Knicks Rumors: Chris Andersen Is Ideal Target to Provide Frontcourt Depth
The New York Knicks are looking desperately for some frontcourt help, and Chris "Birdman" Andersen would be an ideal target.
Andersen would be a great fit for New York for a variety of reasons. He would step right in as a fourth option behind Amar'e Stoudemire, Tyson Chandler and Marcus Camby.
Stoudemire fills the role as the main inside scorer, while Chandler and Camby are both top-tier rebounders and solid defenders.
Andersen would be a more physical presence who could end up as the Knicks' top interior defender. Last season, Andersen averaged over a block per game despite playing only 15.2 minutes per game.
Matched with Camby and Chandler, the Knicks could have one of the most defensively intimidating frontcourts in the NBA. Very few teams would be able to consistently score inside on that frontcourt.
Andersen is an underrated offensive presence. A former slam-dunk contest contender, Andersen is an efficient interior scorer capable of the occasional highlight reel dunk.
Where Andersen would really be the best fit, though, is his personality. Andersen stands out on and off the court. His flamboyant personal appearance paired with a humorous personality would make him a media favorite in New York.
He also has a redemption story that would be media gold for the Knicks. Andersen was expelled from the league for two years for illegal drug abuse. Since his reinstatement, though, Andersen has avoided trouble with drugs.
One concern that could keep this deal from happening is Andersen's involvement in an investigation regarding child pornography. No details have emerged from this story in months, though, so this probably won't be an issue.
All in all, Andersen would be a great fit in New York on and off the court. He would improve the Knicks' frontcourt immensely and give them the ability to completely lock down the paint.
For the veteran minimum, that would be a great deal.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?