Reply With Quote
i wouldnt trade either....
stick with Parker+Hill
trade Parker for immediate help (e.g. a big)
trade Parker for young pieces (picks, talent)
trade Hill for immediate help
trade Hill to get rid of bad contracts (RJ)
just for fun...
regarding a trade involving Parker or Boy George!
as we saw with the other thread there are very different oppinions on "IF to trade one of them?", "WHICH of them?" and "FOR WHAT?"
dont take it too serious! I don't think we will trade any of them, nor do I want to advocate for it!
just curious about the poll results
i wouldnt trade either....
Sticking with Parker is a no brainer. Despite the fact that he's one of the best point guards in the league and should be looking to have a bounce back season, he's far too enamored in San Antonio as one of the Big Three to be shipped unless some sort of miracle deal rolled around. It won't.
Too much has been invested in Hill to let him go IMO. If you do it, you do it for immediate help, but I don't like the idea of completely selling out our future (aka Blair, Hill, Splitter) for one last mad dash.
Richard Jefferson is not a bad contract.
Overall we have to question us: Is the window still open?
The Lakers are rolling and if several FA's team up, it may even be worse.
I agree, that we should have a small shot anyway, especially if Splitter comes over, but if we think the window is closed, we could make several phonecalles to see, if we can get something nice for Parker (Manu+Timmy are not going anywhere anytime).
That way, we could have the old-two TD+Manu to teach guys like Hill, Blair, Splitter and whoever we draft and get in return for Parker.
yup chieflion is right.....RJ's contract could be so useful come trade deadline
I doubt, that SA would do it again!
BTW.: He is earning more than Manu or Parker right now!
I have to give you that! Thought he is in the books for 2 more years!
Sorry!
am sure RJ will show up and start playing like he was supposed to for 16mil or whatever his salary is....coz its his contract year......
Never liked players where you can see, when they have a contract year just by looking at ther career stats.
Ok, everybody is a little bit like that and you can't blame them (you could make a case, that Manu played better before signing the contract too), but it shouldn't be Albert Haynesworth style (which RJ would have to be, to make his contract an OKone).
I admit it: I'm not a big RJ-fan and if we are trading his expiring for a nice piece, I would throw a party! But I also couldn't blame Holt, if he just wants to safe the money, not trying to earase a mistake by making another one!
trading tony
At some point, the Truth needs to be told:
First, Parker is an awesome player. He is one of the best PG in the league.
Second, Hill is an average player. He is an undersized SG who isn't that talented.
The gap in level between Parker and Hill is huge, very huge. Saying Spurs should trade Parker because they have Hill is as stupid as saying Spurs should trade Duncan because they have Blair or Spurs should trade Ginobili because they have Hill.
And the whole Parker needs to be traded for prospects because this team needs to rebuild makes absolutely no sense. Spurs signed a 33 years old Ginobili to a 3 years/$39M extension three month ago. Is it a rebuilding move?
If you truly thinks Spurs should rebuild, then start a thread "trade Ginobili for expirings". I've had a strange feeling that a thread like that won't be created. There should have something else behind these " trade Parker" threads other than a true concern about Spurs' future...
in general I agree with your oppinion, but I wanted to give an overview via pol, coz on the other thread things get very complicated.
I agree, that Hill hasn't shown that much, to put him in the same argument as Parker!
But stranger things have happened in the past.
I think we need to trade Parker! And also trade Jefferson! I think trading Parker and Monta Ellis would be nice but that is never going to happen.
Hill wants to be a starter or will want to be soon! Parker is a proven champion. Hill is nice but he's no Parker. An that's sayin a lot comin from me cuz I thought I wanted Parker gone but I realized he's the !
A quick description of the two - the former, an all star and among the best PG in the league, a multi - le winner and a finals MVP to boot, who is going to play a contract ending year and who, before the injury plagued season had a stellar year, carrying both sharing and scoring loads.
The latter, one of the most improved players in the league who is still playing off his rookie contract and is a very good defender against specific PGs and who has blossomed into an efficient shooter to boot.
Now why would the Spurs want to trade any one of these? If they wanted to, they would only do it to address their core weaknesses - a good 3 who can shoot well, defend other 3s and even 2s sometimes, can be an effective 4th man to the big three; a decent shot blocking center who can lift the load off Duncan.
Now for the former, we have Richard Jefferson, who in my opinion played awful last season relative to expectations on him. And for the latter we are most likely getting Tiago Splitter whose arrival is a matter of when and not if.
So, I would choose to trade George Hill (there is no way I would want to trade Parker unless I get a super star, say a Chris Bosh or a Le Bron...mostly pies in the sky), only if someone gets me a good 2/3 or a stretch 4 who is an adequate replacement for RJ, along with a weighty talent for the long term.
So I would only trade Hill in a package that features RJ and gets me in return, the needs of the hour for the Spurs along with long term good talent - mostly lottery picks. The chance of getting all of this in one trade is not very slim, neither is it fat.
If you are Parker, and you've rested your body for the first summer in years "because it's a contract year" and you have a great season, do you stick with the declining Spur's next year and limited endorsements in San Antonio? Or, do you follow the allure of a contract from a team in a glamor market? More to the point, if you are the Spurs, do you want to give a huge max contract to a 29-year-old PG who is 32 years old in dogs years who relies on his speed? I know Tony can make more money with a SA contract, but I do think he would jump at playing in NY or LA. So, I think we Parker before he s us. Trade him while he still has value.
agree, and dont forget: Hill's value is at an all time high! think of us trading Udrih, when he looked like an up and coming allstar, instead of when beeing late!
The Spurs should have traded David Robinson because they had Antoine Carr.
The Spurs should have fired Pop because they had Mike Brown.
That why I say: Timmy and Manu are not going anywhere! If you compare them to Tha Admiral, I'm ok with it. I think Parker is near that department, but not in it (sorry Parker fans...I like him too). He is Sean Elliott at best (IMO Elliott was loved more in SA) and he was traded for...uhhh...lets forget about that!
Carr is 4 years older than David! Hill isn't compared with Parker!
I don't want to give up Parker (rather I would trade Hill, even better none of them), but for the right price I could imagine it.
only for a top three pick
People say that the gap between Parker and Hill are huge.... well they aren't. Maybe if you are only looking at it from an offensive standpoint. But when you consider that Hill plays BOTH sides of the ball and his defense is MUCH better than Parker's then that gap gets alot smaller. To top it off, Hill is a better athlete, has many more years to play and improve because he is younger and has a much better contract ...these factors make Parker so much more expendable.
.. of course we could just keep Parker and screw our rebuilding process over and just totally suck for a whole decade after Timmy retires, like what Boston did to themselves in the 90's when they tried to show bird, parish, mchale and crew loyalty by keeping them until they were old and worthless and got no young talent in return......
Last edited by G-Dawgg; 06-22-2010 at 10:02 AM.
Against a lot of opponents (fast quick ones) Hill looked worse than Parker. I wouldnt say, that Parker is the better defender, but Hill is neither.
Somebody did not watch the phoenix series.
Nash scored something like 12 straight points on Hill in the first quarter of the first game.
Hill curled up into the fetal position after that.
Actually, I agree with your general premise that Hill is under-rated by Bruno and Baseline. He got votes for most improved player BEFORE he torched Dallas in the first round. (for one game, but still).
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
