If the Knicks wanted efficiency they could have kept former FG% king Eddie Curry

I love how people want to kick the Knicks while they are down. They have no continuity. No roster outside of Amare and Melo (Chauncey exists solely on rep nowadays). They will be more than solid next year if they have a decent off season.

i think the knicks are one GOOD head coach away from being a real good team

No they won't. They traded away all of their depth just to get Melo and will not have much cap space to do anything substantial in free agency. With a new CBA, they could end up being very screwed for awhile.

amare is a bit older i believe than boozer

amare is a bit older i believe than boozer

Just because someone can shoot the three doesn't mean you want them to.

Maybe I wasn't clear, if a player can shoot the 3 well, has a good post game, can hit a mid range shot, drive to the bucket effectively, and shoot free throws well, the chances that he will be efficient are greater than a person who can do 1/2 of those things.

Should have been my first post.

lol NO!

I'm not going to throw out too many barbs here in this thread. It seems like IMU is making a bit of a strawman argument based on a vague concept of "efficiency", based on.... (speculating here) FG% and turnovers?

Deng is a role player, albeit one perfectly suited for the team he is on. Carmelo is vastly superior at all the things that Free Ajent listed. The problem in New York is chemistry, they traded almost all of their role players in the middle of the season and have 2 superstars. They also have a coach that seems to think defensive philosophy is some sort of distant rumor. I'm not saying 'melo would ever be a good player on the Bull, but the argument that Deng is close to his talent level is ridiculous. Carmelo is a much better player but it remains to be seen if he can win.

Fuck Duke

Something I think everyone here can agree on.

Thread over.

I think the Bulls are good enough to win as they are, so why mess with that? Also, I find it odd that many Bulls fans who were seemingly bothered by the fact that LeBron attempted to create his own championship team rather than allowing one to coalesce organically around him, would be so eager for the Bulls to bring in people who would likely challenge Rose's leadership.

This has been explained to you before. The problem with Lebron is that many people, including himself, tried to portray him as the best player in this generation and possibly all time. At the time of the Melo talk most people were debating if Rose was even one of the best players in the league. That's the difference that you don't seem to get. That's why people weren't as upset with Wade or Bosh and won't be upset with Chris Paul or Deron Williams or even Carmelo. All of those will be considered great players but none will enter the greatest of all time discussion as Lebron had the potential to do. Now, Lebron can't really do it because we don't have a good way to judge it.

If Rose played with Carmelo Anthony and Carlos Boozer I'd have a hard time making an argument that he's one of the best of all time too.

I don't think the fact that many basketball fans feel the need to mistakenly- or even correctly- declare this player or that player the best ever has any real bearing.

Can we get back to talking about how much of a crackpot JBills is?

I explained the difference. Ignore it if you want.

From the age of 14, people were proclaiming Lebron to be "The Chosen One" and a player with the potential to be the greatest ever. That's why it's different. It matters. Even if you disagree, you can't just discount it because that's why people viewed it differently. Call them stupid for trying to make that determination but that's why it's different.

Well, he did say that NY > Chicago.

No I don't think he'd ever say that.