First of all they say Tony will be looking for a max deal after his current, $13.5 million, contract expires at the end of the next season. A max contract? That's ridiculous. Either his agent is feeding him fantasies or the source/journalist don't know what they're talking about. Moving on, we see they neglect to understand that George Hill didn't take Parker's starting job because Hill was a better player.
[T]here are reports that San Antonio would consider trading Tony Parker, who lost his starting job to Hill
Now let's look at salaries shall we? Parker, as I said above, is making $13.5 million next season. The only current Knick making over $4 million next year is Eddy Curry's carcass. That means the Spurs would have to take on Curry's contract in order to make a Parker trade work (or involve a third team). The question becomes do they value Galinari and/or Chandler as much as they value Parker. It's a rhetorical question. Of course the answer is "not a chance in hell."
The only thing that would change all this would be a third team. But in that case, they'd have to be offering a similar talent-wise player to Parker. I just don't see it happening unless a player really wants to play in NY or San Antonio. It just doesn't make sense from the respective front offices' points of view.
Update: Should clarify that the Knicks can take on more salary since they're under the cap. The issues comes to be the Spurs would want more than just one player (Knicks won't give Galinari AND Chandler) and Curry's contract is expiring. Still, he won't play so basically they're flushing that money down the drains for next season. It's not gonna happen.
Could the Knickerbockers use a quality PG? For damn sure, but they don't have the assets to get a deal done right now...they've positioned themselves to be FA players, not traders
ReplyDeleteThat's the main point. The Spurs would have to take Gallinari and/or Chandler. As good as those two CAN BE, they're not of the same value as Parker. The NY Daily News needs new sources.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete