Jared Dudley disagrees with LeBron James on contraction

On Thursday night Jared Dudley surprisingly went blow for blow with LeBron James in the scoring column as the Heat beat the Suns.

Friday he provided a counter to LeBron once again, this time opposing the surprising comments James made Thursday night in Phoenix supporting contraction.

Dudley made himself heard — where else? – on Twitter and Players Association President Derek Fisher spoke out as well.

LeBron said:

“Hopefully the league can figure out one way where it can go back to the ’80s where you had three or four All-Stars, three or four superstars, three or four Hall of Famers on the same team. The league was great. It wasn’t as watered down as it is [now].

“[Contraction] is not my job; I’m a player but that is why it, the league, was so great. Imagine if you could take Kevin Love off Minnesotaand add him to another team and you shrink the [league]. Looking at some of the teams that aren’t that great, you take Brook Lopez or you take Devin Harris off these teams that aren’t that good right now and you add him to a team that could be really good. Not saying let’s take New Jersey and let’s take Minnesota out of the league. But hey, you guys are not stupid, I’m not stupid, it would be great for the league.”

And Dudley’s response:

“I was reading about what Lebron said on the concept of contraction, basically wanting the NBA to get back to the old days with great on good teams..Like the Pistons, lakers, bulls, and rockets.I disagree.I feel like maybe some teams should be moved!! But cutting teams I don’t like. In this league u don’t need necessarily great players to win.. How bout the Pistons with Billups,Prince,R.Wallace or the Heat with Wade an older Shaq, G.Payton and walker towards the end of their careers.. Lebron had a shot with Cleveland when he made it to the finals. U don’t need 3 or 4 superstars..U just need really 1 maybe 2 and a lot of great role players.The game has change let’s look forward not back.”

I would assume LeBron’s viewpoint was a very unpopular one amongst his union since he’s arguing for eliminating some of his colleagues’ jobs. The league surely would be more intriguing if a .500 team like the Suns could go out and add a Kevin Love for nothing and the competitive balance at the top would be even stiffer in such a scenario, but for a healthy league contraction should never be an option.

Obviously Fisher must comment on this since he’s the president, but it will be interesting to see if more players chime in along with JMZ.

Tags: Jared Dudley Lebron James

  • Dave

    It may piss off some marginal players who will lose their jobs. But in the big picture, for the entire league, and the entertainment of fans, Lebron is 100% correct. Its funny how this guy thinks big, makes tough business decisions without emotion, and small minded people just hate him for it.

  • Mark

    Dude, what he’s saying is not true. It isn’t based on “100%” logic at all. He’s basically making an excuse as to why he has ZERO rings. He’s a big, crybaby sore loser. You are a fool to think otherwise.

  • Maverick Carter

    I think Lebron is 100% correct. His mom wouldve never been piped by Delonte if he was playing somewhere in let’s say…..Denver. Too many white people there! If you take all the NBA teams out of the cities which are populated by a lot of blacks, than Lebrons stuff will sell like crazy. It’s funny how some people don’t see the truth in what Lebron is saying. He obviously grew up in the 80s because he was born in 88′. Contract teams baby! Lets have like 6 teams, I mean look how successful Tropical Thunder was!

  • Kenton

    What does J.M.Z. even stand for, anyway?

  • http://www.valleyofthesuns.com Michael Schwartz

    Nothing really, just a play off TMZ with the first initial of Jared’s name. Same with “JSPN” when he says that. If we took it at face value, it would mean “Jared Mile Zone” based on the real TMZ acronym.

  • Lee-Bron

    haha hey Mark, you’re an idiot. A sore crybaby loser? yea, hard to be a crybaby when you just destroyed the defending champs with a triple double. It makes more sense to contract but he wasn’t saying they should minimize the league, it was a hypothetical. We wouldnt have to wait till Christmas to see the one super game a year because more teams would have better combinations of players.

  • Zak

    Hmmm… the 80′s… yep there was a lot of parity back then since the NBA was smaller. The Lakers made the finals in the West 8 times and won it all 5 times. The Rockets made it the other 2 times and never won it. The Celtics made the finals in the East 5 times and won it all 3 times. The Sixers made it 3 times and won it once and Detroit made it twice and won it once. And there were only 23 teams back in 1980 so of course the NBA wasn’t watered down back then and there weren’t any really bad teams. Except for the Mavericks who were 15-67 that year… and the Pistons who were 21-61… and the Nets who were 24-58… and the Cavs and the Jazz who were both 28-54. My point is that there has really never been a time when there was real parity within the NBA. Contracting would give the surviving teams a better pool of players to choose from but the level (and number) of players from overseas entering the NBA has kept the overall level of play increasing even though the # of teams has also increased. I’m definitely against contraction just as I’m completely against expansion. The same result – more parity in the NBA – could be achieved with a hard cap and removing the Bird exception.

  • stfn

    lebron might be saying he want to have klove, blopez and dharris in his team….

  • Pingback: Holiday Hoops Buffet | Pickin' Splinters