Please take the Jewish Economics Survey and help build the economic future of the Orthodox Jewish community.Read more about the survey, including discussion and information about its findings and the presentation given on it, here.
Ezzie,This is horrible. Us Clevelanders are bieng tortured. I agree with the person who commented that LBJ will leave when his contract is up. Unless, the Cavs don't aquire another star, LeBron is out of Cleveland, he will realize that the Cavs aren't dedicated to winning. This holds true for all Cleveland sports teams. You and I have true Indian fans nearly all our lives. The Indians are the sexy pick to win the AL. We both know they are not. Aside from CC Sabathia and Travis Hafner, the rest of the Tribe players are o.k. And Hafner will be out of Cleveland too...soon. Ezzie, I'm pissed.
I actually disagree, and not just because I'm perennially optimistic.You don't realize just how much better Hafner, Sizemore, and Victor Martinez are than other people at their positions. CC obviously is a top-shelf starter; Sowers is young but capable of being one as well.I could go through the rest of the team, but basically they're all at least average at their positions (though they should trade Michaels who they don't need), with the only Q as always being the bullpen.In baseball, it's a matter of getting to the playoffs, then it's anyone's game (as the Cards showed last year). The Indians DO have enough to do that.
O.K.In the mid 90's the Indians did prove to have somehting, and I agree we may see that again. That being said, it does't negate the fact the Cleveland teams NEVER sign big name players to big contracts, NEVER. The last big name player the Indiands siged was Juan Gonzales and it was for 1 year. Never did they try to aquire a a player like A-Rod or Barry Zito. Clevenda juts doesn't like to spend Arguably the best hitter in baseball left in Manny Ramirez. The Indians are not even as bad in terms of fruegelness as the Cavs. The Cavs should go out and try to aquire Garnett, how amazing woudld that duo be? I will always continue to be a Cleveland fan and I'yh so will my son. But Ezzie, you are an optimist.
Ezzie,I understand you're a Cavs fan and they're a decent team but let's not go crazy here. There are at least 5 teams out West that are clearly better than the Cavs. Sure the Cavs could reach the finals in the horrid East and upset the West champion, but they aren't really in the Mavs, Spurs, or Suns' league right now.I agree about the Indians though. Hafner is one of the top 3 players in the AL (maybe all of baseball), Sizemore is vastly underrated and the rest of the lineup is very solid. They were third in the majors in offense last year with a huge regress at SS and Hafner missing an entire month.
DG - Cleveland teams can't afford to pay those big contracts - they do a nice job of signing very good players to good, long-term contracts, and they just have to hope they win in that window.The Cavs can't get Garnett because of cap restrictions, even if the T-Wolves would take (say) Hughes, Gooden, and whoever for him.Nephtuli - They've swept the Spurs and Lakers this year, and split with the Rockets and Jazz (and that should be a sweep, too). They did, however, get swept by both the Suns and Mavs (though both Mavs games were pretty tight).Basically, the Mavs and Suns not only have their respective stars, but more complete teams overall, and the Cavs - however solid they may be - simply aren't as complete.I guess I'm basically agreeing with you, but narrowing it down to only those two teams as opposed to five. Moreover, the Cavs have a better record against the West than anyone in the West but those two teams, if I'm not mistaken.The Cavs are the third or fourth-best team in the NBA, behind the Mavs, Suns, and possibly the Pistons (with the Heat right behind). Then again, as we see from the Cardinals and last year's Heat, that may be enough to win a championship.
Wow Ezzie, you have to kidding me.Because the Cavs swept the Spurs, you expect me to believe that they're a better team? The Bucks also swept the Spurs. So what? Two games are statisically meaningless.The Spurs have a 8.3 win differential, while the Cavs are only at 3.2. The Spurs are 28-11 against the West, while the Cavs are only 18-10. And let's not forget the simple fact that the Spurs have a .701 winning percentage to the Cavs .603.There's a reason why John Hollinger ranks the Spurs the best team in the NBA. And remember that the Spurs are playing all season with their best players getting less than 35 minutes a game and only Duncan getting more than 33. How much better is these team going to be when Ginoblli starts playing 35 minutes a game?The Cavs shouldn't even be in the same conversation as the Spurs.I think you can make an argument for the Cavs over the Rockets or Jazz, but I'd go with the Western teams.
M'bad - it's the Lakers that the Cavs have a better vs. West record. For some reason I thought it was SA...Put it this way - while two games are statistically meaningless and don't prove a team to be better than the other (the Cavs beating the Bulls 6 times then falling to The Shot to lose a series comes to mind), the point is simply that they're clearly at about the same level as the other team, if not better. For whatever reason, the Cavs tried to coast all year against weaker East teams, and that's resulted in a weak 23-17 record vs. the East.I guess we'll have to see what happens if the Cavs make the Finals, whoever they play; but it's hard to assume that the Spurs are better when the teams are definitely at the least on similar levels and the Cavs won both games. (As opposed to Warriors/Mavs, where they're not at all on similar levels.)(They also beat the Spurs late last season after losing the second game of the season to them.)Honestly, I agree with a friend who said recently "the Spurs window is closing". They're still a great team, but they're just not quite as good as the Suns and Mavs, and they're not getting better.
Put it this way - while two games are statistically meaningless and don't prove a team to be better than the other (the Cavs beating the Bulls 6 times then falling to The Shot to lose a series comes to mind), the point is simply that they're clearly at about the same level as the other team, if not better.I'm not following. I'm sure you don't think the Bucks are on the same level as the Spurs, right?For whatever reason, the Cavs tried to coast all year against weaker East teams, and that's resulted in a weak 23-17 record vs. the East.Or maybe they are just inconsistent and capable of beating good teams some nights and losing to bad teams on other nights. That happens to every team but the better teams are generally more consistent overall. That's why the Spurs/Mavs/Suns have substantially better records.I guess we'll have to see what happens if the Cavs make the Finals, whoever they play; but it's hard to assume that the Spurs are better when the teams are definitely at the least on similar levels and the Cavs won both games. (As opposed to Warriors/Mavs, where they're not at all on similar levels.)Ok, so you're arguing that if two team are on similar levels and one team sweeps the other, the latter team is probably better. Not a bad argument, but I don't see on what basis you can argue they are on similar levels. The Spurs league leading point differential is no accident.Honestly, I agree with a friend who said recently "the Spurs window is closing". They're still a great team, but they're just not quite as good as the Suns and Mavs, and they're not getting better.I agree they probably aren't getting any better, but this season they are as good as anyone. They'll be well-rested come playoff time and they are a better team when their starters play more minutes (true about pretty much every team but the Spurs have been playing their bench more than anyone this season). Remember, the Spurs were a dumb foul away from taking the series against the Mavs and probably going all the way last year.