No offense, but this has to be a joke, right?
Taking that screen name to heart aren't u?
I think there will be all sorts of "Should Amar'e be traded" whispers throughout the year. Because, like I've been saying, he doesn't look right and the team has played much better without him this year.
But there's no way MDA can take him out of the starting lineup.
MSG3 wrote:No offense, but this has to be a joke, right?
Why? Melo was moving the ball well last night and only took over when he needed to. Amare up against other teams second unit could create a good mismatch and he could still play starters minutes. I think it's a good discussion. Why not post why you think it wouldn't work
Oh come on man....is the idea that stoopid
Rookie wrote:Oh come on man....is the idea that stoopid
Yes. Again, no offense.
MSG3 wrote:Rookie wrote:Oh come on man....is the idea that stoopid
Yes. Again, no offense.
Dangit!
Rookie - the idea is stoopid for seeing players as trading cards and not people.
How do you think a proud All Star like Amar'e would react to Mike D'Antoni demoting him to the bench? Forget any presumed, "for the good of the team" nonsense. Sitting on the bench during player introductions, which he has never done, would be a MAJOR slap in the face to Amar'e. Added to that, think of the media opinion. Did you consider the press feeding frenzy over every rumor from Amar'e being traded to being one step from retirement?
"Deeper?" What does that mean?
You REALLY think this through?
c'mon. take it easy on the Rookie.
And yes, that would be a dumb idea.
Is this what we've come to on the site now? Trade or bench this/that player after a bad game? Numerous threads of Blowing up the team after a Monday loss, followed by threads of "Bring on the Heat!" after a Tuesday win? Come on guys, we're better than that...
TRU wrote:c'mon. take it easy on the Rookie.And yes, that would be a dumb idea.
Rookie makes a good point about depth but he forgot to manage egos.
No more trade ideas, please.
Douglas, until Valentines Day
Landry Fields Forever
Carmelo, with the dish and the smile
Stoudemire, without Dominique Wilkins disease
Chandler, catching the ball and being decisive
G Sixth Man Shump
G Bibby, until Lin finds an apartment in White Plains
F Harrellson - Shawne Williams meets Wes Unseld
F Balkman or Bill Walker, I don't care which one
C Marcus Camb... I mean... Jerome Jordan
Seriously, it is nothing like bench/trade hysterics. It's about chemistry and balancing a team. I'm not down on Amare at all......and if you don't believe that then feel free to produce one negative post i've made about him. For me, it's all about findind the right chemistry so that the team can excell as a whole.
Jorts brings things playing with the first team that Amare hasn't....defense, rebounding and ball movent. Not saying that Jorts is allstar, but as far as chemistry and filling needs on the first team, his skillset might be better suited to playing with Melo and Chandler.
But as Earl points out, it is to much to ask of an allstar to play on the second team
Rookie wrote:MSG3 wrote:No offense, but this has to be a joke, right?
Why? Melo was moving the ball well last night and only took over when he needed to. Amare up against other teams second unit could create a good mismatch and he could still play starters minutes. I think it's a good discussion. Why not post why you think it wouldn't work
The Kings also suck beyond understanding.
Wait till they play a true team before making that kind of calls.
Papabear Says
Amare will figure it out. We are only 4 games in the season. Don't thing that this is not bothering him.
You know, i'm not talking about Amare not knocking down his shots because he is to good not to start making them. I am talking about staples of the MDA offense - ball movement, spreading the floor and rebounding. When these things don't happen everything breaks down and we get behind then everyone starts playing 1 on 1.
It's not a stupid idea. A spot on the starting lineup is a superficial distinction. If Amar'e coming off the bench would help team win,
and I think it could, then it must be considered.
35 minutes is 35 minutes.
