ikkoikki posted: I agree with you that Lebron is really talented, but damn dude, you are totally wrong about Chicago or Oklahoma even entertaining for one minute the possibility of trading away Rose or Durant. Not happening, ever. There's very few franchise guys in the NBA who truly are untradeable, but Rose and Durant are two such examples.
Everybody is tradeable if Lebron is on the table, signing a long term deal. Everyone.
No way, think about it. Lebron is older than those two, isn't the home town hero, and is almost a lateral move in terms of talent. Yeah Lebron is better than Durant or Rose, but not SO MUCH BETTER that it would be worth it to upset the entire apple cart over.
Bulls and Thunder are arguably the two best teams in the NBA, they have great chemistry and great fan support, you're telling me Oklahoma and Chicago would say "F*** the whole thing, the great record and team chemistry, we need Lebron James really badly" tomorrow if given the chance?
They're much more likely to say "F*** Lebron, we can do it without him"
-----signature-----
Chicago Bulls: 43-13
post game gem from Joakim Noah: "We cannot play with our heads down and have a poo poo face. Sometimes we have a poo poo face."
ikkoikki posted: No way, think about it. Lebron is older than those two, isn't the home town hero, and is almost a lateral move in terms of talent. Yeah Lebron is better than Durant or Rose, but not SO MUCH BETTER that it would be worth it to upset the entire apple cart over.
Bulls and Thunder are arguably the two best teams in the NBA, their have great chemistry and great fan support, you're telling me Oklahoma and Chicago would say "F*** the whole thing, the great record and team chemistry, we need Lebron James really badly" tomorrow if give the chance?
The only caveat to the "everyone is on the table" clause above is that Oklahoma and Chicago believe they can win a championship with what they've got, and that it's unreasonable to rebuild a championship caliber team. However, speaking in purely hypothetical terms, Chicago would absolutely dump Rose if they could magically be given the flexibility to build a team around Lebron, same for OKC. Clippers know they aren't a contender this year, and would gladly build a future team with Chauncey + Blake + Lebron, waving goodbye to Paul as he left.
The facts remain, Durant is an amazing offensive player, but hardly plays defense, and doubtful will ever be a great defender. We've talked about Rose's shortcomings here before in terms of lack of efficiency, and struggling with being both the primary offensive threat and primary ball handler/facilitator.
I'm struggling to understand this perfect scenario vacuum you've created for yourself, this bizarro world, where Chicago and Oklahoma would trade Durant/Rose for Lebron.
In the real world, it would never happen, and reality is the only thing I concern myself with when it comes to sports any way.
Lebron had his chance to come to Chicago and I'd say that bridge was pretty much burned. Bulls fans would riot if the FO traded Rose for Lebron, nobody gives a s*** how much better his stats are, they love Rose. Same for the Thunder and Durant. The FO drafted these guys and raised them and they're two of the top 5 players in the NBA, they ain't going no where under any circumstances any time soon.
I'll give you Paul for Lebron, that would be a steal for the Clippers.
-----signature-----
Chicago Bulls: 43-13
post game gem from Joakim Noah: "We cannot play with our heads down and have a poo poo face. Sometimes we have a poo poo face."
ikkoikki posted: I'm struggling to understand this perfect scenario vacuum you've created for yourself, this bizarro world, where Chicago and Oklahoma would trade Durant/Rose for Lebron.
In the real world, it would never happen, and reality is the only thing I concern myself with when it comes to sports any way.
Lebron had his chance to come to Chicago and I'd say that bridge was pretty much burned. Bulls fans would riot if the FO traded Rose for Lebron, nobody gives a s*** how much better his stats are, they love Rose. Same for the Thunder and Durant. The FO drafted these guys and raised them and they're two of the top 5 players in the NBA, they ain't going no where under any circumstances any time soon.
In the real world it's impossible because the Heat would never ever trade James, and also because given the contracts, clauses, and salary cap restrictions any of these deals could never happen. The hypothetical is more of, "who really considers it more" when faced with a trade. If Chicago would consider the deal more seriously than Miami, then that says something.
Anyway, I'm bored with this... let's talk about something else, like how are people not realizing that Carmelo Anthony might actually not be a good player?
Here's a guy, four time all star who left a team, the Nuggets, to join another team, the Knicks. The Nuggets surged after he left, and are off to 14-6 start this year. Meanwhile, the Knicks have gotten worse since he joined the team, and are 7-13, and look like they might not make the playoffs. Does that not speak volumes about a guy whose stats otherwise look good?
Maybe he's a team cancer and a ball hog, but the Knicks' problem run much deeper than Melo. They're a terrible franchise, with a terrible FO and a terrible coach, and terrible depth and no chemistry.
George Karl does seem very happy to be well rid of Melo though, he's loving his new team, he probably finds them much more coachable.
-----signature-----
Chicago Bulls: 43-13
post game gem from Joakim Noah: "We cannot play with our heads down and have a poo poo face. Sometimes we have a poo poo face."
ikkoikki posted: Maybe he's a team cancer and a ball hog, but the Knicks' problem run much deeper than Melo. They're a terrible franchise, with a terrible FO and a terrible coach, and terrible depth and no chemistry.
George Karl does seem very happy to be well rid of Melo though, he's loving his new team, he probably finds them much more coachable.
Yeah, but there's just very few instances where an all star and supposed "franchise player" leaves one team for another, and the team he leaves plays better, while the team he joins plays worse. I mean, one side of it has happened before, leading to Bill Simmon's "Ewing Theory."
Quote: 1. A star athlete receives an inordinate amount of media attention and fan interest, and yet his teams never win anything substantial with him (other than maybe some early-round playoff series).
2. That same athlete leaves his team (either by injury, trade, graduation, free agency or retirement) -- and both the media and fans immediately write off the team for the following season.
But I've never seen the 3rd part of it, which is that the new team the star players goes to actually gets worse.
I'm not that surprised by it actually. The Nugs were deep before the Melo trade...but the Knicks gave up so much, the Nugs became RIDICULOUSLY deep at every position. And George Karl is a really good coach, much better than D'antoni.
It doesn't help that the Knicks GM blows his team up chasing the next big trade every 6 months, giving his team zero time for chemistry to form. In hindsight the Melo trade was a really bad trade. Giving Amare that huge contract was a bad idea too. Everything the Knicks do is wrong, thats why they're the sorry ass Knicks.
-----signature-----
Chicago Bulls: 43-13
post game gem from Joakim Noah: "We cannot play with our heads down and have a poo poo face. Sometimes we have a poo poo face."
ikkoikki posted: Maybe he's a team cancer and a ball hog, but the Knicks' problem run much deeper than Melo. They're a terrible franchise, with a terrible FO and a terrible coach, and terrible depth and no chemistry.
George Karl does seem very happy to be well rid of Melo though, he's loving his new team, he probably finds them much more coachable.
Yeah, but there's just very few instances where an all star and supposed "franchise player" leaves one team for another, and the team he leaves plays better, while the team he joins plays worse. I mean, one side of it has happened before, leading to Bill Simmon's "Ewing Theory."
Quote: 1. A star athlete receives an inordinate amount of media attention and fan interest, and yet his teams never win anything substantial with him (other than maybe some early-round playoff series).
2. That same athlete leaves his team (either by injury, trade, graduation, free agency or retirement) -- and both the media and fans immediately write off the team for the following season.
But I've never seen the 3rd part of it, which is that the new team the star players goes to actually gets worse.
Maybe it doesn't happen in basketball, but I saw it happen to the Orioles when they paid a huge sum to get Albert Bell.
