Built Ford Tough

The upside is that he is 21 years old and was considered as a work in progress when drafted. Not to mention it is well known that most point guards go through ups (such as his November in which he averaged 10/5/6 on 49% in 15 games) and downs (such as his Janurary in which he averaged 4/2/3 on 33% in 14 games) during their rookie year as they make the adjustment from college to the pros. When you are in the financial position that the Hornets are in, how is the expiring no valuable? And he looked great the year before. Efficient, productive, All-Star, 19/9. He is also at $12.2M expiring (which I was wrong about, I thought he was expiring in 12/13) as opposed to Okafor's $41M. Huge salary relief, a young point guard who may or may not have upside and a potential 1st round pick. Even the 1st alone would be better than letting Paul walk for nothing.

It wasn't. It was about as good of a package as you are going to get for a star who wants out and will only go to 1 team.

So what is a realistically fair package for Paul, in your opinion?

But these are completely alright? Call me out all you want, but I'm not the only division leader posting garbage in this thread... just sayin...

What exactly makes it so bad? Is it the young point guard with some upside? Is it the potential top 5 pick? Is it the $10M expiring? Is it the 15/10 center on a 2 year deal? I'm just confused as to what about the package you think makes it so awful. Obviously none of the pieces are as good as a Chris Paul (although you never know how the draft pick may end up) but its not like you actually get full value for a superstar when you are trading him, especially when you are forced to trade him or let him walk with no compensation.

Because I was the one who originally mentioned it, right? Love it. Maybe you should tell illwill to grow up? After all, up until his comment there was nothing but basketball discussion going on in this thread. But no, I'm to blame.

Go right ahead, I won't bitch and moan about it like a butt hurt 5 year old.

That is better than what New York gave for Anthony, or at the very least comparable. For a player that you absolutely know won't be re-signing, getting a package involving the Wolves unprotected 2012 1st (a potential top 5 pick in an absolutely loaded draft), a 15-10 center (when healthy), an athletic, 21 year old point guard who averaged 7/3/3.5 in 22 minutes as a rookie and a $10M expiring contract to a cash strapped franchise for a player who is already counting down the days to when he can leave. Not to mention they dump around $41M of Emeka Okafor and given their financial position, that would be very appealing to them as well. I really don't see how this would be a bad proposal given the circumstances. Its not like this is a fully healthy, signed long term Chris Paul. There are still plenty of concerns about his health and whether or not he can regain the form that he had in the late 00's. He certainly didn't look like the same player last season.

http://www.torontosun.com/2011/11/28/bargnani-starting-to-get-it I highly doubt Bargnani suddenly flips a switch and reaches his full potential considering what he has done in the 5 years he has been in the league. However, if there is ever a time where we see a change in him, it is definitely this season. After the little offseason back and forth between him and Colangelo combined with his underwhelming play as the Raptors "franchise" player last season, he has to know that this is basically a make or break season for him. With a new coach and a new system in place, there isn't a better time for him to try and rejuvinate his career in Toronto. If he plays poorly this season, it may spell the end of his time in Toronto and he looks like he will be used as a power forward this season. I'm not getting my hopes up or anything like that, but a small part of me is actually looking forward to seeing how he plays in Casey's system.

Time: 9:30 PM EST TV: ESPN Big game tonight between two top 3 teams (some polls have Duke 4th, though). http://espn.go.com/ncb/preview?gameId=313330194

lol look at how cute the Knick fans are when they are upset.

The Heat don't need a true PG. All they need is a guy that can come in, hit open jumpers, play solid defense and initiate an offense. If Mario Chalmers was a bit better at getting the team into their offense immeidately, rather than simply handing the ball off to Wade or James, he would be perfect. Those two have the ball so often that it would be redundent to go out and get a true PG. A defensive anchor at center is clearly a more pressing need. Their inability to control the paint defensively is their biggest need. There is no point spending their MLE anywhere other than at the center position. Dalembert is the best fit, other than Tyson Chandler who would get more than the MLE unless he takes a huge paycut. A lineup of Chalmers/Wade/Bron/Bosh/Dalembert is easily good enough to win a championship and is definitely better than throwing out Anthony at center again. He is great as a backup in limited minutes, but he is not a starting calibre player. Chalmers isn't either on most teams, but you can get away with him starting at the point when you have two great playmaking wings in Wade and James beside him.

Guess I now know better than to say anything negative about the Knicks. Valuable lesson learned.

Right, I'm upset because I responded to your post.

Umm, what? How is that a huge flaw of my argument when I focused on their entire 65 year history? Its not like I cherry picked stats that suit my "agenda". I took the numbers from the moment they came into the league until Game 4 of the 2011 NBA Playoffs. Why should we ignore an entire 10 year period of terrible basketball when discussing a franchise? The 2000's are just as relevent to the Knicks history as the Ewing years and the Frazier years, whether you like it or not. I can play that game too. Lets take the New Jersey Nets. Lets completely ignore 10 years that paint them in a poor light. So take away their last 4 years and the 5 year stretch from 86-91 where they had a combined 0 playoff appearances and a record of 216-522, good for a winning percentage of .414. So suddenly instead of a historical record of 1,560-2,022 (.436) they are now sitting at 1,344-1,500, which is a .473 winning percentage. Instead of being 25th in historical winning percentage, they are now 20th. They also make the playoffs 23 out of 35 seasons and have 2 championships in 35 years, both of which are as good or better ratios than the Knicks boast, even if you remove the 00's (although Knicks winning percentage increases as well, obviously). You get rid of the Devin Harris', Sam Bowie's and Derrick Coleman's of the world and only focus on the Jason Kidd's, Julius Erving's and Rick Barry's instead. The bottom line is that those 10 years, whether it is the Knicks 00's or these 4 and 5 year stretches for the Nets, are just as much apart of the teams history as the Dr. J and Ewing years. You can't simply ignore them because it makes your argument look more appealing. As for illwill, you do realize that I have stated numerous times in this thread that I don't dispute their profitability, market, fan base or any of that crap, right? People talk about the Knicks like they have some great winning tradition, a la the Celtics or Lakers, when they aren't even on the levels of a Milwaukee Bucks (.522 winning percentage, 1 championship in 41 years) or Indiana Pacers (.503 winning percentage, 3 championships in 44 years). The fact is that they are under .500 all-time. The fact is that they have won 2 NBA Championships in 65 years. The fact is that in terms of winning and losing basketball games, they are historically no different than the Atlanta Hawks. So please, stop harping on something that I have never said once in this thread. I said that the Knicks history on the basketball court isn't rich and storied like many people make it out to be. Unless my standards are too high and I'm absurd for thinking that a franchise with a sub .500 winning percentage and 2 championships in 65 years shouldn't be put on a pedestal. As a basketball franchise, the New York Knicks are nothing special historically. As a business franchise, the New York Knicks are top 3 in NBA history. What exactly is wrong with thinking this? How is it in any way false or inaccurate? On the court the Knicks aren't anything special, an average, run of the mill franchise no better than the Atlanta Hawks or Denver Nuggets. Off the court they are extraordinary, up there with the the Boston Celtics and Los Angeles Lakers. So unless somebody is going to argue against what I am actually typing, which is their history on the basketball court, and not putting words in my posts, I'll respectfully bow out of this thread.

Yeah, mediocore. How exactly should I consider an all-time winning percentage of .497, which is good for 16th out of 30 teams? 38 playoff apperances in 55 years looks alright on paper (especially since you left out basically an entire decade worth of games), but don't leave out the fact that a vast majority of those years came in a league that had 10-20 teams, not 30. 11 of those playoff apperances came when there was just 8 teams in the league and another 10 came when there was only between 17-22 teams. So out of those 38 playoff apperances, nearly half of them came in a league with 20 or less teams. Then there is their Finals appearances. 3 of their 8 came in a league with 10 teams. Not that impressive. Nobody is denying that they didn't have some talented players, but really, who cares when their history consists of more losses than wins? Lets look at how similar the Knicks and Hawks are as franchises. They are nearly identical when it comes to wins, playoff appearances, championships, HOF'ers, etc... Hawks years in league - 62 Knicks years in league - 65 Hawks winning percentage - .493 Knicks winning percentage - .497 Hawks playoff appearances - 40 Knicks playoff appearances - 40 Hawks champioships - 1 Knicks championships - 2 # of HOF'ers to play for Hawks - 13 # of HOF'ers to play for Knicks - 15 Hawks All-Star appearances - 84 Knicks All-Star appearances - 87 Hawks 50 win seasons - 11 Knicks 50 win seasons - 10 Yet nobody claims the Hawks' franchise as one of the NBA's elite, yet many hype the Knicks as one of the elite based on their accomplishments. Again, just to reiterate, I'm not arguing against the Knicks franchise as being profitable, playing in a huge market, having a huge fan base or anything like that. You are right in the sense that you can't overrate things like that. However, when it comes to the historical play and results on the court, you can definitely consider the Knicks overrated considering how people talk them up like they have some sort of rich history, when they really don't.

Hedo's contract doesn't expire after this upcoming season. He is signed through next year with a player option of $12.2M for the 2013-14 season, which he will obviously accept since it is about 4X the amount that he is worth at this stage of his career.

The Bulls wouldn't be able to bid on him, though. Only teams that are under the cap can bid on players who get cut, and they can't exceed the cap when bidding on these players. So unless the Bulls dump some salary elsewhere, they likely won't have enough cap room to be able to outbid a team like Minnesota for Roy. If they can find a way to make it work, I have full confidence that he would draw a lot of interest from the Bulls, though. I'd be willing to bet that 90% of the teams under the cap would be interested in Roy when he is cut. Somebody is going to take a chance on him at a discounted price and hope that he can become about 75-80% of what he used to be. Since the Wolves owe the Clippers their 1st round pick, and it is unprotected, I'd be absolutely shocked if they didn't make a strong push for the likes of Roy or Rashard Lewis (if they are cut) in hopes of them regaining their form. They might as well take a risk like that considering they don't own their 1st this year anyways.

0-66. Anything better and I will be severly disappointed.

At the price tag of something like $70M over the next 4 years? The market for him at that price is sure to be non-existent, given his declining play, injury prone nature and him having basically nothing left in both of his knees. However, the market for him at, say, $5M or so, which is what I imagine the likely amount somebody would big on him when he gets cut, is sure to be large. The Blazers would still be on the hook for a huge amount of money, but at least they clear his cap hit and save some money. I realize that Roy did a lot for that team, but it only makes sense to cut him. His contract could already be considered a crippling one, could you imagine what it is like in years 3 and 4 when his knees deteriorate even more and he is making nearly $20M annually? The Blazers need to do what is best for their franchise, and that means cutting him, unless they can sucker some moron GM into taking on the entire contract, but even if that is the case, I highly doubt you are getting much value in return for him. You are likely going to just be exchaning one bad contract for 1-3 bad contracts.

To add to that, Dale Hunter of the OHL's London Knights replaced Boudreau and Kirk Muller is expected to replace Maurice as the Hurricanes head coach (not sure if that one is official yet, but it will be).

I think that Marshall is more important to UNC than Henson or Zeller. They are both critical pieces and would not be nearly the same team without them as they are with them, but it isn't a coincidence that their turnaround last season started when they put Marshall into the lineup and cut ties with the cancer that was Drew. Marshall just opens everything up for the rest of the team because of how effective he is as a playmaker. There isn't a point guard in college basketball that has the vision or passing ability that he has and it leads to so many easy baskets for the rest of the team. Even though he is a borderline liability when it comes to scoring (averaging like 5 points on 36% shooting) you have absolutely no problem with having him on the court because of how much offense he creates for the rest of the team. I agree that Barnes is the most important piece, that is obvious, but I think Marshall is the 2nd most important player. That isn't to say he is the 2nd best player on the team, but in terms of importance, I think it is safe to say he is ahead of at least Zeller, perhaps Henson as well.

Nobody is denying their value, profitability or anything like that. What they do consider overrated is the fact that many people paint this picture of some rich, storied franchise when in actuality, the Knicks have been, historically, nothing more than a mediocore franchise. Nobody is foolish enough to argue that they aren't a big market, bring in a lot of revenue and have a very large fan base, but when talking about on court production, they are highly overrated as a franchise considering how highly many people think of them. I imagine that is what Wilbon meant when he said they are the most overrated franchise in sports, and its not like that is an off the wall comment.

From his Twitter, posted a day or so ago. It was reported before that the Thunder would be heavily interested in signing Battier (along with the Celtics, Heat, Grizzlies and Rockets) but I don't really know if it would make all that much sense for the Thunder to go and sign him considering he wouldn't get all that many minutes since Durant is blocking him at the 3, they have Harden at the 2 and they already have a very good defensive player in Sefolosha (although he is a liability on offense, unlike Battier). It may make more sense to go out and strengthen up their big man depth or something like that.