[QUOTE="SaintBlaze"]
[QUOTE="lostpariah"]
This deal makes it less likley that lebron will go to NY, the article says. Stoudimire is viewed as a second tier FA, and hes lucky he is getting a maximum contract for 5 years. Take the deal Amare!
lostpariah
Right. The Cavs were pushing hard to get Amare back at the trade deadline, yet now he's not good enough?
Without the Amare move, we were killed for not having a Robin to land Batman. Now that it seems that we've got a verbal deal with one of the best 4s in the league, we are getting killed for overpaying a "second tier" player. Whether the premise is that we can't provide LBJ a sidekick, or that we just signed a sidekick, the conclusion is always the same.
A trade at the trade deadline and a siging in free agency are 2 diffrent things. At the trade deadline, the cavsd would have gotten him on his current deal, whichhas now run out, and they would then be in charge of his rights. They could have just not offered him anything at this time, and then wedbe in theexact same position we are in now. Stoudimire was a target then, but viewed as a second-tier FA now. Diffrent times. So to awnser your question in short form, yes.
You're missing the point. That article is saying that signing Amare would deter Lebron from coming to NY. Yet, it overlooks the fact that Lebron was also pushing for the Cavs to trade for him. Why didn't he urge them to trade for Chris Bosh instead? Because he thinks pretty highly of Amare I'd assume.
The hyopcracy in the media is ridiculous. Don't fall for it. Their main argument against the Knicks was that the roster wasn't appealing to Lebron. Now, an all star/all nba big man wants come here (who Lebron also wanted on his team) and it's being pegged as a "desperate" move (not by that article per se, but ESPN's JA Adande said it on sportscenter today).
Only in today's modern world of journalism would signing one of the top power forwards in the NBA be seen as a hinderance to landing another star. It's ridiculous.
Log in to comment