Every weekday throughout the season, ESPNNewYork.com will tackle a burning question about the Knicks in our "Opening Tip."
Today's Burning Question: Would the Knicks be better off if they'd kept Chauncey Billups instead of signing Tyson Chandler?
Close your eyes. Pretend for a minute that you're Knicks interim GM Glen Grunwald.
It's early December and you hear that free agent Tyson Chandler is interested in signing with the Knicks. Chandler would improve your defense by leaps and bounds just by suiting up. He's also team with Amare Stoudemire and Carmelo Anthony to form the league's top front line (on paper).
But to get him, you'd have to get rid of Chauncey Billups, a veteran point guard that's vital to Mike D'Antoni's offense.
Would you pull the trigger? It would be awfully hard not to.
But, knowing what you know about the Knicks through 20 games, do you think the Knicks would have been better off with Chandler or Billups?
It's a question that was bandied about among a couple writers before Knicks practice on Monday and I wanted to know what you all thought.
Clearly, Chandler is the main reason why the Knicks are 10th in defensive efficiency, a measurement of points allowed per 100 possessions. And he is a tremendous presence in the locker room.
But it's also clear that the Knicks (7-13) sorely need a veteran at point guard. They rank 24th in offensive efficiency and are 26th in the league in assists per game.
Surely, Billups, whose averaging 16 points, four assists and making 37 percent of his 3-pointers with the Clippers, could help the Knicks offensively.
But, in the grand scheme of things, would the Knicks be better off with Billups or Chandler this season?
Let us know what you think in the comments section below.
You can follow Ian Begley on Twitter.