MJ: "I would never have called up Larry, Magic & say lets get together."

what do you think the proper choice for lebron would have been, though?

lebron just finished his 7th season and the bulls won the title in jordan's 7th season. the bulls improved in year 4 by making the 2nd round, then improved again by going 6 in the ECF, then improved against going 7 in the ECF, and then improved again by winning the title. at that point pippen was already very good and still getting better and going to be in his prime for the better part of the next decade. the bulls were either still improving or at the very least about to plateau for several years at a championship level.

lebron's team got better for a few years but they just took a step back in year 7. shaq, big Z, and jamison are all way on the wrong side of 30, most of their role players are basically as good as they are going to be except maybe moon and hickson (and no one expects either of them to become anything special), they don't have any cap flexibility, and they don't really have any trade pieces outside of their only young talent, hickson. while there's no way to predict the future and know any moves cleveland might make, it would certainly seem that they've peaked and obviously at a below-championship level. so whether you think lebron is the best thing since sliced bread or a quitter who will never win, what would really be the point of returning to cleveland, at least from the perspective of winning a title? they didn't win a title and are probably going to get worse, possibly requiring a decent restructuring to hope to win again in a couple of years. or you can go to a team that has better players than you've ever played with and at least see if this works out better. if the cavs had just got 1st round, 2nd round, lose in the finals or something, lebron could at least look at a team he could grow with. as it was he was probably looking at having less help than he's had up to this point. why KG yourself and waste more of your prime years?

 

and for whoever is having the spurs/robinson argument, while robinson was the spurs biggest loss, the spurs lost way more than robinson in 96-97.

robinson played 3000 minutes in '95-'96, then 147 minutes in '96-'97.
sean elliott went from 2900 to 1400.
chuck person went from 2100 to 0 because he missed the whole season.
even avery johnson and del negro dropped by about 600 minutes each.

these minutes were mainly replaced with:

37 year old dominique wilkins playing 1900
vernon maxwell playing 2100 minutes.
carl herrera adding 1400 minutes to the previous year.
corey alexander adding 900 minutes.
monty williams adding 1200 minutes.
greg anderson adding 1300 minutes.
and will perdue adding 600 minutes.


that's a lot of minutes going from a really good group of players to a really bad group of players (except of course maxwell and herrera, who are awesome). plus they were just tanking by the end.

 

You keep bringing this up as if it's inevitable or easy.

It's easy to tell someone else to gamble the remainder of their career on poor management that has shown a distinct pattern of bad moves. For all we know the Cavs bring in a ton of superstars or they continue recycling over the hill, over priced veterans.

I think you'd sing a different tune if you actually watched Cavs games or followed the team.

 

I think it's funny you think i didn't watch Cavs games.

But I didn't bring it up as inevitable or easy....look at what I was responding to, first. I wasn't posting that to suggest it was going to happen.

 

Ok, maybe you watched the 2 games the Rox played against the Cavs?

If you say you really watched more than that, I question your judgment on basketball when you repeatedly say they were a good team. I really respect you as a poster on Clutchfans, but I'm just calling BS on watching more than a handful of games. When Varejao is widely considered the 2nd most important player on a team...well that says it all.

 

i don't think people understand how much lebron did for that team for them to achieve what they did in the reg. season.

if he played on the level of like a kobe bryant or wade or carmelo or kevin durant, that cavs team would be at best a 4th or 5th seed.

 

come on. a team wins 66 games and they're not good, right? they finish with the best record in the league...but i must not watch if i think they're even "good?"

man, i would have killed for the Rockets to have been as sucky as you think the Cavs were over the last few seasons.

 

do you even watch the games to see how they got those 66 wins? lebron literally dominated every statistical category and played at a historic level for them to do that.

he outscored the 2nd leading scorer by freakin' 14 points. yet he only uses up around 34% of the possessions, a typical number of any superstar perimeter player of his caliber.

over a reg. season, lebron's greatness can help the cavs do what they do b/c you're not constantly seeing the elite teams OVER AND OVER like you do in the playoffs over a 7 game series where they can try to take out the role players. and the pressure is higher in the playoffs than in the reg. season.

a proof of that is their 1-5 record last year WITHOUT lebron james. the cavs were TOO DEPENDENT on lebron james. and lebron was that good.

 

i'm not saying LeBron wasn't great...though I'm not sure I'd go into the whole, "i want to date him" mode I see you in.

but LeBron was part of that team...and they won 66 games.

I don't give a damn how you win 66 games...if you do it, you're a good team. I can't believe this is a discussion.

 

look, if lebron played like a "normal" superstar (ala what kobe or wade or durant or melo) produces over the course of the season, i wouldn't care.

however, lebron put up HISTORIC numers on some crazy efficiency. he was on another stratosphere for most of the reg. season and playoffs. he was on another level from every other superstar in this league.

and that's why you see the ridiculous expectations, b/c he has played at a ridiculous level for the past 2-3 years.

that was why a one man show team could achieve 66 wins. but a one man show can't win a championship as it has been proven over and over again.

again, lebron FAILED to maintain that ridiculous level of efficiency and greatness v. the celtics (he shot 44%, way below his standards) and that was why the cavs lost. his teammates could only have done what they do. its expected those guys can never take their games above reg. season levels.

for the cavs to win a championship, lebron had to maintain that ridiculous efficiency (which he did 2 years ago and they still lost to the magic eventually) and some in the playoffs. MAYBE he's not that good yet. maybe he'll elevate his game even more in the playoffs in the future.

but that's the expectations we're dealing with here. he's not some normal superstar.

 

I agree completely - even winning 61 games last season is a good season, no matter who you are.

The truth is LeBron got impatient of waiting...every time he was bounced out of the playoffs, he couldn't figure out what was wrong so he probably blamed his teammates instead of himself.

The major difference between him and guys like Jordan and Hakeem were that they figured out how to utilize their teammates more while upping their own game. Lebron instead chose to go find supposedly better teammates.

 

Keep dreamin' son.

MVP's arn't sidekicks.

LeBron is the better player.

You LeBron haters just won't accept that fact. No matter how much you twist it.

The best player player, MVP, whatever, on any team will always be Batman. The "vocal" leader or player who "didn't leave his team" is irrelevant.

The second best will always be Robin. I dont know why you haters cant accept the fact that has already been proven over and over again.

LeBron is the better player.

 

man, i'm sorry...i just disagree with the assertion that a team that wins 60+ game is ever anything other than....at the very least....a good team.

i didn't even say "great" team. i just said, "good." i think all context has been completely lost when we talk about a team leading the league in wins 2 seasons in a row and saying, "eh, they're not a good team." that's just nuts to me.

you can go on and on about how they won...and who they played...and what color socks they wear....you'll never convince me that the team with the best record IN ANY PRO SPORTS LEAGUE isn't a good team.

 

i said they were title contenders. the cavs were a VERY GOOD team.

and that's why they have been to semis and conference finals. good to very good teams do that on a consistent basis.

nobody here (or at least any rational person) is saying they were not b/c they were.

the question is was that team capable of winning a championship. as we've seen in the past 2 years, it's not.

 

O RLY? Not ever?

 

you argued with me with at least 3 different posts when i asserted they were a "good" team.

and then there was this that i responded to initially

 

THIS IS WHY I LIKED MJ, and i really despise LEBRON....he just wants to get the championship the easy way

 

i think the confusion here is this:

people think 66 wins = a pretty stacked team (b/c usually that's how you win 66 games).

and i think professorjay (and myself) believe the cavs are NOT a stacked team. you've heard repeatedly during cavs broadcasts in you have league pass that their 2nd best player changes from game to game (could be mo will, to jamison to varejao to shaq to even delonte west at times). the cavs did what they did b/c of lebron's over the top greatness.

i think you have seen games where lebron has missed or where he struggled (rarely) and you've seen the results over the years. the cavs will lose.

they were a one man team. simple as that.

so what's the point of arguing whether they were a good team or not. the hawks are a very good team themselves. who cares?

for a player as good as lebron is, he wants to be on GREAT teams. the cavs were not a GREAT team as it's constructed.

 

i'll go one further on you....i don't think there's a GREAT team in the NBA right now, at all. i think there are some good teams...maybe a very good team in LA. but no GREAT teams.

if LeBron is half as good as you say he is...where he, by himself, willed a team to 60+ wins...i think the Cavs were absolutely capable of putting enough around him to win a championship...but we'll never know, i suppose.

 

Grew impatient?

He gave them 7 years and saw that he had a better chance somewhere else for the next few years.

Why is that a problem?