Does Tony Parker Hurt these Spurs? Inside the Numbers

[polandprzem]

Asked before the game how Parker has looked, coach Gregg Popovich said, “He’s still cute. “

[ducks]

Where exactly did you guys get this "Manu can't play 36mpg through a season" myth? Popovich?

did you see him tonight
he made nash look like he was 20

[Mr Bones]

Couple of thoughts: The three top teams in the league have Derek Fisher, Jameer Nelson and Daniel Gibson as their point guards. We had Avery Johnson lead our team in '99. Can anyone name a team that was carried by a point guard other than the Lakers who were led by Magic who also played a little center among other positions? I don't think this thread is about hating on Tony. It is about putting out our best team.

The three best pure point guards in recent history are probably Nash, Kidd, and Stockton. Between the three of them they have zero rings. The two best point guards in the league right now are probably Chris Paul and Deron Williams. They both have slightly undersized power forwards on their teams, and again, so far, have no rings. The three best big men of this era are Duncan, Shaq, and KG. Between them, they have 9 rings. The Bulls, when they played through the winningest season ever, didn't even start a point guard-- they started two shooting guards in Jordan and Harper, and had Pippen bring the ball up court much of the time. The belief that a team absolutely needs a point guard who can score and ac ulate assists is one of the great myths of basketball.

[TDMVPDPOY]

ball dominant players only hurt there teams production, but ppl dont really care when they win games, its only when you see them puttin up monster stats in loss games.....thats when fans question the player....are they ball dominant or overdoing certain things etc...

i think the same question was pop up for cp3 how he does everything on the hornets but when they lose games the fans come runnin out...

outside of parker we have probably 1-2 other players who can handle the ball play making abilities...its only a problem when all 3 of them are on the court at the same time, cause some players need touches to be effective and we all know who we prefer to have the ball in which players hands....

[The Truth #6]

this could be a very interesting point to discuss, if it was possible to evaluate the Spurs situation and future WITHOUT all the "you hate Parker" "you love Parker" stuff.
fact is, the Spurs face some very very complex decisions this summer and it all starts with Manu and comes down to a scenario, that also involves Tony.
and it would be shortsighted to reduce the whole picture to a discussion about Tony the player, or even Tony the person.
(I assume most are Spurs fans in the first place and would accept any scenario that benefits the Spurs as a team)

question 1:
what if the limited financial scope of the Spurs force a decision between re signing Manu and trading Tony? (assuming that Tony is a highly tradeable player, any 3 times all star at 28 with only 1 contract year left is, as long as you don't ask for Chris Paul in return)

Manu firmly demonstrated how much the Spurs still are depending on his genius. of course Manu+Tony+Hill is better than Manu+Hill or Manu+Tony. but the answer will likely not be that easy. it will be (for example): Manu+Tony+Hill OR Tony+Hill+Splitter OR Manu+Hill+Splitter.
that's not all. it will likely be Manu+Tony+Hill OR Manu+Hill+Splitter+decent player Spurs get in return for Tony.
and THAT line up could be either better AND less expensive.
(and don't forget that Tony will be a FA in 2011 and there also isn't any guarantee he doesn't want to move on. maybe even to Hollywood)

just a guess scenario:
Spurs try to re sign Manu, but prefer a contract that ends 2012, like Tim's.
they will need to pay Manu bigger bucks per to get his signature as opposed to a longer term contract. let's say 2 years 25 million. Spurs will be deep in luxtax territory again. so small to no chance to get Splitter or other pieces to form a deep (contender) roster.
if they trade Tony for a package like cap relieve AND a decent player (and/or a young talent or a good pick) they might increase the overall chances of the Spurs.
(for example: Blazers. they will once more try to upgrade the point. could offer a package including Batum/Fernandez, Przybilla/Webster, picks/rights. sure, some fillers are needed to make it work, maybe a 3rd team, but it is doable, if team want that deal)

so or so, I can't see the Spurs NOT explore trade scenarios involving Tony. and it won't be because they don't like him any more, it will be because they now know that there is an alternative that obviously works.

question:
if you can chose between this two top 10 rotations, which one do you take:
Tony-Manu-Hill-RJ-Hairston-Bogans (re signed) - Tim-Dice-Blair-Bonner (re signed)
Hill-Manu-Batum-RJ-Webster-Hairston-Tim-Splitter-Dice-Blair

Excellent post. There's logic in all of this. I don't know if Portland is happy with Andre Miller as their point, but there are a lot of pieces on this team that could help the Spurs in a trade.

TiMVP's statistics can be read many ways. To me, the comparison isn't that Hill is actually better than Tony (of course not) but that Hill wasn't really that much worse this year. And given that, if the team can save money and get better than they were this year through trade and free agency, then I think its the smart move to make.

The playoffs will give us more info to use and analyze. Given Pop's love for Hill, I don't think it's unlikey that this is the direction they will head.

[relic]

I don't understand, how fans state parker can't play with manu what the Fu$k they won three championships. The spurs aren't better without parker or manu or duncan thats our bread and butter. What we're missing is roll players we need horry, barry, elson, jackson.....I dont know if having hill, jefferson, blair is going to be enough. Tickets go on sale friday for the first round see you there.

[TD 21]

this could be a very interesting point to discuss, if it was possible to evaluate the Spurs situation and future WITHOUT all the "you hate Parker" "you love Parker" stuff.
fact is, the Spurs face some very very complex decisions this summer and it all starts with Manu and comes down to a scenario, that also involves Tony.
and it would be shortsighted to reduce the whole picture to a discussion about Tony the player, or even Tony the person.
(I assume most are Spurs fans in the first place and would accept any scenario that benefits the Spurs as a team)

question 1:
what if the limited financial scope of the Spurs force a decision between re signing Manu and trading Tony? (assuming that Tony is a highly tradeable player, any 3 times all star at 28 with only 1 contract year left is, as long as you don't ask for Chris Paul in return)

Manu firmly demonstrated how much the Spurs still are depending on his genius. of course Manu+Tony+Hill is better than Manu+Hill or Manu+Tony. but the answer will likely not be that easy. it will be (for example): Manu+Tony+Hill OR Tony+Hill+Splitter OR Manu+Hill+Splitter.
that's not all. it will likely be Manu+Tony+Hill OR Manu+Hill+Splitter+decent player Spurs get in return for Tony.
and THAT line up could be either better AND less expensive.
(and don't forget that Tony will be a FA in 2011 and there also isn't any guarantee he doesn't want to move on. maybe even to Hollywood)

just a guess scenario:
Spurs try to re sign Manu, but prefer a contract that ends 2012, like Tim's.
they will need to pay Manu bigger bucks per to get his signature as opposed to a longer term contract. let's say 2 years 25 million. Spurs will be deep in luxtax territory again. so small to no chance to get Splitter or other pieces to form a deep (contender) roster.
if they trade Tony for a package like cap relieve AND a decent player (and/or a young talent or a good pick) they might increase the overall chances of the Spurs.
(for example: Blazers. they will once more try to upgrade the point. could offer a package including Batum/Fernandez, Przybilla/Webster, picks/rights. sure, some fillers are needed to make it work, maybe a 3rd team, but it is doable, if team want that deal)

so or so, I can't see the Spurs NOT explore trade scenarios involving Tony. and it won't be because they don't like him any more, it will be because they now know that there is an alternative that obviously works.

question:
if you can chose between this two top 10 rotations, which one do you take:
Tony-Manu-Hill-RJ-Hairston-Bogans (re signed) - Tim-Dice-Blair-Bonner (re signed)
Hill-Manu-Batum-RJ-Webster-Hairston-Tim-Splitter-Dice-Blair

Why do people think that the Spurs have to trade Parker to facilitate the Ginobili extension? Essentially, Ginobili received roughly a $3 million dollar raise (per year). Here's how I think the summer will go down...

- One of Splitter or McDyess will be a Spur; if it's Splitter, he could make up to $5.5 ($1 million more than McDyess)

- Bonner and Bogans will be re-signed for similar money to what they're currently making

- Mason will not be re-signed; his spot to be filled by a minimum salaried player, which accounts for Ginobili's $3 million raise (roughly)

- The 1st round pick will replace Mahinmi's salary slot

- The 2nd round pick, if it's not an international player that stays overseas, will compete with Hairston, Temple, Jerrells, Gee (maybe a few other D-League/undrafted playes are added to this group for training camp) for probably three roster spot

- Keep in mind this is all roughly, but the end result is that the Spurs could add no more than $1-2 million to the payroll

How do they facilitate signing Parker to an extension next season? Easy. They either trade Jefferson at the '11 trade deadline, don't re-sign him or re-sign him for roughly half of what he's currently making. Let's say Parker pulls a Ginobili this year, bounces back healthy, flashes his '09 form and ends up with a $2 million dollar raise (per year). In this scenario, the Spurs would shave roughly $5 million off their payroll the following summer.

I don't buy this notion that Hill's emergence makes Parker expendable. There's a lot of mileage on Parker and Ginobili and Pop will want to hold them to 32-34 and 28-30 mpg going forward. Hill can be the third guard and easily get 30 mpg backing either up and playing alongside them at times.

[roycrikside]

That's part of the point. If you are going to eliminate the first ten games Parker missed due to "everyone playing bad", how many of Parker's 50 do you eliminate for the same reason? You start trying to handpick the games and the numbers loose even more credibility.

First off, it's "lose" not "loose." Secondly, I don't need you of all people to talk to me about credibility. Guy posts one day a month and he thinks he's doing everyone a big favor by deigning to write brilliant opinions like "Boy, that Manu Ginobili sure has been pretty good lately, huh?"

Thanks bud. I don't know how the board survives without you.

[Brazil]

First off, it's "lose" not "loose." Secondly, I don't need you of all people to talk to me about credibility. Guy posts one day a month and he thinks he's doing everyone a big favor by deigning to write brilliant opinions like "Boy, that Manu Ginobili sure has been pretty good lately, huh?"

Thanks bud. I don't know how the board survives without you.

solid post

[RandomGuy]

It is a total myth that we can win a le with George Hill as PG. It is a total fantasy at this point, it's not a myth win Tony Parker. If you are going to trade one of them then the one you trade is George Hill, and not the HOF PG.

Salut.