TheFreak: Obviously, we have different means of evaluating a team's value. I don't think we're going to make much headway by continuing to argue from different perspectives. I believe that a player is a liabiity if he's inferior to his counterpart in a given matchup. This does not mean he's a bad player. He can still be quite good. But the match-up is still a net loss. Mutombo is a very good C... but against Shaq, his team still took a net loss at the C position. That's not "fantasy basketball." I believe that the team with the best players will generally win. That's simple. For a while, Portland's collapse made me reconsider this. But ultimately I've decided that 's 1. an extreme case and 2. a result of the individuals in Portland. Anderson did have a poor postseason. It was also his first post season. And Smith may not be too old, but his Knees have been gimpy. Webber isn't of an age that would predict decline. Horry may be, but that's still less relative loss, since Horry isn't a premier player for LA. I don't see much room for persuasion, here.
