Ludden: Parker, Spurs end contract talks

[Useruser666]

I wish they wouldn't let this be a distraction this year.

[jcrod]

This sucks, over two million. Pay the boy!!!

Ok, they wait for next summer. Another team will offer him the max, you can bank that. Even if it's for only 4 yrs. Lets say we match it, it might be for less considering its only 4 yrs........BUT, won't he be a unrestricted free agent after???????????

I mean we only have him tied up for 4yrs, then he can chose to go where ever he wants, extremley bad move if you ask me. Considering, I think he'll be on of the top five PG in the league, 6 yr 68 or 66 is a very good deal. Damn it.

[Brodels]

This sucks, over two million. Pay the boy!!!

Ok, they wait for next summer. Another team will offer him the max, you can bank that. Even if it's for only 4 yrs. Lets say we match it, it might be for less considering its only 4 yrs........BUT, won't he be a unrestricted free agent after???????????

I mean we only have him tied up for 4yrs, then he can chose to go where ever he wants, extremley bad move if you ask me. Considering, I think he'll be on of the top five PG in the league, 6 yr 68 or 66 is a very good deal. Damn it.

That's the thing. You think he'll be this and you think he'll be that. He's already a very good player. But what if you pay him a ton of money (like, say, the max next summer) and he doesn't do what you think he's going to do? If that happens, you're looking at Allan Houston all over again.

Having Tony for four years guaranteed wouldn't be a bad thing. If he only signs for four years next summer, I won't be disappointed. The next four years are when the Spurs are going to have to get it done on the court.

Don't pay for potential. Pay for performance. Give Tony a max contract next summer if he plays like a franchise player this season. If not, offer him another fair contract.

[TwoHandJam]

I don't give a what Arenas or anyone else got, 64 Million is a fair deal. Parker has a lot of upside but he hasn't proved that he's worth more than 64 Million after three years in the league yet and the management can't assume blindly that he will. Fiscal mismanagement like that is how bad teams are born.

What depresses me is how very few players in the league anymore give a damn about winning. All they seem to want to do is pad their bank accounts as much as possible. Tony has a chance to continue playing with an elite contender for years at a very good salary. If he doesn't think playing with a once-in-a-generation type of player like Tim is worth a 2 million dollar compromise and having a clear chance at a dynasty then maybe he isn't as intelligent as I thought. The ad revenue and exposure from being in the finals every year alone would be worth far more than 2 million dollars.

A true MVP caliber player like Kidd spurned his opportunity to play with the Spurs for a little more cash from a lesser franchise and look at the results. AFAIK, no serious contending team worth a damn can offer Tony max money next year, if he even proves that he merits it. If Tony wants to land max dollars from some bull franchise and be a perennial loser then so be it. I personally thought he was smarter than that and I hope he comes to his senses and does the right thing instead of listening to his "I-want-a-better-comission-and-could-give-a-damn-about-your-welfare" agent.

[spurster]

I agree $64M (first year $8.13M) is more than fair, but TP is free to find a better offer in the summer. If he gets a max offer, I think the Spurs will let him go.

[jcrod]

That's the thing. You think he'll be this and you think he'll be that. He's already a very good player. But what if you pay him a ton of money (like, say, the max next summer) and he doesn't do what you think he's going to do? If that happens, you're looking at Allan Houston all over again.

Having Tony for four years guaranteed wouldn't be a bad thing. If he only signs for four years next summer, I won't be disappointed. The next four years are when the Spurs are going to have to get it done on the court.

Don't pay for potential. Pay for performance. Give Tony a max contract next summer if he plays like a franchise player this season. If not, offer him another fair contract.

It not just pontential, he's already one of the top PG in the league and only 22. I totally disagree, you pay now and lock him up for as long as you can. If nothing changes with the CBA, or it slightly better for the owners, either way he'll get the max from another team.

The Spurs are over the cap regardless of what they do with TP, so why not just lock him up for 6yrs and have your core set up with TP, Manu and Tim.

[Marcus Bryant]

If the next incarnation of the CBA does reduce the maximum length of contracts as well as the maximum allowable annual raises then for the six seasons beginning with the 2005-06 season Parker would end up costing the Spurs less than if they sign him to an extension under the current CBA now.

This is about a bit more than the $2 million difference between the reported positions of the Spurs and Parker.

[2pac]

64Million + $1Mil incentive every year the Spurs win the Championship.

If we win it all, that million will mean nothing. I am sure the Spurs would be happy to pay him that in each of the next 6 years.

Alternatively, make a 500k incentive for making the AS team.

[maxpower]

Risking their good will? That's silly. How can they be risking their good will after offering him $64 million? Most people in here seemed to think that $64 million was fair.

Most people here don't play in the NBA. NBA players don't see money like we do. To them 2 million over life of a contract is nothing ...AND MORESO ..it might even be a personal swipe at them to have management not value them so.

Sure, it was "only" $2 million. But what if it was $6 million? $8 million?

BUT IT IS NOT.

[BigVee]

It is so difficult to win an NBA championship with all the things that happen during a season....injuries and such. The last thing needed is a contract controversy. This is a real shame. Who knows whether Tony will play his ass off because he is auditioning for other teams and is pissed off at the Spurs or will have an off season because he believes the team does not fully appreciate his value and it weighs on his mind. It can go either way. Hard to believe with the money some of these other clowns on other teams got this summer that Parker isn't worth what he is asking by comparision. It could be a long and frustrating season.

[Notorious H.O.P.]

Guys, I'm beginning to think that this issue may be my fault. Holt must have found out that I pegged the value of Parker's contract at exactly $64 million in our vBookie contest. He knows the value of a buck and obviously doesn't want to see me lose my $25 in vBookie cash. Let me talk to him and I'll see what I can do about getting this resolved.

I can semi see the Spurs point here. First of all, I think if it was up to Tony, he would sign right now. His agent is either a greedy bas who is thinking that a $2 mliion dollar bump represents getting another Mercedes for one of his kids, and/or he wants to keep building a rep for squeezing every last penny our of teams for his players (go with both here). I was thinking that we were lucky that we didn't have a Dan Fegan here but if the deal doesn't get done, the point is moot anyway. In my opinion, just give Parker the $66 million. Even if he has an less than stellar season, someone will always pay for potential and there is no way (barring major injury) that Tony gets less on a per year basis regardless of what happens in the new CBA. The players will make concessions but not the type that will bring a player like Tony at a cheaper price. It's a gamble but the Spurs probably see it as a "give Tony max money if he performs like a max player or let someone else give him max money if they want if he doesn't perform that way". But are they right gambling over a couple of million dollars with the man that represents the present and future of our point guard position? I don't think so. Pay the man.

[ducks]

if parker goes to cavs next year I will be PISSED

[Walton Buys Off Me]

I completely agree with TwoHandJam's assessment of the situation and made similar statements in a post about three weeks ago. The Spurs 64 million dollar offer is more than generous for a guy that has showed exactly what in pressure situations? How soon we forget that this kid was completely and totally useless once Phil Jackson convinced his team to pay attention to him in last year's series. For The Spurs to even offer him that kind of money shows me they are more than committed to retaining him and actually care about their fans.

Spare me the bull about Holt being cheap, that kind of mindset is exactly what will have basketball fans tuning into Canadian ing football 1 year from now because the NBA will be locked out. You have to draw the line at some point and that is what Holt has done- all the power to him!

Tony Parker is a fine young player but he's nowhere bloody near a 64 million dollar player, let alone a 68 million dollar guy when time after time, he displays levels of inconsistency that would make most high school players blush.

I'm proud of my team for making the offer now the ball's in Parker and what's his face's court. If they wanna play hardball with CIA Pop, then the pansy can go back to France or go play for some dog franchise like the Bucks instead of being side-by-side with the game's best player and the game's best coach.

you Parker and stop wasting everyone's time- we have players that bring it on a nightly basis to attend to.

[Brodels]

Perhaps a little harsh, but there is some truth in there.

Parker hasn't been nearly as consistent, as say, Steve Nash, yet he's been offered a Steve Nash type of contract (and Nash's deal was signed in 2004). According to the people who are best at evaluating talent, Steve Nash is the second best point guard in the NBA. $64 million seems fair to me considering that the second best point guard in the NBA just signed a deal for $65 million. And Nash has been more consistent.

I want Tony to stick around, but until he shows that he can bring it every night and in the playoffs the Spurs shouldn't even think about matching a max deal for him next summer. We'll see how he does this season. If he improves by a large amount, he should get the max. But if he's essentially the same player - and many argue that he didn't improve by much last season - he shouldn't get franchise player dollars.

It's more that Holt's willingness to only pay what he thinks he can afford. Overpaying Parker will have significant basketball ramifications.

I still hope the two sides can come to an agreement before the deadline. It's unlikely, I know, but maybe somebody will reconsider.

I completely agree with TwoHandJam's assessment of the situation and made similar statements in a post about three weeks ago. The Spurs 64 million dollar offer is more than generous for a guy that has showed exactly what in pressure situations? How soon we forget that this kid was completely and totally useless once Phil Jackson convinced his team to pay attention to him in last year's series. For The Spurs to even offer him that kind of money shows me they are more than committed to retaining him and actually care about their fans.

Spare me the bull about Holt being cheap, that kind of mindset is exactly what will have basketball fans tuning into Canadian ing football 1 year from now because the NBA will be locked out. You have to draw the line at some point and that is what Holt has done- all the power to him!

Tony Parker is a fine young player but he's nowhere bloody near a 64 million dollar player, let alone a 68 million dollar guy when time after time, he displays levels of inconsistency that would make most high school players blush.

I'm proud of my team for making the offer now the ball's in Parker and what's his face's court. If they wanna play hardball with CIA Pop, then the pansy can go back to France or go play for some dog franchise like the Bucks instead of being side-by-side with the game's best player and the game's best coach.

you Parker and stop wasting everyone's time- we have players that bring it on a nightly basis to attend to.

[timvp]

First of all, Nash got $65 over five years. The Spurs offered Parker $64 over six.

You can bag on Parker all you want, but without him the Spurs won't win another championship in the Tim Duncan Era. Besides Duncan himself, he's the only person that can't be replaced. You lose him next summer and you have Sue Bird errr Beno Udrih as your starting point guard ... well, at least until he finds something else to bruise.

In the playoffs last season, it can be argued that Parker was playing at a higher level than even Duncan through the first 6 postseason games. He flopped in the last 4 games, but so did Duncan and so did everyone else not named Devin Brown.

The Parker doubters can have it there way for now ... just don't be crying when they lose him to a team willing to give him the max next summer.

It's looking like 2004-05 is going to be the Spurs' last chance.

[BigVee]

Completely and totally useless? Why is it that people make excuses for Duncan when Phoenix completely takes him out of the game, but when the Lakers decided that someone other than Parker was going to beat them he is therefore useless. Who do you think was still dishing the ball to Hedo and Bowen and Horry so they could clank the ball off the rim? Had they made a few of the shots he set-up for them, you would be saying what a great job he did of altering his game from scoring to setting up his teammates based on the Laker defense. They mugged him every time he penetrated. Give him the same break you give the superstar.

[timvp]

Completely and totally useless? Why is it that people make excuses for Duncan when Phoenix completely takes him out of the game, but when the Lakers decided that someone other than Parker was going to beat them he is therefore useless. Who do you think was still dishing the ball to Hedo and Bowen and Horry so they could clank the ball off the rim? Had they made a few of the shots he set-up for them, you would be saying what a great job he did of altering his game from scoring to setting up his teammates based on the Laker defense. They mugged him every time he penetrated. Give him the same break you give the superstar.

Damn true.

No one says anything about how Duncan was sucking just as bad as Parker in the last four games.

[xapatan2]

Hi evrybody here,

well, losing my pasword made me lost the benefits of my former 25 post( ) during the past season so, i have just put a "2" after my former name for this great forum

and i am now back for the new season

and i am very proud to inform you that we now have "nba tv" on the cable in France, which makes me very very

but :

Walton, Two Hand Jam, i do not agree with you guys...


I am sure we do not have all the information about the negociations, and i will listen in a few hours ( 3 exactly) to the TP show and give you all the information ( feelings of TP,etc....) on this particular situation for us, spurs fan...

But i do not get the way you are talking about him, it's pissing me off.
Just have a ing look at the stats of every top five PG now when they were 22, you'll be surprised.

You are talking about S. Nash. Ok, ok, what was the offense that run S. Nash that made him famous ???
I am sorry man, but the offense of Dallas is the perfect one to be sure that the point gard will deliver, on a CONSISTENT ( important word, isn't it .....) basis 7 assists per match.
What has made Nash against Parker ? At 21 Parker was overmatching Nash during a playoff serie...

So please stop with your stupid comparison, and give Parker the respect he deserves. First.

I'll post later on about the TP show

Xapatan

[Marcus Bryant]

I agree with timvp. The Spurs are going to be capped out through the rest of Tim Duncan's prime. You cannot afford to lose talent at this point. When Steve Nash was 22 years old just exactly what had he done in the NBA?

If I am not mistaken it was Parker who lit up the Lakers in the first 2 games of the 04 series and it was the Lakers who had to adjust by clogging the lane with Shaq and Evil.

Parker also led the charge back against the Lakers in the 4th quarter of the pivotal 5th game of that series.

22 years old.

Shut the up Walton.

[BronxCowboy]

Just put my two cents in: for all you who think Parker was useless in the last four games of the playoffs, you're barking up the wrong tree. Useless is a coach who is to stubborn to adapt. Useless is management that offers 90 mil to an over the hill PG (we'd be in great shape now if Kidd had signed, wouldn't we?) who only pretends to want to play for your team to bump up his value, and in the process slapping your biggest up and coming star in the face. Useless is the inability to compromise to the tune of less than a minimum-salary bench dressing, and setting up the real possibility of costing your team 20 million dollars more or losing an irreplaceable player. Come on.

[Brodels]

Just put my two cents in: for all you who think Parker was useless in the last four games of the playoffs, you're barking up the wrong tree. Useless is a coach who is to stubborn to adapt. Useless is management that offers 90 mil to an over the hill PG (we'd be in great shape now if Kidd had signed, wouldn't we?) who only pretends to want to play for your team to bump up his value, and in the process slapping your biggest up and coming star in the face. Useless is the inability to compromise to the tune of less than a minimum-salary bench dressing, and setting up the real possibility of costing your team 20 million dollars more or losing an irreplaceable player. Come on.

How do you know that the Spurs originally wanted to pay a lot less and have already compromised a great deal? You have to draw the line somewhere.

[Brodels]

The Spurs weren't good enough to win a championship last season. To improve, there are three things you can do:

1. Sign all of your players, overpaying them if you have to, go over the salary cap by a good bit, and hope that your big-dollar players improve.

Tony is a good point guard, but he hasn't put up the numbers of other point guards ('numbers' don't always matter anyway) and he hasn't had the impact of some other point guards. If you're going to pay Parker a whole bunch of money, you have to hope that he grows into his contract. Many want to pay him because he's young.

Believe this: Tony didn't improve by leaps and bounds last season. He learned to run the offense better, but in my opinion, he didn't improve his offensive or defensive abilities more than just a very small amount.

Based on the small amount of growing that Parker did last season, it's entirely possibly that he's simply not going to become a much better player than he already is now. You may be looking at something close to Tony's best. We don't know that, but it is entirely possible.

Given that a core of Parker, Manu, Duncan, and Rasho wasn't good enough last season, Tony's continues growth could be the difference between the Spurs winning and losing. Duncan isn't going to improve by a ton. Neither is Rasho. Ginobili could, but he's still somewhat of an unknown. If you overpay Parker, you limit the team's ability to make moves in the future. If you match a max-dollar contract next summer and Tony continues to improve very slowly, the Spurs aren't going anywhere unless you feel that the role players Pop and R.C. add every year will truly make the difference. In my mind, the core players were largely responsible for the collapse against the Lakers.

2. Be fiscally responsible, don't overpay players, and retain some financial flexibility.

The New York Knicks can be over the cap by millions and still be willing to spend the MLE. The Spurs can't do that. Holt isn't going to spend more than a certain amount of money, and overpaying Parker makes it all the more unlikely that the Spurs will be able to use exceptions, if they even exist in the next CBA. Every dollar spent on paying Parker more than he should get is a dollar that won't be spent in other areas.

Many keep saying that the Spurs will be over the salary cap for years to come. That isn't necessarily the case. We simply don't know what the new CBA will bring, and we don't know if basketball revenue is going to increase by a large or small amount over the next few seasons. The Spurs may actually be slightly under the cap at some point. It's too early to tell.

Either way, finanical flexibility will make it more likely that the Spurs use their exceptions. It will also help with trades.

3. Of course, the Spurs can overpay Parker and hope that Rasho, Beno, Devin, and others become better. Devin Brown could certainly become a starter, but Rasho isn't going to improve by leaps and bounds and the only thing we really know about Beno is that he can't stay healthy. I'm not willing to pin the team's future le hopes on Beno, Brown, and Rasho.

The Spurs have remained compe ive by making smart financial decisions. If you like teams that overpay players and are willing to give players whatever they want, I suggest you become a Knicks fan. New York has been in cap for years because they paid players based on potential and those players never met expectations.

There is only one irreplaceable player on the Spurs, and his name is Tim Duncan. The Spurs should continue to negotiate a fair contract with Parker, but if he doesn't sign, they can wait until next summer and re-assess his progress. Even if he leaves, they will have the financial flexibility, scouting prowess, and MVP power to contend for a le.

Pop, RC, and Holt: don't turn the Spurs into the New York Knicks. I can't take six years of failure, unmet expectations, and lack of roster flexibility. Pay players based upon what they have proven that they can do.

$64 million for Parker is fair.

First of all, Nash got $65 over five years. The Spurs offered Parker $64 over six.

You can bag on Parker all you want, but without him the Spurs won't win another championship in the Tim Duncan Era. Besides Duncan himself, he's the only person that can't be replaced. You lose him next summer and you have Sue Bird errr Beno Udrih as your starting point guard ... well, at least until he finds something else to bruise.

In the playoffs last season, it can be argued that Parker was playing at a higher level than even Duncan through the first 6 postseason games. He flopped in the last 4 games, but so did Duncan and so did everyone else not named Devin Brown.

The Parker doubters can have it there way for now ... just don't be crying when they lose him to a team willing to give him the max next summer.

It's looking like 2004-05 is going to be the Spurs' last chance.

[Brodels]

and in the process slapping your biggest up and coming star in the face.

That's what I don't understand. People want to pay Parker like a superstar because they think he'll become what.

Question: what aspects of his game did Parker improve last season by a large enough amount to convince you that he's "an up and coming star?"

[Nikos]

22 years old, but also with 3 seasons under his belt.

He might become an elite PG very soon, but its not like he is going to improve every single year until he is 30. Eventually he will hit his plateau probably in about 2-3 years and level off from there.

I want TP to come back of course but I still don't think the 22 year old argument should be the basis as to why the Spurs should resign him -- sure he will improve and its nice that hes young and has several productive years ahead of him. But he still has to convince the Spurs hes worth it.

I was hoping for the extension, but what can you do at this point? You know if the team found a way to win a le last season they would have extended him, even if he didn't have great games like he did against Memphis and at the start of the LA series. But thats how it goes.

[GoSpurs21]

Have fun on a lottery team Tony you ingrate, I hear the clippers have $10M per year lying around.

I don't see how new CBA would change Tony Restricted Free Agent status.