Chris Paul Requests Trade to Knicks

[EDGECRUSHER]

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.

[Cathal]

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.

[raptorsfan29]

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

[EDGECRUSHER]

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.

[Landshark]

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

[DZA]

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.

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.

[Spider-Dan]

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

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.

[EKnight]

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

[bsmooth]

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.

[EKnight]

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

[bsmooth]

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.

[EKnight]

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

[Landshark]

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.

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

[JVides]

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.

[bsmooth]

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.