Bill Simmons: Amare for KG

The Commish

youknowhatimsayin?
Joined
Jun 16, 2004
Posts
2,201
Reaction score
11
Location
San Francisco
One basketball nation, under Duncan

May. 14, 2007 |

If you want to win a championship, Tim Duncan remains the best player in the league to accomplish that particular goal. We covered most of the reasons in last week's magazine column, but three points couldn't be mentioned because of the 1200-word limit:

Point No. 1
You might remember my annual "Who has the highest NBA trade value?" gimmick, a column I've been writing once a year since I had my old Web site. (Note: If you want to re-read those columns out, check out my Complete Subject Archive and scroll down to the NBA section for every "Trade Value" link from 2001 to 2006.) Here were Duncan's finishes in that column: No. 2 (2000), No. 2 (2001), No. 3 (2002), No. 1 (2003), No. 2 (2004), No. 1 (2005), No. 3 (2006). For his entire prime, Duncan has been one of the top-three most untradeable players in the league.

You know why? Because he gives you a fantastic chance to win the championship every year, that's why. Maybe Karl Malone was better in '97 and '98, maybe Shaq exceeded him in '00 and '01, maybe KG matched him in '04 and Nowitzki matched him in '06 ... but overall, Duncan always seems to keep his teams in the hunt.

Here are San Antonio's numbers during his 10-year career: 559-239 during the regular season, 82-49 in the playoffs, three championships. Since the ABA/NBA merger, only four stars have been that consistently successful for a 10-year span: Bird, Magic, MJ and Shaq ... although I hesitate to put Shaq on that level because he's had six different teams get swept over the course of his career. But that's the list. Superstars like Kareem (nine playoff wins TOTAL in the four seasons before Magic arrived), David Robinson (never made a Finals before Duncan arrived), Hakeem Olajuwon (wildly unsuccessful for most of his prime), Patrick Ewing (only played in one Finals in his prime), Charles Barkley (ditto) and Karl Malone (only played in four conference finals, never won a title) couldn't match Duncan's winning consistency over a 10-year period.

Point No. 2
In the deadly slow-it-down, grind-it-out, defense-beats-offense era (1999-2004), Duncan won two titles. During the transition period as everyone adjusted to the new rules (2005-06, when the NBA called hand-checking and allowed moving picks), he won a third title. And now that we're firmly entrenched in the drive-and-dish/offense-beats-defense/smallball era, he's more valuable than ever because he's one of the few big guys who's polished enough to punish players in the low post AND talented enough to guard quicker players on the other end. He's simply demolishing the Suns right now, averaging 33 points and 17.5 rebounds in San Antonio's two wins. Phoenix doesn't have an answer for him. Within the next three to seven days, they're going home for the summer because of Tim Duncan.

Point No. 3
I'm breaking out Hubie Brown's second-person routine for the third and biggest point. OK, you're Phoenix. Heading into this summer, you have the best roster situation in the league. You have a superstar (Nash), two All-Stars (Stoudemire and Marion), an emerging star (Barbosa), two valuable role players with fair contracts (Diaw and Bell), a fantastic coach (D'Antoni) and a realistic chance to have three No. 1 picks in a loaded 2007 draft, including a lottery pick if Atlanta doesn't land in the top-3. You also have some urgency here because of Steve Nash's age (33) and back troubles, so you need to parlay your assets into two or three more players who can push you to another level. You also know that, until you figure out a way to neutralize Tim Duncan, you will always be entering the playoffs hoping and praying that ...

A) Someone else knocks off the Spurs before you play them,
B) Duncan blows out his knee or suffers a catastrophic household accident, or
C) Duncan's eyeballs actually fly out of his head while he's reacting to a bad call.

(End of the second-person routine.)

So here's my solution: If Phoenix gets bounced this week, don't they HAVE to trade Amare Stoudemire for KG?

Right now, Stoudemire is a base-year compensation player because he's finishing the first year of his contract extension (five years, $73 million). The deal I'm proposing can't work under the cap until mid-July, when Stoudemire's cap figure morphs into the value of his current contract ($13.2 million for next season) and makes him infinitely more easy to trade (for details, check out Larry Coon's NBA Salary Cap FAQ). But they could still agree on a pre-draft trade that wouldn't become official until a few weeks later.

Assuming Atlanta's pick doesn't land in the top-3, here's my proposal: Stoudemire, Atlanta's pick (depending on how the lottery shakes out, it would be as high as fourth or as low as sixth) and Marcus Banks (for cap purposes) to Minnesota for Garnett and Minnesota's pick (as high as seventh, as low as ninth).

Here's why both teams should do it:

Minnesota: That's practically 100 cents on the dollar for KG. They're getting a 1st-team All-NBA big man who's younger than KG, plus they're jumping into the top five of the draft with a chance to add another blue-chip forward (either Brandan Wright or Al Horford). Examine the T-Wolves roster and you'll notice that they don't need a 4-for-1 deal for KG; they're looking at an immediate future in which the Clippers and Celtics own two of their future first-rounders within the next five years, so it wouldn't make sense for them to bottom out with picks and young players. Stoudemire is the best and most sensible option for them. Period.

Phoenix: KG solves four problems for the Suns. First, they don't have to worry about the debilitating Marion/Stoudemire alpha dog battle anymore. Second, they don't have to worry about Stoudemire's surgically reconstructed knee anymore. Third, between KG, Nash and Bell, the Suns would have more than enough toughness/intensity/competitiveness to compete every spring (a real issue for them, even this season -- they're just not nasty enough). And fourth, they'd finally have someone who could potentially play Duncan to a draw (or as close as possible). Stoudemire just isn't a good defensive player -- he's prone to foul trouble and gets discouraged easily (as we witnessed while he pouted on the bench in Game 3). As for the age difference between KG and Stoudemire ... do you realize that Amare is only six years younger than KG? Crazy but true. And slipping two to four spots in the draft wouldn't hurt the Suns because they could still take Joakim Noah, an athletic big man who's perfect for them (and could play right away).

Now ...

Let's say the Suns make this deal, package their other two No. 1 picks (No. 24 and No. 29) to move into the mid-teens for Acie Law IV (the most NBA-ready point guard in the draft), then spend their free agent exemption on an athletic swingman like Matt Barnes. Maybe they'd be paying the luxury tax, but screw it -- how many times can you put together a potential 70-win team that's a prohibitive title favorite and the top TV draw in the league?

Check out this nine-man nucleus: KG, Marion, Bell, Barbosa and Nash as the starters, with Noah, Diaw, Law and Barnes coming off the bench. They'd be covered for every conceivable situation (smallball, grind-it-out ball, run-and-gun, you name it) and they'd be led by two desperate superstars (KG and Nash) who'd basically be ready to give 10 years of their lives to win one title.

Would you bet against that team in the 2008 playoffs? Me neither.

One other fun thing about this trade: On paper, it's the biggest NBA deal ever. We've seen superstars traded for multiple players and/or picks (Kareem and Wilt); we've seen superstars given away for 50 cents on the dollar (Shaq, Moses, Maravich and Barkley); we've seen superstars sold for cash (Doctor J); we've seen gigantic deals featuring multiple stars (like the Brandon-Kemp-Baker deal, or the one that sent J-Kidd to Phoenix); one-for-one swaps featuring All-Stars (DJ-Westphal and Marbury-Kidd); and we've seen major deals that became bigger as the years passed (Joe Barry Carroll and Larry Brown for Robert Parish and Kevin McHale). But can you think of another trade featuring as much star power? One of the best forwards of all time getting traded at the tail end of his prime for a first-team All-NBA player? No offense to Billy Paultz, but that's a whopper.

Anyway, watch how the Spurs attack Phoenix tonight with Duncan and tell me that KG wouldn't have helped. Not only should the Suns make a play for him this summer, they have to make a play for him this summer. If only for Nash's sake.

(And if they don't? Get ready to read more boring "Tim Duncan is the best" columns for the rest of the decade.)

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/blog/index?name=simmons
 

abomb

Registered User
Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2003
Posts
21,836
Reaction score
1
Some pretty compelling points.
 

Arizona's Finest

Your My Favorite Mistake
Joined
Jun 11, 2005
Posts
9,709
Reaction score
1
Just beat me to posting it. I love this article. except I would make it Marion (and possibly Barbosa) instead of Amare. So the question becomes is Amare and switching picks more valuable than Marion and Barbosa? I'm not sure I want to lose STAT but even in that scenario Amare is a pretty compelling choice. I would think long and hard about this proposed trade....

Simmons has a beat on the NBA like few writers. Damn I love his articles...
 
OP
OP
The Commish

The Commish

youknowhatimsayin?
Joined
Jun 16, 2004
Posts
2,201
Reaction score
11
Location
San Francisco
Yeah Simmons is a great writer and he did make some pretty good arguments. I doubt that Minnesota would want Marion and Barbosa because they already have Ricky Davis and Randy Foye. Not to mention I doubt that Amare and KG could co-exist. The question is: is it worth mortgaging our future to get KG? While he may be relatively young, he has a lot of tread on those tires. If Amare plays like a man-child this series without any of the pouting and mental lapses then I would quickly forget about this deal. But what if he doesn't? I think you'd have to.
 

abomb

Registered User
Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2003
Posts
21,836
Reaction score
1
Just beat me to posting it. I love this article. except I would make it Marion (and possibly Barbosa) instead of Amare. So the question becomes is Amare and switching picks more valuable than Marion and Barbosa? I'm not sure I want to lose STAT but even in that scenario Amare is a pretty compelling choice. I would think long and hard about this proposed trade....

Simmons has a beat on the NBA like few writers. Damn I love his articles...

I dont see MIN taking Marion as the cornerstone of their franchise. The entire trade is predicated on the swapping of two superstars.
 

Divide Et Impera

Registered User
Joined
Apr 7, 2003
Posts
14,395
Reaction score
2
Location
Maricopa, AZ
Check out this nine-man nucleus: KG, Marion, Bell, Barbosa and Nash as the starters, with Noah, Diaw, Law and Barnes coming off the bench.

:shock:

I'd keep LB as 6th man and put Noah as our starting 5, but I like the idea of Barnes and that is a very good top 9. I'd also rather it be Marion going, though. Nash-Bell-Barnes-Garnett-Stoudemire would be pure sickness....
 

kps0001

Warriors Come Out And Plaaaay!
Joined
Aug 14, 2003
Posts
1,271
Reaction score
8
Location
PHX
Phoenix: KG solves four problems for the Suns. First, they don't have to worry about the debilitating Marion/Stoudemire alpha dog battle anymore.

Lame, if that exists which I still contend it doesn't why wouldn't there then just be a Marion/Garnett alpha dog battle?

Second, they don't have to worry about Stoudemire's surgically reconstructed knee anymore.

While it will always be a "concern"...I can live with the Amare of now. Nothing is going to happen unless he gets injured again and that is the risk you take with every player every time the step on the court. I am pretty sure the guy is healed now.

Third, between KG, Nash and Bell, the Suns would have more than enough toughness/intensity/competitiveness to compete every spring (a real issue for them, even this season -- they're just not nasty enough).

I am confident with Amare being able to bring enough toughness/intensity/competitiveness. There is some maturing that needs to take place in regards to making good decisions on the floor. He is still pretty young.

And fourth, they'd finally have someone who could potentially play Duncan to a draw (or as close as possible). Stoudemire just isn't a good defensive player -- he's prone to foul trouble and gets discouraged easily (as we witnessed while he pouted on the bench in Game 3). As for the age difference between KG and Stoudemire ... do you realize that Amare is only six years younger than KG? Crazy but true.

See my above response and talk to me in 6 years. I think 6 years is quite a huge difference in NBA years.

And slipping two to four spots in the draft wouldn't hurt the Suns because they could still take Joakim Noah, an athletic big man who's perfect for them (and could play right away)

This guy is an idiot. Did he just not state we need some toughness? The intensity and competiveness part Noah brings but toughness? Gimme Horford.
 

Greg Popovich

Registered
Joined
Apr 5, 2007
Posts
236
Reaction score
0
Only one flaw with this article:

Duncan usually does fairly well even against Garnett.

It would be foolish for Phoenix to trade a player like Amare--whose best years are still ahead of him because he is so young--for Garnett, whose best years are behind him.
 

Chaplin

Better off silent
Joined
May 13, 2002
Posts
44,886
Reaction score
14,488
Location
Round Rock, TX
:shock:

I'd keep LB as 6th man and put Noah as our starting 5, but I like the idea of Barnes and that is a very good top 9. I'd also rather it be Marion going, though. Nash-Bell-Barnes-Garnett-Stoudemire would be pure sickness....

As much as I love Amare, I don't think I could say no to that possible trade.

I don't think Minnesota would want Marcus Banks back, but that's beside the point. I also think that Barnes will be hard to get at that price. But other than those 2 issues, that top 9 nucleus would easily be the best team on paper in the league.
 

kps0001

Warriors Come Out And Plaaaay!
Joined
Aug 14, 2003
Posts
1,271
Reaction score
8
Location
PHX
Just beat me to posting it. I love this article.

Simmons has a beat on the NBA like few writers. Damn I love his articles...

I hope you are just referring to the Duncan portion because his reasoning for pulling a KG/STAT trade are pretty ****.
 

Kolo

Registered User
Joined
Mar 7, 2004
Posts
3,820
Reaction score
0
I love Bill Simmons, but what a stupid idea. If what we need is toughness/competetive fire/etc..., KG isn't the answer. He's never carried a team, even though he has the ability to. True, he's a better defender than Amare, but if we had him he still wouldn't defend Duncan one-on-one anyway.

Artest is on the block, and he'll go incredibly cheap. If we really want to do something stupid in an effort to get tougher, work a trade for him.
 

Chaplin

Better off silent
Joined
May 13, 2002
Posts
44,886
Reaction score
14,488
Location
Round Rock, TX
I love Bill Simmons, but what a stupid idea. If what we need is toughness/competetive fire/etc..., KG isn't the answer. He's never carried a team, even though he has the ability to. True, he's a better defender than Amare, but if we had him he still wouldn't defend Duncan one-on-one anyway.

Artest is on the block, and he'll go incredibly cheap. If we really want to do something stupid in an effort to get tougher, work a trade for him.

Are people missing something? KG wouldn't HAVE to carry the team--that's always been his problem, he tried desperately to carry a team with no talent and it's gotten him nowhere. This team, whether we have KG or not, will only go as far as Steve Nash takes them. Period.
 

kps0001

Warriors Come Out And Plaaaay!
Joined
Aug 14, 2003
Posts
1,271
Reaction score
8
Location
PHX
Are people missing something? KG wouldn't HAVE to carry the team--that's always been his problem, he tried desperately to carry a team with no talent and it's gotten him nowhere. This team, whether we have KG or not, will only go as far as Steve Nash takes them. Period.


maybe he shoulda put that in his article rather than some of the other weak reasoning he gave.
 

Kolo

Registered User
Joined
Mar 7, 2004
Posts
3,820
Reaction score
0
Are people missing something? KG wouldn't HAVE to carry the team--that's always been his problem, he tried desperately to carry a team with no talent and it's gotten him nowhere. This team, whether we have KG or not, will only go as far as Steve Nash takes them. Period.

The only reason you trade Amare is for a player who can carry this team, by himself--otherwise, what's the point?
 

elindholm

edited for content
Joined
Sep 14, 2002
Posts
26,831
Reaction score
8,076
Location
L.A. area
The only reason you trade Amare is for a player who can carry this team, by himself--otherwise, what's the point?

I agree. Garnett is a great player, but if he could be the #1 option on an elite team, we would have seen it by now. Swap Stoudemire for Garnett right this instant and the Suns aren't better. Garnett is a better player than Stoudemire, at least now, but he's not the kind of player you can give the ball to in crunch time and say, "Okay, we need a score." Those who watched the Wolves during their WCF year saw that it was always Cassell taking the big shots, not Garnett.

Simmons's article has one other flaw, which is that this is not the "drive-and-dish/offense-beats-defense/smallball era," as he puts it. It's the same bump-and-grind "defense wins championships" era that we've had for most of a generation now.
 

Muggum

Registered
Joined
Jun 28, 2006
Posts
401
Reaction score
6
NO WAY! Garnett is inferior to Stoudemire TODAY! And 6(!) years older!

Garnett's a loser. And I mean that in the nicest way. He's never proven the ability to do anything but pile up stats and lose. Amare turned us into a winner the moment he stepped onto the court. KG's on a downward slide. Amare's best years still lie ahead.

Why the fascination with KG?! Ugh. Makes me nauseated!
 

sunsfn

Registered User
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Posts
4,522
Reaction score
0
Last year without Amare we had a pretty good team. It was not going to go all the way we thought, but if Bell does not get hurt against the Mavs, it might have been done.

KG is a heck of a player and on the suns team he could run and play defense. Nash would have a lot of alley opps between him and Marion during a game.

I think he could defend against Duncan, probably as well as anyone and give enough offense to carry the suns.

I am one that would have to think about this and who else we can get for the 7th pick, but it would be really tempting because 7 footers like KG just do not come along very often, and Nash has a couple years left and I am not sure Amare will ever be able to defend Duncan.

And, the suns may not be able to get a player through a trade or draft that can play their style, and defend Duncan other than KG.
 

Muggum

Registered
Joined
Jun 28, 2006
Posts
401
Reaction score
6
Agreed, Lindholm. If league rules are supposed to be speeding the game up, we haven't seen it this playoffs. The way the refs are calling games, the usual suspects will make it to the finals (Spurs/Pistons). I hope the league enjoys its lowest ratings ever. If the league truly had made the change to what Bill Simmons is talking about, Bowen would have already been teed up/tossed/etc., and Nash would be getting five more calls a game. These refs are so set in their ways. The only reason that there's a perception that the league has sped up is the relative success of offensive-minded coaches like D'Antoni and Nelson. Not league 'rules.'
 

Chaplin

Better off silent
Joined
May 13, 2002
Posts
44,886
Reaction score
14,488
Location
Round Rock, TX
For a board that is more concerned with finances than actual winning product, I find it interesting that nobody is really addressing the point. We would be rid of Marcus Banks' albatross of a contract.

Oh, and the fact that even at KG's age, he will probably still be playing at a high level by the time Amare is scheduled for his 2nd microfracture surgery. And we would be rid of Marcus Banks' albatross of a contract.
 

az1965

Love Games!
Joined
Jan 23, 2003
Posts
14,760
Reaction score
0
Location
Austin, TX
Are people missing something? KG wouldn't HAVE to carry the team--that's always been his problem, he tried desperately to carry a team with no talent and it's gotten him nowhere. This team, whether we have KG or not, will only go as far as Steve Nash takes them. Period.
Then this whole trade suggestion is moot, right?

I, btw, am not in favor of this trade. Amare is still too young. This was what his 4th season minus the injury season? He will pick up defense and will maturity in another couple of years. The problem is we want to win NOW due to Nash but I'm not sure putting the above mentioned team together will give us the championship right away. On paper, maybe. But everyone needs to fit together perfectly for that to happen.
 

slinslin

Welcome to Amareca
Joined
Jun 28, 2002
Posts
16,855
Reaction score
562
Location
Hannover - Germany
Tell me exactly why we would want to give up Amare for KG all that while accepting to TRADE DOWN with Minnesota?

Not to mention why the hell we would want KG at the 5, Marion at the 4, Bell at the 3, Barbosa at the 2 and Nash at the 1?

That is an awful lineup, everyone is out of position except Nash. Marion at the 4 keeps us with the exact same problems we have right now. Even with Garnett that would be a horrible rebounding team.
 

Cheesebeef

ASFN IDOL
Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2003
Posts
88,600
Reaction score
61,340
this sounds a lot like the idea that I floated right before the playoffs, but the only way that deal goes down is if Minny gets the number 2 pick and we swap picks. That's the only way it's fair IMO, giving up so much in the way of age on the Amare/Garnett swap.

that being said, if the Wolves get the number 2 pick, Garnett ain't going anywhere because he and Durant would be good enough to be somewhat competitive next year and probably very competitive the year after that with the right tweaks.
 

elindholm

edited for content
Joined
Sep 14, 2002
Posts
26,831
Reaction score
8,076
Location
L.A. area
Not to mention why the hell we would want KG at the 5, Marion at the 4, Bell at the 3, Barbosa at the 2 and Nash at the 1?

The only way the lineup would make sense would be with Diaw starting instead of Barbosa and trying to do his "small center" business again. But I agree that it's a bad idea.

I like Garnett a lot, but he's not a power player and he's nowhere near a center. You'd think Simmons would understand that.

The correct pairing for Garnett is Stoudemire, not Marion. But of course that deal isn't nearly so appealing to the Wolves, even if the Suns throw in a bunch more compensation somewhere else.
 

slinslin

Welcome to Amareca
Joined
Jun 28, 2002
Posts
16,855
Reaction score
562
Location
Hannover - Germany
I don't see how the Wolves could pass up on Marion, Thomas +#4-5 for Garnett.

Consider you could possibly trade Marion for another lottery pick if you want to rebuild. Say if Boston gets only #3, Ainge would probably even trade #3 and Ratliff for Marion which would net Minnesota Thomas, Ratliff (both expiring contracts) the #3 and #5 pick and their own pick.
 

cly2tw

Registered User
Joined
Oct 26, 2002
Posts
5,832
Reaction score
0
The only reasonable rationale in his whole argument is the "reconstructed knees". If that is of concern, anything would be acceptible. But then, the willingness of Suns to trade away Amare would be a signal that the other team sure would suffer the "winner's curse" in the trade. So, no trade.
 

Staff online

Forum statistics

Threads
537,281
Posts
5,268,432
Members
6,275
Latest member
Beagleperson
Top