If they win it again this season, it's a 3peat.
I think the odds are then better than 50/50 that the core comes back for even just 1 more year and goes for something no team has done in NBA history and that's go for 4 in a row.
Curry, Green, Livingston, and Igoudala are currently signed and guaranteed through the end of the 2019-2020 season anyway. Durant can then pick up his player option for 2019 and then Thompson signs a 1 year deal for somewhere in the $18-20 million range.
If you go back to when Durant first announced he was going to the Warriors, and look at some of the tweets specifically from Draymond Green to him, telling him to ignore the noise and focus on the goals...if I remember correctly it felt like he was strongly hinting on trying to make history, and I think that history is 4 in a row. They're halfway there. If they can't get it done this season, I think the odds increase that that core may break up.
Which is exactly why this has gotta be the year I strongly think about splurging for a trip to San Fran to see our guys play their guys in their gym.
Um bro, the Celtics won 8 in a row. 10 of 11.
An apology may be necessary. It will likely be accepted, but Bill Russell is reading this right now with his head in hand.
to be fair the first 7 of those 8 Boston only had to win 8 playoff games to win the title. Year 8 they won 11. So if the Warriors do win the next 2 they will have 3 less playoff wins then the Celtics did in those 8 seaeons.
You're really trying to get across that the Celtics 8 straight titles doesn't mean that much on a Celtics blog site. I understand that you like other teams besides the Celtics, but making this argument here, is not a good look. I will leave it at that.
I'm just saying that in a smaller league with less playoff games it was easier to win the title. I don't think 4 today is worth 8 in the past but I don't think you'd need 8 today to be the same level of accomplishment either.
Your point is still a pretty weak one, and really doesn't make sense on this blog, of all places
a title is a title, but not all titles are created equal either. It is much more difficult to win a title in any of the leagues today than it was to win a title in those same leagues in the 60's. That is just a fact. The leagues are larger, the playoffs are longer, the competition is just better, and the players move a lot more frequently. What the Patriots have done is far more impressive than what the Steelers did in the 70's (as an example). There are after all reasons you don't see a team dominate baseball like the Yankees used to or dominate hockey like the Canadiens used to, etc. It is just a lot harder to win today than it was back then.
I think the opposite is true. Basketball is set up so one megastar can dominate, and the best team will almost always win. If you have a clearly dominant player, such as a Bill Russell or a Michael Jordan, you have a huge advantage. Seven game series take lucky breaks or great games out of the equation.
To beat teams like that, another team must come along with a concentration of great players that can overcome that advantage. The bigger the league, the more spread out the talent is, and the less likely it is that a talented group of challengers will be able to form.
If the NBA added 10 more teams, it wouldn't diminish Golden State's odds of winning the title. It would make it easier. No matter how many teams there are, only three or so teams ever have a chance, because usually the top 5 or so players can always overpower everyone else.
Occasionally, the gap between the best player and the 10th best player isn't that big, and that changes things. But usually, you can't beat LeBron James or Kevin Durant with DeMar DeRosan.
Our chances fall on the outlier idea that we beat the odds, and in a big league, we somehow thread the needle and assemble 5 super talented players that can overcome the megastar effect.
Topic: Is This the Last Year of Golden State's Core with Durant? (Read 10336 times)