Chris Paul: Too Good to Not Trade

Another thing that happened when I went to Italy (yes, I'm still recovering): Darren Collison went and got all awesome on us. Expected only to be a solid back-up to demigod Chris Paul, the Hornets rookie has done more than fill in admirably. Instead, those unafraid to risk heresy have gone so far as to suggest that Collison has made Paul expendable.

Of course, this is flatly absurd. Chris Paul isn't just the league's best point guard, he should be up there in the discussion for finest overall, alongside LeBron James and (certainly) that rickety Kobe Bryant. Steve Nash, Deron Williams, these are tremendous players. But neither can touch Chris Paul.

It's also worth noting that, as a supreme PG, Paul is judged differently than those at other positions. Like a quarterback in football, ultimately the record of the team comes down on the PG -- especially the true and pure ones -- in ways centers or swingmen simply can't imagine. And this is how it should be. Paul's gifts, such as they are, pertain mostly to affecting the rest of the team. He runs the offense, makes others better, and any number of other truisms that we mouth from memory when Paul, Nash, or Williams takes over a game. Not through super-athletic feats, but by animating the entire bunch around them.

If anything, we've learned to take certain aspects of Chris Paul for granted; sure, he's as ferocious and productive an all-around player as you'll find in the league, but what about that broader, symbolic PG effect?

So please, remember just how good Paul is, even if his Hornets don't show it. Here's the paradox of truly gifted point guards: To some extent, their teammates place a limit on how much they can do their job. Paul makes others around him better, perhaps beyond their wildest dreams, but he can't work miracles. After a point, he's trying to take them higher than they have the eardrums or stomachs for.

At the risk of defiling this conceptual model, it's like LeBron before he had anything resembling a supporting cast. How much a player can make others better is, sadly, always going to depend on the quality of his teammates. Or, in the case of most of Nash's teams, a coach's ability to turn oddball players into highly-specialized pawns in a PG's hands. No guard has had his teammates so thoroughly put at his disposal, so little left to their own devices, as Nash. The lone exception was Shaquille O'Neal, and look how that turned out.

The Hornets as currently constructed are a mediocre, if spunky, team. We're a far cry from 2007-08, when Paul had a rare mix of actual talent and enlightened drones, buzzing around him. Today's Hornets are a good old-fashioned muck, lacking overall coherence, hierarchy, consistency, or even a cohesive identity. Who knew that Byron Scott could be missed so much.

That's not to say that all is ruined; David West keeps it thorough, Emeka Okafor will wake up one day on the other side of veteran-hood, and that Marcus Thornton kid can score. Still, if like Paul, you're looking at it from the control tower, there's only so much to work with. Not only have we come to take Chris Paul for granted, because his guard-ly duties are judged by their own set of standards. Paul himself can only do so much to, well, assert what Chris Paul is all about.

And that's where the "Paul is expendable" meme must raise its ugly, unfathomable head. How does a team, hardly known for its rock-solid future and name-brand recognition, part ways with a future Hall of Famer whom everyone loves? What message does that send to the fans, much less the rest of the roster going forward? Still, it's high time we acknowledge that there would be pretty cogent logic underlying this move: under the current conditions, Collison is capable of giving New Orleans nearly as much as Paul can. That's a testament to the state of the Hornets team, not a comparison between the two guards. It also ignores Paul's all-around superiority. But as a floor general and facilitator, Paul is being wasted on this mediocre squad.

(Oh, and while Paul may have been the figurehead of the city, now that the Saints have that Vince Lombardi stashed somewhere in town there's a bit of civic breathing room.)

It all comes down to a simple analogy. As a car-owner, each time I fill 'er up, I have a choice between several different grades of fuel. However, my ride -- a decade-old Saturn that runs well -- simply doesn't need the High-High-Champagne-Flax-and-Otters-Special-Brew (Limited). The engine of Gandalf the Grey (her name) is too spent too appreciate the subtle differences between that fancy stuff and plain old "plus" or (gasp!) "standard." Does that make me the city of New Orleans? No matter. Unless the Hornets somehow overhaul their roster, or bring in a brilliant new coaching mind to apply new forms of order, Collison is adequate.

That's not to take anything away from Collison; he's frequently spectacular, and would have half the league drooling if the Hornets sought to trade him. Nor does it actually make sense to fault Paul -- quietly, even subconsciously -- for the limitations of his team. However, if there's reason to trade Paul, it's that he's just too good, and Collison, he's so good that losing Chris Paul wouldn't be like Pau Gasol to the Lakers.

This scenario depends on the Hornets getting back, say, an All-Star, a first-rounder, and some cap relief. After all, no one's looking to downplay how valuable Paul would be to a contender. Paul is under contract for two more seasons, at roughly $15 million per. Without getting all Trade Machine, let's just say that NOLA would have to throw in some other player, and this hypothetical trade partner would have to be the inverse of the Hornets. As with the Heat's 2004 trade of Lamar Odom and Caron Butler for Shaquille O'Neal, they would have to make a determination that Paul's abilities can do more for their championship chances than whatever secondary All-Star their roster currently harbors. In addition, if things go as planned, that draft pick wouldn't be worth much once Paul dug in and got going.

Let the speculation stop here, but with a twist: imagine Chris Paul as a sudden entrant into the drama we call 2010.

That leaves the Hornets, with the excellent Collison in place of the sublime Paul, presumably bolstered by additional talent, and gaining financial flexibility to make another move. If the team gets too good, well, then it would make sense to (in theory) bring back Chris Paul. But that's the trade-off the Hornets would have to be willing to make. Sacrifice one of the league's best players to make the team better -- without slipping so much at the one that it sets the team back several centuries. It's a vicious circle, perhaps, and yet you can hardly feel bad for a Hornets team that's in a position to pull it off. The key, though, is that they just not settle for flexibility. This trade would have to be about getting worse to get better, right away.

So, am I suggesting Jeff Bower rush out and start shopping Paul? No, because leverage is key here. He should also hope and pray that Paul indicate an interest in leaving, though not to anyone other than himself. A dream scenario, I know, but that's the ideal path here. Certainly, GMs around the league know that Paul's no longer untouchable. Bower will take calls. An offer may come along.

If hysteria breaks out, though, the delicate balance that makes this deal plausible falls to pieces. And then, the Hornets would just be another crappy team forced to part ways with their superstar -- not a franchise at a crossroads making a carefully-considered, perfectly rational decision about how best to distribute its overall level of talent. And that, my friends, is the dividing line between civilization and barbarians eating our finest linens.