The Tony Parker situation

[Brodels]

No, that's enough to get eliminated in the second round.

So if Parker doesn't improve much, and he really didn't improve by a great amount last season, the Spurs are basically a second round team with no hope of improving. If the Spurs lost because Tony only produced 18 and 7 in the playoffs, they are going to continue to lose. Tony isn't going to give this team 22 and 10. It just isn't going to happen. There are many reasons the Spurs lost in the second round. And by stating that Parker's production was enough to only get them to the second round, you're putting too much of the blame on Parker for the team's playoff failure last season. And if you're going to put that much blame on him, why do you want to pay him max dollars?

You propose going backwards from there.I guarantee you they couldn't.

Parker isn't the only player in the league. You act as if the Spurs would be stuck with the same roster they have now sans Parker for the next five years. That simply isn't true. And as for your guarantee? You simply don't know what would happen.

And how do you propose to pay these solid and quality players?

With the MLE. Financial flexibility also helps the team make trades. There are ways to improve the team.

And they might not win with your cheap plan either.

So hoping that Parker gets a contract averaging over $10 million per season is cheap? If that's cheap, than matching him at the max is purely insane. The few point guards currently making the max are true superstars. If you match a max deal for Parker, you better hope that he improves to the level of a max player. If the Spurs are a second round team with the current core, it's going to stay that way unless Parker and others improve. If you overpay Parker, you're not going to be able to improve the roster.

So what?Which one? For how much?

I can't answer that. Nobody knows what's going to be out there next summer. Nobody knows how Beno is going to respond to playing in the NBA. And Parker might sign a contract this week anyway.

Better off in that they won't have a starting point guard or a guy who can score 18 and 7 in the playoffs.

So you're saying that the Spurs need a guy to score 18 and 7 in the playoffs, but you're also saying that 18 and 7 isn't good enough in the playoffs? Which is it? If Parker isn't good enough to make the Spurs a championship team, than they better have a plan to get better. And they aren't going to improve if Parker is locked up for the max.

Sorry man, point guards are hard to find in this league. I can't believe anyone with knowledge of the Spurs between Strickland and AJ can discount this so easily.

AJ was a pretty crappy point guard by NBA standards. And last time I checked, the Spurs won their first NBA le with him at the helm. And he didn't average 18 and 7 at any point in his career.

[ChumpDumper]

So if Parker doesn't improve much, and he really didn't improve by a great amount last season, the Spurs are basically a second round team with no hope of improving.

If he was the only player on the team, this stupidly simplistic viewpoint would be pure gold.

Parker isn't the only player in the league.

And yet you can't name one guy to replace his role and production. In that case he might as well be the only player in the league available to the Spurs.

With the MLE. Financial flexibility also helps the team make trades.

The Spurs will have the MLE if they keep Parker too. And Parker is completely tradeable -- even at the max -- even if he doesn't improve at all over last year.

Parker + MLE > Nothing + MLE

So hoping that Parker gets a contract averaging over $10 million per season is cheap?

Your plan is letting him go if the price looks high. Don't pretend it isn't.

I can't answer that.

Exactly. Bring an alternative or bring nothing. You brought nothing but maybe some MLE pg who will split that money with a swing man.

AJ was a pretty crappy point guard by NBA standards. And last time I checked, the Spurs won their first NBA le with him at the helm.

In what way was AJ a crappy point guard when the Spurs won? How many rings did Vinny Del Negro and Greg Sutton get the Spurs?

You said you'd rather take the chance of some sub-MLE point guard for fear of overpaying Parker.

Back that up.

Name names.

Who are we going to sign to start at the point for less than Derek Fisher?

[timvp]

If you say the Spurs can lose Parker and still win championships, you're crazy. Without Parker, the Spurs would be back to the Terry Porter walk-it-up-the-court-and-get-blown-out-in-the-playoffs stye. His speed is what allows the offense to be effective in the playoffs.

The Spurs lose Tony, they lose their championship hopes.

[picnroll]

Ok, ANYONE else who would replace the 18 and 7.

Waiting.

I'll take Carlos Arroyo and his contract over Parker and a $65-70 million deal at his current level of play, and see what I can get for the change.

[ChumpDumper]

Try to stick with someone who is available next summer

[timvp]

We need to put this thread in the classics. I wonder what these people will be saying when Parker takes his game to the next level.

[Brodels]

If he was the only player on the team, this stupidly simplistic viewpoint would be pure gold.

You said that at Tony's current level of play the Spurs are a second-round team.

And yet you can't name one guy to replace his role and production.

Unfortunately, I don't have the ability to call every GM around the league to ask who might be available via trade next summer. I can't accurately predict who is going to have a breakout season this year. I don't know what other teams are going to do. I can't say how Beno will play. When I become an NBA GM and also develop the ability to predict the future, I'll let you know.

The Spurs will have the MLE if they keep Parker too. And Parker is completely tradeable -- even at the max -- even if he doesn't improve at all over last year.

The Spurs are much more likely to use the MLE if they have a lower payroll. We both know that Holt isn't going to open his wallet and pay an unlimited number of dollars. And Parker is not going to be tradeable at the max two years from now if he's the same kind of player. He'll only get a max offer because some team thinks he'll become a max player, not because anyone actually believes that he's worth the contract right now.

Parker + MLE > Nothing + MLE

That's not the situation.

Your plan is letting him go if the price looks high. Don't pretend it isn't.Exactly.

My plan is to pay him what other players get that produce similarly. Unless he's as good as most of the max players, he shouldn't get the max. Teams always regret overpaying players. Just like you don't pay Rasho the max because the Spurs could find it difficult to find a center with his ability, you don't overpay Parker until he shows that he's in the top-tier of players at his position.

Bring an alternative or bring nothing. You brought nothing but maybe some MLE pg who will split that money with a swing man.

The fact is, nobody in the entire world knows what the alternatives will be. But there are always alternatives. I can't predict the future. Who knows what the Spurs could get? We simply don't.

In what way was AJ a crappy point guard when the Spurs won? How many rings did Vinny Del Negro and Greg Sutton get the Spurs?

Well, AJ certainly didn't produce 18 and 7 and the Spurs still won with him. He wasn't considered to be among the better point guards in the league. And Vinny and Greg don't play in the league anymore.

You said you'd rather take the chance of some sub-MLE point guard for fear of overpaying Parker.

Yes. Financial flexibility will allow the Spurs to get better at some point. If the Spurs weren't good enough last season to win the le, than they aren't ever going to be unless Parker and Manu improve or Barry proves to be the missing piece. We'll see if those things happen. If you sign Parker to the max, you're accepting the fact that the roster that wasn't good enough to make it to the conference finals last season is practically the same one you'll be seeing for the next several years. If you sign Parker to the max, you better hope that he gets better. Or hope that Manu improves. Or hope that Barry makes a huge difference. If those things don't happen, the Spurs are going to keep losing in the postseason.

If you don't overpay Parker, you stay a good bit under the Holt Cap and you'll have the financial flexibility to at least potentially improve. And if the current team isn't good enough, that's the best scenario.

The Spurs are better off with Parker, but only if he get paid what his production dictates he's worth.

I very much hope that Parker signs a nice, six-year, $60 million deal this week. But you don't give him whatever he wants. That's a bad way to run a basketball team.

[Brodels]

We need to put this thread in the classics. I wonder what these people will be saying when Parker takes his game to the next level.

Who is saying that Parker won't take his game to the next level? He might, but he might not. If he gets better, he should get paid more. If he has a monster season, he should get the max. I'm not saying that he won't. I'm just saying that it's not guaranteed that he will. I hope he does.

[ChumpDumper]

You said that at Tony's current level of play the Spurs are a second-round team.

I can't help you if you can't understand English. Try a tutor.

Unfortunately, I don't have the ability to call every GM around the league to ask who might be available via trade next summer. I can't accurately predict who is going to have a breakout season this year. I don't know what other teams are going to do. I can't say how Beno will play. When I become an NBA GM and also develop the ability to predict the future, I'll let you know.

Maybe then I'll accept your take that we're better off without Tony, too.

The Spurs are much more likely to use the MLE if they have a lower payroll. We both know that Holt isn't going to open his wallet and pay an unlimited number of dollars. And Parker is not going to be tradeable at the max two years from now if he's the same kind of player. He'll only get a max offer because some team thinks he'll become a max player, not because anyone actually believes that he's worth the contract right now.

I thought you said you couldn't predict the future. And yet, here you are doing just that. If Marbury and Stoudamire can be traded, so could Tony.

That's not the situation.

It certainly could be. Why act like it isn't a possiblity?

My plan is to pay him what other players get that produce similarly.

Bibby. Nash. Next.

Well, AJ certainly didn't produce 18 and 7 and the Spurs still won with him. He wasn't considered to be among the better point guards in the league.

You might want to check on AJ's numbers back in the day. Try to think about what it would take to even get that level of competence at the point. Then look at Derek Fisher's contract. Then think about how truly flexble that kind of contract is. Then sign Parker for close to the max.

And Vinny and Greg don't play in the league anymore.

Do you really need this spelled out to you?

Financial flexibility will allow the Spurs to get better at some point.

What point? When Malik's deal is over? Again, just plug in Derek Fisher's deal into the Spur's payroll for the next six years and tell me how much more flexible that makes things.

I very much hope that Parker signs a nice, six-year, $60 million deal this week. But you don't give him whatever he wants. That's a bad way to run a basketball team.

Duh.

But you gotta pay him.

Or lose him.

The market is VERY clear on his value. This is beyond question. The only question is if the Spurs think they can get him at or below market. He will be paid either way.

[Brodels]

I can't help you if you can't understand English. Try a tutor.Maybe then I'll accept your take that we're better off without Tony, too.

You said:

No, that's enough to get eliminated in the second round.

...when asked if 18 and 7 were stats that the Spurs needed from Tony to succeed. You're saying that those number will get the Spurs eliminated. So Tony needs to do better. But you're also saying that the Spurs need those numbers to win. Can they or can't they win with Tony producing at 18 and 7?

I thought you said you couldn't predict the future.

I can't predict who is going to blow up. I can't predict what direction teams will go in. But I can say with relative certainty that the good players will generally get more money than the bad players.

If Marbury and Stoudamire can be traded, so could Tony.It certainly could be.

It could happen. But Marbury was a very, very good player and Damon was thought to be a "potential" guy at the time.

Bibby. Nash.

If statistics really are that important, as the 18/7 talk suggests, then Tony should get less than Nash. He's never produced the same numbers.

In my opinion, a 6-year, $66 million deal isn't out of the realm of possibility. That's what Nash got, and it isn't that close to the max. I could accept a contract like that for Tony.

Next.You might want to check on AJ's numbers back in the day. Try to think about what it would take to even get that level of competence at the point.

AJ averaged thirteen points per game in his best years. He averaged a good number of assists, but he did so in a time when everyone got more assists.

Again, the Spurs don't necessarily need a superstar at the point. It would be better if Tony stayed and they could rely on his production. But that production doesn't need to come from that position.

Then look at Derek Fisher's contract. Then think about how truly flexble that kind of contract is.

I'm in favor of signing Parker to a contract that approaches twice as much as Fisher's contract.

Again, just plug in Derek Fisher's deal into the Spur's payroll for the next six years and tell me how much more flexible that makes things.Duh.

Well, $40 million is a lot of money. And if you don't think that $40 million makes a difference, think again. It could very well be the difference between the Spurs being able to improve a team incapable of getting it done or the Spurs being stuck with a team incapable of getting it done.

But you gotta pay him.

Or lose him.

I agree. Give him a Nash-type contract. You seem to think that Tony has similar value. So if Nash didn't get the max, why should Parker?

The market is VERY clear on his value. This is beyond question. The only question is if the Spurs think they can get him at or below market. He will be paid either way.

As it was with Allan Houston, Keith Van Horn, and Tariq Abdul-Wahad. That's why you don't overpay players and pray that they improve enough to live up to the contract. You pay players based on what they can do or what they might reasonably be able to do if they improve a small bit.

[ChumpDumper]

...when asked if 18 and 7 were stats that the Spurs needed from Tony to succeed. You're saying that those number will get the Spurs eliminated. So Tony needs to do better. But you're also saying that the Spurs need those numbers to win. Can they or can't they win with Tony producing at 18 and 7?

Sure they can. Taking him and his production all but ensures the Spurs don't win anything.

It could happen. But Marbury was a very, very good player and Damon was thought to be a "potential" guy at the time.

And they are different from Parker how? That they are older and slower?

If statistics really are that important, as the 18/7 talk suggests, then Tony should get less than Nash. He's never produced the same numbers.

Nash got 14 and 9 in the playoffs, so Parker should get more. Bibby got 20 and 7. Not much difference, eh? Parker also has a ring and was the consensus Finals MVP for 2 or 3 games.

AJ averaged thirteen points per game in his best years. He averaged a good number of assists, but he did so in a time when everyone got more assists.

So how much money would it take to get even that production -- even if that mystery FA could be attracted to SA.

I'm in favor of signing Parker to a contract that approaches twice as much as Fisher's contract.

Twice would be the max. Why are we having this discussion if you agree with me?

Well, $40 million is a lot of money. And if you don't think that $40 million makes a difference, think again.

It doesn't if your team is already over the cap to the degree the Spurs will be with the deals they made with Duncan, Rasho, Manu and Malik. At the most that difference is one MLE player. Whoop de do.

I agree. Give him a Nash-type contract. You seem to think that Tony has similar value. So if Nash didn't get the max, why should Parker?

Tony performs better in the playoffs, has a ring and is eight years younger with upside. End of story.

As it was with Allan Houston, Keith Van Horn, and Tariq Abdul-Wahad. That's why you don't overpay players and pray that they improve enough to live up to the contract. You pay players based on what they can do or what they might reasonably be able to do if they improve a small bit.

Sorry, Parker is already at that level. Everyone but Spurs fans seem to realize that.

[Man Mountain]

TOny Parker is a once in a lifetime steal at point guard. The Spurs had no right to get him how they did at the end of the first round. If you think the Spurs can go out and do that again you are crazy. They are lucky to have Parker and like that guy said anyone who Pop goes out and tries to get at point guard as been hooooooorrrrrrrriiiiiiiiibbbbbble. Parker fell into their lap after other teams had biases against foriegn point guards and an overall lack of euro scouting available. To think that this is an everyday occurence is crazy. Point guards like Parker take lottery picks or trades for big time talent. THe Spurs fluked into Parker (and to Ginobili for the matter) so they need to do what they need to do to keep him right here in San ANtonio. I don't know what they are offering but if its less than sixty million dollars then Parker should walk away. He is worth AT LEAST what Nash got and probably a little more. For a fare contract you are look sixty to seventy million. This isn't a spurs fan talking this is reality. You have to take advantage when a fluke happens you can't just let him leave. Sign him now and then worry about winning championships. We have gone thru too many seasons with doubt hanging over our heads like a black cloud. Just get it over with and move on. We have bigger fish to fry!!!

[Brodels]

Sure they can. Taking him and his production all but ensures the Spurs don't win anything.

You seem to believe that the Spurs will score eighteen less points if Parker leaves. That production is made up by both new and existing players. The Spurs would suffer right now without Tony, but losing him wouldn't mean that the Spurs couldn't win in the future.

And they are different from Parker how?

Marbury is simply a better player. Damon was paid based on his potential. He didn't turn into the type of player he was expected to be, and Portland regrets trading for him and hates his contract. What's to say the same couldn't happen with Parker? Now that Damon isn't a "potential" kind of guy anymore, he's untradeable. Parker would be tradeable as long as he remained a "potential" guy, but after several years in the league, people wonder if you'll ever pan out.

That they are older and slower?Nash got 14 and 9 in the playoffs, so Parker should get more. Bibby got 20 and 7. Not much difference, eh?

Players don't get paid solely on what they do in the playoffs. You have to pay a player based on what he can do in the playoffs and during the regular season. You don't actually believe that regular season production should have no impact on what a player gets paid, do you?

Parker also has a ring and was the consensus Finals MVP for 2 or 3 games.So how much money would it take to get even that production -- even if that mystery FA could be attracted to SA.

You can get similar production by paying players based upon what they actually produce. You can get that production by developing young players. And you can get that production by getting more from the players you already have.

Twice would be the max. Why are we having this discussion if you agree with me?

$74 million is not the max for Parker. And I did specify that I would accept something approaching that number, not that actual number. $70 million is the absolute most that would be acceptable.

It doesn't if your team is already over the cap to the degree the Spurs will be with the deals they made with Duncan, Rasho, Manu and Malik.

Yes it does. The Spurs would have more flexibility with their exceptions, can work to get under the cap easier, and will have an easier time making trades.

Tony performs better in the playoffs, has a ring and is eight years younger with upside.

You don't pay for upside after someone has already been in the league for multiple seasons. Tony has a ring because he plays with Tim Duncan. Nash has never played with a player of Tim's caliber.

Sorry, Parker is already at that level. Everyone but Spurs fans seem to realize that.

Most players making the max have been all-stars or all NBA first, second, or third team members. If Parker was really a max player, he would have achieved one of those honors. Those things are decided by people outside of San Antonio for the most part. He's not even clearly the second best player on his own team.

[ChumpDumper]

You seem to believe that the Spurs will score eighteen less points if Parker leaves. That production is made up by both new and existing players.

Who? For how much? Will he be the fastest player in the league? Terry Porter? Greg Sutton?

Marbury is simply a better player. Damon was paid based on his potential. He didn't turn into the type of player he was expected to be, and Portland regrets trading for him and hates his contract. What's to say the same couldn't happen with Parker? Now that Damon isn't a "potential" kind of guy anymore, he's untradeable. Parker would be tradeable as long as he remained a "potential" guy, but after several years in the league, people wonder if you'll ever pan out.

Again, you completely undervalue what Tony does NOW. These maical replacements you have for Tony simply aren't out there.

Players don't get paid solely on what they do in the playoffs. You have to pay a player based on what he can do in the playoffs and during the regular season. You don't actually believe that regular season production should have no impact on what a player gets paid, do you?

Bibby. Next.

You can get similar production by paying players based upon what they actually produce. You can get that production by developing young players. And you can get that production by getting more from the players you already have.

Who? For how much? Who is going to develop? Why act like it's going to happen when you admit to not knowing who will develop. Tony is there NOW.

$74 million is not the max for Parker. And I did specify that I would accept something approaching that number, not that actual number. $70 million is the absolute most that would be acceptable.

Damn, make up your mind. Twice the MLE, $74 million or $70 million? Which is it. Year to year, it doesn't make a lot of difference when you're talking 12.5% raises.

Yes it does. The Spurs would have more flexibility with their exceptions, can work to get under the cap easier, and will have an easier time making trades.

Please, you're talking about Parker or 1 and some fraction of an MLE player. The Spurs will not be close to being under any cap until 2009 since Malik picked up his option, so that argument is crap.

You don't pay for upside after someone has already been in the league for multiple seasons.

You do if they still have upside. I know it's unusual but there it is.

Most players making the max have been all-stars or all NBA first, second, or third team members. If Parker was really a max player, he would have achieved one of those honors. Those things are decided by people outside of San Antonio for the most part. He's not even clearly the second best player on his own team.

Sorry, the market has spoken and you're whistling past the graveyard.

Parker now > your phantom MLE signings and development of Spurs to whom you'll give the benefit of the doubt though you can't do the same with Parker.

It'll be a miracle if the Spurs can get Parker below Bibby money.

[Das Texan]

any word on whether they are going to get it done?


or are things being tabled till the offseason?



i fear that this could cost the spurs in the long run financially.

[Kori Ellis]

Pop says it is going to happen within a couple days, or wait until the summer. Tony seems to think they'll keep negotiating until month's end.

[ChumpDumper]

This artificial deadline is crap. It's not like they wouldn't take any calls from the agent if he relented.