Reply With Quote
Nah, they're the ones who ushered in the buddy buddy collusion goty era we are in today.
It was great busting their ass in the finals though
I do regret that the Heatles couldn't seal the deal against the My Little Ponies in 2011.
Nah, they're the ones who ushered in the buddy buddy collusion goty era we are in today.
It was great busting their ass in the finals though
No. Spurs sent Lebron back to Crackron with his tail tucked between his legs.
I don't ever miss gimmick teams.
My bad ...
I was just teasing anyways ...
Mom jokes are funny (sometimes) but juvenile, tbh
Tbh, don’t forget the kg, pierce, ray Celtics... or even going further back the Malone, Payton, Shaq Lakers...Nah, they're the ones who ushered in the buddy buddy collusion goty era we are in today.
It was great busting their ass in the finals though
The Celtics one started this bull . Malone was 39 and Payton was 35 when they joined the Lakers, so they were far from their prime.
Plenty of guys through history "teamed up" to try to stack their squad. The heat were just the first to have the best player in the NBA do it. And the way they went about it was obnoxious. If they had just kept quiet, signed and went about their business, people probably wouldn't have had as much of an issue with it. All the shows and crap talking is what made it look bad.
That said, people need to quit acting like they were the first to try to leave lesser situations to team up. Lots of players tried to do it, but their contracts didn't line up with other players so it didn't work out. Those three just happened to all be FAs the exact same year. I'd say it's far worse what Kobe did, telling the Lakers to either not sign Shaq, or he refuses to resign. And then when things go bad for a year or two, demand to be traded and threaten to quit playing. LeBron lived his contract out without any of that drama despite a front office filled with morons giving big contracts to guys like Antawn Jamison and Anderson Varejao.
What the heat did definitely comes nowhere close to being as bad as what the warriors did. The heat hadn't won anything, and we're basically a brand new squad coming together. Golden State already had won a ring and had 73 wins yet were calling KD to join them because they were so afraid of continuing to get beat by LeBron and an inferior overall team in the finals. They realized that a healthy Cavs squad the year before probably beats them too.
Nobody hated the spurs lol who the could hate Duncan like seriously. I’ve said this time and time again I have rooted for SA every single finals they’ve been in. Some laker fans are just too into Kobe and hate SA cause TD had a better career. Ain’t nothing wrong with that.
Lots of ppl hated the spurs. First because they played defense which was called boring
Then because of their longevity
Can't even count the many times I spoke to average NBA fans and they said they hated the spurs
Yea I remember some fans getting mad over that lmao
People definitely hated the Spurs. I get clowned constantly for being a Spurs fan.
That said, I don't think they were the most hated team, at least not the magnitude of the Shaq Lakers, Garnett Celtics, Bad Boy Pistons, Heatles, or Durant Warriors.
Aside from Malone raping a kid and then refusing to do when that kid had his kid, it was chicken how he acted like a Mahorn level hard ass while being a Divac level flopper. When the Spurs wanted to sign him in 04-05 I was going to stop being a fan of the team until he was gone.
I thought it was the summer of 2003 when the Spurs tried to sign Malone? I remember him retiring the year after.
Building talented rosters through salary cap and acquisitions isn't the same as friends colluding to stack specific teams. You expect, as a fan, that the top tier players want to compete against others like them, not touch Wonder Twin rings and join forces to beat the Kyle Korvers and Yogi Farrells of the league.
Malone picked LA in 2003-04 because the Spurs won the le. But in late 2004 they were trying to bring Malone out of retirement and for a while it looked like he was going to say yes. I still remember crap Hoopsworld reporting the Spurs were announcing the signing of Malone at a press conference they had called which ended up being to announce the retirement of Sean Elliott's number.
No, Kobe ushered that in by colluding his way to the Lakers on draft day.
And let’s not forget Magic who wouldn’t join the NBA if the Lakers didn’t draft him
Wow, didn't know that. It's sickening to think Malone might have finally gotten his ring with the Spurs. Would have ruined all my memories of the 2005 team(my favorite Spur team).
I didn't say it was. But did Lebron and Bosh actually do anything that bad (aside from the dramatics)? They were free agents. They had every right to do so. And they gave their respective teams fair chances, while their front offices were utterly inept, it's not like they left the moment things didn't go their way, especially in Lebron's case. He went through 7 years of crap, and the team was completely hopeless because they had nothing but untradeable contracts, a severe lack of talent, and no chance of building in the draft because they were winning 50+ games each year. I'd say it's a far lesser evil than trying to force trades and threatening to quit on the team. Or hopping on bandwagons.
So its fair to expect teams with just one star and a mediocre cast around them, to somehow magically compete with teams that have 2-3 stars and a good supporting cast? There's a reason that there's a dynasty or two that exists every decade. It's because those teams generally "luck" into having multiple stars and a good cast (or gets giftwrapped stars like the Lakers do), while the rest of the league doesn't have that luxury. The only way to beat that is fight fire with fire. I don't blame Lebron one bit for doing what they did. How else could he expect to beat the Lakers who were giftwrapped a superstar in Gasol? Or beat the Spurs who somehow got two superstars to group with Timmy at the end of the first and second rounds of the draft? The odds of that happening was slim to none, so he created his own way to compete. If Miami didn't do what they did, then it's basically just the Lakers and Spurs still winning everything. So that's supposed to be fun for fans to watch? Two teams that dominate nearly two decades of basketball? I think you could honestly make an argument that the Heatles helped the league more than they hurt it.
I honestly don't blame Golden State either, because it's not everyday you have a great situation like they had, and cap space to sign the #2 player in the NBA. So instead of having a 1 year championship run, they generate their own "luck" into being a dynasty, instead of just blindly hoping for it. So we are supposed to hate them because they wanted to be a dynasty, like teams that existed in every decade prior to them? I don't like what they did, and I already stated why. But I understand it, and I don't hate them for it. If the Mavs were in a situation where they won a ring with Luka as the centerpiece, but Zion is out there putting up 25/15/5 and wants to sign with the Mavs in free agency to fill a team need, I'd be stupid not to want that. Spurs fans would want the same (cue the "no i wouldnt we're too classy" comments), as well as fans of every other team in the league.
Fan opinion has nothing do with right and wrong. There's compe ion and there's chicken and that was the latter. Sure they have the right to it, but that doesn't mean anyone has to respect it.I didn't say it was. But did Lebron and Bosh actually do anything that bad (aside from the dramatics)? They were free agents. They had every right to do so. And they gave their respective teams fair chances, while their front offices were utterly inept, it's not like they left the moment things didn't go their way, especially in Lebron's case. He went through 7 years of crap, and the team was completely hopeless because they had nothing but untradeable contracts, a severe lack of talent, and no chance of building in the draft because they were winning 50+ games each year. I'd say it's a far lesser evil than trying to force trades and threatening to quit on the team. Or hopping on bandwagons.
So its fair to expect teams with just one star and a mediocre cast around them, to somehow magically compete with teams that have 2-3 stars and a good supporting cast? There's a reason that there's a dynasty or two that exists every decade. It's because those teams generally "luck" into having multiple stars and a good cast (or gets giftwrapped stars like the Lakers do), while the rest of the league doesn't have that luxury. The only way to beat that is fight fire with fire. I don't blame Lebron one bit for doing what they did. How else could he expect to beat the Lakers who were giftwrapped a superstar in Gasol? Or beat the Spurs who somehow got two superstars to group with Timmy at the end of the first and second rounds of the draft? The odds of that happening was slim to none, so he created his own way to compete. If Miami didn't do what they did, then it's basically just the Lakers and Spurs still winning everything. So that's supposed to be fun for fans to watch? Two teams that dominate nearly two decades of basketball? I think you could honestly make an argument that the Heatles helped the league more than they hurt it.
I honestly don't blame Golden State either, because it's not everyday you have a great situation like they had, and cap space to sign the #2 player in the NBA. So instead of having a 1 year championship run, they generate their own "luck" into being a dynasty, instead of just blindly hoping for it. So we are supposed to hate them because they wanted to be a dynasty, like teams that existed in every decade prior to them? I don't like what they did, and I already stated why. But I understand it, and I don't hate them for it. If the Mavs were in a situation where they won a ring with Luka as the centerpiece, but Zion is out there putting up 25/15/5 and wants to sign with the Mavs in free agency to fill a team need, I'd be stupid not to want that. Spurs fans would want the same (cue the "no i wouldnt we're too classy
The East had to stack the best players from 3 separate playoff teams just to compete with the West and they still only took 2 of 4.
Spurs got two superstars to play with Tim? Who? Manu and Tony?57th overall and 28th overall.
Organic growth of players /= "getting superstars"
Oh that's right, the juggernaut Mavs with one superstar and a washed up Kidd with Jet shooting the lights out
Or the Spurs, old worn out TD, end of shelf life Tony and about to retire Manu... along with role and bench guys no one else wanted. Oh more juggernauts! "But Kawhi!" who was just figuring out how to not be a pussy, finally comes out of his s after sucking the 1st two games. So the best player from 3 playoff teams in the East, along with Ray Allen, couldn't beat that group.
Stupid
Last edited by DMC; 04-08-2019 at 10:02 PM.
No one said you do. But you were the one talking about fan expectation in relation to the actions players take, as if fans are en led to have players do exactly what they want. They don't.
That actually adds to my point. So it's better for the league for one conference to just continue to dominate the finals, or is it better to see some actual compe ion in the finals where we get to see great players and great teams go at it? Was it really more entertaining to watch severely weaker teams like the Pacers, 76ers and Nets get manhandled annually?
So by that logic, any player that gets drafted has an equal chance of being a superstar? I'm pretty sure only highly gifted players become superstars. I've never seen a guy like Ryan Bowen have "organic growth" into becoming a superstar.Spurs got two superstars to play with Tim? Who? Manu and Tony?
Organic growth of players /= "getting superstars"
Again, feeding right into my point. While you are heavily underselling how good those Mavs/Spurs teams actually were, despite the heatles combining their talents, it was still difficult for them to win championships. So how on earth could anyone expect them to win with guys like Mo Williams or Andrea Bargnani as their #2 guys, no depth whatsoever, and bad contracts everywhere? Again, if they didn't combine, the league would have only been less compe ive. If they hadn't done so, no teams in the east would have had a remote chance to compete with the top teams in the west.
Why so angry?
Again, right and wrong vs fan opinion. Get a grip on the difference and revisit your initial comment.
Why are they severely weaker than the Mavs or Spurs?That actually adds to my point. So it's better for the league for one conference to just continue to dominate the finals, or is it better to see some actual compe ion in the finals where we get to see great players and great teams go at it? Was it really more entertaining to watch severely weaker teams like the Pacers, 76ers and Nets get manhandled annually?
No, by that logic drafting someone at 57 and another at 28 /= drafting superstars. Show me where you predicted Tony Parker would become a HOFer, in 2003. I guess Dallas acquired a superstar in Dirk, and Kawhi Leonard was a superstar in college. You can easily look at the end of life player and say "he would never be a superstar". Try saying that about a rookie.So by that logic, any player that gets drafted has an equal chance of being a superstar? I'm pretty sure only highly gifted players become superstars. I've never seen a guy like Ryan Bowen have "organic growth" into becoming a superstar.
Of course the teams were good, jesus ing christ, they were champions. They weren't stacked with superstars. Don't you get that?Again, feeding right into my point. While you are heavily underselling how good those Mavs/Spurs teams actually were, despite the heatles combining their talents, it was still difficult for them to win championships. So how on earth could anyone expect them to win with guys like Mo Williams or Andrea Bargnani as their #2 guys, no depth whatsoever, and bad contracts everywhere? Again, if they didn't combine, the league would have only been less compe ive. If they hadn't done so, no teams in the east would have had a remote chance to compete with the top teams in the west.
You're either a ty troll or just naive and have poor reasoning skills. You can take even the most talented players who never won and call them losers once all the chips are down. You're a monday morning QB.
Cool 90's line.Why so angry?
Actually you need to revisit your initial comment. It was on fan "expectation", not "opinion". There's certainly a difference between the two. They can have all the opinions they want. But to expect that a player would intentionally choose a crappy situation over a good situation? To expect that a player would rather stay on a crappy team and get pounded on by stacked teams, when they have a chance to create a stacked team and legitimately compete? Not sure what those expectations are based on.
The early 2000's Nets, Pacers and 76ers? Why are they severely weaker than championship winning Mavs and Spurs squads? Is that your question?
Are you saying the Spurs deserve kudos for making good draft picks and developing them well? I 100% agree with that. But it doesn't change the fact that they were superstar type players that Duncan and the Spurs team was able to benefit from.
How you get players doesn't matter. If you have 2-3 superstars, you have 2-3 superstars. Is it more respectable to draft and develop them? Sure. But it doesn't change the outcome, whether you draft them, or sign them. You still have 2-3 superstar players. So not really sure what your point is here.
You literally only addressed one part of my quote, which was "you are heavily underselling how good those Mavs/Spurs teams actually were". Not only that, your response literally didn't accomplish anything to your point that fans should reasonably expect that a superstar player would intentionally choose a crappy, borderline hopeless situation in which they are understaffed, have lousy coaches, and crappy front offices, where they are getting thrashed on by teams with multiple superstars, as opposed to choosing a situation where they could actually compete with these teams because they will have another superstar or two to play with, even though depth, chemistry and coaching may still be lacking.Of course the teams were good, jesus ing christ, they were champions. They weren't stacked with superstars. Don't you get that?
You're either a ty troll or just naive and have poor reasoning skills. You can take even the most talented players who never won and call them losers once all the chips are down. You're a monday morning QB.
Okay.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
