Around the NBA: Playoff Edition #2

[HomoSapien]

Stick to hypothetical one: Lebron, Irving, Durant, Curry, Klay Thompson, Paul George, Anthony Davis, Butler, Blake Griffin, Chris Paul, Derozan, James Harden, and Russel Westbrook all are on the same team, and got their by being drafted by the greatest GM known to man.

I'm assuming no one would have any issues with competition even though all these elite players are on the same team? It would be 'organic' and natural, right?

Why can't you separate the two issues being discussed: competitive spirit (which i think is BS, people do what is easiest and in their best interest, it is the very nature of humanity) and lack of parity. You DONT think there would be issues with competitive balance with that team? And if you do, you think that when LeBron wins 15 titles in a row, that those would count to the same extent as others? Explain your position on this, its unclear.

But is it absurd in sports? Prior to LeBron, did we have examples of players in their primes joining forces in such a fashion?

[HomoSapien]

I love Pippen to death, but at initial glance I don't think I would consider him a top five player over prime Malone, Hakeem, Ewing, Shaq, Barkley, and Robinson.

Also behind Bird, Magic, and Nique depending on the era we're talking about.

Yeah, perhaps he wasn't top 5, but he was on the outside looking in, no? He was one of the best players in the league during the first three-peat.

If we're focusing strictly on competition, which seems to be your issue here, then isn't LeBron and Wade and Jordan and Pippen being on the same team essentially the same thing?

Wouldn't it have been better for competition if he Pippen were on another team, say the Nuggets with Mutumbo?

No, because my argument isn't that LeBron doesn't need help. Most championship teams have two stars. He needed more help, and that's fair. I just felt it was cheap (and let's not twist this into some obtuse opinion --- this is how most non-Miami fans felt during the summer of 2010) to try and join forces with two top 10 players.

[dumbell78]

You guys are spending an awful amount of time on LeBrons legacy. This may deserve its own thread shortly lol.

[DanTown8587]

Stick to hypothetical one: Lebron, Irving, Durant, Curry, Klay Thompson, Paul George, Anthony Davis, Butler, Blake Griffin, Chris Paul, Derozan, James Harden, and Russel Westbrook all are on the same team, and got their by being drafted by the greatest GM known to man.

I'm assuming no one would have any issues with competition even though all these elite players are on the same team? It would be 'organic' and natural, right?

Why can't you separate the two issues being discussed: competitive spirit (which i think is BS, people do what is easiest and in their best interest, it is the very nature of humanity) and lack of parity. You DONT think there would be issues with competitive balance with that team? And if you do, you think that when LeBron wins 15 titles in a row, that those would count to the same extent as others? Explain your position on this, its unclear.

But is it absurd in sports? Prior to LeBron, did we have examples of players in their primes joining forces in such a fashion?

College athletics? Premier league soccer?

I just don't get why it's the players job to create parity in their sport. The league could do that if they get rid of the draft and max salaries and how much money has to be spent on players but they won't do that.

Every issue you have with parity lives from the fact owners care more about money than winning and yet players, not owners, get blamed for looking out for themselves when they have far less money.

[HomoSapien]

Why can't you separate the two issues being discussed: competitive spirit (which i think is BS, people do what is easiest and in their best interest, it is the very nature of humanity) and lack of parity. You DONT think there would be issues with competitive balance with that team? And if you do, you think that when LeBron wins 15 titles in a row, that those would count to the same extent as others? Explain your position on this, its unclear.

But is it absurd in sports? Prior to LeBron, did we have examples of players in their primes joining forces in such a fashion?

College athletics? Premier league soccer?

I just don't get why it's the players job to create parity in their sport. The league could do that if they get rid of the draft and max salaries and how much money has to be spent on players but they won't do that.

Every issue you have with parity lives from the fact owners care more about money than winning and yet players, not owners, get blamed for looking out for themselves when they have far less money.

It's not the players job to create parity. No one is saying that they did something illegal or cheated.

All I'm arguing is that colluding with other stars is a blemish in LeBron's legacy. He's probably going to finish his career being a top two player (perhaps he's already there), but the way he won wasn't as impressive as many other past champions.

[GetBuLLish]

The vast difference is those guys would have to all take massive paycuts to do it; the Warriors were able to afford their stars due to an excellent contract they gave to Curry + how well they drafted + the weird cap rising to the point that they signed them to all fair market deals.

I mean, should the Warriors have NOT signed Durant? They gave him a max deal, I don't get the issue with how they acted.

Hypothetical two: would you be mad at the Warriors instead of signing Durant they had acquired say Gobert and Butler in the draft? So if their starting five was all homegrown but Curry - Thompson - Butler - Green - Gobert, you'd say "well they did it the right way?"

No one is faulting the Warriors (or Heat) for doing what they did. So the arguments you're making are not relevant.

The issue is players taking the easy route to championships. They are free to do that, but we as fans are free to judge the value of those championships.

The example is meant to be absurd to get you to back off your equally absurd stance that parity plays no role in the significance of titles. Of course it does, given extreme enough circumstance.

Exactly.

Another example: if MJ joined the Pistons after getting ousted two years in a row by them, he would not be as highly regarded as he is now, even if he won 6 titles with the Pistons.

[kingkirk]

The example is meant to be absurd to get you to back off your equally absurd stance that parity plays no role in the significance of titles. Of course it does, given extreme enough circumstance. Having 3 top 10 players on your team is a fairly extreme circumstance, one that simply has not occurred much if at all in the modern NBA.

Example 1: LeBron join Wade and Bosh in year eight of is career = apparently this kills competition

Example 2: LeBron, Wade and Bosh were all drafted to the same team (think OKC with Durant, Westbrook and Harden) = people are fine with this

My point the entire time has been the people reduce LeBron because he went and formed his big 3, but have no problem with it had his big 3 been formed via the draft.

That is a double standard (which Homosapien has already admitted to) that makes no sense.

If competition and parity is the primary concern, then either/or example 1 or 2 carry issues for the parity, no?

[DanTown8587]

But is it absurd in sports? Prior to LeBron, did we have examples of players in their primes joining forces in such a fashion?

College athletics? Premier league soccer?

I just don't get why it's the players job to create parity in their sport. The league could do that if they get rid of the draft and max salaries and how much money has to be spent on players but they won't do that.

Every issue you have with parity lives from the fact owners care more about money than winning and yet players, not owners, get blamed for looking out for themselves when they have far less money.

It's not the players job to create parity. No one is saying that they did something illegal or cheated.

All I'm arguing is that colluding with other stars is a blemish in LeBron's legacy. He's probably going to finish his career being a top two player (perhaps he's already there), but the way he won wasn't as impressive as many other past champions.

So the absolute best players in the league should be judged by something that is 100% outside of their control? If LeBron had stayed in Cleveland, they never get anyone of value, and he's the same player he was, you know what'd you say then

"Yeah but he hasn't won any titles, how good can he be?"

The amount of talent around you is almost entirely luck; to judge players by that is literally the definition of unfair.

[kingkirk]

All I'm arguing is that colluding with other stars is a blemish in LeBron's legacy. He's probably going to finish his career being a top two player (perhaps he's already there), but the way he won wasn't as impressive as many other past champions.

I'd say beating the best regular season team in history whilst having arguably one of the greatest Finals performance ever is pretty god damn impressive.

Or are we fine with that because Kevin Love and Kyrie Irving are only top 25 players, not top 10?

[HomoSapien]

College athletics? Premier league soccer?

I just don't get why it's the players job to create parity in their sport. The league could do that if they get rid of the draft and max salaries and how much money has to be spent on players but they won't do that.

Every issue you have with parity lives from the fact owners care more about money than winning and yet players, not owners, get blamed for looking out for themselves when they have far less money.

It's not the players job to create parity. No one is saying that they did something illegal or cheated.

All I'm arguing is that colluding with other stars is a blemish in LeBron's legacy. He's probably going to finish his career being a top two player (perhaps he's already there), but the way he won wasn't as impressive as many other past champions.

So the absolute best players in the league should be judged by something that is 100% outside of their control? If LeBron had stayed in Cleveland, they never get anyone of value, and he's the same player he was, you know what'd you say then

"Yeah but he hasn't won any titles, how good can he be?"

The amount of talent around you is almost entirely luck; to judge players by that is literally the definition of unfair.

I'm not saying he had to stay in Cleveland. I'm not criticizing him for the choice he made. He wanted rings and he got them, bravo. I'm stating that the way you win is important when ranking players. His championships with the Heat are amongst the least impressive in the history of the NBA.

That factors into the discussion.

[HomoSapien]

I'd say beating the best regular season team in history whilst having arguably one of the greatest Finals performance ever is pretty god damn impressive.

It is. But we're talking about his time with the Heat and you knew that.

Or are we fine with that because Kevin Love and Kyrie Irving are only top 25 players, not top 10?

Yup.

[kingkirk]

No one is faulting the Warriors (or Heat) for doing what they did. So the arguments you're making are not relevant.

The issue is players taking the easy route to championships. They are free to do that, but we as fans are free to judge the value of those championships.

How would you judge LeBron had he stayed in Cleveland to ensure he goes the 'hard route', all while the Cavs remain capped out with Mo Williams, Delonte West and Zydrunas Ilgauskas as his best players?

I'm sure you'd be reacting to his career favourably and not calling him this eras Charles Barkley/Karl Malone...

But good on LeBron for not jumping shipping. At least he made sure league parity was fair!

[DanTown8587]

The vast difference is those guys would have to all take massive paycuts to do it; the Warriors were able to afford their stars due to an excellent contract they gave to Curry + how well they drafted + the weird cap rising to the point that they signed them to all fair market deals.

I mean, should the Warriors have NOT signed Durant? They gave him a max deal, I don't get the issue with how they acted.

Hypothetical two: would you be mad at the Warriors instead of signing Durant they had acquired say Gobert and Butler in the draft? So if their starting five was all homegrown but Curry - Thompson - Butler - Green - Gobert, you'd say "well they did it the right way?"

No one is faulting the Warriors (or Heat) for doing what they did. So the arguments you're making are not relevant.

Nope, wanted to narrow down the argument, which I did.

The issue is players taking the easy route to championships. They are free to do that, but we as fans are free to judge the value of those championships.

So you're going to judge players based on championships, which means judging players is dependent on who they have around them and what the team is doing. In James' case, he's screwed either way? Either he teams up and you chastise the value of the title OR he stays there and loses and you say he's not a winner? It creates an undue burden on a player where your evaluation relies on outside factors of luck + roster construction + coaching + injuries to other players + ownership's willingness to spend that are all well beyond a player's control.

We can see the example of this right now: Chris Paul. It's clear as day that Paul and that Clippers team won't win anything together. Paul has been constantly called overrated for his team's lack of success and the fact he's playing with maybe one other top 20 guy isn't used to give the evaluation of his player + career any nuance.

Hell, Kobe used to get **** because he was only "the second best player" on his early 00s Lakers team and the later teams had to be "gifted" Pau Gasol.

People will make **** arguments that don't really have logical consistency based around personal opinion. The only reason people want to lessen James' titles is to lessen the resume when compared to Jordan.

[HomoSapien]

No one is faulting the Warriors (or Heat) for doing what they did. So the arguments you're making are not relevant.

The issue is players taking the easy route to championships. They are free to do that, but we as fans are free to judge the value of those championships.

How would you judge LeBron had he stayed in Cleveland to ensure he goes the 'hard route', all while the Cavs remain capped out with Mo Williams, Delonte West and Zydrunas Ilgauskas as his best players?

I'm sure you'd be reacting to his career favourably and not calling him this eras Charles Barkley/Karl Malone...

But good on LeBron for not jumping shipping. At least he made sure league parity was fair!

Is anyone here faulting him for leaving the Cavs?

[kingkirk]

I'd say beating the best regular season team in history whilst having arguably one of the greatest Finals performance ever is pretty god damn impressive.

It is. But we're talking about his time with the Heat and you knew that.

Or are we fine with that because Kevin Love and Kyrie Irving are only top 25 players, not top 10?

Yup.

This is ridiculous. It's fine for LeBron to go and play with two All-NBA caliber players in Love and Irving, but not ok to play with Wade and Bosh because they're better.

The act is the exact same thing: he left his team to go and form a big 3 with a group of guys he hadn't played with in order to give him the best chance of winning. He did the same thing!

[HomoSapien]

Let's simplify the argument.

Are all championships equal?

[HomoSapien]

I'd say beating the best regular season team in history whilst having arguably one of the greatest Finals performance ever is pretty god damn impressive.

It is. But we're talking about his time with the Heat and you knew that.

Or are we fine with that because Kevin Love and Kyrie Irving are only top 25 players, not top 10?

Yup.

This is ridiculous. It's fine for LeBron to go and play with two All-NBA caliber players in Love and Irving, but not ok to play with Wade and Bosh because they're better.

The act is the exact same thing: he left his team to go and form a big 3 with a group of guys he hadn't played with in order to give him the best chance of winning. He did the same thing!

It's not the same thing at all.

1. He left a better team to go to a worse team.
2. Staying in Miami would've been the easier road.
3. Irving and Love are extremely talented, but they aren't elite players who could likely win rings on their own.

[kingkirk]

Is anyone here faulting him for leaving the Cavs?

Several posts ago, he was discredited for taking the easy road out. Joining Wade and Bosh is easy apparently, but playing with Love and Irving is still the hard route, right?

Ok.

[GetBuLLish]

How would you judge LeBron had he stayed in Cleveland to ensure he goes the 'hard route', all while the Cavs remain capped out with Mo Williams, Delonte West and Zydrunas Ilgauskas as his best players?

I'm sure you'd be reacting to his career favourably and not calling him this eras Charles Barkley/Karl Malone...

But good on LeBron for not jumping shipping. At least he made sure league parity was fair!

First, we have no idea if he would have or would have not won any championships in Cleveland if he stayed there. He definitely gave himself a better shot by going to Miami though.

Second, if he stayed in Cleveland and never won a championship, then of course that would negatively affect his legacy. This fact does not support any argument you are trying to make.

[kingkirk]

It's not the same thing at all.

2010: LeBron leaves team via free agency to join up with an elite guard and a premier big man. Forms a Big 3 and goes onto consecutive Finals appearances.

2014: LeBron leaves team via free agency to join up with an elite guard and a premier big man. Forms a Big 3 and goes onto consecutive Finals appearances.

Seems the same to me. The process of parity is challenged. The only difference is Wade is better than Irving. That's the only thing, and you're ok with that for some reason, despite the rest of the process being exactly the same.