Wednesday, July 28th, 2010...5:15 am
Fantasy GM summit at Hornets247: Trading for Chris Paul
Ryan Schwan of Hornets247 “took calls” on the trade value of Chris Paul. And in the fun little exercise, I learned that Tony Parker + Tiago Splitter + Antonio McDyess + 2 future firsts does not = Chris Paul and Emeka Okafor. You might be surprised what does.
Rejecting my offer, Schwan writes
Tiago Splitter will be good, and Parker would be good for something in a flip to another team. McDyess and the 1st rounders won’t be worth much. Still, I don’t make a trade like this until I know exactly what I’m getting for Parker, who has made noise about leaving San Antonio after this year anyways.
Ryan added this via email
I’d expect that the trade would have to be set up as a three-team trade to begin with - the Hornets wouldn’t want to trade Paul and then shop [Tony Parker] around again after that. They’d have that in place to begin with.
Personally - I’d probably want the Spurs to drop George Hill into the trade too.
Hill, Splitter, the Parker return - that’s a solid haul for Paul.
And with that, Chris Paul will not be joining the San Antonio Spurs. Good to have this issue settled, and it’s still July. Now we can get on with the rest of the offseason, where everyday is a new day to pretend you’re R.C. Buford.
83 Comments
July 28th, 2010 at 5:50 am
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Andrew A. McNeill, San Antonio Spurs. San Antonio Spurs said: 48 Minutes of Hell >> Fantasy GM summit at Hornets247: Trading for Chris Paul http://buzztap.com/-5wVmH6 [...]
July 28th, 2010 at 6:21 am
“And with that, Chris Paul will not be joining the San Antonio Spurs. Good to have this issue settled, and it’s still July.”
Spot on. Ryan must’ve been drinking the Paul kool-aid. He’s worth two of the three, but certainly not all three.
That and he’s a punk on court, I can’t stand that. Paul, not Ryan. =)
July 28th, 2010 at 6:33 am
I don’t think I would give up Splitter for anyone or anything. He gives us youth down low and even the chance at getting Chris Paul is not worth including him in a deal. I think that bonehead writing about the Hornets myriad trade options is having a wet dream and should wake up. If the Hornets were fortunate enough to get TP & Dyce & a couple of picks for CP3, they would be damn lucky to get that much considering he has said he wants out and they have spent the week trying to do damage control to have some sort of “hand” in a deal. In the words of George from Seinfeld’s girlfriend when she finds out they were making racket during her piano recital when she breaks up with and he says “Wait a minute but I’ve got hand” to which she replies “Good because you’re going to need it.”….New Orleans IS Costanza!
July 28th, 2010 at 6:42 am
Are you sure they wouldn’t want TD and Manu, too? You know, just to be equal to the greatness of CP3?
July 28th, 2010 at 6:49 am
hornets247 is on crack.
parker has won. he’s mentally tough. not the type to be coerced into public whining by a bunch of nba king-maker wannabes.
the only way we take paul is if both he and parker are signed to long term deals and we swap. no splitter, no hill, no draft picks.
we all know williams is better than paul anyway, and he’ll be wanting to leave utah soon.
July 28th, 2010 at 6:58 am
Someone seems a bit high on CP3. Some of those trades are humorous, but some are worthwhile (if not extreme) and immediately shot down. Are they expecting to get Kobe or LeBron in return? Good luck…
July 28th, 2010 at 7:58 am
Well, it’s good to see that other teams’ fans can also get carried away with trade speculation and expectations. I don’t see the Hornets trading CP right now except if there is tremendous value to be had. However, come the Feb. trade deadline if the Hornets are struggling I’d expect that the prospect of cap space may seem more attractive, at which point CP may be had for less. Problem is they’ll probably also want to trade away Okafor’s cap-killing deal…
July 28th, 2010 at 8:07 am
Metal,
“Spot on. Ryan must’ve been drinking the Paul kool-aid. He’s worth two of the three, but certainly not all three.”
I think he’s worth all 3. To me he’s worth any player not named Lebron from a winning perspective. He’s an incredible PG. That being said
“That and he’s a punk on court, I can’t stand that.”
I agree 100%. Even if it makes us better I would not want to do this trade.
July 28th, 2010 at 8:21 am
Agreed. Almost a zero % chance we would land Paul.
But for argument’s sake: To me, the real deal killer isn’t the picks, or even giving up Spitter. It’s taking back Okafor’s albatross of a contract. That’s a mighty big pill to swallow, especially considering Paul can bolt after the 2011/12 season. Okafor is guaranteed till 2013/14 (he makes $11.5M this upcoming season, and it goes up $1M/yr each yr)….yikes! Okafor has one of the worst contracts in the league to put it lightly.
July 28th, 2010 at 8:26 am
A Chris Paul trade is a balancing act for both teams. This balancing act revolves around two polar opposite ideas. Paul wants to go to a team that has championship aspiriations and good players (preferrably not 34yrs old and 33yrs old, he wants a long term future with a team). On the other end of the spectrum, the Hornets will want many of those good players back from that team in a trade. The Hornets, as evidence from this blog, fail to realize you almost NEVER get back equal value in a superstar trade. They overvalue Paul and want to plunder the other trade team of talent, thus assuring that Paul will not win and may indeed leave the other team in 2 years.
Paul is a great player and can greatly improve the overall offensive efficiency of our team. However, offense will not be our problem this year. Our team needs to continue to improve on the defensive end, most notably, in opponent FG%, 3pt%, and blocks. Paul, on the defensive end, has long been a liability and will remedy virtually none of our defensive deficiencies. I would contend that he is a much worse defender than even Parker.
Bottom line: Being forced to take back Okafor would be a bitter pill to swallow. Splitter may be able to match much of Okafor’s production at 1/4 the cost. (Look at this another way, Okafor is certainly not 4 times better than Splitter.)I can live with letting go of Parker and McDyess, but Splitter AND 2 first rounders? Thats called selling out your future.
July 28th, 2010 at 8:29 am
Let’s see here..
Splitter for Okafor = Big loser
Paul for Parker = Big winner if Chris would extend
Hill for Nothing = Ridiculous
Dice for Nothing = Bonner gets 25 mins a night; Big loser
2 future #1′s for Nothing = Ridiculous
Hmmm. I’ll call you, don’t call me….
July 28th, 2010 at 8:38 am
I’ve actually wanted to ask this question for a while, but haven’t had the forum:
I know Paul is a better overall player than Parker, however, Parker is comparable in many ways. Both have great speed. Both are great finishers and have good midrange games. Parker has better size and more experience in both the overall winning category and playoff basketball. Paul has considerable advantages in the areas of 3pt shooting and court vision. The 3pt shooting difference doesn’t bother me since it’s not a staple in Paul’s game, however, the court vision is a problem.
Here’s the question: What can Parker do (if anything) to improve his vision and ability to create for his teammates??
He has great speed, good offensive weapons outside of Duncan and Manu, and a nice jumper. If he could only get more players involved, he would be a top 3 pg on a top 3 team…thoughts, suggestions, ideas??
July 28th, 2010 at 8:39 am
“I can live with letting go of Parker and McDyess, but Splitter AND 2 first rounders? Thats called selling out your future.”
Ya know, Minnesota Vikings traded their future for Herschel Walker. That worked out….Wait, never mind.
July 28th, 2010 at 8:43 am
Ladies and gents,
Two seasons ago Chris Paul was, arguably, the best player in the league. He had a PER of 30. Three Zero. When he’s healthy, he’s a top 5 player. When Parker is fully healthy, he’s a top 10 point guard. The difference in talent is significant. I love Tony Parker. He’s a great, and criminally unappreciated. But this is not apples to apples.
July 28th, 2010 at 8:53 am
“If he could only get more players involved, he would be a top 3 pg on a top 3 team…thoughts, suggestions, ideas??’
Hobson, Tony has been in the league for 9 years now. He isn’t changing. Tony’s game is based entirely on the ability to blow past a guy. When have you ever seen Tony use a hesitation dribble? Tony never uses a traditional crossover dribble. He never goes behind the back or between the legs. Tony’s midrange game is solely based on the defender playing off him. They are just different.
Learning this stuff on an NBA level is really hard. That’s why about maybe 50 or so guys in the world do it on that level. Tony can’t just decide he’ll start doing it, it is too tough.
July 28th, 2010 at 8:55 am
And something that nobody has mentioned, skill-wise, is that Paul is REALLY good at drawing fouls. It’s really annoying too, but he excels at it. Just think of him getting 3 free throws off of Manu near half court that one time. Drawing fouls is a pretty valuable asset sometimes.
July 28th, 2010 at 8:57 am
I would do a Parker / McDyess / 2 1st rounders for Paul straight up.
No Splitter, No Hill and NO OKAFER
That would leave us S.O.L. on point guard and front court depth.
July 28th, 2010 at 8:58 am
Tim,
Is anybody saying that Tony and Chris are apples? Most posters are concerned about giving up too much talent.
Out of all the requests:
Parker
Dice
Splitter
George
2011 #1
2012 #1
I say we could give up three of those. Four of those is too much. All of them is just ridonkulous.
July 28th, 2010 at 9:04 am
Hey, nice trade proposal: give up the entire future of the Spurs for CP3 - a guy who has a bunch of Benedict-Arnolds whispering sweet nothings on his ear. Nah, I don’t think they want TD and Manu included in the deal. How about Splitter, Tony, Blair, Hill, Anderson, Neal and future round picks for a good point guard and a center that even the team that originally picked him rejected (read: failed project)?
CP3 may be good, but hey, last time I checked, the team’s the San Antonio Spurs. Not Cleveland. Not TWolves. We won’t jump on some bandwagon just to make it in the headlines this summer. If we don’t get the chance to land CP3, we’ll survive with the team we have - and we still have Splitter, Neal and Anderson who could be huge surprises come the regular season. I don’t think the FO would pull an experiment that would entirely ruin the hard work they pulled up before all the hoopla.
Us trying to get CP3 with huge player losses like that is like trying to put back a gangrenous limb on a person - you make the person “whole” again and you’d probably end up in the news, but the person would end up anyway with the bacterial infection the reattached limb would cause.
(Sorry, I couldn’t think of a better metaphor).
July 28th, 2010 at 9:20 am
In 2008-2009 CP3 was best in the league with WP48 of .451 and produced 28.2 wins. Crazy good. He’d help us wins games next year as long as he was healthy.
July 28th, 2010 at 9:27 am
@ Hobson & Lenneez
I think if you saw Parker in a different style, his assist #’s would go up. For example, put him in the GS, PHX or a NY system and I think his assist numbers go from 6-7/game to around 8.5-9.0, which would put him just outside the top 5.
I think TP’s court vision is above average, it’s just that he’s in a system that doesn’t allow or need a ball-dominant PG, as opposed to PHX or NY. Thus, his numbers suffer somewhat.
July 28th, 2010 at 9:38 am
@Tyler
I agree with you 100%. Parker is a creator in a different sense for us. If he were in a run n’ gun type offense, all of his numbers would increase. That would be Parker’s dream come true, no Pop screaming “DEFENSE!!!” and score, score, score.
July 28th, 2010 at 9:47 am
dan, parker has won? So what. Chris Paul is better than Parker and never had the GOAT. Hes had David West. Enough with the Parker has won BS. Adam Morrison has won. Shannon Brown has won. Remember the guy who WON with the Lakers and signed with the Rockest who won? Neither do I. Wait… I do. He shoots 30% from the field and 60% from the line….
Children on these sights are what keep me coming back.
CP, for us, is not worth ANY of our young talent unless we get bigs in return. As I stated before we could/should do this:
Manu/Parker/Splitter/McDoosh
FOR
Okafor/West/CP
Why it works?
Them: Parker has one year. Splitter is young. Manu still can provide scoring and draw a crowd. Doosh??? Makes the numbers match. Can give you a starter for West.
Us: We need Younger Bigs. West is better than Duncan. Yes all you Homers its true. Duncan cannot win us series anymore. He got murdered by Channing Frye. Dont take this as he sucks. But he is no longer elite. Okafor is better than McDoosh. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a retard. Emeka gave the hornets 13ppg and 11rpg in 36. Doosh gave us what? 10/10?
Rid of Parker means more assists. Paul is a better passer. Makes it easier for TD. Especially with the other bigs who have played with Paul. Not much of a change in terms of jelling.
The only thing we would be lacking in this scenario is Manu. It hurts. Sure. But with the addition of the bigs it means more production down low, easier on tim, better interior D… Jefferson might be able to find his own. Then you throw in our draft pick. Bodabing! I would much rather have this lineup:
S- Paul/TD/Jefferson/Omeka/Gee
R- Hill/Blair/Anderson/West/Neal
Die- Boner
Than This:
TP/TD/Hill/Doosh/Jefferson
Boner/Splitter/?/Blair/Anderson
July 28th, 2010 at 9:56 am
WOW, if you believe the posters over on PTRock, Parker is the end all/be all of point guards that the Spurs cannot possibly live without. I sure hope that none of them find out that you would have to trade approx 1/3 of the Spurs team AND Draft Picks with Parker to equal CP3. Posting something like this over there could get you banned.
July 28th, 2010 at 10:21 am
Assuming Chris Paul returns to form plays the high level basketball he was known for, and is never EVER bothered by his knee again AND Emeka Okafor stays on the court as well, blocking shots and rebounding at will, then the Spurs even if they gave up all that would still win this trade.
But all that is an assumption. That trade would be really push the Spurs into a win now situation. Losing Hill, Splitter and two years of first rounders gives a real questionable future.
July 28th, 2010 at 10:25 am
@Kevin, that’s a nice way of calling him a flopper.
Go Spurs Go!!
July 28th, 2010 at 11:36 am
D-bags on this sight is what keeps me ready.
TradeTP why don’t we just swap rosters with the Hornets.
July 28th, 2010 at 11:47 am
Just a minor sidenote - you can’t trade your team’s first round picks in consecutive years.
In other words, the rules wouldn’t allow us to trade our own 2011 AND 2012′s first round picks.
July 28th, 2010 at 12:33 pm
Pop already shot down this trade, guys. In fact, he shot it down over a year ago.
“We only bring in high character guys”.
July 28th, 2010 at 12:47 pm
“I think if you saw Parker in a different style, his assist #’s would go up.”
Tyler, I’m not concerned with his low assist totals or any statistic in particular. I am talking about his skills. He can’t (or never does) do things with the ball that CP3 can. Tony is very one dimensional. Granted he is great at what he does. He would have the same skills with NY or PHX or whoever.
July 28th, 2010 at 1:03 pm
This year, CP3 is at 14.5 mil, and Parker is at 13.5 mil (or thereabouts). If the Spurs threw in someone like Hairston, I think that would work out money-wise. The Spurs FO wouldn’t be dumb enough to take on Emeka Okafor’s contract.
July 28th, 2010 at 1:14 pm
@ITGuy Don’t get me wrong, it is one of the most annoying things about the NBA these days… however, it does work…
Look at how the Lakers won the finals… by getting to the free throw line.
And I agree with TradeTP. We should definitely trade Parker/Bonner/McDyess/Popovich for Paul/West/Omeka/Peja
July 28th, 2010 at 1:26 pm
- There’s no way we’re giving up Hill AND Splitter for the privilege of assuming Okafor’s huge contract.
- The idea that Okafor has to be attached to this deal is silly - the main thing the Hornets would want for Paul is a large expiring contract, and some young talent with relatively small salaries, preferably front court help (not draft picks that odds say are unlikely to be a solid player in the league).
- The Hornets should be open to keeping Okafor (it’s not like he’s a bad center). In a deal for Parker and his expiring contract, they would also lose Paul’s contract, and they have a huge expiring deal with Peja coming up in 2011 (15 mil., along with another 8 million with Songalia & Wright). Thus, they would be creating significant cap space without dealing Okafor.
- The Hornets would want, in addition to Parker, probably Blair, and Anderson, Gee, or Temple. Anything beyond that is overkill. West & Posey’s contracts also come up the following year, 2012.
- The Spurs would NOT sign Paul without agreeing as a part of the deal, to a long-term extension.
For all of the above factors, and more, I don’t see a deal for CP3 anytime soon for the Spurs. And the Hornet blog-guy is out of his mind. Most of the deals that he scoffed at, the OTHER TEAM would not do the deals proposed. We have a tendency in this game to put TOO MUCH value on ONE player in relation to the value of other good players, just because they’re not “stars”. ONE star is simply not worth 3-4 very good players that all fit a meaningful role for a team. This is a TEAM sport, and none of the past titles would have been won without a bevy of ballers as role players. You will see, for example, that the Heat’s massively top-down hierarchy will not end up matching the hype.
July 28th, 2010 at 1:39 pm
Last year after a long string of games where a certain few individuals here were bashing our beloved Spurs in almost every way, Bushka posted a sarcastic comeback that still makes me laugh to this day. It was something like this :
“Fire the coach
Start the bench players
Trade away everyone
we suck, we suck, we suck”
This is what resonates in my mind after being innundated with anti-Spurs propaganda, and I just smile and laugh on the inside.
July 28th, 2010 at 1:45 pm
Did you guys even watch the seven game series a couple of years ago during CP3′s amazing season? TP stepped up big time and scored at will.
Same thing a few years ago in the playoffs against Nash. The problem with TP is he has to be motivated these days. Three rings and a Finals MVP. It’s not that he’s not hungry, it’s just that he’s been to the mountain.
I’m telling you when he said he will play next season “like a revenge” - expect him to torch the competition. I actually expect him to drop 40 on both Nash and CP3. It’s a contract year.
That said I do believe he’s leaning on bolting the Spurs, but the FO knows he’s going to give them a great season. What do you do?
I think it has to be a three team trade and it has to include sending TP to the Knicks where he wants to go anyway. Believe me under D’Antoni’s system, penetrate and dish to Amare he can thrive.
Peja would have to go there as well. His expiring and their cap space make it possible and give them a shot at Carmelo next summer.
Danilo would go to the Hornets and along with George Hill (hate to see him go but Demps would love to have a Spurs character guy on the team) and CP3 would be a Spur.
There may be some fringe details but those would be the key players. Add a pick here or there and some other tweaks but nobody is taking Okafor’s awful contract.
But TP is going to kill this year.
July 28th, 2010 at 1:49 pm
Jim,
“ONE star is simply not worth 3-4 very good players that all fit a meaningful role for a team.”
“You will see, for example, that the Heat’s massively top-down hierarchy will not end up matching the hype.”
I’m going to remember this. If their big 3 stay healthy one of us will have to rethink how we view the NBA.
I’m going to predict 65+ Wins and a Finals appearance, you?
July 28th, 2010 at 2:27 pm
Chris Paul is one of the top players in this league and it’s only fitting for the other team to give up so much just to acquire a player of his caliber. Having said that though, I don’t ever see Spurs FO pulling off such a risky move like that. Besides, I thought Splitter cannot be traded since he was signed with MLE?
July 28th, 2010 at 2:32 pm
TONY PARKER STRAIGHT UP FOR CHIS PAUL IS ALL THEY WOULD GET,BECAUSE THEY EVEN IN TALENT AND I AM BEING NICE,DON’T MAKE ARGUEMENT FOR PAUL BECAUSE HE HAS NO CHAMPIONSHIPS AND NO MVP’S.IF YOU WATCHED GAMES THEY PLAYED BETWEEN EACH OTHER,TONY HAS MATCH HIM EVEN.
July 28th, 2010 at 2:38 pm
THEY ARE BOTH NOT FRANCHISE PLAYER’S THEY NEED OTHER STARS AROUND TO WIN CHAMPIONSHIP’S.I CANT GO WRONG WITH EITHER GUARD OR HAVE FAVORIATE IF YOU WERE TO PUT ONE ON THE ,STAR STUDDED TEAM.TODAY TEAMS NEED3 BIG PLAYERS TO HAVE SHOT CHAMPIONSHIP
July 28th, 2010 at 2:40 pm
I’d go Parker for Paul straight up with a throw-in to make the salaries equal, but the proposed deal is completely ludicrous. There is way too much talent going out from the Spurs, plus Okafor’s contract is too horrible for words.
I understand Paul, at his best, is a top-5 player, and that Parker, at his best, is merely a top-5 PG. But at this juncture, barring all conjecture about Parker leaving and LeBron whispering in Paul’s ear, I have to ask the question: If it ain’t broke, why fix it?
Let me put it this way: we have 4 other positions where we could arguably improve more, so why do such a dramatic shake-up to improve the least? With the proposed trade, the downgrade from Splitter’s potential to Okafor’s contract is greater than the upgrade from Parker to Paul. We’ve also proved time and again that we can draft quality players outside of the lottery, so you’d have to believe the FO would have drafted high quality players with those 2 first round picks.
I don’t see the need for a shake up, at all. Remember, we already upgraded from a starting PG to an All-Star PG just from Parker getting healthy.
July 28th, 2010 at 3:20 pm
the comment that “ONE star is simply not worth 3-4 very good players that all fit a meaningful role for a team” is simply not true.
How did the Lakers trade for Kareem work out? or Miami’s trade for Shaq? or Phoenix’s for Barkley?
When a 25 year old, true MVP candidate level star is traded for multiple players, the team getting the superstar invariably wins the trade in the long run.
The biggest thing is that the other guys are replaceable - Paul isn’t. There are about 5 guys in the entire league who can match Paul’s production, yet the list is more like 50 for each and every one of the other names mentioned in the trade.
I don’t care about any of the rest of it - if it were really offered, you’d absolutely have to make the trade for Paul, then worry about how to make it work out afterwards.
July 28th, 2010 at 3:51 pm
This isn’t even a good argument. We are the Spurs. We aren’t Lebron James. We aren’t going to just dump system guys for Chris Paul. Trying to crown a “Best PG in the league” is like naming the best rapper. It’s all opinion. We’ve won 3 rings with Tony. He’s a tough cover for anyone. He’s not the best but he’s Top 5. The Hornets will never win big because Shinn is a total scumbag (Sorry, old Charlotte Hornets feelings are coming out). The N.O. front office should take the best offer of young players and picks they can get from Portland. I’m kind of tired of the idea that we need to make a flashy trade…unlike other teams we have a good mixture of old and young talent. Let’s keep building through the draft and forget big name, low class losers like Paul.
July 28th, 2010 at 4:19 pm
bduran
July 28th, 2010 at 1:49 pm
“….one of us will have to rethink how we view the NBA.”
One season is not going to have that big of an impact, at least it won’t with me.
“I’m going to predict 65+ Wins and a Finals appearance, you?”
58 wins & an exit in the ECF’s. They might have a shot in year two or three, but after that it starts to get a little harder.
On the Chris Paul deals, FORGET ABOUT THE INCLUSION OF OKAFOR. It precludes too many possibilities to trade Paul, which is unlikely enough as it is, AND it’s simply NOT NECESSARY. I don’t care what all the sports pundits say. Give me a SPECIFIC reason why Okafor HAS to be included in all these trade proposals?
July 28th, 2010 at 4:52 pm
Why is Okafor’s contract so bad? It’s got four more years, increases by a mil a year, and starts next year at 11.5. He’s 27 and a good player. I would think that the next two years he’d be worth the money, maybe not in the third, and then in the fourth if he’s declining he’s at least an expiring contract. I’m not saying I want him. Can’t beat the deal we’re getting with Splitter and Blair, but if it was necessary to take him on to get Paul, why is that a deal breaker?
Jim,
“I’m going to predict 65+ Wins and a Finals appearance, you?”
If this happens it won’t affect you’re thinking at all? You seem to have the belief that good basketball teams are more about depth then a few good pieces at the top. Well, in the Heat we have a prime example of this. Let’s see what happens.
July 28th, 2010 at 6:51 pm
Hey…if LA can get Gasol for a nickel and a dime…why not just offer the Hornets the same scenario regarding Paul?
I mean look at how that worked for Memphis.
Of course I jest.
No way do the options in the original OP make since for any team other than the Hornets. This was either ignorant ranting or selective thinking.
If Paul would want to be on a real championship caliber team…he would salivate at joining the Spurs as it stands with Splitter, Duncan, Blair, Hill, and it’s young potentials in Anderson, Temple, Gee, Neal and Hairston.
That said, which this would never happen, a trade of Parker for Paul would technically work and make the Spurs a very close second to LA for contention of the west if not a favorite to go to the finals.
As stated before…the Hornets will have plenty of cap space with the expirings they would be gaining in Parker and members of their team to offset Okafor’s salary.
And of course it wouldn’t happen… but IMO…the only way I would consider a trade for Paul is if the Spurs kept all of it’s critical players in a trade that would just match salaries as it stands now.
And that’s my selective thinking at work. Two can play that game.
On a side note to an earlier post…
Hobson13
July 28th, 2010 at 8:26 am
“Paul, on the defensive end, has long been a liability and will remedy virtually none of our defensive deficiencies. I would contend that he is a much worse defender than even Parker.”
I would have to disagree with that statement…I believe CP3 DOES play better defense than Parker and WOULD be an upgrade to our perimeter defense if he were on the team instead of Parker.
But I don’t worry too much of that happening since I don’t think it ever will.
July 28th, 2010 at 7:34 pm
aq
July 28th, 2010 at 3:20 pm
“……the comment that “ONE star is simply not worth 3-4 very good players that all fit a meaningful role for a team” is simply not true.”
But you don’t have the evidence to suggest it’s not true. The following comment that you made is not evidence:
“How did the Lakers trade for Kareem work out? or Miami’s trade for Shaq? or Phoenix’s for Barkley?……..When a 25 year old, true MVP candidate level star is traded for multiple players, the team getting the superstar invariably wins the trade in the long run.”
Flesh out these examples, and/or add others? For example, WHO ELSE was on the team when the stars you mentioned won after being acquired? For every instance, I will tell you that the team that acquired the star had in place, or soon acquired, KEY ROLE PLAYERS that were so valuable that that STAR would not have gotten deep into the playoffs or won a championship without them. You think Duncan would have won without guys like Horry, Barry, Bowen, Rose, etc…….? Don’t count on it. Tim would be the first to admit it. And many of these type of guys are “special” role players, not a dime a dozen. Sorry to burst your perspective on this, but the “dime a dozen” cliche, as if an absolute, is a big fat myth. In fact, it’s often a fairly thin line that separates a champion from the finalists, and that “thin line” is often cracked by a team’s role players. We really need to get this “star worship” stuff out of our culture, before we decline even further.
“The biggest thing is that the other guys are replaceable – Paul isn’t.”
WHAT OTHER GUYS are replaceable?! Some “stars” are replaceable, some aren’t. Many “role players” are replaceable, some aren’t. Why do you think Kobe pulled on every advantage he had to keep Fisher in LA. Fisher is really not replaceable because he (and maybe one more key role player) could in fact be the difference between them winning a title or not, the competition is so keen.
“There are about 5 guys in the entire league who can match Paul’s production, yet the list is more like 50 for each and every one of the other names mentioned in the trade.”
Yes, but you’re NOT ADDING UP the production, & potential production of all the players involved in the deals. Maybe the production of multiple players doesn’t add up to the sum of it’s parts, but that’s why I said, “3-4 very good players that all fit a meaningful role for a team..”. If the team has a clear role for all the players acquired, their total production would be much closer to equaling the sum of their parts. And that clearly can be worth more than the “star”, depending on the situation.
“I don’t care about any of the rest of it – if it were really offered, you’d absolutely have to make the trade for Paul, then worry about how to make it work out afterwards.”
Not sure what you mean by that?
July 28th, 2010 at 8:10 pm
“Can’t beat the deal we’re getting with Splitter and Blair, but if it was necessary to take him on to get Paul, why is that a deal breaker?”
I hope you weren’t assuming that I said it was a “deal-breaker” for the Spurs, because I said nothing of the sort. I said we would not give up Parker, Hill, Splitter, etc. to do it (it would probably require putting RJ in the deal as well to match salaries, which the Hornets probably wouldn’t like). I further suggested that holding firmly to the belief that Okafor had to be a part of the deal was unnecessarily precluding potentially good deals for both teams involved without him in the deal. For example, both Paul & Okafor have BIG contracts, which generally requires the other team to come close to matching these salaries with the players that they send over in exchange. But the only BIG contracts that the Hornets would be interested in, except in the case of in their prime “star” players, are large expiring deals. The rest would need to be from young talent with generally small contracts. Thus, insisting on dealing Okafor unnecessarily complicates doing a deal for Paul alone. And although Okafor’s contract is pricey, he is a solid NBA center, and in his prime. The Hornets could do worse. In addition, as my previous post alludes to, the Hornets do not NEED to include Okafor to create substantial cap space, which is often a prime consideration when engaging a rebuilding process.
“If this happens it won’t affect you’re thinking at all?”
First of all, I’m not worried about that scenario occurring because it’s HIGHLY unlikely to come about. And second, one good year is not what the hypes been all about, it’s not what Miami has their sights set on, and it doesn’t put that team even into the conversation of elite championship teams. LeBron, for example has already been to the finals, and one of his teams has already won 66 games in a single season. So no, one really good year by the Heat is NOT going to change my thinking about the best way to create a major winner, and certainly not about what I think is in the long-term best interests of the NBA.
“You seem to have the belief that good basketball teams are more about depth then a few good pieces at the top.”
NO, “both” are VERY important.
July 28th, 2010 at 8:13 pm
rob
July 28th, 2010 at 6:51 pm
“That said, which this would never happen, a trade of Parker for Paul would technically work and make the Spurs a very close second to LA for contention of the west if not a favorite to go to the finals.”
It actually wouldn’t because it does not address our defensive shortcomings.
“I would have to disagree with that statement…I believe CP3 DOES play better defense than Parker and WOULD be an upgrade to our perimeter defense if he were on the team instead of Parker.”
Paul & Parker are pretty much a wash defensively. Paul gambles more, and so gets more steals, but that’s about it.
July 28th, 2010 at 8:20 pm
Why trade for an injury prone Paul for an injury prone Parker?
Parker has 3 rings to Paul’s Zero. is this fair value?
is this scenario the result of an Inception taking place?
July 28th, 2010 at 8:43 pm
rob
July 28th, 2010 at 6:51 pm
“I would have to disagree with that statement…I believe CP3 DOES play better defense than Parker and WOULD be an upgrade to our perimeter defense if he were on the team instead of Parker.”
Paul is generously listed at 6′ but is probably closer to 5’10″-5’11″. He is a VERY easy target for larger guards (which is 90% of the PG’s in the league) to post him up. Parker has enough problems with larger guards and TP9 is 2-3 inches taller. I can only imagine the difficulties it presents to team defense to have someone WORSE than Parker in this regard. I also agree with Jim, when he says that Paul may get more steals, but that he also gambles more. Those gambles lead open shots for someone and increased strain on the team defense. Overall, Paul is an offensive juggernaught, but a subpar defender.
July 28th, 2010 at 10:22 pm
Overall, Paul is slightly better than Parker. However, Parker is in a contract year, and he’s coming off a subpar season due to injury. These are two reasons he’ll likely have a chip on his shoulder. Plus, Hill is threatening to take minutes, and at times, the starting job. Parker also knows the Spurs system cold, and appears to get along fairly well with his fellow Spurs. All of these factors seem (to me at least) to make Parker a keeper.
July 28th, 2010 at 10:52 pm
@ aq
“How did the Lakers trade for Kareem work out? or Miami’s trade for Shaq? or Phoenix’s for Barkley?”
The Lakers with Kareem had Magic, Worth, Cooper, Scott, Kupchak, McAdoo, Wilkes and Rambis.
The Lakers with Barkley had KJ, Majerle, Chambers, Ainge, & Ceballos.
This would resemble our roster the most. Unfortunately for us, these guys didn’t have to face the tall trees from LA.
Miami with Shaq had Wade, Mourning, Payton, Walker, Haslem, Posey, D.Anderson, Kapono & J-Dub.
These teams had more talent and depth than the Spurs would have Paul, Duncan, Manu, Jefferson and Blair.
“The biggest thing is that the other guys are replaceable”
No they aren’t. How exactly do we improve with no cap space (and no expiring contracts) & no picks.? Who is there left to contribute? Bonner? Neal? Anderson? Temple? Hairston? A choker and completely unproven and inexperienced players. Not nearly enough.
Not to mention our front line would be far too short. Duncan, Okafor, Blair and Bonner. There would be no money to upgrade the roster coz Manu, RJ, Timmy, Okafor and Paul would have it all. How would Mr. Holt like a $80 + Million payroll for a team with big holes? Too much of our young, cheap talent would be gone. A team that won’t win a champion (because of our front line) with ZERO cap space and first round picks to upgrade the roster until Timmy’s contract is up.
Tempting? No thanks.
July 28th, 2010 at 11:27 pm
@ TradeTP “Okafor is better than McDoosh. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a retard.” Retard, really? Please take a little more care in choosing your words.
July 29th, 2010 at 3:58 am
It’s too early to crown anyone champs…as far as physical talent goes…the big 3 in Miami tops the league with Bryant gasol and odom 2nd followed probably by the spurs and celtics in a crapshoot then Orlando . If Miami come against the lakers it will likely come down to the bench matchups and role players like this year, and who hits shots at the right time . So I think having a big three is important but not everything, especially when that 3 ( td Manu Paul) would only be together 2 years tops.
We are still an outside chance to win it all, and meanwhile steadily building for life after Tim Manu and maybe Tony
July 29th, 2010 at 4:00 am
Go Spurs Go!!
July 29th, 2010 at 5:43 am
Hillarious…Talking CP3 trade when we have no viable center…Even if Duncan is moved to the 5, where is his back up?
Cant win in the playoffs and finals in this league as it is today, without strong front court…
If trade is the subject of the day….Hope it is for front court help…
Again….too many 6’4-6’6 guys clogging roster…Need size, shooting, rebounding and defense…
Period…
Here we go again…
Go Pop……….
July 29th, 2010 at 6:09 am
I think the general point aq was trying to make was that superstars are much harder to attain than role players, which is certainly true. And when you have the chance to attain a superstar for just roles players, you generally have to pull the trigger. And like we’ve seen in Miami, Boston, LA, and even SA at times, when you have the superstars in place, getting role players to fill out the roster is generally much easier - you appeal to their desire to win a ring, which allows you to sign them for less.
And seriously, Paul is not “slightly” better than Parker, he’s a huge upgrade over Parker. Whether it’s PER, APER, Win shares, or AWS, Paul wins by a significant amount. And even as much as we like to tout TP’s shooting %, Paul has had a higher TS% the last 3 years. I love Tony Parker and what he brings to the table. But Chris Paul is a much better player, and all things being equal, replacing Parker with Paul makes the Spurs a much better team.
July 29th, 2010 at 6:21 am
@Ballhog
“Even if Duncan is moved to the 5….”
He moved to the 5 a long time ago.
July 29th, 2010 at 8:51 am
Chris Paul vs. TP last 3 years…
Paul is a better rebounder, gets far more steals, has fewer TOs, far more assists, shoots better from 3, better FT%, better FTA to FGA ratio, better TS%, and a better flopper.
Yeah seems close.
July 29th, 2010 at 9:55 am
Barring 3-team deals the best win-win-win for all parties (both teams and Paul) is CP3 and Okafor to either Orlando or Portland. If Portland gives up too much it could backfire on them, while Orlando likely improves no matter what they give back to the Hornets.
That guy Ryan Schwan from the Hornets blogsite has weak grasp on reality, almost every proposal he printed was absurd.
July 29th, 2010 at 10:02 am
Ryan is a smart dude and he didn’t come up with those trade ideas. They were submitted to him by other bloggers. He just ranked them.
July 29th, 2010 at 10:58 am
Tyler
July 29th, 2010 at 6:09 am
“I think the general point aq was trying to make was that superstars are much harder to attain than role players, which is certainly true. And when you have the chance to attain a superstar for just roles players, you generally have to pull the trigger. And like we’ve seen in Miami, Boston, LA, and even SA at times, when you have the superstars in place, getting role players to fill out the roster is generally much easier – you appeal to their desire to win a ring, which allows you to sign them for less.”
The fact is, it’s an art as much as a science to find the “right” role players to maximize the potential of the team around the stars. During our title years, Pop & the FO did a great job in finding those types of role players (and frankly, some of it was luck), and many of them did not come here to play for minimum salaries — not by a long shot (e.g., Brent Barry, Bowen, Horry, Rose, Steve Smith, etc.). Many came to San Antonio making MLE money or better in today’s dollars, or came here young and were given a big increase on their next contract.
There are “role players”, and then there are “unique role players” that are of championship caliber material. Discerning one from the other is a very important task in building a winner, and the special role players are generally not “old”, nor do they usually come “cheap”, regardless of what “stars” are on the team. The fact is, three or four young players that have star potential (e.g., Anthony Randolph), or exhibit the special qualities that make one confident that they will at least become a “special” rotation player, may very well be, depending on the circumstances, worth keeping or acquiring over a so-called “superstar”.
July 29th, 2010 at 11:51 am
The problem is many people on here dont understand basketball. They are simply fans of the Spurs, which is fine. But dont try to have intelligent dialogue about the differences of TP and CP or the coaching skills of POP or TDs play……
July 29th, 2010 at 1:11 pm
Thanks, Tyler. One other point is that people seemed to gloss over that I added “in the long run”. Paul is 25. The reality is that the Spurs are going to have a tough time getting past LA, Boston, Miami, or Orlando with or without him, but they would be in way better position in four years to rebuild with him.
Lenneez - The Lakers didn’t get those players until years after the Kareem trade. The Lakers sucked for a couple of years before the rebuilding took off.
Jim, I agree completely that it is a myth that role players take less money to play for a contender, but I’m less sold on the idea of a “special” role player.
Robert Horry was a special role player, although I’m not sure anyone was saying that when he was in Phoenix. There wasn’t a single irreplaceable role player on any of Timmy’s championship teams. Hell, it even turns out that the other stars were replaceable, just not the one MVP caliber superstar.
The role players on the 80s Lakers and Celtics constantly changed, as did those for the Bulls during the 90s, and of course for the Spurs over the last 12 years. I can only think of two guys who were indeed special role players; Horry and Cooper.
There are certainly other candidates, but in almost every case, the team won without them, thereby showing that while they may indeed have been special, they were not, in fact, irreplaceable. Ainge was special, but they won without him. Elie and Avery were special, but replaced. And the Spurs won long before Bowen ever showed up. Posey sure did seem special for Boston that one year, as did Ariza for the Lakers and Prince for Detroit.
The point is that history shows us that role players are immanently replaceable. There are lots and lots of good players in the league, and a role player on a championship team is really just one of those many good players put in a good position.
But there are only a handful of true superstars, and they are, by definition, not replaceable (except by each other). There has been only one team (’04 Detroit) in the last 30 years that has won a championship without a legit MVP candidate on their roster.
So, what it boils down to is that we have far more evidence that Chris Paul is a legit MVP candidate level player than we do that Splitter and Hill are special role players. And we have far more evidence that superstars are a prerequisite for titles than we do that specific role players are. Put those together, and when given the chance to trade for a superstar, history dictates that you absolutely have to do it, then sort out the rest later.
With one caveat. As you said, a bunch of players “may very well be, depending on the circumstances, [be] worth keeping or acquiring over a so-called “superstar””. I agree, but would argue that the current Spurs are not that circumstance. A team needs to have a superstar already on the roster, and a really good shot at a title.
The current Lakers would be that circumstance. Trading for Paul would necessitate them breaking up a proven championship caliber team, and the outcome would be unknown. They would be giving up a known reasonably good shot at a title or two. But that’s the only circumstance in which you don’t go for the superstar.
July 29th, 2010 at 3:36 pm
aq
July 29th, 2010 at 1:11 pm
“Robert Horry was a special role player, although I’m not sure anyone was saying that when he was in Phoenix.”
Our FO apparently had good confidence that he would be a “special” fit for our team, and they were right.
“There wasn’t a single irreplaceable role player on any of Timmy’s championship teams.”
“Maybe” not a “single” role player, but we were talking about teams giving up multiple players in a deal for Paul. So, for example, the combination of Bowen, Horry, and Barry in 2004-05 were in my view simply irreplaceable compared to any other trio around the league at the time.
“Hell, it even turns out that the other stars were replaceable, just not the one MVP caliber superstar.”
There are very few stars that are as valuable to build a winner with than Tim Duncan in his early 20′s. I hesitate to put Paul in that category, since Timmy was huge in ALL facets of the game. Paul is not.
“I can only think of two guys who were indeed special role players; Horry and Cooper.”
Think some more. And again, you’re thinking of “single” role players. The discussion hinged on acquiring multiple players. Certainly at least two of them could turn out to be special role players, if not bonafide all-star players in their own right (e.g., Anthony Randolph, etc.).
“Ainge was special, but they won without him. Elie and Avery were special, but replaced.”
Stars can be replaced by other stars and the team still wins without the former star as well. What’s your point? Shaq left LA and they won again, etc. There’s only a VERY small number of stars that one could in the truest sense say are irreplaceable. Tim Duncan, for example is one of those few.
“And the Spurs won long before Bowen ever showed up.”
They won one year without Bowen, and that was in 1999, when they had two 7 foot former #1 draft picks, one in the Hall, one with a red carpet there, that were manning our front line, the most successful twin towers probably in the history of the NBA.
“So, what it boils down to is that we have far more evidence that Chris Paul is a legit MVP candidate level player than we do that Splitter and Hill are special role players.”
But they weren’t the only ones in the proposed deal. We also included a 3-time all-star, and former FINALS MVP. Paul might be legit to you, but he’s been in the league 5 seasons, has never won an MVP, and does not appear on the verge of winning an MVP. He’s close enough talent-wise where he “might” have a chance some day, but his stature does not rise to the extent of a Tim Duncan, and probably never will. What makes a “franchise-type” player so valuable, at least to me, goes far beyond talent, and into intangibles like leadership. MVP’s are often more about talent & production more than anything else (e.g., LeBron James), but not all MVP’s have the special leadership quality that gives them the value to be worth more than a combination of multiple young talents with promise (e.g. Randolph), and/or role players that look to be special (I would put Hill in that category - his 29 point explosion against the Mavs, where he buried numerous three’s, is a clue).
“Put those together, and when given the chance to trade for a superstar, history dictates that you absolutely have to do it, then sort out the rest later.”
I disagree. It’s a case by case decision, not one by default.
July 29th, 2010 at 5:28 pm
It appears that most agree that it would be foolish to give away our key pieces of future rosters, along with Parker, just to get Paul.
Those who think Parker is substantially worse than Paul may fail to recognize that a player is asked to play ball the way the COACH dictates, and is asked to contribute more in terms of the stat line if he is on a weaker club. I think everyone agrees that Paul is a better overall player. How much better is not as clear as some might suggest. I still think he’s only slightly better. Paul is not enough of a stud to put a team on his back, ala Lebron or Kobe, and he’s never going to be in the category. Frankly, neither is Tony.
Paul has been asked to score more points, dish more assists, and has been given WAY more freedom to dictate tempo, etc. than Parker has been given.
Over the years, Pop has asked his teams to think DEFENSE first. Imagine Parker’s stats if he’d played Nellie Ball or had D’Antoni letting him fly up and down the court willie nillie. Also, when TD was option #1 (and sometimes options 2 and 3)a couple years back, Parker was constantly expected to get TD more touches, etc. and set his own ego (and stats) aside. He did so without any known complaint, ever.
No doubt Paul has better court vision, but there are other areas where Parker is as good or better. Again, how do you compare stats when the players were in 2 different systems with 2 different sets of teammates? Look at Jefferson’s stats on the Bucks compared to his stats last year. Wow, did the guy go from really good to really average in one year? No, of course not. I know that the RJ example is extreme, but the issue is still out there in making CP3-TP comparisons.
Watch Parker have a great year, and see his team go deep into the playoffs. Then, watch New Orleans struggle to reach the playoffs, WITH a disgruntled Chris Paul , the supposed saviour for the Spurs.
July 29th, 2010 at 6:11 pm
er…. TradeTP … parker has a Finals MVP under his belt. Yeah i know, its not much, but its something. LOL.
Paul? Not so much.
There’s no argument that nobody wins in this league without help. Ask Kobe. Ask Timmy.
But if you’ll go back to that 2007 playoff run, TP consistently out played Nash/Marion and Gibson/Hughes. Marion and Hughes were supposedly really good defenders at the time.
Vs CP3, he’s basically played him even.
July 29th, 2010 at 6:27 pm
Lenneezz
July 28th, 2010 at 10:52 pm
“There would be no money to upgrade the roster coz Manu, RJ, Timmy, Okafor and Paul would have it all. How would Mr. Holt like a $80 + Million payroll for a team with big holes? Too much of our young, cheap talent would be gone. A team that won’t win a champion (because of our front line) with ZERO cap space and first round picks to upgrade the roster until Timmy’s contract is up.”
That is a very good point, even with Duncan’s contract coming down in a couple of years. In fact, you left out Bonner’s 4 mil. per, 4 year deal also!
July 29th, 2010 at 6:45 pm
TradeTP,
Explain how West is better than TD. In 5 fewer minutes game TD averaged almost 3 more rebounds, a blocks, .2 more assists, and .6 more FT attempts. They have the same TS% percentage. TD also averages more points per minute.
David West really only does on thing better and that’s shoot FTs, but since he doesn’t get to the line at nearly the same rate, it doesn’t help him out as much. 7.4 rebounds and .8 blocks per 36 is not good.
July 29th, 2010 at 6:48 pm
This from the Lakers History page concerning how the trade for Kareem worked out:
“But the big trade paid higher short-term dividends for Milwaukee than it did for Los Angeles-the Bucks went from last to first in the Midwest Division. The Lakers stumbled through a 3-10 January and finished out of the playoffs with a 40-42 record. At season’s end, Abdul-Jabbar won the fourth of six career NBA Most Valuable Player Awards. ”
From what I can recall, the Lakers were mainly giving up recent draft choices and their own center, Elmore Smith. They didn’t give up Gail Goodrich nor Pat Riley. They improved in a few years when they added Norm Nixon & Jamaal Wilkes, even more so when getting a 1st round pick for the loss of Goodrich then turned into Magic Johnson.
July 29th, 2010 at 7:17 pm
Since Chris Paul has not named the Spurs as one of teams he’d want to play for, why takeover the Hornets problems? I might involve the Spurs in his trade to the Knicks for a deal like this one that would help some of our weak points:
http://games.espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=3yyk9lj
In exchange for George Hill and McDyess going to New Orleans, we pick up Turiaf and Gallinari from the Knicks. New Orleans would be lucky to get what they could for Paul when he has so much as said he’ll be gone soon enough. I think his remarks call for a suspension once he moves to a new team. New Orleans could keep him and when they miss the playoffs be wondering if he tanked on them.
July 29th, 2010 at 9:49 pm
bduran
July 29th, 2010 at 6:45 pm
There’s really NO contest in this argument, as I’m sure you’re aware. TradeTp is in trouble!
July 30th, 2010 at 5:15 am
Jim,
I know, I have trouble not responding though. I know I shouldn’t.
July 30th, 2010 at 5:20 am
Yeah, this guy has lost his mind. Paul is a great player but if that’s what the Hornets want, then that = they will not trade him. Splitter is what every team wants, a young athletic big. Maybe he will be a bust but for what the Spurs are paying him, I wouldn’t trade him just to get a point guard. I like the moves so far… wouldn’t mind the Shaq thing to help Tiago. If the rookie or the FA can actually hit the corner 3 this season could be very interesting.
July 30th, 2010 at 11:22 am
I’m having a bit of a hard time coming up with the right phrase for the players I’m talking about. I said “MVP caliber” and superstar, but what I really mean is any player that can reasonably be considered one of the top five players in the league. You may not agree that Paul is in the top five right now, but it’s certainly not unreasonable to think so.
My point is that history shows us that teams must have at least one of those top five guys in order to win it all, and that the Spurs don’t currently have one, and Paul is one of them, so there would be a greater chance of winning it all with him than without him, in the long run.
The list of the best player on the title team over the last thirty years is Kobe, Garnett, Wade, Duncan, Shaq, Jordan, Olajuwon, Isiah Thomas, Magic, Bird, Kareem, Moses Malone, and Billups. The only one who wasn’t at least arguably one of the five best players in the league was Billups.
I’m less arguing the merits of this particular trade proposal than the more general tenet that a team is almost always better off trading for a top five player, not because a top five player guarantees that you will win a championship, but because not having one comes very, very close to guaranteeing that you won’t.
That being said, I don’t personally see any really compelling element to this particular proposal that would make it the exception.
July 30th, 2010 at 1:43 pm
aq
July 30th, 2010 at 11:22 am
You make a fair enough argument.
It’s interesting that out of the “arguably” top-five players that you listed, over half of them are 6’11″ or taller (which comprise just 40% of a starting roster). More than a third of them are centers, comprising just 20% of a starting roster.
“Kobe, Garnett, Wade, Duncan, Shaq, Jordan, Olajuwon, Isiah Thomas, Magic, Bird, Kareem, Moses Malone..”
I know it’s a small sample size, but I would suggest that winning a title with “special big men” is a safer bet than doing so with a 5’11″ point guard. Isaiah Thomas is the only one comparable to Paul on the list.
You do make the point that a guy like Paul needs to be seriously considered by teams that have clear designs for building a team into a championship contender. Hence, all the interest in him lately. My main point is that it is very difficult to discern ahead of time who actually meets that special “top-five” threshold. I’m not entirely confident that Paul meets that threshold. Thus, my reluctance to part with “special” role players, and others for a situation that just didn’t seem to make a lot of sense.
For example, in terms of the Spurs, it’s not really the greatest fit because we don’t have enough “quality young players” in place (or sufficient cap space) to create a championship contender with him over the long haul. We “could” eventually, he is young enough, but he would be hitting us at a time of transition (out of the Manu, Duncan, Parker era), which could cause unnecessary problems in terms of establishing a long-term & solidified direction as a team. In my view, he would be a much better/smoother fit with a young, growing team like OKC. They have plenty of young talent to put into a deal: Westbrook, Harden, Green, Ibaka, etc. I think he would have a better shot at leading a team like that to multiple titles, which I’m sure is his goal.
July 30th, 2010 at 3:08 pm
“We “could” eventually, he is young enough, but he would be hitting us at a time of transition (out of the Manu, Duncan, Parker era), which could cause unnecessary problems in terms of establishing a long-term & solidified direction as a team.”
That is exactly right. By giving up too much young talent, the timing of this trade would not work.
Let’s go for a 2004 Piston style championship.
July 30th, 2010 at 3:38 pm
Jim -
I noticed that as well. I was actually a bit surprised that it includes at least one player from each position, which would seem to imply that the position is less important than the quality. The other thing is that even though there are more big guys on the list, there are more rings for the “small” guys.
Paul is in a bit of a bind - I think you’re right about OKC being a good place from a talent perspective, but when thinking about multiple titles, he would probably be better off going to a place that has a good ownership and management team in place that will keep the team in contention through the years. OKC might have a really tough time keeping all of the talent they have as the rookie contracts expire, and he might end up in a similar situation to what has happened to him in NO. Portland might be a better fit in that way, as would be Spurs, Lakers, Mavs, and maybe even NJ with their new owner. At age 25, he shouldn’t worry as much about the current roster as much as he should about the track record of management. He’d be better off in the long run on a less talented Spur team (or one of those others I mentioned) and trust that management will find a way to build a winner. But that’s from his perspective, not the team’s.
July 30th, 2010 at 4:05 pm
Jim,
“It’s interesting that out of the “arguably” top-five players that you listed, over half of them are 6’11″ or taller (which comprise just 40% of a starting roster). More than a third of them are centers, comprising just 20% of a starting roster.”
It is interesting and about 5 minutes before reading your post I read this
http://arturogalletti.wordpress.com/2010/07/29/the-short-supply-of-tall-people-revisited/
Not enough tall people to go around, so good tall players become an extremely valuable commodity. We all know the value of a good center of PF, but really it’s true across positions.
July 30th, 2010 at 6:00 pm
aq
July 30th, 2010 at 3:38 pm
“The other thing is that even though there are more big guys on the list, there are more rings for the “small” guys.”
But in my view, Isaiah is the ONLY truly small guy on that list. That was more my point. For example, Magic may have been a PG, but he was 6’9″, 230 lbs., point guard, and a freak of nature. Kinda like Shaq, in a point guards body.
OKC actually has a pretty solid management team in place, starting with owner Clay Bennett, and followed by one of the sharpest young GM’s in the league, Sam Presti. And they’re off to a very good start this season, locking down future MVP candidate, Kevin Durant, to a 5 year, 86 million dollar deal.
“Portland might be a better fit in that way, as would be Spurs, Lakers, Mavs, and maybe even NJ with their new owner.”
Portland would be okay, although with the Kevin Pritchard flap, a brand new GM just inserted, and their ongoing injury problems, things appear a bit less stable there at the moment. The Lakers are an older team already in a championship run. It’d be hard to shake things up there. Plus this will probably be Jackson’s final year, and who knows how that void will be filled. The Mavs could be okay, I suppose, but Dirk’s getting on in years, and you gotta tell the aging Kidd, one of the best PG’s of all-time, to come off the bench, unless they wanted to try and work a trade for him. Plus, they don’t really have much young talent, except Beaubois, a small combo guard. New Jersey is awfully raw in the rebuilding phase for a guy like Paul. I doubt he’d want to go there anyway. And who would NJ have to give up, and what would they have left?
“At age 25, he shouldn’t worry as much about the current roster as much as he should about the track record of management.”
I don’t agree. I think both are equally important. And as I said, to me it would not represent the greatest timing for him to go to the Spurs at this point. Paul wants to win soon & often, not wait for 5 years until management can hopefully build the right talent around him.
July 30th, 2010 at 6:15 pm
bduran
July 30th, 2010 at 4:05 pm
Yeah, interesting article. I like his concluding paragraph:
“At the end of the day, the idea that convinced me is the short supply of tall people. Over the history, it is the teams that have length that succeed. The final pieces was that a lot of the exceptional players in league history were tall for their position or played and produced like big men (Magic, Barkley, Rodman, Jordan, Garnett and Lebron are six examples that come quickly to mind).”
Kind of in part backs up what I just got done noting in the first paragraph of my previous post. Isaiah was the only true “small” mega-star guy to have such great success, and he had a Rodman (a guy that plays “big”) to help him out.
July 31st, 2010 at 1:20 am
are you people nuts no way id do that trade and in my opinion parker is better than paul
July 31st, 2010 at 2:29 pm
spurzztop
July 31st, 2010 at 1:20 am
“…..parker is better than paul….”
By what measure?
Leave a Reply