Reply With Quote
Can't judge a dudes complete game by one game of a series. Plus pop used hill to guard guys likekobe. if parker tried, he'd get raped like he was a woman from denver.
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)
The only way P gets traded is with a sign and trade. He's in the drivers seat and I get the feeling the only place he would go to would be LA. The Lakers like to add without subtracting and I can't see them making any drastic moves until after next season. That leaves the Clippers. How far would you want to be from Eva?
Kinda surprised at the lack of love for Hill. He's obviously never going to be TP but he is solid.
Is there any player in this draft that can come in and start for us? If we had the #1 pick this year who would you take?
The goal should be to build a roster that can get passed the Lakers. None of the ideas here seem to address that.
Can't judge a dudes complete game by one game of a series. Plus pop used hill to guard guys likekobe. if parker tried, he'd get raped like he was a woman from denver.
So much fail in this post. Don't even know where to begin.
Parker publicly complained to get the Spurs to open the checkbook. The Spurs opened the checkbook, Parker got an extended rest in the middle of the season, and then he didn't step up at any point to lead the team. I'm perfectly happy with using him to fill some needs and retool for a final run with Duncan.
I'm fine with Parker being shipped out for a PG and a top 5 pick in return like Harris and the #3 Deal. Throw in Blair and a draft pick to make that happen. Hill, fine with shipping him out to Indy for the #10 pick.
The Spurs are too small and those picks can land either a big or versatile forward, two positions that the Spurs still need improvements in even with Tiago coming over. By moving up in the draft you simultaneously attack a huge weakness the Spurs have and prepare for a post-Duncan era. As is, Duncan needs a ton of help in the frontcourt and Tiago, Blair, Ian, Bonner and McDyess are not enough to contend against LA, Houston, Portland, etc.
I don't see a scenario where the Spurs offer Tony Parker a max deal or really any deal at alll unless he plays like he did this past season which was barely better than Devin Harris (meaning Parker's not getting max money or any deal unless its flexible for the Spurs future). I also could see the Spurs being hesitant to gamble on Parker's already high mileage and desire to play for the France NT - his injury-prone style likely means missing NBA games for the sake of his national team. San Antonio should be tired of that and Manu's enough to worry about when it comes to injuries overseas.
The Spurs have also proven to be very effective without Parker as seen in the most impressive run the Spurs had when Parker was injured and they won against some of the best teams in the league, on the road, to clinch a #7 playoffs spot. This had to have open eyes for the Spurs FO even more than what their near future financial situation and post-Duncan era looks like.
Manu's a better playmaker than either Hill or Parker and has also been the best guy when it comes to integrating new talent such as how he trained Blair this past season.
The Spurs don't need a max PG to be compe ive as seen in their Parker-less and most impressive run in the regular season and when they eliminated the Mavs with Parker coming off the bench. What the Spurs do need is help in the frontcourt, 3 point land, overall defensive intensity, juggling between not only trying to contend NOW but also preparing for the post-Duncan era (which a high draft pick can do both), and getting taller and longer....moving Parker or Hill can help these areas.
All that said it has to be a damn good deal and not a trade for the sake of trading.
Last edited by Cane; 06-22-2010 at 11:56 AM.
Murphy, Rush and the #10?
Okay, I'm not really pulling in one direction or the other. I trust the front office to make the right decision, but this thread and others like it got me thinking so I came up with this:
SAN ANTONIO SPURS - with trade
C - Splitter
PF - Duncan
SF - Jefferson
SG - Ginobili
PG - Hill
C - McDyess
PF - Murphy/Blair
SF - George/Hairston? (I'm assuming Paul George is drafted at #10 here)
SG - Rush
PG - Ford/Temple
Now, I realize TJ Ford hasn't been mentioned in the trade talks, but I'm assuming he'd be available since I doubt the Pacers would want two scoring PGs on the team.
Now, for the other side of the equation...
SAN ANTONIO SPURS - without trade
C - Splitter
PF - Duncan
SF - Jefferson
SG - Hill
PG - Parker
C - Orton?/McDyess (use #20 on Daniel Orton)
PF - Blair
SF - James?/Hairston? (use #20 on Damion James)
SG - Ginobili
PG - Temple
Now once again, I'm not necessarily advocating for either scenario. I'm honestly just curious which roster seems more appealing to the posters here. For me, I see the merits in simply adding a player like Splitter and Damion James to the team and seeing what happens, but if we want to match-up with the Lakers with size and the ability to defend scoring guards and forwards, adding Splitter, Rush and a player like Paul George has its benefits too. Thoughts?
stick with Parker+Hill
Finally, someone with a few firing neurons.
This is almost good enough to get me to change my sig.........almost.
Nooooooooooooooooooooo.......This is almost good enough to get me to change my sig.........almost.
Not a fan of trading TP generally. Only scenario I'd jump on is a trade for Chris Paul. I'm interested to see how severe NO's financial hardships is, and whether they'd swap comparable PGs in exchange for cap relief next year.
I disagree with a comment made above about resigning Manu, and that being inconsistent with "rebuilding." Extending Manu was about making sure we keep arguably the most exciting player (and fan fave) to ever suit up for the Spurs, and therefore, keeping folks in seats. The reality is that Tony doesn't have a similar status among most Spurs faithful.
+1
Lets assume our window is shut (Lakers strike a deal to improve and LeBron teams up with Bosh in the east)!
Would you rather have Manu+Timmy surrounded by some promising youngsters (Blair, Hill, Splitter(not that young anymore), a high draftpick this year, and maybe another steal at #20) or the same scenario with Parker+Timmy? Who would teach these guys better, while giving them playing time (Timmy and Manu would only lock about 65 minutes a game).
I'm not a Parker hater...I'm all for keeping him! But in comparison to Manu, he has a different status!
No matter how good Parker is, and I like the guy a lot, I don't see the Spurs winning a le without a borderline all-star talented young big man. And if it would take Parker to get that, then I think it should be done.
The Lakers aren't going anywhere. They won because they have the best front line in the league. The C's also have a pretty damn good front line, which explains how they went as far as they did.
Size matters. The Lakers went through teams with some of the best PG's in the league with Fisher to throw at them.
After being swept, the Spurs as currently constructed are not in a position to win it all. People need to take off the homer glasses. Splitter is not the complete answer. He's an unproven talent.
Now all you need to do is identify a team with a "borderline all-star talented young big man" who is willing to trade that very valuable NBA commodity for Tony Parker. Troy Murphy certainly doesn't fit that description. Generally, teams that are fortunate enough to employ a "borderline all-star talented young big man" tend to keep them and are not interested in trading them for guards. (Note that this follows your line of reasoning that teams with big front lines beat teams with talented PGs)
Need more info.
Some "for instances" on:
trade Parker for immediate help (e.g. a big)
trade Parker for young pieces (picks, talent)
trade Hill for immediate help
1. How good of a big? Parker for Amare Poutamire, yeah I'd go for that.
Would have really gone for Kevin Durant a few years ago.
2. Top 5 pick + what talent?
3. What is "immediate help"? Give a for instance.
depends on who's there at 10, if it's Paul George then i think that's a good deal.
we've got to trade Parker
we need to trade Parker
we absolutely must trade Tony Parker
we are doomed if we don't trade Tony Parker
if we don't trade Parker, someone will overpay for him in 2011, if it's us, we're screwed, if it's someone else, we're still screwed.
it is imperative that we trade Parker
Well they drafted George.
No way do you trade a player like Tony Parker in his prime. There is no team who will give us what he is worth anyway. George Hill is a good and improving player, but he is nowhere near starting PG level. He had a good series vs Dallas, but collapsed vs Phoenix. George Hill is not ready to the starting PG on a team that is still looking to compete for a championship. Without a healthy Tony Parker the Spurs don't stand a chance.
And when Tony Parker signs with another team next year the Spurs will have gotten nothing in return for him. The only thing dumber than trading a player like Tony Parker in his prime is not getting any value when there's an opportunity.
There are more probabilities he stays than he leaves...
The "window" is closing for Timmy, the FO HAS to think SHORT TERM!
It is just IMPOSSIBLE to find an equal value for Tony.
Even if he is very well paid, he still is UNDERPAID for an elite PG... (any trade involving CP3 or Deron or any other top PGs... would be dumb regarding their respective salaries...)
The best option to me, is to try to convince Tony that he has to be "resonable" in the salary he will ask for.
Tony already knows he will get less from the spurs than anywhere else, but he also knows that it's easier for him to stay in a city/team/environment/system... he already knows very well, rather than going through a tougher "process" with a new team...
The decisive factor will be the ability for the Spurs to convince him they can still be compe ive. If they succed, I'm sure he'll be ok to get less $$ but more rings...
PS/ The "injury prone" argument is irelevant because first it's a "risk" for EVERY players in the world and then I don't think there are more than a dozen players that have played more games than him these last 10 years, at this point it was just 1 year and it happens to every players..
I'm not convinced that Tony will leave and you are. Obviously, there is a fundamental difference of opinion that is informing our at ude about the subject. I don't buy into the whole "Tony Parker is a selfish player who is bound for Hollywood at the first opportunity" bull that seems so prevalent here. I think the Spurs foster a basketball culture that makes their players want to stick around. I think the big factor will be how long Tim can play and be effective.
George Hill is no where near Parker's level. and never will be. for a time i thought he would be better for the Spurs, but he was exposed when TP got hurt. yeah, the Spurs won a lot during that stretch and that may lead you to believe that Hill playing the point was a big factor in that, but it wasn't; it was actually because Manu was BALLING. he was being overworked in the process, though. fact is, long term, the Spurs absolutely need Parker. Hill is a passive player and the Spurs need Parker's offensive aggressiveness to take weight off of Ginobili.
i'm actually all for trading Hill and molding/using Temple as a back-up. i think Temple is a good prospect. and i bet you he'll come into training camp with more muscle. dude is an NBA player, and could be a rotational player if he puts on some muscle. his frame was a weakness last year. he was sort of getting pushed around. if he can add some muscle, i think he'll surprise a lot of peope wherever he goes.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
