Tony Parker's Contract and Free agency

[$pursDynasty]

I have been seeing many posts about how crippling TP's contract is to the Spurs, so I went to the ESPN sight to see where he ranks? TP is currently the Spurs highest player (fact) though no doubt soon to be surpassed by KL's new deal. Twenty out of the leagues 30 teams had a player paid higher than TP the Spur's highest paid player. 13 of those teams have multiple players ahead of TP (Rox, Heat, Cavs, Clips, Kings, Thunder, Bulls, Griz, Pacers, Wiz) have two, the Nets, Warriors and Mavericks have 3. I know the Spurs preach team first but this is America not a communist state. Do you Spurs fans want your highest paid player not in the top 30 and if so how can you EVER expect any free agent to ever want to sniff the Spurs because even if you don't have state taxes in Texas, that doesn't matter if you are paying pennies on the dollar. Not trying to say TP is the Spurs best player last year, because I am not; just the premise of the argument that his contract is crippling the team seems ludicrous when it is 36th in a league of 30 teams, only two teams with the top players salary less than TP's made the playoffs, Celts and Raptors and I don't believe any Spurs fan aspires to be in their situation. So site his play if you must but the salary argument is weird unless you want 12 members on the team to evenly split the cap.

[Russ]

I have been seeing many posts about how crippling TP's contract is to the Spurs, so I went to the ESPN sight to see where he ranks? TP is currently the Spurs highest player (fact) though no doubt soon to be surpassed by KL's new deal. Twenty out of the leagues 30 teams had a player paid higher than TP the Spur's highest paid player. 13 of those teams have multiple players ahead of TP (Rox, Heat, Cavs, Clips, Kings, Thunder, Bulls, Griz, Pacers, Wiz) have two, the Nets, Warriors and Mavericks have 3. I know the Spurs preach team first but this is America not a communist state. Do you Spurs fans want your highest paid player not in the top 30 and if so how can you EVER expect any free agent to ever want to sniff the Spurs because even if you don't have state taxes in Texas, that doesn't matter if you are paying pennies on the dollar. Not trying to say TP is the Spurs best player last year, because I am not; just the premise of the argument that his contract is crippling the team seems ludicrous when it is 36th in a league of 30 teams, only two teams with the top players salary less than TP's made the playoffs, Celts and Raptors and I don't believe any Spurs fan aspires to be in their situation. So site his play if you must but the salary argument is weird unless you want 12 members on the team to evenly split the cap.

The Spurs and their fans have long faced criticism for being "small town" or "small time" in a big-city league.

I've found little evidence of this until now.

Many Spurs fans consider TP's contract so overblown as to be an albatross of Allan Houston or Kobe Bryant proportions.

It's only considered that way by the unsophisticated, lacking any sense of perspective or history, in sleepy little SA.

The Spurs could move Parker's contract in a heartbeat if they wanted to -- they wouldn't have to "sweeten the deal" with additional compensation.

[Chinook]

^ The only thing lacking sophistication is the way people are trying to compare dollar amounts for other bad contracts. Parker's deal is only bad because the Spurs are trying to pinch pennies and really couldn't afford for Tony to make more than $4 Million more than he was worth. If they want to sign a max free agent the Spurs will have to get rid of Splitter or Diaw because Tony took too much money.

And while I think a team would be willing to take Parker's deal, I don't think very many would. It's not a bad contract in the grand scheme of things, but it's not a good one either. And Parker is at the point where teams are finally starting to wonder if he's really a mostly bad player now.

[Russ]

^ The only thing lacking sophistication is the way people are trying to compare dollar amounts for other bad contracts. Parker's deal is only bad because the Spurs are trying to pinch pennies and really couldn't afford for Tony to make more than $4 Million more than he was worth. If they want to sign a max free agent the Spurs will have to get rid of Splitter or Diaw because Tony took too much money.

And while I think a team would be willing to take Parker's deal, I don't think very many would. It's not a bad contract in the grand scheme of things, but it's not a good one either. And Parker is at the point where teams are finally starting to wonder if he's really a mostly bad player now.

I don't disagree that much except with this -- do you really think that TP's value is only $8 million/year?

[$pursDynasty]

^ The only thing lacking sophistication is the way people are trying to compare dollar amounts for other bad contracts. Parker's deal is only bad because the Spurs are trying to pinch pennies and really couldn't afford for Tony to make more than $4 Million more than he was worth. If they want to sign a max free agent the Spurs will have to get rid of Splitter or Diaw because Tony took too much money.

And while I think a team would be willing to take Parker's deal, I don't think very many would. It's not a bad contract in the grand scheme of things, but it's not a good one either. And Parker is at the point where teams are finally starting to wonder if he's really a mostly bad player now.

a logical point, not mine but people can disagree, if TP is worth it but my point is TP's deal money wise isn't a back breaker. Is it high for your 3rd highest contract (KL and mythical max fa) maybe but for your top guy? Not at all, every team wishes their top guy was paid at TP's level and the team wasn't in revolt or garbage. At the time it was signed TP was considered our top player and for your top player we got him on the cheap. Now has it gone from looking like a steal to overpaying? Perhaps but it is far from crippling.

[cantthinkofanything]

I don't disagree that much except with this -- do you really think that TP's value is only $8 million/year?

Don't you mean, "Do you really think that TP's value is even $8 million/year? "

[Chinook]

I don't disagree that much except with this -- do you really think that TP's value is only $8 million/year?

I think a $40M/4 would have worked well for both sides. The first year of that deal would have been at about $9 Million. Instead, the Spurs are paying him $13.4 Million next season. That's a huge, huge difference.

[Chinook]

a logical point, not mine but people can disagree, if TP is worth it but my point is TP's deal money wise isn't a back breaker. Is it high for your 3rd highest contract (KL and mythical max fa) maybe but for your top guy? Not at all, every team wishes their top guy was paid at TP's level and the team wasn't in revolt or garbage. At the time it was signed TP was considered our top player and for your top player we got him on the cheap. Now has it gone from looking like a steal to overpaying? Perhaps but it is far from crippling.

It never looked like a steal. TP signed the deal last October, when he was clearly not playing his best basketball. This was during the same month when the Spurs decided NOT to extend Leonard because they wanted to save the cap space. Yet they hand Tony a blank check? Yeah, many people said it was a bad contract the moment the tweet went out.

[Russ]

If they want to sign a max free agent the Spurs will have to get rid of Splitter or Diaw because Tony took too much money.

To play devil's advocate, what FA out there do you think is worth a max deal?

In other words, who out there will get the max and then, down the road, not look like another bad, overpaid contract -- perhaps worse than TP?

Aldridge may blossom as a Spur. But based on his performance up to now, I'd say maxing him could result in a much worse deal than Parker's.

[Chinook]

To play devil's advocate, what FA out there do you think is worth a max deal?

In other words, who out there will get the max and then, down the road, not look like another bad, overpaid contract -- perhaps worse than TP?

Aldridge may blossom as a Spur. But based on his performance up to now, I'd say maxing him could result in a much worse deal than Parker's.

Doesn't matter. Even if LA busts, the Spurs would have been able to get him without losing any of their core guys. Now, if Aldridge is a bust, it will have cost the Spurs a core rotation guy in addition to the cap space.

[$pursDynasty]

I don't know of many max players in the entire league tbh LBJ, AD, Durant (when healthy but who can predict that), young Kobe not now, Curry, CP3, Blake (if he continues at this years playoff level), Russ, maybe Harden (carrying a team in the RS has to count for something) prime Dirk period, but to me a "max guy" is a build your franchise around this guy. That is not what a max guy is now in the league, a max guy is an all star with leverage which is dumb but the way it is now that list contains dozens of players.

[$pursDynasty]

It never looked like a steal. TP signed the deal last October, when he was clearly not playing his best basketball. This was during the same month when the Spurs decided NOT to extend Leonard because they wanted to save the cap space. Yet they hand Tony a blank check? Yeah, many people said it was a bad contract the moment the tweet went out.

true but teams have been known for rewarding players for past accomplishments, they may have thought the Tony from the year before, who carried the Spurs to the playoffs would return. It was only one year removed from his best RS ever, a legit RS MVP candidate. That deal for that TP, optimistic thinking to be sure wasn't a bad one, that Tony just hasn't been back since game 1 of the Heat Finals we lost.

[TheGoldStandard]

Unfortunately with the cap going up in the next couple of seasons max #s will continue to rise and crappy players will get insane deals along with it. Not only does that contract hurt to keep the core together while bringing in another $ FA but it also hurts the transition phase of the franchise. You'll need rebuilding blocks sooner or later and it's much easier to transition when you have veteran leadership to use in that transition. If they move players to make room or strike out they'll have to go from scratch with new rotations to develop chemistry.

You our also set the value for future production of players on our roster and FAs coming in, you can have crappy seasons but still get paid 14m as long as you are loyal. Players coming in will be wanting similar cash or more based on production and then players we have now won't want to be low balled.

[LongtimeSpursFan]

Don't you mean, "Do you really think that TP's value is even $8 million/year? "

Strange how some people think Parker is not worth 8 million and yet believe Green is somehow worth 10 million.

[$pursDynasty]

Unfortunately with the cap going up in the next couple of seasons max #s will continue to rise and crappy players will get insane deals along with it. Not only does that contract hurt to keep the core together while bringing in another $ FA but it also hurts the transition phase of the franchise. You'll need rebuilding blocks sooner or later and it's much easier to transition when you have veteran leadership to use in that transition. If they move players to make room or strike out they'll have to go from scratch with new rotations to develop chemistry.

You our also set the value for future production of players on our roster and FAs coming in, you can have crappy seasons but still get paid 14m as long as you are loyal. Players coming in will be wanting similar cash or more based on production and then players we have now won't want to be low balled.

amen on the first sentence, as for the rest it is a valid point but to think you can walk in off the street and be treated like the big 3 isn't logical. This team has many important parts but none are esteemed like the big three. TD above all but as important as Bobo and Verde are they don't have Spurs sweat equity with Manu and TP on a team that seems to highly value that. If a FA coming in doesn't get that he isn't Spurs material.

[cantthinkofanything]

Strange how some people think Parker is not worth 8 million and yet believe Green is somehow worth 10 million.

I think it's more of a matter of, "holy ...if Parker gets $14 million..."

[$pursDynasty]

I think it's more of a matter of, "holy ...if Parker gets $14 million..."

can't think but looking outside the Spurs bubble what is 14 million? Check the list of some of the has beens and never wases that are making more than TP. This isn't a matter of one bad FO throwing away cheese but many. It is hard to imagine a starter with one All Star appearance (not the hardest thing to obtain unless you are Mike Conley or Damien L.) not wanting more? Not that I aspire to be other franchises but that being said there are a lot worse deals out there. Sure Timmy is making a lot less than he could but he is a player that could say tomorrow I am retiring, while TP is thought to have more years in him, last years play not withstanding. A vast majority of players not on their last legs will give any team that much of a discount, Dirk and TD are the rare exception of which Kobe is the rule. Great 6th men will require TP's level of salary and we expect him to be a starter if any of the top 3 6th man candidates hit the market would you be surprised if they got 14?

[Chinook]

Strange how some people think Parker is not worth 8 million and yet believe Green is somehow worth 10 million.

Again, that's not a good way to look at it. First, Green is a better player than Parker, and the gap is just going to keep growing. Despite that, the issue most people seem to be having is that they don't understand the opportunity cost. Green getting $14 Million a year and Green getting $8 Million a year are pretty much the same thing. They both affect the Spurs' function cap space this summer by the same amount. Parker's extra salary very much affects the Spurs, however.

[$pursDynasty]

Again, that's not a good way to look at it. First, Green is a better player than Parker, and the gap is just going to keep growing. Despite that, the issue most people seem to be having is that they don't understand the opportunity cost. Green getting $14 Million a year and Green getting $8 Million a year are pretty much the same thing. They both affect the Spurs' function cap space this summer by the same amount. Parker's extra salary very much affects the Spurs, however.

Chin not disagreeing but I didn't catch your point completely, could you elaborate? Is it about timing, this year when KL comes up and the Spurs are rumored to be big (FA) game hunting or something else? I am not getting your Verde as opposed to Tony point (not the better player stuff but the opportunity cost stuff).

[Mal]

I think a $40M/4 would have worked well for both sides. The first year of that deal would have been at about $9 Million. Instead, the Spurs are paying him $13.4 Million next season. That's a huge, huge difference.

Wasnt he been playing on below market value deal before ?

[Chinook]

Wasnt he been playing on below market value deal before ?

Maybe.

[LongtimeSpursFan]

Again, that's not a good way to look at it. First, Green is a better player than Parker, and the gap is just going to keep growing. Despite that, the issue most people seem to be having is that they don't understand the opportunity cost. Green getting $14 Million a year and Green getting $8 Million a year are pretty much the same thing. They both affect the Spurs' function cap space this summer by the same amount. Parker's extra salary very much affects the Spurs, however.

Sorry you lost me at Green is a better player than Parker. I'm going to have to disagree. Green is the most replaceable starter and up until this year was not even the top 6 players on roster. Although I do believe he has passed up Manu this year.
There is a difference between 14 and 8 million. It's 6 million. Whether it counts toward the cap or not. The Spurs organization have a history of budget minded and paying a guard that is inconsistent shooter and no handles doesn't make economic sense. Ask yourself how many other players in Spurs history have received that type of money and outside of Duncan, Manu, Parker, Robinson and now Kawhi (excluding he should not be named) there aren't any. I certainly don't think Green fits in that group.

[Chinook]

Chin not disagreeing but I didn't catch your point completely, could you elaborate? Is it about timing, this year when KL comes up and the Spurs are rumored to be big (FA) game hunting or something else? I am not getting your Verde as opposed to Tony point (not the better player stuff but the opportunity cost stuff).

Danny only counts for less than $8 Million against the cap no matter how much he actually gets so long as the Spurs time the signing correctly. Parker counts for his full amount regardless because the contract is already on the books. Also, Green's deal will be based on his entire body of work, while Parker was able to negotiate a deal ignoring his most recent work.

[Big Empty]

I think Tony will comeback healthy next year and everyone will eat crow. I still think this is Tonys team. Kawhi is still too inconsistent in my opinion but eventually will put up 20 points a game with ease. We lost cause Tony wasnt playing at 100%, We wont go anywhere without that or another scorer.

[Chinook]

Sorry you lost me at Green is a better player than Parker. I'm going to have to disagree. Green is the most replaceable starter and up until this year was not even the top 6 players on roster. Although I do believe he has passed up Manu this year.

Yeah, no. PG is the most saturated position in the league, and Tony is a fringe starter at that position. SG is the hardest or second hardest position to find talent, and Danny is a top-five two-way player at that position. It's much easier to replace Parker than it is to replace Green. And again, Green is literally just a better player right now.

There is a difference between 14 and 8 million. It's 6 million. Whether it counts toward the cap or not. The Spurs organization have a history of budget minded and paying a guard that is inconsistent shooter and no handles doesn't make economic sense.

Bolded shows you completely missed the point of the post. And no, the Spurs don't have a history of being a "budget-minded" organization. They have consistently been over the cap after rewarding their best players. And they have definitely overpaid for players before. They gave Jefferson $15 Million a year because they thought he could be the missing piece, and he wasn't half as good as Green is.

What seems clear is that you don't have a ton of perspective on how the cap works and how team-building fits into that. You don't constantly pay old guys coming off terrible post-seasons and then call yourself budget-minded. And you don't move on from at top 5-10 guy at his position because you can nitpick some issues with him. And lol at acting like what Robinson got 20 years ago should affect what Green gets today.