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.
“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. =)
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!
Are you sure they wouldn’t want TD and Manu, too? You know, just to be equal to the greatness of CP3?
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.
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…
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…
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.
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.
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.
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….
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??
“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.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
@ 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.
@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.
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
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.
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.
@Kevin, that’s a nice way of calling him a flopper.
Go Spurs Go!!
D-bags on this sight is what keeps me ready.
TradeTP why don’t we just swap rosters with the Hornets.
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.
Pop already shot down this trade, guys. In fact, he shot it down over a year ago.
“We only bring in high character guys”.
“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.
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.
@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
– 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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
“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.
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.
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?
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.
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.