Reply With Quote
+1. At least for someone who makes sense, some of these ideas are ridiculous and would make the team worse.
Why is everyone is such a rush to get rid of Parker? Outside of Manu, there isn't another guard on the team that can routinely get in the paint and wreak havoc on the opposition. I don't see how getting rid of him makes the team better.
+1. At least for someone who makes sense, some of these ideas are ridiculous and would make the team worse.
lol @ trading Parker because some rookie, who more likely won't be on the team next season, has had a couple of decent games.
Every time I saw Temple, I always thought of Lugia（the companion of Super Mario).
I don't see Temple as a 1 at all. He's been filling in there as a back up now. We've needed it cuz he's the only 1 who could handle the ball outside of Manu. But over the long run, this guy is in no way a point guard. He can play spot minutes there and etc, but he's really a 2 or 3. Just cuz he can dribble doesn't automatically make him a 1. I may be wrong, but I don't think he's even played pg for before the Spurs put him there!
Anyways, never did I argue the point of having both back, that is a must I believe. 2 young players, with good skill sets, and who could develop into great young talents on this team. Plus their contracts are really cheap too (Btw, great move by Spurs management picking up guys like Gee, Temple and Jerrels and having a serious look at them in the summer and training camp).
However, offensively, I believe Alonzo Gee could be a bigger impact than any of these two if he makes the roster and is given the chance for minutes. He looked quite good for the Wiz.
Isn't Jerrells still in the mix? He is in Austin with a contract as well. I thought when George Hill went down that Jerrells would be the guy who would see some time at the point but Temple has stepped in nicely.
Tony/Temple/Jerrells at the point combined with Manu/Hill at the two gives you a lot of options as far as ball handling goes.
Of course, all that is predicated on Temple and Jerrells developing into NBA players although like everyone else, I'm liking what I'm seeing.
He is enough of a point guard to fill the need for the Spurs, which is 3rd string point guard. His ability to play the 1 will cut into Hairston's role. Malik has shown some decent defense and is super athletic but is still way too inconsistant on his shot selection. If the Spurs draft a decent SF of size, Hairston could find himself the odd man out on minutes and could even not make the team. The theme for next year "Size Matters".
Well yes, if his career job is going to be a 3rd strong PG, than he can do that for 5 minutes a night. But he will never be able to be a true PG for 30+mins a night. I think of him more as a good defender, who is long and can guard a few positions. He has good ball handle and a decent shot. He'll never be a great offensive player though, so I see him filling a void at the 1, 2, and 3 for defense, hustle etc.
I'd like try to pluck Anthony Randolph from GS. He and Nellie do NOT get along, and it's likely that Nellie will be back. He's under contract until 2011, and rather than double pay for a coach next year and then have to pay that coach during the lockout, they'll likely just keep his corpse around another year. GS is said to want to move Randolph with the right pieces (read: bad contracts). I think he has ridiculous potential, both offensively and defensively, enough to warrant eating a bad contract or bad contracts. He turns 21 in July.
Too bad we are probably not keeping Ian.......cause I would say send Ian, Blair, Temple, and Hairston there.
That wouldn't be a problem at all. NY's cap space would allow Parker to be traded for Chandler and an $11M trade exception which be valid for one year after the trade.
The issue there is I think they've got their sites set higher. They'd only consider Parker if they whiffed on the cream of the crop this summer.
Yeah, I like the idea of plucking Randolph as well. Trouble is they would have to want to send out someone like Maggette or Biedrins for him, not sure the Spurs would dance there.
With RJ rolling off in 2011, I'd take Maggette. He's actually of some use, and could fill the "overpaid swing man" role that RJ will be vacating, although I find his $10M infinitely more palatable than RJ's $15M.
I think AR is a franchise player in the making, and if you have to eat a 3 year/$31M deal for a productive and somewhat overpaid swing man to get him, you do it. One thing that Maggette does in his annual 60-65 games is he GETS TO THE LINE, like A LOT.
Parker for Maggette/AR works, salary wise.
Exactly. If they don't they get the FAs they want this summer, Parker would be a great consolation prize. Then in 2011 they could resign him or let him go and have the cap space to go after Melo.
I think the Spurs should set their sites higher. Chandler is a piece. You only trade Parker for a potential cornerstone.
Such a trade is unlikely.
My initial post was to point out that there were no CBA barriers to such a trade.
Then you don't trade Parker.
????
I didn't suggest that they would or should, just that they could.
Right. I think most people who acknowledge the possibility have it at the "could" level at this time. You have to get value, though, or it's a no go.
Parker was an MVP candidate last year, i don't think trading him is ideal at all. i'm going to give him a chance to get healthy and get to that point again until i judge him. it's the same thing with Manu - everybody was all on the trade bandwagon when he wasn't healthy, but now that he is we realize just how good he is. i'm not going to change my philosophy with Parker. it's unfortunate that he's had to be injured, being that everyone else is finally healthy, and i think that makes it all the more dissapointing. it's just bad timing. but it looks like he's starting to come back.
that said, if parker can be traded for a guy like randolph, you goot look at that. Randolph can be a cornerstone type of player i belive in the future. he could help sustain greatness, or give us an opportunity to build around him to sustain it, for another decade. plus, he can play and help now, too.
i think a Garret/Hill backcourt can be interesting and potential fruitful, but i'd like to see more of Garret, personally, to make sure he's not jsut a flash in the pan.
what i do like about Garret already is his fire and confidence. you can't teach that. that's just who he is and the Spurs are in desperate need of that kind of personality.
Temple has picked up the system amazingly fast. It seems like he gets lost less than RJ.
Hairston was never really given a chance yet, but Temple has a lot more poise even if he has less talent. Malik's horrible handle is going to keep him stuck where he is until he improves it. When he does, his game should improve dramatically.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
