1) A 7 foot big man with post moves is not easy to come by in this day and age
Agreed. And any one that is made available should be suspect.
2) While I think 16 a year is too much for Bynum (What he would make next season) it is not as far off as you are out to make it. The league salaries in general are inflated. Jason Richardson and Kenyon Martin make around that much. AK-47 and Gilbert Arenas make about the same.
...all of which are considered players who are overpaid. In other words, it *IS* too much.
3) How is any deal involving Carmelo Anthony going to tell teams 'we can and will compete for a title' ? Have you seen what has been laid out for him by others? I think based on the idea that any deal right now is not worth it
Agreed. Which is why they should make *NO* deal.
As for no star players taking them seriously, you need a solid big man to do well in this league. That has been proven time and time again. I think that Denver having a big man is more enticing to a star than any other position right now.
If the big man is Tim Duncan or Kevin Garnett or Dirk Nowitzki or the like, then yes. Let's not kid ourselves into thinking that Bynum is in that class. He's closer to Erick Dampier, Tyson Chandler, and Samuel Dalembert - serviceable bigs, but nothing to write home about. Let's not get too excited about a player who could be the next Eddy Curry.
When you dump top talent (and while I'd argue that's not what Anthony is, for this moment. let's assume he is) and you do not get top talent in return, you lose in terms of reputation in the league.
I think that is the last of their worries. The top talent dumped them already. The only way they could look worse is if he walks and they get nothing. That is what I was trying to get at.
No, the team's reputation is paramount to maintaining the environment for signing potential players you want. If Utah had dumped Stockton and Malone, they wouldn't have been able to get Boozer and Okur, which is part of what turned Utah around. The Clippers have an attractive location, but a toxic atmosphere. That toxic atmosphere is something you cannot allow your franchise to develop when you go into a rebuilding/retooling mode. It can be fixed (see Mark Cuban's takeover in Dallas), but it's not easy. Denver cannot afford to let themselves get there.
The Nets dumped their crew that went to the Finals - notably, Kidd - for "promising young talent" like Devin Harris. Anthony won't sign with them, the Nets are no longer enamored with Harris, and Kidd's still crippling along strong in Dallas. Dallas remained relevant, and New Jersey sank into the swamp. (Or, perhaps, burned down, fell over, and then sank into the swamp.) And it'll take some effort by the new owner to get them going strong enough to erase the mistake.
Part of that melt down had to do with a change in the front office as well, not to mention coaching problems. It is not fair to try to say that their dash to get younger (which they weren't going to win with that team because it lacked a legit big man) was the sole reason it took a tumble. It was quite a few things.
[/quote]
There's a difference between "a tumble" and challenging for the worst record in history. LA took "a tumble" when trading away Shaq. "A tumble" can be recovered from reasonably easy. A collapse - which is what New Jersey did, is entirely different.
Also, we need to take into consideration that Jason Kidd wasn't happy and did shop other teams.
So was Kobe Bryant. Winning franchises take an unhappy player somewhat in stride, and continue working at trying to improve - not pacifying their superstar.
Memphis has, currently, a winning record. How many free agents are lining up to go there? None? Why not? Oh - because Memphis isn't serious about winning.
No because Memphis is Memphis. When they had Pau Gasol down there, people weren't flocking. Don't tell me that they weren't trying to win with him and not making the playoffs. Now that hes gone, same thing. They have talent down there. Rudy Gay is a solid basketball player. OJ Mayo, when he tries, is a good offensive weapon.
When Memphis had Gasol, people weren't flocking there, but they weren't going to avoid it if the owner opened his pocketbook, either. It was a young team, and improving, until a Gasol injury, the loss of West, and the retirement of Brown.
But trading Gasol for a bag of stale potato chips didn't improve the team. Now, they're outside the playoff picture looking in - EVEN WITH THE SO-CALLED IMPROVED TALENT. And they're talking that they WON'T keep both Randolph and Marc Gasol this year. Poison atmosphere. Cheap owner. See the Clippers.
Rudy Gay was just on the radio out here doing his 'all-star game voting push' on KLAC Fox Sports and admitted that there is nothing to do in Memphis other than 'raise a child' It is not exactly a hot spot for 20-something year old millionaires.
He won't mind the scenery if he's playing in June. I don't consider San An a cultural mecca. Doesn't seem to slow them down. Winning fixes boredom.
OKC has an awesome team and no one is beating down the doors to get down there either.
OKC is a relocated, failed team. Give them three or four years of winning, good ownership, and people *WILL* go there. Not the uber-stars - but the role-players they'll need to go with their uber-star (Durant).
Utah, despite a dumb contract to Kirilenko, did a better job recovering, even though it endured a few losing seasons, and *DIDN'T* trade away its superstars.
No they didn't trade away Deron but let us not act like Carlos Boozer was a sacred cow around there.
I was referring to Stockton and Malone.
Utah is about to go into the "poison atmosphere" group. Since Larry H. Miller died, the team has gotten cheap - with cost-cutting moves like dumping Maynor and Brewer, letting Boozer go, etc. Williams will bolt. They're about to go into the tank. You heard it here first.
San An surely could have gotten a good sidekick for Duncan by offering David Robinson to a competitor, right? Instead, they ran him into the ground. We've all see how poorly that worked by looking at the banners they fly there, haven't we? Cultural mecca and major place that San Antonio is.
How does this apply to the Denver situation? Melo is going to walk. It is not like David Robinson was going to walk. I'd argue that David Robinson COULD have walked and the Spurs had a legit shot at rattling off a few titles. If Melo walks Denver gets nothing and doesn't have much left behind.
WINNING ENVIRONMENT. Denver has let go of Marcus Camby (to the Clippers) for a bag of potato chips, Linus Kleiza for nothing, and what's-his-name mediocre 2-guard to Indiana. That's two starters and a valuable bench player. Denver's starting to reap what they've sown. That's part of why Anthony wants out. San An did it the right way. Sean Elliott finished as a Spur. They kept their role players, and kept their stars happy, and used their money wisely. Denver could have been in that category. Instead, they're squandering what they have.
Shaq and Kobe have a split, Lakers deal Shaq instead of letting Kobe walk, Shaq ends up being swaped with a player that gets Kwame Brown/his contract that landed Pau Gasol. Perfect storm, of course, but the point that getting some piece that you maybe able to trade later for a better piece (or better fit) is better than nothing.
Relying on the stupidity of GM's like Wallace is no way to build a winning franchise. Getting Kwame Brown for Caron Butler was *STUPID*. It hurt Los Angeles and improved Washington. It took something DRASTICALLY STUPID to save Los Angeles from it. (And if you don't think it was stupid, those playoff defeats to Phoenix apparently didn't sink in.)
When the Timberwolves dealt Kevin Garnett, who was going to walk anyways, they ended up with a 5th pick in 2009 which was a talented point guard in Ricky Rubio. Sadly he decided to throw a temper tantrum but Kevin Love, Ricky Rubio, Michael Beasley would be a solid young core.
Where's Al Jeffereson in that? Oh - that's right. Garnett wears a ring, and the player you dealt him for had to be dumped. And wasn't that 5th pick their own - because it's sure not Boston's? And with this young core, where are they? Basement of the West? And this is what they aspire to? They'd have been more relevant by keeping Kevin Garnett.
San Antonio is a special franchise, probably the most unique small market team in terms of how the organization is ran and how they treat players. They are an exception, not a rule. Let's make no mistake though, had they not got lucky grabbing Duncan, they would be more Memphis Grizzlies than Los Angeles Lakers.
No argument that they go lucky getting Duncan. But let's also not mistake that the "uniqueness" of the organization is why Duncan has role-players around him, instead of wasting away Duncan's talent. They didn't trade away Robinson to save money like Denver did with Marcus Camby.
The Lakers acquired Gasol to win NOW. Not because they knew Bynum had no shot.
The Lakers acquired Gasol because they got him for a bag of stale potato chips. It wasn't a "we have to win now" thing. It was a "you'd be stupid not to do this" deal. Let's get that straight.
The reason that they were looking, and not complacent, was because Bryant felt that Bynum had no shot - which is why he was upset that the Lakers didn't deal him and get Jason Kidd, if you'll recall.
Now I am not going to argue that now he is a player you go all in on. Clearly he isn't.
Agreed. Which is why you don't accept him in a deal for Carmelo Anthony if you're Denver.
In a league strapped for 7 footers who can work in the post he is a good piece to add to your team.
So was Eddy Curry, at one point. But it's fool's gold, and accepting such a player becomes an albatross to the cap flexibility needed to create a winner.
There are maybe 5 perimeter players better than Anthony when it comes to scoring and shooting down the stretch. None of which are leaving contenders. There is no player out there that they could get to completely rebuild their franchise.
Chris Paul and Deron Williams will not be with their respective teams next time around. If you're going to acquire players, acquire cap-friendly, young players - not cap-killing mediocre big men.
Staying pat and collecting cap space sends the same message you were griping about above. It tells players 'we cannot win currently and not in the immediate future because we are rebuilding for 3-4 years'
Nope. Gives a different message - "We're not going to just give up. We'll TRY to keep you. We'll TRY to give you a winner."
If Anthony is all that good, then he's at least worth Gasol and a draft pick, right? But everyone (except, perhaps, Memphis's GM) knows he's not worth that much.
When do people trade big men for smaller guys?
Two cases:
1. The big man is worthless. (See Kwame Brown for Caron Butler.)
2. The franchise is run by idiots. (See Gasol for Javaris Crittendon, Love for Mayo, etc.)
In a league strapped for big men who can operate with their back to the basket (and shoot a jumper I might add) why would you trade a 7 footer for a perimeter player?
Same two reasons as above. If the offer is there to you, it's either not as good as it looks...or the GM you're dealing with is an idiot. I think we can safely rule out the latter one when you're dealing with a franchise that's been in the last 3 Finals.
And if Denver cannot get appropriate value for him, they're better off *NOT* to take "the best offer we got," but to let Anthony walk, take the cap space, WITHOUT doing a sign-and-trade. (The only thing a sign-and-trade gets you, when dealing with a team who's over the cap, is a rotten draft pick, and a contract you don't want of a player you don't want, and a trade exception you can use to get one player who doesn't want to come there but doesn't have any other choice in the matter.)
Getting nothing for him is worse than getting something for him. Especially when half your team is aging and its a core that has made it to the western conference finals in the last couple years.
Nope, not at all. Getting nothing is preferable, because all you'll get is a rotten draft pick, a contract you don't want of a player you don't want, or a trade exception to use on another disgruntled player. If you're going to re-build, you want flexibility.
Cap Space is great if there are free agents coming up in the market. Have you looked to see who is coming up for free agency? The pickens are SLIM. Plus, if they really wanted to make cap space, they have a number of expiring contracts coming up as it is.
Better to have all the more cap space rather than "just enough for one guy," as we saw this year in Miami. Especially if you have a winning atmosphere in the clubhouse.
Trading Anthony for Bynum only benefits the Lakers in the short run (potentially, because I believe Bynum's size would be missed) and the Lakers in the long run.
It hurts the Lakers in the short run because their advantage over contenders is height.
Potentially. Last year, absolutely. And that's one more reason to question the deal if LA offered it, because a contender doesn't offer a deal that HURTS their chances.
They gain in the long run because there is a perimeter 'star' to take over for Kobe Bryant.
Disagree. They gain because there is a star to TEAM with Kobe Bryant. Make no mistake - Kobe's not going anywhere.
Teams that trade away their good players are teams that aren't getting better. They should stop kidding themselves into believing that they are.
Teams that let their allstar players walk aren't getting better either (Utah, Cleveland)
Utah - CORRECT! That's why that team is quickly becoming irrelevant.
Cleveland - NOT CORRECT! They traded away their player INSTEAD of letting him walk. All they got were low draft picks - which means a chance to overpay a gamble player that likely won't help your team a whole lot. That eats in to your cap space.
Again, I don't think the Bynum/Melo deal is going to happen nor do I like it. I was simply passing on information.
I think it could be a potenitally bad move for LA, as well, but more from a team balance standpoint than a team talent standpoint. Then again, it's easier to get someone like Dwight Howard if you offer Carmelo Anthony than if you offer Andrew Bynum - especially if Dwight Howard is threatening to walk away from where he is. LA should adopt a "maintain winning environment" approach, and they traditionally have. Any team that thinks they will get the better of a deal with the Lakers is kidding themselves while LA is winning. Two teams got the better of a deal with LA - Miami in the Shaq deal, and Washington in the Butler deal. One was predicated on the necessity of LA of making the deal. The other was a mistake that nearly jeopardized the future by upsetting Kobe Bryant,and, that had Memphis not been fools, Los Angeles would have had to choke on.
