i completely agree. if he signs for 5 or 6 years he will be 32 or 33 when this contract is up. he was an "old" rookie to begin with and then had to accept the 5th year qualifying offer on his rookie contract because no one wanted to spend money last year. as you said, he's looking to cash in like everyone else. as i pointed out in my thread Scola's Market Value lee, bosh and boozer are the top 3 bigs on the market, and there are at least 4 teams interested in him with whom he can sign outright (nets, bulls, knicks, wolves). maybe more if you consider S&T options. the odds are very good that he will land a nice contract.
Or it could be the media is going gaga over the summer of LeBron/Wade/Bosh, and is overlooking one of the most criminally overlooked players in the NBA. I'm willing to bet that there are a number of GMs quietly looking at Lee (reportedly the Spurs want him BADLY), but the ones with cap space are first focusing their attention on guys like LeBron, Wade and Bosh, realizing (correctly) that they are better players. The Knicks, one of the most mismanaged franchises in the NBA, seemed like one team going hard after Stoudemire. I'm not sure that's a good thing. I think that says more about you personal opinion than anything about Lee. He's really nothing like any of those players. For starters, he's a better rebounder/defender than any of them, and a considerably more efficient scorer. If you're just commenting on his "impact", I'm still not really sure how one quantifies that. It's sort of a hazy concept. The way I look at, Lee impacts the team on the boards by being a tenacious defensive rebounder, on defense by being a solid individual and team defender, and on offense by scoring 20 points per game with efficiency. If you're commenting on his ability to take over a game with his scoring, I'm not sure he's any worse than Stoudemire in this regard. They tend to get their points in the same way. Though I don't doubt you like him, I think you may be underrating him. You wouldn't be alone.
Suns without stoudemire, still awesome Suns without Nash, garbage. Shawn Marion without Nash, garbage
David Lee had a 30/20/10 game. David Lee never had the benefit of good finishers, nor good passers. The fact that Lee is recognized for his passing ability despite never having good finishers around him shows how good he really is. If Lee was ever given solid finishers, or even solid passers, his game would thrive more than Amare's.
So apparently Amare Stoudemire is the only guy Nash passes the ball to? Nash's 2004 season (w/ Amare): 11.5 assists Nash's 2005 season (w/ Amare only playing 3 games) 10.5 assists Nash sure missed the 1 assist he lost. Its not the same comparison because Nash can pass to other people besides him, while Nash is the only creator on that PHX team. The truth is Amare is just a cog in the system while Nash IS the system on that team. Nice try though bro
Nash took the Suns to the WCFs and won his second MVP in season in which Amare Stoudemire played in a total of 3 games. This is not an argument you want to use.
This whole thread is presumptuous, as is any attempt at analyzing players on internet forums. Stats are written off, accomplishments are ignored, and assumptions are made based off imaginary scenarios. Is anyone here a former NBA player? No? Okay then, let's wait a year and resurrect this thread when we get some objective measurements to compare rather than making conclusions based off subjective opinions.
So your saying people need to watch the games to determine the value of a player, except don't bother because you're not a former-NBA player? What? A lot of people here are posting objective evidence about the players (i.e., past performance) and then using said evidence to form subjective opinions, which has led to a thread with some pretty decent discussion.
Great post. I also like how you keep stressing that Amare has the benefit of Nash, while Lee basically got his stats on his own. The "system inflates his stats" isn't even an argument because they play the same system. So Lee is a superior rebounder and passer (not debatable), finishes at a higher % (again not debatable), plays D more consistently, doesn't have diva issues, is healthier, and created his stats without the Nash factor, and will cost around 30% less. Yet Amare is a cut above Lee? How does that make sense?
Another issue that hasn't been brought up it is that Lee is 6 months younger, not a huge gap, but Stoudemire has been in the NBA since age 19 and in addition to having over 8,500 more NBA minutes than Lee, he's also already had major knee surgery. This is a guy who relies on his athleticism. Be afraid, Knicks fans. Be very afraid. :grin:
when it comes to scoring, yes. scoring holds a lot of weight though. that one talent can make someone a go-to guy. someone you can give the ball to and get out of the way. amare can carry an offense, while lee can not. however, there are many more factors to the game. lee is a better rebounder. also he finds the open guy when he's double teamed at 3.6APG to amare's 1.0APG. you would think that amare would be able to get more assists playing with all of the great scorers on the suns, while lee would have a hard time finding assists on the knicks. that's pretty telling about both of them, and an underrated aspect IMO. you want your go-to guy to be able to find the open guy when doubled, but apparently amare doesn't do that too often. lee can also score without having plays run for him thanks to his ability to offensive rebound. amare needs to use his team's possessions to score. overall i think while offense is very flashy (and amare is better here) lee provides other things that make him almost equal to amare. i still give the overall edge to amare on talent. now, if the choice is amare at $17M or lee at $10-12M it becomes a real tossup IMO. then when you look at the fact that lee played 82 games for 3 straight years, and amare may never play 82 games in a season again, i think the smart choice becomes lee. not to mention the fact that amare has played 3 more seasons than lee. that's a lot of extra wear and tear on the body, which makes me think that amare's deal won't look so good in 3 years. so in short, lee looks like a smarter bet for the duration of their respective contracts.
If I had to choose David Lee at 5yrs/$50MM vs. Amare at 5yrs/$100MM, I would take David Lee in a heartbeat (especially when you factor in Amare's injury risk). But comparing their impact on the court, Amare is the better player. I think David Lee will get more than $60MM. My guess is $80-85MM. If this happens, the choice between them isn't so easy.
agreed. talent wise amare has the edge. i think it's closer than most people realize, but amare still has the edge. but if i had a team trying to start over, and i'm working within a finite amount of cap room since the nba has a salary cap, i have to look at production/cost/durability. that's how i would decide who to spend my limited cap space on. plus, even though they are very close in age, amare has played 3 more years in the nba. that's a lot of extra wear and tear on the body that lee doesn't have yet. these contracts are 5 years long... lee just seems like the smarter buy.
Check the stats: Amare is no upgrade Analytics show the Knicks should have saved their money and stuck with David Lee Let's put aside the fact Stoudemire is one awkward landing on his microfractured knee away from fading into NBA oblivion such as former All-Stars Allan Houston and Chris Webber. Let's also forget for the moment that Lee is younger than Stoudemire and has logged fewer miles on the odometer. Strictly in terms of production, Lee was the superior player last season and by some accounts, it wasn't even close. According to ESPN Insider John Hollinger's player metric Estimated Wins Added, which converts a player's box score statistics into an all-in-one win estimate, Lee's stellar play was worth a total of 17.5 wins to the Knicks last season, good for the fifth-best campaign in the NBA. And Stoudemire? His contributions translated to 15.8 wins last season, lower than Lee but still among the league's best. MORE HERE: http://sports.espn.go.com/new-york/nba/news/story?id=5359842 According to ESPN Insider John Hollinger's player metric Estimated Wins Added, which converts a player's box score statistics into an all-in-one win estimate, Lee's stellar play was worth a total of 17.5 wins to the Knicks last season, good for the fifth-best campaign in the NBA. And Stoudemire? His contributions translated to 15.8 wins last season, lower than Lee but still among the league's best.
