***2021-2022 NBA Season Thread***

[Hersh]

Just now, stevemcqueen1 said:

 

 

Your newly beloved Lakers don't matter either.  None of the other 29 teams do.  There will be no competition in the NBA this season.

 

It doesn't really make it wildly different from last season. There was literally one series that had drama and determined NBA championship and it wasn't even in the finals. Does this make Boston go after Leonard now with a big offer? If Kawhi was smart, he'd go East asap. 

[StillUnknown]

 

[Dr. Do Itch Big]

17 minutes ago, StillUnknown said:

 

 

LeBron renouncing LA and going to Philly would fit perfectly in all this madness 

I would love if this happen. 

[CRobi21]

So he had to pick between the 2019 Finals winner and the 2019 Finals loser...

 

Tough choice.

[Berggy9598]

15 minutes ago, skinfan2k said:

Gibbs won a superbowl with 3 different QB and squads in a league where there is constant change vs the Lakers who were basically competing against 2 other teams each year lol

I'm confused. The Lakers have had MULTIPLE dynasties over multiple decades with many different players, and you're using Joe Gibbs to argue in favor of the team that has one dynasty with one set of players. Something is backwards here. 

[justice98]

1 minute ago, Hersh said:

 

People aren't bent outta shape about Golden State, it's the rules and the general forming of super teams in order to win titles vs trying to beat the best. 

 

Nobody in NBA history has ever said, "I dont wanna play with other great players, I want the hardest route possible to win a title." lol

 

The only difference between now and every other era of NBA history is the GMs arent the ones putting together superteams. 

 

Nobody cared about stars playing together until now but it's been going on since the league was invented.  Every era of the league has had superteams, every single one.

[CrypticVillain]

5 minutes ago, Berggy9598 said:

Doesn't 4 year dynasty imply they won 4 in a row? When someone says something along the lines of suck it Lakers fans, I'm going to respond with how much catching up the Warriors have to do, and I've been rooting for GS in the playoffs pretty much every year. Right now the Warriors are the Bulls, but they have a few decades to catch up to the Lakers and Celtics. The Lakers will get to 20 before the Warriors get to 17. If I understand this correctly, I'm not allowed to be proud of my NBA team's history because you don't like them. Got it. 

Actually, you're wrong. I am a big admirer of the Lakers and their history.

 

A Dynasty, for the most part, is at least 3 rings in four years (The Cowboys taught me this. Smh...)

 

You yourself just said you rooted for GS, which shows me that until the Lakers became a threat YOU enjoyed watching the Warriors play.

 

All I'm saying is, don't try bring up irrelevant rings that has no shot at helping the Lakers win in 2018... 

 

Today, Laker fans may have to "suck it", but it is what it is 

[Berggy9598]

4 minutes ago, CrypticVillain said:

Actually, you're wrong. I am a big admirer of the Lakers and their history.

 

A Dynasty, for the most part, is at least 3 rings in four years (The Cowboys taught me this. Smh...)

 

You yourself just said you rooted for GS, which shows me that until the Lakers became a threat YOU enjoyed watching the Warriors play.

 

All I'm saying is, don't try bring up irrelevant rings that has no shot at helping the Lakers win in 2018... 

 

Today, Laker fans may have to "suck it", but it is what it is 

I always try to root for NorCal teams when they're not playing my teams and it seems like it was 20 years ago but the Warriors used to be likeable. The point about the Lakers history is even when they go away for a period, they ALWAYS find a way back. The Warriors are the Bulls until they can prove differently, which is great in and of itself, but they're not the Lakers. The ceiling for the team as it stands is 2-4 seed with an upset of Houston in the second round. The floor is a 5-8 seed with a first round exit, and because I'm a sap and under the utter delusion that I'm watching a real sports league, I want the Lakers' young players with LeBron to be the ones that unseat the Warriors in a couple of years, rather than another "super team". 

Edited July 3, 2018 by Berggy9598

[Dr. Do Itch Big]

The Lakers haven’t their way back yet. 

[Hersh]

8 minutes ago, justice98 said:

 

Nobody in NBA history has ever said, "I dont wanna play with other great players, I want the hardest route possible to win a title." lol

 

 

It’s not a binary choice but hey, if you like non-competitive leagues, that is certainly your right. 

[Bozo the kKklown]

I dont think Cousins is a right fit for the Warriors.

 

Warriors should win the title again next season but Cousins got a bad wheel and even healthy doesnt play Warriors ball.

[Mr. Sinister]

17 minutes ago, Berggy9598 said:

Ah yes the laughing emoji. The international symbol of I took an L and have nothing else to say. 

 

Nah... More like I took a vow to no longer take strange responses seriously, and treat them as such. But I'll oblige, begrudgingly

 

Quote

Which part of my post did you disagree with btw?

 

Pretty much  this:

 

 

Quote

 

ESPN needs the Lakers relevant because of decades worth of organizational excellence, not because they know it gets under your skin. The Lakers' brand didn't just pop up from under a rock and history tells us it's a franchise that always resurfaces. I'd say get used to it but if you're not used to at this point you probably won't ever be. 

 

 

 

 

This is good. Pageantry, titles. Legendary coaches and players. Here's the thing. ESPN is a fairly biased organization. They openly proclaim destinations as far superior to others for largely superficial, nostalgiac, often outdated reasons. "The weathers so nice, there's so much history here, there's a standard of excellence that other franchises can never aspire to, " yada yada. The bottom line is ratings. Its is a ratings driven business. Who has the most far reaching fanbase, who lives in the big cities, etc. Everything else is largely fluff. The Lakers history certainly plays into the growth or their fanbase, but if history mattered so much, then the Golden State Warriors, who 5 years ago had arguably less history than the Wizards, wouldn't be as sought after as they are.

 

Winning matters, stars matter, today matters. What you did 5, 10, 15, 20 years ago, while important, isn't as important as who you are right now, and before LeBron, they were a bottom feeder, but other teams and players emerged, and ESPN and the NBA rode them to great success nation and worldwide, with the Lakers in the background. So while it's obvious the Lakers being good would be a plus, it's just not the case anymore that the NBA, or ESPN needs them. Same could be said of the Knicks, who have sucked for an eternity, and probably will continue to.

 

They're both the top global NBA brands, they both have sucked, and no one has wanted to play there for several years, and the NBA's popularity has continued to climb. No spin.

 

And despite all their rich history and tradition, people have openly shunned LA (before LeBron, as recently as a few days ago), and they have been horribly mismanaged. History stays history, but that immediately lowered their profile around league circles, and that showed, with them being reduced to surplus free agents. And that standard of excellence was tested in a big way, basically ending with some stage version of Game of Thrones takeover. Despite your dead ass wrong claim that I am ignoring all of your illustrious history to create some spin job to apparently hurt your feelings, I actually think it all matters collectively. But the last impression is always the most important one. 

 

Now here's where things got weird...

 

 

 

 

 

Quote

 

So you want to put the last 5 years in a vacuum and ignore the championships, the hall of fame players, the sustained success throughout the years and the transcendent global brand in order to further your narrative. I can't stop you, but that's a pretty nifty spin job. 

 

 

 

 

Quote

If you expect to put the last 5 years in a vacuum you most definitely have to ignore it, but the problem is putting the past 5 years in a vacuum takes you out of relevance in this discussion. When we're discussing the Lakers as an organization and the appeal they hold to star players, their history is absolutely germane to that discussion. If you want to point out the past five years in a vacuum then yes, we know, but I'm not sure what the point there is. Back to the discussion everyone else is having, when you weigh those five years of mismanagement against the franchise's history, those years you're clinging to for dear life become rather overshadowed fam

 

I am laughably accused of spin and ignorance, while you post... whatever this is. Vacuums, spinning, clinging, and other fun stuff. So you basically ignore a large portion of what I said, misrepresenting other things I said, and coming off like a weird, defensive victim, hence me no longer taking anything you had to say seriously. Congrats on LeBron tho.

 

1 hour ago, The Evil Genius said:

Snickers. U mad bro?

 

Cuz is a cancer though. Good thing Draymond will smack home around if he acts up.

 

Boogie would kill Draymond subconsciously

[Spaceman Spiff]

Lakers got Rondo!  

[Berggy9598]

32 minutes ago, Mr. Sinister said:

 

Nah... More like I took a vow to no longer take strange responses seriously, and treat them as such. But I'll oblige, begrudgingly

 

 

Pretty much  this:

 

 

 

This is good. Pageantry, titles. Legendary coaches and players. Here's the thing. ESPN is a fairly biased organization. They openly proclaim destinations as far superior to others for largely superficial, nostalgiac, often outdated reasons. "The weathers so nice, there's so much history here, there's a standard of excellence that other franchises can never aspire to, " yada yada. The bottom line is ratings. Its is a ratings driven business. Who has the most far reaching fanbase, who lives in the big cities, etc. Everything else is largely fluff. The Lakers history certainly plays into the growth or their fanbase, but if history mattered so much, then the Golden State Warriors, who 5 years ago had arguably less history than the Wizards, wouldn't be as sought after as they are.

 

Winning matters, stars matter, today matters. What you did 5, 10, 15, 20 years ago, while important, isn't as important as who you are right now, and before LeBron, they were a bottom feeder, but other teams and players emerged, and ESPN and the NBA rode them to great success nation and worldwide, with the Lakers in the background. So while it's obvious the Lakers being good would be a plus, it's just not the case anymore that the NBA, or ESPN needs them. Same could be said of the Knicks, who have sucked for an eternity, and probably will continue to.

 

They're both the top global NBA brands, they both have sucked, and no one has wanted to play there for several years, and the NBA's popularity has continued to climb. No spin.

 

And despite all their rich history and tradition, people have openly shunned LA (before LeBron, as recently as a few days ago), and they have been horribly mismanaged. History stays history, but that immediately lowered their profile around league circles, and that showed, with them being reduced to surplus free agents. And that standard of excellence was tested in a big way, basically ending with some stage version of Game of Thrones takeover. Despite your dead ass wrong claim that I am ignoring all of your illustrious history to create some spin job to apparently hurt your feelings, I actually think it all matters collectively. But the last impression is always the most important one. 

 

Now here's where things got weird...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I am laughably accused of spin and ignorance, while you post... whatever this is. Vacuums, spinning, clinging, and other fun stuff. So you basically ignore a large portion of what I said, misrepresenting other things I said, and coming off like a weird, defensive victim, hence me no longer taking anything you had to say seriously. Congrats on LeBron tho.

 

 

Boogie would kill Draymond subconsciously

The underlying issue is we're talking 5 years against decades of evidence that even when they go away (all be it not to the degree of spectacular failure in recent years) it's a franchise that always resurfaces. When you said the Lakers history "wasn't the point", that's where you ignored it. If we're talking about free agent pull you can't put those 5 years down as part of your argument and say the rest isn't the point. In the context of what we're talking about, you have to measure one up against the other or it's a pointless. When you look at the Lakers (or Yankees, or Celtics, or Cowboys, or whoever) the last impression means very little, unless you think players don't understand that no franchise is immune to down years, especially when those responsible for the down years are all gone. Of course LeBron didn't only take basketball reasons into account, but do you honestly think he would have signed with the Lakers if he had even the slight inkling that the last 5 years were a sign of things to come? 

 

I never said you were ignorant, but when I brought up the Lakers history, you said it wasn't the point. The only thing to derive from this is that you believe the mess of the past few years is someone an equal con to the pros of signing with the Lakers, and that's simply not true. Otherwise if you were just stating it as a fact in and of itself, how is it relevant to this discussion other than the fact that you're pointing out the obvious to pad your argument without taking anything else into account? That's what I meant by spinning and putting something in a vacuum when there are other factors to take into considerations. Oh and btw, the Lakers won 35 games last season with a bunch of nobodies running out their contracts and kids that are supposedly not that good, while dealing with a slew of injuries. 

Edited July 3, 2018 by Berggy9598

[Going Commando]

The Warriors have a 100% chance of winning a championship next year.  That's my projection based off of WS/48 and VORP and PER and FCKTHS.

[spjunkies]

WTF is the point of the NBA having a salary cap? Seems like the top talent rotates between 6 teams and the rest of the teams are screwed.

 

I don't get it.

[No Excuses]

Hard cap. 

[Renegade7]

57 minutes ago, Dr. Do Itch Big said:

The Lakers haven’t their way back yet. 

How many Lakers going with him to all star game next year?

 

11 minutes ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

The Warriors have a 100% chance of winning a championship next year.  That's my projection based off of WS/48 and VORP and PER and FCKTHS.

Steve for Comish.

 

NBA needs a franchise tag.  Teams can't collude with players, but the players themselves can before they even start in places naturally.  Utah is a perfect example of this disaster.  

 

Edit: Snyder deserves better.

Edited July 3, 2018 by Renegade7

[Berggy9598]

This threads needs some Celtics fans they're the only ones that can convince themselves they have a shot at beating GS...and that the sky is purple and water is dry.

[Dr. Do Itch Big]

13 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

How many Lakers going with him to all star game next year?

 

0

[Momma There Goes That Man]

52 minutes ago, spjunkies said:

WTF is the point of the NBA having a salary cap? Seems like the top talent rotates between 6 teams and the rest of the teams are screwed.

 

I don't get it.

 

Ownerships that want to win can freely go over the cap to build a better team, they are just taxed for it. But most owners just want to pocket that money instead and they should because their fans will just blame the good owners that actually spend on their teams rather than the cheap moronic owners. 

 

[Renegade7]

39 minutes ago, Berggy9598 said:

This threads needs some Celtics fans they're the only ones that can convince themselves they have a shot at beating GS...and that the sky is purple and water is dry.

I'm rooting for Brad Stevens to pull it off.

[Renegade7]

35 minutes ago, Dr. Do Itch Big said:

 

0

 

I think he knows that, too.  I bet he knew GS reached out to him, that the contact between LeBron and GS was real (they may have decided that was too far and that's only reason it didnt happen)

[Mr. Sinister]

26 minutes ago, Berggy9598 said:

The underlying issue is we're talking 5 years against decades of evidence that even when they go away (all be it not to the degree of spectacular failure in recent years) it's a franchise that always resurfaces. When you said the Lakers history "wasn't the point", that's where you ignored it.

 

No I didn't, I just told you this. My "Not the point" was in regards to your repeated claims that these multiple decades of evidence in any way take precedent over the current state of an organization. That's not ignoring something. That's stating the obvious.

 

Quote

If we're talking about free agent pull you can't put those 5 years down as part of your argument and say the rest isn't the point. In the context of what we're talking about, you have to measure one up against the other or it's a pointless. When you look at the Lakers (or Yankees, or Celtics, or Cowboys, or whoever) the last impression means very little, unless you think players don't understand that no franchise is immune to down years, especially when those responsible for the down years are all gone. Of course LeBron didn't only take basketball reasons into account, but do you honestly think he would have signed with the Lakers if he had even the slight inkling that the last 5 years were a sign of things to come? 

 

 

 

What does any of this even mean (the last impression means very little)? Down years? It's one thing to have a down year, or two, or three, or four... It's entirely different to have a completely toxic organization full of backbiting (at that time). Thats why you couldn't sign anyone. You mean to tell me (using the logic above) that players should have let that go simply because the Lakers are an illustrious, storied franchise that they should have felt honored to play for? Doesn't make a lot of sense, and reeks of entitlement, and doesn't seem to reflect reality either, which makes your next statement about LeBron strange, considering the Lakers seem to now be on the right track. You'd have had no chance in hell of signing him if all that other stuff was still going on, and yeah, even now, considering the state of the team is still very questionable, I think it's obvious that his motives extend beyond the court, and that he was probably hit with one hell of a sell job. But he had to be sold, did he not? You really think everyone just said "Hey LeBron, we're the Lakers, what's good"? I don't believe for a second that the Lakers brand and the Laker way or whatever y'all bammas call it would be enough, and that's really my point. I just think it  takes a little more than that. Unless you're Kawhi (who seems to act as if he'll die if the Lakers don't trade for him).

 

Quote

I never said you were ignorant, but when I brought up the Lakers history, you said it wasn't the point. The only thing to derive from this is that you believe the mess of the past few years is someone an equal con to the pros of signing with the Lakers and that's simply not true

 

It was (strong emphasis on was) an equal con, there's not really an argument to be had there, honestly

 

Quote

  how is it relevant to this discussion other than the fact that you're pointing out the obvious to pad your argument without taking anything else into account? That's what I meant by spinning and putting something in a vacuum when there are other factors to take into considerations. .

 

Because when you say the Lakers are needed, because of everything they have been (which is awesome, quite frankly), you conveniently leave out what they are (before LeBron hits them with the defibrilator), a team that... to use your own words:

 

Quote

won 35 games last season with a bunch of nobodies running out their contracts and kids that are supposedly not that good, while dealing with a slew of injuries. 

 

Congrats? 

 

And again, even with all the history involved with that franchise, the present is what will be integral in adding another chapter, and you have to crawl before you can walk to get back to that.

[Momma There Goes That Man]

8 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

I think he knows that, too.  I bet he knew GS reached out to him, that the contact between LeBron and GS was real (they may have decided that was too far and that's only reason it didnt happen)

 

Lebron was never considering golden state. He wasn’t playing for $5 million