Is This the Last Year of Golden State's Core with Durant?

[JHTruth]

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.

Bingo. More teams equals diluted talent. There's only so much elite talent at any given time. Spread it out makes it easier at the top. Just look at the 66-67 Sixers. Wilt, Hal Greer, Chet Walker, Billy Cunningham. There's no equivalent today. The Celtics beat a team with Wilt, Jerry West and Elgin Baylor.

[Moranis]

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.

That is true, but it's ignoring other factors that contribute to the success of Golden State in particular. Namely, the unprecedented event that was a guy leaving his legitimate title contender to join the team that just bounced him from the playoffs.

Imagine Wilt joining Boston after 63-64, because that's effectively what happened.

I just don't get why you would try and make a point like that on CelticsBlog though. I don't really think it contributes anything

I didn't bring up the initial sentiment, just commented on it. 

[Moranis]

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.

Bingo. More teams equals diluted talent. There's only so much elite talent at any given time. Spread it out makes it easier at the top. Just look at the 66-67 Sixers. Wilt, Hal Greer, Chet Walker, Billy Cunningham. There's no equivalent today. The Celtics beat a team with Wilt, Jerry West and Elgin Baylor.

Except that just isn't true.  The teams today are significantly better than the teams in the mid-60's (aside from the Celtics and an occasional challenger).  In 65-66 there were 9 teams, 6 of them made the playoffs (the top seed got a bye - it wasn't Boston that year).  The Hawks made the playoffs with a playoff rotation of Lenny Wilkens, Zelmo Beaty, Bill Bridges, Richie Guerin, Cliff Hagan, Joe Caldwell, Rod Thorn, Paul Silas.  That team won the opening round by sweeping the Bullets led by Johnny Egan, Don Ohl, Johnny Green, Bailey Howell, Jim Barnes, Bob Ferry, Red Kerr, Jerry Sloan, and Kevin Loughery.  Those are really bad teams and they were better than the Pistons, Knicks, and Warriors that year.    The Celtics, Lakers, and Sixers were generally pretty solid teams (and the Warriors when they had Wilt, though it was pretty much just Wilt many years), but the rest of the league was mostly garbage.  Even teams like the Royals that had great players like Oscar, were mediocre at best (think of them like the Pelicans with Anthony Davis). 

In 66-67 the league added a team and had 8 of the 10 teams makes the playoffs.  5 of those teams had a losing record during the season as only the Sixers, Celtics, and Warriors were .500 teams. 

The quality of basketball in the 60's was poor.  The depth of the league was poor.  The Celtics were a great team, but they played in a crappy league and had to win only 8 playoff games to win a title for most of their run (and the first 4 of those games each year were often against a team that was coming off a prior series).   The 08 title was easily the greatest title the Celtics have.  It was the most difficult to win.  The league was better.  They had to win more games to win it.  Etc.

[JHTruth]

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.

Bingo. More teams equals diluted talent. There's only so much elite talent at any given time. Spread it out makes it easier at the top. Just look at the 66-67 Sixers. Wilt, Hal Greer, Chet Walker, Billy Cunningham. There's no equivalent today. The Celtics beat a team with Wilt, Jerry West and Elgin Baylor.

Except that just isn't true.  The teams today are significantly better than the teams in the mid-60's (aside from the Celtics and an occasional challenger).  In 65-66 there were 9 teams, 6 of them made the playoffs (the top seed got a bye - it wasn't Boston that year).  The Hawks made the playoffs with a playoff rotation of Lenny Wilkens, Zelmo Beaty, Bill Bridges, Richie Guerin, Cliff Hagan, Joe Caldwell, Rod Thorn, Paul Silas.  That team won the opening round by sweeping the Bullets led by Johnny Egan, Don Ohl, Johnny Green, Bailey Howell, Jim Barnes, Bob Ferry, Red Kerr, Jerry Sloan, and Kevin Loughery.  Those are really bad teams and they were better than the Pistons, Knicks, and Warriors that year.    The Celtics, Lakers, and Sixers were generally pretty solid teams (and the Warriors when they had Wilt, though it was pretty much just Wilt many years), but the rest of the league was mostly garbage.  Even teams like the Royals that had great players like Oscar, were mediocre at best (think of them like the Pelicans with Anthony Davis). 

In 66-67 the league added a team and had 8 of the 10 teams makes the playoffs.  5 of those teams had a losing record during the season as only the Sixers, Celtics, and Warriors were .500 teams. 

The quality of basketball in the 60's was poor.  The depth of the league was poor.  The Celtics were a great team, but they played in a crappy league and had to win only 8 playoff games to win a title for most of their run (and the first 4 of those games each year were often against a team that was coming off a prior series).   The 08 title was easily the greatest title the Celtics have.  It was the most difficult to win.  The league was better.  They had to win more games to win it.  Etc.

Dude how it that any different than today's league? 2-3 contenders maybe with a slew of other mediocre teams and then about 10-15 teams actively trying to lose games to get better players. The idea that there's so much more depth and talent today is ludicrous.

[td450]

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.

Bingo. More teams equals diluted talent. There's only so much elite talent at any given time. Spread it out makes it easier at the top. Just look at the 66-67 Sixers. Wilt, Hal Greer, Chet Walker, Billy Cunningham. There's no equivalent today. The Celtics beat a team with Wilt, Jerry West and Elgin Baylor.

Except that just isn't true.  The teams today are significantly better than the teams in the mid-60's (aside from the Celtics and an occasional challenger).  In 65-66 there were 9 teams, 6 of them made the playoffs (the top seed got a bye - it wasn't Boston that year).  The Hawks made the playoffs with a playoff rotation of Lenny Wilkens, Zelmo Beaty, Bill Bridges, Richie Guerin, Cliff Hagan, Joe Caldwell, Rod Thorn, Paul Silas.  That team won the opening round by sweeping the Bullets led by Johnny Egan, Don Ohl, Johnny Green, Bailey Howell, Jim Barnes, Bob Ferry, Red Kerr, Jerry Sloan, and Kevin Loughery.  Those are really bad teams and they were better than the Pistons, Knicks, and Warriors that year.    The Celtics, Lakers, and Sixers were generally pretty solid teams (and the Warriors when they had Wilt, though it was pretty much just Wilt many years), but the rest of the league was mostly garbage.  Even teams like the Royals that had great players like Oscar, were mediocre at best (think of them like the Pelicans with Anthony Davis). 

In 66-67 the league added a team and had 8 of the 10 teams makes the playoffs.  5 of those teams had a losing record during the season as only the Sixers, Celtics, and Warriors were .500 teams. 

The quality of basketball in the 60's was poor.  The depth of the league was poor.  The Celtics were a great team, but they played in a crappy league and had to win only 8 playoff games to win a title for most of their run (and the first 4 of those games each year were often against a team that was coming off a prior series).   The 08 title was easily the greatest title the Celtics have.  It was the most difficult to win.  The league was better.  They had to win more games to win it.  Etc.

You are missing the core point. You are pointing to comparisons between now and then. You seem to feel that because the game is better, there are more good players now, and there are more teams and longer playoffs, that this makes it harder for a team to dominate.

The truth is that the absolute level of talent in a given era is irrelevant. When you compete for a title, you are competing against other teams that year, and the same thing is true today that was true 50 years ago. One or two guys can simply be better than everyone else, and if you have one of those guys it is very hard to beat them, no matter how many teams there are.

So, even though Russell Westbrook may be much better than Lenny Wilkins, their competitive disadvantage relative to LeBron or Bill Russell is more or less the same.

Today there is LeBron and KD. Because the gap between those two is relatively small and KD has far more talented teammates, he will almost always win.

If you were correct, we would see a decrease of megastar dominance in the modern game. We have not.

And by the way, Russell's last title was far more impressive than 2008. He beat Chamberlain Baylor and West. The Lakers were huge favorites.

[mahonedog88]

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.

Sorry, but I'm gonna be one of "those" Celtics fans that I'm sure the majority of you hate.  I respect everything those Bill Russell Celtics teams did in the 60s, but yes I am one of those that is of that opinion that you can't just generalize and lump in that decade with the NBA of today.

When we were in fact winning 8 in a row and 10 of 11, it was a totally different game.  There were 8-14 teams in the league, the level of competition and athleticism was nowhere near at the level that it is today, and there was nobody to challenge Red Auerbach in terms of brains behind the game.  Like not even a little.

Today there's now 29 other teams to teal with instead of 7-12, you have the infusion of the 3pt line, position-less basketball, free agency, guys teaming up, and just an all-around evolution of play.

What they did was excellent for the times and if we want to debate which is more impressive we can, but that's just it...it's for the times.

[JHTruth]

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.

Sorry, but I'm gonna be one of "those" Celtics fans that I'm sure the majority of you hate.  I respect everything those Bill Russell Celtics teams did in the 60s, but yes I am one of those that is of that opinion that you can't just generalize and lump in that decade with the NBA of today.

When we were in fact winning 8 in a row and 10 of 11, it was a totally different game.  There were 8-14 teams in the league, the level of competition and athleticism was nowhere near at the level that it is today, and there was nobody to challenge Red Auerbach in terms of brains behind the game.  Like not even a little.

Today there's now 29 other teams to teal with instead of 7-12, you have the infusion of the 3pt line, position-less basketball, free agency, guys teaming up, and just an all-around evolution of play.

What they did was excellent for the times and if we want to debate which is more impressive we can, but that's just it...it's for the times.

I simply cannot stand this argument. If you're just going to go to the "players are better now than then" argument you are basically saying any former athlete in any sport in the past are simply never going to live up to today's athletes because they can jump higher or whatever. You are discounting the 80's Celtics and Lakers, MJ Bulls, 3Peat Lakers, 80's NFL teams, Former Olympians whatever. It's a joke bro..

[kraidstar]

Maybe someone can help me understand NBA revenue a bit more, but if the Warriors are paying $300 in team payroll, and they are making $358 million in revenue, that doesn't leave a whole lot of money to go around? Between coaches, front office, stadium costs, other overhead, I'd assume they would be losing a lot of money.

They may be making a lot of money, but the repeater luxury tax is designed to deter these types of teams from continuing to exist.

Need to understand that the $300mm is really if they sign the Big 4 to max deals, then filled out the rest of their roster with MINIMUM deals. A couple of Smart-like signings and they could be looking almost $400mm in payroll with tax penalties.

The reality is to keep the team together, AT LEAST one of the Big 4 will need to leave significant money on the table for their next deal..

The Warriors owner is obsessive about winning and seems ready to pay a ton of money to do so.

http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/23741634/2018-nba-finals-anyone-catch-golden-state-warriors


Look at the big picture. I'd bet the Warriors pull in near $400M in revenue over the next few years. Ownership and players both have a chance to make the franchise the best in modern professional sports. Imagine the added value that creates for the team. We're talking billions.

You think the owners won't pay? I bet they will. And I bet the players take minor discounts which will greatly help (BTW I don't see an NBA team offering Draymond the max, so I think they'll get a discount there by default)

And guess what?

The Warriors are ALREADY pulling in $360M in revenue, and have only been over the tax line for 2 years.

That means they've been making an ENORMOUS amount of profit. They have likely been making so much it would take many years of luxury tax losses to offset it. And every championship they win boosts both prestige and team value.

IMO the only way they break up the team is if they think they can get an upgrade from one of their current players.

[kraidstar]

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.

Sorry, but I'm gonna be one of "those" Celtics fans that I'm sure the majority of you hate.  I respect everything those Bill Russell Celtics teams did in the 60s, but yes I am one of those that is of that opinion that you can't just generalize and lump in that decade with the NBA of today.

When we were in fact winning 8 in a row and 10 of 11, it was a totally different game.  There were 8-14 teams in the league, the level of competition and athleticism was nowhere near at the level that it is today, and there was nobody to challenge Red Auerbach in terms of brains behind the game.  Like not even a little.

Today there's now 29 other teams to teal with instead of 7-12, you have the infusion of the 3pt line, position-less basketball, free agency, guys teaming up, and just an all-around evolution of play.

What they did was excellent for the times and if we want to debate which is more impressive we can, but that's just it...it's for the times.

I simply cannot stand this argument. If you're just going to go to the "players are better now than then" argument you are basically saying any former athlete in any sport in the past are simply never going to live up to today's athletes because they can jump higher or whatever. You are discounting the 80's Celtics and Lakers, MJ Bulls, 3Peat Lakers, 80's NFL teams, Former Olympians whatever. It's a joke bro..

TP

There have always been great athletes. Bill Russell was literally an Olympic-level high-jumper. He dominated the best within his era.

Training, nutrition, video (current and historical), steroids, medicine, and better equipment have all greatly altered the game and our view of "athleticism."

The rules are much different too. Traveling/carrying rules have laxed immeasurably. LeBron would NOT be able to carry the ball for four steps the way he does now, and the paint would be packed for him, as there was no 3-point line to defend. He also wouldn't have an extra 40 pounds of steroid muscle bolstering him in the lane. Or modern medicine keeping him healthy every single year.

The 60's Celtics were a class organization that revolutionized the game. They deserve all the credit in the world for that.

[Moranis]

Maybe someone can help me understand NBA revenue a bit more, but if the Warriors are paying $300 in team payroll, and they are making $358 million in revenue, that doesn't leave a whole lot of money to go around? Between coaches, front office, stadium costs, other overhead, I'd assume they would be losing a lot of money.

They may be making a lot of money, but the repeater luxury tax is designed to deter these types of teams from continuing to exist.

Need to understand that the $300mm is really if they sign the Big 4 to max deals, then filled out the rest of their roster with MINIMUM deals. A couple of Smart-like signings and they could be looking almost $400mm in payroll with tax penalties.

The reality is to keep the team together, AT LEAST one of the Big 4 will need to leave significant money on the table for their next deal..

The Warriors owner is obsessive about winning and seems ready to pay a ton of money to do so.

http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/23741634/2018-nba-finals-anyone-catch-golden-state-warriors


Look at the big picture. I'd bet the Warriors pull in near $400M in revenue over the next few years. Ownership and players both have a chance to make the franchise the best in modern professional sports. Imagine the added value that creates for the team. We're talking billions.

You think the owners won't pay? I bet they will. And I bet the players take minor discounts which will greatly help (BTW I don't see an NBA team offering Draymond the max, so I think they'll get a discount there by default)

And guess what?

The Warriors are ALREADY pulling in $360M in revenue, and have only been over the tax line for 2 years.

That means they've been making an ENORMOUS amount of profit. They have likely been making so much it would take many years of luxury tax losses to offset it. And every championship they win boosts both prestige and team value.

IMO the only way they break up the team is if they think they can get an upgrade from one of their current players.

revenue is not profit though.  There are a lot of expenses to run a franchise outside of just player salaries.  I mean the year the Cavs won the title they had revenue of like 233 million and lost 40 million dollars (payroll with taxes was like 185 million - so well below revenue). 

[nickagneta]

Maybe someone can help me understand NBA revenue a bit more, but if the Warriors are paying $300 in team payroll, and they are making $358 million in revenue, that doesn't leave a whole lot of money to go around? Between coaches, front office, stadium costs, other overhead, I'd assume they would be losing a lot of money.

They may be making a lot of money, but the repeater luxury tax is designed to deter these types of teams from continuing to exist.

Need to understand that the $300mm is really if they sign the Big 4 to max deals, then filled out the rest of their roster with MINIMUM deals. A couple of Smart-like signings and they could be looking almost $400mm in payroll with tax penalties.

The reality is to keep the team together, AT LEAST one of the Big 4 will need to leave significant money on the table for their next deal..

The Warriors owner is obsessive about winning and seems ready to pay a ton of money to do so.

http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/23741634/2018-nba-finals-anyone-catch-golden-state-warriors


Look at the big picture. I'd bet the Warriors pull in near $400M in revenue over the next few years. Ownership and players both have a chance to make the franchise the best in modern professional sports. Imagine the added value that creates for the team. We're talking billions.

You think the owners won't pay? I bet they will. And I bet the players take minor discounts which will greatly help (BTW I don't see an NBA team offering Draymond the max, so I think they'll get a discount there by default)

And guess what?

The Warriors are ALREADY pulling in $360M in revenue, and have only been over the tax line for 2 years.

That means they've been making an ENORMOUS amount of profit. They have likely been making so much it would take many years of luxury tax losses to offset it. And every championship they win boosts both prestige and team value.

IMO the only way they break up the team is if they think they can get an upgrade from one of their current players.

revenue is not profit though.  There are a lot of expenses to run a franchise outside of just player salaries.  I mean the year the Cavs won the title they had revenue of like 233 million and lost 40 million dollars (payroll with taxes was like 185 million - so well below revenue).

Very true. What most fans don't take into consideration is the value of these pro franchises have been increasing at rates of over $100 million a year. Legalized gambling could increase that franchise value rate as well in the coming years.

[kraidstar]

Maybe someone can help me understand NBA revenue a bit more, but if the Warriors are paying $300 in team payroll, and they are making $358 million in revenue, that doesn't leave a whole lot of money to go around? Between coaches, front office, stadium costs, other overhead, I'd assume they would be losing a lot of money.

They may be making a lot of money, but the repeater luxury tax is designed to deter these types of teams from continuing to exist.

Need to understand that the $300mm is really if they sign the Big 4 to max deals, then filled out the rest of their roster with MINIMUM deals. A couple of Smart-like signings and they could be looking almost $400mm in payroll with tax penalties.

The reality is to keep the team together, AT LEAST one of the Big 4 will need to leave significant money on the table for their next deal..

The Warriors owner is obsessive about winning and seems ready to pay a ton of money to do so.

http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/23741634/2018-nba-finals-anyone-catch-golden-state-warriors


Look at the big picture. I'd bet the Warriors pull in near $400M in revenue over the next few years. Ownership and players both have a chance to make the franchise the best in modern professional sports. Imagine the added value that creates for the team. We're talking billions.

You think the owners won't pay? I bet they will. And I bet the players take minor discounts which will greatly help (BTW I don't see an NBA team offering Draymond the max, so I think they'll get a discount there by default)

And guess what?

The Warriors are ALREADY pulling in $360M in revenue, and have only been over the tax line for 2 years.

That means they've been making an ENORMOUS amount of profit. They have likely been making so much it would take many years of luxury tax losses to offset it. And every championship they win boosts both prestige and team value.

IMO the only way they break up the team is if they think they can get an upgrade from one of their current players.

revenue is not profit though.  There are a lot of expenses to run a franchise outside of just player salaries.  I mean the year the Cavs won the title they had revenue of like 233 million and lost 40 million dollars (payroll with taxes was like 185 million - so well below revenue).

Very true. What most fans don't take into consideration is the value of these pro franchises have been increasing at rates of over $100 million a year. Legalized gambling could increase that franchise value rate as well in the coming years.

Of course revenue is not profit.

Bottom line though is they're raking in cash and have a chance to make their franchise ludicrously valuable and important. And the GS owners have been making  obscene amounts of profit lately. They can afford to lose plenty in the luxury tax and still come out well ahead in the long run.

[nickagneta]

Maybe someone can help me understand NBA revenue a bit more, but if the Warriors are paying $300 in team payroll, and they are making $358 million in revenue, that doesn't leave a whole lot of money to go around? Between coaches, front office, stadium costs, other overhead, I'd assume they would be losing a lot of money.

They may be making a lot of money, but the repeater luxury tax is designed to deter these types of teams from continuing to exist.

Need to understand that the $300mm is really if they sign the Big 4 to max deals, then filled out the rest of their roster with MINIMUM deals. A couple of Smart-like signings and they could be looking almost $400mm in payroll with tax penalties.

The reality is to keep the team together, AT LEAST one of the Big 4 will need to leave significant money on the table for their next deal..

The Warriors owner is obsessive about winning and seems ready to pay a ton of money to do so.

http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/23741634/2018-nba-finals-anyone-catch-golden-state-warriors


Look at the big picture. I'd bet the Warriors pull in near $400M in revenue over the next few years. Ownership and players both have a chance to make the franchise the best in modern professional sports. Imagine the added value that creates for the team. We're talking billions.

You think the owners won't pay? I bet they will. And I bet the players take minor discounts which will greatly help (BTW I don't see an NBA team offering Draymond the max, so I think they'll get a discount there by default)

And guess what?

The Warriors are ALREADY pulling in $360M in revenue, and have only been over the tax line for 2 years.

That means they've been making an ENORMOUS amount of profit. They have likely been making so much it would take many years of luxury tax losses to offset it. And every championship they win boosts both prestige and team value.

IMO the only way they break up the team is if they think they can get an upgrade from one of their current players.

revenue is not profit though.  There are a lot of expenses to run a franchise outside of just player salaries.  I mean the year the Cavs won the title they had revenue of like 233 million and lost 40 million dollars (payroll with taxes was like 185 million - so well below revenue).

Very true. What most fans don't take into consideration is the value of these pro franchises have been increasing at rates of over $100 million a year. Legalized gambling could increase that franchise value rate as well in the coming years.

Of course revenue is not profit.

Bottom line though is they're raking in cash and have a chance to make their franchise ludicrously valuable and important. And the GS owners have been making  obscene amounts of profit lately. They can afford to lose plenty in the luxury tax and still come out well ahead in the long run.

Absolutely.