Reply With QuoteYes.
It would be interesting to see Kidd vs. Parker in the finals, the ultimate test to pass.
NY Times
Parker Should Make Spurs Forget Kidd
By HARVEY ARATON
an Antonio
ON the sore and speculative subject of Jason Kidd's hightailing it out of northern New Jersey next season for a charmed championship life here in steamy South Texas: not so fast. The Spurs already have an irresistible point guard who can flat-out fly.
For a truly informed evaluation of how quick Tony Parker is, we thought it best to consult a man named Speedy.
"Of all the guys in the league, I would probably say he's second, next to Iverson," said Speedy Claxton, formerly Allen Iverson's backup in Philadelphia and now Parker's here. "Iverson is a different kind of quick because of the way he can cross over and shoot."
Parker is the kind of player who changes direction on a dime and is behind you in a blink.
"Lightning," David Robinson said after the Spurs demolished the Lakers, 114-95, Wednesday night to take a 2-0 lead in their four-of-seven-game Western Conference semifinal series. "And the more you're around him, the more you like him."
Ignited by the Frenchman Parker and Argentina's Manu Ginobili, Monsieur Speed and Señor Slash, the Spurs athletically embarrassed the three-time defending champion Lakers.
That doesn't mean their domination will continue as the series shifts tonight to Los Angeles. Nor does it mean they have abandoned plans to team Tim Duncan with Kidd when Kidd's contract with the Nets expires this summer.
They should scrap it right now, lest they end up jeopardizing the fine international blend that is brewing here at the SBC Center and wind up in the Lakers' deteriorated state, with two reigning stars and a supporting cast that on its own could not beat UConn (we're talking about Geno Auriemma's UConn, not Jim Calhoun's).
Wooing Kidd won't be worth it, given the likely cost-saving sacrifices the Spurs' owner, Peter Holt, would have to make to accommodate a mammoth contract for Kidd and an extended deal for Duncan. The recruitment of Kidd would eventually send Parker packing and most likely Ginobili, too. They are already a young backcourt to be reckoned with.
Robinson's impending retirement will create a void on a team whose one championship was founded on an imposing interior defense. In the conference of Shaq and Yao, why become weaker up front to improve at a position that is already strong and getting stronger by the season?
Which way to go, the model of the Lakers, with two marquee men, or the more egalitarian court of the Sacramento Kings?
As deserving of the Most Valuable Player award as Duncan is, as compelling a catch as Kidd would be, Duncan isn't the overwhelming presence Shaquille O'Neal is and Kidd isn't the Jordan heir that Kobe Bryant is.
Yet the temptation persists, a person with the Spurs said on the condition of anonymity, to play the star-mating game.
Kidd, the best point guard in basketball, would obviously be an upgrade on Parker. The question is how much better, given how good Parker already is and how much upside he has ("scary," said P. J. Carlesimo, the Spurs' assistant coach) and given that the 30-year-old Kidd begins to enter advanced basketball middle age.
Have we mentioned yet that next week Parker will turn the ripe old age of 21?
"It's ridiculous when you think about him coming in here last season, a kid from France who never played a second of college ball, and playing the way he has," Carlesimo said.
Carlesimo, a Spurs broadcaster last season, dropped into town for a preseason game in late October 2001 and heard from Gregg Popovich, the Spurs' coach, that the rookie, at 19, would be his starting point guard. "I thought Pop had lost his mind," Carlesimo said, "but then I watched Tony practice the next day and I couldn't believe how good he was."
He's better now, having averaged 15.5 points this season and 5.3 assists in an offense that flows mainly through Duncan.
Nonetheless, Parker makes his share of jaw-dropping plays, like the one Wednesday night, late in the first half, as he angled in for a layup and a large roadblock appeared.
Parker, almost a foot smaller than O'Neal, maybe 175 pounds lighter, did not confront or recoil. He calmly floated the ball toward the rim, as if setting off a balloon. O'Neal took the bait, and a vicious swipe, and was whistled for goaltending. It was a true rope-a-dope moment.
As cool and confident as he is canny, Parker said after Game 2: "The Lakers don't respect us. I think they still think they're going to win," - the implication being that they are sadly deluded.
As to whether the Spurs now respect him enough to abort the dream of Kidd at the point, he shrugged and said, "Ask Pop," the implication being that we should know darn well what he thinks.
He wore a collarless shirt, a baggy denim jacket and jeans, his hands stuffed into the pockets as he shifted impatiently on his dancer's feet. One pause between questions and he was gone.
"In a nice way, he's got no clue that he's not supposed to be doing what he's doing," Carlesimo said. Nor did the Lakers have any idea how to slow him down, guarding him with slow-footed journeymen as the Spurs ran away in Game 2.
Meanwhile, back East, the loudest late-night cheers are no doubt coming from Nets officials. The more Parker accelerates, the more the Spurs win, the less likely it is that Jason Kidd will bolt.
Yes.
I don't see it - Bruce's money comes off in 2005. Assuming a salary cap of say $44 million for 2005-06 and a luxury tax of about $56 million the Spurs will likely be paying about $3 million in luxury tax assuming Parker gets a 25% max deal and Manu gets about $6 million. I.e., the payroll should be near $59 million or so. I've done the numbers and factored in the raises and it looks possible to keep the team together. However, they'll be significantly over the tax threshold if they decide to use the MCX to replace Bowen, and after signing Parker and Manu the Spurs will be hard-pressed to add anything else.
who's to say the current ownership group will continue to own the Spurs?...after all...they are all business people and are not just doing this for charity...
What better time to sell a team than after you have won and or seriously competed for the championship, added another MAX player AND have bird rights on several up-and-coming potential all-star caliber players?...we are talking about a potential dynasty here...this franchise may never be worth more...
When you currently have owners paying/losing $100,000,000.+ per year to field "first round and out" teams how much is this franchise really worth???...
if the Luxury tax even EXISTS when we have to worry about resigning Parker etc. then it is quite possible that we might have a new owner that doesn't mind paying whatever is necessary to keep the team together...
Holt doesn't mind going over - if he did Ferry would have never gotten the $4.5 million.
Holt owns 33%. They will go over the luxtax a little if they have the revenue to pay for it but they are not going to lose big money...the big investor money is obviously in the capitol gains...this group doesn't mind "breaking even" on an annual operating basis but is not going to lose money to keep the team together...
Ferry never got $4.5M.Holt doesn't mind going over - if he did Ferry would have never gotten the $4.5 million.
That's what the Express News reports his salary as.
It was a mistake. No way in the Spurs give him $4.5M.
He opted out and re-signed to get an option for next year.
Are you saying Ferry has an option next year? :vomit
It's consistent with the team's track record of giving big money thank yous, like the one they gave AJ in 2000.
Team option
Giving Ferry $4.5M was a typo that has made the rounds on the internet.
So what did the Spurs give Ferry?
IIRC, they used like $1.5M of the MLE or something to that effect. He was being courted by numerous teams, including the Lakers.
Why
Thanks, timvp.
I remember last summer when people were wondering why Ferry bothered to opt out of his deal I dug through the CBA and found some clause that would allow him to get something like a 20% raise by signing a new deal -- so he could get something like $1.2-1.3 million.
Then the $4.5 million figure came out and the only way it made any sense was if the Spurs used Early Bird Rights, which didn't really make any sense because Early Bird contracts have to last at least 2 years (not including option years). That would have killed our cap space this summer.
I was told that the Spurs were somehow able to cir vent the CBA and give Ferry a 1-year $4.5 million contract. Frankly, that always sounded like a load of BS to me (why don't other teams, then, cir vent the CBA all the time?), but it's hard to argue when you don't have the actual contract and salary info in front of you.
Using that CBA clause I mentioned above or the remainder of the MLE makes a lot more sense. I'm curious, though, where you got you information about Ferry's deal.
The 'plan' was talked about in the media when Ferry opted out. But then for some reason there was that mistake when he finally did re-sign.I'm curious, though, where you got you information about Ferry's deal.
Also, I go to the same gym as Ferry and his business partner.
If and only if the Spurs win it all I am sure they will have to re-think their plans. Parker taking on Kidd in the finals would be sweet. With Claxton spelling TP and both of them mopping Kidd all over the floor. And if Kidd by some astronomical chance won the battle why would he even leave NJ if his team won. J. O'neal would definitely have to be looked at or any other combination of capable free agents.
Malone and Payton for a few years.
It seems like the Holting pattern could become the new model for winning championships and creating an economically beneficial dynasty.
you know they mentioned the 4.5 million on the tnt broadcast. It's amazing how rumors get legs. I was thinking that it was one of the make up contracts... I'd have hated for the spurs to lose out on 8 million + for that...
good news.
I read this article this morning. Reads like a Nets fan hoping that Kidd doesn't bolt. The underlying assumption of the article is that the small market Spurs couldn't possibly afford two superstars. Well, that was basically true...prior to the new labor agreement of 1999. The columnist needs to do his homework.
You're assumptions are faulty MB... there are no Nets fans in NYC.
Then he emailed it to the Times from his crib in Northern NJ.2
There are no Nets fans ANYWHERE- that's the problem! The Nets rely on the visiting teams "Road Warriors" for their attendence.
Nah, I agree, there was a tinge of "please stay Jason" in his article.
He does make a good arguement about "in a confrence of Shaq and Yao, how do you justify a move which makes your frontcourt weaker?"
July should be an interesting month.
In a conference with Shaq and Yao? Why is Yao on Shaq's level now? Doesn't it sound ridiculous if I say "in a conference with Shaq and Rik Smits?"
All hype. He's Shaq's equal simply because he has a billion fans (sorry Mengke).
Yeah right. Double teams Rik Smits received in his life.... drum roll... 0
Yao double teams every time he steps on the floor, IN FACT after they beat us TIM and DAVE doulbled Yao.
You suck up to Lebron and call out the haters and then this constant bashing of Yao... :o
Lay off the pipe. Yao is nowhere near O'Neal's level.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions