lazorbeak

That's a long-term booking problem, not a "why didn't he get those guys" problem. I mean yes, if the Invasion had been some carefully thought out 24 month angle, things would've been better, but obviously that's pretty much the opposite of what happened.

The choices during the Invasion were either 1) buy out current contracts and re-negotiate smaller contracts (DDP, undercard guys), or 2) wait for bloated, stupidly large contracts to run out (Nash, Goldberg, Steiner, etc.) and then bring guys in at a reasonable rate. So it's not so much Vince "willingly passed" as he was unwilling to make a guy like Goldberg receive a higher base pay than 99% of his roster. Also considering they bought the tape library, logos, etc. for under 3 million dollars, it wouldn't make a lot of sense to turn around and inflate that by buying out the stupidly large worker contracts that they avoided.

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Capelli King" data-cite="Capelli King" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="27836" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>In 4:p</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Might want to check that math again. 4+1=5.</p>

<p>Not saying I disagree with the Heat winning, but the Mavs have been playing pretty lights out themselves, embarrassing the former champs and beating the Thunder in 5. Marion can at least slow down LeBron and force him into taking some bad shots, and the Heat are beatable when they settle into shooting jump shots. But if Wade shows up to play the Mavs really have no more answer for him than they did a few years ago. If he's able to get to the rim, the Mavs will definitely struggle.</p><p> </p><p> But for the Mavs to have a chance their bench will have to absolutely destroy Miami's bench. Terry, Peja, and Barrea can't afford to take nights off.</p>

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Comradebot" data-cite="Comradebot" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Agreed, Punk doesn't go on that list. The WWE has made it very, very apparent that they want him to be a longterm cornerstone of the company. Sadly, this whole naming rights business is screwing with that.<p> </p><p> But, again, multi-time world champ, regularly a prominent figure on television, pretty damn over... you can't ask for much more. If you are, then you're just being silly.</p><p> </p><p> Danielson, I feel, has been booked pretty solidly so far. Only been around for about a year now in the WWE, a bit too soon to start calling him a failure still. He's a former US champion, and, again, he's been consistently on TV.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Danielson won the US title from the Miz just before Miz got into the title picture and while he was still a top heel, and has put on some incredible matches. Like you said with Bourne, there's only so much you can do with white dudes under 5'10 who can't use a mic.</p><p> </p><p> </p><blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Comradebot" data-cite="Comradebot" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Evan Bourne... well, let's be honest: he was never going to be a huge star in the WWE. Namely, he's never going to be a top level guy in the company. His amazing in-ring talents aside, he's still a short, scrawny white guy who rightfully never comes close to a microphone. A superstar in the WWE that does not make.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Considering the talk when he went to Raw was he'd be on the future endeavored list, Bourne's had a great run, and the only thing keeping it from being even greater is the fact that he went down with an injury that killed his summer momentum. But last year he was tagging with John Cena, feuding with Chris Jericho, and generally looking far stronger than anybody expected.</p><p> </p><p> </p><blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Comradebot" data-cite="Comradebot" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Colt and Low Ki, I can agree with. No idea what happened with those two, but they dropped the ball.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Colt got undercut by his awful name (Scotty Goldman), and was never really given a chance to recover (the same thing happened to Brent Albright aka Gunner Scott). Low Ki would've probably had a decent run in WWE as a lower card guy, but he asked for his release so he could go back to Japan and the indys, where he makes similar money and doesn't spend his time being forced to sell other people's offense. But again, he's tiny, he works strong style, he has the charisma of a block of wood; what do you want WWE to do, make him US champ? Pairing him up with Lay-Cool was a good idea, but on his own, he's just a good worker with an unusual style.</p><p> </p><p> Didn't watch Raw and not too excited about what I'm hearing re: Kharma, but I'll see where it goes rather than use this as proof positive that WWE ruins indy talent.</p>

I completely agree on your assessment of Cornette's actual booking. I wasn't particularly impressed and a lot of it had to do with worked shoots and Terry Funk working a main event program with Undertaker in 2001. I like Cornette but he's only got so many stories and his actual booking isn't great.

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Capelli King" data-cite="Capelli King" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="27836" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>The Lakers got demolished and to be honest they had no chance whatsoever. The game against Dallas it showed their obvious weaknesses, in general though here is a few conclusions i came to.<p> </p><p> #1 They cannot defend the perimeter, especially when that perimeter is packed with talent </p><p> #2 That Gasol is not the future of the franchise </p><p> #3 That Bryant made some critical mistakes late in the games which cost them dearly </p><p> #4 Getting rid of Ariza for Artest was a mistake</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Definitely. They became one dimensionally bigger and stronger than just about any other team, but you still have to be able to guard people to win games, and their bigger guys were just unwilling or unable to play defense off the pick and roll. It's clear that Bynum needs to start being the focus, as he still has room to improve: Gasol is not getting any better and he is not nearly selfish enough on offense to be a "star." He's not demanding the ball when there's mis-matches, he's settling for bad shots, and he's not doing enough on the offensive glass. </p><p> </p><p> I don't know that I completely agree about Artest and Ariza though. Artest was designed to help them muscle up against the Paul Pierce's and LeBron's of the world, and he's pretty good at that. However, he couldn't one on one Dirk (nobody on the Lakers could), and taking away Butler or Marion doesn't do a lot when Barrea's lighting up your back court. While Ariza would've probably fit better into the scheme against Dallas, I don't think he makes even a one game difference. The biggest reason to keep Ariza is he can score and he's getting better, while Artest's offense is rapidly disappearing. </p><p> </p><p> I think the Lakers need a true point guard, they need to get rid of either Odom or Gasol, and they need one more athletic guard off the bench, and they could be contenders again. But they need to stop trying to play giant-ball against everybody. Against teams with quickness at the 1-3 positions they're going to get burned.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> Also the Bulls finally looked like a #1 seed out there last night, absolutely demolishing the Hawks. Rose looked much more comfortable and wasn't forcing things: 14 shots to score 19, 12 assists vs. 3 turnovers. Not as flashy as his 44 point game, but a 20 point road win is pretty impressive.</p>

While what you mentioned about WWE turning monsters into comedy babyfaces is somewhat true, you're noticing the effect and ignoring the cause: that WWE never has more than a couple of "monster heels" doing the monster heel shtick at once. If Khali is your monster heel, you can't have Kane working monster heel on the same show. When Kane debuted, he was the monster heel in the promotion. But then when Big Show shows up in '99, he becomes the top monster heel and Kane is turned face and paired with DX leftovers. And it goes on like that pretty consistently: Khali turns face around the time Koslov does the dominant Russian gimmick. Koslov now is a comedy babyface, so we get a vacuum for another Kane monster run. Now that's over and it looks like they're going to put Mason Ryan into the role. It doesn't work to have an entire show populated with monsterous heels beating up tiny babyfaces. In Karma's case, there is no other monster heel. She's the biggest and the baddest woman on the roster, and while eventually she will probably be turned face by the crowd for being so awesome, there's nobody who they are going to bring in and say "oh we need you to stop doing a monster gimmick so we can give it to this other monster" the way they do with Kane on a bi-annual basis. So I wouldn't get too worried about them quick-turning Karma. Their use of her character so far indicates they know what they're doing: honestly, it's not that hard to book her.

I'm not sure what you mean by "blindsided"? My argument didn't see something coming? I keep 'beating it in' because that's what I said a year ago, and someone else brought it up. Show me where I did anything other than list a few facts? Did I give an empassioned plea that everyone must conform their point of view, or go on an emotional rant about how much Phil Jackson means to me and just not notice it (blinded as I am by the heavenly radiance of Phil Jackson)? Who am I, Jeannie Bus over here? Seriously I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that I love or idealize anyone or why exactly I need to "calm down" because I used some facts to support the things I say.

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="MGreene78" data-cite="MGreene78" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="27836" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Michael was in his 40's playing on the Wizards (who stunk) and they still contended for the playoffs. He only had a couple of years before Phil was there so we don't really know what Jordan would have done in his prime with out Phil. Remember Phil didn't draft BJ, Horace, Jordan, or Pipen.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> He turned 40 in his last season, and they missed the playoffs both times. More significantly though, he put up gaudy numbers (over 30 points, 7 rebounds, 7 assists, and almost 3 steals a game) before Jackson without even reaching a conference championship. </p><p> </p><p> Also I don't see how who Phil did or didn't draft matters as my point is he's the greatest <em>coach</em> of all-time.</p><p> </p><p> </p><blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="MGreene78" data-cite="MGreene78" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="27836" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Also please, please throw out the hey he turned around a 34 win Laker team. That was a team that started winning then our coach retired because of health issues and then Kobe and Lamar (two top players on the team) missed I believe a combined 40 games.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> First of all, when Lamar Odom is the #2 guy on your team, you are not a very good team (ask the Clippers). And secondly, Kobe missed only 16 games. That doesn't explain a 34 win season. What does explain it is they were completely one-dimensional with a bunch of over-paid three point shooters. And Phil wasn't able to magically make them contenders overnight, but they made the playoffs his first season back and pushed a better Suns squad to 7 games. It was the year after that that's basically a wash due to injuries to everyone but Kobe, where Phil suffered the only 7 game losing streak in his professional career (and that includes the two years without Jordan). But the year after that they won 57 games, then 65 in their first title win with Gasol, than 57, then 57 again. And if you'll recall, both seasons, people acted like the sky was falling in Los Angeles because these teams only won 57 games a year. And Phil is so used to being completely dominant the only time he's ever won coach of the year is when the Bulls won 72 games, the best record in the history of basketball. </p><p> </p><p> Like I said I don't think it can be under-stated that he led 3 different teams to 3-peats, something no other coach in any pro sport in history has ever done.</p><p> </p><p> Pat Riley had two of the top 10 players of all time <em>and</em> James Worthy on the floor at the same time and couldn't do it. I mean granted Kareem was getting on it years but he was still an awesome center being fed by one of the first true point-forwards in the game.</p>

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="michgcs" data-cite="michgcs" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="27836" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Revisionist history? Shaq wasn't even the Finals MVP the one time he won without Phil Jackson...<p> </p><p> EDIT: or did you mean Shaq, and other role players (like Horry)?</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> I'm not sure what you mean by "revisionist history"? My point is nobody has had the same success afterwards. O'Neal won once, when Wade was the focus. Horry had already won two rings as a role player for another team and would win even more elsewhere. Otherwise Steve Kerr is the most successful Jackson coached player to go off on his own, as far as rings go. Will Purdue got a ring for sitting on the bench, so he's tied with Shaq on that score.</p><p> </p><p> Oh, did you think I meant that Shaq was the star and the rest of the Heat were role-players in 2006? How would that make any sense re: my thesis that Jackson is necessary or that most guys don't have success without him? Let alone Wade obviously being the reason the Heat won that series.</p>

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="MGreene78" data-cite="MGreene78" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="27836" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div><p> Phil to me did get lucky with Bulls. He helped the team and built them up. I believe the main talent was there already and he put together the other talent. Same thing with the Lakers, he took a team that had the main talent around just were missing a couple pieces.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Again though, Jordan never won a title without Phil, even though he was a dominant player. Shaq and Kobe had been together three years and went 0/3 before Phil. Only Shaq and role players have won outside of Phil's system after winning with him.</p><p> </p><p> </p><blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="MGreene78" data-cite="MGreene78" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="27836" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Now while saying all this again he did have flaws, I don't personally believe we will ever see how great of a game calling coach he was because he never had to build a team, but again 11 titles makes that okay to me. Also his greatest draft pick was Andrew Bynum. Phil always had solid management above him who helped him hide these flaws. He is arugably the best modern day coach.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Except he did turn around a 34 win Lakers team from a one man squad into a team that has consistently gotten deep into the post season, appearing in 3 finals in a row.</p><p> </p><p> I don't disagree with some of the other things you're saying but I don't think it can be emphasized enough that he won 11 championships after free agency and a 30 team league. Nobody else in NBA coaching history can compare to numbers like that.</p><p> </p><p> I agree with you about Pop though: he's a pretty unassuming guy but he's quietly been an outstanding coach for the Spurs. The only knock on him is he's kind of a jerk when it comes to dealing with the press. Also when he was GM he fired the Spurs coach 19 games into the Robinson-less season, then took over as coach himself. His four rings in the past 12 years is respectable, although he's still pretty far off of Jackson's pace of winning championships in over 50% of the seasons he coached in. Seriously, lots of teams are talented every year; it's ridiculous how many titles Jackson has won, regardless of talent. Pat Riley had Kareem, Magic, and James Worthy, and still only won 4 rings in 10 years. And when Riley guaranteed a repeat title in '87, it was the first repeat champion in two decades. Phil Jackson coached 3 separate 3-peats, something nobody in history can even approach.</p>

<p>In more relevant matters, some great games last night. Can't remember the last time two playoff games went to overtime the same day. And the first 3-OT playoff game since Bulls/Celtics a couple of years ago. I like both the Thunder and the Grizzlies, but I really want to see the Thunder in the finals. They were my upset pick western champions before the Spurs and Lakers both managed to choke. Durant's a great shooter who plays underrated defense, Russell Westbrook reminds me of an early Dwayne Wade (although he occasionally makes really bad decisions due to his youth), and Serge Ibaka is one of my favorite players in the league. That said, Shane Battier is another of my favorite players, so I won't be mad if the Grizzlies get to the finals, either.</p><p> </p><p> I'm still not sold on the Heat going all the way, although it's looking bad for the Celtics. You really have to question the Green/Perkins trade right about now.</p>

<p>More nostalgia:</p><p> </p><p> </p><blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="BHK1978" data-cite="BHK1978" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="27836" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>And that is all I am going to say on this subject, there is no need for this topic of discussion to keep on going back and forth. We can agree to disagree, the fact of the matter is we are all dealing in opinions (Yeah I know your opinions are fact and should not be argued against.).</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Some things never change. </p><p> </p><p> </p><blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="BHK1978" data-cite="BHK1978" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="27836" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>@Lazorbeak: Yeah I am not even going to bother addressing anything in regards to what you say, because at the end of the day it is just not worth it. This is not me not wanting to address what you are saying because I cannot. It is just me not willing to deal with you because I promised myself that I would not talk to you, as you are someone on here that I would like to avoid. Although I will say for someone who does not like to be called a troll, you do love to make sarcastic comments. </div></blockquote><p> </p><p> You really crack me up. I bring up overwhelming evidence that 1. we've already done this song and dance, and 2.an explanation why nobody shares your opinion, and you have the <em>gall</em> to say something like this? Do I say anything about you personally? You're the one that consistently resorts to insults and dismissiveness when somebody, horror of horrors, argues one of your opinions. </p><p> </p><p> Do you not understand how saying something like this is just encouraging a negative response in kind? You don't come off as a hero stalwartly standing up to the majority opinion, you come off like someone who would rather rely on cheap tactics to avoid making real points. I don't avoid, insult, or otherwise treat you in a way that necessitates this kind of response, and it says a lot more about you than anyone else that you would be so rude as to post "you are someone on here that I would like to avoid." Completely 100% uncalled for. Note that I haven't turned around and made personal attacks against you, because there's no reason to. </p><p> </p><p> Clearly my secret plan is to have a reasonable exchange of ideas until the point I get rudely told that I am basically a troll for showing why someone's arguments look like swiss cheese. If only real life arguments were so easy.</p>

We already had this debate and clearly you're not going to change your mind, however the facts are clearly there for anyone persuaded by stuff like "facts." I'll just play this handy video package. I said this before he won another championship last season. So he had the best numbers ever, then won again. Re the "opportunist" argument: Argument that "he had good players": Re: "he only coached good teams!": Ah, memories. Also lol at the idea that Jackson had "hall of famer" Karl Malone. He had a 40 year old power forward for one season. I've brought it up before but Red had nine hall of famers including one of the best defensive players ever in a league with ten teams, all of them for more than a single season.

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="ampulator" data-cite="ampulator" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>There's always been common sense in this thread. It's the WWE that doesn't have common sense anymore. People claim that the WWE doesn't have to do the "shock and awe" tactics anymore, yet defend their nonsensical moves. <p> </p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Where were you when memories were being ****-ed by a wrestler losing a wrestling match?</p>

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="BHK1978" data-cite="BHK1978" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="27836" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>And what was up with those thug like hits in the game? Was I watching the Rodman era Pistons or the Lakers? Oh well I am glad to see Phil go out like this, I have always felt he was overrated anyway (And no I am not going to get into a debate for the third time about Phil Jackson so any responses directed to my comment will be met with silence no matter how insulting the person is to me.).</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> It's hard to rate the greatest NBA coach of all time too highly. <img alt=":)" data-src="//content.invisioncic.com/g322608/emoticons/smile.png.142cfa0a1cd2925c0463c1d00f499df2.png" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png" /></p>

<p>Suddenly there's a lot of common sense in this thread. Glad we're all over the knee-jerk hyperbole already. The farewell to Edge storyline was over (ADR's not even around any more), and Christian gets plugged into a major storyline with one of the top names in wrestling. And people act like the sky is falling because he lost a match. </p><p> </p><p> As far as the failure to capitalize when someone is temporarily hot, I see where WWE isn't very good at it, but on the other hand, a guy like Hardcore Holly was perfect in the position he was in. He was a pretty solid hand who served as a gatekeeper for people positioned to move up the card, and that's where a guy with his talent, his look, and his promo skills needed to be. Pushing him beyond that would just expose his weaknesses, the way it did when he moved into the IC title picture, the same way it did when he worked his program with Lesnar, the same way it did for Kofi when he looked awful feuding with Orton after one big night where he looked ready to be a main eventer.</p>

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="wilts" data-cite="wilts" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>I don't buy it, Kennedy could have been big. Look at Edge and all his injuries, they still managed to get him where they wanted.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Edge didn't have much in the way of injuries until about 5 years into his WWE career, by which time he'd been about a ten thousand time tag team champion, Intercontinental champion, King of the Ring, etc. Meanwhile Kennedy had poorly timed injuries that kept him from ever gaining any momentum, and came back from a year long lay-off looking sloppy and with an attitude.</p>

What happened to Kennedy? He suffered a muscle tear that cost him Money in the Bank and killed his momentum on Smackdown, then he was drafted to Raw and almost immediately got suspended for wellness violations, then had a pretty terrible turn as a babyface in a sort of "PG Chris Jericho" type guy that made wisecracks and hilariously used photoshop to mock his opponents. Then after changing brands back to Smackdown, he immediately got hurt again. He came back from a 9 month lay-off and looked sloppy, and combined with his poor attitude, WWE decided to cut their losses. Basically poorly timed injuries and steroid use (which likely caused his muscle injury) kept him from having any consistency in the company. His awful babyface run didn't help, either.

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="djthefunkchris" data-cite="djthefunkchris" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>You know, I actually agree more then dissagree with you, but alas, the underlined. This is where I just don't believe that everything is so cut and dry to most of the fan base. Sure, to me, or you, or someone else that is as "into" wrestling as we are... We see it, heck, most of us play a game where we simulate it. That insight effects our ability to "be shocked". It effects us in a bad way IMO... especially if you desire it.<p> </p><p> Let me put it another way. How many times have you seen people in here complaining about something that happened on one of the shows... yet when your watching the show it seems like the WHOLE AUDIENCE was on a totally different mindframe (meaning they liked what other's hated). This is how I see most fans being. When I watch wrestling with my friends, that don't talk like we do about wrestling: Example: WOW! That was a good promo! Jeesh, he would be so much better if he would learn how to do a promo... That was botched badly! Etc.</p><p> </p><p> We watch it like that. The guys I watch it with, thier reactions are totally different. I like this though, as it helps me enjoy the show about 20 times more then if I watch it while talking about the show here. IF I missed a botch, I'm still going to know about it. That's not "normal" viewer audience. Heck, most people don't think Botch, they think "Dummie shouldn't have tried that, now look what happened!" and it's kind of like watching race car's to them.... It's alot more exciting when there is a car crash.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Some good points here. Most people don't watch wrestling to make sure it's confirming a series of hypotheses they already had when the show started, then lament that things are too "predictable" because they were able to accurately predict what would happen. Most things of this nature are predictable if you look at them hard enough, even unscripted sporting events. But if you're watching to see if you're right, or, god forbid, giving out meaningless snowflakes based on some idiotic rating scale, there's a pretty good chance that you're not going to <em>enjoy the show</em>. And in the end, that's the whole point.</p>

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="cappyboy" data-cite="cappyboy" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>I do. Really it all comes down to what Brooks wants. If he's looking for career stability and wants to be that company guy, you're right on. Sell the name rights and then save some dough in the event you have seller's remorse and/or end up in a Dudley Boys/Hardcore Holly situation. The old trust but verify thing if you will.<p> </p><p> But if he still wants the freedom to explore other pastures, he's much better served hanging on to the name rights. Being "CM Punk" has been very good to him. It's the only name of any value he's ever had. It's not like his cult started as "PJ Brooks" and grew it when he became "CM Punk" and then WWE picked him up. The potential value to both him and the next place he went is much higher if he's still able to be Punk. If he has to resort to an alternate name, the next place might miss out on the early returns as folks who'd otherwise pay to see him fail to realize he is in fact him. Which in turn could hurt his value to the next place. Since the reports are that Brooks is fighting to retain his own name rights, it suggests to me he doesn't view WWE as a final landing place just yet. If that's true, it doesn't seem wise to me to get stuck holding an empty identity bag if you don't have to.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Maybe I wasn't clear on this, but I already explained why the reasons you give are illusory. He can't make big money anywhere but WWE because there is nowhere else to go. He's already a main eventer in the biggest promotion in the world. And yes, he might lose some value to New Japan or TNA or whoever if he leaves without the name, but 1) he would have already been compensated up front, which will be useful while he takes a paycut to work a reduced schedule or promote his country music album, and 2) he would still make a decent payday, even if he doesn't move any needles (as TNA has proved with their big signings). I really have to question what century these fans of Punk who would buy a show if they knew he was appearing won't buy because they don't even know it's him: clearly not the 21st, where twitter, facebook and everything else make guys like Punk instantly accessible to their hardcore fanbase. It "doesn't seem wise" to take money for a name that you still get to use anyway, on the basis that you <em>might</em> want to leave one day and make far less money elsewhere, but want to remain slightly more marketable in the tiny pond you're moving to? I just don't see how that's even a competitive option. Like I said, if WWE is low-balling him or think they don't need him around (and they do, considering the age and injuries to most of their other ring general type main eventers), that's one thing, but it's naive to say "oh he should keep the name maybe he'll need it one day."</p><p> </p><p> Oh, and OctoberRaven, as far as Punk not making it? You're joking, right? He was hyped to be the big new star of ECW when it was still being treated as a major brand, then went on an 8+ month streak where he was unbeaten in singles matches (as a babyface), and was featured in a survivor series match with DX where he, HBK and Triple H were the sole survivors. But yeah, it seemed like maybe he wouldn't work out there for a minute...</p>

<p>Good for Punk for holding out but at the end of the day if I were him I'd sell the name rights for a significant bonus up front, then sign a new contract with promises and guarantees that make it clear that he's going to be a top name for years to come. At the end of the day, he's making real money working with the WWE, and the difference between working as CM Punk and PJ Brooks is worth maybe what, 10K a year on the indy's, if that? On the other hand, he can make probably the equivalent of a year's salary by selling the name rights, and it sends a message that he's willing to be a "company guy" and commit to working with WWE for years to come. It's not necessarily a no-brainer decision, but unless WWE is (stupidly) unwilling to make him a generous offer for the name rights, I don't see why he wouldn't be willing to give them up.</p><p> </p><p> And it's not like you can't buy the rights back later if you've got the cash, the way The Rock did.</p>

<p>Seriously guys, thanks for the entertainingly ridiculous histrionics. </p><p> </p><p> </p><blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Astil" data-cite="Astil" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>F*** you WWE. I'm done with wrestling.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> </p><blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Hashasheen" data-cite="Hashasheen" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>I just read the spoilers. **** you WWE. <img alt=":mad:" data-src="//content.invisioncic.com/g322608/emoticons/mad.png.69834f23b9a8bf290d98375f56f1c794.png" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png" /></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> </p><blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Hashasheen" data-cite="Hashasheen" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>It's not about Orton getting another title run. It's about completely raping a beautiful moment in a man's career and for his fans. I wasn't even a Christian fan until I spent time in the last few months looking at old WWF and TNA stuff.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Never mind that you haven't actually seen this stuff happen or that the fans chose the match they wanted to see, does someone losing the belt really "rape" the moment of winning the belt? The Eddie/Rey parallels are spot-on, and the only even somewhat surprising thing is that it happened as quickly as it did.</p><p> </p><p> Seriously, just breathe in and out slowly until your sanity comes back.</p>

I don't really see how Malone is statistically the best unless you're just looking at points and calling it a day. Duncan in his prime averaged 12.5-13 boards and 2.5-3 blocks a game, both significantly better than Malone at his peak (Malone was never much of a shot-blocker due to his size). Duncan wasn't just a reliable scorer and great passer for a big man, he was also one of the best defensive players in the NBA for over a decade. Duncan has never missed being on an all-defensive team in his career to this point, while Malone had 4 all-defense appearances vs. Duncan's 13(!). It's cliche, but defense wins championships. Duncan's 4 vs. Malone's 0 is just another statistic that bears that out. But yeah, Malone is probably the best offensive power forward of all time. I mean he's #2 on all-time scoring, and was able to move in transition like a small forward, something only a handful of 4's have ever been able to match (including Garnett 8+ years ago). He was in incredible shape and for being slightly undersized was a phenomenal scorer in the post or from mid-range. But that's not enough to make him "best ever."