Roundtable: Is Carmelo Anthony still an elite player?
Our staff of NBA correspondents -- Jovan Buha, D.J. Foster, Fred Katz, Andrew Lynch, Michael Pina and Brett Pollakoff -- answers questions on Carmelo Anthony's status as a franchise player, Ty Lawson's comments about the Nuggets, high-school eligibility and more.
1. What is your favorite Moses Malone memory/anecdote?
D.J. Foster: Everyone knew Moses was a star, and his college recruitment was a circus because of it. Recruiting violations were rampant -- coaches would actually sleep on his porch at night -- and Moses would have to climb out of his window on to the roof just to escape them. I can't decide whether that's humorous or disgusting.
2. Is it disrespectful to not consider the Warriors -- who are essentially returning the same team -- title favorites next season?
Fred Katz: Disrespectful? Nah. We don't owe the Warriors anything. But is it wrong? Probably. Right now, Bovada gives the Cavaliers (+275) and the Spurs (+300) a better chance to win the title than Golden State (+500), but you have to remember that the people who control those lines are setting them in a place for maximum betting profit as much as maximum accuracy. A favorite is not always a favorite, if you know what I mean. That said, Cleveland's injury history (Varejao, Love, Irving have always shown a propensity to get hurt) and the Spurs' lack of depth in parts, which no one seems to want to talk about, are what helps me place the Warriors in front of them by a hair. But that's just barely, and we still haven't even mentioned the Thunder and Clippers.
Andrew Lynch: Disrespectful might not be the right word, but it's definitely not smart. Even if the Cavs are at full-strength, they're not any better than the Warriors. But Cleveland plays in the East, so there's at least some reasoning behind the Cavs having better title odds than Golden State. I love San Antonio, and it's unwise to root against the Spurs. But until we see how San Antonio is able to integrate LaMarcus Aldridge, counting on Tim Duncan & Co. as a better title shot than the defending champs is ludicrous.
Michael Pina: The Warriors are awesome and deservedly won last year's title, but it's not a problem if you think another team is better heading into 2016. San Antonio's offseason belongs in the MoMA. The Clippers and Rockets reloaded and filled their holes. And then there's hungry LeBron James and his Cleveland Cavaliers, a group that pushed Golden State to six games in the Finals despite myriad injuries. They don't have to scratch their way through the Western Conference bracket, an undeniable advantage over last year's champs.
3. Is Carmelo Anthony still an elite player?
Jovan Buha: No, though it depends on your definition of "elite." Mine would be a top 15-20 player who you could build a team around. Anthony is simply no longer in that class. He's proven he's not a franchise player -- those guys don't lead their team to a 10-42 record (the Knicks' record before the All-Star break, when Anthony was shut down for the season), regardless of the talent around them. When you factor in his contract, his age (31 years old) and his renowned selfishness, it's clear that Anthony may be a "great" scorer and little else. In today's team-oriented game, that's not an elite player.
Katz: Did Carmelo Anthony turn into Joe Flacco? Yes, he's elite. His contract may not be optimal. Coming off knee surgery may not be preferable. His team situation may not be the best thing we've ever seen. But how can a contingent that argues Vince Carter or Allen Iverson for the Hall of Fame not be down with one of the two or three best scorers of his generation. For all the talk Anthony gets about being a ball hog, he's become highly efficient (45-38-83 shooting line over the past three years). No, he's not the world's best defender. And no, he's not the planet's most willing passer, either. But when you can put the ball in the hoop like he can, yes, you are most certainly "elite."
Pina: For a moment, cast aside Anthony's silly contract and problematic playing style (he prohibits ball movement and doesn't defend). He's 31 years old and had knee surgery in February. Barring any health-related setbacks, he can still take games over with an ocean-deep offensive repertoire, particularly as a small-ball four. But what's en vogue in today's league (versatility, unselfishness and, um, defense) hurts Anthony's stature in it. Too many have already passed him.
4. Should players be able to enter the league out of high school? Why or why not?
Buha: Yes. Players should have the choice to enter the league out of high school. The responsibility is on front offices to determine whether a player is ready to make the jump or not -- players shouldn't be penalized for general managers screwing up. There will be busts -- just compare high school recruiting class rankings with the NBA Draft to see the difference one year of college basketball makes -- but that's inevitable; hire better scouts, if that's the case. A guy like Harrison Barnes (the No. 1 recruit in the 2010 high school class) could've been the No. 1 pick in 2010, yet went to North Carolina for two seasons and was exposed as an overqualified role player. Sure, that saved the Wizards from making a mistake and picking Barnes over John Wall in 2010, but it also cost Barnes a lot of money, and possibly a different type of career. The system should cater to the players, not the team. Plus, I strongly disagree with the "watered-down product" argument. Just look at LeBron James, Kobe Bryant, Kevin Garnett, Tracy McGrady, etc.
Katz: Yes. And I think this debate will get hotter once all 30 teams have individual D-League affiliates. By then, the NBA will have a true minor-league system, and considering that the Pacers just got their own affiliate and the Nets and Hornets are setting one up, we're just single-digit organizations away from having this fantasy become reality. You don't have to worry about "Can a high schooler make it in the NBA?" if he's, you know, not actually in the NBA. Coming out of high school works well for baseball partially because of their intensive minor-league system. If basketball were to create a similar setup (which it's on the verge of doing, 19 organizations currently have individual affiliates), then what's the issue with ... code-word alert ... "being ready" or not.
Lynch: Absolutely. Because this is America, and with a little light regulation, you're allowed to pursue a job freely. Some players are going to make the leap and not be ready. There's the chance that too many high school players will make the leap and that the resulting on-court product will be diminished. But that's on front offices to make sure they're picking the right players. Artificially limiting the talent pool to save teams from themselves and at the same time preventing young men from making a limit is unsavory.
Brett Pollakoff: No, for the simple reason that as a fan of the NBA, I want to see the best possible product on the floor at all times. Even the top rookies now need a healthy dose of minutes at the professional level to truly develop into stars, and the vast majority of high school-aged players would similarly need the same. Adding players that are too young to immediately earn a spot in the regular rotation would potentially take away roster spots from veterans who can play now, so while there are ways around this (like installing a true minor-league system via an expansion of the D-League), I'd prefer that the talent be more NBA-ready before being allowed to join the league officially.
5. Could Metta World Peace actually help the Lakers or this just a PR stunt?
Buha: The Lakers have a glaring hole defensively at small forward (Kobe Bryant and Nick Young aren't going to cut it), so World Peace makes sense in theory. But his value comes down to his shooting. He hasn't played since the 2013-14 season with the Knicks, and he shot only 31.5 percent from deep. That's too low. If he can bump that up to 35-36 percent, and play solid D (which isn't a given anymore, given his age and steep decline), he could be a decent rotation cog.
Lynch: I think the inclination is to look at the Lakers defense last season and imagine that World Peace can help. Los Angeles finished 29th in defensive rating last season. But in his last season in the NBA, World Peace looked as if his ability to keep defenders in front of him had diminished greatly. And if he's slipped on the defensive end, then he's not bringing anything to an NBA team with his 36th birthday right around the corner.
Pina: The Lakers are more interested in headlines and establishing short-term good will with their increasingly disgruntled fan base than, you know, winning basketball games. Nobody's surprised by a potential World Peace reunion. After all, he has the Laker blood in him.
Pollakoff: The Lakers need wins, not PR, so if World Peace ends up earning a spot on the roster, it'll be because the team believes that he can contribute to the cause. He played well during his last season in Los Angeles, but that was back in 2013, and after a down season the following year with the Knicks, he remained out of the NBA entirely last season.
If he can return to hitting 3-pointers at a 40 percent clip, and is healthy enough to play his signature hard-nosed style of defense even for small stretches, he could be a veteran presence that could give L.A. 10 minutes or so per game in a reserve role off the bench. But those are big ifs, and it'll be up to Mitch Kupchak to evaluate whether Metta is truly still capable of contributing at the NBA level before awarding him one of the team's precious few remaining roster spots.
6. How will the Markieff Morris drama in Phoenix be resolved? When?
Foster: Steel cage match between Markieff and GM Ryan McDonough? No? Morris is forcing a trade, and he's going to get one. He's too valuable for Phoenix to simply cut loose, and he's dedicated to the cause of getting out of there. The underrated move: Phoenix can banish him to Philadelphia, so nobody wins.
Lynch: Morris will be traded, and there's a pretty good chance it won't be until the deadline. That's not because the Suns and Morris are going to work out something; with his legal situation in Phoenix right now as he and his brother face assault charges, there's a cloud hanging over Morris' time on the court. Teams very well could wait until the legal process has run its course before taking a real look at a trade for the unhappy forward.
Pina: Ideally Morris gets traded before training camp begins, so he and his new team can be acclimated. My personal hope is that Phoenix ships him to the Siberia 76ers for Carl Landry and Sacramento's 2018 first-round pick. Morris is from Philadelphia, so maybe he won't get too upset about going there? (A rehabilitated Morris -- on a four-year, $32 million contract -- is arguably a better trade chip than Sacramento's 2018 first-round pick, which is unprotected the following year.)
7. Who should have final say over whether an injured player plays: the medical staff, the player or the coach? [This is in relation to the Pau Gasol situation.]
Lynch: I would take the decision out of the hands of the players and empower the medical staff relative to coaches. We're learning more and more about players, fatigue, injury and recovery every day; without a concerted effort to listen to the people responsible for player health, all of that information is meaningless.
It's going to take a conversation among all three parties (along with the front office) to make sure everyone's on the same page. Shutting the players out completely is a non-starter. But it's imperative that medical staffs are allowed to do their jobs.
Pollakoff: Honestly, the coach is probably the last person to have any involvement in these types of decisions. There have been so many times over the years I've been around teams and asked coaches about the availability of a certain injured players, and they usually have very little information. Coaches get a green light from a doctor or team trainer as to a player's health, and then it's up to the player to determine the amount of pain or discomfort he can deal with to perform at as close to his regular level as possible.
With Pau Gasol and the situation that occurred with him bypassing his minutes limit to play for Spain, this sounds like how things went down. If you're the team, you probably would rather take the cautious approach, and leave it to the doctors to have final say. But players know their bodies best, and if they feel well enough to get after it, they'll probably choose to play more often than not, especially if they've been told that they can't do any additional damage.
8. Do you agree with Ty Lawson's characterization of the Nuggets' front office and ownership?
Foster: Lawson is right. The Nuggets are a poorly run franchise lacking vision and basketball acumen at nearly level. But let's not kid ourselves, either: Lawson claiming he "did his job" and wasn't a disappointment is the sort of delusional self-evaluation that should have Rockets fans slightly worried he'll eventually flame out in Houston, too.
Lynch: Yes and no. Lawson could be right, but we have no way of knowing that for sure. And given everything that's transpired for the Nuggets and their former point guard, it comes across as at least a little petty. But that's understandable even without knowing all the details; after all, Denver drafted Lawson's replacement this year, and he likely felt cast aside.
Is Lawson bitter? Maybe. But independent of this situation, the Nuggets front office hasn't exactly been successful. Again, without knowing all the facts, you can't completely dismiss Lawson. But he might have a point.
Pina: Before Lawson was traded to Houston, the Nuggets were lost. Their personnel decisions didn't consistently line up with a long-term vision. Did they want to rebuild? Did they want to compete for a playoff spot? General manager Tim Connelly made strides after ESPN's Kevin Arnovitz wrote this article, but Denver has still yet to embrace a clear and obvious path towards contention. So, yes. I agree.
