as for the articles, the elephant in the room is that eddy curry is losing fans every day (including me) and may be the worst starting player in the league. the writers need to rip him to shreads more than they have been.

As for the contentiousness, I think it’s fun and hope you don’t take my disagreements personally. Hopefully we’ll be arguing about who should start in game 7 of the conf finals soon.

I was making a totally different point. That you need to talent to win in the NBA. Specifically you need talent of the underpriced variety to go along with the high usage, max contract talent.

Duncan was making 3 million when he played with Robinson. Kobe was making 10. Manu is making nine. Ben Wallace was making 5 I think.

The Bulls had not only Pippen, but also Rodman and Kukoc, and to a lesser extent Kerr and Harper. It took all of them to make the best team of all time.

I don’t really know what is so contentious here. Lee is a very good player. He is a very efficient scorer, great rebounder, he doesn’t commit turnovers, and plays solid defense. And he doesn’t need to have the ball in his hands to be effective. Finally, there is a good chance that he will be signed to a reasonable contract.

On this team there are only two players I see being part of a championship caliber squad, Lee and Balkman. No one else. That’s really the point of this. At some point, Curry will expire, Crawford will expire, Marbury will be gone, and we can think about hiring a real star and getting on with having a winning record for once. Lee has shown he can be a big piece of the puzzle.

On the Bulls, every “complimentary” player was replaced along the championship run, and several times at some position. The only two constants were Jordan and Pippen (oh, I forgot, Pippin is a complimentary player like Lee, not a superstar.) Run through the rosters and then tell me again how hard it is to find complimentary players.

I’d stick with guys like Oak, Buck, Otis Thorpe, Horace Grant, John Salley, Bobby Jones and Robert Horry as upside complimentary guys on a level that Lee can aspire to (but probably never reach).

Unless via luck in the draft, you use David Lee-types in packages to get superstars. Al Jefferson is a better young talent than Lee, but the Celts were horrendous until they traded him and other young players for Garnett and Allen. All of a sudden, Kendrick Perkins and Rondo are pretty good starters. Superstars can make many an average role player look good, that’s why the Lakers had a bum like Rambis in the starting lineup. The Spurs can put anyone in at center and still be great because of the superstar and two all-star scorers. The perennial contenders often run through complimentary guys but once they lose the true superstar, they decline.

You might also notice that when guys like Buck and Thorpe played on better teams, their scoring stats tended to go down. You could argue that Lee’s stats are inflated by playing on a terrible team that was often down by 20 and played many of his minutes against second unit guys in situations that didn’t matter.

Another question about Lee is his durability. He already missed a bunch of time with a mysterious “stress reaction”. Could he physically hold up with 36 minutes per night vs. 26?

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=3222697

When it rains, it pours.

I agree that it is a moot point, moot meaning “worthy of debate”, which is proper use of the word, rather than the popular use, that being “not worthy of debate.” Anyway, We have seen what Randolph can do as the starting PF on this team over 41 games. Randolph has range on the jumper, soft moves around the basket, and is a strong rebounder. Randolph is also selfish on offense, indiffrent on defense, and just plain lazy as he only does what comes easy to him and he has not committed himself to top notch conditioning.

Randolph has had his chance. This is Lee’s third year with the team. I think he deserves his chance to start 40+ games. Then the fans will have an accurate measure of what Lee can do. We will see if his “lack of range” is a problem for the offense. It is my opinion that a PF does not need to hit a 15-18 foot jumper on this team. I think it is a detriment to the team to have your PF doing that. For example: Randolph is the leading rebounder on this team, his defensive rebounding skills should allow him to be a good offense rebounder as well. He should not be settinng up at 18 feet because he is now too far from the basket to help the offensive boards in the event that Robinson, Crawford or Q take a bad outside shot (highly likely).

Lee on the other hand is constantly moving on offense. This makes him ready to get in position for an offensive board. This also allows him move quickly to the basket if a guard gets to the hole and needs a big to hit. “Randolph can do that” you say? I say thee nay!

When was the last time you saw Randolph pass the ball then make a hard cut? It doesnt happen. First of all he is reluctant to pass, second he is much too lazy to cut. How much offense does Randolph create for his team? How many high screens do you see him set for Crawford or Richardson? How often has he played pick and role? He does not. I do not know how much of that is Isiah fault for not putting that in the play book, but with his range Randolph should be a decent pick and role player. He isnt becasue pick and role requires a good deal of effort, cooperation, and conditioning to perform effectively. The big on this team most likely to bring effort, cooperation, and conditioning to the floor is clearly David Lee. I think it is bat shit crazy to say that Lee will hurt the offense when he brings all the little things that help an offense. He passes out of doubles, he crashes boards, he sets picks, he take high percentage shots, he cuts to the basket. Who gives a phlying phuck if he can’t hit an 18 footer?! I’m sorry for cursing but i am just chocking on my own rage here.

I don’t think David Lee is perfect but he gives his best effort. I want to see effort the rest of this season, even if it cant hit a 15 foot jumper. Lee, Balkman, and Robinson for all their flaws, they try. They don’t mail it in on defense. They don’t sit and wait if the play doesnt call for them to take the shot. They try. i’d rather watch those guys try that watch the “more talented” players mail it in.

God, I need a drink.

It’s not ludicrous. Tim Duncan is a great player, but without David Robinson, and then Manu and TP, he is not winning any championships.

Shaq wasn’t going to win any championships in LA without Kobe, who was being paid much less than him at the time.

Jordan couldn’t win an NBA title without competent complements.

I agree it’s harder to find a Manu Ginobili or a Scottie Pippen than a Tim Duncan, Jordan, or Shaq.

I like the Buck Williams comparison, although I think Buck’s post defense, shot blocking and offensive game were clearly superior to Lee’s. That’s the big question…will Lee develop to that level. Again, Buck was simply more athletic than Lee and shot better (not counting dunks) right from the start (except FT’s.) As such, Buck was more of an impact player, as his early awards suggest.

I agree that Lee would be highly valuable to a playoff powerhouse with lots of weapons. The two questions are: is it easier to get a replacement for him (a role player with a the same or a different skill set, e.g. a Turkoglu) or to get a superstar? Z’s contention that they are just as hard to find is totally ludicrous.