Thread: CP3, Dwight Howard teammates?

Chris Paul and Dwight Howard have been in consistent contact recently about the possibility of becoming teammates next season, according to league sources.

Paul and Howard will be the biggest free agents on the market this summer, and their desire is to play together, the sources said.

"They would love to play together if somebody can make it happen," one of the sources said.

The Atlanta Hawks could make it happen. Atlanta, which is Howard's hometown, has the cap room to sign both players to maximum-salaried contracts.

rest - http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/nba/s...gether-sources

That would certainly put Atlanta on the map. They still don't have any shooters, but they could at least be a playoff contender. It would give them a good reason to move Josh Smith out of town and put Al Horford at the 4 spot.

I have a sick feeling Cuban is going to try and make this work for the Mavs. It would be tricky for him to pull it off, but if anyone can...it'd be him.

I know that I have always been a harsh critic of Dwight Howard. I may be out of touch with him as a player. Do people really have that much faith in him, still?

Originally Posted by CoachChaz

I have a sick feeling Cuban is going to try and make this work for the Mavs. It would be tricky for him to pull it off, but if anyone can...it'd be him.

I will never understand why you hate it when NBA owners try to make their teams better. Mark Cuban would be stupid not to try to make that happen.

Originally Posted by King87

I know that I have always been a harsh critic of Dwight Howard. I may be out of touch with him as a player. Do people really have that much faith in him, still?

I don't think they do after these playoffs. He FINALLY showed up last night, but has been pretty non-existant throughout the postsesason so far. Now I know some will give him the "but he's hurt" excuse, but I think that although he has the skills to be dominant, it seems those skills are very inconsistent. Never knowing WHEN they will pop up.

Originally Posted by BaileyTheBest

I will never understand why you hate it when NBA owners try to make their teams better. Mark Cuban would be stupid not to try to make that happen.

I don't think Coach was saying anything negative about Cuban trying to make it happen.

Originally Posted by Ravage!!!

I don't think Coach was saying anything negative about Cuban trying to make it happen.

There was another thread in which Coach said that he hates NBA teams that try to buy titles, and he would consider stopping rooting for the Mavs if Cuban tried to buy a title in the future.

This is the post I am referring to:

Originally Posted by CoachChaz

It goes beyond him being a rival. And the Mavs may soon be on my out list, too if Cuban decides to try to buy another ring.

I can understand adding pieces. But when you go out and add 2 or 3 BIG pieces to a 12 man roster, it makes a world of difference. I'm not talking about something like Peyton Manning and Wes Welker over 2 years. They are a part of a 53 man roster and while their performance is significant, it's only a portion and they fall under the hard salary cap. The vast majority of the roster is developed by the team

But the Yankees dropping a ton on someone every year, or the Heat basically having 2 people they actually drafted and developed is a different ball game. It takes the competitive fun out of the game when teams just go out and sign other teams players to create their own team. Adding pieces as needed is one thing. Buying an entire team is another.

Did you have as much of an issue with the way Boston got their big three? Does the fact that Allen and KG were acquired in trades matter at all?

Originally Posted by King87

Did you have as much of an issue with the way Boston got their big three? Does the fact that Allen and KG were acquired in trades matter at all?

It does. I have no problem with S.A. because they drafted theirs and I really dont have much of a problem with Boston because they didnt go throwing money out at players and there wasnt any kind of collusion amonst the players to "join forces". But this crap of "Hey bro...let's go play somewhere together so we can create a dominant team and still get paid because that team will dump all their current players and be able to sign other good pieces because good vets will want to play with us for the chance to get a ring and they'll be the ones taking a paycut" is bullshit.

It is possible to beat teams like that without using their formula, as Dallas proved 2 years ago, but it's getting harder and harder. If you cant afford a "big 3" your chances are slim. Pretty much have to catch lightning in a bottle at that point, because let's be honest...how many truly dominant players are in the NBA? 12? 15? And when they all play for 4 or 5 teams, the competition level takes a nose dive.

Originally Posted by CoachChaz

It does. I have no problem with S.A. because they drafted theirs and I really dont have much of a problem with Boston because they didnt go throwing money out at players and there wasnt any kind of collusion amonst the players to "join forces". But this crap of "Hey bro...let's go play somewhere together so we can create a dominant team and still get paid because that team will dump all their current players and be able to sign other good pieces because good vets will want to play with us for the chance to get a ring and they'll be the ones taking a paycut" is bullshit.

It is possible to beat teams like that without using their formula, as Dallas proved 2 years ago, but it's getting harder and harder. If you cant afford a "big 3" your chances are slim. Pretty much have to catch lightning in a bottle at that point, because let's be honest...how many truly dominant players are in the NBA? 12? 15? And when they all play for 4 or 5 teams, the competition level takes a nose dive.

I gotcha. I think the answer to the big three formula is building a team like Detroit had. But finding guys who can play great defense and get 20 points a pop is hard. Finding defenders like Wallace is also really hard.

Originally Posted by King87

I gotcha. I think the answer to the big three formula is building a team like Detroit had. But finding guys who can play great defense and get 20 points a pop is hard. Finding defenders like Wallace is also really hard.

Memphis and Indiana are built that way and they made good runs this year, but it's just so hard to win a championship that way. People always look at what Detroit did, but that is the exception, not the rule.

Think of this for a second. Other than that Pistons team, every single title winner since 1991 has had either Michael Jordan, Hakeem Olajuwon, Kobe/Shaq, Duncan/Robinson/Ginobili/Parker, Dirk Nowitzki, Pierce/KG or Wade/LeBron on the team. You just have to have top-level superstars to win in the NBA.

I agree with that BTB. Now, I don't think the Pacers were nearly as dominant as the Pistons were defensively, but your point has a lot of merit. Even if my argument is right, it still relies on being able to find that many capable players.

Star power means more in the NBA;essentially you're playing with a ten man team.

I've pretty much stopped watching the NBA because of this. It's boring. I prefer a league like the NFL any day of the week.