Everyone like to dog Cleveland's upper management as a way to validate LeBron...

[WiggyRuss]

I don't know how many other offers he may have had. But a 10 year vet who has made more than $100 million dollars in his career may be more interested in a chance at a title than in money.

think of it though....

take off at least t 40% right off the top for taxes.

take off at least what? 3-5% for agents?

take off what for just general health/maintenance/personal trainer etc....i know LeBron is an extreme case but he spends millions a year on that.

most young guys are pretty stupid about money early on in their careers- maybe he was, maybe he wasnt....

you have seen guys make a LOT more than a 100M all of a sudden have less $ then me or you. Taxes, agency fees, maintenance, etc. takes at least 50% right off the top.

 

[shopson67]

I don't know how many other offers he may have had. But a 10 year vet who has made more than $100 million dollars in his career may be more interested in a chance at a title than in money.

He may have picked his destination somewhat by taking a little less, but I doubt he was turning down too much money. His 3 pt shot has staved off dinosaur status temporarily, but he's still trending in that direction due to his lead feet.

 

[trojanfan12]

think of it though....

take off at least t 40% right off the top for taxes.

take off at least what? 3-5% for agents?

take off what for just general health/maintenance/personal trainer etc....i know LeBron is an extreme case but he spends millions a year on that.

most young guys are pretty stupid about money early on in their careers- maybe he was, maybe he wasnt....

you have seen guys make a LOT more than a 100M all of a sudden have less $ then me or you. Taxes, agency fees, maintenance, etc. takes at least 50% right off the top.

True, but that's just his NBA money. If he's been at least a little bit smart with his investments (and he did go to Stanford, so he ain't exactly stupid), then he likely has enough money to take care of his family for generations.

I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong either. He said that he would be willing to come back to the Lakers if they got Lebron and as far as I know, the Lakers never extended him an offer (although they probably should have). So he may very well have not had other choices.

But I also don't think it's impossible that a guy who is closer to the end of his career than the beginning would take less money for a shot at a ring. He certainly wouldn't be the first to do that.

 

[trojanfan12]

He may have picked his destination somewhat by taking a little less, but I doubt he was turning down too much money. His 3 pt shot has staved off dinosaur status temporarily, but he's still trending in that direction due to his lead feet.

Oh, I agree. He's certainly no difference maker and as I pointed out in post #163, he expressed a willingness to return to the Lakers and as far as I know, they didn't even extend an offer.

I just don't think it's crazy that he may have turned down more for a chance to win a ring. If it wasn't that much more, it makes it even more likely that he would take less for a shot at a ring.

 

[WiggyRuss]

He may have picked his destination somewhat by taking a little less, but I doubt he was turning down too much money. His 3 pt shot has staved off dinosaur status temporarily, but he's still trending in that direction due to his lead feet.

and in todays game- lead feet is NOT a big selling point. Big men that cant move are pretty much a dime a dozen- but you are right- his 3 pt shot, his experience, and basketball IQ do give him some value--- especially at that price.

Id definitely take Brook Lopez at 3 million a year.

but to say he is better than Tristan Thompson, or even Larry Nance Jr., at this point is just stupid.

And as i said--- i without a doubt take a guy like Kyle Korver over him at this point- having a 40% volume 3 pt shooter is very valuable-- much more so than a guy who is at 36.5% and

for fucksake Korver shot over 46% from 3 for the Cavs last year. Thats a guy that you cant afford to leave alone and totally opens up the court- and for a guy like LeBron, that is pure gold.

seems a lot better to me than a 7 footer who is a shit rebounder and one of the 5 slowest players in the NBA.- and that is why , without a doubt, no one gave him any kind of real offer last year

 

[trojanfan12]

and in todays game- lead feet is NOT a big selling point. Big men that cant move are pretty much a dime a dozen- but you are right- his 3 pt shot, his experience, and basketball IQ do give him some value--- especially at that price.

Id definitely take Brook Lopez at 3 million a year.

but to say he is better than Tristan Thompson, or even Larry Nance Jr., at this point is just stupid.

Better overall, no. But I could see where he could be more valuable to some teams than TT or Nance.

If your team needs shooters, he would help more than either because Nance is a career 30% from 3 and TT has apparently never even taken a 3. Meanwhile, Lopez is a career 35% from 3.

But, if your team needs defense, athleticism, etc. then TT and Nance are both better.

 

[dtgold88]

But this is all pointless

When Milwaukee gets to the Finals and takes 2 games from GS, that will be your proof.

Proof? It will matter, sure, but will you think if Toronto plays Milwaukee and takes 1-2 that is proof the Cavs were better?

Transitive property does not work in sports.

 

[tlance]

Proof? It will matter, sure, but will you think if Toronto plays Milwaukee and takes 1-2 that is proof the Cavs were better?

Transitive property does not work in sports.

Toronto is a completely different team this year. Nice try though.

Add Kawhi, Siakam emergence, Danny Green and Marc Gasol. I don't know how that comparison is even close to valid.

This Raptor team would beat last year's Cavs too.

 

[Shanemansj13]

Toronto is a completely different team this year. Nice try though.

Add Kawhi, Siakam emergence, Danny Green and Marc Gasol. I don't know how that comparison is even close to valid.

This Raptor team would beat last year's Cavs too.

Certainly possible mainly bc they would have Kawhi guarding Lebron. Siakam would be hard to stop and then add in Gasol. This team is way better, the team itself isn't playing up to their potential right now imo, Kawhi is though, that is for damn sure.

 

[dtgold88]

Toronto is a completely different team this year. Nice try though.

Add Kawhi, Siakam emergence, Danny Green and Marc Gasol. I don't know how that comparison is even close to valid.

This Raptor team would beat last year's Cavs too.

You cannot decide if you want to be Absolute Guy or Extreme Guy (sometimes you are both)

GS doesn't seem like they've fallen off a bit this year since last? They lost a couple games to the Clippers. GS wins the next 2, I guess Houston = LAC by your "logic"?

 

[Shanemansj13]

The Cavs would still have the edge and more than likely be favorites based on Vegas odds for 1 very important reason that tlance seems to be struggling with...

Experience. The Cavs players know how to win, well the bucks do not...They have no experience, they haven't played in a single finals. The cavs would game plan and more than likely beat them. The Bucks played in the playoffs last year and were not very good...They are better this year but not that much better...

Maybe so but in the end you still have to make shots and Milwaukee is one of the best shooting team in the NBA....the Cavs weren't so much. Don't get me wrong, it is close, for the plain and simple fact they have Lebron James but I wish the Cavs had this core around Lebron bc they would be taking down the East for years to come and it wouldn't exactly be a struggle.

 

[dtgold88]

Maybe so but in the end you still have to make shots and Milwaukee is one of the best shooting team in the NBA....the Cavs weren't so much. Don't get me wrong, it is close, for the plain and simple fact they have Lebron James but I wish the Cavs had this core around Lebron bc they would be taking down the East for years to come and it wouldn't exactly be a struggle.

Really wasn't much of a struggle past 4 years. Couple close calls, but not many.

I think there is one thing you don't take into account comparing the 2 teams. Cavs' supporting cast is designed to be players who can play with Lebron. Shooters/floor spacers, and Love/Korver were perfect in that role for instance.

I do agree with you it's close. That was my only real issue....Extreme Guy said Bucks are "far better"

 

[Shanemansj13]

Lets just look at matchups:

Cavs

PG - George Hill
SG - J.R. Smith
SF - Lebron James
PF - Kevin Love
C - Tristan Thompson

Bench:
6 - Jeff Green
7 - Kyle Korver
8 - Rodney Hood

Bucks

PG - Eric Bledsoe
SG - Khris Middleton
SF - Giannis
PF - Nikola Mirotic
C - Brook Lopez

Bench:
6 - George Hill
7 - Connaughton
8 - Ilyasova

As you can see Hill is on both team, the starter for CLE but the backup for MILW. That makes a huge difference imo bc it does take the pressure off him.

Still would be a close battle for sure. TT would absolute destroy Lopez in the post and I think he could ultimately make Lopez non-existent in this matchup imo.

If you actually look at TEAM vs TEAM. Cleveland is just as good if not better but the Bucks are a better matchup to win the East and ultimately to beat the Warriors. Honestly, the Warriors were always a tough matchup for the Cavs. One main reason is bc TT at times couldn't be used and was ineffective.

Overall, if you are going team vs team I would take the Cavs but Milwaukee is the better team. They are a MUCH better defensive team and they have more perimeter shooting, especially if you add in Brogdon.

 

[Shanemansj13]

Really wasn't much of a struggle past 4 years. Couple close calls, but not many.

I think there is one thing you don't take into account comparing the 2 teams. Cavs' supporting cast is designed to be players who can play with Lebron. Shooters/floor spacers, and Love/Korver were perfect in that role for instance.

I do agree with you it's close. That was my only real issue....Extreme Guy said Bucks are "far better"

You could argue there is more competition now. Kawhi is in the East now, that alone makes it a lot tougher. This Toronto team is much better than the DeRozan led team. Plus Giannis has a great team around him.

I compared them above in that post. But you can't just compare the teams side by side, you have to compare them against the competition. The Cavs did pull off that great comeback but they had Kyrie then, without Kyrie they had no chance at beating the W's unless Lebron went superhuman. The Bucks are a much better matchup vs the W's imo

 

[dtgold88]

Lets just look at matchups:

Cavs

PG - George Hill
SG - J.R. Smith
SF - Lebron James
PF - Kevin Love
C - Tristan Thompson

Bench:
6 - Jeff Green
7 - Kyle Korver
8 - Rodney Hood

Bucks

PG - Eric Bledsoe
SG - Khris Middleton
SF - Giannis
PF - Nikola Mirotic
C - Brook Lopez

Bench:
6 - George Hill
7 - Connaughton
8 - Ilyasova

As you can see Hill is on both team, the starter for CLE but the backup for MILW. That makes a huge difference imo bc it does take the pressure off him.

Still would be a close battle for sure. TT would absolute destroy Lopez in the post and I think he could ultimately make Lopez non-existent in this matchup imo.

If you actually look at TEAM vs TEAM. Cleveland is just as good if not better but the Bucks are a better matchup to win the East and ultimately to beat the Warriors. Honestly, the Warriors were always a tough matchup for the Cavs. One main reason is bc TT at times couldn't be used and was ineffective.

Overall, if you are going team vs team I would take the Cavs but Milwaukee is the better team. They are a MUCH better defensive team and they have more perimeter shooting, especially if you add in Brogdon.

Excellent analysis. I'd give Cavs the edge at 3 starting positions (SF, C, PF). C and PF not close. SG and PG edge for Bucks not close in their favor.

I think the 3 bench players for Cavs are slightly better and they also had Clarkson.

Agree, GS might be a better matchup for GS though not sure Lopez could stay on the court.

 

[dtgold88]

Excellent analysis. I'd give Cavs the edge at 3 starting positions (SF, C, PF). C and PF not close. SG and PG edge for Bucks not close in their favor.

I think the 3 bench players for Cavs are slightly better and they also had Clarkson.

Agree, GS might be a better matchup for GS though not sure Lopez could stay on the court.

meant to say Bucks a better matchup for GS

 

[tlance]

You cannot decide if you want to be Absolute Guy or Extreme Guy (sometimes you are both)

GS doesn't seem like they've fallen off a bit this year since last? They lost a couple games to the Clippers. GS wins the next 2, I guess Houston = LAC by your "logic"?

Well, at least we know who you are.

You are (Argue every possible minute detail til your opponent gets sick to his stomach) guy.

And no. I don't think GS has fallen off. I just think they took LAC lightly and Curry and Klay have played as poorly as they possibly can against Houston. Partially because of Houston's defense.

 

[tlance]

Lets just look at matchups:

Cavs

PG - George Hill
SG - J.R. Smith
SF - Lebron James
PF - Kevin Love
C - Tristan Thompson

Bench:
6 - Jeff Green
7 - Kyle Korver
8 - Rodney Hood

Bucks

PG - Eric Bledsoe
SG - Khris Middleton
SF - Giannis
PF - Nikola Mirotic
C - Brook Lopez

Bench:
6 - George Hill
7 - Connaughton
8 - Ilyasova

As you can see Hill is on both team, the starter for CLE but the backup for MILW. That makes a huge difference imo bc it does take the pressure off him.

Still would be a close battle for sure. TT would absolute destroy Lopez in the post and I think he could ultimately make Lopez non-existent in this matchup imo.

If you actually look at TEAM vs TEAM. Cleveland is just as good if not better but the Bucks are a better matchup to win the East and ultimately to beat the Warriors. Honestly, the Warriors were always a tough matchup for the Cavs. One main reason is bc TT at times couldn't be used and was ineffective.

Overall, if you are going team vs team I would take the Cavs but Milwaukee is the better team. They are a MUCH better defensive team and they have more perimeter shooting, especially if you add in Brogdon.

TT would destroy Lopez in the post?

When was the last time the Cavs ran an actual post play for TT?

It certainly didn't happen last year.

 

[Shanemansj13]

Excellent analysis. I'd give Cavs the edge at 3 starting positions (SF, C, PF). C and PF not close. SG and PG edge for Bucks not close in their favor.

I think the 3 bench players for Cavs are slightly better and they also had Clarkson.

Agree, GS might be a better matchup for GS though not sure Lopez could stay on the court.

But also you have to look at how the players fit. I didn't even mention that.

Hood, Clarkson and Hill were all inconsistent and honestly just didn't really fit into the offense (makes sense since they were acquired at the deadline). J.R. was a shell of himself. Korver never seemed to step up in big games, he went cold. If you factor in all that from last year you can see why the Cavs struggled so much. The experience definitely helped but it was really just Lebron being Lebron. I would still take this Milwaukee core, they are much more athletic, younger, more shooters and Middleton is one of the most underrated players in the NBA. He would be a perfect fit next to Lebron too imo

 

[Shanemansj13]

TT would destroy Lopez in the post?

When was the last time the Cavs ran an actual post play for TT?

It certainly didn't happen last year.

Not scoring...rebounding and hustle. Lopez is one of the worst rebounders in the NBA. The only thing you could say is he pulls TT away from the basket which is a legitimate argument. Actually that is one thing I didn't factor in.