Reply With Quote
One word: Hoopsworld.
Maybe I'm not understanding this right, but I don't see any way they're going to be able to get away with not paying a guy the amount in his contract. You can't retroactively give a guy a pay cut.
One word: Hoopsworld.
During the Miami @ New Jersey game, Mike Fratello and Marv Albert were talking about the Tony Parker extension. The Czar was saying that he was surprised that Parker got it due to the up and coming nature of George Hill while Marv Albert said he knew this was happening all along from talking to Coach Pop throughout the year. Thought that was kind of interesting.
Parker should have a field day tonight against Baron Davis and the Clippers "defense".
After Mike Conley's extension, this deal looks even better. Then again, RC isn't trying to take the "worst GM in the NBA" le back from Kahn...
Big 3 get to play together until Timmy calls it quits. Gotta love that.
Glad Tony is sticking around.
Ken Rodriguez : Sweet Deal For Parker
Tony Parker did not go through adolescence as a Spur. It just seemed that way. As a rookie, Parker looked young enough to pass for an 11th grader. Now he might stick around San Antonio long enough to get his first (premature) gray hair.
The Spurs recently extended Parker’s contract, and when it expires, he’ll have worn Silver and Black as long as David Robinson -- 14 seasons.
“I always said I wanted to stay in San Antonio,” Parker told reporters last week. “It’s my home.”
keep reading - http://www.nba.com/spurs/features/101103_rodriguez.html
I'm glad for Parker, and the Spurs. I think this was a mutually beneficial move.
JMcDonald_SAEN Jeff McDonald
Tony Parker's extension not fully guaranteed in 2014-15, and other contract details at Courtside: http://bit.ly/9h93YK #spurs
Wow, that is nuts.
such a fantastic deal by the spurs, how do they continue to do these things..
Only 3.5 mil is guaranteed also and no trade kicker.
Only $3.5 million is fully guaranteed in the final season, 2014-15Finally, the deal includes no trade kicker
Those "details" and the fact that Tony signed so quicly are starting to worrying me...
The Spurs FO is great, that's a fact, but why such a non garanteed last year? Tony would be only 32 'how old would be Manu at the end of his deal?) weird...
Either Tony (or his agent) is stupid, either, he knows his body didn't fullly recover or won't "last long"...
Maybe Tony doesn't care about the money, he already has too much ...
What I heard is that Spurs initial offer was $39M/3 years which was the same extension Manu got.
Edit: Props to McDonald for getting the contract details.
Last edited by Bruno; 11-04-2010 at 08:28 PM.
Wtf? The last year is not fully guaranteed???
So, now we finally know when he'll be traded to the Knicks.
[Parkerhater]Parker did this on purpose so he can demand a trade if this season does not go well.[/Parkerhater]
What I heard is that Spurs initial offer was $39M/3 years which was the same extension Manu got.
Edit: Props to McDonald for getting the contract details.
Hi Bruno!
Can you explain me how you understand these details, for instance, what is the purpose of a trade kicker...
thks!
I don't know how Bruno knows so much about NBA contract law, but trade kickers are a way players protect themselves from being traded -- essentially, they add a substantial dollar amount to a player's contract should they be traded, which reduces their value and threatens the cap-space of the destination team.
And yet, he thinks Scola is a bench scrub, go figure.
So Tony can be trade more easily than Manu...!?
These deals are strange and can lead to so many interpretations... it's crazy!
So I guess it the new extention doesn't mean there won't be anymore "Trade Parker" threads for 3 more years...
Who? Bruno thinks that???!!And yet, he thinks Scola is a bench scrub, go figure.
Yes, but he might also be less likely than Manu to be traded since his (Parker's) contract is very reasonable with respect to his production and he is still in his prime.
Manu, on the other hand, is a fair amount older, and there may still be questions about his durability. Were he to break down or decline substantially over the course of his contract, he could begin to appeal to the Spurs FO as "trade bait," in the last year of his contract.
In other words, the Spurs could try to trade Manu for a player who makes roughly the same amount of money but has a longer contract, while the team Manu was traded to would get an expiring contract to help them reduce their overall payroll obligations the following season.
Ergo: to discourage the Spurs from making such a move, Manu's agent added a trade kicker to his contract.
Thanks!
But don't you think that the fact Tony's contract isn't too expensive make him attractive to other team who need an "affordable" elite PG?
(in the case the spurs would try/need to trade him)
It's certain that Tony would be attractive to a lot of teams at his price, but because his contract is so reasonable, it would be very difficult for the Spurs to get a similarly-paid player who produced as well as he does unless they got a over-paid mediocre player bundled with a talented rookie or sop re. That said, most teams are su ious of trading away talented rookies because they have some of the most reasonable contracts of all.
To add at what has been said, a trade kicker is an amount of money that a player receive if he is traded.
For example, if a player with a 10% trade kicker is traded and if there is $30M left on his contract when the trade happens, his new team hast to give him $3M within two weeks after the trade.
Some players takes a pay cut to be with a certain team and have a trade kicker that would offset this pay cut if they are traded. For example, Wade, James, Bosh, Miller and Haslem all took pay cuts and they all have a 15% trade kicker.
Some players also want a trade kicker to dissuade their team to trade them. For example, Dice has a 10% trade kicker which makes him hard to trade for Spurs.
Manu's trade kicker is small (only 5%). It wouldn't really hurt a trade. IMO, it's more "If I'm traded, I want some cash to pay for the move."
Parker's contract hasn't a trade kicker like most of the NBA contracts. There are two scenarios possible.
Scenario 1: Parker has asked for a trade kicker and Spurs told him no. Spurs considered that trading him in the future is a possibility.
Scenario 2: Parker hasn't asked for a trade kicker. If Spurs fail to reload on the fly and go through a whole rebuilding process, Parker knows that the best for both side would be a trade. He didn't want a trade kicker in his contract that made a trade harder to do.
I think the right scenario is the second one.
Hadn't thought of it that way, but your second scenario does make a lot of sense and would be a win-win. Well played, sir.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
