Who's the NBA MVP?

[bwitty24]

Chris Paul is hands down the MVP. He is so ridiculous that it isn't even fair. Kobe is a great player don't get me wrong, but he is not the MOST VALUABLE PLAYER. You take Chris Paul off that team and they suck.

[realmofotalk]

Yeah, right, you take Kobe off the Lakers and they're the Showtime Lakers again.

[Witlon]

I think they couldn't go wrong with 3 guys, Kobe, Lebron or Paul. Take any of them of their team's, there's no way they're anywhere near a playoff berth. Wheras, the Celtics without KG, are still a playoff team in the East.

[Kingdom_of_Zito]

Paul has a pretty good supporting cast, though. The hornets just have Pargo, Wells and nothing else off the bench. Kobe finally has a supporting cast, Lebron will prolly never have a supporting cast. I know the celtics are awesome and all that fun stuff, but I'm convinced Monta Ellis, Andre Iguodala or Baron Davis need MVP mention.

But Black Mamba for the win, Kobe gets my vote.

Edit:
Really, there should be co-MVPs because I stand by my thread on Paul on sister site. His numbers are legendary.

[Witlon]

If we're going by supporting cast, then it's Lebron's award. Paul(Chandler, Peja) and Kobe(Bynum or Gasol) both have a better supporting cast than him.

AI2 definately deserves some mention, even though Dre Miller has helped that team a ton. I'd love to see how bad the Wolves would be without Al Jefferson, because that would just be insanley commical.

[bwitty24]

How old is Peja now? 90? Chris Paul makes those players a good supporting cast.

[GiantsFanatic]

Originally Posted by Witlon I think they couldn't go wrong with 3 guys, Kobe, Lebron or Paul. Take any of them of their team's, there's no way they're anywhere near a playoff berth. Wheras, the Celtics without KG, are still a playoff team in the East.

Yeah right, thats why Boston won only 24 games last year.

[NYgiantsfan5689]

Originally Posted by GiantsFan83 Yeah right, thats why Boston won only 24 games last year.

They DID go 7-2 without him during his injury this year.

[ljshorty89]

Remember, its not as compared to last year without him, its THIS YEAR without him. This year without him they have Pierce AND Allen, in addition to a much better supporting cast(Rajon Rondo, anyone?). Garnett is not QUITE as integral as the other guys are to their teams because he has 2 other superstars

[GiantsFanatic]

Yea, but he's the main focal point of the Celtics, he's the reason why the Celtics are in first place with the best record, he also makes his teammates better. Nash got his MVPs using the same reasoning/logic, so I dont see why Garnett cant get the MVP.

[ljshorty89]

Nash got his MVP's because Amare Stoudamire hadn't proven enough statistically, and Nash led the team. Garnett doesn't have to run the offense or be his entire team. He can take time to recover from injuries, whereas Nash couldn't.

[GiantsFanatic]

Originally Posted by ljshorty89 Remember, its not as compared to last year without him, its THIS YEAR without him. This year without him they have Pierce AND Allen, in addition to a much better supporting cast(Rajon Rondo, anyone?). Garnett is not QUITE as integral as the other guys are to their teams because he has 2 other superstars

So? Nash had 2 superstars(Staudamire and Marion), how come he got 2 MVPs? Kobe has a good supporting cast aswell, so does Paul.

[browntown653]

Originally Posted by GiantsFan83 Yeah right, thats why Boston won only 24 games last year.

I don't know how relevant this is to the MVP argument, but Boston without KG still has Allen, Pierce, Rondo, Perkins, and a good bench, and a terrible conference. So yes, they're a playoff team, but not close to what they are now.