I'm not entirely surprised that people in the front-office would make those observations, if a guy like me could see those thing by just watching 70+ games. He's got the talent to be an elite defender, but he still needs to put it altogether. Also, Parker ability to play through all that chiding and screaming early on as a player should remind people how unique he is/was. I doubt that even solid young men like Blair and Hill could've handled such harsh treatment.
That pass was beautiful and I won't waste time trying to defend it. Parker proved last season that he can be a solid play-maker with the ball in his hands.
Hate all you want Ex, but those "quicks" have helped carry this team to three 'ships and countless victories. The guy obviously isn't an elite passer, but he's definitely better than average. And, if he's average what does that make Hill? Who can't even handle full-time PG duties for 20+ plus games without Manu sharing the responsibilities.
we can also do the same thing to tony .. lets wait and see his production next season and if his playing like the tony of 2007 then we can sign him ..
I usually don't touch this subject with a 10-foot pole (I just never have one laying around), but I tend to side with ex (another great poster I failed to mention) and most of his Parker takes, at least as it pertains to his point guard-ness.
I avoid the subject because it always ends in a emotional argument that's neither productive nor worthy of the energy it takes to argue. But it's just a fact that Tony isn't an instinctual point.
Now, that's not a knock on his ability, talent or standing in the league. But I find it quite strange how people talk as if Tony's Jason Kidd in comparison to Hill; he's a learned passer, not an instinctual one, that's mastered this Spurs offense, in terms of where people will be in relation to his drives and the counters to each and every play. He knows if he goes to Point-A, he has these options. Should he run Play-X, he knows the action and counter to that play. It's a of an asset to have for a team, there's about 25 teams or so that should be so lucky, but it doesn't make him the quintessential point.
Kori's stated that Pop and the Spurs see Hill as a 2 ... I have absolutely no reason not believe her. But I'd be lying if I told you I didn't believe Hill could one day run the point in a Tony fashion. (Maybe he'll never be as good as Tony or that caliber of player, but I'm pretty confident he could do a pretty decent impression.) And if he's able to run the point adequately and keeps inching toward being the solid, impactful 2-way player ... then the Spurs should have one of a successor.
It's almost as if there's been a backlash to the excitement of Hill and his potential. He's a damn good player with a bright future ... I wish everyone could discuss a player (whether it's Hill, Manu or Tony) without feeling they've got to defend the other guy.
Trading Tony's an option, not something that needs to be a foregone conclusion. And trading him or exploring the options is not an indictment of his ability or character; it'd be a realization that it's their only hope of getting the requisite talent to lift them from where they are, or an effort to get something for him in the event the team has a rapid decline (whether it's due to injury or otherwise) before he hits free agency.
This is what I think too Kori. If you recall I have been ragging on George's defense a lot this season. I thought he would be a superior defender by now, but this season I have seen him get torched by some players that a full strength Tony Parker has shown in the past that he can a least contain and not let them go off. It could be also what Harlemheat said that George isn't used to starting and having to carry this much of an offensive load so because of that extra load his defense some nights has slipped a bit. What do you think?
Also, does George study a lot of players like Bruce Bowen did? In an interview the other day someone asked George if he is watching the other playoff teams and what goes on around the NBA and George said no. It sounded like George said he doesn't watch many NBA games at all. I thought he would so he can learn his opponents better, unless George was just saying he's not watching the playoff race?
I still like George starting for now at PG to not disrupt the flow. I think TP can be the most lethal weapon in the NBA if he can take on that role for now and George continues to play the way he has been starting at PG.
Last edited by Ice009; 04-14-2010 at 12:37 AM.
Has Pop or the Spurs organization ever said they dont see Hill as a PG? Cause everything Ive heard is the complete opposite, they actually want to mold him into one despite him not playing that position in college. Parker fans need to stop with the whole he's not a PG thing, its silly really. He's been playing back-up point and has started when required for about 2 years now. He's a PG. Anyways Im glad people are coming around and realizing what we have in George Hill. It took this great run without Tony for alot of people to see it but its been pretty apparent even before that Hill is more than capable of being a starting PG on a championship team.
Bynum. Do it RC.
Logical and well written, this is.
Well said.
BTW, I don't hate Parker. I DO, however, see his warts, and there are more than a few. I won't be disappointed to see him in SA next year, but I won't be upset if he's the piece that brings in quality new blood and/or picks.
All depends on Tiago but the Spurs seemed confident that he'll be coming over. Also depends on what will happen to RJ.
This is a hoopsworld article that basically was just an opinion piece with no real substance; but I do agree that Tony Parker could be moved if the trade is right. As a team you explore all sorts of options especially after the Pau Gasol and Antawn Jamison trades.
The added responsibility definitely effects how well George defends, but you've also gotta take into consideration their point guard depth with Tony out: non-existent (if he's in foul trouble ... they've got problems).
I've made the comparison to Prince when discussing Hill's defense in the past, and I think it's a pretty decent comparison: length, spacing and preparation being more responsible for their success than stop-and-go quickness. And when that's the case, you're bound to get burned and look bad from time to time if you don't have your head in the game or stay ahead of the play.
Frankly, George has looked better on more of the 2-guards this year because of his athletic prowess (as his quickness is on par or becomes an advantage, which makes life much easier in most cases).
George is spectacular at times and very average at others, but I've got faith he'll figure it out with his work-ethic and desire to be great.
Suits you well.
Just read through this thread. Good points all around. I'll make 2.
1. I would only trade Parker if you get back an elite level player at a position the Spurs need filled. Whether that trade exists, who knows?
2. I love Parker and have defended him many times. But I also think that at 28 years of age, considering how many NBA games he has played, he is really closer to 30-31 in "mileage." Since a lot of his game depends on his speed, if he loses a step it will make him much less effective.
It's exactly what Pop used to say about Tony...
Thanks to confirm, but it's so obvious...
Some people on ST and even in the league/media... think that George is REALLY Pop's favourite player!
I thought Pop's sarcasm was well enough known...
Goerge is a great steall/discover of the draft, has great physical abilities/potential, great spirit, great willing to learn/progress... BUT, he is doesn't seems to have the mental strengh/killing instinct requiered to become "special".
That doesn't he can't become one of the best all around/versatil player in the league or help a contender win the ke thks to his skills...
But he is no allstar, he is not a "killer", he needs to be well managed to give his best and wouldn't have succed as well with another type of coaching/franchise/core players...
Last edited by Pauleta14; 04-14-2010 at 11:33 AM.
point and point!
I tried to make a point in one of the Manu re signed threads that the big extension for Manu might very well force the Spurs to at least explore options of a Tony trade. not because they wanted to get rid of him and not because he wasn't any longer a good player for this team, just because of the limited options the FO has this summer.
if a trade of Tony for (for example) two quality role player makes the team better overall, you have to think about it. (and if it also brings some cap relieve, Holt will love to at least think about it even more).
fact is, Tony IS the only trade asset that allows the Spurs to get into somehow interested discussions with another team.
(just for the sake of discussion
what if the Blazers once more try to get a star PG and offer a package like Batum+Fernandez+Przybilla for Tony?
do we bite? this comes even with some cap relieve (including taxes about 5 million).
did we bite on either Batum or Fernandez + Przybilla + pick?
maybe Spurs still don't pull the trigger, but this would all be scenarios they at least need to consider, especially because either Fernandez and Batum are on cheap contracts till 2012.
(Hill-Fernandez-Batum-Blair-Splitter would be a young line up I would piss my pants to see them in a Spurs uniform)
+100000
I'm not against exploring trades for Parker at all, I just don't see any realistic deals that could benefit both teams..
Some mentioned Bynum in multiple threads..Buss loves Bynum..why would they trade a really young C for a PG with a lot of mileage that doesn't even fit in their system?..Bynum is the only piece they have for the future, the rest of their players are relatively old..
I know mountainballer was just using his trade idea as a random example, but I don't know why Portland would trade Batum, a guy they're extremely high on..
A ton depends on what happens in the first round of the playoffs. If we lose, trades will definitely happen.
Trading RJ is preferable, obviously, but if he's untradable (which is likely), then we have to, and will, look to trade Parker. We can get a good-to-very good package for TP this summer.
I think we need to get a decent point in return, preferably a guy who can shoot. But to me, we would have to get a good big as well.
I think Portland is a potential suitor, as well as the Knicks and Lakers, and maybe the Hawks.
Well, blackjack said it better.
But, about the harsh treatment, TP costed us lot of games back then, his "I win it all by myself TO's" made Pop mad... But whatever.
I don't want to see TP traded. I think GH can become a great player, an elite one -I dont believe all that "he can't be an allstar", I believe he can. But I'd rather have them both.
If he gets traded -TP- then I hope we get the pieces needed to compete.
Bottom line, if TP doesn't get too slow early in his career, I don't see the Spurs trading him, or I hope they dont. But it's a big IF.
Hill is to small to be a SG.
No he's not.
As for Parker I agree with Harlem, if he is traded it would have to be for a damn good package and there just isn't one I could think of.
I don't think the FO knows what they want to do, and not just because of conflicting inside info.
It looks like Pop made the decision to keep Hill in the starting lineup for this playoff run. Parker is probably healthier than Hill at this point but at the moment he's still coming off the bench.
I think it's still a work in progress as far as what they want to do. However, Phila's comment about Hill as a PG alongside Manu seems to make sense considering how the lineup has been recently.
If we keep Parker and the Ginobili/Hill combo can continue to produce at the level we've seen at the end of this season, then I think Parker will definitely need to swap bench duties with Ginobili. Parker as a sixth man would actually make a lot of sense for next season since he would keep scoring up for the second team, burning backup PGs with ease.
That would seem to me to be the smartest thing since Ginobili is obviously necessary in order to get Jefferson (his contract's not going anywhere), Hill, and others most involved. For next season there's really two gaping needs which exist this season as well: 1) a strong defensive presence at PF/C to help Tim Duncan, and 2) a lock-down perimeter defender. Those two issues need to be addressed; if trading Parker resolves the first or both issues, I'm all for it even though I'll greatly miss having Parker on our team. The reason is that Parker mostly adds scoring to the team... and in the time he's been out, we've seen that scoring is not an issue for this team.
Plug the holes for next year: defensive big (preferably who can spread the other D), defensive guard. Defensive Big is much more important. Duncan, Ginobili, Hill, and (unfortunately) Jefferson aren't going anywhere. Parker... only if we can plug the holes should he go.
BL
So the blue ...
sarcasm or shtick?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
