lazorbeak

It was a joke- might want to read a Raw recap to get it.

Yes. They are. And it's nothing new. I mean seriously, Mick Foley as Cactus Jack was making about 100K in what, 1991?

When was the last time you checked?! How long ago was it that Gail Kim was talking about making 4-5 times her TNA offer being the deciding factor when she knew she'd likely be booked horribly and not enjoy her work? One year, in the middle of a huge economic downturn? And while I don't have exact numbers, 400K was a number thrown around a lot online. As for how it keeps its "profits," it considers all of its wrestlers to be independent contractors. Independent contractors who agree to work exclusively for one company, attend all of its events as set out in a rigid schedule, and are specifically instructed how to behave on TV. And the WWE is largely dependent on these "independent contractors" doing the work set out for them as a fundamental aspect of their business. But since wrestlers are listed as independent contractors, WWE saves money both on their taxes and in the fact that they don't provide travel costs, health insurance, or any other benefits traditionally linked with "employees." Stacy was probably making over 100 grand a year at the end of her run, which sounds great until you consider the fact that WWE wasn't paying for her travel costs when she was on the road 300 days a year, and wasn't obligated to pay her the full amount if she took time off. He was in the Mexi-cools. And yes, this is why indy guys sign with WWE. Because even if they get horribly mis-used, they can buy a house. Why do you think Goldust, Shannon Moore and Chuck Palumbo keep coming back for more? I doubt they have any delusions of world championships. But WWE is the promotion that pays you. Paul London left because he was released from his contract? Not sure what choice he had. Seriously 100K is not all that much. In TEW, anyone who makes 9K or more a month is making at least 100K (9X12=108). When you consider that the starting salary in a legit sport like the NFL is almost 5 times that and provides protections from being fired during injury along with basic employment benefits, it's not hard to see why so many legit athletes get into wrestling as a second choice.

<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>Yes, I do doubt it, mainly 6 figures is a lot for a guy that's only a short-time champion. He hasn't been in company that long or champion that long compared to others.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> A 2004-05 report on wrestler salaries showed Psychosis, Paul London, Rene Dupree, Nunzio, and Gene Snitsky made 6 figure salaries that year.</p><p> </p><p> So........ yeah.</p><p> </p><p> Active workers making less then that? Stevie Richards! Also Kid Kash and Trevor Murdoch.</p>

BHK, it's not surprising you have a lot more nostalgia for the era that took place when you were a kid, but a lot of your complaints are things that have already been addressed by the league. And while the league has expanded the talent pool has also expanded: twenty years ago Drazen Petrovic and Vlade Divac were the rarity, now international players make up a significant amount of the league. And with the rise of the international game and the re-introduction of the zone defense, there's more fundamental skills and team basketball on display today then there's been in 20 years. As far as LeBron goes, I don't know, I think Simmons is on to something. I mean, look at Karl Malone. He was listed at 6'9, 250, or one inch taller and the same weight as LeBron. He never won a championship either, but he pushed the Bulls at their strongest, while LeBron's one finals appearance saw him get pummeled by the Spurs. Teams were afraid to play the Jazz: the guy is pretty much single-handedly responsible for Duncan being drafted to the Spurs instead of a team that was actually bad. Malone was just a tough bastard, and despite being smaller than most 4's and 5's in the league he could shut down guys with his strength and athleticism on defense. Considering LeBron is essentially the same size, it's crazy that he isn't known as an interior defender, but he's not. LeBron needed to be the one guarding Garnett when no one else could, and it didn't happen. But even now that we know that LeBron isn't the next Jordan or Magic, that doesn't mean he can't be a champion. It just means he won't win by being the LeBron James show. He's a beast around the rim, his outside shot is good (but he relies on it too much), he is almost impossible to slow down once he's got a head of steam, and he plays good transition defense. Unfortunately he's less comfortable in the low post on offense or defense than he should be and he has a tendency to turn the ball over too much when playing point. So what he needs is a great low post guy and either a better offensive system or a true point guard. That's why the Bulls make the most sense as a team: they've already got a very good young point guard and Noah brings the defensive toughness that makes teams afraid to face you. The problem with going to a team that isn't already established like the Nets or the Clippers is it would immediately turn into the LeBron show as surely as the Knicks would. Harris is good but he's not a great true point and his assists are only up to being #10 in the league because he is playing on a team lacking in talent. I mean D-Wade gets that many assists while managing to pull his mediocre team into the playoffs. Harris is good but he's basically just Delonte West without mental problems. And while Lopez's offensive numbers were impressive, he's still green in the post on defense, and the fact that he couldn't average 10 boards a game when his forward help was Yi Jianlian is pretty depressing. For LeBron to win he needs to be on a team with guys who will motivate him instead of vice versa. Also he has to stop handling the ball so much, unless he wants to push for that quadruple double in turnovers.

Yeah I'd say she's pretty huge. She's listed at 6'1, 250. Her gimmick has apparently been that she's the great-granddaughter of Babe Ruth. Kind of a shame Kong's gone as I think there'd be some interest in seeing the two feud.

The Celtics play great team ball and are a lot more fun to watch than the Cavs. I'll definitely be pulling for them to close out in 6, and I think Orlando might actually get challenged for the first time in the playoffs. Also I don't think the Suns match up well with the Lakers at all. They're just giving up a lot of size at every position.

My point has nothing to do with Indiana Jones, my point is that a PG rating and entertainment for adults are not exclusive concepts! I'm not saying that means all PG content is automatically for kids or that it means parents don't have to watch what their kids are watching but Remi asked for examples and I gave him a few off the top of my head. That's what I'm talking about. I don't care about the minutiae of my examples. Raiders of the Lost Arc, Star Wars, etc., are rated PG, and are enjoyed by adults. That's my point.

Raiders is rated PG, and come on, Temple of Doom featured a child sidekick! You're telling me it wasn't for kids? And while Temple of Doom and Last Crusade had violence, they had a lot of stuff for the whole family. I singled out Indiana Jones, but a lot of "classic" Spielberg is the same way. Seriously, if you object to Indy, what about ET? Only 13 episodes of the Simpsons (out of what, 400?) were rated anything other than TVPG, and it has jokes for kids and adults. Nobody said my examples had to be from a Christian values magazine! Yeah coming to the series cold as a 12 year old I thought I was already too old to be bothered with it because they were all such kiddie movies. I'm in the minority on that one though. Nerds complaining about the new trilogy being too kid-friendly must have watched something else as children, a serious, exciting movie that wasn't half sassy effeminate robots or stuffed animal people. Mask of the Phantasm is a very good movie. The whole BTAS can still be enjoyed as an adult: the full orchestra that composed music each episode, the how-to guide for one act mysteries, Mark Hamill as the Joker? It holds up really well.

Yeah but since we're talking about coaching all the non-coaching stuff he did really isn't relevant, is it? As a direct contradiction of what you said? Since, well... he did. I agree different guys brought different things, but when you look at the results Phil has had in 3 different environments over the past two decades it's unbelievable and I don't think anyone can compare to what he's accomplished.

Animaniacs The Simpsons The Princess Bride every Pixar movie Indiana Jones STAR WARS

Seriously let. It. Go. Nobody's saying that, and you still don't seem to get it. Whatever, move on with life. Agreed that it's stupid that it's been talked about for 3 pages, but as I've said, the problem is TNA's comically ineffective overreaction. Nobody gets scared over criminal charges when the language of the statute obviously contradicts the letter. If you want to shut someone up, threaten their wallet.

Agreed, but my point is you're marginalizing/failing to understand his frustration by saying it's because he doesn't like Russo's booking. Yes, when he first took over. Then in a matter of months their ppv buyrates had nose-dived. Again, WCW in 1999 was competitive, WCW in 2000 was a joke and WCW in 2001 didn't exist. Do you really think it did anyone any favors to book an angle where Jarrett lays down for Hogan, then Russo shoots on him? What is the pay-off for something like that, other than costing everyone piles of money? Why is the burden on me to do that? If a testimonial from someone like Remi isn't good enough I don't know what to tell you, because you're not going to find a dozen cases on stuff like this because it is so harmless and common-place it doesn't even go to court. Again, I wouldn't do what Cornette did, and certainly he could stand to learn some restraint, but acting like he is the bad guy because he went on a rant in an e-mail is just silly.

1) Pippen wasn't an all-star before Jackson, and Kobe, while an all-star, was an all-star who shot 26% from the 3-point line, lacked toughness on defense, and averaged 20 points a game. In short he was an all-star because he was an above-average shooting guard who played in a major market. To argue that Jackson didn't develop these guys is pretty bizarre considering both were in their early 20's and are now hall of famers based almost exclusively on what they did while Jackson was coaching. Gasol is another guy who has changed his game from the tissue-paper soft style that saw the Grizzlies fail to win a single playoff game, ever. 2) Yes, he won with great teams, but somehow that makes Red the best ever? Red didn't coach great teams? He had the best defender and rebounder in the league in Bill Russell, a Steve Nash-level point guard in Bob Cousy, a great shooter and tough defender in Tom Heinsohn and an elite scorer like John Havlicek coming off the bench. Plus 5 more hall of famers over the course of his coaching career. Again, Red Auerbach coached an NBA league that expanded to TEN teams, and had talent far above that of any other team in the league for over a decade. Free agency and the salary cap make that kind of team impossible for a prolonged period of time. Except, again, he did take a 34 win Lakers team and won a championship in 4 years. Oh, more support: Deron Williams, following the Jazz's unceremonious sweep from the playoffs, their first in 2 decades: "they're just better than we are. We're a playoff team and they're a championship team." The Jazz have been a playoff team for pretty much the entire Deron Williams era, but while the Jazz have consistently gotten to the semi-finals, they haven't really managed to do anything else. They do have a very good coach, but they haven't been able to get to that championship level that Jackson-coached teams seem to get to on a regular basis.

Yes I know you weren't but my point is the most memorable thing isn't a dick joke it's a well-written storyline where you believed Austin's character. One of the other great moments from that original feud was where Austin cut a promo on the tron and said something about when Rock's beeper flashed 3:16 it meant he was in for an ass kicking. Then, when Rock's beeper went off (god was this really only 12 years ago???), his eyes bugged and he turned around into a beatdown from Austin. There's no reason that same bit couldn't work today in an altered form, and blaming the TV rating ignores the fact that the problem is the writing/booking, not the fact that it's rated PG. One of the biggest problems in marketing things for "all ages" is people think it needs to suck, and that really isn't true. Believe it or not you can have a program that appeals to kids and adults, it just has to be well-done. People, even young people, want drama, and that's the biggest thing the Attitude era gave you that's missing today. Everything else was a sideshow distraction to break up what was essentially a year-long feud between Austin and McMahon. And in the meantime you had unpredictable title changes and what felt like 1 year's worth of story crammed into a few months. The fact that wrestling doesn't have that any more has nothing to do with its rating.

No problem man I was just confused as to the sudden shift in tone. Might want to check that fact again. Shaq did reach the finals once... and failed to win a single game. And Horry did win as a rookie and sophomore in Houston, making him one of a very small group of guys to win championships with 3 teams. He was just a great team player: a clutch shooter who could spread the floor and play tough defense. His physical tools weren't great but he knew what he had to do to be successful in the league. Anyway after that game 4 I am definitely behind the Celtics. They play unselfish team ball and get a lift from some of their smaller names. The Cavs are just so painfully dull to watch when Lebron runs the offense. It's just the same pick-and-bulldoze to the rim move over and over. I just don't see how they can win against top teams with that system.

Yeah I mean that's not the rating that's the intensity of the product which was almost necessitated by a bunch of guys literally breaking their neck on high impact spots. WCW in the early 90's was physically intense but was still rated PG. In fact, I think WCW was PG for nearly all of its run. I actually don't mind the stoppage for blood, because in legit sports, when people bleed, something is done about it. Even a sport like boxing has breaks for the cut man to stop bleeding. In sports where blood is less common like basketball, you can't be on the floor while bleeding until it's covered.

Where is he saying that you will 'turn out crappy'? I'm not sure how it's hypocritical either, since he didn't have kids then and does now? Also your example of a memorable segment is still completely fine within WWE' current product. Things we've lost: Val Venis and "I chopee your pee-pee." Local escorts and models being called "Ho's." Jerry Lawler shouting "puppies!" and whistling every ten seconds a woman is on-screen. "Mr. Ass," DX acting like frat-boys. Oh the humanity! I see where "PG" has negative connotations but really all we're losing is childish garbage that appeals to the lowest common denominator. It really has nothing to do with the actual wrestling. I mean TNA has great wrestlers but still wastes time forcing knockouts to strip and having Orlando Jordan pour lotion on himself and grown men calling each other "bitches" as though it was an edgy insult. Is that really what anyone wants? When creativity is stifled, that's a whole other problem, but I don't miss shock for shock garbage. And considering the benefits of being a more respectable company, I'm sure WWE doesn't miss it either.

I am criticizing TNA management because TNA management's actions were equally childish and laughable, moreso because they instructed an attorney to write such a childish and laughable letter. Should Cornette give himself time to cool down before he hits "send"? Absolutely. He is a performer in everything he does, and it gets him in trouble. But what do you think the reaction was when TNA received that e-mail? "Oh no he's gonna go hurt Vince!" Please. If anyone there even took what Cornette said to be even an idle threat I would be shocked and amazed. But instead of either a) have someone in the company contact Cornette, a former employee of theirs in person, or b) ignore it as a correspondence between friends, they went with c) threaten hilariously impossible legal action accusing Cornette of making "terroristic" threats. TNA: where no problem is small enough to ignore. Say something sarcastic about TNA on twitter and Eric Bischoff will personally write you a message saying how haters have tiny penises. This really happened. You're assuming a lot of facts not in evidence. Facts like: Russo is Taylor's boss. Cornette sent it to Taylor's TNA work account. And sending a letter isn't the worst part, it's threatening criminal charges, something that is both preposterous and non-threatening. Tell him to shut up and remind him of his contractual obligations and tell him if he ignores that, it could cost him money. How absurd that a man that has made his livelihood in professional wrestling gets upset when people's poor decision-making hurts that livelihood! It's not as though Jim Cornette is some armchair booker who doesn't have a stake in this. Russo is as personally responsible for WCW folding when it did as AOL, Hogan and Bischoff, in that he took over a company that was still competitive and drove it completely into the ground so that it was gone two years later. Quick, has this helped or hurt the wrestling industry in the past 9 years? Perhaps it cost Jim Cornette money? Perhaps leaving the #2 wrestling promotion in the US cost Cornette more money? I mean, when you don't like someone AND you think they've cost you thousands of dollars and hurt your industry as a whole, is it so ridiculous to say you hate them in an e-mail not addressed to them? This isn't a fan whining about a hobby, this is someone in a profession that's upset with someone else in the profession, so to act as though this is absurd ignores the fact that this sort of thing does, in fact, happen ALL THE TIME.

Okay, it turns out Grant was on that Lakers team, although he was 38 years old and averaged 4 points and 4 rebounds a game. I forgot he was on that roster only because he was such a nonentity on that team. Again, ten championships in 18 seasons, something no one else has ever done, and after the advent of free agency. Not really comparable to two rings. And your other example doesn't work either because Jackson has never coached a "bad" team. Even his Bulls teams without Jordan and Kobe without anyone else were teams that made the playoffs and pushed good teams like the Knicks and Suns. And we can tell those were his less talented teams because virtually every other season he coached he's reached the finals, something no one in history can compare to. First of all, why would he do that? And second of all, yes! He turned a 34 win Lakers team into champions in 4 years, and kept only 4 guys from that 34 win team: Kobe, Odom, Walton, and Vujacic. Is it so hard to imagine rebuilding a team like the Clippers assuming they'd be willing to spend some money and re-structure some of their nonsensical deals? I mean, Baron Davis has struggled to shoot 40% from the field and is a human turnover but made 12 million last season. He's not a guy I can see having success in a Phil Jackson system, because he does not play team basketball and is not a winner. But keep Blake Griffin, Steve Blake, Chris Mihm and one other role player, add a 2-3 who can shoot and drive, surround them with more role players, and even the Clippers could be 60 game winners in a few years. Most franchises aren't willing to make such a long-term commitment to success which makes the ones that do stand out. Yes when I say Phil Jackson is statistically the greatest coach in NBA history it is a fact because he has the best statistics in NBA history to back him up. We're not talking about a guy who lucked into a situation and won a title or two without understanding how, we're talking about someone who holds virtually every coaching record that isn't based on longevity and who has had repeated success that no one in NBA history can compare to. When I say that I think he's the best coach ever based on those statistics, yes that is an opinion, but it's one that I have no shortage of factual support for. It's become such an assumption that Phil Jackson coached teams must win that the only time he won coach of the year was when the Bulls set the all-time regular season record. I don't understand the need for the sarcastic parenthetical, either. I don't think I've said anything to indicate I don't want a dialogue and if I did, I apologize for it. But to act like I'm not even responding to your arguments is disrespectful and unnecessary. Just like your opinion is built on facts (Jackson taking over the Bulls when they were already getting good, Jackson taking over the Lakers that were already talented), mine was focused on rebutting those facts (how the Lakers were re-built, lack of success for players without Jackson, the fact that no one in history can compare to what Jackson has accomplished despite talented teams) with other facts. This is how debate works. It's fine if you feel like you've made your points, but it's not like we're just spitting in the wind here or I'm calling you names or not listening to you.

This Rondo fellow is pretty good. 18 rebounds, 29 points and 13 assists? Wow. As far as the Phil Jackson thing goes, like I said, the numbers are there, Jackson is the best ever. Because a team is composed of roles, and Jordan's role, as primary scorer and perimeter help defender wasn't something that one guy could easily step in and replace? And that Bulls team the first year without Jordan still won 55 games and pushed the Knicks in the semi-finals. Compare that to say, the Spurs team that went from 59 wins to 20 wins without David Robinson. Another of Jackson's accomplishments is he's never coached a team that failed to make the playoffs, even those pretty bad Lakers squads that featured Kobe, an injury-prone Odom, and, um... Smush Parker? Devean George? Brian Cook? Remember, Fisher wasn't even on these teams, as he didn't go back to LA until he thought it meant more rings for him. Before that he was playing off-guard in Utah for the Jazz team that lost to the Mavs in the conference finals. He had retired from coaching and was for all intents and purposes done. Why would he go back to a head coaching job with the Wizards or Clippers? He didn't have anything to prove to anybody. Those teams didn't have the money or the system to lure him back into the game. Also Kobe and Shaq had been teammates for 3 seasons and had combined for zero championships. That's one of the other reasons Phil is so great: Fox, Horry, Harper, Fox, and Fish were nothing special at all. But by giving them specific roles and getting them to lock down on defense, you can roll your eyes and act like it was easy to win with them. Look at how overpaid guys leaving LA have been since Jackson took over or how guys like Jud Buechler, Scottie Pippen and the rest of the Bulls were overpaid once they were out of Chicago. The Rockets picked up Pippen and we got a guy that took too many 3-point shots and couldn't work as a traditional forward. Again, Red had NINE HOF players vs 4. As far as the collapse in '04, it was a prime case of how talent DOES NOT win championships. Horace Grant wasn't on the team, and neither was Horry (who was busy winning with the Spurs). Malone and Shaq stepped on each other's toes in the low block, and Payton was a poor spot-up shooter who wasn't used to not directing an offense. Yes, because Phil didn't leave the team because of Kobe Bryant's ego, but because he had some devious master plan to come back and win championships once Bryant had realized he couldn't win on his own. How very devious of him! If it easy then why can no one in the history of the sport compare to what Jackson's done? Why couldn't Rodman win on a Spurs team that featured David Robinson and Sean Eliott? Why can't the Mavs win with a team that's full of talented players every season? Why did a Blazers team that featured a great frontcourt of Sabonis, Briant Grant and Rasheed Wallace fail to even make it to a finals, even when they added pieces like Steve Smith and Scottie Pippen? Why couldn't the Kings, with Webber, Divac, Bibby, Christie, and Peja Stokavic and great role players like Turkoglu and Bobby Jackson win a title? The argument that Jackson just had good players doesn't hold water since 1) the same players haven't shown an ability to win without him, and 2) hugely talented teams fail to win the championship every year. How many rings does Lebron have, despite being surrounded with a very good point guard, excellent role players, and a hall of fame center? Why haven't the Suns even made it to the finals with their talent?

Hahahaha oh my God any respect I had for TNA management is forever gone. "It is our view that the foregoing statements constitute "terroristic threats" under virtually every jurisdiction in the country, including under the US Code (18 USC 875) and Kentucky State Law (KRS 508.080)." http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/875.html (this law is about interstate extortion and kidnapping, and is completely irrelevant) "508.080 Terroristic threatening in the third degree. (1) Except as provided in KRS 508.075 or 508.078, a person is guilty of terroristic threatening in the third degree when: (a) He threatens to commit any crime likely to result in death or serious physical injury to another person" Of course since, even if we assume Cornette's statements were intended as a threat, it wouldn't hold up in criminal charges because 1) it's conditional and 2) it's not immediate and 3) it's not being sent to Russo or with intent that it goes to Russo! Seriously, TNA lawyers? Seriously? "Indeed, the language of the email is so specific, unequivocal and unconditional..." Yes, because this: "I have sworn to myself that I will willingly go to jail if I ever see him in person again, and he had better pray to his fictitious invisible man in the sky that that day never comes." (emphasis added) is specific, unequivocal, and unconditional. Does he say how he's going to do it? Or that he's going to go to Florida? Or what time? Seriously TNA, hire better lawyers if you want to scare anyone. Otherwise you just look incompetent.

Seriously the year before Phil took over in Chicago Jordan averaged over 32 points, 8 rebounds, and 8 assists a game along with almost 3 steals a game all while shooting over 50% from the field... and the Bulls still failed to reach the finals. For comparison, that's more rebounds and more steals per game than LeBron has ever averaged for a season, and LeBron has only put up that number of assists once and has only shot 50% for a season this past year and has never averaged more than 31 points per game for a season. Jordan was probably the most dominant guard in the history of the league already and had never won a title before Jackson and the triangle offense hid the team's weakness (lacking a true point guard) and played to the team's strengths. Everyone had a defined role: Pippen guarded the other team's best scorer and ran the point, Cartwright banged bodies with Patrick Ewing and other 7 footers, Horace Grant played the high post and picked up the boards, and Paxon and BJ Armstrong fired up 3's. Jordan's individual numbers dropped to a meager 6 rebounds, 5.5 assists, and 2.72 steals along with 31.5 points per game, but as soon as he had to stop doing everything the team started winning championships.

Yeah no. Factually he IS the greatest coach of all time. The numbers say this pretty definitively. He has coached the team with the best record in NBA history and has the highest playoff winning percentage ever. He's coached teams to the finals 12 times in 18 seasons and won 10 championships. And he did it after free agency and the expansion of the league. Red coached teams with 9 hall of fame players in a league that expanded to ten his final year. Quick, name 9 HOF players Phil has coached: Kobe, MJ, Shaq, Pippen, um... Horace Grant? John Paxson? Derek Fisher? But he is pretty much the greatest coach at building a roster that compliments his stars and developing team chemistry. Seriously, # of rings won by Kobe, MJ, Shaq and Pippen without Jackson? 1, Shaq's ring in Miami. The numbers just aren't there for any other coach in the history of the league.

Team basketball is still what wins championships. It's the reason Phil Jackson is the single greatest coach in the history of the NBA. Sure, he has Kobe, but what did Kobe do in the time without Phil? Score 35 points a game and not get out of the first round of the playoffs? I can't get over the fact that Jackson only won coach of the year once. I'm sure he doesn't care with his ten championships and all. He's seriously over .500 in seasons he coaches in when it comes to winning the title. In a league with 29 other teams. I just don't see anybody beating the Lakers. They've got late-game poise with Fish and Kobe, a great unselfish big man in Gasol, , a great defender in Artest, young athletes like Shannon Brown and Bynum, and about four guys whose job is to shoot when they're left unguarded. They have a great, battle-tested roster and the impetus is on the rest of the league to show that they can be beaten. Despite Orlando's hot start, I still don't believe in VC. The guy is not a warrior. How long before we see him on the bench with a towel covering his head? The inside-out offense only works when teams need to double team Dwight constantly and the Cavs won't do that with their bigs. Neither will the Lakers, if the Magic get that far. Speaking as a Spurs fan I don't see the Suns losing: they've finally learned how to play playoff basketball and they have a lot more toughness than the Suns teams from a few years ago. I just don't think the Spurs have the wheels to make a run after last night's collapse. Ginobli and Duncan are both on the downswing and Parker's been hurt. And while I like the Cavs, I don't like some of the Cavs' roster moves. I'm a big fan of hustle role players like Varejao and Delonte West, but do people really think an under-sized forward like Antwan Jamison or a 38 year old Shaquille O'Neal make them a better team? I know they're desperate to win but you don't win by signing high-profile scorers or hall of fame centers who can only give you 20 minutes a night. A big, athletic, defensive-minded forward/center (think Kendrick Perkins) and an athletic swing man who hustles and plays defense (Ronnie Brewer) would be the sort of puzzle pieces that would turn the Cavs into champions for years to come. Instead, if they don't win it this year, they're left with a worst-case scenario where LeBron leaves and the team goes back into obscurity. Best case, they're left trying to stay under the luxury tax as they pay for a bunch of aging former stars.