Whoops. Mental slip - mis-remembered on that one. Still, the perfect alignment of circumstance and good fortune panned out for the Warriors to be able to sign KD. Unfortunately, IMO, it has unbalanced the league. . .
The league was plenty unbalanced in the '80s when it was mostly just the Lakers and Celtics, with guest appearances here and there by teams like the Sixers and Pistons. The '90s were supremely unbalanced, with one team running roughshed over everyone else for the better part of a decade.
If not for Jordan there would have been some epic battles year in, year out between some very talented teams. Both conferences had great teams and had great players left, right and centre. The only reason it is unbalanced in the record books is because the GOAT was playing in that period. There is a dearth of talent in the league now; comparitively, and Golden State has more than their fair share of what is available. GS acquiring Durant is like the Bulls getting Hakeem Olajuwon.
I disagree with that. Well, the Bulls added Dennis Rodman--a Hall of Famer who fit them perfectly. Not quite as good as Durant, but definitely fits in the category of the rich getting richer.
I think one of the things that sucks is that you used to have little windows of time where other teams could win. Detroit or Houston did for a couple of years. Playoff basketball is tough and even the Lakers and Boston couldn't dominate continously. Now those windows are gone.... and why? Because the championship caliber teams will just reload with players like Aldridge and Durant. And their miserable fans will have the gall to tell you that "ohh the NBA has always been like this." That's what I hate about the NBA.
Really? Do you not think todays league is watered down, talent wise, compared to the late eighties and nineties? IMO the present day NBA would be much more competitive and better for the consumer if it were contracted by four teams.
Bulls had a Trio - Jordan, Pippen & Rodman. GS had a trio - Curry, Klay, Green - then added one of the( if not the) best players in the league. Much bigger addition of talent for GS than the Rodman addition was for the Bulls. Definitely the Rich getting richer though. . .
No, I don't think so. The '90s were the most watered-down, because expansion teams were added, which inflated the number of teams relative to the US population at the time. Since then, we haven't added extra teams, but the population has increased (larger pool to get talent from) and the international pipeline has increased dramatically (further increasing the pool). I think the league appearing watered down today is an illusion because players today don't have the aura of greatness that players of the past, who have played out their entire careers, been elected to the Hall of Fame and faded into legend, have. For example, I think the explosion of super-talented (quote-unquote unicorn) big men rivals the "golden age of big men" in the '90s. Anthony Davis, Karl Anthony-Towns, Kristaps Porzingas, Joel Embiid and DeMarcus Cousins is quite a collection of talent. You also have a golden age of point guards (to the point where Lillard might be near the back of the top-ten) going on at the same time. I think there's a ton of talent and the league is playing an incredibly fun style (unlike the 2000s--probably the most boring period of the NBA, IMO). I loved 1980s basketball and the current era reminds me of that.
Fair enough. I see it differently. I think todays bigs couldn't hold a candle to the 90's bigs. Yes the expansion teams diluted the talent pool per team - but the expansions happened because there was so much talent. Back then I'd anticipate a great team matching up with another great team. Today it's really individual marquee player battles. Great individual Star players (like you mentioned Davis, KAT etc) but, I don't really see many good teams around the league like there used to be.
if your looking for someone to blame look no further than the Miami Heat and Erik Spoelstra. KD went to them first and Spo basically told him that the OKC offence is too basic and doesn't get him good enough shots, and that if he came there he would get way more easy shots and it would make him and the team better. Then he signed with the team that clearly would make it the easiest on him to do what he does
I don't think he needed Spoelstra to tell him that. From all reports, he was frustrated in OKC for the last few years, by Westbrook's "your turn, my turn" mentality and the very basic offenses.
I feel like it would have been one of those things where he thought that stuff, but wasn't sure because he didn't know any better. But as soon as an outside source assured him in his thoughts it was all over.
Past MVPs. Not this year. Lakers had two MVPs in Kobe and Nash a few years ago and they didn't get out of the first round.