Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 119

Thread: Kwame Brown... Are we serious?!

  1. #76
    Hannibal Lecter TR1LL10N's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Dark side of the Moon
    Posts
    2,743
    Rep Power
    12

    Default

    Originally Posted by RunningJumper
    Not true. I'm against getting a max PG. I'm not opposed to getting Nash, who is still a superstar and probably the best offensive PG in the game. Has NOTHING to do with D'Antoni. It's about money and rounding out the team for me.

    I've admitted this before, aesthetically I rather not get three maxes. That's not why I'm saying I want other players instead of a max PG. So you can't hold that against me. Whatever I say is my opinion.

    And I must say this again, DO I think a max PG would mean no championship for us? No. I'm not as confident in it as I would be rounding out the team.
    Having a position based on aesthetics is absurd and not worth debating.

  2. #77
    Super Moderator RunningJumper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    4,038
    Rep Power
    16

    Default

    Originally Posted by TR1LL10N
    Having a position based on aesthetics is absurd and not worth debating.
    Of course. If I was GM, I wouldn't base it off of that. I'm just letting you know that a lot of us don't just have a hatred for D'Antoni.

  3. #78
    Fundamentally Sound ronoranina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    2,758
    Rep Power
    11

    Default

    Originally Posted by TR1LL10N
    Rono,

    What you fail to realize is that the issue of CP3 and people on this board not wanting him ultimately boils down to their hatred of MDA. Subconsciously or consciously they want MDA to fail to vindicate their stance therefore do not want to see us acquire players that possibly could compliment his system. Red and others would have no problem obtaining D12 over CP3 because that fits their prejudice and desire for size so don't be fooled by this 3 Max argument. It's about them wanting THEIR idea of 3 max players.

    This hatred leads to absurd stances that would have us forgo a legit superstar for draft picks!!
    The obsurdity of wanting to go another route other than having a great player on your team is simply not rational/ logical. Infact it's a little crazy ime.

    These are the same people that watched year after year as we couldn't get it done w one of the best big men of all time.

    There are many ways to win people. The most straight foward way is to have the best player. It simply does not matter what position said player plays. It goes back to my Bob Knight example.. It's basketball 101 people. I don't know how I can put it more simply.

  4. #79
    Superstar nuckles2k2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    1,172
    Rep Power
    10

    Default

    If people just clear their mind of all opinions, assumptions and prejudices and say: Chris Paul, Carmelo Anthony, and Amar'e Stoudemire....or, Carmelo Anthony, Amar'e Stoudemire, and Dwight Howard....and still have an argument for a handful of ragtag ass B-list players...I dunno, I. just. don't. know.

    The NBA would cease to exist if Dwight joined those two. It would no longer be the NBA, it would be the NKA.

    Getting CP3 puts us extremely close to that as well. I still think Paul wants to be here more than Dwight does (silly ass guy he is, yea?) But you can't go wrong either way. And at the end of the day, we WILL end up with one of the three big name free agents-to-be, and it will lead to some pretty lopsided games and it will lead to some bank when I sell some of my season tix, lol. But there's no reason to even argue against it, it's futile...it's gonna happen.

  5. #80
    TYPE-A Red's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    2,308
    Rep Power
    15

    Default

    Originally Posted by NYallDay
    i cant seem to fathom how people are not getting you!
    the freakin heat came 2 wins within winning a championship and guaranteed will be favored to win it all whenever next season starts.
    dont gimme that bs about how dallas won and all that, dallas won after like 10 tries. Aside from D12, no only is CP3 the best player we can get, but his skillset will have the GREATEST IMPACT!
    MIA had the chance to sign players for less than max money. 2 wins away but STILL NEEDING SIZE...hello!?!?

    Originally Posted by ronoranina
    There you go Red..
    Thank you Ron, I read your post.

    1. As I said, name a team who won WITH 3 max contract players and...
    you couldn't. "MAX TYPE" players fits YOUR argument. Max as in spending money fits mine. But nice try.

    2. Front court means PF & C Ron. Comprehend?

    3. It does matter how we acquire the talent Ron, because there are cap ramifications and bird rights (historically) to consider. smh.

    4. Amare is on a max contract Ron, get a clue.

    Originally Posted by TR1LL10N
    Rono,

    What you fail to realize is that the issue of CP3 and people on this board not wanting him ultimately boils down to their hatred of MDA. Subconsciously or consciously they want MDA to fail to vindicate their stance therefore do not want to see us acquire players that possibly could compliment his system. Red and others would have no problem obtaining D12 over CP3 because that fits their prejudice and desire for size so don't be fooled by this 3 Max argument. It's about them wanting THEIR idea of 3 max players.

    This hatred leads to absurd stances that would have us forgo a legit superstar for draft picks!!
    Wow, after months of posting the same sh*t over and over you amaze me. Spin it up Trill, keep on spinnin'.... lol

    Say it with me...

    Misappropriation of funds. Meaning spending money (the maximum amount) and not filling a position of need. Easy as 1,2,3

    Originally Posted by nuckles2k2
    Not necessarily. I don't like MDA's system, I think it's flawed, I would prefer a more conventional inside/out system that produces higher percentage looks as opposed to the multitude of "open" lower percentage looks. As long as we're taking low percentage shots, we're going to have to be a gang offensive rebounding team, which leads to poor transition defense. Unless we have a team of sharpshooters...

    But all of that being said...I'll take CP3, Dwight, or Deron...you don't pass up on that kind of talent, ever. Doesn't matter who the coach is, when you have three complimentary starters from the last All-Star game (assuming we get CP3 or Dwight, Deron ain't half bad tho.)
    True, as we've stated to no end. Who stated IF CP3 can be had don't get him? What we've stated is simple math...

    No CENTER or defense as been illustrated time after time... (LOOK SPINNERS THERES THAT WORD AGAIN>> DEFENSE)

    equals no chip.

    I don't know what else to say.

    We've used historical data
    We've seen our own demise for YEARS
    We use common sense

    But NOOOOO they refuse to accept what's been proven

    Originally Posted by nuckles2k2
    Plus those three guys all fill positions of need anyway, unless the likes of Turiaf and Billups will be our starting 1s and 5s going forward.
    And after waiting for Lebron, tanking and fielding a joke, after placing near to last in almost every relevant defensive category for years
    after witnessing what happens with a lack of size (no homo) and a lack of depth you would think this lesson has been learned.

    And Trill you're sad. You were all over Felton's d*ck, even admitted MOA wasn't the right coach for this team and now you come with this?

    Pathetic. Keep drinking that kool-aid and spinnin'....




    They spinnin' n*gga they spinnin"!

    Signing CP3 isn't the mistake, spending all our remaining money on him and NOT addressing our needs with a viable center (do your research Kool-aid spinners and see the market value for this type of player IF not drafted)

    is clearly an exercise in how to sell more tickets, not winning chips.

    Show me some evidence that disputes this. WE have already presented data that validates this assertion.

    We're waiting.

    Ron & Trill take a seat, your love-fest with CP3 and MOA blinds you.

  6. #81
    Fundamentally Sound ronoranina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    2,758
    Rep Power
    11

    Default You are seriously retarded..

    Originally Posted by Red
    Thank you Ron, I read your post.


    1. As I said, name a team who won WITH 3 max contract players and...
    you couldn't. "MAX TYPE" players fits YOUR argument. Max as in spending money fits mine. But nice try.

    Nobody is spinning. Just because a team has yet to win w three max players, that doesn't mean it can't happen.

    Originally Posted by Red
    2. Front court means PF & C Ron. Comprehend?
    You asked me "What team has won w/out the contribution of their front court?".. I answered your question w the obvious answer. Amare is in our front court, so we would obviously get an awful good contribution from there in addition to however our center performs. But then you have to take to the ultra dumb level and try to explain to me that C is a part of the front court.. No shet, genius. W Amare (along w Melo and Paul) in you front court all you need is a guy at the 5 who can be a presence, clog the middle and finish the odd put-back or lay-in/ dunk. You don't get this.. I've said it too many times and you just act like the words are not there in front of you. It's because you can't see it. You have no vision because your basketball acumen is shet..

    Next, define for me what you're idea of a "viable" center is. Does Dalembert fit the bill? What about Aaron Gray? What if Jerome Jordan could fill this role for us in a yr? Would these C's satisfy you're insatiable need for bigs. Is Turiaf viable? What if Jorts could step in and give us 20 good minutes from the 5?? Would a combination of any of these guys be enough to shut you up?

    Originally Posted by Red
    3. It does matter how we acquire the talent Ron, because there are cap ramifications and bird rights (historically) to consider. smh.
    Do you have any idea what the new CBA will look like?? Because I don't. Neither does anyone else. #3 = total nonsense

    Originally Posted by Red
    4. Amare is on a max contract Ron, get a clue.
    Thank you Red for clearing that up for me.

    And YOU are the king of spin my dude.. How can can one simultaneously say they'd rather get a center, draft picks and Raymond Felton of all people, but then say at the same time "I'm not saying I don't want him" and "If you can get him you do it".

    You DON'T want Paul. You want your flexibility and your "viable" big. I wonder what that comes from? Did the years under Isiah and Layden scar you that much?? Did all of the years of losing w a great bigman on the team skew your sense of reality?? And those Knicks teams were beaten by a Bulls team w/out a great center, not even really good one. Go back and look at the production the Bulls got from the center position. They bucked the basketball trend of needing the great, or even really good big, six times because their core was so potent. We can have that kind of core, or something close to it in Amare, Melo and Paul. Is your vision getting clearer? Shet, if Money hadn't retired the Knicks wouldn't have even gotten to the finals that one yr.

    Maybe at one point in your life you had a firm grip on basketball logic..

    The NBA is about players. You get the best players FIRST, then you worry about all of that other little shet you're bitching and moaning about incessantly.

    Here's another pure basketball point:

    If you can get the great core a, ie a combo of Amare, Melo and Paul, to put yourself in a position for legit contention year in and yr out for a (multiple yrs, like 4-6) period of years, damn financial flexibilty. YOU HAVE IT ALL ASS BACKWARDS..

    If you can get Paul to go w Amare and Melo. You get the discounts on talented role-players. You get the dominant seasons and deep playoff runs w a serious chance at getting to the mountain top multiple times. You sacrifice your precious flexibility for that. Then when the window of contention closes, you blow up the team. But to get the window open, you do what you have to. This is what you're missing.

    I wonder what you'll say if/when we get Paul and during our rather long championship window of contention we should win a title or two or three? I wonder how that will F w your mind if we did it w three shetty centers platooning? Will you be able to admit how wrong you were?

    Paul is the missing piece to the Knicks puzzle. He is a dogged leader and one of the 5 best players in the league. Why are you so afraid of having a truly great team??

    Putting together those three guys is the start of that.
    Last edited by ronoranina; Jul 15, 2011 at 22:40.

  7. #82
    Super Moderator RunningJumper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    4,038
    Rep Power
    16

    Default

    Well, rono, with the 90s Bulls argument, you know how great Jordan was, and Pippen was great, their greatness included defense.

    As I said, I'm not saying we can't win a championship with that team. History means nothing (in a way) because the league changes every year. We need greatness on defense. At least let's get a coach who's good at defense to see what we got first.

  8. #83
    TYPE-A Red's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    2,308
    Rep Power
    15

    Default

    Ron you are perpetuating the classic spinner technique as demonstrated below. Primarily you misconstrue the point in an attempt to fit your argument then then overindulge in hyperbole.

    So let me stop you from continuing to make a fool of yourself by clarifying.

    THERE IS NO ARGUMENT AS TO WHETHER A TEAM SHOULD ACQUIRE CP3 (or a CP3 type) player.

    ****THE point is DOES A TEAM NEED CP3 after already having 2MAX contract players? Scorers who aren't the best defenders, on a team lacking IN DEFENSE with LIMITED funds?


    Originally Posted by ronoranina
    Point: Nobody is spinning. Just because a team has yet to win w three max players, that doesn't mean it can't happen.
    Counter-point:
    That means that you are attempting to do something that hasn't been done Ron. The possibility has nothing to do with it. It's the fact that you are hell bent on NOT considering what is MOSTLY done AND PROVEN.



    Point: You asked me "What team has won w/out the contribution of their front court?".. I answered your question w the obvious answer. Amare is in our front court, so we would obviously get an awful good contribution from there in addition to however our center performs. But then you have to take to the ultra dumb level and try to explain to me that C is a part of the front court.. No shet, genius. W Amare (along w Melo and Paul) in you front court all you need is a guy at the 5 who can be a presence, clog the middle and finish the odd put-back or lay-in/ dunk. You don't get this.. I've said it too many times and you just act like the words are not there in front of you. It's because you can't see it. You have no vision because your basketball acumen is shet.
    .

    Counter-point: Yes Amare is part of our front court, but as you stated it's comprised of more than one player Ron. Amare needs help defensively and IF we can't afford that (at center) AFTER spending our money, which we arduously cleared taking years, then we are NOT accomplishing ANYTHING Ron.

    History... HISTORY... and DATA Ron... D-A-T-A reveals the availability of this type of player ALONG with the EXPECTED cost (based on REAL facts) will greatly be diminished IF we don't have the available money or matching player contracts.

    Isn't it obvious? Aren't we looking for an available FA as we speak Ron? Who's out there? Not much right? Why? Because THE COST involved is considered along with projected performance, right?

    There are viable centers available right now, but the hold back on offers comes after considering the cost Ron... well that would mean the availability is less after spending more money. Elementary.

    Point: Next, define for me what you're idea of a "viable" center is. Does Dalembert fit the bill? What about Aaron Gray? What if Jerome Jordan could fill this role for us in a yr? Would these C's satisfy you're insatiable need for bigs. Is Turiaf viable? What if Jorts could step in and give us 20 good minutes from the 5?? Would a combination of any of these guys be enough to shut you up?
    Now you're in "what if mode". Come back to reality Ron.

    Definition of VIABLE

    1
    : capable of living; especially : having attained such form and development as to be normally capable of surviving outside the mother's womb <a viable fetus>
    2
    : capable of growing or developing <viable seeds> <viable eggs>
    3
    a : capable of working, functioning, or developing adequately <viable alternatives>
    b : capable of existence and development as an independent unit <the colony is now a viable state>
    c (1) : having a reasonable chance of succeeding <a viable candidate> (2) : financially sustainable
    Hello!

    An easier way to understand this is to simply ask yourself: do we want player X for now until another comes along, or is he the type we can sign for multiple years?

    The centers we are considering and will only be able to get are one year rentals. Do the math Ron! One year players are of the old or limited variety. The only way a player settles for that type of contract is due to lack of options Ron... do the math.

    Are centers readily available? No Ron. Maybe the one year rentals, the D-league Earl Barron types... because they suck Ron and they are roster fillers not long to medium term options for any team with plans on winning Ron. Do the math.



    Point: Do you have any idea what the new CBA will look like?? Because I don't. Neither does anyone else. #3 = total nonsense
    Counterpoint: No, but then again neither do you. But you choose to focus right in on your favorite player in spite of this fact. Obviously I need no assurances regarding the CBA because I can make a reasonable assumption that a team with 6 players under contract

    CAN AFFORD ANOTHER LESS THAN MAX PLAYER F*CKING DUMMY!



    Thank you Red for clearing that up for me.
    You're welcome..

    Point: And YOU are the king of spin my dude.. How can can one simultaneously say they'd rather get a center, draft picks and Raymond Felton of all people, but then say at the same time "I'm not saying I don't want him" and "If you can get him you do it".

    You DON'T want Paul. Did all of the years of losing w a great bigman on the team skew your sense of reality?? And those Knicks teams were beaten by a Bulls team w/out a great center, not even really good one. Go back and look at the production the Bulls got from the center position. They bucked the basketball trend of needing the great, or even really good big, six times because their core was so potent. We can have that kind of core, or something close to it in Amare, Melo and Paul. Is your vision getting clearer? Shet, if Money hadn't retired the Knicks wouldn't have even gotten to the finals that one yr.
    Nice try... but obvious failure.

    IF you can afford CP3 and a viable (defined above) center then do it.
    But I'm pointing out how unlikely that is IF CP3 costs max money.

    This statement is EXACTLY what a spin doctor like yourself does...
    You want your flexibility and your "viable" big. I wonder what that comes from? Did the years under Isiah and Layden scar you that much??
    YOU, MY G, ARE F*CKING DUMB, please go smack yourself after reading the following logic which you might not get...

    We have fought for flexibility and viable options for years- which is the total opposite of Isaiah and Layden Ron. Did you become a fan recently or do you know this Ron?

    Now tell me KOL and Ron. What sounds more like Isaiah & Layden?
    A) Having flexibility and viable players? or...
    B) Frivolously spending on unnecessary players attempting to buck the market trend?

    Thanks.


    Maybe at one point in your life you had a firm grip on basketball logic..

    The NBA is about players. You get the best players FIRST, then you worry about all of that other little shet you're bitching and moaning about incessantly.
    Yes Ron, we got the players first. We are trying to worry about the little shet, and you keep talking about Chris Paul.

    You keep spinning while simultaneously looking foolish. Talented.


    Point:Here's another pure basketball point:

    If you can get the great core a, ie a combo of Amare, Melo and Paul, to put yourself in a position for legit contention year in and yr out for a (multiple yrs, like 4-6) period of years, damn financial flexibilty. YOU HAVE IT ALL ASS BACKWARDS..
    But Ron we were in contention now without CP3, and by the way that was by having financial flexibility.

    But we had, as MOA supporters say, "an incomplete" team. We were missing a big man Ron. Did you watch?

    Point:If you can get Paul to go w Amare and Melo. You get the discounts on talented role-players.
    No you don't Ron, not anymore than with Stat and Melo. And when most primary positions are filled Ron, your needs become specific, which lessons the likelihood of availability. This is why flexibility is important.

    Point: You get the dominant seasons and deep playoff runs w a serious chance at getting to the mountain top multiple times. You sacrifice your precious flexibility for that. Then when the window of contention closes, you blow up the team. But to get the window open, you do what you have to. This is what you're missing.
    Do we have to have CP3? Rondo, Kidd, Fisher, Parker, Billups

    Name the one's with MAX contracts who won without the help of a VIABLE big man.

    Point: I wonder what you'll say if/when we get Paul and during our rather long championship window of contention we should win a title or two or three? I wonder how that will F w your mind if we did it w three shetty centers platooning? Will you be able to admit how wrong you were?
    I'm a man Ron. I can admit the truth anytime you'd like. It's not an issue for me.

    Show me where the data regarding MDA and centers proves he's capable of winning with a 3 center platoon and I'll admit you may be on to something.

    Until then I'll admit you may be on something. Cocaine is a helluva drug!

    Point:Paul is the missing piece to the Knicks puzzle. He is a dogged leader and one of the 5 best players in the league. Why are you so afraid of having a truly great team??

    Putting together those three guys is the start of that.
    That remains to be seen. And at the right price (like with Lee, Gallo, and Chandler) he may be. IF we assume that's MAX $, after placing near to last in team defense, after not acquiring players that can change this, no he isn't the missing piece if we are talking championship. Sorry.

    Boy you try hard, but it's clear your emotions are clouding your judgement. Your feelings aren't allowing you to consider the facts. You are hell bent on acquiring your favorite player regardless of our circumstance, historical data, and future projections.

    You keep arguing it's CP3 or a center. As well you argue he's the missing piece. You ignore the totality of the situation. I want and understand what's needed to win... A TEAM. With depth, size, and options.

    The statistics suggest this is next to impossible with 3max contracts if as a team they don't place top ten in defense, if a major contribution isn't from a team drafted player (because of contract and performance efficiency ramifications) and going over the cap is done once these primary tasks are accomplished.

    We have yet to accomplish this. So you're arguing with history.

    Here's a better more VIABLE approach...

    1. Hope Shump materializes into a starting PG
    2. Trade Billups or pieces for Nash and Lopez, if you can, get a pick
    3. Now that you have a starting 1 and 5, try and sign or draft a 2 (next year) while giving Fields a chance to find his niche.

    With more picks you have OPTIONS. With Fields if he isn't traded, maybe he is a starter, maybe he's better off the bench, maybe he can sub for Melo...

    With Lopez you get to see exactly how we look with a big next to Amare & Melo, which data has shown he is better at PF.

    If Lopez doesn't work out, fine he can be a back-up because he's cheap and leaves us with options. Market and performance observations dictate he will be a valuable commodity, even coming off the bench.

    4. We then will notice how many vets and one dimensional cheap contracts we can acquire due to lowered demand. We can now settle for those types as our starters are set.

    Now, just as you may think a center can easily be had, the reality that shooters can be had easier will become apparent. Maybe we get a vet 2, maybe a vet back up PG. But our core is there as well as quantifiable data by pairing Lopez again with Amare (& Melo).

    Like I said it's low risk high reward.

    Too many instances are available for you to study if you don't believe me in arguing the difficulty in acquiring a solid big.

    *We have been unable to obtain one in ten years
    *No team is trading them for nothing
    *They are the most expensive
    *They are a rare commodity

    It's economics 101- supply and demand. They are in high demand and low supply. This equals higher prices.

    Compare that to Pg's and it's similar but not the same. Centers are harder to get, especially when we consider the 3,4 positions are filled by shooters. The type of PG needed for that to be successful vs the type of team and center needed for that is less difficult to acquire.

    I guess we're both saying "get'em while you can"... mines is just cheaper, more efficient, and more feasible than yours

    Just consider the options, and don't focus on one player and way to achieve our agreed upon goals. We've already made that mistake.

  9. #84
    Superstar nuckles2k2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    1,172
    Rep Power
    10

    Default

    Other than Dwight Howard, there's no center out there that we can get within reason. We only have the MLE to offer this year, and both Sammy D and Tyson are gonna get more than $5M. Tyson is looking to cash in, and Sammy D is coming off of a season where he made $12.2M, the last year of a $64M contract that he signed for a terrible team, before willingly accepting a trade to another **** team because he was unhappy with his role on the squad. So...he's gonna take the MLE from either us or Miami for about $5M? Maybe, but it doesn't seem probable.

    Ok then you move to next year....Javale McGee, Omir Asik, Roy Hibbert, that's it. All are restricted free agents, which could mean three things: accept the qualifying offer (that will be offered) to stay with the team for one more year and become an unrestricted free agent the following offseason, re-up with your current team for a long term deal, or negotiate a contract with another team, and try to get terms that your current team just would not be willing to match. So our options would be to give all $14M to one of those guys....or don't. That leaves the likes of Big Z, Kwame, Foster, and Przybilla, as viable options....and we can still split the MLE between two of those guys with CP3 on the books.

    We all know Ron is lovestruck with CP3, but he's not wrong. Personally I would look at Dwight first, but if we can't get him...do we pass up on the talent that is Christopher Emmanuel Paul? For what? The same MLE/part-MLE worthy centers that we'd have to target anyway? It doesn't make sense.

    Yea we're gonna have some change to spend next year, but the players we want to spend it on aren't there. I think passing up on Paul and swearing that Washington won't match any offer for their freakishly athletic 7' center, is more of a gamble than getting CP3 and splitting the MLE between a Przybilla and Foster or something.

    We're already in a position of having to be crafty to acquire a center, like you said Red, they're a rare commodity, so what makes you think a team would let us just snatch one up?

    With or without CP3, our situation is the same. Unless you're willing to spend $14M on a center who's been in the league for 3 years.

  10. #85
    Fundamentally Sound ronoranina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    2,758
    Rep Power
    11

    Default

    Originally Posted by RunningJumper
    Well, rono, with the 90s Bulls argument, you know how great Jordan was, and Pippen was great, their greatness included defense.

    As I said, I'm not saying we can't win a championship with that team. History means nothing (in a way) because the league changes every year. We need greatness on defense. At least let's get a coach who's good at defense to see what we got first.
    Running J you atleast took time to respond to the above point re: Jordan and Pippen not needing the higher cost center in my last post and the connection to us having another great, dominant core and and being able to possibly go the same route. Red, as expected just overlooks it. He can't deal/argue w real basketball vision and logic.

    He won't respond to my true basketball points - probably because I'm right and making sense. Red's really good arguing around in circles..

    And you're right, Melo needs to defend better at his position. We have to be able to defend along the perimeter. Paul would help us in this area as he is a lock-down defender and steal artist. Obviously whoever plays the 2 needs to be solid in this area also. I have confidence in Melo's ability to change because I think he has a keen understanding of what it takes to win a chip.


    Originally Posted by nuckles2k2
    Other than Dwight Howard, there's no center out there that we can get within reason. We only have the MLE to offer this year, and both Sammy D and Tyson are gonna get more than $5M. Tyson is looking to cash in, and Sammy D is coming off of a season where he made $12.2M, the last year of a $64M contract that he signed for a terrible team, before willingly accepting a trade to another **** team because he was unhappy with his role on the squad. So...he's gonna take the MLE from either us or Miami for about $5M? Maybe, but it doesn't seem probable.

    Ok then you move to next year....Javale McGee, Omir Asik, Roy Hibbert, that's it. All are restricted free agents, which could mean three things: accept the qualifying offer (that will be offered) to stay with the team for one more year and become an unrestricted free agent the following offseason, re-up with your current team for a long term deal, or negotiate a contract with another team, and try to get terms that your current team just would not be willing to match. So our options would be to give all $14M to one of those guys....or don't. That leaves the likes of Big Z, Kwame, Foster, and Przybilla, as viable options....and we can still split the MLE between two of those guys with CP3 on the books.

    We all know Ron is lovestruck with CP3, but he's not wrong. Personally I would look at Dwight first, but if we can't get him...do we pass up on the talent that is Christopher Emmanuel Paul? For what? The same MLE/part-MLE worthy centers that we'd have to target anyway? It doesn't make sense.

    Yea we're gonna have some change to spend next year, but the players we want to spend it on aren't there. I think passing up on Paul and swearing that Washington won't match any offer for their freakishly athletic 7' center, is more of a gamble than getting CP3 and splitting the MLE between a Przybilla and Foster or something.

    We're already in a position of having to be crafty to acquire a center, like you said Red, they're a rare commodity, so what makes you think a team would let us just snatch one up?

    With or without CP3, our situation is the same. Unless you're willing to spend $14M on a center who's been in the league for 3 years.
    This is what pisses Red off. We're waiting. We're passing on Dalembert and Chandler. We probably won't be one of the teams in the hunt for either of these guys because we're waiting to fill another need at the PG, with a much, much better player mind you. But this doesn't resonate w him, no.. All he can see is the fact that we're not getting the best big possible and he can't handle it.

    What's wrong w Pryzbilla, Foster, and Jorts (should he develop into a rotation player), or some combo like this, at the C position?

    I'll make the point again... w a dominant, potent combo of Paul, Melo and Amare, this type of rotation at the center spot will be more than adequate.


    Red, Agree or Disagree?

    You prolly won't answer this either..
    Last edited by ronoranina; Jul 16, 2011 at 13:03.

  11. #86
    Fundamentally Sound ronoranina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    2,758
    Rep Power
    11

    Default

    Originally Posted by Red
    Ron you are perpetuating the classic spinner technique as demonstrated below. Primarily you misconstrue the point in an attempt to fit your argument then then overindulge in hyperbole.

    So let me stop you from continuing to make a fool of yourself by clarifying.

    THERE IS NO ARGUMENT AS TO WHETHER A TEAM SHOULD ACQUIRE CP3 (or a CP3 type) player.

    ****THE point is DOES A TEAM NEED CP3 after already having 2MAX contract players? Scorers who aren't the best defenders, on a team lacking IN DEFENSE with LIMITED funds?
    You call it hyperbole. I call it knowing what I'm talking about. And yes I did change the argument up as I was talking about Amare not really being a max player. I did so because I felt that it was important to point out regarding the talent level of our core. I don't feel that we are there yet, ie championship level for multiple years. I don't feel that Amare and Melo are enough together.




    Originally Posted by Red

    That means that you are attempting to do something that hasn't been done Ron. The possibility has nothing to do with it. It's the fact that you are hell bent on NOT considering what is MOSTLY done AND PROVEN.
    I consider history Red.. But you also have to look at what we'd be getting. It's called vision. If you can get Paul on this team, you have the kind of once in life-time core that any sane person would welcome. Also having three maxs isn't as damning as you say, we'll have money to acquire decent centers and we have a couple of younger guys via draft who may be able to contribute as well.




    Originally Posted by Red

    Counter-point: Yes Amare is part of our front court, but as you stated it's comprised of more than one player Ron. Amare needs help defensively and IF we can't afford that (at center) AFTER spending our money, which we arduously cleared taking years, then we are NOT accomplishing ANYTHING Ron.

    History... HISTORY... and DATA Ron... D-A-T-A reveals the availability of this type of player ALONG with the EXPECTED cost (based on REAL facts) will greatly be diminished IF we don't have the available money or matching player contracts.

    Isn't it obvious? Aren't we looking for an available FA as we speak Ron? Who's out there? Not much right? Why? Because THE COST involved is considered along with projected performance, right?

    There are viable centers available right now, but the hold back on offers comes after considering the cost Ron... well that would mean the availability is less after spending more money. Elementary.
    I'm just more concerned w the historical data and facts that say get the best player and the best core together that's possible.

    It is possible to get Paul. It's also possible to get solid production out of our front court, w Amare doing what he does and a decent platoon of guys at the 5.




    Originally Posted by Red
    Now you're in "what if mode". Come back to reality Ron.
    No, I was giving you names of guys that we realistically could get after acquiring a player like Paul. You ofcourse didn't indicate whether or not you'd be could be happy w this type of center because you can't deal w the plan we have set in motion. You want a Chandler type.. but you can't have him.


    Originally Posted by Red

    Hello!

    An easier way to understand this is to simply ask yourself: do we want player X for now until another comes along, or is he the type we can sign for multiple years?

    The centers we are considering and will only be able to get are one year rentals. Do the math Ron! One year players are of the old or limited variety. The only way a player settles for that type of contract is due to lack of options Ron... do the math.

    Are centers readily available? No Ron. Maybe the one year rentals, the D-league Earl Barron types... because they suck Ron and they are roster fillers not long to medium term options for any team with plans on winning Ron. Do the math.
    I can make the same argument about the PG position. Do we want Nash for 1-2 yrs, or Paul who would be w us for the next 6.

    I not going to argue w you any more about the C position. Remember this Red:

    If you're core is good enough you don't need the high cost C. It's been done before. I've brought up the historical evidence which you've conveniently ignored.. You only have to open your eyes.


    Originally Posted by Red

    Counterpoint: No, but then again neither do you. But you choose to focus right in on your favorite player in spite of this fact. Obviously I need no assurances regarding the CBA because I can make a reasonable assumption that a team with 6 players under contract

    CAN AFFORD ANOTHER LESS THAN MAX PLAYER F*CKING DUMMY!
    Do you realize how unbelievably stupid this sounds. The owners and players are ridiculously far apart in what they're asking respectively. No one has any way of even vaguely forecasting what will be in that final deal. Reasonable assumptions my ass.. BS dude.





    Originally Posted by Red

    YOU, MY G, ARE F*CKING DUMB, please go smack yourself after reading the following logic which you might not get...

    We have fought for flexibility and viable options for years- which is the total opposite of Isaiah and Layden Ron. Did you become a fan recently or do you know this Ron?

    Now tell me KOL and Ron. What sounds more like Isaiah & Layden?
    A) Having flexibility and viable players? or...
    B) Frivolously spending on unnecessary players attempting to buck the market trend?

    Thanks.
    Bro the only person in this argument that continually sounds dumb and misinformed w re: to pure basketball logic is you sir. I've pointed this out numerous times. I've made the fundamental points that needed to be made .. and you either ignore them or just continue to argue about things that are beside the point.

    The point is you get Chris Paul here becasue combined w Amare and Melo he turns our team into a potent, legitimate championship contender for up to 6 yrs, w or w/out the so-called "viable" center you so badly have a hard-on for.

    To argue anything else is idiotic and a little crazy, as I've observed before concerning your stance.

    You sir..

    are on the wrong side of history,

    the wrong side of this argument,

    and you're just embarrassing yourself @ this point.



    Originally Posted by Red

    Yes Ron, we got the players first. We are trying to worry about the little shet, and you keep talking about Chris Paul.

    You keep spinning while simultaneously looking foolish. Talented.
    You're right I am talented. I can think and talk the game of basketball very well.

    I think we need the third star. Again a player of Paul's ilk will have more of an impact than a player like Chandler or Dalembert.

    If you can't see this I can't help you.




    Originally Posted by Red


    But Ron we were in contention now without CP3, and by the way that was by having financial flexibility.

    But we had, as MOA supporters say, "an incomplete" team. We were missing a big man Ron. Did you watch?
    No I thought Turiaf played pretty well against the Celts. And we were missing a big man in Amare, who was injured and a shell of himself. We were also missing a PG (injury) AND a viable, lol, SG. W the way Turiaf was playing, if we had a healthy Amare and a decent back-up (i don't consider the giraffe decent), someone like Jeff Foster or Aaron Gray, or even Kwame Brown for god's sakes, our front court would have been better off. But we couldn't overcome the injury and lack of solid play in both the back and front court.



    Originally Posted by Red

    No you don't Ron, not anymore than with Stat and Melo. And when most primary positions are filled Ron, your needs become specific, which lessons the likelihood of availability. This is why flexibility is important.
    See.. again w the flexibility. You act like we'll be up shets creek w/out a paddle w Paul, Melo and Amare. You act like we won't be an awesome, phenomenal contender. You sound ridiculously stupid and shortsighted my dude.

    I think Trill is really on point w his recent post about you. You don't want us to get the great PG because you know it will propel us to unseen heights w this coach and his system. W Melo on this team there's no telling how far we could as MDA has never had a swingman of his caliber.

    You're just a hater Red. Plain and simple.

    Originally Posted by Red

    Do we have to have CP3? Rondo, Kidd, Fisher, Parker, Billups

    Name the one's with MAX contracts who won without the help of a VIABLE big man.
    Your not taking into account who Paul would be teamed w. None of the other guys you mentioned form collection of players of the caliber of what we'll have cumulatively.


    Originally Posted by Red

    I'm a man Ron. I can admit the truth anytime you'd like. It's not an issue for me.
    You still haven't admitted that creating a thread called "The Verdict is In" at the beginning of the season when we were still coming together as a team wasn't shortsighted and a little dumb.. Will you?? Prolly not..

    Originally Posted by Red
    Show me where the data regarding MDA and centers proves he's capable of winning with a 3 center platoon and I'll admit you may be on to something.

    Until then I'll admit you may be on something. Cocaine is a helluva drug!
    MDA as we all know has a penchant for playing small ball. He does play his bigs though, if they hold their own. We saw Turiaf, Jeffries and Amare all receive time at the center position, also Sheldon after he was acquired. When Moz was ready he played him too. I think he will continue to play Amare at the C for stretches. The third guy in our stable of C's doesn't have to recieve big minutes. That C will be more of an as needed type -5-10 min or of someone gets into foul trouble, that type of thing.

    Originally Posted by Red
    That remains to be seen. And at the right price (like with Lee, Gallo, and Chandler) he may be. IF we assume that's MAX $, after placing near to last in team defense, after not acquiring players that can change this, no he isn't the missing piece if we are talking championship. Sorry.

    Boy you try hard, but it's clear your emotions are clouding your judgement. Your feelings aren't allowing you to consider the facts. You are hell bent on acquiring your favorite player regardless of our circumstance, historical data, and future projections.
    Not really Red.. I'm just basing what I'm saying off of sound basketball logic. You build around the best players regardless of position. The better players you have at a certain positions makes it less important for you to have/look for high-caliber talent at other positions. That doesn't mean you stop looking ofcourse. But you get that core together first.

    You also think our core is set I don't. Neither do Melo, Amare or Paul for that matter. Most sane people agree w me and them.



    Originally Posted by Red

    You keep arguing it's CP3 or a center. As well you argue he's the missing piece. You ignore the totality of the situation. I want and understand what's needed to win... A TEAM. With depth, size, and options.

    The statistics suggest this is next to impossible with 3max contracts if as a team they don't place top ten in defense, if a major contribution isn't from a team drafted player (because of contract and performance efficiency ramifications) and going over the cap is done once these primary tasks are accomplished.

    We have yet to accomplish this. So you're arguing with history.

    Here's a better more VIABLE approach...

    1. Hope Shump materializes into a starting PG
    2. Trade Billups or pieces for Nash and Lopez, if you can, get a pick
    3. Now that you have a starting 1 and 5, try and sign or draft a 2 (next year) while giving Fields a chance to find his niche.

    With more picks you have OPTIONS. With Fields if he isn't traded, maybe he is a starter, maybe he's better off the bench, maybe he can sub for Melo...

    With Lopez you get to see exactly how we look with a big next to Amare & Melo, which data has shown he is better at PF.

    If Lopez doesn't work out, fine he can be a back-up because he's cheap and leaves us with options. Market and performance observations dictate he will be a valuable commodity, even coming off the bench.

    4. We then will notice how many vets and one dimensional cheap contracts we can acquire due to lowered demand. We can now settle for those types as our starters are set.

    Now, just as you may think a center can easily be had, the reality that shooters can be had easier will become apparent. Maybe we get a vet 2, maybe a vet back up PG. But our core is there as well as quantifiable data by pairing Lopez again with Amare (& Melo).

    Like I said it's low risk high reward.

    Too many instances are available for you to study if you don't believe me in arguing the difficulty in acquiring a solid big.

    *We have been unable to obtain one in ten years
    *No team is trading them for nothing
    *They are the most expensive
    *They are a rare commodity

    It's economics 101- supply and demand. They are in high demand and low supply. This equals higher prices.

    Compare that to Pg's and it's similar but not the same. Centers are harder to get, especially when we consider the 3,4 positions are filled by shooters. The type of PG needed for that to be successful vs the type of team and center needed for that is less difficult to acquire.

    I guess we're both saying "get'em while you can"... mines is just cheaper, more efficient, and more feasible than yours

    Just consider the options, and don't focus on one player and way to achieve our agreed upon goals. We've already made that mistake.
    This last section is alot of BS.. Gawd it's painful to argue w you. It's not amusing at all, as opposed to when I used go back and forth w Metro. That was fun..

    The only thing I'll touch in the rest of your drivel is the point you made about getting Lopez and Nash, which is amicable. I didn't think you would go there honestly.

    But again, why would you take Nash and 1-2 yrs of contention over Paul and 4-6??? Especially when we'd more than likely be getting a big to w Paul in Okeafor who is better than Lopez. This makes no sense Red.

    We just don't and won't agree. I think you go for the jugular, get the best players and even if you can't maintain all of the flexibility you ideally want, you don't don't look back. Why would when you have a legitimately great core and still room to maneuver?
    Last edited by ronoranina; Jul 16, 2011 at 19:06.

  12. #87
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,795
    Rep Power
    10

    Default

    I dunno, how do you know Nash is only going to be good for 2-3 years?

    Nash can run the floor great and he might lose that eventually but I don't think passing and shooting are skills that Nash would ever lose - he's one of the most conditioned players in the NBA

  13. #88
    Fundamentally Sound ronoranina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    2,758
    Rep Power
    11

    Default

    Originally Posted by SSj4Wingzero
    I dunno, how do you know Nash is only going to be good for 2-3 years?

    Nash can run the floor great and he might lose that eventually but I don't think passing and shooting are skills that Nash would ever lose - he's one of the most conditioned players in the NBA
    Nash is extremely conditioned. He's one of the best athletes in the world. He's managed to squeeze every ounce of output from his body and timed this feat to go along w his mastery of the mental side of the game later in his career.

    That said he's 37. Realistically he can only keep playing at this level (13-15 ppg and double digit assists) for 1-2 yrs imo. At a certain point you just lose the ability to stay on the floor because you've lost too many steps. All of a sudden - or atleast it seems that way - you can't get to where you want on the court anymore and you can't defend anyone at your position. Really, it happens gradually, but when age shows at a certain level it looks bad.. Pretty much anyone not named Jordan gets there at around ages 38, 39 or 40.
    Last edited by ronoranina; Jul 16, 2011 at 19:11.

  14. #89
    Super Moderator RunningJumper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    4,038
    Rep Power
    16

    Default

    Originally Posted by SSj4Wingzero
    I dunno, how do you know Nash is only going to be good for 2-3 years?

    Nash can run the floor great and he might lose that eventually but I don't think passing and shooting are skills that Nash would ever lose - he's one of the most conditioned players in the NBA
    Also he played most of last season and went all out. Yeah, he was TRYING to make the Playoffs, but it shows how good of shape he's in and how hard he plays. Even if he was with us two-three years, that would mean when he's not with us anymore, or can't play enough, we'll have money to spend on maybe a very good PG that becomes available. Who knows? Stephen Curry?

  15. #90
    Super Moderator RunningJumper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    4,038
    Rep Power
    16

    Default

    Originally Posted by ronoranina
    Nash is extremely conditioned. He's one of the best athletes in the world. He's managed to squeeze every ounce of output from his body and timed this feat to go along w his mastery of the mental side of the game later in his career.

    That said he's 37. Realistically he can only keep playing at this level (13-15 ppg and double digit assists) for 1-2 yrs imo. At a certain point you just lose the ability to stay on the floor because you've lost too many steps. All of a sudden - or atleast it seems that way - you can't get to where you want on the court anymore and you can't defend anyone at your position. Really, it happens gradually, but when it age shows at a certain level it looks bad.. Pretty much anyone not named Jordan gets there at around ages 39, 40.
    Well with Amar'e and Melo, he wouldn't need to do as much.

    AND, aside from Suns fans, I don't remember anyone aside from me that has noticed he isn't a bad defender now. He's decent or solid. In professional wrestling, although not a sport, they do crazy stunts a lot, and guys in their 40s (recently retired Shawn Michaels) was/are still doing amazingly athletic, and painful, stunts, many years after a BACK injury that people, including himself, thought ended his career. So, while it has yet to be proven that somebody who has played as long as Nash, aside from Jordan, and that age can still be fast enough and be in great condition, we're in a day and age where guys like Grant Hill can play great on a consistent basis.

    The points made in this thread that you made, rono, along with nuckles and maybe others is good about the available centers. We have to attempt to get Dalembert though imo. With Nash, he would give us a chance to spend more than we have now on a center for at least two years while STILL having Turiaf.

    That Phoenix medical staff, you gotta love them, changing perspective on things...

Similar Threads

  1. Mike Brown wins Coach of the Year
    By JayJ44 in forum NBA
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: Apr 20, 2009, 23:32
  2. DOWN WITH BROWN!
    By donchris in forum NY Knicks
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: May 16, 2006, 17:33
  3. If the Knicks want Brown, get rid of Marbury
    By Cakalusa in forum NY Knicks
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: Jul 29, 2005, 22:04
  4. Stromile Swift or Kwame Brown
    By nycefnl in forum NY Knicks
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: Jul 04, 2005, 13:01
  5. Larry Brown about KVH
    By allan20 in forum NY Knicks
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: Jul 29, 2003, 10:52

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •