8 comments Bill Simmons Has a Friend Who Didn't Want Carmelo Anthony on the Lakers Team, So Obviously Most Lakers Fans Felt That Way

I wasn't going to originally cover Bill Simmons' column about Carmelo Anthony. I do try to limit the amount I write about Bill and I had just written another post written by him. Plus, I didn't take the time to read the Anthony article. It just seemed like another "deep thought" column about an NBA player that Bill seems to be trying to do more and more of lately. It was suggested on Twitter that I read it, so I did, and here we are. It's the typical Bill Simmons columns where he takes an opinion held by one person, extrapolates it to mean the opinion of others and then adds a little bit of his opinion disguised as a fact in order to prove his opinion correct. Few writers are as good as Bill Simmons in using his opinion to prove his own opinion as correct.

This wasn’t one of our happier years at the “You Can Absolutely Win a Title If Carmelo Anthony Is Your Best Player” Fan Club headquarters.

I didn't even know Bill was a member of this fan club. I can't recall him ever stating he was a member of this fan club either. Oh, and this column is titled "No Escape from New York." Get it? There was a movie called "Escape from New York."

Our man missed the 2014 playoffs in the rancid Eastern Conference, then received a rude comeuppance from his new Knicks boss, Phil Jackson, who lobbied him publicly to stick around at a discount price. The Bulls couldn’t carve out enough cap space for him. The Lakers couldn’t offer a good enough supporting cast. The Rockets never gained momentum, for whatever reason. Carmelo ended up re-signing for $122 million for five years, pretending that was the plan all along … even though it wasn’t.

Yeah, tough year. Carmelo had to walk away with $24.4 million per year and got to stay in one of the largest NBA markets. Fan club members should probably like that.

You know what really shocked me? Hearing Knicks fans and Lakers fans wonder whether it was a smart idea to splurge on Carmelo at all. Where are you REALLY going if he’s your best player?, they kept asking. 

What this translates to mean is, "I know a guy who is a Lakers fan and didn't want Carmelo to sign with the Lakers." Because we all know the opinion of Bill's friends are indicative of the larger population as well. I'm sure there are plenty of Lakers fans who didn't want the team to sign Carmelo, but to pretend the opinion of Bill's friends is representative of Lakers fans everywhere is silly.

Take my friend Lewis, a lifelong Southern California guy, one of those complicated superfans who’s nutty enough to grow a beard for the entire NHL playoffs, only he’s rational enough to freak out over Kobe’s cap-crippling two-year extension, but he’s also irrational enough to still believe the Lakers could eventually sign Kevin Love AND Kevin Durant. You can always count on him for a rationally irrational reaction, if that makes sense.

Very little of this stuff ever makes sense. But I'm sure Lewis is the perfect representation to base an entire premise around and then write an entire column based entirely on this premise. After all, beats working.

When news broke two weekends ago that the Lakers had become serious Carmelo contenders, I couldn’t wait for Lewis’s reaction.

And I can't wait to hear about Lewis's reaction. I hope Bill provides it word-for-word in text form so I get the full experience of Lewis's reaction. Also, it's obvious Lewis isn't famous because otherwise Bill would use his full name so that his readers knows he is friends with famous people. Jimmy Kimmel isn't "Jimmy," Adam Carolla isn't "Adam," and the examples could go on. As a general rule, Bill uses full names when it is someone the reader knows as a celebrity.

Instead, here’s the email exchange we had.

Me: Are u officially in Carmelo mode? Lewis: God no. Hope he goes to the Knicks.

HOW INSIGHTFUL! LAKERS FANS AS A WHOLE DON'T WANT CARMELO ANTHONY! QUICK, GET TO THE KEYBOARD AND WRITE AN ENTIRE COLUMN, BUT FIRST TRANSCRIBE THE ENTIRE EMAIL EXCHANGE.

Me: You don’t mean that. Lewis: It’s a bandaid on a broken arm. It locks them up with no flexibility for two years until Kobe goes.

He didn’t want Carmelo Anthony??? On the Lakers???

Putting more question marks at the end of a sentence isn't going to make it suddenly less true or even true when extrapolated to show how Lakers fans feel about Carmelo Anthony as a whole.

I surfed a few Lakers blogs and message boards and found similar ambivalence. Some fans wanted him, others didn’t understand the point.

The two most accurate opinions in order to get valid, well-reasoned opinions on a subject can always be found in two places.

1. The opinion of a friend.

2. The opinion expressed on message boards.

What could go wrong with making an assumption based on the comments from these two sources?

Many felt like the rationally irrational Lewis — they wanted the Lakers to land a top-five lottery pick (if it’s lower than that, it goes to Phoenix), wipe Nash’s expiring contract off their cap, then make a run at the Kevins (Love in 2015, Durant in 2016). That’s a smart plan, except (a) they could easily stink and STILL lose that 2015 lottery pick, (b) Love will probably get traded this season (and might like his new team), (c) nobody knows what Durant wants to do, and (d) nobody knows if the post–Dr. Buss Lakers are still a destination franchise.

I know if the post-Dr. Buss Lakers are still a destination franchise. They are. They are located in California, still have a rich history, have celebrities who go to the games, and will have Kobe (who isn't the same, but he still holds weight) on the roster for the next two years. I have to believe that it's Bill's distaste for the Lakers that causes him to doubt they are still a destination franchise.

And it’s not like the Lakers are loaded with assets; they have Julius Randle, the promise of future cap space, the allure of Los Angeles and that’s about it.

I mean, if a guy wants to come to Los Angeles that's about all he needs. There is space to sign other players and he can live in Los Angeles.

They owe Kobe $23.5 million this season and $25 million next season — nearly 40 percent of their cap — without even knowing if he can play at a high level anymore.

Then when the cap goes up in two years Kobe is gone and the Lakers have a ton of room to make moves. For now, they have a guy who is insanely competitive and draws eyes to the team. And no, I'm not talking about Swaggy P, but Kobe.

Knowing that, how could any Lakers fan not want one of the best scoring forwards in NBA history? 

I don't think there are a lot of Lakers fans who wouldn't want one of the best scoring forwards in NBA history on the team. I think your friend Lewis didn't want him on the team. 

Why weren’t Knicks fans freaking out that they might lose their franchise player for nothing? Why were so many Bulls fans (and I know three of them) saying things like “I’d love to get Melo, but I hate the thought of giving up Taj [Gibson] for him”?

Bill knows three Bulls fans. THREE! I'm not sure he's ever thought that perhaps his friends are stupid and irrational. That could never be true though, could it?

How did Carmelo Anthony, only 30 years old and still in his prime, become the NBA’s most underappreciated and misunderstood player?

Because the media has beaten the "Carmelo Anthony is a great player, but isn't a winner who can lead a team to the NBA title narrative" and many fans can start to think the same way due to the constant onslaught of this narrative. I'm probably slightly guilty of it too. I would like for Anthony to play for the Celtics though. Not sure I would mind that.

Again, the idea that Bill's friends may be irrational and hold a minority opinion simply doesn't occur to him. It couldn't be true. Bill is very smart and so therefore his friends are smart because they are associated with him.

Now comes the part where Bill starts handing out opinions like they are facts and then treats his opinion as fact. He tends to do this often.

The problems start here: Carmelo Anthony is definitely better than your typical All-Star, but he’s not quite a superstar. You know what that makes him? An almost-but-not-quite-superstar.

Oh, okay. I didn't realize this was an official thing. It's always fun how Bill's hand out opinions as facts and then uses those facts to support his argument. It's very stereotypical only-childish of him.

He’s not Leo DiCaprio or Will Smith — he can’t open a movie by himself. He’s more like Seth Rogen or Channing Tatum — he can open the right movie by himself. There’s a big difference.

The only difference is that Will Smith does completely different movies from Seth Rogen. This is an annoying comparison. It only clouds the issue and tries to cover for the fact Bill is throwing an opinion out there and tries to make it seem like it's a fact. Some people do consider Carmelo Anthony to be a superstar.

Here’s something I wrote on July 8, 2010, the day that LeBron took his talents to South Beach.

I need my NBA superstar to sell tickets, generate interest locally and nationally, single-handedly guarantee an average supporting cast 45-50 wins, and potentially be the best player on a Finals team if the other pieces are in place, which means only LeBron, Wade, Howard, Durant and Kobe qualify. There’s a level just a shade below (the Almost-But-Not-Quite-Superstar) with Steve Nash, Dirk Nowitzki, Carmelo Anthony, Brandon Roy, Chris Paul and Deron Williams. (Note: I think Derrick Rose gets there next season.) Then you have elite guys like Bosh, Pau Gasol and Amar’e Stoudemire who need good teammates to help them thrive … and if they don’t have them, you’re heading to the lottery. You know what we call these people? All-Stars.

 
Sorry, Portland fans — I made a mistake not telling you to take a deep breath before you read that paragraph.

Carmelo Anthony does sell tickets, generate interest locally and nationally, has taken an average supporting cast to 45-50 wins (as Bill will later prove in this column, so how he doesn't understand Carmelo meets this definition is ridiculous), and hasn't had a chance to be in the Finals because the other pieces haven't been in place. What's dumb is Bill will, again, prove in this very article that Anthony hasn't had the supporting cast to be in the Finals. So he has no chance of being a superstar according to Bill's criteria until his supporting cast improves. Carmelo has taken steps this offseason to not put himself in a better situation with better teammates. More importantly, this fourth criteria means a player can't be labeled a superstar based on a factor that is somewhat beyond his control. I don't know if that should reflect negatively on the player or not.

But exactly four years later, those levels look like this.

Superstars: LeBron, Durant.

Almost-But-Not-Quite-Superstars: Blake Griffin, Dwight Howard, Anthony Davis, Carmelo Anthony, Kevin Love, Chris Paul, Russell Westbrook, Paul George.

Again, this is an opinion based on criteria that Bill Simmons has thrown together. Bill is using his opinion (that there is a set criteria a player has to achieve to be named a superstar) and written this opinion in one of his columns as proof that his opinion of Carmelo Anthony as not a superstar is true. Am I the only that sees the insanity of this? Can't Bill see it?

"Oh, no Carmelo Anthony isn't a superstar because I created this criteria stating he isn't a superstar based on subjective measures which were opinion-based. So taking my opinion-created criteria and then matching it up with my current opinion that Carmelo Anthony isn't a superstar, you can see that I am right in believing Carmelo Anthony isn't a superstar. Also, nevermind if criteria #4 means no player who hasn't appeared in the NBA Finals can be a superstar and it's not based on anything the player has or has not done in order to be considered a superstar."

A few semi-stunned notes about that revised list.

You created the list based on your own criteria. How can you be stunned at the results, you ass monkey? HOW? It's your opinion!

"My own opinion, which I have no control over, shocks me!"

First, two true superstars is the NBA’s lowest number since 1979, the season before Bird and Magic showed up.

I give up. I'm not going to argue this shit. Bill is discussing this list like it's not a product of his ego-driven opinion and is instead the results of a 10 year study based on facts.

Second, Anthony Davis is our only superstar in waiting right now … well, unless you feel like bending the rules and counting Joel Embiid If He Stays Healthy or my illegitimate Australian son, Ben Simmons (a frighteningly gifted high schooler who looks like Benji Wilson 2.0).

Kevin Love is 25, Paul George is 24. It's not like they are old. Also, way for Bill to plug a "30 for 30" while trying to drop knowledge about high school basketball players he's only seen YouTube clips of.

Our 30 for 30 about Benji is streaming on Netflix. 

Of course it is, Bill. Your column is one big YouTube link and advertisement for other Grantland content.

Third, we’re in the middle of an under-30 talent boom that’s as loaded as any run since the early ’90s, and yet we dipped from 11 superstars and almost-but-not-quite-superstars in 2010 to 10 of those guys in 2014. Six dropped out and five jumped in, not including Rose, who briefly careered into the superstar group in 2011 and 2012.

Bill is apparently going to keep talking about this list as if it holds anything other than the results of four criteria he created purely through the use of his opinion. It takes a special kind of ego to believe your opinion is a fact and then base a defense of another opinion based on your previous opinion.

And fourth, Carmelo’s 2014 level was a tougher call than everyone else’s combined. After all, he’s made one conference finals and zero Finals. He’s never won more than 54 regular-season games or made an All-NBA first team, although he did finish third in 2013’s MVP voting (no small feat).

Yes, he did meet every arbitrary criteria on the list, except for the criteria required which he has only a limited amount of control over. That criteria is the pieces falling together on a Finals team with that player as the best on that Finals team. Outside of choosing a team with a great supporting cast already in place (which Anthony did seem to have the option of doing), he doesn't have a ton of control over his supporting cast once he chooses a team.

Most damning, Carmelo has lost nearly twice as many playoff games as he has won: 23 wins, 44 losses. You can’t even use the whole “Look, Carmelo can drag any mediocre team to 44 wins and the playoffs!” argument anymore — not after last season.

The Knicks weren't mediocre last year. They were worse than that. Raymond Felton was the starting point guard and J.R. Smith was the second-best player on the team. I'm not a big Carmelo Anthony fan, but he dragged them to 37 wins. Take Anthony off that roster and they are contending for the #1 overall pick.

So what’s left? Can’t we downgrade him to All-Star and be done with it? 

I don't know, Bill. It's your fucking list so do what you want. Me personally, I'm going to assume most fans of the Bulls, Lakers and Knicks wanted Carmelo Anthony to play for their team and feel good knowing this is probably true in the majority. After all, what if I have four friends that agree with my point of view?

For me, it keeps coming back to one question: Can you win the NBA championship if Carmelo Anthony is your best player?

The short answer: Yes.

You can.

Bill Simmons' opinion: You can win an NBA title with Carmelo Anthony as the best player on the team.

Bill Simmons' opinion: Carmelo Anthony isn't a superstar because he hasn't made an NBA Finals as the best player on that team.

So Anthony is a superstar once forces outside of his complete control come together. Bill thinks he's a superstar, but the criteria Bill created which he has no control over doesn't necessarily agree with Anthony being a superstar. In conclusion, I have a headache.

If you believe Carmelo can lead a championship team, you’re leaning heavily on that 2011 Mavs playbook — you’d need all the elements we just covered, and you’d need Carmelo to unleash a damned good Dirk impression.

Only one problem: Dirk was better than Carmelo is.

Oh no. What ever shall be done?

Dirk is one of the 20 best basketball players of all time by any calculation.

Absolutely not true. Here are some facts I just created to prove my opinion is correct. The criteria to be one of the 20 best basketball players of all-time are as follows:

1. Have won at least one NBA title.

2. Has either played for the Lakers, Heat or Celtics.

3. Is from the United States.

4. Thinks that English Muffins are the wimpy version of a bagel.

5. That is all.

So you can see that Dirk isn't even close to being one of the best basketball players of all-time because he fails on two criteria and I don't know what Dirk thinks of English Muffins, but I do know he is from Germany, so there's a good chance he doesn't appreciate bagels to the extent he should. As you can see, Dirk isn't one of the 20 best basketball players based on the set of facts I just created.

He won an MVP and a Finals MVP. He made four first-team All-NBA’s and five second-team All-NBA’s. He won 50-plus games for 11 straight years, topped 60 wins three times, made two Finals, beat LeBron and Wade in the Finals, and won a Game 7 in San Antonio during Duncan’s prime.

And we all know, "Having won a Game 7 in San Antonio during Duncan's prime" is the MOST IMPORTANT cherry-picked criteria of all. Not even LeBron James has done this. Michael Jordan didn't do it. Magic Johnson didn't do it.

Amazing but true: Dirk never played with a Hall of Famer in that Hall of Famer’s prime.

See, now this is a fact. See how that works, Bill? It's fine to base an opinion off this fact, because the fact isn't an opinion, but has concrete proof behind it. There is a basketball Hall of Fame and Dirk hasn't played with a Hall of Famer while in his prime. Baby steps...

Bill starts listing Dirk's statistics as he is prone to do in order to kill space. Dirk is great, I'll leave it at that.

That’s why I dislike comparing Carmelo and Dirk. But I keep coming back to these two playoff lines:
2011 Dirk (21 games): 27.7 ppg, 8.1 rpg, 2.5 apg, 49-46-94%, 8.9 FTA, 25.2 PER
 
2009 Melo (16 games): 27.2 ppg, 5.8 rpg, 4.1 apg, 45-36-83%, 9.0 FTA, 24.3 PER

Bill dislikes comparing Carmelo to Dirk, but he doesn't hate it enough to base his opinion that Carmelo can be the best player on an NBA title team on a direct comparison to Dirk's 2011 Mavs. Then Bill directly compares Carmelo and Dirk's playoff statistics to each other. But yeah, he dislikes that comparison.

The 2009 Nuggets were Carmelo’s best team; they fell to Kobe’s Lakers in Round 3 with a poor man’s version of the 2011 Mavs. George Karl wasn’t Carlisle. Nene and Kenyon Martin couldn’t protect the rim like Chandler. They didn’t have a perimeter defender anywhere close to Marion’s caliber. They couldn’t shoot 3s nearly as well (only 31 percent for that Lakers series). They relied way too heavily on J.R. Smith, who imploded against Kobe and got outscored 204 points to 76 points.

This is the same J.R. Smith who was the second-best player on the 2014 Knicks by the way.

Again, in all caps … THAT’S THE MOST TALENTED PROFESSIONAL BASKETBALL TEAM THAT CARMELO ANTHONY EVER PLAYED ON.
The second-best team? You might remember them self-destructing just 14 months ago — it was the 2013 Knicks squad that won 54 games in a lousy conference with Melo, a past-his-peak Chandler, J.R. Smith, Ray Felton, a washed-up K-Mart, Iman Shumpert, Chris Copeland, Pablo Prigioni, a hobbled Amar’e Stoudemire and the immortal Mike Woodson coaching.
Again, in all caps … THAT’S THE SECOND-MOST TALENTED PROFESSIONAL BASKETBALL TEAM THAT CARMELO ANTHONY EVER PLAYED ON.

Now take that team, add another year to Chandler, add Andrei Bargnani, add another 15 pounds to Felton, and take away Chris Copeland. That was the 2014 Knicks.

So could Carmelo morph into 2011 Dirk if you gave him the right situation? We don’t know because he’s never been in the right situation.

Which is why it is silly to announce Carmelo isn't a superstar based on criteria where he could only be a superstar by being in the right situation.

As a last gasp, they used the Lakers as negotiating leverage (you better sign-and-trade Melo to Chicago or you’ll lose him for nothing!), only Jackson smartly sniffed it out. That left Carmelo with three choices:

Choice No. 1: Grab $122 million over five years from New York, play with another inferior team, miss the Finals for his 12th straight season, and pin the rest of his prime — which he’s never getting back, by the way — on Jackson’s promise that “We’ll Have Gobs of Cap Space in the Summer of 2015!!!”

This, along with more first round draft picks, is the promise the Celtics have made to the entire fanbase while attempting to trade the only player on the team who could be considered a star. I feel this requires mentioning.

Choice No. 3: Sign a four-year deal in Chicago for less money (starting around $14-15 million), become the crunch-time guy for an absolutely loaded Bulls team, and answer every question anyone ever asked about him.

At the same time, I wanted to know once and for all. I wanted to know how good Carmelo Anthony is. Because, right now, I believe the following things:
1. He’s one of the best natural scorers I’ve ever seen.
 
2. He’s one of the NBA’s eight or nine best players and has been for some time.
 
3. He could win you a title on his version of the 2011 Mavs.

Again, those are just opinions.

So far this entire column, including the decision that Carmelo is not a superstar and the idea that Lakers fans didn't want to sign Carmelo, are opinions as well. They are proven correct mostly using more opinions.

But what am I about to present to you? All facts.

1. His best team ever was the 2009 Nuggets. (Covered above.)
2. His best teammates ever: Chauncey Billups (post-Detroit version), Allen Iverson (post-Philly version), Andre Miller, Marcus Camby, Amar’e Stoudemire (post-Phoenix version, right as his knees were going), Tyson Chandler (post-Dallas version), Kenyon Martin (post-Nets version), Nene (never an All-Star — not once) and the one and only J.R. Smith.

I'm not entirely sure Bill understands what an "opinion" is. I feel like Bill believes an opinion is a belief based on a future outcome and not a belief based on a prior outcome. While I can't argue necessarily with #1 and #2 above, they are both most certainly very close to be an opinion. Inarguable opinions, but opinions nonetheless.

4. He had only four teammates make an All-Star Game: Iverson (2007, 2008), Billups (2009, 2010), Amar’e (2011) and Chandler (2013).

That wasn't even the good All-Star version of those players either. Yuck.

5. He had five head coaches in 11 years: Jeff Bzdelik (never coached again),

Well, he was the head coach for the Wake Forest men's basketball team, but it's true he never did coach again. Bzdelik was the head coach, but mostly just managed the constant wave of transfers out of the Wake Forest program during his tenure.
 
Meanwhile, Dirk had three coaches in 15 years: Don Nelson (Hall of Famer), Avery Johnson (made a Finals and also won 67 games in a season) and Rick Carlisle (future Hall of Famer).

Wait, is this true? Rick Carlisle is a future Hall of Famer? I think he's a great coach, but a future Hall of Famer?

7. He suffered bad luck two different times — when an already loaded Pistons team unbelievably picked Darko over him in 2003, and when his agent didn’t follow LeBron’s and Wade’s lead by putting a three-year out into Melo’s first contract extension (with Denver). In the summer of 2010, Melo could have stolen Bosh’s spot in Miami or jumped to the up-and-coming Bulls, only he couldn’t get out of his deal for another year. Those were his two best chances to find a true contender. 0-for-2.

But alternatively, when he had the chance to take less money this past offseason and join the Bulls, a team that was a true contender, he chose to take the money in New York. Carmelo had a chance to find a true contender and his choice was get more money in New York with the Knicks. Bill can't lose sight of this.

9. Carmelo is averaging 25.3 points for his entire career. Only 13 players averaged at least 25 points, and only 10 have a higher average than Melo: Jordan (30.1), Wilt (30.1), LeBron (27.5), Durant (27.4), Elgin (27.4), West (27.0), Iverson (26.7), Pettit (26.4), Oscar (25.7) and Kobe (25.5). Yes, that’s a list with six Hall of Famers and four future Hall of Famers.

And most of these guys can be considered superstars too, which leads me to the dead horse I won't beat. Carmelo may not be a superstar, but he's got a lot going for him statistically that could lead a person in that direction. What he doesn't do is meet Bill's subjective criteria to be considered a superstar.

Then Bill compares Carmelo favorably to Dominique Wilkins, Paul Pierce, Adrian Dantley, and Bernard King. This, naturally, leads to a brief discussion of the Boston Celtics because Bernard King played well against the Celtics. This impresses Bill to no end.

Bernard doubled as the most frightening non-Jordan scorer I’ve ever seen in my life — he took the 1984 Celts to a Game 7 by himself, for God’s sake. My team threw Kevin McHale (the NBA’s best defender at the time) and Cedric Maxwell at him, with Bird helping and Robert Parish protecting the rim, and it just didn’t matter.

There is the brief discussion. This column wouldn't be complete without a small Celtics remembrance from the 1980's.

Carmelo? He’s 92 percent as frightening as 1984 Playoff Bernard was. 

Not 91% or 93%, but 92% as frightening as 1984 Playoff Bernard was. These are very specific statistics based on whatever number comes out of Bill's brain at the time. You want facts? There's your facts.

14. You realize that Carmelo is better right now than he’s ever been, right?
• Years 1-2: 20.9 ppg, 5.9 rpg, 43-30-79%, 17.2 PER, 35.7 mpg, 28.8 usage, .094 WS/48
 
• Years 3-9: 25.9 ppg, 6.5 rpg, 46-33-81%, 21.4 PER, 36.3 mpg, 32.0 usage, .140 WS/48
 
• Years 10-11: 28.0 ppg, 7.5 rpg, 45-39-84%, 24.6 PER, 37.9 mpg, 33.9 usage, .177 WS/48
As his offensive workload has increased, he’s figured out how to become even MORE efficient by expanding his shooting range to 25 feet … only he’s never stopped getting to the free throw line, either.

But again, don't consider him a superstar. He couldn't even take the Knicks to the playoffs this year. You like how Bill talks out of both sides of his mouth a little here? He says Carmelo is great and goes to great lengths to prove it, but he also makes sure he has a mention in this column that maybe Carmelo should be moved down into the All-Star ranking of Bill's arbitrary rankings.

So what’s left? Can’t we downgrade him to All-Star and be done with it? Isn’t 11 years enough time to know — to truly, unequivocally know — whether it’s with television shows, music groups, girlfriends, quarterbacks or basketball players?

So Bill is sort of covered no matter how Carmelo's career pans outs. He has said perhaps Carmelo should be downgraded to All-Star level and then goes on and on about how great of a player Carmelo still is. All bases are covered.

And you know what else? Carmelo never received enough credit for playing efficiently as a hybrid small forward/stretch 4, especially last season,

This from the guy who asks the open-ended question of whether Carmelo isn't even an almost-but-not-quite superstar, but instead is just an All-Star.

Everyone bitched about his “ball-stopping” — something of which he’s definitely been guilty, from time to time, over the past few years — but when your coach is in a basketball coma and your entire offense has degenerated into “throw the ball to Melo and he’ll have to create a shot,” what do you expect? Every opponent went into every Knicks game saying, “As long as we don’t let Carmelo kill us, we’re winning tonight.” And he still threw up 28 a night and played the most efficient basketball of his career. 

As I am prone to doing when reaching near the end of a Bill Simmons column, I have to ask, what was the point of this column? It's shockingly rambling, even for a Bill Simmons column, it doesn't appear to prove anything other than Carmelo Anthony is better than "we" think, and the basic premise (that Carmelo's potential will never be achieved because he chose to go back to New York rather than take a pay cut and go to Chicago) is only mentioned and never actually stated explicitly by Bill. So this column is rather indicative of Bill's worst rambling qualities.

If you think of him like a Hall of Fame wide receiver — say, Larry Fitzgerald — Carmelo’s career makes more sense. 

No, it doesn't. It makes more sense to simply state Carmelo never reached his potential because he never played on a team that allowed him to achieve his potential, rather than start using an overcomplicated analogy that says this same thing, only with more work involved to reach the conclusion.

Fitz tossed up monster stats with Kurt Warner throwing to him. Once the likes of John Skelton and Kevin Kolb started passing through his life, he wasn’t throwing up monster stats anymore. But nobody ever stopped believing Fitz was great.

Fitzgerald had 954 yards with Carson Palmer throwing him the football last year. Does Fitzgerald require a Hall of Fame quarterback to reach his potential or something?

We made excuses for him that weren’t even excuses.

"We" didn't make any excuses for Fitzgerald. Stop using "we" to indicate what "you" believe.

Why didn’t we ever feel sorry for Carmelo? It’s simple — he placed himself in this situation.

Oh, so that's why "we" didn't feel bad for Carmelo. I was wondering why "we" didn't feel bad for him. In this case, I didn't feel bad for Carmelo because he could have left this summer and chose not to. That's a lot of money to give up though and Phil Jackson isn't a tough guy to put some faith in.

There’s a good chance he will play his entire career, then retire, without ever finding the right team. Unless the Knicks miraculously strike oil next summer, his own version of the 2011 Mavericks can’t happen.

Another reference to that 2011 Mavericks team led by Dirk, the same reference and comparison that Bill dislikes so much and has made so often.

There was an alternate universe here — Chicago, for less money, for a chance to become Olympic Melo for nine months per year. He would have been flanked by Joakim Noah, Derrick Rose, Jimmy Butler, Doug McDermott, Nikola Mirotic, Kirk Hinrich and a top-five coach (Tom Thibodeau). He would have found his 2011 Mavs.

The comparison to Dirk again...by the way, that Bulls team is better than the 2011 Mavericks. This is especially true if Derrick Rose comes back healthy.

Thirty years from now, long after he has retired and hopefully spent his more than $300 million nest egg wisely, Carmelo will be sitting on the porch of one of his nine houses, nursing a drink, staring out at an ocean and thinking about the unknown. Should he have picked Chicago? How much money is enough money? What’s the price of peace? What would it have been worth to know — to really, truly know? Was he good enough? Could he have gotten there? Did he have it in him?

Or he will be sitting there thinking about all of the money he made playing basketball professionally and that's nice to have? He can also look at his Olympic Gold medals and know he won an NCAA Championship for Jim Boeheim as well. There are some things he can hang his hat on outside of deep thoughts about the price of peace.

Instead, he’ll have to settle for people like me: the ones maintaining that he WAS good enough, only it’s an opinion and not a fact.

Right. Much of this column was based on an opinion (like how many superstars are in the NBA) that Bill masquerades as facts.

In A Bronx Tale, Sonny famously tells Calogero that “the saddest thing in life is wasted talent.” Well, what happens if you didn’t waste your talent, but it kind of got wasted anyway?

But Anthony did waste his talent according to Bill. Twice Anthony had the chance to join a contending team with a stronger roster and both times he set it up to where he didn't up choosing this path. So Anthony did waste his talent in a way, and Bill even states that in this column. Anyway, speaking of wasted talent, this is the end of another Bill Simmons rambling column. 

2 comments William Rhoden Thinks Trading Carmelo Anthony for Kobe Bryant Would Bring the Knicks an NBA Title

The title there seems to about sum it all up pretty effectively. In fact, I probably don't even need to write anything else. William Rhoden thinks if the Knicks traded Carmelo Anthony for Kobe Bryant, with no further corresponding moves, then it would bring the Knicks an NBA Championship. That's it. I say good day.
...



...



...




...





...





...




Whoops, I forgot to link the column.




....



....



....



You know, I think I should write more (I bet pretty much everyone stopped reading by now...if so, the lesson is to not tempt your audience into not reading anymore) about this idea because Rhoden's reasoning desperately must be explained. Ideas like this don't just come along everyday.

The Knicks completed another disappointing season Wednesday night, beating the playoff-bound Toronto Raptors before a Madison Square Garden crowd that snacked on complimentary boxes of popcorn — a thank you from the organization to fans for enduring a 41st consecutive season without a championship.

Maybe Dan Shaughnessy can help the Knicks create a curse related to why the team can't win an NBA title so that he can in turn write a book about the curse in order to make money. This would lead to the Knicks breaking the curse, Dan making money, and everybody winning.

In the next few days, Jackson is expected to relieve Mike Woodson of his job as the Knicks’ coach, thus beginning what has become the most enjoyable time of year for Knicks fans: the season of blame and speculation.

I love that the Knicks are located in the media capital of the United States so every failure of the Knicks is treated as if other NBA teams don't have the same problems and panic-stricken fans that the Knicks have. Nope, I'm sure that's just the Knicks fans who enjoy a season of blame and speculation.

While fans in several other cities can anticipate deep playoff runs,

Depending on your definition of a "deep playoff run" then this means four teams can anticipate this happening while the rest of the NBA teams can speculate and blame all they want. Stop whining like the Knicks are in the minority in terms of making a deep playoff run this year.

Knicks fans entertain themselves with drama and debate: Who should be fired? Who should be traded? Who are the hot names to bring in?

Every fan base does this. I recognize this goes against the entitled attitude of some Knicks fans, that their struggles are not shared with other NBA teams, but every fan base does this. If you don't believe me, then check out Bleacher Report's team NBA pages. It's like an orgy of fan rosterbation.

There is something mystifying about a professional basketball team located in the world’s greatest city that for four decades has been unable to assemble a team capable of winning an N.B.A. championship.

Considering only 13 NBA teams have won an NBA title in the last four decades, I don't think it's that mystifying for me. It's not like every NBA team except the Knicks has won an NBA title in the last four decades.

As a coach, Jackson had two great players on nearly all of those championships teams: Michael Jordan and Scottie Pippen with the Chicago Bulls, and Shaquille O’Neal and Kobe Bryant with the Los Angeles Lakers.

Jackson also had quite a few really good role players like Horace Grant, Toni Kukoc, Derek Fisher, Robert Horry, B.J. Armstrong, John Paxson, and Rick Fox. But hey, all you need is a great player or two and the NBA title is yours, right?

Now, in his first attempt to be a front-office executive, Jackson will need at least one player with an indomitable will to win, one capable of transforming the culture of an organization and a fan base that has become too accustomed to mediocrity and frustration.

Because trading for a 36 year old (which is Kobe's age at the beginning of next season) who is coming off a major injury and has a huge contract isn't setting the Knicks up for mediocrity and frustration. In fact, trading for Kobe Bryant would be a typical Knicks move. If Rhoden thinks it is mystifying that the Knicks haven't won a title in four decades, then he needs to look no further than this trade suggestion to understand as to why that may be. Taking on veterans with huge contracts or giving veterans huge contracts doesn't necessarily lead to an NBA title.

That player would be Bryant.

Jackson needs to talk Bryant into somehow joining him in New York for one last great mission in both of their careers: setting the table for the Knicks to win another championship.

Oh, I didn't know Kobe would be "setting the table" for another championship ("another" championship?...but it's been four decades and Rhoden is throwing "another" around like the Knicks have won a championship since the Beatles broke up) and not actually playing for the Knicks and leading them to a championship. That's totally different and much more vague. 

One way that can happen is for the Knicks to work out the trade of all trades — Bryant for Carmelo Anthony.

I'm not a big Carmelo fan, but Kobe Bryant is old and expensive. Carmelo will just be expensive. I wouldn't make this trade if I were the Knicks. 

There are all sorts of obstacles to this fantasy’s becoming a reality:

1. It's a bad idea. 

2. Carmelo Anthony is a free agent and you can't trade a free agent. So he would have to sign with the Knicks and then be open to being traded to the Lakers. It could happen I guess. 

3. Kobe would have to want to play for the Knicks. Why would he want to do that again?

I do enjoy how William Rhoden admits his idea that totally makes sense is a complete fantasy due to the unrealistic nature of his idea. 

the no-trade clause that Bryant has, the opt-out clause that will soon make Anthony a free agent, the huge amount of money that both players make, and the N.B.A.’s intricate salary-cap rules.

But otherwise, this is just a brilliant fucking idea on paper. The Knicks get older, get more expensive AND add a player to win in the short-term when the team isn't built to win in the short-term. 

I may be the only person on the planet who believes such a trade would be a key step toward bringing the Knicks a championship.

Perhaps that should tell William Rhoden something. Alas, it only reinforces his impression this trade must happen.

Knicks fans point out — emotionally, by the way — that Bryant is 35 and has a ton of N.B.A. mileage on him, and that he tore his Achilles’ tendon in 2013 and fractured his knee this season. His body has taken a beating, and Jackson would be gambling on Bryant’s recuperative powers.

These are all very, very, very, very, very legitimate concerns by the way. These aren't opinions on why a trade for Bryant would not be in the best interests of the Knicks, but are facts about why trading for Kobe Bryant seems like a bad, bad, bad idea. Kobe is old, expensive, and coming off a major injury. It's not that Kobe can't compete anymore, it's that why would the Knicks gamble on this happening? 

But Bryant’s will, his competitive spirit and his commitment to winning are like new, and they are what the Knicks need most.

Oh, well I completely disregarded Kobe's will and competitive spirit. Not to mention, his commitment to winning explains perfectly why he would be willing to go to an NBA team that hasn't won an NBA title since 1970. But back to that will and competitive spirit. That spirit can make Kobe's teammates around him better though, right? Kobe can win a title with the Knicks current roster? 

For the next two seasons at least (Bryant is signed through the summer of 2016), they need him to point the way. And that, he can still do.

Leadership by verbal abuse. The perfect recipe to turn the Knicks around. I also love the idea Bryant will "point the way." Pointing the way isn't going to make the teammates around him better. I'm sure Kobe "pointing the way" to J.R. Smith will encourage him to stop hoisting up three-point shots with no regard for moving the ball around. 

In Anthony, the Lakers would get a supreme building block. That organization has good karma, as Jackson might say,

Then why not keep the building block in New York? Maybe Anthony isn't as good at "pointing the way" as Kobe might be. After all, nothing says "smart organizational decision" like bringing in an aging shooting guard coming off major surgery who is going to make $48 million over the next two years. If that organization can trade "a supreme building block" w hen acquiring this aging shooting guard then that's all the more better.

Bryant admires Jackson, and Jackson is probably one of the few people capable of showing Bryant a vision of accomplishing something that even Jordan could not — reviving a second N.B.A. team.

Now were are getting to the "doesn't everyone want to play in New York?" section of the column which assumes every pro athlete wants to play in New York. Why wouldn't they? It's New York! It's better than anywhere else according to people who live in New York. 

If nothing else, Bryant might set the stage for a Kevin Durant era in New York,

Why would Kevin Durant want to play with Kobe Bryant again? Durant, if he leaves Oklahoma City, would be leaving a ball-hogging shooter. Why would he want to play in New York with an aging ball-hogging shooter? Also, couldn't the Knicks sign Durant without Kobe being on the roster? I think the Knicks could get Durant without Kobe around. After all, every NBA player wants to play in New York, right?

If Knicks fans need proof of how players can transform an organization, they need look no further than the Brooklyn Nets.

It seems this column is really about competing with the Nets. The Nets signed aging superstars so clearly that's what the Knicks should do as well. 

The Nets added two aging stars from the Boston Celtics — Paul Pierce and Kevin Garnett — and saw a cultural shift slowly take place.

It also helped the Nets had Deron Williams and Joe Johnson on the roster, as well as had Shaun Livingston coming off the bench. But yeah, the situations are totally comparable. Pierce and Garnett had no major injuries they were recovering from, while Kobe is coming off major knee surgery and he will be playing with guys nowhere close to having the talent of Johnson and Williams. 

“Guys like that don’t accept teammates playing losing basketball or not taking things seriously,” said the Nets’ general manager, Billy King.

But Kobe can't make his teammates play basketball better by raising their skill level. He can't make them into something they are not.

So much time has passed since the Knicks last won a title that just about everyone associated with the team has forgotten what a championship looks like. Instead, the desire to win has been replaced by the collective satisfaction of sending coaches, players and executives to the gallows.

Kobe could bring a winning mentality to the team, but that winning mentality only can take a team so far. A winning mentality can't compensate for a lack of talent or bad coaching. 

James L. Dolan, the Knicks’ owner, encourages all this misdirected emotion through frenzies of misguided moves.

It's weird that Rhoden is saying this because I think trading Carmelo Anthony for Kobe Bryant would be a misguided move. 

Jackson’s stature is too great to be easily diminished by Dolan, but he needs a player of similar stature to push against the inertia that has built up over more than four decades.

Enter Bryant.

Unfortunately inertia also seems to be pushing Kobe more towards retirement and away from being the franchise player that William Rhoden believes him to be. 

In the end, the odds of this happening are tiny, or infinitesimal.

Probably because it's a bad idea and not in the long-term interests of the Knicks. Any player they can get in free agency can probably be had without Kobe Bryant on the roster. 

But as things stand now, those are about the same odds of the Knicks winning an N.B.A. championship anytime soon.

Given a choice, I’d bet on Bryant.

I wouldn't make this bet at all. If the Knicks traded for Kobe then they would have to make 2-3 other moves, because getting rid of Anthony to sign an aging, hobbled Kobe Bryant sounds like a terrible, terrible idea to me. 

5 comments Untouchable NBA Players

Jim Buss has stamped the untouchable label on Andrew Bynum’s forehead. Well congratulations, Mr. Bynum. Thanks to the only higher-up that counts, you’re probably even impervious to Archimedes’ Death Ray. Less impressively, you’re now the only player in this elite class not among the NBA’s top ten players. But that begs the question: Who are the rest of these untouchables? The best and the untouchables are certainly not mutually exclusive, nor are they completely overlapping. Some have rings, some don’t. They do, however, share one exclusive trait. If they depart for another team, it would gruesomely devastate the infrastructure of that city’s fanhood. Here’s the list of the NBA’s only truly untouchable players.

1. LeBron James – Let’s get the obvious out of the way. He’s on the cusp of an NBA title, he’s the best player in the league, and he just signed a six-year deal. You simply don’t trade the best player in his prime. But what if Oklahoma City offers Durant and Westbrook, the NBA’s best non-Miami duo? (Not that it would ever happen.) Riley still wouldn’t pull the trigger, because No. 1 is always better than No. 2 + No. 3.

2. Dwyane Wade – This one’s simple. Chalk up Wade’s lifelong career in Miami to the hometown hero effect. LeBron may be the Heat’s best player, but Dwyane Wade is the leader to the fans because he was drafted there. He’s been with the team through thick and thin. He’s carried the city to a title. He’s celebrated, laughed, smiled, cursed and cried with the Heat. When the LeBacle became a summer phenomenon, it was Wade who remained loyal. That’s why he’s the last to be introduced at home games. That’s why he’s at the center of every poster, picture and interview. That’s why he’s untradeable. He’s become too dear to a city full of passersby. He’s the centerpiece of everything that’s right and true about basketball. Trading him away would be a knife through the heart.

3. Amar’e Stoudemire/Carmelo Anthony – The Knicks have spent too much time, too many dollars and too many lost seasons to ever give up on their dynamic duo. That’s why the demand for a Chris Paul trade will never go away, even if the Knicks lacks the assets to pull it off. New York is too impatient to ever give up on these two. While it may be a smart move in the long run if New York never snags that elusive title, it’ll never happen. No one’s willing to go through another two-year salary-dumping bonanza.

4. Kevin Durant – If Dwyane Wade is a hometown hero, then Kevin Durant is a United States hero. Instead of announcing his new contract on television, he simply tweeted it. No interviews, no press conference. And not only that, he remained loyal to a city no one knew anything about before they got a basketball team. On the court, he’s deferential to a fault. How many NBA superstars do we criticize for not getting the ball enough? He’s polite, well spoken and gives back to the community. If the Thunder let him go, the principles upon which America is built may just collapse.

5. Dirk Nowitzki – Mark Cuban already loves rewarding players with excessive contracts after middling, short-lived success. Even if Dirk’s otherworldly playoff performance doesn’t end in a championship, don’t expect Cuban to let go. More importantly, Dirk’s game isn’t predicated on the merits of being 25 years old. If shooters get better with age, then don’t expect Dirk to ever decline. Sure, his minutes may need to be reduced in the long run, but the one-footed fallaway will never disappear. And neither will Mark Cuban’s infatuation.

6. Derrick Rose – MVP. Conference Finals appearance. 22-years-old. The Bulls lucked into their savior thanks to the NBA Draft Lottery and will ride him as far as he can take them. Thibodeau and Rose have forged a joint identity that will define their individual careers. No matter what moves the Chicago front office makes, the Rose/Thibodeau era will be defined by defense and the upper limits of Rose’s ceiling. Because they have already found success in their current formula, don’t expect it to ever change. He may not be the best in the league, but he might just be the most untouchable.

7. Tim Duncan – Not that anyone’s looking to acquire him, but San Antonio will not let him do the “I’m old and am going to sign with a contender” routine. Considering everything he’s done for the team, the Spurs will re-sign TD just to stick him on the end of the bench. Till death do them part.

8. Blake Griffin – Los Angeles hasn’t hit it big on a draft pick in forever. That and Mike Dunleavy is no longer the GM, so he can’t ruin the team. When contract time comes around the Clippers will offer a max deal, the state of California and the kitchen sink to guarantee that Griffin stays.

Before you jump down my throat for leaving off certain guys, here are some notable players left off the list and why I left them off:

Kobe Bryant – Jim Buss loves Bynum and hired Mike Brown. Don’t be surprised if an aging, disgruntled Kobe is dealt somewhere at the end of his current contract.

Dwight Howard – LeBron 2.0? I’m not willing to believe the rumors that he’s going to resign with Orlando quite yet.

Chris Paul - Same as above, minus “The Decision.”

Joe Johnson – Atlanta is just waiting to be dismantled. As much as the Hawks fans will enjoy a No. 3 – No. 6 seed over the next five years, it will never bring them a title.

Steve Nash – He’s proven his loyalty, but Phoenix has not. Just look at Amar’e.

6 comments Give Wade The Spotlight

When LeBron chose Miami over New York, I was bitter. But not bitter enough to sway from my longstanding belief that chemistry is a word used by teams of lesser talent. I jumped on the Jeff Van Gundy 72 wins bandwagon. I did not think LeBron's claims of mulitple championships were premature or outlandish, but realistic. They had two of the best three players in the NBA, and three of the top 15 (clearly Bosh has played his way out of that category now). Before the Heat, the NBA's evolution was becoming more conducive to such a sudden mass assembly of stars. The Miami Heat (Wade and Shaq), Los Angeles Lakers (Kobe and Pau) and Boston Celtics (Allen, Pierce and Garnett) succeeded immediately. There was no logical reason to say LeBron's Heat would not follow suit other than to hopefully play the "I told you so" card a later date.

Seeing the trend and hoping to capitalize before it was too late, the New York Knicks got in line. Every other recent championship had landed that knock out blow, whether via free agency or trade, and now it was New York's turn. So they took a bunch of body shots and traded away half the team for Melo, who would hopefully turn into that championship right hook. As of now, the results are less than ideal, with the Knicks amassing a 7-8 (as of this writing) record since the deal.

Of course it's too early to tell with the Knicks and Heat, but they have caused me to reevaluate my time steadfast chemistry formula. It can be generally agreed upon that better players improve the play of their teammates. And I'm not just talking about the LeBron's and Kobe's, but all great players. By default, they draw attention to themselves, allowing teammates to ride their coattails to wins and championships (see Robert Horry - Yes, Robert Horry. I can't wait for the backlash on that one). The discrepancy, then, is by what margin does one player elevate a teammate's play over another.

This, in a sense, is the crux of the Kobe/LeBron debate. Kobe purists point to the championships. LeBron's faithful note that when Kobe had no help (between Shaq and Pau), he merely lead the Lakers to the playoffs as a low seed, complemented by a first round exit. LeBron, on the other hand, carried some role players, a heavy backpack and the most disgusting free throw form in the NBA - Anderson Varejao - to the #1 seed and deep playoff runs. Using my previous logic, I have always staunchly supported LeBron as the NBA's best. He does more with less. But now he has more and is doing less. So where do we draw the line between chemistry and individual play?

I have always assumed that teams, and not players, possess chemistry, with familiarity being the means to that end. But looking at the current makeup of NBA teams, some players simply breed chemistry while others do not. I'm not simply talking about players that dominate the ball. The nature of the game dictates that great players have the ball in their hands. Point guard is simply the word used for players under 6'3, not necessarily those who pass the ball best. Nor am I talking about the great passer as high chemistry players (although some clearly are).

From my outside perspective, chemistry seems to be built into a player's game. It's an innate, unteachable talent not necessarily limited to the NBA's best. That said, not all the great ones have it, and sometimes greatness supersedes chemistry. And Dwyane Wade bulldozed his way to an NBA championship as the rest of his team watched happily from the sidelines. Writers recently praised Kobe for his ability adapt his game to a team-first mentality, but all basketball fans know that nothing has changed. When the playoffs role around, it's Kobe Bryant vs. the opponent, with contributions only coming from others when he's in need of help. Sometimes, this is the best method. If you take away Kobe's attacking mentality, he loses his competitive edge. As much as team chemistry benefits the team, you cannot rip the heart out of your best player's natural inclination.

So let's get back to the present. Chauncey Billups and Carmelo Anthony, despite excellent play throughout their careers, missed this chemistry gene. We all know of Melo's ball-stopping habits. Billups, however, presents a less clear situation. Sure, he nearly won back-to-back titles with Detroit. But sometimes multiple chemistry players can make up for one guy. And that's what Billups was. When one bucket or one big play was needed, it was Billups' no-fear mentality that brought games home. He relished the moment. He cherished it. He couldn't get enough of it.

This, I believe, is what is at the heart of the Heat's late game issues. Dwyane Wade is that killer, selfish, give me the ball guy. But how can he play his game when the ball consistently rests in the hands of LeBron, the clearly better player? LeBron wants rings, but not the moments that lead to them. Wade wants both.

8 comments Scoop Jackson Is Tired of People Bashing NBA Players

Scoop Jackson is tired NBA players are being bashed for switching teams. It isn't their fault. Scoop sort of has a point, there has been a lot of bashing and some of it has come from this blog, but naturally he does a terrible job explaining it. Also, his reasoning stinks. The system works the way it does, but Scoop tries to remove any sort of guilt on the part of the players that moved teams and that just isn't accurate.

You hear words like "ruining" and "destroyed." You hear that these players drag the process out to the detriment of the team.

Ask the Nuggets and their fans how they feel right now. I think there is an argument that can be made the Carmelo Anthony situation was dragged out interminably to the detriment of the team. I am not sure a single Nuggets fan liked having this Anthony situation over the team's head for most of the year.

If you listen to the public and media reaction to recent player movement -- starting with LeBron James, Chris Bosh and Amare Stoudemire this past summer

I don't recall a single person having a problem with Amare Stoudemire going to the Knicks. I also don't recall many people having a problem with Chris Bosh signing with the Heat. As far as LeBron James goes, yes, the television program that was set up for him to announce his destination (where he took his "talents") over the summer was criticized a lot. Rightly so. It was the height of ego. We are over it now.

and continuing with Carmelo Anthony and Deron Williams last week -- the NBA is going to hell in a hand basket. No, worse. It's going there in a handbag. Furla.

I don't know if the NBA is going to hell in a hand basket or a handbag. Players forcing teams to trade and marquee players leaving teams in free agency has always been present in the NBA, it just seems more present now.

Stick your nose to any TV, computer or iPad screen, or hold your ear to concrete. You'll hear screams of blame being placed on players for sculpting the game's power structure into a shape that -- if it isn't stopped -- will result in the annihilation of professional basketball.

Scoop is being a little dramatic here. I think many people are making the observation that when the time comes to negotiate the next labor agreement, the movement of players and how to possibly limit the movement will be a source of contention between the union and the NBA. No one is talking about the annihilation of professional basketball. To ignore the effect the movement of players like Williams, James and Anthony have on the upcoming labor agreement is to ignore a major potential issue that will be put on the table.

Truth? The new "problem" with/in the NBA -- the so-called "LeBron" epidemic isn't a problem at all. At least not one that should be blamed on the players. No rules have been broken; no franchises have folded.

Franchises haven't folded yet. Though folding some franchises may not be a terrible idea.

I like how Scoop says this is the truth. It's not. It is how he sees the truth. Scoop is great at trying to take an argument that isn't being made (rules were broken) and then refuting it. We all know rules haven't been broken. Simply because rules weren't broken doesn't mean the movement of players isn't an issue that will need to be addressed in the future.

The blame game. It goes something like this.

Blame the players for situations in which teams put themselves.

How exactly did the Cavaliers put themselves in the situation where LeBron James was a free agent? They offered him the most money they could offer him. Outside of putting a horse's head in his bed or kidnap a family member there wasn't much else the Cavs could have done to keep him from the Heat. The argument could be made the Cavs didn't put enough pieces around James to make him successful, but simply by not making James' situation perfect the Cavs didn't screw up and give James no choice but to leave.

How exactly did the Nuggets put themselves in the situation to where Carmelo Anthony wanted a trade? By drafting him? By not winning a championship with him on the roster? If not winning a championship was a criteria for demanding a trade nearly every player in the NBA could demand a trade at some point. The Nuggets offered Anthony a contract extension and he refused to sign it. Sure, the Nuggets are partially responsible for the situation going on and on, but they waited until they got what they perceived to be the best offer for Anthony. Anthony wasn't going to participate in a sign-and-trade this summer and he sure has hell wasn't coming back to the Nuggets. He wanted to play in New York.

If anything, the Jazz avoided putting themselves in a situation similar to the Nuggets and Cavs by trading Williams. Deron Williams was non-committal about re-signing in Utah (just like he has been in New Jersey) and they didn't want to go through a situation like the Nuggets just went through. The only thing Deron Williams seems to be able to commit to is that he doesn't know where he wants to play in 2012. The bottom line is the Jazz didn't want to beg Williams to re-sign with them so they could continue to be a #4 seed in the West.

I am not anti-player, but these are the facts as we know them. The three teams I highlighted above did not put themselves in a situation where they had no choice but to trade a player who was willing to re-sign with them. Scoop is ignoring the obvious truth and defending the players he wants to buddy up to by suggesting the previous NBA teams had as much to do with their situation as the players did. James, Anthony and Williams could have put all of the rumors to rest by re-signing with their current teams and they chose not to.

Blame the labor for decisions made, for the most part, by management.

Did the Jazz, Nuggets and Cavs do EVERYTHING they could do in terms of bringing in good players to help the team? Of course not. This doesn't put the player off the hook for his decision to leave the team or choose not to re-sign.

Essentially Scoop is saying, "the players didn't do anything wrong by not re-signing with their current team," and then saying, "well if they did do something wrong it certainly wasn't their fault because their hand was forced." Which is bullshit.

Blame Anthony for the state of the Nuggets. Blame Williams for the state of the Jazz. Blame Blake Griffin right now for leaving one L.A. team for another in … when? 2015?

At this point, no one would blame Blake Griffin for leaving the Clippers. I am not sure anyone is putting ALL of the blame on the players. The teams made their decisions and the players made their decisions.

In a recent ESPN.com SportsNation poll, the question was asked: What is the biggest challenge facing the NBA? The answer option that came in first, with 40 percent, was this: How To Defend Jimmer Fredette. (It was an attempt at humor.) In second, with 34 percent of the votes: Stars Leaving Small Markets. (No laugh track.)

Because if anything screams "this is how the general public feels" it is a poll where people are given 4-5 options and forced to choose one and the option that gets the most votes is a joke answer. It's an ESPN.com SportsNation poll. I don't want to be rude to anyone who votes in this poll, but I would guess the same people who vote in this poll are not people I would want speaking for my opinion on a sports-related matter.

But where is it? Where is this epidemic?

Some would say the epidemic has occurred and is now working on a new group of players like Dwight Howard and Chris Paul. Has Scoop not paid attention to the very subject he has been discussing in this column? This "epidemic" is in the free agents and potential free agents (James, Anthony, etc.) leaving one team to go to another team.

Where will this mass exodus of star players come from? Who else will leave of his own accord and leave his old team in ruins?

Just eyeballing it, I would guess Chris Paul, Dwight Howard, and Deron Williams.

Let's see, LeBron left Cleveland and Bosh left Toronto. Outside of that, who else left?

What's being overlooked is that Denver chose to trade Anthony;

What's being overlooked by Scoop is that no-they-fucking-didn't choose to trade Anthony. The Nuggets had an offer for a contract extension on the table all summer to Carmelo Anthony. The Nuggets didn't choose to trade Anthony any more than a person with a gun to his head chooses to give up his wallet or get shot. Denver chose to trade Anthony because they didn't want him to leave as a free agent and receive no compensation for him.

Carmelo forced the hand of Denver. They either could trade him or lose him in free agency. To say the Nuggets had no choice would be incorrect, but they didn't have many attractive options other than trade Anthony. If Carmelo Anthony was going to re-sign with the Nuggets he would have already done so. So putting "chose" in italics like the Nuggets didn't have their hand forced is just plain misleading.

Utah chose to trade Williams.

They did choose to trade Williams. Deron Williams was being non-committal about his future in Utah so the Jazz wanted to avoid a situation where they deal with an unhappy player who won't commit to the team and wants to be a free agent, so they traded him. Scoop can be willfully blind to the truth, but the truth is Deron Williams wasn't re-signing in Utah and Williams would have most likely forced the Jazz's hand at some point. There's circumstantial evidence (his refusal to commit to signing there) and historical evidence (James, Bosh) that would lead the Jazz to believe this.

Phoenix (after three years of attempting to deal him at the trade deadlines) chose to part ways with Stoudemire. Last summer, the Jazz chose to part ways with Carlos Boozer.

Here is where Scoop gets his brain all confused. I can't think of a sole person that criticized Boozer or Stoudemire for where they signed contracts because they (a) didn't turn it into a spectacle and (b) did not demand their team trade them. Lumping these two free agents in with Anthony, Williams, and James is a deceitful way to try and prove a point by comparing two non-comparable situations. Stoudemire and Boozer left their respective teams and it was a mutual decision. THAT is the difference. The Suns and Jazz let the players go to a different team and the players wanted to go to a different team.

Minnesota, a few years ago, chose to trade KG to Boston. Seattle chose to trade Ray Allen to the Celtics.

Again, this is a different situation. Garnett nor Allen never publicly demanded a trade (at least that I could find). It was a mutual decision for both parties to move on.

Yet the players are the ones being blamed for leaving small markets for marquee cities. That's the equivalent of blaming CBS for Charlie Sheen's behavior, arguing that by allowing Sheen to play the character Charlie Harper on "Two and a Half Men," the network is partially responsible for his private life spiraling out of control.

Well, this is a terrible comparison. In this comparison, Sheen is better represented as the NBA player and CBS is better represented as the NBA team. If Sheen demanded out of his contract or said he was going to quit the show (or wasn't sure if he wanted to continue on the show) after his contract ran out, Scoop Jackson would put the blame on CBS after they replaced Sheen on the show and got rid of his character.

Remember, Dwyane Wade stayed in Miami.

Because he recruited James and Bosh to play with him. Otherwise, he would have been gone. Let's not pretend Bosh, James, and Wade on one team was a collective effort. It wasn't like they just accidentally ended up on the same team. If James/Bosh didn't come to Miami, Wade was gone.

Joe Johnson stayed in Atlanta.

Because they gave him more money than other teams could or would.

Rudy Gay stayed in Memphis.

Again, because they offered him more money than other teams would.

David Lee left a large market (New York) to go to a smaller one (San Francisco/Oakland).

Scoop just can't seem to understand the difference in this move and the move of James to the Heat. Lee leaving the Knicks happened partly because the Knicks were spending money on other players (Stoudemire) or trying to recruit other players (James, Wade). It was a mutual decision for Lee to leave the Knicks. The Knicks wanted their salary cap space for other players...like Carmelo Anthony. If Scoop can't understand the difference Lee going to Golden State and Carmelo Anthony leaving the Nuggets to go to the Knicks, then there isn't much I can do to help him understand.

But no one talks about that; no one wants to remember those small but significant details.

We remember. We also understand the differences in each situation.

It's time to stop blaming Anthony because the Nuggets panicked

The Nuggets did not panic. Anthony WAS NOT coming back to Denver and they had the choice of trading him and getting something back for him or let him leave as a free agent. What did Denver panic about? If Anthony was staying in Denver he would have signed the contract extension that was on the table since last summer.

Don't blame Chris Paul and Dwight Howard for the likelihood that New Orleans and Orlando one day will … panic.

So don't blame Dwight Howard or Chris Paul if neither of them refuse to sign a contract extension and act like they haven't made up their mind on which team they want to play for in 2012? It is not like the Hornets or Magic have any reason to panic...unless they have been paying attention at all to what has happened over the last 10 months.

Is it really panic to assume a player who won't sign a new contract won't be back on the team? The Raptors and Cavs didn't panic and look where it got them. They didn't get very much in return for James and Bosh, meanwhile at least the Nuggets and Jazz got something for players who didn't want to be on their team.

As players, they have every legal right to see what free agency is like, but it seems they get labeled as "disloyal" if they give the slightest indication that they might want to test the open market, even if it's just to find out what they might be worth.

Nobody is calling Deron Williams or Carmelo Anthony disloyal. Carmelo didn't give a "slight" indication he was testing the open market, he refused to sign a contract extension and seemed to give all indications, including demanding a trade, that gave a reasonable person belief he wouldn't choose to re-sign with Denver.

These players have a legal right to test free agency. I am not saying they don't or shouldn't. This is another situation where Scoop can't seem to stay consistent with his message. The Raptors, Suns, Jazz, Knicks and Cavs all let their players test free agency and key players from those teams left. In some cases, it was fine with the team, and in other cases it was not fine. Scoop gets his panties all in a wad because teams aren't letting their players test free agency, yet there are plenty of examples in this very column why the Jazz and Nuggets would not let Anthony and Williams respectively test free agency.

Basically Scoop just refuses to blame the NBA player in any situation. If a team lets the player test the market it isn't his fault for leaving and if a team doesn't let the player test the market and trades him then that team panicked. Either way, Scoop blames the team.

Even when the decision to leave is made for them.

Anthony had demanded a trade at one point and if Deron Williams had given an indication he was open to re-signing in Utah he would not have gotten traded.

Forgotten is how the NBA did not fall apart and teams did not fold when Kareem Abdul-Jabbar left Milwaukee for L.A., or when Shaquille O'Neal left Orlando for L.A., or when Baron Davis left Charlotte for L.A. (OK, in Davis' case, it was for the L.A. Clippers.)

Those three players left their team over a 20+ year span, not a 10 month span. Those who think there is a current "epidemic" of players leaving are worried due to this many players leaving over a small time span.

The real issue here is power. Power that most people aren't used to seeing be exercised by players, who many wish would remain powerless.

This is not true. I don't want the players to remain powerless. I want the players to just not have enough power to change the entire fortunes of a team, and have the team over a barrel, when he wants to play somewhere else. Some of this is avoidable of course.

To too many, the players should remain the "Forty Million Dollar Slaves" so dubbed by William C. Rhoden in his book. To too many people, they should remain as is, as we have forever seen and viewed them: pawns.

I want Carmelo Anthony to have power. The bottom line remains Anthony is an employee of the Denver Nuggets, not a fucking slave as Scoop so ignorantly says, so I would like for his employer to have a certain amount of power over him while he is under contract. Needless to say, in sports where players like Anthony have a skill set that is not easily reproduced this is difficult. Fans don't want players dictating what that team will choose to do personnel-wise in regard to the player, just like fans don't want to see a team keep a great player on a crappy team.

Regardless of the way all these deals unfolded, most of the recent decisions to move superstars (regardless of where they ended up) were made by organizations, not by players.

These moves were made by the organization, but at the request of the superstar, or because the team wanted value for the player in lieu of most likely getting no compensation for the player when he eventually left the team in free agency. It was a decision made by the Jazz and Nuggets, but I think it could be argued the Nuggets at least were forced into making the decision.

A player should never be blamed for the fear an organization has that it possibly could lose that player.

The player is not being blamed in nearly all of these situations. LeBron James was blamed for the way he went about choosing a different team. Carmelo Anthony is being blamed because he demanded a trade and then the saga of trading Anthony went on for months because he refused to sign a contract extension with certain teams if he got traded to them. These players aren't blameless like Scoop wants them to be.

Scoop needs to look deeper into each situation, which he will undoubtedly refuse to do, and see the players don't deserve ALL of the blame, but some of it. Some of the blame for refusing a contract extension and causing a divorce goes on the player. Specifically in situations when the team wants to keep the player. Really "blame" is a bad word because the player should be able to do what he wants when his contract runs out. That being said, a player can be blamed partially for the fear the organization has of possibly losing that player if the organization has a good reason to believe they will lose that player.

Yet there's anger when certain players take advantage of their power, when that power can be brokered in their favor.

There is anger because a player can be seen as putting aside the needs of his current team to further his own personal agenda. Carmelo Anthony wouldn't take kindly to the team he plays for not telling him whether they plan on keeping key players on that team around. Turn the situation around: If the Nuggets had been indifferent to re-signing guys like Nene and indicating they aren't sure the direction of the team in the future, Carmelo Anthony would be pissed and would most likely demand a trade or demand the team indicate they want to be competitive. That's what the Nuggets did with the situation reversed back to the real life example. The Nuggets demanded Anthony determine whether he would re-sign with them and when he wouldn't, they traded him.

I was once told that the "haves" in sports generally feel the following way about the "have-nots": "They don't want them to get smarter."

Really, this is all about the Nuggets trying to keep Anthony "down" by only offering him a 3 year $65 extension. You can barely buy a couple dozen McDonald's franchises with that money and still expect to make ends meet.

You know who "they" are, and you know who "them" are. So stop being mad at "them" for no longer being dumb.

I am not upset players have equal power and equal leverage. I think it is only fair. I am not even upset. I can see how NBA players could get bashed for not committing to their current team and I don't think an NBA team should hold any blame for trading a player they don't believe will re-sign with that team.

There is a balance that Scoop is missing. No one is mad at free agents who go to other teams. The Nuggets dragged the Anthony situation out far too long, but Anthony is the one who refused to sign an extension with the Nuggets in the first place. The decision to trade him was made by the organization but forced upon them by Anthony if the Nuggets wanted to get value for him. Scoop is wrong to act like the Jazz and Nuggets traded their star players on their own free will. They learned from the Cavs and Raptors situation and adjusted accordingly, just like Deron Williams and Carmelo Anthony learned from the James and Bosh situation on how to best team up with other NBA stars.

17 comments We Have to Talk About These Trades, Right?

Apparently the interwebs and people taking to each other through machines has hijacked all forms of communication. If you didn't see the Carmelo deal on Twitter, one of your Facebook friends put it as their status. Maybe you were watching a meaningless regular season college basketball game on ESPN2 (I couldn't resist taking a shot there) when the news flashed across the ESPN Bottom Line. Or maybe you just happened to check a random sports website and the news magically appeared. Regardless of how you found out, this blockbuster trade still has the feel of a "where were you when it happened" moment, despite everyone's ability to predict the outcome beforehand.

Once the trade happened, you analyzed the boatload of moving parts. As most people have already noted, your reaction was probably along the lines of, "Wow, the Knicks gave up a lot. Maybe too much." Don't worry, I had that same reaction. But then I broke down the parts (we'll ignore the garbage/"you're only in this trade to make the salaries work" guys.

From the Knicks' standpoint, the significant contributors went from:

Stoudemire
Turiaf
Chandler
Gallinari
Felton
Fields
Douglas
Williams
Mozgov

to

Stoudemire
Turiaf
Carmelo
Fields
Billups
Carter
Douglas
Williams

In short, the Knicks' only significant loss was depth in the front court. Williams, Douglas, Turiaf and Fields are all suitable role players capable of playing off-ball. If we say that Billups and Felton are roughly the same, the Knicks essentially traded Chandler and Gallinari plus a bunch of invaluable parts. (You may say that Anthony Randolph isn't useless, but the Knicks were building for a win-now team, something to which Randolph clearly does not belong.) In terms of net-gain, I'm a satisfied customer. Add in one more significant piece and the Knicks are serious contender.

More troubling, however, is the Knicks' front office tactics. Maybe I missed something. Maybe Marc Stein or Chris Broussard (who, by the way, has taken over as the official "main scoop" guy of ESPN. Seriously, when any NBA story breaks, he's literally the only ESPN guy to pick it up. Marc Stein and Chris Sheridan really need to pick it up. Same with Chris Mortensen. Adam Schefter owns him right now.) already explained this one. So correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't the Knicks in a complete position of power?

If I'm sitting in the Knicks' front office, I'm letting this trade drag out until Thursday at 3. When reports surfaced of the Knicks dealing Anthony Randolph, Eddy Curry and Wilson Chandler to the Denver in a three team trade with Minnesota, I was surprised that anonymous GMs said they would never agree to the deal. Of course that deal is not even. But would Denver really have a choice? Carmelo refused to go anywhere but New York. The Knicks had all kinds of power to low ball the Nuggets into submission. Despite clinging to erroneous hopes that Melo would stay or agree to an NJ Deal, the Denver GMs are not stupid: they saw what happened with Bosh and LeBron. They had to make a deal, no matter how terrible it was. While the Nets offer may have been better, their need for Melo to resign eliminated them from the equation. The Knicks only real competitor, then, was a team willing to rent him. The Mavs and Rockets did not have the Knicks' assets. The Magic already overhauled their roster this season.

When Ian O'Connor wrote that the Knicks needed put Mozgov in the deal, I once again recoiled. Why? Once again, there was no competing offer. If the Knicks held their ground, the Nuggets would have had no choice but to cave. Do I blame Donnie Walsh? No. D'Antoni? No. I'll throw that one on James Dolan. His irrational fear that Melo might slip away seriously cost the Knicks. Imagine if the Knicks had been able to keep either Gallinari or Chandler. All the talk about the Knicks being nothing more than a 1st round playoff exit disappears.

More frightening for the NBA as a whole, however, is the precedent that this is setting. With star players rarely spending their entire careers in one place, a team's peak is much shorter than its valley. As with most sports, teams continuously go from periods of great success to epic failure. The current makeup of the NBA only hammers home the fact that teams lacking a superstar are destined for years of aimless wandering until that next superstar is found. Despite Denver's ability to compile young assets and draft picks, their only hope for success is to either lure a class A free agent (which is unlikely since Chris Paul, Deron Williams and Dwight Howard will not leave their respective teams for a worse situation) or to hit the jackpot in the draft. And its the latter that ultimately matters most. Besides the Knicks, every team that has compiled an assembly of stars has already had one in place through the draft.

Take the Jazz, for example. Deron Williams was that centerpiece. Al Jefferson was star #2. One more piece and this team is a serious contender. But their lack of trade assets and the recent savage murder of Jerry Sloan by Williams lead them to conclude that Melo-drama would potentially repeat itself. So they executed a preemptive strike, facing the reality that this team was stuck in the Atlanta zone (3-6 seed with no chance of winning the NBA title, and no trade assets or cap space to improve). Yet unlike the Nuggets, the Jazz addressed their situation ahead of time, giving them added leverage. If the Nets were unwilling to deal 2 1st rounders, Favors and Harris, the Jazz could have simply walked away. The Nets were not going to wait a year for the next deadline to bring the appropriate pressure that would have facilitated a better deal. But Utah's hand was forced by the growing trend of the NBA: superstar disloyalty. So much so that the Jazz were willing to move their best player a year and a half in advance and begin the process of rebuilding now.

In the end, the Jazz made the right move at the right time. Why wait and suffer through two first or second round playoff exits? You might as well just start over sooner and try again.