Ludden: Parker, Spurs end contract talks

[Brodels]

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.

It's possible that restricted free agency could be eliminated completely. I don't know how likely that is to happen, but it's possible.

I don't blame Parker for going after the benjamins. Both the Spurs and Tony are looking out for their best interests, and I appreciate that both appeared to negotiate in good faith to try to get a deal done.

[goliath]

Dissapointing news. Its sad on both sides if they're 5 mill apart and cant reach a deal. Yeah, I know there are reported other hurdles but the main issue is first and foremost $$$. I really doubt that if both sides agreed on the money that the other issues wouldnt be worked out.

From TPs quotes it sounds almost like he's willing to do the deal but his agent is talking him out of it and his agent wants him to hold out till next year and hope for a max deal.

Plus what is the deal with the Spurs bad luck with agents. First Lamont Murray, then DA, then Sjax, now Parker

[FromWayDowntown]

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.

That's true -- to an extent. Unless the new CBA either dramatically redefines basketball related income (or the percentage of BRI that will determine the cap) or indexes the cap to some other measure, I'd say its a pretty fair bet that the Spurs know and have accepted that they will be over the cap for the next 6 or so years.

With that, they're willing to pay $64 million for 6 years to Parker, but won't budge on another $2 million -$4 million over the same span. At this point, it's not a matter of staying under the cap or assuring financial flexibility. It's a matter of how much they want to be over the cap -- more accurately, it's a matter of financial austerity. I could certainly see the objection if the additional money would invoke luxury tax payments, but it won't.

Being over the cap is going to tax this team's ability to add big-time talent on a going forward basis. I agree that Parker isn't a superstar player and that $64 million is a more-than-fair offer. But over the course of a 6-year deal, is $66 million really a ridiculous outlay for a team that just got a new building on a promise of increased revenues and a greater ability to spend to ensure the compe iveness of the franchise? I mean this team spent an amount equal to almost half of that $2 million difference on Anthony Carter last season.

[Brodels]

I guess the point is that I can't blame the Spurs for drawing the line. For all we know, they could have started at $50 million and been weary of considering anything over $60 million. We just don't know how much they've already compromised.

On the reverse side, isn't playing on a perennial contender in a city that you like worth giving up an extra $2 million over several years?

Without knowing how much compromising each side did, it's hard to assign blame. I'm not comfortable criticizing Spurs management until I know exactly what went into determining what that final offer would be.

That's true -- to an extent. Unless the new CBA either dramatically redefines basketball related income (or the percentage of BRI that will determine the cap) or indexes the cap to some other measure, I'd say its a pretty fair bet that the Spurs know and have accepted that they will be over the cap for the next 6 or so years.

With that, they're willing to pay $64 million for 6 years to Parker, but won't budge on another $2 million -$4 million over the same span. At this point, it's not a matter of staying under the cap or assuring financial flexibility. It's a matter of how much they want to be over the cap -- more accurately, it's a matter of financial austerity. I could certainly see the objection if the additional money would invoke luxury tax payments, but it won't.

Being over the cap is going to tax this team's ability to add big-time talent on a going forward basis. I agree that Parker isn't a superstar player and that $64 million is a more-than-fair offer. But over the course of a 6-year deal, is $66 million really a ridiculous outlay for a team that just got a new building on a promise of increased revenues and a greater ability to spend to ensure the compe iveness of the franchise? I mean this team spent an amount equal to almost half of that $2 million difference on Anthony Carter last season.

[jcrod]

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.

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 Skippee. Couldn't have said it better myself.

Question, Name other PG's that our better than TP, and lets check to see what they make.

[FromWayDowntown]

Without knowing how much compromising each side did, it's hard to assign blame. I'm not comfortable criticizing Spurs management until I know exactly what went into determining what that final offer would be.

I agree, and will acknowledge that at this point, we're only getting Fleisher's side of the stoy. But, I'm working from the assumption that most of what we know is true. Assuming it to be true, I don't think the cap concerns are valid since there is virtually no difference between $64/6 years and $66/6 years. Assuming the story to be true, the account makes the Spurs seem a bit petty -- they've put Parker through the ringer on more than one occasion, yet the dude (who is widely agreed to be a burgeoning talent) is still willing to sign on the dotted line if the ante is marginally increased.

There were some concerns about how the Spurs would be perceived by future FA's after the Derek Anderson fiasco a couple of summers ago (plus, whottt's favorite: the "squeezing" of David Robinson). I just wonder if the same doubts about the Spurs will begin to crop up based on this situation. If Fleisher's account is true, this could cost the Spurs down the road.

[Brodels]

Damn Skippee. Couldn't have said it better myself.

Question, Name other PG's that our better than TP, and lets check to see what they make.

According to NBA GMs, these are a few point guards better than Parker and what they'll make (salaries are for last season):

Kidd: $13.1 million
Cassell: $5.0 million
Marbury: $13.5 million

Other top point guards:

Bibby: $9.5 million
Nash: $5.7 million (he recently saw his payday)
Miller: $8 million
Billups: $5 million
Francis: $10.5 million
Williams: $6.1 million
Davis: $10.9 million

Parker probably isn't as good as the top three, and he's probably somewhere close to the middle to upper end of the bottom group in my opinion.

[aka_USAPA]

That's a big mistake. Parker could go "south" with this.

[bigzak25]

if parker can't man up this season, he doesn't deserve the money.

if he does man up, then he earns it. no losers here....yet.

[TwoHandJam]

Damn true.

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

That is not true and you can go back and look at the posts to prove it. I remember Walton ing about Tim's lack of aggressiveness even throughout games 1&2 of the Laker series and even your beautiful wife was criticising Tim for his performance in the playoffs. I don't remember if I posted about being disappointed with Tim at the time but I think I did.

The bottom line is that $64M for Parker is more than fair. Just because he's young doesn't automatically mean he won't plateau as a less than max-worthy player. Tony had been playing professionally for at least 2 years before entering the NBA and has already played in the NBA for 3 seasons on a well run team. If you start paying guys based on their unrealized potential then you end up paying the max for players like Allen Houston. Youth isn't everything.

I personally don't think the failure to reach a deal is just about $2M dollars as has already been insinuated. The Spurs probably have performance targets that Fleisher or Tony don't want to agree to for whatever reasons. Again, I think $64M is more than fair and if Tony believes he's a max player then he'll have to prove it this year. Four years in the league should be enough time to determine this. So far, he's not proven to be max-worthy.

There will always be some re GM who'll pay the max for a player that hasn't yet proven to be max-worthy so I guess if Tony's ok with playing on some bottom feeder instead of building a dynasty, so be it.

[TwoHandJam]

It's possible that restricted free agency could be eliminated completely. I don't know how likely that is to happen, but it's possible.

I don't blame Parker for going after the benjamins. Both the Spurs and Tony are looking out for their best interests, and I appreciate that both appeared to negotiate in good faith to try to get a deal done.

I have to disagree here a little bit. I think that the money Tony could make from endorsements alone by making perennial finals appearances or winning multiple les alongside Tim should more than make up for the gap in negotiations with the Spurs.

I don't think Tony has Lebron-type talent that he could get endorsements on a team as bad as the Cavs. Would Tony have become as popular as he is now if he didn't play alongside Tim Duncan?

[Brodels]

I have to disagree here a little bit. I think that the money Tony could make from endorsements alone by making perennial finals appearances or winning multiple les alongside Tim should more than make up for the gap in negotiations with the Spurs.

I don't think Tony has Lebron-type talent that he could get endorsements on a team as bad as the Cavs. Would Tony have become as popular as he is now if he didn't play alongside Tim Duncan?

If he gets to a big market, he could certainly make more in endorsements. Especially if he gets more shots and puts up a lot of points.

The Spurs did the right thing. And if money is the primary motivator for Parker, I can't say much about that. That's the way it is for a lot of players now. The Spurs just need to not overpay him.

[aka_USAPA]

The the Spurs feel like Parker is the money, huh? IMO, Parker is better than Bibby and look at how much the Kings paid. Why are the Spurs going cheap on Parker?

[ducks]

I bet atleast 15 million of the money is not even guaranteed

I bet spurs want him as an alstar next year
and his agent knows there is alot of competion next year

[BigVee]

Who on that list, Cassell, Kidd, Marbury, etc. would you trade Parker straight up for?

[jcrod]

Look, he's not asking for the MAX, he's asking for 20 million, below the MAX.

Gasol, got the MAX. He doesn't even crack being one of the top five PF in the league, with Duncan, J Oneil, Garnett, Dirk and Webber being a whole lot better.

AK47 got the MAX, Little hazy on my SF's in the league. But I don't think he deserves the MAX.

Jefferson got 78 million. You think Jefferson is 14 million dollars better than Parker.

I don't think Parker in being unreasonable, considering the market. I would've paid up to 70.

[Brodels]

The the Spurs feel like Parker is the money, huh? IMO, Parker is better than Bibby and look at how much the Kings paid. Why are the Spurs going cheap on Parker?

What makes you think that Parker is better? Bibby has been great in the playoffs, he's unarguably a better shooter, and he distributes the ball better. Parker is probably a better defender and is quicker. They are both similar players. I'd like you to explain why you think that Parker is better.

Bibby isn't making that much more than Parker was offered. And based on statistics and playoff performance, one could certainly argue that Bibby is still a little bit superior to Bibby.

[Brodels]

Who on that list, Cassell, Kidd, Marbury, etc. would you trade Parker straight up for?

Cassell is certainly better, but I wouldn't trade him straight up unless I knew that Parker was leaving. Sam is getting a bit long in the tooth, even though he is coming off his best season ever.

I wouldn't trade Marbury for Parker, but it isn't because Marbury isn't better. I just don't think Marbury would thrive in the Spurs system. He's clearly the superior player, just as the other two are superior.

[jcrod]

What makes you think that Parker is better? Bibby has been great in the playoffs, he's unarguably a better shooter, and he distributes the ball better. Parker is probably a better defender and is quicker. They are both similar players. I'd like you to explain why you think that Parker is better.

Bibby isn't making that much more than Parker was offered. And based on statistics and playoff performance, one could certainly argue that Bibby is still a little bit superior to Bibby.

Only thing Bibby has going better is his shooting. Parker is about the same or better passer, and absolutley quicker and defender.

Bibby has been off and on in the playoffs. He had his up and downs this past playoffs, but the last year he was HORRIBLE. The year before that he was awesome, thats how he earned his paycheck. By that Laker series alone.

[BigVee]

Because of upside, age, etc. Bibby is the only one I would consider trading for. So here is my point. If I read hoopshype correctly, Bibby got $72mil. I agree Tony is a slight notch behind...Bibby is clutch. And I agree $64mil is a fair offer. But geez, guys like Parker don't come along everyday. Let's not let a $600k a year get in the way of locking him up.

[Brodels]

Look, he's not asking for the MAX, he's asking for 20 million, below the MAX.

So the Spurs should just give him what he wants? Should they give him more than what similar players are making?

Gasol, got the MAX. He doesn't even crack being one of the top five PF in the league, with Duncan, J Oneil, Garnett, Dirk and Webber being a whole lot better.

Gasol continues to improve by a lot every single year. He's better than today's Webber. Webber can't even jump anymore. He's close to being as good as Dirk and he might even be better. Pau is undoubtedly a better defender and rebounder. He's probably more flexible on the offensive end, too. He was the best player at the Olympics. Jermaine O'Neal is solid, but you won't see Pao shooting 43% from the field in a conference with very few other power forwards. Pao is going to be a monster. He's arguably the third best power forward in the league right now.

AK47 got the MAX, Little hazy on my SF's in the league. But I don't think he deserves the MAX.

Why not? He's an all-star, he's the best player on a decent team, and he can defend, rebound, pass, and score with anyone. And most telling of all, he was fourth in the league in plus/minus rating behind Duncan, Shaq, and Garnett. That's a true measure of his value to that team.

Jefferson got 78 million. You think Jefferson is 14 million dollars better than Parker.

No. But I don't think that Shaq is worth more than twice as much as Duncan either. And I don't think that Tariq Abdul Wahad is better than Lebron James. The Nets made a big mistake with Jefferson and they will pay for it. Just because other teams make mistakes doesn't mean that the Spurs should do the same.

I don't think Parker in being unreasonable, considering the market. I would've paid up to 70.

It's easy to say that you would have paid. It's not your money. Parker wasn't being unreasonable, but the Spurs weren't being unreasonable by deciding to set a limit and sticking to it. The Spurs have been successful as a business and as a basketball team by making smart financial decisions. I can't blame them for sticking to what got them this far. Neither side is being unreasonable, they just can't find common ground. And that's O.K.

[Brodels]

Only thing Bibby has going better is his shooting. Parker is about the same or better passer, and absolutley quicker and defender.

Bibby has been off and on in the playoffs. He had his up and downs this past playoffs, but the last year he was HORRIBLE. The year before that he was awesome, thats how he earned his paycheck. By that Laker series alone.

Bibby is a better passer and he sees the floor better. Parker is no better than average in that category compared to other point guards. Parker is a better defender. He isn't clearly better than Bibby in any other category.

Bibby will give you 18-5.6-43% in the playoffs. Those are his career playoff stats. He came very close to almost singlehandedly carrying his team to a victory over one of the greatest teams of the past several years.

Parker gives you 16-4.4-42% in the playoffs. Those are solid numbers, but they are inferior to Bibby's. Don't forget that Parker has been known to disappear for games at a time in the playoffs. Don't forget that he's been bailed out by backups.

Parker is a very good player, but Bibby has done more in the playoffs and he's done more during the regular season. His statistics and reputation tell the whole story.

[jcrod]

True they've made things happen being the way they are. But they also haven't had this many good players at once. Guys like Parker don't come around very often. And I disagree, he's gotten better every yr.

His first yr, he couldn't finish around the rim. He worked on it all that summer and can finish at the rim with the best of them.

Then he developed his tear drop in the lane.

The Lakers just proved a way to stop him. So he has stayed he all summer and worked on his jump shot. And from what everybody has said, his form is noticably better. We also hear that his defense has improved.

I'm sorry this kid has dedication and is worth it.

[Brodels]

True they've made things happen being the way they are. But they also haven't had this many good players at once. Guys like Parker don't come around very often. And I disagree, he's gotten better every yr.

His first yr, he couldn't finish around the rim. He worked on it all that summer and can finish at the rim with the best of them.

Then he developed his tear drop in the lane.

The Lakers just proved a way to stop him. So he has stayed he all summer and worked on his jump shot. And from what everybody has said, his form is noticably better. We also hear that his defense has improved.

I'm sorry this kid has dedication and is worth it.

He wasn't any better last season than he was the year before.

The people who get paid to evaluate talent believe that he's not worth it. I'm with them: if Tony doesn't want to sign for what player with similar capabilities make, give him the chance to show that he deserves a larger contract.

The Spurs can sign him this summer. The Spurs are taking a calculated risk, and while it may backfire, it's not entirely a bad one.

Another question: If good players overcome obstacles like other teams gearing their defense towards stopping them, what should Tony do to overcome that? The better players adjust. Why couldn't Tony adjust, and why do you think that he will this season? Now every team in the league has a blueprint on how to stop him.

[Rick Von Braun]

if parker can't man up this season, he doesn't deserve the money.

if he does man up, then he earns it. no losers here....yet.

Bingo!