# Surround an NBA player with garbage....



## jayk009 (Aug 6, 2003)

and which NBA players would be able to lead their teams to an above .500 record? 


I say...Lebron James, Dwight Howard, Kobe Bryant, Chris Paul(moreso pre-injury), Dwyane Wade, Derrick Rose, and Steve Nash (even when he's 65) are the only players in the NBA that can do this. 

Tim Duncan and Kevin Garnett if we are assuming they were at their level from 3 years ago.

Some notable ommissions for me are...Kevin Durant, Deron Williams, Blake Griffin, Dirk Nowitzki and Jimmer Fredette. 

What are your lists? 

Weird thing is that I would put Kevin Durant in my top 5 nba player list but I don't think he can win with a garbage supporting cast.


----------



## Laker Freak (Jul 1, 2003)

jayk009 said:


> and which NBA players would be able to lead their teams to an above .500 record?
> 
> 
> I say...Lebron James, Dwight Howard, Kobe Bryant, Chris Paul(moreso pre-injury), Dwyane Wade, Derrick Rose, and Steve Nash (even when he's 65) are the only players in the NBA that can do this.
> ...



:kanyeshrug:


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

I think what Wade did with the Heat a couple years back was one of the more impressive situations like this ever.

Griffin isn't good enough to be in this discussion yet. 

As far as Durant, it depends on if he has a point guard that gets him the ball. If he has that and can still move without the ball, which gives him that edge on every other elite scorer, he can definitely lead a team to 42 wins. That's not shit, especially if he was in the East


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

You should make a team for each of those guys to prove your point though. What's your definition of garbage. Like not another player that's a solid starter? A talented team like the Wizards that doesn't play D or play hard?


----------



## Kidd (Jul 2, 2009)

jimmer fredette? What?


----------



## jayk009 (Aug 6, 2003)

Dre said:


> You should make a team for each of those guys to prove your point though. What's your definition of garbage. Like not another player that's a solid starter? A talented team like the Wizards that doesn't play D or play hard?


Smush Parker, Luke Walton, Brian Cook, Slava Medvedenko?


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

Thing is at that point Kobe was at a level of scoring you probably can't compare more than 2 or 3people to ever...that was an arguable top 10 player ever at his zenith, so it's not the fairest squad.

Given what he was doing for them (and playing the triangle, which squeezes points out of possessions) it wasn't _that_ hard on most nights for him to keep them in games and take over come the 4th. Especially once Phil came back.


----------



## TheAnswer (Jun 19, 2011)

Well Deron Williams Nets are 15-30 so yeah he can't get it done (even though some of his teammates are better than anybodies definition of trash.) I'd probably add Andrew Bynum, Russell Westbrook, and the Seattle Ray Allen. Kyrie Irving is gonna get his team above .500 within a couple seasons and he'll probably have trash.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

Don't know if Bynum can handle that load 82 games a year. I mean has he even graduated to second in the Lakers hierarchy yet


----------



## Hyperion (Dec 5, 2006)

Steve Nash, Lebron James, Dwight Howard, Dirk Nowitzki are the only ones that can lead crap to a winning record.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

Nash has a decent roster in spite of what you claim, he does not have a winning record. If he had real trash around him then he'd have a terrible record. That team has a very good center, a very good scoring guard and a lot of guys who can play roles. They just aren't good enough in the West. Grant Hill and Gortat would be highly valued on every team in the NBA. How many teams would not start either or both of them? I guarantee you that both of them and Dudley would start for the Clippers and make that team a legitimate contender.

You can't win in the NBA with real trash. You can win if you have a legit star and guys who can play roles. In particular you need guys who can rebound and defend. Real trash does not exist in the NBA. There are plenty of guys who aren't that good, but almost everyone in the league has some role to play.


----------



## roux (Jun 20, 2006)

Brian said:


> jimmer fredette? What?


well.. adam morrisons not in the league anymore


----------



## jayk009 (Aug 6, 2003)

Diable said:


> Nash has a decent roster in spite of what you claim, he does not have a winning record. If he had real trash around him then he'd have a terrible record. That team has a very good center, a very good scoring guard and a lot of guys who can play roles. They just aren't good enough in the West. Grant Hill and Gortat would be highly valued on every team in the NBA. How many teams would not start either or both of them? I guarantee you that both of them and Dudley would start for the Clippers and make that team a legitimate contender.
> 
> You can't win in the NBA with real trash. You can win if you have a legit star and guys who can play roles. In particular you need guys who can rebound and defend. Real trash does not exist in the NBA. There are plenty of guys who aren't that good, but almost everyone in the league has some role to play.


Trash is a relative term, obviously if you are in the NBA then you must be a pretty good basketball player. But if players are not being used in ideal roles then the rosters might as well be called trash. Right now Gortat is the leading scorer on the suns with Jared Dudley as the 3rd option on offense. That right there tells you that Nash's supporting cast isn't very good. Yeah, you take Gortat and Hill and Dudley and use them as a complimentary pieces on a winning team and they will be useful, but you're asking them to be the 2nd and 3rd best player on a team then that should tell you something. In the end, despite having a roster that does have useful players, most of them are forced in roles they should never be in which does not make the suns have a "decent roster". I don't know know in what world you live in if you think Marcin Gortat should ever be the leading scorer on any team with Jared Dudley ever having any kind of significant role in an offense. Again, I'm not saying Marcin Gortat or Dudley are bad players, just if they are your main players then your roster is pretty bad...I don't see how that is a hard concept to grasp...

Real trash does exist when you are using the proper context to other good nba players and not just regular basketball players in general. You can compare Brian Cook to some random player playing in Europe and say he's not trash but can you tell me he's not trash compared to the rest of the NBA? If you say Brian Cooke is not a trash NBA player then I consider you a trash poster. 

In the end, Nash does not have a "decent roster"....


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Andrew Bogut couldn't lead a decent team to the playoffs.


----------



## Hyperion (Dec 5, 2006)

Diable said:


> Nash has a decent roster in spite of what you claim, he does not have a winning record. If he had real trash around him then he'd have a terrible record. That team has a very good center, a very good scoring guard and a lot of guys who can play roles. They just aren't good enough in the West. Grant Hill and Gortat would be highly valued on every team in the NBA. How many teams would not start either or both of them? I guarantee you that both of them and Dudley would start for the Clippers and make that team a legitimate contender.
> 
> You can't win in the NBA with real trash. You can win if you have a legit star and guys who can play roles. In particular you need guys who can rebound and defend. Real trash does not exist in the NBA. There are plenty of guys who aren't that good, but almost everyone in the league has some role to play.


Really? Is Gortat a good player? He's a good backup center that is being spoonfed by Nash. Make no mistake about it, Gortat is the only one Nash can pass to most of the time since Frye hangs out at the arc. Grant Hill is a 6th man at best right now and so is Dudley. The Suns have a lot of quality bench players playing starter minutes. The Suns team is mediocre in talent at best and Nash has gotten them to 0.500. That is damn impressive.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Hyperion said:


> Really? Is Gortat a good player? He's a good backup center that is being spoonfed by Nash. Make no mistake about it, Gortat is the only one Nash can pass to most of the time since Frye hangs out at the arc. Grant Hill is a 6th man at best right now and so is Dudley. The Suns have a lot of quality bench players playing starter minutes. The Suns team is mediocre in talent at best and Nash has gotten them to 0.500. That is damn impressive.


Was it not two months ago you said Gortat was better than Bynum?

Did the suns not win two days ago without Nash or Hill?


----------



## King Sancho Fantastic (Jul 19, 2005)

Exactly. Lamar Odom as our 2nd option during the Smush Era sucked ass. Put him on a Championship team and he becomes a valuable 6th Man of the Year. It's all relative.


----------



## Madstrike (Jan 12, 2011)

jayk009 said:


> Trash is a relative term, obviously if you are in the NBA then you must be a pretty good basketball player. But if players are not being used in ideal roles then the rosters might as well be called trash. Right now Gortat is the leading scorer on the suns with Jared Dudley as the 3rd option on offense. That right there tells you that Nash's supporting cast isn't very good. Yeah, you take Gortat and Hill and Dudley and use them as a complimentary pieces on a winning team and they will be useful, but you're asking them to be the 2nd and 3rd best player on a team then that should tell you something. In the end, despite having a roster that does have useful players, most of them are forced in roles they should never be in which does not make the suns have a "decent roster". I don't know know in what world you live in if you think Marcin Gortat should ever be the leading scorer on any team with Jared Dudley ever having any kind of significant role in an offense. Again, I'm not saying Marcin Gortat or Dudley are bad players, just if they are your main players then your roster is pretty bad...I don't see how that is a hard concept to grasp...
> 
> Real trash does exist when you are using the proper context to other good nba players and not just regular basketball players in general. You can compare Brian Cook to some random player playing in Europe and say he's not trash but can you tell me he's not trash compared to the rest of the NBA? If you say Brian Cooke is not a trash NBA player then I consider you a trash poster.
> 
> In the end, Nash does not have a "decent roster"....


Gortat and dudley are "decent" starters(thats not saying much), the rest of the team is not "decent", its below average. The suns, as u have said, have many bench players, but not many starters... That is also something that explains imo why they have been having these late wins, since we have that tight schedule this season, teams with more bench players have more "fresh" legs at the moment.


----------



## RollWithEm (Jul 16, 2002)

Since 15 is the average NBA player PER, below 13 players are usually very bad. Below 13 starters are actually pretty few and far between. With that in mind... here's an 8-man rotation filled with guys that have played legit minutes this season but are below 13 PER.

PG Jason Kidd
SG Landry Fields
SF Ronnie Brewer
PF Andray Blatche
C Timofey Mozgov
-----------------------
G Randy Foye
F Carlos Delfino
C Louis Amundson

To frame this discussion, you can basically take out the starter at any position and replace him with the player you are accessing. So...

Would this team be over .500?

Kidd/Fields/Brewer/Blatche/Howard?

How about... Kidd/Fields/Lebron/Blatche/Mozgov?

Rose/Fields/Brewer/Blatche/Mozgov?

I don't know if any of those three teams sniffs the playoffs. My answer is NO ONE.


----------



## clien (Jun 2, 2005)

Kobe already did it in the 05-06 season. At the time the Lakers had the worst roster in the league + Kobe


----------



## jayk009 (Aug 6, 2003)

What about the team that Lebron led to the finals? Their 2nd best player was probably an aging Zydrunas Ilgauskas and Larry Hughes actually was relied on to produce. Hell, even Sasha Pavlovic was a big contributor for them. 

I actually think the roster you posted would be an upgrade over te finals team Lebron had.


----------



## Laker Freak (Jul 1, 2003)

jayk009 said:


> What about the team that Lebron led to the finals? Their 2nd best player was probably an aging Zydrunas Ilgauskas and Larry Hughes actually was relied on to produce. Hell, even Sasha Pavlovic was a big contributor for them.
> 
> I actually think the roster you posted would be an upgrade over te finals team Lebron had.


Yep Lebron and Kobe have already done this. As has KG with Szczerbiak, Hudson and Rasho. Hell prime Mcgrady got to the playoffs with Drew Gooden, Darrell Armstrong, Gordan Giricek and Pat Garrity as his supporting cast!


----------



## clien (Jun 2, 2005)

yeah^

It's funny I actually got in an argument with a big MJ fan (I also am a fan of MJ), I thought this guy to be fairly competent in his sports knowledge... he claims that Jordan played his entire career with scrubs, including the 6 titles. 

I think maybe some peeps Jordan love runs so deep that they throw every one of his teammates under the bus in order to make Jordan look even greater


----------



## jaw2929 (Dec 11, 2011)

clien said:


> yeah^
> 
> It's funny I actually got in an argument with a big MJ fan (I also am a fan of MJ), I thought this guy to be fairly competent in his sports knowledge... he claims that Jordan played his entire career with scrubs, including the 6 titles.
> 
> I think maybe some peeps Jordan love runs so deep that they throw every one of his teammates under the bus in order to make Jordan look even greater



Wow, that's ****ing ridiculous. Does he know who Scottie Pippen is? Kukoc? Rodman? Paxson? Grant? Kerr? 

I mean neverminding all the role players, SCOTTIE PIPPEN?!?! Hello? Hardly a ****ing scrub! Same with Rodman too. Maybe he was winding you up, he couldn't have been serious... Could he? And if he was, then he obviously wasn't quite as knowledgeable as you thought he was.


----------



## King Sancho Fantastic (Jul 19, 2005)

clien said:


> yeah^
> 
> It's funny I actually got in an argument with a big MJ fan (I also am a fan of MJ), I thought this guy to be fairly competent in his sports knowledge... he claims that Jordan played his entire career with scrubs, including the 6 titles.
> 
> I think maybe some peeps Jordan love runs so deep that they throw every one of his teammates under the bus in order to make Jordan look even greater


Just tell him the Bulls won 55 games without Jordan 93-94.


----------



## Hyperion (Dec 5, 2006)

Jamel Irief said:


> Was it not two months ago you said Gortat was better than Bynum?
> 
> Did the suns not win two days ago without Nash or Hill?


And Bynum played a whole 5 embarrassing minutes in the ASG. Bynum sucks was my point there. The Lakers need to trade him now or risk being mediocre with him for the next 7 years as he ties up the cap with his 20% contracts.

Gortat is averaging 16/10. Without Nash, he'd be closer to 10/10. Nash literally spoon feeds him open looks all game. He misses layups, open jumpers etc. Let's not pretend that he's an All Star or even an upgrade over any center in the league. An old as hell Shaq averaged 18/8 with Nash. So Gortat is about as good as an extremely over the hill Shaq.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

And still Hill, Gortat and Dudley are better than Foy, Jordan and Butler. Gortat was just as good in Orlando as he is in PHX by the way. Jameer Nelson did not make him a better player. In fact if you just trade Gortat for DeAndre Jordan the Clippers are a legitimate contender, even with bad wing players.

Trying to pretend that Nash made Gortat is just a flat out lie. It doesn't make Nash look better, it just makes you look silly.


----------



## Hyperion (Dec 5, 2006)

He went from 10 pts per 36 mins to 16. Yeah, he was always putting up the big numbers.


----------



## Najee (Apr 5, 2007)

Hyperion said:


> He went from 10 pts per 36 mins to 16. Yeah, he was always putting up the big numbers.


Marcin Gortat also was playing behind Dwight Howard in Orlando, which would explain why his minutes and production were considerably less. But don't let that fact get in the way of your argument.

I personally don't understand why Steve Nash is even in this conversation, because he's played with good players his entire career. Nash was generally the third best player in Dallas alongside Dirk Nowitzki and Michael Finley. He played with Amare Stoudemire and Shawn Marion (and a young Joe Johnson in his first year back in Phoenix) for the bulk of his time there. 

Nash always has been an exceptionally good complementary player, who became overrated in his second stint in Phoenix as if he is a franchise player. Nash's game is predicated on having a symbiotic relationship with other players, which is not a knock on him but a reality of his style of play. But this idea that he is in the same vein as guys like Kobe Bryant and LeBron James is a case of overrating him.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Hyperion said:


> And Bynum played a whole 5 embarrassing minutes in the ASG. Bynum sucks was my point there. The Lakers need to trade him now or risk being mediocre with him for the next 7 years as he ties up the cap with his 20% contracts.
> 
> Gortat is averaging 16/10. Without Nash, he'd be closer to 10/10. Nash literally spoon feeds him open looks all game. He misses layups, open jumpers etc. Let's not pretend that he's an All Star or even an upgrade over any center in the league. An old as hell Shaq averaged 18/8 with Nash. So Gortat is about as good as an extremely over the hill Shaq.


Yeah, you're a little crazy


----------



## Najee (Apr 5, 2007)

Based on my years of following the NBA, only a handful of times has a player led a team to the playoffs where the rest of the starting lineup IMO could not start for the majority of the teams in the NBA:

* Tracy McGrady, 2000-01 through 2002-03
* Kobe Bryant, 2005-06 and 2006-07
* LeBron James, 2006-07 through 2009-10

Notice the commonality: All four of them were considered among the top five players in the league at the time (if not MVP candidates). All of them were multi-skilled, incredibly athletic perimeter players who scored in bunches and covered for a lot of their teammates' deficiencies.

Outside of that, the closest instance would be Michael Jordan's 1986-87 season, where he led the Chicago Bulls to the playoffs but the team had a losing record and still had a young Charles Oakley (who was second in the NBA in rebounding that season). And even Bryant had the maddeningly inconsistent Lamar Odom (who could have started for a lot of teams, but he was so up and down and timid that he may have been more effective if he was the fourth- or fifth-best player on the team). 

IMO, James doesn't get nearly enough credit for what he did in Cleveland. The Cavs had no business being in the 2007 Finals and being 60-game winners his final two seasons there.


----------



## MarioChalmers (Mar 26, 2004)

Najee said:


> Based on my years of following the NBA, only a handful of times has a player led a team to the playoffs where the rest of the starting lineup IMO could not start for the majority of the teams in the NBA:
> 
> * Tracy McGrady, 2000-01 through 2002-03
> * Kobe Bryant, 2005-06 and 2006-07
> ...


This might be a homer opinion but I would definitely include Dwyane Wade 2008-09.


----------



## Najee (Apr 5, 2007)

gian said:


> This might be a homer opinion but I would definitely include Dwyane Wade 2008-09.


The 2008-09 Miami Heat had some passable pieces, such as the Shawn Marion/Jermaine O'Neal hybrid, rookies Mario Chalmers and Michael Beasley and Udonis Haslem. They made up the core of Wade's supporting cast in 2009-10, when the Heat won 47 games.

Wade in those two years had some better teammates around him that the Tracy McGrady Orlando teams and collectively better than what the 2005-07 Kobe Bryant and the 1986-87 Michael Jordan had. They certainly were better than what LeBron James took to the 2007 Finals. But Wade in 2008-10 was a lot closer than most of the other guys being named.


----------



## Najee (Apr 5, 2007)

RollWithEm said:


> Since 15 is the average NBA player PER, below 13 players are usually very bad. Below 13 starters are actually pretty few and far between. With that in mind... here's an 8-man rotation filled with guys that have played legit minutes this season but are below 13 PER.
> 
> PG Jason Kidd
> SG Landry Fields
> ...


A realistic model would be the Charlotte Bobcats:

PF Tyrus Thomas
SF Corey Maggette
C Boris Diaw
SG Gerald Henderson
PG: D.J. Augustin
---------
G Kemba Walker
F/C Bismack Biyombo
F D.J. White

Charlotte only has the worst record in the NBA at 7-36, but it's fair to say no one in its current starting lineup would place in the top 15 in the league at his respective position.

I would say that if there is a player who can be swapped out for a starter and/or placed on the Bobcats and make it a playoff team, the number is far and few.


----------



## jayk009 (Aug 6, 2003)

Diable said:


> And still Hill, Gortat and Dudley are better than Foy, Jordan and Butler. Gortat was just as good in Orlando as he is in PHX by the way. Jameer Nelson did not make him a better player. In fact if you just trade Gortat for DeAndre Jordan the Clippers are a legitimate contender, even with bad wing players.
> 
> Trying to pretend that Nash made Gortat is just a flat out lie. It doesn't make Nash look better, it just makes you look silly.


So you are actually comparing Gortat to Blake Griffin then since that's the role Gortat is playing for the Suns right now. 

Right now your comparisons don't make sense since you're comparing the 2nd, 3rd, 4th best players on a team to random pieces on a clipper's team. Using this to prove that Nash has a good supporting cast doesn't even make sense.

Why don't you compare Blake Griffin, Caron Butler, and Deandre Jordan to Gortat, Hill and Dudley? Who's better now? 

Saying that Gortat, Hill, and Dudley would be able to help a team become a contender is such an obvious thing I don't even understand why you waste your time posting that. However, there is no team that can ever be a contender with those players as a 2nd or 3rd best player on a team. Take any bad team, and you'll be able to find a player that would be able to help a winning team. I don't get what you're trying to say here. 

Yeah Gortat, Hill and Dudley are useful players, but it doesn't mean that the Suns have a good roster.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

What positions do those guys play?


----------



## jayk009 (Aug 6, 2003)

lol, if that's the case the you can just pick any team with weak players at a certain position and then claim, hey! look! see! hill and dudley are an upgrade over so and so players. If u replaced rip hamilton and brian scalabrine with dudley and gortat it would be an upgrade(duh). This proves that the suns have a good supporting cast since dudley and gortat are useful players.


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

Najee said:


> A realistic model would be the Charlotte Bobcats:
> 
> PF Tyrus Thomas
> SF Corey Maggette
> ...


Put Dwight Howard or LeBron James on that team and they make the playoffs in the East.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Diable said:


> Nash has a decent roster in spite of what you claim, he does not have a winning record. If he had real trash around him then he'd have a terrible record. That team has a very good center, a very good scoring guard and a lot of guys who can play roles. They just aren't good enough in the West. Grant Hill and Gortat would be highly valued on every team in the NBA. How many teams would not start either or both of them? I guarantee you that both of them and Dudley would start for the Clippers and make that team a legitimate contender.
> 
> You can't win in the NBA with real trash. You can win if you have a legit star and guys who can play roles. In particular you need guys who can rebound and defend. Real trash does not exist in the NBA. There are plenty of guys who aren't that good, but almost everyone in the league has some role to play.


:laugh: no.....

You continue to impress me with your laughable understanding of the game.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Hyperion said:


> He went from 10 pts per 36 mins to 16. Yeah, he was always putting up the big numbers.


Way to go, now Diable will never come back.


----------



## Hyperion (Dec 5, 2006)

I don't knew if you know this by now but I'm a global mod, I can find him anywhere in the world. He can't Carmen San Diego me.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Hyperion said:


> I don't knew if you know this by now but I'm a global mod, I can find him anywhere in the world. He can't Carmen San Diego me.


Yea, but can he Where's Waldo? your ass?


----------



## Hyperion (Dec 5, 2006)

Haven't tested that out yet, let me check with Ron.


----------



## Laker Freak (Jul 1, 2003)

Najee said:


> Based on my years of following the NBA, only a handful of times has a player led a team to the playoffs where the rest of the starting lineup IMO could not start for the majority of the teams in the NBA:
> 
> * Tracy McGrady, 2000-01 through 2002-03
> * Kobe Bryant, 2005-06 and 2006-07
> ...


I'd include KG 02-03 on that list.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

You guys claim that Nash is playing with trash. He is starting on the floor with four guys and three of them are better than the players who start at their position for the Clippers. This is true. Each one of those guys would start for the Clippers. That is true and it isn't even arguable. All of them would start for many NBA teams. Butler and Dudley are the only ones that are close and Butler has been godawful this year. He must be shooting 35%. Butler isn't trash, he's probably just washed up. DeAndre Jordan isn't trash, he's just not very good. Gortat is absolutely better and better by a huge margin. Hill might even have a bigger margin on Randy Foy. Hill is great defender and that shows up every night, Foy has a good game every two weeks and hardly does anything on the floor. Yet I don't claim that any of those guys are trash and anyone who does has no grasp of reality.


----------



## jayk009 (Aug 6, 2003)

You have a hard time grasping the concept of context. 

I can see that you're an idiot that's stubborn so there is no point arguing with you. 

R-star agrees with me so that means it's true.


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

Paul Pierce nearly made the Finals with Rodney Rogers as his third-best player. Not sure if we want to count that, but Antoine and filler isn't really much better than Odom and filler.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

Kobe, 'Bron, Wade, T-Mac, KG are the only ones in recent memory that I can think of. Timmy would have been included but he never played on a crappy team so he's disincluded.

I will say that Kobe and LeBron's tenures on shitty teams were probably the most impressive though. T-Mac never would have sniffed a berth in the west, KG missed the post season three straight times during his prime, and the only year that Wade might've sniffed a western berth was 2010.

'Bron made the finals and the Lakers would've been winning 50 a game if they were in the east almost completely due to Kobe's play. Although that really shouldn't surprise anyone, they're the two best perimeter players post MJ and they've got the track record to back it up.


----------



## jayk009 (Aug 6, 2003)

Bogg said:


> Paul Pierce nearly made the Finals with Rodney Rogers as his third-best player. Not sure if we want to count that, but Antoine and filler isn't really much better than Odom and filler.


that was a magical run


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

Weird to think about the times where I didn't hate PP. He and Ray Ray were two of my favorites back in their early Boston, Milwaukee/Seattle days. Funny how things change.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

jayk009 said:


> that was a magical run


I like to call it "the Eastern conference in the early 21st century was historically horrible"


----------



## BeastMode (Jan 29, 2012)

Jamel Irief said:


> I like to call it "the Eastern conference in the early 21st century was historically horrible"


It hit rock bottom when the Nets made the Finals those two years. They looked like a junior varsity team playing against varsity.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Diable said:


> You guys claim that Nash is playing with trash. He is starting on the floor with four guys and three of them are better than the players who start at their position for the Clippers. This is true. Each one of those guys would start for the Clippers. That is true and it isn't even arguable. All of them would start for many NBA teams. Butler and Dudley are the only ones that are close and Butler has been godawful this year. He must be shooting 35%. Butler isn't trash, he's probably just washed up. DeAndre Jordan isn't trash, he's just not very good. Gortat is absolutely better and better by a huge margin. Hill might even have a bigger margin on Randy Foy. Hill is great defender and that shows up every night, Foy has a good game every two weeks and hardly does anything on the floor. Yet I don't claim that any of those guys are trash and anyone who does has no grasp of reality.


*Gortat -* Having a career year, mainly due to Steve Nash passing him the ball. Is a solid number 2 big on a good team. Not some quality building block big man you're making him out to be. 

*Hill -* 39 years old. Averages 10 ppg, 4 rpg and 2 apg. You're right. A real world beater of a player. Or perhaps a guy who has defense and nothing else going for him at this point. 

*Dudley -* Averages 13, 5 and 2. A superstar type player, if he didn't have to defer to franchise bigman Marcin Gortat. 

Not to mention, and here's the part where it really shows you have 0 understanding of the actual game of basketball, is you don't mention Blake Griffin. Who is the Blake Griffin of Pheonix? Oh, that's right. No one. There isn't anyone comparable to him on that team. Would Gortat be a 16 and 10 guy beside Griffin? Not a chance. 

The Kings are an amazing team because I can argue that a couple of their players would start on other teams. Hows that grab you?


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

PG- Chris Paul
SG- Marcus Thornton
SF- Tyreke Evans
PF- Blake Griffin
C- Demarcus Cousins


----------



## doctordrizzay (May 10, 2011)

Lebron led the Cavs to the best record in the nba twice in a row with probably the worst supporting cast of all-time. They went from 1 in the league then Lebron left there were 2nd last. Now thats amazing


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Looks like R-Star has to start spreading some rep around.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

Jamel Irief said:


> PG- Chris Paul
> SG- Marcus Thornton
> SF- Tyreke Evans
> PF- Blake Griffin
> C- Demarcus Cousins



Which one of the Kings are you going to remove to be the Superstar that carries the rest of that roster like Nash is allegedly carrying the Suns.

I am arguing about the definition of trash and I don't care how dense you guys are. Trash is something you throw away because you don't want it and no one else will. The Phoenix Suns are not trash without Nash. That team has good players on it and we all know it. Some of us are just being completely dishonest about it. 

If you really think they are trash then throw them away because Nash will be able to pick up some more trash somewhere else and turn it into treasure.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Diable said:


> Which one of the Kings are you going to remove to be the Superstar that carries the rest of that roster like Nash is allegedly carrying the Suns.
> 
> I am arguing about the definition of trash and I don't care how dense you guys are. Trash is something you throw away because you don't want it and no one else will. The Phoenix Suns are not trash without Nash. That team has good players on it and we all know it. Some of us are just being completely dishonest about it.
> 
> If you really think they are trash then throw them away because Nash will be able to pick up some more trash somewhere else and turn it into treasure.


Chris Paul? You do understand the Clippers have both Blake and Chris right? And the Suns only have Nash? 

You're having a real tough time here I see.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

Exactly what does Blake Griffin have to do with this Obtuse one? Three out of Four of the other Suns starters would start over the CLippers starters at their position. That is a fact. I did not claim that Channing Frye would start over Blake Griffin. I am saying that the Suns are not trash and that anyone who says that they are is a damned liar. You understand that too.

Incidentally Griffin is just an All Star. He's not a superstar. Truthfully he's a pretty flawed player who is hurting the Clippers in several ways and helping them in a few others. Here's how it works. You have Superstars, then All Stars and everyone else is trash.


----------



## Laker Freak (Jul 1, 2003)

Diable said:


> Exactly what does Blake Griffin have to do with this Obtuse one? Three out of Four of the other Suns starters would start over the CLippers starters at their position. That is a fact. I did not claim that Channing Frye would start over Blake Griffin. I am saying that the Suns are not trash and that anyone who says that they are is a damned liar. You understand that too.
> 
> Incidentally Griffin is just an All Star. He's not a superstar. Truthfully he's a pretty flawed player who is hurting the Clippers in several ways and helping them in a few others. Here's how it works. You have Superstars, then All Stars and everyone else is trash.


FYI most people on message boards would define a "trash supporting cast" as not having another All Star caliber player on the team. 

If Blake Griffin wasn't on the Clippers everyone would be bowing down to Paul and saying he plays with trash.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Diable said:


> Exactly what does Blake Griffin have to do with this Obtuse one? Three out of Four of the other Suns starters would start over the CLippers starters at their position. That is a fact. I did not claim that Channing Frye would start over Blake Griffin. I am saying that the Suns are not trash and that anyone who says that they are is a damned liar. You understand that too.
> 
> Incidentally Griffin is just an All Star. He's not a superstar. Truthfully he's a pretty flawed player who is hurting the Clippers in several ways and helping them in a few others. Here's how it works. You have Superstars, then All Stars and everyone else is trash.


Because the Suns don't have a Blake Griffin? Its Steve Nash and then who's the second best player? Gortat or Dudley?


Again, you are having a severely hard time even understanding the simple concept of basketball. To try and talk about the Suns as a team (and how super great they are), and then act like Blake Griffin doesn't matter is hilarious. Oh, and have you dropped your "Whos their superstar! Drop one of their players!" talk? Chris Paul sucks all of the sudden?


Wow.


----------



## Najee (Apr 5, 2007)

Laker Freak said:


> FYI most people on message boards would define a "trash supporting cast" as not having another All Star caliber player on the team.


I have to disagree with that definition and some of the other examples being thrown around here. Most teams don't have multiple all-stars or all-star potential players, including some playoff teams.

I would say in the context of this thread, the definition of a "garbage" team would be a team without one player listed in the top 15 in the NBA at his respective position. Another arbitrary argument would be a team that does not have one player who could be a starter or a sixth man for the majority of the teams in the league, barring a trade for a player at that position.

The Charlotte Bobcats would be an actual example of a "garbage" team. I can't think of too many teams where Corey Maggette would be arguably the best player on the squad. The best way to end the quibbling is to ask which players could be placed on the Bobcats and lead that team to the playoffs.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

People still talk to Diable about Chris Paul? You guys haven't learned yet?


----------



## Madstrike (Jan 12, 2011)

Najee said:


> I have to disagree with that definition and some of the other examples being thrown around here. Most teams don't have multiple all-stars or all-star potential players, including some playoff teams.
> 
> I would say in the context of this thread, the definition of a "garbage" team would be a team without one player listed in the top 15 in the NBA at his respective position. Another arbitrary argument would be a team that does not have one player who could be a starter or a sixth man for the majority of the teams in the league, barring a trade for a player at that position.
> 
> The Charlotte Bobcats would be an actual example of a "garbage" team. I can't think of too many teams where Corey Maggette would be arguably the best player on the squad. The best way to end the quibbling is to ask which players could be placed on the Bobcats and lead that team to the playoffs.


Howard and James would be no brainers, actually I dont think anyonelse would be able to do it, well maybe...


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

doctordrizzay said:


> Lebron led the Cavs to the best record in the nba twice in a row with probably the worst supporting cast of all-time. They went from 1 in the league then Lebron left there were 2nd last. Now thats amazing


:favre:

For the last time they did not just lose LeBron. Yes he wass overwhelmingly their best player, but they also lost 2-3 players that were important to what they did, and didn't have a center at all when Varejao went out.

So when you take the top say 3 players off of a team that already had zero margin for error that's what happened. Not to say the Cavs would've sniffed the playoffs, but they would've merely sucked, not been historically bad if *just* LeBron had left. But that's just hard to talk about because there's no way Shaq would've stuck around for that


----------



## Najee (Apr 5, 2007)

Dre said:


> :favre:
> 
> For the last time they did not just lose LeBron. Yes he wass overwhelmingly their best player, but they also lost 2-3 players that were important to what they did, and didn't have a center at all when Varejao went out.


Cleveland lost a 38-year-old Shaquille O'Neal, a Zydrunas Ilgauskas who was running on fumes and a reserve guard in Delonte West. In other words, players who were spare parts and were so good they received minimum-wage contracts the following season (and two of them retired after that season). 

Let's not romaticize this. Add Z and West back on the 2010-11 Cavaliers -- because it's fair to say Shaq wasn't going to spend his final sesaon on a team in purgatory -- you're looking at a 22-win team instead of a 19-win team. 

But it's a moot point, because Cleveland didn't want these players back. Shortly after the season was over, West was traded and Z and Shaq signed to new teams. So it's back down to 19 wins.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Najee said:


> Cleveland lost a 38-year-old Shaquille O'Neal, a Zydrunas Ilgauskas who was running on fumes and a reserve guard in Delonte West. In other words, players who were spare parts and were so good they received minimum-wage contracts the following season (and two of them retired after that season).
> 
> Let's not romaticize this. Add Z and West back on the 2010-11 Cavaliers -- because it's fair to say Shaq wasn't going to spend his final sesaon on a team in purgatory -- you're looking at a 22-win team instead of a 19-win team.
> 
> But it's a moot point, because Cleveland didn't want these players back. Shortly after the season was over, West was traded and Z and Shaq signed to new teams. So it's back down to 19 wins.


Add z, west, mo and keep varejao and Jamison healthy and they win 34 games.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

And Cleveland was very clearly tanking last season. Not saying they could have done anything regardless, but that team wasn't giving it 100% every night.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

Who's romanticizing by saying the Cavs would have won more than 19 games and that LeBron wasn't their only loss. I mean jesus I said "they would have...sucked", but you decided to leave that out of the quote. Don't be condescending if you're reaching to do it.

If by some act of god Shaq was on that 2011 team and fully motivated to contribute they would have won more than 19. And I only mention Shaq because he was on the team the year before...so you take just LeBron off that team and they do better than 19. Excuse my biased, romanticized account of how rosy and unbeatable 28-30 times a year they would've been


----------



## jayk009 (Aug 6, 2003)

that cavs team without lebron would have still sucked. 


even with shaq they would have been a 20-30 win team...


----------



## Najee (Apr 5, 2007)

Jamel Irief said:


> Add z, west, mo and keep varejao and Jamison healthy and they win 34 games.


Injuries are part of the game. Besides, Antawn Jamison played in 56 games that season and Cleveland was a sizzling 11-48 by the time he checked out for the season.

You keep forgetting that Big 3 of Cortez Jamison, Sideshow Varejao and the incomparable Mo Williams were on the court during Cleveland's memorable run of 14 losses in 15 games. In fact, Cleveland had lost 20 out of 23 games when Varajao was lost for the season in early January.

And those are your best three players. There is no point even adding Z, who barely could walk up and down the floor by the time he left Cleveland. You may want to rethink that one.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

Jesus Christ are you people dumb, deaf or blind. I said that. I literally used the word "suck" nh 

But my point is you can't just say it was all LeBron leaving.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

You idiots. You're ruining the thread. This is about Diable being wrong, not some stupid Cavs hypothetical. (That I agree with Dre and Jamel on)


----------



## Najee (Apr 5, 2007)

Dre said:


> Who's romanticizing by saying the Cavs would have won more than 19 games and that LeBron wasn't their only loss. I mean jesus I said "they would have...sucked", but you decided to leave that out of the quote. Don't be condescending if you're reaching to do it.


I said that because it seems like people are selectively forgetting how inept the Cavs were in 2010-11.

Cleveland lost 27 of the final 32 games in which Mo Williams -- arguably Cleveland's best player after LeBron James in 2009-10 -- played before he was traded. 

Cleveland was 11-48 before Antawn Jamison (Cleveland's second best holdover from 2009-10) shut it down for the rest of the season.

By the time Anderson Varajao -- Cleveland's third best holdover -- was lost for the season, the Cavs had lost 18 out of 19. And keep in mind, most of that streak was with Williams and Jamison in the lineup.

So adding a beyond washed up Zyndrunas Ilgauskas was not going to make a difference, not to mention Cleveland didn't want him back. For that matter, Cleveland didn't want a washed up Shaquille O'Neal (not that he was going to come back once LeBron James left) and Cleveland traded Delonte West. To act like these spare parts would have made a dramatic difference in Cleveland's record is laughable.


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

Najee said:


> Injuries are part of the game. Besides, Antawn Jamison played in 56 games that season and Cleveland was a sizzling 11-48 by the time he checked out for the season.
> 
> You keep forgetting that Big 3 of Cortez Jamison, Sideshow Varejao and the incomparable Mo Williams were on the court during Cleveland's memorable run of 14 losses in 15 games. In fact, Cleveland had lost 20 out of 23 games when Varajao was lost for the season in early January.
> 
> And those are your best three players. There is no point even adding Z, who barely could walk up and down the floor by the time he left Cleveland. You may want to rethink that one.


Those are facts, don't bother with them when you're arguing with people who have their minds made up already.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

Yeah, don't :gay:


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Najee said:


> Injuries are part of the game. Besides, Antawn Jamison played in 56 games that season and Cleveland was a sizzling 11-48 by the time he checked out for the season.
> 
> You keep forgetting that Big 3 of Cortez Jamison, Sideshow Varejao and the incomparable Mo Williams were on the court during Cleveland's memorable run of 14 losses in 15 games. In fact, Cleveland had lost 20 out of 23 games when Varajao was lost for the season in early January.
> 
> And those are your best three players. There is no point even adding Z, who barely could walk up and down the floor by the time he left Cleveland. You may want to rethink that one.


Injuries are part of the game, and the Cavs were fortunate not to suffer through many in 09-10. Their roster was in flux all of last season with injuries, trades, tenured role players leaving and a new coach. Sorry, but Lebron ALONE is not the difference between 63 and 19 wins.


----------



## Najee (Apr 5, 2007)

Jamel Irief said:


> Injuries are part of the game, and the Cavs were fortunate not to suffer through many in 09-10. Their roster was in flux all of last season with injuries, trades, tenured role players leaving and a new coach. Sorry, but Lebron ALONE is not the difference between 63 and 19 wins.


The record says otherwise, because when Cleveland's three best holdovers from 2009-10 outside of LeBron James were in the lineup they were getting hammered every night in December and January.

Those are facts. Yours is an opinion. If this was a court case, you would lose badly.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Najee said:


> The record says otherwise, because when Cleveland's three best holdovers were in the lineup they were getting hammered every night in December and January.
> 
> But once again, don't let facts get in your way.


You only addressed a small portion (injuries) of what I said. But ok.

Somehow Lebron won less games in 2011 with Bosh and Wade (and Z) than he did with the three best Cleveland hold overs in 2010.

But don't let facts get in your way.


----------



## Najee (Apr 5, 2007)

Jamel Irief said:


> Somehow Lebron won less games in 2011 with Bosh and Wade (and Z) than he did with the three best Cleveland hold overs in 2010.


Now you're using fallacious logic in order to try to rationalize a bad opinion.

Miami's increase in wins in 2010-11 was incremental because LeBron James and Chris Bosh joined a team that won 47 games in 2009-10. However, the team went from losing in the first round to making it to the NBA Finals.

Cleveland went from winning 61 games in 2009-10 to winning 19 games in 2010-11. Moreover, the team wasn't competitive from mid-November through mid-February, going 4-42 during that stretch. And keep in mind, that was with its three best holdovers playing together a good portion of that stretch along with the other five holdovers from that 2009-10 team.

You keep going on about injuries. By the time Cleveland lost Anderson Varajao for the season, the Cavaliers were 8-27. Antawn Jamison was 11-48 and he played in 56 of the 59 games at that point when he sat out the rest of the season. When Mo Williams was traded, Cleveland was 10-46. Moreover, Cleveland only won eight games when Williams did play.

Once again, facts vs. a fallacious opinion. You would lose badly in a court case. But don't let facts get in your way -- after all, in your mind, a farted-out Zydrunas Ilguauskas, a 39-year-old Shaq and an off-kilter third guard could have led Cleveland to nearly twice as many wins.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

Put Iggy on the 2010 Cavs and they might squeak into the playoffs. That team wasn't terrible they just needed a two way point forward to make everything work and open things up for shooters. Not trying to discredit what LeBron did there, but the fact that he didn't win a title the following year with the best second and third options in the league speak volume to the fact that James isn't some untouchable entity.

Yes he is still the best player in the world for anyone keeping score out there.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

We're not in court, we're on a message board. Get over yourself.

Like he said if it was just about LeBron than why didn't he win at least 61 with Miami. You have no answer for that.

Not to mention the Cavs flat out didn't replace him in any shape or form, and that was already a roster that like these Chicago Bulls has no margin for error. It's not just a matter of numbers = facts, look at the facts behind the numbers.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Najee said:


> Now you're using fallacious logic in order to try to rationalize a bad opinion.
> 
> Miami's increase in wins in 2010-11 was incremental because LeBron James and Chris Bosh joined a team that won 47 games in 2009-10. However, the team went from losing in the first round to making it to the NBA Finals.





We are speaking of Lebron's impact on a team are we not? Why did James win more with his supporting cast in Cleveland? The facts are undebatable, the Cavs in 2010 won more than the Heat in 2011.

Were the Cavs the more talented supporting cast?

Did they have more cohesion with the tenure of their role players and coaching staff?

Were they fortunate not to have many injuries, unlike the Heat's injuries to Haslem and Miller?

Answer please.



> Cleveland went from winning 61 games in 2009-10 to winning 19 games in 2010-11. Moreover, the team wasn't competitive after mid-November, going 4-42 during that stretch. And keep in mind, that was with its three best holdovers playing together a good portion of that stretch along with the other five holdovers from that 2009-10 team.


Not to mention they lost 4 of their top 8 (counting Lebron) minute per game contributors and had a new coach. More facts. Undebatable facts.

If you want to insist that Lebron leaving is the ONLY thing that impacted their record than there is no point continuing this coversation.

I never said they would of been a great team without Lebron, but it seems you are fixated on that point as if I did.


----------



## Najee (Apr 5, 2007)

Dre said:


> Like he said if it was just about LeBron than why didn't he win at least 61 with Miami. You have no answer for that.


And yet, you haven't named how a 39-year-old center, a worn-out backup center who was previously traded in the middle of the 2009-10 season and a third guard would have made an impact on Cleveland winning more than 19 games in 2010-11. Particularly when the team didn't want them back.

Once again, using fallacious logic.

As for Miami in 2010-11, you saw a team struggling at times getting comfortable playing together, particularly with Dwyane Wade missing essentially the preseason. That makes more sense that this "Why didn't LeBron win at least 61 games with Miami?" high school logic.


----------



## Hyperion (Dec 5, 2006)

No way in hell iggy does anything near what lebron did on the cavs


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

Oh, but a team in Cleveland who lost a hall of famer for nothing gets no such grace period for getting comfortable playing together.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Real assholes. Diable is just going to slink away into the dark.


You guys ****ed me on this one.


----------



## Najee (Apr 5, 2007)

Jamel Irief said:


> We are speaking of Lebron's impact on a team are we not? Why did James win more with his supporting cast in Cleveland? The facts are undebatable, the Cavs in 2010 won more than the Heat in 2011.


We saw LeBron James, Dwyane Wade and Chris Bosh at times struggle to play together in 2010-11. Wade and James in particular were too deferential to each other, particularly in the first part of the season when the Heat went 9-8. 

This logic is sophomoric. Adding James and Bosh did make the team better, particularly by the time they started playing more fluidly. You saw a team that went 49-16 and ended up in the NBA Finals after its initial struggles.



Jamel Irief said:


> Not to mention they lost 4 of their top 8 (counting Lebron) minute per game contributors and had a new coach. More facts. Undebatable facts.


Your problem is that you're purposing misrepresenting what a 38-year-old Shaquille O'Neal, a broken-down Zydrunas Ilgauskas and Delonte West brought to the table in 2009-10. The reality is Cleveland lost the league MVP (LeBron James), a starting center who was a shade of the player he was (Shaq), a backup center who was considerably less than what he was (Z) and a reserve guard (West).

The MVP scored more points and had more assists and steals the other three players COMBINED. The MVP also grabbed more rebounds and blocked more shots than either center.

The other players outside of the MVP were so good that:

1.) Cleveland traded West to Minnesota in July 2010, which promptly waived him a week later.

2.) Cleveland traded Z in mid-season to Washington, which waived him and he came back to Cleveland. After his end-of-season contract expired, Cleveland didn't want to bring him back.

3.) Cleveland also didn't want Shaq back, whose contract also expired that summer.

4.) The other three players were so good that they signed minimum-wage contracts with other teams and were reserves. Only Shaq averaged 20 minutes per game, and even then he only played in 37 games.

5.) Shaq retired after the 2010-11 season, and it's safe to say 2010-11 was Z's last season.

So now, you have some CONTEXT to your statement. Context that defeinitely sheds light on how much of a role the three spare parts played on Cleveland's team in 2009-10.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

R-Star said:


> Real assholes. Diable is just going to slink away into the dark.
> 
> 
> You guys ****ed me on this one.


He wasn't coming back


----------



## Najee (Apr 5, 2007)

Luke said:


> Put Iggy on the 2010 Cavs and they might squeak into the playoffs. That team wasn't terrible they just needed a two way point forward to make everything work and open things up for shooters.


Meanwhile on this place called Earth, the fact that Andre Iguodala couldn't do that with better players in Philadelphia -- and he's nowhere near the player LeBron James is -- makes me question your knowledge of basketball.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

So you can talk about Igoudala in Philly when Luke's post was about him in Cleveland but we can't talk about LeBron in Miami without it being "High school logic"

Good to know


----------



## Najee (Apr 5, 2007)

Dre said:


> Oh, but a team in Cleveland who lost a hall of famer for nothing gets no such grace period for getting comfortable playing together.


Stop deflecting. The argument is about how many more games the 2010-11 Cavaliers would have won with a farted-out Shaq, a busted-up Z and an off-kilter Delonte West. The fact that you and Jamel Irief are acting like the Cavs would have won considerably more than 19 games with a pair of washed up, injury-prone centers and often-injured nut case is what is comical.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

:2ti:

So we can't question why LeBron didn't emulate what he did in Cleveland win wise in Miami if it was just him that got them the 61, but you can question why Igoudala can't "squeak into the playoffs" with the 76ers while you pat your back and win another hypothetical court case. You not playin fair Najee!

It's even funnier when the 76ers are about to do much better than "squeak into the playoffs" with him as their best player


----------



## Najee (Apr 5, 2007)

Dre said:


> So you can talk about Igoudala in Philly when Luke's post was about him in Cleveland but we can't talk about LeBron in Miami without it being "High school logic."


Andre Iguodala never showed he had that kind of ability or aptitude in Philadelphia, and he has had better teammates around him than what was in Cleveland in 2010-11. 

It's fair to say that if Philadelphia struggled in recent years to get to .500 records with guys like Andre Miller, Lou Williams, Thaddeus Young and Elton Brand around Iguodala, then he is not going to be enough to get that 2010-11 Cavs team into the playoffs. 

If you have a problem understanding that, then saying you have "high school logic" seems to be a fair assessment.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

That's fine and I may even agree but you can feel free to state that in relation to a post about Iggy's value to Cleveland but completely dismiss Jamel's point about LeBron's to Cleveland. A little hypocritical no


----------



## Najee (Apr 5, 2007)

Dre said:


> It's even funnier when the 76ers are about to do much better than "squeak into the playoffs" with (Andre Iguodala) as their best player.


A team that, I might add, asked Andre Iguodala to be less concerned about scoring and be more focused on the other aspects of the game. It's not a coincidence that Philadelphia is a better team with Iguodala having his lowest scoring season since his second season.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

Is he not their best player yes or no


----------



## Najee (Apr 5, 2007)

Dre said:


> That's fine and I may even agree but you can feel free to state that in relation to a post about Iggy's value to Cleveland but completely dismiss Jamel's point about LeBron's to Cleveland. A little hypocritical no


He didn't make a point, at least one that made sense. The spare parts that left Cleveland in 2010 were neglible, and I pointed out with facts on what they contributed to the Cavaliers in 2009-10.

I guess if name-dropping and making fallacious arguments are relevant, but a 38-year-old Shaq who missed 29 games in 2009-10, a backup center who was traded and brought back after he was waived by Washington and a reserve guard wasn't going to make that much of a difference. 

Especially when the league MVP scored more points and had more assists and steals than the other three players COMBINED, and also grabbed more rebounds and blocked more shots than either center.


----------



## Najee (Apr 5, 2007)

Dre said:


> Is he not their best player yes or no


The comment Luke made was that Andre Iguodala could be placed on Cleveland's team in 2010-11 and replicate what LeBron James gave the Cavaliers at a level to where that team could have made it to the playoffs, instead of winning 19 games.

Answering that question is relevant, not giving an answer to something that is irrelevant and not contextual to the discussion.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

lol im done


----------



## Najee (Apr 5, 2007)

Dre said:


> lol im done


To tell the truth, you were done a few pages ago. You just didn't realize you had a toe tag on.


----------



## Najee (Apr 5, 2007)

Luke said:


> And Cleveland was very clearly tanking last season. Not saying they could have done anything regardless, but that team wasn't giving it 100% every night.


Cleveland wasn't tanking. By mid-November, the Cavs was a .500 team. The team's big losing streak started in late November and continued through mid-February, and often the team was losing by large margins. 

The Cavaliers initially thought it could win by a committee approach and was galvanized by the anti-LeBron support in Cleveland and across the nation. But even before Miami blew out Cleveland in LeBron James' first game vs. his former team, the wheels already were falling off. The Cavs had lost five of seven games heading into the LeBron Bowl, and all but one of the losses were by double digits.

Also, tanking teams don't try to win near the end of the season. Seven of Cleveland's 19 wins came in the final month of the season.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

Lebron's Cleveland supporting cast was really bad in his first Finals, but they matched up okay against the Pistons. That team's real weakness was in guarding quick point guards which is why the Spurs featured Parker so much. Eric Snow could guard Billups though and he did a terrific job of guarding him in that series. Lebron did everything else. Those later teams had good roleplayers, guys who could defend, rebound and hit jumpshots. Talking about Jamison is a bit silly because he was beyond horrible while Lebron was on that team. He's never done much on good teams. Jamison is a guy who looks good as the best offensive player on a terrible team. Truth is that Jamison hurt that team in Lebron's final year in Cleveland. He was a net negative for them.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Diable said:


> Lebron's Cleveland supporting cast was really bad in his first Finals, but they matched up okay against the Pistons. That team's real weakness was in guarding quick point guards which is why the Spurs featured Parker so much. Eric Snow could guard Billups though and he did a terrific job of guarding him in that series. Lebron did everything else. Those later teams had good roleplayers, guys who could defend, rebound and hit jumpshots. Talking about Jamison is a bit silly because he was beyond horrible while Lebron was on that team. He's never done much on good teams. Jamison is a guy who looks good as the best offensive player on a terrible team. Truth is that Jamison hurt that team in Lebron's final year in Cleveland. He was a net negative for them.


No. You were already having a previous discussion.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

:2ti:


----------



## jayk009 (Aug 6, 2003)

:laugh:


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Najee said:


> We saw LeBron James, Dwyane Wade and Chris Bosh at times struggle to play together in 2010-11. Wade and James in particular were too deferential to each other, particularly in the first part of the season when the Heat went 9-8.
> 
> This logic is sophomoric. Adding James and Bosh did make the team better, particularly by the time they started playing more fluidly. You saw a team that went 49-16 and ended up in the NBA Finals after its initial struggles.



So adding Lebron AND Bosh only gave the Heat a 10 win improvement, yet I am to believe that Lebron leaving, and Lebron leaving alone is the only reason for the Cavs 44 game drop off. Tells me all I need to know about your stance.

Get off your high horse.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

folk point at the lebron departure from cleveland and their subsequent plummet in wins but forget that they did absolutely jack to fill the void - it's not like they turned around and spent money on someone else to play any kind of lead role - they tanked on purpose and got Irving for their troubles


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

e-monk said:


> folk point at the lebron departure from cleveland and their subsequent plummet in wins but forget that they did absolutely jack to fill the void - it's not like they turned around and spent money on someone else to play any kind of lead role - they tanked on purpose and got Irving for their troubles


Look a the Cavs this year. Sure they have Damon Stoudamire upgrading the Mo Williams/Baron tandem but other wise the team is drastically improved because-

1) Stable roster/rotation. Up until the trade deadline they had a consistent rotation all year. Irving and Parker were your starters in the backcourt with Sessions and Boobie backing them up. Gee and Jamison started with Cassippi and Thompson as the backups. At Center you had Anderson Varejao and Hollins.

None of this NBDL players starting or a guy starting and then quickly falling out of rotation as the team tinkered with different lineups.

No major injuries except Varejao.

2) Second year with the coach.

I think if the Cavs of last year brought back either Shaq or Z, had Gee starting at the small forward all year, kept Mo, never suffered the injuries to Varejao and Jamison and kept Mike Brown they would of won over 30 games.


----------



## Najee (Apr 5, 2007)

Jamel Irief said:


> So adding Lebron AND Bosh only gave the Heat a 10 win improvement, yet I am to believe that Lebron leaving, and Lebron leaving alone is the only reason for the Cavs 44 game drop off.


1.) Actually, Miami won 11 more games than the previous season.

2.) The Heat went from being a first-round knockout to advancing to the NBA Finals. Something you keep ignoring, I might add.

3.) Miami already had one of the five best players in the NBA and won 47 games the previous season. From a win-loss perspective, the team only had so much room for improvement in that category.

4.) It's fair to say losing a guy who had more points, assists and steals than three players combined -- and who also had more rebounds and blocks than the two players who were centers -- had a much greater impact on Cleveland's season that losing the three minimum-wage players (other facts you keep overlooking).

5.) Despite its struggles getting used to playing together, Miami did win 58 games. It's not like we're talking about a team that struggled to make the playoffs with a .500 record, and you're comparing the 2010-11 Heat to a team whose core had been together for some time.

I mean, it's Gary Coleman cute that you actually think you have something with this non sequitur argument. But it's incredibly fallacious and the typically dumb argument that is common on this basketball board. Just like it's obvious how you refuse to look at the 2010-11 Cavaliers records with Mo Williams, Antawn Jamison and Anderson Varajao playing. 

In a court of law or a basketball court, you would be run off the floor. Take the "L" and stop being ridiculous.


----------



## Najee (Apr 5, 2007)

e-monk said:


> folk point at the lebron departure from cleveland and their subsequent plummet in wins but forget that they did absolutely jack to fill the void - it's not like they turned around and spent money on someone else to play any kind of lead role - they tanked on purpose and got Irving for their troubles.


Cleveland only had $8 million in salary cap money to sign other players going into the summer of 2010, so barring a sign-and-trade deal the Cavaliers knew it couldn't add another player (another strike against the team, which is why LeBron James left).

And as stated, the team didn't tank. The Cavs were playing .500 ball in mid-November, when reality caught up to the team and it proceeded to lose almost every game in December and January. Also, the Cavs won seven of its 19 games in the final month of the season, so the Cavs actually played better at the end than it did the first two months of the season.


----------



## Najee (Apr 5, 2007)

Jamel Irief said:


> 1) Up until the trade deadline they had a consistent rotation all year. Irving and Parker were your starters in the backcourt with Sessions and Boobie backing them up. Gee and Jamison started with Cassippi and Thompson as the backups. At Center you had Anderson Varejao and Hollins.


The problem is that all of these players except Kyrie Irving were on the Cavaliers last year and played signifcantly. The Cavs were 8-27 before Anderson Varajao checked out and 11-48 when Antawn Jamison checked out. Ramon Sessions played in 81 games, Anthony Parker played in 72 games, Ryan Hollins played in 70 games and Boobie Gibson played in 67 games.

Cleveland didn't want to keep Zydrunas Ilgauskas, not to mention he could barely play as it is. And Shaquille O'Neal certainly was not going to spend his final season on a lottery team.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Luke said:


> And Cleveland was very clearly tanking last season. Not saying they could have done anything regardless, but that team wasn't giving it 100% every night.


No, they really were that bad. Even when the year started and they were playing .500 ball, if you had watched you would have seen that the opponents' losses came the way Boston's did. The Celtics basically played half-speed most of the game expecting to win by only playing the last three minutes. Once teams started playing the entire fourth quarter at full speed the Cavs were done. They basically reaped the fruits of years of horrific personnel decisions.



Dre said:


> If by some act of god Shaq was on that 2011 team and fully motivated to contribute they would have won more than 19.


Yeah, they would have won 20! 



Najee said:


> Stop deflecting. The argument is about how many more games the 2010-11 Cavaliers would have won with a farted-out Shaq, a busted-up Z and an off-kilter Delonte West. The fact that you and Jamel Irief are acting like the Cavs would have won considerably more than 19 games with a pair of washed up, injury-prone centers and often-injured nut case is what is comical.


I don't understand how you can fail to grasp that losing a franchise player like Delonte West has a far bigger impact on a team's record than a mere roleplayer like the Dead President. I mean if the 2011 Cavs had West out there putting in his eight points a night you could replace James with Andre Iguodala and not miss a beat.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Najee said:


> 1.) Actually, Miami won 11 more games than the previous season.
> 
> 2.) The Heat went from being a first-round knockout to advancing to the NBA Finals. Something you keep ignoring, I might add.




We were discussing regular seasons.


> 3.) Miami already had one of the five best players in the NBA and won 47 games the previous season. From a win-loss perspective, the team only had so much room for improvement in that category.




Fair enough, but they should of at least won more than a team that was playing so many minimum wage players that no one wants correct? Why didn't they?


> 4.) It's fair to say losing a guy who had more points, assists and steals than three players combined -- and who also had more rebounds and blocks than the two players who were centers -- had a much greater impact on Cleveland's season that losing the three minimum-wage players (other facts you keep overlooking).




When did I say otherwise? Has anyone, anyone at all said the Cavs were still good enough to be a playoff team without Lebron? Certainly I didn't.



> 5.) Despite its struggles getting used to playing together, Miami did win 58 games. It's not like we're talking about a team that struggled to make the playoffs with a .500 record, and you're comparing the 2010-11 Heat to a team whose core had been together for some time.


Yet they still couldn't win as much as a team that counted sideshow Varejao and all the other cute names you gave the leftover Cavs? And funny how you state that teams have to get used to playing together, yet dismiss that the Cavs had a lot of new faces last year and a new coach contributing negatively to their record. Hypocrite.


> I mean, it's Gary Coleman cute that you actually think you have something with this non sequitur argument. But it's incredibly fallacious and the typically dumb argument that is common on this basketball board. Just like it's obvious how you refuse to look at the 2010-11 Cavaliers records with Mo Williams, Antawn Jamison and Anderson Varajao playing.


I have never once refused to look a their record with those 3 playing. Where did you get that?

The cavs with those 3 still had a new coach and a different supporting cast around them. I argued that if literally everything was the same, with Gee replacing Lebron as the only difference, the team win's 30 or so games. But I can't prove it just like you can't dissaprove it.



> In a court of law or a basketball court, you would be run off the floor. Take the "L" and stop being ridiculous.




Does saying this make your dick hard? If you think everyone on this board is beneath you go somewhere else.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Najee said:


> The problem is that all of these players except Kyrie Irving were on the Cavaliers last year and played signifcantly. The Cavs were 8-27 before Anderson Varajao checked out and 11-48 when Antawn Jamison checked out. Ramon Sessions played in 81 games, Anthony Parker played in 72 games, Ryan Hollins played in 70 games and Boobie Gibson played in 67 games.
> 
> Cleveland didn't want to keep Zydrunas Ilgauskas, not to mention he could barely play as it is. And Shaquille O'Neal certainly was not going to spend his final season on a lottery team.


It's not about the talent, it's about the consistency in the roster and coaching staff. Same reason the Hornets suck this year but if they bring back most of the team next year and stay injury free they'll top 30 wins next year.

What's your take on why the Cavs are going to threaten to be a .500 team this year when they were a 19 win team last year?

Z and Shaq weren't the same caliber player in 2011 as they were in 2010 when they contributed to 63 wins. And even the year older and slower Z still started over, what 30 games on the finalists (unlike you I'm not going to waste time looking it up).


----------



## NK1990 (Mar 26, 2011)

jayk009 said:


> Smush Parker, Luke Walton, Brian Cook, Slava Medvedenko?


don't forget the amazing Kwame Brown and a rookie Andrew Bynum  Also Sasha was pretty weak and did they have Devon George as well xD WOW.......


----------



## Hyperion (Dec 5, 2006)

Jamel Irief said:


> It's not about the talent, it's about the consistency in the roster and coaching staff. Same reason the Hornets suck this year but if they bring back most of the team next year and stay injury free they'll top 30 wins next year.


Not too likely they top 30 next year. They're pretty terrible with no discernible starter in the bunch.



> What's your take on why the Cavs are going to threaten to be a .500 team this year when they were a 19 win team last year?


Kyrie Irving is a good reason. Their schedule is another Beat Detroit, Charlotte and NJ twice. Also, they're 17-26 right now. That's not exactly knocking on 0.500's door. They'll be lucky to top 25 wins this year.



NK1990 said:


> don't forget the amazing Kwame Brown and a rookie Andrew Bynum  Also Sasha was pretty weak and did they have Devon George as well xD WOW.......


Then you look at the teams that DIDN'T make the playoffs.... holy crap. 
New Orleans starting Desmond Mason, Speedy Claxton, PJ Brown along side rooke Paul and 3rd year West?
Okur at starting Center for Utah??!

The Pacers were playing the immortal Sarunas Jasikevicius 20mpg! They were in the playoffs at 41-41 in the 6th seed! THE SIXTH SEED! That meant that 10/15 teams in the East were at or BELOW 0.500! 

There was a deep chasm between teams with talent and those without. Fortunately the Lakers had Kobe, who could bridge that gap well enough to eek into the playoffs.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Steve Nash is the only reason the Suns are beating the Pacers right now. Hes that good, and his supporting cast is that bad. Its pathetic.


----------



## Hyperion (Dec 5, 2006)

It's just sad that these layups should be dunks but they aren't athletic enough to finish.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Crazy game so far. Suns up 1 with a minute and a bit to go. They'd be down 20 if he wasn't on that team.

There's only 1 player on the Suns who would start on the Pacers. Pretty clear who that is. Where's Bogg I wonder?


----------



## Hyperion (Dec 5, 2006)

Steve Nash has accounted for 20 of the 29 starters' field goals. I'm sure he also assisted on most of the FTs (Gortat attempted 11 tonight).


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

You cheap fouling dirtbags.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

That was intense. Good game.


----------

