If I were to take a guess, I would say that the vast majority of Knicks fans want nothing to do with Iverson. Can I blame them? Iverson went to Detroit last year and the results were not pretty. To make matters worse, Chauncey Billups helped bring the Nuggets to the Western Conference finals, perhaps proving that Iverson's brand of basketball does not win in the NBA. Last season was not a memorable one for Iverson. The lack of interest in the former MVP and scoring champ.
So again, is Iverson really an option? Let me play devil's advocate for a second and present this scenario. Iverson was brought into Detroit to play the point, a position he is capable of playing, but not the position he is best at playing. He was brought to a veteran team that was well set in its ways. The incumbent roster was comfortable playing with each other. Taking out Billups and adding Iverson (two completely different players) ruined that comfort level. Iverson changed that gameplan.
The Knicks need to get Sessions in my opinion. I do not want to give him the full MLE, especially if Donnie finds himself competing against himself (LAC should not be an option for Sessions. LA would be a graveyard for his career. The only competition would be the Bucks matching at this point). Sessions is a PG... a young, talented PG. So what would Iverson bring to the table? Iverson is best suited at the SG spot. Iverson has been one of the premier shooting guards in the NBA ever since he stepped foot on the NBA hardwood. There is absolutely no denying that. On the bi-annual deal, does Iverson fit as our starting SG? Iverson wants to play for a coach that will understand his game. What exactly is his game? Quick shooting. High volume shooting. Speed. Energy. Running the fast break. Playmaking. Would D'Antoni understand how to utilize that kind of game? Iverson is not a great outside shooter, a major negative.
The Knicks need star power. The Knicks need to make the playoffs this year. We know both of those things. But is Iverson the Answer? With high volume shooters like Wilson Chandler (certain games), Al Harrington, and Larry Hughes (among others), I am not sure if Iverson fits the game plan here. Perhaps this summer has humbled Iverson. Perhaps Iverson now realizes that he cannot be the chucker that he has been for his entire career. In NY, Iverson would not be the man. He would start, but he would have to be a part of a team. If the Knicks bring back Nate Robinson, then forget about Iverson. They would play a similar role. But if we can only have either for one season, do you want Iverson or Nate? I might give Nate the edge because of his shooting ability, but my gut tells me that Iverson would help the Knicks win more games, if for nothing else than simply being a bigger presence on the floor.
Again, if I were to decide on Iverson, I am not sure what I would say. If this team was not stocked with one year mercenaries, I would say "absolutely not" to AI. But with the one year rentals, chemistry for the future is not the objective for the 2009-10 season. The Knicks right now lack a true identity. The Nuggets had Melo. The Pistons had their core. What do the Knicks have? The only big problem would be a possible negative effect on Gallo and Wilson. Iverson will take shots away from those two guys. But so will Nate.
I am up in the air on this situation. For the 1 year, bi-annual exception, would AI worth the risk? Right now, I am leaning towards NO. The reason is that Iverson does not bring this team closer to a championship, only to the playoffs. Iverson will not morph this team into an elite team in the East... I do not think at least. There is a big risk, if just for one season. But I can see the argument for why it's worth trying. Again, I am not reading Isola's mind, but I get the impression that he would want the guy. Others adamantly say no. As of right now, I say take care of Sessions. If Sessions does not come, then I might be more inclined to say yes to Iverson.
Your thoughts? Is Iverson really an option?