'17-'18 POY discussion

[HeartBreakKid]

Okay, but a few things

Lebron James isn't an employee, literally.

This is the player of the year award, not the employee of the year award, literally.

Lebron James isn't the primary reason why the Cavs struggled, and I don't mean that in the sense that LBJ is a superstar so his positives out weight his negatives, I mean

What does LBJ's "baggage" have to do with the following

- The Cavs being old

- Iman Shumpert washed up because of injuries

- Tristian Thompson didn't train during the off season

- Isaiah Thomas (who actually did have toxic statements) not being as good as he used to be

- JR Smith getting washed up (back to point #1)

- Tyron Lue being a scrub coach, and you can't use some asinine argument that he's the coach only because of James - because that was done two years ago

- Kevin Love having injury and mental health issues (unless we are going to conclude that he suffers from mental health because of Lebron James..which I am pretty sure no one here is qualified to make such an assumption)

- Rodney Hood incapable of scoring, when his only use is to score

- Ditto with Jordan Clarkson




I mean the Cavs weren't good....yes, there was a media **** - because the Cavs were expected to be better to be dominant. Basically, if Giannis was in place of LBJ, the results could be exactly the same but there wouldn't be much of a **** storm simply because there are no expectations. Because this was a team trying to win a championship despite the fact they clearly were not good enough to win one this lead to a lot of media speculation - but they WERENT BAD BECAUSE OF THIS. There is no causation, or even a remotely tangible way of proving there was a toxic causation for the Cavs 'mediocreness' - and despite all the media hooplah, the Cavs actually did exactly what they were expected too anyway which was make it to the finals and get swept.

So what exactly is the measure of LBJ's toxicity? What did it cost to Cavs? Give us some tangible answers - because it seems like MJ/Dhs are just narrative bashing - if you guys are not, what should the Cavs have done differently to get a better result. If the Cavs literally couldn't have gotten a better result this season, then what are you guys actually criticizing?

[dhsilv2]

How is lebron not an employee? Because he's a contractor?

[dhsilv2]

So what exactly is the measure of LBJ's toxicity? What did it cost to Cavs? Give us some tangible answers - because it seems like MJ/Dhs are just narrative bashing - if you guys are not, what should the Cavs have done differently to get a better result. If the Cavs literally couldn't have gotten a better result this season, then what are you guys actually criticizing?

What is narrative bashing?

I honestly don't see any point in really drilling into this given your tone and the direction of what you're saying. Perhaps you could explain why you're confused by what's been said.

I will add this (edit add)

[youtube]https://youtu.be/WaZSfGTeqhQ?t=15m13s[/youtube]

Maybe you don't see stories like this as way Duncan was truly one of the greats and maybe this doesn't give you reason to move Duncan ahead of players that you might maybe think were a touch better. For me leadership is one of the most important parts of winning basketball. You can call it a narrative if you'd like. Lebron has never looked like an elite leader, and this year the summation of his mistakes and his pressure on the organization failed them. The results were saved by an epic playoff run by him and a lot of dumb luck that teams just missed jumpers in game 7's that could have changed the outcome. The cavs were absolutely lucky to beat the pacers and they were lucky to beat the celtics.

[MyUniBroDavis]

I'm giving them credit as well, they just aren't in the POY debate like Harden is.

But my thing is, hypothetically, if a guy plays bad and is carried by his teammates, why would it help his case for the POY vote?
Now, that’s not what happened, but I feel like harden’s getting too much credit for how well the rockets performed in the warriors series.

Not only can I blame him, I'm basically telling y'all that I think you're ignoring important things when you're evaluating players if you don't consider a player's intangible impact like this.
I think people need to bring this back to the real world. LeBron is an employee. His value is defined by all the impact he has, positive or negative, to the franchise he plays for. If he chooses to protect himself to the extent that he undermines the franchise this is his right, but he then gets blame for the damage he does.
It's not about loyalty, it's about having faith in the people you work with that they'll do good work.
Did the Cavs deserve that faith? Well no, but LeBron's the one who decided to get back in bed with them. When he pulled this sort of thing the first time around in Cleveland I was very sympathetic, but seeing it all repeat it's quite clear what LeBron's role in forcing short-term thinking was.

So are you saying that lebron should commit because he chose to come back? But you are also acknowledging the cavs don’t deserve this commitment? He came back to bring them a title and he did, and of course the cavs are going to try to win short term because we all know they aren’t gonna win a title with lebron on their team, whether it be now or in 30 years.

I get what you are saying, lebrons unwillingness to commit his future means the cavs don’t really know what to do. I don’t personally think it’s fair to look at it that way because the cavs haven’t shown they deserve that commitment, and while you agree on that point you say it’s lebrons fault because he went there in the first place. But he went there with the sole purpose of “going back home” and “bringing them a championship” and he did so.

I think we should just agree to disagree on this point, because we clearly just have different viewpoints on this.

Re: not LeBron's fault Cavs got a bad trade for Kyrie. I'm honestly not sure what you're expecting they could have gotten when Kyrie is publicly demanding a trade and privately threatening to get surgery if they don't trade him. You can blame the Cavs for not doing due diligence on Thomas' injury, but the reality is that with one year left on LeBron's contract and no commitment from him it doesn't make a lot of sense for LeBron to be mad at the Cavs for acquiring the draft pick.

They obviously aren’t going to get full value, but they could get much more than the 8th pick, a 3 and D wing, an a broken hip. Kyrie is very highly regarded in the nba, in terms of value they thought they were getting a superstar, a strong 3 and D player, and a valuable draft pick. The most valuable asset in this trade was just a broken hip the cavaliers didn’t check on enough. They probably could have gotten a better package from the hornets for example.

This, incidentally, was the risk in putting Kyrie into trade conversations in the first place, and the risk of LeBron not explicitly saying "Kyrie is untradeable". It made sense to trade literally anyone on the team other than LeBron if you could get the right return, but sometimes when you do that things go south and that asset goes rogue.
This is also what was dangerous about LeBron essentially just deciding to come to Cleveland without having a great relationship with Kyrie ahead of time, and why it was of paramount importance for LeBron to manage his relationship with Kyrie to make sure he'd never get left high and dry.

Wait, so now lebron is supposed to leverage his power?
There was an article last year (not the one where he said he was ready to give the keys post trade) where he said that he was ready to cede control of he team to kyrie whenever he wanted, and another saying kyrie was an mvp candidate who was integral to the teams success.
There are reports he told the cavs not to trade Irving, we don’t know if he did the same thing earlier in the season as well.

I think it's fine if you want to argue that the Cavs were in fact more impressive that the broken, shattered, end-of-an-era Spurs when you factor in context. I would only point out that the Spurs knew they would lose from the beginning, kept fighting, and eventually took a game off the Warriors. The Cavs on the other hand basically looked like just accepted their fate after Game 1.

Um, game 3?

I think it's fine if you want to argue that on the whole they were about as competitive as the Pelicans. While I don't think that's a given, I'll readily admit that I felt LeBron needed to show me more than Pelicans-level work in order to really make me feel like the team had done the finals justice.
I don't really doubt, for example, that the Celtics would have done better.
Re: lost to a Durant dagger in Game 3. I think the term "dagger" has been blown up way out of proportion if its being used like this. The Warriors won that game by 8 points and outscored the Cavs by 14 in the 2nd half. This of course between easy wins in Game 2 & 4 on the way to a sweep. Your language implies a game that was a tossup rescued by a star's bounce, but that's just not how I see it.

It was a 3 point game with a minute left and Durant hit a three to put the warriors up by 6 after they traded baskets for 6 minutes straight. Lebron hit the layup and they had to give draymond an open layup for clock reasons, and they didn’t hit their threes

The Cavs defensive issues when they choose to play Love and Korver certainly do go beyond effort.

Yes, yes they do.

Alright you go on to say a bunch more stuff that I don't mean to brush aside, but I don't think we're going to get much further here.

You think LeBron deserves #1. Most agree with you, the #1 is his. I'm in the minority, and that's how it is.

Yeah, it probably is just best for us to agree to disagree

We’re laker fans lol, let’s instead celebrate that we might beat the warriors next year
(and for anyone thinking I’m jumping on he bandwagon I Was a laker fan cuz of family and I’m in USC so I’m clearly not gonna join clippers nation lmao, I just like lebron and Davis)

[Doctor MJ]

I think people need to bring this back to the real world. LeBron is an employee. His value is defined by all the impact he has, positive or negative, to the franchise he plays for. If he chooses to protect himself to the extent that he undermines the franchise this is his right, but he then gets blame for the damage he does.

It's not about loyalty, it's about having faith in the people you work with that they'll do good work.

Did the Cavs deserve that faith? Well no, but LeBron's the one who decided to get back in bed with them. When he pulled this sort of thing the first time around in Cleveland I was very sympathetic, but seeing it all repeat it's quite clear what LeBron's role in forcing short-term thinking was.

This is so dead on where my mind was at.

I worked for a tech startup years back, and with startups you get some interesting personalities. Often really really smart people who just don't really fit in with larger organizations...often don't play nice with others and rules don't work for them. One such guy had been a critical part of the company before I got there and in reality he was a brilliant beyond words developer who really did add a huge amount of value. The problem was he didn't get anything he was asked to do done, instead he was fixing other people's issues, going off writing rogue code (some was of value), and getting into screaming matches with a lot of the people asked to manage the processes.

Eventually despite the guy being the best and brightest developer, it just wasn't enough to make him useful for the team long term and he was fired. Lebron this year might well have been the best player in the league, but he brought with him more baggage and more problems than anyone else in the league. It got him to the finals again, but at some point all that baggage starts weighing down the end results.

People need to understand that in a team, being the best at even the most important things isn't enough if you fail elsewhere.

Thank you for adding this. I feel like people take offense when I bring stuff in from my "real life" experience, so it's nice when others chime in, and maybe your tone will resonate better than mine.

First to just piggy back in my own words: Anyone among coders has seen the badass developer who comes with baggage. Every employer has to decide whether it's worth it or not. If the company is good, they should have high tolerance for quirk but low tolerance for meanness, and they need to not confuse the two attributes even though they often both show up in the same badass as they are quite likely to occur together.

But I'd say even more so than with the coders, its the execs who shape entire cultures with their attitudes and blindspots. In my experienced, the leader with skill in the disciplines of those he leads can very easily get trapped by his own talent. Call it the "I'll just do it myself" trap. Obviously if the leader does this and lacks reasonable skill they just become a joke, and this is not what I'm talking about.

The danger I'm describing is one where the leader is better at the tasks in question and thus the short-term solution of taking back control of things always makes sense. And this results in a group of charges around the leader with trained helplessness. They lose the confidence to take initiative because they lack the confidence to execute a thing up to the standards of the leader. "Better just to go and ask the boss what he wants." And when this happens, irritation on both sides occurs, and you can easily end up in a spiral where the charges work at a shell of their potential.

Note that all of this can happen with the leader having the best of intentions, great vision, and competencies is a vast swath of area.

And this is the sort of thing I'm talking about with LeBron since his return to Cleveland. It's not something he's always had, and I am hoping that wherever he ends up next year, he won't have it again. It's not inevitable, but it's clearly happened over these past 4 years.

Last thing I'll note: I first started talking about stuff like this in regards to Kobe. I actually think Kobe in general had more of an inevitability factor here than LeBron by a good margin, but Kobe never was able to leverage the kind of sustained power with management that LeBron has.

And In fact I'd say we're going to be absolutely inundated by the question of how we should deal with this leveraged power in our rankings quite a bit. I personally don't see any clear place for where to draw the line and say "Even those this player's action had an impact on the team's success, I'm going to systematically ignore that specific impact because it's not what I care about when I evaluate a player."

[Doctor MJ]

Wait, so now lebron is supposed to leverage his power?

Good post in general and I think it's good for us to move on, but this question is something of a new topic to me.

LeBron now has power, is he not supposed to use it? Is it even possible to "not use it" when people keep looking to you for signals?

I think the key thing in general to recognize really is just that someone like LeBron sets the tone for everything in his organization with everything he does, and that if the player isn't careful, he'll probably do avoidable damage.

But I think the specific thing that stands out is his use of short-term deals which quite literally could have ended up costing him more than $100 million if he got injured at the wrong time. He's willing to sacrifice potentially tons of money just to make sure he can push management in the direction he wants, and that's in some ways very admirable. One can say it's just about thinking long-term and bigger-picture in terms of money, but the ability to do even that is something I'd praise.

But if you want to build something that optimizes out this particular season that's different from building something that optimizes for 3 or 5 or 10. Optimize for the short-term long enough, it'll cost you, and that's where we're at now.

What would I have suggested instead?

Figure out who you think has the best franchise management in line with what you want, and sign a long-term deal with them.

It's really that simple. You want a dynasty built around you by expert dynasty builders. You make the call, and then you let them handle it while you create the culture you want around you.

Now of course the thing that's tricky is that LeBron was never going to trust the Cavs for understandable reasons, but from a narrative-perspective, I think he saw Cleveland and Miami as his only choices at that time. I get that, and I get the thought that he thought his best option there were these short-term deals with the Cavs, but the effects those choices have had on the Cavs assets over time just isn't debatable, and I don't see a good reason to ignore this.

LeBron did have one other option: Actually try to be the GM, presuming the team was willing. See, we call LeBron the GM but what he really is is a ghost on the shoulder of everyone who is making decisions in the Cavs organization. He doesn't get asked about everything, and he isn't running the meetings, but he's still affecting them, and affecting them in ways that are constricting.

If LeBron actually thought he could run the basketball operations better than the Cavs management, that's what he should have asked for. "I'll sign a max deal, but you have to let me build the team my way. I don't want a fancy title, but this is my vision, and I expect to be actively working with the GM and coach to shape the team as I see it."

It's possible of course that he wouldn't get that from the Cavs or anyone else.
It's more than just possible that if LeBron tried to do that the results wouldn't be great.
Just another option to consider.

Last note:

I think it's important to remember what pissed off LeBron in Miami from the reports I've always heard. He hated that he had taken a pay cut and then saw the Heat make a move to save themselves more money. He started seeing the NBA in more stark financial terms after that really identifying with the players against ownership, said he'd take no more paycuts, and very much giving the impression that what he was concerned with the Cavs was their willingness to spend whatever it took to give LeBron the best team possible.

And so the team spent and spent and eventually ended up with a roster with contracts beyond the grotesque.

People need to remember that when the Cavs acquired Love, this was seen as fulfilling their promise to LeBron. When they got Mozgov for a steep price, this was seen as fulfilling their promise to LeBron. When they buckled and gave that big contract to Thompson, this was seen as fulfilling their promise to LeBron.

Now I personally was all for acquiring Love, and I still think it was better than keeping Wiggins, but the fact that it would be the start of a trend in a "we're serious about winning LeBron!" that would eventually paint the Cavs into a corner was clear even then.

And what I'm saying is that a well-run organization will do better if they are not forced into a corner, and a player who trusts his organization so little he feels he needs to back them into said corner like this should go to a different organization if he wants to avoid eventually reaching where LeBron and the Cavs are now.

But if a player understands GMing primarily through the lens of willingness to spend, well, he's not going to see any of this until it comes back to bite him.

[MyUniBroDavis]

Wait, so now lebron is supposed to leverage his power?

Good post in general and I think it's good for us to move on, but this question is something of a new topic to me.

LeBron now has power, is he not supposed to use it? Is it even possible to "not use it" when people keep looking to you for signals?

I think the key thing in general to recognize really is just that someone like LeBron sets the tone for everything in his organization with everything he does, and that if the player isn't careful, he'll probably do avoidable damage.

But I think the specific thing that stands out is his use of short-term deals which quite literally could have ended up costing him more than $100 million if he got injured at the wrong time. He's willing to sacrifice potentially tons of money just to make sure he can push management in the direction he wants, and that's in some ways very admirable. One can say it's just about thinking long-term and bigger-picture in terms of money, but the ability to do even that is something I'd praise.

But if you want to build something that optimizes out this particular season that's different from building something that optimizes for 3 or 5 or 10. Optimize for the short-term long enough, it'll cost you, and that's where we're at now.

What would I have suggested instead?

Figure out who you think has the best franchise management in line with what you want, and sign a long-term deal with them.

It's really that simple. You want a dynasty built around you by expert dynasty builders. You make the call, and then you let them handle it while you create the culture you want around you.

Now of course the thing that's tricky is that LeBron was never going to trust the Cavs for understandable reasons, but from a narrative-perspective, I think he saw Cleveland and Miami as his only choices at that time. I get that, and I get the thought that he thought his best option there were these short-term deals with the Cavs, but the effects those choices have had on the Cavs assets over time just isn't debatable, and I don't see a good reason to ignore this.

LeBron did have one other option: Actually try to be the GM, presuming the team was willing. See, we call LeBron the GM but what he really is is a ghost on the shoulder of everyone who is making decisions in the Cavs organization. He doesn't get asked about everything, and he isn't running the meetings, but he's still affecting them, and affecting them in ways that are constricting.

If LeBron actually thought he could run the basketball operations better than the Cavs management, that's what he should have asked for. "I'll sign a max deal, but you have to let me build the team my way. I don't want a fancy title, but this is my vision, and I expect to be actively working with the GM and coach to shape the team as I see it."

It's possible of course that he wouldn't get that from the Cavs or anyone else.
It's more than just possible that if LeBron tried to do that the results wouldn't be great.
Just another option to consider.

Last note:

I think it's important to remember what pissed off LeBron in Miami from the reports I've always heard. He hated that he had taken a pay cut and then saw the Heat make a move to save themselves more money. He started seeing the NBA in more stark financial terms after that really identifying with the players against ownership, said he'd take no more paycuts, and very much giving the impression that what he was concerned with the Cavs was their willingness to spend whatever it took to give LeBron the best team possible.

And so the team spent and spent and eventually ended up with a roster with contracts beyond the grotesque.

People need to remember that when the Cavs acquired Love, this was seen as fulfilling their promise to LeBron. When they got Mozgov for a steep price, this was seen as fulfilling their promise to LeBron. When they buckled and gave that big contract to Thompson, this was seen as fulfilling their promise to LeBron.

Now I personally was all for acquiring Love, and I still think it was better than keeping Wiggins, but the fact that it would be the start of a trend in a "we're serious about winning LeBron!" that would eventually paint the Cavs into a corner was clear even then.

And what I'm saying is that a well-run organization will do better if they are not forced into a corner, and a player who trusts his organization so little he feels he needs to back them into said corner like this should go to a different organization if he wants to avoid eventually reaching where LeBron and the Cavs are now.

But if a player understands GMing primarily through the lens of willingness to spend, well, he's not going to see any of this until it comes back to bite him.

Um, i have nothing against lebron having to leverage his power, I just thought u were against it. We just seem to disagree on how he leveraged it (and I don’t think we should continue for now because it’ll be an endless debate lol)

[Doctor MJ]

Lebron James isn't an employee, literally.

Spare me your pedantic semantics dude. I'm talking about emergent organizational dynamics and tried to avoid being overly abstract where I can.

[Doctor MJ]

Wait, so now lebron is supposed to leverage his power?

Good post in general and I think it's good for us to move on, but this question is something of a new topic to me.

LeBron now has power, is he not supposed to use it? Is it even possible to "not use it" when people keep looking to you for signals?

I think the key thing in general to recognize really is just that someone like LeBron sets the tone for everything in his organization with everything he does, and that if the player isn't careful, he'll probably do avoidable damage.

But I think the specific thing that stands out is his use of short-term deals which quite literally could have ended up costing him more than $100 million if he got injured at the wrong time. He's willing to sacrifice potentially tons of money just to make sure he can push management in the direction he wants, and that's in some ways very admirable. One can say it's just about thinking long-term and bigger-picture in terms of money, but the ability to do even that is something I'd praise.

But if you want to build something that optimizes out this particular season that's different from building something that optimizes for 3 or 5 or 10. Optimize for the short-term long enough, it'll cost you, and that's where we're at now.

What would I have suggested instead?

Figure out who you think has the best franchise management in line with what you want, and sign a long-term deal with them.

It's really that simple. You want a dynasty built around you by expert dynasty builders. You make the call, and then you let them handle it while you create the culture you want around you.

Now of course the thing that's tricky is that LeBron was never going to trust the Cavs for understandable reasons, but from a narrative-perspective, I think he saw Cleveland and Miami as his only choices at that time. I get that, and I get the thought that he thought his best option there were these short-term deals with the Cavs, but the effects those choices have had on the Cavs assets over time just isn't debatable, and I don't see a good reason to ignore this.

LeBron did have one other option: Actually try to be the GM, presuming the team was willing. See, we call LeBron the GM but what he really is is a ghost on the shoulder of everyone who is making decisions in the Cavs organization. He doesn't get asked about everything, and he isn't running the meetings, but he's still affecting them, and affecting them in ways that are constricting.

If LeBron actually thought he could run the basketball operations better than the Cavs management, that's what he should have asked for. "I'll sign a max deal, but you have to let me build the team my way. I don't want a fancy title, but this is my vision, and I expect to be actively working with the GM and coach to shape the team as I see it."

It's possible of course that he wouldn't get that from the Cavs or anyone else.
It's more than just possible that if LeBron tried to do that the results wouldn't be great.
Just another option to consider.

Last note:

I think it's important to remember what pissed off LeBron in Miami from the reports I've always heard. He hated that he had taken a pay cut and then saw the Heat make a move to save themselves more money. He started seeing the NBA in more stark financial terms after that really identifying with the players against ownership, said he'd take no more paycuts, and very much giving the impression that what he was concerned with the Cavs was their willingness to spend whatever it took to give LeBron the best team possible.

And so the team spent and spent and eventually ended up with a roster with contracts beyond the grotesque.

People need to remember that when the Cavs acquired Love, this was seen as fulfilling their promise to LeBron. When they got Mozgov for a steep price, this was seen as fulfilling their promise to LeBron. When they buckled and gave that big contract to Thompson, this was seen as fulfilling their promise to LeBron.

Now I personally was all for acquiring Love, and I still think it was better than keeping Wiggins, but the fact that it would be the start of a trend in a "we're serious about winning LeBron!" that would eventually paint the Cavs into a corner was clear even then.

And what I'm saying is that a well-run organization will do better if they are not forced into a corner, and a player who trusts his organization so little he feels he needs to back them into said corner like this should go to a different organization if he wants to avoid eventually reaching where LeBron and the Cavs are now.

But if a player understands GMing primarily through the lens of willingness to spend, well, he's not going to see any of this until it comes back to bite him.

Um, i have nothing against lebron having to leverage his power, I just thought u were against it. We just seem to disagree on how he leveraged it (and I don’t think we should continue for now because it’ll be an endless debate lol)

Well, we don't just disagree on how he leveraged it, but I agree it's time to move on.