Swishfm3 wrote:

tkf wrote:

mrKnickShot wrote:Denver is certainly the better team - ones gotta be blind or just silly to not see this.

The question / argument is: WHY? What if the Nuggets did not trade Melo, did not let him walk, and actually resigned him??

Lets just say ...

IF THEY had kept him, I doubt you see the same growth from players like lawson.. he was in denver for quite a while, would you expect much to change? just asking....

If they would have kept Melo I honestly believe, with the emergence of Lawson, denver would be BETTER RIGHT NOW. Lawson was able to "grow" because Billups left and created more playing time for him.

This is assuming that they still draft faried (which is still a possibilty since he flew under the radar playing in Morehead St). Don't have Miller (felton trade) and possibly Iggy (contract) but maybe McGee, Koufas and maybe even Chandler.

I think it was just a question of if they want to give Melo that type of contract and lock themselves in,

I don't think Denver would be averse to a max deal with some player, but Melo wasn't it for them, for whatever reason,

IronWillGiroud wrote:

Swishfm3 wrote:

tkf wrote:

mrKnickShot wrote:Denver is certainly the better team - ones gotta be blind or just silly to not see this.

The question / argument is: WHY? What if the Nuggets did not trade Melo, did not let him walk, and actually resigned him??

Lets just say ...

IF THEY had kept him, I doubt you see the same growth from players like lawson.. he was in denver for quite a while, would you expect much to change? just asking....

If they would have kept Melo I honestly believe, with the emergence of Lawson, denver would be BETTER RIGHT NOW. Lawson was able to "grow" because Billups left and created more playing time for him.

This is assuming that they still draft faried (which is still a possibilty since he flew under the radar playing in Morehead St). Don't have Miller (felton trade) and possibly Iggy (contract) but maybe McGee, Koufas and maybe even Chandler.

I think it was just a question of if they want to give Melo that type of contract and lock themselves in,

I don't think Denver would be averse to a max deal with some player, but Melo wasn't it for them, for whatever reason,

Had he signed the extension I think Carmelo would have eventually been Nene'd

markvmc wrote:You know, I was just thinking the other day that what this forum needed was another trade debate thread.

Bonn1997 wrote:

markvmc wrote:You know, I was just thinking the other day that what this forum needed was another trade debate thread.

If you read the thread title closely, we apparently are not discussing the trade. Just the pre-trade roster!

Ah. That subtle point had somehow escaped me as I read.

IronWillGiroud wrote:

Swishfm3 wrote:

tkf wrote:

mrKnickShot wrote:Denver is certainly the better team - ones gotta be blind or just silly to not see this.

The question / argument is: WHY? What if the Nuggets did not trade Melo, did not let him walk, and actually resigned him??

Lets just say ...

IF THEY had kept him, I doubt you see the same growth from players like lawson.. he was in denver for quite a while, would you expect much to change? just asking....

If they would have kept Melo I honestly believe, with the emergence of Lawson, denver would be BETTER RIGHT NOW. Lawson was able to "grow" because Billups left and created more playing time for him.

This is assuming that they still draft faried (which is still a possibilty since he flew under the radar playing in Morehead St). Don't have Miller (felton trade) and possibly Iggy (contract) but maybe McGee, Koufas and maybe even Chandler.

I think it was just a question of if they want to give Melo that type of contract and lock themselves in,

I don't think Denver would be averse to a max deal with some player, but Melo wasn't it for them, for whatever reason,

They wanted to keep Melo. He forced his way out. Denver would have been happy to keep him.

jrodmc wrote:
Wait, you are honestly saying Gallo is the player Denver is built around? Gallo is the franchise player? Can we start calling him Mr .599?

And nice research, but you miss the point. Denver was playing over .600 almost every year with Melo on the team. The Knicks, on the other hand, were playing .300 ball without Melo on their team. See the difference?

Stop playing around with the smaller sample size. It's truly painful to read, coming from you.

I guess Gallo is their franchise player atm, but they got plenty of cap space and got lots to be able to trade if they wanted, to get a superstar. They are a very very young team and got lots of space to make the team better. When Melo was on their team, they didn't find the right pieces to build around him, and Melo just got frustrated, which all superstars would. I think Denver, not this year, but 2 years down the line, will be a threat to the West, whereas us, we're doomed to succeed this year or we won't be able to dump everyone til 2015-2016 season and by then our players will all be Larry King status and nobody will trade for them. If I were a GM, I'd be much happier to be Nuggets than Knicks, no headache. We're the oldest team, #6 highest salary cap, and honestly, I think we're screwed for another 5 years if we don't win this year, and Nuggets already ahead of us on depth chart for now.

dk7th wrote:

JamesLin wrote:

jrodmc wrote:
Wait, you are honestly saying Gallo is the player Denver is built around? Gallo is the franchise player? Can we start calling him Mr .599?

And nice research, but you miss the point. Denver was playing over .600 almost every year with Melo on the team. The Knicks, on the other hand, were playing .300 ball without Melo on their team. See the difference?

Stop playing around with the smaller sample size. It's truly painful to read, coming from you.

I guess Gallo is their franchise player atm, but they got plenty of cap space and got lots to be able to trade if they wanted, to get a superstar. They are a very very young team and got lots of space to make the team better. When Melo was on their team, they didn't find the right pieces to build around him, and Melo just got frustrated, which all superstars would. I think Denver, not this year, but 2 years down the line, will be a threat to the West, whereas us, we're doomed to succeed this year or we won't be able to dump everyone til 2015-2016 season and by then our players will all be Larry King status and nobody will trade for them. If I were a GM, I'd be much happier to be Nuggets than Knicks, no headache. We're the oldest team, #6 highest salary cap, and honestly, I think we're screwed for another 5 years if we don't win this year, and Nuggets already ahead of us on depth chart for now.

franchise player as in superstar, right? in the nba this is a mutable notion. if the franchise in question decides not to go the franchise player/superstar route, then how can any one particular player be given that tag? even gallinari himself poo-poohed the notion, saying he could or would never be like one of those guys... whether he was thinking of all who are considered superstars, or players who consider themselves superstars, or whether he said it with indifference to the whole notion in the first place-- nobody on the nuggets roster seems particularly interested in the concept. i imagine nobody on the pacers does either.

i mean outside of 2 maybe 3 players is there such a thing as a franchise player today?

I said this so many times... unlike today, in the 80's and 90's there were more franchise players in the league, so you really needed one in order to have a shot.. and if you were in the east when Jordan and the bulls hit their peak, it didn't matter who you had.. LOL.. but today, other than lebron, and durant, there really are no "franchise" types around.. which is why I see teams like the pacers as a real threat.. deep teams, lots of talent, play defense, lots of chemistry.... Denver is built in that mold... and they are only getting better. I like that team concept, at any time any player can step up and be the man.. and it is ok for that to happen.. no one guy getting a pre-determined amount of shots.. No " get me the ball, go to guy, go to guy, jab step, jab step, watch me bulldoze over 3 guys".. I hate and despise that type of basketball... How about move the ball, move your azz, defend, pass, be a team guy.. if you are talented enough at the end of the night, the stat sheet will show it as will the win/loss column.. if you play the right way..

Swishfm3 wrote:

CashMoney wrote:

IronWillGiroud wrote:

Swishfm3 wrote:

tkf wrote:

mrKnickShot wrote:Denver is certainly the better team - ones gotta be blind or just silly to not see this.

The question / argument is: WHY? What if the Nuggets did not trade Melo, did not let him walk, and actually resigned him??

Lets just say ...

IF THEY had kept him, I doubt you see the same growth from players like lawson.. he was in denver for quite a while, would you expect much to change? just asking....

If they would have kept Melo I honestly believe, with the emergence of Lawson, denver would be BETTER RIGHT NOW. Lawson was able to "grow" because Billups left and created more playing time for him.

This is assuming that they still draft faried (which is still a possibilty since he flew under the radar playing in Morehead St). Don't have Miller (felton trade) and possibly Iggy (contract) but maybe McGee, Koufas and maybe even Chandler.

I think it was just a question of if they want to give Melo that type of contract and lock themselves in,

I don't think Denver would be averse to a max deal with some player, but Melo wasn't it for them, for whatever reason,

They wanted to keep Melo. He forced his way out. Denver would have been happy to keep him.

Thats the way I remember it.

Karl was even upset that Melo wanted to leave...it wasn't until he saw that they were still competitive without him that he changed his tuned.

Point is...Denver with Melo, Fariad & Lawson is a MUCH more dangerous team than Fariad, Lawson, Gallo and Chandler.

and you know this.. how?

carmelo had iverson, a younger camby, a younger kenyon martin, Bird man, he has had talent.. the one constant was first round exits... I don't see how you can say what you said with such surety...

This may be a hard pill to swallow for most, but you are never dangerous to anyone but yourself if carmelo is the "best player" on your team.. you will win some regular season games.. but you won't sniff a ring... heck even second round on a consistent basis.. it sounds harsh, but the proof is there... I am not making this up..

Swishfm3 wrote:

CashMoney wrote:

IronWillGiroud wrote:

Swishfm3 wrote:

tkf wrote:

mrKnickShot wrote:Denver is certainly the better team - ones gotta be blind or just silly to not see this.

The question / argument is: WHY? What if the Nuggets did not trade Melo, did not let him walk, and actually resigned him??

Lets just say ...

IF THEY had kept him, I doubt you see the same growth from players like lawson.. he was in denver for quite a while, would you expect much to change? just asking....

If they would have kept Melo I honestly believe, with the emergence of Lawson, denver would be BETTER RIGHT NOW. Lawson was able to "grow" because Billups left and created more playing time for him.

This is assuming that they still draft faried (which is still a possibilty since he flew under the radar playing in Morehead St). Don't have Miller (felton trade) and possibly Iggy (contract) but maybe McGee, Koufas and maybe even Chandler.

I think it was just a question of if they want to give Melo that type of contract and lock themselves in,

I don't think Denver would be averse to a max deal with some player, but Melo wasn't it for them, for whatever reason,

They wanted to keep Melo. He forced his way out. Denver would have been happy to keep him.

Thats the way I remember it.

Karl was even upset that Melo wanted to leave...it wasn't until he saw that they were still competitive without him that he changed his tuned.

Point is...Denver with Melo, Fariad & Lawson is a MUCH more dangerous team than Fariad, Lawson, Gallo and Chandler.

melo and lawson would have a very hard time maximizing each other, very hard time meshing.

dk7th wrote:

Swishfm3 wrote:

CashMoney wrote:

IronWillGiroud wrote:

Swishfm3 wrote:

tkf wrote:

mrKnickShot wrote:Denver is certainly the better team - ones gotta be blind or just silly to not see this.

The question / argument is: WHY? What if the Nuggets did not trade Melo, did not let him walk, and actually resigned him??

Lets just say ...

IF THEY had kept him, I doubt you see the same growth from players like lawson.. he was in denver for quite a while, would you expect much to change? just asking....

If they would have kept Melo I honestly believe, with the emergence of Lawson, denver would be BETTER RIGHT NOW. Lawson was able to "grow" because Billups left and created more playing time for him.

This is assuming that they still draft faried (which is still a possibilty since he flew under the radar playing in Morehead St). Don't have Miller (felton trade) and possibly Iggy (contract) but maybe McGee, Koufas and maybe even Chandler.

I think it was just a question of if they want to give Melo that type of contract and lock themselves in,

I don't think Denver would be averse to a max deal with some player, but Melo wasn't it for them, for whatever reason,

They wanted to keep Melo. He forced his way out. Denver would have been happy to keep him.

Thats the way I remember it.

Karl was even upset that Melo wanted to leave...it wasn't until he saw that they were still competitive without him that he changed his tuned.

Point is...Denver with Melo, Fariad & Lawson is a MUCH more dangerous team than Fariad, Lawson, Gallo and Chandler.

melo and lawson would have a very hard time maximizing each other, very hard time meshing.

i honestly feel that lawson would not be able to grow the way he has if carmelo was still there..

tkf wrote:

Swishfm3 wrote:

CashMoney wrote:

IronWillGiroud wrote:

Swishfm3 wrote:

tkf wrote:

mrKnickShot wrote:Denver is certainly the better team - ones gotta be blind or just silly to not see this.

The question / argument is: WHY? What if the Nuggets did not trade Melo, did not let him walk, and actually resigned him??

Lets just say ...

IF THEY had kept him, I doubt you see the same growth from players like lawson.. he was in denver for quite a while, would you expect much to change? just asking....

If they would have kept Melo I honestly believe, with the emergence of Lawson, denver would be BETTER RIGHT NOW. Lawson was able to "grow" because Billups left and created more playing time for him.

This is assuming that they still draft faried (which is still a possibilty since he flew under the radar playing in Morehead St). Don't have Miller (felton trade) and possibly Iggy (contract) but maybe McGee, Koufas and maybe even Chandler.

I think it was just a question of if they want to give Melo that type of contract and lock themselves in,

I don't think Denver would be averse to a max deal with some player, but Melo wasn't it for them, for whatever reason,

They wanted to keep Melo. He forced his way out. Denver would have been happy to keep him.

Thats the way I remember it.

Karl was even upset that Melo wanted to leave...it wasn't until he saw that they were still competitive without him that he changed his tuned.

Point is...Denver with Melo, Fariad & Lawson is a MUCH more dangerous team than Fariad, Lawson, Gallo and Chandler.

and you know this.. how?

carmelo had iverson, a younger camby, a younger kenyon martin, Bird man, he has had talent.. the one constant was first round exits... I don't see how you can say what you said with such surety...

This may be a hard pill to swallow for most, but you are never dangerous to anyone but yourself if carmelo is the "best player" on your team.. you will win some regular season games.. but you won't sniff a ring... heck even second round on a consistent basis.. it sounds harsh, but the proof is there... I am not making this up..

That team faced the same problem the current Nuggets are going to in the West...SUPERIOR TEAMS. The bottom line is the best TEAM wins championships.