I don't see it happening. Not only he is unlikely to pick Houston but also he would reduce Harden's overall impact. 1+1<2
It would take a hit if they would remain without another pg, but Murray looked pretty good, and Paul would eat most of minutes in the spot of Parker and Mills anyway so i don't really see why letting Mills go would be a downgrade. You can argue that Murray didn't play a lot, but he still played more and better than all the young guys we would've to play if Nene is gone. And if you think Nene will be willing to play for peanuts for us i don't understand why you don't think it's possible that Pau would be willing to spread his salary which wouldn't even make him lose money (like Nene taking the room exception) if they extend him for 2 or 3 years. And tbh, even if you think they would've to gut their roster, i don't think the Spurs would've much problems to get a couple of veterans for cheap to boost the bench, they got Dedmon, Lee this year, West a year ago...they will find someone eventually, whether it's a Terry or a Speights...as long as they would get Paul, i don't think it would be a problem, hell, what players had Miami when they put the big 3 together? As for the assets to dump Parker, assuming they would be forced to use them, they have all their picks, Anderson, at least one Euro center rights...and again, they got a 2nd rounder to dump a done backup center (Splitter) with two 9M years left on his contract -> when the salary cap was at 63M, i don't think it's so impossible to see them dump Parker with his expiring contract. And i definitely disagree with you on his value, i would agree if you said that he's not the same player of few years ago, but he's still pretty solid as we saw this year, let's not act like he was bad or a non factor, in fact he was their best player after Kawhi for all the playoffs. Call me crazy but i don't really know if Anderson on a 20Mx3 year deal will be easier to dump than an expiring Parker, maybe yes, but i wouldn't bet on it. One thing i definitely agree with you is that having him out until January might be a problem, but for teams like Brooklyn or Sacramento maybe it's not as long as they would get pick/s or young players so, we'll see.
I think where Paul ends up has more to do with what he wants, not what teams can offer. If he wants to win, then that is one direction. If he wants a maximum payday, then that is another.
Brooklyn will eat all they can get to get picks/young players, they got smart GM and i could really see them taking quite few players and making good deals there and there, hell i could even see some of ours current players ending up there.
Their gm worked with the Spurs until last year, like Budenholzer did before he send his ex team a 2nd round pick to take back the corpse of Splitter so, i wouldn't be shocked if they trade for Parker. And yeah, i think Brooklyn is the team which will get most calls to take back some bad contracts etc...and about this, we would've more/better assets to trade than the Spurs obviously, but i also think they may prefer to have Parker on a 1 year deal over Anderson on a 20M x3 year deal. They're rebuilding, Parker would help their young guys develop and would give them more cap space next summer, Anderson on the other hand means a 20M brick in their cap space for three more years when they would've no reason to use him at all.
I could see us having to pay instead getting paid to get rid of Anderson, so Brooklyn is clearly is one of destinations in case of that and if we give them 1st rounder and or Harrell i could see them biting, not like they will build contender tomorrow, might as well take that and try to trade him latter on, once his closer to expiring.
Yeah, i guess we'll see how that goes eventually, personally i don't really know, maybe we would've to pay to dump him, maybe we would get something back (i can see teams like Detroit or Atlanta having interest in him)...i'm just not sure it's a given that Parker will be harder to dump than Anderson.
Are ya seriously thinking CP3 coming to Houston and playing with Harden? AHHAHAHAHHA, this is a joke thread.
I can say beyond certainty that if CP3 had to pick between being in San Antonio vs Houston...he picks them every time. Besides dont want captain douche who would ruin Harden's impact for this Rockets team. I really like Hayward...but he might just be out of our price point. The Rockets really need to target athletic wings/big who also play some defense. One such player...Kentavious Cadwell-Pope. I like his game and would be a really nice pair with Harden in the backcourt. Hate to really change up the roster massively, and it stinks...but KD for nothing to the Warriors has impacted the league for 2-3 years.
Because it's about the depth. That's what the Spurs have always been about. If you think the Spurs would go out and just play Chris Paul 36+ minutes per night, A) that's not their style and B) you'd be asking him to break down. Can you find me even one Spurs fan that would say losing Mills isn't a downgrade? Also, you're just making stuff up in the bolded sentence. Murray played 38 games at 8.5 minutes per game, averaging 3.4 points and 1.3 assists (9.7 PER). Montrezl Harrell played 58 games at 18.3 minutes per game, averaging 9.1 points and 3.8 rebounds (19.2 PER). Harrell played substantially more than Murray and made much larger contributions to his team, and it's really not even debatable. On the Nene vs. Gasol comparison: The difference is because Gasol got (and still has) a two-year, $32 million deal on the open market. Nene didn't sign for the exception out of generosity. It was because he didn't have the market. Gasol is a better and significantly more durable player. And if Gasol goes out and plays well next season, he can go out and get another contract in 2018 free agency. He's not going to turn down money to essentially bet on himself to fail. If Gasol were to opt out, it'd be so he could get MORE money on a per-season basis, not less: http://www.sportingnews.com/au/nba-...o-opt-in-with-spurs/qlpp18rrh8e513o1l5orat8wh First off, those teams were prohibitive title favorites. Even if the Spurs added Chris Paul, they'd still be significant underdogs to the Warriors, which makes their appeal to ring-chasing vets willing to sign on the cheap much less than Miami earlier this decade or Golden State now. Even Cleveland, which has basically a guaranteed route to the Finals, is likely a stronger lure. Now, could the Spurs get someone to fill those slots? Sure. But your Dedmon/Lee analogy is perfect... when it mattered, those guys didn't play nearly as much as Gasol, because they're nowhere near as good of players. They'd be replacing Gasol, Green, Mills, and Ginobili with Dedmon/Lee types. That's a dropoff. Splitter was significantly younger and cheaper than Parker, all at a premium position. As you said, Splitter actually had mildly positive value when the Spurs dealt him to Atlanta. He wasn't "done" -- he was coming off a solid season of 8.2 points (56% FG) and 4.8 rebounds in 20 minutes per game. He had started the majority of San Antonio's games in each of the past three seasons. The Splitter deal wasn't some miracle -- it was a fair representation of his value at the time. Everyone knew he was movable. In this case, literally no one that I've seen is discussing a Parker trade, because it's pretty much impossible on a number of levels. As far as Parker's value, here's a national assessment pre-injury which doesn't even rank him in the Top 25. http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...gs-end-of-regular-season-edition-point-guards As the writer explains, the league is "overflowing" with high-quality point guards. It's an extremely oversaturated market, and then you have the fact that he's 35 years old, a pending free agent, making over $15 million AND coming off a very serious leg injury that will likely cost him the majority of next season. You're going to have to give very real value to offload that contract (by the way, you can't trade future picks in back-to-back years), and guys like Kyle Anderson or a random European center aren't that.
So he scheduled a meeting because he is not interested? You lack the common understanding of the term interested. Nice try trolling to troll.
He's just there for a free meal....Anyone thinking he is interested saying that he is interested lack common sense.
Then why not schedule interviews with the entire league? Why didn't Kevin Durant take a free meal from the Rockets a year ago, when they clearly wanted a meeting?
I agree about how the Spurs are used to manage minutes etc, but i still don't see a problem if Chris Paul plays 30 minutes in the regular season and Murray plays 18 instead of 24 that Mills usually played. And that's assuming they can't get a veteran to boost the position or that Ginobili doesn't play again for cheap. Losing Mills would be a downgrade if they wouldn't get Chris Paul in the same spot. On Trez ok, but i see it a bit different, Trez played well for us some games when the team was rolling at the begin of the regular season, ended up playing zero minutes when it mattered more, cause he has no size to play the 5 against good competition and he has no range to play the 4 either. Murray on the other hand already got the trust of his coach and started in a couple of games in the playoffs. And just saying, but the Spurs already lost their depth two years ago to sign LMA (Joseph, Diaw, Splitter and maybe someone else) so, it's not like that's something we never saw. That's ok, but that's the story of one year ago, value might change in two years, especially for a guy who is 36, if he's going to opt in just to cash in again next year he would've to bet on himself even more to me, because i don't see who's going to give a 15M x year deal to a 38 years old guy who can't play the 4 anymore and can't start at the 5...also, were the Blazers the only team after him? How many teams will realistically throw him 15M in 2018 when he'll be 38? To me it kinda make sense for him to spread his last year in two/three more years now. For how i see it (and i'm 100% wrong), if he can spread his salary to guarantee himself more money going forward, it wouldn't be a bad decision since he's very old and it's possible he declines fast very soon, he's one injury away from being done. As for us and Nene, we have zero guarantee that nobody will throw at least a full MLE to him after how well he played this season, what if the Spurs trade Gasol and sign Nene for half the salary? Well, i can agree with you here at least lol, but that's also why i was saying they wouldn't be gutting their team, losing guys like Dedmon, Lee and Mills (even if Patty is actually a good player) wouldn't be a problem for the Spurs. If they would lose Pau than yes, that would be a downgrade for their front court, even if again, Paul > Gasol + Mills + Manu, to me at least. And on a side note, why would they want to sign Paul if that whould leave them with zero presence in the front court? That doesn't make sense to begin with...that's also why i think they would make it happen without losign Pau...or replacing him anyway. Yeah, he was younger (even though already 30), but he wasn't cheaper, he had a 9/10M x 2 years salary which was basically the same of what Parker is making today if you consider the old salary cap. And he was also coming off two seasons were he played 50 games. He was already declining, and in fact he basically vanished the following season. As for Parker, aside that last thing i read is that he'll be back in January (he said that a couple of weeks ago to a French newspaper, L’Equipe), which wouldn't be that far, basically the first two months of the season...yeah, not saying it will be super easy, but i don't think it will be impossible either...let's say you're Brooklyn GM, if the Spurs are offering you their 1st round pick, 2nd rounder and Kyle Anderson with the EU center (who might be random scrub or might turn into a better and cheaper player than Anderson) to take Parker and his one year deal, would you do it? Personally, i would, especially if i wouldn't have better offers on the table, which is something that may happen.
He started a couple playoff games due to extreme injuries; they simply didn't have any other options. I guess Pop could've gone to a 7-man rotation or something, like MDA did here, but that's not his style. The idea that Murray jumped ahead of Harrell based on his spot minutes in a few playoff games is quite a reach. And if you want to get technical about style of play, if you can't hit 3s (which Murray can't), that's every bit as much of a deficiency for a PG as Harrell's lack of height is for a backup C. Chris Paul is not going to play 48 minutes per night, so in the other minutes that you'd be going from Mills to Murray... yes, it's a downgrade. That story was from earlier this season, and Gasol has no injury history or chronic situation to my knowledge. At his size and with his fundamentals, he profiles to age very gracefully. And since you asked, it wasn't just the Spurs and Blazers (latter offered 2/40); Toronto, Minnesota, and Chicago were also in on him. http://hoopshype.com/storyline/pau-gasol-free-agency/ Nene's production in 2016-17 was actually almost identical to his production in 2015-16. He just got more attention in the media because it happened on a bigger/better team. Seems rather unlikely that it'll impact his FA market, particularly considering that his postseason injury only exacerbates the durability concerns. And again, if you think that simply reducing Gasol's figure from $16M to $8M (in this hypothetical, Nene at $8M, I'm assuming) would allow them to make a run at CP3, I urge you to read this from a Spurs' perspective: https://www.poundingtherock.com/2017/5/25/15688168/nba-free-agency-chris-paul-spurs-sacrifice It just doesn't seem like you grasp the gravity of their financial situation and the difficulty of getting to $30M or more in space. They'd need to remove either Gasol/Parker and Green entirely, in addition to renouncing Mills, Ginobili, etc. There's no "reworking" that can be done, other than complete removal. If there was, you can bet that SAS fans would be the first ones to discuss it. There's a reason they aren't. They want to sign him because it's freaking Chris Paul! When you're playing in the context of GSW, about the only way you have any chance is to bring in as many A-list talents as possible. Kawhi and CP3, with LMA as a third wheel and Pop as coach, would be a nice starting point. But in the short term, they'd have some problems, particularly up front. Over time, they could definitely build some depth again, especially if they draft well and then can supplement it with shrewd signings in 2018 FA (when they'd have full exceptions and such). The Spurs are a nice team now, but there's no shot for them to win a ring in the next 5 years unless they can do something drastic. Adding CP3 would be one of those things -- while it wouldn't make them a contender immediately, it would at least give them an opportunity to eventually become one. So it definitely makes sense for SA, even if they lose all those players. Question is whether it makes sense for Chris. My point in this exercise is to show that in the very short-term... the Spurs would absolutely take a hit, and for a 32-year-old like Chris Paul who needs to win now, that matters. From his standpoint, joining a 55-win Rockets team that only loses Ryan Anderson... you could easily make an argument that they're better positioned to win in 2017-18 than a 61-win Spurs team that loses Gasol, Mills, Green, Ginobili, and Parker for at least half the season. You have to adjust the financial figures for position rarity, though. Centers are always paid a premium. And as far as "declining," Splitter's PER of 18.9 in 2014-15 was actually higher than either of his prior two seasons. The durability is/was a fair question, but he was a quality player and many teams around the league had interest. Compare that to now, where I don't think you can find a single fan of another team talking about the potential of trading for Tony Parker. There's a reason for that. If I'm the Brooklyn GM, I don't take that deal, because the only real asset in that bunch is a late 1st in a mediocre draft -- and you typically get much more than that for $15 million in space. For example, the Sacramento/Philly cap-clearing trade from two years ago, in exchange for taking $13 million in bad contracts (Landry/Thompson), the Sixers got: A future 1st The right to swap on two future 1sts (when dealing with a bad organization like Sacramento, this is especially valuable; not a perk with SA) Nik Stauskas (#8 overall pick the prior year and still valuable at the time) Now yes, if you "adjust" to the new salary cap, taking on ~$13 million under the $70-million cap of 2015 would be equivalent to taking on ~$18.5 million in the $100-million cap of 2017. So it's a slightly higher proportion than Parker's $15.5 million, but it's in the same general ballpark. And there's no comparing the deal above to the poo-poo platter of Kyle Anderson, an SA 1st, and the rights to some second-round Euro stash. I agree that Brooklyn and other teams like them will be open to taking on bad contracts in exchange for future assets, but I'm extremely confident that other teams will have more attractive offers than what can be made by San Antonio. That's why most Spurs fans understand they'll have to move players with neutral-to-positive value, such as Gasol and Green.
I smell a smokescreen... Oh look, Morey is going after the big fish! Meanwhile all the mid-upper level fish get scooped up elsewhere... Morey can jettison Ariza or whoever as a 'making cap space room for the big FA acquisition...' Big fish signs ridiculous contract elsewhere... Everybody says 'Hey Morey was trying to get us the top prospect... but really I'm glad we didn't sign him to that ridiculous contract...'
@The Cat On Murray well, they had the option to start Mills or maybe even Ginobili in his place, i get that this is not a strong argument, but it's still a sign that they had some trust in the guy for a reason imo. If a young player shows you in his rookie season that he's already able to stay solid on the floor in the playoffs eh, to me that's a good sign. In a scenario where they would get Paul, having Murray as a back up next to a vetaran like Deron Williams, Jennings, Sessions, Calderon or i don't know who now (but i'm pretty sure there will be other guys they would be able to get and that could be good fits from the bench next to Murray) wouldn't be bad at all. On Pau/nene i'd say you got me, even though i don't see any team offering him big money after the next season when he will be 38, i like Pau as a player but yeah, he will be 38 after next season, not a starting caliber player if not in SA (imo at least)...and i'm just asking, isn't really possible for him to opt out of his contract and sign let's say a 2/20 or a 3/30? And, assuming that's possible, do you really think it wouldn't make sense for him? I don't know man...to me it would be a good bunch of guaranteed money for a 37 year old guy... Also, just asking cause at this point i'm not sure i get everything here, aren't they at something close to 75M in their salary cap if they trade Parker and Anderson? If that's correct, whether or not Pau can and is willing to opt out and sign another contract, wouldn't a trade of Green give them enough space to max Paul? If that's correct, it's like they would still be able to have at least this roster: Pau/Milutinov/Udoh LMA/Bertans/Scola Kawhi/Alan Anderson/Babbit Simmons/Ginobili/Meeks Paul/Murray/Calderon ...add a rookie here or there (i guess they will bring in Milutinov this year?) and eh...to me as a base it looks pretty solid, add two/three veterans with the room exception and for the vet minimum between the bold names (but there are others i can see going there, guys like Udrih, Bass, Speights, Morrow should all be available...maybe Lee would be back for peanuts, i mean, there'll be some of these guys willing to sign for cheap with them imo) and they would be good to go imo...and tbh probably still better than: Capela/Nanu ?/Harrell/Wiltjer Ariza/Dekker Harden/Gordon Paul/Pat I mean, on the win now argument about Paul, i dont' see us being ahead of them tbh, i hope to be wrong but eh... About the Parker/Brooklyn part i don't know, i guess 15M to spend would be good, i could try to sign a couple of interesting players for cheap and/or to a team friendly contract, but is that even possible for the Nets? Not sure as today interesting players are already willing to pick them ahead of other teams...i might be wrong but i still don't see it...i agree with you that Anderson is basically garbage, and that a late 1st with a late 2nd is not a particularly good package, but we're still talking about two picks for a rebuilding team without picks...Marks should also be a decent drafter if he learned something in San Antonio. If you have nothing better on the table, why not? I mean, aside that Landry and Thompson were absolutely marginal players and both with a multiyear deal (if i remember well...?), that Sixers/Kings trade was laughed at for a reason (the Kings of course), i wouldn't expect that to be the norm. Also about Parker, if he comes back in January and he actually plays well, maybe you would still be able to trade him and get a little asset back...maybe ****ed up teams like New York (hell, they actually traded a decent/good starting center on a good contract for Rose...and i'm not even a big fan of RoLo) would take him, if not well, you still have 15M more in cap space in 12 months and you have a solid veteran around LeVert, Jefferson, Whithead and whoever else they have. To me, again, without better offers on the table, it wouldn't be bad in their situation. PS. sorry for missing the quotes but it's very late here and i'm about to die lol
