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

the lakers are a great team (in today's league). they have a superstar perimeter scorer. they have a great big man. they have a great frontline. they have very good defense. they have experienced role players who can defend. and they have the best coach of all time. those are recipes of a great team. they're the only truly great team right now.

the magic is close (lacking a perimeter scorer). the heat will have to show that they are also.

lebron is that good, and yes, if the cavs were "capable" of getting him another all-star, he would have stayed and they probably would have gone on to win. that management chose freakin' jamison over amare. and they are putting players on the downswing of their careers around lebron. like i said many times, if ferry pulled the trade for amare, lebron would still be in cleveland.

anyways, he's on the heat now. we will have to see how that plays out. nobody knows the future. we can all criticize his decision and things like that. but it's laughable to me how people have "demoted" lebron's status as the best player in the L for switching teams to play with 2 other all-stars.

 

Any team with the best overall record is definitely a contender.

There's a difference between being a contender and a favorite though. Most contenders are not favorites and have at best a 1 in 4 change or so of winning a title any given year. Some contenders (like the Sacramento Kings) never win one at all. Some like the Heat or Pistons do win.

The Cavs were probably at most a key piece or two from becoming a favorite. Management has tried (and failed) to find that missing piece. Guys like Jamison, Mo Williams, Shaq, etc. failed to deliver big performances in key situations. They might have some nice stats in some blowouts - but that doesn't mean much.

So were they contenders? Yes.

Were they a powerhouse favorite like the Lakers or Spurs from years past? I would agree with you and say a definitely no. A good regular season record is not enough evidence in that regard.

 

I think my whole post was relevant. You implied that the Cavs were winning 60+ games the last two years while the Lakers didn't win 60+ this year because the Cavs were playing in the East. The fact that the Cavs had a better record against the East indicates that they would have still won 60+ playing in the West.

 

The top half of the West was very good, the bottom half was very very very very very bad.

30 games against "the West" doesn't mean much. It is different when you have to play those top half teams 2-4 times per year.

 

Wow finally caught up to this thread and finished reading it all. Still the same deadbeat arguments since page 2.

The only other thing I got out of it was to put goodbug and MightyMog on ignore.

 

Lebron didn't do anything FOR the team. Lebron IS the team. Whatever he did for the team, he did it for Lebron.

 

Yeah, against better judgment I jumped back into it even though I know I'm just spinning my wheels at this point. No amount of discussion will change people's minds now.

As a parting note, someone just posted this article on a Cavs board.

BasketballReference.com

Anyone think the Cavs can pull off 64 wins next season? 44? I'm just hoping for 24 right now. JJ Hickson IS THE FUTURE. *crickets*

 

O nooooo, its the end of the world for stating its DWade's team still..........

 

Any one think the Cavs will make the playoffs in the East?

Because a 44 win team making the playoffs and losing in the 1st round, is the same thing as a 60+ win team that loses in the ECF....Championship less

When you lose the best player in a team, which everything was built around, no idiot is going to say they won't get worse.

Cleveland did everything they could to surround LBJ to win it. He got his chance with (2) 60+ win seasons.

That's all a player can ask for, a chance to win it. LBJ had his chance with the best possible roster built around him.

 

Two years in a row, they're the favorite to win it all in most voting, betting odds. And definitely heavy favorite to win the east. Not even one ESPN expert predicted they'd lose to Magic or Celtics.
http://espn.go.com/nba/playoffs/2010/matchup/_/teams/celtics-cavaliers

Yet they could even last 7 games. It's hilarious now LeBron fans are trying to paint Cavs as an underdog.

 

I don't really know how that relates to the crux of my post or the article besides being argumentative. I do appreciate the insight though. Whether you lose in the ECF or don't make the playoffs doesn't bring you any closer to a championship. True!

The Cavs didn't win a championship? Agreed.
Lebron wasn't good enough to win the championship with the current roster? Agreed.

As for the article and post, people feel 66 wins = teammates must be good

So how many wins will the Cavs get without Lebron since they must still be pretty good?

I read the GARM and with all the trade ideas, and barely a mention about any Cavs players. Maybe a proposal to snag Mo Williams and play him off the bench. Maybe get Varejao to back up the C/PF positions? Besides that, nada. According to people here, I figured everyone would be more adamant about going after Cavs players considering the team isn't beholden to anyone except Hickson right now. Anyone eager to see a Cavs player come to the Rockets? Bueller?

Ugh...I'll try to muster up more restraint on not opening this thread again.

 

Man, you guys keep recycling this argument over and over.

"Teh Cavs won 66 games! LBJ shouldnt of left! They were a contender!"

Again lets see how many games the Cavs win without James. Fact is, when you look at the Cavs' roster last season except for Lebron James I don't see any players who belong on a 66 win team. Big Z? Sideshow Bob? Old Shaq? Mo Williams? C'mon now, use your brain! Are any of those guys players who belong on 66 win teams? I wouldn't any of those guys if the Cavs traded them for free except for Mo Williams, Big Z and Shaq who would be nice as benchplayers, except big Z made 11M last season, Mo Williams made 10M, and Shaq made 18M.

The hate for LBJ's "quitting" is blinding you to the facts.

Mightymog and goodbug are just kobe fanboys, and hate the fact that LBJ is already a better player than their idol. I like Kobe Bryant too, but the way they put LBJ down just to make sure Kobe stays on top is ridiculous.

 

Yet he never got past the 1st round without him. Looking at their playoff numbers that postseason it seems like their contributions were needed. That series went the distance and the games seemed close.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/CHI/1988.html

http://www.basketball-reference.com/playoffs/NBA_1988.html

Actually, the difference was not catching the Celtics, but the Cavs instead.

 

We can stop guessing how good his supporting cast is. We will find out how good those guys are this season, right????

 

Maybe. They lost Big Z too. And we'll see how the roster changes from last year's.

 

Cleveland got a better chance of playing without LeBron with Byron Scott as their head coach than they would if Mike Brown was still there.

 

Big Z was gone for a large chunk of last season anyway and they kept on winning. Shaq was out for a long stretch and they kept on winning. The only significant loss from last season is Lebron.

 

From a selfish basketball fan's point of view: Chicago or Cleveland.

The only reason the LBJ decision made me upset is that I had higher expectations for him. I thought he was the one player who could be better than Jordan -- and now I just don't think he'll ever be considered in the same breath as him. In Miami, I agree with Barkley -- that's DWade's team. Chicago/CLE clearly would have been his team and more importantly CHI with LBJ, IMO of course, would be better (at least this year) than MIA with LBJ.

But in hindsight, I suppose his decision shouldn't be too surprising. Jordan was a flat-out competitor, curse you out and punch you if you're not practicing hard type. LBJ seems to be more of a kid (pre-game antics, self-given nicknames, etc.) than the professional that Jordan was.

I have a hard time agreeing with you that the Cavs took a step back -- they were the best team in the NBA with 61 wins! Nobody will ever convince me that LBJ didn't have help when he had enough help to get the best record in the NBA.

The Cavs tried to get better -- it's like I've been saying this whole thread. People want to point the finger at CLE for not giving LeBron more help.. well that would be a lot easier if their "leader" would actually step up and help recruit for them. They could have had Ariza for the MLE if LBJ would have just actually committed to the team -- instead Ariza chose the Rockets because he wasn't sure if LBJ was staying. Why is that Cleveland management's fault? It's a lot easier surrounding your star with talent when he's out there with you recruiting players for the championship. Yao Ming didn't tweet Bosh, "Chris, come to Houston, I would love to play with you for one year until my contract is up and I'm a Free Agent."

I think CLE was working with one hand tied behind their back, as they had to acquire everyone via trade since their star couldn't tell FAs he'd be there with them.

I agree that Shaq/Z/Jamison aren't enticing role players -- but they were brought in to give LBJ a veteran team he could take to the finals. Instead, he flamed out against Boston.

But all my hatred for the decision stems out of the selfish NBA fan inside of me -- I want to see the best go up against the best, not join forces because it's too hard.

Two of the top three players in the NBA, both in their primes, decided to be on the same team together because it was too hard for them to win with other players -- from a competitive point of view, that just doesn't sit right with me.

 

If your supporting cast helped you get the best record in the NBA for 2 years in a row and secure homecourt advantage throughout the playoffs, your supporting cast is good enough to win a championship. Sure Mo Williams isn't your ideal no. 2 but they run deeper than 2 players, they have solid role players who do their jobs. Its funny how much the goal posts are being shifted for LBJ

 

This is the problem with the Cavs roster from last year:


Big Z - 35 years old, on the downside of his career.
Shaq - 38 years old, on the downside of his career.
Jamison - 34 years old, still a serviceable starter, but on the downside of his career and proved to be a defensive liability in the playoffs.
Mo W - Solid starter, but has disappeared in the playoffs at crucial times two years in a row.
Sideshow Bob - Good role player, good defense and intensity. He is what he is.
Delonte West - average player, but he also boned your mom.
Everyone else - average role players.

Is that a roster we are really surprised that Lebron didn't want to re-up for 6 years with? Half of the "good" players are on their way out of the league. There is no top tier second option to complement Lebron. Your best offensive sidekick can't be counted on come playoff time. You have to hope that the front office can pull off trades or bring quality free agents to Cleveland to replace the old guys who leave or retire. And you also pray JJ Hickson develops into a good player.

Cleveland seemed to have one of the worst rosters to me out of the teams competing for Lebron this summer.