I will play my best basketball when I return in January 2018- Parker

[gambit1990]

his lateral quickness defensively was already pretty bad.

[MultiTroll]

Where does this rank on the All Time Rip Offs of Spurs salary?

[gambit1990]

Where does this rank on the All Time Rip Offs of Spurs salary?

maybe all the parker fans who were against moving him can answer that one.

[therealtruth]

If he uses his time off to work on his range it could be a benefit. It will also help him mitigate his lost speed.

[FkLA]

I wouldn't doubt it, but if you're part of the Tim Duncan jersey retirement ceremony, you probably won't get waived or traded the following season.

Malik Rose was host of the Robinson jersey retirement if I recall correctly and he was traded the next year

Pop wasn't David's mentor.

Ahh, a new qualifier.

It doesn't make any sense, but I guess ...?

[BG_Spurs_Fan]

Are people still debating whether Parker will be traded or stretched?

[BackHome]

If we can trade Sean ****** and tried trading David Robinson then we can trade an injured Parker.

[cd98]

I think if the right deal came, they would trade Parker but they aren't dumping him to win a bidding war for Rudy Gay.

[DMC]

Ahh, a new qualifier.

It doesn't make any sense, but I guess ...?

Why?

Did you see Pop standing on the stage when David was inducted into the HOF? It's not a new qualifier. It's an existing one you didn't consider. I didn't say "Pop won't trade Tony if Pop is Tony's mentor". I said Pop won't trade Tony. If you were on the floor with Tim during the jersey retirement, you are not going to be traded. That would be Manu and Tony. They aren't going to be traded. I cannot speak for RC though.

Pop will not trade Tony Parker. If he was going to, he wouldn't have waited until he injured himself in a playoff game to do so. That's about as far from Gregg Popovich as anything.

[DMC]

What's funny?

I said "Tim Duncan" and objective said "David Robinson". That's moving the goalpost. I just explained why Pop wasn't as personally committed to David as he is to the big 3.

[tmtcsc]

Why?

Did you see Pop standing on the stage when David was inducted into the HOF? It's not a new qualifier. It's an existing one you didn't consider. I didn't say "Pop won't trade Tony if Pop is Tony's mentor". I said Pop won't trade Tony. If you were on the floor with Tim during the jersey retirement, you are not going to be traded. That would be Manu and Tony. They aren't going to be traded. I cannot speak for RC though.

Pop will not trade Tony Parker. If he was going to, he wouldn't have waited until he injured himself in a playoff game to do so. That's about as far from Gregg Popovich as anything.

I still hold out hope that the Spurs will send Parker's contract packing. Unfortunately, it may not happen. However, him not getting moved has nothing to do with loyalty. That's all fan bull . He's family, he's legacy...c'mon man, this is a business. The Spurs front office and coaching staff are committed to WINNING and committed to the players & ownership to give them the best chance to succeed. I've said it before, if you have a Kawhi Leonard on your team, a guy who will be a Free Agent in the next couple of years, you sure as better do everything you can to show him you are committed to winning. The Spurs aren't some retirement community for washed up players.

If the F.O. doesn't move Parker, it will be because there wasn't a good enough reason to. Had a player they targeted wanted to come to San Antonio, and that player was a difference maker, the Spurs would have done whatever it took to get rid of Parker's contract. Let's face it, no matter what TP says about coming back stronger than ever, no matter what local TV Sports hack (eh hem - Don Harris) says about owing TP more appreciation, he's done as an NBA player. I'm sure it be a sad day for those that respect and care about TP - the person (IDGAF because I don't know the guy), but he'd be moved in a heart beat to better the team.

** By the way, you are correct about Manu. He isn't going to be traded and will have a spot on the team as long as the price is right and he wants to play. He does more for the locker room and culture of the team than most people realize. That's not the case with Tony Parker. Just ask Brent Barry about what sort of teammate TP was.

[objective]

Why?

Did you see Pop standing on the stage when David was inducted into the HOF? It's not a new qualifier. It's an existing one you didn't consider. I didn't say "Pop won't trade Tony if Pop is Tony's mentor". I said Pop won't trade Tony. If you were on the floor with Tim during the jersey retirement, you are not going to be traded. That would be Manu and Tony. They aren't going to be traded. I cannot speak for RC though.

Pop will not trade Tony Parker. If he was going to, he wouldn't have waited until he injured himself in a playoff game to do so. That's about as far from Gregg Popovich as anything.

Here I am quoting a giant block of text when posting an hour later because you can't read any posts that don't give you a notification, as a courtesy. You still haven't apologized or acknowledged your mistake in asserting that I somehow hid a public post from you, and doubled down thinking you had somehow 'caught' me because I can type Emojis. But seeing how you post, maybe you aren't capable of doing so. Prove me wrong.

You flat out post a condition, which I'll post in quotation marks because using the forum tool is a hassle for me in mobile,

------ " if you're part of the Tim Duncan jersey retirement ceremony, you probably won't get waived or traded the following season." --------

I directly refute that with a direct comparison to another Spurs legend and his retirement ceremony. It's not a big deal, but worth noting if that's what your basing your 'probably' on. It might just change a probably to a maybe, or something else. But if we're being historically accurate, a presenter at the retirement of a Spurs legend is fact, though only if my memory is right about Rose. And if I was proven wrong, I would admit it and not come up with some excuse.

So then your response, which doesn't make sense. I'll explain:

What does Pop being a mentor have to do with anything in your first post?

I'm not being argumentative, it's just not clear to me. You write that it's an existing thing that I just didn't consider. So ...

Whose mentor was he? Are you talking about Parker? I could see that being their relationship as Parker was so young ... But you can't be, because you bring up Robinson and your follow up says it's not Parker. David​ is the Duncan equivalent in that he was the one retiring.

So if David did have Pop as a mentor ... Rose wouldn't have been traded?

Is that it?

First, the use of mentor between 2 separate vocations, coach and player, is a little odd. When you type mentor and Spurs in Google, all the initial results I see tie mentorship to job: coaches as mentor to coaches, players as mentors to players. Try it yourself. Pop as mentor to Kerr, to Brett Brown, to Bud, Larry Brown to Pop, and Robinson to Duncan, Duncan to Kawhi, etc. But if we set aside that oddity ...

David didn't have Pop as a mentor?

He was a coach of Robinson his rookie year, in fact his first three years in that important time for a young player. Especially as another veteran and military man.

, Pop coached Robinson 10 of his 14 years, and was a part of his life as either coach or GM for 12 of Robinson's 14 years. Pop might have never been brought back without Robinson's approval. But Larry was his first coach and he asked him to be on stage at the speech. Maybe he asked Pop first? Maybe Pop wanted to sit and enjoy from the audience? Don't know.

Ohh, but Pop wasn't by his side on a stage 4.5 years AFTER his jersey retirement means that, wait, Rose isn't, uhh, Parker IS his mentor. Duncan's mentor? Parker is Duncan's mentor.

So because 5 years from now Pop COULD be at Duncan's Hall of Fame induction, ON STAGE OF COURSE BECAUSE IT DOESN'T COUNT OTHERWISE OBVIOUSLY BECAUSE POP WAS IN THE DAMN AUDIENCE CLAPPING AND GRINNING FOR DAVID AND THAT DOESN'T COUNT, that makes it so clear that somehow Parker, who may or may not be Malik Rose's mentor won't be traded.

I think I get it now.

It couldn't have been a new qualifier to get out of certain facts that make your previous condition look shaky.

Everyone on this forum except me clearly understood the point you were making because of the natural implication. Everyone except me know that when someone posts,

---" if you're part of the Tim Duncan jersey retirement ceremony, you probably won't get waived or traded the following season."---

that what people should obviously take away and read into the clearly implied qualifier is this:

" if you're part of the Tim Duncan jersey retirement ceremony, you probably won't get waived or traded the following season. (This does not apply to players whose coaches 5 years later are in the audience of the Hall of Fame speech but not on on stage, if that coach is the mentor of a player who had his number retired but not in the hall of fame, because RC Buford is influenced by the events of the future ... But also if coach isn't on stage in the future that doesn't count either?)

My mistake.

Now do I think the Spurs will trade Parker? No. And it's not because 5 years from now Pop might or might not be on stage with Duncan, who isn't even the player we're talking about.

That's why it didn't make sense.

If other people chime in and post that they understood it and it made perfect sense, then I was wrong and I apologize.

[objective]

Bogut was there 4 years. He was hardly baked into the culture. Patty has 6 with the Spurs and he's still culturally on the fringe. Warriors signed Kevin Durant. Do you think Paul George or Chris Paul are coming to the Spurs? If so I'd be all for releasing Mills. Otherwise, you'll just have a new meh level player trying to fit into the system.

If Manu retires and Tony isn't there most of the season, Patty is the vet on the team, same number of years as Kawhi Leonard. Only Green has been there longer but even then Danny is hardly a floor general. You cannot expect Murray to be a floor general and lead the team. Kawhi is too introverted to rally the troops, just leads by example.

Unless you want wholesale slaughter of the team, you're not improving by moving Patty out for some washed up player from the bottom of the list.

Another thing about culture and winning:

Very little culture continuity on the 03 le team. Only guys with more than 3 years were Duncan, Robinson, and Rose.

3/5ths of the starters and 6th man wing had 1 year or less experience in the system, and ditto for the some other key back ups

Bowen, 1 year going into 02/03
Parker, 1 year
Jackson, 1 year where he almost never played and was inactive most of the time
Manu, 0 years
Willis, 0 years primary back up center
Speedy, 0 years, primary back up point guard
Kerr, 3* years, wasn't on team the prior season
Smith, 1 year
Ferry, 2 years
Bateer, 0 years

You clearly never saw this one either because it didn't have a direct quote in it, so for your benefit I'll resurrect it.

I establish that the 03 team had very little culture continuity yet still won the le.

Am I wrong?

[DMC]

Here I am quoting a giant block of text when posting an hour later because you can't read any posts that don't give you a notification, as a courtesy. You still haven't apologized or acknowledged your mistake in asserting that I somehow hid a public post from you, and doubled down thinking you had somehow 'caught' me because I can type Emojis. But seeing how you post, maybe you aren't capable of doing so. Prove me wrong.

You flat out post a condition, which I'll post in quotation marks because using the forum tool is a hassle for me in mobile,

------ " if you're part of the Tim Duncan jersey retirement ceremony, you probably won't get waived or traded the following season." --------

I directly refute that with a direct comparison to another Spurs legend and his retirement ceremony. It's not a big deal, but worth noting if that's what your basing your 'probably' on. It might just change a probably to a maybe, or something else. But if we're being historically accurate, a presenter at the retirement of a Spurs legend is fact, though only if my memory is right about Rose. And if I was proven wrong, I would admit it and not come up with some excuse.

So then your response, which doesn't make sense. I'll explain:

What does Pop being a mentor have to do with anything in your first post?

I'm not being argumentative, it's just not clear to me. You write that it's an existing thing that I just didn't consider. So ...

Whose mentor was he? Are you talking about Parker? I could see that being their relationship as Parker was so young ... But you can't be, because you bring up Robinson and your follow up says it's not Parker. David​ is the Duncan equivalent in that he was the one retiring.

So if David did have Pop as a mentor ... Rose wouldn't have been traded?

Is that it?

First, the use of mentor between 2 separate vocations, coach and player, is a little odd. When you type mentor and Spurs in Google, all the initial results I see tie mentorship to job: coaches as mentor to coaches, players as mentors to players. Try it yourself. Pop as mentor to Kerr, to Brett Brown, to Bud, Larry Brown to Pop, and Robinson to Duncan, Duncan to Kawhi, etc. But if we set aside that oddity ...

David didn't have Pop as a mentor?

He was a coach of Robinson his rookie year, in fact his first three years in that important time for a young player. Especially as another veteran and military man.

, Pop coached Robinson 10 of his 14 years, and was a part of his life as either coach or GM for 12 of Robinson's 14 years. Pop might have never been brought back without Robinson's approval. But Larry was his first coach and he asked him to be on stage at the speech. Maybe he asked Pop first? Maybe Pop wanted to sit and enjoy from the audience? Don't know.

Ohh, but Pop wasn't by his side on a stage 4.5 years AFTER his jersey retirement means that, wait, Rose isn't, uhh, Parker IS his mentor. Duncan's mentor? Parker is Duncan's mentor.

So because 5 years from now Pop COULD be at Duncan's Hall of Fame induction, ON STAGE OF COURSE BECAUSE IT DOESN'T COUNT OTHERWISE OBVIOUSLY BECAUSE POP WAS IN THE DAMN AUDIENCE CLAPPING AND GRINNING FOR DAVID AND THAT DOESN'T COUNT, that makes it so clear that somehow Parker, who may or may not be Malik Rose's mentor won't be traded.

I think I get it now.

It couldn't have been a new qualifier to get out of certain facts that make your previous condition look shaky.

Everyone on this forum except me clearly understood the point you were making because of the natural implication. Everyone except me know that when someone posts,

---" if you're part of the Tim Duncan jersey retirement ceremony, you probably won't get waived or traded the following season."---

that what people should obviously take away and read into the clearly implied qualifier is this:

" if you're part of the Tim Duncan jersey retirement ceremony, you probably won't get waived or traded the following season. (This does not apply to players whose coaches 5 years later are in the audience of the Hall of Fame speech but not on on stage, if that coach is the mentor of a player who had his number retired but not in the hall of fame, because RC Buford is influenced by the events of the future ... But also if coach isn't on stage in the future that doesn't count either?)

My mistake.

Now do I think the Spurs will trade Parker? No. And it's not because 5 years from now Pop might or might not be on stage with Duncan, who isn't even the player we're talking about.

That's why it didn't make sense.

If other people chime in and post that they understood it and it made perfect sense, then I was wrong and I apologize.

This is a huge wall of text.

What does Tim Duncan's jersey retirement have to do with David's jersey retirement?

You're using a fallacy called "affirming the consequent"

Premise: Anyone on the floor with Tim Duncan during his jersey retirement won't be waived or traded
Premise: Tim Duncan is a Spurs legend
Premise: David Robinson is a Spurs legend
Conclusion: Anyone on the floor with David Robinson during his jersey retirement won't be waived or traded.

[DMC]

You clearly never saw this one either because it didn't have a direct quote in it, so for your benefit I'll resurrect it.

I establish that the 03 team had very little culture continuity yet still won the le.

Am I wrong?

You seem to move the goalposts a lot.

The culture argument /= the winning argument.

There have been many teams who won it all who were recently put together. Ever hear the culture argument for the Heatles? How about the 2009 Celtics? Of course not.

Teams with overwhelming talent don't need to rely on team chemistry/culture to be successful. Typically teams have culture, players have to be there a while to become part of it. Teams that move coaches, GMs and players every few years don't ever have a chance to develop a culture.

This one you quoted above, why should I have responded to it? It wasn't addressed to me. If you don't quote someone, they really have no reason to assume you're responding to them, especially in a thread with many responses.

[TheDoctor]

You guys drunk or nah?

[objective]

This is a huge wall of text.

What does Tim Duncan's jersey retirement have to do with David's jersey retirement?

You're using a fallacy called "affirming the consequent"

Premise: Anyone on the floor with Tim Duncan during his jersey retirement won't be waived or traded
Premise: Tim Duncan is a Spurs legend
Premise: David Robinson is a Spurs legend
Conclusion: Anyone on the floor with David Robinson during his jersey retirement won't be waived or traded.

You seem to move the goalposts a lot.

The culture argument /= the winning argument.

There have been many teams who won it all who were recently put together. Ever hear the culture argument for the Heatles? How about the 2009 Celtics? Of course not.

Teams with overwhelming talent don't need to rely on team chemistry/culture to be successful. Typically teams have culture, players have to be there a while to become part of it. Teams that move coaches, GMs and players every few years don't ever have a chance to develop a culture.

This one you quoted above, why should I have responded to it? It wasn't addressed to me. If you don't quote someone, they really have no reason to assume you're responding to them, especially in a thread with many responses.

I'll just leave it all here for everyone else to see for themselves, no one else cares though probably.

First, you are so bothered by a month old Post that didn't quote you that you felt compelled to resurrect this thread and accuse me if hiding public posts in a discussion no one cared about for 4 weeks

Then when I direct quote them for you to read these supposed inflammatory secret posts, you shrug off like you did read them and didn't care. But you were still bent enough to resurrect and falsely accuse me.

I'll just leave this discussion behind, everyone who can read posts, including ones they're not tagged in, can make up their own minds.

[tonight...you]

You guys drunk or nah?

We should be drunk, my bruddah.
Right about now? We should be starting a face night and using the 4th to recover.

Thankfully I am here to shepherd the lost, in the desert.

Wait... no I'm not, I'm about to head out in a second!

[gambit1990]

He gonna do big things on that second unit.