lazorbeak

Wow, Remi must live in some parallel earth where the move to OKC was perfectly justified. If the team was nearly bankrupt, it had more to do with the previous ownerships corporate culture turning a team with a history of being very good into an incredibly mediocre franchise in under a decade. The poor Sonics had suffered the indignity of playing in a stadium revamped in the distant memory of 1995, back before Sean Kemp became a fat joke punchline. Then, after an insulting demand for a new stadium was rejected in 2006 (insulting because it was just before the Seahawks appeared in the Super Bowl), Schultz and the Sonics management sold the team to new owners who promised in good faith they wouldn't immediately try to Shanghai the team. And then, after an even more egregious request for city taxpayers to pay for a 500 million dollar monstrosity, the OKC ownership tried to weasel out of existing obligations (and lost in a suit over the Key Arena lease) and jump ship to OKC and an arena the city built that had somehow cost less than 20% of what they were asking from Seattle. Yeah, only a "blind fan" could find fault with these multi-millionaires course of action. And I wonder if in this parallel earth, OKC isn't an extremely small market that has just gone to the NBA finals, despite the fact that it's apparently impossible to compete from a small market. It'd be something again if we were talking about baseball, where that's pretty much the truth, but the NBA salary structure encourages parity and discourages dumb spending (see: the New York Knicks and the checks they've written to Eddy Curry, Allan Houston, and Nate Robinson, among others). And as much as Dan Gilbert's a moron, the idea that the Cavs lost because he refused to spend money is preposterous. In 2008-2009 the team won almost 20 more games, trading for Ben Wallace and Mo Williams and finishing with 66 wins, while going far over the existing salary cap. Granted the team was also paying for a big contract for role player Wally Sczcerbiak, but that team could've easily won a championship with better coaching the next season. Instead, they blew up that team and brought in Shaq and Antawn Jamison, sending them even further over the salary cap and sabotaging their team chemistry. It's definitely not that he refused to spend money, it's that the team couldn't figure out what it needed (defense and rebounding in the post, spot shooters who could play perimeter D on the wing), and made the wrong move, not that they did nothing. I mean it's not like Dan Gilbert is Donald Sterling, a guy with a seeming commitment to losing while he wastes away in the tiny market that is Los Angeles.

I have to say it's surprising that this team that took care of the Spurs in 6 couldn't make it past 5 against Miami. The Heat really did a great job game-planning for the Thunder, using their athletes to turn Harden and Durant into jump shooters. Durant still played great, even if he had to work for everything, but Harden didn't look like the same guy from the San Antonio series. OKC was suckered into playing way too much half court basketball and it cost them. But as good as LeBron was in that series (and he was great), like I said earlier, it came down to big performances from Battier, Chalmers, and Mike Miller, as well as Bosh stepping up his defense and rebounding from that poor effort in game 1. The Thunder usually depend on Harden for that offensive spark, and he was awful.

I understand and there is a precedent for it; when Austin would wrestle someone relating to the Mr. McMahon feud, it didn't matter that Undertaker and Rock were wrestling for the title, so I don't have any issue with that. My point was that card position does matter when it comes to the final spot, and in effect you are telling the audience "this is the most important thing" when it closes a show. This is the problem. Arguing that it doesn't make sense to not put Cena on every main event because he's "head and shoulders" above the rest of the card. Even going beyond the fact that there's basically nothing to back up such a statement, and PPV audiences have consistently shown more interest in Daniel Bryan, CM Punk, and even Dolph Ziggler at live events. Cena may be an ambassador for the business based on his status as a D-list action hero and public persona, but is he really that much more over than CM Punk or Randy Orton or any of those guys when it comes to performing in front of a crowd? And even if we assume, despite all appearances, that somehow Cena is head and shoulders above everyone else when it comes to "overness," how does treating him like the biggest thing on the show do anything but look like more "same old, same old" booking that keeps the top guy from the past 7 years on top some more? What's the positive outcome of admitting that there is a glass ceiling and not letting anyone else get to that level? Wrestling fans, like fans of most competitive sports, like new names at the top. Fans will cheer for the Ultimate Warrior or the Rock or Jeff Hardy or Randy Orton or CM Punk over the status quo Hogan, Austin, or Cena, because they can bring something new to the table, and sending the message that Cena's the most important guy even when he's killing time wrestling comedy matches against authority figures is ultimately destructive.

As Hyde mentioned, yes, it does. The main event is what the show builds up to, and the crowd and viewing audience do recognize it as the most important thing on the show. Unconsciously that's a natural reaction to the fact that pretty much all media is structured this way, from the UFC to rock concerts, and consciously from the time and effort spent promoting the main event both before and during the show.

I looked at that as more of Lawler being in-character, a super bland out-of-touch babyface who dislikes guys like Ziggler and doesn't acknowledge when the crowd likes them. As far as Cena main-eventing, I really don't think it's particularly defensible. Even accepting that he's the company's biggest draw, which is shaky, or that he moves the most merch, which is a little less shaky, he's been the guy for what, 7 years now? It's like saying Vince should never have given the ball to Bret Hart, he should've had Hogan wrestling grudge matches in the main event while Hart defended the title in the undercard. While Cena's clearly not as physically desiccated as Hogan was in 1993, he's in a similar position where he's wrestled everybody, he's pretty well stuck at the level he's at, and putting him in the main event outside of Rock/Brock showcase matches is just playing things safe and not giving a new face a chance to break out and show what they're capable of. Totally disagree that Punk/Bryan/Kane wouldn't "be close" when it comes to rating them in some sort of TEW like machine. They're bonafide main eventers wrestling for the WWE championship who happen to also be great wrestlers.

Not sure that I agree. I think he's in the same camp with RVD. He can hit some flashy moves, and at one point he was certainly very over. But I think a main event run would likely show his limitations pretty quickly when it comes to storytelling in a solo match and cutting a promo. I think the IC/tag division is probably where he belongs, where he's a fun attraction, but not a main eventer. Also, looking at WWE's roster, is anybody healthy?

I didn't say it wasn't on-topic, I said it was a non-issue?

Can we not do this? Beyond the fact that this is now how you argue anything, this whole topic is such a non-issue. I wish I could steer the topic back to actual wrestling, but we're in the summer doldrums where there's really nothing I care about going on.

Well for once the media can't blame LeBron James for the Heat's meltdown (no pun intended). They stopped getting reliable stops on Durant, and their offense looked awful. The Thunder are giving up open looks from long range, and it's up to the Heat to take advantage of them. Chalmers and Battier did a good job in the first half, but Wade kept trying to get inside, turning open looks into contested shots. And it's all well-and-good that Bosh is feeling more confident in his 3 point shot, but unless he wants to be Matt Bonner, he needs to get to the high post when he's away from the ball and in a position to score/weak side rebound- he needs to do better than 5 boards (0 offensive), especially when he's making Nick Collison look like a beast: the guy had 5 offensive boards by himself!

Yeah two of those guys haven't even debuted, and the ratio of talent under his run has not been particularly good. But to be fair, it was a lot easier to scout talent in 2001 and before then 2004 and afterwards, considering the big influx of new talent during the wrestling boom of the late 90's.

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Arrows" data-cite="Arrows" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>AJ turning seems... obvious. WWE usually does the obvious. Hoping this is no different.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Beyond the fact that this has already been proven false in plenty of recent history (and for more, who called Kane to go over Randy Orton at WM?), the truth is, a well-told story generally <em>is</em> predictable to anyone who is familiar with a certain type of story and recognizes it as it's happening. </p><p> </p><p> If the choices are being predictable 60% of the time, or nonsensical WCW 2000 style swerves, I'll choose predictability every time.</p>

For LeBron to win a ring, he's going to have to get great performances defensively and maybe even offensively from Chalmers, Battier, Bosh/Haslem/whoever. You can't beat the Spurs without excellent team defense (they're the best shooting team in the NBA) and the ability to score more than 100 points per game. As the Thunder loss Tuesday showed, you just can't rely on your "stars" to score 80 points if you don't stop the Spurs from getting easy baskets and hitting 55% of their shots on the way to scoring 120 without overtime. Also, while the Celtics couldn't beat most teams in the league if Rondo has an off night, the Spurs can win even when Duncan or Parker plays poorly because they have far more players who can get points as part of the team dynamic, unlike Miami or Boston, which will have at least 2 and sometimes more players on the court with absolutely no ability to score.

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Arrows" data-cite="Arrows" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>WTG WWE.<p> </p><p> Job Show to Cena in a handicap match.</p><p> </p><p> I now could give a crap less about Big Show. His push means nothing.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Were you really that invested in "Big Show turns on Cena vol. 3"? I mean I guess the last time they feuded was 3 whole years ago, but it was right around this time of year.</p><p> </p><p> Also, Big Show has a pretty awful won/loss ratio against Cena in general. His PPV record in matches involving Cena: 1-8. And that one win was when they were on the same Survivor Series team against team Angle. Granted, there's also a coupleof triple threat matches where Cena didn't win either, but Big Show has never won a PPV match against Cena in 8 years of trying.</p>

Never said he shouldn't be on there, just kind of confused he's ranked as high as he is, considering his accomplishments. And while his WCW run did help get him over in the first place, the guy did main event two Wrestlemanias in WWF, so it's not as though he wasn't a major name there, too. Exactly. I don't know who you're talking about? This is just like WWF No Mercy's version of Wrestlemania 2000's main event: it was Triple H, Mick Foley, The Rock, and Steven Richards in a four man elimination match. Again it's kayfabe and based on impact, not necessarily talent. Rodman gets a token mention as their biggest "celebrity" wrestler. Simmons accomplished more in WCW and main evented more shows than Windham, Rhodes, or Sullivan. He's rated pretty low among WCW champs because as you said, he wasn't all that important as world champs go. It's not surprising he's ranked in a kayfabe list higher than guys that never won any major championships, especially because two of them were way over the hill by their WCW runs. Also I love the idea that Vince is personally editing content for WWE's website. "No, rank Jarrett lower, I still hate that guy for leaving in 1999!"

Maybe you need to look at the explanations and criteria for the list on WWE's site, because I don't even understand your complaints. Yes, Vader was a WCW champ and had some big feuds in the early 90's, but he was completely MIA during WCW's biggest boom- who does he replace? Booker T, who was a great worker for the company for years, won every title, and was briefly their top babyface? Everybody in front of him had more of an impact. And while Austin's a bit high and Rick Rude and Ricky Steamboat are a bit low, Austin was a great worker who had great matches with Steamboat, who carried a very green Dustin Rhodes to some very good matches, and was in a great tag team with Pillman. Not having him on the list at all would be pretty ridiculous, considering Konnan and Meng are on the list- what, no Vampiro?! Bischoff wasn't a wrestler, but it's not a list of great wrestlers in order, it's about the greatest superstars measured by things like impact and longevity. He was never the equal of the "Mr. McMahon" character, but he was a major heel for years including WCW's highest point from 96-98. It's a kayfabe list, and definitely not a bad one. Like I said, the biggest exclusion if 4 Horseman member Mongo McMichael*, whose best of 7 series with Booker T was considered a classic. I kind of wish WCW had done even more Dennis Rodman stuff. Like Scottie Pippen comes in Ultimate Warrior style, cuts a terrible, flat promo about how Rodman has dishonored the Bulls, challenges him to a match, but then SWERVE Pippen turns heel! Pippen joins the NWO! Pippen goes crazy along with Rasheed Wallace as part of the Portland Trailblazers!

Then you don't know much, since he also tagged with Hogan against Luger and the Giant in 1997 after a few months of being on TV pretty regularly (he was suspended), and feuded with Randy Savage in 1999. So he was on and off with the company for over two years. But he's on the list because he's WCW's biggest celebrity wrestler. It's like how Lawrence Taylor gets brought up once a year on WWE's site.

I'm going to keep picking against the Thunder and hoping to be pleasantly surprised. The Spurs have the best offense in the NBA, and while some commentators have said their defense has slipped, they don't give up easy baskets the way the Lakers did. The Thunder will need either brilliant performances from Durant, or someone else to step up and score some points, because Westbrook is facing the same system that just destroyed a (hurt) Chris Paul. They can't count on him to just do whatever he wants out there like he was able to against LA and Dallas' old, slow guards. The Spurs are like a swiss army knife they have so many rotations, and unlike OKC, they put 4-5 guys with some idea how to score on the court at a time. I like the Bynum/Pau combo, but if those two guys don't hustle back, it doesn't matter how many offensive rebounds you get, you're still giving away fast break points. Kind of sad to see Ramon Sessions play himself out of a job in that series with OKC. In three road games, Ramon was 3 of 16 with 6 assists and 8 turnovers. He was making Derek Fisher look good. I really thought adding him and Jordan Hill to the anemic Lakers bench would make a difference, but I didn't count on him looking that awful. Here's a crazy stat: Derek Fisher has made the conference finals more than Kobe Bryant. He was on every early Lakers team with Kobe that reached the conference finals, and in addition made it with the Jazz in '07, and now made it again with the Thunder. He's a limited role player and he's a million years old, but he knows what to do to win: play irritatingly dirty defense and hit clutch 3's.

Actually a really strong list. I'd balk more at Sid being as high as he is more than Austin's spot, especially when Bret Hart is all the way at 41, and is similarly better known for his WWE accomplishments. Yes, Sid had three runs in WCW, but one of them is mostly only notable for scissor-stabbing. The other is best known for a gruesome leg injury. I kind of wish they had Mongo McMichael on there with an asterisk- who could forget Mongo's epic feud with the Taskmaster or his matches with Bret Hart?

I'm definitely hoping OKC can build on that game 1 win and knock off the Lakers, I'm just not sure you can count on their consistency. I know the prevailing wisdom is that Vinny Del Negro is the worst coach in the second round, but I think Mike Brown is certainly in the running. I said the Heat in 6 before I knew Bosh was done for the series. As much as I don't really like his game, that's a big loss for a team who puts 2-3 complete offensive non-factors in the game at any time. I still think the Heat can get past the Pacers, but only because I don't think you can get to the conference finals without a real point guard, and Darren Collison's not all that good. 10 assists versus 17 turnovers is a pretty poor ratio for a team, even in a win. Granted outrebounding the Heat by 10 makes up for some of that. Not surprising to see the Spurs quietly taking care of business, either. Their second unit would be a playoff team in the East without Parker and Duncan. They've got a great mix of young talent in Leonard and Green to compliment their veterans. Right now only the Thunder look like they'd challenge them.

Wow, this thread died. Playoff thoughts: San Antonio looks like the best team in the west right now, by far. What piano wires will David Stern have to cut to get the Lakers/Clippers match-up we've been building towards ever since he inexplicably vetoed Kobe/Paul on the same team? In terms of talent but less exciting stories, San Antonio and OKC are quietly the best two teams in the league. Boston's going to beat Philadelphia, but don't expect it to be a cakewalk- the Celtics are flat-out old, and if Philly scores, Boston may be unable to catch up. Look for ugly games. How long and how far can Rondo carry the "big 3"? And can we stop calling them that already? Some analysts like Miami to walk over Indiana, but the Pacers closed the season hot and have an actual center in Roy Hibbert that can defend the middle and score inside, two areas where the Heat aren't great. Wade's really the x-factor, as when he plays well, the Pacers won't have answers for him while they try to slow LeBron down. I like the Heat in a competitive 6. Right now I'm thinking we get Spurs/Lakers in the West finals, barring Tony Parker getting deported or Tim Duncan suffering amnesia. OKC's a great team they're just so young and Westbrook occasionally forgets how to make baskets or pass the ball. Heat vs. Celtics has worked out to be nearly a given after the Bulls' went down.

Nobody starts out "epic" though. That's what killed/kills me about stuff like Undertaker/Triple H last year when they were pretty clearly looking to do Taker/Barrett and Triple H/Sheamus last year before somebody said "hey maybe I'm not coming back next year I don't want to go out against a kid" and proceeded to have a decent but not great match against each other. I mean how many "Wrestlemania moments" did they feed Randy Orton before he didn't need it any more? From being the focus of Evolution's match with Mankind and Rock to his program with Undertaker to title matches to CM Punk last year, they've made it clear they think he's a big deal (although they really didn't find much for him to do this year). If you don't do that with guys like DB and Sheamus and the rest, then they never end up feeling particularly "epic," because you don't have any slow motion montages of high contrast Wrestlemania footage that makes it look like it was the ending to a Rocky movie.

<p>Ankle injuries aren't that bad to come back from compared to knee/foot problems, so I'm sure Bogut will be back next season. He does have a track record of not playing, but there aren't a lot of 7 footers in the league that consistently get 15 points, 10 boards and 2.5 blocks a game. On paper the Warriors could be a playoff team next season if their young guards develop and Lee and Bogut can play a majority of the season.</p><p> </p><p> I'd take Bogut for half a season over Thabeet any day: the guy just doesn't have it, and he's making mid-level contract money to not play.</p>

They actually keep the pick if it's in the top 7. Unfortunately, right now they have the 9th worst record in the league, so they only keep that pick if they get passed by a few other bad teams or get a lucky bounce in the lottery. But the franchise has really been a case of missed opportunities. I like Curry and I think they can build around him, and trading Monta is probably a good move since he's not sure if he's a 1 or a 2 and he can't defend either position, so he doesn't fit into this new image of Golden State as a "defensive" team. Trading for Bogut does make it seem nuts to continue paying 10 mil a year for a center that averages about 2 points per game, so the Bell amnesty was a huge mistake. Jefferson is/was another amnesty candidate, so maybe they're hoping to just grow next season and then have a bunch of cap room in 2 years when they get out of these awful pre-lockout deals. Unlike Portland, which was just giving talent away (and picking up guys that look like busts in Flynn and Thabeet), the Warriors are getting talented players, just guys that aren't worth what they're being paid.

<p>So that Joe Lacob halftime show was probably the best pro wrestling angle of the week. Everything from the crowd's reaction to Chris Mullin and Rick Barry coming out with mics to come to Lacob's defense. Also I love that Mullin still has his NY accent. Also great article from Bill Simmons about how the Warriors have managed to constantly avoid success for 40 years: <a href="http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/7714701/how-annoy-fan-base-60-easy-steps" rel="external nofollow">http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/7714701/how-annoy-fan-base-60-easy-steps</a></p><p> </p><p> My favorite is how in 1999, they watched their former assistant coach win a championship against one of their former star players, while Chris Mullin and Tim Hardaway led top teams in Indiana and Miami and Chris Webber and the Kings developed into a top team in the west.</p>

Not sure how Howard's a 4; he has no shot outside of the low block, he doesn't play great perimeter defense (and shouldn't have to), and he's bigger and stronger than 95% of the guys he plays against. I don't see it. Mutombo's a defensive freak of nature, but his offense never even approached Dwight's: he averaged less than 15 points a game most every season, even at his peak. And if you took Dikembe's game and added offense, you'd get Hakeem, and Dwight's not really at that level on either side of the ball. He's never averaged more than 23 points or 3 blocks a game, both of which below Hakeem's numbers, not to mention Hakeem's ability to steal the ball based on his quickness, a skill Howard hasn't really developed. Howard's more like the evolution of a Patrick Ewing: if you look at Ewing's stats through his first 4 seasons, they're practically identical, except that Howard gets significantly more rebounds- then again, he has a wing player like Anderson or Turk playing 4, while Ewing played with Charles Oakley. I think everything else you said about him not being good enough to win a ring as the primary star is right on; again, just look at Patrick Ewing and the perennially good but not great Knicks of the 80's and 90's.