fishmike wrote:

AnubisADL wrote:

martin wrote:

AnubisADL wrote:

martin wrote:

AnubisADL wrote:When you got Boozer, Melo, and Rose you can get by with a Tyson Chandler type at Center. If they trade for Melo they will have access to the MLE this upcoming summer.

name them.

also note that Chandler makes almost $13M this year.

Summer Free agents:

Samuel Dalembert
Tyson Chandler
Eddy Curry
Kwame Brown
Nazr Mohammed
Dan Gadzuric
Hilton Armstrong
Jason Collins
Miami's Rejects

Chandler isn't going make anywhere near 10 million after his current deal.

nor will he make anything near the MLE.

So you propose an often injured Chandler is going to make more than the MLE? Jermaine O'neal got the MLE and he is better than Chandler.

maybe 5 years ago. Chandler is on a par w/ Ariza and Artest as far as contract. We will see if he makes a big step forward but if he doesnt he's certainly a full MLE type or certainly more. Jermaine Oneil has one leg. Bos will limit he and Shaq's minutes and just hope to have enough big healthy bodies come spring to make another title run.

haha, AnubisADL was talking Tyson Chandler. And then he brought up the most injured Big Man over the past 7 years after mentioning that Tyson was often injured.

martin wrote:

fishmike wrote:

AnubisADL wrote:

martin wrote:

AnubisADL wrote:

martin wrote:

AnubisADL wrote:When you got Boozer, Melo, and Rose you can get by with a Tyson Chandler type at Center. If they trade for Melo they will have access to the MLE this upcoming summer.

name them.

also note that Chandler makes almost $13M this year.

Summer Free agents:

Samuel Dalembert
Tyson Chandler
Eddy Curry
Kwame Brown
Nazr Mohammed
Dan Gadzuric
Hilton Armstrong
Jason Collins
Miami's Rejects

Chandler isn't going make anywhere near 10 million after his current deal.

nor will he make anything near the MLE.

So you propose an often injured Chandler is going to make more than the MLE? Jermaine O'neal got the MLE and he is better than Chandler.

maybe 5 years ago. Chandler is on a par w/ Ariza and Artest as far as contract. We will see if he makes a big step forward but if he doesnt he's certainly a full MLE type or certainly more. Jermaine Oneil has one leg. Bos will limit he and Shaq's minutes and just hope to have enough big healthy bodies come spring to make another title run.

haha, AnubisADL was talking Tyson Chandler. And then he brought up the most injured Big Man over the past 7 years after mentioning that Tyson was often injured.

Jermaine O'neal actually had some skills. Chandler has no skills other than defense and he isnt good even good at that. Do you think Tyson Chandler gets more than the MLE next year.

martin wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:I dunno. The way that Chicago team is built now, Noah is extremely important. Boozer is short for his position and isn't that good defensively. Noah is good compliment to Boozer in that he blocks shots, throws his body around and doesn't need the ball to be effective. I don't think the question is whether Noah is better than Melo, it's whether the difference between whoever they get to replace Noah is greater than the difference between Melo and Deng.

Im in this boat. CHI isn't going to get Melo by just giving up Deng and so one would assume Noah is next in line (whether in combo or a piece with salary extras). So, you are left with no C, Booze, Melo, Brewer/Korver, Rose. Very small and all offense. And Rose is not a classic pass first PG.

Korver, Brewer, CJ Watson were all acquired recently, so they can't be traded until Dec, right? (I could be wrong on that).

Noah, if he is extended would be a base year compensation player.

If you don't match Noah and Deng for a Melo trade, who else could CHI trade that would match up salary-wise and fulfill this "assets" request Denver is making?

Also, CHI has to send out $14M in a trade for Melo only.

I agree with this.

Melo doesn't actually fit with a ton of teams, because he's so one-dimensional. Not sure whether he fits here.

crzymdups wrote:

I agree with this.

Melo doesn't actually fit with a ton of teams, because he's so one-dimensional. Not sure whether he fits here.

I keep slipping into this view of carmello, but it's not actually true if you think about it. The way i see it is take Carmello off the Denver teams of the past few years and replace him with an actual ball hog/one dimensional palyer like Al Harrington. Does that team even come close to a winning record? No way. Carmello does have a huge impact, like Iverson did back in the day- he's a great scorer who wins games that latter part is an important distinction to keep in mind. I still wouldn't trade Gallo and AR for him though, just because once we've got him we have no ability to improve the team (especially if a hard cap is introduced and the MLE is scrapped in the new CBA)

TMS wrote:this guy is a 30 ppg type player... i'll take that kind of one dimension on my team anyday... listening to all this talk about how he doesn't fit on this team is funny to me... i can't wait to hear everyone's tune change once he becomes a FA next summer.

How many people is everybody?

Knixkik wrote:One thing i don't understand is why Denver is so needy of a first round pick, one that will be in the mind 20s from any team Melo is traded to. You can buy one on draft day for cheap typically.

Yeah, I think it's kind of strange. Like I started the thread with, we have two guys (Danilo and Wilson) who are damned good now and have the potential to get better. A pick in the range you're accurately assessing is less likely to be as good, let alone any better than these guys and that's if they can even hack the pros. Proven youth over the complete unknown of draft picks makes more sense to me. Greg Oden's the perfect example, he could have and should have been great (he still could be), but the unexpected happened.

I was wishing the Knicks could do a hand shake deal for their 2011 draft (as in select what Denver wants and trade it for a second rounder or two). I know it's against the rules, but if LeBron, Wade, and Bosh were allowed to determine their futures together starting in 2006, I don't see a problem.