Bill Simmons suggest we trade for Tony Parker

Mayoistooslow · Post #1 » by **Mayoistooslow** » Fri May 22, 2009 5:38 pm

"Now, you're Minnesota. You have three keepers: Al Jefferson, Kevin Love and Randy Foye. (Note: I still like Corey Brewer but let's see how he recovers from his ACL injury.) You are a joke of a franchise with an owner who has one of the poorest reputations in the league and a fan base that doesn't care, namely because you hire failed GMs and coaches, recycle them, then expect the fans to care. Jefferson could be the best guy on a contender, Love could be the third-best guy and Foye could be a starter or a sixth man. But you're not winning anything if that's your top three. Too young, not quite talented enough. You need to acquire an experienced blue-chipper who can show everyone else the way (shades of Ray Allen and KG in Boston). And you have no chance of landing a marquee free agent because NBA players want no part of Sota when they can play for a well-run franchise in a warm city. Thanks anyway.

So what do you do? You have to bowl someone over with a big-time offer. That's why you call San Antonio and say, "We'll give you Foye, our No. 6 pick and Brian Cardinal's 2010 expiring contract for Parker." Note: The deal can't work until July 1."

That would solve our pg problem and we'd still be able to pick a decent player at 18 or trade up using the 18/28 pick...won't happen but it's a decent enough idea.

john2jer · Post #2 » by **john2jer** » Fri May 22, 2009 5:51 pm

No way San Antonio does it.

Also, can you tell how bitter Bill Simmons is because everyone thinks he's a joke with his GM campaign? Wait for next year with the new team he falls in love with, just because they have an opening.

Post #3 » by **Calinks** » Fri May 22, 2009 5:52 pm

What's up with the "we" talk? And I doubt SA would trade Parker for Foye. There is only like a 1-2 year difference between them in age. I don't know what SA would want to bad at 6 that they would trade Parker for it.

cpfsf · Post #4 » by **cpfsf** » Fri May 22, 2009 5:54 pm

Mayoistooslow wrote:That would solve our pg problem and we'd still be able to pick a decent player at 18 or trade up using the 18/28 pick...won't happen but it's a decent enough idea.

I feel like I wasted time reading this after he made this his conclusion.

funkatron101 · Post #5 » by **funkatron101** » Fri May 22, 2009 5:55 pm

That doesn't get Parker. That would get laughed at on the trade board.

Post #6 » by **revprodeji** » Fri May 22, 2009 6:33 pm

If we made a run at parker it would need to be because San An is blowing up. (*which means they would likely build around parker) and we would need to give the farm. 6, 18, Utah, Pekovic,Love etc, etc

It makes no sense unless there is a reason San An wants to move him.

john2jer · Post #7 » by **john2jer** » Fri May 22, 2009 6:39 pm

Now the more that I think about this article from Simmons, the more annoyed I get. He shows right here how unqualified and out of touch he is to be a GM. So all those people who were advocating him are basically just pushing the fanboi's dream.

Unfortunately, or maybe fortunately, it takes more than just being a "really big fan" to be a successful GM.

Simmons needs to stick to writing articles for ESPN.

the_bruce · Post #8 » by **the_bruce** » Fri May 22, 2009 6:41 pm

john2jer wrote:Simmons needs to stick to writing articles for ESPN.

He should actually stop doin that too!

john2jer · Post #9 » by **john2jer** » Fri May 22, 2009 6:44 pm

bruceallen61 wrote:
john2jer wrote:Simmons needs to stick to writing articles for ESPN.

He should actually stop doin that too!

Unfortunatly that's probably not an option. And to be honest, I think the letters people write in to him are pretty funny, and we need to keep Billy-boy around to get those letters.

Post #10 » by **Worm Guts** » Fri May 22, 2009 6:50 pm

revprodeji wrote:If we made a run at parker it would need to be because San An is blowing up. (*which means they would likely build around parker) and we would need to give the farm. 6, 18, Utah, Pekovic,Love etc, etc

It makes no sense unless there is a reason San An wants to move him.

I don't know that we'd need to give up the farm, Parker isn't an MVP caliber player, he's a borderline all-star. If they asked for Love + 6, I'm not sure if I'd do it.

funkatron101 · Post #11 » by **funkatron101** » Fri May 22, 2009 6:58 pm

Worm Guts wrote:
revprodeji wrote:If we made a run at parker it would need to be because San An is blowing up. (*which means they would likely build around parker) and we would need to give the farm. 6, 18, Utah, Pekovic,Love etc, etc

It makes no sense unless there is a reason San An wants to move him.

I don't know that we'd need to give up the farm, Parker isn't an MVP caliber player, he's a borderline all-star. If they asked for Love + 6, I'm not sure if I'd do it.

I would if we could get a decent big a #18.

MN Die Hard · Post #12 » by **MN Die Hard** » Fri May 22, 2009 6:59 pm

john2jer wrote:
bruceallen61 wrote:
john2jer wrote:Simmons needs to stick to writing articles for ESPN.

He should actually stop doin that too!

Unfortunatly that's probably not an option. And to be honest, I think the letters people write in to him are pretty funny, and we need to keep Billy-boy around to get those letters.

Yeah his GM talk is just a joke, but I still enjoy his columns sometimes, at least the ones where he doesnt get too self righteous. His fan mail is pretty annoying sometimes too....you can tell most of the Simmons Herd just regurgitate his thoughts and opinions and send it back to him, just get see their names in print.

shrink · Post #13 » by **shrink** » Fri May 22, 2009 7:06 pm

Agreed. I think the Parker talk is just schtick, because the Spurs would never trade him while they ride Duncan for his last couple of years.

I hope this doesn't mean we see Simmons slding in one-liners next year at Kahn, saying, "see - if they only hired me, Tony Parker would have them in the play-off hunt right now"

Mayoistooslow · Post #14 » by **Mayoistooslow** » Fri May 22, 2009 7:43 pm

He makes a decent argument to why the Spurs would do it. They're on the decline...can't trade Duncan because franchise owes him, needs to try to blow things up before they fall off in the western conf. shows a historical reference to the Celtics not trading McHale when they should have etc. etc.

john2jer · Post #15 » by **john2jer** » Fri May 22, 2009 8:50 pm

The difference would be that the Celtics had Larry Bird AND Reggie Lewis. Spurs have Duncan, and no young stars on their way up besides Parker. A better connection would be trading Manu.

Esohny · Post #16 » by **Esohny** » Fri May 22, 2009 8:59 pm

Well, I sent him an email explaining that his argument that "I wouldn't be any worse than McHale and the timberwolves are irrelevant" isn't particularly strong, since this guy might be better than McHale:

(1 beep for yes, 2 for no)
http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e75/M ... /pike2.jpg

But that doesn't mean he's qualified. He hasn't responded, but I'm sure it's just a matter of time.

Mayoistooslow · Post #17 » by **Mayoistooslow** » Fri May 22, 2009 9:11 pm

Personally, I feel there are plenty of posters on this board that could have run the team better in the last 5 years (not joking). Come on...tons of us would've taken Granger over McCants, Gay/Roy over Foye, Howard over Ebi.

Krapinsky · Post #18 » by **Krapinsky** » Fri May 22, 2009 11:20 pm

Simmons is stupid. He needs to quit proposing trades that center around three first round picks. Ian Thomsen does that too. If you're going to be a writer proposing trades you need to know the basic rules or you have zero credibility.

cutthecrap · Post #19 » by **cutthecrap** » Sat May 23, 2009 2:30 am

For what it's worth...

As a T-wolves fan living in Texas, the Spurs are looking to 'change'...but trading Parker is not a change they are looking for. However, they would be willing to trade Manu in the right deal. Manu is somewhat of an enigma...he is sensational at times, but is also hurt for a considerable amount of time.

The Spurs may consider this same deal of Foye, Cardinal and #6 for Manu...would the Wolves?

As a Wolves fan, I would not be a fan of this deal...

tviper · Post #20 » by **tviper** » Sat May 23, 2009 5:19 am

Yes, the Wolves would have to do that trade. Foye is essentially playing the 2 anyway, and Manu is a gigantic upgrade. Only sticking point is that Manu is in the last year of his deal so you would need to work out an extension before the trade...little risky due to injury issues, but IMO worth the risk to take us to the next level...his scoring ability and "go to" status would fill a huge hole that this team has currently...