Nitro

I was thinking about this yesterday, and while it would be a great combo, that is not where the Magic's weakness is. Considering that they'd most likely have to give up Carter (their only perimeter slasher/scorer who can create his own shot), another role player and maybe a future draft pick, it'd be a bad move. If they are going to trade Carter, they need an Arenas or Paul back. Also, between Al and Dwight, they'd have a big blackhole in the post. Neither of them pass particularly well, and the Magic will always be at their best when the ball is moving and they are getting open 3's.

Really? He was 2nd in MVP voting in 2008 behind a top 10 player all-time in Kobe Bryant, and that year led his team to within 1 game of beating the defending champion Spurs in the Conference semi's. That kind of excellence is something none of the PG's of the last decade besides Kidd, Nash and D-Will could have done. My big thing with putting Paul that high is despite only playing 5 years, he's been a top 5 player in the league for at least 3 of them IMO. The gap in level of play between he and those PG's you listed is so large that it easily makes up for him playing only half the decase. He's led the league in assists twice (would have been 3x if he wasn't hurt this year), led the league in steals twice, been on the All-NBA 1st Team and All-NBA Defensive 1st team, single-handedly brought the Hornets back to prominence as the best player in team history...the list goes on and on. Check his stats over the last 3 seasons- 2007-2008: 21.1PPG, 11.6APG, 4.0RPG, 48.8% FG, 36.9% 3PT, 85.1% FT, 2.7SPG, 2.5 TO 2008-2009: 22.8PPG, 11.0APG, 5.5RPG, 50.3% FG, 36.4% 3PT, 86.8% FT, 2.8SPG, 3.0 TO 2009-2010: 18.7PPG, 10.7APG, 4.2RPG, 49.3% FG, 40.9% 3PT, 84.7% FT, 2.1SPG, 2.5 TO Those are all-timer type numbers. Isiah type scoring numbers, Nash efficiency and assists, and Kidd-level defense. His level of play is SO far ahead of Marbury, Parker, Billups, Davis and all of them that I have no issue putting him ahead of those players in the all-decade list. After all, if we were making an all-decade team for the '80's, would you not put MJ high up, if not at the very top of the list despite playing only 6 years that decade? Of course, because his level of play was so much higher than most of his competition. Same with Paul.

First off, before I say ANYTHING, quote me where I ridicule or hate soccer. It's not my cup of tea, sure, but all the points I have made are factual. I do not care if anyone like or hates soccer, nor do I like or hate soccer. I don't watch it every single day, but I'll tune into the World Cup occasionally, and got to see The NY Red Bulls 2 years back. Not to mention I played the sport until 4th grade. With that said... First off, you keep failing to realize where you posted this. You posted it in, "General NBA Discussion" on a site devoted to basketball. You can talk about the issue of flopping in soccer all you want, but very few will follow you in that regard. Most people reading this top care strictly about flopping in the NBA. That is why I said, "Let's get over this soccer crap" or whatever because I didn't even realize we were talking about soccer too, since it's, you know...General NBA Discussion. Secondly, you are continuing to ignore the importance of context. Yes, they are two contact sports, and they both have issues with flopping. It ends there. How can you reasonably compare them or say, "The NBA should do this, the NBA should do that because soccer does..." if they are two totally different sports, have a totally different set of rules (including what constitues a foul), totally different orginization running them, each require a totally different breed of athlete, and each have a totally different refereeing situation. All of these factors have a direct impact on the flopping situation in each sport. To directly compare and contrast is trivial and pointless. Treat each as its own entity. All this is nice, but only proves that the NBA is not as physical as the '80's/'90's NBA. Has absolutely nothing to do with proving soccer is a more physical sport. And yes, some players get superstar calls. But for every superstar call they get, they get hit legitimitely hard about 5 other times. And again, there are how many superstars in the league? 5-7? Maybe include 3 others since they were once superstars and get that benefit? That's 10 players in a pool of over 300. Aka less than 3%. And probably less than 20% of the calls they get are "superstar" calls. That's a very, very low number of "superstar" calls league-wide. And once again...context. How often is a star player in soccer fouled? Not too often, nothing like in the NBA, whether you want to talk old school or new school NBA. If you want to compare players getting superstar calls in the NBA, then compare it to rushing the passer in the NFL for players like Manning and Brady. A much, much better comparison. Still pointless, but it makes so much more sense. What are you talking about? I ACKNOWLEDGED THERE IS PHYSICALITY IN SOCCER, AND SPECIFIED THOSE SITUATIONS!!!! The problem is... Let's take yesterday's England vs. Germany soccer match for example. There were 13 fouls, 0 penalty kicks and 10 corner kicks. In the average NBA game you are gonna get at least 30 fouls, and that's in 42+ less minutes than in soccer where it's a struggle to exceed 30 fouls. Now, in the NBA there is similar physicality to those free/corner EVERY TIME DOWN THE FLOOR! So, those 10-15 corner/free kicks and 13-30 fouls in 90+ minutes are supposed to show me soccer is more physical than constant off-ball physicality and 30-50 fouls in 48min of an NBA game? More importantly, it's supposed to show me that flopping in the NBA and soccer are the same to referee when they are completely different in terms of number of penalties called and scenarios where there is physicality? Totally ignoring the fact that NBA players are much bigger and stronger, further making how they are affected and how they will react when fouled different. Along with ignoring your own point that one sport is more about upper body, another is about lower body, which further complicates the comparison. Where's your logic? You are spending entirely too much time trying to play me off as a hater (which you cannot find proof of) rather than refuting my points (which you haven't). 80% of your post has nothing to do with the points I brought up, and the other 20% I refuted.

Not getting the point. You took speculation as fact and presented it as such. This jorunalist took speculation and presesnted it as speculation. I'm done arguing with you, though. Let's get back on topic.

Key word- The Nets *may* be at a disadvantage. For someone who preaches reading comprehension, you have very little. Anyway, good move by the Nets. Definitely an advantage to have one of Bron's good friends as a partial owner.

And you clearly missed that you posted this topic in the, "General NBA Discussion" forum on a website devoted to basketball. No one cares about flopping in soccer here except you and maybe 1-2 other people. Three things... -Stop generalizing. For every "touch foul" Wade gets called for him, he gets hit hard legitimitely about 5 other times. When you take it to the rim at a rate that ranks among the all-time greats, you're going to get hit hard a lot. That's why despite his very thick physical frame, he's had his fair share of injuries. Then you have players like LeBron and Shaq who are physical marvels and take enormous punishment yet manage to stay relatively healthy. -How many superstars are there in the league? 5-7 MAYBE? For every "superstar" call, and for every foul called because someone flops, there are about 35 other legit fouls called in the game. That's what you're really overlooking. -The hand-check rule is called rarely. It does get called, but not that often. The entire Lakers-Celtics series when Kobe faced up he was getting hand-checked. T-Mac always used to get hand-checked. And again, most of the physicality in the NBA is OFF-BALL! Take a look at that Celtics-Lakers series and watch all the physical play going on in and around the paint. So you are using the absolute worst case scenario injuries to prove your point? In soccer, will you see a soccer player breaking his leg every game? Every 5 games? 10 games? No. All of what you just said does nothing to refute... *That in an average NBA game there are more than twice the number of fouls compared to soccer. That NBA players are bigger and stronger in both the upper AND lower body, which makes taking a hit from an NBA player a lot more painful. And most importantly, as opposed to soccer, ON EVERY POSSESSION NBA players with and without the ball have to deal with physicality. If you refute those points, you may have a case for FIFA being as physical as the NBA. Maybe. Also, you know NOTHING about an NBA training regimen...even Kobe, a shooting guard, has been seen squatting over 400lbs for reps. I highly doubt there are more than 5-6 pro soccer players that can squat over 400lbs...many NBA players can. Why? Because vertical jump is cloesly associated with overall power output, and power = strength x speed. You need to have incredible lower body strength to defend post players, cut through traffic, finish strong at the rim, etc... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...wow...REALLY?!? First off, how do you go from Stockton/Malone to Arron Afflalo, a 3rd year player who's played 75+ games only once? I know the answer, don't bother. But it doesn't make you saying that any less mind-blowing. Secondly, you REALLY think NBA players can go 10 games without many bruises to their entire body?!?! Think Dwight Howard doesn't have bruises from getting hacked all the time? Or his defenders don't have bruises from all of Howard's elbows, hipchecks and other tactics? You don't think that players like D-Wade or LeBron, who get hit HARD a few times every game don't have a ton of bruises? You think because Wade and LeBron get a few "superstar" calls a game that they don't also a ton of clean shots each and every game? AND ONCE AGAIN REMEMBER- CONTEXT! STOP COMPARING THE SITUATION OF FLOPPING IN THE NBA TO THE SITUATION OF FLOPPING IN SOCCER! JUST BECAUSE THEY ARE BOTH CONTACT SPORTS MEANS NOTHING! NO COORELATION!

Shaq and Kobe. The ultimate inside-out duo. Shaq was as dominant as any player in NBA history during the 3-peat, and even though Kobe was still on the rise, he was still a top 3 player in the league.

Michael Jordan, with Kobe close behind. Jordan's perfect blend of versatility (why MJ>Kareem or Wilt), productiveness and efficiency (why MJ>Kobe) are unmatched.

T-Mac died after that 2008 Jazz series. Now he's just Tracy; the man who can't shoot, run, jump or stay anywhere near in shape. I always loved T-Mac, but you can only take so much dissapointment lol. Wade in the anti-McGrady...takes the ball to the rim, works hard, is humble, good with media and teammates, overachieves, etc... Nice, fresh change.

In March/April he averaged 17.2PPG and 9.0RPG. It's even worse if you look at his February. In no month did he crack 20PPG. Definately not the 23/11 he was producing in '08-'09.

Well tearing an ACL is a major issue, and last year he clearly was not quite himself. Aside from his ACL tear, he also tore a miniscus in that same knee when he was with Boston, and had some ankle problems as well. The main reason I said that was because half his 6 season career he hasn't played in more than 70 games. Add in a torn ACL, and he's somewhat of a risk. I do believe that because of that risk, and last year's struggles will severely hurt his trade value, and unless you get the right deal it'd be a major mistake to just kind of give him away.

The Knicks. They've basically bombed the last few seasons in hopes of luring LeBron or Wade, and they also have very little to develop besides Gallo. Suffering so much losing with the future completely dependant on 1 of 2 players...if they fail getting Wade or Bron, then it'll be a travesty for Knicks fans. Of course they will likely get at least one or two of the other big name FA's to keep them competitive. But after all this insane hype over the last 2-3 years? It'll be a weak consolation prize.

Johnson does NOT deserve a max, but bringing him in along with a big-name FA PF would make the Knicks a very respectable team (assuming they fill in the other roster holes with more than low-contract prospects). They won't contend for a title, but they can contend for possibly homecourt advantage. If they can't get Bron or Wade, then they have to do SOMETHING. The notion that they can just wait another year and maybe get Melo or one of the other 2011 FA's would be a horrible mistake. Knicks fans have waited too long on possibility. It's time to start winning.

I know it's all opinion, I was just taken back by Steph's positioning and having Cassell quite so high. Certainly don't have to debate it if you don't want to. And yes, I knew what your criterea was which is what I was questioning your picks by.

Read my post that you claim is too long and you'll understand. If 305 words is too long for you, have your mommy heat you up some warm milk and take a nap somewhere around the 150th word. I know it's hard work to, you know, read and write posts with substance. Maybe when you're out of middle school it'll click for you.

If you're gonna laugh your [expletive]ing [expletive] off at something I say, then back it up. If you're gonna lie about the things you said, then back it up. Do neither, and you deserve no respect and should never be taken seriously.

Proved my point.

You stated LeBron not wanting to go to Newark as fact. You stated Brooklyn is not the draw for LeBron if the Nets are playing 2 seasons in Newark as fact. You never said, "I think..." or "In my opinion..." or anything like that. Both are unfounded because neither of those statements have any backing to them whatsoever. Sucks getting nit-picked, doesn't it? You love doing it all the time...no substance, just trying to twist people's words up. Instead of trying to bypass entire posts to nit-pick one or two lines, and then saying "goodybe" or "ttyl," how about you actually debate the main points the poster is trying to get across? You honestly don't think LeBron will get some love from EVERY aspect if he goes to the Nets instead of the Knicks? He was selling out stadiums and dominating the national and local media market while he was in CLEVELAND. LeBron will be the greatest player to ever play in the tri-state area. Hell, he was getting MVP chants and large ovations at the Garden years before this FA mess started (I'm talking back in 2007). The man will dominate the market And LeBron would also certainly get love from NYC for the simple fact that he'd be playing there is 2 years...when he's 27 and in his prime. Even when he's playing in NJ many people from NY will look at him as "their own" because he'll be there in a short while. Lastly, when the Nets were a Finals team the Garden had a ton of fans cheering for the Nets. Judging by the fact that when LeBron was with Cleveland he got louder ovations at MSG than Knicks players did, I think it'd be a safe bet that he'd get PLENTY of NY love if he was on the Nets.

You're the one who said LeBron doesn't want to play in Newark, and you're the one who said Brooklyn wouldn't be the draw for the Nets. Both unfounded statements. This entire topic, as I mentioned earlier, is about LeBron saying to "a source" that he wanted to LIVE in NYC...two years ago. A normal sensationalized story by the NY media. Stop spending so much time focusing on dissecting what Universe says and back-up what the original point of this topic is. I also don't see what the problem is with playing in Newark for 2 years. The Prudential Center is one of the nicest arenas in the country, and playing right across the Hudson leaves him in the same media market. Not quite the same stage as playing in the Garden, but he'll still get roughly the same exposure. And when they move to Brooklyn in 2 years it'll all get even bigger.

How in the world do you have Steph so far ahead of Steve Francis (and almost every other PG on that list)? And Cassell only had 5 really good to great seasons this decade...if number of seasons affects your view on guys like Paul and Williams, it should be the same for Cassell (and Marbury, Francis, etc..). As for my list... 1a) Steve Nash 1b) Jason Kidd 3) Chris Paul 4) Deron Williams 5) Chauncey Billups 6) Baron Davis 7) Tony Parker 8) Andre Miller 9) Sam Cassell 10) Mike Bibby Put Nash and Kidd at 1a, 1b. If I had to pick I'd put Nash slightly over Kidd because Kidd hasn't been the same player the last 3 seasons, never won an MVP, and Nash overall is just a much better offensive player. I put Paul at #3 and D-Will at #4 because they have been so far and away better than the non-Nash/Kidd PG's ever were in the last few seasons. Probably could put D-Will over Paul because of playoff success, but Paul was 2nd in MVP voting in 2008 and led the Hornets to a surprising run through the post-season. Paul is the slightly better player so I put him ahead. Billups is a Finals MVP, always been a very good defender and scorer, and from 2003-2009 made the Conference Finals every single season (winning 2 of them). His success really put him up a spot or two in my list. Davis was the best of the Marbury/Francis types, and unlike them his teams had some playoff success and he's remained consistent and in the league throughout the decade. Parker is another Finals MVP, has 3 rings and has been an All-Star. Once again, success counts in my eyes. Miller's been extremely consistent over the decade and was once an assists-leader. I put him over Cassell because Cassell only had 5 really good seasons this decade, while Miller did it the entire decade. If we're talking career, Cassell is hands down the better choice. And then Bibby rounds out the lineup because he's been consistent, teams have had success and he's always been a good PG.

1) The biggest player on the US team in soccer is 6'4'', 210lbs. That's an undersized SG in the NBA. Most players on the US roster are below 6ft, 180lbs. Let's say the physicality was 100% equal in both sports (which it absolutely is not, but play along), just different...who do you think is going to feel the affects of a foul more? A player getting hit by a 5'10'', 180lbs athlete, or a player getting hit by the 6'8'', 260lbs athlete? 2) NBA players don't get tripped up? You consider falling on the soccer field a nastier fall than falling on the basketball court from a few feet in the air after getting fouled hard going to the rim? 3) Yes, there are OCCASIONS where soccer players have to use physicality. But all players on the soccer field do NOT have to be physical virtually the entire game. In the NBA, everytime down the floor you have to deal with elbows, blatant fouls, jersey pulling, tripping, hip checks, and whatever punishment a player like Dwyane Wade has to take on his hard drives to the rim. And that's every single player...on every single possession. In soccer it's just the players with the ball, and whenever there is a free/corner kick. There is FAR more physicality in the NBA because the punishment is dished out on a consistent basis the entire game. It was an example, not to set a standard. If I used 5 different soccer games, and 5 different NBA games, completely random, and accumulated the averages, the fouls per minute will always come out to over 2:1 in favor of the NBA. In that example it happened to be over 3:1. 1) You're not getting my point...I explained to you how much more involved the NBA game is, and how much there is to ref ON EVERY POSSESSION. In soccer, there is very little to referee except offsides (when once in a blue moon a team is actually in scoring position), hand-balls and fouls (which as I showed are far less common in soccer than the NBA). So yes, there may be only one referee in soccer, but there are at least 3x more penalties to enforce in the NBA. That is why I said that the NBA having 3 refs and soccer having only 1 makes no difference. You can't possibly have 1 referee in an NBA game...you can in soccer, even if the results leave something to be desired. 2) Soccer is more spread out than the NBA, yes...that doesn't mean much. Except for on free/corner kicks, there is really no physicality to enforce in off-ball situations in soccer. All the penalties to enforce are where the ball is/is going. In the NBA, you have to pay attention to every single player on the floor, and have more penalties to enforce. Also, the ball also isn't going back-and-forth every 24 seconds on the dot either like in the NBA, and when the teams do trade possessions there are no rules to enforce whereas the NBA has the 8-second clock and such. Yes, a soccer ref has more area to cover than an NBA ref, but the NBA ref has more responsibility and areas to pay attention to than a soccer ref. *MOST IMPORTANT* One final thing- We can argue all day about which game is more physical, which game is harder to ref, all these things...and it DOESN'T MAKE A DIFFERENCE. Why? One word... Context. Basketball and soccer are two totally different sports. Have a totally different set of rules. What constitutes a foul in basketball is a lot different than in soccer. You admitted this yourself by saying soccer is all about the lower body, basketball is moreso the upper body. The refereeing situation is totally different in terms of responsibility. FIFA is not the NBA, either. What does all that mean? Using what happens in soccer and comparing it to what happens in basketball is completely pointless and misguided. They are two totally different sports, two different orginizations (FIFA and NBA), and both have issues with flopping. It starts and ends there. The NBA's problem with flopping stands completely alone from FIFA's. They should not be compared or contrasted. So, can we please get off this soccer crap and get back to the NBA?

My post had NOTHING to do with soccer besides 1 comment saying how basketball is the hardest sport to referee. Basketball is its own entity, and I was treating its situation of flopping as such. Which leads me to... STOP COMPARING SOCCER TO THE NBA!!! Basketball is on an entirely different level of physicality and action. Besides offsides, there is nothing to call in soccer except for fouls and hand-balls. In the NBA you have to deal with shot-clock violations, 8-second rule, 3-second rule, travelling, double dribble, carrying, on-ball fouls, off-ball fouls, shooting fouls, blocking fouls, charging fouls, goaltending, backcourt violations, etc... In soccer, there is very little physicality on-ball or off-ball...the NBA requires physicality each and every possession down the floor. To give you an example, in yesterday's USA-Ghana soccer matchup, there were 30 fouls. In Game 1 of the NBA Finals, there were 54. Per minute, that equated to .3 fouls per minute in FIFA, and 1.1 fouls per minute in the NBA. THAT is why the NBA game is so much harder to referee than a soccer match, especially from the position of fouls/flops, which is the point of this topic. There's just a LOT more going on to have to pay attention to, and there's a lot more physicality, which makes judging fouls that much harder. And yes, there may be only 1 referee in soccer on the field, but do this...Take a random soccer match, and watch just 5min of it. Any 5min of the game. Now, watch an NBA game for 5min, once again any 5min. What do you notice? That referees have very little to actual referee in those 5min of soccer. Meanwhile, in the NBA, there's a ton of calls to be made in that same 5min span. So, the fact that soccer has only 1 on-field ref really makes no difference in this topic IMO.

My favorite ever was back before I believe the 2007 NBA Finals. It had the same background music of the recent NBA Finals commercials, but it was a compilation of clips of all the great past NBA champs walking out onto the court and stuff. When they showed like the '80's Celtics walking through the tunnel then Kobe in the starting intro's I got goose bumps. If anyone can find me this commercial it'd be greatly appreciated. Besides that, this is my favorite- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpfzaqIuR34

Supposedly LeBron wanted Amare over Jamison, even if he didn't come right out and say that through the media. I think that decision will come back to haunt the Cavs because in no way, shape or form was Jamison ever going to be a consistent 2nd option, and he's already 34 with a pretty big contract. And yes, they were building a championship team, but they were also fighting to keep LeBron for the long-term. They likely failed on both fronts, and the blame should go solely to their roster moves the last season or so.

I'm not going to comment on the last few posts, but my problem with this article is the ONLY backing to the title is: So, because LeBron (supposedly) said he wanted to LIVE (not play) in New York TWO YEARS ago automatically means he "still" prefers NY as his next playing destination? That's why I hate living in this media market. It's entertaining for sure, but there's nothing but crap coming from these newspapers and such.