Allen Iverson or Chauncey Billups

[Revis Island]

Right, because they play in the same conference, same team, same type of teammates?

 

How about we stick to comparing two players who were on pretty much the same exact team, with Iverson missing a huge part of their offense the previous season, and compare their teammates' shooting percentages as well?

 

You wouldn't do that, though, because it's so much easier to just look at that win total and come to that conclusion.

 

Kind of like me looking at the Houston Rockets beating up on the Lakers in the second round without Yao, and stating that, maybe, Scola and the Rockets are a better team without him.

We can compare 06 Kobe to 07 LeBron if you want, those teammates were pretty even and being terrible.

 

But you get the point, Stats are misleading.

[Real Deal]

We can compare 06 Kobe to 07 LeBron if you want, those teammates were pretty even and being terrible.

 

But you get the point, Stats are misleading.

Those teammates were even? It's not even the same type of team.

 

LeBron led a defensive-minded team to the Finals, just as Iverson did in 2001 (ha, that's ironic).

 

Kobe had no defense at all on his team, and his best player was an inconsistent, soon-to-be-bench player in Lamar Odom.

 

Just another bad comparison.

[Multi-Billionaire]

AI would dominate the ball and every possession the ball would be in his hands at least 12 secs out of the possible 24 secs. Chauncey often brings the ball up and facilitates. It doesn't mean he doesn't handle the ball, but he is not close to being said to dominate the ball like AI does.

 

When you dominate the ball, you generate stats. AI is never a willing passer unless he knows that pass would count one assist in his stats. This means he's reluctant to move the ball around, just like any successful team would swing the ball around, because swinging the ball around doesn't give you an assist, so he's always on the lookout for a highlight reel laser passes to someone who cuts inside for easy baskets and alley oops. But these passes are often intercepted by opposing teams.

 

Instead of being one of 5 guys on the floor, AI sees the offense as 1 - 4 format, 1 being him and 4 being his teammates. The ball goes through him and is being distributed to his 4 teammates. That's why his assist number is high. But you don't get called ballhog worldwide for nothing.

 

 

It makes me wonder... what's ballhog in chinese and indian?

[Real Deal]

The ball goes through him and is being distributed to his 4 teammates. That's why his assist number is high. But you don't get called ballhog worldwide for nothing.

Right, so like Kobe Bryant? Because that's exactly what happens in the triangle offense, and exactly why we are champions.

[Multi-Billionaire]

Kobe facilitates more and lets Fisher and Odom handle the ball much more than AI would let his teammates do. If you're an AI's teammate you would get the ball with 5 secs left on the clock after he dribbles the first 12-15 secs.

[Real Deal]

Kobe facilitates more and lets Fisher and Odom handle the ball much more than AI would let his teammates do. If you're an AI's teammate you would get the ball with 5 secs left on the clock after he dribbles the first 12-15 secs.

Fisher doesn't handle the ball at all, haha. He runs to the corner and awaits a shot.

 

Odom handles the ball? He comes off the bench now, for a good reason: Phil pulled the ball out of his hands.

 

Kobe doesn't bring the ball up, but he gets into position and calls for it 9 out of 10 plays, and that's a fact, and any die-hard Los Angeles resident Lakers fan will tell you the same thing, as they get every game of the year on KCAL.

 

According to you, getting the ball is better than not, I believe. Kobe will hold the ball until the shot clock is down, then launch a shot...right? Wasn't this Kobe's problem until 2008 or 2009? I don't believe so, but that's all I heard from non-Lakers fans.

 

But what's funny is this: as selfish as AI was, according to you, and as long as he kept the ball in his hands, guys like Melo, Smith, Martin and Kleiza were STILL able to shoot better from the floor, versus their time with Billups...so you might want to explain that to me, also.

 

Maybe they are better at taking last-second emergency shots, as you say happened?

[Multi-Billionaire]

You can't deny Kobe is more willing to give up the ball (aka non assist pass) to his teammates to facilitate the offense.

 

The only way AI is passing is when he thinks his teammates are going to convert. Not every shot taken by Billups or AI's teammates is through both players. You're being funny.

[Real Deal]

You can't deny Kobe is more willing to give up the ball (aka non assist pass) to his teammates to facilitate the offense.

 

The only way AI is passing is when he thinks his teammates are going to convert. Not every shot taken by Billups or AI's teammates is through both players. You're being funny.

Well, he's running the offense, so there's gotta be something he brings to the team, or else a cancerous point guard would've had them under .500, like most do when they are a significant part of an offense.

 

The funniest thing about all of this is that you still never complained until he was off the team. Out of everything you keep saying you had to complain about (Iverson never passing, playing no defense, never being a leader), it's amazing how supportive you were towards him.

 

That's exactly why I think you're angry. That's why I think you wanted him back for $3.5 million, one year, bench role.

 

I was wrong about your hate in regards to you just hating him. Instead, I think you're hating ON HIM because he's no longer a Nugget, which is natural because a lot of fans do that after a contributing player leaves their team.

 

But there's no reason for it, either, not to bash him as much as you're doing. I started pointing out Ariza's negatives more than anything once he became a Rocket, but you won't find me trashing him and calling him a cancer, because he was a good defensive player and a good spot-up shooter for us.

 

If Iverson was a cancer, it will be proven by Memphis being a worse team than they were last season, especially with Randolph on the floor as well, who I believe is a proven cancer.

 

But I'm here to tell you they will do better, and Mayo will shoot better from the floor. You can add that to the list of predictions as well, and as always with me, you can definitely stick your neck out there and make a prediction yourself, since you're so adamant about proving Iverson's lack of value to a team.

[Multi-Billionaire]

You realize I hate him more about his off court than on court productions right? I hate ANYbody who says he's orange and then comes out and acts blue. He said winning is the most important thing, people respect him because he has the biggest heart and will to win that's why he can stand being knocked down to the floor many times. And get this, for almost 15 years (since his rookie year). I had a suspect belief he wasn't being genuine... and when he signed with Memphis, that set me off, it's really a contradiction to what he and his legacy about, that he's about winning.

 

Now he's saying he is in Memphis because it's personal and he wants to prove people wrong who think AI is washed up. He's putting "what people think of him as a superstar who can carry a franchise" ahead of what's really important to him or at least according to what he said: winning. That's really contradicting himself and his legacy. That's what really upset me. He has created a legion of AI fans, groups that consist of believers in his will to win. They believed in him for 15 years, and he ripped it apart in one summer, he ripped his own legacy that he's built for 15 years that he's a winner in one summer.

 

He betrayed all of them by putting himself above his promise, that he's all about winning. His hypocrisy, lies, inconsistency description of himself are what make me sick and hate him. Add on top of that his selfishness on the court, his unapproachable, and his off court influence (parties)... and the fact the man thinks only of himself, it's hard not to hate him.

 

 

And then you threw statistics about his on court productions.

 

---

 

This is really not about Grizzlies being losers... but face it, if you're a veteran who has only one objective: to win, you would want to sign with contenders, and not "potential contenders".

Edited September 11, 2009 by Snake

[Real Deal]

You realize I hate him more about his off court than on court productions right? I hate ANYbody who says he's orange and then comes out and acts blue. He said winning is the most important thing, people respect him because he has the biggest heart and will to win that's why he can stand being knocked down to the floor many times. And get this, for almost 15 years (since his rookie year). I had a suspect belief he wasn't being genuine... and when he signed with Memphis, that set me off, it's really a contradiction to what he and his legacy about, that he's about winning.

Then stop arguing who contributed more, because the facts show it's Iverson.

 

Now he's saying he is in Memphis because it's personal and he wants to prove people wrong who think AI is washed up. He's putting "what people think of him as a superstar who can carry a franchise" ahead of what's really important to him or at least according to what he said: winning. That's really contradicting himself and his legacy. That's what really upset me. He has created a legion of AI fans, groups that consist of believers in his will to win. They believed in him for 15 years, and he ripped it apart in one summer, he ripped his own legacy that he's built for 15 years that he's a winner in one summer.

He said he's in Memphis because of the young talent there, and because he just wants to win. Proving people wrong is a part of winning. Do you want him to prove them right? Did you not see the press conference today?

 

He betrayed all of them by putting himself above his promise, that he's all about winning. His hypocrisy, lies, inconsistency description of himself are what make me sick and hate him. Add on top of that his selfishness on the court, his unapproachable, and his off court influence (parties)... and the fact the man thinks only of himself, it's hard not to hate him.

So were you this way with Melo when he was partying constantly from 2003-2008? His DUI, and the fact that he was partying so much, they pulled a prank on him on PUNKed and made him believe a girl was accusing him of being with a minor? But did you make topics about him? No you didn't.

 

So you went five years saying nothing.

 

Now that you just admitted to everyone why you truly dislike Iverson, and why you continue on with this topic and the other one...it's time to give it a rest.

 

You should've watched that press conference this morning, or at least paid attention to it.

[Real Deal]

This is really not about Grizzlies being losers... but face it, if you're a veteran who has only one objective: to win, you would want to sign with contenders, and not "potential contenders".

I believe we already covered that. All contenders have no room for him. Tony Parker, Rajon Rondo, Maurice Williams, Jameer Nelson, all all-star guards that won't be moving out of their starting point guard roles anytime soon. Iverson would thumb Mo out of the way, but LeBron runs the offense, and it will run through him and Shaq. Coaches have their future, and Iverson can't come in and take those all-stars' roles like that.

 

Not to mention all of those teams spent their money on forwards and centers already, did they not? Carter, Sheed, Jefferson, Parker and Moon?

 

The one team Iverson would never fit with? The Lakers, not in the triangle offense, not in an offense that asks him to spot up and shoot threes at the point.

 

Dallas? With Cuban already keeping Kidd for all that money? I don't think so.

 

Who else? Really though. You tell me.

[Multi-Billionaire]

I don't have time now to look at your posts Real gotta go, but in the meantime check my newest sig!

[Real Deal]

I don't have time now to look at your posts Real gotta go, but in the meantime check my newest sig!

2) SIGNATURE GUIDELINES

 

* Signature Image A is limited to 468 pixels wide by 140 pixels tall (468x140). An example is below.

 

Posted Image

* Signature Image B is limited to 468 pixels wide by 40 pixels tall (468x40), considered by many a userbar.

* There is a two-image limit, five lines of text and one link maximum on all signature content. This is mainly done to prevent abuse of signature space (ex. large wallpapers stretching the board, multiple links).

* Images included in signatures cannot be clickable. Be sure you remove any URL tag wrapped around the image before placing it in your sig space. This is set in place to assure all members where they are going, instead of risking accidental clicks.

* You may not quote other members in your sig space. If we allowed it, you would find that it could be you on the wrong end of the deal.

* Images used may not contain any profanity or offensive content.

* Failure to comply will result in signature privileges removal from anywhere between a few days up to permanently.

It's always been in the guidelines. We've been removing AIM quotes since two years ago.

 

I gave you permission to quote the prediction. I never said anything else, especially nonsense like you have in there already.

 

So you can remove it yourself.

[Multi-Billionaire]

Then stop arguing who contributed more, because the facts show it's Iverson.

 

He contributed more in numbers, but Billups contributed more in intangibles, leadership, he lifts the team spirit, focus, dedication, and attention to details... way much more.

 

 

 

So were you this way with Melo when he was partying constantly from 2003-2008? His DUI, and the fact that he was partying so much, they pulled a prank on him on PUNKed and made him believe a girl was accusing him of being with a minor? But did you make topics about him? No you didn't.

 

So you went five years saying nothing.

 

Now that you just admitted to everyone why you truly dislike Iverson, and why you continue on with this topic and the other one...it's time to give it a rest.

 

You should've watched that press conference this morning, or at least paid attention to it.

 

Unlike AI, Melo never went out to publicly say he's about winning. Sure he loves winning and hates losing just like most NBA players, but he never actually publicly says it.

 

Melo is one of the best maybe pro athletes to rebound from off court issues. In the summer of his second year he was involved with a lot of troubles... after horrible beginning to open his second season, he began to play better and completely redeem himself. Then he got in a fight in New York which was another setback, but again he didn't let controversies and off court issues affect his performance.

 

And lastly, if you think I never did this to Melo because I'm his homeboy, you're wrong. You have no idea how Nugget fans on some forum think I'm a spy from the Jazz nation because I was always there to criticize him and suggest the team trading him. You know of all Nuggets players in my Nugget fandom era, Melo is the player that I criticize the most.

 

 

---

 

 

He said he's in Memphis because of the young talent there, and because he just wants to win. Proving people wrong is a part of winning. Do you want him to prove them right? Did you not see the press conference today?

 

 

I believe we already covered that. All contenders have no room for him. Tony Parker, Rajon Rondo, Maurice Williams, Jameer Nelson, all all-star guards that won't be moving out of their starting point guard roles anytime soon. Iverson would thumb Mo out of the way, but LeBron runs the offense, and it will run through him and Shaq. Coaches have their future, and Iverson can't come in and take those all-stars' roles like that.

 

Not to mention all of those teams spent their money on forwards and centers already, did they not? Carter, Sheed, Jefferson, Parker and Moon?

 

The one team Iverson would never fit with? The Lakers, not in the triangle offense, not in an offense that asks him to spot up and shoot threes at the point.

 

Dallas? With Cuban already keeping Kidd for all that money? I don't think so.

 

Who else? Really though. You tell me.

 

 

This is my deal, he only got $3.1 mil or possibly up to $4 mil with incentives.

 

Please think this over and over. $3.1 - $4 mil? He's not some journeyman begging for some job in NBA... he's too rich to think about $3 - 4 millions. What's the difference between veteran minimum, which I'm sure contenders are willing to spend on him, and that?

 

Money is not the issue here, which makes it more puzzling. Because it's not like he got $8 mil or $10 mil. Now that would be quite a difference from a veteran minimum.

 

I give it to AI, maybe he's right, he sees something in the Grizzlies and maybe he can lift them good enough to be a playoffs team.

 

But how good? 44-47 wins good? That's good enough to maybe earn a playoffs date with your Lakers... automatic first round exit.

 

 

At 34, future Hall of Famer who once insisted he's playing to win, he should be on real championship contenders roster.

 

Again, money is not the issue for AI, if he really minds the difference between $3 mil and veteran minimum, he's an idiot or he should fire his accountant or agent who say it's really big of difference. You're telling me for $2-3 mil more, you're going to waste one year of your dwindling career in a team that has no chance of winning the championship?

 

 

Now if role is the issue? I don't think it is really going to be an issue. He accepted the risk he could be starting the season on the bench... As undisciplined, ball-hoggish, selfish, too individualistic as he is, I bet all contenders would be too intrigued not to sign him if he accepts bench role. He is a still a juggernaut to have off the bench, that's some massive offense firepower.

 

He's a scorer not a point guard, you can wave off the position issue if he's coming off the bench. I would view him strictly as a scorer off the bench. If I was a GM of a championship contenders, I couldn't care less if my team already had 4 PGs and 4 SGs, I would still sign him and label him as "a scorer".

 

 

---

 

 

We covered money, winning situation, and role and we're going to revise it again.

 

Why did he sign with Grizzlies again?

- Because of money? Not possible. The difference between $3 - 4 mil and a veteran minimum is too insignificant for someone who probably has $700 mil in his bank.

- Because of winning situation? This is stupid. I give it the max they could be is a 44-47 win team and a first round exit, while he ponders he could have been on Lakers, Magic, Cavs, Nuggets, Celtics, one of these teams that have great chance playing well into July.

- Because of role? My answer is WHAT ELSE? He wouldn't sign with contenders because he sees that once they stick him on the bench he's not leaving it. Contenders have absolute system and because they're successful with it, it's unbreakable. But with the Grizzlies, there's GREAT GREAT chance he will crack into the starting lineup (it's inevitable) and basically be himself again, launching shots.

 

 

Basically, he just chose role over winning situation. He "chose" to sign with Grizzlies over real championship contenders, I said "chose" because if he had wanted to, he could have been easily on contenders for veteran minimum.

 

 

This is the guy who asked to be traded from Philly to a winning situation. The Sixers organization, fans, haters, including me, at the time respected him because this guy really wanted to win so bad. And, everything started falling apart in Detroit when he revealed he couldn't come off the bench and would rather retire. He is only hurting himself and his own legacy.

 

 

Hall of Famers are supposed to have dignity and self respect. All this time, he said he plays to win just to cover up his insecurity from criticisms toward his way for taking 30 shots a game. Now he comes out and proves to the world, that he takes big role over winning situation.

 

If he sees Memphis defeating your Lakers in the playoffs then he's really something else

Edited September 11, 2009 by Snake

[Real Deal]

There is a difference between $3.5 million and the veteran's minimum...around $2.5 million, in fact. Odom was going to leave us to go to the Heat just to get that extra $2-3 million.

 

As I've said numerous times, Iverson is not a bench player. He's ineffective coming off the bench. Do you think Bryant would be an effective bench player when he's 34? Not a chance, not the way he plays the game.

 

You pull Iverson out of a starting five, and you have no reason to sign him.

 

So for contenders, it's not just the money. It's the role as well, and it relates to their young all-star point guards. Removing the likes of Rondo and Nelson from the starting five is just stupid for their future. Tony Parker out of the five? Not a chance. Mo Williams is playing at an all-star level. You don't stick him on the bench.

 

Iverson didn't go to the Heat because that team will be nothing after this season. Wade is going to Chicago.

 

AI could've went to the Bobcats, but they also have two good young point guards, one waiting on a contract.

 

I have no idea why Memphis doesn't trust in Conley, who is also young and has potential...but they don't. Simple as that. They feel Conley is a dish best served off the bench, I suppose (because Iverson will start).

 

So, just like every normal person on Earth, Iverson took the job that makes him the happiest. He took one that will probably also provide him with job security, as in Bird Rights, when Memphis will give him an extension for a few more years, with more money, if he shows he can produce for them. He took the job that doesn't hurt his game, which gives his team a better chance to win. He took the job that doesn't force him to average 30 points per game. He took the job that lands him in a familiar place, one he visits every summer.

 

You have been looking at this the wrong way the entire time. Iverson didn't go to Memphis so he could score points and look good. If he wanted to do that just two years ago, he would've, and you would've known it and found out the hard way, as it would have been a glaring disability in Denver's game play.

 

Detroit deserved Iverson's bickering. They trusted Stuckey over someone who has tons of experience, tons of skills, and is a proven player. What did it do? It changed how effective Iverson was, thus changing the Pistons into a dysfunctional team. Was that Iverson's fault? No, it was Michael Curry's fault...and ironically, he won't be coaching the Pistons this season, after his short, short stint in the league.

 

Iverson sees that he has more talent around him in Memphis than he ever did in Philly. That forces him to see gold. He wants to win, and he thinks he can do it with Memphis. Do I? Hell no...because he's in the West and he doesn't have front court production...but on paper, Memphis is scary good. Most of the time, that doesn't come true, but there are still instances where it does, as you saw with a loaded 2007 Golden State Warriors team that dropkicked a 67-win Dallas team out of the first round.

 

Baron and all of the fans sure believed. Why can't Iverson? Why is it something else? Why do people assume he's lying about wanting to win, when both hands are bare, and guys like Bryant, Shaq and Duncan have four each?

 

It's easy to see why he's in Memphis, especially after watching that press conference. I don't see why it's so bad for you to begin with.

[Multi-Billionaire]

You said you have no idea why Memphis doesn't trust Conley because "he's so young and has so much potential" and yet you think "Detroit deserves AI's bickering" for trusting Stuckey and his potential? Why? Because he put your precious AI on the bench? It's no secret Detroit thinks Stuckey is their future PG. Keep contradicting yourself like AI did.

 

Try to convince someone that a superstar who has anywhere $600-750 mil in his bank thinks $2.5 mil is so significant that he's going to spend 1 year out of his remaining little career left for it. 1 year vs. $2.5 mil? Talk about setting your priority right. It's downright laughable. It's pathetic reasoning.

 

It's your opinion AI is not effective off the bench... he practically had never done it before willingly. I thought it's a condition Grizzlies gave him before he signed the contract he must accept coming off the bench. Apparently that changed, but considering that's what the Grizzlies had hinted before, he knew what he's coming into or probably he feels there's noone in that organization that would have balls to tell him he's coming off the bench.

 

 

Are you trying to be funny? Who in their right mind going to be put Tony Parker and Mo Williams out of starting lineup for the sake of AI? AI didn't go to the Heat because Wade is going to leave for Chicago? Who was going to sign him for more than one year? Bird Rights? To my knowledge, a player can only have his Bird Right on a team after he spends at least 2-3 seasons on that team. Check your facts straight.

[Real Deal]

You said you have no idea why Memphis doesn't trust Conley because "he's so young and has so much potential" and yet you think "Detroit deserves AI's bickering" for trusting Stuckey and his potential? Why? Because he put your precious AI on the bench? It's no secret Detroit thinks Stuckey is their future PG. Keep contradicting yourself like AI did.

Stuckey is a better two-guard. I never contradicted myself, not once. There's a reason Hamilton was benched for a while. Detroit actually threw both Hamilton and Iverson aside because they had no idea where Rodney was going to fit in, and it turned out that, even though he's a better two, he's not the player Hamilton is...so you saw him play point.

 

The result? A terrible season.

 

Before you start telling me I'm contradicting myself, you might need to acquire a better understanding of my posts.

 

Try to convince someone that a superstar who has anywhere $600-750 mil in his bank thinks $2.5 mil is so significant that he's going to spend 1 year out of his remaining little career left for it. 1 year vs. $2.5 mil? Talk about setting your priority right. It's downright laughable. It's pathetic reasoning.

$600 million? Haha, actually, that's laughable. There's no player in the league that has $600 million in the bank. Jordan's net worth is around $400-500 million. Nobody else in the league is even close to that.

 

It's your opinion AI is not effective off the bench... he practically had never done it before willingly. I thought it's a condition Grizzlies gave him before he signed the contract he must accept coming off the bench. Apparently that changed, but considering that's what the Grizzlies had hinted before, he knew what he's coming into or probably he feels there's noone in that organization that would have balls to tell him he's coming off the bench.

It's a fact, because he proved he wasn't effective off the bench. Doesn't matter if he did it for half a season or what, I'm not going to get caught up in "practically" and "almost" when it comes to judging Iverson's play on the court. The times he came off the bench, he was a mini-Iverson, very limited. You don't limit that kind of offensive player. Selfish, whatever you want to call him, there are other selfish players in the history of the NBA that are also great, great players. You saw one go into the HOF tonight.

 

 

Are you trying to be funny? Who in their right mind going to be put Tony Parker and Mo Williams out of starting lineup for the sake of AI? AI didn't go to the Heat because Wade is going to leave for Chicago? Who was going to sign him for more than one year? Bird Rights? To my knowledge, a player can only have his Bird Right on a team after he spends at least 2-3 seasons on that team. Check your facts straight.

They will give him his contract extension, then they will have Bird Rights on him, and retain him for the duration of his career. Get your facts straight. You know what I meant. It gives them a chance to have the money for Mayo, Conley, Gasol AND Iverson. Same thing Portland has been trying to do with their young talent.

 

I never said anyone was going to pull those guys out of the lineup. I said they weren't. Re-read the posts.

 

And Iverson isn't going to go to a Miami team that will contain a broken-down Jermaine and Michael Beasley after the 2010 season. That would be ridiculous. But Mayo isn't going anywhere just yet, and neither will Gasol, Gay or their rookie Thabeet, so it's a nice gesture to have those guys by your side for more than one contract year.

 

The more I look at it, the more it seems you wish Iverson had signed that small, one-year deal with the Nuggets...and it's eating you alive inside knowing he could actually prove you wrong by not only leading a team, but also winning while doing so.

 

EDIT: I even stated clearly that they would give him the extension.

 

when Memphis will give him an extension for a few more years, with more money, if he shows he can produce for them.

[Multi-Billionaire]

Stuckey is a better two-guard. I never contradicted myself, not once. There's a reason Hamilton was benched for a while. Detroit actually threw both Hamilton and Iverson aside because they had no idea where Rodney was going to fit in, and it turned out that, even though he's a better two, he's not the player Hamilton is...so you saw him play point.

 

The result? A terrible season.

 

Before you start telling me I'm contradicting myself, you might need to acquire a better understanding of my posts.

 

Perhaps for me to better understand your posts, you need to clarify your posts more. This is what you said...

 

Detroit deserved Iverson's bickering. They trusted Stuckey over someone who has tons of experience, tons of skills, and is a proven player. What did it do? It changed how effective Iverson was, thus changing the Pistons into a dysfunctional team. Was that Iverson's fault? No, it was Michael Curry's fault...and ironically, he won't be coaching the Pistons this season, after his short, short stint in the league.

 

In that paragraph, you never stress or mention "positions" or "SGs". You implied Stuckey was the reason they put AI on the bench and claimed this was a stupid move on their behalf, and yet you questioned Memphis bringing in AI because this would make them bench Conley and hinder his potential.

 

 

 

$600 million? Haha, actually, that's laughable. There's no player in the league that has $600 million in the bank. Jordan's net worth is around $400-500 million. Nobody else in the league is even close to that.

 

It is not totally out of reach. Marbury recently said he has made $200 million out of playing basketball. And he has never been as popular as AI, not even close. AI, even to this day, is regularly a top 5 selling NBA player in jerseys, shoes, parallels for at least the past decade. His popularity was validated this year by his being voted in to All Star game starter by fans worldwide. He is well known in the world's most populous contries, e.g. China, India, Europe, Asia countries. People around the world fell in love with his crossover moves, blinding speed, and exciting game. To compare Marbury's worldwide popularity and AI's is like comparing the size of Earth and Jupiter. It's not even close.

 

In short, it's not unfeasible to think AI's net worth triples that of Marbury's.

 

 

 

It's a fact, because he proved he wasn't effective off the bench. Doesn't matter if he did it for half a season or what, I'm not going to get caught up in "practically" and "almost" when it comes to judging Iverson's play on the court. The times he came off the bench, he was a mini-Iverson, very limited. You don't limit that kind of offensive player. Selfish, whatever you want to call him, there are other selfish players in the history of the NBA that are also great, great players. You saw one go into the HOF tonight.

 

You and AI see it as "limiting him". I would prefer "helping him find other ways to contribute than be a liability".

 

Do you have to be reminded constantly that AI is past his prime? He's no longer the AI that commands double team and is a threat for 40-50 points every game. When Detroit benched him, it's not for fun or to piss off a future Hall of Famer. There are reasons why things are the way they are. He has aged, and although not totally washed up by any means, if given starting minutes, his negatives (too much dribbling, too many undisciplined shot attempts, too many careless decision makings, too individualistic, his influence on his young teammates to validate these actions are right) are inevitably, easily going to outweigh his positive (scoring).

 

At this stage of his career, he's a liability when he's playing starter minutes, so benching him is a solution to keep him playing.

 

Anyone can come off the bench, it's up to the person to think it means "limiting him" or "opportunities to help the team in other ways".

 

 

 

They will give him his contract extension, then they will have Bird Rights on him, and retain him for the duration of his career. Get your facts straight. You know what I meant. It gives them a chance to have the money for Mayo, Conley, Gasol AND Iverson. Same thing Portland has been trying to do with their young talent.

 

I never said anyone was going to pull those guys out of the lineup. I said they weren't. Re-read the posts.

 

And Iverson isn't going to go to a Miami team that will contain a broken-down Jermaine and Michael Beasley after the 2010 season. That would be ridiculous. But Mayo isn't going anywhere just yet, and neither will Gasol, Gay or their rookie Thabeet, so it's a nice gesture to have those guys by your side for more than one contract year.

 

The more I look at it, the more it seems you wish Iverson had signed that small, one-year deal with the Nuggets...and it's eating you alive inside knowing he could actually prove you wrong by not only leading a team, but also winning while doing so.

 

EDIT: I even stated clearly that they would give him the extension.

 

 

 

How would you know they'd give him extension? Prove it.

 

Why would they give him extension and not give sign him to a multi-year deal now? Extension arguably would cost them more, instead they signed him to a one year deal at a time when his value is at its lowest.

 

AI is being treated by 30 teams (yes including Memphis) he only has 1-2 years left of his game. None of them seriously thinks he should be in a long term plan.

Edited September 12, 2009 by Snake

[Real Deal]

I shouldn't have to hold your hand and step you through every post. Looking in, benching Iverson and placing Stuckey in the starting five as a PG was stupid. At the same time, putting Hamilton on the bench for Stuckey was also dumb. If Brown was still coaching the team, Stuckey would be the sixth man.

 

Detroit went 15-15 without Iverson in their starting five (removing the two wins they had with Billups). That's on pace to win 41 games, instead of 39. That's still pathetic for a team with all that talent.

 

What's funny is that Iverson and Hamilton played in the starting five together just 24 games. That's it. Funny enough, for 13 of them, Stuckey was also in there, which was STUPID. For the other 11, McDyess wasn't. STUPID again.

 

Not even once did the Pistons try a five of Iverson, Hamilton, Prince, Sheed and McDyess. That's why they lost 43 games.

 

Yeah, Marbury did make $200 million...altogether. Do you think these guys are sticking it in the bank and not spending it?

 

You say Iverson isn't that threat for a 40 anymore? He dropped 38 on Deron Williams just last December, with Detroit. He scored 25 or more 10 times. He scored 20 or more 20 times, shot 50% or better 14 times, threw seven or more assists 17 times. And all of this was in a limited offense that pulled him in and out of the game, with Hamilton, Prince, Sheed and Stuckey all wanting their shots as well.

 

Do you need to be reminded that Iverson torched the Lakers for 51 in December 2007? Just over a year and a half ago? He had 25 games where he scored 30 or more that season.

 

Memphis gave Iverson the one-year deal because there's a hefty free agent class coming up. Figured you forgot about that. What if Wade wants to team with Mayo? What if they can bring in Bosh? Giving Iverson the one-year deal allows them to have money for 2010, possibly working something out with Iverson (long-term) that won't cripple them, especially if they can entice him with a free agent all-star or superstar. How can you not see that? Why do you think teams were so afraid to offer Kidd a large contract?

 

I don't know what Iverson you're watching, or why you think he has declined so quickly...but you're wrong.

[Multi-Billionaire]

One thing I don't get is you wonder why Memphis doesn't trust Conley by bringing in Iverson, yet with Detroit, you think they should not trust Stuckey? In other words, you think Conley is a better player than Stuckey? Don't get me wrong, I think Conley still has untapped potential, but at this stage of their career, Stuckey is the much better player.

 

---

 

The point is Marbury has made $200 mil. Not worrying about spending, and when you make three times that, $2.5 mil is nothing really, especially when you weigh against having to spend a year out of your few remaining playing years, because you just want the $2.5 mil, is ridiculous.

 

It does not really make sense. AI has basically maintained (with his inability to accept reduced role) that when his skills are gone, he will be gone/ retire too. How many years of 20-25 ppg left does AI have in his tank? 2-3 years left? So, he would use one year out of those remaining 2-3 years left just because he couldn't pass up $2.5 mil?

 

It's like saying Bill Gates would spend a year out of his lifetime in a mining source land to generate $50 mil. A $50 billion man doesn't need that. That's a year you spend not only out of your productive years remaining but also out of your lifetime, for such little cause.

 

In other words, it still would not make sense AI "chose" Memphis over contenders because he really really really could not pass $2.5 mil, or the difference between the contract he signed with Memphis and the veteran minimum contract he could have signed with contenders. This means, you can cross off money as the reason why he came to Memphis. What could be the reason then other than role? Are you going to deny this?

 

---

 

True he can still score. But it doesn't change the fact offensive stats are misleading, such as the manner of how and when those points are scored. Just like the 51 pts he scored agaisnt Lakers, I believe he was a non factor in the fourth quarter, when the the game was tight. He can still score but not without being inefficient, not without totally alienating his teammates, and causing the team to be inefficient.

 

He's still capable of 30 pts nightly but this is totally a different AI than the 2001 MVP when teams would put him as the first option and surround him with supporting cast and trusting him he would lead them to win games this way.

[Real Deal]

I made it very clear why. I said that Detroit shouldn't trust Stuckey at the point guard position. I don't know how else to put it. They shouldn't trust Stuckey running the point? They shouldn't trust him at the one? They shouldn't believe he can run the offense? How else does it need to be said?

 

I'm pretty sure Jordan could've made more than the veteran's minimum he took in Washington for two years, also...and he actually wanted to come back to Chicago and play for them (but Krause screwed that up). Same with Mutombo, when he re-signed with Houston. Same with Hill, when he re-signed with the Suns. You get the picture. Some guys just want to play...amazing as that sounds. :o

 

Iverson didn't choose Memphis over contenders. I'm pretty sure I already had to dig into that with you. Contenders had NO money left for him, and they also had no room on their rosters.

 

And I'm glad Iverson isn't one of those guys, the ones that run to a contender to piggyback the superstars. What a chicken [expletive] way of winning a title, don't you think? Just do the work. If you aren't born to be a champion, don't rely on someone else to make you one.

 

Kobe was blasted for "piggybacking" Shaq for three rings, even though he didn't. Do you really think Iverson wants to hear that BS from the media? You think he wants to be known for being a pansy, in full panic mode, running to a contender to get his ring before he's done? Please.

 

In that Lakers/Nuggets game, the fourth quarter you're talking about is when Kobe took over and had his hand in every single basket scored but one (excluding free throws), and Iverson was getting doubled and passing the ball out. It was Iverson who had 49 points through three quarters and was the only reason Denver was within two after the third (amazing how nobody else did jack that game). It was Melo missing shots, finished 10-23 that game and going 4-9 in the fourth, getting swatted twice by Bynum and having Iverson assist on three of his four makes in the fourth. Iverson shot three times that quarter, and that's it...the one willing to pass out of doubles, while Melo was willing to drive the congested lane and get swatted.

 

Just another example of you finding a reason to hate on him.

[Multi-Billionaire]

lolll you never mentioned anything about position. This is what you said, again!

 

Detroit deserved Iverson's bickering. They trusted Stuckey over someone who has tons of experience, tons of skills, and is a proven player. What did it do? It changed how effective Iverson was, thus changing the Pistons into a dysfunctional team. Was that Iverson's fault? No, it was Michael Curry's fault...and ironically, he won't be coaching the Pistons this season, after his short, short stint in the league.

 

You never mentioned anything about how AI should replace AI "as the point guard".

 

---

 

Again B, you like to generalize one tiny cutey sample into one large picture of the world. Like mentioned in the other thread, if you see one cat chases off a dog in Kansas, you'd think all cats in this world are stronger than all dogs in this world?

 

You can't compare Karl Malone/ Gary Payton's veteran minimum move or AI's situation to MJ, Mutombo and Hill's. They are all situational. Did Mutombo and Hill ever declare "winning is all that matters to me" like AI did? I don't think so. They have different agendas.

 

 

And I can't understand why you'd think MJ would consider the Bulls... when to him, at that time, it's not about coming back to play, it's coming back to nurture and develop his Wizards players. He was the co-owner of the Wizards, why would he bother coming back with the Bulls? His mind and focus at the time was all about the Wizards, he had this idea that if he can't motivate his players in the locker room as an owner, maybe he could do it as a player, playing together with them. Are you seriously thinking his second comeback as a player was because he wanted to prove "he could still do it"? This is funny. He did not need to prove he could still do it. At the NBA stage, he's so very accomplished, clinched with a signature game winning shot to win his 6th title. He had no challenge and no motivation to come back. But when he stepped in as a co-owner, which is a totally different than being a player, he saw the team in a whole different perspective and he became motivated again to come back, but this time, not for himself or individual self-fulfilling mission but for the development of the organization.

[Real Deal]

Damn dude, I shouldn't have to sit there and re-define every post to you. You know exactly what I meant when I said that the Pistons shouldn't have trusted Stuckey. We've known him to be a legit two-guard since he was drafted, and people have compared him to Wade in that light. Believe what you want, though. It's your way of avoiding it, even if I had to elaborate...you're still avoiding it.

 

And no, I can't compare ANYTHING to Iverson, because it hurts your argument. I can give you 40 players who went with non-contenders to end their careers, and you still do the same thing. You hate examples because you have nothing to say when you're proven wrong with them, other than you going, "Err, but they aren't Iverson."

 

And what, you don't think Jordan wants to come back today? He stated in an interview not too long ago that it's just not the same, that he misses the game and can't stand being on the sidelines. In his HOF speech, he said there's always a chance he comes back, even at 50, and told everyone not to laugh. Joking or not, it's in his head. He wants it. Nothing to prove? Everyone has that desire to prove something, especially at an older age.

 

If you truly don't think Jordan came back in 2001 because he had that desire to play basketball, you're dead wrong, and you should stop debating immediately.

 

Retired basketball star Michael Jordan appears to be on the verge of making a comeback. Jordan told a group of reporters yesterday that he would make an announcement by the middle of next week. When asked if he was going to play again, Jordan said, `I'm doing it for the love of the game.' Michael Jordan retired in 1998 after leading the Chicago Bulls to their sixth NBA championship.

That's from 2001. He loves the game. He can't stop playing it. He's been in and out of Charlotte practices since landing a spot as an owner. You're wrong again.

[Multi-Billionaire]

No, I didn't know what you meant. Seriously

 

Maybe it's for the fact they aren't Iverson? AI is a ballhog who is different than Kobe, LeBron and Wade when they ballhog. I explained the difference why they are different in that those three guys are more willing "non-assist passers" than AI. Maybe instead of giving examples, you should look at the real thing?

 

Wow what a well written piece of article Brandon. Care to give the link?

[Real Deal]

Maybe it's for the fact they aren't Iverson? AI is a ballhog who is different than Kobe, LeBron and Wade when they ballhog. I explained the difference why they are different in that those three guys are more willing "non-assist passers" than AI. Maybe instead of giving examples, you should look at the real thing?

That's pretty much your argument, then...that they just aren't Iverson. That's been the case with all examples I give you.

 

Wow what a well written piece of article Brandon. Care to give the link?

Certainly.

 

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-46843712.html

 

If you don't believe he said that, here's a more legit link:

 

A reporter asked if he was coming back. According to The Associated Press account of the 30-minute talk, the NBA legend gave a sly smile, looked up and said "I'm doing it for the love of the game."

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92537&page=1

 

I'll give you 10 more if you need them.

 

How about right from the newspaper?

 

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=110&dat=20010911&id=kJUKAAAAIBAJ&sjid=50sDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6492,1088265

 

During the next few minutes, the man who defined the term "champion" in the last decade admitted that he missed the game too much to stay away. The "competitive problem" that his father, the late James Jordan, always talked about, has him in its grip once again.

 

...Now it's about Jordan getting back what he misses most -- the challenge in front of him, the action on every side of him, 20,000 pairs of eyes on his back, wondering what he is going to do next.

Guess what? Jordan came back because he wanted to play, nothing more and nothing less, as I stated and you so swiftly dismissed.