Was it worth Lebron further hurting his rep to join Miami?

[BudweiserCeltic]

LeBron has been in the NBA Finals in the past and has hasd multiple instances of tremendous success, both from an individual and team perspective, in the playoffs.

To me I think after LeBron made it to the Finals he lost his fire. 

I'm not going to say that he had success to early because to me you can never have success to early and you should always want to win, but I think after that he thought it was going to be easier then it is.

I disagree.

I think Cleveland just kept downgrading his supporting cast. He was still very close to eliminating the Celtics in the following year though. They were the 2nd best team in those playoffs and the one which actually had a good shot of knocking down the eventual champions. 

  I think Cleveland did so well against the Celts because they played them while the team was still getting their playoff legs. If they'd have played the Hawks in the second round it would never have gone farther than 5 games if it went that far. If we'd played the Pistons and then the Cavs we'd have struggled more with the Pistons and had an easier time dispatching the Cavs. We made both the Hawks and the Cavs look better than they were.

I can't agree to that, particularly about the Cavs. Though part of it was growing pains for us in the playoffs (particularly with our young backup forwards and Rondo), the main problem they presented for us was the way they were defending which was great, and that's no fluke. Part of the problem was how they neutralized Ray with quick traps, and got him completely out of rhythm. Rondo was quite bad distributing and moving the ball in that series, which also affected Ray in many regards.

Thank god that PJ and House stepped up when we needed him at the tail end of that series... Doc should've gone to House a bit more earlier.

[LB3533]

It would only be worth it to Lebron if he wins a title.

Lebron gave up being King of Ohio where he and his court jesters could do whatever they wanted to.

Why would Lebron give that up to share the stage with Wade and Chris Bosh?

I admire Lebron making this choice to win championships.

Lebron gave up being "God" for the better chance to win.

People who say they wouldn't leave and "join up" because they wanted to "beat" down the other stars are SELFISH.

If you want a better shot at a title you "join up".

I am 100% confident TD would win exactly zero titles with Troy Hudson and Wally Zerbiak as his back court mates.

If TD had a choice to sign up with Tony Parker + Manu versus Troy Hudson + Wally World/Trenton Hasell...who you think TD would pick?


If TD never won a title in San Antonio he would have certainly signed with Orlando to play with Grant Hill and Tracy McGrady. I am 100% confident TD would be wearing Magic blue right now if he had not won a single title in a Spurs uniform.

[OsirusCeltics]

He seems frustrated, and crowded by the other guys and seems like he just wants to be the main event like he was at the Cavs.

Also the Heat are proving to be a worse support cast than the Cavs were, despite the other two superstars.

Miami are currently 43-19
Cleveland at the same time last year were 49-14

I found the worse record interesting..

Discuss

"Discuss" **** I thought that was funny lol

But yeah, I don't think its ever gonna work. Wade and Lebron play the same way and don't complement each other. Chemistry ALWAYS trumps talent. It doesn't matter who's on the floor. All of the legendary duos or trios of the past were teammates who did different things and brought a new aspect to the game.

Plus like someone just wrote, Lebron is unwilling to change his game. To me he is ruining Dwyane Wade's career. He crowds Wade's usual space and making him a non-factor. If he changes his game to a Magic Johnson/Penny Hardaway type, then it would be a different story

[barefacedmonk]

Wade, Bosh and Tyson Chandler would have been a better core, imo. I'm not sure if/how they would've been able to sign Chandler though.

[indeedproceed]

Kidd, Dirk, LeBron, and one of Haywood/Chandler is a team that I would almost be willing to concede a title to. The Mavs would've needed to trade Beaubois and a lot of picks, as well as Butler, but it would be worth it. So worth it.

[BballTim]

LeBron has been in the NBA Finals in the past and has hasd multiple instances of tremendous success, both from an individual and team perspective, in the playoffs.

To me I think after LeBron made it to the Finals he lost his fire. 

I'm not going to say that he had success to early because to me you can never have success to early and you should always want to win, but I think after that he thought it was going to be easier then it is.

I disagree.

I think Cleveland just kept downgrading his supporting cast. He was still very close to eliminating the Celtics in the following year though. They were the 2nd best team in those playoffs and the one which actually had a good shot of knocking down the eventual champions. 

  I think Cleveland did so well against the Celts because they played them while the team was still getting their playoff legs. If they'd have played the Hawks in the second round it would never have gone farther than 5 games if it went that far. If we'd played the Pistons and then the Cavs we'd have struggled more with the Pistons and had an easier time dispatching the Cavs. We made both the Hawks and the Cavs look better than they were.

I can't agree to that, particularly about the Cavs. Though part of it was growing pains for us in the playoffs (particularly with our young backup forwards and Rondo), the main problem they presented for us was the way they were defending which was great, and that's no fluke. Part of the problem was how they neutralized Ray with quick traps, and got him completely out of rhythm. Rondo was quite bad distributing and moving the ball in that series, which also affected Ray in many regards.

Thank god that PJ and House stepped up when we needed him at the tail end of that series... Doc should've gone to House a bit more earlier.

  The Cavs won 45 games that year and got outscored by their opponents. They lost 2 games in their first round series to Washington, who were also outscored by their opponents for the year. They were nowhere near the team the Lakers were and we had an easier time beating the Lakers than the Cavs.

[barefacedmonk]

Kidd, Dirk, LeBron, and one of Haywood/Chandler is a team that I would almost be willing to concede a title to. The Mavs would've needed to trade Beaubois and a lot of picks, as well as Butler, but it would be worth it. So worth it.

Kidd, Dirk, LeBron, Chandler, Terry, Marion...that team would have been very scary and very tough to beat.

[BudweiserCeltic]

LeBron has been in the NBA Finals in the past and has hasd multiple instances of tremendous success, both from an individual and team perspective, in the playoffs.

To me I think after LeBron made it to the Finals he lost his fire. 

I'm not going to say that he had success to early because to me you can never have success to early and you should always want to win, but I think after that he thought it was going to be easier then it is.

I disagree.

I think Cleveland just kept downgrading his supporting cast. He was still very close to eliminating the Celtics in the following year though. They were the 2nd best team in those playoffs and the one which actually had a good shot of knocking down the eventual champions. 

  I think Cleveland did so well against the Celts because they played them while the team was still getting their playoff legs. If they'd have played the Hawks in the second round it would never have gone farther than 5 games if it went that far. If we'd played the Pistons and then the Cavs we'd have struggled more with the Pistons and had an easier time dispatching the Cavs. We made both the Hawks and the Cavs look better than they were.

I can't agree to that, particularly about the Cavs. Though part of it was growing pains for us in the playoffs (particularly with our young backup forwards and Rondo), the main problem they presented for us was the way they were defending which was great, and that's no fluke. Part of the problem was how they neutralized Ray with quick traps, and got him completely out of rhythm. Rondo was quite bad distributing and moving the ball in that series, which also affected Ray in many regards.

Thank god that PJ and House stepped up when we needed him at the tail end of that series... Doc should've gone to House a bit more earlier.

  The Cavs won 45 games that year and got outscored by their opponents. They lost 2 games in their first round series to Washington, who were also outscored by their opponents for the year. They were nowhere near the team the Lakers were and we had an easier time beating the Lakers than the Cavs.

You can't analyze things like that. We had an easier time with the Lakers, first because we had that huge improbable comeback against them. And secondly, because they couldn't defend us.

As much us getting our playoff legs in there were a factor, the Cavs' defensive effort should not be dismissed so easily. Their defensive gameplan was just spot on, which though a bit late, it was nice to see Doc do the right adjustments.

In all, I'm simply saying that we can't just look at that Cavs series and say that it was difficult simply because our team was getting used to the playoffs.

[Rondo9dunx]

Personally I don't think LeBron is ever gonna win a title.

So I think the stupidest decision LeBron made was taking a paycut.

[droponov]

LeBron has been in the NBA Finals in the past and has hasd multiple instances of tremendous success, both from an individual and team perspective, in the playoffs.

To me I think after LeBron made it to the Finals he lost his fire. 

I'm not going to say that he had success to early because to me you can never have success to early and you should always want to win, but I think after that he thought it was going to be easier then it is.

I disagree.

I think Cleveland just kept downgrading his supporting cast. He was still very close to eliminating the Celtics in the following year though. They were the 2nd best team in those playoffs and the one which actually had a good shot of knocking down the eventual champions. 

  I think Cleveland did so well against the Celts because they played them while the team was still getting their playoff legs. If they'd have played the Hawks in the second round it would never have gone farther than 5 games if it went that far. If we'd played the Pistons and then the Cavs we'd have struggled more with the Pistons and had an easier time dispatching the Cavs. We made both the Hawks and the Cavs look better than they were.

I can't agree to that, particularly about the Cavs. Though part of it was growing pains for us in the playoffs (particularly with our young backup forwards and Rondo), the main problem they presented for us was the way they were defending which was great, and that's no fluke. Part of the problem was how they neutralized Ray with quick traps, and got him completely out of rhythm. Rondo was quite bad distributing and moving the ball in that series, which also affected Ray in many regards.

Thank god that PJ and House stepped up when we needed him at the tail end of that series... Doc should've gone to House a bit more earlier.

  The Cavs won 45 games that year and got outscored by their opponents. They lost 2 games in their first round series to Washington, who were also outscored by their opponents for the year. They were nowhere near the team the Lakers were and we had an easier time beating the Lakers than the Cavs.

Terrible argument, you're comparing two different teams.

1 - To start the season, they had that problem with Varejao and Pavlovic. Restricted free agents who refused to sign new contracts. They missed training camp, the first 40 games or so and then had to play into shape.

2 - LeBron was injured and they lost every singe game he didn't play, 9 games or so.

3 - More importantly, they had that big trade at the trade deadline. Brought in Delonte West, Wally, Ben Wallace and Joe Smith. All of them would log big minutes in the playoffs.

Their starting 5 to start the season was Hughes, LeBron, Newble, Gooden and Ilgauskas, IIRC. Gibson and guys like Devin Brown off the bench. Then they added Varejao and Pavlovic to the rotation. Then they needed to build a new team at the trade deadline. From their playoff rotation, only LeBron, Big Z and Boobie Gibson were in their regular season rotation for the regular season. Two very different teams. Once that post-trade team gelled they were much more dangerous. Very good defensively - Ben Wallace, Varejao, West. Wally was playing excellent defense, he was out of knee pain for the first time in a long period. A team that clearly stepped up their game for the playoffs. They'd beat the Lakers - they'd have the defense to slow them down, to swarm Kobe as the Celtics did and Los Angeles wouldn't be able to contain LeBron James. Not with Radmanovic and Gasol/Odom inside.

[BballTim]

LeBron has been in the NBA Finals in the past and has hasd multiple instances of tremendous success, both from an individual and team perspective, in the playoffs.

To me I think after LeBron made it to the Finals he lost his fire. 

I'm not going to say that he had success to early because to me you can never have success to early and you should always want to win, but I think after that he thought it was going to be easier then it is.

I disagree.

I think Cleveland just kept downgrading his supporting cast. He was still very close to eliminating the Celtics in the following year though. They were the 2nd best team in those playoffs and the one which actually had a good shot of knocking down the eventual champions. 

  I think Cleveland did so well against the Celts because they played them while the team was still getting their playoff legs. If they'd have played the Hawks in the second round it would never have gone farther than 5 games if it went that far. If we'd played the Pistons and then the Cavs we'd have struggled more with the Pistons and had an easier time dispatching the Cavs. We made both the Hawks and the Cavs look better than they were.

I can't agree to that, particularly about the Cavs. Though part of it was growing pains for us in the playoffs (particularly with our young backup forwards and Rondo), the main problem they presented for us was the way they were defending which was great, and that's no fluke. Part of the problem was how they neutralized Ray with quick traps, and got him completely out of rhythm. Rondo was quite bad distributing and moving the ball in that series, which also affected Ray in many regards.

Thank god that PJ and House stepped up when we needed him at the tail end of that series... Doc should've gone to House a bit more earlier.

  The Cavs won 45 games that year and got outscored by their opponents. They lost 2 games in their first round series to Washington, who were also outscored by their opponents for the year. They were nowhere near the team the Lakers were and we had an easier time beating the Lakers than the Cavs.

Terrible argument, you're comparing two different teams.

1 - To start the season, they had that problem with Varejao and Pavlovic. Restricted free agents who refused to sign new contracts. They missed training camp, the first 40 games or so and then had to play into shape.

2 - LeBron was injured and they lost every singe game he didn't play, 9 games or so.

3 - More importantly, they had that big trade at the trade deadline. Brought in Delonte West, Wally, Ben Wallace and Joe Smith. All of them would log big minutes in the playoffs.

Their starting 5 to start the season was Hughes, LeBron, Newble, Gooden and Ilgauskas, IIRC. Gibson and guys like Devin Brown off the bench. Then they added Varejao and Pavlovic to the rotation. Then they needed to build a new team at the trade deadline. From their playoff rotation, only LeBron, Big Z and Boobie Gibson were in their regular season rotation for the regular season. Two very different teams. Once that post-trade team gelled they were much more dangerous. Very good defensively - Ben Wallace, Varejao, West. Wally was playing excellent defense, he was out of knee pain for the first time in a long period. A team that clearly stepped up their game for the playoffs. They'd beat the Lakers - they'd have the defense to slow them down, to swarm Kobe as the Celtics did and Los Angeles wouldn't be able to contain LeBron James. Not with Radmanovic and Gasol/Odom inside.

  Well if I'm arguing two different teams, then both teams sucked. The Cavs look like they were 16-14 after the all-star break, losing 10 of their last 18. LeBron missed the last game of the season (a loss) but played in the rest. By no stretch of the imagination were they anywhere near the team the Lakers were and it's hard to make a decent argument that they were in the Piston's class.

[droponov]

LeBron has been in the NBA Finals in the past and has hasd multiple instances of tremendous success, both from an individual and team perspective, in the playoffs.

To me I think after LeBron made it to the Finals he lost his fire.  

I'm not going to say that he had success to early because to me you can never have success to early and you should always want to win, but I think after that he thought it was going to be easier then it is.

I disagree.

I think Cleveland just kept downgrading his supporting cast. He was still very close to eliminating the Celtics in the following year though. They were the 2nd best team in those playoffs and the one which actually had a good shot of knocking down the eventual champions.  

  I think Cleveland did so well against the Celts because they played them while the team was still getting their playoff legs. If they'd have played the Hawks in the second round it would never have gone farther than 5 games if it went that far. If we'd played the Pistons and then the Cavs we'd have struggled more with the Pistons and had an easier time dispatching the Cavs. We made both the Hawks and the Cavs look better than they were.

I can't agree to that, particularly about the Cavs. Though part of it was growing pains for us in the playoffs (particularly with our young backup forwards and Rondo), the main problem they presented for us was the way they were defending which was great, and that's no fluke. Part of the problem was how they neutralized Ray with quick traps, and got him completely out of rhythm. Rondo was quite bad distributing and moving the ball in that series, which also affected Ray in many regards.

Thank god that PJ and House stepped up when we needed him at the tail end of that series... Doc should've gone to House a bit more earlier.

  The Cavs won 45 games that year and got outscored by their opponents. They lost 2 games in their first round series to Washington, who were also outscored by their opponents for the year. They were nowhere near the team the Lakers were and we had an easier time beating the Lakers than the Cavs.

Terrible argument, you're comparing two different teams.

1 - To start the season, they had that problem with Varejao and Pavlovic. Restricted free agents who refused to sign new contracts. They missed training camp, the first 40 games or so and then had to play into shape.

2 - LeBron was injured and they lost every singe game he didn't play, 9 games or so.

3 - More importantly, they had that big trade at the trade deadline. Brought in Delonte West, Wally, Ben Wallace and Joe Smith. All of them would log big minutes in the playoffs.

Their starting 5 to start the season was Hughes, LeBron, Newble, Gooden and Ilgauskas, IIRC. Gibson and guys like Devin Brown off the bench. Then they added Varejao and Pavlovic to the rotation. Then they needed to build a new team at the trade deadline. From their playoff rotation, only LeBron, Big Z and Boobie Gibson were in their regular season rotation for the regular season. Two very different teams. Once that post-trade team gelled they were much more dangerous. Very good defensively - Ben Wallace, Varejao, West. Wally was playing excellent defense, he was out of knee pain for the first time in a long period. A team that clearly stepped up their game for the playoffs. They'd beat the Lakers - they'd have the defense to slow them down, to swarm Kobe as the Celtics did and Los Angeles wouldn't be able to contain LeBron James. Not with Radmanovic and Gasol/Odom inside.

  Well if I'm arguing two different teams, then both teams sucked. The Cavs look like they were 16-14 after the all-star break, losing 10 of their last 18. LeBron missed the last game of the season (a loss) but played in the rest. By no stretch of the imagination were they anywhere near the team the Lakers were and it's hard to make a decent argument that they were in the Piston's class.

If? What's your doubt? You're arguing those deals didn't change the completion of the team?

Teams take time to gel. It's beyond bizarre that you're saying the Celtics took 96 games to get their "playoff legs" games but then wanted an almost completely new team to get it together in 40 days. The team they entered the payoffs had the type of basketball to win there. Heck, it was the same team that in the following season, with the addition of Mo Williams, a bad defender, had the best defense in the league till Ben Wallace's injury.

[BballTim]

LeBron has been in the NBA Finals in the past and has hasd multiple instances of tremendous success, both from an individual and team perspective, in the playoffs.

To me I think after LeBron made it to the Finals he lost his fire.  

I'm not going to say that he had success to early because to me you can never have success to early and you should always want to win, but I think after that he thought it was going to be easier then it is.

I disagree.

I think Cleveland just kept downgrading his supporting cast. He was still very close to eliminating the Celtics in the following year though. They were the 2nd best team in those playoffs and the one which actually had a good shot of knocking down the eventual champions.  

  I think Cleveland did so well against the Celts because they played them while the team was still getting their playoff legs. If they'd have played the Hawks in the second round it would never have gone farther than 5 games if it went that far. If we'd played the Pistons and then the Cavs we'd have struggled more with the Pistons and had an easier time dispatching the Cavs. We made both the Hawks and the Cavs look better than they were.

I can't agree to that, particularly about the Cavs. Though part of it was growing pains for us in the playoffs (particularly with our young backup forwards and Rondo), the main problem they presented for us was the way they were defending which was great, and that's no fluke. Part of the problem was how they neutralized Ray with quick traps, and got him completely out of rhythm. Rondo was quite bad distributing and moving the ball in that series, which also affected Ray in many regards.

Thank god that PJ and House stepped up when we needed him at the tail end of that series... Doc should've gone to House a bit more earlier.

  The Cavs won 45 games that year and got outscored by their opponents. They lost 2 games in their first round series to Washington, who were also outscored by their opponents for the year. They were nowhere near the team the Lakers were and we had an easier time beating the Lakers than the Cavs.

Terrible argument, you're comparing two different teams.

1 - To start the season, they had that problem with Varejao and Pavlovic. Restricted free agents who refused to sign new contracts. They missed training camp, the first 40 games or so and then had to play into shape.

2 - LeBron was injured and they lost every singe game he didn't play, 9 games or so.

3 - More importantly, they had that big trade at the trade deadline. Brought in Delonte West, Wally, Ben Wallace and Joe Smith. All of them would log big minutes in the playoffs.

Their starting 5 to start the season was Hughes, LeBron, Newble, Gooden and Ilgauskas, IIRC. Gibson and guys like Devin Brown off the bench. Then they added Varejao and Pavlovic to the rotation. Then they needed to build a new team at the trade deadline. From their playoff rotation, only LeBron, Big Z and Boobie Gibson were in their regular season rotation for the regular season. Two very different teams. Once that post-trade team gelled they were much more dangerous. Very good defensively - Ben Wallace, Varejao, West. Wally was playing excellent defense, he was out of knee pain for the first time in a long period. A team that clearly stepped up their game for the playoffs. They'd beat the Lakers - they'd have the defense to slow them down, to swarm Kobe as the Celtics did and Los Angeles wouldn't be able to contain LeBron James. Not with Radmanovic and Gasol/Odom inside.

  Well if I'm arguing two different teams, then both teams sucked. The Cavs look like they were 16-14 after the all-star break, losing 10 of their last 18. LeBron missed the last game of the season (a loss) but played in the rest. By no stretch of the imagination were they anywhere near the team the Lakers were and it's hard to make a decent argument that they were in the Piston's class.

If? What's your doubt? You're arguing those deals didn't change the completion of the team?

Teams take time to gel. It's beyond bizarre that you're saying the Celtics took 96 games to get their "playoff legs" games but then wanted an almost completely new team to get it together in 40 days. The team they entered the payoffs had the type of basketball to win there. Heck, it was the same team that in the following season, with the addition of Mo Williams, a bad defender, had the best defense in the league till Ben Wallace's injury.

  I didn't argue that the Celts took 96 games to gel. Clearly that wasn't the case. It took them a couple of playoff series to figure things out which isn't amazing considering the fact that almost their entire playoff rotation had never played a playoff minute together prior to the Atlanta series. Again, that Cavs team didn't play any better during the season after the trade and took 6 games to beat a very mediocre Wizards team. Claiming that they'd beat the Lakers is quite a leap.

[Eja117]

His rep is as a clueless spoiled overhyped loser. I don't think he's hurt that rep at all

[More Banners]

His rep is as a clueless spoiled overhyped loser. I don't think he's hurt that rep at all

This rates "best answer of the thread" easily.

Nice.