Wade: Lebron will never pass MJ

[LAD]

I'm not gonna get into a whole thing here, but I put Lebron ahead of Kobe all-time. My point was that it's not all about the ring count like tlance said. MJ is the GOAT for a lot of reasons, and it's almost unanimous.

You had me till the whole "I put Lebron ahead of Kobe all-time" thingy.

 

[LAD]

He recruited Love. Prior to LBJ reaching out to him Love had already gone on the record saying he had no interest in playing in Cleveland

Also if the reports are true it sounds like he might have been trying to recruit Ray Allen to come out of retirement.

 

[Bulletz]

You had me till the whole "I put Lebron ahead of Kobe all-time" thingy.

It's just my VERY humble opinion.

 

[True Lakers Fan]

I think you are confusing traveling with flying..

He used to take three or four steps and yes, I agree it did seem like he was flying through the air. They still allow to much travelling in my opinion, but it is better than it was, so to some extent, I can see why most would think Lebron is just as good - as MJ. I still will take MJ over Lebron though

Now will you please answer my pm and join my fantasy league

 

[LAD]

It's just my VERY humble opinion.

No worries- and I can appreciate your opinion. I am just a Kobe homer- which is why some here have named my <-------daughter Kobina.

 

[Bulletz]

No worries- and I can appreciate your opinion. I am just a Kobe homer- which is why some here have named my <-------daughter Kobina.

Well now that's trippy because that is the exact nickname I had for Bryant.

Your daughter's beautiful btw.

 

[LAD]

Well now that's trippy because that is the exact nickname I had for Bryant.

Your daughter's beautiful btw.

Thanks!


@ your nickname for Kobe

 

[tlance]

Lebron still has not recruited 1 player on Cleveland... "Clearly the team made the Love/Smth deals with and for Lebron"..


"when legacies are based on championships it is highly unfair t blame someone who folds a crappy hand"

Crappy hand as in winning the ECF? In your first 3 years?


this reminds me of one of my favorite south park episodes and I'm not even a big south park guy..

Stay with me here:

They TRADED for Love and Smith. The Smith deal was important, but it would have not made a big impact had the other core pieces not been in place.as for Love, that deal was nothing like what LeBron would have needed to do to get a quality running mate in 2010.

It is true that Cleveland would never have traded Wiggins for Love had he not indicated that he would resign long term. It is also true that Love would never have made that promise without talking to LeBron. You are missing 1 very big piece though.

Love could not have gone wherever he wanted for another year. He was under contract. His options were severely limited to teams that had an attractive return package they were willing to part with. Golden State was the only other who even made a semi decent offer to Minnesota.

Would Love have signed in Cleveland if he hit the open market the following summer? I have no idea. The point is though, neither do you. Using Love's acquisition as proof that leBron would have been able to "recruit" big name free agents to Cleveland is foolish at best. Love was not a free agent until the year after he landed in Cleveland, and he certainly had some type of gentlemen's agreement in place that he would resign once his contract was up.

LeBron played a role in all of this, but it is not even and apples to oranges comparison. It is more like comparing apples to airplanes. Not even close to the same.

 

[SJ76]

He used to take three or four steps and yes, I agree it did seem like he was flying through the air. They still allow to much travelling in my opinion, but it is better than it was, so to some extent, I can see why most would think Lebron is just as good - as MJ. I still will take MJ over Lebron though

Now will you please answer my pm and join my fantasy league

Count me in man. Just don't have a lot of time these days.

NBA has always been 3.5 steps is ok

 

[True Lakers Fan]

Count me in man. Just don't have a lot of time these days.

NBA has always been 3.5 steps is ok

Hey I just need some people and it doesn't take much time

 

[LAD]

Stay with me here:

They TRADED for Love and Smith. The Smith deal was important, but it would have not made a big impact had the other core pieces not been in place.as for Love, that deal was nothing like what LeBron would have needed to do to get a quality running mate in 2010.

It is true that Cleveland would never have traded Wiggins for Love had he not indicated that he would resign long term. It is also true that Love would never have made that promise without talking to LeBron. You are missing 1 very big piece though.

Love could not have gone wherever he wanted for another year. He was under contract. His options were severely limited to teams that had an attractive return package they were willing to part with. Golden State was the only other who even made a semi decent offer to Minnesota.

Would Love have signed in Cleveland if he hit the open market the following summer? I have no idea. The point is though, neither do you. Using Love's acquisition as proof that leBron would have been able to "recruit" big name free agents to Cleveland is foolish at best. Love was not a free agent until the year after he landed in Cleveland, and he certainly had some type of gentlemen's agreement in place that he would resign once his contract was up.

LeBron played a role in all of this, but it is not even and apples to oranges comparison. It is more like comparing apples to airplanes. Not even close to the same.

You're wrong- we do know that without LBJ reaching out to Love & deciding to go back to Cleveland- Love had no intention of playing in Cleveland- because HE SAID IT.

And depending on how you look at the situation- he might have more control over where he went than many think. What he had in his corner was the fact that he would've become a FA the next summer which means he wasn't going to have to stay anywhere long term if he didn't want to. That means in order for the trade to make sense for the receiving team Love would've had to commit to signing long term- otherwise they'd be giving up assets- and possibly $- for the option of renting Love. That is not an ideal situation for most teams.

 

[tlance]

You're wrong- we do know that without LBJ reaching out to Love & deciding to go back to Cleveland- Love had no intention of playing in Cleveland- because HE SAID IT.

And depending on how you look at the situation- he might have more control over where he went than many think. What he had in his corner was the fact that he would've become a FA the next summer which means he wasn't going to have to stay anywhere long term if he didn't want to. That means in order for the trade to make sense for the receiving team Love would've had to commit to signing long term- otherwise they'd be giving up assets- and possibly $- for the option of renting Love. That is not an ideal situation for most teams.

I am not denying that. Obviously LeBron talked to Love.

Still, "recruiting" a player who is under contract is much different than recruiting a free agent. Love preferred Cleveland to Minnesota, that much is clear. It still in no way indicates that he would have made the choice to go there if he were a free agent.

LOL at you saying I am wrong. All I am saying is that he has never recruited a big name free agent to Cleveland. That remains 100% true regardless of LeBron's influence on the Love TRADE. Trades and free agent signings are not anywhere near the same. Saying that because LeBron talked Love into Cleveland in a trade somehow proves that he could have recruited a big free agent is laughable.

Now, if for some reason Kyrie, Thompson and Love all went off the books next year, do I think LeBron would attract top talent? Yes I do. But, like others have mentioned, LeBron with 2-3 rings is a much better recruiter than LeBron with 0.

For some background, the reason this whole conversation started was because people were knocking LeBron for leaving Cleveland, saying he should have stuck it out and "recruited" better support players. My contention is that he tried and failed. Had he stayed, there is a good chance he would still be stuck on 0 rings.

 

[LAD]

I am not denying that. Obviously LeBron talked to Love.

Still, "recruiting" a player who is under contract is much different than recruiting a free agent. Love preferred Cleveland to Minnesota, that much is clear. It still in no way indicates that he would have made the choice to go there if he were a free agent.

LOL at you saying I am wrong. All I am saying is that he has never recruited a big name free agent to Cleveland. That remains 100% true regardless of LeBron's influence on the Love TRADE. Trades and free agent signings are not anywhere near the same. Saying that because LeBron talked Love into Cleveland in a trade somehow proves that he could have recruited a big free agent is laughable.

Now, if for some reason Kyrie, Thompson and Love all went off the books next year, do I think LeBron would attract top talent? Yes I do. But, like others have mentioned, LeBron with 2-3 rings is a much better recruiter than LeBron with 0.

For some background, the reason this whole conversation started was because people were knocking LeBron for leaving Cleveland, saying he should have stuck it out and "recruited" better support players. My contention is that he tried and failed. Had he stayed, there is a good chance he would still be stuck on 0 rings.

I think a lot of this debate circles around perception. I would think most people thought-at the time- that Love was a big free agent. As proof one could offer the fact that MOST teams in the league were trying to figure out a way to make that trade happen.

And in terms of my saying you're wrong- you were- because you said we don't know if Love would've agreed to play in Cleveland (by agree I mean sign a long-term deal beyond the season he would've been traded). We know you're wrong because he publically said so. If we can't take the word from the horses mouth as "fact" then what else can we use?

 

[tlance]

I think a lot of this debate circles around perception. I would think most people thought-at the time- that Love was a big free agent. As proof one could offer the fact that MOST teams in the league were trying to figure out a way to make that trade happen.

And in terms of my saying you're wrong- you were- because you said we don't know if Love would've agreed to play in Cleveland (by agree I mean sign a long-term deal beyond the season he would've been traded). We know you're wrong because he publically said so. If we can't take the word from the horses mouth as "fact" then what else can we use?

Because it is different. There is not another way I can say it.

Let me ask you a question:

Do you think that the Cavs Landing Love in this traded proves that a 0 ring LeBron could have lured a big free agent? That was the point of the entire conversation. If you are going to jump in and defend SJ's position, I want to make sure that you know where it started. Because if your answer to the above question is no, then we are debating unimportant semantics.

 

[LAD]

Because it is different. There is not another way I can say it.

Let me ask you a question:

Do you think that the Cavs Landing Love in this traded proves that a 0 ring LeBron could have lured a big free agent? That was the point of the entire conversation. If you are going to jump in and defend SJ's position, I want to make sure that you know where it started. Because if your answer to the above question is no, then we are debating unimportant semantics.

We'll just agree to disagree- because you're right, there isn't another way to say it.

I happened to believe Love when he said he had no intentions of signing a long-term contract with Cleveland had Minnesota traded him there prior to LBJ announcing his return.

And to address your question: Yes, I know what the debate was. But that doesn't change the thought on a couple of things you've used as supporting factors in your argument- such as we don't know what Love would've done. If he had never made those comments to the media then you could argue we don't know what he would've done.

 

[tlance]

We'll just agree to disagree- because you're right, there isn't another way to say it.

I happened to believe Love when he said he had no intentions of signing a long-term contract with Cleveland had Minnesota traded him there prior to LBJ announcing his return.

And to address your question: Yes, I know what the debate was. But that doesn't change the thought on a couple of things you've used as supporting factors in your argument- such as we don't know what Love would've done. If he had never made those comments to the media then you could argue we don't know what he would've done.

Of course he would not have considered Cleveland without LeBron there. Does not change a single thing I wrote.

Because:

1) his options were limited as a player under contract
2) as others have mentioned, LeBron with 2 rings is a far more attractive draw than LeBron with 0
3) getting traded somewhere and extending is not the same as signing as a free agent.

 

[LAD]

Of course he would not have considered Cleveland without LeBron there. Does not change a single thing I wrote.

Because:

1) his options were limited as a player under contract
2) as others have mentioned, LeBron with 2 rings is a far more attractive draw than LeBron with 0
3) getting traded somewhere and extending is not the same as signing as a free agent.

Glad to see we've come to an agreement- and for the record this isn't the same thing you originally said.

 

[LAD]

Of course he would not have considered Cleveland without LeBron there. Does not change a single thing I wrote.

Because:

1) his options were limited as a player under contract
2) as others have mentioned, LeBron with 2 rings is a far more attractive draw than LeBron with 0
3) getting traded somewhere and extending is not the same as signing as a free agent.

Here are my rebuttals to your new supporting factors:

1.His options were limited to where he wanted to go- because if he told any of those teams he wouldn't sign long-term they most likely pull out of that deal which
2. I do agree that LBJ with rings vs. LBJ without rings is a better selling point- but I don't think that is the biggest difference between his two stints in Cleveland. I firmly believe the 2nd time around he had learned how to lead which helped him with recruiting.
3. I never said these two were the same thing. And I'm not sure how this incorporates with your argument.
Love wasn't just being traded- he was FORCING a trade a year before he became a FA. This means he really wanted out of Minnesota. The fact that whichever team traded for him really needed him to commit to a long-term deal beyond his existing contract made all the difference.

 

[tlance]

Glad to see we've come to an agreement- and for the record this isn't the same thing you originally said.

It really is though. May have been misinterpreted, but I would never dispute the fact that Love never resigns in Cleveland and never gets traded to Cleveland without LeBron.

The whole point was that SJ was using this as evidence that leBron could have recruited top free agents.

I do want to address your 3rd point above also.

I get that Love wanted out. Had Cleveland waited, the asking price might have gotten lower. At the time of the deal though, there were very few teams with a player package that would have gotten the TWolves to move Love. At the deadline, perhaps the list would have grown as the asking price lowered. Over the summer, it was Cleveland or GS, and the TWolves did not want GS's offer without Klay.

Love would have had plenty of options in 2015. At the moment of the trade though, he literally had none. To your point though, no team would have agreed to a deal without Love saying he would extend. Clearly that happened and Love was a man of his word.

So, yes, options were limited to where he wanted to go, but it is still much fewer alternatives than there would have been on the open market.

 

[trojanfan12]

Still, "recruiting" a player who is under contract is much different than recruiting a free agent. Love preferred Cleveland to Minnesota, that much is clear. It still in no way indicates that he would have made the choice to go there if he were a free agent.

He may not have chosen to go to Cleveland as a free agent. However, the opportunity to play with Lebron and have an all but guaranteed shot at the finals because of that, would likely have been very, very enticing. Especially with Lebron recruiting him. Having a truly legit shot at the finals and best player in the league wanting you on his team seems like a no brainer.

All I am saying is that he has never recruited a big name free agent to Cleveland. That remains 100% true regardless of LeBron's influence on the Love TRADE. Trades and free agent signings are not anywhere near the same. Saying that because LeBron talked Love into Cleveland in a trade somehow proves that he could have recruited a big free agent is laughable.

Yes and no. Ultimately, Love wasn't a free agent and therefore could only do so much to influence a trade himself. The only leverage he had would have been to tell the team trying to trade for him that he wouldn't re-sign with them.

However, you also can't underestimate Lebron's influence. Cleveland probably doesn't even attempt to trade for Love without Lebron demanding it and Love is unlikely to be willing to re-sign without Lebron recruiting him in the first place.