The second Bulls threepeat was even more lacking in drama than the current situation. The Bulls had no real foil in either conference. They started that threepeat with the 72-10 season and the entire season was a coronation. No one thought they were playing against the league that year, only against history. It was considered a massive upset when they "blew" a 3-0 Finals lead to only win 4-2. After that, the next two seasons were, "Of course the Bulls are going to win." It only ended with the breakup of the Bulls.
Game 7 of the Finals last year was awesome. Cleveland actually held the Warriors to 89 points! K Love shut down Curry on the last possession.
Its GREAT for the NBA's bottom line. It's great for the mouth-breathing bandwagoners the NBA panders to. Its terrible for actual sports fans.
I disagree. I was just talking to my girlfriend about this earlier today. At least back then, even though the Bulls were clearly the class of the league, many of the games were close, which led to many late game heroics (usually by Michael Jordan). Not this up by 30 at halftime, pointless, unwatchable bullshit. BNM
I wonder, though, if the games being close was more of an era effect than the Bulls actually being less dominant over their league. Pace was lower and the rules were still transitioning away from the 89-87 affairs that typified the middle-90s. Also, shooting an order of magnitude more three-pointers probably creates higher variance--more blowout potential (and more potential to get shocked, like the Cavaliers were tonight). I generally felt the Bulls were surer bets than I feel about the Warriors today. That could, of course, be imperfect memories of those days (the Bulls' legend grows over time).
Kevin Love is playing very well this year also. So who knows? Might be a good series. But i am thinking the overall product has suffered greatly. You can't make up revenue from sweep after sweep with one good series.
Neither, both are capped out. The Warriors had a confluence of factors work in their favor last off-season to add Durant: a below-market deal with Curry, a sudden spike in the cap and easily-movable salaries. They're going to have a tough time just retaining bench players this off-season, after re-signing Durant. The Cavaliers are well into the luxury tax. They have by far the biggest payroll at the moment.
The Warriors are sitting with not just 1, not just 2, not even THREE but SIX count them 6 players on Veterans Minimum Salary. This list include David West, Javale Mcgee, Ian Clark, James Mcadoo, McCaw and Matt Barnes. Of those six, four are contributing nightly. Then you have Shawn Livingston who they got with an MLE. Then they have Pachulia who took a room exception when he could have got twice that. You say "Capped Out" i say these are a bunch of guys chasing a ring on the coattails of Curry, Green and Durant who by the way is also simply chasing a ring. When players are willing to take this much less just to get a ring they can get anyone they want.
You got to wonder what happened though. James- 4-13 for 11 pts, 0-4 from 3 with 6 rebs, and 6 ast. He even went 50% from the free throw line at 3-6 This is in 45 minutes of Playing time.
The only players on that list who could be viewed as a "ring-chasing vet" (i.e. took far less money for a chance to win a title) are David West and maybe Zaza Pachulia. Livingston they signed before they won a title, when they were coming off a first-round loss to the Clippers. That was just his market value. McCaw is a (second round) rookie. Clark, McAdoo, McGee and Barnes are all journeymen who weren't offered more by anyone else. Outside of West and perhaps Pachulia (he took less but not necessarily far less), your list is just smart acquisitions where Golden State saw value and the rest of the league didn't. Anyone could have had McGee especially--the Warriors gave him a nonguaranteed minimum contract to compete in training camp. If that's what you mean by "great players," then yeah, the Warriors will probably find some more to replace the ones they lose to free agency, just as they found replacements for Mo Speights, Leandro Barbosa, etc.
The point is that those players would not be playing in Portland for "Vets Minimum" There is also a point that they have six players on vets minimum. Fimd another team that has that many players willing to play for that price.
In response it has nothing to do with why they got them. It has everything to do that they have six players on Vets Minimum.
I'm not sure what that means. Portland could sign 12 guys to the veteran's minimum, if having lots of guys on the minimum is attractive. You asked what great player will be signed by the Cavaliers or Warriors. The answer is probably none. Both teams will sign more scrapheap guys like McGee or Clark.
