Just curious on your all's thoughts. I don't mean this to be another Parker-hating thread or anything, so let's not go there.
However, with Manu's lucrative contract extension, the Spurs now have four players on their roster (Duncan, Jefferson, Ginobili, Parker) commanding $10+ million salaries yearly. With Ginobili getting such a pay raise, could it be a sign that Parker could be traded away this offseason, especially as George Hill has developed into a sufficient point guard this offseason and comes with a much cheaper price tag. In addition, the Spurs have played well without Tony.
Of course, it could be a sign that Jefferson could be being traded away, as well.
Parker is a free agent after the 2010-2011 and it seems quite likely that he'll demand a pay raise that the Spurs simply won't be able to afford, in which case it would be advantageous for the Spurs to trade him away to get something in return before losing him to free agency and getting nothing in return.
Thoughts? Maybe the Spurs can afford all four of these guys. I know some of you good salary number-crunchers might be able to find out.
Not likely. IN all seriousness, I doubt the Spurs FO and Pop would want to try to replace such a huge piece this late in the game (i.e., Duncan's waning years).
I was going to wait for the offseason for this discussion, but I believe that Manu's extension means that the most likely end to Tony's relationship with the Spurs are:
1. Traded this summer
2. Contract allowed to expire after the 2010-11 season.
I can't see any way that the Spurs meet the price that Tony most certainly believes he deserves.
does tony even deserve a raise? Hill seems like he is up for the job. Plus it could help having another PG. If they did trade parker and hill took point what happens if hill gets hurt? Lot of "what if's" i suppose. What i do know is this season so far... manu deserves the raise and not tony. trade tony?...I still think he knows the plays he fits well. But if they need to cut pay i say they start with jefferson rather than tony.
If anything it means the complete oposite.
this doesnt mean anything. were they going to let manu walk? of course not.. this wasn't a pick 1(tony or manu) thing. this means absolutely nothing concerning parker. Obviously everything depends on the playoffs regarding what we do this summer and in the future... It all boils down the playoffs.. that's it. Not even worth discussing at this point.
why ? tbh I was wondering myself the same thing.
The opposite would be giving Tony a multiyear extension this summer that starts at more than 14M for the 2011-12 season.
Do you really think that's going to happen?
Or some of the elite players might want to be traded to the Spurs knowing that Manu is staying for 3 more years with Duncan and have chance to win
if we win the nba finals. yes. i can see that happening. there is way to many question marks about this team right now for us to even speculate.
Why would they give the money to the older player and not the younger one? Especially when the older one's contract runs past Duncan's?
By signing Manu, that means you are trying to win now. Trading TP in the summer does not align with that.
Why would you let him expire and get nothing for him?
Seeing how Parker is the youngest of those 4 and probably has more good years ahead of him compared to the others, I don't think they would trade him.
And that's why this discussion is best left for the summer. Too many variables right now.
agreed.
manu is the one who needs to be traded. Parker has far greater future upside. Hill is not a good pg. Hill can play the 2 guard and will be better than Manu in a couple of years anyways.
Manu will be an overpayed s of a player in a year or two.
Well, we should have cleared RJ's contract by then, right?
The big question mark with Tony is the exact same question mark we had with Manu this season. Can he come back healthy and be who he was last season?
If the answer is yes, I can see the Spurs getting it done.
neither should be traded. we can continue to win with both of them. i dont understand why everything has to be Tony vs Manu
I thought Manu was never going to be the same player?
But I digress. There's no such thing as a no trade clause in Manu's contract, AFAIK. So they can definitely move him if they want to.
1. We don't how much money Manu will be guaranteed for 2012-13.
2. Winning next year is, indeed, a reason not to trade Tony.
3. If they don't trade or extend Tony this summer, he'll be an unrestricted FA in 2011. As such, they will not control whether or not he can be traded. This summer they can.
The time to trade Manu for maximum value has passed. The next window to trade Manu will be the summer of 2012.
Parker's trade value will hit it's maximum point this summer. It will never be higher.
If the Spurs wouldn't have resigned Manu it would have meant that they would go "rebuilding" mode, so trading Parker next season would have become almost an obvious move. By resigning Manu they sent the message that they're still not giving up on this core.
No, the oposite IMO would be having less reasons to trade Parker.
I hope not. The Spurs would never get equal value in return.
I don't think so. Why do you have to rebuild without Parker?
If anything, had we let Ginobili walk, we may have tried to rebuild the team around a new big man with Parker at the point/offering us "instant offense" and superb scoring efficiency.
I don't see why it would be an "automatic" to trade Parker away even if we're in rebuilding mode.
I mean, Parker is relatively young and a proven champion. Why trade that level of experience and youth away so "automatically"?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
