication that's what he can get from next years FA and what he is expecting. I can easily see him getting a Carlos Boozer type of offer ( $ 75 M for 5 years) by a New York next year. The Spurs do have the advantage of offering him a 6 year contract of say $ 85. ($ 14 M a year). But would you spend that kind of money on tony ? Or are we better off going a different direction ?

---

I think Tony is worth the max, especially if he can get back to his 08-09 form. But you have take into account that there is almost certainly going to be a lockout after this season. There will be a new CBA and salaries are going to be lowered. So, are you asking if he's worth a max extension or a max contract after the new CBA?

In terms of a max contract after the new CBA, we're not sure how much it is going to be. We don't know what the cap and salary structures will be after the lockout and the new CBA, but it will be considerably less money for him if he opts to just sign with another team for what the max will be at that point. With what I've been reading about the new CBA it seems unlikely that Tony would be able to get the contracts you speak of (5yrs/$75M or 6yrs/$85M) unless he signs an extension with the Spurs before the lockout.

Unless Tony is dead set on leaving San Antonio his best option (whether he's after just money or not) will be to stay with the Spurs. We can give him the most money, and we have a promising future with some great young pieces that can develop into high level talents in the NBA.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpursTillTheEnd

damn not this shit again, hell no parker is going to leave next year anyways hill is the future and imma laugh at all yall 5 years from now when hill becomes the best spurs pg ever and yall all hop on his nuts

---

You do know that George Hill isn't actually a point guard, right?

There are few teams out there that will pay him the max - the Spurs aren't one of them. They'll offer a little less and he'll gladly accept. Desperate Housewives goes into its last season of filming this summer and after it wraps it'll be baby time for the Parker Family. Eva would love nothing better than have a few kids and hang with her family in San Antonio.

So for me, its a lock that Tony resigns for a fair price. I'm just concerned about his NT play, because unfortunately I think he'll be playing for France every summer until he wins an Olympic medal (this summer not included).

Ill take Parker over Hill any day of the week.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigfan

Ill take Parker over Hill any day of the week.

---

At double the cost ? and for 5-6 years , for a guy who is 5 years older ?

Part of what hurts the chances of signing Tony was the extention given to Manu. You have to question if it makes good business sense to put all your eggs on your guards : (Manu, Tony and Hill ). More than 50 % of your payrol allocated to 3 guards is not really the best way to form a team

Don't we have to see what the new CBA will be first? Parker deserves to be well compensated, but I don't believe he's a max contract player. Then again, neither are Rudy Gay, Joe Johnson and Amare Stoudemire but they all got max money. We'll see how it goes.

No way does Geoge Hill deserve more than the mid-level at this point. He doesn't even have a defined position going into his third season and people want to pay $7 million. Come on, he's gotta become a quality starter before he should earn that sort of money.

giving parker the max wouldn't be very wise. first, his body is already incapable of playing a full season. too many ankle injuries and the spurs already have to account for parker sitting at least 10 games a season due to some kind of injury.

second, a max deal would be for at least five years and parker would be 34 by then. parker will be done at around 32 years old, as he loses his speed. he will still be a good guard but not all star quality. without a three point shot, he won't be very useful as a scoring option. his fall off the cliff might be even more dramatic than ginobili's.

lastly, parker did not play all star basketball last season. this is again due to his injuries and inconsistency as he comes back from his injuries. even though he was healthy during the playoffs, having parker in and out of the lineup hurts team chemistry.

It pretty much comes down to his level this season.
It's quite the same process Manu went through this year (well age was different but miles are not that different). He showed he could still dominate a game and got a nice extension few would have paid at the beginning of the season.
It basically is the point. His level of play this season is the sole thing that will command the figures on his next contract, hence "contract year".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SOMA Spur

There are few teams out there that will pay him the max - the Spurs aren't one of them. They'll offer a little less and he'll gladly accept. Desperate Housewives goes into its last season of filming this summer and after it wraps it'll be baby time for the Parker Family. Eva would love nothing better than have a few kids and hang with her family in San Antonio.

---

You got it right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by J_Paco

Don't we have to see what the new CBA will be first? Parker deserves to be well compensated, but I don't believe he's a max contract player. Then again, neither are Rudy Gay, Joe Johnson and Amare Stoudemire but they all got max money. We'll see how it goes.

---

There are at most 10 franchise players in the league right now, and 30 teams. Do the math.

I don't want to lose Tony, but he's a complement to a dominant force, not a dominant force in and of himself. The best we can hope for is that he chooses to go to a place bursting with new talent and we can sign him to an extension, then trade him to his chosen destination for some parts to begin rebuilding with.

Extending him to keep him on board would be an honor he might deserve, but we all know he won't really help the team as a 1st option, and he doesn't deserve to be paid as such. We need something in return for him, but we also need to protect trade partners from getting TP as a 3-month rental, so I see an extension as inevitable.

It depends on George Hill, if Hill continues to improve, then Parker's value to the spurs drops. A younger parker is definetly better than an improving Hill, but parker right now is about the same or less than an improving hill. Parker and Hill are both scoring point guards, but I'm pretty sure all spurs fans will agree that hill is more versatile, athletic, bigger, longer, and a much better defender. IF hill doesn't improve then Parker is definetly worth the max, but if Hill continues to improve and especially if Hill gets a consistent 3 pt shot, then TP is probably expendable. Unlike Manu and TD, TP has a replacement or some might say an upgrade waiting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by analyzed

At double the cost ? and for 5-6 years , for a guy who is 5 years older ?

---

Yes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Srupsog

It depends on George Hill, if Hill continues to improve, then Parker's value to the spurs drops. A younger parker is definetly better than an improving Hill, but parker right now is about the same or less than an improving hill. Parker and Hill are both scoring point guards, but I'm pretty sure all spurs fans will agree that hill is more versatile, athletic, bigger, longer, and a much better defender. IF hill doesn't improve then Parker is definetly worth the max, but if Hill continues to improve and especially if Hill gets a consistent 3 pt shot, then TP is probably expendable. Unlike Manu and TD, TP has a replacement or some might say an upgrade waiting.

---

It's like saying Splitter is a replacement, maybe an upgrade to Duncan. Of course there are younger players lined up at every position, and Hill is showing signs but for the moment we're talking apples and oranges.

People really love to overrate Hill..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Muser

People really love to overrate Hill..

---

Not to mention our chances for contention after Duncan leaves.

No dissrespect but Tony is not worth the Max.

I believe the max should only be paid to franchise players and there is a big difference between a franchise player and the guys getting max deals these days.

Franchise Players------------- -- Not Max Players

Tim Duncan -------------------- Joe Johnson
Kobe Bryant ------------------- Amare Stoudemire
Dwayne Wade----------------- - Tony Parker
Lebron James ---------------- - Chris Bosh
Dwight Howard--------------- - Paul Pierce
Dirk Nowitzki----------------- - Manu Ginobili
Carmello Anthony?------------ -- Rudy Gay
Keven Durant
Chris Paul

It is when teams start paying "Franchise player money" to players who arent quite worth the max that a team is going to struggle as it wont have enough $ to build a great supporting cast.

Leave the Franchise money for the true mega super stars of the NBA. As you can see there is a big difference from the guys on the left list and the right list. Build a team around the guys on the left and youll be just fine. Build a team around the guys on the right and you're never gonna quite get over the line.

Think of the guys in the NBA currently who have led there team to a title, Duncan, Kobe, Wade, and shaq all those years ago. The only teams who've win without a franchise player are the 04 Pistons and 08 Celtics. Leave max deals to a true franchise player.

Go Spurs Go 2011:lobt:

They days of needing to be a Franchise player to get a max deal are over, all those players you listed could probably get the max apart from Manu and Pierce.

As I said there are 30 franchises out there ready and almost all of them want their own "max player" -- since there are only 10 of them out there, it means there are 20 or so lucky guys who are going to get max money and might not deserve it. Parker is one of them for sure.

Looking at it from another angle: there are 30 max money deals waiting to happen. If Tony Parker is consistently a top 20 (at least) player in the league, why wouldn't he get one of the top 20 contracts?

For sure they all probably could get the max. But for the teams that do give the guys on the right list the max the may have good teams but i couldnt see them hoisting the trophy. Lets go back a few years...

90 Isiah Thomas
91 92 93 Jordan
94 95 Hakeem
96 97 98 Jordan
99 Duncan/Robinson
00 01 02 Kobe/Shaq
03 Duncan
05 Duncan
06 Wade
07 Duncan
09/10 Kobe

Really apart from the 04 Pistons and 08 Celtics there are no teams for a long time to win a Championship without an all time great. Apart from an odd year here and there you need an amazing player to win a title. Leave the Max deals to these guys

yup, if he wants to sign, but if not gotta trade.

If you give 40M to RJ, you have to give the max to TP imo. 10M per year for RJ (does not matter if it saved the Spurs money) means TP has to start above that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DPG21920

If you give 40M to RJ, you have to give the max to TP imo. 10M per year for RJ (does not matter if it saved the Spurs money) means TP has to start above that.

---

One mistake doesn't deserve another. Tony is no longer a max player - not sure if he ever was. Spurs fans won't admit this, but Tony will be injury prone from here on out - his style of play and the way defenses play him will contribute to injuries with his high mileage body. Why give a max contract to a player that runs such a high risk of being injured? Allen Iverson should be a good example of a player that took so many falls to floor and look what happened to him and he had much more talent than Tony.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ginobili2Duncan

No. Max players are athletes you can build a franchise around. I think at his best Tony is a 2nd option on a contending team. I may be in the minority in this, but I think the Spurs need to take a serious look at rebuilding if they do not win the title this year. There is nothing to gain by keeping together a middle of the pack team with aging core players. I want the Spurs to keep Parker this year, but if they suffer another 2nd round exit, I would be in favor of them trading Parker for a couple of draft picks. That way they can rebuild through the draft or stockpile young and talented players and trade them later on for players that are a better fit for the team.

---

First off, a max player and a franchise player are not the same thing. Given the fact that Chris Bosh and Joe Johnson are max players due to the current economics then Parker is absolutely a max player. Whether or not he's a franchise player is debatable and difficult to determine since he hasn't been the best player on the team for a long enough stretch.

Second, I think you've forgotten just how good Parker was before he turned his ankle year before last.

The question in the thread is:

Should we sign Tony for the max?

The answer is clear:

No. Doing so would make sure we won't win a title after Timmy retires.

What most people are saying is because a lot of teams are dumb enough to give max money to some good, not great, players then Tony should get it too. Agree, he could get it and probably will, but we sure shouldn't do it.

Now, the question asked should be:

Is Tony resigning with us when we offer him (a lot) less than max money. I believe he will but I wouldn't be surprised otherwise.

As for Tony vs George:

Tony is an all-star and if healthy he could be a high level star but not quite a superstar scoring PG with an ever improving jumpshot (deadly in the playoffs last year) which could include a consistent enough 3 for when he enters his 30s and loses speed. He is an average defender, not bad but not that good either.

George is a young, up and coming (2nd in MIP voting in 09-10) combo guard with the potential to be an all-star and maybe better. The key words here are potential and combo. He has shown he can score when he looks for his shot and also has shown he can hit the corner 3 at a great percentage and when it matters. He is a good, maybe great defender.

Haters gonna hate. :sleep

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bruno

Haters gonna hate. :sleep

---

Just to be clear, I want him to stay :flag:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BadMotorscooter

I think Tony is gone. I dont think we'll have the option. He'll give up the extra money to play in New York or LA. He'll still make 100 mil on his next contract.

---

THIS IS WHAT THE HOMERS DONT UNDERSTAND!! shit i would love to keep him but damn guys he said hes not talking about an extension w/us what more do you want!!!???

every one keeps saying how were not going to be contenders after timmy i think we are and its looking like pop is really trying to get someone bad ass over here in san antonio when we trade parker maybe a young bad ass PF thats all we really need guys and w/our new players we should be contenders for a long time to come

Building a team around Tony Parker is a recipe for "good but not good enough" basketball team. But that's exactly what the Spurs will do if we sign Tony for the max. I don't see any difference if Hill runs the point , but at least we have a shot of using what's left (Hill not getting max) for someone who could potentially be really good,

parker aint worth max

just let what offer sheet he signs to, b4 we outbid ourselfs

Didn't he say that he will not sign with the Spurs??
Lets see how'll he play, if not good enough then trade him.

Has the question been raised yet about what exactly the max will be next season? With the new CBA, it might be $12 million per season...TP is definitely worth that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by underdawg

One mistake doesn't deserve another. Tony is no longer a max player - not sure if he ever was. Spurs fans won't admit this, but Tony will be injury prone from here on out - his style of play and the way defenses play him will contribute to injuries with his high mileage body. Why give a max contract to a player that runs such a high risk of being injured? Allen Iverson should be a good example of a player that took so many falls to floor and look what happened to him and he had much more talent than Tony.

---

I don't think it is fair to compare Tony to RJ. One is a proven merchandise the other is, at best, a dream merchandise

What the max next year after the new CBA is not as important as it seems. Because it is likely that the current ratio between the max per player / year and total team cap will be similar in the new CBA. So even assuming the max is brought down to $ 12 M / season, that still represents 25 % of team cap . Leaving just 75 % of what's left to build your team around. So the same implications for signing Tony at the max ( though less $) still applies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seventyniner

Has the question been raised yet about what exactly the max will be next season? With the new CBA, it might be $12 million per season...TP is definitely worth that.

---

I am OK with Tony staying he is a great player but if he is asking for Max money then I am OK with moving him.

Just what ever happens please let it not play out like Bosh where Toronto gets nothing.

I would like to believe that the Spurs FO is not as dumb as Toronto and Cleveland :nope

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BackHome

I am OK with Tony staying he is a great player but if he is asking for Max money then I am OK with moving him.

Just what ever happens please let it not play out like Bosh where Toronto gets nothing.

---

If next years max is 12 mil, then we just got a sf for almost a max contract. YAY!!!:clap:clap

Sweet Baby Jesus, how long before training camp starts? This off season is getting too long...

I'm not sure how it works, but it's logical that previous contracts signed would be pro-rated to the old salary cap. So if RJ's contract was equivalent to 10 % of the cap. It would only make-up 10 % of the new cap whatever that be. But really I don't know how these things work .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nathan89

If next years max is 12 mil, then we just got a sf for almost a max contract. YAY!!!:clap:clap

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by analyzed

I'm not sure how it works, but it's logical that previous contracts signed would be pro-rated to the old salary cap. So if RJ's contract was equivalent to 10 % of the cap. It would only make-up 10 % of the new cap whatever that be. But really I don't know how these things work .

---

I hope it is adjusted or we would be royally screwed. Either way though he is still going to be way over payed. I wish the spurs would have just payed rj 15mil+the luxury tax for one year. Then we could spend the money on players that actually deserve big contracts. I am really disappointed in the spurs for making this deal with rj that may prolong the rebuilding phase after the duncan era.

Speaking of FO moves, just read this in www.poundingtherock.com . I hope the tables are not turned on FO this FA , where they end up bitting their nails to see what the "decision" will be :)

Challenge: What Was the Spurs Management's Best Offseason Move?

http://cdn1.sbnation.com/profile_ima..._copy_tiny.jpg by BlaseE on Aug 7, 2010 1:54 AM CDT in Analysis http://cdn1.sbnation.com/images/icon...t.v8c9bafb.png 34 comments

We had so much fun discussing the Spurs draft picks yesterday, I thought I would come up with a new challenge. The Spurs offseason may appear pretty ho-hum to outsiders and pretty epic to 13 year old Spurs fans who like playing Halo or dudes who work for Nintendo (that's a reference to E3 and the AVGN...yeah, I went there). This is all about how great our Spurs management is, and taking a step back to look at the moves made this offseason (and some prior) by our FO to keep us a top contender for this season's title.
I think the Challenge is a no brainer in the end, but the field isn't any weaker for it.
http://cdn1.sbnation.com/images/blog...e.v5e9d7f1.jpg
Catching the Lightning in Our Bottle Before The Heat Steal Everyone's Thunder

I could so write song titles for Moneen. I'm talking about the Spurs FO and JA's fan group getting Manu to stay before the shit-icane (Trailer Park Boys, anyone?) LeBron created. Could you imagine Manu taking his sweet time with a gigantic offer on the table from NY or NJ while we wait biting our nails to our shoulder blades??? I'm freaking out just thinking about it and he's under contract now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Obstructed_View

First off, a max player and a franchise player are not the same thing. Given the fact that Chris Bosh and Joe Johnson are max players due to the current economics then Parker is absolutely a max player. Whether or not he's a franchise player is debatable and difficult to determine since he hasn't been the best player on the team for a long enough stretch.

Second, I think you've forgotten just how good Parker was before he turned his ankle year before last.

---

Don't get me wrong Parker is one my favorite players and I'll never understand why some people on this board seem to hate him. With that being said, I do not think that giving Parker a max contract will be a good move for the franchise long term.

Max contracts should only be given to franchise players. Such as, Durant, Paul, Howard. Bosh and Johnson are not franchise players and are not worth max contracts. Does that mean that they won't get offered the max some GM's? No.

Parker will certainly be offered a max contract by some other teams. But, the Spurs shouldn't give him a max contract. At his best, a case can be made for Parker as a top 20 player. But after Ginobili and Duncan retire, the Spurs will not be contending for championships. What would be the point of giving Parker max money? You can't build around him and unless he develops a 3 point shot, his game will regress rapidly as he ages, which could be in the next 3 years.

Convincing RJ to Relieve Us of Current Financial Burden and Giving Us Some SF Security.

This is the worst move the FO has made in the duncan era. The trade for him was pretty bad also.

Bonus: Pushing for a Trade Last Summer and Not Bullshitting Ourselves Into Thinking Bosh, Amare, etc. Were an Option.


That trade sucked. I wish we would have bullshitted ourselves into thinking bosh,amare,etc. were an option.

Manu Resigned Before Hitting Open Market.

I wish the spurs would have resigned him at the beginning of last season instead of sign him when his stock was at a all time high.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nathan89

Convincing RJ to Relieve Us of Current Financial Burden and Giving Us Some SF Security.

This is the worst move the FO has made in the duncan era. The trade for him was pretty bad also.

---

C'mon, now. That shit is small fries compared to the Scola trade.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by admiralsnackbar

C'mon, now. That shit is small fries compared to the Scola trade.

---

Fact: A 2002 second-round draft pick of the Spurs, Scola has been playing for Spanish team Tau Ceramica, where he is generally regarded as one of the best players in Europe. The Spurs had hoped to sign him two years ago, but his buyout was too large, so they instead opted to bring over his friend and countryman, center Fabricio Oberto.

http://www.mysanantonio.com/sports/M...age=1#storytop

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpurSpurSpurs

Fact: A 2002 second-round draft pick of the Spurs, Scola has been playing for Spanish team Tau Ceramica, where he is generally regarded as one of the best players in Europe. The Spurs had hoped to sign him two years ago, but his buyout was too large, so they instead opted to bring over his friend and countryman, center Fabricio Oberto.

http://www.mysanantonio.com/sports/M...age=1#storytop

---

Fact: Spurs could only pay as much as the Rockets paid on his buyout, which per the CBA was circa 500K. The rest needed to be covered by the player.

Scola thread!

As far as MAX players vs franchise players - yes there's a difference but the Spurs philosophy has pretty much always been that only franchise players are worth the MAX. This discipline has given them the financial flexibility to add role players within the salary budget they set for themselves.

Tony isn't stupid - he knows there will likely be a lockout and that salaries will drop; especially the Joe Johnson type deals. My bet is all his talk is posturing and if the Spurs offer him an extension after the first month or so of the season, he'll take it. But it will likely be his last big contract, so he's going to be pushing for as many years as possible. As long as the salary average for the deal is $15M or less I'm fine with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Muser

People really love to overrate Hill..

---

yes they do, and they think that GH is a point guard too. Hell Garret Temple is already a better point guard than Hill. George hill is an undersized SG, when Tony went down it was Manu who was running the point.

I'd say wait until later this year, after we see what kind of player Splitter is. If splitter and Blair and the rest of the young guys (Hill, Anderson) are performing at a high level or at least show signs that the team can maintain at least a 40-win pace with a declining TD then I say sign TP to the max. Otherwise, it's a waste of money as the moment TD retires the Spurs will not be contenders and TP will be pining for a trade in no time.

In that scenario the Spurs would be like any other struggling team with one great player who wants to leave but has an albatross of a contract.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shifty

The question in the thread is:

Should we sign Tony for the max?

The answer is clear:

No. Doing so would make sure we won't win a title after Timmy retires.

---

You mean like NEVER? :shootme

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by analyzed

I'm not sure how it works, but it's logical that previous contracts signed would be pro-rated to the old salary cap. So if RJ's contract was equivalent to 10 % of the cap. It would only make-up 10 % of the new cap whatever that be. But really I don't know how these things work .

---

Sorry bro. That's not how it works. That's the reason he opted to leave $15M on the table and go after a new contract. He didn't want to take his chances trying to see what he would be able to make after the lockout. RJ is going to make his full $40 million over the next 4 years regardless of what happens with the new CBA.

Of course RJ's getting whatever he agreed to , the question is how are previous contracts treaded in terms of cap for as a new CBA. Say for example the new cap after the CBA is $ 30 M / annualy ( I know it's a redicoulous example) but it dosen't make sense to use the previous players salaries for for the cap on a new CBA. Example: Tim's salary ( $17 M) Manu's ( $ 13 M) plus RJ 's ($8 M). and say sorry SA your now over the cap by at $ 38 M ($ 8 million over the cap !)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bito Corleone

Sorry bro. That's not how it works. That's the reason he opted to leave $15M on the table and go after a new contract. He didn't want to take his chances trying to see what he would be able to make after the lockout. RJ is going to make his full $40 million over the next 4 years regardless of what happens with the new CBA.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by analyzed

Of course RJ's getting whatever he agreed to , the question is how are previous contracts treaded in terms of cap for as a new CBA. Say for example the new cap after the CBA is $ 30 M / annualy ( I know it's a redicoulous example) but it dosen't make sense to use the previous players salaries for for the cap on a new CBA. Example: Tim's salary ( $17 M) Manu's ( $ 13 M) plus RJ 's ($8 M). and say sorry SA your now over the cap by at $ 38 M ($ 8 million over the cap !)

---

Ah, I see what you're getting at. I'm not exactly sure how that works. Maybe Bruno could explain it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by analyzed

Of course RJ's getting whatever he agreed to , the question is how are previous contracts treaded in terms of cap for as a new CBA. Say for example the new cap after the CBA is $ 30 M / annualy ( I know it's a redicoulous example) but it dosen't make sense to use the previous players salaries for for the cap on a new CBA. Example: Tim's salary ( $17 M) Manu's ( $ 13 M) plus RJ 's ($8 M). and say sorry SA your now over the cap by at $ 38 M ($ 8 million over the cap !)

---

I don't think that player contracts/salaries would be reduced after the new CBA, whatever the salary cap numbers are.TBH, I wouldn't expect much changes there, more likely they'd shorten the guaranteed years of new contracts or something similar, but we'll see about that.

However, all of the already signed contracts would have to be honored for their length and I see no way around that unless suddenly Kim Jong-il takes over the NBA as a commissioner.All the new deals would have to be under the new regulation but there is likely to be an intermediate period, during which teams would not be punished for going over the cap due to contracts signed under the previous CBA.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BG_Spurs_Fan

I don't think that player contracts/salaries would be reduced after the new CBA, whatever the salary cap numbers are.TBH, I wouldn't expect much changes there, more likely they'd shorten the guaranteed years of new contracts or something similar, but we'll see about that.

However, all of the already signed contracts would have to be honored for their length and I see no way around that unless suddenly Kim Jong-il takes over the NBA as a commissioner.All the new deals would have to be under the new regulation but there is likely to be an intermediate period, during which teams would not be punished for going over the cap due to contracts signed under the previous CBA.

---

They are not talking about that, players will get what they agreed on, but the question is about how their salaries would count in the team total salaries to compare to the new salary cap. If Timmy is getting 17M, he will get the 17M but when counted for the new cap his salary would only appear for 80% of it (just an example).

One thing I don't see anyone discussing is how much do we have in guaranteed contracts in the next few years. Maybe we have painted ourselves into a corner and paying Tony, the max or whatever he deserves, would get us very deep into luxury tax territory.

Ok, I just checked: We have 37.6M in guaranteed money without counting team/player options but for all practical purposes we need to include Timmy's 21.1M so that would take us close to 59M and for good measure lets add 5-10M for the options, signings and resigning to fill up the roster. Without Tony we would be at 65-70M, will Holt open up his wallet and take us to 85-90M?

http://www.shamsports.com/content/pa...ries/spurs.jsp

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bito Corleone

You do know that George Hill isn't actually a point guard, right?

---

in the TRIANGLE he could be ...
I think hill can play the position in the ron harper, Derek fisher mold.
In that offense the penetration and kick game is less of a focus ...

I doubt he can play SG on a regular basis ... in the playoffs for a contender.

Yes they should

Yes, agreed.