NBA Regular Season & Playoffs 2017-18

ButtersSuki

Carcharodon wrote: »

100%. I will be the first to admit I was pretty gutted when Monte left, loved him. No one ever thought Curry would do this and if they said they did then they are a lying.

Hard to believe now that was even a conversation as to who to keep (Ellis or Curry) but it was very real at the time.



I genuinely thought he had huge potential and posted as much at the time (you can go back and check this if you like!) but nothing like 2 time MVP level for sure. No-one saw that coming.

Paully D

Carcharodon wrote: »

Just too much talent on the warriors team, end of story.
I feel like the Warriors haven’t even hit 5th gear, they cruise in 3rd then hit 4th when needed.
A lot of hate/jealousy towards this Warriors team but I hope people realize the suffering this franchise went through before the turnaround and despite people thinking getting Durrant turned it around, it was change of ownership, great draft picks, great management hires and great decisions

Completely agree.

The Warriors have done it the right way and are the textbook of example of how to build smartly - from draft hits to innovative coaching hires, rather than going for one of the usual “jobs for the boys” crew who bounce from job to job every couple of years.

People will cite KD but even before Durant they were dominant.

vetinari

ButtersSuki wrote: »

Ah...then you should direct some of that hate at LeBron. If he hadn't made "The Decision" to go and form his own super team in Miami, Durant never likely never leaves OKC. Be careful what you wish for.


Question for you - was LeBron cowardly to join Miami when he couldn't cross the line in Cleveland? I'm just curious as to your perception on this.

NO ONE in the history of the NBA has done what Durant has done.
There were super teams before LeBron's move to Miami.
My team the Celtics had Kevin Garnett and Ray Allen join Paul Pierce in 2007.


The crucial difference between Durant's move and all other super teams is that a Top 3 player didn't join a team that was already considered one of the best of all time. The Warriors pre Durant has already won gone to 2 straight finals, won one, went to game 7 the second and set a NBA record for regular season wins.


People seem to keep ignoring this aspect of this move. Creating a super team to compete against the best teams in the league is a lot different than joining the best team in the league.


The closest analogy for LeBron would have been if he had joined say the Lakers or the Celtics. (the two teams in the NBA finals that year). The Heat lost 4 - 1 to the Celtics in the first round the year before LeBron joined.

ButtersSuki

vetinari wrote: »

NO ONE in the history of the NBA has done what Durant has done.
There were super teams before LeBron's move to Miami.
My team the Celtics had Kevin Garnett and Ray Allen join Paul Pierce in 2007.


The crucial difference between Durant's move and all other super teams is that a Top 3 player didn't join a team that was already considered one of the best of all time. The Warriors pre Durant has already won gone to 2 straight finals, won one, went to game 7 the second and set a NBA record for regular season wins.


People seem to keep ignoring this aspect of this move. Creating a super team to compete against the best teams in the league is a lot different than joining the best team in the league.


The closest analogy for LeBron would have been if he had joined say the Lakers or the Celtics. (the two teams in the NBA finals that year). The Heat lost 4 - 1 to the Celtics in the first round the year before LeBron joined.

That's a pretty interesting revisionist history take there to be fair.


When LeBron left Cleveland, he walked for nothing in return and left them completed screwed. It's by luck more than anything else that they won 3 out of 4 lotteries to enable them to build a roster that made it attractive for him to leave Miami's declining ship and return there.


You're also ignoring the fact that he went to Miami with Bosh (a then 20 and 10 guy).


The teams you mention were built through trades, not a guy taking his talents to wherever.


And again, had LeBron not changed the idea of what loyalty was etc., would Durant have moved? Who knows? But I'm guessing if LeBron had stayed in Cleveland for life we wouldn't have seen most of the moves we've seen in the last number of years. It's cause and effect.



NO ONE (to use your own posting style) had ever done what LeBron did before that - a multi-year MVP and best player in the league playing in his hometown on the team with the league most wins that year and a contender leaves his team for nothing and leaves them screwed - at the time for what looked like an awful lot longer than it eventually panned out to be through the aforementioned lottery luck. He empowered himself and other players to make decisions about where they wanted to play, regardless of loyalty etc. So when Durant does what he did and plays where he wants to (and for less money then he could make elsewhere - unlike LeBron) then can LeBron really criticise him? No.


LeBron put himself into the best situation he believed he could win in. Durant has done the same thing, only arguably better.

ButtersSuki

Collangelo “resigns” (lol), but his wife did it (lol x 2).....and she shot JFK too and was solely reapondsible for 9/11.....

Carcharodon

vetinari wrote: »

The hate I feel is mostly aimed at Durant making such a cowardly move to join the Warriors. We would have had some epic playoff games this year and last if he had formed his own super team somewhere (say if he joined the Rockets).


Instead he joined a team that was already a NBA championship caliber team and has ruined the playoffs for neutral fans.

That’s a little dramatic in my opinion, obviously elements of truth in there but not as cut and dry as people like to believe.
Can’t blame a guy for wanting to win an NBA championship, the romantic notion that he should of won a championship by beating the best and not joining them is well, just romantic.
Iam sure playing with unselfish and low ego players probably influenced him too

Carcharodon

The “hate” towards Durant is laughable.
Whatever job you’re in, someone comes to you and says hey, do you want to work at a better company with better coworkers, where egos are left at the door, you will achieve your career goals, oh you get to live in the Bay Area, you are next to Silicon Valley, the biggest high tech market in USA and probably the world, something you have a strong interest in.
Yea, only an idiot would turn that down.

vetinari

Can people stop comparing superstar sports players to regular professionals??!! Durant is not an accountant or mid level manager.

I work as a software engineer at a big tech company.
A more accurate comparison would be to our CEO.
If our CEO thought our (very successful) company was eventually going to be run over by a competitor so decided to join them as their CFO or CTO (not the main man) for less money, then people would rightly question his ambition.


Also not understanding the contorted logic that says the Celtics Big 3 team was not a super team? Establishing a super team via trades obviously requires more skill but is still a super team.


To re-iterate my first point, the Warriors probably win the finals this year and possibly last year without the Durant trade. The Heat with Wade and Bosh don't win a championship. The Celtics without Garnett don't win a championship.


Durant is the equivalent of Karl Malone joining Michael Jordan's Bulls team. How would that have been looked on?

Carcharodon

vetinari wrote: »

Can people stop comparing superstar sports players to regular professionals??!! Durant is not an accountant or mid level manager.

I work as a software engineer at a big tech company.
A more accurate comparison would be to our CEO.
If our CEO thought our (very successful) company was eventually going to be run over by a competitor so decided them as their CFO or CTO (not the main man) for less money, then people would rightly question his ambition.


Also not understanding the contorted logic that says the Celtics Big 3 team was not a super team? Establishing a super team via trades obviously requires more skill but is still a super team.


To re-iterate my first point, the Warriors probably win the finals this year and possibly last year without the Durant trade. The Heat with Wade and Bosh don't win a championship. The Celtics without Garnett don't win a championship.


Durant is the equivalent of Karl Malone joining Michael Jordan's Bulls team. How would that have been looked on?

You just seem to make up your own logic
You must have some mommy issues or something that you feel Durant should of wanted to be the main man, I don’t get it

It’s a professional sport in which they get paid for, you do realize that right, taking less money In contract but making more in endorsements in a bigger market.
Maybe you just don’t like the Warriors but just enjoy the basketball they produce, life’s too short

Oh by the way, you might be new to basketball but the warriors lost the finals the year before Durant came, fun fact!!

Paully D

The irony of anyone even attempting to complain that the Warriors are too stacked for LeBron to beat is beyond belief. :pac:

LuckyLloyd

Paully D wrote: »

The irony of anyone even attempting to complain that the Warriors are too stacked for LeBron to beat is beyond belief. :pac:

Huh? It’s four Hall of Famers on the floor in their prime (with Iggy on the bench). It’s never happened before. It involves max contract level players taking less than they’re capable of earning.

LeBron / Wade / Bosh took the max and filed out the roster with draft picks and min contracts.

The 2003 Lakers (who blazed this path imo) had HOF guys past their best. Ditto the 2007 Celtics (though not by much), and it was just three of them.

And again, none of these previous scenarios involved a 73 win team acquiring a top five player (what a ridiculous sentence).

I get it, the Warriors are a blessing for LeBron haters but they have to be knocked a little, otherwise it’s no overt fun. Consider the absolute ridiculousness of your supposed “best” player being able to go 1 for 10 from behind the arc and yet still win.

For LeBron:

51 / 8 / 8 / 1 / 1
29 / 9 / 13 / 2 / 0
33 / 11 / 10 / 2 / 2

Isn’t enough to win a game. We’re in a new world.

Carcharodon

Steph curry - Drafted 7th in 2009, 6 teams passed on him

Klay Thompson - Drafted 11th in 2011, 10 teams passed on him

Draymond Green - Drafted 35th in 2012, 34 teams passed on him

People just seem to think The Warriors popped out of nowhere to steal the league
New ownership changed the mentality and direction of the franchise
I think it started with signing David Lee, then Bogut was also a big factor. Iggy was a major coup plus making players like Livingston that have bounced around the league core parts of the team
Harrison Barnes was also drafted 7th in 2012 who then signed a big contract for the mavs that paved the way for Durant
Warriors also replaced Jackson with Kerr, a great move.

Warriors didn’t put a gun to Durant’s head to sign, a lot of teams tried to sign him. This insane ideological notion he shouldn’t go there is mind blowing, I just don’t get it, why should he be a slave to the media and emotional uniformed fans.
This Warriors team won’t last forever and another team will take the mantle, why can’t people just enjoy it.

The outpouring of sympathy for Lebron is a bit insane also, the man that made a tv program about his move which decimated his home town team, they were very lucky to get back to a decent roster so he would give them another chance.
I don’t remember this outrage when Shaq went to LA, how about when the Spurs tanked a season to get a better chance at Duncan, Celtics creating the big 3, Miami creating the big 3.
If the Warriors lost to Houston would people be having the same discussion, probably not, probably a different soundbite they heard from skip bayless

vetinari

You keep missing the central point!
No top 5 player has ever before joined a team that was able to win championships without them.
I have no idea how that is so hard to understand.

Oh by the way, you might be new to basketball but the warriors lost the finals the year before Durant came, fun fact!!

They lost in game 7 after winning the finals the year before. They also set a NBA record for regular season wins that year.
That team would have been favorites again the following year.

Question for the Durant apologists, would you apply the same logic to LeBron if he decided to join the Warriors?

LuckyLloyd

I understand that Warriors fans are going to dislike and not appreciate not being liked, but it is what it is. That said, let's break this down.

Carcharodon wrote: »

Steph curry - Drafted 7th in 2009, 6 teams passed on him

Klay Thompson - Drafted 11th in 2011, 10 teams passed on him

Draymond Green - Drafted 35th in 2012, 34 teams passed on him

People just seem to think The Warriors popped out of nowhere to steal the league

No, people think they got insanely lucky. Hitting on three HOF players from a 7th, 11th and 35th pick is exactly that. People will talk about skill in their scouting methods, etc but I don't buy that tbh. It's luck. Curry's injury; his full recovery and how that affected his contract status and price point was lucky too. It's a perfect storm of luck.

Carcharodon wrote: »

New ownership changed the mentality and direction of the franchise
I think it started with signing David Lee, then Bogut was also a big factor. Iggy was a major coup plus making players like Livingston that have bounced around the league core parts of the team
Harrison Barnes was also drafted 7th in 2012 who then signed a big contract for the mavs that paved the way for Durant
Warriors also replaced Jackson with Kerr, a great move.

The owners have made some prudent moves, but none of the above acquisitions were needle movers. They complimented the emergence of three HOF players from non premium draft picks well, but it is winning the lottery three times that is the core part of this. Their roster padding around that has generally been good though, and it certainly doesn't hurt.

Carcharodon wrote: »

Warriors didn’t put a gun to Durant’s head to sign, a lot of teams tried to sign him. This insane ideological notion he shouldn’t go there is mind blowing, I just don’t get it, why should he be a slave to the media and emotional uniformed fans.
This Warriors team won’t last forever and another team will take the mantle, why can’t people just enjoy it.

No - one ever said they put a gun to his head. But they lobbied for his signing, and numbers and expectations for numbers were worked to facilitate his signing. I don't have any strong 'ideological' belief that he shouldn't have signed mind, I think he made a prudent business / competitive decision, essentially trading some ego and legacy considerations for cold hard rings. But ultimately a 73 win team acquired a fourth HOF and league top 5 player because they'd just been upset in seven. This is about neutral fans looking at the deck as irreconcilably stacked.

For sure, they won't last forever. But Durant is 29; Curry 30; Klay 28; Draymond 28 - they have a three to five year window still.

Carcharodon wrote: »

The outpouring of sympathy for Lebron is a bit insane also, the man that made a tv program about his move which decimated his home town team, they were very lucky to get back to a decent roster so he would give them another chance.

The Decision was eight years ago. The Cavs were so bad during the Miami years that it created a mini 'Process' type reboot:

2010 - 11: 19 wins (Warriors 36 wins)
2011 - 12: 21 wins (Warriors 23 wins)
2012 - 13: 24 wins (Warriors 47 wins)
2013 - 14: 33 wins (Warriors 51 wins)

And that, of course, is why he left in the first place. His 2010 team was terrible, it had been terrible for years and a fundamental retooling was required if they were ever to become Championship ready, which couldn't have happened had he stayed.

Carcharodon wrote: »

I don’t remember this outrage when Shaq went to LA, how about when the Spurs tanked a season to get a better chance at Duncan, Celtics creating the big 3, Miami creating the big 3.
If the Warriors lost to Houston would people be having the same discussion, probably not, probably a different soundbite they heard from skip bayless

Because it's four HOF players on one team!! All in their peak years!! The reaction and conversation is different because IT IS different.

ButtersSuki

vetinari wrote: »

You keep missing the central point!
No top 5 player has ever before joined a team that was able to win championships without them.
I have no idea how that is so hard to understand.



They lost in game 7 after winning the finals the year before. They also set a NBA record for regular season wins that year.
That team would have been favorites again the following year.

Question for the Durant apologists, would you apply the same logic to LeBron if he decided to join the Warriors?

Not a Durant apologist by any means, I said I didn't necessarily love it but you can't give the guy sh*t for wanting to play there.


I said at the time I wasn't a fan of the move, but to act like Lebron didn't trailblaze the empowerment of players and set this up like no-one has ever done before is bonkers. It's actually a topic on today's Open Floor podcast. Have a listen maybe and see if that changes your perspective.



If you were offered a job tomorrow in a nicer part of the world with a better culture and perks would you take it?

ButtersSuki

vetinari wrote: »

Can people stop comparing superstar sports players to regular professionals??!! Durant is not an accountant or mid level manager.

I work as a software engineer at a big tech company.
A more accurate comparison would be to our CEO.
If our CEO thought our (very successful) company was eventually going to be run over by a competitor so decided to join them as their CFO or CTO (not the main man) for less money, then people would rightly question his ambition.


Also not understanding the contorted logic that says the Celtics Big 3 team was not a super team? Establishing a super team via trades obviously requires more skill but is still a super team.


To re-iterate my first point, the Warriors probably win the finals this year and possibly last year without the Durant trade. The Heat with Wade and Bosh don't win a championship. The Celtics without Garnett don't win a championship.


Durant is the equivalent of Karl Malone joining Michael Jordan's Bulls team. How would that have been looked on?

Not accurate unless he exposes himself to a number of opportunities outside of work that being in the area exposes him too. He's raised his own profile enormously by being in California and close to Silicon Valley, and the totality of that equals more than what opportunities were afforded to him in OKC.

chopperbyrne

Durant did nothing wrong.

He joined a team with great players that he knew he could play well, and win with.

Barring a ridiculous, never been done before, comeback from the Cavs, it has worked out very well for him.

They're not unbeatable.

They were taken to Game 7 by the Rockets, but just match up really well against this Cavs team.

LeBron also did nothing wrong when he went to Miami.

He wanted to win championships, and was unlikely to do so at Cleveland then.

ButtersSuki

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Huh? It’s four Hall of Famers on the floor in their prime (with Iggy on the bench). It’s never happened before. It involves max contract level players taking less than they’re capable of earning.

Well...again....that's their decision. They have made the sacrifice on salary to win. I'm not saying they don't benefit in total earnings by the other opportunities afforded to them by wining Championships BUT THE SAME GOES FOR LEBRON.


Oh but LeBron doesn't do discounts and insists on being paid his worth/market value.


So here's a proposition for you. Houston (a rumored LBJ destination) can't afford him without likely sacrificing Capella (which would be a huge loss). Ok. How about you park salary LeBron (which is a fraction of your income anyway after all) and take a much lower deal or a MLE or just the league minimum and play there next year on a 1 year deal and go beat GS? It's not like you need the money......


Put it up to them the same way they put it up to you.

LuckyLloyd

chopperbyrne wrote: »

Durant did nothing wrong.

He joined a team with great players that he knew he could play well, and win with.

Barring a ridiculous, never been done before, comeback from the Cavs, it has worked out very well for him.

They're not unbeatable.

They were taken to Game 7 by the Rockets, but just match up really well against this Cavs team.

LeBron also did nothing wrong when he went to Miami.

He wanted to win championships, and was unlikely to do so at Cleveland then.

I agree with this pretty much. Houston made some great moves last year to give themselves a shot and they might just have done it if they had held it together from behind the arc at key moments. No team in sports is ever 'unbeatable', but they're in as strong a position as we've seen.

vetinari

chopperbyrne wrote: »

Durant did nothing wrong.

He joined a team with great players that he knew he could play well, and win with.

Barring a ridiculous, never been done before, comeback from the Cavs, it has worked out very well for him.

They're not unbeatable.

They were taken to Game 7 by the Rockets, but just match up really well against this Cavs team.

LeBron also did nothing wrong when he went to Miami.

He wanted to win championships, and was unlikely to do so at Cleveland then.

So to my earlier question, would you be okay with LeBron joining the Warriors after this season?

ButtersSuki

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

I get it, the Warriors are a blessing for LeBron haters but they have to be knocked a little, otherwise it’s no overt fun. Consider the absolute ridiculousness of your supposed “best” player being able to go 1 for 10 from behind the arc and yet still win.

For LeBron:

51 / 8 / 8 / 1 / 1
29 / 9 / 13 / 2 / 0
33 / 11 / 10 / 2 / 2

Isn’t enough to win a game. We’re in a new world.

If he were a 1 man team that's fine, but he's not and they're (GS) not. If LeBron scores 10 point, yeah it's hard to see Cleveland winning. But GS aren't a 1 man team.


LeBron has been exceptional in these games, truly exceptional. But if he didn't engineer fat overpaid contract for his buddies (Thompson, JR and previously Shump etc.) then maybe they'd have better support.....ever consider that? Or allow his relationship with Kyrie (the only elite player they drafted from their 3 out 4 lottery wins) to go sour....


He's not above criticism.

ButtersSuki

vetinari wrote: »

So to my earlier question, would you be okay with LeBron joining the Warriors after this season?

I think it would suck balls and turn me right off most of NBA basketball. But that's not the same as what Durant did.


You could answer mine now btw! Or comment on the points I've made.

ButtersSuki

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

I agree with this pretty much. Houston made some great moves last year to give themselves a shot and they might just have done it if they had held it together from behind the arc at key moments. No team in sports is ever 'unbeatable', but they're in as strong a position as we've seen.

I HATE how Houston play - they're a terrible watch. But I LOVE the fact that they're going after GS big time and really going all in to try and beat them - even if they fail. Even with a healthy Paul I don't think they'd have beaten GS, but we'll never know. Next year could be very interesting depending on what Free Agency moves they make though.


I'd imagine GS got a fright this year with how much the gap has closed and that might knock some of the complacency out of them. If they're less than fully focused next year, it could get very interesting.


And that's before you mention injuries......which can happen to anyone at any time.

vetinari

The bad contracts have really hit home this season for the Cavaliers.

The Cavaliers team from last year though (LeBron, Love and Kyrie) was about as good a team as they could have constructed.
That team still lost in 5 games to the Cavaliers.
The Cavaliers would have needed to keep that 3 and add someone on the level of a Paul George before they would ever be considered favorites against the Warriors. Ultimately the bad contracts are irrelevant.

vetinari

ButtersSuki wrote: »

I think it would suck balls and turn me right off most of NBA basketball. But that's not the same as what Durant did.


You could answer mine now btw! Or comment on the points I've made.

How is it different? It would be moving to guarantee yourself some Championships. Not to compete for championships but to guarantee them.

LuckyLloyd

ButtersSuki wrote: »

Well...again....that's their decision. They have made the sacrifice on salary to win. I'm not saying they don't benefit in total earnings by the other opportunities afforded to them by wining Championships BUT THE SAME GOES FOR LEBRON.


Oh but LeBron doesn't do discounts and insists on being paid his worth/market value.


So here's a proposition for you. Houston (a rumored LBJ destination) can't afford him without likely sacrificing Capella (which would be a huge loss). Ok. How about you park salary LeBron (which is a fraction of your income anyway after all) and take a much lower deal or a MLE or just the league minimum and play there next year on a 1 year deal and go beat GS? It's not like you need the money......


Put it up to them the same way they put it up to you.

I of course understand it's their decision, but it's an important part of understanding why this is different. None of the previously combined "super" teams took less than their market value. It's unprecedented for max players to not take the max.

I personally would advocate LeBron to go and play for the vet min. If he moved to Philly for the vet min for example, that could put them in an unbelievable position beyond previous comprehension. However, it is easy for me to say that. There are philosophical and political considerations involved that could be argued as superseding roster construction. Who are we to say that LeBron is rich enough? In terms of the collective bargaining position and adjustable cap, would players be adversely affected long term if LeBron did take less? Is that his concern? What message does it send when a leader in the black community takes less than what he is worth? Is it a positive or negative message?

I don't neccesarily think we should get into all of that on a basketball forum (or that we're qualified to - I'm certainly not!), but I do think we need to appreciate that the issue is more nuanced than 'take the min cause you're rich and win rangz'.

ButtersSuki

vetinari wrote: »

The bad contracts have really hit home this season for the Cavaliers.

The Cavaliers team from last year though (LeBron, Love and Kyrie) was about as good a team as they could have constructed.
That team still lost in 5 games to the Cavaliers.
The Cavaliers would have needed to keep that 3 and add someone on the level of a Paul George before they would ever be considered favorites against the Warriors. Ultimately the bad contracts are irrelevant.

They're not. They're a huge part of it. They inhibit their flexibility in the open market. Cleveland right now have no idea what he's doing next year - this is his standard MO (google it, Windhorst has written about it). He's hurting them by not allowing them to plan with the full information.


And the contracts are hurting them. That is undeniable.

LuckyLloyd

ButtersSuki wrote: »

If he were a 1 man team that's fine, but he's not and they're (GS) not. If LeBron scores 10 point, yeah it's hard to see Cleveland winning. But GS aren't a 1 man team.


LeBron has been exceptional in these games, truly exceptional. But if he didn't engineer fat overpaid contract for his buddies (Thompson, JR and previously Shump etc.) then maybe they'd have better support.....ever consider that? Or allow his relationship with Kyrie (the only elite player they drafted from their 3 out 4 lottery wins) to go sour....


He's not above criticism.

JR and Thompson got paid after they contributed strongly to a championship in 2016. JR fell off the cliff since and it's easy to say that contract is terrible now. Thompson was a key piece in the 2016 finals too, and he's had personal issues this year that are probably affecting his game to some extent or no. The bottom line is that their decisions haven't worked out, but as a luxury tax team depending on MLEs and buyouts, their flexibility was limited.

As for the Kyrie / LeBron relationship, my take on it was Kyrie wanted to be the man somewhere. That trade didn't work out but it looked like a decent haul at the time. Hindsight is 20 / 20. There were valid reasons behind all of their moves throughout the last four years, it would be a mistake to think that teams can get all of their decisions correct.

And the end result is a one man team playing a four man team. Not that I'm saying Love / Hill / the rest have no value. But you're playing four reliable bulk performers who can carry offensive / defensive volume and pick each other up. LeBron needs to get towards 50 and even then it isn't enough.

ButtersSuki

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

I of course understand it's their decision, but it's an important part of understanding why this is different. None of the previously combined "super" teams took less than their market value. It's unprecedented for max players to not take the max.

I personally would advocate LeBron to go and play for the vet min. If he moved to Philly for the vet min for example, that could put them in an unbelievable position beyond previous comprehension. However, it is easy for me to say that. There are philosophical and political considerations involved that could be argued as superseding roster construction. Who are we to say that LeBron is rich enough? In terms of the collective bargaining position and adjustable cap, would players be adversely affected long term if LeBron did take less? Is that his concern? What message does it send when a leader in the black community takes less than what he is worth? Is it a positive or negative message?

I don't neccesarily think we should get into all of that on a basketball forum (or that we're qualified to - I'm certainly not!), but I do think we need to appreciate that the issue is more nuanced than 'take the min cause you're rich and win rangz'.

So you're criticising them for taking less money in order to win? I really don't get that. That show's they are unselfish as a bunch and can park egos.


Just because it's unprecedented doesn't mean it's wrong.

LuckyLloyd

LeBron's decision this off season is massively important for the competitive balance of the NBA as a whole the next five years. He needs to make a good decision that takes account of his likely decline over a three to five year period and the long term flexibility for roster construction around that. If he chooses the West, we may be consigned to very one sided NBA Finals (even if the West Conf champ becomes incredible). It's a lot of pressure and easy to make the wrong decision...