Jump to content

Cron

Members
  • Content count

    1,658
  • Joined

  • Last visited

2 Followers

About Cron

  • Rank
    Council Member

Recent Profile Visitors

2,836 profile views
  1. Well, I hear you, but my understanding is that the NBA is evolving into almost "positionless" basketball, where teams are increasingly just finding the five best players they can (almost irrespective of position), putting them out there and hoping it works. Would the Warriors like to trade Russell for a superstar Small Forward, Power Forward or Center? Probably, but I don't think that deal is even remotely likely to happen, and I really don't see a deal happening where the Warriors would get enough back for Russell at a different position to make trading him make sense. But hey, maybe I'll be surprised, as I have been surprised at times before (I didn't think the Pelicans would trade Anthony Davis to the Lakers, but they did, in a deal that I believe was terrible for the Pelicans. If I ran the Pelicans, I would have traded him to the Knicks for the #3 pick in the Draft, then taken RJ Barrett.) Yeah, I think Klay can do that. He's a great defender, and I think he's 6'6", isn't he? He'd be a bit undersized at SF, but not much. Well, like I basically said above, in theory that might be a good idea IF they could get a superstar in return at a different position, but I don't think they can get a player back at a different position who is better than Russell. I guess we'll see what happens, though. Seems like NBA rosters are pretty solidly set for 2019-2020. Theoretical trades are often fun to talk about, but I don't see Russell being traded unless the experiment in Golden State is a complete disaster and so they throw in the towel to rebuild. But hey, maybe I'm wrong.
  2. Cron

    The problem with Bran being king narrative wise

    Yeah, I guess that's why I've been putting off reading Fire and Blood: I seem to be getting the vibe that it's more like "work" (or doing background history research) than the highly personal, character driven, story-telling of ASOIAF. I might be jaded by my Silmarillion experience, too (I loved LotR, and when I was done I couldn't wait to get my hands on Silmarillion, and then could not even bring myself to finish Silmarillion, because it was like reading a dry history book)i Yes, I've read all of the Foundation books (albeit a few decades ago), and loved it all. I think it's interesting to compare Bran with that, but of course Bran's powers are vastly greater, because he has complete access to 100% accurate information from the past and future (I always thought a major flaw in psychohistory is that SO MUCH "history" is actually inaccurate. How can precise predictions about the future be given based on "history' that is so often inaccurate because it was "written by the winners" and is thus so often highly biased, or flat out untrue? Bran does not have this problem, though, because so far as we know his knowledge of past and present are 100% accurate) Regarding Bran's knowledge of the future, there seem to be some huge unanswered questions. How extensive is his knowledge? Can he decide what he is viewing, or does he just have to wait until a vision comes and hope it is something useful? Is he seeing many possible futures, or just one future that he can't change? I think the GoT sequel ("sequel," not "prequel") will shed a lot of light on these issues, and, if the sequel is well done, hopefully allow people to then go back to re-watch Season 8 and conclude that the pieces of the puzzle do fit together well after all.
  3. Cron

    The problem with Bran being king narrative wise

    Sounds like we agree Jon would not have been a good choice to be king. Hmm, interesting, I did not know that. I haven't read Fire and Blood yet, but I hope to get to it soon. How did you like it overall? My belief is that when Bran is able to make choices, he chooses the path that his knowledge of the future tells him is the "least bad."I'm very skeptical that he is totally emotionless and uncaring, though, as some people (not necessarily you) seem to believe. If that were true, why does Bran bother to interact with humanity at all? Why not just go live in a cave and morph into a tree like his predecessor was doing? Hopefully the sequel (yes, "sequel") will tell us a lot more about what is really going on with Bran, and I think it will. Good stuff, I never thought about those things that way (especially the part about Sam) So, in light of all that, what are the odds that Bran has actually become a soulless monster who let hundreds of thousands of innocent people perish just so he could become king as some people (not necessarily you) seem to believe? Those odds are pretty low, in my opinion, and I think it's far more likely that time will show that actually Bran has a lot more going on in his story than just what we see on the surface.
  4. Cron

    The problem with Bran being king narrative wise

    To me, the sweet parts were: Brienne and Jaime got together. Sandor crossed off Gregor. The Night King was defeated. Bran lived. Sansa lived. Jon lived. Arya lived (and had a great Season 8). Peace was restored to Westeros. Grey Worm lived. Davos lived. Sam lived. A person (Dany) who slaughtered hundreds of thousands of innocent people was stopped, at least temporarily. And I could go on.
  5. Embiid is a great player when healthy (which is not nearly often enough for his team), but not even the best player at his position, even when healthy In my opinion, no team in the NBA would take him over Paul George, Anthony Davis, Kawhi or LeBron. I understand you disagree about where Embiid ranks when he is healthy, and that's okay, of course, but if nothing else I think we should be able to agree that no NBA team would even consider trading George, Davis, Kawhi or LeBron for Embiid, even if for no other reason than that Embiid's injury history is horrendous. Regarding LeBron: I have been following his career very closely for many years (even more than nearly all NBA fans have done, I'd say). He is still the best player in the game, but he almost never goes full throttle in a regular season game anymore. Once the playoffs start, though, he's got gears that no other player except a fully healthy Kawhi might be able to match, though, and even then I'd take LeBron (because LeBron is so incredibly well rounded, and can make all the players around him better in a way that Kawhi cannot. For example, LeBron has taken quite a few very bad teamst ot he Finals, and nearly won. How many times has Kawhi done that? Zero.), Yes, this year will be different for the Clippers. They just added by far the two best players on their roster (Kawhi and PG). And they added them to a team that made the playoffs even without those two guys. This season is gonna be a great show to watch, no doubt. "If things come together for them" is a huge qualifier. Look, I'm not knocking the Sixers, they are clearly a very good team. But as I think I've said, I believe that in a matchup with the Clippers or Lakers in the playoffs, the Clippers and Lakers will both have the top 2 players in a series over the Sixers, and that's what really matters in the playoffs. But hey, don't get me wrong. A major point by me here is that I believe injuries will decide the NBA champ next year, as they so often do. We'll see. Curry and Draymond are both very good players, no doubt. (I'd take Curry on my team, but not Draymond, though. I believe Draymond brings a lot of downside, and in fact I've heard many people believe Draymond is THE reason Durant left. Oops.) Not sure why the Warriors would trade Russell, though. Didn't they just acquire him? I think he'll mesh fine with the rest of the Warriors, even when Klay returns, and yeah, I would agree that if the Warriors enter the playoffs fully healthy next year (including Klay) they could be a factor.
  6. Cron

    The problem with Bran being king narrative wise

    I'm not sure exactly what you are referring to that Bran said was built on a lie. I thought that comment related to Jon's heritage, and the lie that Rhaegar kidnapped Lyanna Stark (in fact, I thought Bran followed that comment by saying "He loved her," or something like that), but maybe I'm not thinking of the reference you're making.
  7. Cron

    The problem with Bran being king narrative wise

    That's an interesting thought about Jon being disqualified because he's Targaryen. I hadn't thought of that, but I suppose I can add it to my list of reasons that if I had had a vote at the end, I would not have voted for Jon. Sansa might have been a reasonable choice to me if we had been shown how smart she supposedly is, rather than being told (by Arya) it was true with, in my opinion, very little evidence to actually support it. Political "realism" is often messy, chaotic and unpredictable, and in GoT, that goes all the way back to the beginning (Book One). When they were reading Book 1, I think lots of people believed Ned was "the hero," and would win in the end. Wrong. "Realism" took over, and what we got was messy, chaotic and unpredictable, with Ned being executed in Book 1. Or consider Khal Drogo, also in Book 1: Many people, I think, believed he and Dany were going to storm Westeros with Dothraki. Wrong. "Realism" took over, and not only did those things not come to pass, but he got crossed off in Book 1, also, in a most ignoble way, no less (dying from an infection from a wound sustained while he was doing very terrible things to innocent people). And I could go on and on. GoT is chock full of unexpected twists and turns, so I'm not sure where any idea that GRRM promised things would be tied up in a neat little bow and make "sense" at the end has come from. Actually, as I recall, the word GRRM used was "bittersweet," and I think that's exactly what we got, and that the sharply divided fan base proves it. Some people really, really, dislike the "bitter" part. (And there's nothing wrong with that, of course. They are entitled to their opinions, and I respect them. In fact, the differences in opinions were what made the books and show great, and what make conversation on these boards interesting. If we all agreed about everything, I don't think these boards would be nearly as intellectually stimulating as they are.) Well, I hear you, but of course show-Tyrion is sometimes called "Saint Tyrion" for good reasons: A lot of his "badness" has been scrubbed off of him, so I think your point is a very good one for the books, but not necessarily for the show. (For anyone reading this who doesn't know, Tyrion and Cersei are much worse, morally, in the books than in the show, and Jaime is much worse, morally, in the show than in the books. Many, many examples can be given to support these conclusions for all 3 characters.) I agree. And don't get me wrong, there ARE things I didn't like, too. (Most notably: (1) Sansa being shoehorned into Jeyne Poole's storyline, (2) what happened to Shireen Baratheon, and (3) what happened to Lyanna Mormont. And yes, I know Shireen burning will be book canon, and what happened to Lyanna may well be, too..)
  8. Assuming all players are healthy, a matchup between Clippers and Sixers means the Clippers have BOTH of the best two players in the series (by quite a bit, given that one of them is Kawhi), and a matchup between the Lakers and Sixers means the Lakers have BOTH of the best two players in the series (especially given that one of them is LeBron)(. Sorry, but assuming all players are healthy, I'd say the Clippers and Lakers would both easily defeat the Sixers. (Remember in the playoffs, we have shortened rosters that play, and the Clippers and Lakers' top-heavy top 2 would be even more dominant). And the Clippers are inexperienced?? Uh, my memory is that were giving the fully healthy (including Durant) al they could handle this past posteason, and THEN they added Paul George and Kawhi Leonard. Oh, and by the way, the Sixers have some players with major injury histories, too. Warriors lost Durant and Iguodala. They made up for some of that loss in the offseason, but not even close to all of it. Not even close. Bottom line: I predict this season will be decided by which team can stay the healthiest (as so many seasons are), but all things being equal, Lakers and Clippers are easily head and shoulders above the rest. I
  9. Cron

    The problem with Bran being king narrative wise

    "...anyone on that GC..."?? Would you prefer Bronn over Bran?? If so...wow. Sam might have been my second choice, but in addition to Bran being superior to Sam in numerous other ways, Sam is too mentally soft to get my vote. (I'm not saying he's not smart, I'm saying he's not mentally tough enough to get my vote, and lacks courage on top of that. Face facts: Sam's a great guy, but Sam is a coward. I know it, and Sam knows it, even if some other people may have forgotten. My goodness, if I recall correctly, he was cowering in the grip of a paralyzing fear as recently as Episode 803.) Davos would be a decent 3rd choice (I would prefer Sam because Sam IS a lot smarter than Davos, even though Davos would be better than Sam in a variety of other ways), but Bran is far beyond Davos in numerous ways. Sansa has not impressed me as being particularly bright. We have been TOLD how smart she is, but not SHOWN it, in my opinion. Arya's comment that Sansa is the smartest person she knows was like nails on a chalkboard to me. Uhhh...based on what?? Jon is not particularly bright either, whether we are talking politically or militarily. He has committed numerous blunders, and never stood out as particularly bright in the first place, either. Here's how I view Jon: Great guy, great warrior, definitely a guy I would want next to me in a way, but as a leader of a small group of men (maybe a squad of 10 to 20), but NOT as a general. He is terrible at politics, and has done stuff that anyone with an ounce of common sense would have known would NOT go well with people around him, but to which Jon seemed totally oblivious. Further, I don't buy the notion that Bran is emotionless and doesn't care about anything or anyone. In fact, it is radically inconsistent with what we have seen from Bran, which is his active involvement in major events (which led to the defeat of the Night King, by the way. "You're welcome, Westeros") and now shows a willingness to engage with humanity as king, too (unlike his predecessor, who stayed in a cave turning into a tree) Further, I don't necessarily take some of Bran's words at face value, as I've mentioned elsewhere. (a) He could have motives for making people think he's extremely dispassionate, (b) to my memory, his words were not quite what some people seem to be making them out to be (if I recall correctly, and someone might correct me on this, his words were "I don't really want anymore." Okay, what does THAT mean?? Pretty vague, and cryptic (to use your word), and it could mean a lot of stuff other than "I am now a totally emotionless robot who could not care less about anything or anyone else. In fact, everyone else is like ants to me."), and (c) humans have a tendency to HEAR far more literally than they SPEAK. So, when we hear Bran's words, we have a tendency to take them more literally than he may have meant them, even as a casual, cryptic comment. First, I don't claim to have perfect answers. Indeed, I believe I am assuming little or nothing on many related issues being discussed on these boards, but others seem to be assuming a LOT, sometimes taking things at superficial face value and then extrapolating a LOT more from there, and sometimes, I think, even assuming things for which we have NO actual evidence (such as theories that Bran is actually corrupt, either because of an external force or because he is so greedy for power and desperately wanted to be king. Is it possible he is corrupt? Yes. Is it fun to speculate about? Sure. Do we have any actual evidence for that? NO.) I understand many others see these issues differently from me. My response: (a) that has no impact on my opinions whatsoever, and (b) actually, it's NOT just me against everyone else (even though, reading these boards, one might think otherwise, because the negative voices seem so much louder than the ones who liked Season 8). But go look at the Episode ratings. Are they low compared to other episodes? Yes. Am I the only one who ranked episodes in Season 8 high? Um, clearly not. Season 8 IS highly divisive, sure, but there are a whole lot of people out there who did like it, including me. Um, I don't "assume' Bran can see the future. Bran CAN see the future, this is information we have been given, numerous times. The only real questions about his powers on this subject relate to how powerful he is, and how much control he has over it. We know that Bran is very special in the history of Westeros, quite powerful even before he became the 3ER. He can warg AND greensee (making him very rare, possibly unique). In fact, he was able to do what many others thought was flat out impossible, which was to warg a human (Hodor). Now on top of all of that, he is the 3ER, and spent a LOT of time offscreen, doing things and viewing information which we can only scarcely speculate about. It is possible Bran is now the most powerful human in the history of Planetos. In fact, that would not surprise me in the least. In the end, the "protagonist" of GoT (if there was one), was Bran Stark, and that's the person at the end of stories who gets "the prize" (although in Bran's case, it's a mixed bag, or "bittersweet," as GRRM might say).. We have zero evidence that Bran was responsible for what Dany did. Absolutely none. As I have discussed at length elsewhere, there are many possible alternatives, and NO evidence that Bran could have stopped what happened and chose not to just so he could be king. Sounds to me like some people want everything tied up in a neat little bow, all of which was properly foreshadowed, with the proper foundation properly laid so that when it's done everyone is so satisfied that they say to themselves "That is exactly how I would have written it." But that's not "real life," and that's NOT GoT (which is a HUGE part of why GoT is so popular in the first place, ironically enough.) When GRRM began writing it, he specifically set out to BUST fantasy fiction tropes, not mimic them or reproduce them. Now it's done, and many fans seem to be very unhappy because...wait for it...they didn't get the tropes they wanted at the end??? Sorry, that's not how I view it.
  10. Cron

    The problem with Bran being king narrative wise

    Melisandre had visions that needed interpreting. We have no reason to believe this is true of Bran, though. For Bran, it is as if he was actually at events that occurred, or are occurring, or will occur. No interpretation needed. Mel has been wrong multiple times. How many times has Bran been wrong? To my knowledge, the answer to that question is "zero." We don't know Bran has no emotions. With respect, I think you are accepting things at a very superficial, face value. We only know what Bran has said after becoming 3ER in the show, but we don't have his internal monologue (POV) anymore, like in the books. And is a belief that Bran no longer has emotions or "wants" anymore consistent with what we have witnessed? No, I don't think so. Bran CLAIMED he doesn't "want" anymore, but if that's true, then WHY didn't he just do what his predecessor did, and go find some cave to live in so he could morph into a tree? In fact, that is NOT what Bran did. What he did was take an active role in events in defeating the Night King, and then continued to take an active role in taking on the duties and responsibilities of a ruler of 6 kingdoms. Why would he do all of that if he truly is an emotionless, uncaring, supercomputer, or "Bran 9000" (as some people call him)?? I don't think he would, and I don't think that's what we've been seeing.
  11. Cron

    The problem with Bran being king narrative wise

    I'm not claiming Bran is perfect, just that he was by far the best available choice. This is a fun subject to discuss, but I think anyone who disagrees that Bran was the best choice should let us know who was available and better. If it's true that Bran is emotionless (and no longer "wants," as he said), then that could mean he's incapable of being corrupted, at least by the things that have corrupted so many other rulers. Isn't that a good thing? Bran is nearly infallible when it comes to "knowing" things. How is that not an incredibly good thing for a ruler? Bran is fundamentally good, possibly THE most fundamentally good characters in all of ASOIAF/GoT. How is that not a huge point in his favor when it comes to picking a ruler? Should I prefer Bronn because he can fight, have sex, hunt, dance and give speeches?? No thanks, not even remotely close, in my opinion. Bran should be nearly impossible to overthrow. How could anyone do it? So far as we know, he pretty much cannot be taken by surprise, he knows the future, and, for all we know, may be able to review many possible futures. All in all, I think Bran has the best qualifications to rule Westeros, but I would be happy to discuss the merits and/or demerits of other characters as well. I think many of the other candidates would merely be figureheads though, routinely relying on Bran's judgment anyway. How could they NOT? Let's say Sansa, Jon, Arya, Davos, Brienne, or Sam was the ruler at the end. Wouldn't they regularly consult Bran on many decisions anyway, and never go against his "advice"? We've already seen them (wisely) defer to him completely, in Episode 803 (The Long Night), when Bran told them how the battle had to be fought (by using Bran himself as bait in the Godswood, and I believe Bran very likely told them many other things offscreen, too). So, they followed his advice, even though it seemed to make no sense to at least some of them, and against enormous odds, they WON. How could any of those other characters go against Bran's judgment and advice after that?? But hey, maybe that's what some people wanted: A ruler who can fight, and have sex, and sing and dance and give speeches as a mere figurehead while the REAL work of ruling is done by Bran. Not me, though. I would have just voted for Bran.
  12. Cron

    The problem with Bran being king narrative wise

    Glad to hear it. One way or the other, it will be very interesting to see how all of this stuff plays out when the sequel is eventually made, especially since I highly doubt D&D will be the show runners. (I'm not ripping them, just saying I think the odds are that it won't be them. Personally, I think that over the course of the series D&D got a LOT more right than wrong, although of course there were some things I would have done differently.)
  13. Cron

    The problem with Bran being king narrative wise

    Show-Bran is only superficially emotionally dead. We don't know what is actually going on his head, though. It is very possible that this is merely a front he is putting up. It is also possible that Bran has seen many possible futures, and has done what he has done because the one we saw unfold on screen was the least bad. Bran does not necessarily have to be bad in order to make the choices he has made (even assuming he HAS a choice, which is very much open to debate.. We have been told that the "ink is dry" on the past, it's possible that is also true for the future. If so, then I think people are blaming Bran for stuff that is beyond even his ability to control.) Bran doesn't know the lords??? Um, Bran knows anything he wants or needs to know. He is just barely this side of omniscient. Further, Bran is such a mystery at this point that it's nearly impossible for us (the audience) to know what he does or does not know. For all we know, he's been studying all the other players intensely for months. In fact, that seems likely to me. Bran hasn't proven anything??? Um, he won the war for the Living against the Dead. That's not proving anything?? Yes, he is a mystery, but that does NOT mean he is bad. In fact, I maintain that all information we have been given that we can reliably judge says that he is fundamentally good. Is it possible he has been corrupted somehow? Sure, but I maintain we have NOT yet been given that information, and unless and until we are given such information, I am not going to assume he's bad for no reason,. I think you are simply accepting what we have seen at superficial face value. It is possible you are right, but I do not believe we have been given adequate information to conclusively believe things like "he is emotionally dead" or "he is bad" yet. In my opinion, those are just theories, which can be fun to talk about, but which are NOT proven. I'm not sure if you are talking about the show or books here. In the books, I'd say you're right, Bran is still unproven. In the show, however, I maintain that he IS proven. In fact, so far, he seems to be infallible. You may not like that characterization of his character, but I believe I am simply judging him based on the information we have been given. Since Bran become the 3ER in the show, WHEN has he been wrong?? So far as I know, "never." So far as we know. Again, is it possible he's been corrupted, or made a mistake? Sure, but we have not been given that information, and I am not just going to assume it's true without foundation to support it.
  14. Cron

    The problem with Bran being king narrative wise

    I read your entire post before starting to reply, so I'll start with this general point: It sounds to me like you want everything in the story to be tied up in a nice neat bow, all making sense, all properly foreshadowed, with all the proper foundation properly laid, but....that's not real life, and that's not Game of Thrones, either. Game of Thrones is messy and chaotic, and prides itself on trope-busting (indeed, as I recall, GRRM himself set out to BREAK tropes when he began writing ASOIAF, and the show has continued with that). And it is the messy, chaotic trope-busting that made ASOIAF and GoT so popular. Why would the show, or GRRM, change that formula now? Indeed, I believe if it is written the way you seem to want, then about half the fan base will be complaining it's too predictable and formulaic, and thus lazy writing. So, who is right, and who is wrong about what makes "good" story-telling? Now, to your point above: Perhaps good people don't always make good rulers, but can we agree that evil people always make bad rulers? If one of your top priorities in picking a ruler is NOT "fundamental goodness" (my words), then what is it? Someone who is mostly good, but with some evil mixed in here and there? No thanks. Rating all the characters on GoT on a scale of good to evil, Bran, to me, is clearly one of the absolute "most good." It's not his only qualification to rule, but it's a big one in my book. This is a very large paragraph by you, containing many different points and issues. It would be much easier to respond to if it had been 7 or 8 paragraphs, but I will try to respond to some major points anyway (broken up into separate, numbered, paragraphs for your convenience): (1) Again, sounds like you want it all tied up in a neat little package that makes sense, but I'm not sure why you would expect that from GoT or real life, both of which are messy, chaotic, and frequently do NOT follow fictional tropes. (2) Bran already has done "supernatural" things, and the people who voted him king were aware of those things. (3) Your use of the word divine (multiple times in your post) is a little confusing to me. Sounds like you object to him as a "God-King," but want him to do something divine to earn his crown? Do I have that right? (Incidentally, I don't consider Bran to be divine at all, and I don't think there has been any suggestion that any religion has risen up based on him.) (4) Bran did save Westeros. (5) Bran's powers give him experience, far more than any other character, and quite possibly far more than we can even imagine. ( said "possibly," because it is hard to know for sure, because so much is mysterious about Bran and his powers now. (6) In my opinion, both Jon and Dany would be far worse alternatives than Bran. Jon isn't very bright, has made numerous blunders (politically and militarily), and Dany, after years of foreshadowing that she might tip over to the dark side, then did so (Remember? When she slaughtered hundreds of thousands of innocent people?). If I had had a vote for ruler at the end, there is no way I would have favored Jon or Dany over Bran (assuming Dany had lived, of course). (7) I agree that Tyrion's line about Bran having the best story was weak. I would not have written it that way, but then, I don't believe what he said is what caused the others to vote for Bran anyway. (8) My understanding is that Bran being king at the end is canon, and will happen in the books. (9) I don't believe GRRM's comments about Aragorn mean that he has now placed himself in a corner where he can never write anything different from that. Ultimately, though, I guess that's up to GRRM. The reasons for Bran being king at the end were given, and I thought they were plausible and made sense (other than Tyrion's comment about Bran having the best story). I also believe there are other reasons that support Bran as being the best choice, which were not explicitly discussed. And I do believe Bran is the best choice (for a number of reasons, not least of which are that he is fundamentally good, and extremely powerful. That is a good combination: Why would I want a weak ruler who is good? Or a bad ruler who is also weak? Or a bad ruler who is powerful?? I don't want any of those, and those are the other options besides "good and powerful"). I'm not sure Bran's age really matters, in light of his powers. As I've speculated about elsewhere, it's possible that when Bran uses his powers, he experiences the passage of time differently than he does in the "real world," similar to when humans dream. It's possible that Bran, at his young age, has already experienced numerous lifetimes. In sum, I think a lot of people are making a lot of assumptions about Bran that just are not necessarily true, especially in light of his enormous power (near omniscience) and the extraordinarily high level of mystery that surrounds him once he becomes the 3ER.,
  15. I agree about Curry. We'll see how he holds up this year with Durant and Iguodala both gone. Yeah, the Warriors picked up some other talent in the offseason, but not enough to offset the loss of Durant and Iguodala, I think. I predict LeBron will be fine. He is one of the most durable players I have ever seen. Yeah, he's got a lot of miles on him, but he was at the top of his game last year before he got hurt with an injury that, so far as I know, did not even involve joints or tendons (I think it was muscle strain, and that stuff can heal up completely, I believe) It's going to be a fascinating season, though, no doubt. If they can all stay healthy, I think the Battle of L.A. may be the most intense rivalry (at least short term) in the history of sports, and I'll be rooting for the Clippers.
×