A Melo State Of Mind?

There are a few different things at work when it comes to this Carmelo Anthony situation. First, I think we can all agree that Anthony is kind of a bitch in this silly passion play. He is pushing to go to a team that has been a doormat for a decade and leave a team that, despite not going to an NBA Final since he arrived, has been a competitive team that has shown the ability to build a quality squad around their star player. Even though the Knicks are in a significantly better situation now than they were a few years ago, and you could make the case that New York, over the next year or two is in a better shape to win than Denver, it still doesn't discount a few obvious facts: Denver has a better coach in George Karl who actually values defense, rather than Mike D'Antoni and his "just score" mentality; the East, with the Big Three in Miami, a rising team in Chicago, an always talented yet head-scratchingly erratic Orlando, and the ever-present Boston might offer a tougher road to the finals over the next three years than the West, with an aging Lakers and Spurs, and no GREAT team waiting in the wings; and, though the Nuggets front office is new and hasn't established any kind of resume, the Knicks appear ready to usher in the Isiah Thomas 2.0 era, and how could that be anything other than shitty?

Carmelo wants the Knicks because they are in New York. Pure and simple.

The second thing at play here is Denver. It seems to me like they may end up trading Carmelo for more than anyone originally thought (to the Knicks, that is) yet, are they burning bridges in the process? Everyday we hear they have a "deal in place" with someone, then it seems they move the goalposts a little further down the field. They also seem to be using the Nets to get more from the Knicks, something I can't imagine is making the Nets all that happy.

Look, if the Nuggets have a bonafide, frachise-changing piece ala Carmelo, teams will deal with them. Teams will deal with anyone when that is the case. You think anybody WANTS to spend time with Scott Boras when it comes to baseball negotiations? Of course not. But, when he represents the best of the best, you have to talk. Where I think all this back-and-forth could hurt the Nuggets is when they are trying to move smaller pieces to improve their club. Will other teams be reluctant, seeing how they treated both the Knicks and the Nets, and seemed hell-bent on not just getting a good deal, but using any means necessary just to pick up a few more assets? If they need to shed some salary, will other teams shy away from deals? Who knows, but Denver certainly seems to be willing to jerk a lot of people around, all in the name of adding fairly insignificant pieces. It almost seems as if the Nuggets are looking to hurt the other team in the deal as much, or more, than help their team.

The final thing at play here is how, if the Knicks pull this deal off, they might be in a position to build a "super team" in the East to join Miami. It isn't hard to imagine the Knicks could clear enough space to sign Chris Paul after the 2012 season, if they have a 2012 season. That would give them an even more balanced all-star team than Miami. That will certainly be good for New York, and a good team in New York will certainly be good for the league, but is that healthy for the league?

People can complain about baseball all they want, screaming about the lack of a salary cap and the haves and have nots of the sport. Yet, baseball is a game played by nine individuals. You can add whatever piece, even two pieces that you want and if you don't have good talent at all spots on the team, you're not winning, pure and simple. In basketball, one or two players can DOMINATE, and it usually means a monopoly on winning. 

Look at these numbers: In the last 20 years, 13 different teams have won the World Series. In the NBA, six different teams have won a championship. More than twice the amount of teams have won a championship in baseball than in basketball. Also, consider this: in the NBA, you had teams win two or more straight championships five times while, in Major League Baseball, only the Blue Jays and Yankees won multiple championships in consecutive years.

The point? In basketball, dominant teams DOMINATE. Over a period of years, a team that builds a top contender usually wins multiple times in a row. The Bulls under Jordan won six titles in nine years. The Rockets, with Hakeem, won back-to-back. The Lakers won three straight with Kobe and Shaq, then just won two straight with Kobe and Gasol. That doesn't even take into account the fact that San Antonio, with Dave Robinson and Tim Duncan, than the Duncan, Parker, Ginolbli combo, has won three championships in that time, just never back-to-back. 

If the Knicks get a Chris Paul to go along with Melo and Amar'e, is there any doubt the East will be dominated by two or three teams for the next decade or more? Say goodnight if you're the 76ers, Bobcats, Pacers, or anyone else. You won't sniff an Eastern Conference Final.

But, in the end, this comes down to a trade. Would you, if you're the Knicks, make the trade that has been proposed: Raymond Felton, Danillo Gallinari, Wilson Chandler, Eddy Curry (expiring contract), and a first-round pick) acquired from Minnesota for Anthony Randolph) for Melo, Chauncey Billups, and a few throw-ins to make the math work.

My answer: absolutely. Even if the Knicks have to include Timothy Mozgov, I would run for that deal. Yeah, it's a lot, but the way I look at a trade, I have to ask "who is leaving, who is coming, and who is irreplaceable?" By that account, the Knicks get back the only irreplaceable player in the entire deal: Carmelo. If the deal includes Gallinari (there is some talk that the Knicks would be willing to include Mozgov but would then replace Gallinari with Fields), Melo replaces Gallinari. Big win for the Knicks. Billups is older and his best years are behind him, but he is still a valuable player and you would have to consider a Felton, Billups swap a push, especially considering Felton probably wasn't a long-term solution at point guard anyway. The Knicks won't get anything back to replace Chandler, a valuable sixth man, but is he an irreplaceable talent? No way. And, since the Knicks don't have a first-round pick next year, anyway, there would be nothing gained, nothing lost in giving one up if acquired for Randolph. Even if the Knicks replaced Gallo with Fields and included Mozgov, again, there would be nothing in that deal that wouldn't be replaceable either through the draft or free agency.

Just think about it. Here are the two potential starting fives for the Knicks if they pull off one of these two deals:

Billups PG

Fields SG

Melo SF

Amar'e PF

Mozgov C

or

Billups PG

Gallo SG

Melo SF

Amar'e PF

Touriaf C

Now, I don't think either of those two teams beats the Celtics or the Bulls, but either one is better than the Felton, Fields, Gallo, Amar'e, Mozgov starting five right now. The two biggest problems for this year, in which the Knicks will probably go to the playoffs, is that a.) the new guys won't be familiar with the D'Antoni system and b.) there won't be much of a bench. But, again, the Knicks weren't winning a championship this year, anyway. Why not put Melo with Amar'e and start building around that now? 

Personally, I like the second grouping, even though Fields has become a fan favorite very quickly and Movgoz has shown much more talent as of late. Teaming Melo with Gallo and Amar'e could keep the Knicks dangerous for this year. Their second unit would be pretty aweful, but their first unit could be a lot of fun to watch.

In the end, the Knicks just don't have a lot of GREAT things on their roster, so even though they would be giving up a lot, nothing is so precious as to stop a deal. This is more about quantity than quality. There is no potential superstar leaving New York in those proposed deals, and what the NBA is all about is superstars. It is much easier to add good players to a core group of great talents than to add great talent to a core group of good players. In baseball, where any one player is simply one of nine, and history shows that, usually, different teams win every year, trading half your roster for one top player isn't smart. In basketball, where one or two players can mean so much (see Cleveland minus LeBron James), gutting the roster for a premier talent is the right way to go.

Update: It appears the Knicks have drawn a line in the sand when it comes to their deal for Carmelo. I get the point. You don't want to continue to be held over the coals. But, as I stated in the post, there isn't one player on the Knicks roster not names Amar'e that is worthy of holding up, or ultimately squashing, a deal for Melo. Even if you deplete much of your team, you don't really set yourself back all that much. There isn't anything there you can't replace. There isn't anything there you can't find in the draft or free agency. If you blow up the roster for Carmelo, so be it. Here is my prediction. If the Knicks added Timothy Mozgov to this trade, and gave up Felton, Gallo, Chandler, and Mozgov, while also trading Anthony Randolph and Eddy Curry, they would be BETTER than the Nuggets in a year and would be one of the best teams in the Eastern Conference in the next two years. Not getting Carmelo is more of a hit than giving up all this. I get the sense this "line in the sand" is almost more about pride than it is about basketball because, really, unless the Nuggets mentioned Amar'e there isn't anyone on the roster the Nuggets could ask for where you wouldn't say "yeah, sure, why not?"