When the Suns Trade Their Guy, That's Amare

Rumors abound around the Interwebs that the Cavs and Phoenix Suns are talking about a possible deal sending PF Amare Stoudemire to Cleveland in exchange for the expiring contract of Wally Szczerbiak, J.J. Hickson and a draft pick. While I usually dismiss these rumors as the longings of the ESPN Trade Machine analysts, I give this one credence because the conversations are being reported by the very reputable Brian Windhorst of the Plain Dealer. As you recall, Windhorst broke the Hughes/Wallace trade of last season and told Cleveland about Mo Williams' arrival, while Windhorst was driving home from the hospital after a long illness. Needless to say, when Windhorst reports something, I listen.

As a Cavs fan, it's hard not to get very excited about the possibility of Amare lining up next to Lebron, Mo, Delonte and Z. Amare is a bonafide star in the NBA. He has been named as an All-Star 4 times in his young career, 2005, 2007, 2008, and the present season. On the year Amare is averaging 21 pts, 8 rebounds, and over a block a game. And while I love the intensity of Big Ben, compare that to Wallace's numbers as our starting PF, 3 points a game, a little under 7 boards and 1.5 blocks - essentially an offensive blackhole. Amare is only 26 years old and will most likely be looking for an extension if he gets traded.

Let's step back and think about this deal. The Cavs get a young offensively dominate big man, for Wally's expiring contract, an exciting, but inconsistent, player in J.J. Hickson, and probably a very late first round draft pick. And with Wally most likely getting bought out and potentially even returning to the Cavs, Cleveland gets a 4-time All-Star for Hickson, (who at his developmental peak may be a Carlos Boozer type player) and unknown quantity in what is shaping up to be a weak draft class. So, the question becomes, what's more important - having an Amare Stoudemire on the team now or keeping Hickson's potential and the chemistry of the team intact. I think Hickson showed in the Lakers' game against Lamar Odom that he cannot be trusted yet. Windhorst on his weekly podcast indicated that Mike Brown currently does not feel comfortable playing Hickson in important game situations. It really boils down to come playoff time who do you want guarding Kevin Garnett or Chris Bosh - Hickson or Stoudemire? The answer is obvious. I like Hickson's potential, but you have to give talent to get talent. The Suns aren't going to give up Amare for the rights to Trajan Langdon.

There are some negatives to the Stoudemire deal. First, Yahoo is already reporting the deal has fallen flat, and if anything is to be worked out that a third team may have to get involved. However, at the same time, their article points out the realities that Steve Kerr and Danny Ferry are very close, having played together with the Spurs and the Cavs. A good working relationship may go a long way to smoothing out any holdups which may kill other deals. And, if this something both GMs want to get done, their friendship makes it all the more likely.

Second, the obvious weakness in Stoudemire's game is his defense. As explained by ESPN's John Hollinger, "He's a poor help defender and tends to pick up cheap fouls...fouls tend to be a big differentiator with him -- if he gets a quick two, he'll don a toreador outfit for the remainder of the half." Mike Brown prides himself on having a defensively sound basketball team. As a Sun, Amare wasn't really expected to play any defense with Mike D'Antoni's style of basketball. Can he come to the Cavs and pick up his defensive intensity? Well, the same criticisms were leveled at Mo Williams before he joined the Cavs, and it appears apparent things have worked out in that respect. Lebron and Mike Brown have been very successful at getting players to buy into the team's philosphy. Even Wally, known to wear a toreador outfit himself at times, has shown a knack for making the tough defensive plays and fighting for rebounds this season.

Another red flag is that Amare did have microfracture surgery on his knee during the 2005-2006 season, missing almost the entire year. I'm always a bit weary of committing money to a player with such a serious injury in his past. However, since his return, Stoudemire has played at the same level of basketball and has shown no signs of any ill effects - playing every game in the 2006-2007 season and 79 games last year. Making the All-Star team that last three years also has eased my concerns on this point.

There have also been some grumblings about Amare's desire to be the main man on any team to which he is dealt. Obviously, with the Cavs Amare will never fill that role with Lebron here. If Amare wants to be the top dog, I suggest he look to Memphis or a team of that caliber. I mean, Ricky Davis was the leader of a very bad Cavs' team. However, if Amare wants to win, get national exposure next to the best player in the game and help build a dynasty, then let's welcome him abroad. It's hard to imagine that Stoudemire won't be excited about teaming up with Lebron. I mean, look at the picture above - it's obvious he's praying to get a championship. Trust me, Amare, we're praying with you.

If the Cavs do indeed make a move for Amare, they must make sure that it won't greatly impact the team chemistry. The last thing the Cavs need is to destroy what appears to be one of the most cohesive groups in the NBA. With Amare coming over, the Cavs would have to consider how the rotation would be impacted. Would Wallace be alright with coming off the bench or would he take it as an insult? Would Andy be happy becoming the 4th big man as he heads towards the free agency? How does Amare mesh with Z? If Wally does indeed get bought out, how does a month off before returning impact his game? And mostly importantly - is Lebron on board? Every move has to be made with an eye towards keeping Lebron long-term. Lebron has to be asked, point blank - is Amare a guy you feel like you can play with for several years to come?

In the end, the goal remains to put the team in the best possible position to win a championship this season. Adding Amare, no question, seems to make the Cavs a better team than they are without him. Do I think this deal gets done in the end? I wouldn't hold my breath. Am I glad that Ferry is exploring every opition and avenue? I'd be disappointed if he wasn't. Just hearing the Cavs being connected to Amare and other big names on the market is evidence that the goal of this team is to do whatever it takes to win it all now - which is something Cleveland fans haven't experienced in a long, long time. Share your thoughts Cavs fans - this season may get a lot more exciting very shortly. (Images from Real GM, Dime Mag). Read the rest of this article

The Better Mike

As we begin 2009, there are many pressing questions facing our beloved teams. Who will be the next Browns GM and who will that GM name as coach? What's wrong with the Cavs and when are they going to get it fixed? What will the Indians infield look like now that they've acquired DeRosa? Can the Buckeyes match up with Texas?

Unfortunately, in response to each of these questions, I can only offer speculation. However, there is one question with which I have been confronted recently that I can answer with 100% confidence:

Who would you rather have coaching your NBA team: Mike D'Antoni or Mike Brown?

I'm sure that the vast majority of NBA players, fans, and media "experts" would answer D'Antoni without hesitation. While Brown is generally treated as an unproven commodity, D'Antoni has been continuously exalted to the point where his place among the top 3 or 4 coaches in the league is rarely questioned.

The most recent article by the artist formerly known as Bill Simmons only further reinforces this notion. While acknowledging that D'Antoni's run and gun offensive philosophy ultimately led to annual playoff disappointments in Phoenix, the basic purpose of Simmons' article is to credit D'Antoni for making his players more productive. While he doesn't necessarily call D'Antoni a great coach, he certainly suggests that NBA players should want to play in his system. And of course, in accordance with ESPN protocol, the article concludes with a reference to Lebron in New York:

One of those players was a forever-grateful Nash, who was slightly better than Mark Price and now goes down for eternity as an all-time great. Another is Duhon, who gets to hold his own record in something. There are a few others in the past and present and more coming in the future. I just hope one of them isn't named Lebron. Why? Because I don't have enough brain cells to properly calibrate his first triple-double Knicks season. Could he average 36-13-13 every game with Coach Mike? What about 40-15-15?

(My head hurts. I have to go.)

Listen, I understand the point that Simmons is trying to make: D'Antoni's system artificially inflates players' stats. I'm fine with that. The thing that upsets me, however, is that the real "story" about D'Antoni is completely buried in the article: YOU CAN'T WIN WITH HIS SYSTEM!

D'Antoni's Phoenix teams had an embarrassing amount of talent. In Nash, Amare, and Marion, he probably had the best core in the league. Then, he had other guys like Barbosa, Bell, Diaw, Joe Johnson, Quentin Richardson, and Kurt Thomas that could all play. To his credit, D'Antoni averaged an impressive 58 wins from 2004-2007 with this cast. However, his playoff record during that time was not so impressive: 2004 - Lost in Conf Finals, 2005 - Lost in Conf Finals, 2006 - Lost in Conf Semifinals, 2007 - Lost in First Round.

Now, I'm not exactly taking a controversial position by calling D'Antoni's system fatally flawed. It has been well documented that defense wins championships and pure transition teams always get tripped up in the postseason. What I can't figure out, however, is how a guy like D'Antoni, whose calling card is a doomed offensive system, is held in such high regard. This is particularly baffling when you consider the fact that the talents of a defensive specialist like Mike Brown are virtually ignored.

Help me figure this one out: We know you can win championships with great defense and bad offense (See, e.g., 2008 Boston Celtics). We also know that you can't win championships if you don't play any defense. Mike Brown is a great defensive coach who, thus far, has not produced any teams whose offense could even be called average. Mike D'Antoni is a great offensive coach who, thus far, has not produced any teams whose defense could even be called average. Considering that one of these models is still enough to win a title, how can D'Antoni be called a better coach than Brown?

This argument is further reinforced by the fact that Brown's teams have been inherently flawed due to personnel issues. There were reasons, aside from merely a bad offensive system, that teams with one offensive weapon, albeat a nuclear one, couldn't win a title. It's hard to go deep into the playoffs with the likes of Hughes, Snow, and Jones running your point. There were no reasons, however, why teams filled with guys like Marion, Amare, and Raja Bell couldn't play any defense. They didn't play any defense because they didn't feel like it. More specifically, they didn't play defense because nobody made them feel like it or told them to make it a priority.

In addition, is it really any great feat to get NBA players to fly up and down the floor jacking up shots early in the shot clock? Isn't this what every NBA player is already predisposed to want to do? I would argue that it's a lot more difficult to get guys to make an effort on the defensive end, where performance is harder to measure and where your efforts are far less likely to get you youtube clips and big free agent deals. NBA players come into the league wanting to be great on the offensive end. They have to be taught to want to play defense and defense wins championships.

Lets look at this another way: If we were making a video game and ranking the two coaches on both ends of the floor, it might look something like this:

D'Antoni: Offense - 95 Defense - 60

Brown: Offense - 70 Defense - 90

Of course these numbers are arbitrary, but, at the very least, there is a degree of truth to them. So who has the higher composite coaching score? Who is hailed as a great NBA coach? Does this make any sense?

If this were any other sport, we wouldn't be having this argument. You wouldn't find NFL guys telling you that Mike Martz is a better coach than John Fox. Nobody would even take that seriously. Is it so far off to analogize that to Brown and D'Antoni?

The bottom line is this: Both coaches are strong on one side of the ball and weak (although Brown might be changing that sentiment this year with a competent lead guard) on the other. D'Antoni's weakness is guaranteed to kill his teams in the playoffs. Brown's is just a barrier that's hard to overcome. Which would you rather have?

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, should a player who is already great want to play for D'Antoni? If you're an average player, or even a good player, playing for D'Antoni has obvious appeal. Your offensive stats will become artificially inflated, you'll never have to work hard on the defensive end, and at the end, some shortsighted GM will be begging to give you a big deal. That I get. But what about a player like Lebron or Nash? Should a great player want to play in D'Antoni's system? I would argue that they shouldn't because great players can't become legends by winning scoring titles or MVPs, or putting up gaudy stats. Great players can only jump to the next level by winning a ring, and that just so happens to be the one thing D'Antoni's system can't produce.

Even though all the talking heads spout off about how much Lebron should want to play for D'Antoni, I suspect it's just the opposite. I suspect that after learning how to play defense and seeing how tough strong defensive teams are in the playoffs, Lebron knows his best chance to win a ring is with a coach like Mike Brown...a guy who demands that everyone plays defense. Lebron might one day decide to put money and fame ahead of winning championships but I guarantee that he will never leave a championship contender just to play in a system that allows him to put up ridiculous numbers and mail it in on defense.

So what say you CMCR readers? Who would you rather have coaching the Cavs: Mike D'Antoni or Mike Brown?

Read the rest of this article