| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
ringfinger
Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418
|
 Posted: Tue Apr 14, 2015 7:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| activeverb wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | | activeverb wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | | Lebron joined a Cavs team coming off a 24 and 33 win season. He didn't join Cleveland because of their talent because they didn't really have any. |
Well, they did have this all-star point guard named Kylie Irving, as well as the #1 overall pick which everyone expected to become Kevin Love. |
True. But would you have described that team as talented? I wouldn't.
Then again, I guess it depends on how much we want to dilute the definition of talent. I mean, Amare was listed as the talent draw to keep Melo in NY. That's pretty diluted no? |
No, I would not consider Love and Irving to "dilute the definition of talent." I think almost any superstar would be happy for that to be the nucleus of a team he joined.
I don't what you mean about Amare being the talent draw to keep Melo in NY. I doubt Amare was a factor in Carmelo signing the extension with the Knicks last year. I'd say the two things that convinced Anthony to resign were (1) the money and (2) a belief that Phil Jackson would turn things around. |
I agree with you on the second part. I was responding to a post that said no quality free agent in the history of the NBA has ever joined a team "dereft of talent". I don't believe that statement to be true.
I wouldn't consider the Cavs talented at the time Lebron joined them, the Knicks talented when Melo signed as a FA, or the Lakers talented when Kobe signed here as a FA in 2004.
It's certaonly rare when it does happen and as you point out, when it does it is often for other reasons including money. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ch3cky0selff00
Star Player
Joined: 29 Dec 2009
Posts: 4392
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 14, 2015 7:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
A team has to start from somewhere, no?
It's a rare thing now-a-days .. but there may just be a player who has that "alpha-dog mentality" where he wants to be responsible for a franchises turn-around. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lakers2015
Star Player
Joined: 16 Feb 2015
Posts: 2315
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 14, 2015 7:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ugh how exactly is Cleveland not a talented team?
Kyrie is undoubtably a top five point guard.
Argurably top three.
Love despite the struggles is still a top tier power forward.
Partly struggled due to the Cavs turning him into strictly a jump shooter.
LeBron himself deserves the majority of the blame for that considering Blatt himself admitted he's really the coach of the team. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ringfinger
Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 14, 2015 7:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Lakers2015 wrote: | Ugh how exactly is Cleveland not a talented team?
Kyrie is undoubtably a top five point guard.
Argurably top three.
Love despite the struggles is still a top tier power forward.
Partly struggled due to the Cavs turning him into strictly a jump shooter.
LeBron himself deserves the majority of the blame for that considering Blatt himself admitted he's really the coach of the team. |
They are now. When Lebron joined they were a 33 win team with no Love. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PurpleAndGOAT
Star Player
Joined: 03 Feb 2015
Posts: 1351
Location: City of Angels
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 14, 2015 7:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ringfinger wrote: | | Lakers2015 wrote: | Ugh how exactly is Cleveland not a talented team?
Kyrie is undoubtably a top five point guard.
Argurably top three.
Love despite the struggles is still a top tier power forward.
Partly struggled due to the Cavs turning him into strictly a jump shooter.
LeBron himself deserves the majority of the blame for that considering Blatt himself admitted he's really the coach of the team. |
They are now. When Lebron joined they were a 33 win team with no Love. |
It wasn't just Love that was added to the team though it was also Timofey Mozgov, Iman Shumpert, and J.R. Smith
_________________
Lake Show |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90306
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 14, 2015 7:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| PurpleAndGOAT wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | | Lakers2015 wrote: | Ugh how exactly is Cleveland not a talented team?
Kyrie is undoubtably a top five point guard.
Argurably top three.
Love despite the struggles is still a top tier power forward.
Partly struggled due to the Cavs turning him into strictly a jump shooter.
LeBron himself deserves the majority of the blame for that considering Blatt himself admitted he's really the coach of the team. |
They are now. When Lebron joined they were a 33 win team with no Love. |
It wasn't just Love that was added to the team though it was also Timofey Mozgov, Iman Shumpert, and J.R. Smith |
All after lbj signed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
activeverb
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 37470
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 14, 2015 8:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ringfinger wrote: | | I agree with you on the second part. I was responding to a post that said no quality free agent in the history of the NBA has ever joined a team "dereft of talent". I don't believe that statement to be true. |
I took him as meaning no superstar has ever left his team as a free agent for another team that was bereft of talent. I don't think he was talking about guys who resigned with his team.
The "no quality free agent in the history of the NBA" was an overstatement. I can think of a few examples against it, but I don't want to get into a silly semantics brawl over what "quality free agent" and "bereft of talent" means.
But if you don't let yourself get hung up on semantics, I think his basic thrust is right. There aren't many cases I can think of where a star signed as a free agent with a new team that didn't already have good players. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
laker4life
Star Player
Joined: 26 Nov 2001
Posts: 7320
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 14, 2015 8:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Rugbar wrote: | Wait until the draft before saying Lakers suddenly have a bright future.
Clarkson is a pleasant surprise, a legit NBA player. I've frequently lauded him on this board. However, I think he's getting overrated at this point. It's uncertain how good he's going to be. He's collected good stats on a tanking team, on which he's been given the green light as the focal point of the offense. But his adjusted plus/minus is weak, only 60th out of 84 point guards. (In comparison Curry, Paul, are Westbrook are the top three, and Lin is 20th.) I think Clarkson is better than he looks on this measure, but I think it should give people pause. It's still uncertain how much of a contributor Clarkson can be on a contender. |
Thank you for the logical perspective. Let's see how this team performs as it competes for a playoff spot. We are still a very long way to go unless with get a bonafide superstar. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
activeverb
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 37470
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 14, 2015 8:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| PurpleAndGOAT wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | | Lakers2015 wrote: | Ugh how exactly is Cleveland not a talented team?
Kyrie is undoubtably a top five point guard.
Argurably top three.
Love despite the struggles is still a top tier power forward.
Partly struggled due to the Cavs turning him into strictly a jump shooter.
LeBron himself deserves the majority of the blame for that considering Blatt himself admitted he's really the coach of the team. |
They are now. When Lebron joined they were a 33 win team with no Love. |
It wasn't just Love that was added to the team though it was also Timofey Mozgov, Iman Shumpert, and J.R. Smith |
That's irrelevant to the discussion, because they weren't there when Lebron signed.
But bottom line is they had an all-star in Irving and enough assets to trade for another superstar, which they did.
I am not saying the Cavs were the most talented option for Lebron. But the notion that they were "bereft of talent" is silly. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ringfinger
Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 14, 2015 8:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| activeverb wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | | I agree with you on the second part. I was responding to a post that said no quality free agent in the history of the NBA has ever joined a team "dereft of talent". I don't believe that statement to be true. |
I took him as meaning no superstar has ever left his team as a free agent for another team that was bereft of talent. I don't think he was talking about guys who resigned with his team.
The "no quality free agent in the history of the NBA" was an overstatement. I can think of a few examples against it, but I don't want to get into a silly semantics brawl over what "quality free agent" and "bereft of talent" means.
But if you don't let yourself get hung up on semantics, I think his basic thrust is right. There aren't many cases I can think of where a star signed as a free agent with a new team that didn't already have good players. |
Agree it was an overstatement, that's all I was trying to point out with the examples.
Bottom line, if those teams had enough talent to be a draw, so does this team. Clarkson + Randle is way more talent then the Knicks this or even the Cavs of 2013 IMO. Personally, I don't think any of those teams including this one will draw on talent but potential. And I think that's why those FAs signed in those situations. (Big dollars aside). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ringfinger
Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 14, 2015 8:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| activeverb wrote: | | PurpleAndGOAT wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | | Lakers2015 wrote: | Ugh how exactly is Cleveland not a talented team?
Kyrie is undoubtably a top five point guard.
Argurably top three.
Love despite the struggles is still a top tier power forward.
Partly struggled due to the Cavs turning him into strictly a jump shooter.
LeBron himself deserves the majority of the blame for that considering Blatt himself admitted he's really the coach of the team. |
They are now. When Lebron joined they were a 33 win team with no Love. |
It wasn't just Love that was added to the team though it was also Timofey Mozgov, Iman Shumpert, and J.R. Smith |
That's irrelevant to the discussion, because they weren't there when Lebron signed.
But bottom line is they had an all-star in Irving and enough assets to trade for another superstar, which they did.
I am not saying the Cavs were the most talented option for Lebron. But the notion that they were "bereft of talent" is silly. |
I mentioned it in my post above but swap potential for talent and I'd agree. Not sure I could agree that a 33 win team in the east isn't bereft of talent. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ringfinger
Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 14, 2015 8:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| activeverb wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | | Lakers2015 wrote: | Ugh how exactly is Cleveland not a talented team?
Kyrie is undoubtably a top five point guard.
Argurably top three.
Love despite the struggles is still a top tier power forward.
Partly struggled due to the Cavs turning him into strictly a jump shooter.
LeBron himself deserves the majority of the blame for that considering Blatt himself admitted he's really the coach of the team. |
They are now. When Lebron joined they were a 33 win team with no Love. |
Fine. They didn't have Love. But they had Wiggins and other assets that everyone knew could be turned into an asset like Love (and indeed did). If you want to pretend that wasn't a factor, I don't think it's possible to have a discussion with you on this topic because you are not approaching realistically. |
Of course it was a factor. I said as much. That team had some potential for sure. I just don't think they had talent yet. Wiggins was an unknown and many said he was too nice to be a top player, and irving was the only real piece but even Laker fans wouldn't have traded the #7 pick for.
Just remember that I was responding to a post (not yours) that said no FA had ever, not one time, signed with a team without talent.
We may not agree on all of the examples but I think we agree that isn't a correct statement. (Though it is dramatic). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
activeverb
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 37470
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 14, 2015 8:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ringfinger wrote: | | Of course it was a factor. I said as much. That team had some potential for sure. I just don't think they had talent yet. Wiggins was an unknown and many said he was too nice to be a top player, and irving was the only real piece but even Laker fans wouldn't have traded the #7 pick for. |
If you truly believe that Irving and Wiggins (who everyone knew was about to be turned into Love) represents an absence of talent, I don't think there's a point in discussing this with you.
| ringfinger wrote: | | Just remember that I was responding to a post (not yours) that said no FA had ever, not one time, signed with a team without talent. . |
Well, Lebron signing with the Cavs doesn't refute that point. And as I said, of course that statement is a silly bit of hyberbola that isn't 100 percent accurate. But I think the basic sentiment is correct -- superstars rarely if ever sign with teams that have no assets in place. Can't argue with that; don't see a point in arguing with the hyberbola. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ringfinger
Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 14, 2015 8:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| activeverb wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | | Of course it was a factor. I said as much. That team had some potential for sure. I just don't think they had talent yet. Wiggins was an unknown and many said he was too nice to be a top player, and irving was the only real piece but even Laker fans wouldn't have traded the #7 pick for. |
If you truly believe that Irving and Wiggins (who everyone knew was about to be turned into Love) represents an absence of talent, I don't think there's a point in discussing this with you. |
Without Lebron/Love, how many wins would you have projected them for? Maybe 35-40?
Those guys are talented sure. The rest of the team, not so much. Net-net, not a very talented team IMO outside of 1 player and a draft pick.
Do you consider Minnesota talented then? A FA destination? They have that same Wiggins and a top 5 draft pick. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ringfinger
Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 14, 2015 8:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| activeverb wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | | Of course it was a factor. I said as much. That team had some potential for sure. I just don't think they had talent yet. Wiggins was an unknown and many said he was too nice to be a top player, and irving was the only real piece but even Laker fans wouldn't have traded the #7 pick for. |
If you truly believe that Irving and Wiggins (who everyone knew was about to be turned into Love) represents an absence of talent, I don't think there's a point in discussing this with you.
| ringfinger wrote: | | Just remember that I was responding to a post (not yours) that said no FA had ever, not one time, signed with a team without talent. . |
Well, Lebron signing with the Cavs doesn't refute that point. And as I said, of course that statement is a silly bit of hyberbola that isn't 100 percent accurate. But I think the basic sentiment is correct -- superstars rarely if ever sign with teams that have no assets in place. Can't argue with that; don't see a point in arguing with the hyberbola. |
Dude. Assets is WAY different than talent.
You can have assets without talent and talent without assets. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
activeverb
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 37470
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 14, 2015 10:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ringfinger wrote: | | activeverb wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | | Of course it was a factor. I said as much. That team had some potential for sure. I just don't think they had talent yet. Wiggins was an unknown and many said he was too nice to be a top player, and irving was the only real piece but even Laker fans wouldn't have traded the #7 pick for. |
If you truly believe that Irving and Wiggins (who everyone knew was about to be turned into Love) represents an absence of talent, I don't think there's a point in discussing this with you.
| ringfinger wrote: | | Just remember that I was responding to a post (not yours) that said no FA had ever, not one time, signed with a team without talent. . |
Well, Lebron signing with the Cavs doesn't refute that point. And as I said, of course that statement is a silly bit of hyberbola that isn't 100 percent accurate. But I think the basic sentiment is correct -- superstars rarely if ever sign with teams that have no assets in place. Can't argue with that; don't see a point in arguing with the hyberbola. |
Dude. Assets is WAY different than talent.
You can have assets without talent and talent without assets. |
Doesn't look like either of us has anything to say that we haven't already said 5 times in this thread, which means it's time to close this one down. Cheers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lakers2015
Star Player
Joined: 16 Feb 2015
Posts: 2315
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 14, 2015 10:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ringfinger wrote: | | Lakers2015 wrote: | Ugh how exactly is Cleveland not a talented team?
Kyrie is undoubtably a top five point guard.
Argurably top three.
Love despite the struggles is still a top tier power forward.
Partly struggled due to the Cavs turning him into strictly a jump shooter.
LeBron himself deserves the majority of the blame for that considering Blatt himself admitted he's really the coach of the team. |
They are now. When Lebron joined they were a 33 win team with no Love. |
Can't stand LeBron, but let's be real they were always a 50+ win team in the East his first tenure.
Even without Love they'd still be right around 50 wins if James hadn't missed 9 games. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kikanga
Retired Number
Joined: 15 Sep 2012
Posts: 29333
Location: La La Land
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 15, 2015 12:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ringfinger wrote: | | activeverb wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | | Of course it was a factor. I said as much. That team had some potential for sure. I just don't think they had talent yet. Wiggins was an unknown and many said he was too nice to be a top player, and irving was the only real piece but even Laker fans wouldn't have traded the #7 pick for. |
If you truly believe that Irving and Wiggins (who everyone knew was about to be turned into Love) represents an absence of talent, I don't think there's a point in discussing this with you. |
Without Lebron/Love, how many wins would you have projected them for? Maybe 35-40?
Those guys are talented sure. The rest of the team, not so much. Net-net, not a very talented team IMO outside of 1 player and a draft pick.
Do you consider Minnesota talented then? A FA destination? They have that same Wiggins and a top 5 draft pick. |
Kyrie Irving is waaaaaaaaaaay better than Wiggins right now. And a top 5 draft pick isn't the same as a #1 pick.
_________________
"Every hurt is a lesson, and every lesson makes you better” |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lakerMark
Starting Rotation
Joined: 22 Sep 2005
Posts: 478
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 15, 2015 5:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Hopefully the lakers get 3rd or 4th pick as D'angelo Russell may be the best pick in this draft and number 1 pick doesn't always mean best overall. D Wade, Michael Jordan, D. Lillard, Chris Paul, Kevin Durant, Russell Westbrook, all come to mind as players that did not go number 1 but would probably go in a different order after the fact. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ringfinger
Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 15, 2015 6:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Lakers2015 wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | | Lakers2015 wrote: | Ugh how exactly is Cleveland not a talented team?
Kyrie is undoubtably a top five point guard.
Argurably top three.
Love despite the struggles is still a top tier power forward.
Partly struggled due to the Cavs turning him into strictly a jump shooter.
LeBron himself deserves the majority of the blame for that considering Blatt himself admitted he's really the coach of the team. |
They are now. When Lebron joined they were a 33 win team with no Love. |
Can't stand LeBron, but let's be real they were always a 50+ win team in the East his first tenure.
Even without Love they'd still be right around 50 wins if James hadn't missed 9 games. |
Sure, I agree with all of that. The post I had originally responded to claimed: "No quality Free Agent has ever signed with a team bereft of talent in the history of the league. Not a single one."
It was in reference to free agents not wanting to be here, if there isn't any talent here. I suppose one could make the argument that every NBA team has been comprised of NBA-caliber talent and thus, all teams have talent but I'm not sure that was his point.
I've seen "quality" free agents sign with teams that I would consider generally devoid of talent.
I believe Cleveland, coming off of 3 seasons with Kyrie Irving averaging 26 wins per year, was an example of a team bereft of talent prior to Lebron joining there. What they did have though, was potential. Same with Melo and New York and same with Kobe and the Lakers when he re-signed here in 2004.
So while it would certainly help to have a team chock full of talent in terms of drawing in quality FAs, it isn't necessary. We can accomplish that by highlighting the team's potential to be chock full of talent in just a few years time (or maybe even less than that). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
