CardsSunsDbacks
Not So Skeptical
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2012
- Posts
- 10,143
- Reaction score
- 6,582
This right here has a lot to do with how tough the east was back then. The east has been very poor for almost all of LeBron's career.
MJ vs LeBron
- Thread starter Lefty
- Start date
This right here has a lot to do with how tough the east was back then. The east has been very poor for almost all of LeBron's career.
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2004
- Posts
- 36,756
- Reaction score
- 16,524
Correct. Just pour through the rosters of the East teams in Jordan's path to the finals. He had some advantages too such as 3 and 5 game series instead of them all being potentially 7 as they are today but the difference in quality that he faced is significant.
Making a case for Pippen helping is one thing but saying he didn't win until Pippen showed up is different. What player is winning titles in their 1st, 2nd, or 3rd year? Lebron didn't. Kobe didn't. Kobe didn't win until Shaq joined the Lakers and his first title was his 4th year. It's odd how people imply that Jordan should have won in his first 3 years without Pippen's help. Pippen was good but he couldn't lead Houston or Portland to titles. So trying to give Pippen more credit for the Bulls titles than he deserves seems odd.
Phrazbit
ASFN Icon
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2011
- Posts
- 20,308
- Reaction score
- 11,382
My favorite dark horse candidate for LeBron's services next year... Boston.
He could kill several birds with one stone... he could guarantee competing now, he could almost guarantee competing in the future should he decide to carry on as a mere mortal player as his skills decline (a-la David Robinson) AND he could get petty revenge against Irving by telling Boston he'd come if Irving goes.
And it would also put Boston in a situation where they've got Irving and a redundant Hayward as trade chips... toss the Sacramento pick in there and they'd be players for virtually anyone who is available for trade, Leonard, Towns, Davis if he decided to move on... nabbing the #2 pick (and more) from the Kings. The potential there would be insane.
He could kill several birds with one stone... he could guarantee competing now, he could almost guarantee competing in the future should he decide to carry on as a mere mortal player as his skills decline (a-la David Robinson) AND he could get petty revenge against Irving by telling Boston he'd come if Irving goes.
And it would also put Boston in a situation where they've got Irving and a redundant Hayward as trade chips... toss the Sacramento pick in there and they'd be players for virtually anyone who is available for trade, Leonard, Towns, Davis if he decided to move on... nabbing the #2 pick (and more) from the Kings. The potential there would be insane.
I've thought about that also. I can't see Kyrie being happy with that and since he can opt out after next season he does have some leverage. Easiest way to appease everyone is a sign and trade for Lebron, sending Kyrie back to Cleveland. Cleveland would get something for Lebron, which would help them a lot, but it wouldn't surprise me if they demanded more since the Kyrie trade hosed Cleveland the first time. Boston wouldn't need Tatum, Jaylen Brown, Hayward, and Lebron. So Boston could include Jaylen or Tatum, Jaylen is probably the piece that fits with Lebron the worst since Tatum and Hayward can shoot well from anywhere on the court. Boston would need a PF still but they'd have assets to bring one in still. They could also just run with a frontcourt of Lebron, Hayward, and Horford. Stevens could make that work, he did this season with a rotation of Brown, Tatum, and Marcus Morris as the primary forwards.
I don't know if Ainge would make that deal or not though, since Kyrie opens the window for them for the next 5-6 years while their window with Lebron is much shorter but the chances of a title would increase greatly right away. I don't think they could sign Lebron outright though. I don't believe they have the cap space, so a sign and trade is almost required for them. They could dump contracts but I doubt they'd give up some of their young talent just to sign Lebron. Giving up Kyrie for Lebron is a different story though, and it might even be necessary since I doubt they'd make up in a new location just a year after they split.
elindholm
edited for content
The problem there is that Hayward's trade value has to be very low. I've always thought he was overrated anyway; throw in questions about his ability to come back strong, and I can't see too many teams wanting to take him on. So you'd have James, Horford, Tatum, and role players, which gives you a small window before you have to wonder what you blew it up for.
xc_hide_links_from_guests_guests_error_hide_media
JCSunsfan
ASFN Icon
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2002
- Posts
- 22,114
- Reaction score
- 6,547
OK. I am finally going to admit this.
I am not a LeBron fan. I don't like his personality or his demeanor. If LeBron was more likeable, if the "reveal" thing had not aired years ago, I am not sure that this would even be a question. LeBron is at least as good, and most likely better than MJ. He has done what he has done with much less than MJ. MJ had better teams around him and much better coaching.
I am not a LeBron fan. I don't like his personality or his demeanor. If LeBron was more likeable, if the "reveal" thing had not aired years ago, I am not sure that this would even be a question. LeBron is at least as good, and most likely better than MJ. He has done what he has done with much less than MJ. MJ had better teams around him and much better coaching.
It's not a debate if Lebron is a great player. He will be a HOF. I just can't put him up there with MJ. If he wins the same number of titles let's talk.
I just look at today's great players and the competition MJ faced day in and day out and it doesn't compare to who is playing today IMO. Sure there are great players but it's not the same.
Also, in MJ era you could manhandle and hand check the hell out of players. The game was played in the trenches. Now you breathe on someone and you are at the foul line. It changes how teams defend you. MJ would have a field day in today's game IMO.
This is coming from someone who DETESTED MJ when he played and cheered for him to lose every game but the Olympics. LOL. I don't really cheer for or against Lebron.
I just look at today's great players and the competition MJ faced day in and day out and it doesn't compare to who is playing today IMO. Sure there are great players but it's not the same.
Also, in MJ era you could manhandle and hand check the hell out of players. The game was played in the trenches. Now you breathe on someone and you are at the foul line. It changes how teams defend you. MJ would have a field day in today's game IMO.
This is coming from someone who DETESTED MJ when he played and cheered for him to lose every game but the Olympics. LOL. I don't really cheer for or against Lebron.
MJ didn't have to face a super team, either...
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2004
- Posts
- 36,756
- Reaction score
- 16,524
Is this sarcasm? If not, take a look at the rosters of the teams he faced in the playoffs, not just the finals - especially during MJ's stretch of playoffs that fell short.
Even his first championship included a series against a Detroit team that included Isiah Thomas, Dennis Rodman, Mark Aguirre, Vinnie Johnson, John Salley, Joe Dumars, Tree Rollins, John Long, James Edwards and Bill Laimbeer. And that was just to get out of the East.
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2003
- Posts
- 91,363
- Reaction score
- 68,444
I would die laughing if he went to Boston and they shipped out Kyrie. That would be pretty damn amazing.
You don't think there were stacked teams in MJ era!???!?! Seriously?
TJ
Frank Kaminsky is my Hero.
Not in the Finals against the west and certainly not a team with four all-NBAs with two of them MVPs.
HeHasRosen
All Star
Yea. Plus besides the pistons the superteams he did face he lost to. It took pippen showing up for him to beat them
You don't get to cherry pick. You can't get to the finals without going through the season and the rest of the playoffs. Having said that, are you comparing the HOF's he played against verses now?
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2003
- Posts
- 91,363
- Reaction score
- 68,444
he didn't face four all-NBAs, but the Lakers with Magic/Worthy/Byron Scott were still pretty damn good, that Blazers squad with Drexler, Porter, Kersey, Duckworth, Williams and Uncle Spliffy were damn good and I still maintain that 1993 Suns team was the most talented team to never win a finals. They were 10 deep.
Not to mention, the East was no cupcake in their first three peat run, beating tough Cavs team, very good-great Knicks team led by Pat Reilly.
And in their second 3 peat, they TRASHED a team with a HEALTHY Penny/Shaq (both of them MVP candidates) who won 60 games and then took on Payton/Kemp in their prime. And then they beat the best Pacers team in 1998 and then beat Utah without HCA.
Michael didn't have it easy. He's the reason there so many legends from the era that never got rings.
TJ
Frank Kaminsky is my Hero.
And before Phil Jackson (also Scottie) came along in 1989, MJ's teams only won three total playoff series (in an era in which the first-round was best of 5).
I'll dispel a popular myth here. Today's players are far more athletic, talented, and well-conditioned than those in the 80s and 90s. Due to the advent of AAU ball and modern technology, players are exposed to more coaching, better forms of training, supplements, etc. Whereas back then, players were either just big and strong or looked like lanky mailmen.
So yes, Durant and Curry are better than many of the heralded stars of the 80s and 90s. Durant will finish his career being more productive than Barkley, Malone, Pippen, and others. Curry is superior to Reggie Miller, Mark Price, Isaiah Thomas, and others.
TJ
Frank Kaminsky is my Hero.
Don't get it twisted. There isn't a team with a better starting 5 and a collection of solid role players ever than Golden State currently has. Ever. Not your Magic, Pacers, Suns, Jazz, etc. Each of those teams had no more than two all-star players, no more than one MVP; and some didn't have a coach of Kerr's caliber.
And again, MJ was getting slobber knocked by the East before Scottie and Phil came aboard. So while MJ didn't have it easy, he could never have done it without assistance. There's a reason MJ and Kobe have a combined 0 titles without Phil.
Other than 1 year with the Cavs, Lebron created super teams to win titles. I don't know how that's ignored when trying to bash MJ for never facing a super team. Yes, Lebron has been getting beat by the Warriors but that doesn't change how he started the super team era with his buddies in Miami and he only won 2 titles with them. He also lost 2 finals matchups, 1 of which the Heat had the far superior team against the Mavericks. Lebron is great but he's not on MJ's level. Maybe if he actually had run the table in Miami we could be comparing the 2 but he didn't. Instead he's headed for a 3-6 finals record.
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2004
- Posts
- 36,756
- Reaction score
- 16,524
It's tough to say because each team plays against a different set of rules. But this Warriors team would be far less special if they were playing in the NBA in the mid 80's. I'd take the Lakers and the Celtics best lineup over the Warriors without hesitation if they're all playing under 80's rules and interpretations.
Based on what? Other than your feelings about it. How could you possibly quantify this? If you have something I could look at I would be happy to review.
To suggest that somehow those All-stars are somehow inferior to today's might just be the most ludicrous thing I have read in a long time.
You drop MJ, Akeem, Magic, David Robinson, Malone, Stockton, Drexler....I could go on and on and on....they would dominate even today.
TJ
Frank Kaminsky is my Hero.
Flip it around and these 80s teams wouldn’t fare as well today. Golden State would shoot the lights out of either the Lakers or Celtics and spread the floor around.
Yep. This. Those teams would happily trade interior play and two pointers for a team chucking up 3's any day of the week. Plus teams like the Lakers and Celtics had enough outside shooting to keep em honest.
I would take the Lakers/Celtics hey day lineup in a heartbeat over Golden State.
I give Golden State all the credit in the world for taking advantage of the league as it stands now and adjusting. They are a blast to watch.
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2004
- Posts
- 36,756
- Reaction score
- 16,524
I agree. That's why I think it's so hard to compare greatness from era to era. Having watched both players I believe Jordan is superior but I have no problem with someone putting Lebron on top instead. I have a problem when people point to one or two things as proof, fact is we can never really know.
And we haven't even defined what we mean by greatest player. I have no doubt that if you took every player from every era and then whittled them down to 30 teams, Wilt would still be the most dominant player in the game. For one game, any game. But both Jordan and James have had superior careers to Chamberlain. So who's better?
