Ludden: Parker, Spurs end contract talks

[jcrod]

You're going to make me show you proff.

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 is not a better passer. Parker just doesn't get to show his passing skills that often, because of 4 down is used so much.

Last yr in the regular season Bibby avr 5.4 assits a game, Parker........5.5

In the Playoffs Bibby avr 7 assists a game, Parker.................7.

Parker would've avr more if people would've hit their shots.

Bibby will give you 18-5.6-43% in the playoffs. Those are his career playoff stats.

Bibby avr 20 pts a game in the playoffs, Parker........18.4. 1.6 more than Parker.

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 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.

That was three yrs ago that he almost beat the Lakers. I'll admit he was awesome that series. But he disappeared the following yr and everybody was saying he didn't deserve his contract and he was a one yr wonder. Granted he had his moments last yr, but hardley what it was three yrs before.


Parker is better IMO.

[jcrod]

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.

What people are you talking about? Every NBA anaylist is saying TP is top 5 PG in the league and can easliy be top 2 when it's all said and done. Tell me who's saying he's not worth it.

And read my previous post to receive you answer on Parker improving.

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.

[Brodels]

Bibby is not a better passer. Parker just doesn't get to show his passing skills that often, because of 4 down is used so much.

Last yr in the regular season Bibby avr 5.4 assits a game, Parker........5.5

In the Playoffs Bibby avr 7 assists a game, Parker.................7.

The offense opened up a lot last season. And besides, assists don't necessarily tell us that one player is a better passer than another. Assists are a result of how much someone handles the ball, what kind of players are on the team, court vision, tempo, and many other things.

I can't come up with a statistic to truly measure passing ability and neither can you. I'm just going on what is generally considered to be the case by people who know. Bibby is just considered to be a good passing point guard. Parker is considered to be average. That's just the way it is.

Parker would've avr more if people would've hit their shots.

So would Bibby. In fact, so would every point guard in the league.

Don't forget, Bibby plays with one of the greatest playoff choke artists of all time: Peja.

Bibby avr 20 pts a game in the playoffs, Parker........18.4. 1.6 more than Parker.

To get a good feel for what the players can do over time and to increase the sample size, please use more than one season to back up your point. What happened last season is one thing (and Bibby had the better stats anyway), but what happened over the past several years is another. And Bibby scores more, has more assists, and shoots a higher percentage from the field in the playoffs.

That was three yrs ago that he almost beat the Lakers. I'll admit he was awesome that series. But he disappeared the following yr and everybody was saying he didn't deserve his contract and he was a one yr wonder. Granted he had his moments last yr, but hardley what it was three yrs before.

Oh? He "disappeared" by shooting 47% from the field (a career high) and averaging 16 points per game. Parker has never shot the ball that well or averaged that many points. And we're talking about the year that you claim Bibby "disappeared" in. Please define what you mean by "disappearing." What stats or sources are you referring to?

He had one of the greatest postseason series by a point guard in the last several years and he almost led the Kings by the Lakers. The fact remains that while Bibby has done that, Parker has played well in some series and disappeared for games at a time, only to be bailed out by his backups.

Parker is better IMO.

Statistics and playoff performances suggest otherwise.

[Brodels]

What people are you talking about? Every NBA anaylist is saying TP is top 5 PG in the league and can easliy be top 2 when it's all said and done.

I haven't read that. Please show me where every single NBA analyst is saying that Parker can easily be a top-two point guard. At least show me a few different sources.

Tell me who's saying he's not worth it

Not worth what? The max? Something else?

Who's saying he is worth the max?

And read my previous post to receive you answer on Parker improving.

Show me how he improved last year. Point to comments by writers or coaches, find some statistics, give me something to show he improved. I maintain that other than becoming a little bit better at running the team, he didn't improve that much.

[jcrod]

I haven't read that. Please show me where every single NBA analyst is saying that Parker can easily be a top-two point guard. At least show me a few different sources.



Not worth what? The max? Something else?

Who's saying he is worth the max?



Show me how he improved last year. Point to comments by writers or coaches, find some statistics, give me something to show he improved. I maintain that other than becoming a little bit better at running the team, he didn't improve that much.

People to come to mind is D. Aldridge, Dr. Jack and Stein. I'll try to look for qoutes, but i think a couple were tv interviews.

Besides, your the one saying people who evaluate talent are saying he's not worth it. I'm asking you to tell me who said that. I never said he was worth the MAX.

[Brodels]

People to come to mind is D. Aldridge, Dr. Jack and Stein. I'll try to look for qoutes, but i think a couple were tv interviews.

If you can, I'll believe you and apologize. I just can't believe that every NBA analyst thinks Tony will become a top-two point guard.

Besides, your the one saying people who evaluate talent are saying he's not worth it. I'm asking you to tell me who said that. I never said he was worth the MAX.

Pop, RC, and to a lesser extent Holt, evaluate talent. That's what they do. Their decisions have something to do with Holt's pocketbook, but the Spurs have shown they will give out big contracts when they feel that a player is worth it.

And to one of the best ownership-coach-GM trios in the league, Parker isn't worth $68 million, let alone the max.

He isn't even worth Bibby dollars. And there is a reason for that. As of right now, Bibby is better.

What is Parker worth in your opinion?

[jcrod]

The offense opened up a lot last season. And besides, assists don't necessarily tell us that one player is a better passer than another. Assists are a result of how much someone handles the ball, what kind of players are on the team, court vision, tempo, and many other things.

I can't come up with a statistic to truly measure passing ability and neither can you. I'm just going on what is generally considered to be the case by people who know. Bibby is just considered to be a good passing point guard. Parker is considered to be average. That's just the way it is.

There you go again......who's these people you keep talking about.

So would Bibby. In fact, so would every point guard in the league.

Don't forget, Bibby plays with one of the greatest playoff choke artists of all time: Peja.

I'm talking about last yr playoffs. I guess you forgot, nobody could hit their shots. Bibby has better shooters to work with than Parker.

To get a good feel for what the players can do over time and to increase the sample size, please use more than one season to back up your point. What happened last season is one thing (and Bibby had the better stats anyway), but what happened over the past several years is another. And Bibby scores more, has more assists, and shoots a higher percentage from the field in the playoffs

All that matters is last yr. If they were in the league the same amount of time, then yes their carrer avr would mean something. SO NO, I'm going by last yrs stats. And it proved my point, Bibby was the better shooter that's it, Parker execls on every other category.

[King]

Question for everybody:

If Parker doesn't ever improve, and has already leveled out, is he worth 6 yr, 64M?

[jcrod]

Brodels,
Here's my last take on this.

If all that seperating the Spurs and TP is 2 million, if your the Spurs you should pay it. What's 2 million over six yrs. TP is a top five PG in this league. Prove to me otherwise, below is mine. At least a couple of GM's think he's the best.


link

NBA General Managers make their picks for 2004-05
GM Survey: Position-by-Position

Oct. 25 -- In 2004-05, who will be the MVP? Rookie of the Year? Most improved team? And who's going to win it all?

NBA.com posed these questions and more to the league's general managers, and a high majority of the GM's responded to our survey.* Here's what the guys who call the shots think about the new season.


Jason Kidd, New Jersey 78.6%
Steve Nash, Phoenix 9.5%
Sam Cassell, Minnesota 4.8%
Stephon Marbury, New York 4.8%
Others receiving votes: Tony Parker, San Antonio

[Brodels]

I don't consider articles to be the ultimate say on any issue, but you wanted examples, so here goes:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/bas...y_stockton_ap/

"Bibby never overtly patterned his game after Stockton, but the similarities are obvious. Like Stockton, Bibby is a solid all-around player with outstanding court vision, a normally reliable outside shot and a toughness that belies his 6-foot-1 frame."

http://proxy.espn.go.com/espn/page2/...simmons/020606 - Bill Simmons

"Bibby makes his teammates better, he rises to the occasion when it truly matters (something he also did in college), and he possesses the ultra-rare, Isiah-like ability to get his teammates involved for three quarters, then take the game over offensively when you need him most. What else would you want from a point guard (other than maybe a Moochie Norris-size 'fro)?

After the first round, I compared Bibby to an evolutionary version of Mo Cheeks, but Mo couldn't consistently take over games like Bibby. There's a little John Stockton in his game (how he always makes the correct decision, how he comes off picks firing that 20-footer), and enough similarities between him and Isiah warrant at least broaching the discussion."

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playof...ric&id=1801661

This one is about Bibby's ability to run the squad and his status as the on and off court leader of the Kings. It doesn't apply to his court vision, but it's intersting.

http://espn.go.com/nba/columns/kreid...k/1420551.html - A note that some feel that Bibby is overpaid anyway, and some good stuff about his leadership.

"The Kings probably overpaid for Bibby"

A reference to Bibby's "deft passing ability:" http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baske...nd-round_x.htm

There are a few references to his passing ability.

[Brodels]

I'm talking about last yr playoffs. I guess you forgot, nobody could hit their shots. Bibby has better shooters to work with than Parker.

Oh? You mean Peja, one of the greatest playoff choke artists ever? How about Christie, a player known to airball threes in tight situations? Bobby Jackson? He barely played in the playoffs. Bibby didn't have better shooters to work with last year. The Kings didn't hit their shots either, and they lost.

All that matters is last yr. If they were in the league the same amount of time, then yes their carrer avr would mean something. SO NO, I'm going by last yrs stats. And it proved my point, Bibby was the better shooter that's it, Parker execls on every other category.

You need to look at the last few seasons. Why are you limiting the sample size? They both have significant playoff experience. A few postseason games over the course of a month do not tell you as much as looking at their entire playoff careers or at least a few seasons.

Parker, for instance, averaged seven assists in the playoffs last season. That's a statistical anomaly. He's never done anything like that before. If you want to get a feel for what they can do, look at more than a very small slice of time.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Pop, RC, and to a lesser extent Holt, evaluate talent

You had something until you mentioned Holt. Holt wouldn't take a piss in a urinal until Pop, RC, and the Spurs scouting crew checked it out and told him it was clear.

[timvp]

Yeah ... the only talent Holt evaluates is which pen to use to when signing the contracts.

[Brodels]

Brodels,
Here's my last take on this.

If all that seperating the Spurs and TP is 2 million, if your the Spurs you should pay it. What's 2 million over six yrs. TP is a top five PG in this league. Prove to me otherwise, below is mine. At least a couple of GM's think he's the best.


link

NBA General Managers make their picks for 2004-05
GM Survey: Position-by-Position

Oct. 25 -- In 2004-05, who will be the MVP? Rookie of the Year? Most improved team? And who's going to win it all?

NBA.com posed these questions and more to the league's general managers, and a high majority of the GM's responded to our survey.* Here's what the guys who call the shots think about the new season.


Jason Kidd, New Jersey 78.6%
Steve Nash, Phoenix 9.5%
Sam Cassell, Minnesota 4.8%
Stephon Marbury, New York 4.8%
Others receiving votes: Tony Parker, San Antonio

So your proof of Parker being top-five is that one general manager gave him a vote? It could have been RC. And the poll doesn't reflect that Parker is top 5. If you want to determine that, you need to ask GMs who the top 5 point guards in the league are.

If not everybody participated, the 4.8% given to Marbury and Cassell must have been from only two voters. So if Parker wasn't on the list, it's clear that he only got one vote.

I can't prove that Parker isn't a top-five point guard. That's impossible to prove. Statistically, Parker isn't in the top five. That's all I know.

If you want some "expert" opinions, I'll give them to you, and you can take them as you will (2004 rankings):

Kahn ranks Parker ninth in the league - http://cbs.sportsline.com/nba/story/7708485

Here's a statistical comparison, but it was done last December. Parker is not in the top ten: http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baske...-scorers_x.htm

Finally, many people like to look at efficiency ratings. They can be very useful when comparing players playing the same position. The following point guards are in the top fifty: Cassell, Kidd, Marbury, Davis, James, Nash, Bibby, Miller, and Francis.

Parker isn't even in the top fifty.

Efficiency ratings, statistics, and sportswriter opinions don't really prove anything, but they sure are a lot better than turning to one general manager's vote.

I personally feel that Cassell, Kidd, Marbury, Davis, Nash, and Bibby are better. I don't consider James to be a point guard and I think Parker is better than Miller and Francis.

The real question:

so what?

Even if you put Parker in the top five and I put him in the top seven, that doesn't really do anything to justify what he should make. I think he's a great player too. But I respect the management's decision to set a limit and make smart basketball decisions. I don't think he's worth much more than the Spurs offered. If they would budge, it would be nice. But I respect their decision not to. If Parker becomes more consistent, runs the team better, shoots the ball better, and plays better defense I'm all for paying him more.

Statistics, professional writers, and efficiency rankings clash with your assertion that Parker is a top five point guard based upon what one GM voted. I hope Parker has a monster year and gets a big contract from the Spurs. But he's got to prove he's worth it first.

[Brodels]

You had something until you mentioned Holt. Holt wouldn't take a piss in a urinal until Pop, RC, and the Spurs scouting crew checked it out and told him it was clear.

While he doesn't tell Pop and RC who to sign, he's certainly going to be more willing to s out money for a player he likes. And he's more likely to like players he considers to be talented. At least I think so.

I don't know. Maybe Holt doesn't really care all that much. But I would guess that he has preferences and that they make at least a little bit of difference.

[jcrod]

One more time Brodels.

I've already proved my point by showing you a survery by NBA.com to current GM's. Parker received at least one vote. I don't see Bibbys name there.

Most of those articles are from two yrs ago when he had that one awesome series against the lakers.

But here's one, from one of the all time best coaches.

link

Afterward Grizzlies coach Hubie Brown gushed about Parker, saying his ability to split defenders, penetrate and score puts him among the league's elite at his position.

"You have point guards that can get into the paint, but they can't finish," Brown said. "He can not only get into the paint because of his God-given quickness off the the dribble, but he finishes. You go through the NBA right now and you don't have five point guards that can do that."

[Brodels]

So your proof of Parker being top-five is that one general manager gave him a vote? It could have been RC. And the poll doesn't reflect that Parker is top 5. If you want to determine that, you need to ask GMs who the top 5 point guards in the league are.

If not everybody participated, the 4.8% given to Marbury and Cassell must have been from only two voters. So if Parker wasn't on the list, it's clear that he only got one vote.

I can't prove that Parker isn't a top-five point guard. That's impossible to prove. Statistically, Parker isn't in the top five. That's all I know.

If you want some "expert" opinions, I'll give them to you, and you can take them as you will (2004 rankings):

Kahn ranks Parker ninth in the league - http://cbs.sportsline.com/nba/story/7708485

Here's a statistical comparison, but it was done last December. Parker is not in the top ten: http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baske...-scorers_x.htm

Finally, many people like to look at efficiency ratings. They can be very useful when comparing players playing the same position. The following point guards are in the top fifty: Cassell, Kidd, Marbury, Davis, James, Nash, Bibby, Miller, and Francis.

Parker isn't even in the top fifty.

Efficiency ratings, statistics, and sportswriter opinions don't really prove anything, but they sure are a lot better than turning to one general manager's vote.

I personally feel that Cassell, Kidd, Marbury, Davis, Nash, and Bibby are better. I don't consider James to be a point guard and I think Parker is better than Miller and Francis.

The real question:

so what?

Even if you put Parker in the top five and I put him in the top seven, that doesn't really do anything to justify what he should make. I think he's a great player too. But I respect the management's decision to set a limit and make smart basketball decisions. I don't think he's worth much more than the Spurs offered. If they would budge, it would be nice. But I respect their decision not to. If Parker becomes more consistent, runs the team better, shoots the ball better, and plays better defense I'm all for paying him more.

You went from stating that every single NBA writer believes that Parker will be top 2 point guard to saying that one GM convinced you that he's top 5.

Statistics, professional writers, and efficiency rankings clash with your assertion that Parker is a top five point guard based upon what one GM voted. I hope Parker has a monster year and gets a big contract from the Spurs. But he's got to prove he's worth it first.

Good talk. We'll have to see what happens. I know we both hope he'll be back. Thanks for a civil discussion.

[jcrod]

Another one.

link


This is going to sound like an indictment of Payton, though it is not meant to be. Instead, it is a glowing tribute to the ever-improving Parker, who has become one of the top three point guards in the league and is on the verge of becoming the elite player at his position.

[Brodels]

You showed that one general manager voted for him. And that vote had absolutely nothing to do with Parker being in the top five. The question had nothing to do with Parker being in the top five.

One general manager voting for Parker doesn't mean he's a top five point guard, and it doesn't mean that the rest of the general managers would put him in the top five.

You can't twist a poll that has nothing to do with what you're trying to defend and make it look like it's actually supporting your point.

One more time Brodels.

I've already proved my point by showing you a survery by NBA.com to current GM's. Parker received a couple of votes. I don't see Bibbys name there.

Most of those articles are from two yrs ago when he had that one awesome series against the lakers.

But here's one, from one of the all time best coaches.

link

Afterward Grizzlies coach Hubie Brown gushed about Parker, saying his ability to split defenders, penetrate and score puts him among the league's elite at his position.

"You have point guards that can get into the paint, but they can't finish," Brown said. "He can not only get into the paint because of his God-given quickness off the the dribble, but he finishes. You go through the NBA right now and you don't have five point guards that can do that."

So you're telling me that because Hubie Brown thinks that five other players in the league can't get into the lane and finish, Parker is a top 5 point guard? The only thing you've proven is that Hubie thinks he's quick and can finish. The article says nothing about Parker's ability to do other things on the court, and it's just one person anyway.

Parker isn't in the top five in efficiency ratings. I've explained why I think you're evidence isn't legit. Why do you consider efficiency ratings to be a poor indicator of performance? There are also five other point guards in the league with better statistical numbers. Why don't you consider statistics to be a good indicator?

Do you really believe that a Hubie Brown comment about Parker's quickness and finishing ability is a better indicator of Parker's position among the top point guards than all of this other stuff?

[Brodels]

Another one.

link


This is going to sound like an indictment of Payton, though it is not meant to be. Instead, it is a glowing tribute to the ever-improving Parker, who has become one of the top three point guards in the league and is on the verge of becoming the elite player at his position.

O.K. So you found a sportswriter to support your point of view. Find some more, and come up with some statistics.

Look, I think Parker is good, too. But one Frank Hughes citation simply isn't convincing.

Using sportswriter opinions as evidence is a little shaky. I posted some opinions just so you could read them. I never asserted that Parker is at a certain level just because a sportswriter says so, and I hope that you won't either.

[Kori Ellis]

Bottom line is that if the Spurs pay Tony Parker now, they are (at least in part) paying for his potential. So, of course, that's a risk. If Tony gets $68M, they'll only be 2 point guards in the league (Kidd/Marbury) making more money than him. He's obviously not the 3rd best point guard in the league.

So it just comes down to if you think the Spurs should pay for potential, or wait to see how he does this season.

Though the difference is only $4M, that money may put the Spurs into luxury tax territory (if the CBA doesn't change) and that may be why the Spurs have a hard number of $64M. If the CBA does change, the Spurs could actual end up paying less for Tony next summer if things change in that direction. Whatever happens, it's a risk for both sides. But I feel confident that Tony wants to be a Spur, and the Spurs want Tony to be a Spur. So whether it gets done now or later, I think Tony will end up signing.

[jcrod]

Ok that's enough. I'm not going to keep looking. Good talk Brodels.

I won't go by stats and eff. Because in the Spurs system everybody looks bad except Duncan. If TP were in another system he would really shine.

That one GM shows people do think of him as being one of the elites. Come one, why would you say anything else. Who would you rather see playing with the Spurs????????

For the money he's asking....its a steal if you ask me. He would command a MAX contact next yr, very few PG would. Name me others.

[jcrod]

Bottom line is that if the Spurs pay Tony Parker now, they are (at least in part) paying for his potential. So, of course, that's a risk. If Tony gets $68M, they'll only be 2 point guards in the league (Kidd/Marbury) making more money than him. He's obviously not the 3rd best point guard in the league.

So it just comes down to if you think the Spurs should pay for potential, or wait to see how he does this season.

Though the difference is only $4M, that money may put the Spurs into luxury tax territory (if the CBA doesn't change) and that may be why the Spurs have a hard number of $64M. If the CBA does change, the Spurs could actual end up paying less for Tony next summer if things change in that direction. Whatever happens, it's a risk for both sides. But I feel confident that Tony wants to be a Spur, and the Spurs want Tony to be a Spur. So whether it gets done now or later, I think Tony will end up signing.

Wouldn't he be the fith highest paid. Nash and Bibby also have larger contracts. But yes it's part potential. Is it 4 mil or 2?

[Kori Ellis]

Nash is six years/$66M according to Patricia's site. Bibby's contract is 7-years/$80.5M. So at 6-years/$68M, Tony's contract would start within 100K of what Bibby's contract started at.

[Brodels]

Ok that's enough. I'm not going to keep looking. Good talk Brodels.

Agreed.

I won't go by stats and eff. Because in the Spurs system everybody looks bad except Duncan. If TP were in another system he would really shine.

I can see your point, but since efficiency ratings take into consideration almost every statistical category of significance, I think it still applies. Spurs players may not get as many offensive opportunities, but they can still get rebounds, not turn the ball over, block some shots, and make their free throws. And it's arguable (although I'm not certain that it's necessarily true) that the Spurs would make up anything lost by their style in the efficiency ratings by getting more points for shooting the ball better. If Duncan limits their opportunities, he's going to help their efficiency ratings by allowing them to shoot a higher percentage.

That one GM shows people do think of him as being one of the elites. Come one, why would you say anything else. Who would you rather see playing with the Spurs????????

What if that one GM is RC being a homer? I don't buy it.

And I don't want to see anyone else playing for the Spurs. I want to see Tony in a Spurs uniform for years to come, and I hope they can reach an agreement.

For the money he's asking....its a steal if you ask me. He would command a MAX contact next yr, very few PG would. Name me others.

You know, he might not command a max deal next summer. The only teams that would pay him that would be desperate NBA outposts like Atlanta or, well, I can't think of anybody else. Everyone talks about him getting a max offer next summer, but other than the Hawks, who is going to offer him that? It's not certain that anyone will.

Other max-worthy point guards: Cassell (obviously not for a lot of years), Kidd, Marbury, Davis. That's it as far as I'm concerned. And I don't think that Tony is yet in that group of point guards. Will he get there? It's hard to say.