It’s been simmering for awhile but it finally seemed to boil over yesterday: Chris Paul wants out of New Orleans.
Apparently the Knicks are on his short list and that has a lot of fans giddy. But I’d like to step on the brakes a little.
It’s obvious Paul is a top 5-10 player in the league but that doesn’t mean the Knicks should burn the house down in order to get him. I don’t want the Knicks to be left with Amare, Paul, and a pile of smoldering rubble. I’d urge fans to look how far the Knicks have come after their 10 year foray into the wilderness. For the first time the team has the semblance of a balanced roster, with a superstar, veteran leadership, up and coming potential stars, good role players, depth on the bench, and importantly, cap flexibility going forward.
Depending on what New Orleans is demanding for Paul, I’d say the Knicks would have to sacrifice a lot of that. It may not be worth it.
Sure, the Knicks with John Candy, Amare, Gallo/Randolph, Chris Farley and Chris Paul could probably win close to 50 games but the Knicks are headed in that direction anyway. If you trade for Chris Paul and give up valuable assets you want to be a contender and that means keeping some of your rising stars, some of your depth, and importantly, your flexibility.
Don’t get me wrong, I’d make a trade for Chris Paul, but I’d impose he following condition: If the Hornets want Randolph or Gallinari, they shouldn’t expect the Knicks to take back Emeka Okafor and the 4 years/$52 million left on his contract. The Knicks have come too far after too long and made significant sacrifices. Losing a rising star, bench depth, and killing future flexibility is a non-starter for me since the Knicks would not necessarily be transformed into a title contender and they would have a limited ability to improve going forward.
Believe it or not there are alternatives to Chris Paul. The Knicks can make no additional roster moves this year and have space for Tony Parker next Summer. All the while they would see what they have with Gallinari, Randolph, Toney Douglas, Wilson Chandler, etc., and they would maintain the flexibility to improve through future roster moves.
On a related note I’d like to remind Knicks’ fans how they got burned this summer by arrogant players who lead them along instead of being up front and making clear that they never had any intention to sign with the Knicks. The Knicks have been and will be used for leverage. It does make me uncomfortable that Chris Paul is in bed with the Maverick Carter, LRMR and CAA douchebag triumvirate. Frankly I pay no credence to rumors emanating from that manipulative, duplicitous, stinking pile of carrion. Same with their pro-bono PR-firm, ESPN. If something happens, great, until then, I’m very excited about the group the Knicks have assembled.
The Knicks don’t need to sell their souls just to take a short trip to purgatory before returning the hell.
Plus 1!!!
Totally agree.
I’d be all for making a trade for CP3, but if we include both Gallo and Randolph, we may be including two solid all stars. That’s a very nice (and cheap) core to give up before their value is even realized.
Even CP3 should be concerned about something like that.
I also don’t like giving up 2 levels of flexibility to get one star. So there’s no way I take back that Okafor contract and kill any chance of signing another star.
Amare + CP3 + filler is NOT going to get it done.
Absolutely! Paul is a great player and I’d love to have him on the Knicks, but let’s be smart about this. If the price too high I say no go. Felton is a good player and our depth and youth is our strength. Let’s not destroy it for 18 points per game.
Tony Parker doesn’t come close to approaching Chris Paul, and can be pretty much summed up as a slashing point guard. Bad rebounder, bad defender, similar scoring style to Felton (who has a better jump shot). Paul’s will easily be the best PG over the next few years, at least, and the fact is the Knicks need a head for their offense. Felton is a nice player in the interim, but he cannot lead a team in contention. Gallinari, Randolph, and Amar’e all can score, but none can initiate the offense – Amar’e is a finisher, and if the Knicks charge him with leading the offense, there will be issues. And of course, Paul is a proven commodity. Gallinari is not the type of player who can have the far-reaching effect on a game as Paul does, Chandler may not have much more room to grow, and Randolph has not proven he can be a consistent scorer.
I also dispute that the Knicks would have to give up Gallinari and Randolph. Paul does not have a no-trade clause, meaning the Hornets will trade him to the team that can offer the most. Vince Carter’s expiring deal offers more than Curry’s, but I cannot see the Magic taking on Okafor. Believe it or not, Okafor is a starting-caliber center – plus defense and plus rebounding – so its not like the Knicks would be getting back an empty contract a la Curry, and the Magic would not be able to offer him the playing time with Dwight. Knicks fans need to lessen their loyalty to Gallinari. He’s a nice player, but if he’s the dealbreaker for Chris Paul (Chris Paul!), it would be ridiculous for the Knicks to reject it. Gallinari’s ceiling is far from what Paul already is. Randolph’s ceiling might be a bit higher, but how many players actually reach their full potential. Not many.
Tony Parker was able to be the PG on championship teams because the Spurs did not rely on the 1. The Knicks system relies on a playmaker at the top, and passing on one of the greatest playmakers in Paul for an overrated Parker could end up being one of the bigger mistakes when it comes to contending for a title.
Those are very good points and of course if you have Chris Paul on your team it’s a very good thing. I did acknowledge he’s an elite player in the league.
I nonetheless harbor serious concerns about selling out the best young talent the Knicks have while at the same time destroying the Knicks flexibility.
The Knicks are on a long term uptrend. The trade you’re proposing locks them in at 50-55 wins with little room to improve. The Knicks right now are headed in that direction anyway, or close to it, all the while maintaining their flexibility.
An example of the benefits of this could be Deron Williams in two years, who is much less injury prone than Paul. Parker may not be the answer but I have noticed that there TONS of really good young point guards in the NBA these days. I’d rather not lock the Knicks into a non-championship ceiling by trading for Paul with Okafor when the Knicks can instead keep their powder dry, head towards that ceiling by doing nothing, and still have the ability to raise that ceiling going forward.
If the Knicks got Paul and kept Gallinari or Randolph, I think they’d be considered to have a good chance at reaching the Conference Finals. If the Knicks don’t get Paul, apparently Orlando is next in line, so the team has to take into account who it’ll be facing. I don’t think making moves solely to handcuff opponents is a good idea, but Paul and Dwight might be as scary as Miami. If the Knicks intend of contending for a championship, one superteam is enough.
I love Deron, but in two years he’ll be 28, and I wouldn’t say he’s bought a ticket out of Utah yet (consistently good team + $18 million player option). There’s so much uncertainty around the CBA that it’s hard speculate much, but in two years Gallo will be a restricted free agent likely with several offer sheets the Knicks would need to match. Randolph will also be a restricted free agent, and who knows how Amar’e will be holding up? The Knicks could have passed on Paul for Deron to keep Gallo/Randolph/etc., but they could end up losing some of them with Deron anyway.
If the opportunity for Paul presents itself, the Knicks can’t risk not following though.
All your points are valid, but we don’t even know whether Paul will be as productive now as he was before surgery.
We would almost certainly have to include either Gallo or Randolph if not both and other usable assets.
For all we know we could be giving up a solid young all star caliber player to get a diminished former hall of fame caliber player for a net of close to zero. Throw in all the lost flexibility that taking on a bad contract would cause and we would be screwed again.
I don’t see the rush.
I say we play the season with the kids, hope they blossom some and increase their value, and then look to make a move at the trade dead line with enhanced value for our trade pieces PLUS a much more valuable Curry contract.
Well, Paul looked fine when he came back post-surgery. He tore his meniscus, which has its importance in agility and movement, but unlike a player like Tony Parker, his value is not primarily vested in speed. And lest we forget Gallinari’s back issues or Randolph’s ankle issues.
“We would almost certainly have to include either Gallo or Randolph if not both and other usable assets.”
What are the Magic going to offer? Marcin Gortat? Jameer Nelson? Something tells me the Hornets will not be interested in a four-year contract and a 28-year old if they are interested in rebuilding.
To me the darkhouse is Portland, who can offer Oden, Nic Batum, and Przybilla’s $7.4 million expiring deal. Those three straight up for Paul works numbers-wise, but teams are going to want assurances that Paul will sign for long-haul, and despite being a great team, Portland doesn’t offer the co-superstar/stage Paul wants.
“For all we know we could be giving up a solid young all star caliber player to get a diminished former hall of fame caliber player for a net of close to zero.”
For all we know we could also be giving up a player who has nearly reached his ceiling. I’d take my chances with the player with HoF-caliber skill.
[...] not only for the reason explained in Dan’s last post, though that’s a very good reason in and of itself. But also because, as great as Paul is [...]