hey hey hey ....cmon now- Trojan- i know you are of the age to remember the days of "The Miracle of Richfield"- and the Cavs did have some really good teams that were estopped from possible title(s) by MJ (with Daughterty, Price, Nance, Ehlo, Hot Rod etc)
but why i am hesitant to agree with you guys on "what history has shown us" with teams that have done well in the past is the new CBA
its inarguable that the NBA is drastically changed. I mean-the league is almost unregonizable from 20-30 years ago when at one time- the finals were on tape delay- and the only national games on were Celtics/Lakers games on Sunday afternoon-
Now- it does not matter one iota where you play. When LeBron was in Cleveland the first time- both him and Dwight were the most marketable players in the league by a fair margin- and they were situatied in Orlando and Cleveland- markets that are not even in the top 15 (or 20 probably for that matter) in the United States
the new CBA has leveled the playing like never before. A lot of teams that have been historically good could just outspend other teams. Other teams like the Lakers find themselves in an uncertain spot having lost their owner who was a genius- and replacing him with a guy who- to be nice- has not exactly inspired a lot of confidence lately. Super stars would flock to major markets to get exposure and they just dont need to do that anymore. Kevin Durant and LeBron are in Oklahoma City and Cleveland for shits sake.
Every team now has Ivy League educated GM's using advanced statistical analysis. Their are billions of dollars on the line. The rules have been changed so its much easier for teams to resign their own players.
The environment in the NBA is just not even close to whatit used to be- even 10 years ago- let alone 20-30 years ago.
i mean look what we saw just a few years ago- a commissioner vetoeing atrade ofa star to the Lakers- and then that star going to the Clippers- a franchise that historically has been an absolute joke. Its been hotly debated whether Howard leaving was a good thing or a bad thing- but 20 years ago it would have been absolutely shocking to see a majorly sought after free agent walk away from the Lakers to go to Houston.
This is a totally changed set of rules the NBA is operating on- and its why I believe how your team used to be has never meant less.
If you dont agree with me- i totally respect that- and i would love to hear your arguments. I really enjoy posting on here and hearing other peoples points of view and opinions- even ifyou dont agree its something that makes you smarter and gives you another view point to approach the issue.
First of all, I loved those Cavs teams. I hated the Bulls and pulled for those Cavs teams every time they played them. Larry Nance was one of my favorite players in the league at the time.
The CBA has not changed things as much as you'd like to think. Players are still going to go the the teams that can pay them the most and have shown they can win titles. The Lakers are set to have plenty of cap flexibility over the next couple of seasons and that's before the cap increases when the new CBA hits after next season. This is expected to swing the pendulum once again in favor of the larger market teams.
The Stern veto wasn't done to the Lakers or to maintain any competitive balance. It was done because the league was trying to sell the team and CP3 was their only marketable asset. If the same trade had come up after the team was sold or before the league took control, it would have been approved. It was just bad timing for the Lakers and a conflict of interest on Stern's part.
As for Dwight. Dwight is a child. Plain and simple. In my opinion, while it was a mistake by the Lakers (hiring D'Antoni when they could have had Phil) that led to him leaving. I believe they will be better in the long run because I don't believe that Dwight has what it takes to lead a team to a title.