Hey I am new to the forum. I feel like posting on the web might ease the pain of not having the NBA to watch.
Anyway and this of course is just for fun since no real big news is happening. Hypothetically would you deal Parker for Nash? Nash is borderline available depending on who you are listening to. I am not sure if they would want Tony. He is young but not the optimal player to rebuild with, nor is his contract short. But my logic with the Spurs is we get Nash for a year. If it works out great resign him and tim at seasons end and keep going. If the experiment fails his contract is up and let him walk.
Also a straight up deal might not make sense but I was think Parker, Mcdyess and picks for Nash, Lopez(who we coveted a while back), and Childress(they want out from under his contract bad). Salaries may not line up exactly but they are close. I am just tired of Tony to be honest. Duncan and Ginobili are winners. They do what it takes to win and make clutch plays. Parker has disappeared too much and I feel as though he hides behind stats. Sure he gets alot of buckets but not down the stretch IMO. Nash is a winner just like Duncan and Ginobili. What do you guys think?
And again I know this really doesn't have a chance of happening.
I would stick with Tony. My reasoning is simple. You get Nash for only one year and give up a good pg who is young enough to play multiple years. Not only that the Spurs don't have much in the pipeline for other PG spots should Nash choose to only stay a year.
Nash is ready for the glue factory. Nope.
Take on Childress?? Not unless they take rj...even then, Phoenix is getting the better deal...they need to add cash and a pick at the minimum.
Huh. All good points. I am an admitted Tony Parker hater, but I felt we were getting the better of the deal. Alot depends on the new CBA obviously but I think Nash is still a of a player, and even if he were to jump ship after the season a good point guard isn't that too hard to find in this league right now. That was just my thought process. I am not exactly in love with Tony Parker's contract right now either. I just can't see him carrying the team. Well we will see what happens when the lockout ends, just thought I would ask.
Having Parker post TD & Manu will do nothing for us but keep us at a mediocre level. Once those two leave, SA's best option is to rebuild from scratch. It's not like the system the Spurs run now could be effective without those two anyways. If we could get Nash for TP, I would do it. Steve would've done a of a lot better against Memphis than Parker did.
Why would any Spurs fan want to pick up the guy that has been perennially pwned by us for the past decade? (2010 notwithstanding)
Both Nash and the Suns wouldn't want to trade to the Spurs given the rivalry's history.
However Nash could make the Spurs better and would get players like Richard Jefferson more involved in the offense. But the Spurs would need a legit back up PG since Nash's back and durability isn't what it used to be.
The Spurs would definitely be the new Suns if Nash heads on over too
Oh, so Nash has individually been pwned by us the past decade???? I didn't know that, I thought the mid 2000's Spurs pwned the mid 2000's Suns though. I thought he has played pretty well individually against the Spurs.
I'll admit that Nash pretty much always played like a gangbuster against us, but I still have spent too much time rooting against him to want to see him in silver and black.
Then again, if I could become a Robert Horry fan, I guess I could probably learn to accept anybody.Then again, Robert Horry gave us the Detroit Dagger, so Nash would have to provide some similar heroics before I think he would sway most Spurs fans.
i find myself touching myself at the thought of this trade going down. i would do it in a heartbeat.
so the TP got owned by mike in conley () and you want to trade TP's defense for Nash's defense? The same Nash that got lit up by Bibby all those years in Dallas?
Offense isn't the Spurs problem brah, they were at the top last season.
Yeah Childress has one of the worst contracts in the NBA. If the Suns can use Nash just to unload Childress and Warrick or Frye, it's worth it for them.
Oh really, brah? Didn't look that way against Memphis, brah... in fact, we could all assume the blame to Parker for playing like ... offensively, defensively, and didn't start creating for others until it was too late... brah. At least Nash would have covered 2 of the 3 that TP didn't give us, brah.so the TP got owned by mike in conley (
Offense isn't the Spurs problem brah, they were at the top last season.
On a serious note, Nash does suck at defense, and so do the Spurs, but I don't think expecting a PG to be a great defensive player is sensible, tbh. Bruce was the one to shut down Nash, Paul, Billups... etc. It was never Parker. Who would have ever thought.... Conley would rape TP?
well with rj unlikely to be traded & with all the young players the spurs have (anderson,neal, kwahi, blair, splitter) dont see how having the master of floor control would hurt. the spurs would have done better with nash than tony against memphis. notice how tony couldnt get anyone involved and setteled for long mid range jumpers. Nash is way more clutch & has one of the highest BB IQ's in the game.so the TP got owned by mike in conley (
Offense isn't the Spurs problem brah, they were at the top last season.
plus you have to look towards the future of the spurs. by the time the spurs get back to a playoff team tony would be ready for retirment. whether tim and nash would resign for a cheap 1 year contract or manu, tim, & nash retire. thats a ton of cap space the spurs get back. & looking at the 2012 free agents class. its looks like the best thing for the spurs.
but like the OP said its a highley unlikely trade.
If Nash goes anywhere it's going to be NY to play in Mike D's system.
It isn't 2005 anymore, Nash isn't that great of a commodity that people are going to be lining up to take BOTH of those terrible contracts off your hands for 1 year of over the hill Nash. If you guys get rid of nash, you'll get a decent younger piece like a tony parker, OR you'll get basically nothing except expiring contracts and be able to unload one of those ty contracts. You ain't getting both talent and all those ty salaries dumped just for nash's carcass imho.
Rogue is correct, plus Phx screwed the pooch when they brought Shaq on board. They seem to love making stupid moves. Firing Mike D, Firing Steve Kerr, Firing Terry Porter (cause he wanted to play defense), Hiring Shaq, hiring Childress, Accepting the trades from the Magic...
Who's running the ing show there now that the has left?
Kerr hired Shaq, IIRC. He was part of the problem.
So Conley avging 14ppg and shooting 39% FG means raping Parker ..
You gotta love those Parker haters.
Or Parker going 4 for 16 and turning the ball over 8 times in one half means he ing sucked donkey .So Conley avging 14ppg and shooting 39% FG means raping Parker ..
You gotta love those Parker haters.
Oh really? He did all that in one half? He must have been amazing during the other 11 halves then cause he finished the series at 20 ppg on 46%+ shooting.
And tbh it's the weak front line starting next to the tired old bag Duncan that hurt y'all, trading for Nash wouldnt solve the real problem tbh
So what he sucked 1 half ? How many times have we seen Manu or Timmy struggling 1 half as well ?
Now Parker haters get 1 bad half in a 6-game series to bash Parker
Parker still had 19.7ppg shooting 46%FG, avging 5 asts.
but but but ..Conley destroyed Parker shooting 39%FG and avging 14ppg..
Parker is so unappreciated by some Spurs fans that it's sad.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
