Teague vs. Conley

[elemento]

Only way Tony would be involved is if a 3rd team is involved. Hawks are committed in moving forward with Schroder getting 30+ minutes at PG. No way Hawks would want to pay 15 million for a 15 minute back up PG.

Yes I agree. Maybe NY, but they would want to involve Calderon as well. I haven't checked the other teams, but maybe someone could come up with a reasonable trade idea.

[J_Paco]

Conley is going to turn 30 in a year so I would pass up on him. His asset is his quick speed and even with that he shoots a ty FG percentage. PG's that rely heavily on speed and athletic ability historically become trash once they enter their 30's. It's hysterical how you guys hate Parker and want this guy but don't realize this guy will be Parker part 2 within a year or two.

They are mostly idiots, parroting one another. Conley isn't the answer for what we need. Teague is a a better solution, but anyone is better than having Mills as the backup and Tony still starting.

[Kawhitstorm]

I always liked Knight and as Phoenix still got a kind of jam at PG, I could see them trade him, but we would likely have to take Chandler back too, but if Duncan will retire, that's fine for me.

Knight is a terrible decision maker & is basically a rich-man's Austin Rivers. (His ceiling is Jason Terry, tbh)

[Kawhitstorm]

They are mostly idiots, parroting one another. Conley isn't the answer for what we need. Teague is a a better solution, but anyone is better than having Mills as the backup and Tony still starting.

If Conley didn't have healthy issues, he's the better player b/c of his defense but neither one is a max player. Conley is essentially a quicker George Hill w/ better court vision but considering his lower extremity injuries he might not be quicker than Hill at this point of their career.

[r0drig0lac]

Conley >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Teague

[kaji157]

As said before, none of them is the definitive solution for our PG position.
If you ask m i´ll go for the cheapest one. The only thing about Conley is that maybe Memphis likes a sign n trade for Tony. It would surprise me, but maybe they want some championship experience.
Jeff Teague seems to be the cheaper option, Diaw and Mills would do it, but if it takes Tony i really don´t matter as he is not doing anything great for us.

[cd98]

Teague is more selfish...Conley is better and a better defender, which is important in the west.

I'd have Tony Parker as a 6th man bc he can score on 2nd units and he won't interfere with Kawhi's development if he comes off the bench. He'd be a Manu replacement of Parker. That means Patty goes, and Id trade him. However we will have to load up on shooters if Patty goes. That will be a task.

[TD 21]

Spurs won't have to get rid of Parker for Teague.

Teague has 1 year left for 8 million, no team is really going to give up a lot if they don't have word that he'll re-sign after next year ( this hurts his value).

At the same time, the PG position is the most saturated position across the league. Not a lot of teams have that need. It's basic supply and demand economics -- less demand/higher supply -- lower asking price.

I'd prefer taking a 1 year flyer on Teague and give up Diaw/Mills and maybe a pick (if needed) to get Teague, rather than overpay Conley for 4 years after he just came off a major injury.

If Spurs traded for Teague, they can reassess their options next summer. Re-sign Teague? Look to trade TP if he regresses again (he'll have an expiring)?

I suspect the Spurs would have to add a 1st for them to seriously consider it. I still think Teague ends up with the Jazz, for either Burks (if they're comfortable with him medically)/their 1st and Neto.

Teague/Parker would be an awkward situation anyway. They can't really play together and would inevitably end up splitting minutes, which wouldn't make either happy.

I expect both Parker and Mills to be retained. That doesn't mean they can't/won't address point guard, though. Going after Grant (Knicks supposedly want a late 1st/early 2nd and Simmons could be added, if necessary) makes sense. He's big, relatively long, can penetrate, make plays and has the physical tools to guard virtually any type of guard.

[MaNu4Tres]

I suspect the Spurs would have to add a 1st to get that deal done. I still think Teague ends up with the Jazz, for either Burks (if they're comfortable with him medically)/their 1st and Neto.

Teague/Parker would be an awkward situation anyway. They can't really play together and would inevitably end up splitting minutes, which wouldn't make either happy.

I expect both Parker and Mills to be retained. That doesn't mean they can't/won't address point guard, though. Going after Grant (Knicks supposedly want a late 1st/early 2nd and Simmons could be added, if necessary) makes sense. He's big, relatively long, can penetrate, make plays and has the physical tools to guard virtually any type of guard.

To the highlighted part -- that's all subjective. Truth is, Parker actually handled his demotion surprisingly well this past year. He never complained about how his role significantly reducing and as he gets older I think he'll be more able to accept having to split duties with Teague. Just by the way he's handled it, you can see that he knows he's aging and entering the final years of his NBA career. If it was 2009 and we were debating bringing in another point guard to compete for his minutes then I'd agree, but at this stage of his career-- turning 34 years old. I think he'd be fine with it (based on how he handled his demotion this past year).

As for Teague, Spurs would do their due diligence before trying to pull a trade for Teague. I.E: SA would talk to him first about their expectations regarding splitting responsibilities w/ the opportunity to potentially start. If he'd agree and buy into the Spurs way and be willing to take on the role, then I think Spurs would pull the trigger. If not, and if Teague thinks its a problem, then I don't think Spurs would make the trade.

Regarding the Knicks, I have no idea why the Knicks would want to give up a promising young PG like Grant who still has years left on his rookie deal for a late first. They likely wouldn't get any PG in the late first round that has Grant's ability.

[TD 21]

To the highlighted part -- that's all subjective. Truth is, Parker actually handled his demotion surprisingly well this past year. He never complained about how his role significantly reducing and as he gets older I think he'll be more able to accept having to split duties with Teague. Just by the way he's handled it, you can see that he knows he's aging and entering the final years of his NBA career. If it was 2009 and we were debating bringing in another point guard to compete for his minutes then I'd agree, but at this stage of his career-- turning 34 years old. I think he'd be fine with it (based on how he handled his demotion this past year).

As for Teague, Spurs would do their due diligence before trying to pull a trade for Teague. I.E: SA would talk to him first about their expectations regarding splitting responsibilities w/ the opportunity to potentially start. If he'd agree and buy into the Spurs way and be willing to take on the role, then I think Spurs would pull the trigger. If not, and if Teague thinks its a problem, then I don't think Spurs would make the trade.

Regarding the Knicks, I have no idea why the Knicks would want to give up a promising young PG like Grant who still has years left on his rookie deal for a late first. They likely wouldn't get any PG in the late first round that has Grant's ability.

It's subjective, but it's also common sense. Parker experienced a demotion in some sense, but in another, he knew he'd be the starter and almost always the finisher because of the lack of a better option.

Due diligence or not, it's one thing to say something in the off season; it's another to live it throughout the season. I don't see how a proven starter, in his prime, in a contract year, playing for quite possibly the final significant contract of his career, could be happy playing sub 30 mpg and not being guaranteed to start or finish.

I'm not sure the Knicks give up on Grant for 29 and Simmons either, but it's worth exploring and an example of the type of move the Spurs could make.

[Kawhitstorm]

I expect both Parker and Mills to be retained. That doesn't mean they can't/won't address point guard, though. Going after Grant (Knicks supposedly want a late 1st/early 2nd and Simmons could be added, if necessary) makes sense. He's big, relatively long, can penetrate, make plays and has the physical tools to guard virtually any type of guard.

I expect Patty to be sacrificed for new blood ala G.Hill & Diaw to be dumped ala Malik Rose since has was worn out his welcome.

I believe the Knicks like Grant so someone like Raymond()Felton might be the best option if Teague/Conley can't be acquired.

[TheGoldStandard]

I expect Patty to be sacrificed for new blood ala G.Hill & Diaw to be dumped ala Malik Rose since has was worn out his welcome.

I believe the Knicks like Grant so someone like Raymond()Felton might be the best option if Teague/Conley can't be acquired.

Felton at this point is about on Par with Parker..

[Kawhitstorm]

Felton at this point is about on Par with Parker..

He's better than Patty or at least more dependable:

[TheGoldStandard]

He's better than Patty or at least more dependable:

Hitting all kinds of long range 3's when they match up with the Spurs.. Would prefer Calderon myself.

[CGD]

The thing about moving mills/diaw for Teague is that the Spurs could upgrade at pg and still retain the ablility to move green or Parker should they get interest from a big name like durant or Hortford.

[TheGoldStandard]

The thing about moving mills/diaw for Teague is that the Spurs could upgrade at pg and still retain the ablility to move green or Parker should they get interest from a big name like durant or Hortford.

I doubt the league would want to help us out by taking rickety old parker so we could land durant.

[Kawhitstorm]

Hitting all kinds of long range 3's when they match up with the Spurs.. Would prefer Calderon myself.

Calderon can't even keep up w/ his own shadow on defense

[TheGoldStandard]

Calderon can't even keep up w/ his own shadow on defense

So he's a step better than Parker