How many "angry" or "spoiled" TP quotes actually turned out to be true? There's only one to my knowledge that was legit (the one about not wanting to babysit a rebuilding Spurs team after Timmy retires). He passed up the national team to rest, doubt he's spending his time talking about trades to anyone.
Tony has always been brutally honest when giving interviews. If he had something to say on this subject, I doubt he would feed his thoughts to a NY sportswriter via anonymous 'confidants'.
Remember, this is the same writer who had the initial Tony to NY story a while back. That story also cited anonymous 'confidants' and Tony categorically denied the story.
I agree. Hill's defense was vastly overrated and it came to fruition against Nash. Hill is definitely improving but he has a long ways to go until he reaches TP's level of play.
The only way I see TP being traded is if equal talent is received. No expiring contracts or draft picks.
Why Parker should be considered to be traded:
1. Parker is a high mileage player for his age due to his championship experience and international play
2. Parker plays an injury-prone style of basketball
3. He's expressed that he'll likely continue playing for France in the future, thus risking his NBA potential
4. The Spurs most impressive run in the season was with Parker injured and he came off the bench against the Mavs.
5. Spurs have huge weaknesses that must be addressed such as improving the frontcourt (Tiago alone won't cut it imo and the Spurs should look into grabbing a defensive SF) and 3 point shooting
6. Hill's improvements
7. Past rumors where Parker says he wants to play for NY, he was there just a week or two ago for business
8. Doesn't make much sense for the Spurs financially to gamble on Parker when you add all these points up.
9. Parker could be damaged goods
10. Nowhere near of a hometown star as Manu or Duncan.
11. He's an expiring and this is a capspace loaded summer without star PG's. His trade value should be high despite having an atrociously bad season.
Not sure if I agree that it was only for saving money since the Spurs could've waited on extending Manu and gave him a good deal anyway. Do you think the Spurs would've reconsidered their extension they gave Manu then if they're trying to save money?
If the Spurs are able to land a high draft pick and some serviceable talent it can do several things: save the Spurs money, allow Parker to pursue big-city dreams and earn more $$$, prepare for the post-Duncan era, and depending on the talent can significantly address a team's weakness and help now. Of course this all depends on the details of the trade --- it has to be a damn good one to ship Parker.
Last edited by Cane; 06-23-2010 at 01:35 PM.
Manu's contract is short term. Tony's wouldn't be.
All this trade Tony crap this year is just as bad as all the trade Manu crap from last year.
I love Tony, but I think we should trade him anyways, its not that he's a bad player its just Hill already has more shot and D potential than Tony has at this point. Tony's been it this league a long time and still hasn't implemented a 3 point game and his potential has peaked, plus he's logged a lot of miles already. We need to trade Parker before he loses his speed and all his value, and get a young and long athletic C or SF. Tony's represented good for San Antonio but we need to start thinking about tomorrow. Plus Timmy,Rich, and Parker all clog the lane and movement stalls to much, its much better when Manu and Hill are our back court.
I forgot to mention to all yall saying hill can't play pg, did yall see how good this team did when parker was out, that was hill running pg, when parker was in things didn't go good. aight pce
So then Garrett Temple is able to be the Spurs starting PG, right? Because when Hill went out, he was the starting PG, and he played extremely well. Let's trade both Hill and Parker and have Temple be the Spurs' new starting PG.
This. I'm not opposed to trading Parker for the right piece/pieces, but benching him in favor of Hill is just nonsense.
He should demand a trade if that occurred.
FYI, TP is in New York City at the moment, he's playing in Nash's charity soccer game tommorrow. So the NY media may have access to him right now.
It's really interesting that people say if Tony is asked to come off the bench, he should demand a trade. With this logic, Manu would have been traded 5 years ago and people on this board would have killed him for not being a "team player".
If Pop deems that the team is better suited with Hill starting and Tony coming off the bench (not that Pop would decide this, but if he did) then Tony should shut his mouth and come off the bench, the same way Manu did. If he doesn't like it he can leave in free agency next year. But what makes Parker so much more special than Manu?
this reminds me of when manu was in his prime and asked to be traded if hidayet turkoglu was given the starting job, or michael finley, or brent barry.
oh wait...
Nash and Dragic each had one great game in the series against the Spurs. In games 2, 3, and 4 Nash played heavy minutes and put up these numbers: 19 pts/6 assists, 16/6, and 20/9. In the past, Nash would have been met by an interior defense after getting by his guy... this year he wasn't. I think reports of Hill's "horrible" D are greatly exaggerated.
I'm not talking about just in the playoffs. In general throughout the season, his D declined from the year before.
But I'm not knocking Hill. I just don't think he's a point guard (yet??), nor do I think he can be a defensive stopper like many people think he can.
I think he's a huge asset to the team, and think he should start at SG, if Manu is going back to the bench.
Simply people being enamored and loyal to TP. Same when they say about Hill's assist numbers yet fail to realize that Manu and Tony did about 90% of the ballhandling in the postseason. Tony Parker wasnt necessarily racking up assists his first few years and even today is very far from being Nash or Rondo type of passer.
Personally, I'm not crazy about have a starting backcourt of a 6'2" PG and SG. The Spurs need length. Hill is too short to play SG in this league. If one has to be sacrificed, I'd rather it be Hill.
Parker never averaged 0.7 assist in 34 mpg. That's the same as Matt Bonner's playoff assist average. Hill should get more assists just by accident. Overall it wasn't a good post season for him (though he did have a couple great games).
Has parker ever blocked a 7 footer's shot like hill has... just sayin.... what are you talking about hill is short wtf? hill has more length than parker
And there are internet photos to prove it...
Well he's already been benched in favor of Hill during the Mavs series and the last stretch of the regular season.
110%!
Hmm I've been impressed with Hill defensively EXCEPT for that epic fail against Steve Nash (then again Nash had some great nights against the two-peat champion Lakers as well). I disagree about Hill declining on D since he showed that he was more versatile than ever and even had stretches defending and bothering against forwards like Dirk throughout the season due to his length and defensive effort. It would've been interesting to see how a 2nd year TP would've faced against such. Between Parker and Hill, Parker's the one that declined significantly although it was an injury plagued season.
I agree that it remains to be seen if he can be a defensive stopper but he's got a much better chance of turning out to be one than anyone on the Spurs roster given his youth and that he already made huge improvements.
In any case, it'd have to be a damn good gamble to trade either.
Obviously Parker declined. He went from an All-NBA season to one where he couldn't get healthy.
I just don't think that they will start a Manu-Hill backcourt all year. It will wear down Manu by the playoffs because he'll have to do too much. That's why they like to bring Manu off the bench - to manage his minutes better and keep him as fresh as possible for the postseason.
Parker is a better playmaker but he has also always been ball-dominant, so that has alot to do with it as well. Hill's ability to shoot, something Parker doesnt have in his game, allowed him to play off the ball and still contribute in the post-season. His playmaking isnt there yet but given more ballhandling duties there's no reason why he cant be in the 4 apg range, which is only an assist off of what TP hovered around for so many years early in his career including some championship years.
His post-season play was fine imo, he couldve played better in the Phoenix series...but that was pretty much a collective letdown from the whole team.
Hill is a shooting guard therefore yes 6'2 is short for that position....
to quote Sean Elliott-- "you dont block shots or shoot with your head"
wingspan > height
but this point is moot since Hill is being molded into a PG regardless of what the TP loyalists say.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
