This week, the Spurs Roundup will look ahead to the 2010-11 NBA season and break down the five most important questions of the offseason. Here's Part One:
I have written unpopular things before. I have written things that have made people angry, or upset, or confused. I have written things that have created an e-mail backwash that took weeks to unclog.
This morning, I have cleared my e-mail inbox in advance of what I am about to say:
I think the Spurs need to trade Tony Parker.
The Dilemma
The Spurs need to improve their depth at the power forward and center positions, as their current starters in those two spots have a combined quarter century of NBA experience. They need to add a three-point shooter (or two), and they're in need of an upgrade at small forward.
They also need to do all of this while facing an uncomfortable reality: the San Antonio Spurs have no money to spend.
And here is an even more uncomfortable truth: two seasons from now, when Tony Parker becomes a free agent, the Spurs may not be able to afford him anyway. (More on this in a minute.)
See, an NBA roster can have up to 15 players on it at any time. For 2010, the Spurs have guaranteed eight players a contract. Those players are:
Antonio McDyess -- owed $4.86 million
DeJuan Blair -- $918,000
George Hill -- $1.16 million
Malik Hairston -- $854,389
Manu Ginobili -- $11.8 million
Richard Jefferson -- $15.2 million
Tim Duncan -- $18.7 million
Tony Parker -- $13.5 million
That's $53,178,000 already owed for 2010-11. By comparison, the 2009-10 Spurs paid out $79 million in total salaries. Next season, they’ll probably spend a similar amount on their roster.
Keep in mind that the contracts of three key bench players -- Roger Mason, Jr., Keith Bogans and Matt Bonner -- will expire this summer. Any of them could be brought back, though based on the way the Spurs used all three in the playoffs, I'd bet that only Bonner will be re-signed. If he is, that brings Spurs to probably $56 million on the books, with about $20 million left to sign the remaining six players on their roster.
Now, before I get to the rationale behind trading Tony Parker, here's a brief aside. One of two things could happen that could save the Spurs some serious cash and allow the team to keep Parker. Those things are:
1. Antonio McDyess retires: In April, McDyess told AOL Fanhouse that "my odds are no" about the chances of him playing out the remaining two years of his contract. He said it's likely that 2010-11 will be his last. But note what Richard Jefferson said in the same article: "I wouldn't be surprised if he quit after this year. You never know with him.'' If McDyess announced his retirement, he'd save the Spurs some serious cash. He's owed $10.08 million over the next two seasons.
2. Richard Jefferson opts out: Jefferson has an early termination option for 2010-11. What that means is that he has the option of turning down his contract and becoming an unrestricted free agent. But to do that, he'd have to turn down the $15.2 million he's owed for next season. Think any NBA teams out there will offer that kind of money to a free agent who just averaged 12.3 points and 4.4 rebounds per game? Unless Jefferson decides that he's fed up with Texas (and the state's lack of income tax), he's not going anywhere.
Which brings me to George Hill.
The Man From IUPUI
Two years ago, when the Spurs drafted Hill, he was just a lanky project from a school with strange initials. But Hill took an enormous leap forward in Year 2. His per-game numbers:
- 2008-09: 16.5 minutes, 7 games started, 40.3 FG%, 32.9 3PT%, 5.7 points, 2.1 rebounds, 1.8 assists
- 2009-10: 29.2 minutes, 43 games started, 47.8 FG%, 39.9 3PT%, 12.4 points, 2.6 rebounds, 2.9 assists
And in games that Hill started (many of which came while Parker was injured): 15.3 points, 48.6% FG, 3.1 rebounds, 3.6 assists
Hill turned 24 last week, and he's still adjusting to playing the point for Gregg Popovich. So just for comparison's sake, I dug through the NBA's all-time assist leaders. Here's when each of them made their biggest statistical leap:
John Stockton made the leap in his fourth year, between age 24 and 25. In his third NBA season, he averaged 8.2 assists per game. In Year 4, he jumped up to 13.8 assists per game, and averaged double-digit assist totals for the next decade.
Jason Kidd made the leap in his fifth year, between age 24 and 25. In his fourth season, he averaged 11.6 points and 9.1 assists per game. In Year 5, he averaged 16.9 points and 10.8 assists per game.
Magic Johnson made the leap in Year 4, between age 22 and 23. He hit double-digit assist totals that year, and he continued to average at least 10.5 assists for the next nine seasons.
Isiah Thomas made the leap in his third year, between age 21 and 22. He reached 11.1 assists per game that season, and when he was 23, he dished out a career-high 13.9 assists per game.
Gary Payton made the leap in his fifth year, between age 25 and 26. In his fifth year, he averaged more than 20 points and seven assists per game for the first time.
Steve Nash made the leap in his fifth year, between age 25 and 26. That year -- in his first year as a full starter -- he averaged 15.8 points and 7.3 assists (up from 8.6 points and 4.9 assists the year before).
And then, finally, there's Rod Strickland, who was traded to the Spurs during his second year in the NBA. He made the leap in his third year, between age 23 and 24. He averaged 13.8 points and 8.0 rebounds per game that season.
(The outliers among the top 10 all-time in assists: Mark Jackson, who only averaged double-digit assists for three seasons, but played 21 seasons overall; Oscar Robertson was 0.3 assists away from averaging a triple-double in his rookie season, so it's safe to say he made the leap a bit earlier than most; and Maurice Cheeks, who never averaged double-digit assists but played in the pros for 17 seasons.)
Point is, many of the best passers in NBA history have one thing in common: they all started peaking between their third and fifth seasons, which came between ages 22 and 26.
George Hill is entering his third season, and he's just 24. Historically speaking, he's exactly where those great NBA point guards entered their prime. He's more than capable of averaging 15 to 17 points and 4 to 6 assists per game next year – if he’s a starter. Which brings me back to Tony Parker.
The French Situation
Parker turns 28 next week. When he's healthy, he's still one of the NBA's 10 best point guards. In 56 games this year, he averaged 16.0 points and 5.7 assists per game. But he also shot 29.4 percent from three-point range, and as fans learned in the Phoenix series, the Spurs badly need their guards to shoot the ball well from three.
2010-11 is the last year on Parker's contract. He's owed $13.5 million -- a monstrous sum, to be sure -- but not so much for an elite passer in his 20s.
But Parker is also entering a contract year. He’ll be a free agent after next season, and that’s a tough break for the Spurs. Why? Because they might not be able to afford him.
It’s a matter of simple math. In 2011-12, if the Spurs were to re-sign Parker, they’d be paying :
Duncan -- $21.3 million
Ginobili -- $12.9 million
Parker – likely $13-$15 million
And their ages on Opening Night:
Duncan -- 35
Ginobili – 34
Parker – 29
So step into Spurs general manger R.C. Buford’s shoes. Does it make sense to pay nearly $50 million to three men who’ll then be a combined 98 years old?
What it comes down to is that if Buford keeps Parker on the roster next season, he’ll go into following offseason facing two options:
1. Pay Parker market value, which could be very steep, and build around an aging and expensive trio.
2. Watch Parker sign elsewhere and get nothing in return.
Isn’t the more sensible option – the option that allows the Spurs to continue to build for the future – the one in which they get something in return for their star point guard?
The Options
The Spurs certainly could try to make a straight point guard for point guard trade. Problem is, Parker's contract brings on all sorts of complications. Only nine NBA point guards, including Parker, will make more than $10 million next season, and those other point guards aren’t on the market. What's more likely is that the Spurs use Parker to try to fill needs elsewhere, trading Parker for depth at shooting guard, small forward or power forward. The Spurs could then look for reinforcements at point guard via the draft (a topic that I'll explore at length tomorrow).
Such a trade would need to involve multiple teams and multiple players. From a buyer’s perspective, Parker is essentially a one-year rental. If you’re trading for him, you’re hoping that he’s the final piece needed to make a playoff run, because in 2011-12, he’s off to the highest bidder. So the Spurs are looking for one of two things:
1. A player with multiple years left on his contract. (Say, the keep-on-dreaming scenario of Minnesota's Al Jefferson, with three years left on his deal. Or the more plausible David West, currently on the Hornets.)
2. A similar one-year rental plus draft picks and/or cash, with the player being cheap enough to re-sign in 2011-12. (So: Cleveland’s J.J. Hickson, Golden State’s Anthony Randolph or Sacramento’s Carl Landry.)
There are some complications, though. Some of the teams that seem likeliest to make a trade – like Chicago or New York – are also the teams likeliest to be bidding on this year’s free agents. Where LeBron James, Dwayne Wade, Chris Bosh and others land will completely change the trade landscape.
But it also could make the losing bidder more likely to make a desperate move for top-tier player, the sell being, We didn’t get LeBron, but we did trade for Star Player X. Let's say Chicago misses out on their free agent targets. It's possible that the Bulls could go all-in and trade some combination of Luol Deng, Taj Gibson and picks for Parker.
That could work in San Antonio’s favor
If they want to make a trade.
Final Thought
For the Spurs, this isn't an ideal situation. They don't want to get rid of their starting point guard. But if the Spurs want to contend beyond 2010-11, they're going to need some younger talent. Parker's the kind of star player who would give the Spurs impressive return on the dollar in a trade.
It won't be a popular move in San Antonio, but it is one that opens the door for an up-and-coming point guard. The future with Hill -- despite his lackluster play in the Suns series -- is very bright.
Think of it this way: the Spurs would be giving up a lot by trading Parker. But for another team to get Parker, they're going to have give up just as much. A trade could bring draft picks and some exciting new talent to South Texas.
Your move, Mr. Buford.
Your Reaction
If you've come this far, maybe you can come a little farther. Send me your thoughts at doshinsky@kens5.com. I'll try to respond to all emails, and I'll especially respond to thoughtful emails that offer insight or non-profane commentary. The best responses may be featured in a future Roundup column.
