Reply With Quote
neither....... but if I Had to..... id go nash And dudley..... dudley can shoot the 3(The Spurs Need this) plus Dudley is younger then Grant....
Steve Nash & Grant Hill or Nash & Dudley?
neither....... but if I Had to..... id go nash And dudley..... dudley can shoot the 3(The Spurs Need this) plus Dudley is younger then Grant....
in re ed
How about TP for Stoudemire straight up
Nash for parker makes good sense b/c nash is 80 years old.
Stoudamire for parker also makes good sense also b/c stoudamire is known for playing point forward, which we would need after this trade.
Excellent contributions, fellas.
If the Spurs trade Parker, it will mean that they are looking beyond the current season.
What happened to the "we must win now cuz Timmys window is closing" at ude everyone had!?!
Then you keep Tony.
it takes 2 years for a new point guard to get to know where the team wants the ball and learn the plays
And you you little ! don't you know who I am!?! Rhetorical question you lil ! I was blast your dumb ass! One thing is for sure, we're both " "! I'm "The " & your a piece of ! See the difference face! Go to Tube8.com. An beat your lil meat an go to bed boy! Its past your lil bedtime. And don't try & diss me back cuz its going to be just as lame as your sorry ass!
Last edited by jermaine; 05-29-2010 at 11:37 PM.
Huh? Don't do anything you might regret.
I like how you threw a website plug into your e-thuggish threat.
I'm not a thug! I didn't me blast you like pow pow! Lol. I ment put him on blast.
I'm not sure what this means.
He said he's not threatening him, but just making him look stupid.
Very few if any but I would consider Paul. TP is in my top 5 PG list. I would have taken Nash either prior to him going to Dallas or just after his departure but as of now I think he is too old to fill the slot considering the learining curve of our system. Even if he doesn't have one it's risky to take a 36+ year old PG while giving up one that is under 30.
Nash & Dudley? wow..wtf?
Parker is the only thing of value the Spurs could afford to part with in order to get better NOW.
Parker is the most valuable trade asset owned by the Spurs. If you assume that Parker will not stay with Spurs after his contract ends, then it is easy to imagine trades that will make the Spurs better starting with the 2011-12 season.
Trying to create realistic trade scenarios that make the Spurs better in 2010-11 is much more difficult. If the Spurs want to have the best possible team for 2010-11 then they will keep Tony.
This is why you've got a reputation as a bad poster around here. Occasionally you get it right, but most times.........
I don't think you can get equal value for Tony and he already knows Pop's system.
Nah, why would you wanna trade down? lol
NBA notes
By Bob Finnan
The News-Herald
Rumor mill
The Spurs will listen to offers for guard Tony Parker over the summer, but they are not "shopping" him. He is entering the final year of his contract worth $13.5 million.
The presumption that George Hill's development makes him expendable is not true, even though he's a good, young combo guard. He still can't run pick-and-roll smoothly, and that's only about 75 percent of the Spurs' offense. By the way, if anyone's interested in forward Richard Jefferson, pick up the phone.
nash and grant
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
