Tony Parker's Contract and Free agency

[Chinook]

And $14 Million was and extreme to show how Green's contract won't really hurt the team. I'll be surprised if he gets more than $10 Million, which would make him third- or fourth-highest paid on the team.

[$pursDynasty]

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.

Ok Chin the year he got the deal, the FO did ignore the previous season but would you have minded the same deal had it been signed one year previously (Parkers arguably best RS ever)? For me it is understandable to give an all time Spur great the benefit of the doubt after one bad year. I mean you wouldn't know it from last year but there was a time (a few years ago) that Timmy looked DONE, fumbling passes, couldn't move, yet look at him now? Can TP do that? Who knows but I won't fault the FO for taking that bet after one bad year.

[Chinook]

Ok Chin the year he got the deal, the FO did ignore the previous season but would you have minded the same deal had it been signed one year previously

Think you misunderstood me. By giving Parker an extension, the Spurs locked themselves into a value without knowing how it would play out. Green will have his entire body of work to judge him on before his contract kicks in. That's just the nature of the process of extensions versus new contracts. To put it into the context you just established, the FO ignored the past TWO years of Parker's play while not ignoring any of Green's.

[coachmac87]

Ok Chin the year he got the deal, the FO did ignore the previous season but would you have minded the same deal had it been signed one year previously (Parkers arguably best RS ever)? For me it is understandable to give an all time Spur great the benefit of the doubt after one bad year. I mean you wouldn't know it from last year but there was a time (a few years ago) that Timmy looked DONE, fumbling passes, couldn't move, yet look at him now? Can TP do that? Who knows but I won't fault the FO for taking that bet after one bad year.

This. People need to stop worrying about Parker..he isn't going anywhere and there's a better chance hr gets better than traded.

[$pursDynasty]

Chin, gotcha excellent point inherent in all extensions vs new deals, but I appreciate the civility on this thread so far. Since the Spurs are in offseason/free agency mode; cap space and free agent stuff is all we have to tide us over until next year, well that and the draft but short of KL which wasn't our pick, I can't remember the last Spur draft pick that gave immediate gratification do we go back to 2001 one or all the way back to Timmy? I remember thinking Tiago was an urban legend for all the glowing reports but never seeing him and then the doubt that he would ever sign in the NBA talk. I couldn't pick Livio out of a police line up.

[cd98]

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.

Gasol and that's it. Maybe Love in this sense: Love's numbers would probably look okay, but the team result probably would not.

[cd98]

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.

I think you would have better luck finding a replacement for Danny Green than Tony Parker. Sure, he looked bad last year and its not good when an older player is getting injured every year (see Manu). That said, he is a good ball handler and experienced player who has demonstrated that he can make jump shots and is still one of the fastest players in the league when healthy. Finding starting quality point guards is not easy. Some will say that Mills is a starting point guard...that shows their ignorance.

[cd98]

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.



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.

There are a lot of great point guards in the league, but they are all on NBA rosters and they are seen as top 2 players on their teams. So if you were to trade or release Tony, who out there is going to replace him and do a better job?

[TheGoldStandard]

You don't need an "elite" level PG to win a championship especially at 14m a year. I understand we are screwed and probably screwed down the line with another terrible "legacy" contract but a ball handler who can get the ball up the court and into a set.

[cantthinkofanything]

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?

Omg. That's a lot to read.

[cantthinkofanything]

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?

He's too old and too close to the end to have committed that kind of money. And it significantly hurts this particular team. If he can come back and have a decent season, then it's not too bad. But if it turns out, he really sucks this bad injury free, then it's catastrophic.

[wildbill2u]

It's foolish for people to only look at this year's money and this year's production. The FO had to make decisions based on:

1. TP was just the starting PG on a NBA champion team--and arguably would be a prime prospect for a team looking for a veteran PG with his reputation. We are in compe ion for him with other teams, not negotiating in a vacuum.

2. What are other starting guards who have won championships recently being paid? Is he willing to take less to remain a Spur?

3. If we don't give him a max extension and he leaves, who are we left with as a starting PG? Does anyone really think that Mills or Cojo is ready to make that big step up?

4. If not, we'll have to go out of the team structure. What veteran and capable PG is available? How much will THEY cost? Will it be more than Parker will sign for? How long will it take them to fit into the Spurs system and playbook?

5. There is the payment for past performance factor. Don't we owe Parker for his work during the previous contract where he helped bring us to two NBA finals and one championship? It is a fact of life that many players get paid for past performance as well as for the future.

6. Does my crystal ball tell me that Parker will never be able to play at his career averages again. If he plays at that level, he is one of the top 10 premier guards in the NBA according to most knowledgeable basketball coaches/FO.

7. We've NEVER been able to sign any premier free agents, so what difference does it make if we give him a max extension. The likelihood that it will seriously affect any future negotiations is minimal.

8. And if we really have a shot at someone great, we can work it out. We are the best FO in the business, bar none. Although why any free agent would want to come to a team that is probably in the process of crashing due to retirements of the Big 3 and the best coach in the NBA is not clear.

[TheGoldStandard]

It's foolish for people to only look at this year's money and this year's production. The FO had to make decisions based on:

1. TP was just the starting PG on a NBA champion team--and arguably would be a prime prospect for a team looking for a veteran PG with his reputation. We are in compe ion for him with other teams, not negotiating in a vacuum.

2. What are other starting guards who have won championships recently being paid? Is he willing to take less to remain a Spur?

3. If we don't give him a max extension and he leaves, who are we left with as a starting PG? Does anyone really think that Mills or Cojo is ready to make that big step up?

4. If not, we'll have to go out of the team structure. What veteran and capable PG is available? How much will THEY cost? Will it be more than Parker will sign for? How long will it take them to fit into the Spurs system and playbook?

5. There is the payment for past performance factor. Don't we owe Parker for his work during the previous contract where he helped bring us to two NBA finals and one championship? It is a fact of life that many players get paid for past performance as well as for the future.

6. Does my crystal ball tell me that Parker will never be able to play at his career averages again. If he plays at that level, he is one of the top 10 premier guards in the NBA according to most knowledgeable basketball coaches/FO.

7. We've NEVER been able to sign any premier free agents, so what difference does it make if we give him a max extension. The likelihood that it will seriously affect any future negotiations is minimal.

8. And if we really have a shot at someone great, we can work it out. We are the best FO in the business, bar none. Although why any free agent would want to come to a team that is probably in the process of crashing due to retirements of the Big 3 and the best coach in the NBA is not clear.

1. Didn't even get to the point where we could gauge the interest of Parker from other teams and what his value was, went from paying him 12m to 14m despite a bad season.

2. Last 5 NBA champs outside of SA were Miami x2 (Mario Chalmers who was making 4M), Dallas (JJ Barrea who was making 1.8M), LAL (Fisher was making 4.7M and 5m) and if Tim was willing to take less to improve his chances of winning why not Parker?

3. Mills or Cojo only have to run the offense in the sense of getting into the sets besides with the big 3 slowly facing retirement the structure of the offense is going to change.

4. There are only 7 PGs who will make more than TP in the 2015/2016 season so the league average is probably somewhere around 5-8m

5. Parker isn't exactly broke and has been rewarded handsomely 05'-06 when he started making about 8m a season which gradually went up to 10m, 12m, 13m so he's had contracts that weren't huge discounts.

6. It remains to be seen but more often then not speed is usually the first thing to go.

7. Just because you haven't signed big market FA's in the past doesn't mean you can't especially with viable cap space. It has always been Tim's team regardless of who has the reigns of the offense and with him about to bow out either this season or next someone might be willing to come in for the right amount of cash and the right winning environment.

8. Logically you can't ask another high profile player to come in, assume a big portion of the load of the offense and then ask him to take a pay cut at a maybe at winning a le. Plus they can't magically make money appear that'll keep them under that tax apron.

[adonis827]

Simply put- if Parker is playing what his contract is worth- then it is not a bad contract.

This last season- he was "bad". Of course there are probably reasons for that. Parker usually gets the better of CP3 in the playoffs but certainly not in that last series.

Looks like we will be stuck on Parker for the foreseeable future. So he better get back to good old Tony for the spurs to have any chance.

[Godbama]

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.

This isn't even a thread. It's directly related to player performance and quality. "Site" his play if we must? Lmao, he's getting paid to play basketball. What else do you even cite but an employee's performance?! Yes, I think we "must" cite this basketball player's play when he's playing basketball. That's why I say this isn't even a thread. If he's the Tony Parker we've seen lately then it was a significant overpay. The end. Period. If you object to the word "cripple", that's fine and it's an overreaction but either way it's "not good".
How is this thread even two pages long? it feels like every reply you literally open with "if you have to bring up how this basketball player is playing basketball, then whatever, buuuut like I was saying"

How about people just actually reply to the original posts that bother them when they first see them instead of making threads to target the phantom positions of "these Spurs fans who I totally saw saying this one thing"

No, it's not a backbreaker or a crippler or a bullet to the head or blahblahblah, but it was still objectively a bad move if he's the Tony we saw a lot this year. As a Spurs fan, I don't like it when we make a misstep. Simple. It doesn't have to be something that disintegrates the team in ing acid. Bad moves add up, no franchise is managed perfectly and I don't expect us to get every move right, but I'll definitely be hoping for it and discussing it if we don't.

[Godbama]

It's foolish for people to only look at this year's money and this year's production. The FO had to make decisions based on:

1. TP was just the starting PG on a NBA champion team--and arguably would be a prime prospect for a team looking for a veteran PG with his reputation. We are in compe ion for him with other teams, not negotiating in a vacuum.

2. What are other starting guards who have won championships recently being paid? Is he willing to take less to remain a Spur?

3. If we don't give him a max extension and he leaves, who are we left with as a starting PG? Does anyone really think that Mills or Cojo is ready to make that big step up?

4. If not, we'll have to go out of the team structure. What veteran and capable PG is available? How much will THEY cost? Will it be more than Parker will sign for? How long will it take them to fit into the Spurs system and playbook?

5. There is the payment for past performance factor. Don't we owe Parker for his work during the previous contract where he helped bring us to two NBA finals and one championship? It is a fact of life that many players get paid for past performance as well as for the future.

6. Does my crystal ball tell me that Parker will never be able to play at his career averages again. If he plays at that level, he is one of the top 10 premier guards in the NBA according to most knowledgeable basketball coaches/FO.

7. We've NEVER been able to sign any premier free agents, so what difference does it make if we give him a max extension. The likelihood that it will seriously affect any future negotiations is minimal.

8. And if we really have a shot at someone great, we can work it out. We are the best FO in the business, bar none. Although why any free agent would want to come to a team that is probably in the process of crashing due to retirements of the Big 3 and the best coach in the NBA is not clear.

Someone just reply to this meandering list of vague justifications and speculative excuses with that one image ranking Tony's PER or whatever this playoffs. I remember this horrible ing list, probably posted by one of the dedicated antiparker losers.


And yeah dude, ya know as they always say it's a very point guard-starved league. Hardest position to find quality players in.
lol, basketball forums

[Seventyniner]

Parker's extension was a combination of many thing, including reward for past performance, not wanting to alienate a fan favorite, hoping that 2013-2014 was an outlier, etc. Obviously Parker's steep decline caught everyone by surprise. Why would the FO have done that extension if they saw that coming?

[Chinook]

Parker's extension was a combination of many thing, including reward for past performance, not wanting to alienate a fan favorite, hoping that 2013-2014 was an outlier, etc. Obviously Parker's steep decline caught everyone by surprise. Why would the FO have done that extension if they saw that coming?

Because Parker wanted it. It's just odd how that off-season played out. The Spurs gave Parker and Mills money, which almost guaranteed they couldn't sign a marquee free agent while retaining their core. But they didn't sign Leonard to an extension so they could save money. To me, that implies one of two things: Either the Spurs simply didn't think Kawhi was worth a max deal and wanted him to prove it over the course of this fourth year or they really thought there'd be some "cap smoothing" which would raise the 2015 cap enough for them to open a max slot even with Patty and Tony on the books.

[BG_Spurs_Fan]

Because Parker wanted it. It's just odd how that off-season played out. The Spurs gave Parker and Mills money, which almost guaranteed they couldn't sign a marquee free agent while retaining their core. But they didn't sign Leonard to an extension so they could save money. To me, that implies one of two things: Either the Spurs simply didn't think Kawhi was worth a max deal and wanted him to prove it over the course of this fourth year or they really thought there'd be some "cap smoothing" which would raise the 2015 cap enough for them to open a max slot even with Patty and Tony on the books.

This x100.

[Seventyniner]

Because Parker wanted it. It's just odd how that off-season played out. The Spurs gave Parker and Mills money, which almost guaranteed they couldn't sign a marquee free agent while retaining their core. But they didn't sign Leonard to an extension so they could save money. To me, that implies one of two things: Either the Spurs simply didn't think Kawhi was worth a max deal and wanted him to prove it over the course of this fourth year or they really thought there'd be some "cap smoothing" which would raise the 2015 cap enough for them to open a max slot even with Patty and Tony on the books.

That was a strong rumor but quite risky to assume.

I agree that the Spurs were only bidding against themselves at that point and should have just waited. Which brings up an interesting hypothetical: if Parker were a FA right now, who would he sign with and for how much? I'll venture Spurs and something like 4 years $34M, and even though that's overpaying it's in the spirit of the extension Parker actually signed so to me it's plausible.

[mkurts]

A cheap young PG like Elfrid Payton would probably fit better on the Spurs, who shoots when needed and averages around 6.5 assists per game with potential to be even better.

[Ditty]

I really don't blame the Spurs for giving Tony the contract they gave him tbh. His stats and play were pretty good outside of 2014, so maybe the Spurs thought the reason for his poor play was because of injuries but it really was due to decline of play imho. Their aren't many good point guards out there willing to sign with us, or trade for anyways. Majority of us are rooting for Tony to come back strong next year. If not I think his contact will be much easier to trade next summer, and the organization wouldn't feel obligated to keep him around with Duncan and Ginobili gone.

[SASdynasty!]

Tony has never been in the top 35 as OP said and yet he has finished in the top-6 in MVP voting twice and top-12 four times. The people saying this is a terrible contract have absolutely no perspective on contracts. How about Jason Kidd making $21 million while putting up 9 PPG?

With the cap increases, Parker will probably never be a top-35 paid player in the league in any year of his career...think about that for a second. It's an absolute steal for a hall-of-fame FMVP who will arguably go down as one of the top 10 point guards of all-time...and that guy never was a top-35 paid player in any year of his career, even when he was leading the MVP race.

[Strategic]

Nice argument you're making Chinook. Maybe when TD took his mammoth pay cut he ask the FO to make sure they kept his favorite PG happy for three more years. Probably not, but Holt and gang would've listened. I just hope Parker rededicates, then all is not lost.

[mkurts]

Parker is the one of the top ten ever PGs in the NBA !

Better than John Stockton !