So I guess I'm the only one that doesn't want LeBron here?

The only and perhaps only reason I don't want Lebron is that we would definitely get past the 1st round and perhaps reach the WCF without winning it (thanks to the clueless McHale) and that would probably be enough for Morey to give the stupid, incompetent, joke of a coach McHale another contract.

OTOH, I hope LeBron comes here only under the condition that McHale is fired ASAP.

 

Exactly this. I loved the 80s/90s ball with building teams and playing tough and hated the mercenary big three era that has begun, but if it benefits the Rockets? Bring. It. On.

 

such dumb reasoning. you don't want lebron since he's the best and his max-ish contract might make our bench weak. However, you would prefer to get melo who will get the same type of contract and would be able to have the same bench as lebron. SMH

for those who said you don't like lebron, did you feel the same way as dwight? how do you feel about dwight now? just saying

 

Or I can watch the San Antonio Spurs


A basketball purist follows basketball from more angles than just box scores & ESPN highlights. Lebron's a great player, but taking shortcuts to championships goes against the competitiveness that made the NBA so entertaining from the 80's & 90's. If Lebron's truly the "King" why does he need to join a different set of superstars every 3-4 years. I'm sure the "fans" would love the hype surrounding Lebron here, while Lebron loves to feed into the hype. But as a purist, I don't want him here.

 

I agree, Why does everyone think you have to have Lebron to win a championship. I don't want Lebron I want to beat Lebron.

 

So I guess I'm the only one that would kick Kate Upton out of bed?

 

Winning championships is fun. Exiting the first round every goddamned year is not. Therefore, I want LeBron.

 

So, you do not need worry too much to have LeBron, he is not going to come here if even you want him.

 

I totally agree! The amount of flack we're getting for this is insane.

 

I was 5 seconds away from predicting you would use the Spurs in your argument. How surprising. Oh wait, they have free agent players? How's that fit with integrity of the game? They have athletes that aren't 100% fundamentally sound? More strikes for the purist. Now clearly I'm playing devil's advocate here as the Spurs are the most fundamentally sound team in the NBA, but I think you get my point.

However, your definition of purist sounds a lot more like the, "In my day..." argument. If you appreciate the game of basketball I don't see how you can not value a player like Lebron. You don't have to like him to appreciate him. I've said it time and time again, I hate Kobe the person but the basketball fan in me has to respect him as a player.

We're probably debating semantics here but I just can't agree with the way you describe the average fan. To me someone that only watches highlights and looks at box scores isn't an average fan. They're a casual fan at best.

 

What in the world does not wanting LeBron, disliking Kobe, and being a McGrady fan have in common?

 

Not likable, would hate to HAVE to win it that way, but would totally welcome him and win it that way if the opportunity presented itself, within reason of what it would take to get him here.

Really, I'd rather he didn't come in many ways, but the chance to dominate with him on the roster outweighs that in the short term.

Thing is, it ain't happening, so whatever.

 

Alright, I'll propose a scenario that even counters the Spurs argument.

Suppose the NBA decided to diffuse the Spurs organization and assume we had the option of replacing our entire roster with the Spurs' and adding Coach Pop in place of McHale...in addition to that, we could also get Lebron instead of say, Boris Diaw. Would we REALLY be rooting for the Rockets that year? Would it really still be our identity as a team? Or would we be pulling for the Houston Spurs + Lebron?

Granted, just adding Lebron to our squad isn't as extreme, but I feel there's a certain "purist" argument against bringing in other champions to the point where our identity gets muddled. In short, I don't want the Houston Lebrons, or hell, even Kobe's Rockets. Kobe IS the Lakers, Duncan IS the Spurs, Lebron IS Miami or Cleveland if he wishes...all of Lebron's scooting around is harmful to the league.

 

This is a very good point and an entirely different debate. Since free agency and caps became a thing, as a "team fan" you're really rooting for the uniforms since the players can potentially change from year to year. That being said, teams usually want to keep the best players for obvious reasons but some things (read: money) can prevent teams from retaining rosters for multiple seasons. Therein lies the problem. Do you root for the organization or the players? If you have home town ties to the team it's probably an easy choice. If you don't it gets more complex. Let's say you and your younger brother both went to the same public schools. After you graduate he invites you back three years later to watch a football game. Do you not have a rooting interest in your alma mater because you don't know any of the current players?

This is why I mentioned the "In my day..." argument. Some of us older folks remember rooting for basically the same roster every year unless a massive trade happened or a player retired. And yes, I can see how that would seem more "pure" to folks. But times change. I heard older fans complain that Dr. J's game wasn't "pure". I heard the same folks downplay MJ because he wasn't a true shooter, just an athlete. Hell, I was never as high on Shaq as some others because I thought his physical gifts far surpassed his basketball ability. Again, times change. The game evolves.

And the public is partially to blame. Teams and players now appear to be judged (unfairly IMO) on championships. So they're more motivated to win rings at any cost. Which can mean changing teams, getting coaches fired, etc. Some of the greatest players to play the game are often overshadowed because they never won it all. So as a fan base that demands the ultimate prize, why should we be surprised when players and teams do everything they can do deliver?

 

A squad's identity is defined more by the Franchise's history than it is any player or coach on the Roster.

For example, let's say that you're a boxer and someone gave you the opportunity to learn all the skills and gain the physique of Mohammed Ali with the wave of a magic wand.

Would you be compromising your identity by accepting those gifts? Or would you be just acknowledging that Ali is the superior boxer?

Holding onto an identity as an organization is great, but not if it costs you too much success.

We're never going to go back to the old days where player contracts prevented players and coaches from moving from team to team. And just like the days of Wilt, there will be those that follow teams (organizations) and those that follow players (employees).

However, the movement of players and resources is much more visible and takes place more quickly. Atlanta, the 76ers and OKC are basically attempting to build upon the organizational knowledge of the Spurs.

Sam Presti and Dan Ferry served under Buford.
Mike Budenholzer, Brett Brown and Quin Snyder served under Popovich.

Is Dwight defined by his days on the Magic? Or is it going to be defined by his days on the Rockets?
Is Harden defined by his days in OKC? Or will it be defined by his time on the Rockets?

As for "Duncan is the Spurs" and "Kobe is the Lakers", that's well and all but that's something the FANS attach to them, not themselves. Duncan and Kobe define the culture of their teams as much as the team's culture defines them, however the idea that there is some mythical "team identity" is more a result of the narrative created by fans than it is created by the organization or the players.

Each changing of the guard on a team changes the identity. Each change in ownership, management, coaching and roster changes the identity. It is we who believe that that identity is eternal. The organization evolves, the game evolves, and the players evolve.

The only TRULY lasting part of the identity is the shared history, the banners that hang in the ceiling, and the shared memories of the fans.

We all like to imagine that our sports Hero's identify with us in the same way that we identify with them. We all like to imagine that the players are as attached to the team as much as we are.

The reality is that for the most part they are not. It's truly a rare thing in today's day of salary caps and free agency to have a player like a Duncan or Kobe or Dirk play with a single franchise for their entire careers. While on the one hand it is admirable as it plays into our craving for continuity and identity, on the other hand it is celebrated because it IS so rare and unusual.

Whether we got Lebron, or the entire Spurs organization in one fell swoop, it doesn't change the fact that the Rockets are Houston's team and that the history lies with the franchise, not any player, coach or owner.

Do you think the Seattle fans would fret over the idea of previous identity of a team if the Lakers or the Spurs moved to Seattle? Or would they revel in the idea of having another chance to build Basketball history and memories shared among communal fandom? Would they say that they don't want to be the Seattle Lakers or would they look at it as an opportunity to build upon the rich legacy of the Seattle Supersonics?

Appreciate your TEAM for what it is... a shared experience on and off the court, not defined by the owner, the management or the players. Those are just means to the end. While as fans we say the "end" is the ring, in reality it is not... it is the shared experience in being part of something greater, to be a FAN of those that battle on behalf of your City and your history.

The Sox didn't win a championship for generations. Was that defined by the players, management, ownership and championships? Or was it defined by the shared history and experiences -- by the elation and heartbreak, by the hopes and disappointment, and by the memories of time spent with friends and family around our television and in the stands?

As it has been said so many times, it's the name on the FRONT of the jersey, not the back.

 

But you didnt say the Spurs. You told me to watch the WNBA as if theres no pure basketball left in the NBA

As far as the Spurs signing FA's, not sure what you're saying. They already have a core of players that have already won championships. The FA's they do sign are mostly pieces that compliment their system. They run their organization from a basketball purist standpoint, which mean nothing to "fans" who'd rather see their favorite player on their favorite team (at the expense of winning a ring). If the NBA's best players keep team hopping for a big 3 like Lebron, the league will turn into a giant circus in 5 years. Do you really wanna see that? I certainly don't.

Has nothing to do with that "in my day" crap. I just think Lebron's been put on a pedestal from highschool (by the media) and he plays into it by doing some of the things he does. It's like Kim Kardashian saying "she hates the press and wants a regular life", but makes sure she tips the press to be everywhere she goes. Lebron just loves the attention. Carmelo's kinda the same way (or more so his wife). I don't want that in Houston. If you're gonna bring a superstar in, give me KD

 

get this purist crap out of here. waaaa i love the purity of the game. i hate "purist" anything. are yall suppose to be better than everybody else that watches basketball? youre not and stop acting like it.

why does Howard have to leave ORL? Why didn't Harden just accept whatever OKC offered and stayed with them? Purist hate those guys too, right?

 

Stupid

 

Love or Hate the the guy, you can't deny how he would upgrade this team.
I'm not a fan of his but would like to see how his game would improve with the best center in the league playing alongside him.