Reply With Quote
I wasn't aware that Tony was gone if the Spurs don't sign him in the next three days. The Spurs have all the power next summer.
So what if the Spurs offer $66 million and Parker demands $72? That's 'only' six million dollars. Do you pay that? And what happens if he then asks for $76?
What team has cap room to offer him the max? What team can put an attractive enough package together to lure Tony away? And don't say the Mavs. They would need to do some serious trading to make it happen.
His stats and efficiency ratings don't show that he's a max player, so what criteria are you using? Don't assume that teams are going to line up to offer him the max. There aren't even that many teams that will even have that capability.
The Spurs still hold all the cards.
I wasn't aware that Tony was gone if the Spurs don't sign him in the next three days. The Spurs have all the power next summer.
Preach it.
No, he hasn't. Parker improved from his rookie year to his sophmore year but last year's stats show little if any improvement over his sophmore year. You can't just throw around money based on potential. That's how you become Portland or New York or Dallas. $64Mil is more than a fair price based on what other point guards in the league are making. Parker has 5 years of professional ball under his belt with 3 of them being in the NBA. That is a long time to be playing professional ball regardless of his age. There is no guarantee that his skills haven't already plateaued or will plateau shortly. He is still very inconsistent and his numbers are not irreplaceable.
If he earns more value this year then you pay him, otherwise let some other GM overpay for him. I love Tony and I hope he stays but his agent is doing him a great disservice right now. There's more than just a $2M difference in price going on right now as well. These other "stumbling blocks" that were alluded to probably include some non-guaranteed money that is based on incentives.
The Spurs are still in the driver's seat. Let Tony show us the goods and the Spurs will show him more money.
Only to a certain extent. A line in the sand dictated by the cap and informed decisions on player value has to be drawn sometime. By your logic any GM should pay as much as the most ignorant GM in the league would to keep their FA's. It doesn't work that way. Is Spreewell worth $14M/yr like he thinks he is because another GM would pay that? Was Kandi worth his price? Should the Wolves match any other GM's price for Szcerbiak?
Last edited by TwoHandJam; 10-29-2004 at 08:45 AM.
He clearly improved in his on court leadership. His assists totals are always going to be limited by the style of offense the Spurs run. Look at the LA series, Parker torched the Lakers in the first two games and it was LA who had to make the adjustment. That is how good he is. He also led the comeback against LA in Game 5. LA had to change up their entire defensive scheme to deal with Parker and force other Spurs to beat them.No, he hasn't. Parker improved from his rookie year to his sophmore year but last year's stats show little if any improvement over his sophmore year.
Absurd. The Spurs are nowhere near that. The Spurs' Big 3 right now are Duncan, Parker, and Ginobili. You don't lose any of those guys without something commensurable coming back in return. Should Parker get this deal the Spurs' payroll would still be nowhere what Portland, Dallas, or NY have, for Parker is the last major piece to the puzzle.You can't just throw around money based on potential. That's how you become Portland or New York or Dallas.
Also, the Spurs are the Spurs because of a little lottery luck. Yes, they did do what they had to do to keep Duncan happy but in the NBA if you draft a player then you have the inside track on keeping him there. It's not like the Spurs have some kind of secret formula for building a contender that other teams like NY, Dallas, and Portland don't have. It was luck to a certain extent. At the personnel level, the Spurs have done well in using low draft picks, and minor trades and yes, their cap management has been good. At some point you have to pay for the talent you have in the NBA. That's a fact of life. The problem in the past for the Spurs was that it was difficult for them to get young talent worthy of long term deals. Now they have that talent. Time to pay up.
But the Spurs have been spared the struggles that the Knicks, Mavs, and Blazers have had to go through in trying to put together a contender without landing one of the top 2 players in the NBA through the draft. Think of the resources that each of those franchises have at their disposal and what they have had to go through because they didn't end up with the #1 pick in the NBA draft back in 1997. The Spurs' good fortune has served them well. But that doesn't mean you start making bad decisions because you think that fortune will always be on your side. There are no guarantees that you will ever find a talent like Parker at #28 or Ginobili at #57 in future drafts. Given the amount of attention international talent is receiving today in the NBA the degree of difficulty just increased.
And again, given the Spurs' track record in free agency you don't start losing talent for cap flexibility.
Parker is definitely a top 10 point guard in this league, if not top 5. He's clearly worth it.
Bird in the hand.
Such as? This is over 6 years not 5 like Nash. And Parker has already demonstrated much more at one of the most difficult positions in the NBA at age 22 than Nash.$64Mil is more than a fair price based on what other point guards in the league are making.
His experience is one of the reasons to give him the deal. You know what he can do and you know he is mature enough to continue to work on developing his talent. There is no guarantee that any young player's skills or consistency will improve. That doesn't mean you let him go, especially when you are small market San Antonio and free agency isn't a real option to replace a talent like Parker.Parker has 5 years of professional ball under his belt with 3 of them being in the NBA. That is a long time to be playing professional ball regardless of his age. There is no guarantee that his skills haven't already plateaued or will plateau shortly. He is still very inconsistent and his numbers are not irreplaceable.
If you don't lock him up then you indeed go into next summer with the rather significant potential for him to end up at a much higher salary level than you could lock him in for right now, and that will cost you. For the next season you will have the distraction of his impending free agency hanging over you. Next summer he may be inclined to leave and while he is a restricted free agent the Spurs would think long and hard about matching the contract offer of a player who doesn't want to be there anymore. The likely resolution would be some kind of sign and trade with the Spurs getting less than full value for Parker. So then you just saw your talent base drop because you were fearful of actually paying for talent that was happy to stay in San Antonio.If he earns more value this year then you pay him, otherwise let some other GM overpay for him. I love Tony and I hope he stays but his agent is doing him a great disservice right now.
You're right, San Antonio isn't New York. The Spurs can't afford to miss out on real talent that actually wants to live and play there. Especially during the rest of Tim Duncan's career.
Last edited by Marcus Bryant; 10-29-2004 at 09:46 AM.
have you guys noticed all these quotes are from tp's agent
and tp said he still hoped to get a deal done.
I still think if the money is guaranteed it will be done
I won't quote what saidMarcus just before but i just have to say that his arguments made him the perfect battle blog winnerof this discussion concerning :
should the spurs pay now or not for the price asked by Parker....
( quiet, Timvp i am not asking yet to be a judge of battleblog wether if i know you could be able to jump on this occasion...
Parker has to be locked up now because he is gonna be All Star in february... ( i promise to bet 50% of my Vbookie Cash on this
Xap
Parker has disappeared in probably as many big playoff games as he's shined in. Inconsistency is one of his biggest weaknesses, even after 3 years in the NBA and 5 years total professional experience. You can't just look at the glass as half full. His age isn't a universal trump card and some players just don't get better. Not that Parker is one of them but you're certainly assuming that he isn't. His improvement in "on court leadership" from year 2 to year 3 didn't net us a le last year and doesn't guarantee future improvement or les.
The Spurs are not in financial trouble precisely because they know where to draw the line with player salaries. I think there's more to the stall in negotiations than just an extra $2M. Where do you draw the line with Parker? The Spurs obviously feel they're already paying a premium to keep him. Is he truly worth a contract $14M dollars more than Manu? If they pay him $66M and he plateaus marginally better than he is now, what then?Absurd. The Spurs are nowhere near that. The Spurs' Big 3 right now are Duncan, Parker, and Ginobili. You don't lose any of those guys without something commensurable coming back in return. Should Parker get this deal the Spurs' payroll would still be nowhere what Portland, Dallas, or NY have, for Parker is the last major piece to the puzzle.
He is in the top ten and the salary the Spurs are offering him is commensurate with that. I believe Brodels listed some pg salaries a couple of pages ago.Parker is definitely a top 10 point guard in this league, if not top 5. He's clearly worth it.
Bird in the hand.
You also have to temper your willingness to pay Parker with what appears to be a lack of marked improvement over the last two years. Given that he's already been playing professionally for 5 years, the chances for large improvements is declining. He is young but he already has many years of play under his belt. His youth alone doesn't guarantee future improvement.His experience is one of the reasons to give him the deal. You know what he can do and you know he is mature enough to continue to work on developing his talent. There is no guarantee that any young player's skills or consistency will improve. That doesn't mean you let him go, especially when you are small market San Antonio and free agency isn't a real option to replace a talent like Parker.
I love Tony but sometimes it's better to let talent go than overpay for it. Again, the Spurs must feel they've already factored in a premium for him. The line in the sand is drawn.If you don't lock him up then you indeed go into next summer with the rather significant potential for him to end up at a much higher salary level than you could lock him in for right now, and that will cost you. For the next season you will have the distraction of his impending free agency hanging over you. Next summer he may be inclined to leave and while he is a restricted free agent the Spurs would think long and hard about matching the contract offer of a player who doesn't want to be there anymore. The likely resolution would be some kind of sign and trade with the Spurs getting less than full value for Parker.
By the same token, Tony should smarten up and realize there's more to his career than squeezing money out of a GM but playing on a team like the hawks. The Spurs' deal is not unfair and he has a chance to play with a once-in-a-lifetime player as you say. The potential for a dynasty is real. Is that worth a few million dollars to him?You're right, San Antonio isn't New York. The Spurs can't afford to miss out on real talent that actually wants to live and play there. Especially during the rest of Tim Duncan's career.
Last edited by TwoHandJam; 10-29-2004 at 03:12 PM.
What talent are they going to get that is worth not giving Parker, a player who actually wants to play here, $4 more mil over 6 years?
That's what it boils down to.
The major long term free agent signings the Spurs have enjoyed have been Rasho Nesterovic and a 32 year old Brent Barry. That, despite 3 offseasons in which the Spurs had enough cap flexibility to offer a max contract and playing alongside Tim Duncan. That just about says it all. You don't count on that changing just to save $4 mil over the next 6 years.
The franchise can't afford not to pay him.
Parker's age is quite relevant, considering the history of other point guards in the NBA, and where they were at his age. He has shown significant improvement between his 2nd and 3rd years, especially in his leadership.
Again, I think there may be more to it than just that monetary difference. This was alluded to by Ludden or Fleisher I believe. It wouldn't surprise me if the Spurs are trying to have some of that money contingent on certain performance criteria ie. not guaranteed.
And if it is just $4M over 6 years, why doesn't Parker capitulate? You can't just blame the Spurs front office.
I don't think it's that simple. Age is a factor but I think experience might count for more. When you compare them in terms of experience in the league, Parker doesn't appear that exceptional.Parker's age is quite relevant, considering the history of other point guards in the NBA, and where they were at his age.
His leadership may have improved but his numbers don't show much that's tangible from year 2 to year 3. Again, I'm not saying he won't improve but his stats don't show marked improvement after year 2.He has shown significant improvement between his 2nd and 3rd years, especially in his leadership.
I'm kinda split on this but I think they should just go ahead and pay him the 66 mil if nothing else than for trying to recruit Jason Kidd last year after they won the championship. He compromised so they need to meet him halfway. The big three needs to be set so they can win this thing for the next few years.
Again, the offense the Spurs employ will limit Parker's assist average. His offensive opportunities are going to be dictated by how much Pop wants him shooting the rock.
He's a 3rd year point guard and he's considered around the league to be one of the best ones and on the brink of breaking out into a star.
What's the alternative? I mean yeah, it would be great if he was better in some areas but he's pretty damn solid right now. And yes, he does have the potential to become something much more. I just don't see a clear alternative to letting him walk.
I don't think the Spurs believed that Parker would hold his grounds. I'm glad he did because I'm sick of big corporations trying to low-ball their employees and using their power to pay the least amount of money possible when it is clearly in their power to make their employees happy. Parker and the Spurs are no exception. In the long run, it will cost the Spurs more than $4 million to make Parker happy. He probably wants the max next year. I hope he gets the max from the Spurs or elsewhere. He deserves it.
Tony Parker is not consistent enough to be considered a max player. The Spurs $64M offer is fair in the market.I hope he gets the max from the Spurs or elsewhere. He deserves it.
How do you qualify what is "fair" when there are no set rules for it? After this year, when Parkers gets off to a contract year, he'll be worth the max. Just watch. The other thing about this is that will his quest for the max become cancerous to the Spurs' season? That's another angle the Spurs didn't consider when they tried to penny pinch $4 million.
Even though I swore to myself I was done with this subject......I don't think the fairness of the offer is the point (no pun intended). The question revolves around getting him signed now versus the possibility of losing him and what that is worth in terms of money. A couple of million to insure his services long term seems prudent in every conceivable way.
It all seems pretty clear to me. If Parker signs an offer sheet at the end of the year with another team that plans on paying him more than $68 million, the Spurs messed up. If not, they didn't. Time will tell. At this point without a CBA who knows if this is even a possibility.
Take it too the bank - somebody will sign Parker if the Spurs don't wise up.
I'm so scared....
Except there's nothing to be afraid about until next summer.
I refuse to wring my hands over this.
No reason to panic...I firmly believe that the only way the Spurs lose Parker is that someone overpays him. If that is the case, the Spurs would be better off anyway.
Really? Is consistency the requirement for a max contract? Kevin Garnett makes 28 million and has never won a ring.
Now I know Parker is not Garnett but, I would guess he could make 50% of what Garnett makes.
The price is set by supply and demand. For Tony, it's quite obvious the Spurs can't even find a point guard within 2000 miles of this country.. It's quite easy. Maximize.
You want to own an NBA team, then act like an NBA owner.
The Spurs number one priority needs to be with their customers. If the customers aren't kept happy, there won't even be a team in San Antonio. The Spurs have been successful because they retained flexbility over the years by making smart financial moves. It's not just about paying Parker. It's also about keeping the financial flexibility to have a successful team.I don't think the Spurs believed that Parker would hold his grounds. I'm glad he did because I'm sick of big corporations trying to low-ball their employees and using their power to pay the least amount of money possible when it is clearly in their power to make their employees happy.
And if you think that offering a point guard who clearly isn't the third best point guard in the league a contract that pays him like he's the third best, you really have no concept of what lowballing is about.
Just because you like him doesn't mean he deserves the max. Aside from a few mistake contracts, maximum contracts still generally go to franchise players only. Every player probably wants the max. But if he isn't even in the top tier of point guards, it's silly to think he should get the max.Parker and the Spurs are no exception. In the long run, it will cost the Spurs more than $4 million to make Parker happy. He probably wants the max next year. I hope he gets the max from the Spurs or elsewhere. He deserves it.
The Spurs still have tickets available for opening day and thousands of tickets to the rest of the games. That speaks volumes.
The fans are not going to pay the ticket prices or they don't like the product thats on the court.
I am telling you. If Pop and RC company this up, they might as well leave with Tony.
Look at his statistics. Look at his efficiency ratings. And if those don't convince you that he's not in the top tier of point guards, consider his playoff performances. Truly great players can get the job done even when defenses are designed to stop them. The best players can adjust. Tim Duncan adjusts and finds ways to get it done. Tony Parker was a huge failure after the Lakers focused on stopping him. He needs to learn to adjust if he wants to be a top player.
You're talking about a good player, but a player that hasn't been an allstar, has declined statistically, hasn't shown much improvement in his game, and gets shut down when other teams decide to stop him. He's simply not the third best point guard in the league at this time.
Again, just because you think that Parker might get better doesn't mean it will actually happen. What did he do over the past season to convince you that he's going to blow up this season? I'll trust GMs and coaches over your opinion.After this year, when Parkers gets off to a contract year, he'll be worth the max. Just watch.
Wrong. You can bet that the Spurs considered that. They aren't dumb.That's another angle the Spurs didn't consider when they tried to penny pinch $4 million.
spurs have messed up in past with contracts
they went after kidd did they not
they also overpaid other players
they traded for hedo
let jackson go
they got mercer
spurs front office is not above mistakes they have made them in the past
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
