What about the clause in the new CBA that allows players to restructure their contracts to a certain extent?
Bonn1997 wrote:babyKnicks wrote:DurzoBlint wrote:easiest schedule so far---Philly.
+1
2 of our 10 games have been against teams at or above .500. 4 of their 10 have been.
http://espn.go.com/nba/standings/_/type/...
according to advanced stats the Sixers are 0-1 against teams starting Shumpert and Melo.
I love how people would prefer to have a team full of solid players vs. 3 top 15 players which is what we have now. Logic would dictate that given the fact Philly was playing their 3rd game in 3 nights their "deep" bench would be the difference maker against the Knicks. Didn't work out that way did it? Bottom line, in the NBA come playoff time you better have the big guns or you can't win.
giantfan216 wrote:I love how people would prefer to have a team full of solid players vs. 3 top 15 players which is what we have now. Logic would dictate that given the fact Philly was playing their 3rd game in 3 nights their "deep" bench would be the difference maker against the Knicks. Didn't work out that way did it? Bottom line, in the NBA come playoff time you better have the big guns or you can't win.
+1
Chandler might not be top 15 but he definitely top 5-10 defensively
gunsnewing wrote:
Chandler might not be top 15 but he definitely top 5-10 defensively
Because too many of his valuable attributes were intangible and therefore not reflected in stats, Chandler is not commonly rated top 15. Also Tyson has been a work in process for a long time before he finally figured out how to help the Dallas Mavericks win a championship. Having a guy who rebounds and blocks shots well, and who is also great at shoring up our previously leaky interior defense is great. But there's more. His new credibility helps teach and motivate the rest of the Knicks to play better defense and he is verbal so he can remind you what you should be doing. Plus on top of everything else, we are discovering that he can be a bigger offensive force on the court that shoots a very high percentage.
Which team would you choose? Our team with Chris Paul substituted for Chandler, or our team? In my mind it is not even close, Chandler was absolutely the perfect player for us to acquire. His salary is cheap for all of the valuable ways he has of making the Knicks better imo. What do you think?
rvwink wrote:gunsnewing wrote:
Chandler might not be top 15 but he definitely top 5-10 defensively
Because too many of his valuable attributes were intangible and therefore not reflected in stats, Chandler is not commonly rated top 15. Also Tyson has been a work in process for a long time before he finally figured out how to help the Dallas Mavericks win a championship. Having a guy who rebounds and blocks shots well, and who is also great at shoring up our previously leaky interior defense is great. But there's more. His new credibility helps teach and motivate the rest of the Knicks to play better defense and he is verbal so he can remind you what you should be doing. Plus on top of everything else, we are discovering that he can be a bigger offensive force on the court that shoots a very high percentage.
Which team would you choose? Our team with Chris Paul substituted for Chandler, or our team? In my mind it is not even close, Chandler was absolutely the perfect player for us to acquire. His salary is cheap for all of the valuable ways he has of making the Knicks better imo. What do you think?
With CP3 instead of Chandler, we're still struggling defensively, nobody would talk on defense, and we'd get outrebounded almost every night.
