Correction to post: In my opinion, you cannot hate Lebron and LIKE MJ. They are both changing the game and they are completely full of themselves
I haven't liked Lebron since his first interview before he came into the NBA, I notice what kind of player he is, but in all actuality, take away that he does get coddled by the league, and that's both offensively and defensively, his numbers wouldn't amount to what they are.
I don't really hate Lebron as a person. I think he's a douche and all that, but a lot of sports players are and I don't really care. What I hate is that Lebron, through no fault of his own, represent two things I really dislike about basketball. One is iso, iso, iso style of uglyball, that I could barely tolerate as a playstyle even when watching the Rockets use it. The other is extreme hype without result, evident by 0 rings and hyped as the best player in the NBA for years now. Also, Lebron's creation of superfriends is annoying as a Rockets fan because it seems players won't come here to do it.
Major logic failure. Just because two things share a common characteristic doesn't make them equal. It's like saying if you hate baseball, you cannot like basketball because they both use balls. Or that you can't hate Kim Kardashian, if you like Brooklyn Decker---because they're both females!
General consensus is that Lebron is an awesome basketball player. But nobody likes him as a human being. why are we still beating the dead horse?
Bc he was named Jesus Christ of ball at age 14 Bc he never showed up when it counted most Bc he plays 3 qtrs Bc he went to MIA Bc he had a "decision" on ESPN Bc he himself claimed not 6 7 or 8 .....when he had 0 Bc he's LBJ .....and don't forget how he quit on his team just bc "delonte west slept with momma James "Gloria"
I do agree with this in a sense, but let me clarify. I was saying that if the only reason you Hate Lebron is his arrogance, then by that rule you should hate all players that are arrogant. I never took a logic class or anything, but that could be a fallacy
So if your best friend screwed your mom, you wouldn't be slightly affected? I'm not saying West and LBJ are best friends, I am trying to make a connection
LeBron could have just donated 2 million out of his own pocket if he was really that into charity. The charity thing was just an excuse for ESPN to do a douche piece.
How did the league change after the summer of 2010? How did those 3 guys screw over small market teams? When I watched basketball this year I saw the same thing I saw in the 80's, 90's and 00's. A few teams with a shot to win and those teams were stacked. What's different? I think LeBron has done some things to make it harder on himself. The only thing I don't agree with are the super-lofty expectations that we don't expect from other players.
I generally don't like entitlement attitude. LeBron is the embodiment of this kind of mentality, which is very prevalent in this generation. I don't hate him as a person. But I do want to see him fail because I want entitlement to fail.
Smartass. It's safe to say that I'm not a billion dollar media circus sports team, just a working man. I hold those two things to considerably different standards.
Lebron basically created an arms race where the weapons are dictating the movement.that if Guys like Melo, Paul, Howard, Williams etc. they see the league's best player joining with two other top players, which means they have to team up to. So what do you get? You get 6 months of Melo drama, you get non stop trade talks about Howard and Paul. You have ESPN fueling the fire by overreporting every story. Aside from that annoyance, it's disheartening as a fan. I used to have faith that if you build a solid team around a guy, he'd stay (like Tim Duncan) and to an extent that maybe true- but I worry when I see guys like Chris Paul going from one team to another not because one is vastly better, but because it's the fun "lob city". If guys are only looking to play in big markets or with other big name players, how does that bode for the only 24 teams in the league? Let's say I draft a guy first overall, give hi msome solid pieces, and we make some pretty deep playoff runs. He then decides to pout his contract year because he wants to play in madison square garden, or he wants to play with his friends from AAU, whatever. Maybe if Lebron had someone better than Mo williams as his 2nd player he might have stayed, maybe he wouldn't have- we can't say. But it's a little scary that players seem to be choosing the same three or four teams to play in.
The Spurs won a title in his 2nd year; that's more that just a "solid" team, it was a championship team. I'm sure if all those stars won a title during their rookie contract, they wouldn't move anywhere. And that's a fact. Players are only obligated by their contracts. If they don't feel they can win there, they can do whatever they want when their contract ends.
This has never been true in the NBA. Other than the pistons most of teams got lucky or tanked. Spurs are good, but if they didn't get Duncan I doubt they have any rings. There are a handful a superstars if you don't have one them you are screwed. I think LeBron might be the most hyped prospect since KAJ. I think he is a product of that hype. When you are on the cover of SI as a junior and you are called the chosen one, well it might be hard to stay grounded.
Indifferent like I am towards most NBA players, there's no reason to hate any player unless they are a complete miscreant (on and off the court), moralistic hypocrite with facade (Dwight Howard, I wonder if he has changed his views, any since coming into NBA), or they commit some egregious crime (like murder their own children, rape nuns or little girls, or support genocidal/war-mongering dictator). A somewhat selfish, narcissistic, greedy, possibly decadent athlete (or famous/rich person) who often times take their fans for granted and has the media/fans/players kissing at their feet. Never seen that before in my life, in fact I don't think people like that existed before 1980s-1990s. Athletes were righteous men who did not take their fans for granted, hold their teams for hostage, fight with management, carried on lurid affairs with loose women who they weren't married to, and always acted honorably on or off the field/court. Even then, I just do not have enough gall to really dislike a player. Even, players, like Michael Vick, LeBron James, Alex Rodriguez, Kris Humphries (LOL), Big Ben, or Floyd Meriweather. Even vehement, racists like Ty Cobb or John Rocker. Honestly, they do not act any different from the average everyday guy on the street. It's not hard to run into arrogant ahole on the street. Even with these athletes at least, they have something to be arrogant about versus the average guy who is just arrogant, vain, or even shallow. Everyone above outside Mayweather are pretty mild-mannered. Some of them might showboat a little, but don't alot of younger guys showboat at certain things, especially the alpha male types or the guys who live an affluent lifestyle. That's not uncommon. Most of all, these guys are entertainers. Why do people take entertainers so seriously in the first places? It's fun to watch them in person and put on great shows. I know this will rub some of the moralistic types the wrong way. Who goes to watch these people perform for their moral fiber and conduct of behavior? Probably very few people, most people come these events to witness exceptional talent and abilities on display, maybe with few other reasons. How many celebrities, past and presents, have seen or labeled as abusive, drunken (or drugged up), racist, ignorant, lacking manners (behind the scenes) or adulterous, exactly? Too many to name. People say it's the lifestyle, but yet you can see ordinary people deal with the same things or vices. It's kind of hard for me to hate someone, I do not know personally, just as much for me to love someone I don't know personally (how can you love someone you don't know...admire is one thing, but I've seen people go overboard with it. Rather normal people at that). I've seen people wish ill-will on particular athletes for whatever. It may be different, if I actually knew athlete who intentionally did something distasteful to me. I do not ever see that happening in my life time. If a celebrity does not sign autographs, so what deal with it, especially if people are still going to that person's movies, games, or concerts. If an athlete leaves a city, like Lebron or Chris Paul, in which some think that people literall When you have religious institutions that cover up child molestation, or people dying unnecessarily domestically and overseas. I'll take the law-abiding, unlikeable jerk or miscreant over the person who is loved by everyone, yet bloody hands. When I watch the NBA, it's like watching professional wrestling or a circus. You've got extravagant characters, faces, heels, people performing special tricks, but in sports you add the competition aspect. It makes very entertaining and fun to watch. A circus performer can be real jerk, troublesome, and most morally decadent person in history, yet that performer is the most entertaining and talented workers in his industry. The latter description is the reason I would go see that person, or watch them on TV. It would be different, if I actually knew if he were my father, husband, or someone who did something dastardly to someone I know in person. Maybe something heinous. I'd feel differently, maybe. People take sports way too seriously. I won't go to the extreme of receiving death threats or completely hating a player. Just look at Little League culture through high school to college to pro leagues.
I agree with you on that. Small market teams did not get screw over that summer . . . Bad franchises got screwed over that summer. Toronto and Cleveland are probably two of the worst ran franchises in pro sports (notice I did not limit it to the NBA). If they were good franchises, like the Lakers, the Spurs, or Celtics. Regardless, if the superstar player in question stayed or left those teams would not have fallen completely in the ground. The Bulls were still a powerhouse without Michael Jordan in 1993-94. The Celtics were still a fairly competitive playoff team, when Larry Bird retired. You could argue unfortunate events sort of effected their fortunes. The Lakers had managed to rebuild themselves, twice. Once, when Magic retired. Twice, when Shaq was traded away in 2005. The Jazz were able to survive without Stockton and Malone. In almost every decade, the Trailblazers always seem to build a team that can compete for a title or at worst, reach the playoffs consistently. The Spurs are untouchable, when it come to playoff appearances. Only missed the playoff 5 times in their history, including their ABA franchise seasons - Dallas Chaparral. Even Phoenix always finds away to at least hang around in the playoff picture. Ownership and poor team management is what kills these teams. Take a good look at the Lakers and Spurs, you notice they only give top dollar to premium players. You'd never see the Lakers giving someone, like Brian Cardinal a $35 MM contract. Never. Even in on the really outstanding teams with the mega superstars or higher level talent, how often do you see these teams put all of their chips into one player? You start to see why teams, like Cleveland, Orlando, Minnesota, Superstars come and go - injuries, decline in production, free agency, clashes with teammates or management, or better opportunities. The better teams always prepare or forecast those darker days that may lie ahead. These teams know how to sign the right FAs and draft talented players, when they have opportunity, too.
Arms race? Again I ask, what has changed? This arms race has always been going on. PLAYERS JUST HAVE NEVER BEEN RESPONSIBLE FOR IT. But at the end of the day, you still have the same league you saw from the 80's on. Couldn't I easily say the Lakers stealing Gasol and the Celtics acquiring KG and Allen started an arms race that made other stars realize trying to do it on your own wasn't the wisest decision? Those were the two teams that won the last 3 titles, right? It can't be that guys like LeBron, Melo, Howard, Williams see the winning teams are stacked and concluded that it's better off not to fight an uphill battle? That's nothing new. That has always happened whenever a star is going into his last year and hasn't decided to resign. Didn't all of that happen to LeBron before he decided to leave? CP3 didn't agree to go to LAC because it was fun. He left because NO surrounded him with garbage during his tenure there, and LAC had better talent. The Spurs properly built around Duncan, so he stayed. The Hornets and Cavs (never got a 2nd star) didn't properly build around CP3 or LeBron, so they left. I bolded the most important part of your statement for you. Notice Durant stayed witht he franchise who built a solid team around him. How did it bode for the majority of teams in the league from the 80's and onward? Properly build around him and he may choose to stay, like Durant did. You can never guarantee that a free agent will want to stay because they may not like where they were drafted to but you can definately improve your chances by properly building around him.
