No free pass for Lebron

[IG2]

Seeing MJ and Kobe fans crawl out of their holes to obsessively talk about a 39 year old this past week, while predictable, has still been something to behold. They'll never get over what LeBron did to 'em

[ChipotleWest]

[Iwasawitness]

You think it's LeBron fans saying this stuff?

Yeah, LeBron fans are saying that Jokic is the best player since MJ... this doesn't even make sense. Why would LeBron fans, who think LeBron is the best player ever or since Jordan, say Jokic is the best since MJ?

Most LeBron fans HATED Dray when Bron and him went head to head in the finals. We were not calling him the GOAT defender. Actually most LeBron fans gave Iggy a lot of credit for 2015 than anything.

You may want to ask yourself why some people say some of these things. Some of them might just be true. I don't think Dray is the best defender ever, but man he is one of the best team defenders I have seen.

I just don't think this is a solid point at all

I mean, if any players get lionized, isn’t it Jordan’s competition more than anything? Isiah, Ewing, Drexler, Miller, Payton…if it wasn’t for the Jordan association, none of these guys would be talked about as highly as they are now. Even Barkley or Malone, who were great players, get overrated because they were Jordan’s rivals.

Hakeem was the one guy who could have owned the Bulls if they ever matched up, but Jordan never faced him. Which is probably why he actually gets underrated. He gets downplayed to make it seem like he wasn’t the clear 2nd best player of the Jordan era, so that the narrative of Jordan shutting down all of the best competition sticks.

Those guys get understated because MJ killed the competition so bad. LeBron couldn’t do that to Curry because he played an inferior brand of basketball. He basically couldn’t even get over the hump of a bunch of 90s players either and had to stack the deck to finally do so. lol

So do you always purposely leave context out of your arguments or did you just not watch basketball at the time?

[AlexanderRight]

I can dismiss the 6 rings because of the way the league was set up the same way. That's okay, too. You're stuck because you think I'm jumping to MJ sucks. And that's where you fail logically. I have never said that. I have said six rings is impossible in this climate. And that is supported by the fact that we haven't seen it come close to happening thanks to free agency and max contracts. You saying the Spurs almost won six from 1999 to 2014 doesn't change those facts because the league changed several times during that 15 year period.

Did free agents and max contracts not exist between 99-14? Was Lebron not playing between 99-14? Were SA not title contenders all the way up to 2017? Let me guess, now you're gonna add more artificial barriers and excuses and call it "context". Let me guess. "Euros and shooters weren't good enough then!"

So it was possible for a team to be a rebound away from going 6-0 from 99-14, but despite that you've deemed it not possible for a better player and better coach to do the same in "today's climate"? Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds?

What specific years are you referring to as "today's" climate. 2000 onwards? 2005 onwards? 2010? 2015? 2020? What's the arbitrary cutoff year that you've determined a team can longer win 5-6 rings? You see how flimsy your position is?

How can you claim that no team would go 6-0 in the Lebron era when we saw a team on the cusp of achieving most of that during Lebron's career and was a title contender for almost all of Lebron's prime? There is no significant period of time outside a few years when Lebron was a contender but the Spurs weren't so your argument that MJ/Bulls/Phil wouldn't be able to do what the Spurs did during Lebron's time in the league makes absolutely no sense.

[prophet_of_rage]

I can dismiss the 6 rings because of the way the league was set up the same way. That's okay, too. You're stuck because you think I'm jumping to MJ sucks. And that's where you fail logically. I have never said that. I have said six rings is impossible in this climate. And that is supported by the fact that we haven't seen it come close to happening thanks to free agency and max contracts. You saying the Spurs almost won six from 1999 to 2014 doesn't change those facts because the league changed several times during that 15 year period.

Did free agents and max contracts not exist between 99-14? Was Lebron not playing between 99-14? Were SA not title contenders all the way up to 2017? Let me guess, now you're gonna add more artificial barriers and excuses and call it "context". Let me guess. "Euros and shooters weren't good enough then!"

So it was possible for a team to be a rebound away from going 6-0 from 99-14, but despite that you've deemed it not possible for a better player and better coach to do the same in "today's climate"? Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds?

What specific years are you referring to as "today's" climate. 2000 onwards? 2005 onwards? 2010? 2015? 2020? What's the arbitrary cutoff year that you've determined a team can longer win 5-6 rings? You see how flimsy your position is?

How can you claim that no team would go 6-0 in the Lebron era when we saw a team on the cusp of achieving most of that during Lebron's career and was a title contender for basically most of Lebron's career? There is no significant period of time outside a few years when Lebron was a contender but the Spurs weren't so your argument that MJ/Bulls/Phil wouldn't be able to do what the Spurs did during Lebron's career makes absolutely no sense.

I see you're insistent on being dense. So have the Spurs ever repeated in their title efforts? Has any team run off a three peat since the 2000 Lakers? And the max contracts was introduced in 1998. So once the Lakers who had salaries under the old CBA went through show me the teams that stayed together to make two three pets.

And I'm sure you realise that salary restrictions have changed with every CBA for the very purpose of preventing talent accumulation.

So I'm going to ask you ... the league now has more 30 point scorers than they had in the 90s. By your logic the players are better or equal scorers to Jordan, right? Or do we consider the rule changes?

What about Wilt? Do we agree he is better individuallu than Jordan because his stats are better? Or do we consider context there?


Sent from my SM-S9080 using RealGM mobile app

[AlexanderRight]

I can dismiss the 6 rings because of the way the league was set up the same way. That's okay, too. You're stuck because you think I'm jumping to MJ sucks. And that's where you fail logically. I have never said that. I have said six rings is impossible in this climate. And that is supported by the fact that we haven't seen it come close to happening thanks to free agency and max contracts. You saying the Spurs almost won six from 1999 to 2014 doesn't change those facts because the league changed several times during that 15 year period.

Did free agents and max contracts not exist between 99-14? Was Lebron not playing between 99-14? Were SA not title contenders all the way up to 2017? Let me guess, now you're gonna add more artificial barriers and excuses and call it "context". Let me guess. "Euros and shooters weren't good enough then!"

So it was possible for a team to be a rebound away from going 6-0 from 99-14, but despite that you've deemed it not possible for a better player and better coach to do the same in "today's climate"? Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds?

What specific years are you referring to as "today's" climate. 2000 onwards? 2005 onwards? 2010? 2015? 2020? What's the arbitrary cutoff year that you've determined a team can longer win 5-6 rings? You see how flimsy your position is?

How can you claim that no team would go 6-0 in the Lebron era when we saw a team on the cusp of achieving most of that during Lebron's career and was a title contender for basically most of Lebron's career? There is no significant period of time outside a few years when Lebron was a contender but the Spurs weren't so your argument that MJ/Bulls/Phil wouldn't be able to do what the Spurs did during Lebron's career makes absolutely no sense.

I see you're insistent on being dense. So have the Spurs ever repeated in their title efforts? Has any team run off a three peat since the 2000 Lakers? And the max contracts was introduced in 1998. So once the Lakers who had salaries under the old CBA went through show me the teams that stayed together to make two three pets.

And I'm sure you realise that salary restrictions have changed with every CBA for the very purpose of preventing talent accumulation.

So I'm going to ask you ... the league now has more 30 point scorers than they had in the 90s. By your logic the players are better or equal scorers to Jordan, right? Or do we consider the rule changes?

What about Wilt? Do we agree he is better individuallu than Jordan because his stats are better? Or do we consider context there?

Lol, so now a team needs to 3 peat today to prove to you the league wasn't too watered down in the 90s? Wtf, kind of argument is that? You do realize a 3 peat requires all time talent right? If they only happened because teams were too ass to fight back then why has it only happened three times in NBA history?

MJ/Kobe/Shaq didn't three peat because they were 3 of the Top 10 players of all time, but just because the league had **** rules and teams for them to play against? That's a joke of a position.

Kobe/Shaq and MJ Bulls didn't break up over CBA rules or because the owners couldn't pay them. It was because of internal personal friction. It had nothing to do with players money. The Lakers would've happily kept and paid Shaq if he gotten along with Kobe. The Bulls would've kept MJ if Krause gotten along with Phil.

[prophet_of_rage]

Did free agents and max contracts not exist between 99-14? Was Lebron not playing between 99-14? Were SA not title contenders all the way up to 2017? Let me guess, now you're gonna add more artificial barriers and excuses and call it "context". Let me guess. "Euros and shooters weren't good enough then!"

So it was possible for a team to be a rebound away from going 6-0 from 99-14, but despite that you've deemed it not possible for a better player and better coach to do the same in "today's climate"? Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds?

What specific years are you referring to as "today's" climate. 2000 onwards? 2005 onwards? 2010? 2015? 2020? What's the arbitrary cutoff year that you've determined a team can longer win 5-6 rings? You see how flimsy your position is?

How can you claim that no team would go 6-0 in the Lebron era when we saw a team on the cusp of achieving most of that during Lebron's career and was a title contender for basically most of Lebron's career? There is no significant period of time outside a few years when Lebron was a contender but the Spurs weren't so your argument that MJ/Bulls/Phil wouldn't be able to do what the Spurs did during Lebron's career makes absolutely no sense.

I see you're insistent on being dense. So have the Spurs ever repeated in their title efforts? Has any team run off a three peat since the 2000 Lakers? And the max contracts was introduced in 1998. So once the Lakers who had salaries under the old CBA went through show me the teams that stayed together to make two three pets.

And I'm sure you realise that salary restrictions have changed with every CBA for the very purpose of preventing talent accumulation.

So I'm going to ask you ... the league now has more 30 point scorers than they had in the 90s. By your logic the players are better or equal scorers to Jordan, right? Or do we consider the rule changes?

What about Wilt? Do we agree he is better individuallu than Jordan because his stats are better? Or do we consider context there?

Lol, so now a team needs to 3 peat today to prove to you the league wasn't too watered down in the 90s? Wtf, kind of argument is that? You do realize a 3 peat requires all time talent right? If they only happened because teams were too ass to fight back then why has it only happened three times in NBA history?

MJ/Kobe/Shaq didn't three peat because they were 3 of the Top 10 players of all time, but just because the league had **** rules and teams for them to play against? That's a joke of a position.

Kobe/Shaq and MJ Bulls didn't break up over CBA rules or because the owners couldn't pay them. It was because of internal personal friction. It had nothing to do with players money. The Lakers would've happily kept and paid Shaq if he gotten along with Kobe. The Bulls would've kept MJ if Krause gotten along with Phil.

I think you are struggling with comprehension. And I notice you have ignored my query about the 30 points. I was always talking about Jordan's three peat but I get where you're coming from and you will never consider context unless it helps Jordan so ... enjoy your idolatry, I guess.

Sent from my SM-S9080 using RealGM mobile app

[AlexanderRight]

I see you're insistent on being dense. So have the Spurs ever repeated in their title efforts? Has any team run off a three peat since the 2000 Lakers? And the max contracts was introduced in 1998. So once the Lakers who had salaries under the old CBA went through show me the teams that stayed together to make two three pets.

And I'm sure you realise that salary restrictions have changed with every CBA for the very purpose of preventing talent accumulation.

So I'm going to ask you ... the league now has more 30 point scorers than they had in the 90s. By your logic the players are better or equal scorers to Jordan, right? Or do we consider the rule changes?

What about Wilt? Do we agree he is better individuallu than Jordan because his stats are better? Or do we consider context there?

Lol, so now a team needs to 3 peat today to prove to you the league wasn't too watered down in the 90s? Wtf, kind of argument is that? You do realize a 3 peat requires all time talent right? If they only happened because teams were too ass to fight back then why has it only happened three times in NBA history?

MJ/Kobe/Shaq didn't three peat because they were 3 of the Top 10 players of all time, but just because the league had **** rules and teams for them to play against? That's a joke of a position.

Kobe/Shaq and MJ Bulls didn't break up over CBA rules or because the owners couldn't pay them. It was because of internal personal friction. It had nothing to do with players money. The Lakers would've happily kept and paid Shaq if he gotten along with Kobe. The Bulls would've kept MJ if Krause gotten along with Phil.

I think you are struggling with comprehension. And I notice you have ignored my query about the 30 points. I was always talking about Jordan's three peat but I get where you're coming from and you will never consider context unless it helps Jordan so ... enjoy your idolatry, I guess.

No, I'm just revealing how moronic your argument is to the point where you can't defend it any longer. Highlighting CBA rules and salary restrictions as if those had more to do with MJ and Kobe/Shaq running the league as opposed to them just being MJ/Shaq/Kobe is a joke of an argument. It's because those were 3 of the top 10-12 players we've ever seen, not because the league was "handicapped" in fighting back.

I'll say it again. Wilt has the stats, Russell has the rings, MJ has BOTH. What don't you understand about that? The valid point against Wilt is that he didn't have enough team success even in just the context OF HIS OWN era. Russell wasn't good enough offensively even in just the context OF HIS OWN era. You don't have to place them outside their era to make valid arguments against them, but apparently that's all you can do with MJ.

Your point about more 30PPG scorers today is garbage because despite it being easier to score now, MJ still has the highest career PPG. Even higher than Wilt. So what's your point? Is averaging 30PPG for a few seasons in "today's climate" supposed to be comparable to averaging 30PPG over an entire career in the 80s-90s? Don't make me laugh bro.

[Gregoire]

If joining a 35 win team by yourself is ringchasing then blowing up my PMs and quoting me in your sig because I stopped replying must be glazing.

Oh, frustrated LeBron fanboy... niiiiiice! I likeeee it!11 Just stop coping, your idol is done

Sorry dude but this looks really bad on you. There comes a point where just have to accept that someone else doesn’t share your opinion and it let be. And this is coming from me of all people.

Oh, another LeChoke fanboy awaken!! Yea, this gentelmen sweep you have just to accept, with minimal frustration... because.... well, he is 39 years old, it's passable, right?

Debate the post as strongly as you'd like but don't bait and troll with the schoolyard namecalling. -b

[Hellcrooner]

If the Lakers get swept by Denver this year, it’ll mean that a Lebron led team with prime AD by his side lost EIGHT CONSECUTIVE PLAYOFF GAMES while also missing the playoffs for two seasons during his tenure in LA. Lebron might get a free pass from ESPN, Nick Wright, Shannon Sharpe and kids who started watching the NBA in 2015 but not from me. Lebron managed to win a single game in the 2017 and 2018 Finals COMBINED and is on track to do even worse in the 2023 and 2024 playoffs against Denver (combined). This is your GOAT? A guy who normalizes losing more than winning? A guy who had 7 turnovers last night and attempted his first shot in the 4th quarter with a minute remaining?

and there goes your thread,

Now go watch again the Flu hangover game.

[Onlytimewilltel]

Lol, so now a team needs to 3 peat today to prove to you the league wasn't too watered down in the 90s? Wtf, kind of argument is that? You do realize a 3 peat requires all time talent right? If they only happened because teams were too ass to fight back then why has it only happened three times in NBA history?

MJ/Kobe/Shaq didn't three peat because they were 3 of the Top 10 players of all time, but just because the league had **** rules and teams for them to play against? That's a joke of a position.

Kobe/Shaq and MJ Bulls didn't break up over CBA rules or because the owners couldn't pay them. It was because of internal personal friction. It had nothing to do with players money. The Lakers would've happily kept and paid Shaq if he gotten along with Kobe. The Bulls would've kept MJ if Krause gotten along with Phil.

I think you are struggling with comprehension. And I notice you have ignored my query about the 30 points. I was always talking about Jordan's three peat but I get where you're coming from and you will never consider context unless it helps Jordan so ... enjoy your idolatry, I guess.

No, I'm just revealing how moronic your argument is to the point where you can't defend it any longer. Highlighting CBA rules and salary restrictions as if those had more to do with MJ and Kobe/Shaq running the league as opposed to them just being MJ/Shaq/Kobe is a joke of an argument. It's because those were 3 of the top 10-12 players we've ever seen, not because the league was "handicapped" in fighting back.

I'll say it again. Wilt has the stats, Russell has the rings, MJ has BOTH. What don't you understand about that? The valid point against Wilt is that he didn't have enough team success even in just the context OF HIS OWN era. Russell wasn't good enough offensively even in just the context OF HIS OWN era. You don't have to place them outside their era to make valid arguments against them, but apparently that's all you can do with MJ.

Your point about more 30PPG scorers today is garbage because despite it being easier to score now, MJ still has the highest career PPG. Even higher than Wilt. So what's your point? Is averaging 30PPG for a few seasons in "today's climate" supposed to be comparable to averaging 30PPG over an entire career in the 80s-90s? Don't make me laugh bro.

That’s a dumb argument If Wilt played on those Celtics teams I could easily see him with those rings. Your team and your opposition do matter, “what don’t you understand about that?”

Also, LeBron is a heckova lot closer to Jordan in rings than Jordan is to Russell lol. And he’s got stats also. What don’t you understand about that?

Kareem Abdul jabar also has the stats and the rings, you understand that right? What don’t you understand about that?

Disclaimer: MJ is my personal goat “in my opinion only” , but once you get to top few players ever, it’s kind of stupid to ridicule anyone for having a different opinion. Several of these guys were all amazing and have decent cases, just depends on what someone values in their criteria.

[AlexanderRight]

That’s a dumb argument If Wilt played on those Celtics teams I could easily see him with those rings. Your team and your opposition do matter, “what don’t you understand about that?”

What if Wilt played on the Celtics. What if Kareem stayed in Milwaukee. What if Magic didn't catch HIV. If Bird's back never gave out. If MJ never played baseball. If Shaq and Kobe got over their bull. If Lebron never went to Miami. If KD never went to GS. See where I'm going? You can play that game until the end of time, it's never going to be a strong argument. No point going down that rabbit hole. All you can do is judge players on what actually happened.

Also, LeBron is a heckova lot closer to Jordan in rings than Jordan is to Russell lol. And he’s got stats also. What don’t you understand about that?

Russell doesn't have the stats MJ has and Lebron doesn't have the stats or rings MJ has so that's kind of a moot point. MJ has LBJ beat in 5/8 traditional career stats per game, not to mention analytics. Ring counting off an 8 team league is just lazy analysis.

Kareem Abdul jabar also has the stats and the rings, you understand that right? What don’t you understand about that?

Kareem wasn't the leader or face of his own team. You know how hard it is to argue someone as best player ever when he arguably wasn't the best player of his own team?

Disclaimer: MJ is my personal goat “in my opinion only” , but once you get to top few players ever, it’s kind of stupid to ridicule anyone for having a different opinion. Several of these guys were all amazing and have decent cases, just depends on what someone values in their criteria.

I never ridiculed him, just his argument, which was entirely based off hypothetical and assumption. My argument against Wilt and Russell was strictly what actually happened. I agree with you, there are a few guys outside MJ with decent arguments but they certainty weren't the ones I was reading on this thread.

[jehosafats]

I can dismiss the 6 rings because of the way the league was set up the same way. That's okay, too. You're stuck because you think I'm jumping to MJ sucks. And that's where you fail logically. I have never said that. I have said six rings is impossible in this climate. And that is supported by the fact that we haven't seen it come close to happening thanks to free agency and max contracts. You saying the Spurs almost won six from 1999 to 2014 doesn't change those facts because the league changed several times during that 15 year period.

Did free agents and max contracts not exist between 99-14? Was Lebron not playing between 99-14? Were SA not title contenders all the way up to 2017? Let me guess, now you're gonna add more artificial barriers and excuses and call it "context". Let me guess. "Euros and shooters weren't good enough then!"

So it was possible for a team to be a rebound away from going 6-0 from 99-14, but despite that you've deemed it not possible for a better player and better coach to do the same in "today's climate"? Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds?

What specific years are you referring to as "today's" climate. 2000 onwards? 2005 onwards? 2010? 2015? 2020? What's the arbitrary cutoff year that you've determined a team can longer win 5-6 rings? You see how flimsy your position is?

How can you claim that no team would go 6-0 in the Lebron era when we saw a team on the cusp of achieving most of that during Lebron's career and was a title contender for almost all of Lebron's prime? There is no significant period of time outside a few years when Lebron was a contender but the Spurs weren't so your argument that MJ/Bulls/Phil wouldn't be able to do what the Spurs did during Lebron's time in the league makes absolutely no sense.

Is this a joke? Granted, San Antonio is a storied franchise, but even they couldn't win back-to-back championships, let alone a clean 6-0 record.

I'd be surprised to see another team three-peat anytime soon. The rules changes hardly allow for it. Before 2001, you either had to stick to your man or commit to a double team. There was no zone (except hedging on the weak side), no in-between defending allowed, and it was unevenly enforced.

Now that the spacing has completely changed the game, there is that much of a gulf between Lebron's era(s) and those of the likes MJ and others. Frankly, even with teams crowding the paint and hand checking, it was probably easier to three-peat in Jordan's era.

[AlexanderRight]

I can dismiss the 6 rings because of the way the league was set up the same way. That's okay, too. You're stuck because you think I'm jumping to MJ sucks. And that's where you fail logically. I have never said that. I have said six rings is impossible in this climate. And that is supported by the fact that we haven't seen it come close to happening thanks to free agency and max contracts. You saying the Spurs almost won six from 1999 to 2014 doesn't change those facts because the league changed several times during that 15 year period.

Did free agents and max contracts not exist between 99-14? Was Lebron not playing between 99-14? Were SA not title contenders all the way up to 2017? Let me guess, now you're gonna add more artificial barriers and excuses and call it "context". Let me guess. "Euros and shooters weren't good enough then!"

So it was possible for a team to be a rebound away from going 6-0 from 99-14, but despite that you've deemed it not possible for a better player and better coach to do the same in "today's climate"? Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds?

What specific years are you referring to as "today's" climate. 2000 onwards? 2005 onwards? 2010? 2015? 2020? What's the arbitrary cutoff year that you've determined a team can longer win 5-6 rings? You see how flimsy your position is?

How can you claim that no team would go 6-0 in the Lebron era when we saw a team on the cusp of achieving most of that during Lebron's career and was a title contender for almost all of Lebron's prime? There is no significant period of time outside a few years when Lebron was a contender but the Spurs weren't so your argument that MJ/Bulls/Phil wouldn't be able to do what the Spurs did during Lebron's time in the league makes absolutely no sense.

Is this a joke? Granted San Antonio is a storied franchise, but even they couldn't win back-to-back championships, let alone a clean 6-0 record.

I'd be surprised to see another team three-peat anytime soon. The rules changes hardly allow for it. Before 2001, you either had to stick to your man or commit to a double team. There was no zone (except hedging on the weak side), no in-between defending allowed, and it was unevenly enforced.

Now that the spacing has completely changed the game, there is that much of a gulf between Lebron's era(s) and those of the likes MJ and others. Frankly, even with teams crowding the paint and hand checking, it was probably easier to three-peat in Jordan's era.

Now that the game has achieved

Duncan and Pop were a board away from winning 5 rings when zone defense was legal. Is it really beyond the realm of possibility that a greater coach and greater player in MJ and Phil would win 5-6 rings under the same circumstances? I don't think so. And would MJ's legacy really be that much lower if his 6-0 was spread out throughout his career instead of it all happening consecutively? I don't think so. There are people that actually try to use the fact he didn't win before year 7 against him. How different would his legacy be if he won a couple of those 6 rings earlier? There's only so any ways you can break up 6 rings in 12 years.The 3-Peats were just the cherries on top that put him into mystified air status because we never saw it in the modern era.

I'm not even trying to prop the Spurs up as this godly team. I'm just using them as an example. I don't see any validity in claiming MJ/Phil would not win 5-6 rings during Lebron's career when Pop/Duncan were bounce away from doing that themselves. They were a title threat damn near 15 years into Lebron's career. Yes I believe MJ/Phil could have filled that spot in that period. Would the Bulls have 3-peated today? Fair question, but even if they didn't would that have really taken a player of MJ's caliber out of the GOAT convo? Of course not. There's a reason it's only happened once since the C's besides MJ. You're literally talking about arguably the greatest player and coach in the history of basketball. To claim they would've struggled in any era is a stretch, much less a decade down the road.

If it wasn't for one rebound, half of Pop/Duncan's 6 rings would have been against Lebron himself. I don't see a world where Pop/Duncan can do that but Phil/MJ can't.

[Sofia]

So you value a player staying with one team. Kobe actually tried to get traded but we can act as though you didnt know that.

As a minority, i give no fux about a player being loyal to a franchise or business. In fact, after seeing the crap they did to I.Thomas and others, i think its stupid. We can differ on that because i am guessing we are from different perspectives.

You ignored Brons move to LA because it didnt fit your narrative. I caught that.

Bron moving to LA is brutal ring chasing... Which is failed

If joining a 35 win team by yourself is ringchasing then blowing up my PMs and quoting me in your sig because I stopped replying must be glazing.

Yikes, looks like harassment to me. What a loser

Avoid the insults. Don't call other posters losers. -b

[LaLover11]

Bron moving to LA is brutal ring chasing... Which is failed

If joining a 35 win team by yourself is ringchasing then blowing up my PMs and quoting me in your sig because I stopped replying must be glazing.

Yikes, looks like harassment to me. What a loser

Can't wait until someone quotes me in thier Sig

[ScrantonBulls]

So you value a player staying with one team. Kobe actually tried to get traded but we can act as though you didnt know that.

As a minority, i give no fux about a player being loyal to a franchise or business. In fact, after seeing the crap they did to I.Thomas and others, i think its stupid. We can differ on that because i am guessing we are from different perspectives.

You ignored Brons move to LA because it didnt fit your narrative. I caught that.

Bron moving to LA is brutal ring chasing... Which is failed

If joining a 35 win team by yourself is ringchasing then blowing up my PMs and quoting me in your sig because I stopped replying must be glazing.

Lmao. What did you say that upset him so badly?

[Iwasawitness]

Oh, frustrated LeBron fanboy... niiiiiice! I likeeee it!11 Just stop coping, your idol is done

Sorry dude but this looks really bad on you. There comes a point where just have to accept that someone else doesn’t share your opinion and it let be. And this is coming from me of all people.

Oh, another LeChoke fanboy awaken!! Yea, this gentelmen sweep you have just to accept, with minimal frustration... because.... well, he is 39 years old, its passable, right?

I’m not sure why you think I care about a result that I literally predicted (I have Nuggets winning in five), but if this is what helps you cope then by all means continue on with this deranged mindset.

[Iwasawitness]

I can dismiss the 6 rings because of the way the league was set up the same way. That's okay, too. You're stuck because you think I'm jumping to MJ sucks. And that's where you fail logically. I have never said that. I have said six rings is impossible in this climate. And that is supported by the fact that we haven't seen it come close to happening thanks to free agency and max contracts. You saying the Spurs almost won six from 1999 to 2014 doesn't change those facts because the league changed several times during that 15 year period.

Did free agents and max contracts not exist between 99-14? Was Lebron not playing between 99-14? Were SA not title contenders all the way up to 2017? Let me guess, now you're gonna add more artificial barriers and excuses and call it "context". Let me guess. "Euros and shooters weren't good enough then!"

So it was possible for a team to be a rebound away from going 6-0 from 99-14, but despite that you've deemed it not possible for a better player and better coach to do the same in "today's climate"? Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds?

What specific years are you referring to as "today's" climate. 2000 onwards? 2005 onwards? 2010? 2015? 2020? What's the arbitrary cutoff year that you've determined a team can longer win 5-6 rings? You see how flimsy your position is?

How can you claim that no team would go 6-0 in the Lebron era when we saw a team on the cusp of achieving most of that during Lebron's career and was a title contender for almost all of Lebron's prime? There is no significant period of time outside a few years when Lebron was a contender but the Spurs weren't so your argument that MJ/Bulls/Phil wouldn't be able to do what the Spurs did during Lebron's time in the league makes absolutely no sense.

Is this a joke? Granted San Antonio is a storied franchise, but even they couldn't win back-to-back championships, let alone a clean 6-0 record.

I'd be surprised to see another team three-peat anytime soon. The rules changes hardly allow for it. Before 2001, you either had to stick to your man or commit to a double team. There was no zone (except hedging on the weak side), no in-between defending allowed, and it was unevenly enforced.

Now that the spacing has completely changed the game, there is that much of a gulf between Lebron's era(s) and those of the likes MJ and others. Frankly, even with teams crowding the paint and hand checking, it was probably easier to three-peat in Jordan's era.

No no son you can’t used facts with this one. He won’t comprehend how those apply to this situation, let alone the real world (apparently).

[AmIWrongDude]

It’s crazy how haters use ancient 39 year old Bron’s performance (still at a ridiculously high level btw) to try to support their old arguments pretending like hes still in his prime lol.

The fact that he still gets judged by GOAT standards at 39 is a testament to his greatness. No other player has ever been expected to play at this high of a level at 39 but we expect it from Bron because he’s that good.