Kwame Brown... Are we serious?!

ronoranina

Fundamentally Sound
You are seriously retarded..

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.

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?

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

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?? :gony:

Putting together those three guys is the start of that.
 
Last edited:

RunningJumper

Super Moderator
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.
 

Red

TYPE-A
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?


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?? :gony:

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.
 

nuckles2k2

Superstar
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 shit 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.
 

ronoranina

Fundamentally Sound
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.


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 shit 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:

ronoranina

Fundamentally Sound
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.




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.




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.




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. :-<


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.


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. :drink:





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.



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.




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.



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.

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.


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.. :shrug:

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.

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.



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:

SSj4Wingzero

All Star
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
 

ronoranina

Fundamentally Sound
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:

RunningJumper

Super Moderator
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?
 

RunningJumper

Super Moderator
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...
 

nuckles2k2

Superstar
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?

We wouldn't have enough money for Steph. Things are set up for us to have a little bit of spending money next summer (or trade value in Billups' contract this season.) Annual increase in salary (mainly STAT and Melo) makes things tougher in the future. You have to have the pieces you want on the roster, now, not later.

That's why you have to be damn sure you want role players over a third star, because once you get up against the cap...that's it. From there on it's the MLE and trades. That's why the Lakers got Pau, and then Shannon Brown, and Ron Artest, Steve Blake, Matt Barnes, etc. If they flesh out their roster around Kobe, Lamar, and Bynum...there is no Pau. But since they got Pau and his Bird Rights, they have him and all of those other guys too.

If we get Nash, let him stay here for a few years, and STAT and Melo's salaries go from $18M a piece, to $21-22M a piece, that's an extra 6 to 7 million dollar's you don't have to spend. If you're over the cap, and remain over the cap because of annual increase, it doesn't matter who's money/contract comes off the books...you don't have money to spend. That means no Steph Curry, no anyone.

Or you can have CP3, Melo, and Amar'e, some MLE guys, drafted players, and vet min contracts.
 

RunningJumper

Super Moderator
We wouldn't have enough money for Steph. Things are set up for us to have a little bit of spending money next summer (or trade value in Billups' contract this season.) Annual increase in salary (mainly STAT and Melo) makes things tougher in the future. You have to have the pieces you want on the roster, now, not later.

That's why you have to be damn sure you want role players over a third star, because once you get up against the cap...that's it. From there on it's the MLE and trades. That's why the Lakers got Pau, and then Shannon Brown, and Ron Artest, Steve Blake, Matt Barnes, etc. If they flesh out their roster around Kobe, Lamar, and Bynum...there is no Pau. But since they got Pau and his Bird Rights, they have him and all of those other guys too.

If we get Nash, let him stay here for a few years, and STAT and Melo's salaries go from $18M a piece, to $21-22M a piece, that's an extra 6 to 7 million dollar's you don't have to spend. If you're over the cap, and remain over the cap because of annual increase, it doesn't matter who's money/contract comes off the books...you don't have money to spend. That means no Steph Curry, no anyone.

Or you can have CP3, Melo, and Amar'e, some MLE guys, drafted players, and vet min contracts.
What if we got Nash for vet. minimum though after his last year? We wouldn't be over the cap then, unless you mean something else. It seems like we'd have more than the MLE even if we lost the extra 6 to 7 compared to spending the max, but that's how it seems. You'll have to help me out on that.

On a side note, I hope the NBA allowing teams like the Lakers with that money stops being possible. No team should be that over the cap.
 

SSj4Wingzero

All Star
I think it speaks as much about Nash's own work ethic as it does Phoenix's conditioning squad but I see your point.

My point was we need roleplayers. As beautiful as it would be to think that tons of players would take the minimum to play in NY, the reality is that if you maxed our our cap space by signing CP3, we'd be left with Kwame Brown-level players - fringe players trying to win a championship before they lose their game completely. We don't have any draft picks - let's be real, Jorts is never going to be that good, and if we get any better than we are right now our picks are going to be later picks and we all know how hard it is to get a big man later in the draft - hell, in this day and age, it's impossible to get a decent big man ANYWHERE in the draft.

And some folks here have gotten so pissed at the idea of signing Kwame as it is that there's no real reason to think we could make a strong title run with him as our center. The Mavericks had Tyson Chandler, the Lakers had Pau and Bynum, the Celtics had Garnett, the Spurs had Duncan/Robinson, the Lakers and Heat had Shaq, the Pistons had Ben Wallace...it goes on. We desperately need a center if we want to win.

That being said the best solution is to sign Dwight Howard and then we've got not only the most dominant big man in the game but two of the game's elite scorers. If we have D12, Melo, and Amar'e, then we could throw Shumpert and Fields at PG/SG and probably win a championship.
 

RunningJumper

Super Moderator
I think it speaks as much about Nash's own work ethic as it does Phoenix's conditioning squad but I see your point.

My point was we need roleplayers. As beautiful as it would be to think that tons of players would take the minimum to play in NY, the reality is that if you maxed our our cap space by signing CP3, we'd be left with Kwame Brown-level players - fringe players trying to win a championship before they lose their game completely. We don't have any draft picks - let's be real, Jorts is never going to be that good, and if we get any better than we are right now our picks are going to be later picks and we all know how hard it is to get a big man later in the draft - hell, in this day and age, it's impossible to get a decent big man ANYWHERE in the draft.

And some folks here have gotten so pissed at the idea of signing Kwame as it is that there's no real reason to think we could make a strong title run with him as our center. The Mavericks had Tyson Chandler, the Lakers had Pau and Bynum, the Celtics had Garnett, the Spurs had Duncan/Robinson, the Lakers and Heat had Shaq, the Pistons had Ben Wallace...it goes on. We desperately need a center if we want to win.

That being said the best solution is to sign Dwight Howard and then we've got not only the most dominant big man in the game but two of the game's elite scorers. If we have D12, Melo, and Amar'e, then we could throw Shumpert and Fields at PG/SG and probably win a championship.
Yeah, definitely, Nash, Amar'e, Hill, all have the work ethic needed.

See, the Hornets had Okafor. He's a good defender. If they had a starting shooting guard, maybe that team would have been enough to beat the Lakers, but still, we saw how tough it was for even a good center to beat a team with Pau and Bynum on the floor at the same time. The Hornets were a defensive minded team too. On the Hornets, along with Chris Paul being this kind of player, all they might have needed is a shooting guard who could handle the ball....actually, the Hornets didn't have West either.

We didn't wait for Paul to be our second max player, we went with what was available in Melo. While they don't give the open looks Paul would give us, they're still two players who need to be double-teamed. I think the two superstars we got means we're gonna need to get defensive players who aren't max players, or get Dwight Howard. Chris Paul on the Hornets has help on the defensive side, for all we know they might have been a David West and/or shooting guard away from the Finals/championship.

We're not in that position though, unless we get a defensive coach, and in that case, we should see how that goes before spending the max.

Forgot to ask, nuckles, or anyone, what happens if there is no next season? Does the contracts change or does it still stay the same regardless? As in, the 2012 free agents before the lockout will they still be free agents?
 

SSj4Wingzero

All Star
I agree. Let's not forget that the Hornets made it as far as they did because they had DEFENSE.

We need Amar'e to work on his defense so he can hold his own against the likes of Pau Gasol and other high-level PFs. And then we need Carmelo to work his ASS OFF so he can have a chance in hell of stopping opposing swingmen.

To that end I think a coaching change is just as important as adding a max level player and some roleplayers, but that's another story entirely.

Let's not forget that we wasted whatever draft picks we had in the trades we've been making. We need to pick up FA roleplayers at C in order to keep this team going. No team is going to to the finals with Jared Jeffries at C.
 

nuckles2k2

Superstar
What if we got Nash for vet. minimum though after his last year? We wouldn't be over the cap then, unless you mean something else. It seems like we'd have more than the MLE even if we lost the extra 6 to 7 compared to spending the max, but that's how it seems. You'll have to help me out on that.

On a side note, I hope the NBA allowing teams like the Lakers with that money stops being possible. No team should be that over the cap.

This past season, the cap was $58M, let's assume the cap stays somewhere around there, give or take a few mil. Next year, STAT and Melo make up $39M of our salary...43 mil the year after. That's just those two alone, not counting the coveted role players, and this phantom center that we're gonna get. Let's say those players collectively equal another $12M, you're now in 2013 with a payroll of $55M and no point guard.

You mentioned Steph Curry...he's only eligible to become a restricted free agent after the 2012 season. To sign him, we'd have to outbid Golden State (assuming he doesn't sign a new deal with them before he hits the market) but how do we do that with limited funds?

If you take on contracts that put you up against the cap when Billups and Ronnie leave, you have to know for a fact that they're going to get you a ring. Because if you're up against the cap with untradeable contracts...you're now in "blow it up" territory. Your case in point is the Orlando Magic. They F'ed themselves in the A with all of those trades they made to "win it all"....now they have contracts they can't move, can't sign anyone, and guess who's leaving? Their GM? Maybe, but so is Dwight Howard.

If you have CP3, Melo, and STAT, or Melo, STAT, and Dwight, you're always in it....always. You can always draft a player to give you the same tangible results a "well condition, in shape" 39 year old Grant Hill would give you...and even if you have to have that old *****...the MLE would let you.

Steve Nash and Grant Hill.....what the ****?
 

nuckles2k2

Superstar
I almost created a new thread for this...but I won't. I'll ask this question here and hope it's answered.

To all of those who think we should forgo another max and get a center, I need you to answer a few questions.

Who is this center that you want? Can he be acquired right now? Can he also be acquired with the MLE?
 

STAT1

Starter
I almost created a new thread for this...but I won't. I'll ask this question here and hope it's answered.

To all of those who think we should forgo another max and get a center, I need you to answer a few questions.

Who is this center that you want? Can he be acquired right now? Can he also be acquired with the MLE?

Thank you. I keep hearing all these names being bandied about. Nene, Gasol, Deandre Jordan, etc., etc. I don't think a lot of people understand that we have no cap space to spend this summer on any free agent that wants more than a MLE contract.
 

keyser soze

Benchwarmer
I almost created a new thread for this...but I won't. I'll ask this question here and hope it's answered.

To all of those who think we should forgo another max and get a center, I need you to answer a few questions.

Who is this center that you want? Can he be acquired right now? Can he also be acquired with the MLE?

People against pulling out all the stops to acquire a 3rd max will never have satisfactory answers to your questions because satisfactory answers to your questions don't exist without conceding the point.
 
Top