Reply With Quote
The Hornets wouldn't want a point guard anyway since they think Collison is their present and future in the event of a Paul trade.
If Parker's not going to ink an extension with the Spurs, there's no ing way he's gonna sign with New Orleans.
The Hornets wouldn't want a point guard anyway since they think Collison is their present and future in the event of a Paul trade.
He might be traded to be used as an expiring trade chip... but that assumes the TP for CP3 trade happens in the first place.
New Orleans has absolutely no reason to do this.
Paul is much better than Parker, and they would be losing Parker for nothing next year most likely. Paul wants to play with young superstars, not Tim Duncan. Also, if the Hornets were willing to trade Paul, they would be able to dump Okafor's contract (and probably Posey's) due to the bidding war, which the Spurs could not compete in.
Pie-in-the-sky.
Nice to dream, though...
NOH might as well fold
I think this may be the best point I've seen about why the trade wouldn't happen. NO may have to move Paul but Collison is a perfectly acceptable starting PG. They have one too many excellent PGs.
Therefore a trade scenario for NO would probably focus on a big.
Hypocrites! You will turn into Paul haters by mid-season. Paul is a coach killer like Kidd. Requires the coach to adapt to the player's style because the player wont change. More disturbing is the trend of star players demanding to play together. A death knell for the NBA. If Paul gets his wish I don't think we will have an NBA in 2011. Smaller markets would be re ed to continue a system that allowed stars to cluster togethet so that they can compett for championships. All sports compe ion is based on having a level playing field. Without it the games are nothing more then exibitions like WWC.
I'm not saying that I want to trade TP for CP, but why would you do a straight trade. Everyone knows that would not work for NO, so it would have to be a three way trade where TP goes somewhere other than NO and that team gives NO the players they want.
Doesn't make the Spurs contenders. Unless Paul is somehow going to help with the Spurs defense.
No way any team will help facilitate a Chris Paul trade for Tony Parker when they can get Chris Paul for themselves.
Paul will definitely help on defense, so I guess we would be contenders. There is zero chance for this trade to happen though.
Right, because Paul will be able to defende Kobe/LeBron/Wade etc?
IMO, Paul should consider what the Spurs have. After Duncan, and Manu are gone they still have Splitter, Blair and Anderson ( not to mention 4 years of Jefferson) that should be a good core group of guys, and the Spurs are good at bringing over talent from overseas, having Paul would be a plus, of course this is if Parker goes. Do that compete with Amare' and Melo, who knows but if the Spurs can bring in another Big and a real Sf adding Paul could put them in a good place and perhaps Paul could recruit some star to come play with him in SA.
Also, I think IF (Big IF) the Hornets just wanted to get Parker's rights so they could sign and trade him 1 year earlier than Pauls' 2 year deal then they'd do it for that reason but of course they can get picks it just depends on what they are trying to do. We've seen some stupid things happen trade wise and free agent spending wise so I do try to come up with scenarios in line with the current thinking within the nba, NOT NECESSARILY WHAT I think should be done.
If ing Jefferson didn't opt out the Spurs could almost certainly have gotten Paul+Okafor for Parker+Jefferson. Yeah, Okafor's deal sucks, but for Chris ing Paul, you take that.
CP3 is not an upgrade over Parker. He's coming off a potentially serious injury and NO would not make that trade unless there was an assurance they could ink Parker to a long term extension, which won't happen. Parker has stated he wants to remain a Spur. people need to cool off and simply understand that our best option is keeping Parker long term.
End of conversation
Suppose NO just wanted to dump Paul's salary one year earlier than his contract? Neither Paul nor Parker is going to stay but for a salary dump you can get Parker for one year because you have Collins on your roster and get rid of the Parker contract with the potential to sign and trade Parker because he'll be going into a new deal which can net you picks or players too only a year earlier. Paul has 2 years on his contract, Parker has 1.
Of course they can go any route they choose but when new owners come in either the current can make a move or the new will make a move, it's hard to tell what these GM's and owners are going to do, heck the Grizzlies could have gotten far more for Gasol than the Lakers offered, the SPurs at that time could have given them a far better offer.
http://es.pn/d2HRF4
Edit: Now with the right link!
Last edited by Blackjack; 07-22-2010 at 12:51 PM.
There's no certainly with that - it's a pretty big assumption.
No thanks. I would rather keep Parker.
Isn't New Orleans pretty desperate to salary dump Okafor? His contract is enormous and I know they've unsuccessfully tried to move him for expirings before.
Seriously though, this is getting ridiculous. Don't get me wrong: I love Chris Paul, LBJ, D.Wade and Bosh. But I don't like the direction the nba is going, and enough is enough. Just because you can't beat someone, that doesn't mean you look for another superstar and join them. What you do is work hard in the offseason, create chemistry between teammates and get better. This is what I and other die hard nba fans love to watch. Not a fan of all these big talents joining together, leaving their previous teams to rot.
Magic and Jordan said it a week ago. Sure, Jordan had Pippen and Magic had Kareem. But they didnt all join together, with Bird, to win multiple les. They all individually, with their respective teams, worked hard to be the best, something James and company should learn.
I get it , so they won les with no help because the individuals worked hard and won on their own.
Well we do have a Matt Bonner in his prime for another 5 years or so...
yes he is.
But I agree he would be less of a fit than parker in the current Spurs with old Timmy and Pop's coaching style.
no way this will happen.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
