Reply With Quote
Parker is their best trade piece and he absolutely would be moved if necessary. He's far from untouchable.
Don't know how old this Monroe news is, but all would offer to make a deal work is Patty, Livio, Milutinov, Simmons, and a first round pick. I don't think anyone else would be involved. With these players you need someone to help facilitate a deal to make the salaries match. Parker is not getting traded, nor Green or Anderson.
I doubt Livio has any value and you don't want to trade someone who hasn't played yet since you don't know what you have, so I think it's Patty, Simmons, and a first. We've been looking at so many guards which is why I believe Mills would go.
Parker is their best trade piece and he absolutely would be moved if necessary. He's far from untouchable.
Monroe has a ton of skill. Much more than LMA. He actually has the ability to square up and take someone off the dribble. He's able to use spins, angles, and his shoulder to create great looks.
Didn't know Monroe was making close to 18 mill. You would have to give up alot to get him even if Milwaukee was giving him away. Parker actually would be the best scenario because it's one player and he's declining.
Any 3rd teams who may be interested in helping?
What you don't seem to understand is that Parker is untouchable in the sense that he won't be traded unless he requests a trade or agrees to one. Also, he's owed $30M over the next two years so good luck finding a team that's willing to pay that kind of money while hindering their future cap space on a player that's way past his prime.
If you had Monroe he could play alot of minutes and play with both Aldridge and Gasol since they Can space the floor. And he's a bully on the low block. With him we could pound the paint for 48 minutes against the warriors. But what would we have to give? Basketball wise you have to keep Green, but loyalty wise you keep Parker. Other than those two, it's impossible to make salaries work and we are back to giving up alot to make it work which isn't worth it.
Depends which players we have to send, what other team needs are, who has space, or who has a player that another team wants to get rid of.
Maybe Sacramento with Rudy gay.
Kings get Mills/Green
Ship off Rudy Gay
Spurs get Monroe
Spurs ship off Green, Mills
Milwaukee gets Gay
Ships off Monroe
http://espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=hce4dnx
I don't like this deal at all but its just an example. Kings need a point guard and a shooting guard. Maybe we could get the rights to Isaiah cousins or something. Milwaukee gets cap space since Gay will want to opt out next year and we get Monroe. Just trade Parker and it makes it a little easier but Parker to sac town? That'd be cruel.
So with Patty as starting PG, the backup would be....? I like Murray, but not as second PG on a team trying to be a serious le contender. Not yet, anyway.
I'm beating a dead horse. The Spurs are doing the rebuild-in-place thing. It's just that every scenario I go through, they come up at least one piece short of a team that wants to be a serious le contender. Gasol/Monroe/Dedmon (in whatever order) looks pretty salty. Mills/Murray/(Arci?) at the point? Not so much.
I will say this - a few months ago, Parker's 2 years and $30M contract looked like looked impossible to pawn off on anybody. Now, with all the players I see getting ridiculous contracts, his doesn't look too far out of line. He might actually be tradable. If I really thought that Mills/Murray/? had the goods to stand up to playoff pressure? Yeah, I'd trade Parker in a heartbeat, especially for Greg Monroe.
Edit: For the record, trading Green and leaving Parker in place is suicide. Especially if Danny is still making 3's when he comes back.
Switch green with parker and add MCW to us. Then we are talking. I know MCW isn't a favorite here. But he is just holding the torch until Murray is ready. And we have plenty of scoring, MCW just needs to facilitate and play defense.
Mcw, Murray, Forbes
Green, manu, simmons
Leonard, Bertans
Lma, ka, LJC
Monroe, gasol, Dedmon
Spurs love to pick up guys that once had that good game against them way back when lol:
http://espn.go.com/nba/boxscore?gameId=400278459
Patty milles and Matt bonner s&t for Monroe...
he did stand up in san antonio a few weeks ago.
They are changing the name of their team from the Denver Nuggets to the Denver Kindbuds!i'm about to light up right now.
What people here fail to understand to an alarming degree is that you can't replace Parker with anyone on the current roster of the summer league roster and expect to be a contender. There is a huge drop off between Parker and the next point guard on this team. Sure Parker is in decline, but an aging Parker is a better point guard than Mills and especially Murray. Murray is throwing the ball away in summer league. Imagine what NBA-level PGs will do. And Mills has never been a true PG. It's fine to have trade scenarios with Parker, but you are wasting your time if you can't come up with a better answer than Mills or Murray to replace him.
Tim Duncan made those players effective. Once they were traded, they all sucked. And now Tim isn't here, so I'm not sure you can assume no names will prosper here.
i disagree.
but you're right, mills has never been a true PG. neither has parker though. part of the reason i don't think it would be hard to replace his production.
A few times I have asked some of the "just get rid of Parker, I hate that guy, trade him for a bag of Doritos" crowd exactly who the Spurs should sign or trade for to replace him. I have yet to get a specific response to even that, let alone how it would make the team better.
just because everyone is so used to him doesn't mean we need him:
Spurs went undefeated without Manure.
I agree. I don't think Arcidiacono is realistic either but I'd wager that there's someone almost as good as the corpse of Andre Miller out there for next to nothing.
Well I look at it from a value standpoint. Parker hasn't had any in the playoffs. He's a defensive liability, he's not able to function as a traditional point guard if the opponent keeps him from penetrating, and he's prone to big postseason funks. If someone else wants that and is willing to give up size to get it then I say make it happen.
parker will not be traded!!
one's a starting pg and the other is a aged role player.
people are saying the drop off between having parker and not would be big. it wouldn't be.
Parker can dribble the ball under pressue. No one else on the roster can do that. There are things that PGs do besides score or get assists. There are smart plays, like clock management, calling time outs, etc. Parker can game manage better than anyone on the roster and that matters tremendously. Under your logic, Pau Gasol and LMA's stats will make Tim irrelevant. But Tim does more than just score points and get rebounds. You have to look at more than just the stat sheet.
Again, this is faulty logic. You might survive a game or two without him, but you aren’t going to win a le without replacing him with someone as competent as he is.Spurs have often finished with winning records despite being without Tim, Tony, Manu, or Kawhi for a few games here or there during the regular season.But in the playoffs, teams can game plan so well and expose a team when it is missing key players due to injury.You take Tony of this team and rely on what they have, and even if you replace him with an all star at another position, and you will see teams press and trap and do other things to take advantage in the post season and then you’ll realize how dumb it is to think that Parker is so easily replaceable with D- League point guards.
Parker, Patty, Kyle for Monroe/MCW pleeeeeease make it happen.
There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)
Posting Permissions
