From an overall league perspective its a hell of a lot more compelling if teams, theoretically, through skill, luck, money and other variables, build a championship team.

Determining the next championship by which beach Giannis prefers is not compelling.

Why do you feel that way? What difference does it make how a team was assembled?

the answer to that has nothing to do with Jordan vs LeBron and everything to do with people not liking non-competitive superstars taking the path of least resistance to an NBA title.

C'mon JOrr. It's completely different to have Krause draft players than it would have been for Barkley, Jordan, and Ewing to conspire behind closed doors to all sign with the same team.

[
Why do you feel that way? What difference does it make how a team was assembled?

Right and the answer to that has nothing to do with Jordan vs LeBron and everything to do with people not liking non-competitive superstars taking the path of least resistance to an NBA title. Durant's move to GS had nothing to do with Michael Jordan and he caught even more flak for it than LeBron did when he left Cleveland to join two other HOFers in Miami.

Beside the obvious inherent interest in following drafts and salary caps and trades and player development over time, it leaves out about 75% of the league ever having a shot at a championship.

Look, nobody is ever going to Minneapolis. Sorry Minny your team is just a jabroni until the conference finals start and basketball games mean anything.

How is that compelling?

That's a fair point. But it's not really what we're talking about here. The discussion is about whether a player should be seen a less because he participated in putting together his winning team.

I don't think anyone should catch flak for it though. What you said above reminds me of when someone said Jordan makes the players around him better and Barkley asked, "Why does Michael get to make Scottie and Horace better and I have to make Hersey and Manute better?" There are scenarios where we could be talking about Jordan having never won a title. Does it make him a better or worse player because Jerry Krause was a better GM than Gene Shue?

We could just talk about what actually happened in their careers but LeBron is far behind in that case.

There are scenarios where we could be talking about Jordan having never won a title.

Opinions vary. But I have no interest in that discussion anyway. And it isn't the point.

That's a fair point. But it's not really what we're talking about here. The discussion is about whether a player should be seen a less because he participated in putting together his winning team.

Brick trying to take it there, but no one wants to play.

No one is going to argue LeBron vs Jordan in terms of team accomplishments as a LeBron fan.

I think the biggest revelation here is people are opposed to agency. If you're drafted into a crap organization with an incompetent GM you must not look out for your best interests lest you get torched by the "do it the right way" crowd, which is really just pro-GM/management propaganda.

No one is going to argue LeBron vs Jordan in terms of team accomplishments as a LeBron fan.

Never doubt the inefficiency of the CFMB debate squad.

I think the biggest revelation here is people are opposed to agency. If you're drafted into a crap organization with an incompetent GM you must not look out for your best interests lest you get torched by the "do it the right way" crowd, which is really just pro-GM/management propaganda.

There's nothing to argue there. LBJ is more talented than Kobe and MJ. Less successful. But we've discussed this at length. In general LBJ has done enough team wise and individually to validate all the immense hype he received starting his sophomore year in high school.

Not really. I can't think of a single scenario outside of injury that would be the case. Look all throughout NBA history, go as far back in time as you want or as recent as you want. The best player in the league during a given stretch of years gets a title every single time. Every time. I know you believe that NBA fan culture dictates that whoever has the most rings is the best player but in reality it's the other way around - the best players get, and earn, their rings.

There was never going to be an NBA universe that existed where Jordan played a full career and never won a ring. It's never happened before. This isn't baseball or football. The inherent nature of basketball as a sport means the best player in the world can carry his team to a championship in ways that can't happen in baseball, football, and hockey (maybe hockey goalies qualify, don't know or care really).

That's a chicken/egg argument that can't be won.

No, it's not. Tell me who the best player in the world was that didn't get a title. You can't do it. That settles the argument.

I don't think it matters. Jordan benefitting from Pippen's growth into a star was due to pure luck. LBJ did not benefit from the same luck so he sought out his own Pippen.

I don't think it matters either. And I never understood the argument that it does. Actually, I do understand the argument. It's a position Bulls fans take to support Jordan being better than LeBron.