Is Tony Parker a franchise player?
Steal this album...
Not that Tony Parker is sweating a 2010 All-Star snub — I’m guessing he’d rather spend the winter weekend curled up with Eva Longoria instead of getting booed every time he touches the ball in Spurs-hating Dallas — but TP nonetheless issued a late reminder yesterday that he shouldn’t be forgotten in All-Star talk.
On paper, Parker went against nemesis Chris Paul and gave him 25 points while snapping the Hornets’ seven-game home win streak. In reality, CP and TP rarely guarded each other; but no matter who was in front of him, Parker thrived. He scored 16 in the first half as the Spurs built a sizable lead, then added nine in the fourth quarter as his team withstood a late New Orleans rally.
Parker (16.8 ppg, 5.6 apg, 48% FG) isn’t necessarily having a down year — his numbers are right in line with his career averages — but he hasn’t been as explosive as he was last season when he set career-highs in scoring and assists and shot over 50 percent from the floor, either. Couple in that the Spurs (25-15) haven’t been as dominant as some predicted, and TP has gone back to being overlooked in those “Best point guard” arguments: During a recent Hornets/Pacers game, the Indiana broadcast ran a poll asking who is the NBA’s top PG, with Steve Nash, Jason Kidd and CP as the three options. No mention of the guy who has a trophy case all three of them would give a finger for.
But on a night like Monday, when TP is the best player on the floor, we get a look into the future, where Tony Parker is a marquee name and a franchise centerpiece. And where do the Spurs go from there?
Obviously, everything depends on Tim Duncan. Although he’s still putting up 20 points and 10 boards every night, Duncan does turn 34 in April, and the end of the road has to at least be in his vision. Duncan has two more years left on his contract; Parker has one. So when TP becomes a free agent in 2011 — knowing TD could only be in San Antonio for one year after that — would he want to go somewhere else and start fresh (a sign-and-trade to the Clippers for Baron Davis makes sense on multiple levels), or help Duncan go out on top and wait his turn to be The Man in San Antonio?
This might be the new Golden Era of point guards, but so far history shows teams constructed around a point guard don’t win championships. Isiah Thomas pulled it off with Detroit (‘89, ‘90), but since then, title teams have revolved around big men and wings. You could argue Chauncey Billups was the top player on the ‘04 Pistons, but he wasn’t the franchise guy. That team didn’t really have one, and Ben Wallace was the heart and soul. For today’s elite PG’s, the ones who are the focal points of their team find themselves in middle-of-the-pack situations or worse: Deron Williams (Jazz), Derrick Rose (Bulls), Brandon Jennings (Bucks), Chris Paul (Hornets), Tyreke Evans (Kings), and Gilbert Arenas (Wizards) before he found bigger problems to deal with. Nash’s Suns are looking strong this year, but we’ve been down that road before.
Can Tony Parker put up All-Star numbers as the centerpiece of a franchise? Sure. Can a team with Parker as the main guy contend for a ‘chip? As much as I like his game, I’d say no. If Parker is to add another ring to his collection post-Duncan, he’ll have to find another Duncan.
January 19th, 2010 at 10:07 am
clay says:
no, no way are you winning a ring if he’s your best player
January 19th, 2010 at 10:09 am
Brown says:
I almost laughed when I read the title, but I completely agree with your reasoning. He’s a great player, but not the centerpiece to a championship team.
January 19th, 2010 at 10:14 am
ToAn says:
i can just re-post my comment from yesterday here
“January 18th, 2010 at 11:05 am
ToAn says:
i don’t think that Rondo is in the same class as DWill/CP3 or Nash but you just can’t say that because of his nonexistent jumpshot he is nothing..he is avg. 14 / 9.6 / 4 / 2.5 steals per game, that is definitely above average…but i don’t think his team would be any good if he was the best player on the team, that is the same problem i have with Parker, without duncan they would suck even if parker would score a lot of points. but we will never know until duncan/garnett/pierce and allen are gone and parker/ rondo will have to prove themselves once again”
so no he isn’t and won’t be a franchise player, he is at best a great second option.
January 19th, 2010 at 10:21 am
SJ says:
With the correct pieces around him, you can definitely make a chip team. However, you would need another star with him to make that happen. TP can still be the main star and he has proven he can carry a team, but you’ll never see a team with only one great player win a chip.
January 19th, 2010 at 10:38 am
muwu says:
You fail to mention that Tony is doing all the above while suffering through plantar fasciitis in his left foot.
January 19th, 2010 at 10:38 am
control says:
I think TP is a great player and the main thing about him right now is that he works so perfectly with Tim Duncan. I don’t think he would be garbage without Tim Duncan, but he definitely benefits from his presence, not to mention he is the perfect point guard for Pop’s system.
TP is one of those guards who needs a system for him, instead of being like Jason Kidd where he can play in any system. TP needs to have a system that works inside out, with a very good low post presence and a big who can toss the ball back out very well. Who knows, Tony might be a great point guard in another system, but I think he would suffer a little bit like AI did when he was moved outside of a system built for him. When AI was taken from a system that was built around him, he suffered and borderline sucked (or was exposed for how selfish he is). I don’t think TP would have it quite as bad, but I think it would reduce his effectiveness.
To answer the question, TP is a great guard and deserves to be in the top5 discussion…but he isn’t going to be ‘the man’ for a championship team.
January 19th, 2010 at 10:41 am
ballin says:
I fully agree that Parker is at best a good 2nd option (and if he’s the 3rd option, even better, because a team with Parker as the 3rd option would probably be contenders even if everybody else on the team was scrubs). But you can’t win with him being your go-to player… he needs a marquee big man to play along with in order to get a chip.
It’s not a knock on him, but really that’s just the way the position works in general. Chris Paul isn’t going anywhere as his team’s first option, and neither is Deron Williams. Nash is getting it done as best as he can as a 2nd option (Amare being the first) but even Nash would need another dominant player to get a chip. Read that again: Nash, a two-time MVP, would NEED to be the 3rd option to win it all. That speaks more to the limits of the point guard position than to Nash’s ability as a player.
Which is why point guards shouldn’t be paid max money… if they’re your number 1 option, you’re usually not gonna win much. And nobody can really even say that Chauncey was the #1 option on that champion Pistons team… that team was so balanced and stacked there really was no #1, and it was pretty much a fluke as far as the championship-winning formula goes. That’s why GM’s try to emulate the Spurs, and nobody tries to win it the way the Pistons did.
For what it’s worth, the Cavs are obviously a poseur team with Mo Williams as the number 2 option. If he’s seriously your number 2 option, there’s just not enough firepower. We all know it isn’t Cleveland’s excellent defense that’s the problem. They just need a real number 2 option that’s not Mo, and it isn’t Shaq and it’s definitely not Varejao. I don’t even know if it’s possible for Cleveland to get/trade for a player of that caliber, but it’s what they’d need to win.
Right now, the only 3 teams that fit the mold are the Lakers, Boston, and the Magic. That’s why it’s so obvious one of these teams will win the title, and right now it’s looking like hte Lakers, as much as I hate to say it.
January 19th, 2010 at 10:57 am
Sanssasin says:
Franchise Player?? Nope.
Awesome point guard and possibly the 2nd go-to guy, YES.
You made some good points Austin, but take a non-biased look and you would come to the same conclusion.
January 19th, 2010 at 11:02 am
rangerjohn says:
ok austin, you had me all the way till you said baron davis to SA. NO WAY IN HELL! TP stays and the spurs use the $$$$$ they will have to work on a GOOD big. there will be no replacement for duncan but how good would the spurs be after he is gone with a gasol type or an al jefferson. jeffersons contract ends in 2013, so it is not crazy to think the spursw could push for him. this is all contingent on the development of george hill as well. who knows hill could pass TP but i expect he becomes the starting 2.
the spurs will be fine without duncan in the future, my question is more what are they going to do without pop.
January 19th, 2010 at 11:23 am
Ian says:
ballin
perfect post that second paragraph was what i wanted to post.
parker was the third option till manu started breaking down and the spurs were by far the best team in the league during that time.
i dont know if the article is tryin to say that parker cant carry a manu and td less spurs because who can really? now if you give him a second tier pf like booz or west he can do the same thing deron and paul are doing. lets say you put parker in the 03-08 pistons for billups he would be the best player on a 5 star team and they could be contenders. so it depends on the situation but a pg winning being the best on his team? its too hard not for parker only but for nash , cp3 , kidd , deron all of them.
now the way duncan plays he will prob go kareem on the league and parker would retire first.
sj
one superstar winning without any other star i can remember one how about the 03 spurs. david robindon was a tenth the player he used to be and parker and manu werent great still. how many teams have won with one allstar?
January 19th, 2010 at 11:26 am
Ian says:
btw austin i dont want baron “mini antoine walker” davis near the spurs. how the hell is that a win win situation?
January 19th, 2010 at 11:33 am
Spliff 2 My Lou says:
I read a rumor on hoopshype last week that San Antonio knowing New Orleans desire to shed salary offered Parker straight up for Chris Paul and New Orleans declined. I never saw anything mentioned about it on Dime.
January 19th, 2010 at 11:33 am
Chaos says:
TP is a one of the top 5 pgs in the league when he is fully healthy but is he a franchise guy to lead a team to the chip. No he isn’t, he is a player that needs a dominant low post player to keep defenses honest. His game depends so much on his speed since he drives to the bucket alot to finish. If he doesn’t have duncan to keep the D honest, then he can’t finish. Sure he has a jump shot but he can’t rely on it. Plus i think he works well in Pops system. Manu is the other “main” player on the team which i think he also needs as a third option. CP3 does almost everything for his team and he cant win like that. Shit, LBJ does almost everything for his team and they wont win like that unless some one gives him some real aa-star help (sorry Mo but you arent a real all-star in my eyes)
January 19th, 2010 at 11:35 am
Spliff 2 My Lou says:
By the way great points made by ballin on his post.
January 19th, 2010 at 12:05 pm
karizmatic says:
The theory still holds that the easiest way to win a championship in basketball is if your best player is a big man…no matter what anyone says if you look at the past decade Shaq has 4 rings and TD has 4 if you go back to ‘99 You could also argue that Boston had a dominant man inside with KG so that’s 9 out of 11 championships by teams with a dominant big man actually maybe even 10 out of 11 because even the Lakers had Pau Gasol. You need a dominant big man and then having the point guard as the perimeter threat can work. But it’s not common for a team built around a dominant point guard to win. I don’t think that’s going to change anytime soon. If these point guards really wanted to win rings they would find ways to get themselves on a team with a dominant big, if I were TP I’d be looking to get on Orlando and take Jameer Nelson’s spot.
January 19th, 2010 at 12:18 pm
karizmatic says:
But I also would agree that having a top point guard is not the way to win rings. Actually you don’t even need an upper echelon point guard to win anything. What you need is a nice perimeter threat and a dominant post player. The rest you can work around. In any case basketball just wasn’t designed that way. The point guard is the point guard for a reason. He’s not supposed to score all the points and be the number one option he’s just supposed to manage the game, if the point guard is the number one option no matter who it is, it is more likely that you will not be able to make it all the way through the playoffs.
January 19th, 2010 at 12:27 pm
Ian says:
karizmatic
well your perimeter threat can come from pg , sg or sf the only constant thing you need is a dominant big. so what you said applies to the three positions i mentioned.
we cant say that a top big paired with a great sg is better than pairing him with a great pg or sf.
the only exception i can remember are the bulls but they had pippen as their pointf so that gave them a superstar pg and they didnt need a dominant big because they never faced (other than shaq in 95 and 96 and they went 1-1) a dominant big(ewing wasnt a dominant big like dave or hakeem btw).
January 19th, 2010 at 12:37 pm
karizmatic says:
@ Ian
I’m not disagreeing with you there. That’s actually more my personal preference than anything else. Unless I had Magic I’d pick a Kobe or a Wade or an LBJ or a Melo to go with my dominant big man as opposed to a Nash or CP3 or Deron Williams or TP. But that’s really my preference I would rather my point guard be a 3rd option if he was that good.
January 19th, 2010 at 1:09 pm
Ian says:
well you cant go wrong apparently with the combinations
td and tp have won and so have kobe and gasol.
i just find them kinda the same to have a great post player and a very good pg or sg put like you said its my personal preference. btw thats kinda not fair in comparion lbj and wade are better players than the pgs you mentioned we would need to compare them with magic and isiah imo.
January 19th, 2010 at 1:26 pm
karizmatic says:
See for me Magic is tough, actually I’ll tell you why that’s my preference, for me it’s all about initiation of the offense. If your point guard is your first or even second option it is too easy to disrupt the offense in my opinion, because you can trap to get the ball out of the point guard’s hands, then he can’t score nor can he deliver the ball to the guys who can score. This is particularly if you don’t have a good shooting guard. Then you’re left with a situation where guys who aren’t used to or are just simply incapable have to initiate the offense and be trusted to make good decisions. Imo this played out with the Stockton and Malone Jazz, the Payton and Kemp Sonics and to lesser effect with the Nash Marion Stoudamire Suns. So just imo you need that shooting guard or even that small forward who is capable of being a second initiator of the offense. Imo that’s why Pippen and Jordan worked so well with lackluster point guards, I mean Harper or Armstrong or Paxson could initiate the offense but they didn’t have to have that responsibility all the time. That kind of versatility I think is important in a championship team.
With Magic it’s a little different because he was 6′9, I also prefer tall point guards for the Magic aspect. Magic could take his guy to the post where he welcomed a double, because he was excellent at passing the ball out of the post and at the time Worthy, Scott, Green, and Cooper all became guys who could reliably hit an open jumper or cut to the basket, so it became a problem to double Magic if you wanted to treat him as a scorer and get the ball out of his hands. But in the modern game these guys are geared to score as opposed to pass first, or at least that becomes a concern of the point guard once he is up to the second option on offense. As I’ve seen it very few of these guys can pull it off and run the offense efficiently. Isiah did it, Magic did it, but again Magic was 6′9. Not exactly your traditional point guard either.
On the other hand if you have a top calibur shooting guard or small forward you can get by with a sub par point guard because almost any veteran point guard can simply initiate the offense, particularly if he doesn’t have any other duties. So that gives you a couple of different options when it comes to who is going to initiate the offense, and as I said before I think the importance of that versatility in initiating the offense is overlooked in a discussion such as this one.
January 19th, 2010 at 1:48 pm
Ian says:
you are right its easier to win that way i was just sayin that you can win with the pg as your second option itll be harder but i think it can be done.05 07 (except the cleveland finals) parker was the spurs third best player when he moved to number 2 because of manus injuries the spurs still remained stronged but havent won so that kinda adds to your point.
January 19th, 2010 at 2:29 pm
ballin says:
I agree that the combination doesn’t really matter, as long as you have a legit #1 and #2 option.
Kobe is a legit #1, and Gasol is a legit #2, so it works. TD is a legit #1, and Tony is a legit #2, so that also works. Or take Jordan (#1) and Pippen (#2).
The problems crop up when you have a guy like Lebron (#1 option, obviously) paired up with Mo, who’s really a #3 masquerading as a #2.
You pretty much need a #1 player to win it, unless you pull off a fluke like the Pistons. And I think the only definite #1 players out there are Kobe, Dwade, Lebron, KG, Dirk, and TD. Maybe I’m forgetting somebody.
Guys like Carmelo, Kevin Durant, Chris Bosh and Brandon Roy may or may not be that #1 player… it’s tough to tell.
Personally, I think Carmelo is a #1, and Chauncey is #2, so the Nuggets have a shot but a slim one since they lack a true #3 and they face the Lakers in the playoffs who have a legit 1,2,3,4,5. I guess TD and TP have the same problem, now that Manu has fallen off being a #2 or #3. So both the Nuggets and Spurs have a hole in the hierarchical lineup, while the Lakers don’t. So it’s not surprising to see who’s on top.
I also tend to lean more towards Brandon Roy being a #2. He’s like a Paul Pierce to me… he’s great but he needs that #1 player if he’s gonna win it all.
Sorry if all of the numbering is confusing, but I just find it really helpful to think of championship contenders in this sense. It’s completely unscientific, but I think it works and it helps me see what a team is lacking.
January 19th, 2010 at 2:37 pm
ballin says:
Oh, just to add on to what I said above, I really believe in my little numbering system, meaning that I don’t think the position matters. If somebody is a #1, then they’re a #1.
So do I think a team with Kobe (1), Paul Pierce (2), and Tony Parker (3) could win, the 4th and 5th tier players being the big men? Yes, I do.
I’d argue that Pippen and Jordan were basically like that, as a SG and SF. They basically proved that the system works regardless of position, since they won 6 titles without dominant big men. Of course, everybody on the team needs to be able to defend, but that’s a different story altogether. The numbering thing is really only talking about offense, not defense.
January 19th, 2010 at 2:39 pm
control says:
ballin
I agree with 95% of what you said, and it was said very well. Only thing I have to point out, Mo Williams is probably only a #3 on a very shitty team. Guy is realistically a solid #4 or #5 on almost all teams.
January 19th, 2010 at 2:42 pm
ballin says:
Oh and I’m done writing an essay after this post, but…
There are a couple of team like the Duncan team somebody mentioned before and Hakeem with the Rockets that won with a #1 and a bunch of #3’s…. it’s rare but it’s possible.
The even rare exception was the Pistons with a bunch of #2’s… and frankly I’m just labeling that as a fluke since I don’t think there was much sense to it. All of their competition was flawed that year, so they lucked out.
January 19th, 2010 at 2:45 pm
ballin says:
ahh just had to respond to control, then I’m done talking haha
You’re probably right about Mo actually being a #4, but the way I look at it is that the number doesn’t change based on the quality of the team you’re on.
For instance, Lebron is always a #1 option, even if he’s on a team with another #1. So like if he and Kobe played together, yeah one of them would score more points, and maybe one of them would be labeled “the man”, but I’d still consider them both to be #1’s. Get what I mean?
January 19th, 2010 at 2:59 pm
control says:
ballin
Yeah, I get exactly what you mean. I only bring it up because some people fit on teams better than others, enough to actually change their value as a player. They are like, extreme system guys, guys who would normally be #3-5 guys but if paired perfectly, can actually be #2 or #3s effectively and fit into the model you describe as those numbers.
January 19th, 2010 at 3:12 pm
Brian says:
Well Tony has already a good young 4 and 5 (Dejuan Blair) and (Ian mahami) Problem is to find a good 2 and 3(Not necessary Jefferson isnt old)
January 19th, 2010 at 3:57 pm
karizmatic says:
@ Ballin
I happen to think position matters to the extent that if you have two dominant perimeter players you’re less likely to win than if you have one dominant perimeter player and one dominant post player. Unless you have Pippen and Jordan, but even there during the second run for Jordan he was as much a post player as anything else. I think the post presence is the most important thing.
Also I don’t consider Dirk a true #1 option and I don’t think Bosh will pan out to be a number one option either.
January 19th, 2010 at 4:11 pm
Ian says:
karizmatic
dirk is a 1 imo for sure at least over kg
January 19th, 2010 at 4:42 pm
karizmatic says:
Ian
I don’t think KG is a number one either.
January 19th, 2010 at 6:01 pm
control says:
Control
That’s a really good point, I hadn’t thought of that
January 19th, 2010 at 6:28 pm
ctkennedy says:
the real question is how many franchise players r there in the league anyway …i can make a argument that kobe aint a franchise player he only leads when hes happy he dont trust a sole in the world on the court and hes on a team right now with 4 of his teammates that u can say r in the top 50players in the league (gasol odom artest and bynum)what all star wing player couldnt win with that
January 19th, 2010 at 6:44 pm
sh!tfaced says:
Franchise player?! He can’t even take the French national team to the next level. But TP is on a level on his own when it comes to the wifey…
January 19th, 2010 at 9:02 pm
Ian says:
ctkennedy
you are actually right that lineup is top 50 heavy. when bryant had a bad team he did the same thing kg tmac and pierce did carry his team to the first round and yes a lot of sgs can win on that team.
shitfaced
wait whos the second best player on that team?? but let me guess bryant is a monster cuz he carried melo , bron and wade to the next level?
January 19th, 2010 at 9:34 pm
bola says:
TP should replace Mo (f*cking borderline all star) with the Cavs so LBJ can get his ring already..
@ballin
nice way of looking at it
@control
i totally agree re: mo williams.. i’m one of the few people who thinks that the cavs with mo as #2 will never get it done last season.. shallow bench, lame starting five ( i know that they have the best record, so what? got no rings still)
January 20th, 2010 at 12:30 am
sh!tfaced says:
@Ian
Dirk did it with the German team. Yao did it with his Chinese team. Shit, even Hamed Haddadi did it with the Iranian team. Except for Yi (because he’s now an NBA player and now quite well known) feel free to name the second best players for those teams.
January 20th, 2010 at 4:14 am
Alamo says:
This is tough because I am biased but, I’m sick with all the talkings about a PG not being able to win a champ as the #1 option. Guys take the game for granted all the time. I’ll still belive that anything can happen, and that playing small ball like everybody does for a couple years will definitely redefine roles on the court.
So never be sure, and TP is already the franchise guy, just need some rest.