Maybe he never fed the post because he never had a low post teammate worth feeding?

I don't know about that. Cartwright was a pretty damn good low post player. He was averaging about 18-20 pts per 36 minutes while on the Knicks. The minute he went to CHI that dropped to about 12-14. I remember always thinking that Cartwright was a bit underused.

I'd take all three over McHale, because McHale is a terrible human being

It still pisses me off that he doesn't carry more of the Minny stink than he should. He traded away Garnett to his best buddy, but everyone (Bill S.) still beats the Gasol-to-Lakers drum when talking about unfair trades. Plus, Joe Smith?!?!?

Maybe he never fed the post because he never had a low post teammate worth feeding?

Maybe it was because Jordan was the low post scorer for those Bulls teams. Correct me if I'm wrong — and know I'm not — but what I remember of the Jordan Era big men were that they were there to play defense and bring fouls. On offense, especially during the second 3-peat, Jordan would do much of his work down on the block, and a big man who demanded the ball would just get in the way.

Cartwright was a pretty damn good low post player. He was averaging about 18-20 pts per 36 minutes while on the Knicks. The minute he went to CHI that dropped to about 12-14. I remember always thinking that Cartwright was a bit underused.

The Jordan Rules chronicled Cartwright's difficulties adjusting to a team that began and ended with Michael Jordan.

I'd take all three over McHale, because McHale is a terrible human being

It still pisses me off that he doesn't carry more of the Minny stink than he should. He traded away Garnett to his best buddy, but everyone (Bill S.) still beats the Gasol-to-Lakers drum when talking about unfair trades. Plus, Joe Smith?!?!?

Both those trades bothered me, though I do think the Celts gave up more (Jefferson) than the Lakers did (Kwame Brown?!). Simmons of course is an enormous Boston homer, so his opinion is about what should be expected from him.

Maybe it was because Jordan was the low post scorer for those Bulls teams. Correct me if I'm wrong — and know I'm not — but what I remember of the Jordan Era big men were that they were there to play defense and bring fouls. On offense, especially during the second 3-peat, Jordan would do much of his work down on the block, and a big man who demanded the ball would just get in the way.

Yeah, I'd agree with that. Not all championship teams are built the same way, and the way the Bulls were built they didn't really need a dominant offensive big. A PF like Rodman who played D and grabbed boards and was okay just getting out of the way on offense was perfect for them.

So yeah, Jordan didn't ever really have a teammate worth feeding down low, but that may have been by design rather than coincidence. I'm not sure what that proves either way.

The top teams in the 80s were stacked in talent, where you had quality players serving bench roles or being the 4th or 5th option on offense. Michael Thompson may just be a old goober today, but he was the 1st pick of the draft when he came out and he couldn't even break the Lakers' starting lineup, despite being a decent player. You have 4-6 loaded teams constantly battling it out with each other in the Lakers, Celtics, Pistons, Rockets, and a few interchangeable teams.

This gives the Rockets far too much credit. The list of 4-6 loaded teams in the 80s would consist of the Lakers, Celtics, Sixers, Bucks, Pistons, and if you had to pick a 6th, probably the Hawks. The Lakers are the only Western Conference team that would make the list, as the East was strongly superior to the West throughout the decade (using the SRS numbers at Bask-Ref, the East was better from top to bottom every year and often had 3 of the top 4 teams). Houston’s two Finals appearances are indicative of how much worse the West was. If the Rockets switched conferences, it’s unlikely that they ever would’ve made the ECF (the Hawks never did), and it’s a virtual lock that they never would’ve made the Finals (the vastly superior Bucks never did).

I don't see how making the finals three times fewer than Magic is a point in [MJ’s] favor. It's really, really hard to make the finals (almost as hard as winning). Magic only played 12 years in his prime (not counting the '96 comeback). His team made the finals almost every year he played--and Magic NEVER missed the playoffs! That's amazing! Michael played 13 seasons with the Bulls. They only made the finals less than half his career! . . . The Bulls teams from 1984-1990 were just afterthoughts most years, they'd be the equivalent of the Magic today, a team with one of the best players in the league, but not enough talent to be taken seriously. . . Jordan ultimately did it against inferior competition.

The Lakers had a comparatively easy path to the Finals every year in the 80s while the stacked Eastern Conference teams beat each other up. If you’re going to give Magic credit for every Finals appearance, you should note that the Lakers lost more games there than they won (24-27 Finals record), and the West as a whole was 29-39 in the Finals during Magic’s career. Playing in the East, Jordan and the Bulls never had as ugly a playoff loss as Magic and the Lakers in 1981, when Magic had a 17 PER and they lost in the first round to a 40-42 team in a much weaker conference. MJ's Bulls never missed the playoffs either (not that that's a great accomplishment), and they were the worst team in the NBA the year before he arrived, compared to the Lakers being the 4th-best the year before Magic. Even when the Bulls were “afterthoughts” in 1989 and 1990, they provided much tougher competition for the Pistons in the playoffs than their Western Conference opponents in the Finals, including the Lakers. Then the Bulls beat the Lakers in 1991.

Jordan won as many Finals games as Magic, while losing 16 fewer. I would think that an 0-16 record is not a point in Magic’s favor.

There's no statistical knock on Bird, but the three rings isn't up to the other candidates' level, I grant.

If the Celtics and Lakers switched conferences, the Celtics would likely be known as the team of the 80s, with 4-6 titles, while the Lakers would be one of a few excellent teams in the East struggling to reach the Finals each year. During Bird’s prime (1980-88), the Celtics rate as a better team by a not-insignificant margin, but they often had to beat two strong teams to reach the Finals. The Lakers were much more fortunate in terms of competition. Making the Finals four straight years out of the East is at least as impressive as the Lakers' run of success in the West. I'd also say that the Lakers' many Finals appearances in the 2000s -- with the West monstrously superior to the East -- is a greater accomplishment than what they did with Magic in the 80s.

(Kwame Brown?!).

Marc Gasol.

I'm not sure what that proves either way.

The point was that the Bulls were sort of different in how they were constructed--there weren't a lot of models for championship teams that started with guards in the post. MJ's skillset only meshed with a very particular type of team. Once that blueprint was figured out, they went out and executed on it, but he was more difficult to build a team around than Kareem or Shaq (the dominant center being the easiest to build around model).

On that note, which guard (non-Kobe/MJ/Oscar) had the best low-post game. I'm torn between Mark Jackson and Gary Payton.

On a lesser note, I nominate Andre miller for the current crop. Also fun to watch.

Both those trades bothered me, though I do think the Celts gave up more (Jefferson) than the Lakers did (Kwame Brown?!).

Brown had the largest expiring contract in the NBA. Dumping Gasol's contract then having Brown's expire cleared enough cap room to get Zach Randolph from the Clippers. Couple that with Marc Gasol and picks that eventually became Darrell Arthur and Greivis Vasquez, and that seemed to work out pretty damn well for Memphis. On the other hand, look at what the Wolves got in the KG trade: Jefferson, Gomes, Green, Ratliff, Telfair, Ellington, Flynn. Any of that work out for Minnesota?

Celtic/Spurs/Mavs/etc., fans can argue all they want about how the Gasol trade was highway robbery and should have been blown up, but the fact of the matter is that Memphis is much better off as a direct result of having made that trade, while all the Wolves got was the ability to remain horrible enough to gather lottery picks. My brother the Celtic Fan still refuses to acknowledge this. I suspect that he simply doesn't want to give any legitimacy to the Lakers' 09-10 championships.

Kwame Brown?!).

Marc Gasol.

The Lakers gave up a bench rider (Brown) and a late 2nd round pick (Gasol) to get an all star and possible future HOFer in his prime. That doesn't seem like a fair trade at all to me. The fact that M. Gasol ended up developing into an all star himself and a much better player than anyone expected makes this trade look much more fair in hindsight than it actually was at the time.

Pretty sure we've gone through the KG vs. PG trades at least 107 times on these threads. It seems to me more or less indisputable that the Gasol trade has worked out better for Memphis than the KG trade has for Minnesota. It also seems to me clear, if not 100% indisputable, that what the Celtics gave up had more value at the time that it was dealt. Marc Gasol, e.g., was the 48th pick in the draft, and, IIRC, had not yet played in the NBA when the trade was completed (right?). I think most of us will agree that the 48th pick in an NBA draft is not a highly valued commodity.

Anyway... what happened to Chicago tonight?

My brother the Celtic Fan still refuses to acknowledge this. I suspect that he simply doesn't want to give any legitimacy to the Lakers' 09-10 championships.

Wow, I don't know how I would handle having a brother who loved the Celtics! I hope that you didn't watch any of the 07-08 Series together. There would have been lots of blood shed between siblings during the "Leon Powe game".

Dumping Gasol's contract then having Brown's expire cleared enough cap room to get Zach Randolph from the Clippers. Couple that with Marc Gasol and picks that eventually became Darrell Arthur and Greivis Vasquez, and that seemed to work out pretty damn well for Memphis.

Yeah, but again, this is all hindsight. It's basically dumb (but good) luck that what Memphis got in return ended up working out for them. No one had any realistic reason to expect all that to happen.

The point was that the Bulls were sort of different in how they were constructed--there weren't a lot of models for championship teams that started with guards in the post. MJ's skillset only meshed with a very particular type of team. Once that blueprint was figured out, they went out and executed on it, but he was more difficult to build a team around than Kareem or Shaq (the dominant center being the easiest to build around model).

I'm still not so sure about this. Shaq (and Dwight and Wilt) are hard to build around because of the FT problems. You need a second banana who can create their own offense. Shaq never won without an all-time great 2-guard by his side, Orlando still hasn't found that guy around Dwight, Wilt's struggles are pretty famous (even in 67 Hal Greer averaged 27.7 ppg in the playoffs to Wilt's 21.7; not claiming Greer was better or more valuable than Wilt but you need that scorer). I agree with the points about the 5's potentially having a bigger impact on the defense and that being an advantage for them in a GOAT discussion but I don't think it's really easier to build a team around them -- to put it one way, most evidence suggests that you need a second superstar either way, and I don't think it's harder to find random rebounding stiff bigs who can't do anything else than it is to find random 3-point shooter guards who can't do anything else.

Understanding that Dwight's not necessarily a great offensive player (and certainly wasn't 3-5 years ago) I do think the Magic are a good example here of what happens when you just try to surround a great player with decent guys of the right skill type. He's played with a variety of decent to good players and none of it has really worked because they don't have the 2nd superstar.

Also, certainly it depends on the guy but in general guards aren't susceptible to foul trouble the way centers are. So in a sense they're more reliable because it's an angle of attack the opponent can't really use, to get your star in foul trouble. (Wilt of course has a weird and pretty controversial record on that front.)

I'm not sure which column this goes in, but it seems to me that a good coach matters more when your best player is a wing. You can do a lot in terms of play design with a star wing. With a back to the basket center, to a large degree, you dump it in there and let him go to work.

The Lakers gave up a bench rider (Brown) and a late 2nd round pick (Gasol) to get an all star and possible future HOFer in his prime. That doesn't seem like a fair trade at all to me.

So what? The Griz at the time wanted cap space, and there was the possibility that they were going to be sold. They didn't want a Jefferson-type package that would require them to take on existing contracts, and they didn't want to rely only on the lottery. The cap space allowed them to take on a big contract player — Randolph — and pair him with young guys Conley, Mayo and Gay. Chris Wallace would also claim that they were much higher on Marc Gasol than anyone because they saw him more than anyone else while Pau was in Memphis, and were confident he was a real NBA center. You can say that Memphis was lucky with Z-Bo or Gasol, but they were right. The core they built around the Pau trade went from 24 to 40 to 46 wins in three seasons and took them within a game of the WCF last season.

I believe it was Maxwn who made the point that the Grizz and their fans don't care what other people think. That trade was great for the Lakers, but it was also great for Memphis, and everyone else can suck it.

Yeah, but again, this is all hindsight. It's basically dumb (but good) luck that what Memphis got in return ended up working out for them.

This is the claim that Simmons, my brother, and all Laker haters want to make, that it was all just dumb luck, that the Lakers didn't "deserve" their championships and Memphis don't deserve their current success. I suppose this means the Wolves "deserve" to be awesome by now because that Jefferson trade was so smart and good and proper.

There's no one way to build a team.

Wow, I don't know how I would handle having a brother who loved the Celtics! I hope that you didn't watch any of the 07-08 Series together. There would have been lots of blood shed between siblings during the "Leon Powe game".

We watched all the games together. That was difficult. The only thing that could have washed that taste out of my mouth after that was to get TWO championships, including one over the hated Celtics. Luckily...

#915 - I'd be curious to know what Grizz fans thought about it at the time of the trade, but yeah, it worked out for both teams in the end, and as far as either fan base cares now, I'm sure that's all that matters. Those who defend the trade seem to value luck more than those of us that don't, but that's fine too. Like #911 said, this has probably been discussed a hundred times already, so I'll let it go. The previous discussions were more interesting anyway.

Plus it's midnight, so I'm off to bed. Talk to y'all tomorrow.

The Lakers had a comparatively easy path to the Finals every year in the 80s while the stacked Eastern Conference teams beat each other up. If you’re going to give Magic credit for every Finals appearance, you should note that the Lakers lost more games there than they won (24-27 Finals record), and the West as a whole was 29-39 in the Finals during Magic’s career. Playing in the East, Jordan and the Bulls never had as ugly a playoff loss as Magic and the Lakers in 1981, when Magic had a 17 PER and they lost in the first round to a 40-42 team in a much weaker conference. MJ's Bulls never missed the playoffs either (not that that's a great accomplishment), and they were the worst team in the NBA the year before he arrived, compared to the Lakers being the 4th-best the year before Magic. Even when the Bulls were “afterthoughts” in 1989 and 1990, they provided much tougher competition for the Pistons in the playoffs than their Western Conference opponents in the Finals, including the Lakers. Then the Bulls beat the Lakers in 1991.

Some truth here. Also biased and slanted several different ways. Like I said when Spurs fans were complaining about Manu Ginobili missing the Memphis series last year, watching the Lakers make the Finals 16 times since 1980 has taught me that there is always an alternative narrative you can set up that diminishes the accomplishments of a team you don't like. In this case, here is some stuff you missed:

The Lakers lost a best-of-3 in 1981--you left that out--and Magic was still not fully recoverd from a knee injury. In the best of 5 or 7 format, they might well have won.

They got swept in 83 and 89. The first time, McAdoo and Worthy were out much of the series. The second time, Johnson and Scott were out much of the series. They would have lost those series anyway, but if they had been healthy, they might would not have gotten swept.

As far as the East being better at the top, that's true. That, along with Len Bias, Cedric Maxwell, and McHale's foot, are the cards Boston fans (or Bulls' guys trying to show that Jordan was better than Magic, even though everyone has pretty much agreed on that) play when someone calls the Lakers the "Team of the 80s." But claiming that the Lakers had a big advantage in the Finals because of it, or saying how many titles either team would have won "if they switched conferences", well, those are just counterfactual assertions. One can just as easily claim that the tough competition honed the skills/focus of the Celtics and 76ers and better prepared them for the big stage. Lakers players/coaches from that era believe that the crushing loss in 1984 gave the Showtime Teams the toughness they needed to win in 85, 87, and 88. My own opinion is that the best team usually wins the NBA Title. Not always, but usually. When the teams are about even, like in 2005 and 2010, the team with HCA usually wins.

I assume that your claim that Boston was actually a better team is based in part on the Bask Ref SRS numbers. If they're not, then either you have some stats I don't know about or it is just subjective. Boston's are higher in the early part of the decade and of course in 86. For example, Boston's were much higher in 1984. But those numbers are subject to noise. Magic missed 15 games that year; Bird only two, and Boston was extremely healthy that year. Riley changed the minutes in the Finals, playing Worthy and Cooper, tough matchups for Boston, a lot more than he did early in the season. The Lakers scored 20 more points over the 7 games of the Finals than Boston did.

So SRS does not reflect playoff matchups. The Lakers last year lead the WC in SRS at 6.01. Dallas clocked in at 4.41. But I don't think many people are claiming the 2011 Lakers were really better than Dallas.

#916 - K, one more and then I'm REALLY going to bed. I can't speak for anyone else you may have debated with over this, but I personally never said the Lakers didn't deserve their 2009-2010 championships and I certainly never implied that Memphis doesn't deserve their current success. I'm actually happy the Grizz turned what could have been an awful situation into a good one. Small market teams doing well (especially without any true superstars) will rarely get any criticism from me (except for this - the 2002 Kings were the ugliest team I've ever seen, bar none. My hell, what a group of mutants that bunch was...).

And as I mentioned in post#903, the Jefferson/Garnett trade DID bother me, especially since it was a Celtics HOFer trading away his best player to his former team. That just felt wrong.

Heading to bed for real now. Laters.

So SRS does not reflect playoff matchups. The Lakers last year lead the WC in SRS at 6.01. Dallas clocked in at 4.41. But I don't think many people are claiming the 2011 Lakers were really better than Dallas.

Very tangential, but I think you could certainly make a case that the Lakers were a better team. I'd be surprised if Dallas was the best team last year (conceding that this is impossible to ascertain) -- if you replay the Dallas-Miami series 10 times I think the Heat win 6 or 7. I also think the Bulls were better than the Mavericks and you could argue for the Spurs, Lakers, or Thunder.

This is not to take away from Dallas -- they had a very good team and had some advantages come playoff time (great coach, older team benefitting from extra rest). And all in all the Dirk Mavs certainly deserved to win a championship somewhere along the way (specifically 2006 perhaps, but the team was good enough for long enough that their expected championships are probably around 1). But I don't think they were the best team last year, even knowing what happened in the playoffs -- more a solid team that got hot at the right time.

You can say that Memphis was lucky with Z-Bo or Gasol, but they were right. The core they built around the Pau trade went from 24 to 40 to 46 wins in three seasons and took them within a game of the WCF last season.

I believe it was Maxwn who made the point that the Grizz and their fans don't care what other people think.

___

These are the key points. Maxwn's point, which I have repeated a couple of times, is that the Gasol(s)deal really sucked for:

Boston
San Antonio
Phoenix
Orlando

And to a lesser extent, people who just hate the Lakers.

And, the loudest complainers about it among NBA public figures that I am aware of have been:

Simmons
Popovich, who said the deal should be voided
Steve Nash, who very uncharacteristically snapped at a reporter over it

Gilbert also actually mentioned it in his infamous email to Stern.

But, as Maxwn suggested at the time, there was no particular reason for the Grizzlies FO or fanbase to give a sh!t about whether Boston, Cleveland, Orlando, Phoenix, or the Lakers won the 2009 and 2010 NBA titles. I mean sure, most Grizz fans might rather see someone else win it, just like most Indians' fans would probably rather see someone other than the Yankees win the World Series. But what Grizz fans care about is the Grizz, and they have a good team now.

One thing that people missed about Dallas is that IIRC they were something like 2-7 without Dirk. Chandler missed 8 games as well. OTOH, Kobe, Pau and Odom played all 82 games. Also, one reason the Lakers SRS was that high was that they beat CLE by 55 points--SRS is based partly on point differential.

Finally, Dallas' crunch time excellence was magnified in all the close playoff games. And, as Moses said, the Lakers could not defend the 3.

My own take on Bird and Johnson and the Celtics and the Lakers is that they were basically even, and should be remembered as such--together.

I personally never said the Lakers didn't deserve their 2009-2010 championships

No, but if you focus the narrative on the Gasol deal being a joke/sham (as you did) and on the injuries to Garnett in 2009 and Perkins in 2010 (as many others have and will continue to do), you are implying as much.

Add: I agree that Dallas was not "better" in a Platonic sense than Miami. But by playoff time, they were better than the Lakers--another older team benefitting from extra rest.

Last point, echoing Hombre: at this point, it might be time to say that Memphis knew something, especially since they scouted and drafted Pau.

And my comment about Perkins/Garnett meant in general, not here. It has only come up a few times here.

__

SA 43-16
OKC 44-17
LAL 39-22
LAC 38-23
MEM 35-25
DEN 34-27
DAL 34-28
PHX 32-29
--
HOU 32-29
UTA 32-30

The Jordan Rules chronicled Cartwright's difficulties adjusting to a team that began and ended with Michael Jordan.

Jordan never, ever forgave Krause for trading his buddy (crony, really) Oakley, for Cartwright. Not even three rings calmed Jordan down. From a purely personal perspective, I always found Jordan's obsession on the issue to be kind of weird. The trade accomplished exactly what it was supposed to accomplish.

Jordan never, ever forgave Krause for trading his buddy (crony, really) Oakley, for Cartwright. Not even three rings calmed Jordan down. From a purely personal perspective, I always found Jordan's obsession on the issue to be kind of weird. The trade accomplished exactly what it was supposed to accomplish.

Jordan holds grudges forever. Barkley even made a joke along the lines of "Jordan even remembers who wronged him in third grade".

The point was that the Bulls were sort of different in how they were constructed--there weren't a lot of models for championship teams that started with guards in the post. MJ's skillset only meshed with a very particular type of team. Once that blueprint was figured out, they went out and executed on it, but he was more difficult to build a team around than Kareem or Shaq (the dominant center being the easiest to build around model).

I'm still not sure about the relevance of the point. Harder doesn't decrease MJ's value at all. And now that I think about it, I'm not sure it was harder. The Bulls roster was completely turned over from 93 to 96, except for MJ and Pip. If everyone was so replaceable, how hard could that have really been?

Anyway... what happened to Chicago tonight?

No Rose and no Deng. I think it was the first game this year both guys missed, and it showed. Bulls almost had another crazy comeback - Watson missed a 3 with seconds left that would have sent it to OT (and made him a clutch god). The offense was just putrid to watch.

That, along with Len Bias, Cedric Maxwell, and McHale's foot, are the cards Boston fans (or Bulls' guys trying to show that Jordan was better than Magic, even though everyone has pretty much agreed on that) play when someone calls the Lakers the "Team of the 80s."

Wait, what? That's a new one by me (the Bulls part).

So, the Warriors are apparently in tank mode. If I'm reading this article right, they need to be drafting among the first 7 picks, or else Utah gets their draft pick. So, if they finish with the 7th worst record, according to this table, by summing the odds of all the 8-14 teams to finish in the top 3 (29.5%), they would have a 70.5% of staying in the top 7. I guess you also have to account for GSW's odds of leaping into the top 3 (15%)

That's a new one by me (the Bulls part)

I am pretty sure Dandy is a Bulls' fan, and let's face it: fans (you included) defend their guys' achievements. The stuff Dandy brought up is some of the usual stuff used when Lakers' fans try to say Magic was better than Jordan.

Basically, the only title of the 10 that Lakers' fans don't hear was tainted in some way was the 2001 bulldozing of the league--15-1 in postseason with a string of no-doubt blowouts. Every other title had a lot to do with Boston, Philly, and Detroit losing blood and treasure getting out of the East; refs, conspiracies, market size, fixes, injuries, and luck.

That goes both ways, of course. Lakers' fans have alternative narratives that explain '81, '83, '84, '89, '04, and '08. '91 and '86 were convincing enough that they are mostly left alone, like 2001 is on the other side.

But I think LA fans hear it the most, simply due to how many people hate the Lakers and how much the team has won. Simmons' huge megaphone plays a small role as well--in his "Look out for the Celtics!" column he brought up the Perkins thing again, as he often does.

Also, I need to correct what I said about Ginobili: he did not "miss" the Memphis series. He was there for most of it.

No, but if you focus the narrative on the Gasol deal being a joke/sham (as you did) and on the injuries to Garnett in 2009 and Perkins in 2010 (as many others have and will continue to do), you are implying as much.

And my comment about Perkins/Garnett meant in general, not here. It has only come up a few times here.

Not all Lakers haters are created equal, brotha. I've never used injuries as an excuse for anything, and certainly not in favor of the Celtics (who I dislike almost as much as the Lakers).

My own opinion is that the best team usually wins the NBA Title. Not always, but usually.

Out of curiosity, what is your criteria for determining who the best team really is? It can't just be regular season record, since the team with that distinction has only won the title twice in the last decade (2003 Spurs, 2008 Celtics).

So, the Warriors are apparently in tank mode. If I'm reading this article right, they need to be drafting among the first 7 picks, or else Utah gets their draft pick.

Yep, they've been in full out tank mode for awhile now, and I'm not happy about it. I wanted my boys to get that pick. :(

Anyone notice that Tulane beat UNC-C 75-67 last night? Wait, that was an NBA game? Good lord.

Also, the shambles that used to be the Timberwolves trailed 64-30 against Indy last night. There has been a lot of talk about Randolph, Beasley and others playing for their jobs, and it might be time for them to call their agents.

Yep, they've been in full out tank mode for awhile now, and I'm not happy about it. I wanted my boys to get that pick. :(

Not coincidentally, the Jazz are my favorite team at the moment because I really want the Wolves to get that mid first rounder if they sneak into the playoffs.

Calling back a bit, but I have a really hard time blaming Boston for the stupid moves Minnesota made after the Garnett trade.

Nobody made them draft Johnny Flynn (along with 3 other PGs in that draft)
Nobody made them trade Al Jefferson for Kousta Koufos and future picks
Nobody made them trade one of those future picks and Flynn for Brad Miller, Chandler Parsons, Nikola Mirotic and a 1st rounder
Nobody made them go on to trade Parsons for cash
Nobody made them trade Mirotic for Norris Cole+
Nobody made them then trade Norris Cole for Bogdanovic

I understand we're pretty far removed from Garnett at this point, but if they would've just stopped at any point there, that trade looks better.

Nobody made them trade one of those future picks and Flynn for Brad Miller, Chandler Parsons, Nikola Mirotic and a 1st rounder
Nobody made them go on to trade Parsons for cash
Nobody made them trade Mirotic for Norris Cole+
Nobody made them then trade Norris Cole for Bogdanovic

These 4 trades were an accounting move to get enough money to fire Rambis, so they were a huge net positive (with hiring Rambis being the real error).

Nobody made them trade Al Jefferson for Kousta Koufos and future picks

Still a good trade.

Not coincidentally, the Jazz are my favorite team at the moment because I really want the Wolves to get that mid first rounder if they sneak into the playoffs.

Since it doesn't look likely that we're going to get the tankjob Warriors pick any more, I'm torn about whether I even want the Jazz to make it*. It would be nice to have at least one first rounder.

*Though I would never, ever actually root against my boys. Last nights game was damn cool, BTW.

Last point, echoing Hombre: at this point, it might be time to say that Memphis knew something, especially since they scouted and drafted Pau.

At one point I agreed with the conventional wisdom about Marc Gasol being a throw-in the Pau trade that the Grizz were lucky to have pan out. As I have looked into it more, I am increasingly skeptical of that narrative and think the Grizzlies front office and Chris Wallace in particular knew what they were doing with Marc and that he was actually a big part of that trade from the Grizz perspective.

Everybody always reference the fact that he was the 48th pick in the '07 Draft. Everybody usually ignores that in the 8 months between that draft and the trade, Marc was playing in an ACB season where he won the MVP. The draft express stuff from around that time are fairly bullish. They repeatedly note his skill level on offense and extremely high basketball IQ. The main concerns were with how well his relative lack of athleticism would play in the NBA. Even with those concerns, in November '07 they called him an "absolute steal" for the Lakers and said he "might be the best big man in the ACB these days." I'm no great follower of Euroball, but my understanding of the ACB is that it is the best league in Europe and possibly the second best league in the world. All of this is information that the Grizz very likely knew, even if NBA fans in the states and a lot of the NBA media didn't really notice. He definitely had more value in Feb '08 than "48th pick" suggests.

None of this means that the Grizz haven't been lucky in Marc's development. He's now a top 5 center, in my opinion, and that is definitely above what his mean projection was when the Grizz acquired him. Still, given the fact that Marc was starting and more than holding his own in the NBA the very next season after that trade, I am inclined to give Wallace some credit for thinking Marc could play.

None of this means that the financial aspects of the trade weren't the biggest part of what they were trying to do. Clearing cap space was definitely much of the motivation. But Heisley has publically said that Wallace was insistent that Marc be in the deal because he thought he could play in the league. I am very skeptical that we can say that he was just lucky instead of right. In particular I think this because the people who have tagged him with the lottery ticket label seem to have mostly just known that he was Pau's brother. Sources like Draft Express that were aware of the details of his ACB career seem to have been much more bullish on him than writers like Simmons throwing off one-liners about trading for Kwame Brown.

So in conclusion, I think the unfairness of that trade is badly overblown and much of the initial reaction seems to have been driven by the fact that it was good for the Lakers and bad for the non-Laker contenders. The actual impact on the Grizzlies was basically ignored.

At the time I had no real opinion on the deal because I was in the middle of my senior year of college and was paying less attention to the NBA than I do now. Grizz fans in general were of mixed feeling as far as I can tell, as Pau was not very popular by that point in Memphis, but people were also skeptical of Micheal Heisley leading a rebuilding effort. I never got the feeling people were that upset to see Pau go, but people were suspicious that it was just Heisley being cheap. Those suspicions largely continued until he started writing big checks to the current team.

Everybody usually ignores that in the 8 months between that draft and the trade, Marc was playing in an ACB season where he won the MVP.

I was coming to post this little tidbit as well. I think a lot of NBA fans don't pay attention to Europe, and non-NCAA draft picks are always greeted with skepticism. But being MVP of the ACB at that age is more impressive than being NCAA POY as a senior, IMO. Just because Simmons and other fans didn't realize how good Marc Gasol was doesn't mean the Grizzlies didn't realize he was a legitimate NBA starter, if not star.

EDIT: I forgot to mention that I hate the Lakers. That should always be included.

Calling back a bit, but I have a really hard time blaming Boston for the stupid moves Minnesota made after the Garnett trade.

The Wolves compounded their bad trade with those moves, but even if you exclude the picks just look at who they got for KG — Jefferson, Gomes, Green, Telfair, Ratliff — none of those guys are still on that team, and none of those guys with the exception of Jefferson helped the Wolves in any way when they where. Two years after the deal, the Grizz were significantly better, a year away from being contenders, while the Wolves were significantly worse, and had to divest themselves of the players they got back from Boston.

My brother (who probably got this from BS) has argued that Minnesota did things the "right way" and were just unlucky (in other words, Boston was good and fair and just with them), while Memphis did things the "wrong way" and were stupid and just got lucky that Z-Bo and Gasol worked out. I don't think that's the case. Boston packaged a bunch of young guys who, with Paul Pierce, won 24 games. Minnesota's gang won 32 with Garnett. Did anyone thing a mash-up of those two groups MINUS Pierce and Garnett was going to significantly improve the franchise over the next few years? Minny bet everything that Jefferson was a superstar, and that some of Gomes, Green, Telfair, Foye, McCants and whomever they were drafting were going to form a big ol' core around Jefferson. That's a great plan, except we know that superstars are rare and very often young players and draft picks just don't work out. Making that bet is a high-risk proposition, far riskier than Simmons has ever acknowledged.

Memphis had Conley and Gay in the fold before their trade, decided not to put all their eggs in the prospect basket and it paid off. They took a big gamble with Z-Bo's brain and it paid off. They decided their scouting reports on Marc Gasol were more trustworthy than everyone else's, and it paid off. They pulled the trigger on a deal before the trade deadline pushed them against the wall, and it paid off.

At some point, the idea that there was something horribly wrong with the Pau Gasol trade needs to die. The trade worked out exactly the way a big trade ought work work out: it paid of great for the two teams involved, and everyone else can go screw, right?

You could always change your handle to "Yardape hates the Lakers" so we don't forget that crucial bit of info.

Minny bet everything that Jefferson was a superstar

Minor quibble- they bet that he was GOING to be a superstar. Simmons was saying even before that time that he thought Jefferson would be a star because of his back to the basket game. He has had flashes, but he's just too inconsistent and inefficient to be anything special, and you're right that they knew they were taking that huge risk at the time. I didn't like either trade at the time, but I disliked MN's return less, though that might have been some rose-colored glasses on Big Al.

Boston packaged a bunch of young guys who, with Paul Pierce, won 24 games. Minnesota's gang won 32 with Garnett. Did anyone thing a mash-up of those two groups MINUS Pierce and Garnett was going to significantly improve the franchise over the next few years? Minny bet everything that Jefferson was a superstar, and that some of Gomes, Green, Telfair, Foye, McCants and whomever they were drafting were going to form a big ol' core around Jefferson.

I'm pretty sure I've said this before in one of the previous iterations of this conversation, but the big blunder than Minnesota made (not sure if it was Taylor, McHale or just bad luck on timing/KG trade demands) was not getting the 5th pick from Boston in the deal. There were conversations about trading KG before the draft, but then the C's traded the 5th pick (Green) for Ray Allen and KG was traded after the draft. Even though Jeff Green plus the other pieces doesn't make a huge difference in how things played out in Minnesota, it seems like the Wolves got less back than it seemed they would when the rumors first started.

But as a Bulls fan who wanted his team to trade for either Garnett or Gasol at the time, both trades *seemed* less than what those teams were demanding from the Bulls. Both teams also ended up with titles, so screw em both.

BTW, the reason Rose missed last night's game was because of an undisclosed injury to his right foot, but one that is supposedly new and not related to any of his previous four injuries this year - and that doesn't count the stitches it probably took to close his split nose from Sunday. It's beyond ridiculous at this point, and I am getting really concerned for Rose's long term health and the impact on his career.

The owners broke the players this season. Literally.

Man, the whole Rose saga was really annoying. I was really confident with the whole FBasketball thing this year, but Rose just killed me the last few weeks.

/victory lap

BTW, the reason Rose missed last night's game was because of an undisclosed injury to his right foot, but one that is supposedly new and not related to any of his previous four injuries this year

It's gotten to the point where, instead of Rose looking at Kobe Bryant and thinking, "That's what it'll be like when I get old," it's the other way around.

Man, the whole Rose saga was really annoying. I was really confident with the whole FBasketball thing this year, but Rose just killed me the last few weeks.

Congrats. That was a dominant effort.

Minor quibble- they bet that he was GOING to be a superstar.

You're right. Jefferson was a real up-and-coming offensive guy, and big men who give you 20 and 10 are rare, even if they don't play any defense. That said, you can't be a big man superstar if you can't defend, and it became pretty obvious even before his injury that, five years in, he wasn't going to be that franchise foundation they were hoping for.

I'm pretty sure I've said this before in one of the previous iterations of this conversation, but the big blunder than Minnesota made (not sure if it was Taylor, McHale or just bad luck on timing/KG trade demands) was not getting the 5th pick from Boston in the deal.

I remember thinking that after they dealt that pick that there was no way they were getting KG without it.

What I recall being really shocking about the Gasol trade was just how early in the schedule it happened. Everyone was anticipating a deadline frenzy, but Wallace knew he had to trade Gasol and apparently didn't want to be forced into the best available at the wire. I'm not sure if that would have made too big a difference, but I think it does matter. Teams (I'm sure Chicago was one) were going to offer name players with big contracts, and Memphis didn't want any of them; all they wanted were expiring contracts. If they were getting offer after offer, it would have been that much more difficult for them to say no to everyone while saying yes to (gulp) Kwame Brown, whose contract was the largest expiring in the league that year.

Literally.

Indeed. I have been thinking about that as well. ISTM that they should have scheduled 60 games; season should have ended Sunday, and then everybody should have gotten 4 days off, with the playoffs starting this Friday. Yes, I know: money. But I think that would have been better.

Out of curiosity, what is your criteria for determining who the best team really is?

Multiple criteria--mid-season trades, injuries, minutes, conference strength, point differential, matchups, adjustments, coaching. Also, generally, a team with one of the 3-4 best records does win it, and there is usually noise in that number anyway. Two examples:

2004 Pistons: after they got Rasheed Wallace, they were seriously bad news. On top of that, their PTYH record was 59-23. The Lakers, OTOH, went 56-26 (Detroit went 54-28) with a PYTH of 52-30. The Pistons should have been favored in that series even before Karl Malone went down. Most people missed it, but it was already there. So the fact that the Lakers had the better record meant nothing.
2005 Spurs: their SRS lead the NBA and their PYTH was 63-19. Duncan missed 16 games and they still went 59-23. PHX went 62-20 but with a 59-23 PYTH and Stoudemire, Johnson, Marion and Nash missed nine between them.

That is why I do give some of the pro-Celtic arguments from the 1980s some weight, and although the Lakers ultimately put more banners up, those teams should be remembered together, as their stars are.

But at the same time, with more than half the league making the playoffs, the NBA is about winning the title and there are no one-and-dones in the NBA postseason. Everybody knows that.

Not all Lakers haters are created equal, brotha. I've never used injuries as an excuse for anything, and certainly not in favor of the Celtics (who I dislike almost as much as the Lakers).

That is why I said, "It has only come up a few times here." But it is a common meme and Simmons will try to keep it that way until about 2040--and he has, shall we say, a big audience.

How did McHale still have a job for so many years after the Joe Smith debacle? Why do I feel like if David Stern said "Well, you can lose one draft pick and fire McHale immediately, or you can lose 3 and keep him", the Wolves would have said "Eh, our draft picks don't pan out anyway, and Kevin's a good guy...."

Yes, I know: money. But I think that would have been better.

Penny wise, pound foolish? Its possible some players break in career-altering ways.

But claiming that the Lakers had a big advantage in the Finals because of it, or saying how many titles either team would have won "if they switched conferences", well, those are just counterfactual assertions.

I never claimed that the Lakers had any advantage in the Finals due to schedule nor do I believe it. That's something you're projecting based on past conversations with others or your own biases. Saying that the Lakers had a relatively easy path to the Finals while the East teams fought hard to get there was in response to tshipman's comment that making the Finals is almost as big an accomplishment as winning. I cited Finals records as a measure of team and conference strength, and I certainly did not mean to imply that the West's record or LA's record there was inflated. The statement of what would likely happen if the Celtics and Lakers switched conferences is based on probability, nothing more. In the typical year in the 80s, there were 3 elite teams: the Lakers, the Celtics, and another team in the East. Sometimes the second best team in the West was roughly as good as the second best team in the East, and sometimes the third best team in the East was better than the second best team in the West, but I think that accurately describes the typical season according to SRS. If you figure that matchups involving 2 elite teams are a coin flip and elite teams beat non-elite teams, you would expect the Lakers to win half the time, the Celtics to win 1/4 of the time, and another East team to win 1/4 of the time. That's essentially what happened. If they switched conferences, based on probability the titles would be flipped, but obviously there's no way to say that with any certainty.

I assume that your claim that Boston was actually a better team is based in part on the Bask Ref SRS numbers. If they're not, then either you have some stats I don't know about or it is just subjective.

Everything I said was based on the Bask Ref SRS numbers. There's nothing subjective, as my memories from that era are foggy at best, and I wouldn't rely on whatever few games I've seen on NBA TV or ESPN Classic. My claim that, according to SRS, Boston rated better from 1980-88 by a "not-insignificant" margin was not to show that Boston deserves to be the team of the 1980s but rather that it's unlikely that the Lakers were better in any meaningful way other than good fortune. Yes, there's noise in SRS, so I wouldn't use it to make a definitive claim that in a particular year a +7 Celtics team was better than or even equal to a +6 Lakers team (considering injuries, coaching decisions, etc.), but a team that's a point better on average for a span of many years should at least be on the same level as the other team.

This was also to say that Bird winning two fewer titles than Magic should not be a disqualifier in the discussion of who was better. There were other factors that make their respective number of championships not particularly persuasive one way or the other, in my opinion. Magic's continued health and prime performance for 3 more years, however, is a major argument in his favor.

If they switched conferences, based on probability the titles would be flipped, but obviously there's no way to say that with any certainty.

Correct. And I interpreted that as saying the Lakers had an advantage in the Finals, since you said that the Hypothetical Fresno Celtics would "likely win 4-6 titles" and be known as "Team of the 80s." What you said in the amended post is for me a bit different.

This was also to say that Bird winning two fewer titles than Magic should not be a disqualifier in the discussion of who was better. There were other factors that make their respective number of championships not particularly persuasive one way or the other, in my opinion. Magic's continued health and prime performance for 3 more years, however, is a major argument in his favor.

That's mostly correct as well. Simmons FWIW had Magic 4 and Bird 5.

Also, Pau was actually drafted by the Hawks, so the Grizz traded for both Gasols. So, the Hawks traded Pau and failed to draft Chris Paul when they had a chance...

Also, Pau was actually drafted by the Hawks, so the Grizz traded for both Gasols. So, the Hawks traded Pau and failed to draft Chris Paul when they had a chance...

They apparently also have another brother who is 17 or something. He's also supposed to be tall. I have no idea if he's actually good at basketball, but I would suggest that if a team winds up drafting him they should probably not trade him to the Grizzlies. Actually, that trade was great for the Lakers, so if they do trade him to the Grizzlies, it should probably be for Marc.

Being also too young to have seen the two teams with my own eyes, 952 is the best take on the Magic-Bird team matchup I've ever heard.

The Lakers had a comparatively easy path to the Finals every year in the 80s while the stacked Eastern Conference teams beat each other up.

Also, I thought this line implied the Lakers had an advantage in the Finals. If it wasn't meant that way, then so be it.

In the Clippers' two recent wins over the Thunder, Chris Paul has played ~73 minutes--obviously handling the ball much of that time. He has committed a total, in both games together, of 3 TOs.

OKC's season Pace Factor is 93.0, 6th in the NBA. In the two losses, it was 87.1 and 84.0.

I enjoyed this piece about Derrick Rose. Rose seems fairly candid, very intense, and kind of unhappy.

Also, Pau was actually drafted by the Hawks, so the Grizz traded for both Gasols. So, the Hawks traded Pau and failed to draft Chris Paul when they had a chance...

Don't get me started on Billy Knight, who even until today, I consider the most underrated incompetent GM in recent NBA history. I lived in ATL for about 15 years post-college so I followed them even though I was a Lakers fan, and I was always shocked with how many ATL fans would defend him untill the end. Except for maybe the Josh Smith pick at #17 in 2004 and Hortford, some notable BK-approved but terrible transactions:

-Josh Childress, 2004, 6th (Luol Deng 7th; Andre Iguodala 9th)
-Marvin Williams, 2005, 2nd (Deron Williams 3rd; Chris Paul 4th)
-Shelden Williams, 2006, 5th (Brandon Roy 5th; Rudy Gay 8th)
-A future 1st round pick (Carlos Delfino) to Sacramento for Dan Dickau
-Stephen Jackson to Indiana for Al Harrington
-Jason Terry, Alan Henderson and a 1st round pick to Dallas for Antoine Walker and Tony Delk
-Overpaid Phx for Joe Johnson in both salary and trade compensation (Boris Diaw and 2-1st rounders)
-Signed Zaza Pachulia to $16 million over 4 years

You might say that the Joe Johnson trade is somewhat defensible, but I'm willing to fight anyone who thinks that it made any sense to draft Marvin over DWill or CP3 even at the time.

You might say that the Joe Johnson trade is somewhat defensible, but I'm willing to fight anyone who thinks that it made any sense to draft Marvin over DWill or CP3 even at the time.

Yeah, I agree on the Marvin Williams thing. I remember a lot of people (Bill Simmons, for one) saying that Paul was the best player in the draft. And I remember other people saying that DWill was just as good as Paul, and others saying that you should always go with a big man over a small guard if there's one as good as Bogut available. I don't remember anyone suggesting that Marvin Williams even belonged in the discussion with these other 3.

The Jazz had the third pick that year, and after Milwaukee took Bogut, I agonized over who I'd rather the Jazz picked between Williams and Paul. I decided to stop worrying about it cuz Atlanta would surely take one of them and take the decision out of our hands. We'd pick whichever one is left and all would be happy. But the Hawks took M. Williams for some unknown reason and that made me second guess the Jazz's pick for the next 5 years (I don't know how many times I've switched my opinion over who I'd rather have between Paul and DWill). So thanks for the headaches, Atlanta! All you had to do was pick Paul; you'd have a better team, and I would've had much less inner turmoil over the last half decade!

Did he hand Bibby the extension that the team regretted from about day 1?

Are the Sixers going to play themselves right out of the playoffs?

I was interested in seeing splitter and Duncan starting the game together. Alas the lakers frontline is still just bigger (grizz too). It seems like the spurs are best served by going small in those situations. Bonner is weirdly a good one on one defender.

If Wade's career ended now, who would you take between him and Iverson?

I'll have to look at bask-ref, but my gut says Wade.

#965 - Wade. And it's not even that close. Iverson is one of the most overrated players of all time, IMO. Wade has already led his team to a title and had two other seasons where they were a serious contender (2005, 2011). Iverson had only 1 season his entire career where his team was an actual contender (2001), and even that's being generous, as they made the Finals in a terrible Eastern Conference largely by default.

Iverson was the leader of his generations "Fun player to watch, puts up big individual numbers but your team will never win jack with him as your best player" all star team (VC and McGrady are on that team too, and Melo currently is as well, though he has time to get off it, as Paul Pierce has done over the last 5 years).

Wade has already led his team to a title and had two other seasons where they were a serious contender (2005, 2011).

Call me crazy, but I happen to think Wade may have had some help on at least one of those years that may or may not have been better than Iverson's help.

Iverson was the leader of his generations "Fun player to watch, puts up big individual numbers but your team will never win jack with him as your best player" all star team (VC and McGrady are on that team too, and Melo currently is as well, though he has time to get off it, as Paul Pierce has done over the last 5 years).

I think you're placing too much blame for team performance on individual players.

Wade has already led his team to a title and had two other seasons where they were a serious contender (2005, 2011).

Call me crazy, but I happen to think Wade may have had some help on at least one of those years that may or may not have been better than Iverson's help.

I think I'd probably lean toward Wade, too, but to do that you kind of have to get past the presumption that Lebron and Shaq have made him look that much better rather than using that as your main supporting point. The 2010 Heat were not unlike some of those Philly teams and the individual/team results were not too different.

#968/969 - Yeah, I know. I really disliked Iverson, so maybe my bias is showing a little bit. That said, I can't imagine a modern team ever being a true contender when your best player is only a 40 percent shooter (unless he's Jason Kidd and leading the league in assists every year). Better teammates or not, Wade's individual percentages kick Iverson's to the curb.

Looking at BaskRef, now, Wade, easily. That said, I love Iverson, but think that he was overrated during his career. But I also think

If you want a player to revile as the poster child for that era, I'd rather submit Antoine Walker and Stephon Marbury. Iverson and McGrady are guys who wanted to win, even if they never really did.

Edit: Speaking of really disliking a player, I'd enjoy it if Kevin Garnett made regular pilgrimages to piss on the grave of Starbury's NBA career. He even seems like the type to do it.

If you want a player to revile as the poster child for that era, I'd rather submit Antoine Walker and Stephon Marbury

Antoine would occasionally (okay, very occasionally), take someone down to the block and score with ease, at which point you would be reminded that he could do that basically anytime he wanted to, but he instead preferred to stand around and jack up threes.

Even as a Knicks fan, I never got the Marbury hate. Sure, he thought he was better than he was, but is that really that great a sin?

Yeah, I know. I really disliked Iverson, so maybe my bias is showing a little bit. That said, I can't imagine a modern team ever being a true contender when your best player is only a 40 percent shooter (unless he's Jason Kidd and leading the league in assists every year). Better teammates or not, Wade's individual percentages kick Iverson's to the curb.

I think Wade is the pick, but I just also think that a.) Iverson's percentages look so bad in part due to his teammates (*hangs hat on Denver numbers*) and b.) IIRC, Iverson has a significant durability advantage.

I appreciate Iverson more than I did several years ago, but Wade in a landslide. Wade is probably the 3rd best player in the NBA right now, and has had a few years like that. Iverson was never a top 5 player IMO.

Woj reports that there was almost a Ray Allen to Memphis for OJ Mayo and a draft pick trade at the deadline, to the point that Doc Rivers called Allen to tell him, and then had to call him back 20 minutes later when it fell through. The C's and Nets apparently also discussed trading Pierce for Mehmet Okur and a lottery pick (presumably the one they traded for Gerald Wallace), but that was never too close to happening. The Pierce trade would have gone over like a lead balloon, but the Allen/Mayo one seems intriguing.

If Wade's career ended now, who would you take between him and Iverson?

No question it's Wade. And I'm among those who like Iverson.

as Paul Pierce has done over the last 5 years

Nah, Pierce is still there. He's been able to win because he's not the best player on the team - Garnett is.

Even as a Knicks fan, I never got the Marbury hate. Sure, he thought he was better than he was, but is that really that great a sin?

He lost me when he forced his way out of Minnesota, rather than becoming a playoff team with Garnett (the far, far better player), then confirming himself as a ceiling of "the best player on a lottery team"

Marbury and Walker are definitely on that list, as were Jerry Stackhouse and Steve Francis (remember when Stack averaged almost 30 points a game for a season yet probably wasn't one of the top 20 players in the league?). I didn't include them because I wasn't sure people still considered them stars or not. I think it's pretty well agreed upon that they were overrated.

I think Wade is the pick, but I just also think that a.) Iverson's percentages look so bad in part due to his teammates (*hangs hat on Denver numbers*) and b.) IIRC, Iverson has a significant durability advantage

Possibly. He was a volume shooter though; he scored a lot mainly because he shot a lot, not because he was particularly great at it or anything. And his shot selection was awful; his numbers would have been better if he understood what was a good shot and what wasn't, and also if he acknowledged that 3's were a little out of his range. As for his Denver years, the team didn't really improve much when they got him and they actually had their best season immediately after he left. That doesn't look good for someone who's supposed to be a superstar.

Iverson was never a top 5 player IMO

Agreed. People often complain about Nash's MVP's or Malone's or Barkley's or Dirk's, etc, but I've always thought that Iverson's was easily the worst selection of my lifetime. There's not a coach in the league (including his own) that would've rather had Iverson in 2001 over Shaq, Duncan, Kobe, or Garnett. I'd have gone with either one of the first two.

Nah, Pierce is still there. He's been able to win because he's not the best player on the team - Garnett is.

True. But Iverson didn't even win as the second best player on the Nuggets. I always thought he probably could've been a really good point guard if he had the mentality to do it. The style he actually played with just wasn't very conducive to winning, IMO.

As for his Denver years, the team didn't really improve much when they got him and they actually had their best season immediately after he left.

"He left," meaning "he was traded for a much-closer-to-his-prime, still extremely productive, and a better fit for the lineup Chauncey Billups."

"He left," meaning "he was traded for a much-closer-to-his-prime, still extremely productive, and a better fit for the lineup Chauncey Billups."

Well yeah, but that's what I mean; a guy like Billups who was never really considered a superstar was a better fit for that team and put them in a better position to win than a guy who was supposedly one of the true greats of his era.

Well yeah, but that's what I mean; a guy like Billups who was never really considered a superstar was a better fit for that team and put them in a better position to win than a guy who was supposedly one of the true greats of his era.

You're totally ignoring the "better fit for the lineup" part of andrewberg's point, which is key here. AI had his faults, but pairing him up with Melo was putting him in a position to underwhelm. You can say he might have been a good point guard with the mentality, but at that point in his career he was pretty set in being Allen Iverson, scoring guard. I don't know that you can ding AI too much for not working out better in Denver given the way the rest of that team was built.

Another thing- if we're discussing Wade up to this point, you get 5 great years and 2 halves of great years. With Iverson, you had 14 years, 1 at the start and 2 at the end where he was just average, one in the middle where injuries made him nothing special, and 10 where he was really good.

So do you prefer the 10 years trying to find a non-ball dominant star player to complement him, or hope you can catch lightning in a bottle and have Pat Riley land Shaq/Lebron/Bosh during the short peak for Wade?

If you make Iverson 2" taller with better shot selection you get what...Derrick Rose? Am I overrating Iverson or underrating Rose there?

Well yeah, but that's what I mean; a guy like Billups who was never really considered a superstar was a better fit for that team and put them in a better position to win than a guy who was supposedly one of the true greats of his era.

Iverson was also pretty much done at that point. Is it a knock on Olajuwon to say that Toronto was better after he left?

If you make Iverson 2" taller and better shot selection you get what...Derrick Rose? Am I overrating Iverson or underrating Rose there?

Iverson also got to the line a lot more than Rose (8.9 pg to 4.9, though Rose has been over 6 for the last 2 years), which evens out some of the bad shots Iverson took. Also, we're already talking about the long-term health of Rose. If he holds up and stays at this level for another 7 or 8 years, we can start calling him a slightly more efficient Iverson.

Edit- Iverson had 2 years with a better PER than Rose's best, including his MVP season. WS/48 takes rose 11 over AI 01.

Iverson is underrated, not overrated. Hollinger published some stats once showing him to be a legitimately great defensive player. It's tough to judge a guy when the best offensive players he was matched with were Stackhouse (when both were young), 'Melo (both they and the team had a very good year) and a broken-down Webber.

As for Billups, he probably should be a Hall of Famer, otherwise t\the Hall is going to completely stiff a team that went to two Finals and dominated a Shaq-Kobe-Jackson Lakers team. Plus there's the fact that he was actually a point guard, which is what Denver needed.

As for the 2001 Sixers, they had the best record in the league by far when Ratliff was healthy. Losing Ratliff cost them their best defender who fit perfectly into their system as well as Toni Kukoc, the only other player on the team who was an offensive threat. It was a trade that had to be made and Mutombo helped get them to the Finals, but they were not nearly as good with him (basically .500) as they were with Kukoc/Ratliff.

Paul Pierce is a great example of a great player who would have retired with a loser label for being saddled with Antoine Walker for most of his prime.

That said, Wade is just better. A more interesting argument will be Wade or Kobe.

Billups is as underrated as Iverson is overrated.

Billups or Iverson? I think I'd take Billups, if I want to win.

Billups or Iverson? I think I'd take Billups, if I want to win.

And if you don't?

#984 - No, I mentioned the "better fit for that team" line in my comment. I agree that Iverson was a bad fit for Denver. But I think he would've been a bad fit for a lot of other teams, too. How many teams would Garnett have been a "bad fit" for? I use Garnett as an example cuz they seemed to be held to almost equal esteem during Iverson's prime by the casual fan. Seems pretty much everyone would agree that the best players of the early post Jordan era were Shaq, Duncan, and Kobe, but people always seemed to put Iverson in the next group down, about on par with Garnett or Dirk (that has since changed, obviously).

Which teams do you think Iverson would have fit perfectly with that could've been a contender with him as their best or even close second best player? For a true superstar, it just doesn't seem like it should be THAT hard to find a good fit.

If I want to sell a *($#ton of jerseys and get on TNT more, I take Iverson.

Which teams do you think Iverson would have fit perfectly with that could've been a contender with him as their best or even close second best player? For a true superstar, it just doesn't seem like it should be THAT hard to find a good fit.

While we're at it, I think Garnett and Iverson would have been wonderful together. Those two with very defined role players (a three point shooting guard who doesn't turn the ball over and has some length, a guy who is an above-average perimeter defender at the 3, and a bulky center who crashes the glass) would have contended from about 99-05.

If I want to sell a *($#ton of jerseys and get on TNT more, I take Iverson.

Nice.

That said, Wade is just better. A more interesting argument will be Wade or Kobe.

I think Kobe is a better defender and there is no way I see Wade having the durability to catch up to all Kobe would have accomplished. Maybe if the question was for one game or one season guaranteeing health, but Kobe v. Wade on a career basis is Kobe in a landslide IMO.

someone who's supposed to be a superstar

That is the tricky thing with Iverson, he had the fame of a superstar and was to fun to watch like a superstar, but he was merely good (and good for long time and lot minutes, giving him a lot of value). He's obviously not as good as prime Lebron or Wade at their peak, but not many guys are, so I don't think it is worthwhile to criticize him too much for not reaching that level of greatness. I think Melo is similar now. I think because they were/are overrated and paid a lot, people often take their criticism of these players back too far the other way and fail to appreciate what they do have to offer.

A less heralded guy like Billups might be as good as Iverson or Melo, but a lot that is people not appreciating players like Billups maybe as much as they should.

A less heralded guy like Billups might be as good as Iverson or Melo, but a lot that is people not appreciating players like Billups maybe as much as they should.

Agreed. I think AI/Billups is a close call, and I think of that as a compliment to Billups.

While we're at it, I think Garnett and Iverson would have been wonderful together. Those two with very defined role players (a three point shooting guard who doesn't turn the ball over and has some length, a guy who is an above-average perimeter defender at the 3, and a bulky center who crashes the glass) would have contended from about 99-05.

I agree with this and also think Iverson could fill the Rose role on the present day Bulls.

How many teams would Garnett have been a "bad fit" for?

To me, this is more a player type issue than a player greatness issue. As I mentioned previously, it's just harder to build around ball dominant wings. So much of Garnett's value is in team defense that it's going to be easy to plug a guy like that anywhere and get results.

I'm with andrewberg on Iverson/Garnett. The two are remarkably complementary. Replace Ratliff with Garnett on that Sixers team and, well, they still lose to the Lakers, because everyone would lose to that Lakers team. But nobody is talking about them as a weak Finals team.

As I mentioned previously, it's just harder to build around ball dominant wings.

Especially ones that are 6'1" and don't play point guard.