CB Draft '09 Mock Press Conference: Atlantic Divison

[KCattheStripe]

No NJ press conference?

Aren't you heckled out already?

I like NJ's team. I don't get it.

Was just poking fun.

[nickagneta]

What I said is that a team needs to HAVE a dominant SG to win it all in today's NBA. Does that mean it is impossible for a team without a dominant SG to win it all? Of course not and you know that. I am not talking absolutes and never said I was.

I guess I don't understand.  To me "needs to" means the exact same thing as "it's impossible without".  I don't recognize a distinction.

Regardless, I just disagree with your position.  To me, there's no reason why teams with great SGs would be more likely to win than teams with great SFs. 

(Again, our team doesn't have a vested interest here; we just disagree with the argument.)

So your disagreement with what I presented breaks down to semantics?

The temperature of water needs to be at 32 degrees or below to solidify. Yet it snows at temperatures above 32 degrees

[indeedproceed]

What I said is that a team needs to HAVE a dominant SG to win it all in today's NBA. Does that mean it is impossible for a team without a dominant SG to win it all? Of course not and you know that. I am not talking absolutes and never said I was.

I guess I don't understand.  To me "needs to" means the exact same thing as "it's impossible without".  I don't recognize a distinction.

Regardless, I just disagree with your position.  To me, there's no reason why teams with great SGs would be more likely to win than teams with great SFs. 

(Again, our team doesn't have a vested interest here; we just disagree with the argument.)

So your disagreement with what I presented breaks down to semantics?

The temperature of water needs to be at 32 degrees or below to solidify. Yet it snows at temperatures above 32 degrees

That is backhanged and disingenuous. You know when the snow forms it is below 32 degrees, where it falls is not the issue here.

Frankly I expected better.

[KCattheStripe]

What I said is that a team needs to HAVE a dominant SG to win it all in today's NBA. Does that mean it is impossible for a team without a dominant SG to win it all? Of course not and you know that. I am not talking absolutes and never said I was.

I guess I don't understand.  To me "needs to" means the exact same thing as "it's impossible without".  I don't recognize a distinction.

Regardless, I just disagree with your position.  To me, there's no reason why teams with great SGs would be more likely to win than teams with great SFs. 

(Again, our team doesn't have a vested interest here; we just disagree with the argument.)

So your disagreement with what I presented breaks down to semantics?

The temperature of water needs to be at 32 degrees or below to solidify. Yet it snows at temperatures above 32 degrees

That is backhanged and disingenuous. You know when the snow forms it is below 32 degrees, where it falls is not the issue here.

Frankly I expected better.

FOR SHAME!

[nickagneta]

I love it!

What about the SG position makes it more important than SF?  I just don't understand your theory.  How was Rip Hamilton the difference maker on Detroit's championship squad?

Also, does your theory mean that Lebron is incapable of winning a championship in real life, at least as Cleveland is constituted?  Because, as much as I love our 7th man Delonte West, he's not a dominant SG, either.

Why do you guys keep trying to read more into the facts than what is there. Did I say LeBron was incapable of winning a championship? No, I did not so stop trying to twist what is being discussed. Did I say that the SG position was more important than any other position? No I did not, so again stop trying to twist the conversation around.

What I said is that a team needs to HAVE a dominant SG to win it all in today's NBA. Does that mean it is impossible for a team without a dominant SG to win it all? Of course not and you know that. I am not talking absolutes and never said I was.

But the facts are since Michael transform the style of the game and transformed the biggest threat on the court to his SG position the SG position has won the MOST Finals MVPs and Most NBA MVPs. Since 1988 the champs and their SGs:

Lakers     Byron Scott
Pistons    Joe Dumars
Bulls      Michael jordan
Rockets    Clyde Drexler and Kenny Smith(not dominant)
Bulls      Michael Jordan
Spurs      Mario Elle/Steve Kerr combo(not dominant)
Lakers     Kobe
Spurs      Jackson/Manu conbo
Pistons    Rip Hamilton
Spurs      Manu
Heat       Wade
Spurs      Manu
Celtics    Ray Allen
Lakers     Kobe

These are just facts and it's where I get my theory. In today's game a team with a dominant(not most dominant but dominant) will win the title 90% of the time or more.

Two things: Adding in Michael changes everything. You originally said "for the past decade", which would start in 1999. There's another team without a dominant 2. Yes, if you count Michael's years into the equation, two guards outnumber the rest of the NBA in finals and regular MVPs. But thats the best player in the history of the game, a man who is the exception to many rules. Yes if you include the greatest player of all time it does prove your point. However, with the exception of 2006 and 2009 championships, none of the players you mentioned were the best player on their team, let alone the most dominant.

Lakers- SG Byron Scott. There is no way he was etter than Magic and Worthy. Even kareem on one leg.
Pistons- SG- Joe Dumars. While he had a magnificent series, Arguing that he is a more dominant player than Issiah is like arguing Pierce is a more dominant player than KG.
Bulls- No Argument
Lakers 3 peat- While Kobe was great, Shaq was easily the most dominant player in the league.
Spurs- You can say what you want about the Manu/Jackson combo, but Tim Duncan was the dominant player on that team.
Pistons- Rip had nice numbers, but there's a reason Chauncey won the Finals MVP
Spurs- Duncan again
Heat- No Argument
Spurs- Tp dominated that series, and the second best player was TD
Celtics- While Ray was very good, the two times he scored over 20 points were in blowouts when the Lake show stopped playing defense. Pauls clutch scoring and defense  truly dominated the series.
Lakers- No argument.

I think you're picking the wrong constant. Over the past decade, it has been much harder for an NBA team to win without their best player being a dominant big.

Please point out in any post I made where I said the SG had to be the MOST DOMINANT PLAYER ON THE TEAM.

Go ahead. Go find that phase and quote me. I'll wait...What? I never said that? You're kidding me?

I said had to have a dominant SG. I never said he had to be the most dominant player on the team. Francisco Garcia is a good SG. Not dominant. Put him in the place of all the SG's I mentioned on those championship teams and tell me how many actually win the championship with Garcia as their SG instead of MJ, Manu, Wade, Kobe, Drexler, Allen, Hamilton and Dumars. Maybe, just maybe, one of those teams wins it all with Garcia instead of their player. Maybe one.

[nickagneta]

What I said is that a team needs to HAVE a dominant SG to win it all in today's NBA. Does that mean it is impossible for a team without a dominant SG to win it all? Of course not and you know that. I am not talking absolutes and never said I was.

I guess I don't understand.  To me "needs to" means the exact same thing as "it's impossible without".  I don't recognize a distinction.

Regardless, I just disagree with your position.  To me, there's no reason why teams with great SGs would be more likely to win than teams with great SFs. 

(Again, our team doesn't have a vested interest here; we just disagree with the argument.)

So your disagreement with what I presented breaks down to semantics?

The temperature of water needs to be at 32 degrees or below to solidify. Yet it snows at temperatures above 32 degrees

That is backhanged and disingenuous. You know when the snow forms it is below 32 degrees, where it falls is not the issue here.

Frankly I expected better.

Just one quick example. There's tons more and everyone knows it. Needs does not mean impossible to happen without and we all know it.

[KCattheStripe]

I love it!

What about the SG position makes it more important than SF?  I just don't understand your theory.  How was Rip Hamilton the difference maker on Detroit's championship squad?

Also, does your theory mean that Lebron is incapable of winning a championship in real life, at least as Cleveland is constituted?  Because, as much as I love our 7th man Delonte West, he's not a dominant SG, either.

Why do you guys keep trying to read more into the facts than what is there. Did I say LeBron was incapable of winning a championship? No, I did not so stop trying to twist what is being discussed. Did I say that the SG position was more important than any other position? No I did not, so again stop trying to twist the conversation around.

What I said is that a team needs to HAVE a dominant SG to win it all in today's NBA. Does that mean it is impossible for a team without a dominant SG to win it all? Of course not and you know that. I am not talking absolutes and never said I was.

But the facts are since Michael transform the style of the game and transformed the biggest threat on the court to his SG position the SG position has won the MOST Finals MVPs and Most NBA MVPs. Since 1988 the champs and their SGs:

Lakers     Byron Scott
Pistons    Joe Dumars
Bulls      Michael jordan
Rockets    Clyde Drexler and Kenny Smith(not dominant)
Bulls      Michael Jordan
Spurs      Mario Elle/Steve Kerr combo(not dominant)
Lakers     Kobe
Spurs      Jackson/Manu conbo
Pistons    Rip Hamilton
Spurs      Manu
Heat       Wade
Spurs      Manu
Celtics    Ray Allen
Lakers     Kobe

These are just facts and it's where I get my theory. In today's game a team with a dominant(not most dominant but dominant) will win the title 90% of the time or more.

Two things: Adding in Michael changes everything. You originally said "for the past decade", which would start in 1999. There's another team without a dominant 2. Yes, if you count Michael's years into the equation, two guards outnumber the rest of the NBA in finals and regular MVPs. But thats the best player in the history of the game, a man who is the exception to many rules. Yes if you include the greatest player of all time it does prove your point. However, with the exception of 2006 and 2009 championships, none of the players you mentioned were the best player on their team, let alone the most dominant.

Lakers- SG Byron Scott. There is no way he was etter than Magic and Worthy. Even kareem on one leg.
Pistons- SG- Joe Dumars. While he had a magnificent series, Arguing that he is a more dominant player than Issiah is like arguing Pierce is a more dominant player than KG.
Bulls- No Argument
Lakers 3 peat- While Kobe was great, Shaq was easily the most dominant player in the league.
Spurs- You can say what you want about the Manu/Jackson combo, but Tim Duncan was the dominant player on that team.
Pistons- Rip had nice numbers, but there's a reason Chauncey won the Finals MVP
Spurs- Duncan again
Heat- No Argument
Spurs- Tp dominated that series, and the second best player was TD
Celtics- While Ray was very good, the two times he scored over 20 points were in blowouts when the Lake show stopped playing defense. Pauls clutch scoring and defense  truly dominated the series.
Lakers- No argument.

I think you're picking the wrong constant. Over the past decade, it has been much harder for an NBA team to win without their best player being a dominant big.

Please point out in any post I made where I said the SG had to be the MOST DOMINANT PLAYER ON THE TEAM.

Go ahead. Go find that phase and quote me. I'll wait...What? I never said that? You're kidding me?

I said had to have a dominant SG. I never said he had to be the most dominant player on the team. Francisco Garcia is a good SG. Not dominant. Put him in the place of all the SG's I mentioned on those championship teams and tell me how many actually win the championship with Garcia as their SG instead of MJ, Manu, Wade, Kobe, Drexler, Allen, Hamilton and Dumars. Maybe, just maybe, one of those teams wins it all with Garcia instead of their player. Maybe one.

Dominant-: commanding, controlling, or prevailing over all others.

When you start saying that MJ changed everything, then i assume you meant that a Dominant SG is one who dominates the league, not their position. But say that you argue you just meant 2-guards. Can you really alternate who is "prevailing over all others" from year to year? Was Ray Allen "prevailing above" Kobe in the 2008 finals?

[nickagneta]

What I said is that a team needs to HAVE a dominant SG to win it all in today's NBA. Does that mean it is impossible for a team without a dominant SG to win it all? Of course not and you know that. I am not talking absolutes and never said I was.

I guess I don't understand.  To me "needs to" means the exact same thing as "it's impossible without".  I don't recognize a distinction.

Regardless, I just disagree with your position.  To me, there's no reason why teams with great SGs would be more likely to win than teams with great SFs. 

(Again, our team doesn't have a vested interest here; we just disagree with the argument.)

So your disagreement with what I presented breaks down to semantics?

The temperature of water needs to be at 32 degrees or below to solidify. Yet it snows at temperatures above 32 degrees

That is backhanged and disingenuous. You know when the snow forms it is below 32 degrees, where it falls is not the issue here.

Frankly I expected better.

You expect better from me but the lawyer equates needs with impossible to happen without and I'm being backhanded and disingenuous!!!!

I know you mods like to stick up for each other but that's ridiculous.

[Hoyo de Monterrey]

I don't even know where to try and quote, so I won't. But nick, the question I have is why couldn't someone just substitute "big man" instead of "SG" and make the exact same and possibly more accurate argument?

I'm not trying to be a jerk, I just truly don't understand why the SG is the one getting pointed out. We could go back and list dominant PGs, SFs, PFs, and (the one I think matters most) Cs just as well as SGs.

For me, it just comes down to the same conclusion. There's more then one way to win a title, and in my opinion its significantly favorable matchups on both ends that win championships, regardless of their position on the floor.

[Hoyo de Monterrey]

By the way, Atlantic Division owners, still waiting on...

Most of the stuff I've been looking for has already been asked and answered in this three ring circus, but I guess I have one simple question for EACH team that I would need answered. For the record, Philly I am very interested in your answer.

8 seconds left, you're down by 2 with the ball at halfcourt.

Who on your team gets the ball, and what are they doing?

[nickagneta]

I love it!

What about the SG position makes it more important than SF?  I just don't understand your theory.  How was Rip Hamilton the difference maker on Detroit's championship squad?

Also, does your theory mean that Lebron is incapable of winning a championship in real life, at least as Cleveland is constituted?  Because, as much as I love our 7th man Delonte West, he's not a dominant SG, either.

Why do you guys keep trying to read more into the facts than what is there. Did I say LeBron was incapable of winning a championship? No, I did not so stop trying to twist what is being discussed. Did I say that the SG position was more important than any other position? No I did not, so again stop trying to twist the conversation around.

What I said is that a team needs to HAVE a dominant SG to win it all in today's NBA. Does that mean it is impossible for a team without a dominant SG to win it all? Of course not and you know that. I am not talking absolutes and never said I was.

But the facts are since Michael transform the style of the game and transformed the biggest threat on the court to his SG position the SG position has won the MOST Finals MVPs and Most NBA MVPs. Since 1988 the champs and their SGs:

Lakers     Byron Scott
Pistons    Joe Dumars
Bulls      Michael jordan
Rockets    Clyde Drexler and Kenny Smith(not dominant)
Bulls      Michael Jordan
Spurs      Mario Elle/Steve Kerr combo(not dominant)
Lakers     Kobe
Spurs      Jackson/Manu conbo
Pistons    Rip Hamilton
Spurs      Manu
Heat       Wade
Spurs      Manu
Celtics    Ray Allen
Lakers     Kobe

These are just facts and it's where I get my theory. In today's game a team with a dominant(not most dominant but dominant) will win the title 90% of the time or more.

Two things: Adding in Michael changes everything. You originally said "for the past decade", which would start in 1999. There's another team without a dominant 2. Yes, if you count Michael's years into the equation, two guards outnumber the rest of the NBA in finals and regular MVPs. But thats the best player in the history of the game, a man who is the exception to many rules. Yes if you include the greatest player of all time it does prove your point. However, with the exception of 2006 and 2009 championships, none of the players you mentioned were the best player on their team, let alone the most dominant.

Lakers- SG Byron Scott. There is no way he was etter than Magic and Worthy. Even kareem on one leg.
Pistons- SG- Joe Dumars. While he had a magnificent series, Arguing that he is a more dominant player than Issiah is like arguing Pierce is a more dominant player than KG.
Bulls- No Argument
Lakers 3 peat- While Kobe was great, Shaq was easily the most dominant player in the league.
Spurs- You can say what you want about the Manu/Jackson combo, but Tim Duncan was the dominant player on that team.
Pistons- Rip had nice numbers, but there's a reason Chauncey won the Finals MVP
Spurs- Duncan again
Heat- No Argument
Spurs- Tp dominated that series, and the second best player was TD
Celtics- While Ray was very good, the two times he scored over 20 points were in blowouts when the Lake show stopped playing defense. Pauls clutch scoring and defense  truly dominated the series.
Lakers- No argument.

I think you're picking the wrong constant. Over the past decade, it has been much harder for an NBA team to win without their best player being a dominant big.

Please point out in any post I made where I said the SG had to be the MOST DOMINANT PLAYER ON THE TEAM.

Go ahead. Go find that phase and quote me. I'll wait...What? I never said that? You're kidding me?

I said had to have a dominant SG. I never said he had to be the most dominant player on the team. Francisco Garcia is a good SG. Not dominant. Put him in the place of all the SG's I mentioned on those championship teams and tell me how many actually win the championship with Garcia as their SG instead of MJ, Manu, Wade, Kobe, Drexler, Allen, Hamilton and Dumars. Maybe, just maybe, one of those teams wins it all with Garcia instead of their player. Maybe one.

Dominant-: commanding, controlling, or prevailing over all others.

When you start saying that MJ changed everything, then i assume you meant that a Dominant SG is one who dominates the league, not their position. But say that you argue you just meant 2-guards. Can you really alternate who is "prevailing over all others" from year to year? Was Ray Allen "prevailing above" Kobe in the 2008 finals?

I love it. More semantics.

So it is impossible for there to be more than one dominant PG in the league, one dominant SF in the league, one dominant player in the league?

Please, I expected better than that.

[jgod213]

Questions for all FOUR teams, sorry NY...

Toronto:

outside of the fact that i'm extremely sick and tired of your constant verbal battles with Chicago, i really like your team, haha.  That said, who is the pacifier on your team?  Garcia, Artest, KG, and Camby have all been known for "incidents" or certain mannerisms/emotional displays that haven't always been condusive to winning.  Is andre miller ready for the responsibility associated with being the general of a group like that? he seems like more of a silent leader as opposed to a vocal one.

Boston:

I think your group of vets around Wade is very complimentary, however if wade misses any time at all this team could be in danger of making the playoffs.  Considering that, will the "coaching staff" make any "suggestions" to his game?  In other words, is the stradegy to put the petal to the metal and let DWade throw his body around or will you be looking to slow him down in the regular season and coast a bit... and then take the handcuffs off late in the season?

Jersey:

I think you hit a big point during your press conference: you may lose some votes because you don't have an nba jam/arcade team.  Despite that, i love the way your squad is constructed and think you have one of the best half-court offenses in the league and your overall winning experience will carry you a long way.  However, though courtney lee has a ton of big game experience at a young age, what happens if he has even a small regression this season as some young players sometimes encounter? you said you were prepared to remove fisher if age shows, but what about lee? are you comfortable with your SG insurance policy?

Phili:

Your talent is undeniable, and i think baron davis would absolutely have a bounceback year with a talented team like this...but one big issue i have with this team regards your bench.  your smalls are alright off the pine, but it looks like you'll be leaning heavily on joe smith and renaldo balkman to play 3 positions here (c, pf, sf).  You'll have to convince me that novak and thomas are prepared to contribute bigtime minutes to a winning club, because i just don't see it.

[The Walker Wiggle]

Winning Experience:
Derek Fisher - 4 rings, 6 Finals appearances
Courtney Lee - 1 Finals appearance
Paul Pierce - 1 ring
Rasheed Wallace - 1 ring, 2 Finals appearances.
James Posey - 2 rings
Beno Udrih - 2 rings
Shannon Brown - 1 ring, 2 Finals appearances

Championship experience counts! Have too many GMs adopted the EA Sports mentality?

[nickagneta]

I don't even know where to try and quote, so I won't. But nick, the question I have is why couldn't someone just substitute "big man" instead of "SG" and make the exact same and possibly more accurate argument?

I'm not trying to be a jerk, I just truly don't understand why the SG is the one getting pointed out. We could go back and list dominant PGs, SFs, PFs, and (the one I think matters most) Cs just as well as SGs.

For me, it just comes down to the same conclusion. There's more then one way to win a title, and in my opinion its significantly favorable matchups on both ends that win championships, regardless of their position on the floor.

Did the Bulls win all those titles with a dominant center? What about the Celtics? What about those Spurs teams without the Admiral? What about last year's Lakers? Did they have a dominant center?

Now go to PG's Boston, Lakers, First Spurs title, Heat.

Now SF's All the Spurs teams. The Lakers of Shaq/Kobe, the Heat, the Pistons.

Now PF's. The first three Bulls team. The Heat. The Pistons of the 80's All the Lakers except last years.

[Hoyo de Monterrey]

I don't even know where to try and quote, so I won't. But nick, the question I have is why couldn't someone just substitute "big man" instead of "SG" and make the exact same and possibly more accurate argument?

I'm not trying to be a jerk, I just truly don't understand why the SG is the one getting pointed out. We could go back and list dominant PGs, SFs, PFs, and (the one I think matters most) Cs just as well as SGs.

For me, it just comes down to the same conclusion. There's more then one way to win a title, and in my opinion its significantly favorable matchups on both ends that win championships, regardless of their position on the floor.

Did the Bulls win all those titles with a dominant center? What about the Celtics? What about those Spurs teams without the Admiral? What about last year's Lakers? Did they have a dominant center?

Now go to PG's Boston, Lakers, First Spurs title, Heat.

Now SF's All the Spurs teams. The Lakers of Shaq/Kobe, the Heat, the Pistons.

Now PF's. The first three Bulls team. The Heat. The Pistons of the 80's All the Lakers except last years.

I should have stuck with "big man" instead of center. You're giving too much weight to positions and not enough to roles.  Jordan won without dominant bigs because he was Michael Jordan. Kobe had Shaq and Pau (absolutely played "dominant" in the playoffs last year), the Celtics had KG, the Spurs had Duncan, the Heat had Shaq, the Pistons had a solid Sheed.

There is no definite singular and unassailable formula to winning a title. It can be done one way with the right personnel, and then done completely differently with a totally different group. It's all about roles. For every rule we're coming up with there's exceptions too, so they all just don't seem to make sense.