Reply With Quote
he realistically should have been gone a couple years ago but his shoulder injury/surgery let us hang onto him
I can show you many cancers than can get points. It's not about raw stats you stupid .
Then never talk numbers/stats on here again. Never. You can't have it both ways.
The question isn't whether or not Patty is a good player. The question is whether the Spurs can afford to keep him and all the other talent they need on the floor. The Spurs have to pay Tony Parker $15.4M next season, whether you like it or not. They have a promising young PG in Murray, who is going to cost $1.3M.
Patty is a 6-foot-tall 2 guard, who has been pressed into service as a point. The article this thread is based on suggests paying Patty $30M for 2 years. They can't s out that much and still round out the roster. And they can't s out that much for a 6-foot shooting guard, no matter how much "impact" you think he has. Six-foot shooting guards may work on your dumb fantasy team, but they don't work in the NBA. Patty has survived being a half-assed PG, because he's a backup, and he can shoot the 3. I don't hate him, but that's the reality.
You can say " got" all you want, and throw out a bunch of sweet little emojis. If someone wants to throw $15M per at Patty, he's not going to be wearing silver and black next year. And if I'm wrong and they do, you'll be whining like a little all season about how they don't have enough at the wing, and how much you miss Dedmon. It's not fantasy league, and there's a salary cap.
he realistically should have been gone a couple years ago but his shoulder injury/surgery let us hang onto him
GSH with the goods.
I don't think you understand got. It's about many more things combined. Not just raw stats.
Blow it up still?
This fan base loves to get worked up over this team losing key players, even though they've consistently done the opposite. People panicked about Splitter in '13, Diaw and Mills in '14 and Green in '15. The only time, in recent memory, that they lost key players, was to upgrade them (Hill for Leonard, Splitter to sign Aldridge, Diaw to sign Gasol).
It's possible they lose Mills, of course, but why would you doubt them given their track record? $15M is probably unlikely, but even if it's true, Green turned that down to take $10M. Maybe Mills wouldn't, but maybe he would. Maybe they convince Gasol to pull a Jefferson, maybe they don't see Dedmon as much more than a MLE (starting at $8.4M) player and aren't willing to break the bank to keep him.
As an aside, if they lose the latter, I could see them targeting Nogueira via trade.
Basketball Insiders: 2017 Free Agent Rankings: Point Guards
First tier:
1) Stephen Curry
2) Chris Paul
3) Kyle Lowry
4) George Hill
Second Tier:
5) Patty Mills
6) Jrue Holiday
7) Jeff Teague
8) Darren Collison
9) Derrick Rose
Tier 3:
11) Yogi Ferrell
12) T.J. McConnell
13) Ty Lawson
14) Deron Williams
15) Rajon Rondo
from the article: "Parker ranks no higher than 40th among NBA point guards in net differential, BPM and PER."
If people know that the Spurs backcourt isn't good enough (per most on here) to win a le, and we know Mills best still isn't as good as TP's best, why then would you think that paying Mills more money would solve the problem?
And Mills is consistant?
It wouldn't solve the problem, but it would help to maintain status quo and it wouldn't block Murray, since they can pair together.
If they let him walk, they'll have no means with which to replace him.
In the unlikely event something significant comes up at some point in the next few years and they feel they need to move him to facilitate it, as we've seen, you can always offload a quality asset without taking back salary.
at the very least the spurs should've let patty start for a stint, if only to evaluate.
now they're in a position where parker will be worse next year, murray is still raw, and they might lose patty?
I'm in the camp that believes SA will prioritize keeping Mills
He did get a stint to start and it didn't really go well.at the very least the spurs should've let patty start for a stint, if only to evaluate.
now they're in a position where parker will be worse next year, murray is still raw, and they might lose patty?
he's only started 7 games this season. and no, not 7 in a row. so no, he hasn't had a stint.
he also averages 6 assists per game when he starts. 1.3 more than parker.
Well, if raw boxscore assists were all that matters then he'd be viewed as a starter by every team. Especially if he was better than Parker.
He's better than porker. Sometimes the better player on the Spurs doesn't start. Almost like you don't know about the Spurs.
OBPM, DBPM, BPM, VORP
tony: -0.9, -1.8, -2.7, -0.3
patty: 2.9, -1.4, 1.5, 1.4
He's better than porker. Sometimes the better player on the Spurs doesn't start. Almost like you don't know about the Spurs.
He's not the better PG - he's the better player (and even that is questionable to me). It's more of a floor/consistency vs ceiling argument. When healthy, TP is still the superior player but TP doesn't stay healthy very much these days.He's better than porker. Sometimes the better player on the Spurs doesn't start. Almost like you don't know about the Spurs.
ive seen the stats. Mills benefits greatly from playing against worse players. Why do you think Pop doesn't give him a chance to start? If you think it's because he's loyal to TP, then why would you pay Mills knowing TP will still be here?
Also, I've shown you, with the SAME starting lineup that TP plays with, when you put Mills in that lineup over TP it's worse than with TP.
parker has much more experience playing with the starting lineup... whatever numbers you're referring to... they should be better. at least you found a stat you can cling onto.
Patty already closes games cause he is the superior player. Starting him should be a formality by now.
Spurs are 4-3 when the microwave starts. Aldridge is also when there's no Parker.
But sure, let's listen to the forum rags
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions