Maybe it's not Tony Parker?

[Fez Hammersticks]

Two well-placed NBA sources told Newsday that Spurs guard Tony Parker already has talked to Stoudemire about teaming up with the Knicks. A Johnson-Stoudemire tandem would desperately require a high-end point guard.

LINK

I would be relieved if he did go to NY. The whole thing with Nic Batum about Parker asking about the city and players was likely nothing more than casual talk.

I hope Paul Allen is setting his sights a little higher than a Tony Parker.​

 

[B-Roy]

Did someone say Chris Paul?

 

[Fez Hammersticks]

Did someone say Chris Paul?

Was I being too obvious?

 

[LameR]

LINK

I would be relieved if he did go to NY. The whole thing with Nic Batum about Parker asking about the city and players was likely nothing more than casual talk.

I hope Paul Allen is setting his sights a little higher than a Tony Parker.​

There's not a lot of point guards that are "higher than a Tony Parker". There are a lot fewer that are available. Tony Parker would be a great addition to this team.

 

[Ed O]

Higher than a Tony Parker? Ridiculous.

Ed O.

 

[jlprk]

Imagine the culture shock of going from San Antonio or Phoenix to New York City.

Oh, another thing, imagine the change in the cities, too.

 

[OddEnormous]

The whole thing with Nic Batum about Parker asking about the city and players was likely nothing more than casual talk.

What the heck? NO WAY!

Lets refresh

1. Birds
2. Cars
3. City where you get the birds and drive your car.

 

[Nikolokolus]

It's Newsday, so I tend to take the source with a grain of salt. Besides, what the hell does New York have that San Antonio would want? Ridiculous.

 

[lakeblazer]

Could be Monta Ellis

 

[maxiep]

Imagine the culture shock of going from San Antonio or Phoenix to New York City.

Oh, another thing, imagine the change in the cities, too.

Probably not much worse than going from Paris to San Antonio.

 

[Minstrel]

Higher than a Tony Parker? Ridiculous.

Yes, it would be disappointing to bring in a point guard capable of consistent 20+ PER seasons, good defense and who's still in his 20s.

Of course, maybe Parker accomplished all that on a bad team, which makes it empty. I'll have to research how his teams have done.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

Well, CP isn't coming to Portland, so that speculation can die a natural death. As to Parker, I still think the idea is plausible as we have what an aging team needs most- expiring contracts. As far as Eastern teams acquiring all those all-stars, let them. Only one of them can win the East and there's still only one basketball to play with.

 

[BrianFromWA]

funny, when I saw "PG's higher than Parker" and "Stoudemire" in the same set of posts, I thought there'd be a "tin-foil wrapped" joke in there somewhere.

 

[Fez Hammersticks]

Dave from B-Edge summed up my opinion perfectly:

The first thing you have to do is riddle me this: If Parker is so amazing that he's going to provide the undeniable A-Level lift that the Blazers need, why is San Antonio going to trade him? Keep in mind here that he's 28 and has some years left. But if San Antonio doesn't really value him that highly, why would the Blazers want to spend a fortune on him?

 

[barfo]

Dave from B-Edge summed up my opinion perfectly:

Same reason NO could conceivably trade CP3. Having two good guys at one position and zero good guys at another position makes you want to trade one of the former for someone who can play the latter.

Now, I don't have any reason to believe SA is going to trade him. But if they were, presumably that's why.

barfo

 

[Fez Hammersticks]

George Hill is not a PG. He's as much of a PG as Bayless is.

Collison is a pure PG who put up nearly 20/10 in place of CP3.

IMO, it's a pretty huge difference between Hill and Collison.

 

[barfo]

George Hill is not a PG. He's as much of a PG as Bayless is.

Some people think Bayless is.

Me, I don't. And if SA doesn't think Hill is, then they'd be pretty crazy to trade TP, unless they have another PG that I'm not thinking of. But I don't know what SA thinks.

barfo

 

[BrianFromWA]

I know that Popovich thinks enough of Hill to start him over Parker at PG in a few playoff games. You wouldn't see Collison over CP3 or Bayless over Miller.

 

[maxiep]

Perhaps the Spurs are in the business of selling high. That team has mastered the art of reloading rather than rebuilding.

 

[Schilly]

How about this, Duncan will retire next year when his contract expires. Once that happens San Antonio will be heading into rebuild mode. they currently have Hill and are adding Tiago Splitter this summer. Parker expires after the upcoming season, are they going to re-sign a 29 year old Parker as they head into rebuilding? Parker might even leave after next season seeing rebuilding looming and at his age likely not wanting to be part of a a lottery team. So it would make sense to add a younger player or 2 and some draft picks now before rather than waiting to try and re-sign or S&T him.

 

[Wizard Mentor]

Dave from B-Edge summed up my opinion perfectly:
The first thing you have to do is riddle me this: If Parker is so amazing that he's going to provide the undeniable A-Level lift that the Blazers need, why is San Antonio going to trade him? Keep in mind here that he's 28 and has some years left. But if San Antonio doesn't really value him that highly, why would the Blazers want to spend a fortune on him?

That's terrible logic considering the Gasol trade and any IT Knicks trade.

 

[Minstrel]

Dave from B-Edge summed up my opinion perfectly:

The first thing you have to do is riddle me this: If Parker is so amazing that he's going to provide the undeniable A-Level lift that the Blazers need, why is San Antonio going to trade him? Keep in mind here that he's 28 and has some years left. But if San Antonio doesn't really value him that highly, why would the Blazers want to spend a fortune on him?

So why do you want Chris Paul? If New Orleans didn't value him highly enough to keep him, why would the Blazers want to spend a fortune on him?

With this logic, opportunities never exist. Any player available must be terrible, or else their current team would keep them.

 

[LittleAlex]

So why do you want Chris Paul? If New Orleans didn't value him highly enough to keep him, why would the Blazers want to spend a fortune on him?

With this logic, opportunities never exist. Any player available must be terrible, or else their current team would keep them.

This Blazers Edge quote is probably the dumbest thing Dave has ever posted about the NBA.

Teams trade extremely good players for all kinds of reasons that have nothing to do with their skill level.
Off the top of my head:
- The team knows the player is going to leave via free agency in a year and wants to get something for them instead of nothing.
- They can no longer afford excellent player A because they have to play excellent players B and C in a year.
- They are fucking insane and make trades that honestly don't make a lick of sense. (IE David Kahn deciding to trade Al Jefferson if Darko resigns with the team)
- The team is broke and needs to only have mostly rookie contracts on the books (See Memphis Grizzlies for more details).

I don't know if any of the above reasons match why the Spurs would deal Parker. I honestly do see a package Portland could put together that would bring Parker to Portland without including either Roy, LaMarcus, Batum or Oden.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

I think SA is going to give it one more year of making a run with Duncan . . . which means I don't see them trading Parker to rebuild this summer.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

This Blazers Edge quote is probably the dumbest thing Dave has ever posted about the NBA.

Teams trade extremely good players for all kinds of reasons that have nothing to do with their skill level.
Off the top of my head:
- The team knows the player is going to leave via free agency in a year and wants to get something for them instead of nothing.
- They can no longer afford excellent player A because they have to play excellent players B and C in a year.
- They are fucking insane and make trades that honestly don't make a lick of sense. (IE David Kahn deciding to trade Al Jefferson if Darko resigns with the team)
- The team is broke and needs to only have mostly rookie contracts on the books (See Memphis Grizzlies for more details).

Or the most applicable reason, they have a slightly less effective but significantly less expensive replacement, and the expected reduction in performance is well worth the reduction in salary.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

How about this, Duncan will retire next year when his contract expires. Once that happens San Antonio will be heading into rebuild mode. they currently have Hill and are adding Tiago Splitter this summer. Parker expires after the upcoming season, are they going to re-sign a 29 year old Parker as they head into rebuilding? Parker might even leave after next season seeing rebuilding looming and at his age likely not wanting to be part of a a lottery team. So it would make sense to add a younger player or 2 and some draft picks now before rather than waiting to try and re-sign or S&T him.

And that fits into my point as well. As the Spurs age, they have Blair, Hill and if we trade to them an expiring contract to get a free agent with, it works. We'd probably have to give up an expiring + Rudy, Bayless, or Cunningham and maybe a pick, but it could be done.