It would be damn classic if the Spurs hold out on him and he goes out and has an all-star season. I'd pay to see the look on Holt's face when he's putting his signature on that max contract.
Tony has been making crap(in NBA terms) the last three seasons. He deserves to get paid.
I don't know what the CBA has in store for the league but if Tony is worth 9-10mil a year today, he will be worth close to the max next summer.
I hope they get his extension done. We all saw glimpses of what he is going to be against Memphis and LA. He strikes me as a hard worker and losing him would be horrible.
Great job, Walton. I wholeheartedly agree.
Sequ:
Oh? So what about Parker has convinced you that he's more durable than almost every other point guard in the history of the NBA? Name five point guards in the last twenty years that have played for nineteen years. I bet you can't do it.Tony Parker has 15+ left in his career. Do you actually think it will all be in San Antonio? Also, is Pop going to be here for the next 15 years?? I doubt it.
And when you're losing an argument? You just make up things to support your POV. There aren't ten point guards making max dollars in the NBA.
It's no secret that many Spurs players could get more money elsewhere. Does that mean that the Spurs should pay more than each is worth in order to keep the team together?
If you want to be cheering for a Portland Trailblazers or New York Knicks clone, continue not to care about money. If you want to cheer for a successful team that wins by making shrewd moves and maintaining fiscal responsibility, cheer for the Spurs.
timvp, if TP goes out and has an All-Star season because the Spurs held out on him, then I would say a) he deserves a max contract and b) the Spurs were smart to hold out on him.
If you give him a max contract now, I doubt he has an All-Star season.
if I was tp and they offerred me 50 million
I would go out next summer and have a team front end load a deal for the max and make holt pay
especially with what they did with kidd
Brodels,
Son, if the Parker gets the max, he deserves it. WTF is wrong with that? Dude, last time I checked, I don't think you are actually an owner of an NBA franchise. Look here, if the owners want NBA teams, then they have to ing pay. Period.
I don't give a crap if the payroll is 100 million. That is not my concern. My concern is that I am entertained.
Portland? Dude, that is a lame argument. Please don't bring stupid crap up. It would take me more than 30 seconds. Okay Haliburton.
Straight up. Parker is worth whatever he asks for. You aren't going to find a better replacement.
Beno? What a joke.
I showed this to Holt's family and they told me to tell SequSpur to "GFY".I don't give a crap if the payroll is 100 million. That is not my concern. My concern is that I am entertained.
You seem to not be able to grasp the basic idea that how owners spend their money has a direct influence on the success of their NBA teams.
If the Spurs make poor financial decisions, they will have less ability to bring in other players in the future. Overpay an unimproved Parker and risk not being able to use the MLE in future years, having an untradeable player, and being caught with no quality second scorer and no way to obtain one. If Parker comes out and has a max-worth year, he should make the max. Otherwise, he shouldn't.
If an owner wants a quality NBA team, he needs to pay players what they are worth and resist the urge to go on a spending spree for average talent.
I don't know about you, but I'm more entertained when the Spurs are successful. And in my opinion, the Spurs would be better off over the next three to five years if they don't overpay Parker. We both want the Spurs to win and we both want to be entertained, but we disagree on how it should happen. That's fine.I don't give a crap if the payroll is 100 million. That is not my concern. My concern is that I am entertained.
Well, Portland was unable to change the makeup of their team because they didn't have the financial flexibility to do so. The same happened in New York.Portland? Dude, that is a lame argument. Please don't bring stupid crap up. It would take me more than 30 seconds. Okay Haliburton.
That's a bad way of looking at it. The Spurs aren't going to find a better center than Rasho this season, so should they pay him the max if he asks for it? They won't find a better backup swing player than Barry, so should he have asked for the max? They couldn't have gotten a better starting shooting guard this season, so should Manu be making the max?Straight up. Parker is worth whatever he asks for. You aren't going to find a better replacement.
You can't just pay players whatever they ask for because a better player isn't available.
Hey, I never claimed that Beno is going to be the second coming. Frankly, I'm nervous with the Spurs going into the season with him as the primary backup point guard. He might turn out to be a very good player, but he's an unproven rookie right now. Nobody really knows what he is going to do. He could be great, but he could be terrible.Beno? What a joke
Brodels................
This is what success in the NBA is:
Chicago Bulls: Michael Jordan and Scottie Pippen
Houston Rockets: Akeem Olajuwon and Drexler
San Antonio Spurs: David Robinson and Tim Duncan
LA Lakers: Shaq and Kobe
Detroit Pistons: A Spurless Western Conference Representation
You see, the Trailblazers didn't have these fellas. If they did, they would have been on my list as well. Dude, 90% of the NBA will play the cap or be over the cap, and you know what?? They will never win .
So your formulas and your reasoning doesn't mean unless you get lucky to pull a SUPERSTAR from the draft or get lucky and someone gives you one.
It doesn't matter bro. It really doesn't... 50 mill, 100 mill, 20 mill.... If you don't have the superstar, you ain't winning .
Now, would you like to continue to throw Portland in the mix, New York, Dallas, etc. etc. etc.... No superstars there....
Also, we are talking about Parker not Rasho. Perdue > Rasho. Where does that analogy come from?
As for Spurs entertainment... Last time I checked Duncan is still on the Spurs, that should be worth at least 50 wins.
Pay Parker the max and raise ticket and food prices. I am watching it on TV.
You're right, the Spurs won't win a championship without a superstar. But that doesn't mean that Portland wasn't disappointing with all the talent there.
And while many teams are over the cap, you seem to not understand that there are two caps involved here: the NBA salary cap and the Holt salary cap. No matter what the salary cap is, Holt isn't going to exceed a certain level of salary. Whether you like it or not, Holt isn't going to offer an unlimited amount of funds to Spurs management.
That means that a $50 million payroll might handcuff the Spurs, but a $42 million payroll might allow them to acquire other players. Don't underestimate the effect of the Holt Cap.
Besides, if Duncan is what makes the Spurs great as you claim, than what is the harm in letting supporting players go? According to you, superstars win championships. And the Spurs have one.
But in reality, the Spurs need a strong supporting cast. And if you pay Parker the max, you're accepting that the current core will the be the core in five years. And if the current core isn't good enough? The Spurs lose every year and nothing can be done about it.
That's why you pay players what they are worth. If Parker performs like a max player, the Spurs will be great and Parker should be paid. If he doesn't, you can't overpay him. You need to use the financial flexibility gained by letting Parker walk to get better. It's not the best situation, but it's better than the alternative.
No matter what the salary cap is, Holt isn't going to exceed a certain level of salary.
has he ever had as many luxury suites now?
in the past he has a limit
but this team is younger
it is not like he is paying major money for a bunch of older close to has been players
that is why I do not see them touching kidd now
spurs have been over the cap before but not into luxury tax thresfold
I am not for maxing tp but I would if I had to
Exactly....
But.....
It isn't my fault, your fault or Holt's fault that the salaries are escalating to the point of destruction.
I would guess that Parker is in or close to the top tier of NBA talent. Therefore, he should be paid accordingly. It's not Parker's fault that 12+ million is wrapped up in an overpaid Malik Rose and an underachiever Rasho Nesterovic.
It's kind of like this... If Holt can't keep up with the big boys, he should sell the team to someone that can. This is 2004. Big money, international talent and the NBA expanding worldwide as every minute comes and goes.
Parker is a big time player. Straight up. He has more playoff games as a starting point guard than damn near any point guard in the NBA. As the saying goes.... you earn your name in the regular season, you earn your fame in the playoffs......
Parker is going to be awesome this year. Lock him up.
True, but that's the way it is. It just has to be dealt with.It isn't my fault, your fault or Holt's fault that the salaries are escalating to the point of destruction.
Parker isn't in the top tier of NBA talent. There is clearly a group of players, maybe two groups, that are better than him. The top tier includes players of similar abilities: Duncan, Garnett, Kobe, Shaq, etc. The second tier would probably include Ray Allen, Tracy McGrady, etc. As far as I'm concerned, Parker is a third-tier player because he isn't as good as any of the best players in the game and he isn't as good as any of the players that are just a step down from the top. He should get paid like that.I would guess that Parker is in or close to the top tier of NBA talent. Therefore, he should be paid accordingly. It's not Parker's fault that 12+ million is wrapped up in an overpaid Malik Rose and an underachiever Rasho Nesterovic.
While it isn't Holt's fault that Rasho and Malik are overpaid, he still needs to deal with that reality. You can't make a financial obligation disappear just because you think it was a bad decision to engage in it in the first place.
In theory, that's true. The Spurs would best off being owned by someone with very deep pockets. But until Holt sells the team, management has to make smart financial decisions. You need to deal with the financial cards you are dealt.like this... If Holt can't keep up with the big boys, he should sell the team to someone that can. This is 2004. Big money, international talent and the NBA expanding worldwide as every minute comes and goes.
[quote[He has more playoff games as a starting point guard than damn near any point guard in the NBA.[/quote]
I'll let you take that one back if you wish.
That's true. And while Parker has been good in some playoff games, he's been terrible in others. He just hasn't gotten the job done each and every game. He's got an immense amount of talent, but nobody really knows which Parker is going to show up. He's not a playoff hero or anything. He's been solid but inconsistent in the playoffs.As the saying goes.... you earn your name in the regular season, you earn your fame in the playoffs......
If he's really that awesome this season, you can pay him the max next summer.Parker is going to be awesome this year. Lock him up.
I think Parker will play the same this season whether he gets his contract or not. He isn't someone that would buckle under the pressure of a new contract or go out and try too hard to prove he earned it.
It would be wise for the Spurs just lock him up now. If the Spurs wait until next summer, who knows if Holt will be willing to match a max contract. Maybe revenue will be down and the luxury tax will be lowered ... then Holt might have second thoughts.
Lock him up now and the franchise is set for the next 6 years.
damn sequ has broke out of the dumb s and posted intelligent posts.
I agree, gotta lock Parker up now. Screwing around and waiting till next year is foolish.
give him 10 mill a year, and get it over with.
Why not just offer him something reasonable ($60-65M) now instead of waiting until next summer? You seem to be under the pretense that the Spurs are offering him that, and he's looking for more. No one knows if that's the case. Maybe the Spurs are low-balling him right now.If he's really that awesome this season, you can pay him the max next summer.
Y'know, I get the sense that quite a few really don't know what a max contract is.
$10M a year x 6 years isn't a max contract. Almost no one here would have a problem with Parker at that money.
I'm doing a little research on who's clutch in the crunch. The setting is in the last two minutes of games decided by five points or less, who scored the ball. In the 2004 season Parker was 4 for 15 in that setting. Not max material and as a cruch time performer he has a of a lot of room for improvement.
The Spurs should be doing that. I'm not against signing him to that kind of contract right now. I think it would be great. And the Spurs could have a really low offer on the table right now. I'm not hoping for them to be cheap with him, I'm just stating that Parker isn't a max player. If Parker is demanding max dollars or something close to it, under no cir stances do you sign him to that kind of contract right now. If he's asking for $60-65 million, you send him the contract and have him sign right away.Why not just offer him something reasonable ($60-65M) now instead of waiting until next summer? You seem to be under the pretense that the Spurs are offering him that, and he's looking for more. No one knows if that's the case. Maybe the Spurs are low-balling him right now.
I don't want to see them pay Parker more than he should get. That doesn't mean I don't want them to sign him to a reasonable contract right now.
Theoretically speaking, if Parker asks for the max right now, do you lock him up? what if asks for $11 million per season? Is that too much? Would you lock him up right now at any cost?damn sequ has broke out of the dumb s and posted intelligent posts.
I agree, gotta lock Parker up now. Screwing around and waiting till next year is foolish.
give him 10 mill a year, and get it over with.
Parker is not a max contract player, though he can improve to one.
Why the this negotiatios tooking so long? TP want's to be in San Antonio, and the Spurs want the same. Why can't they tak about the contract? Tony is saing that he is concentrating on basketball,and he is lettig his agent to speak for him (as I noticed). If they don't lock him now there is a big chance the Spurs will be forced to pay max. And that wouldn't be the best solution to the proble called PG.
Sign it now TONY!
What started as a personal rant has turned into a pretty good thread. People are actually disagreeing without calling each other Saddam Hussein- rare.
Kori, if you want to use anything I write, you don't have to ask, just go ahead.
As for the contract, I'm talking an average of 10 million a year, not a deal starting at 10 million.
And to the people saying Tony's been underpaid for the past three seasons; please get your facts straight. The CBA determines how much a player drafted in the bottom tier will make, the Spurs or Tony have no say in that. Parker and Udrih have identical contracts because of the fact that San Antonio is an elite team and drafts near the end of the first round every year.
Although I don't have an ear in the bargaining room, I'm guessing that Tony's asking for around $65 million (an Arenas contract) and the Spurs are offering around $55 million (a Manu+ contract). From your reports and others I really doubt TP is asking for more than $65 million and if the Spurs were up to $60 million then the reports that the two sides are far apart in their negotiations wouldn't make sense (says a man who will never make $5 million in his life). I hope the two sides can meet somewhere in the middle in the next week.
tp played well for the most part to prove that he was the right point guard for spurs and not kidd. he thought if they won it all it would end the kidd talk.
I call that playing well under pressure
I think the scenario where they offer tony 55 and his agent asks for 65 is quite likely.
Think about this. The Spurs, using the leverage of the possible CBA, are trying to pressure Tony into taking what Manu took.
Parker and Manu's contributions to the team are very similar in stature; they score close to the same, they both (will) start and play similar minutes. Both are capable of being the second option on this team.
The main reason people think Tony deserves more than his current productivity demands is his potential to improve because of his age.
How likely is improvement for Parker from this point in his career?
Well, I looked at a few of the pg's that are around the league, and checked how much they improved from age 22 to 28 (that is where most players physically peak, I think most would agree).
Kidd: His fg% improved steadily from 22 to 28, from around .38 to .44. His rebounding also went up from around 5 to closer to 7. His assists were about 9 per game for most of his career. Most of his early years he scored 11 per game, and after age 27 he scored about 16 per.
Conclusion: So Kidd improved in rebounding, scoring and fg% over those years of age, but not monsterously.
Eric snow: was a 4 ppg player from age 21 to about 24, then went to 8ppg from 25 to 28. 12 ppg from 29-31. Fg% stayed the same, but his minutes doubled, which explains the increased scoring exactly. Assists also doubled with double the minutes, as did steals.
Conclusion: He stayed more or less the same player, just able to play more minutes.
Marbury; fg % went up .15 from his rookie age of about 20 to age 24, where he peaked, but that is a very small improvement. He started scoring at about 15-17 ppg from ages 20-23, then scored 20 every year since. Assists have been about 8pg his whole career, and his rebounding stayed the same.
Conclusion: He improved about 3-4ppg, and minimal fg%, thats it.
Nash: he started playing at age 23, and got fewer minutes his first few years, so when his minutes went up, his scoring doubled from about 7 to 15. However, his fg% went up from about .42 to closer to .48 from age 26-28, when it went down a tad to today. APg steadily increased almost every year to about age 29, though rebounds stayed the same.
Conclusion; Became a significantly better scorer and shooter, as well as passer, with age.
I would put Nash as much better, Marbury and Kidd as slightly better, and Snow as about the same player from age 22 to 28. I will do a better study to see how much the rest of the pg's changed, and give overall stats on this.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
