I just don't get it. How on earth have the Nets made a "better deal" than the Knicks when the Knicks also got Chauncey Billups? They didn't give up all those players FOR JUST MELO. Oh, and the Nets DID get ONE player back for a lot of their assets AND HE ISN'T SIGNED YET.
PER, TS%, these concepts are decently valid but rarely pass the NBA eye test. Watch NBA games. There are recipes to victories especially in the playoffs where we all know you throw calculators out the window: foul calls and timely hoops down the stretch. Melo had a +28 efficiency rating against Williams' Jazz in the playoffs last year. Why didn't the Nuggs win? Maybe because they had a back-up coach? Maybe because Kenyon Martin's dollar for dollar production and untradable contract restricted Melo from getting pieces around him?
I had someone e-mail me how poorly Carmelo's "efficiency" was in comparison Gallinari and Chandler's except here's the thing...those guys went into Milwaukee and lost by 100 earlier in the year. Star players win games against inferior teams most-all of the time. The Bucks were superior against a young, inexperienced albeit "efficient" team. The Knicks WON last night. Melo hit a huge shot down the stretch and Billups, the afterthought to calculator heads, made 12 free throws. Everyone get the pencils out. That's 6 perfectly efficient 2 point possessions, or 4 perfectly efficient 3 pointers made. Gallinari was efficient because he got to the stripe, but Billups, a World Champion, will get the benefit of more calls down the stretch. This is the NBA, remember?
Again, how on earth can the Nets be the "winners" of a deal where the teams gave up relative assets, the Knicks got a championship point guard, and the Nets still lack ink on a contract extension meaning Williams becoming a Knick is still in play.