I wouldn't be posting this, but it's not the first time this has come up...

http://projectspurs.com/2010-articles/may/another-day-another-parker-knicks-rumor.html


I think that would be great for the Knicks, and they should definitely do it if possible. But what could they possibly give the Spurs? David Lee in a sign and trade? Why would the Spurs do this?

The Knicks would be at a bit over $30 million with Parker. That leaves $25+ million or so for LeBron and ? Definitely not Bosh, Amare, or Wade. Maybe Joe Johnson, but doubtful. Boozer?

I don't see what the Knicks could give the Spurs that they would want.

Lee sign & trade plus either Chandler or Gallinari is the only way I could see it happening.

roundhouse wrote:
Yeah, I don't see it either. Like I said I wouldn't have posted this, but it came from a very reputable site... one of the best Spurs sites on the net, and it's not a new rumor.

It seems to be sticking because Tony wants to to stick. Too bad for him the Spurs are too smart.

pants wrote:
Why though? He already has a huge contract.

For what it's worth, Parker would put up sick stats on the Knicks.

Update:

http://projectspurs.com/2010-articles/june/parker-to-knicks-trade-rumor-resurfaces.html

Man that would suck for him if he had to go to the Knicks after being on the Spurs his entire career.

He should go to either the Lakers or the Clippers. They both need a PG and it makes sense from a personal life standpoint for him to be in LA.

The Lakers could do a deal centered around Odom and the Clippers could do one around Kaman, both of whom would be better fits on the Spurs than David Lee anyways.

roundhouse wrote:
The Lakers would be sick with Parker. They might have to get him if LeBron makes a super team with Bosh on the Bulls. They would be the only team in the league that could compete.

I don't see how the Clippers can afford him or utilize him with Baron Davis on the squad. But yeah, Kaman and Odom both fit the Spurs better than David Lee.

College Wolf wrote:
Kaman only makes like a million less dollars than Parker. They'd barely be taking on anything. Besides, the Clippers only have FIVE guys under contract right now. That's crazy. Baron, Kaman, Griffin & Gordon on their rookie scales, and DeAndre Jordan who makes next to nothing.

Baron, Parker, and Gordon would be a 3-man backcourt rotation because Parker could conceivably play SG next to BDiddy or the other way around.

Yeah, I know they can take his salary... I'm just saying it wouldn't be smart of them to pay their PG's $26 million next year. I also don't think Baron or Parker could play SG on that team. And Eric Gordon can't play anything but SG. That would be an awful and expensive 3 guard rotation in my opinion. It's not awful skill-wise, just by allocation of assets, playing-time, and finances.

Yea but it's the Clippers. Putting a bunch of expensive players together who don't fit which each other is their signature move.

roundhouse wrote:
True. I guess this makes sense then. You should email Donald Sterling to give him the heads up, so that he doesn't miss out on this great opportunity.

College Wolf wrote:
Actually I was wrong. That was Isaiah Thomas' signature move when he was running the Knicks. Nobody can ever take that title away from him.

But the Clippers like to work under the same premise.

roundhouse wrote:
Isn't it funny how Baron and Brand teaming up was supposed to make a contender. Now their respective teams would love for them to be lost as sea.

That 3 man rotation is so Isiah they'll probably hire him to be the new GM just so he can implement it without infringing on his trademark.

roundhouse wrote:Blasphemy. Putting Stevie Franchise next to Steph Marbury in the backcourt was pure freaking genius. Eddy Curry was able to catch alley oops from their airballs. Nobody expected that bombing.