Trading Tony Parker

For some reason, Spurs fans have decided that Tony Parker is a necessary evil.  Ever since he was a rookie, fans have wished for a different point guard.  I have fallen into the same trap.  If I see a guy with a Tony Parker jersey, I think, “That’s a guy who likes the player not the team.”  For some reason, Parker seems to illustrate the selfish, me-first star that Spurs fans love to hate.  He’s considered a “shoot-first” point guard who should pass the ball more to Manu.  We’ve never accepted that Parker is the best option for the Spurs to have.  Are there “better” point guards out there?

Let’s take a look at the career statistics for Parker:

- Points Per Game: 16.7

- Assists Per Game: 5.6

- Turnovers Per Game: 2.5

- Field Goal %: 49%

It’s fairly obvious that Parker is asked to score in the Spurs system.  Doing so with a 49% field goal percentage and a effective field goal percentage of 51% means he does this very efficiently.  His ability to get into the paint frees up both Tim Duncan and Manu Ginobili.  It also gives people like Matt Bonner and Bruce Bowen (RIP – retired in peace) open 3 pointers.  The offense runs efficiently because three players on the Spurs are able to get into the paint nearly at will.

Well, because we didn’t win the championship this year, there have been rumors that Tony Parker would be traded.  Kelly Dwyer, over at Ball Don’t Lie, has said,

Trading Tony Parker? It’s worth exploring. Technically, Parker should be in his prime, but his status may have taken a dip with a flat 2009-10. He has a year left on his contract and could be perfect for a veteran team trying to get over the hump offensively, like the Spurs, but the returns would have to be perfect. “The returns” also involve George Hill(notes) playing full time point guard, and two seasons in, I just don’t know if he has that in him.

It’s definitely worth looking into.  If you can bring a superstar like perhaps Bosh, Wade, Lebron in, that might be beneficial to the Spurs.  But the problem is that losing TP means that you’re losing one of the most effective point guard in the NBA.  He, in my own humble opinion, is the third best point guard in the NBA.  Yes, I think he’s better for the Spurs than Rondo, Paul, Nelson, and Kidd would be for the Spurs.

I think he’s better at finishing at the rim than Kidd and Nelson.  I think he’s less of a ballhog than Paul and on par defender with Kidd, Paul and Nelson.  He shoots a higher percentage than Rondo from 18 feet which is hugely helpful for the Spurs.  Now, I must qualify that if I had 3rd pick in a draft where you had to take a point guard first that I would choose Parker.  But, if I had Manu and Duncan, it would be a tossup between Parker and Rondo.

So, who would I take in a heartbeat for Parker?  Deron Williams and Steve Nash.

Deron William:

I’ll be going through a few pros and cons with these two point guards which will (hopefully) explain why I would want them.

Pros:

1. He’s the second best defender at the point guard position.  Rondo is the only defender that is better.  Jennings is pretty good as well.  But, you have a big strong body that is very good at keeping an opposing point guard in front of him.

2. He’s big and strong and fast.  Everyone fawns over Tyreke Evans size and strength.  Deron Williams was there first.  Especially in this past playoff series against the Nuggets, he’s been dominant.

3. He can shoot the three very effectively.  If there’s one thing that Parker has never been able to do well, it’s hit 3 pointers efficiently.  If the Spurs could have anything they wanted, it would be another 3 point shooter.

4. He plays in a system.  He doesn’t hold the ball for 18 seconds waiting for someone to move like Lebron James does.  He doesn’t dribble around until Tyson Chandler jumps for the lob like Paul does.  He plays the point guard position like a guy who controls the flow of the game, similar to Parker.  Williams just does it better than Parker.

Steve Nash:

Pros:

1. He’s a lights out shooter from all areas.  Nash would be the best offensive option, if the Spurs wanted to trade for him.  He does over-dribble but he also shows a willingness to give up the ball to his teammates.

2. He knows how to run the pick and roll.

Cons:

1. He’s old.  While he does take care of his body, anyone else but the Phoenix training staff might destroyed Nash a few years ago.  If the Spurs traded for him, I would expect his back to spontaneously combust in the midst of tightly contested series between the Spurs and Lakers.

2. He’s a poor individual defender.  He has trouble with quick point guards even if he is an average team defender.

In any case, I wouldn’t trade Parker for anyone but those two and it would have to have a few other pieces to trade for Nash.  So when you hear people saying, “Parker sucks!  Trade him for Calderon or Billups.”  Realize that these guys are speaking out of their butts and don’t know a thing about how basketball works.

Advertisement