Kings meeting with Lebron?

[Jerryaki]

I agree on Jennings. Kobe and Shaq, too. But I don't get the whole "LeBron is a douche" thing. I just don't see it. Maybe I'm naive. I don't blame him for putting pressure on his team to build a winner by opting out; that's better than demanding a trade. God complex? Sure. The media fueled it, he's embraced it, but that's a superduperstar for you. Can't complain about that if you want a superduperstar/best player alive on your team. I also think that if he's holding the team hostage because he wants his hand-chosen coach and GM hired before he'll sign, that's ridiculous. But all that said, he's the best player in the NBA, and he's only 25. I'd give him a six year, max contract deal to play for my team any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

LBJ is a phenomenal player...in the regular season. until he wins a ring, probably multiple rings, i'm not calling him the greatest player alive.

meanwhile, i look at teams like the spurs, a team that had their own super-duperstar in tim duncan, the best power forward ever, who's won multiple rings AND had the ability to do it gracefully, without holding his franchise hostage or making himself the center of the universe. this guy and that team, for the past decade plus, are all class.

if i had a choice in the matter, this is the route i would want my team to go with. just my two cents.

 

[Superman]

Really! So if we had won a championship by trading for Webber and signing Vlade, both of whom wern't home grown, you wouldn't have enjoyed winning that championship. Are is it that they're OK, but LeBron isn't, because LeBron is just too good? Meaning our GM shouldn't really go after the best freeagents, but should go after freeagents that won't bring the reputation of winning with them. To quote Vince Lombardi. " Winning isn't everything, winning is the only thing". If the Kings were lucky enough to lure LeBron and we were to win a title or two. Twenty years from now when people look up at the championship banners in the arena, they won't care how we got LeBron or how we won. They'll just be happy to have the titles.

I'm sorry, but I have a warriors mentality. If I'm fighting a war and my opponent only has a single shot rifle, and I have a machine gun. He loses! Because I'm not going to give up my machine gun to be fair. And If he goes out and buys a machine gun, then I'm going to go out and buy a bomb. Thats how you win. You win by being better than the other guy. And in basketball, if everything is legal and above board, then I'm fine with it. Now I'm not saying we can't win with the players we have. Thats really a seperate issue. I'm saying that you don't pass up an opportunity to get better quicker if it presents itself. So to say that you would pass on LeBron, who I think is the best player in the NBA right now (no disrespect to Kobe) is unbelievable..

It's a little different. Trading for Webber and signing Vlade didn't turn us into title contenders. We certainly weren't preseason favorites. We were barely an 8 seed the first two years, and steadily worked our way into title contention as the years went on. In fact, we were supposed to lose to the Mavs in the second round in 2002, remember? We didn't stand a chance. It was the peripheral moves (Bibby for Williams, signing Bobby Jackson and Doug Christie, etc.) and the development of other players like Peja that made us one of the best team in the NBA. We actually did grow the team, just not exclusively through the draft, like we're doing now.

If we signed LeBron, we're instantly no worse than the fourth best team in the NBA. Instantly. Anything short of a trip to the Finals is considered a failure. His expectations are all of a sudden our expectations, as a team and a franchise. Signing LeBron is like buying your way into contention. Some have a problem with that. Given the fact that we've all known for several years that the summer of 2010 was going to be the year that someone tries to buy their way into contention, I don't have a problem with it at all. This is what the league has been building to, and the NBA might like radically different next season because of it. Nothing wrong with that, necessarily. As long as free agency exists in its current form, that's what teams should do when the opportunity presents itself.

 

[bajaden]

I'm curious why you think LeBron is the bad guy in this. I'm not saying that he's an angel. But I'm not sure what he owes to the city of Cleveland at this point. He brought them respectablity and almost a championship. And he did it with a much weaker supporting cast than most of the other teams. Name me one other star on his team. Believe me, if I were in Cleveland I'd be beside myself with the thought of loosing LeBron. But at the same time, I could understand it if he were to leave. When LeBron watches the Lakers, who were already loaded snatch up Gasol for almost nothing, and his team sits at status quo, it has to affect his thinking.

Personally, for the fans sake, I hope he decides to stay in Cleveland. But I doubt it'll happen. I think he believes he gave them a good shot to build something around him, and it didn't happen. And what did happen, happened too late. As I already stated. LeBron isn't coming here, so this is an arguement in the abstract. Which means pointless, and therefore wasted time. But LeBron represents a concept more than just a persona. And its the concept that I'm arguing for. Which is, if your going to go after a freeagent. Any freeagent. You should go after the best one you can find that will fit you team need. And to reject the best one you can find, because he's too good, defies logic! Just my opinion...

 

[pdxKingsFan]

meanwhile, i look at teams like the spurs, a team that had their own super-duperstar in tim duncan, the best power forward ever, who's won multiple rings AND had the ability to do it gracefully, without holding his franchise hostage or making himself the center of the universe. this guy and that team, for the past decade plus, are all class.

Duncan has also played in a disciplined system his entire pro-career. And while I sometimes have trouble figuring out who deserves the credit for that - or if it was just dumb luck that they all wound up together - it's also interesting to note that Ferry came over from the Spurs and tried to instill some of that order into the Cavs organization and it was reportedly nixed by LBJ's people and ownership. He may be that machine gun bajaden is talking about but if you don't have Coach Rambo wielding it with all the precision of that sniper then the gun is going to do its own thing and you might just wind up shooting yourself in the foot. There's a lot more Rambis, Harris and Collins's coaching in the NBA that can't handle their weapons than those who are fit for the duty.

 

[bajaden]

If we were to win a championship, with or without LeBron. We would be, by definition, the best team.. Thats why your called the champions..

 

[Superman]

LBJ is a phenomenal player...in the regular season. until he wins a ring, probably multiple rings, i'm not calling him the greatest player alive.

Whether he's the best player alive or not is debateable. I think consensus trends his way lately, but whatever. As for this criticism of his postseason success (or relative lack thereof), I have two things to say: 1) He took (yes, HE TOOK) a bunch of bums to the Finals four years ago, on his shoulders, and got beat by one of the deepest and most experienced teams in the NBA over the last decade, a team that won three championships in five years; 2) No one wins without a good supporting cast and a solid #2, I don't care who they are. Magic, Bird, MJ, Kareem, Duncan, Kobe, Shaq, Wade, Dirk, Howard, and LeBron, and whoever else you want to put in that category. In fact, some of the all-time greats couldn't win with a bonafide #2 and one hell of a supporting cast. Ask Stockton and Malone. You don't win championships just because you're good. Your team has to be good.

There was a debate for about two months this season on LA talk radio about whether the Lakers were good enough to make it out of the first round of the playoffs without Kobe. In other words, if the Lakers didn't have Kobe, there's no doubt that they're good enough to make the playoffs in the Western conference (minimum 50 wins for a berth two out of the last three years); the question is whether they'd win a series! They are so good without their #1 that they're still a playoff team. Same can't be said for the Cavs without LeBron, any of the years that they've made the playoffs or been considered a title contender or preseason favorite. He IS the team. Saying that the fact that he doesn't have a ring makes him less of a player somehow is incredibly dense.

meanwhile, i look at teams like the spurs, a team that had their own super-duperstar in tim duncan, the best power forward ever, who's won multiple rings AND had the ability to do it gracefully, without holding his franchise hostage or making himself the center of the universe. this guy and that team, for the past decade plus, are all class.

if i had a choice in the matter, this is the route i would want my team to go with. just my two cents.

I'd prefer the Spurs route to the Celtics route, or even the Lakers route, definitely. But I'm not turning my back on adding superstar free agents, no matter who they are, just because we'd be buying our way into contention.

I'm also not sold on this idea that the Spurs are all class. They've pulled some bush-league tactics themselves over the past few years, starting with the incessant Hack-a-Shaq (even doing it right after the opening tip on occasion), and including the Steve Nash beatdown of 2007. Not calling them thugs, but they've waded into the shallow end from time to time. Tim Duncan is certainly the most classy superstar in decades, but that doesn't mean that his team is "all class."

 

[bajaden]

I wasn't talking about preseason perceptions. The fact is that we came within one game of going into the championships and most pundits believe we would have won the championship if we had. My point is that if we had won, we would have won because we traded for Webber and signed Vlade. Neither of whom were aquired through the draft. So I don't see the difference between the two conceptually, other than LeBron is considered the best player in basketball. Take the player or players out of it and just look at the concept. Are you telling me the GM shouldn't go after the best player he can get? That he should go after less than the best to prove a point. I guess I don't get that line of thinking.

 

[Kings Faithful]

Really! So if we had won a championship by trading for Webber and signing Vlade, both of whom wern't home grown, you wouldn't have enjoyed winning that championship. Are is it that they're OK, but LeBron isn't, because LeBron is just too good? Meaning our GM shouldn't really go after the best freeagents, but should go after freeagents that won't bring the reputation of winning with them. To quote Vince Lombardi. " Winning isn't everything, winning is the only thing". If the Kings were lucky enough to lure LeBron and we were to win a title or two. Twenty years from now when people look up at the championship banners in the arena, they won't care how we got LeBron or how we won. They'll just be happy to have the titles.

I'm sorry, but I have a warriors mentality. If I'm fighting a war and my opponent only has a single shot rifle, and I have a machine gun. He loses! Because I'm not going to give up my machine gun to be fair. And If he goes out and buys a machine gun, then I'm going to go out and buy a bomb. Thats how you win. You win by being better than the other guy. And in basketball, if everything is legal and above board, then I'm fine with it. Now I'm not saying we can't win with the players we have. Thats really a seperate issue. I'm saying that you don't pass up an opportunity to get better quicker if it presents itself. So to say that you would pass on LeBron, who I think is the best player in the NBA right now (no disrespect to Kobe) is unbelievable..

I feel like Lebron is in it for himself. Not the team. I don't want that on my team and I never will.I don't care how many championships we would win I don't want to win them because of a player like that. I want to beat those types of players on the court. Don't call me crazy or ridiculous cause i feel that way.

 

[Rookie]

this probably puts me at odds with a lot of people on this board, but my preference here is:

1) win with a team that i am proud of.
2) have a team that i am proud of.
3) win.

if we somehow got LBJ, that only gets me to #3.

I can accept the fact that you don't want the guy because you don't like him. Atleast that is a good argrument not to want him.

However

If we can cheer for the Kings with the likes of J-Will, Bonzy, and even Artest, I don't see how we can deny LBJ?
Matter of perspective I guess.//shrug

 

[pdxKingsFan]

I'm curious why you think LeBron is the bad guy in this.

I've just gotten the impression reading various articles that he thinks he is bigger than the game. I mean he scheduled an interview on Larry King against the start of the NBA finals if I recall correctly. He may or not be coachable, though I don't think Silas or Brown are the right guys to judge him on, but neither are any of the coaches the other teams have, save Miami if Riles comes back. I actually like that he's not an "angel" but I'm starting to fear what his motivation is. Is it really to win championships? Or is it as others have suggested to become the first NBA billionaire? If I could be convinced it was the former I'd have no reservations about him.

 

[Superman]

I wasn't talking about preseason perceptions. The fact is that we came within one game of going into the championships and most pundits believe we would have won the championship if we had. My point is that if we had won, we would have won because we traded for Webber and signed Vlade. Neither of whom were aquired through the draft. So I don't see the difference between the two conceptually, other than LeBron is considered the best player in basketball. Take the player or players out of it and just look at the concept. Are you telling me the GM shouldn't go after the best player he can get? That he should go after less than the best to prove a point. I guess I don't get that line of thinking.

It wasn't until four years after signing Vlade and trading for Webber that we were a true contender. In 2001, we got swept in the second round. '99 and 2000, we got beat in the first round. We built toward contention, and those two moves were a huge part of it, but they weren't the only moves, or even the latest moves, when we were all of a sudden on the brink of a ring. Even after beating Utah in the first round in 2002, we were primed for a whoopin' at the hands of the Mavs, homecourt and all. It's not just preseason perceptions. We were not a contender just because we added those two players. It wasn't until several seasons later that we were even knocking on the door.

 

[Rookie]

I feel like Lebron is in it for himself. Not the team. I don't want that on my team and I never will.I don't care how many championships we would win I don't want to win them because of a player like that. I want to beat those types of players on the court. Don't call me crazy or ridiculous cause i feel that way.

He wants a ring...as do all champions. None of us know who LBJ really is other than what the media wants you to see. It's better to let someone prove to us he's worthy than not to give a chance.

To have feeling is good but just don't make decision base on feeling. That's what the head is for.

 

[Kings Faithful]

I wasn't talking about preseason perceptions. The fact is that we came within one game of going into the championships and most pundits believe we would have won the championship if we had. My point is that if we had won, we would have won because we traded for Webber and signed Vlade. Neither of whom were aquired through the draft. So I don't see the difference between the two conceptually, other than LeBron is considered the best player in basketball. Take the player or players out of it and just look at the concept. Are you telling me the GM shouldn't go after the best player he can get? That he should go after less than the best to prove a point. I guess I don't get that line of thinking.

I'm not saying it is a smart basketball choice to ignore Lebron. As GM you should absolutely go about aquiring him... it would win us a championship and thats the FO's job. What I am saying is if we can win a championship without a douchy player like Lebron I would rather do that. And right now the Kings look like they are building a championship team without any player i feel that way about.

 

[Kings Faithful]

He want's a ring...as do all champions. None of us know who LBJ really is other than what the media wants you to see. It's better to let someone prove to us he's worthy than not to give a chance.

To have feeling is good but just don't make decision base on feeling. That's what the head is for.

The media has us believe he is the greatest man on the earth. I would rather believe what his actions on and off the court portray.

 

[bajaden]

I understand about the bandwagon fans. But thats the nature of people. Trust me, the Maloof's are hoping for a whole bunch of bandwagon folks to show up at the box office if the team starts winning. So look at in the sense that they do serve a purpose. They help support the team financialy. So I embrace them. Along with their money..

 

[pdxKingsFan]

He wants a ring...as do all champions.

Why are we convinced of this? Of the list of teams he has chosen to meet with only two have shown any degree of competency to reach that goal, all of them have unstable coaching situations, with the exception of Chicago the rosters are bare, etc. If he really just wants a ring I would think he would do what Karl and Gary did, or at least you'd hear about other promising teams that are in less glitzy cities as being in the mix.

 

[Jerryaki]

He IS the team. Saying that the fact that he doesn't have a ring makes him less of a player somehow is incredibly dense.

i agree well enough with most of your post (and to be clear, i have no issues buying a stud free agent, my issue is buying a stud free agent who i don't like).

but this quote above is not what i was saying, you took the contrapositive. my sentiment is that he is not the best player alive because he does not have a ring. everyone will always point to this being a team game. well, this year, the cavs were no slouch in the supporting cast department. if he were able to take bums to the finals a few years back, he should definitely have been able to win it this year with a vastly superior crew. so then the blame shifts to his coach or to his front office or to the media. it irks me that the criticisms tend to fall on everyone EXCEPT on LBJ. you can't on the one hand say he IS the team and then say that he is only one man.

my opinion on LBJ is that he is concerned with becoming a global icon first, and winning second. as an example, when they lost this year, one of the first things he mentions is how his [marketing] team would evaluate things in the offseason. way to care about your teammates there buddy.

there is no way, absolutely NO WAY that this guys has the same focus as guys like kobe and MJ. with all of his endorsements and engagements and brands and so on and so forth, there's just no way his attention isn't divided into multiple slices beyond just winning. and you know what, that's fine, but i wish people would call it like it is.

and the ironic thing to all of this is, if the idiot just focuses on winning, all that other stuff would follow.

 

[hammystyle]

LBJ is a phenomenal player...in the regular season. until he wins a ring, probably multiple rings, i'm not calling him the greatest player alive.

meanwhile, i look at teams like the spurs, a team that had their own super-duperstar in tim duncan, the best power forward ever, who's won multiple rings AND had the ability to do it gracefully, without holding his franchise hostage or making himself the center of the universe. this guy and that team, for the past decade plus, are all class.

if i had a choice in the matter, this is the route i would want my team to go with. just my two cents.

Actually Tim Duncan actively flirted with the idea of signing with the Orlando Magic in 2000. He didn't resign with the Spurs until late August. And this was just one year removed from having won the title in 1999.

Also, while LeBron had a very bad game at a crucial time against Boston this year, for the most part he has been phenomenal the last two years in the playoffs. The Boston series was his worst and he averaged 27ppg on 45% shooting, 7apg, 9rpg, 2spg, 1.3 bpg, and 4.5 TO. He completely eliminated Paul Pierce defensively, holding him to 12ppg on 32% shooting the games he guarded him. Pierce only got off in game 5 when LeBron guarded Rondo. So that was his worst performance, which was much better than Kobe's Finals MVP performance. In the loss against the Magic last year he had the best playoff series in recent times averagin 38.5 PPG on 49% shooting, 8apg, and 8 rpg.

So call him a d-bag if you want, and say he doesn't come up in the clutch. There's not much to back that point of view.

 

[Rookie]

The media has us believe he is the greatest man on the earth. I would rather believe what his actions on and off the court portray.

They do make him look like the best bb player in the world but I have no info on them trying to state he's the best man in the world. Are you sure?

What action on the court that cause you not to like him as a bb player?
From what I know he gave it his all, he show up early and practice hard, play tough..etc.

What action off the court?
Wanting a shot at the ring? The $$$? hell that's almost every player in the league.

 

[Rookie]

It doesn't hurt to shop around...why being stupid and limit yourself. This is his future, life goal and everything to him.

Doh...judge him on that. Come on now.

 

[Jerryaki]

I can accept the fact that you don't want the guy because you don't like him. Atleast that is a good argrument not to want him.

However

If we can cheer for the Kings with the likes of J-Will, Bonzy, and even Artest, I don't see how we can deny LBJ?
Matter of perspective I guess.//shrug

good points, it's been a while since i thought about those guys! to me though, i'd take good ol' bats*** crazy over (as another poster put it) someone who thinks he's bigger than the game, any day of the week. and, as supes put it, twice on sundays. =)

 

[bajaden]

It wasn't until four years after signing Vlade and trading for Webber that we were a true contender. In 2001, we got swept in the second round. '99 and 2000, we got beat in the first round. We built toward contention, and those two moves were a huge part of it, but they weren't the only moves, or even the latest moves, when we were all of a sudden on the brink of a ring. Even after beating Utah in the first round in 2002, we were primed for a whoopin' at the hands of the Mavs, homecourt and all. It's not just preseason perceptions. We were not a contender just because we added those two players. It wasn't until several seasons later that we were even knocking on the door.

OK, I'll try again. My point is that part of the reason we became good, and I don't care how long it took, was because of adding other players from other teams through trades and freeagency. Thats my point. I was responding to a post by Kings Faithful that said he didn't want Lebron, a freeagent, because he wanted to win with what we had. So I'm talking about the concept of how you build a team, not the nuts and bolts of how long it took or to the talent level of those involved. Just the concept. Freeagency. So the question is, do you go after the best, or less than the best.

 

[Superman]

OK, I'll try again. My point is that part of the reason we became good, and I don't care how long it took, was because of adding other players from other teams through trades and freeagency. Thats my point. I was responding to a post by Kings Faithful that said he didn't want Lebron, a freeagent, because he wanted to win with what we had. So I'm talking about the concept of how you build a team, not the nuts and bolts of how long it took or to the talent level of those involved. Just the concept. Freeagency. So the question is, do you go after the best, or less than the best.

All I'm saying is that getting Vlade and Webber is never equated with trying to buy your way into contention, because those moves weren't considered to be moves that put us in contention in the first place. Looking back, they weren't what put us contention. They were just steps along the way. The Webber trade was highly debated and even hated by some long-time Kings fans. Signing Vlade was highly regarded, but neither of those moves were the kind of "here come the Kings" kind of moves that signing LeBron or anyone else available now would be. The teams playing this game this summer are trying to buy their way into contention. That's not what we were trying to do. It's a different kind of move.

The fact that it took several years and several other additions before we became contenders is supplementary information to back my point.

 

[Jerryaki]

So call him a d-bag if you want, and say he doesn't come up in the clutch. There's not much to back that point of view.

not much to back-up the d-bag part or the clutch part? the basketball part is just my gut. it tells me that he's going to end up like barkeley or malone: a great player, without a championship to show for it.

but as for the d-bag part? it's just my opinion, based on what i see of him on the court, off the court, and in the media. he just exudes arrogance and pride, and every year, i enjoy actively rooting for his failure. which, you can see, would be a conflict of interest were he to wear a kings jersey!

 

[Superman]

i agree well enough with most of your post (and to be clear, i have no issues buying a stud free agent, my issue is buying a stud free agent who i don't like).

but this quote above is not what i was saying, you took the contrapositive. my sentiment is that he is not the best player alive because he does not have a ring. everyone will always point to this being a team game. well, this year, the cavs were no slouch in the supporting cast department. if he were able to take bums to the finals a few years back, he should definitely have been able to win it this year with a vastly superior crew. so then the blame shifts to his coach or to his front office or to the media. it irks me that the criticisms tend to fall on everyone EXCEPT on LBJ. you can't on the one hand say he IS the team and then say that he is only one man.

It is absolutely and most certainly a two-way street. I'm a Colts fan, and I've been having this debate with Patriots fans (and fans in general) for several years now with regard to Peyton Manning. pdx will tell you. But it's not that I don't think that LeBron should or even could be held accountable for his team's relative failures. It's that I don't think it's fair to judge an individual player solely on his team's success, or lack thereof. LeBron is the team, and if you look at my posts in this thread, you'll see that I'd be the first one to say that he's not enough by himself. No #2, no rings, simple as that. The fact that "he is the team" is exactly what the problem is, and that's not his fault.

I picked a bone with your post because of the "he's a great regular season player" angle you took, as if a) he's not great in the playoffs, because he has been for the last four years; b) the fact that the Cavs haven't won a championship is his fault. Look at his numbers and you'll see that he gets better in the playoffs. There's no evidence that he's not an equally great postseason player unless you're grading him on his lack of rings, in which case I'm going to argue with you.

 

[bajaden]

I've just gotten the impression reading various articles that he thinks he is bigger than the game. I mean he scheduled an interview on Larry King against the start of the NBA finals if I recall correctly. He may or not be coachable, though I don't think Silas or Brown are the right guys to judge him on, but neither are any of the coaches the other teams have, save Miami if Riles comes back. I actually like that he's not an "angel" but I'm starting to fear what his motivation is. Is it really to win championships? Or is it as others have suggested to become the first NBA billionaire? If I could be convinced it was the former I'd have no reservations about him.

Since I don't personally know the guy, I'm not going to pass judgement on his movitation. But you don't become the best player in basketball by not working hard and playing hard. And thats the bottom line. What his personal movitation is, I don't care. Thats between him and his maker. His only job is to show up and play hard and win. As far as I can see, thats what he's done in Cleveland. Take him off that team and what do you have left? I've watched LeBron play a lot, and no one will tell me he doesn't bring it every night. Yeah, he has arrogance and ego. But thats what seperates the great one's from the almost great. They happen to think that they're the best there is, and they're willing to prove it night in and night out. Michael Jordan was arrogant. Kobe's arrogant. In his prime Shaq was arrogant, saying he was the best center in the NBA and no one was even close to him. One of the reasons I liked Cousins so much is because he believes he's the best. He has that same kind of arrogance. You think Tyreke doesn't have it. He may not flaunt it like LeBron, but he has it.

LeBron shows it with his talcum powder display. Jordan just did it with a smile. Shaq did it with his mouth. Everyone is different, but in some ways the same. All these guys are surpremely confident. They all want to win. Loosing eats at them as an intollable desease. And yes, they all want to be rich as well. Some also like the famous part. But not all.

In closing, I would find it hard to believe that LeBron doesn't want to win a championship. He plays hard. He's brought Cleveland 60 win seasons with a less than stellar supporting cast. I just don't think you can question the motivation of a player with his accomplishments. Well I guess you can, because you did. But I can't!

 

[Jerryaki]

I picked a bone with your post because of the "he's a great regular season player" angle you took, as if a) he's not great in the playoffs, because he has been for the last four years; b) the fact that the Cavs haven't won a championship is his fault. Look at his numbers and you'll see that he gets better in the playoffs. There's no evidence that he's not an equally great postseason player unless you're grading him on his lack of rings, in which case I'm going to argue with you.

i'm going to have to concede to you, because the statistics will be on your side and i'm not great with the numbers (being a part of my argument, which is why i footnote things by saying it's my opinion).

it's just that, i look at a team like the cavs, who've been juggernauts in the past two regular seasons, and i think to myself, how do these guys lose in the playoffs? in the regular season it's all laughter and good time and fake-camera-posing, and then in the playoffs it's like it's a whole different team. and it's even odder because, like you say, the evidence points to lebron getting statistically better in the postseason, and yet somehow they lose. is it the supporting players all of a sudden sucking? does lebron become more dominant at the detriment of the team? does his leadership for some reason waver? i just don't know, but i must attribute some of it to lebron.

okay, who am i kidding, i attribute a lot of it to him, i plain don't like him!

 

[pdxKingsFan]

You know Supes, I really dislike Peyton, but I don't think I've ever questioned his desire to win a championship or be part of a program. I have held the opinion that the program itself may be too focused on individual awards and achievements in lieu of the ultimate goal at times and the media's portrayal of St. Dungy vs. Darth Belichick annoyed me to no end. And while I may think that Peyton's commercials are pretty silly, ultimately I think he is a football player first and foremost and he is loyal to the flyover city that drafted him (no offense Indy) and those attributes are worthy of commendation. He is at worst the second best QB of his era.

I'm not very concerned that LeBron has no rings, I am concerned that if my read is right he may never get a ring.

 

[bajaden]

I don't think I ever addressed the point of buying your way into contention. My point is that if your going to sign a freeagent and the best one available will sign with you, then you should sign him. The rest of this is just emotional crap. As though we'll be lesser people because we signed the best freeagent out there. If I'm the GM, and LeBron calls me up and says, hey, I'd like to play for your team. I can't find a contract soon enough. Now if you don't want to sign him for some core belief that you have, then I don't want you as my GM.

You may look at it as buying yourself a title. But nothing is a given. There are no guarantee's of anything. Except death, and I'm working on that one. I just look at it as signing the best player I can get for my money. If a title comes with it, and of course thats my hope, then so much the better. I just happen to be a logical person. I have trouble understanding people that aren't. Just ask my wife. To say that its OK to sign a freeagent to help the team, just as long as the freeagent isn't so good as to leave the perception that were buying the title is illogical. Therefore I lack the ability to understand that thinking. Once again, I'll restate. This has nothing to do with Webber or Vlade or LeBron. It has to to with the concept of freeagency. I don't get whats so hard to understand about that.

 

[Kings4life23]

To be honest this thread is a waste of time. There is no way Lebron comes here period unless the Maloofs throw him a big party at the Palms and get him really wasted and then envite Petrie over to do some contract negotiations. Even then its a stretch I mean he would have to be 21st birthday smashed lol.