Kobe Bryant interview yields nothing Heat fans should be upset with

as our mr. tucker pointed out:

There is one caveat to all of this. From a basketball perspective, I have no problem with the fact that LeBron has chosen not to apply his talent to the pursuit of becoming the best in the game and potentially the best ever. However, from a larger perspective, I do have one problem, and it stems from the way that LeBron portrays himself.

He acts like he owns this league. He takes the entire league hostage and builds up a free agency hype that delivers the unmistakable message that he considers his free agency to be far above and beyond any other (and that includes Michael Jordan, who has been a free agent at times, as well). He declares himself the leader of Team USA, even though everyone else on the inside points to Kobe and Jason Kidd as the team’s true leaders. His opinion of himself and his importance is so overblown as to think that he deserves something no other player in history has ever had – an hour special in which the nation’s attention should be devoted to his decision; for perspective, when MJ came back from playing baseball, he did it with a two-word fax: “I’m back.” He wears tattoos and t-shirts which proclaim him the “Chosen 1,” the King. My personal favorite, guaranteed to trigger my gag reflex, is his Witness ad campaign. It’s not just the campaign; it’s that he wears the t-shirts, and even has it tattooed on his leg. When Nike does it, it’s advertising; when LeBron does it, he’s saying, “Witness me.”

Of course, all of this is just scratching the surface. This, along with far too many other examples to list, portray a clear picture of someone who wants us to be in awe of him, to witness him, even to bow down to him. And that’s the problem with this new decision, and the different priorities and values it supposedly reveals. I have no problem with LeBron deciding to follow a career path that removes him from the discussion of the best or greatest current player, let alone the greatest ever. But after he’s spent the last seven years trying to convince us that he is and will be “the man,” with the potential to be the greatest ever? Yeah, that smarts a bit. And continuing to act as though he owns the league, all while making a decision that presumably displays other priorities? Yeah, that pisses me off.

At the end of the day, I have no problem with accepting LeBron’s decision, and even celebrating his desire to play with his friends and be a part of something truly special. Those are two very valid and worthwhile goals. But accepting that decision comes with two qualifiers: First, it removes him from the conversation of greatest player, either of the present or of all time; and second, LeBron James needs to adopt an attitude commensurate with his career path.

Remember our earlier analogy? The balanced worker shouldn’t be criticized for having different goals and priorities – but he doesn’t get to act like the CEO.

So when you’re debating this issue, keep in mind that there are several distinctly different aspects of LeBron’s decision, each of which much be treated differently. The way he handled it was despicable and disgusting. The decision he made, from a basketball perspective, has forever changed how we evaluate him as a player and how we will view his legacy. That said, there’s no reason that his decision to follow a career path that removes him from all of the “Greatest Player” conversations should be seen as wrong or bad, and in fact, his desire to play with his friends and be a part of something special and unique is just as valid and worthwhile as the obsessive, ultra-competitive desire to lead one’s own team to victory (and probably more healthy). None of those perspectives stand in conflict with one another. However, he must adjust his attitude to be consistent with the player he has decided to be.

The fact that he has not – that he continues to act as though he is the greatest thing to ever happen to basketball – suggests that those alternate values and priorities that Kelly Dwyer celebrates may not be LeBron’s, at all. Maybe that’s just us, projecting the positive aspects we see in this situation on a LeBron James who really doesn’t reflect those values at all.

for the rest of the article:
http://www.silverscreenandroll.com/2010/7/20/1579005/we-cant-all-be-ceos-how-lebrons

It is a LONG way from being reality to state that as if it was a fact before training camp – vs teams like the Magic and Celtics. It’s very unlikely that things will be rosy with a 6’ 9" starting center.

How long has it been in the NBA since a team was in that situation?

Shaq was the most dominant player on the floor for the Lakers, and by far the best post player on the floor at any given point and time, but you substantially negate the other forces around him, especially the best guard on the floor at almost any given point and time, and you don’t help his legacy at all by maintaining he had no faults as a leader. I’m not saying Kobe had no part in Shaq’s departure, but to say he ran him out of town is just utterly false because Shaq has too much pride to let something like Kobe getting on him deter him away from where he wants to be. Shaq would have stayed in LA if they offered him a contract, but they didn’t and they decided to offer Kobe one instead. The decision was on LA for which one they wanted, not just to get rid of Shaq. It was Kobe or Shaq, and there was no guarantee they would even keep Kobe and they still didn’t offer Shaq a contract. Why? Because of all the years of being the man and not playing hard, half-assing in practice, prolonging injuries, not taking care of his body in the offseason, demanding payment from ownership before the season even started, embarassing ownership in public with demands that they pay him, and all around just trying to bully the owners into keeping him. He was an ass by the end of his time in LA, and the owners didn’t want him.
Now, do not perceive that I am not aware that Kobe has done some of these things with ownership for a period of time after Shaq’s departure as well. He did, but we’re talking about the divorce of Shaq and Kobe, and not Kobe after the fact. The fact of the matter is that LA had not won a title in two years leading up to their free agency and it is often pointed to Kobe as the reason why, but in reality both were at fault for what should’ve been an even more potent attack. But Shaq was a liability at the end of games and Kobe was liable to get frustrated in the middle of them. But you said the key part in it all, Shaq HELPED to win those championships, and he helped to lose in the years they didn’t win. I don’t get why the losing part is never attached to Shaq as much as its attached to Kobe, but thats just me. IMO they were both integral to winning especially out in the West during those times.

Calling people “haters”.

Hmmm…

but I had to lol when you compared last year’s Cavs to to 05-07 Lakers.

Too much of the dribbling through the shot clock and chucking up threes (especially when behind) or passing it to a teammate who’s been standing in a spot (uninvolved) and often misses as the shot clock approaches.

A. Parker with the Rapts ’09 per 36 mins:
11.7 pts/3.7ast/1.4 stl/4.3 reb
A. Parker with the Cavs ’10:
9.4/3.6/1.0/3.6

Shaq ’09 Suns per 36 mins:
21.3 pts/10.1 reb/0.8 ast/8.3 fta
Shaq ’10 Cavs:
18.5/10.3/0.4/6.6

Mo Williams with Bucks ’08:
17.2 pts/6.3 ast /1.2 stl/3.5 reb
Mo Williams with Cavs ’10:
15.3/5.3/1.0/3.0