Q12543 wrote:If Boston is serious about winning a title, they do whatever they can to get LeBron on their team. It's that simple.
Let me go on record. #1, it's not happening. #2, it would not be a good thing for Boston. This team is going to be built around Tatum and Kyrie if he can get his health together. And that's how it should be. Ainge hasn't been collecting prime assets for 5 years so he can take one shot at a title with a 34 year old Lebron James. They are set to win for a long time and unlike Thibs, Ainge won't cash that in early.
Don't necessarily disagree with you on #1, as I am not actually trying to predict where he goes. I just think Boston makes a ton of sense, which is where we disagree.
As for #2, neither Tatum or Irving look like a potential top 5 player to me and you need at least one of those to beat Golden State. Brad Stevens can only get them so far....
Also, I'm not sure why it's only one shot at the title with LeBron. He just had one of the best postseasons in NBA history and played the most minutes by far. Sure, he's going to slow down, but he won't have to play nearly as many minutes with Boston and they have the horses and system to give him a bunch of help. I could see him playing at least three or four highly productive seasons there, with minutes gradually ramping down. I mean, the second he goes there, they are the Eastern Conference favorites and will be for years to come.
If I'm Ainge and I have a shot at LeBron, I could care less what Irving thinks at that point. In fact, he might be the guy I have to part with anyway to help free up the cap space.
You would have a diminishing Lebron from the day he arrives. That combined with Boston's current roster minus Irving isn't enough to beat Golden State. That's why it's not happening. Ainge is smart, his team will be ready to pounce as soon as Golden State starts to crack. And the reason it shouldn't happen is Lebron has demonstrated a lack of patience with a veteran team, he's less of a fit with a young team. The best fit is Houston. With Lebron they would have a 2-3 year window to win championships. He would be playing with his peers instead of a bunch of kids learning their way.
Sure it's all theoretical but Boston with a player like Lebron absolutely would have a chance without Kyrie. This isn't the POS roster Lebron dragged though the leastern conference to get to the finals this year. It would have legit good NBA players that actually are used to taking and making 3's with a guy that likes passing. Which guy is likely to be better next year or even 3 years from now? Lebron or Kyrie the guy that struggles to play 70 games a year and is getting older? Kyrie has missed significant games in the playoffs twice in his career already. The Veltics have been accumulating assets to get what they want. If it's Lebron damn and again they have plenty of young assets/players they can keep this thing rolling for like 10 years if they kept other guys. Can you imagine being able to put out a lineup of say Rozier Hayward Lebron Tatum and Brown? That's quite the lineup.
Rozier is being highly overrated because of 1 good postseason. He's a sub 40% shooting guard and he's not a playmaker for others. I don't see him being a good fit next to Lebron at all and just in general I think people are drinking the Kool-Aid too much for him when he really hasn't show much from a cumulative body of work.
Q12543 wrote:If Boston is serious about winning a title, they do whatever they can to get LeBron on their team. It's that simple.
Let me go on record. #1, it's not happening. #2, it would not be a good thing for Boston. This team is going to be built around Tatum and Kyrie if he can get his health together. And that's how it should be. Ainge hasn't been collecting prime assets for 5 years so he can take one shot at a title with a 34 year old Lebron James. They are set to win for a long time and unlike Thibs, Ainge won't cash that in early.
Don't necessarily disagree with you on #1, as I am not actually trying to predict where he goes. I just think Boston makes a ton of sense, which is where we disagree.
As for #2, neither Tatum or Irving look like a potential top 5 player to me and you need at least one of those to beat Golden State. Brad Stevens can only get them so far....
Also, I'm not sure why it's only one shot at the title with LeBron. He just had one of the best postseasons in NBA history and played the most minutes by far. Sure, he's going to slow down, but he won't have to play nearly as many minutes with Boston and they have the horses and system to give him a bunch of help. I could see him playing at least three or four highly productive seasons there, with minutes gradually ramping down. I mean, the second he goes there, they are the Eastern Conference favorites and will be for years to come.
If I'm Ainge and I have a shot at LeBron, I could care less what Irving thinks at that point. In fact, he might be the guy I have to part with anyway to help free up the cap space.
You would have a diminishing Lebron from the day he arrives. That combined with Boston's current roster minus Irving isn't enough to beat Golden State. That's why it's not happening. Ainge is smart, his team will be ready to pounce as soon as Golden State starts to crack. And the reason it shouldn't happen is Lebron has demonstrated a lack of patience with a veteran team, he's less of a fit with a young team. The best fit is Houston. With Lebron they would have a 2-3 year window to win championships. He would be playing with his peers instead of a bunch of kids learning their way.
Sure it's all theoretical but Boston with a player like Lebron absolutely would have a chance without Kyrie. This isn't the POS roster Lebron dragged though the leastern conference to get to the finals this year. It would have legit good NBA players that actually are used to taking and making 3's with a guy that likes passing. Which guy is likely to be better next year or even 3 years from now? Lebron or Kyrie the guy that struggles to play 70 games a year and is getting older? Kyrie has missed significant games in the playoffs twice in his career already. The Veltics have been accumulating assets to get what they want. If it's Lebron damn and again they have plenty of young assets/players they can keep this thing rolling for like 10 years if they kept other guys. Can you imagine being able to put out a lineup of say Rozier Hayward Lebron Tatum and Brown? That's quite the lineup.
Rozier is being highly overrated because of 1 good postseason. He's a sub 40% shooting guard and he's not a playmaker for others. I don't see him being a good fit next to Lebron at all and just in general I think people are drinking the Kool-Aid too much for him when he really hasn't show much from a cumulative body of work.
That's a fair point about Rozier we don't know how good he is yet. I always feel a bit conflicted on how much of a creator for others Kyrie is. Still the bottom line is I'll take Lebron over Kyrie every day of the week for the next few years and Boston has plenty of talent to make things plenty interesting even against the Warriors*. Would it all fit together with Lebron? Idk but you can say that about a lot of possible destinations.
* If Boston is healthy with Hayward and Kyrie and their young guys take a step forward that team has a shot to have a plenty interesting series against GS or the Rockets.
I keep hearing Lebron had no help this season. I don't buy that. Kevin Love is still a damn good player. Thompson is a guy Lebron forced the team into signing a huge contract. Nothing wrong with Hill and Korver. Clarkson, Hood, and Nance are players with good reps before getting to Cleveland. I know he didn't have the Warriors supporting cast, but who does?
Q12543 wrote:If Boston is serious about winning a title, they do whatever they can to get LeBron on their team. It's that simple.
Let me go on record. #1, it's not happening. #2, it would not be a good thing for Boston. This team is going to be built around Tatum and Kyrie if he can get his health together. And that's how it should be. Ainge hasn't been collecting prime assets for 5 years so he can take one shot at a title with a 34 year old Lebron James. They are set to win for a long time and unlike Thibs, Ainge won't cash that in early.
Don't necessarily disagree with you on #1, as I am not actually trying to predict where he goes. I just think Boston makes a ton of sense, which is where we disagree.
As for #2, neither Tatum or Irving look like a potential top 5 player to me and you need at least one of those to beat Golden State. Brad Stevens can only get them so far....
Also, I'm not sure why it's only one shot at the title with LeBron. He just had one of the best postseasons in NBA history and played the most minutes by far. Sure, he's going to slow down, but he won't have to play nearly as many minutes with Boston and they have the horses and system to give him a bunch of help. I could see him playing at least three or four highly productive seasons there, with minutes gradually ramping down. I mean, the second he goes there, they are the Eastern Conference favorites and will be for years to come.
If I'm Ainge and I have a shot at LeBron, I could care less what Irving thinks at that point. In fact, he might be the guy I have to part with anyway to help free up the cap space.
You would have a diminishing Lebron from the day he arrives. That combined with Boston's current roster minus Irving isn't enough to beat Golden State. That's why it's not happening. Ainge is smart, his team will be ready to pounce as soon as Golden State starts to crack. And the reason it shouldn't happen is Lebron has demonstrated a lack of patience with a veteran team, he's less of a fit with a young team. The best fit is Houston. With Lebron they would have a 2-3 year window to win championships. He would be playing with his peers instead of a bunch of kids learning their way.
Sure it's all theoretical but Boston with a player like Lebron absolutely would have a chance without Kyrie. This isn't the POS roster Lebron dragged though the leastern conference to get to the finals this year. It would have legit good NBA players that actually are used to taking and making 3's with a guy that likes passing. Which guy is likely to be better next year or even 3 years from now? Lebron or Kyrie the guy that struggles to play 70 games a year and is getting older? Kyrie has missed significant games in the playoffs twice in his career already. The Veltics have been accumulating assets to get what they want. If it's Lebron damn and again they have plenty of young assets/players they can keep this thing rolling for like 10 years if they kept other guys. Can you imagine being able to put out a lineup of say Rozier Hayward Lebron Tatum and Brown? That's quite the lineup.
Rozier is being highly overrated because of 1 good postseason. He's a sub 40% shooting guard and he's not a playmaker for others. I don't see him being a good fit next to Lebron at all and just in general I think people are drinking the Kool-Aid too much for him when he really hasn't show much from a cumulative body of work.
That's a fair point about Rozier we don't know how good he is yet. I always feel a bit conflicted on how much of a creator for others Kyrie is. Still the bottom line is I'll take Lebron over Kyrie every day of the week for the next few years and Boston has plenty of talent to make things plenty interesting even against the Warriors*. Would it all fit together with Lebron? Idk but you can say that about a lot of possible destinations.
* If Boston is healthy with Hayward and Kyrie and their young guys take a step forward that team has a shot to have a plenty interesting series against GS or the Rockets.
Would you take Lebron for 4 years or Kyrie for 10? That's really what the argument is.
Q12543 wrote:If Boston is serious about winning a title, they do whatever they can to get LeBron on their team. It's that simple.
Let me go on record. #1, it's not happening. #2, it would not be a good thing for Boston. This team is going to be built around Tatum and Kyrie if he can get his health together. And that's how it should be. Ainge hasn't been collecting prime assets for 5 years so he can take one shot at a title with a 34 year old Lebron James. They are set to win for a long time and unlike Thibs, Ainge won't cash that in early.
Don't necessarily disagree with you on #1, as I am not actually trying to predict where he goes. I just think Boston makes a ton of sense, which is where we disagree.
As for #2, neither Tatum or Irving look like a potential top 5 player to me and you need at least one of those to beat Golden State. Brad Stevens can only get them so far....
Also, I'm not sure why it's only one shot at the title with LeBron. He just had one of the best postseasons in NBA history and played the most minutes by far. Sure, he's going to slow down, but he won't have to play nearly as many minutes with Boston and they have the horses and system to give him a bunch of help. I could see him playing at least three or four highly productive seasons there, with minutes gradually ramping down. I mean, the second he goes there, they are the Eastern Conference favorites and will be for years to come.
If I'm Ainge and I have a shot at LeBron, I could care less what Irving thinks at that point. In fact, he might be the guy I have to part with anyway to help free up the cap space.
You would have a diminishing Lebron from the day he arrives. That combined with Boston's current roster minus Irving isn't enough to beat Golden State. That's why it's not happening. Ainge is smart, his team will be ready to pounce as soon as Golden State starts to crack. And the reason it shouldn't happen is Lebron has demonstrated a lack of patience with a veteran team, he's less of a fit with a young team. The best fit is Houston. With Lebron they would have a 2-3 year window to win championships. He would be playing with his peers instead of a bunch of kids learning their way.
Sure it's all theoretical but Boston with a player like Lebron absolutely would have a chance without Kyrie. This isn't the POS roster Lebron dragged though the leastern conference to get to the finals this year. It would have legit good NBA players that actually are used to taking and making 3's with a guy that likes passing. Which guy is likely to be better next year or even 3 years from now? Lebron or Kyrie the guy that struggles to play 70 games a year and is getting older? Kyrie has missed significant games in the playoffs twice in his career already. The Veltics have been accumulating assets to get what they want. If it's Lebron damn and again they have plenty of young assets/players they can keep this thing rolling for like 10 years if they kept other guys. Can you imagine being able to put out a lineup of say Rozier Hayward Lebron Tatum and Brown? That's quite the lineup.
Rozier is being highly overrated because of 1 good postseason. He's a sub 40% shooting guard and he's not a playmaker for others. I don't see him being a good fit next to Lebron at all and just in general I think people are drinking the Kool-Aid too much for him when he really hasn't show much from a cumulative body of work.
That's a fair point about Rozier we don't know how good he is yet. I always feel a bit conflicted on how much of a creator for others Kyrie is. Still the bottom line is I'll take Lebron over Kyrie every day of the week for the next few years and Boston has plenty of talent to make things plenty interesting even against the Warriors*. Would it all fit together with Lebron? Idk but you can say that about a lot of possible destinations.
* If Boston is healthy with Hayward and Kyrie and their young guys take a step forward that team has a shot to have a plenty interesting series against GS or the Rockets.
Would you take Lebron for 4 years or Kyrie for 10? That's really what the argument is.
I get that. I take Lebron. I'm not convinced Kyrie Irving with his history plays 10 more years.
I dont like LeBron, but Id take him for 4 years, just like the Celtics did with KG and Allen. You have to win now and they can do it without giving up all their assets. If they can keep Horford, Tatum, Brown and Hayward (I think Kyrie would have to go), they would be really good. LeBron could be a play maker and not have to shoulder as much of the load. I honestly think that is EXACTLY the type of player LeBron wants to be and always has been for the Olympic teams he has played for. AND, I think he could play that way for a long time yet, maybe more than 4 years. Plus, the Celtics would not have to get through LeBron to make the Finals. They might not be as good as GSW but it would be really close and actually fun to watch.
Pssst... a team that has LeBron, Horford, Hayward OR Irving, Tatum, Brown, Smart, Rozier (overrated, but still valuable), and Brad Stevens coaching is actually better than Golden State in my view.
Camden wrote:Pssst... a team that has LeBron, Horford, Hayward OR Irving, Tatum, Brown, Smart, Rozier (overrated, but still valuable), and Brad Stevens coaching is actually better than Golden State in my view.
Woah. I don't see it. I don't see Irving staying, and I don't think they can get it done by just losing one good player. Going to take more than that unless Lebron doesn't want to use his financial leverage.
Camden wrote:Pssst... a team that has LeBron, Horford, Hayward OR Irving, Tatum, Brown, Smart, Rozier (overrated, but still valuable), and Brad Stevens coaching is actually better than Golden State in my view.
Woah. I don't see it. I don't see Irving staying, and I don't think they can get it done by just losing one good player. Going to take more than that unless Lebron doesn't want to use his financial leverage.
LeBron literally has all the leverage in this situation. One of Irving/Hayward would be dealt to make room financially. The rest of the pieces included aren't roster-changing. The easiest move to make would be Hayward, Morris, and a first-rounder if Danny Ainge feels like it for LeBron. Done deal.
