LeBron's opinion concerning contraction

[Real Deal]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/truehoop/miamiheat/news/story?id=5952952

 

"Hopefully the league can figure out one way where it can go back to the '80s where you had three or four All-Stars, three or four superstars, three or four Hall of Famers on the same team," James said. "The league was great. It wasn't as watered down as it is [now]."

"Imagine if you could take Kevin Love off Minnesota and add him to another team and you shrink the [league]. Looking at some of the teams that aren't that great, you take Brook Lopez or you take Devin Harris off these teams that aren't that good right now and you add him to a team that could be really good. Not saying let's take New Jersey and let's take Minnesota out of the league. But hey, you guys are not stupid, I'm not stupid, it would be great for the league."

LOL, what? He's going to name-drop like that, and smash on the Wolves and Nets?

 

Can anyone name a team in the 80s that had four superstars on it at once?

 

Does anyone know that only one team in the 80s had four all-stars at once?

 

Anyone want to dig up all of the teams that had three all-stars at once?

[Jenneral]

He just keeps talking...

[*Swish*]

LeBron loses his mind sometimes...

[JYD]

yeah because we all want 5 superstars in a lineup.

 

actually i love watching role players like a landry fields

[Nitro]

I agree that it would be awesome for everyone besides the fans of the teams they wipe off the map. The issue is money...there is simply too much money for the league to make via expansion. Sure, the league may generate more buzz and higher ratings with a few less teams, but they'd be losing a crazy amount of money by doing so.

 

Still, it would be awesome if they cut off some of the league's dead weight, and the rich get richer (not Lakers/Celtics/Heat necessarily, but all those mid-level teams like the Bulls, Knicks, Thunder, etc...) It would lead to a better, more exciting product.

[Newman]

Come on LeBron, did you even watch basketball outside of games involving Celtics and Lakers in the 80's?

[YugoRocketsFan]

This is hilarious and everyone is getting their panties in a bunch about it, LeBron ftmfw

[Flash]

This is hilarious and everyone is getting their panties in a bunch about it, LeBron ftmfw

 

Lol, so true.

[Newman]

This is hilarious and everyone is getting their panties in a bunch about it, LeBron ftmfw

 

Well he wants attention, we are giving it to him.

[Cleveland's Finest]

I'm just waiting for him to say Cleveland shouldn't have a team.

[Big Penny]

i don't agree with having '4 Hall-Of-Famers' on the same team, but i like his idea.

 

i've given this a little bit of thought, and i think the NBA should reduce the number of teams to 24, and reduce the playoffs to an NFl type format. maybe 2 divisions within each conference. The top seed in each division is awared a 'first round bye', and then the 2nd and 3rd seed in each division competes to face the #1 seed in a 'wild card' type round... idk, just an idea. but in order to do this, you would have to find out the average attendance from the last decade for each NBA team, and just simply say 'Goodbye' to the bottom 3 in each conference. of course the NBA would have to take into consideration the teams history, cutting teams such as the Celtics would do more harm than good, although i really doubt they're in the bottom 3 for attendace. i understand the NBA is a business, but at the same time the primary purpose (other than to make profit) is to entertain. the league will be more marketable if there are stronger teams, and the league will be more competitive. next has to do with the up and coming CBA. if the league impliments some sort of hard cap. [expletive] luxury tax, there's a hard cap that you can't go over. any teams who are currently over the hard cap right now can stay above it and continue to pay luxury tax, but should be unable to resign any of their players or take on any salary untill they are under the hard cap. this will stop certain teams with owners who are willing to spend be more competitve than teams with stingy owners, and as a result the league will be much more even, and as a result the games will be more competitive. with a hard cap, players will naturally begin to take less money, so the Owners get what they want (although to keep the players happy Stern should strongly consider removing the age limit). it shouldn't be any harm, these players are overpaid anyways. and with less money comes less 'spoiled brat syndrome'.

 

i know i rambled on a bit, and i went a little off topic, and it's unrealistic and chances are i get ripped to shreds and blah blah blah, but i'm a lonely guy with nothing better to do.

Edited December 24, 2010 by Lil' Penny

[Real Deal]

This is hilarious and everyone is getting their panties in a bunch about it, LeBron ftmfw

More about the ignorance of the game. You didn't answer the questions in my initial post.

 

A lot of people don't slobber over his athleticism and talents too much, and they are unwilling to see that this is the guy that may be the face of the NBA for the next decade, someone that promotes more than he wins, that has no problem name-dropping certain teams and basically calling them bad enough to be absorbed from the league.

 

If your stance wasn't so clouded based on your hate for Lakers fans, you'd feel the same way.

 

Sadly, I favored the younger LeBron over this one, the one that actually respects the game and everyone that plays in it.

 

It's possible that you don't care because you would rather watch soccer, but I don't really care about any other sport like I do basketball, and no matter what my favorite team is doing (winning rings or missing the playoffs), I will have to be a fan of the game through every season of LeBron's career, so I have a right to criticize him for the obviously ignorant things he says.

 

Kevin Durant isn't a better player than LeBron, and it's possible he'll never be, but I will be the first person to give him a thumbs up for the way he conducts himself, on Twitter and in interviews, and how he respects everyone that plays the game. My respect for D-Wade has tripled just because any I had for LeBron has been obliterated over the last 2-3 years. Same with my respect for Shaq.

 

Take away the humor you see out of it when Lakers fans post topics like this, and suddenly, you dislike LeBron as much as anyone else does on OTR. I've seen you giving +1's to non-Lakers fans verbally smashing the Heat/LeBron in other topics, and your history on the site also tells me you get a kick out of seeing Lakers fans pissed off, so I know what you really think of the situation.

[Real Deal]

i don't agree with having '4 Hall-Of-Famers' on the same team, but i like his idea.

 

i've given this a little bit of thought, and i think the NBA should reduce the number of teams to 24, and reduce the playoffs to an NFl type format. maybe 2 divisions within each conference. The top seed in each division is awared a 'first round bye', and then the 2nd and 3rd seed in each division competes to face the #1 seed in a 'wild card' type round... idk, just an idea. but in order to do this, you would have to find out the average attendance from the last decade for each NBA team, and just simply say 'Goodbye' to the bottom 3 in each conference. of course the NBA would have to take into consideration the teams history, cutting teams such as the Celtics would do more harm than good, although i really doubt they're in the bottom 3 for attendace. i understand the NBA is a business, but at the same time the primary purpose (other than to make profit) is to entertain. the league will be more marketable if there are stronger teams, and the league will be more competitive. next has to do with the up and coming CBA. if the league impliments some sort of hard cap. [expletive] luxury tax, there's a hard cap that you can't go over. any teams who are currently over the hard cap right now can stay above it and continue to pay luxury tax, but should be unable to resign any of their players or take on any salary untill they are under the hard cap. this will stop certain teams with owners who are willing to spend be more competitve than teams with stingy owners, and as a result the league will be much more even, and as a result the games will be more competitive. with a hard cap, players will naturally begin to take less money, so the Owners get what they want (although to keep the players happy Stern should strongly consider removing the age limit). it shouldn't be any harm, these players are overpaid anyways. and with less money comes less 'spoiled brat syndrome'.

 

i know i rambled on a bit, and i went a little off topic, and it's unrealistic blah blah blah, but i'm a lonely guy with nothing better to do.

Cutting teams AND using a hard cap means less talented players. I suddenly feel sorry for guys like Manu Ginobili, picked late in the draft and not having the opportunity to show his true potential. That's about 90 less players in the league just by cutting six teams. Hard cap brings earlier retirements, younger pool of players and younger teams, less maturity, less veteran leadership and teaching.

 

Also, six less teams means 246 less games, less playoff games, less money for the NBA as a whole. Smaller draft (48 picks, instead of 60). Smaller free agent classes, minimal attention in the off-season due to less attention given by teams (because of the hard cap). Less foreign interest due to lack of scouting overseas (based on smaller draft, less money offered to assist in buying out contracts).

 

The NBA would fold and die in 5-6 years max.

[Big Penny]

Cutting teams AND using a hard cap means less talented players. I suddenly feel sorry for guys like Manu Ginobili, picked late in the draft and not having the opportunity to show his true potential. That's about 90 less players in the league just by cutting six teams. Hard cap brings earlier retirements, younger pool of players and younger teams, less maturity, less veteran leadership and teaching.

 

Also, six less teams means 246 less games, less playoff games, less money for the NBA as a whole. Smaller draft (48 picks, instead of 60). Smaller free agent classes, minimal attention in the off-season due to less attention given by teams (because of the hard cap). Less foreign interest due to lack of scouting overseas (based on smaller draft, less money offered to assist in buying out contracts).

 

The NBA would fold and die in 5-6 years max.

in 1986 the NBA had only 23 teams, and it didn't die. you're exaggerating a lot. it doesn't mean less talented players whatsoever, the league would have a higher average talent level because these 11th/12th men wouldn't make it. and i fail to see how a hard cap encourages earlier retirement. if players are good enough to play at a high level, a team will pick them up. someone like Manu would impress in summer leagues and training camp, make a team, play well in limited minutes and gradually work his way to becoming an all star talent.

 

they still had an 82 game schedule in the 80s when there was teams in the low-20s. the NBA would make less money from games, but interest as a whole would increase due to more talented teams, and the draft could be increased to 3 rounds. plenty of other leagues have a hard cap, and they don't die. i'm not saying put a $50 million hard cap, keep it to around $90-100 million (or whatever the cap is supposed to be now)

 

the NBA would not fold or die at all, because people aren't going to all of a sudden decide that they don't like basketball anymore. the NBA is the biggest league in one of the most popular sports around the globe, so unless millions of people decide that Basketball is a bore it will not die.

[Oliver P]

First of all LeBron clearly shows that he lacks knowledge of this game indeed... There was no team in the 80's who had four superstars. The Sixers had four All Stars in 83 but Andrew Toney sure was not a superstar... Cheeks was not either anyhow, a star yes but not a superstar.

 

Except the Showtime Lakers and the 60's Celtics there is no team in the history of the game who won with at least three superstars in their team anyhow. All the other "super teams" that we had all failed to win a ring. So I certainly don't see how more teams loaded with stars would make the game any better in the first place... Another good example of that are the Teams USA of the last decade. Despite the fact that those teams were all loaded with NBA superstars the US only won twice in the 2000's. Barely won might I add since they almost lost in the semis against Lithuania in 2000 and in the Finals against Spain in 2008.

 

The fact is that, as I already said many times, a team needs role players to win. You need those players who, even if they know to do one thing only, know their role perfectly and do what they're supposed to do. One of the reasons why teams of star usually do not work is because those stars have trouble to adapt to a new role. Cause when several stars play together they have to change their game indeed, something that some have a lot of trouble to accomplish.

 

So no I certainly do not believe that it would be better for the league in any way if there were more teams of stars. And if there were less teams... Quite the opposite in fact, I certainly think that we need more teams. Some of the best basketball players ever never even played one game in the NBA. I'm talking about players like Bodiroga, Belov, Papaloukas, Planinic, Giannakis, Zdovc, Galis, Korac, Cosic, Oscar, Meneghin, Dalipagic, Morse, etc... And there's gonna be more and more talented players all over the world. Which is why the NBA definitely needs more teams in the future.

[Real Deal]

in 1986 the NBA had only 23 teams, and it didn't die. you're exaggerating a lot. it doesn't mean less talented players whatsoever, the league would have a higher average talent level because these 11th/12th men wouldn't make it. and i fail to see how a hard cap encourages earlier retirement. if players are good enough to play at a high level, a team will pick them up. someone like Manu would impress in summer leagues and training camp, make a team, play well in limited minutes and gradually work his way to becoming an all star talent.

 

they still had an 82 game schedule in the 80s when there was teams in the low-20s. the NBA would make less money from games, but interest as a whole would increase due to more talented teams, and the draft could be increased to 3 rounds. plenty of other leagues have a hard cap, and they don't die. i'm not saying put a $50 million hard cap, keep it to around $90-100 million (or whatever the cap is supposed to be now)

 

the NBA would not fold or die at all, because people aren't going to all of a sudden decide that they don't like basketball anymore. the NBA is the biggest league in one of the most popular sports around the globe, so unless millions of people decide that Basketball is a bore it will not die.

The NBA didn't die in the 80s because of Mike, Magic and Larry. There was no other reason. Those three saved a league that was on the verge of dying, and this was made clear over and over again.

 

I don't see a single player in the league doing that. Kobe is too old, Shaq is out of his prime, Duncan and Garnett are out of their primes. LeBron and Wade are on the same team, and one is a conceited, big-headed sell-out that thinks he should be the commissioner.

 

The draft wouldn't increase to three rounds because there wouldn't be enough room for 72 rookies on 24 teams. Young players would enter the draft, become ineligible for the following college season, probably get drafted late second or third round, then never make a team and do nothing with their lives for at least a full year. Bad idea. The draft was cut down to just two rounds for that very reason.

 

And yes, early retirement makes sense. Guess who wouldn't be in the NBA right now, if there were 24 teams and a hard cap? Theo Ratliff, who does more in practices with Gasol than he would in a game. There are others who are important to a team without actually producing on the court.

 

Like I said, 90 current players would be cut. Three from each team, on average. For the Lakers...Caracter, Ratliff, Walton? From the Heat...Dampier, Howard, Magloire? Boston would probably cut Bradley, even though he can be a contributor on defense once he fully heals up.

 

You'd also lose 12 out of the draft. There would probably be no reason to have a D-League, or a Summer League, because the only rookies that would make their teams would be first-round picks.

 

Plus, six coaches (and their staff) would lose their jobs. John Kuester, Keith Smart, Paul Westphal, Lionell Hollins, Jay Triano, Jim O'Brien?

 

Less jersey and merchandise sales, less teams, less fans. If Memphis, Sacramento, Charlotte, New Orleans, Minnesota, and Milwaukee were to all lose their teams...most of those fans are done with the NBA. How many Seattle fans are now rooting for the Thunder? None that I know of. Many are still pissed off about it, and they refuse to watch until they get their team back.

 

If the NBA contracts, they will lose a lot of fans. Nobody wants to see a bunch of stacked teams playing each other for 82 games because popular players like Gilbert Arenas would be getting 10 less minutes on the court, forced to take a backseat to others. Players' careers would be shorter because guys like Bryant would have to play EVERY elite team three or four times a season (ex. Boston), and the teams would be stronger and geared to stop him, so everyone's numbers would likely decline just due to the extra help for AND against them.

 

This is a bad, bad idea. If the league were to do this, I would strongly consider not watching pro basketball again, and I consider myself to be one of the biggest fans out there in regards to watching every single game and team that I can.

[Flash]

Well, in theory he's probably correct. 5 teams at the most though.

Edited December 24, 2010 by Flash

[Check my Stats]

In theory he is probably an idiot.

[htown11]

This is hilarious and everyone is getting their panties in a bunch about it, LeBron ftmfw

 

LOL LeBron fueling forums one comment at a time.

[AboveLegit]

If anything, I'd be more in favor of the league expanding. The reason why some of these players put up such big numbers is because they're on bad teams. Place them on contenders such as the Lakers or Celtics, and suddenly they look a lot less impressive. Expansion creates more interest in the league. I don't see how that's a bad thing.

 

So what if the majority of the league has no shot of winning a title in a given year? A lot of people (including me) love to support their hometown team. That's where the pride in the city comes in. I haven't witnessed one 50 win season for the Wizards in my life, but I will always support them. Sure there are some markets that have no business in owning a team, but there are a bunch of untapped markets doing fairly well.

[AboveLegit]

"That's crazy, because I had no idea what the word 'contraction' meant before I saw it on the Internet," James said after the Miami Heat's practice Monday. "I never even mentioned that. That word never even came out of my mouth. I was just saying how the league was back in the '80s and how it could be good again. I never said, 'Let's take some of the teams out.'"

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/blog/ball_dont_lie/post/LeBron-didn-t-mean-contraction-when-talking-ab?urn=nba-300875

 

[Big Penny]

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/blog/ball_dont_lie/post/LeBron-didn-t-mean-contraction-when-talking-ab?urn=nba-300875

 

Not sure what to believe....

[Pooh25]

Well kids don't let LeBron and his vocabulary be your role model

 

Regardless of your view of contraction LeBron James is committing a major fallacy, faulty appeal to authority, and his view is not intelligent nor selfless. Obviously he is trying to save his own skin here, because if more super teams form, he doesn't seem like the ultra douche he is, plus he likes to hear himself blather.

 

The proposition of eliminating a few teams and moving players around is preposterous and ignorant. Regardless of the number of teams there will always be bad teams because there always has been and will be bad teams in the league. It's a statistical and historical fact.

 

Contraction is not a bad thing, if it makes business sense for the NBA to do it. There are some small market teams that could be contracted because they are doing a poor job gaining revenue and these are the types of teams the NBA must contract.

 

LeBron wants the league back to the '80s, but in the 1980's, yes there were less # of teams but there were still outright terrible teams amongst the great ones. It's a cycle, there will always be bad teams and good teams, it's a historic fact.

 

You want to know the reason why there is bad & good teams in the NBA? One word: Mismanagement. It was the reason in the past and it remains the reason today. Luck in the lottery and drafting well can help balance that out, but that is only a temporary solution for bad management.

 

For example, take the Cleveland Cavaliers. They lucked into drafting LeBron James, giving them the chance to be a contender for multiple years. They didn't manage the salaries well by making a low-ball offer to Boozer while letting him out of his contract a year early and then also didn't match Utah's offer. Then they thought Larry Hughes was the right role player for LeBron James... Huge Mistake. They brought in Drew Freaking Gooden, one of the softest players in the league, to replace Boozer, that was a mistake as well. Mo Williams, inconsistent and pricey, fades away when clutch moments arise. Then to sum it all up, trading for Antwan Jamison instead of Amare Stoudemire because they weren't willing to deal Hickson. Horrible decisions and mismanagement by the Cleveland Cavaliers.

 

Jordan's Wizards are another example when he was still in Washington.

 

Every team in the league has the chance to be good and get to a contender status, that's the truth. Mismanagement is the way to destruction as seen by many examples and contraction of teams is not the answer. The NBA needs better ownership and better management, that is the answer...