Nice avatar... wow. I will agree with the majority of sports casters, coaches, trainers, GM's and most people in sports that chemistry is VERY important to a team. Not sure why you clowns don't agree. n00bs
Probably because there's no evidence for it. Jordan was a "chemistry" nightmare, putting down his teammates and even getting into physical fights. His teams won six championships. Shaq and Kobe were often at each other's throats and they won three straight titles. The Oakland A's of the early-70s had a poisonous club house and won three championships in a row. As Sandy Koufax once said: "In the end it all comes down to talent. You can talk all you want about intangibles, I just don't know what that means. Talent makes winners, not intangibles. Can nice guys win? Sure, nice guys can win - if they're nice guys with a lot of talent. Nice guys with a little talent finish fourth and nice guys with no talent finish last."
If I disagree with you on other threads, I'll be happy to reply and tell you why. Sorry if my disagreeing with you twice (!!) in the same day hurts you deep inside. If disagreement bothers you, maybe discussion forums aren't your thing. Maybe you're more of a diary person!
I love that quote, were you the one who had it as a sig at BBF? Anyway, the "chemistry" thing does have to be considered since it's a player in the last year of his contract. If he's not happy, there's a chance he walks. Everything Portland gives up in this trade makes it too risky for a potential rent-a-player. If he were to agree to a one year extension that's be a whole 'nother story.
Gerald Wallace I've been up and down just about every roster and trying to figure out who would be the perfect fit. Perimeter defense being one of our weaknesses, I think Gerald Wallace would be a great fit. Vet experince, can score if need be and of course an above average defender. I think how he would fit in with this core would be a bit of a question for me. I think having an answer to defend Kobe, Posey, McGrady, basically top Western Conference threats is about the only big weakness I see with this team. His contract is not the greatest. 9M for the next 4 years is a bit high, IMO. I've never been in love with Travis' BBIQ but he seems to fit in very well with the 2nd unit. What if you traded away TO, started Gerald Wallace and had Martel come off the bench with the 2nd unit ? Otherwise, the list of FA's for 09 does not excite me at all. Unless the Big Three were all on board to go after Kobe. I'm not a big Kobe guy, but if the Big Three were on board, I'd be OK with it. Marion ? Thanks, but no thanks. Turkgolu ? Maybe .
Hell Yes I'd trade Outlaw and Fry for Marion. Maybe Marion is a rent a player or maybe he is the perfect fit I really don't know. I do know Outlaw and Fry are both far inferior.
Maybe he doesn't NEED to be a first option. But he definitely wants his touches. It might also be that he wasn't this way his whole career. But the last few years with Pheonix it was well known that Marion was the kind of guy that checked his stat sheet at half time and was not a happy camper if he wasn't getting as many as shots as he thought he deserved. The way I see it we're already gonna have issues with guys not getting enough shots, minutes, etc. It doesn't make sense to bring in yet another guy that is going to exacerbate the situation. Sure, it's tempting because he's so talented that you figure he'll do a lot more good on the floor than damage in the locker room. Especially if we can get him for the low low cost of Frye and Travis. It's the kind of thing I might wanna do at the trade deadline. But right now I'd much rather see how the first half of the season goes with this group of players that has never played together before than make a move like this. It did get us a 9 win improvement after giving away our most productive player. I'm saying that's significant. It's only been two years with the youngest team in the league. I'm thinking we stick with this whole chemistry/culture deal that Kevin Pritchard is so high on before we try making a quick fix type move. What's a better argument, imho, is all the teams in the past that have seemingly fallen apart due to poor chemistry. Teams that come to mind are the 2001 Blazers and last year's Bulls team. If we keep an eye on chemistry I figure we're less likely to end up like them.
We're going to have issues with guys not getting enough stats? What about the "chemistry" that this team allegedly has? I'm not sure that I do the deal, either, but I don't fail to do it because there's a risk of having too many good players on the team. That's silly. I don't think that it was addition by subtraction. I think it was one good streak fueled by career-best play from a veteran (James Jones) and natural improvement from very good young players (Aldridge, Roy). Yeah... I disagree. After a team falls apart, people use "bad chemistry" as an excuse. Chemistry can seem just fine until things go bad, and then all of a sudden the chemistry is bad. "Chemistry" could be perceived as bad, and then the team wins and suddenly it's because the team "gelled". Except in very extreme situations, it's all a bunch of hooey. It's a way to explain the unexplainable through a blanket application of an intangible that only has "value" in hindsight. Ed O.
If Denver starts badly and wants to rebuild, I'd do http://games.espn.go.com/nba/featur...454~2015~2795&teams=22~22~7~7~7~7~7&te=&cash= but a lot would have to go wrong for them to trade Carmelo.
