Reply With Quote
Contracts detail have been known for a couple of months trough McDonalds and the E-N. Sham surely deserves props for his website but McDonalds too, it isn't that frequent that he has inside news.
Mark Deeks of ShamSports has updated his NBA salary pages today. Among the updates are the contract details for Tony Parker:
http://www.shamsports.com/content/pa...ries/spurs.jsp
I'll let you give that excellent website a hit so that you can see the full details, but perhaps the most surprising details are these:
-Tony's extension has a flat salary rate for the next 4 years (no raises).
-The last year of the contract is only partially guaranteed.
The Spurs have become quite fond of non-guaranteed or partially guaranteed years (used in the contracts of McDyess, Bonner, Blair, Neal, and now Parker), likely because they result in less guaranteed liability, and they become very nice trade chips.
Let the 2013-14 Tony Parker trade rumors begin.
Contracts detail have been known for a couple of months trough McDonalds and the E-N. Sham surely deserves props for his website but McDonalds too, it isn't that frequent that he has inside news.
I still can't get over how good a deal that contract is for the Spurs. Damn.
Agreed that he's usually much slower to post it (waits for the official numbers), but I didn't realize that Tony's partially guaranteed year was known. If so, I apologize for the new thread. Either way, it seems pretty rare to me for an All-Star caliber player.
Upon further review, at least one other site had details to this effect mentioned back in November. My mistake. Anyway, hope this thread illuminates a few others who may have let this information slip through the cracks, as I did. Otherwise, feel free to ignore and let old news filter to page 2.
this is good news for the year!!!
No need to apology.
It's not that rare for an all star caliber player to have the last year of his contract partially guaranteed. Billups, Hamilton or Carter are also in that case.
But yes, Spurs have locked Parker to a great deal. Parker is the one that deserves the most props for that. When he has signed in extension, he said that he hasn't searched to get the most money to keep Spurs compe ive. That's pretty remarkable for a player who isn't that old. Seeing Duncan taking a pay-cut for his last extension has surely helped Parker to do the same.
Superstars often talk big about wanting to win and getting quality players around them but then go out and demand the max salary they can get often crippling their team financially. Tony has been raised in an organization where wins and family are more important than just getting yours and moving on. Big thanks to Pop, David, and Tim for helping create this atmosphere.
How much of a guarantee is "partial"? I could see tacking on a final year with only $100,000 guaranteed to make a great trade chip, but McDyess, for example, has about 1/2 his salary guaranteed next season, which is decent for trades, but not great.
Parker's deal is great for the Spurs though, and I'll join Bruno in giving TP props for helping the team like that.
Edit: ShamSports shows Parker's last year as $3.5 million guaranteed. Not a bad trade chip when it can be used to take back over $14 million in salary.
Stupid decision IMO. There is no loyalty in business. Take what you can get, especially since Duncan is getting too old to carry the Spurs. Or, at least, tell your agent that partially guaranteed money is not acceptable. He could have gotten the whole deal guaranteed for the same money if he hadn't caved.
One of a deal for the Spurs and also one of a message from Tony Parker - he's willing to sacrifice to win and to put his money where his mouth is. There's no doubt in my mind Parker could've gotten more $$$ with the Knicks. Although I do wonder how much of an affect, if any, that the sexting/divorce drama (including the Barry's) had on Parker's career decisions in the offseason.
He's been playing on an elite level these past few games and it should only continue against the Raptors tonight. As long as he stays healthy he'll probably be one of the biggest matchup advantages the Spurs have over other playoffs teams especially the Lakers and Mavs.
I understand your point, but the team's front office is responsible for ensuring they have the caliber players to win. If an individual can get big money, they should. You can bet your ass the owner isn't going to give up his take.
Basic economics shows plenty of examples of where cooperation yields two parties a better outcome than each trying to "get theirs."
And the Spurs, while they certainly treat basketball as a business, also have demonstrated plenty of examples of financial "loyalty" to players for what they've done for the franchise. The final contracts of Avery, Malik, and Bonner come to mind. , despite their flirtation with Webber, even David's last contract was probably a bit above his market value for the time.
Loyalty DOES pay in business, and in the private sector. This notion that going after the max money you can every time, no matter what, is the best option simply isn't true.
Another thing is that money only brings happiness to a certain extent. Research has shown that up to $75,000 a year, money does make people happier, but beyond that, there's no correlation.
It makes you wonder, what can you do with $50 million that you can't do with $41 million? Either way you and your children (and probably grandchildren, if you save and invest well) are set for life.
Considering Parker was getting to play for a winning team and the team was being moulded in the image of its guards, Parker made the most sensible decision. Yet another addition to the myth of Spurology.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
