Would love for the Rockets to somehow get Lee. Slim chance. Second best thing for us would be for NJ to pay him so NY doesn't get to S&T him. NJ reported to have made $75 mil offer to Boozer, was willing to match Bulls offer but didn't get a chance. I think they'd want to make some kind of splash and Lee at a non-stupid contract would be good particularly since Favors is pretty raw right now.
Something like this would mean more to me if Lee had actually played in some meaningful games the last couple of seasons. Unfortunately, it's been garbage time all the time for him and the Knicks. That said, I don't dispute the notion that re-signing him at a lower salary would have been smarter for the Knicks than dropping $100 million on injury-prone Amare.
The counter-argument would be, imagine how much worse the Knicks would have been last year without Lee.
They were trash WITH him. But he easily had the most impact of anyone on their team. I can't dispute that. I still say Lee gets nearly what Boozer got from the Bulls.
actually the counter argument is, playing on a bad team usually inflates your stats, but decreases your efficiency. the proof that lee is as good as his numbers despite the team he was on is in his high efficiency. on the other hand, it's easy to be efficient on good teams. we'll see how amare adjusts to playing on a bad one.
I'm sorry, but I don't see how you can seriously be making this argument. Basketball is a team sport. The T-Wolves won 33 games in 2006 and 32 games in 2007. That doesn't mean Garnett wasn't a great player in those years, it means the teams around him were full of suck (not unlike the Knicks). And, no surprise, they've gotten worse. Simply put, the only players who can singlehandedly turn around the fortunes of a team are the once-in-a-generation superstars.
You are correct the T-Wolves lack of success in KG's final two years doesn't prove he wasn't a great player. So what? David Lee doesn't even deserve mention with any analogy with KG. I'm saying that being the best player on a trash team doesn't impress me. When I see David Lee produce 20/11 on a very good team, then I'll give him major props. Garbage time stats don't mean anything, especially when a player is in a contract year. If David Lee is a team's 2nd best player, that team is not good.
The point is that even a hall of famer couldn't lift a team of scrubs to respectability by himself, and no one's claiming that David Lee is a hall of famer. Just that he's an excellent PF. I'm sorry, but this is just becoming comical. It's not like the Knicks went 0-82 and were down 30 points at the start of every game last year. They did win some games, and Lee played well when they won. I'm not asking you to give him props for winning 60 games or a championship, he hasn't done either of these things. But he's a very good player. Actually, that's largely dependent on who the best player is, as well as the third best player, the fourth best player, the fifth best player, the team's system, their coach... Seriously, this is getting ridiculous.
I didn't say Lee wasn't a good player. Just overrated by some. Repeat: I didn't say Lee wasn't a good player. Just overrated by some. Nothing ridiculous about it. Lee is incredibly overrated by many here based on his stats in a contract year last season on a trash team. If he puts up 20/11 on a 54 win team, I'll eat crow 7 days in-a-row. I've never eaten crow and never will.
I don't see how he's incredibly overrated when people here are just saying that he's roughly as good as Stoudemire, maybe marginally worse. Will you eat crow if the Knicks are just as bad with Stoudemire as they were with Lee?
David Lee: 14 PT, 10 REB, 4 AST, 1 STL, 0.2 BLK Stoudemire: 26 PT, 9 REB, 2.5 AST, 1 STL, 2 BLK Amare is dominating and as people keep saying, Lee is a good player but no, he's not "roughly as good or marginally worse" than Stoudemire. Not even close.
No crow on my plate tonight or anytime soon. Anyone out there still want to argue Lee = Amare? Anybody want to go on the record and say they believe the Knicks would be 16-9 with Lee instead of Amare? Thanks daeyeth for raising this thread from the dead. Neither guy can defend, but Amare is still an "impact" player despite this.
I wasn't in this topic but I was one of the few that was telling many here that Lee was a overrated player. People took that as me saying he was bad, dude was just overrated because at the time there were people that would have taken Lee over Bosh or Amare and that is just hilarious to me. Also how many times have I heard that Nash made Amare? I heard that crap all last season, even though dude won ROY without Nash. Nash wasn't making his shots for him. The difference is and has always been, you gotta pay attention to Amare. You actually have to scheme for that guy and Lee you tell you best post defender to go get em and live with the results.
big time he was the #1 option on one of the fastest teams. on gs, another fast team but where he's the #3 option? 90 David Lee, GS 17 35.9 .493 17.5 12.8 20.6 11.8 20.0 15.7 16.09 49.9 1.7 quite the drop off. not all about games played either because boozer has 9 games yet is in the top20. and amare? 10 Amare Stoudemire, NY 26 37.6 .602 8.4 13.5 27.4 7.5 20.5 14.1 24.17 184.9 6.2 Stats
