From the look of things, Melo probably won't go anywhere. New York isn't offering enough or so won't the Lakers. From the Lakers standpoint, they are having difficulties parting ways with Bynum, so to me, New York has the best chance, but they have to be willing to give up Fields or Felton...maybe both.

Maybe if New York can pull in Nash...then maybe, I might consider them contenders.

In regards to which teams would be eliminated, that depends on how much money each of these cities are contributing to the NBA.

Anyway, I thought of the same idea a while back when the NBA was talking about contraction. I think 24 teams would be adequate enough, in return, the league would become more competitive. Also, as already mentioned, having eight teams out of the 24 make the playoffs is a great idea that would raise the competition of the game.

Question is however, will dropping down to 24 teams shorten the regular season? That can be a good or bad thing.

In regards to which teams would be eliminated, that depends on how much money each of these cities are contributing to the NBA.

Anyway, I thought of the same idea a while back when the NBA was talking about contraction. I think 24 teams would be adequate enough, in return, the league would become more competitive. Also, as already mentioned, having eight teams out of the 24 make the playoffs is a great idea that would raise the competition of the game.

Question is however, will dropping down to 24 teams shorten the regular season? That can be a good or bad thing.

Derek isn't the problem, it's the teams offensive consistancy, on top of the fact that they are an aging team who has been to the finals the past three years, core players who participated in the world games and the olympics, plus this team has been injury ridden throughout this year.

Put all of that in perspective and yet, they are second in the west and I believe fifth overall. Because of that, do they need a trade? Probably. Does it need to be a big trade? More and likely not. Are they considered done if they don't make a move? I don't think so.

But it does raise a red flag when the defending champs go 0-4 against the elite of the NBA up to this point, however; the Lakers do face those teams again for redemption, and that would tell us where the Lakers truly stand going into the playoffs. It's a chance I think Mitch needs to take because I am confident enough that this team doesn't need a trade....they just need the playoffs to come sooner than later.

Who is to tell how the Lakers will look like by 2013. Let's not forget guys like Dwight Howard, Chris Paul who will be free agents by that time, assuming they don't re-sign with their current teams. The Lakers attract talent their way when they need it. Sure, Blake Griffin is or will be a great player, but will he be able to lead a team? Like Melo, who is a prolific scorer for the Denver Nuggets however, 8 years in the league....No titles. So therefore, Blake Griffin doesn't guarantee you a title unless he is able to lead a team to the top like a Kobe or D. Wade.

Besides, I have nothing against the Clippers, and I wish them the best, but they will never......and I mean EVER......overtake the Lakers!

NBA 2K11 to me is the best Basketball simulation game ever made. Love it!

If that's true, nice job on your research.

Agreed! I would go with players having to lose their jobs which is unfortunate, but it's something that happens within the regular workforce.

I also agree to a contraction for the NBA. Like Rudedog stated "The league, right now, has too many teams who have been mediocre/bad for far too long". But the question is, how will the NBA sort out the stars/all-stars on these teams. Also, something to think about, will some of these players on these teams that get contracted lose their jobs or will the NBA allow a larger roster for each team, like a 17-18 man roster.

I also agree with the contraction of the Kings, Clippers, Bucks, and Grizzlies however, I was thinking if the NBA would go down to 24 teams in the league, with 12 teams per conference. One of the problems I see in the NBA is the lack of urgency through a long 82 game season. Having less teams in the NBA and only allowing the top four teams in each conference to advance in the playoffs should make it more competive throughout the season. In otherwards, having only 33% of the teams make the playoffs is better off than having over 50% make it, where at best, half of those teams really should have a deserving spot in the playoffs.

So the two other teams I think the NBA should get rid of would be the Charlotte Bobcats and the Toronto Raptors.

It actually worked....make it happen Mitch! LOL!

For D-Fish and Walton....if it works...LOL! Wishful thinking.

Lakers either win big or lose by a little.

Lakers win +13
Lakers Lose -5

Chicago at New York-- New York wins at the Garden, will be a close one.
Boston at Orlando-- Boston continues winning streak, Pierce plays big
Miami at Lakers-- Lakers win, this game is more important to L.A. this people think
Denver at OKC-- No Carmelo, no problems for OKC.
Portland at GS-- Tough one to decide, will give it to the home team. GS Wins.

Merry Christmas Everyone!

LOL! Just to think that you have Wade, LeBron and Bosh on your team and yet, you have to run Fan Up campaigns to get fans to their seats is pretty pathetic. Only in Miami. Anyway, I always thought LeBron would have been a better fit in New York and would have been more advantageous for himself.

Will dispute the both of you, the best action movie of all times is Die Hard. (Unless, your talking about best action movie between Stallone/Arnold). In that case, Terminator 2...best by far.

From what I understood, Stalone didn't turn down Beverly Hills Cop, instead, he was dropped from the role because Stallone had different views about the character that the director didn't agree with. In otherwards, Stallone wanted more bang to the character. Obviously, Eddie Murphy was the better pick.

Almost certain that Boston will be their once again this year. They kept most of this team intact AND they're defense is not to be reckoned with.

Whether Rudy Fernandez starts over Corey Brewer or not, he would still get more playing time then he does now with Portland. BTW, that starting spot isn't a sealed deal for Brewer. If the Bulls feel that Rudy is a better fit in the starting line up, then so be it.

Shouldn't take anything away from Rudy. The guy is a talented player, but has been shadowing Roy for far too long.