It’s been fairly slow news day in Knicksland (sorry, Allan Houston), meaning the time is ripe for rampant speculation, theorizing, and conjecturing. Chris Paul rumors are all the rage, though some have dared to try and cool the excitement (good luck with that), suggesting that it may be in the Knicks best interests to hold off on the maybe-impending CP3 sweepstakes and acquire unrestricted free agent Tony Parker next year. The idea has merit: Parker will be cheaper than Paul, in terms of both money and players, and not pursuing for Paul may mean the Knicks are able to keep the roughly $15 million in cap space that could be traded. Parker’s a very nice player, and I would be happy if he found his way to MSG. Beggars can’t be choosers, but humor me for the sake of the great fun in NBA trade rumors: we’re talking about Chris Paul here, and he ain’t no schmuck. Let’s not equate a brilliant player to a nice player.

An overview of the Chris Paul situation was posted earlier this week, covering what the Knicks would be able to offer. The Knicks will have a payroll somewhere around $43 million next year, if Curry/Azubuike are kept and Chandler moves on after the Knicks don’t match an offer sheet. Nobody knows what will come of the CBA and salary cap, but based on this year’s figures, Parker would/should command a starting salary of at most $11 million – David Lee range. Next year’s shallow crop of starting point guards (Parker, Mo Williams [could opt to stay with CLE], and T.J. Ford) may ensure that Parker gets more than he is worth – Parker should not be considered a top ten PG. He’s a popular player on a championship team with a popular wife, meaning that the public exaggerates Parker’s talents and ignores his weaknesses. First, there’s little telling how Parker would translate his game from one shaped by the calculating Gregg Popovich to the guns-a-blazin’ Knicks offense. Parker can run and get to the hoop with ease, but he is nearly as one-dimensional as they come. He’s a great scorer, but a negative on defense and a terrible rebounder. He’s not a brilliant passer and struggles from long-range.

What the Knicks need is a floor general. Amar’e needs to be fed, as does Gallinari, and I fail to see how Parker would be an upgrade over Raymond Felton in this regard. Felton’s FG% from midrange exceeded Parker’s by 10%, and also had a clear advantage from beyond the arc. Parker will command near-zero attention there, and while Felton’s three-point shooting has wildly fluctuated, he is still a threat that needs to be contained. But Chris Paul trumps all.

As the above charts indicate, Paul’s shooting is not only more varied and thus unpredictable (FGA variance of 1.4 compared to Parker’s 5.5), but it also more consistent and efficient across the board (6.2% more efficient, on average). If the Knicks want to have the best chance of acquiring Paul, they need to signal to Hornets front office that they would be willing to take back bigman Emeka Okafor and his equally big contract. Of the three teams Paul listed (with the Knicks at the top, apparently), New York seems to maybe have the greatest ability to take Okafor (who’s no schmuck either), and as Paul has no no-trade clause, the Hornets will be most receptive to the team willing to lift the Okafor burden. However, the expiring deals of Azubuike and Curry will obviously not be enough to secure Paul and absorb Okafor. The Knicks will have to give up legitimate assets, selected from the group comprised of Chandler, Gallinari, Randolph, Douglas, maybe Mozgov, and potentially Felton.

Tony Parker	Chris Paul
Less production	#1 PG production
Cheaper (but still potentially overpaid)	Two years remaining on deal, would command max contract
28 years old	25 years old
Maintain all player assets + $15 million in cap room	Lose cap space (Curry/Azubuike) and some youth (Gallo/Chandler/Randolph/etc.)

The immediate question becomes, does Paul’s value exceed that of a chunk of the Knick’s youth core and future flexibility? I would emphatically say yes. Chandler’s days on the team would appear to be numbered, so the team should not hesitate with him. Gallinari has obviously evolved into a fan favorite and a very nice player at a young age, and there’s a chance the Knicks could get a deal done without parting with Gallo. Walsh and D’Antoni are infatuated with Randolph, and Douglas has performed nicely, but at the end of the day, the ability for young players to accumulate trade value comprises a major chunk of their overall worth. If all the young players the Knicks give up reach their ceilings, then well, maybe they would give Paul a run for his money. But Paul is a known and proven commodity would can tear up defenses even when playing on a lackluster Hornets squad. Having Randolph play a bit in a Knicks uni would be nice, yeah, but amidst all the hype, he still actually hasn’t, well, delivered. The Knicks agreeing to take Okafor would lessen New Orleans’ demands (hopefully from Gallinari), but at the same time, additional players would have to be included to match the contracts.

Last year, Paul produced roughly 36.72 points per game (38 minutes) and Okafor produced 18.14 points per game (29 minutes). In contrast, Gallinari produced 15.67 points per game (34 minutes), Chandler 15.49 (36 minutes), Douglas 8.11 (19 minutes), and Randolph 14.37 (23 minutes). There might as well be no chance the Hornets rationally demand all four players, but if they did, the Knicks would still be receiving more production from Paul/Okafor (by 1.22 points), discounting the likely minutes increase Okafor would have as the Knicks’ starter. By comparison, Parker produced 20.62 points per game (31 minutes), and the possibility of the Spurs seeking a sign-and-trade means the Knicks would still risk losing assets.

In addition, if the Hornets end up shopping Paul, a trade would prevent Orlando acquiring the league’s top point guard. If the Knicks expect to be legitimately in contention in a couple of years, the Magic under Jameer Nelson is much easier to swallow than a Paul-Howard tandem. And one Florida superpower is enough for me. Depending on who is traded, a trade would probably hurt a bit, and Paul would certainly take a huge chunk out of the cap space. Paul’s interest in the Knicks is a validation of Donnie Walsh’s rebuilding plan, but in order to fulfill the expectations pre-Triumvirate, the team cannot take steps short. D’Antoni thrived in Phoenix with Steve Nash, and to acquire Chris Paul would be to make the Knicks as feared as they have been in over a decade. Boston did not take shortcuts with Ray Allen/Kevin Garnett/Paul Pierce – they lost Al Jefferson and youth, but ended up with the Larry O’Brien Championship Trophy. Risks have to be made if the East is to be topped, and if Amar’e with his declaration of the team “being back” is to be vindicated, Paul is critical and a rare opportunity that cannot be passed on.