The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

He has one year left on his New Orleans deal and if they don't trade him, he walks and they get nothing. It's very similar to the Carmelo situation, only difference is James Dolan stepped in with his stupid thoughts and gave Denver all of NY's trade assets to Denver, despite the Nuggets having no leverage. This time around, the Knicks have very little to offer and can't even trade a 1st round pick until 2018. No, that was not a typo, I said 2018.

I would gladly welcome Chris Paul to the Knicks, but situations like these never sat right with me for some reason. At it's core, it is a player saying where he wants to play, and that is fine. In some instances, he is taking less money to do so, and that is also fine. Still, it doesn't feel right. It may sound like a jerk move, but Paul telling New Orleans he won't re-sign is actually doing them a favor. He could feel this way and not tell them and let them watch as he walks away with nothing to show for it like Lebron did.

Still feels wrong though.

Do you think he'd have a shot of ending up in Boston? I just saw an article a day or two ago saying Boston was looking to shop Rondo and Danny Ainge was looking for a multiple team trade in order to get Chris Paul.

I think Chris Paul already said he would refuse to play for the Celtics if he was traded.

He didn't say he would refuse to play, he just said he would refuse to sign an extension. The new CBA makes money a bit complicated, but Paul could get more if he re-signed with the team he was with before free agency. So, if he was traded to the Knicks, they can have a handshake agreement that when he hit free agency at season's end, he re-sign there and get his money.

He is good friends with Carmelo and Amare, plus it's NY and those 3 combined can win a title, so it's not hard to picture him being a Knick before season's close.

Do you think the Hornets would take Chauncey Billups straight up for Paul?  If so, that trade could happen.

If by chance they do end up getting Chris Paul, whats gonna happen to Chauncey Billups.  Its not like they gon cast off billups like that with his contract.

Billups was thrown in (by DEN) as a salary dump in the Melo deal.  There's no way anyone would give NYK a player of value for him.

Who cares where a midget point guard goes? Basketball is a sport all about the big men. I'm more interested to see if Howard lands in Jersey, LA, or stays put. -EK

Where have you been the last 20+ years? The NBA is not about the big man and has not been for a long time. The Bulls proved this, and even the Lakers have won without a classic dominant big man in the paint.
Now you but a great big man with a great scorer and you have a recipe for possible repeating championships.

The Bulls did, absolutely. No one else has. The Rockets had Hakeem. The Spurs had David AND Duncan The Lakers, then Heat had Shaq. After that, the Lakers had THREE big men in Odom, Gasol, and Bynum. The Celtics had Garnett. The Mavs have Dirk. In fact every team to win a title in the past twenty years EXCEPT the Bulls has had a dominant big man or two, or three. Meanwhile midget point guards like Iverson, Paul, etc. don't win squat without a big man to help them. Where have I been? Where have YOU been? -EK

Odom, Bynum, and Gasol are not dominant big man. Gasol is weak inside. Dirk is an outside shooter. Shaq had Wade to carry the load. The point is that for over 20+ years in the NBA, you do not need a dominant big man to win. The Spurs had great scorers to go with Duncan, and so did Hakeem. Pistons did not have a true dominant big man either. You can win the NBA championship without a great center.

Every one of the players you just listed is an all-star. How does that not make them great? Shaq had Wade to carry the load? Really? Funny, because I seem to remember when Wade got hurt the next year, the Heat went 16-7 WITHOUT him. When Shaq left, they had the WORST record in the NBA the next season. And the Pistons didn't have a big man? Actually they had two- Rasheed and Ben. Without those two rebounding and playing D, the Lakers would have won. They made the difference in the series. In that case, teams that BOTH had great big men played, and two was better than one. It doesn't matter if your big man plays away from the basket or if posts up. If he has help from guards or if he doesn't. You can win with a great big man and good role players. Hakeem proved that. You CAN'T win with a great point guard and no big men. Iverson proved that. -EK

Considering that salary is expiring, I would have to disagree.

Gotta say, winning is waaay easier with a dominant big.  Now, you might argue Dirk or Gasol don't qualify as dominant bigs, but I will counter that they do, just in a different way.  The days of the dominant post-up center / power forward may be gone, but the face-to-the-basket big is all the rage now, and a dominant one of those is almost as good in a league in which the days of Hakeem-Robinson-Shaq-Ewing-Mourning-Mutombo seems like a century ago.

Well if you want to redefine what makes a "dominant" big, we can go there. In the NBA a dominant big has meant a center that completely owned the paint and forced the other team to change how it played. Dirk is a incredible shooter, but kind of weak inside.

You have to redefine the big (and that makes me sad, as I love watching a classically dominant big work) because these days there are only a handful of good classic bigs (Howard, Duncan, Blake Griffin, Oden when he's there, maybe, a few more, I'm sure).  The vast majority are face the basket types (and I include Kevin Garnett in this group - he's definitely been dominant), hybrids (Pau Gasol), or garbage (almost all of 'em).  The new big works from the high post, takes the 17 footer or takes his opponent off the dribble.

Completely agree, but IMO a great big man is more valuable than a great point guard. -EK

Rasheed and Ben Wallace count as "dominant" big men?

You can win with great guards and no big men.  Jordan proved that.  You CAN'T win with a great big man and no dominant guard.  Ewing and Howard proved that.

I already said Jordan was the exception. What's your point? Rasheed and Ben absolutely count as dominant big men. Just because they didn't score doesn't mean they aren't. Sheed was a four time All-star, and Ben won defensive player of the year FOUR times, including two seasons where he led the league in rebounding AND blocked shots. There's two ways to dominate a game- score like crazy, or keep everyone else from scoring. Isn't it a safe bet that Bill Russell was the ultimate dominant big man? Sheed and Ben were not in his class, so don't go putting words in my mouth and say that I said they were, but Russell was never the scoring machine that Wilt was, and yet he is still considered by many to be the better player. You can't honestly tell me the '04 Pistons beat the Lakers without those two. I challenge you to find ANY NBA champion in the past 35 years who didn't have one or more great big men on their team, sans Jordan, who - by the way- DID have Horace Grant and Dennis Rodman, and, shocker- the only gap in their championship years was when Grant left for Orlando, and they hadn't yet picked up Rodman. Jordan was god in basketball shoes, no one will ever disagree with that, but even he needed someone to rebound and play defense, which is why he needed those guys. Finally, your point about Howard "proving" that works how? He's already made it to the finals, where he was beaten by-oh yeah, that's right- a team that an all star big man of their own, Pau Gasol, who had his best year as a Laker. -EK

I don't consider Rasheed Wallace a big man.  He was a good player, but kind of a hybrid shooter.  ...not a traditional big man.

He was a 6'11" defensive and rebounding player. I understand what you're getting at, but I never said, "you need a center to win." I even conceded that players such as Gasol, Duncan, Garnett, and Dirk- nontraditional "big men"- fall into the category of what I mean. -EK

Mutombo won Defensive Player of the Year the year Iverson's Sixers made the Finals, and he was one of the best defensive big men of all time.  Yet you point at Iverson as if he's proof that great guards are meaningless.

Find me an NBA champion that won without one or more great guards (keeping in mind that you have established Rasheed, Ben Wallace, Pau Gasol, Lamar Odom, and Andrew Bynum as the threshold of what "great" is).

Iverson made it to the Finals and lost to a team that had a great guard in Kobe Bryant.  If you can point at Pau Gasol as an excuse for Howard losing, I can easily point at Kobe for the reason why AI lost.

I notice that you completely ignored Ewing.

Didn't ignore Ewing- he had to go through the Celts (Parish and McHale were both HOF big men), Pistons (an entire front line of big men from Laimbeer to Rodman to others), or Bulls (already conceded that Jordan is the exception to this, and many other NBA norms). When he finally made it, he got beat by two better big men- Duncan and Robinson. I didn't mention him because it seemed obvious. There. Now I mentioned him. Happier?

Iverson's 76er's- despite Motumbo- also lost to a team with a better big man. Shaq>Motumbo. If guard play was that great, Iverson should have led his team to the win. He didn't. Still following me?

As for teams with great big men, and only "good" guards. Take your pick of any of the Spurs titles. The best guard I recall playing for ANY of their teams was Parker, and he was only an All-Star in ONE of their title season. There's FOUR off the top of my head. Anything else? -EK

Devil's advocate, but the '99 Spurs won with Avery Johnson at the 1, Mario Elie at the 2 and a just about to retire Sean Elliott at the 3.

Also, as an aside meant for no one in particular, Rasheed was too lazy to ever be dominant and Ben Wallace was too offensively limited to be dominant.  You have to at least be a threat on the other side of the ball to have the "D" word associated with you.  If you don't believe that, consider:  who among you would take Ben Wallace over Patrick Ewing, David Robinson, Hakeem Olajuwon, or Shaquille O'Neal?  Probably no-one, since 4 of those guys were dominant bigs and one was a really good defensive player.  Put another way, no one could call Big Ben's guard-forward counterpart, Bruce Bowen, a dominant player.

There I fixed that for you!!!!!  :P

Ewing lost to the Bird-era Celtics exactly one time in his career (1988, the first year he made the playoffs).  The same goes for the Isiah-era Pistons.  So where did the rest of the Ewing-era Knicks playoff losses come from?

CHI x5 (a series in which Ewing was the best big man on the floor)
IND x3 (ditto)
MIA (ditto)

Yes, when he actually got to the Finals (and lost), it was to a collection of HOF big men (Olajuwon, Robinson, Duncan).  But for the majority of his career, his teams were being escorted to the curb by teams starring Jordan, Miller, and Hardaway.

So I guess Shaq isn't better than Ben Wallace?  Patrick Ewing isn't better than Rik Smits?  Dwight Howard isn't better than Pau Gasol?

There are plenty of examples of great guards not getting it done.  There are also examples of big men like Ralph Sampson, Dwight Howard, Yao Ming, and Mutombo not getting it done.  And there are teams like the Jazz that had both and still failed.

Parker is a three-time All-Star and won Finals MVP in '07.
Ginobili is a two-time All-Star and two-time All-NBA third team.
Both are far beyond Bynum or Odom.

The other Spurs teams beat the Knicks (who also had no guards) and the Nets (who had an all-time great guard).  So I'll give you exactly one, in contrast to all the playoff series that the Bulls won (while not having the best big man on the floor) and the Knicks lost (while having the best big man on the floor).

*Kneeling as I angrily look at the sky, shaking a fist*

"AZ FINS FAAAAAAAANNN!!!!"

I could hear you curse me when you read that lol!!!!!  ;D