Again you cant compare this to lebron. And i am not even a LBJ fan.
I can name like two people from that Heat team besides the 3. I can name pretty much all of the Warriors.
Again you cant compare this to lebron. And i am not even a LBJ fan.
I can name like two people from that Heat team besides the 3. I can name pretty much all of the Warriors.
There are surely some specific owners who are pissed off, but this isn't bad for business. LeBron's Finals runs marked a spike in Tv ratings, the league's biggest cash cow since Jordan. Having the three top players in the league in the the Finals is good for the league, not bad.
I see this no different than teams of the past. For quite a long time in the 80's/90's the Lakers, Celtics, Pistons, & Bulls dominated the NBA and that didnt hurt TV ratings at all.
I think you have a system that allows the rich owners to BUY the best players and put them on one team, then it's bad for the league. It was a discussion on the Dan Patrick show this morning, and I have to agree with what they were saying. There is a difference between the teams that North mentions, as they were drafted and put together with smart management.....not simply Paying top dollar for the best players.
(the previous comment was not directed at any particular individual and was not intended to slander,disrespect or offend any reader of said statement)
KD has earned the right to play where he wants to. I don't have a problem with it, other than my clear posts on a variety of sports that I wish players had more loyalty.
I never faulted LeBron for leaving Cleveland - just the way he did it. It made the slap in the face sting a bit more.
The so-called "Golden Age" of the NBA, roughly from the Celtics and Lakers drafting Bird and Magic to Jordan's first retirement, eight teams made the Finals:
1980 - Lakers over 76ers
1981 - Celtics over Rockets
1982 - Lakers over 76ers
1983 - 76ers over Lakers
1984 - Celtics over Lakers
1985 - Lakers over Celtics
1986 - Celtics over Rockets
1987 - Lakers over Celtics
1988 - Lakers over Pistons
1989 - Pistons over Lakers
1990 - Pistons over Trailblazers
1991 - Bulls over Lakers
1992 - Bulls over Trailblazers
1993 - Bulls over Suns
Eastern Conference
76ers
Celtics
Pistons
Bulls
Western Conference
Lakers
Rockets
Trailblazers
Suns
Also, it seems pretty hypocritical of many nba fans to pretty much judge players solely on rings, then bash a guy for trying to put himself in the best situation to get a ring. It's like the ring doesn't count or something unless you make it as hard as possible on yourself to accomplish.
http://thunder.247sports.com/Bolt/St...ision-46088773
“Kevin Durant is one of the top three players in the world. And he ran away from the challenge that he faces in order to jump on the bandwagon of a team that’s a little bit better.”ESPN analyst Stephen A. Smith bashed Durant's decision on SportsCenter, calling it cowardly to bail on a franchise on the verge of a championship.
“I’m viewing this as the weakest move I’ve ever seen from a superstar,” Smith said. “It’s not that he’s leaving OKC as one of top 3 players in the world, but it’s the team he’s going to. The flip side is this — (Durant) and the Thunder were up 3-1 in the Western Conference finals, three different times he was 48 minutes removed from getting to the Finals. Three times he failed and you depart for the team that beat you when you’re on the cusp?
“I think it’s incredibly weak. I don’t want to hear any comparison to LeBron’s move to South Beach either. He was basically the only dude in Cleveland. In the case of Durant, you have a top 5 player in the world as a teammate, a great coach in Billy Donovan and a first class organization. You are legitimately a championship contender. You are the superstar and you depart for the team that beat you? You’re jumping on the bandwagon. I don’t think there’s any way you can deny that.”
Smith got the last word after fellow ESPN analyst Chris Broussard disagreed vehemently saying Durant's move is exactly like James' decision to leave Cleveland for Miami several years ago.
“I’m not ripping him for leaving,” Smith said. “I’m ripping him for the team he went to.”
Smith is a idiot and always has been.
Were the Thunder really up 3-1?
What a tournament that was this year.
Not enough talent in the league. In the Warrior's defense, they drafted both Curry -they signed him on a sweet deal via extension after his injury- and Thompson, and have made a lot of great and thrifty pickups via trades and free agency. If memory serves, they drafted Barnes, and he just got a huge deal, too. Look at the Cavs - they drafted LBJ and got him back the same way he left, they drafted Kyrie Irving, and while they got Love in a trade, they dealt away a future star player to do so. It's not like they went out and Washington Redskinned it.
(the previous comment was not directed at any particular individual and was not intended to slander,disrespect or offend any reader of said statement)
The point of free agency is that you are free to sign wherever you please. He played out his contract with okc, so he doesn't owe them anything else. I guess I just don't get all the criticism. A pro athlete is his own business, and he has to do what is best for his business.
It's just funny how we bash athletes for taking money over winning titles, and Durant takes less than he could have gotten from okc to better his chances at winning a title, and he gets raked over the coals. If anyone should be mad, it should be at the system that lets this happen, not at Durant for taking advantage of it.
this is the heart of the matter. . . and on top of it, stars just matter more in the NBA than they do in any other sport. . . if you want to compete for a championship, you HAVE TO have one-- a real one, one of the top three or four guys. . . the rest aren't good enough, and don't matter. . . it's effectively impossible to win a title without them-- those pistons that beat the shaq lakers are like the only team in the last couple of decades, other than maybe the dirk mavs somehow getting past the first year heatles. . . winning one in the NBA without a top-three guy is VASTLY more difficult than winning a super bowl without a franchise quarterback, and that's hard as hell. . . but at least it's doable, if you have a beastly defense. . .
IF the NBA's number one concern was the watchability of their product (which it certainly isn't), they would contract the league by about six teams. . . and even then it would probably be three or four contenders, and twenty or twenty-two slightly better also-rans. . . it's a shame, because i truly enjoy watching the game, but the league is seriously watered down-- and mostly just frustrating to watch if your team isn't lucky enough (or favored enough) to get one of those guys. . . there ARE things they could do to mitigate it, but the NBA isn't interested-- they're doing fine as is. . .
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)