I'd take Love. And right now, I think it's an easy choice.

Yes, Blake's team has a better record, but he also has the best PG in the league running the show. Yeah, he intimidates some guys who don't want to get dunked on, but he doesn't intimidate anyone on defense and that's a problem because he has the tools to do so and doesn't do it (he gets abused by anyone with any skill in the post). He averages less than a block per game. The free throws do make me nervous because he does seem to shrink from the moment a little because he's not eager to get fouled. He also has virtually no reliable moves in the post. As a pure athlete, of course, he's almost unrivaled right now. I'm not knocking him at all and would love to start a team with him.

However, K-Love is just better right now. Head-to-head games can be overrated, but Love does routinely outplay Blake in their matchups. He's very polished as an offensive player and while he's obviously not as spectacular as Blake on offense, he's just about as efficient. He's just as bad a defender, unfortunately. It's not a landslide, but as I said I think it's an easy choice right now.

I think it's close to a landslide right now - K-Love is good for double-digits in terms of rebounds and points per game, and is probably better night-by-night at BOTH over Griffin, plus he free throws well, which Blake cannot do (which could end up being his complete and utter undoing as a player). Maybe I'm sipping too much Love Kool-Ad, but at this point there's just no comparison. I'm not sure Kevin Love is a legit threat for LeBron's MVP crown, but you sure as hell couldn't even come close to mentioning Blake's name in that conversation without injuring your cred. That should tell you just about everything you need to know right now. I'm not counting out Blake as potentially the most fearsome PF in the league in the future and he probably does have a better chance at a title on his current trajectory, but Kevin Love is probably the third or second most consistently great stats player in the NBA over the past three years behind LeBron and, maybe, Durant. It's tough to discount that. K-Love's also pretty good at three-point shooting. Hope that didn't get lost in the mix anywhere.





Absolutely not calming down. No matter what, the Knicks made out like bandits, because, even if Lin DOESN'T play at an All-Star level ever again, the Knicks now gainfully and irrevocably know what to look for in a PG for the future. If Lin happens to fulfill that role, then they're simply better off for it. This is a great situation for the New York Knicks (don't re-read that too many times, your head will start hurting). Jeremy Lin easily turned NY's entire culture around, because some players - players who are head and shoulders more important than Monta and Steph no matter what the box-score indicates - are capable of providing change. Some very talented players are simply rocks that gather their own moss and help the team incidentally. That's the first step in determining greatness, and the first step in determining who falls short. Once you become the reason why your turn is wining, then you become the reason to have faith. I doubt you'll see a Golden State game filled with fans hopeful for anything more than a win on that night. There are no great players starting on a team like that.

As much as I 'd like to remain objecti - ah, fuck it. If Monta Ellis was a Knick instead of Lin, do you think anyone would print 'Ellis 4 MVP' jerseys? Do you think it would be anything more than an incidental trade/signing? Not even a 5-win level of improvement. They'd basically have pure scorers for PF, SF, and SG with no connective glue to hold them together (sorry, Baron, but you don't pass my test). Anything Lin had to prove about belonging to the court, he's provided already. Whether or not he takes the next level is entirely on him. But the point is, he has the chance. Ellis and Curry (especially if Curry gets moved to Boston in a Rondo deal, which ends basketball in Boston for a few seasons) do not have those chances forthcoming. Part of that is the Warriors' management and generally poor history as a team, but part of it is them not having the defining talents which create Superstars and sensations.

The bolded sentence is fine and I agree with it, but that has nothing to do with Lin being Golden State's best asset. Lin's immeasurably more valuable in NY that he was in Golden State, just as Linsanity would not be quite as loud if it was happening in Memphis instead of NYC. Lin has provided short-term change in a situation where there was little room to fail and he's seized it with aplomb. If he can keep it up as the pressure builds, then we'll see if he's really made change.

If you're simply saying that Lin's the more valuable player in terms of hype/news/media market value, then of course. But Monta's still a better player.

I suppose in terms of raw talent and ability, yes, Monta is better. Monta scores more. I won't argue hard-line stats. However, whether or not Lin played in NY, people who are league-wise and are credible would be singling him out for attention if he made this emergence on any team. Seven straight wins will put the spotlight on you. The fact that he plays for the Knicks only magnified that.

To me, the value of a SG/PG is not entirely about whether or not they can score, but whether or not they can have a true hand in the team's ability to win basketball games. Lin has evidenced that immediately. We're not talking about the Knicks being the sneaky third in the Eastern playoffs race as recently as last month. That is all due to Lin. Ellis hasn't provided that reaction in many seasons of league-visibility. Stats are very important (see my case for Love above, I'm sure we'll all agree that he is statistically superior to Blake Griffin and it must be noted), but when you are a presence on the court that can threaten the other team no matter what, when you are in the opponent's minds as thoroughly and persuasively as Lin was to the Celtics even in a loss (he legitimately frightened me by going on his late fourth quarter surge), that is an altogether different and more valuable kind of addition. I have absolutely NO respect for Monta Ellis' ability to change games. I have no reason to and I won't until provided a counter-example. And frankly, as their main guy, that is a HORRIBLE thing to be able to say about him. Almost damning.

After all, it's dizzying that the Magic or Dwight think that Orlando will be better off if they trade for Monta Ellis. Nobody has disagreed with me, and nobody should. It's silly. But... Are you really prepared to tell me, honest to God truthfully, that if Lin somehow moved down to Orlando via a trading block miracle (as long as he replaces anyone who isn't Dwight Howard, who cares?), you wouldn't be paying attention? That it wouldn't grasp you even without even having an ESPN headline a day about it? That's what the NBA is all about. Creating static and tallying wins. Anything else is stat-stuffing. And Monta Ellis sure scores a lot of points for a team that barely manages to crack 80 on a given day.


So,


Is Lin more talented; does he score more; is he going to an All-Star game every year; is he better? Maybe not. But is he a more important player?



ABSOLUTELY.

I completely agree with this. I actually think that applies to any position, although it's certainly magnified with the point.



It is not all due to Lin. Is he a factor? Of course. Is he a winner? No doubt. Would any of the PG-starved teams love to have him? Of course. But he's teamed with two of the best offensive players in the game and a top-5 center. Again, he's certainly the key, but he's not doing all this on his own.



I agree with the premise of your statement but I'm not sure it applies to Lin quite yet. Because as DWill proved most emphatically and other teams have proven for stretches, chasing Lin off the ball and making him play active defense does limit him. Yeah, he put on a little bit of a run in the 4th, but he also gave up 18, 20 and 17 to the opposing PG. He's an awful defender. He makes Monta look like Gary Payton. I'm not sure he can impose his will on any game he wants, but I am convinced he will take advantage if teams give him a window.



I agree with this, though Monta hasn't been in a great position for success. If he's your best player, you are indeed hosed.



Come on, dude. You're arguing against yourself. I said nothing about what I'd be paying attention to, I haven't ripped on Lin, and clearly I and every other real NBA fan would be paying attention and excited about Lin in Orlando.



And by "80" I assume you mean "98."



Yes. Again, you're only arguing yourself on this point.

I'll agree on the last few points; I was going for 'THE BIG STATEMENT' there and wasn't contradicting you on those points directly. They're just points that deserve to be made somewhere.

As for the Warriors' scoring average, well, I was going by their last few games, since they have looked awful lately. I wasn't concretely stating that they hand their opponents only 80 a night. I'm curious as to what Curry's effect is on their offense, exactly. It would at least make a potential Rondo-Curry trade less cringe-worthy.

Well, so much for that debate. I thought the Love-Griffin question would incite some discussion. Instead, it's Love in a landslide (I agree, btw).

As for Lin, he's proven to be a solid player, but the team is 2-4 since Melo returned. It's easy to single out Melo for playing like shit because...he's been playing like shit. However, Lin isn't exactly setting the world on fire right now.

I said it before Melo came back, and I'll say it again - the Knicks need time to adjust to their new identity. Unfortunately, in an abbreviated, condensed season, that's not entirely plausible, if at all. They'll make the playoffs as a 7 or 8 seed (because the rest of the East is awful), but very well may end up with a sub-.500 record. They'll need an offseason, a training camp, a preseason, and the first month or so next year together to see what they can really become. The odds are stacked against them because their 3 marquee players play NO defense, and it's tough to win like that in the NBA. It's good for the league to have the Knicks relevant, but they're far from being a team to take very seriously.

I'm not a big Ellis fan, but that's harsh. Ellis' stats are inflated and he plays little defense, but he is a wonderful player around the basket and has won games for his team. I'm totally down with Lin, but he hasn't done anything on a consistent level (yet) and time will tell what kind of impact he ends up making.



This debate seems done and dusted, but I'll still go on the record with my vote for Love. However, let's not forget that we're comparing a 4th year player to someone who has just started his 2nd season (and that after not having a proper off-season). Griffin seems like a great character guy so I'd like to think that he continues to work hard at his game despite already being a starter for the All-Star team. Let's hope that in 2 years he'll be a better defender, will have a more polished post game and will be able to convert more of his free throws.

Love is awesome though. In all seriousness, he should be in the MVP conversation. No way that you can give it to him, but his name should at least come up. There's only one reason that he isn't getting as much recognition: he plays for the Timberwolves.

Rose = clutch.

Damn, I'm glad I stayed up til 4:30 to watch the end of that game. I think I might have awakened my wife when he hit that shot, though. Oops.

And Love should seriously be in the conversation for MVP. He won't win, but should be considered. He's averaging 26 and 14 and has the T-wolves over .500 and solidly in the playoff picture.

Lebron SHOULD win it, but love should be right up there in the discussion with Durant, Rose and Bryant (not if he has many more 9 for 31 nights, though).

Against the Milwaukee Bucks. Tell me how you why you didn't pick sleep, again? The Bulls need to start slamming phonies like the Bucks before I start buying the mirage the sports world is perpetrating in suggesting they have a shot at Miami. And yes, I'm aware that the Heat are 1-3 against the Bucks; they were 1-3 against the Celtics last season, too. That hurt me more than it hurt you, trust me.


I actually went to a game yesterday - a FULLY packed Nets game against the Clippers where the crowd was actually pro-Nets (though obviously, also pro-Griffin). The Clippers played like crap through the first three quarters but it was actually a game all the way through, with the Clips pacing just behind the Nets before things got interesting with less than ten seconds left. With the game tied at 98-all, the Nets fouled Chris Paul (Chris Paul) and sent him to the free throw line (Humphries had already technical-ed himself out and Blake, as usual, made sure that Lob City had a second meaning thanks to his free-throw shooting - btw, Chris Paul?). Chris Paul (CHRIS PAUL!) obviously nailed both free throws and the game was 100-98 Clippers with 8.0 seconds left. And then, with .02 left on the clock, Jordan Farmar nails a three-pointer and the crowd explodes. Nets, 101-100. The New Jersey-soon-to-be-Brooklyn Nets stole one from CP3 and co. The crowd was ecstatic and me and my troll for the evening (my friend went to the game wearing a Blake jersey and rooting for the Clippers in boisterous fashion - as I was too) slumped our heads down and left having seen the Nets beat a Western Conference super-power. Ten years late.

Now, besides the obvious of watching Blake Griffin ram some impressive dunks down in dominating fashion (he finished with 28 points and a not-bad-for-him 10 of 17 at the free throw line), the thing that stunned me the most was the Nets' collective game. Now, I mentioned that the Clippers played like crap most of the night, but part of that was the Nets were actually the aggressor all evening. They got the shots they wanted, right away, while the Clippers usually either settled after long possessions for pace-keeping 2's or drained the occasional 3 (the Clipper actually had 11 three-fers compared to the Net's 10, but at various points it seemed like NJ got whatever they wanted on the perimeter). If the Nets were half that good at stretching the field when they went to those Finals, we'd have seen better match-ups. The Nets, dare I say, are a tighter team than the one they showcased with Kidd around in terms of talent and the ability to find shot opportunities mostly because every Net can apparently drain perimeter shots - and they also have a bevy of big men who can shoot FTs better than Jose Calderon. They obviously aren't as efficient (Kidd kept his troops reined in on every possession), but I feel this would have been a far more dangerous squad back in the Nets' heyday against the Western Conference. I guess it's a funny case of the right squad (or at least something approaching it) arriving much too late for make a difference. But before the game, if you asked me if the Nets have a shot at the number eight seed, I would have told 'NOOOOOOOO', but... they do. They really do. If the Lin-Knicks don't take advantage of their potential, then I actually like New Jersey's chances to make noise (as long as they go on an amazing tear at one point in the season). They're my silent 9th team, since the Bucks went from Heat-killers to, well, the Bucks. And you know how I feel about them, don't you?


~Phil~

The Bulls' third game in four nights, on the road, without Hamilton and Watson, against a Bucks team that played very well all night.
You win the games you are supposed to win, and the Bulls did just that.

In any case, both teams knew Rose would get get the ball, they knew he would make the last shot, and Rose simply made it happen. It doesn't matter who you are playing against, a clutch shot at the buzzer is a clutch shot.

Weird post, Phil. I'm glad you saw a good game live, though. It was probably a hell of a good time.

What's weird is that you seem to be going a little far with the Bulls hate here. Rose's shot was clutch and deserves praise as MunichMan mentioned. The points you bring up against the Bulls are valid, but there's no denying they're a top 5 NBA team this year (and probably top 2-3). I don't think anyone who frequents this thread thinks they can beat Miami (outside of Munich, who's a Bulls fan), but it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to slam them at every opportunity. There's no real need to dismiss an excellent, clutch shot from Rose.

Coupled with that, you bash the Bulls for not "slamming phonies like the Bucks" and then go on to praise the Nets for beating a team you call a "Western Conference super-power" in the Clippers. If the Clippers are indeed a super power out West (they aren't), shouldn't they be able to beat a dreadful New Jersey team? It just doesn't make any sense to bash the Bulls for winning a game they probably should have won by more and then overlooking the fact that the Clippers blew a game they should have won even easier. It just seems like you're totally dismissing the Bulls at every opportunity simply because they probably can't beat the Heat.




This. Is. Nonsense.

Just as we knew Rob Holloway = Rob, we know that Evenflow8112 = Phil. There's no need to remind us of who the poster we're reading is. Your name appears to the left of your post for a reason. You aren't writing a formal letter, there's absolutely no reason to sign a forum post. I apologize if this comes off as harsh, but it annoyed me to no end when Holloway did it. Unless this is an ironic mocking of Rob's raging ego, I beg you to please stop.

Somebody got it! Good. I loathed when Rob used to sign his posts that way. I loved his posts, but good God what a load of hubris. And you know when I use the term 'hubris' critically, there's something rotten in the state of Denmark. I thought it was a funny nudge since we're taking into account his All-time greatness in another one of my threads. At the very least, he had a trademark that nobody else had, even if it was irritating as fuck.

As for Rose and The Bulls, if it's fair to lament LeBron's ability to fail to sink clutch shots, then it's 100% fair to criticize the Bulls until they beat LeBron's Heat in the playoffs. Some people forget that the Bulls weren't even competitive last year against the Heat. The Bulls are a very good team, no question - but we're past that. That's no longer a novelty. Their ascension is no longer news, just like LeBron's greatness is taken for granted (minus the late-gamesmanship). It's on Rose and the Bulls to grab that top spot. After the MVP award last season, after the collapse in the Conference championship round, the Bulls need to win the Eastern Conference in order to establish themselves as serious championship contenders. In my opinion, the weight is on Chicago to prove that LeBron's true problem is to beat them, not just hitting clutch shots.

I'm unfairly opining on a game-winning shot against the Bucks, sure, but LeBron gets flack for an All-Star loss, even now. People have to work through perceptions on every sport and at every playoff spot. To me, Chicago is working through being very fairly perceived as #2. They got blasted in the playoffs by a Miami team that people will agree by consensus got even better this season. They have to prove that they are definitively better, but that cannot happen until the playoffs. Until then, like Shade said a page ago, the skepticism is 100% justified until it becomes a reality.

Lastly, I'm not sure how praising the Nets for beating the Clippers a.) reflects poorly on my criticism of The Bulls, when they're unrelated, and b.) reflects on the Clippers not being a super-power. They are a team to take notice of, I merely mentioned that they had a bad game. Even in their poor stretch (and nobody in league is playing front-to-back amazing except for two, three, teams), the Clippers are still evidently a team to fear as long as they have Paul and Blake. As for the Nets, well, they're certainly not an outright success, but in the East, do you have to be? I'm impressed with their recent play, which includes wins over the Lin-Knicks, the Mavs, and the Clips; I think they're a legitimate threat as a team. The only reason they are on the fringe of the playoffs now is the horrible start they had to the season. I'll be keeping an eye out for them, especially if they continue to roll with relative success like they have been lately.

In that case: Excellent joke!



I agree with this 100%. I think it's fair to question the Bulls in terms of how they matchup with the Heat and fair to question whether the Heat's biggest obstacle to the Finals is the Bulls or their late game issues. I don't think dismissing Rose's game-winner against the Bucks last night does either of those things.



Again agreed. And again dismissing last night's shot by Rose does none of what you state here.



You're faulting the Bulls for actually winning a game against a bad team because they didn't beat them bad enough and overlooking the fact that the Clippers lost to a bad team and choosing instead to credit the Nets. The first, followed by the second, seems a bit contradictory, no?

In basic, blunt terms, it just looks like you want to hate on the Bulls.

Agreed with all of this, however the criticism must be very different and Rose has proven his ability to be clutch as much (or as little) as Bron has. Again the criticism of the team in terms of ranking them behind Miami is undoubtably accurate and correct. However, let's look at that series last year: Two of the (at worst) 5 best players in the game against D-Rose and a cast of misfit toys? The Heat should have dominated them, and they did. Now, D-Rose certainly has teammates that compliment parts of his game, but he doesn't have anything close to a star on his team (sorry, Deng does not count). How the hell are they ahead of Miami right now with Bron having the best statistical season ever? That's one time where I'm not knocking the Heat at all -- it's just immensely impressive what Chicago is able to do on defense night after night. But yes, they are undeniably behind Miami until they beat them in the playoffs. Yes, Miami shut Rose down, but again, they didn't have to worry about anyone else on offense.



Right, but I don't think the perception of the Bulls as a team that can't run away from a almost-decent team like the Bucks is a fair one or even a condemning one especially given the circumstances that Petey listed. Again, I think it's valid to rip the Bulls in terms of how they performed against Miami in the last playoffs, but to say Man, the Bulls can't even run away from a fringe playoff team is not the same as saying Hey, Bron shrinks from the moment in nearly every clutch situation. The former is the result of specific circumstances/style of play/difference in team makeup, the latter is potentially an eternally crippling flaw. Both criticisms have weight and should be discussed, but it does seem like you're picking on the Bulls just a little and it seems like reach in this instance.



It's unrelated as long as you agree that your criticism of the Bulls regarding Milwaukee is unrelated to their status as Super Power. They had a bad game and still won.

Which they are. And which I'm not sure the Clippers are, yet. Blake still has no post moves and plays no defense. CP3 has been insane his whole career and is certainly playing like should be, but having Bledsoe to spell him at times would be nice. I don't think the Clippers are incapable of making playoff noise. It'd be sweet to see them against OKC in the 2nd round, but they could easily lose to a healthy Lakers team even if Kobe had a bad series because Pau and Bynum would tear them up inside. It goes back to the same argument we've all been making: nothing matters until the playoffs. Maybe the Clips sweep the Lakers and take OKC to game 7, maybe they lose to the Lakers or Mavs in 6 in the first round.

And I agree with you about the Nets because DWill is good enough to take them to the playoffs. The Knicks look increasingly sketchy; they actually had one of their better games recently against the Spurs and still got crushed and Parker abused Lin.

Looking at the standings, there's just not a lot of good teams right now. I'd like to see Philly move up a seed.

Petey -- Watched the Whizz beat the Lake-show, and it was great. But Nick Young seems a bit of a douche-bag, no? I mean, perhaps I misheard him (I was doing like 6 things while watching the game), but it sounded like he was interrupting Booker's interview to talk about how he (as in, Young) deserved the credit for slowing down Kobe. Which was accurate, but not the thing that should be said at that time. I like a lot of what they're doing, but Wall needs to start worrying more about being a great PG and less about dunking.

Nick Young is a gigantic doucher. You're absolutely right about him stealing the spotlight from Booker and bragging about his defense on Kobe. Nick's been hunkering down on D for about the last week or two, which begs the question - where was this kind of effort the rest of your career? His 6 assists last night were a career high as well. The guy scores, and that's it. He's also cocky to a fault, as evidenced by last night's postgame interview.

The team's at least been competitve and won some games since Flip was fired. Wittman benched Lewis, Blatche, and Young, which has been a great thing. I'm hoping we find a taker for Blatche before the deadline, but from what I've read we're practically trying to give him away and no one is biting.

As for Wall, he had a tough game last night, but he's been really, really good recently. He had a rough first month, but he's been great since. He's not quite a stud defender, but he plays passing lanes well, contests shots, and even gets some blocks. He's an amazing athlete. His 15 foot jumper is finally starting to come around. He'll be deadly once that's consistent. He's starting to turn the corner and I'm happy with the year he's having. He needs someone who can score to play with to take advantage of his gifts. Harrison Barnes, please be a Wizard next season!

To close my State of the Wizards Address: Trevor Fucking Booker! I love that guy.

Let's see what the Bulls do tonight. This will be their fourth game in five days, including Philly, Indy and now Orlando.

And yes, I'll be staying up for this one as well...

Precisely; if the Knicks, recent (but dwindling) winning ways aside, are the eight seed, why shouldn't the Nets feel hopeful? I think the D-Will onslaught from their last match-up will haunt the Knicks whenever they face each other in the future, and basically any team the Knicks can beat on a given night is pretty much directly proportional to the Nets.

As for the Bulls-Magic game, seems like a fluke to me. The Magic doesn't win more than one game against Chicago in the playoffs even if they keep Howard. However, if they do trade Howard, how good is the over/under that they miss the playoffs or get the eight seed ghetto? Obviously we don't know who they get in return, but in general how could could they be with, say, Bynum in place of D12? I hate the Lakers but I love Bynum (he's a monster this season) and I'm starting to see the appeal of Pau Gasol (although if the C's trade for him with Rondo, they're daft). If the Magic somehow swing both guys and trade away a few unimportant pieces (after they, all, they a team of unimportant pieces) in the process, are they dangerous this year? Does a one-two punch give the Magic better distribution than they currently have? That could be a sleeper of a situation. We all know basketball is talent with chemistry. Two former championship-winners on one team looks pretty damn appealing to me.

Btw, just wanted to say, in regards to Monta Ellis, harshness aside (sorry, I'm a guy who deals in absolutes with players, I'm aware it's polarizing but it's who I is, fellas) I do take exception to people calling him the Warrior's best player. Excuse me, but David Lee is the single most underrated guy in the NBA. He was great in New York and he'd be a great piece for a champion. He is all upside. If the Celtics traded for any Warrior, he'd be the one I'd pique my ears up for. Would Curry-Lee for some combination of Rondo, KG and Allen be a steal for Boston? I think Doc could make it work, and I feel a lot better losing Rondo if we get arguably one of an ascending all-around PF and a PG who already knows how to feed him. I don't think that Celtics team has a problem putting up the points (though obviously KG and Rondo's defense would be missed, I'm not sure in terms of this season in particular that the C's are better off hoping the other team scores less). It's over after this season anyways, so why not start blazing? If this trade happened (and I'm not vouching for its plausibility - that requires some studying that I'm not willing to do right now), I would immediately be excited for our future. All respect to Rondo's monster game, but it seems more promising to me than hoping that the C's put it all together every other night, which is pretty much how it's been since last season's All-Star break.

Agreed. I think the chance for getting both Pau and Bynum has passed, though. I honestly don't see Dwight winning a run if he needs to be a scorer. If he teamed with Kobe or Rose or Bron that'd be crazy-scary. But if he's the #1 guy on both ends I'm completely unafraid of him.



By what standard? I like the guy, but he doesn't win you games. He literally might be the worst defender in the league; he makes Amar'e looks like Bill Russell.



I agree with this as long as he's not higher than the third piece.



I disagree with this. He's only in his sixth year but he's almost 30. There's some upside left, certainly, and he seems to be recovering from last year's awful campaign in GS, but there's a lot of limits to his game that aren't going away. Again, I really like the guy and I do think he's underrated and better than people think, but I'm not sure how valuable he is.



Waitwaitwait... are you saying give up all 3 for those two? Because that's crazy talk. Okay yeah that's not what you're saying. Regardless, I still firmly believe that giving up Rondo is silly. I don't think trading KG should be off the table, and I do like Curry, but sadly he seems like the type who's going to be perpetually injured and have a Penny Hardaway career at best. I think they can do better.



I agree with what you're saying, but I also think Rondo's the only one who gives them a chance to put it all together. I also question Curry's value if Pierce is playing alongside him. The Celtics recent run was based around the perfect players who genuinely didn't care about their individual stats perhaps more than any Championship-caliber team ever. I do think they need to blow it up (either by making trades now or letting everybody walk), but trying to recreate what they've had is a fool's endeavor.

First the painful part: I love Ray Allen, but he is, of everyone wearing green, the most trade-able. As long as the C's have Pierce, KG, and a reliable PG, they have the chance to go toe-to-toe with a lot of teams. I simply think Pierce has done more over the past five years to clinch all-time status than all except two or three players from his generation. His clutch, unconscious 3 is the reason we take the Knicks to overtime. He often can have a game that's so good that, if you took the names away and went by stats, you could confuse for Kobe or LeBron. So trading him is a 'NO', but Rondo? Am I willing to focus on his legendary triple-double over the fact that he's a different player almost every night? He's obviously difficult enough to handle that Boston even could consider parting with him. A guy like that (and I'm drawing my own blood for this one, but T.O. was exactly like that) needs to be dealt with in some way. Either you rein him in, which I think is unfair to ask of Doc when he's juggling a roster that's already been decimated by age and diminishing returns, or you let him run free into the open trade market and see if you can swing the right deal at the right time for him. I don't think we could get Nash for him (which tells you a lot about how well Nash has maintained his game and how polarizing Rondo can be for various teams), so it seems we'd have to get a PG who lacks a special ability to play-make but we could always make sure that they're a PG who can rebound better (we're awful on every side of the court there) and score on a level that makes it unnecessary for Paul Pierce to jam All-Star numbers every night.

As for KG, I think he's still too valuable to let go of. He's a magnificent defender and he simply is like nobody else when it comes to intensity and focus. Even in a diminished state, he is incredibly valuable to the C's - moreso, in a lot of areas, than Rondo is. When Rondo was out for a little bit, the Celtics were actually soaring. When KG missed a game or two, the results were rather dramatic. The NBA is about chemistry, so maybe Rondo's psyche is hurting that more than his numbers are helping. We've seen players hurt teams with their attitude and try to supplement it, usually tenuously, with elite play (again - God the pain - T.O.). I'm not beyond seeing what the options are for him if the right PG becomes available and/or there are ways for the C's to start becoming a stronger rebounding team. I don't think Danny Ainge should be, either. Rebounds are one area, along with scoring in general, where the Celtics have bottomed out on this season. My quickest solution would be give Allen to a contender and see if you swing a contributing rebounder/scorer from them.

Now, I'm not saying the C's have to trade, necessarily, but unlike the Lakers' All-Star Break fit last season where the Lakers essentially pissed and moaned because their elite players weren't contributing enough and didn't show up for games (the entire Lakers organization is so spoiled it makes me want to vomit), the Celtics have a legitimate problem of talent not being able to match dedication and effort every night. KG, Allen, and Pierce deserve nothing but the highest accolade and absolutely will give their best efforts until they are carted off the court (the ESPN article which postulates that they were a failure is a good reminder that their writing staff is growing over-populated), but there is the question of whether their descending abilities are going to prove to be enough when they have to decide to pick their poison in the playoffs against one of the top 3 seeds (it's looking like #2, although in way you do kind of have to love Rondo on Rose, defensively).

As for Lee, whether or not he is the most underrated player in the league aside, I would love to him on the C's to fill out rebounds and points (no matter what his 'D' is, he's an improvement overall over anyone outside of Garnett and Pierce on the team's front-court). The one and only caveat is whether or not what we'd give up in terms of chemistry and ability would be equivocal to the uptick in points and boards that I think he'd undeniably provide.