DJMUSIC wrote:

callmened wrote:is this a new revelation? or a Lebron troll?

Lebron is young enough to get 1-2 more NBA rings for a good NBA team
here we're talking CAVs

However for his career its not a revelation he's the very very best player in NBA
and cant get MJordan 6 NBA rings.

1-2 more rings maybe for LBJ, and that is best NBA player in the world.

NBA , stars got alot of catching up to do to win just 1 NBA ring
Makes the 2 NBA Title rings (hundred yrs ago!) of Knicks-era legends Walt Clyde Frazier, Willis Reed and B.Bradley
not seem to bad eh ? in todays trendy NBA star studded standards.

NBA organizations are not building dynasties, they are cashing out of their investments.
Fans do not need greatness, its boring and produce jealousy.
Fans need drama and entertainment, turmoil, faltering stars (yep you see they are also regular people like me).
Executives and coaches need big $$$ not rings... rings are just jewelry. Millions can by you anything.

arkrud wrote:

DJMUSIC wrote:

callmened wrote:is this a new revelation? or a Lebron troll?

Lebron is young enough to get 1-2 more NBA rings for a good NBA team
here we're talking CAVs

However for his career its not a revelation he's the very very best player in NBA
and cant get MJordan 6 NBA rings.

1-2 more rings maybe for LBJ, and that is best NBA player in the world.

NBA , stars got alot of catching up to do to win just 1 NBA ring
Makes the 2 NBA Title rings (hundred yrs ago!) of Knicks-era legends Walt Clyde Frazier, Willis Reed and B.Bradley
not seem to bad eh ? in todays trendy NBA star studded standards.

NBA organizations are not building dynasties, they are cashing out of their investments.
Fans do not need greatness, its boring and produce jealousy.
Fans need drama and entertainment, turmoil, faltering stars (yep you see they are also regular people like me).
Executives and coaches need big $$$ not rings... rings are just jewelry. Millions can by you anything.

while this is true the underlying reason you won't see dynasties is talent dilution from having to fill the rosters of 30 teams. there are too many teams but you're right in the sense that greed is the fuel that keeps the conveyor belt going.

dk7th wrote:

arkrud wrote:

DJMUSIC wrote:

callmened wrote:is this a new revelation? or a Lebron troll?

Lebron is young enough to get 1-2 more NBA rings for a good NBA team
here we're talking CAVs

However for his career its not a revelation he's the very very best player in NBA
and cant get MJordan 6 NBA rings.

1-2 more rings maybe for LBJ, and that is best NBA player in the world.

NBA , stars got alot of catching up to do to win just 1 NBA ring
Makes the 2 NBA Title rings (hundred yrs ago!) of Knicks-era legends Walt Clyde Frazier, Willis Reed and B.Bradley
not seem to bad eh ? in todays trendy NBA star studded standards.

NBA organizations are not building dynasties, they are cashing out of their investments.
Fans do not need greatness, its boring and produce jealousy.
Fans need drama and entertainment, turmoil, faltering stars (yep you see they are also regular people like me).
Executives and coaches need big $$$ not rings... rings are just jewelry. Millions can by you anything.

while this is true the underlying reason you won't see dynasties is talent dilution from having to fill the rosters of 30 teams. there are too many teams but you're right in the sense that greed is the fuel that keeps the conveyor belt going.

Since when has winning been "Bad" for business? In the free agent era for all leagues its tougher to keep a team together as young and rising players want pay raises. Harden wanted and had earned a max contract and the Thunder had to face the economic realities of three max players. The tax implications are a problem. At the same time it is healthier for the league to not have the Lakers and Celtics in the finals every year!

Miami with Lebron was not a great team but good enough to get to the finals 4 straight years. I don't think we fully appreciate what Lebron did carrying that team with the part time Wade working thru his leg problems.

30 teams dilution of talent is weak argument because we have so many international players now then before that more than make up the difference.

crzymdups wrote:I think basically the league is too good now to have one team be a dynasty. You saw even the Super Heat which were an engineered "Great Team" lost to the Mavs in the Finals and the Spurs. Heck, they got lucky to beat the Spurs in 2013. This year, the Spurs lose in the first round to the Clippers who look like a great team... a great team that may never even reach the Finals.

League is too good - too many great players and the ability for players to move around and team up means it'd be hard for one team to be the dominant one for too long. Heck, the Celtics super duper team with KG, Pierce, Ray Allen, Rondo only won one ring in 2008.

The league sucks right now, and every team is running the same game plan. I mean it doesn't really suck but it's more of a lack of dominate teams. The level of talent is much more even then has been.

With so many injuries happening at the drop of a hat, it's hard to determine who's truly good and who's truly Lucky..

Nalod wrote:Lebron hate or realities?

In my book Lebron did not have the benefit of continuation like Jordan did with the Bulls, or certainly the Celtics of yesteryear!

Greatness is measured in chips but also look at the player. Chamberlin took his team very far often but as we all know it takes more than just one player. Wilt has only two chips to his name. He played in a lot more finals.

Kobe has 5. IS Kobe better than Wilt? Is Kobe better than Lebron?

70's knicks have two rings. Should Willis and Clyde have had more? Do we view them as a "TEAM" first and foremost, but we look at Wilt and Lebron as "They"? "They only have two rings"!

1969 the Celtics era was coming to an end and the knicks were favored, but failed to get past those Celtics. 1971 they lost to the Bulletts in the semi finals and the next year they lost to the Powerful Lakers who had an amazing year. One might conclude the knicks should have won at least 3 in that run. By 1972 they had 6 future HOF players on that roster!!! Willis, Debussure, Bradley, Clyde, earl and Lucas!!!

Don't get me wrong, I'm not being critical to the knicks. I get the hype around Lebron but in my view the UK has a more educated base.
Apparently I'm wrong.

your argument is more stream of consciousness than coherent.

Nalod wrote:Lebron hate or realities?

In my book Lebron did not have the benefit of continuation like Jordan did with the Bulls, or certainly the Celtics of yesteryear!

Greatness is measured in chips but also look at the player. Chamberlin took his team very far often but as we all know it takes more than just one player. Wilt has only two chips to his name. He played in a lot more finals.

Kobe has 5. IS Kobe better than Wilt? Is Kobe better than Lebron?

70's knicks have two rings. Should Willis and Clyde have had more? Do we view them as a "TEAM" first and foremost, but we look at Wilt and Lebron as "They"? "They only have two rings"!

1969 the Celtics era was coming to an end and the knicks were favored, but failed to get past those Celtics. 1971 they lost to the Bulletts in the semi finals and the next year they lost to the Powerful Lakers who had an amazing year. One might conclude the knicks should have won at least 3 in that run. By 1972 they had 6 future HOF players on that roster!!! Willis, Debussure, Bradley, Clyde, earl and Lucas!!!

Don't get me wrong, I'm not being critical to the knicks. I get the hype around Lebron but in my view the UK has a more educated base.
Apparently I'm wrong.

Nalod
No bro your not critical
NYK not winning anything close to championship now 40yrs and counting, since 94-95 Ewing team could not overcome Hakeem Rockets.

What Lebron is doing with a young team is amazing but I could care less to see Cavs advance.. even if Lebron gets chance at ring#3

However the fact that there is whole bunch of NBA teams whom won this NBA title thing once Or twice (2) and exceptional
francises has won more than 2> shows me that the NBA is hard to win even with its Best NBA player LBJ since Michael Jordan.

So Carmelo and few other stars don't feel bad ! Join the great NBA lists of the Ewings, Stockton, Karl Malone, Baylor , C.Barkley
and on and on whom never won 1 NBA ring at least makes the 2 NBA titles won between 1969 thru 1973, with three(2) appearances in
NBA Finals, during those Knick eras was special.

NFL Football, and NHL, MLB perhaps works out the same.
You need so much falling in line to make a run and win Pro Sports Championships so why not us ?

I no longer feel that Knickerbockers wont ever ever win NBA title again.
Of course I will never make a prediction but you cant tell what the road lies ahead.

Best teams, best 3 allstars, best of the WEST no longer is any blueprint to win NBA titles.
ITs Chemistry and Luck !

Lebron perhaps got to play to age 40's - 50 LOL to win the 6 NBA rings Michael Jordan has. Don't think so !

MJordan feat actually helps the league as well as Knickerbockers...

dk7th wrote:

Nalod wrote:

dk7th wrote:

arkrud wrote:

DJMUSIC wrote:

callmened wrote:is this a new revelation? or a Lebron troll?

Lebron is young enough to get 1-2 more NBA rings for a good NBA team
here we're talking CAVs

However for his career its not a revelation he's the very very best player in NBA
and cant get MJordan 6 NBA rings.

1-2 more rings maybe for LBJ, and that is best NBA player in the world.

NBA , stars got alot of catching up to do to win just 1 NBA ring
Makes the 2 NBA Title rings (hundred yrs ago!) of Knicks-era legends Walt Clyde Frazier, Willis Reed and B.Bradley
not seem to bad eh ? in todays trendy NBA star studded standards.

NBA organizations are not building dynasties, they are cashing out of their investments.
Fans do not need greatness, its boring and produce jealousy.
Fans need drama and entertainment, turmoil, faltering stars (yep you see they are also regular people like me).
Executives and coaches need big $$$ not rings... rings are just jewelry. Millions can by you anything.

while this is true the underlying reason you won't see dynasties is talent dilution from having to fill the rosters of 30 teams. there are too many teams but you're right in the sense that greed is the fuel that keeps the conveyor belt going.

Since when has winning been "Bad" for business? In the free agent era for all leagues its tougher to keep a team together as young and rising players want pay raises. Harden wanted and had earned a max contract and the Thunder had to face the economic realities of three max players. The tax implications are a problem. At the same time it is healthier for the league to not have the Lakers and Celtics in the finals every year!

Miami with Lebron was not a great team but good enough to get to the finals 4 straight years. I don't think we fully appreciate what Lebron did carrying that team with the part time Wade working thru his leg problems.

30 teams dilution of talent is weak argument because we have so many international players now then before that more than make up the difference.

regarding your last paragraph: walt frazier disagrees with you-- there is not enough talent over the face of the earth to make up for dilution and skill level. there was a higher percentage of complete players or simply two-way players up until the league reached critical mass, which by my calculations was around 1990. either you believe mr. frazier is wrong or your memeory/understanding of the nba game is faulty. my guess is the latter... so sorry

lebron's efforts with miami is besides the point: it simply reinforces how diluted the talent pool is, such that players have to resort to collusion to field a viable contender, ie cheat. this includes the minny/boston collusion and the grizz/laker collusion, which yielded 3 titles.

lastly, harden's greed is reaping karmic consequences, just like it is with carmelo anthony. oh you don't believe in that stuff? ok in that case then we'll have to agree that you can't win unless your main guys play defense. and if they don't play defense then it amounts to another variation on the greed theme.

you're welcome!

our points are subjective. There are no calculations other than "the good old days"!
Lets look at your calculatuions, the 1970's began with the ABA cultivating some eventual stars. Thompson, Erving, and Gervin come to mind. Add Haywood and connie hawkins earlier. Would those guys have thrived under the old school NBA which was very fundamental based and likely would have thwarted those guys or tried to "reel them in"! Earl Monroe was an outcast who played at Winston Salem State because no big program wanted a free wheeling black kid! The ABA merger bought these guys in the league and they made all star teams and paved a way for other players.
IN fact Moses Malone came in at age 18 and was a two time MVP. Dr J tthe year before.

Enter Bird and Magic and that era. Do we think of the Showtime defense? So when did dilution enter? When Charlotte and Orlando came in the league? The Heat and the Timberwolves? Look at some draft years, they yielded small crop of players. Dilution has little to do with that. Top 10 is top 10 regardless of the number of teams. My point is "the good old days" also had bad years as well.

Genetics. Players who blew out knees in college were usually done. Now they come back, get drafted, play a few good years and then sign max deals. Guys like Granger who ave the talent but then fall apart. Back in the "good old days" he might not play after college.

International era good or bad? Hakeem first foreign player to win MVP. Tim Duncan from US virgin Islands, Steve Nash and Kirk from there. Non traditional places to come from. Ewing came from Jamaica to play high school ball in states. Rodman was an alien from another planet.

The core of the Spurs Era includes Timmy, Manu and Parker. No three players ever won as many games together. Spurs are known for its international players. Are you saying they are great becuase the league is diluted?

I can't say Im 100% right or not because its subjective. Sure Clyde looks at the "good old days" and sees that the game was based on strong fundamentals and the best teams were the celt's who had great fortune of players and a coach who put the chemistry together. I would not call Bill Russell a great Two way player? Jabbar and Wilt had athletic superiority in their day which enabled domination. Oscar at 6-5 was a beast at his position.

I'd agree that todays players are not as skilled but they compensate by being better athletes. I'd agree that maybe we see "dilution" becuase there are less stand out players who define the era and dominate. One might also say that we might have so many good players that domination is harder to achieve now both physically or fundamentally.

I respect Clyde but his opinion is subjective as is Barkleys observations. There is no statistical proof as the era's are impossible to gauge. The game has changed. Is that a good or a bad thing?