NBA Finals: TRILOGY Edition!!!

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Michael Seswatha Jordan said:

George to offset KD makes a lot of sense and the man is good on both ends of the court. If I'm LeBron id trade Love for George. Still, is love to see another wing that can play both ways too, come on board.

One thing is for sure, if the Cavs sit idle they don't compete with the Warriors. We all can agree on that.

It doesn't though, because you're still losing Love. Again, trading Kyrie for Butler and signing Paul makes a lot more sense if they can pull it off. And if not, I wouldn't trade any of their core three. In that case they just need to get the best 3 and D wing they can find so LeBron doesn't always have to guard the other team's best player.

Also, has Klay quietly become the best 3 and D player in the league?

 

5 hours ago, Jaime L said:

2) Also watching the Finals, I do feel like the Warriors absolutely needed him. Felt like they would've been in big trouble without him when things got tight late and the offense bogged down. Harrison Barnes and Andrew Bogut IMO wouldn't have made a lick of difference. He made virtually every critical shot for the Warriors in this series. 

Truly excellent post Jaime, but I wanted to add one thing to this part. It's not just that he made all his big shots, it's that he create his shot at any time in the game. That was the one thing the Warriors sorely lacked last year. When the shots weren't falling they were in a lot of trouble. KD basically gave them an iso option when the weave wasn't working.

[Jaime L]

1 hour ago, briantw said:

Why is moving Thompson such a big deal?  He's a good hustle player, but he's also just a role-player.  

It's not a huge deal IMO. They can move either Thompson or Love but think it's self-defeating to move both. I'd still move Love first for two reasons:

1) I believe the Cavs definitely get more for him - especially with a team like Indiana that'd be giving up its superstar but can justify it by getting one in return. Thompson wouldn't fetch that. 

2) I think there's certain aspects that make Thompson more valuable against the Warriors than Love. His activity on the offensive glass was the #1 thing the Warriors were concerned about stopping. And his defensive ability to stay with and harry Steph or Klay or Durant on switches is huge IMO. Keep him as the small ball 5 and surround him with scorers - that is what I think the best possible Cavs lineup would be against the Warriors. 

[briantw]

1 hour ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

I think they'd be better off moving Love, honestly. Thompson defends the rim pretty damn well.

Thompson is a solid player, but as I've said, if you can package him for an All-Star caliber player I'd drive him to the airport myself.

32 minutes ago, sperry said:

Thompson was atrocious against the Warriors.

I've heard some talk that he may have been nursing an injury of some sort from Cavs insiders, which impacted his play.  He's not the type to use it as an excuse, though, so if that sort of information does come out it'll probably be quietly and in a few weeks.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

8 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Also, has Klay quietly become the best 3 and D player in the league?

At times, for sure. I'd say he's the 2nd best though, only just behind Kawhi. 

[Jaime L]

3 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Also, has Klay quietly become the best 3 and D player in the league?

Truly excellent post Jaime, but I wanted to add one thing to this part. It's not just that he made all his big shots, it's that he create his shot at any time in the game. That was the one thing the Warriors sorely lacked last year. When the shots weren't falling they were in a lot of trouble. KD basically gave them an iso option when the weave wasn't working.

1) I think Klay is the platonic ideal of the 3 and D player at this point.  Thought he played amazing defense on both Kyrie and Lebron (and how many guys have even a shot at defending both?). Sure Lebron and Kyrie still both scored a ton but both are virtually unstoppable 1 on 1 and they had to work.

2) Completely agreed. Just a guy who can consistently create 5-15 footers all on his own - Warriors had no-one like that last year and ultimately it cost them a title. It's also what made Nowitzki so good. When you're 7 feet tall with both great touch and great range, you have the ability to get your team a good shot every single possession. 

[briantw]

4 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

At times, for sure. I'd say he's the 2nd best though, only just behind Kawhi. 

I think Kawhi is much more than a 3&D player, though.  He's one of the five best players in the league.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

1 minute ago, Jaime L said:

2) Completely agreed. Just a guy who can consistently create 5-15 footers all on his own - Warriors had no-one like that last year and ultimately it cost them a title. It's also what made Nowitzki so good. When you're 7 feet tall with both great touch and great range, you have the ability to get your team a good shot every single possession. 

His jumper is just insane. It's almost like Kareem's sky hook, but add another 5-10 feet out and it still falls like 60% of the time. I don't see how anyone defends it on a regular basis.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

1 minute ago, briantw said:

I think Kawhi is much more than a 3&D player, though.  He's one of the five best players in the league.

True. Kawhi does more overall. That said, I'd say Klay is fringe top 10 at this point. Maybe somewhere between 11-13? 

[briantw]

Just now, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

True. Kawhi does more overall. That said, I'd say Klay is fringe top 10 at this point. Maybe somewhere between 11-13? 

Not sure where I'd rank Klay.  Probably more in the 15-25 range.  There are a lot of players I'd take over him if I were building a team.  He's a complimentary player who I don't think could be the best player on a good team.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

7 minutes ago, briantw said:

Not sure where I'd rank Klay.  Probably more in the 15-25 range.  There are a lot of players I'd take over him if I were building a team.  He's a complimentary player who I don't think could be the best player on a good team.

Yeah, he's a hard guy to rate, due to the talent that he plays with. That said, I think you'd be hard pressed to name 15 guys who are better than him. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

The lamenting of super teams lacks historical perspective. The last four decades have been dominated by super teams with few exceptions. The only difference is that our understanding of the super team has changed, and the evolution is easy to understand. The NBA is essentially an arms race, and when three wasn't enough a team got four. To the way way back machine we go.

The 80's, often called the Golden Era of Basketball, was run by super teams. Only five teams made it to the finals in the entire decade (Lakers, Celtics, Pistons, Rockets and 76ers). The Lakers are the most obvious super team ever. They had at least four Hall of Famers on their team at any given time, two top 5-10 players and went to 8 finals in the decade. The Celtics also had 3-4 Hall of Famers, a top 5-10 player of all time and the best power forward up till that date and went to four straight finals. Both of those teams are slam dunk super teams. The Pistons were as super teamy as the Lakers and the Celtics, but they still had 3 Hall of Famers, went back to back and to three straight finals, and their run was cut short because Thomas' injury. Otherwise they could of had a longer run. The 76ers aren't viewed as a super team, but what they did was similar to the 00's Celtics. They were a team that had gone to two of the last three finals and then added the best player in the league. The Rockets were great, but not a super team.

The 90's brought the next evolution of the super team. The Bulls go without saying, and I'm not going to take the time to rattle off why they're a super team other then to point out that they were probably the first team to have the best player in the league and another who many saw as a top 5 player. And so the game evolved. You no longer needed an elite player and an All-Star or two. Now you needed two elite players. The Rockets also won two titles, but it's hard to call them a super team. Just a great team. But another super team, the one with the most longevity of any super team, was born. The Spurs paired a former MVP with the best young player in the league and an amazing supporting cast. It's not fair to say they were a super team in the 90's, but they would soon become one.

The 00's had 3 super teams. The Lakers were dominate at the beginning of the decade. Shaq was the most dominate player since Jordan, Kobe was becoming a super star and they put several All-Stars around them. The Spurs were also a super team. The Admiral was no longer on the scene, but by now Duncan had emerged as one of the three best players in the league, he had two perennial All-Stars flanking him and again, a loaded supporting cast. The Celtics didn't win as much as many would have hoped, but that was still a super team, and it also signaled a new shift in the NBA. You need three. Idk if the Lakers of the latter part of the decade were a super team or not, but they did recruit several stars to come play with Kobe.

And now we have the modern era, which so far has had three super teams of it's own. The Heat was the first team to put two top 5 players together with another top 10 player, and while they didn't win all 4 years, they were certainly the most dominate team. Then LeBron went to the Cavs, and created a brand new super team. They weren't as good as the Heat, but they were younger and the Heat were breaking down. What this super team couldn't have foreseen was the meteoric rise of the Warriors. And when the Warriors worried that they might need more help to get past the Cavs they changed the game again. Now you need four. 

Super teams have largely driven the NBA over the years, it's just hard to see it in the moment. Over the last 38 seasons, it's fair to say that a super team won up to 31 of the titles, and the only true flukes were the 04' Pistons, the 06' Heat and the 11' Mavs. Super teams will always drive the league, and the NBA is better off for it. 

[briantw]

Just now, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Yeah, he's a hard guy to rate, due to the talent that he plays with. That said, I think you'd be hard pressed to name 15 guys who are better than him. 

I'll try... (these are not necessarily in order, just in the order I think of them)

1. LeBron
2. KD
3. Kawhi
4. Davis
5. Steph
6. Harden
7. Westbrook
8. Towns
9. Paul
10. Giannis
11. Butler
12. George
13. Gobert
14. Wall
15. Irving

There's fifteen.  I probably could have listed at least five more.  

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

3 minutes ago, briantw said:

I'll try... (these are not necessarily in order, just in the order I think of them)

1. LeBron
2. KD
3. Kawhi
4. Davis
5. Steph
6. Harden
7. Westbrook
8. Towns
9. Paul
10. Giannis
11. Butler
12. George
13. Gobert
14. Wall
15. Irving

There's fifteen.  I probably could have listed at least five more.  

Hard to compare Bigs to guards though. I'd take Klay over Gobert or Giannis for sure, so I can't say I agree with your list. The rest of it looks okay.

[briantw]

Just now, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Hard to compare Bigs to guards though. I'd take Klay over Gobert or Giannis for sure, so I can't say I agree with your list. The rest of it looks okay.

You'd take Klay over Giannis?  Giannis is a fucking star.  Klay's a high-level role-player.  

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

8 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

The lamenting of super teams lacks historical perspective.

Totally agree with this. I think the distinction that should be made is the organic superteam vs. the prefab superteam. I understand why folks sneer at the prefab superteam.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

2 minutes ago, briantw said:

You'd take Klay over Giannis?  Giannis is a fucking star.  Klay's a high-level role-player.  

One season of work in the books? Slow your roll, playa.

[briantw]

8 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

One season of work in the books? Slow your roll, playa.

All I know is that, if I'm picking a guy to build a team around, I pick Giannis a hell of a lot earlier than I pick Klay.  I just don't see Klay as a guy who can be the best player on any team.  He needs a guy to play off of.  And I don't think a guy like that can be top fifteen.

He's an all-time great shooter, though.

ETA: It's also just a tough sell for me to call a guy top fifteen when he's the fourth best player on his own team.  Green is much more important to the Warriors than Klay is.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

28 minutes ago, briantw said:

ETA: It's also just a tough sell for me to call a guy top fifteen when he's the fourth best player on his own team.  Green is much more important to the Warriors than Klay is.

Not sure how that effects the final tally there. I'd just say they have 4 players in the top 15. Using your list as a barometer, I'd put him at 14, so 4 players in the top 14. 

[sperry]

Even the word "superteam" is fucking dumb. It sounds like something that Sports Illustrated for Kids would come up with. Never before has a player left a team that was a legitimate contender , to join a team that was historically great and had just beaten them in a heated 7 game series to win the championship. That's why it's bad for Durant.

 

It's bad for the league and bad for the fan because it has disrupted the competitive balance. The salary cap is designed specifically so this can't happen.

[Michael Seswatha Jordan]

I think Klay could defenitely be a number 1 option on many teams. And, if surrounded with the right talent could easily be a playoff contender. I don't think dude gets enough credit.