TheStig
New member
- Joined:
- Apr 5, 2009
- Posts:
- 3,636
- Liked Posts:
- 38
dunkside.com wrote:
I happen to disagree. No matter who we are able to bring in minus wade or bron, they will be the second best player on this team. Rose needs to control the ball and tempo like the other elite pg's do. Do you think Utah or NO are that good because of willimas and paul or West and Boozer? Paul and Williams make their bigs better, infact before their pg's got there they were lotto teams. We need to get Rose a sidekick he can run the pick and roll with and take some of the scoring pressure off. Having an elite defender like Duncan is good but I only see one young big in the league who is a good scorer and good defender and we aren't getting Dwight Howard. Bosh and AMare are good enough defenders not to hurt us and Noah is a defensive big anyway. We need a sidekick who can score efficently and not make rose do everything.chi_hawks_23 wrote:
dunkside.com wrote:
I'm sick of hearing about Amare. Amare is at home nursing his eye injury and resting his microfractured knee, while Tyrus is hitting clutch jumpers against the defending champions and playing some defense of his own to boot.
I'm not sayin', I'm just sayin' ....
So if you could trade tyrus for amare straight up (ignoring salary implications), you would not do it?
NO !!
I know my answer is surprising so I'll give you a couple of minutes to recover from the shock![]()
OK. Now, hear me out.
If your big man with a max contract doesn't play defense you won't win a title. Dirk couldn't lead his team to a title, Amare as well. And I doubt Bosh would, either.
I'd only offer a max contract to a very limited number of players, who I think can lead a team to a title: Lebron, Wade, Kobe, Howard, CP3. Kidd, Duncan and Shaq in their prime would make that list too. And soon Rose might be on that list. Each of them still needs at least another all star and a good support cast to win it all, but that is relatively easy to achieve. Far easier than getting together 3 superstars not too far removed from their prime, like Boston did.
So if I have to chose between paying max money to a guy who won't lead the team (not just in scoring, but set the tone in practice, lead by example, play hard on both ends of the floor and so on) and paying less than half of that for a guy who's decent/good at both ends of the floor, I'll pick the second guy.
Your superstar, your max money guy, has to be much more than just a good player. Look at AI - amazing player, tough, gives all on the court, yet his teams failed more often than they succeeded, and you can trace the reason to his lack of leadership.