Crazy⑧s
Evacuee
I don't get it. Why would they take Curry for Parker?
Curry's contract and Parker's contract are both expiring. I would think the Spurs could get a lot more for Parker than Curry.
The Spurs don't really have any unwanted long-term contracts that we could take off their hands in return for Parker.
The only way we get Parker is if we sign-and-trade Lee. I suppose we could sign-and-trade Harrington but I doubt it.
So, is Lee worth Parker?
I was tripping... Looked at the Spurs salary sheet and mixed Manu with Parker. It's Manu whose contract goes in to 2013.:smokin:
Man.... Lee for Tony? I'd have to say no for a couple reasons.
In a league stacked with PGs I'd prefer to keep one the NBA's best rebounders/front court passers for sure. Tony's more a scorer than a dimer. Much prefer to have a prototypical PG - pass first etc. And considering we have Douglas (not that he's a prototypical PG), I'd prefer to maintain youth over championship experience and the likelihood of a re-injured Parker.
Bit of (paranoid Knick fan) risk assessment I know. Parker is a finals MVP and an exemplary paint scorer never mind the quickness and the running 1 hander etc. But injuries are worrisome as it gets after a decade of disappointment.
So, Lee + Toney > Tony and no Lee. Which is a massive call, but I see less chance of another big contract burning the team due to unfortunate circumstances.
If Bosh or Stat were in the mix with Parker, then that'd be a different story.
Lee, Parker and Eva's tar tars would be magic. Dream on white boy.
I've checked NY's salary sheet, and Harrington's 2011 column is empty: no qualifiers or team options. So is he eligible for a S&T? SA need a SF, and have Hill on the rise, but that's just poor +/- and the Spurs have always been top of the chain in decision making.