If you look at my post from a few days ago, you can see I certainly am not in the camp that believes Lebron to Chicago or Miami is a "done deal." Who cares what other executives say? Why would they know anything more than media types? The only folks who know are the players, player managers, and teams, that's it. All this "an executive from another club, who has no intimate knowledge of the situation, said" nonsense is exactly that.
But, it got me thinking: what is the best case and worst case scenario for the Knickerbockers? To help, I wanted to use the terror alert color scheme. This, I believe, will accurately depict the feelings and emotions of the Knick fan.
Color Level Green - This is serene, wonderful, perfect. This is the ultimate. This is mana from heaven. This is Lebron James, Chris Bosh, and trading the Eddy Curry contract for another big time player, and life is good. This is exactly what the Knicks envisioned when they started heaving guys, and money, over the side of the ship two years ago. This is what Donnie Walsh imagines at night when he's having a hard time sleeping.
Color Level Light Green - Okay, this isn't a real terror color code (or maybe it is, who really knows) but this is the slightly less, but still near perfect scenario. Under this situation, Dwyane Wade leaves Miami for New York, joins with Chris Bosh, the bloated body of Eddy Curry is shipped off for some really good parts, and Knick fans spend the next three months convincing themselves that Wade was a better option than Lebron. Deep down, there would still be a little sadness that James went somewhere else, but Wade would quickly become the greatest consolation prize ever.
Color Level Blue - Here is where people start to become upset. Lebron gives the Knicks the proverbial middle finger and Wade gets all huggy-kissy with Pat Riley. With the two most exciting free agents off the market, fans will immediately go into anger/depression mode. However, all may not be lost. If the Knicks can convince Bosh that he needs no stinkin ring leader to make him a superstar and that New York is perfect for him to establish himself among the elite in the game, and then sign Joe Johnson, the team would have an elite big man and a terrific, albeit somewhat "shaky in the big game" shooting guard to build around. This is the definition of Plan B, but Bosh, who has a lot of Kevin Garnett in him, would be a great fit and is good enough to be a top dog himself. Johnson, under this scenario, would be a fine signing since he wouldn't have to carry the team and could settle comfortably into a number 2 role. Is it the ideal? Is it color green, or even light green? No way. Level Color Blue would have a lot of people tearing up the airways, but there would soon be some excitement mixed in with the disappointment.
Color Level Yellow - You know in the movies, when you begin to hear that loud monotone sound and everyone starts running as a computer dryly announces "this ship will self destruct in 10 minutes"? Well, Yellow is about when the warning alarms start going off in Knick land. This is the scenario sort of being floated right now, which is the Joe Johnson, Amare Stoudemire tandum. There aint no Lebron, Wade, or Bosh in this story, only two guys who have a habit of disappearing in big games; two guys who don't really inspire alot of excitement. This would anger Knicks fans in a few ways, the first, and obvious being that Lebron isn't involved, the second being that it would probably entail giving these two players max contracts when most people don't necessarily believe they are deserving, and finally that these two players are, not shockingly, the ones who played under Mike D'Antoni before. I'm sure there will be a lot of fans who smell a rat in this scenario.
The only saving grace will be that, under this scenario, the Knicks would be a much improved team. Johnson and Stoudemire both have flaws, and neither one is a transcendant player like James or Wade or, potentially, Bosh. However, they are very, very good players and, if you add in a player or two you get back from Eddy Curry, the Knicks would be a playoff team and, potentially, a few lucky breaks away from an Eastern Conference/NBA Finals appearance. It wouldn't quell the anger at first, but it would start to turn people in the middle of the season.
Color Level Orange - This is after all the attempts by are heros to stop the self-destruct countdown has failed and there doesn't seem like enough time to escape. This is when the Knicks sign one, and only one, of Johnson or Stoudemire. You know how this plays out. They get shut out of all but one of the big guns, end up overpaying for another good, but certainly not great player, introduce their second-tier star as the guy they targeted "all along" and start to leak stories to the press about how they really wanted to jump into the fray of free agency next year. They'll come out of it with a good player, be an improved team, maybe even make a run at the playoffs, but when it comes time to select a championship caliber team, no one will be throwing in with the Knicks. They'll have a piece to the puzzle, but they'll still be looking for a real star come 2011 and beyond.
Color Level Red - Red means stop. It also means "Sonofabitch" or "Oh sh*t" in a lot of languages. This is the Knicks striking out on all the major players. This is Knicks fans staring at Dwyane and Amare in Miami, Lebron and Bosh in Chicago, Joe Johnson on the Nets, and the Knicks trying to convince the world that Carlos Boozer or Rudy Gay is the answer. This is where any love affair with Donnie Walsh and Mike D ends and ends tragically. This is the nightmare scenario and I don't know how they pull themselves out of it if they end up here.
For my two cents, I think green is a much more likely color outcome than red. Someone is going to be enticed by the idea of resurrecting the Knicks in New York. Someone is going to want their likeness on a building overlooking Broadway. I think it's Lebron but, even if not, someone really good is coming, and I think the Knicks will be a player next year, a serious player.
Wednesday, June 30
Sunday, June 27
Can't exactly put my finger on it, but something seems off with Yanks.
The Yankees have the best record in baseball and, yet, there seems to be something missing with this team, doesn't there?
I have tried to put my finger on it, but I can't come up with one singular thing that makes me say "oh, that's it." I think it is more a combination of that,flaws that, when gelled together, make you feel less confident that their record should indicate.
Here are a couple of things that have me worried:
The Bullpen - This is probably the biggest "uh oh" for the team right now. Take Rivera out of the equation, as we always do, and who do Yankee fans feel is a "lock" to get big outs? Dave Robertson is pitching very well as of late, but he isn't far enough removed from having pitched poorly to make you confident the corner has been turned permanently. Using Chan Ho Park in any meaningful situation is almost akin to sabotage, and Boone Logan's only saving grace is that he has a terrific Sci-Fi hero name. Besides that, his pitching is kinda crappy.
If and when Alfredo Aceves comes back, he should stabalize a portion of the back-end of the pen, but the larger, more important question will be whether Joba Chamberlain improves or stays the inconsistent tight-rope walker he has become.
Last year, Phil Hughes stabalized the set-up role and allowed the Yankees the opportunity to save Mariano for only one-inning stints. This year, Joba was suppose to return to the role and be just as good as Hughes last season and the Joba 2007 version. It hasn't happened.
The problems that plagued Joba in the rotation last year plague him in the eitghth inning. He can't locate. He can't keep his velocity consistent. His fastball goes straight all too often and become hittable right in the middle of the plate.
Sure, there are those moments when he dominates, but there have been way too many where he has walked in and turned three or four-run leads into one-run deficits. Joe Girardi likes to treat questions about Jobas struggles as reactionary or uninformed, reacting to questions with dismissive comments like "we wish everyone was perfect all the time, but it's not going to happen," or "he struggled, and that happens to everyone. It happens to the best." That's all nice and fine, but great players don't have 6 ERAs, especially out of the bullpen pitching one inning. Great pitchers rattle off great outing after great outing, not one great outing for every two bad ones. That's not a great pitcher, or even a reliable pitcher. That is a powder keg ready to go off any eighth inning.
If Joba can become not just good but close to lights out, that puts everything else in line. It makes Damaso Marte a lefty specialist for late-inning matchups, instead of possible setup man. It makes Robertson that seventh inning place-holder or middle-inning, big-moment stopper, rather than someone constantly being moved around like a chess piece. And, it allows for the Yankees to either stay away from Park or Logan in big spots or move them out and give younger pitchers a chance without fear of putting inexperienced guys in pressure-cooker situations.
However, if Joba continues to be a one good game, one bad game pitcher, it puts a lot of pressure on everyone else and probably puts the Yanks in serious trade talks for a reliever.
The Offense - Look, the Yankees are going to score runs. They have too many good players not to. And, I'll be the first to admit that, if one were so inclined, they could look at the offense as a "glass half full" symbol rather than a cause for concern. If you remove Robinson Cano from the arguement, you can make the case that there isn't one Yankee regular having what could be considered a top year, let alone a career year. Okay, maybe Nick Swisher and Brett Gardner fit the bill, but the big bats of Derek Jeter, Alex Rodriguez, Jorge Posada and Curtis Granderson have been mediocre at best and Mark Teixeira has looked like a shadown of himself through almost three months of the season. You have to expect that a few, if not all of those All-Star caliber players will produce at a much higher level from this point forward, right?
What concerns me is the lack of fundamentals I've seen in the Yankee offense as a whole. They don't move runners over. They don't get them in from third with less than two outs. They routinely strand runners after doubles and even triples. They ground into a lot of double plays and they run themselves out of innings with some bonehead base running from time to time.
Last year, one through nine knew how to play small ball and big ball. They hit homers and pounded pitchers, yes, but in tight games, they knew how to "manufacture" runs.
I believe that such "manufacturing" can be overrated a lot. With the type of hitters the Yankees have, your offense shouldn't really hinge on bunts and sacrifice flys. You should be able to keep the runners moving with doubles and homers. That's why so many of these guys get paid so much.
But, against good teams with good pitching, you have to be able to produce runs in different ways. If your leadoff man doubles, you have to be able to get him to third, then home, without the benefit of a hit. It is a must. Chances are you won't pound out 10 or 12 hits against the better teams, so runs are at a premium. Yes, I expect a lot of these guys to hit better from now through the rest of the season, and that might correct some of these fundamentals. Jeter has been uncharacteristically sloppy with his at bats, failing to take walks, swinging wildly at bad pitches, and not producing in those "situational" hitting moments. Considering he is one of the most fundamentally sound players in history, an improvement on his end would improve the team. However, sometimes teams develop a personality, and that personality stays with them throughout the year. Last year, it was that comeback mentality that prevailed. This year, the team's personality seems far less encouraging.
AJ Burnett - The reason why Burnett's monumental struggles represent a bigger problem than just personal statistics, or a tough matchup every five days, is because of the uncertainty of Javier Vazquez and Phil Hughes. Hughes has been wonderful all year, and Vazquez has been brilliant since April, but neither can be looked upon as givens in big games down the stretch or in the playoffs. Vazquez could just as easily blow up against top competition as shut the other team down, and Hughes has never taken the ball in a playoff spot as a starter and been asked to go 7 or 8 big innings against a formidable lineup (plus, Hughes was very shaky in the playoffs last year in his setup role, which doesn't bode well for his ability to handle pressure situations).
As absolutely frustrating Burnett can be, he is an ace-quality starter when right. He can handle any lineup, and hitter. He was a collection of good and bad in big games last year, but he did manage many clutch performances.
If he continues to be dreadful, it gives the Yankees no room to manuvear. It ensures that Hughes and Vazquez have to be top shelf every time out. It means at least one of the two has to be big in big games. It means less depth. It means more strain on the pen. In short, it means a lot of bad things.
Joe Girardi - I don't think I have been shy in saying I am not the biggest fan of Girardi. I'm sorry, I know he won a championship last year, but there are a lot of mediocre to down right shaky managers who have a ring on their finger. Is it any wonder why Bob Brenly isn't managing a team any longer, despite his run with the Arizona Diamondbacks in 2001?
Girardi, to me, has little feel for the game. He always seems to be making the wrong decision, in that his moves more times than not turn out to produce a negative result. He pinch hits and nothing happens. He pulls pitchers before they are done, and hands it off to ineffective relievers. Or, the next time, he leaves his pitchers in too long and they give up the house. It's almost as if Girardi is constantly trying to find the standard, the book answer: "In this situation you do the following, always an unequivically." Well, in baseball it doesn't always work that way.
You have to be able to have a gut, a natural feel for moments, and Girardi doesn't have that. He also seems to manage scared a lot more than someone in his position should, making what seem to be panic moves. In fact, his entire demeanor in the dugout, at times, seems to indicate an uneasiness, as if he is always waiting for the next shoe to drop.
As a fan, the manager is always an easy target. I criticized Joe Torre when he was bringing championships to New York, and still believe he had a difficult time handling a bullpen when it wasn't full of clutch veteran performers. And, I'll admit, Torre's grandfatherly approach seemed disconnected when the team wasn't winning, as opposed to stalwart and even-headed when they were. However, in the 12 years he was manager, I had more moments where I admired his ability to get something out of nothing than I did to criticize his approach. For a refresher course, go back and look at the teams Torre took to the playoffs in 2005 and 2006. There were a lot of holes on tjose rosters because of injury and underperformance. He was able to piece a lot together and get the most out of players.
Girardi, to me, is a guy much better suited for a younger team. His "always be positive" attitude seems to be more in line with a up-and-coming group than a veteran club that might need a swift kick in the butt from time to time. His inability to challenge and ultimately discipline Robinson Cano in 2008 until the season was lost showed a lack of back bone, his constantly juggling of his lineup to keep guys "fresh" or "ready" reeks of little league everyone-plays rules rather than smart strategy, and his "smile and a pat works better than a snarl and a smack" routine doesn't seem to hold people as accountable as one would like.
Last year, there was a magic to the team that, in my opinion, helped them overcome his quicky managerial style and his often counterproductive moves. I don't get the sense they can do the same this year. His moves have already helped to compound bad situations, and in a tight pennant race with Boston and Tampa, that could honestly be the difference.
I have tried to put my finger on it, but I can't come up with one singular thing that makes me say "oh, that's it." I think it is more a combination of that,flaws that, when gelled together, make you feel less confident that their record should indicate.
Here are a couple of things that have me worried:
The Bullpen - This is probably the biggest "uh oh" for the team right now. Take Rivera out of the equation, as we always do, and who do Yankee fans feel is a "lock" to get big outs? Dave Robertson is pitching very well as of late, but he isn't far enough removed from having pitched poorly to make you confident the corner has been turned permanently. Using Chan Ho Park in any meaningful situation is almost akin to sabotage, and Boone Logan's only saving grace is that he has a terrific Sci-Fi hero name. Besides that, his pitching is kinda crappy.
If and when Alfredo Aceves comes back, he should stabalize a portion of the back-end of the pen, but the larger, more important question will be whether Joba Chamberlain improves or stays the inconsistent tight-rope walker he has become.
Last year, Phil Hughes stabalized the set-up role and allowed the Yankees the opportunity to save Mariano for only one-inning stints. This year, Joba was suppose to return to the role and be just as good as Hughes last season and the Joba 2007 version. It hasn't happened.
The problems that plagued Joba in the rotation last year plague him in the eitghth inning. He can't locate. He can't keep his velocity consistent. His fastball goes straight all too often and become hittable right in the middle of the plate.
Sure, there are those moments when he dominates, but there have been way too many where he has walked in and turned three or four-run leads into one-run deficits. Joe Girardi likes to treat questions about Jobas struggles as reactionary or uninformed, reacting to questions with dismissive comments like "we wish everyone was perfect all the time, but it's not going to happen," or "he struggled, and that happens to everyone. It happens to the best." That's all nice and fine, but great players don't have 6 ERAs, especially out of the bullpen pitching one inning. Great pitchers rattle off great outing after great outing, not one great outing for every two bad ones. That's not a great pitcher, or even a reliable pitcher. That is a powder keg ready to go off any eighth inning.
If Joba can become not just good but close to lights out, that puts everything else in line. It makes Damaso Marte a lefty specialist for late-inning matchups, instead of possible setup man. It makes Robertson that seventh inning place-holder or middle-inning, big-moment stopper, rather than someone constantly being moved around like a chess piece. And, it allows for the Yankees to either stay away from Park or Logan in big spots or move them out and give younger pitchers a chance without fear of putting inexperienced guys in pressure-cooker situations.
However, if Joba continues to be a one good game, one bad game pitcher, it puts a lot of pressure on everyone else and probably puts the Yanks in serious trade talks for a reliever.
The Offense - Look, the Yankees are going to score runs. They have too many good players not to. And, I'll be the first to admit that, if one were so inclined, they could look at the offense as a "glass half full" symbol rather than a cause for concern. If you remove Robinson Cano from the arguement, you can make the case that there isn't one Yankee regular having what could be considered a top year, let alone a career year. Okay, maybe Nick Swisher and Brett Gardner fit the bill, but the big bats of Derek Jeter, Alex Rodriguez, Jorge Posada and Curtis Granderson have been mediocre at best and Mark Teixeira has looked like a shadown of himself through almost three months of the season. You have to expect that a few, if not all of those All-Star caliber players will produce at a much higher level from this point forward, right?
What concerns me is the lack of fundamentals I've seen in the Yankee offense as a whole. They don't move runners over. They don't get them in from third with less than two outs. They routinely strand runners after doubles and even triples. They ground into a lot of double plays and they run themselves out of innings with some bonehead base running from time to time.
Last year, one through nine knew how to play small ball and big ball. They hit homers and pounded pitchers, yes, but in tight games, they knew how to "manufacture" runs.
I believe that such "manufacturing" can be overrated a lot. With the type of hitters the Yankees have, your offense shouldn't really hinge on bunts and sacrifice flys. You should be able to keep the runners moving with doubles and homers. That's why so many of these guys get paid so much.
But, against good teams with good pitching, you have to be able to produce runs in different ways. If your leadoff man doubles, you have to be able to get him to third, then home, without the benefit of a hit. It is a must. Chances are you won't pound out 10 or 12 hits against the better teams, so runs are at a premium. Yes, I expect a lot of these guys to hit better from now through the rest of the season, and that might correct some of these fundamentals. Jeter has been uncharacteristically sloppy with his at bats, failing to take walks, swinging wildly at bad pitches, and not producing in those "situational" hitting moments. Considering he is one of the most fundamentally sound players in history, an improvement on his end would improve the team. However, sometimes teams develop a personality, and that personality stays with them throughout the year. Last year, it was that comeback mentality that prevailed. This year, the team's personality seems far less encouraging.
AJ Burnett - The reason why Burnett's monumental struggles represent a bigger problem than just personal statistics, or a tough matchup every five days, is because of the uncertainty of Javier Vazquez and Phil Hughes. Hughes has been wonderful all year, and Vazquez has been brilliant since April, but neither can be looked upon as givens in big games down the stretch or in the playoffs. Vazquez could just as easily blow up against top competition as shut the other team down, and Hughes has never taken the ball in a playoff spot as a starter and been asked to go 7 or 8 big innings against a formidable lineup (plus, Hughes was very shaky in the playoffs last year in his setup role, which doesn't bode well for his ability to handle pressure situations).
As absolutely frustrating Burnett can be, he is an ace-quality starter when right. He can handle any lineup, and hitter. He was a collection of good and bad in big games last year, but he did manage many clutch performances.
If he continues to be dreadful, it gives the Yankees no room to manuvear. It ensures that Hughes and Vazquez have to be top shelf every time out. It means at least one of the two has to be big in big games. It means less depth. It means more strain on the pen. In short, it means a lot of bad things.
Joe Girardi - I don't think I have been shy in saying I am not the biggest fan of Girardi. I'm sorry, I know he won a championship last year, but there are a lot of mediocre to down right shaky managers who have a ring on their finger. Is it any wonder why Bob Brenly isn't managing a team any longer, despite his run with the Arizona Diamondbacks in 2001?
Girardi, to me, has little feel for the game. He always seems to be making the wrong decision, in that his moves more times than not turn out to produce a negative result. He pinch hits and nothing happens. He pulls pitchers before they are done, and hands it off to ineffective relievers. Or, the next time, he leaves his pitchers in too long and they give up the house. It's almost as if Girardi is constantly trying to find the standard, the book answer: "In this situation you do the following, always an unequivically." Well, in baseball it doesn't always work that way.
You have to be able to have a gut, a natural feel for moments, and Girardi doesn't have that. He also seems to manage scared a lot more than someone in his position should, making what seem to be panic moves. In fact, his entire demeanor in the dugout, at times, seems to indicate an uneasiness, as if he is always waiting for the next shoe to drop.
As a fan, the manager is always an easy target. I criticized Joe Torre when he was bringing championships to New York, and still believe he had a difficult time handling a bullpen when it wasn't full of clutch veteran performers. And, I'll admit, Torre's grandfatherly approach seemed disconnected when the team wasn't winning, as opposed to stalwart and even-headed when they were. However, in the 12 years he was manager, I had more moments where I admired his ability to get something out of nothing than I did to criticize his approach. For a refresher course, go back and look at the teams Torre took to the playoffs in 2005 and 2006. There were a lot of holes on tjose rosters because of injury and underperformance. He was able to piece a lot together and get the most out of players.
Girardi, to me, is a guy much better suited for a younger team. His "always be positive" attitude seems to be more in line with a up-and-coming group than a veteran club that might need a swift kick in the butt from time to time. His inability to challenge and ultimately discipline Robinson Cano in 2008 until the season was lost showed a lack of back bone, his constantly juggling of his lineup to keep guys "fresh" or "ready" reeks of little league everyone-plays rules rather than smart strategy, and his "smile and a pat works better than a snarl and a smack" routine doesn't seem to hold people as accountable as one would like.
Last year, there was a magic to the team that, in my opinion, helped them overcome his quicky managerial style and his often counterproductive moves. I don't get the sense they can do the same this year. His moves have already helped to compound bad situations, and in a tight pennant race with Boston and Tampa, that could honestly be the difference.
Still like New York's chances
To quote one of my least favorite bands, "wish you would step back from that ledge, my friend."
That, of course, is directed to all my Knick fan bretheren who have been told over the last few days that the golden child, Lebron James, once thought to be a lock for Madison Square Garden, will soon be following in Michael Jordan's footsteps in Chicago. That's because Chicago, by trading away Kirk Henrich and their draft pick away to the Washington Wizards on draft night freed up enough cap space to offer two max contract players agreements this off season. Up until that point, the Knicks remained the only team with such maneuverability.
The logic behind Chicago's assumed victory when it comes James is that the Bulls can offer too much in terms of talent for him to turn down. Chicago, with their cap space, could legitimately offer James a lineup of Derrick Rose, Lebron James, Luol Deng, Chris Bosh, and Joakim Noah, plus a young and decent bench, a roster that probably puts the Bulls at the top of the list for championship favorites.
However, here is why I still believe Lebron is coming to New York: Eddy Curry.
There was a report a while back that Lebron had met with Eddy Curry, and it got people wondering whether James would like to play with Curry, who is represented by Lebron's agent. However, I doubt there is much thought in Lebron that he wants Eddy Idle as his teammate for the next however many years. Curry's lack of motivation is now notorious and, even if he were motivated by his reported debt and pending free agency, and the fact that this year is a must, in terms of performance, if he is to have any hope of regaining his career, what are the chances good play would last far beyond this year, and those factors? If Curry were to play well and earn another pay day, it stands to reason he would quickly be back to his old ways.
So, I don't hold out any hppe that Curry is an attractive piece for the Knicks to sell to Lebron. However, I believe his contract is what continues to give the Knicks an advantage over every other team, including the Bulls.
See, Curry's deal has been a weight tied to the neck of thise franchise for years now. No one wanted it and no one wanted him. Now, however, Curry's $11.3 million is good for this year only. That gives the Knicks what has become the NBA equaivalent of the Willy Wonka Golden Ticket: an expiring contract. If you're a team with a high-priced player, but no where near winning, and in need of cutting payroll, Curry is your ideal. He clears space and is off your books once next season starts. He is instant flexibility. Plus, considering everything I just mentioned, he might be an asset for a team in a backup role.
So, when the Knicks sit down with Lebron, yes they are going to tout New York, the glitz, the glamour, the marketing opportunities and the business connections he can make, and yes, they are going to market the fact that Lebron can join with Chris Bosh or Amare Stoudemire or Carlos Boozer right when the year starts, and yes, you're going to tout Danillo Galinari as a top young player who can shoot it from a mile away and grab some rebounds in the process. But what you can also offer is the chance to nab another top-flight player as early as mid-season or, at the latest, next season.
There are a lot of teams that would be looking to dump salary come this season. One can forsee the Suns, Warriors, Hornets, Rockets, and Pistons, to name a few, who would be interested in clearing space, and all of them have deals that would most certainly be attractive to the Knicks. You could also see a team like the 76ers being interested in the contract, as they look to build around newly-drafted Evan Turner. Names like Andre Igudola, Baron Davis, Emeka Okafor, Tayshaun Prince, or Al Jefferson should pretty much all be in the mix in terms of trades, and all would be a great compliment to Lebron. There is also the outside chance that Chris Paul could be on the market come the trade deadline, and Curry's contract would allow the Knicks the flexibility to be in the bidding for that. Also, if you were to add in Wilson Chandler's contract, which is about $1.3 million, you could imagine multiple player trades.
Let's look at some possibilities, in terms of Knick starting five, assuming they trade Curry: Lebron James, Andre Igudola, Wilson Chandler, Danilo Gallinari, Chris Bosh, or Baron Davis, James, Chandler, Gallinari, Bosh, or James, Chandler, Gallinari, Bosh, Okafor, or (perhaps most attractive) James, Chandler, Gallinari, Bosh, Al Jefferson.
I would put those teams up against the possibilities for the Bulls any day of the week.
Now, I'm sure other players will come into the mix and, as I said, if you threw in Chandler, you could probably get a multiple deal done. If you traded Curry and Chandler to the Hornets, for instance, you might get Okafor and Darren Collison back. In that scenario, the Knicks would add a sharp-shooting, quick point guard and a tough, rebounding, good defensive center who can get up and down the court. I have to say, if the Knicks team at some point next year were Darren Collison (PG), Lebron James (SG), Danilo Gallinari (SF), Chris Bosh (PF), and Emeka Okafor (C), I'm liking that team a lot. They might run into serious problems with Dwight Howard, who gives Okafor fits, but at least they would have a guy who could compitently guard Howard one-on-one. It would also give Lebron two sharp-shooters to play with (Collison and Gallinari) along with the great player in Bosh. Wouldn't you be looking at that Knicks team, right there, to compete with the Celtics and Orlando as the best team?
Look, no one knows what is happening in Lebron's mind right now, except, I believe, Lebron. This weekend I have read the following reports: he is a lock to go to Chicago and he still doesn't want to play in the shadow of Jordan; his business manager and trusted friend want nothing to do with the Knicks, and that his best friends still insist that his desire, from the outset, has been to play in New York and that "nothing has changed." In essence, all of these teams vying for Lebron's services are pretty equal, in my opinion. You can create lineups and rosters for all of these teams that put Lebron in a position to win. If he goes to Chicago, his lineup could be the one mentioned above. If he goes to the Knicks, you can create several different lineups that give him a terrific chance to win. If he goes to the Nets, he can join his buddy Jay-Z, be plugged into a Russian billionaire, and can play with young, talented players. A lineup of Devin Harris (PG), James (SG), Terrence Williams (SF), Derrick Favors (PF), Brooke Lopez (C). That is pretty darn attractive in its own right.
Since one can only speculate, we all seem to simply project what we would do in his shoes. So, I'll offer my two cents. If I were Lebron, my top choice would be the Knicks, second would be the Nets, third would be the Bulls. I wouldn't want to play in the shadow of Michael Jordan, nor would I look at Rose as being an ideal compliment to his game. If I were he, I would want a terrific big man in the middle (Bosh) and another really good player on the wing, but no one who is looking to be the "big dog" on his own one day, and one can't imagine Rose being happy being the third wheel.
That, of course, is directed to all my Knick fan bretheren who have been told over the last few days that the golden child, Lebron James, once thought to be a lock for Madison Square Garden, will soon be following in Michael Jordan's footsteps in Chicago. That's because Chicago, by trading away Kirk Henrich and their draft pick away to the Washington Wizards on draft night freed up enough cap space to offer two max contract players agreements this off season. Up until that point, the Knicks remained the only team with such maneuverability.
The logic behind Chicago's assumed victory when it comes James is that the Bulls can offer too much in terms of talent for him to turn down. Chicago, with their cap space, could legitimately offer James a lineup of Derrick Rose, Lebron James, Luol Deng, Chris Bosh, and Joakim Noah, plus a young and decent bench, a roster that probably puts the Bulls at the top of the list for championship favorites.
However, here is why I still believe Lebron is coming to New York: Eddy Curry.
There was a report a while back that Lebron had met with Eddy Curry, and it got people wondering whether James would like to play with Curry, who is represented by Lebron's agent. However, I doubt there is much thought in Lebron that he wants Eddy Idle as his teammate for the next however many years. Curry's lack of motivation is now notorious and, even if he were motivated by his reported debt and pending free agency, and the fact that this year is a must, in terms of performance, if he is to have any hope of regaining his career, what are the chances good play would last far beyond this year, and those factors? If Curry were to play well and earn another pay day, it stands to reason he would quickly be back to his old ways.
So, I don't hold out any hppe that Curry is an attractive piece for the Knicks to sell to Lebron. However, I believe his contract is what continues to give the Knicks an advantage over every other team, including the Bulls.
See, Curry's deal has been a weight tied to the neck of thise franchise for years now. No one wanted it and no one wanted him. Now, however, Curry's $11.3 million is good for this year only. That gives the Knicks what has become the NBA equaivalent of the Willy Wonka Golden Ticket: an expiring contract. If you're a team with a high-priced player, but no where near winning, and in need of cutting payroll, Curry is your ideal. He clears space and is off your books once next season starts. He is instant flexibility. Plus, considering everything I just mentioned, he might be an asset for a team in a backup role.
So, when the Knicks sit down with Lebron, yes they are going to tout New York, the glitz, the glamour, the marketing opportunities and the business connections he can make, and yes, they are going to market the fact that Lebron can join with Chris Bosh or Amare Stoudemire or Carlos Boozer right when the year starts, and yes, you're going to tout Danillo Galinari as a top young player who can shoot it from a mile away and grab some rebounds in the process. But what you can also offer is the chance to nab another top-flight player as early as mid-season or, at the latest, next season.
There are a lot of teams that would be looking to dump salary come this season. One can forsee the Suns, Warriors, Hornets, Rockets, and Pistons, to name a few, who would be interested in clearing space, and all of them have deals that would most certainly be attractive to the Knicks. You could also see a team like the 76ers being interested in the contract, as they look to build around newly-drafted Evan Turner. Names like Andre Igudola, Baron Davis, Emeka Okafor, Tayshaun Prince, or Al Jefferson should pretty much all be in the mix in terms of trades, and all would be a great compliment to Lebron. There is also the outside chance that Chris Paul could be on the market come the trade deadline, and Curry's contract would allow the Knicks the flexibility to be in the bidding for that. Also, if you were to add in Wilson Chandler's contract, which is about $1.3 million, you could imagine multiple player trades.
Let's look at some possibilities, in terms of Knick starting five, assuming they trade Curry: Lebron James, Andre Igudola, Wilson Chandler, Danilo Gallinari, Chris Bosh, or Baron Davis, James, Chandler, Gallinari, Bosh, or James, Chandler, Gallinari, Bosh, Okafor, or (perhaps most attractive) James, Chandler, Gallinari, Bosh, Al Jefferson.
I would put those teams up against the possibilities for the Bulls any day of the week.
Now, I'm sure other players will come into the mix and, as I said, if you threw in Chandler, you could probably get a multiple deal done. If you traded Curry and Chandler to the Hornets, for instance, you might get Okafor and Darren Collison back. In that scenario, the Knicks would add a sharp-shooting, quick point guard and a tough, rebounding, good defensive center who can get up and down the court. I have to say, if the Knicks team at some point next year were Darren Collison (PG), Lebron James (SG), Danilo Gallinari (SF), Chris Bosh (PF), and Emeka Okafor (C), I'm liking that team a lot. They might run into serious problems with Dwight Howard, who gives Okafor fits, but at least they would have a guy who could compitently guard Howard one-on-one. It would also give Lebron two sharp-shooters to play with (Collison and Gallinari) along with the great player in Bosh. Wouldn't you be looking at that Knicks team, right there, to compete with the Celtics and Orlando as the best team?
Look, no one knows what is happening in Lebron's mind right now, except, I believe, Lebron. This weekend I have read the following reports: he is a lock to go to Chicago and he still doesn't want to play in the shadow of Jordan; his business manager and trusted friend want nothing to do with the Knicks, and that his best friends still insist that his desire, from the outset, has been to play in New York and that "nothing has changed." In essence, all of these teams vying for Lebron's services are pretty equal, in my opinion. You can create lineups and rosters for all of these teams that put Lebron in a position to win. If he goes to Chicago, his lineup could be the one mentioned above. If he goes to the Knicks, you can create several different lineups that give him a terrific chance to win. If he goes to the Nets, he can join his buddy Jay-Z, be plugged into a Russian billionaire, and can play with young, talented players. A lineup of Devin Harris (PG), James (SG), Terrence Williams (SF), Derrick Favors (PF), Brooke Lopez (C). That is pretty darn attractive in its own right.
Since one can only speculate, we all seem to simply project what we would do in his shoes. So, I'll offer my two cents. If I were Lebron, my top choice would be the Knicks, second would be the Nets, third would be the Bulls. I wouldn't want to play in the shadow of Michael Jordan, nor would I look at Rose as being an ideal compliment to his game. If I were he, I would want a terrific big man in the middle (Bosh) and another really good player on the wing, but no one who is looking to be the "big dog" on his own one day, and one can't imagine Rose being happy being the third wheel.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
