The LeBron James Thread

[dragonyeuw]

Re: The LeBron James Saga

He was given that huge endorsement deal by Nike because they saw what he was going to be and gave him that money based on what he showed them.

That doesn't dispel my point that he was given that type of deal before he had ever earned it on the NBA floor. The point being made is that he was given the world before he did anything to be worthy of it.


He was basically being given the money in advance and I'm sure they don't regret that contract now. Whether or not he had earned it then, he's earned it now so what difference does it make?

The difference is that he was given that contract before he had ever earned anything on the NBA court. Why put the effort in if you're given 90 million in advance. Would you? It's all fine and dandy to say in hindsight that he's 'worth it', but he could have just as easily been a bust. Or gotten injured. Wasn't Greg Oden the next big thing? Point is, the guy was given everything before he stepped foot on the court. Trying to justify it by saying he's 'since earned it' doesn't counteract my point.


None of them are considered anywhere near the top 10? You don't consider Charles Barkley or Karl Malone anywhere near the top 10?

No, I don't. And Charles Barkley was one of my favorite players. But near the top ten? Nope.


They are probably the 2nd and 3rd best players at their position all time. Charles Barkley is considered one of the top 5 rebounders of all time and wasn't 6 and a half feet tall, many consider him the greatest rebounder ever. You're saying that the reason he isn't considered in the top 10 is because he never won a championship?

Yes. How many times have you heard his name put forth as a top ten player? Why do you think that is?

Karl Malone was an absolute choke artist, but if he had won a championship and sucked in the finals, he would be considered a better player? I don't think so.

If he led the Jazz to a title, yes. If he won as a role player on the 2004 Lakers,no.

What do all of those guys have in common? They all played at some point in their career on one of the top 15 teams of all time. That's what they have in common.

The 1994 Rockets were one of the 15 best teams ever? Or the 2003 Spurs? News to me...

The guys I mention MADE those teams great teams. Granted they had some good players on those teams. But let's not kid ourselves: no one player is good enough to win 66 games by himself. That Cavs team buckled under the pressure of the playoffs, it wasn't because they weren't 'good enough' to win. You don't dumb luck your way into 60 wins in the NBA, especially in back to back seasons.


LeBron hasn't had that chance, and he may be getting it now, but as of right now, that chapter isn't written. The bottom line is whether or not he wins a title, he'll be considered an all time great.

Top 50? Definitely.

Well that goes without saying. Quite a few in the official top 50 don't have a ring. You're not going out on limb with this one.

Top 15? Probably.

Depends on......

Top 5? Who knows?

Again, depends on.....


Does he have an overinflated view of himself? Probably, but I'm not discussing his qualities as a person.

Neither am I. We're discussing the hype surrounding him. Part of it by the media/fans, part of it because of the comments he makes, indicating how he views himself. All of this creates the hype.



but LeBron as a basketball player is tough to deny, and there is no doubt in my mind that at this pace, he will be a top 10 player of all time.

What pace? Because there's plenty of other players with eye-popping stats who won nothing, and no-one considers them top 10 players. I guess the goal post is being changed for Lebron. Cool.


Will he win a title or two? Probably, but does he have to? Not in my mind.

Then you're probably about the only person I know who doesn't take leading a team to the championship into account when discussing the all-time best.

I don't look at Magic or Bird any differently that Barkley and Ewing (i'm talking about their titles, obviously the first two were far better players). They were better because they were better, not because they won championships.

They were better because they were better. Very well put....

Do you think Magic and Bird would be considered as high as they were, if not for their championships? Maybe for you, because you don't factor championships in the equation. But for just about most people I've discussed basketball with, championships do factor in when you're discussing THE VERY best. I don't mean Charles Barkley good, I mean Michael Jordan good.

Bold reply

[ProfessaPackMan]

Re: The LeBron James Saga

Championships should matter when discussing the very best of the best. Anybody that says otherwise is a damn liar and that's putting it nicely.

[DieHardYankee26]

Re: The LeBron James Saga

They were better because they were better. Very well put....

Do you think Magic and Bird would considered as high as they were, if not for their championships? Maybe for you, because you don't factor championships in the equation. But for just about most people I've discussed basketball with, championships do factor in when you're discussing THE VERY best. I don't mean Charles Barkley good, I mean Michael Jordan good.

I'm going to focus on this part because the rest is mostly repeating things that have already been said and I have made my stance on it known.

Obviously, the they're better because they're better meant that they are considered better players because they were better players. That was common sense. Larry Bird and Magic Johnson were two of the most skilled and complete players in the history of the NBA. They are better than Barkley and Malone because they were just flat out better players, not because they won championships. Championships (which I don't think matter at all but to play devil's advocate) really are only used as a tiebreaker. If Player A and Player B had similar careers, the one with more championships is better. But you seem to be using them as the be all end all. You're saying that Charles Barkley and Karl Malone are not top 15 players because they didn't win a championship, when they weren't top 15 players because they weren't great enough to be top 15. Maybe I am underweighing the worth of championship, but you are clearly overweighing them in this scenario.

And you're last paragraph shows that we are closer in this argument than before.

Yes, and none of them are considered anywhere near the top ten players because of that lack of winning championships.

Before you were acting as if they were the be all end all, and now you are saying it only matters for the very best, which means in essence you agree with me. I believe that LeBron will be one of the best 15 players to have ever played the game, whereas you say he won't be one of the best without rings. Do you consider Elgin Baylor one of the greatest of all time? Most do, now tell me, how many rings does he have? None, yet he's a top 15 player. The bottom line is rings or no rings, LeBron WILL be considered one of the all time greats, and he still has plenty of time to win a ring to satisfy those who believe that a team statistic are a good measure of individual success.

[DieHardYankee26]

Re: The LeBron James Saga

Championships should matter when discussing the very best of the best. Anybody that says otherwise is a damn liar and that's putting it nicely.

Or maybe they just don't care about rings. But if we're going to tell others what to believe then we might as well call them a liar for disagreeing...

[ProfessaPackMan]

Re: The LeBron James Saga

Well this is the 21st Century and nowadays(especially with this generation) it's Points, Sportscenter Highlights > Individual Success(IE Winning Championships).

I mean if you want to not include them at all or don't give a **** about them, then that's fine and that's your choice. But me personally, if he were continue his career for another 10+ Years and only finish with ONE Finals Appearances and a bunch of stat stuffers, you'd(not you, talking in general) have a hard time convincing me why he should be mentioned the best that I have ever seen played.

So while "liar" may have been a bad word on my part, it'd certainly would be ignorant to ignore it COMPLETELY, when discussing the greatest that have ever played the game.

And before anyone says it, no I'm not saying Robert Horry > (insert player here) just because he has 7 rings.

[dragonyeuw]

Re: The LeBron James Saga

I'm going to focus on this part because the rest is mostly repeating things that have already been said and I have made my stance on it known.

Likewise.

Obviously, the they're better because they're better meant that they are considered better players because they were better players.That was common sense.

How were they better? Take the championships away. What makes Magic Johnson so much better than Charles Barkley, strictly as individual players?

Larry Bird and Magic Johnson were two of the most skilled and complete players in the history of the NBA. They are better than Barkley and Malone because they were just flat out better players, not because they won championships.

And they wouldn't be as considered as high on the all-time list as they were, without the championships. Just about every debate that starts with who's the very best always begins with how many rings player X led his team to.


Championships (which I don't think matter at all but to play devil's advocate)

We disagree fundamentally on this point. So, I'd say we're going around in circles trying to convince the other.

If Player A and Player B had similar careers, the one with more championships is better. But you seem to be using them as the be all end all. You're saying that Charles Barkley and Karl Malone are not top 15 players because they didn't win a championship, when they weren't top 15 players because they weren't great enough to be top 15.


No, I'm saying they're not top 15 because I can name off 13 players who I think are better because they're better( to borrow your term) , and most of them having led their teams to championships. I would say they're in the top 20, though. Because when you're getting as far down as 20, you're starting to look at players who may have been on the cusp of championships, and/or are just better because they're better( to borrow your term again). Truthfully, there's alot of circumstances that need to be considered when you're factoring in championships. But the very best players in history are the ones who have lorded over multi-championship winning dynasties, like Jordan, Magic, Duncan, etc.


Maybe I am underweighing the worth of championship, but you are clearly overweighing them in this scenario.

Maybe a bit of both.

And you're last paragraph shows that we are closer in this argument than before.

Not really.

Before you were acting as if they were the be all end all, and now you are saying it only matters for the very best,

Well yes, which is where you're attempting to place Lebron. My point has always been about the very best. Is Lebron a top 50 player? Well no ****, he could retire today and make that claim. But in order for him to be considered among THE VERY best to play the game, he's going to have to lead a team to rings before people view him in that light.


which means in essence you agree with me.

If you believe so. I wouldn't go that far.


I believe that LeBron will be one of the best 15 players to have ever played the game,

Telling yourself that over and over doesn't make it anymore true. He has alot of work to do before breaking into the top 20. He very well could be, but that's alot of ifs and maybes.

whereas you say he won't be one of the best without rings.

One of the VERY best? As in with the Jordan/Magic/Bird level? Not without rings. One of the top 20-30? Sure. I don't think I've ever said otherwise.


Do you consider Elgin Baylor one of the greatest of all time? Most do, now tell me, how many rings does he have? None, yet he's a top 15 player.

Can't comment on him, before my time.Truthfully speaking, all these rankings are arbitrary, but where Baylor is concerned I can't rank him because I never saw him play. Hell that applies to Wilt and Russell as well, I only have their stats as a barometer of how good they were.

The bottom line is rings or no rings, LeBron WILL be considered one of the all time greats,

What's your definition of an all-time great? Because there's been thousands of NBA players through the years. Being considered one of the top 100 players to play could qualify as an all-time great, for that matter. I use the term all-time great in reference to guys like Jordan, Magic, Bird, Wilt,Kareem, the guys that transcended their positions and the sport itself. Lebron James has some really good stats, a couple of MVP awards, some triple doubles, some eye-popping dunks, and no post game. That's not enough to get him into the discussion of the very best to play the game. Obviously we just have different standards.


and he still has plenty of time to win a ring to satisfy those who believe that a team statistic are a good measure of individual success.

Basketball, unlike other team sports, is unique in that a single player can have more impact on the outcome of his team than baseball, hockey, football etc etc. This is why championships are given so much weight to the players that lead their teams to them. Part of Michael Jordan's legacy is that he won 6 titles as the man. No one would argue that Jordan would be considered AS high as he is, if you take all those rings away.

Bold reply

[ex carrabba fan]

Re: The LeBron James Saga

http://southflorida.sun-sentinel.com/sports/sfl-miami-heat-lebron-james-s112810,0,2075408.story

LeBron's attitude just doesn't seem like the right way to go about the team's struggles...

"We're used to having the ball, making plays, finishing plays," James said of responsibilities that are now split. "So, right now, it's a process of us having to still be aggressive, but playing off the ball. So it's an adjustment for ourselves.

"We've talked a lot recently, just trying to figure this thing out and do what's best for ourselves individually and what's best for the team. It's something that we're making progress with."

"I can't change my game dramatically, and I don't think he can, either," James said. "It doesn't make any sense to do that. I'd be a role player at that point, if I changed my game dramatically."

[WTF]

Re: The LeBron James Saga

Wow... And who wants to become a Role Player and have a chance at a title, right? I'd prefer to have some nice SportsCenter Highlights myself.

[soltrain]

Re: The LeBron James Saga

http://southflorida.sun-sentinel.com...,2075408.story

LeBron's attitude just doesn't seem like the right way to go about the team's struggles...

"We're used to having the ball, making plays, finishing plays," James said of responsibilities that are now split. "So, right now, it's a process of us having to still be aggressive, but playing off the ball. So it's an adjustment for ourselves.

"We've talked a lot recently, just trying to figure this thing out and do what's best for ourselves individually and what's best for the team. It's something that we're making progress with."

"I can't change my game dramatically, and I don't think he can, either," James said. "It doesn't make any sense to do that. I'd be a role player at that point, if I changed my game dramatically."

I like that he says he has to figure out what is for the best individually before he said what's best for the team.

[ex carrabba fan]

Re: The LeBron James Saga

LeBron has had some of the worst quotes I've ever heard from any athlete.

First it was the "coach is playing me too much, I'm tired"

Then there's this:

“This is a team that is new to each other,” James said. “It’s going to take time. But the thing we can do right now is just go out and just play, play harder, don’t have any lapses. I think the fact that we know we are so talented individually, we feel we can have lapses at times.”

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news;_ylt=ApynuD0NBb6hEb4kxeC3lZ.8vLYF?slug=mc-heatmavs112810

[Subversion]

Re: The LeBron James Saga

Wow... And who wants to become a Role Player and have a chance at a title, right? I'd prefer to have some nice SportsCenter Highlights myself.

He doesnt want to relinquish the King crown. He doesnt realize its tarnishing his legacy.

[BlueNGold]

Re: The LeBron James Saga

http://southflorida.sun-sentinel.com...,2075408.story

LeBron's attitude just doesn't seem like the right way to go about the team's struggles...

"We're used to having the ball, making plays, finishing plays," James said of responsibilities that are now split. "So, right now, it's a process of us having to still be aggressive, but playing off the ball. So it's an adjustment for ourselves.

"We've talked a lot recently, just trying to figure this thing out and do what's best for ourselves individually and what's best for the team. It's something that we're making progress with."

"I can't change my game dramatically, and I don't think he can, either," James said. "It doesn't make any sense to do that. I'd be a role player at that point, if I changed my game dramatically."

Ugh. Why the **** doesn't he realize he wouldn't become a "role player" by becoming the facilitator and defensive leader of the team?

I hate trying to make players something they're not, but LeBron could easily, easily be that type of Magic and/or Pippen player. He has the exact skill set for it, it's just a matter of using it and obviously he doesn't want to.

It just blows my mind that he thinks him, Wade and Bosh can continue to play the same way they did last year. When LeBron first said he was going to Miami, I didn't think him and Wade were a good fit, but then I figured that maybe they knew they were going to have to change the way they play to make this thing work. But...I was wrong.

[HotSauce2k3]

Re: The LeBron James Saga

Not really. It would be a neutral site game. I don't think "Heat Fans" will make the trek from South Beach, considering they don't come to the games in Miami.

It would never happen, in a perfect world though it would be hysterical.

I think the joke went over your head.

Empty arena... Heat home game... think about it.

[LingeringRegime]

Re: The LeBron James Saga

I think the joke went over your head.

Empty arena... Heat home game... think about it.

Haha, you're right. It would be a Heat home game. My bad.

[LingeringRegime]

Re: The LeBron James Saga

Ugh. Why the **** doesn't he realize he wouldn't become a "role player" by becoming the facilitator and defensive leader of the team?

I hate trying to make players something they're not, but LeBron could easily, easily be that type of Magic and/or Pippen player. He has the exact skill set for it, it's just a matter of using it and obviously he doesn't want to.

It just blows my mind that he thinks him, Wade and Bosh can continue to play the same way they did last year. When LeBron first said he was going to Miami, I didn't think him and Wade were a good fit, but then I figured that maybe they knew they were going to have to change the way they play to make this thing work. But...I was wrong.

Yeah, seems like he would have thought that through before taking his talents to South Beach. If he really wanted to win a championship, he would be willing to do whatever the team needed him to do to win. This whole, "I won't do this..." mess is making me shake my head.