Another NBA player

[Guest]

Lakers would be better without Kobe. Jomal is dead on. The correct sign n trade for Kobe would have had the Lakers in much better shape then now. Wanna argue? Don't. Cause Kobe is sub .500 lifetime without Shaq.

Oh, please!  Tell me who the Lakers are going to trade Kobe for that is going to help the Lakers be a better team than they currently are?  There isn't anyone!  There are only a handful of players better than Kobe -- TD, KG, Dirk perhaps, Amare (umm, mainly because it's a big man's league).  That means unless you can't trade for one of these guys, it's not a good trade.  Otherwise, you have to trade for SEVERAL stars -- and that just never pans out, does it?

You can say that Kobe is a sub .500 lifetime without Shaq -- but you have to wait until the Lakers can clear cap room to actually begin to negotiate with the FA.  The Lakers traded Shaq and had to take Grant's salary (which gives us no room to operate in the free agency).  It is going to be a couple of more years before you can begin to argue this point with Kobe.  Kobe hasn't had the personell to work with to get the Lakers into the playoffs in the WC -- you certainly can't argue that point.

Dream Team is a silly comparison. The world offered no competition at that time.  In my league you only mention the teams that would suck. How about the upper half? What a kick arse playoffs that would be.

You still seem to be missing half of the equation -- not only are you killing half of the leagues present -- you are also condemning them for their entire future.  Do you not see that?  Because what you are suggesting not only puts them in the bottom half of the league but it KEEPS them there!  Look at the dominant teams presently in the league:  SA, Detroit, Indy, Miami, Phoenix -- okay, all of the best players go to those teams (and according to your philosophy as players gain superstar status, they have to move to those teams) -- where are LA, Boston and Philly?  LA and Boston, historically, are the best organizations in the game but you want to keep them down by making the best players go to your predestined teams.  How much history does Indy, Miami, Phoenix -- how many years did SA suck?  

What you are proposing is ridiculous!  

[Reality]

Rubbish.  We don't have the bandwidth to hold the players that would have been better for the Lakers then Kobadiah.  Top 5 my ass.  His sub .500 career includes over 100 games when Shaq was still a member of the Lakers.

Enough Lakerbabble.  

My untwisted proposal is that more players play for a title instead of bucks and stats.  What Euro guard did is good.  Clyde, Malone, Sichting, Billy W, what Speedy should have done, it's all good.  Would result in much better playoffs, not the downfall of the NBA. :rofl:  

[Guest_Randy]

Didn't Jordan have some sub .500 years?  Didn't TMac have some sub .500 years?  The list goes on and on and on, doesn't it?  But it ONLY fits in Kobe's case?  It took MORE than just Shaq and Kobe to win a championship -- it took role players like Grant, AC Green, Fox, Shaw, Harper, Fisher -- now look at the Lakers role players, wow, not in the same league, IMO.  Kobe can only do soo much.

However, only time will tell who is right and who is wrong.  The Lakers don't have solid role players to help Kobe -- it's up to PJ to find a way to clear room for Kobe to work so if your "sub .500" comments are true when the Lakers actually clear room to assemble a team, I will agree with you but currently your comments are purely conjecture (and based on an extreme dislike for Kobe and anything in purple and gold).

[Reality]

Remember now if a player comes over for less to help the Kobadiah cause, Randy you as GM have to turn this player down so as not to ruin the NBA.

Or is it okay when they come over to the Purple n Gold? :rolleyes:  

[Derek Bodner]

Reality, you can't compare teams in that era with teams in this era -- there were some GREAT teams but how many less teams were there in the league then?

Not to mention a SALARY CAP.

This argument by reality is just ridiculous.  The Chris Bosh comparison is spot on.  The NBA would be crap.

Of course, it makes sense coming from someone who himself jumps to the title contenders.

[rickortreat]

Reality, you've gone off the deep end with this one.  First off the Salary Cap prevents teams from dominating for years like the Yankees in baseball.  Even teams that are willing to overspend and over pamper their players like the Mavericks can only get so far up the ladder.

What wins championships in the NBA is individual talent.  There are some players that are simply that much better night in and out on thr court.  Their ego's demand that they do their best in games, and they like the responsibility and the pressure.  They also have a good deal of pride and want to proove that they are the best.  It's a lot harder to do that on your own, which is why players like Kareem Abdul Jabbar stand out.  He brought the Milwaukee Bucks a championship as a rookie, along with a mature, Oscar Roberston.  

A player like AI wouldn't dream of sacrificing 50% of his salary to play with Shaq.  He would rather win the chamionship and BEAT Shaq with his own squad and him as the star.  It's that ego and pride that makes these games in the regualr season worth watching.  And it's the best of these teams that make the playoffs so good to watch.

The free agency rules and the draft are aimed at making the entire NBA competitive, the worst teams get the first crack at the best talent,  the teams that overspend have to shed players or pay a fine.  I want a league where the difference between teams comes down to the coaching and strategy, not simply the talent.

Concentratating the best players for the sake of winning a championship would ruin the league and destroy the game.  

[Reality]

Reality, you can't compare teams in that era with teams in this era -- there were some GREAT teams but how many less teams were there in the league then?

Not to mention a SALARY CAP.

This argument by reality is just ridiculous.  The Chris Bosh comparison is spot on.  The NBA would be crap.

Of course, it makes sense coming from someone who himself jumps to the title contenders.

Whiny butt.

If a player came over to the Sixers for less you would welcome him with open arms.

[Derek Bodner]

If a player came over to the Sixers for less you would welcome him with open arms.

Well, DUH.

That's completely different than attacking players who don't.

[Guest]

Hold on a second.

I can agree with Reality on one thing - the 80's teams were deeper, with star level role-players.  And it made for great match-ups.

In the '80's, only Boston, Philadelphia, and Detroit went to the Finals from the East.

In the 80's, only the Los Angeles Lakers and Houston Rockets went to the Finals from the West.

Life was good - provided you cheered for Boston, Philadelphia, Detroit, LA Lakers, or Houston.

Compare that to JUST the 2000's - in 6 short years.

Los Angeles and San Antonio have gone from the West.
From the East, you have Indiana, Philadelphia, New Jersey, and Detroit.

In the '00's - SO FAR - we've ALREADY had more teams go the the Finals than in the entire decade of the '80's.

And look at the '90's!  11 Teams!

East:  Detroit, Chicago, New York, Orlando.
West:  Portland, LA Lakers, Phoenix, Houston, Seattle, Utah, San Antonio.

If you want us to go back to your way of looking at things, Reality, then we need to contract the league.  Eliminate those 8 teams that weren't playing in 1980 (Dallas, Minnesota, Orlando, Miami, Toronto, Memphis(Vancouver), Charlotte, New Orleans (Charlotte)).  After all - only 3 of these teams made the playoffs this past season.

Of course, you reduce league revenue by a lot - those teams actually do bring in money when they play their games.  164 games lost is a LOT of money.

The reason the 80's teams and all seem so much more talent is because THEY WERE.  All-Stars took roles on great teams because there were more All-Stars than teams!  Consider this - if every NBA roster had one All-Star, and only those players were allowed to go to the All-Star Game, 3 All-Stars from each conference would be left at home.  In 1980, you'd have to take 1 more All Star from two different teams to fill out the roster.

The league has expanded faster than the talent pool, and as a result, we've got a Darko Milicic on pretty much every bench - waiting for them to be ready.

                                                  Joe
 

[Laker Fan]

I simply don't understand it, I know all of you are intelligent, all of you have thoughtful, intuitive basketball minds, why do you let inane ramblings and baitings draw you into a vortech of sheer stupidity? Have you ever read anything but hatefilled namecalling, bandwagon chest thumping, and delerium driven blather as a way of reply to your sensible and level headed postings? Ever? I simply don't understand why anyone would waste their time, look at me, I've already wasted 5 minutes on this that I will never get back.

One more thing, to whomever it was that said Dirk was perhaps better than Kobe, nonsense, let's see him develop a defensive or post game anywhere near the level of Kobe, and than maybe he gets mentioned in the same breath, Amare is a better argument, and Garnett has yet to prove he can strap a team on his back.

[Skandery]

Reality, you can't compare teams in that era with teams in this era -- there were some GREAT teams but how many less teams were there in the league then?

Not to mention a SALARY CAP.

 
:rofl:  :rofl:  :rofl:  :rofl:  :rofl:  :rofl:  :rofl:  :rofl:  :rofl:  :rofl:  :rofl:  

[Reality]

Brownose away all you want, Rock Springs.

They love me.

[Skandery]

Okay, let's try these scenarios:
Cavs minus LeBron
Lakers minus Kobe
SacTown minus Peja and Miller
Seattle minus Ray Allen
Phoenix minus Stoudamire and Nash
Mavs minus Dirk
Utah minus AK57

Umm...Randy, who is AK57?




Just Kidding, sorry for interrupting.  

Brownose away all you want, Rock Springs.

They love me.

 :huh:  

[Reality]

If a player came over to the Sixers for less you would welcome him with open arms.

Well, DUH.

That's completely different than attacking players who don't.

So you are all for Chris Webber getting 18 mil a year and bringing down the 6ers.
Fine.  Why disagee with my stance that he (and A.I.) could easily "live" on less and thereby greaten the 6ers chances of getting other good players to make a title run.  

What's that got to do with me picking teams that become winners?

For you salary cappers.....
 
If they would agree to take less, it would lessen the cap now wouldn't it?
No amount of icons will change that.  B)
 

[Skandery]

So you are all for Chris Webber getting 18 mil a year and bringing down the 6ers.
Fine. Why disagee with my stance that he (and A.I.) could easily "live" on less and thereby greaten the 6ers chances of getting other good players to make a title run.

What does this scenario have to do with all the great players joining the elite teams to rekindle the playoff excitement of yore.  And if you ask me, playoffs are plenty exciting today as they ever were.  

Does Tim Duncan honestly need Ray Allen, Shareef, Webber, Kobe, T-Mac, AI, and Amare all on his team to win the championship.  Obviously NOT!  Would it make you happy to watch the Spurs win 1 out of every 4 championships for the next century (like the Yankees).........don't answer that.  All you people out there who is for the idea of having only 3 organizations win all the championships from now until the end of your lives??