Reply With Quote
it is ok it was on a different page
lol i didnt see that post earlier, and i swear i read this post twice.
I take back my comment :embarasse
it is ok it was on a different page
But i read that page. Ah oh well.
Saying Parker is expendable because we have Beno and Barry is like saying Manu is expendable because we drafted Sato and have Devin. In other words, it doesn't make any sense.
Manu is not a full time point. , he proved last year he's not even a good backup point.
Beno is an injured unproven rookie.
Barry is not a full time point.
Devin is in no way, shape, or form a point
Parker is most definitely not expendable. AND it is overly simplistic to say the Spurs could trade for another starting quality point at the deadline this year. Tony is still on his rookie salary, so even if you packaged Malik with him, you couldn't get enough salary to get Van Exel or Stoudamire. And to be honest, I'm not sure either one of those guys is any better than Parker.
Now don't get your panties in a twist over this - it's not that we're not getting the point. We get what you're saying. We just think that you couldn't be more wrong on this issue. Either that or you're.
^^ agreed
^
My nomination for understatement of the century.
Maybe we should ask Mr. Duncan, because i'm pretty sure that's what Pop would do...
Without TP, this team will not win anything.
What kind of crap is this. You would be an idiot to trade parker, thinking Beno would step right in or that Barry could take over.
How about we trade Duncan next yr., because will have Scola to take over the PF spot.
Come on, what TP does for us is unreplaceable, he's also still younger than Beno and better.
Worst post of the yr to date.
What if i could give you a name of a player with the same salary, who is also going to be a free agent this summer, who almost certainly is not coming back to his current team. In fact I bet his team will be looking to move him at the trade deadline. And he is of nearly equal value but would be resingnable for up to 30 million less than parker, plus he too is coming of his rookie contract so we would have bird rights on him.
do you give up?.....
(drumroll)........Bobby Jackson pg Sacramento Kings
and what have the kings won with him as point?
and most west teams do not trade with west teams
and do spurs want to face tp 4 times a year plus postseason?
please like tp was the deciding factor in us winning in 2003 he was good but bobby jakson would have provided similar value.
Are you serious?
You think Bobby Jackson, a 31-year old china doll who has missed 33.5% of the past two seasons with injuries is a better solution than Parker?
Jackson will be looking for the same huge contract Parker is anyway.
Jackson is too big of a risk.
Ignore RtoR, he sounds like a big time idiot.
31 are you sure?
yeah he is 31 but we will still be trainig beno
and im not an idiot i just have a diiferent opinion
That's what his ESPN profile says.
Oh, and Jackson makes twice as much a Parker.
The biggest concern here though - the thing that I just can't understand, is how you can feel comfortable with a point guard who has missed 1 out of every 3 games due to injury over the past two seasons. AND that was when he was playing backup minutes. Not starter's minutes.
duncan missed games last season and i have confidence in him, you just cant assume someone is going to go down. Unless its marcus camby
Oh come on RtD I thought we'd worked it out...
Anyway Duncan only missed 13 games last year the previous three seasons he'd only missed one. You can hardly say that he is an injury risk compared to Jackson.
Another thing under no cir stances do you trade 22 yo for a 31 yo who are at the comparable levels.... I mean the point could be made that Jackson is not at Parkers level but I'll play along. Where would we be in 3-4 years with a 35 year old point whilst Parker is ripping up the league at 25 yo? You meantion this trade at a SAC board and they would jump all over it.
Your digging further into your hole
Over the past two seasons, Duncan has played in 91.5% of all games.
Are you honestly saying that you don't see a difference between a 28 year old who has missed 8.5% of his games over the past two seasons and a 31 year old who has missed 33.5% of the past two seasons?
Past performance and injury history plays a HUGE role in deciding if management wants a particular player on the roster.
This is ridiculous. If it's a choice between Bobby Jackson at a Fish-y contract (don't pretend it's not the kind of deal he would get) and Parker at a max contract, I go with Parker no questions asked.
but then youd would be ed and unable to sign anyone new for years to come.
anyway the jackson thing seems to be taking away from my earlier premises that we could still be a contender without parker. thats all im trying to get at here.
Same with Jackson, only you have an older guy eating up that cap space and playing 1/3 of your games.but then youd would be ed and unable to sign anyone new for years to come.
You act like having Parker is a bad thing.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
