Odds are, if you’ve been traded away from Cleveland since Lebron came, you’re not good.

Iverson, while it’s moronic, at least it is to be expected from dumb sportswriters. Gooden, though – wow.

http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/insider/columns/story?columnist=ford_chad&page=FreeAgents09-090629

Lee’s listed #1 for RFAs.

http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2009/jun/30/power-play/

He’s played very well on the Knicks over the years without too many (any?) good scorers. If the scorers are good then their shots would go in and he’d get less offensive rebounds and putbacks. So it stands to reason that Bucher thinks the ideal team for David Lee is a team with a bunch of inefficient scorers. Fast-paced with a bunch of inefficient scorers… sounds a lot like the early 2008/9 Knicks.

Who are the 17 players ranked ahead of Lee, btw???????

Sometimes I wonder if the average sports writer actually watches the same games as everyone else.

I did think it was interesting to see him report the Lakers’ interest in Nate Robinson. I wonder if a Nate for Ariza trade would make sense for anyone. Here’s guessing they’ll both be juggling mid-level offers..

“His game: Energy and defense without needing plays called for him. Will sacrifice his body on screens and charges. Undersized but athletic, hard-nosed and low-maintenance. Rebound and loose-ball fiend. Good hands and decent with putbacks and finishing around the rim off pick-and-roll. Not much of a threat beyond 15 feet or on post-ups. Willing help defender, but not a shot-blocker.

Right system: Up-tempo is ideal because he’ll outrun most bigs in transition. Need at least three scorers, ideally four, so he has room and reason to chase down rebounds and putbacks. Can’t play off an offensive post threat because he doesn’t have the jumper to space the floor. Mobile enough to show on the guard in pick-and-roll defense and get back to a rolling big.”

Defense? Only “decent” with putbacks and finishing around the rim on pick and rolls? Yeah, okay.