Alternative Perspective: GSW and Cleveland are not Super Teams

[hpantazo]

This is going to be an exciting NBA Finals, with high quality basketball for sure. I honestly don't see these two teams as 'Super Teams' though. They look that way in today's watered down NBA, but in the past there were 3-4 teams like this every year. Kevin Love and Kyrie Irving for example are considered superstars, but they couldn't even make the playoffs on their own. Together with Lebron they are good 2nd and 3rd bananas, like Kevin McHale and Robert Parish, or James Worthy and old Kareem, or Dumars and Laimbeer, or Stockton and Hornacek, or Sean Elliot and David Robinson, the list could go on. The expansion of NBA teams has watered down the talent on each team today. Not taking anything at all away from Lebron, Durant, curry, etc., the Warriors and Cavs would have been contenders in the past for sure, but not some historical super team.

[keevsnick]

I'm not sure about Clevland, but Golden state has 4 of the top 20 NBA players. They added an MVP inner to a 73  win squad. I mean they are dominant by every statistical measure. If they aren't a super team what is? Do they need to add a fifth top 20 player?

[Roy H.]

You have to consider teams relative to their peers, though. The Warriors have four All-NBA level players, two of whom are recent MVPs. They've got a 6MOY candidate. They set the NBA record for regular season wins, then added Kevin Durant. They're a super-team.

The Cavs "only" have a top-10 player of all-Time, two legit all-stars, and a bunch of really good role players.

[Rosco917]

A reasonable point. Lebron has that Cavs team well trained, because without him, I'm not sure they make the playoffs. Both Kyrie and Love are poor defenders without LBJ in the room.

While Golden State IMO is a super team. That team defends very well, and has an original core of players that don't care about anything other than rings. Dray is not only an enforcer, he's a talented, egoless well rounded player. 

[keevsnick]

A reasonable point. Lebron has that Cavs team well trained, because without him, I'm not sure they make the playoffs. Both Kyrie and Love are poor defenders without LBJ in the room.

While Golden State IMO is a super team. That team defends very well, and has an original core of players that don't care about anything other than rings. Dray is not only an enforcer, he's a talented, egoless well rounded player.

Ya the offense gets all the attention because of the shooting, but that team is nasty defensively. Draymond is a DPOY finalist, Klay can switch 1-4 and Durant is incredibly long.

[jambr380]

These two teams were able to totally take advantage of the cap situation before it recently exploded. I recently listed the Cavs salaries in another thread, but I will do so again here:

Lebron - $30.9M
Kyrie - $21.1M
Love - $17.6M
Thompson - $15.3

Kyrie, Love, and Thompson are signed through 2019-20 and even though they are basically 'maxed' out, they are really affordable contracts. Lebron could make $90M and that would probably still not be enough. Because of these relatively low salaries, they were able to sign Smith to $12.8M, Shumpert to $9.7M, and Frye to $7.8M - all signed for multiple years.

With GS, everybody knows about Curry's low salary and the cap increase allowing Durant to sign there. Their breakdown is this:

Durant - $26.5M
Thompson - $16.6M
Green - $15.3M
Curry - $12.1M

With Thompson and Green signed for multiple years (2 more and 3 more, respectively) at bargain contracts, they should be able to max out Durant and Curry without too much of an issue. They may choose to let Iguodala or Livingston go, but that is their own doing.

In comparison, if the Cs sign Hayward this offseason, they are looking at this from their two highest paid players:

Hayward - $30.3M
Horford - $27.7M

That is a combined $58M for two players who are good, but not Curry/Lebron good and this will be exacerbated greatly by the IT/Smart/Bradley expiring contracts next year.

tl;dr - Basically GS and CLE are super teams and they were able to build those teams using the old cap rules. Unfortunately for every other NBA team, this will not even out until 2020 or so. No worries, though, we have great young talent and a competitive team to watch right now. We may not win a championship without a LOT of injury luck, but it's still a good time to be a Cs fan.

[keevsnick]

These two teams were able to totally take advantage of the cap situation before it recently exploded. I recently listed the Cavs salaries in another thread, but I will do so again here:

Lebron - $30.9M
Kyrie - $21.1M
Love - $17.6M
Thompson - $15.3

Kyrie, Love, and Thompson are signed through 2019-20 and even though they are basically 'maxed' out, they are really affordable contracts. Lebron could make $90M and that would probably still not be enough. Because of these relatively low salaries, they were able to sign Smith to $12.8M, Shumpert to $9.7M, and Frye to $7.8M - all signed for multiple years.

With GS, everybody knows about Curry's low salary and the cap increase allowing Durant to sign there. Their breakdown is this:

Durant - $26.5M
Thompson - $16.6M
Green - $15.3M
Curry - $12.1M

With Thompson and Green signed for multiple years (2 more and 3 more, respectively) at bargain contracts, they should be able to max out Durant and Curry without too much of an issue. They may choose to let Iguodala or Livingston go, but that is their own doing.

In comparison, if the Cs sign Hayward this offseason, they are looking at this from their two highest paid players:

Hayward - $30.3M
Horford - $27.7M

That is a combined $58M for two players who are good, but not Curry/Lebron good and this will be exacerbated greatly by the IT/Smart/Bradley expiring contracts next year.

tl;dr - Basically GS and CLE are super teams and they were able to build those teams using the old cap rules. Unfortunately for every other NBA team, this will not even out until 2020 or so. No worries, though, we have great young talent and a competitive team to watch right now. We may not win a championship without a LOT of injury luck, but it's still a good time to be a Cs fan.

And that's the problem with the Celtics trying to build a Superteam. If you bring in Hayward then trade for say George like some Celtics fans want (and that would be awesome to see) then you'd have to resign both Isaiah and Hayward after next season. That would be three guys making 120mil total, thats the luxury tax right there. For FOUR players.

[Moranis]

This is going to be an exciting NBA Finals, with high quality basketball for sure. I honestly don't see these two teams as 'Super Teams' though. They look that way in today's watered down NBA, but in the past there were 3-4 teams like this every year. Kevin Love and Kyrie Irving for example are considered superstars, but they couldn't even make the playoffs on their own. Together with Lebron they are good 2nd and 3rd bananas, like Kevin McHale and Robert Parish, or James Worthy and old Kareem, or Dumars and Laimbeer, or Stockton and Hornacek, or Sean Elliot and David Robinson, the list could go on. The expansion of NBA teams has watered down the talent on each team today. Not taking anything at all away from Lebron, Durant, curry, etc., the Warriors and Cavs would have been contenders in the past for sure, but not some historical super team.

there are seasons where there are 3 or 4 teams like this but I think you'd be surprised how few those seasons actually are and there have been decades where most years there was only 1 such team (60's and 90's).

[oldtype]

Much like 'alternative facts", this perspective is wrong.

[KGs Knee]

I'd say it's absolutely fair to call the Warriors a "superteam". They have 2 MVP winners and 4 players who have recently been on All-NBA teams. And none of those guys have been Finals MVP (Iggy).

The Cavs are a different case. That is not a "superteam" in my book. You have LeBron, maybe one of the three best players to ever play, and then a couple of fringe All-Stars. Neither Love nor Kyrie have ever been able to carry a team to the playoffs as the unquestioned best player on the team, and I seriously doubt the Cavs would make the playoffs if you subtracted LeBron and had just Love/Kyrie as their 2 best players.

LeBron's Miami teams (probably not the 4th year) would wipe the floor with this Cavs team.

[Granath]

Much like 'alternative facts", this perspective is wrong.

I agree. The OPs post really doesn't make any sense for two reasons.

#1
I think the OP lost the point when he said, "2nd and 3rd bananas, Kevin McHale and Robert Parish, or James Worthy and old Kareem, or Dumars and Laimbeer, or Stockton and Hornacek, or Sean Elliot and David Robinson"

Let's break down this statement a bit. He named 10 players there. SEVEN of them are in the Hall of Fame. When someone is calling Hall of Famers "2nd or 3rd bananas", they've lost perspective. Maybe those guys weren't #1 all the time for their teams but virtually all of them were #1 at some point and pretty much could have been the top guy if they weren't playing with a top 15 all time player (Bird, Magic, Duncan, Karl Malone and IT would be top 20). That's an insane standard to call a HOFer a 2nd banana like they don't matter.

GSW is a super team and it's not really disputable. They have 4 of the top 20 players in the NBA in Curry, Durant, Thompson and Green. For cryin' out loud, two of those guys won the past 3 NBA MVP awards combined!!! How is that not a super team? The only team I can think of the past 40 years who could boast that kind of depth of superstar talent would be the 80s Celtics (Bird, Chief, McHale and DJ). Not even the mid 80s Lakers could put 4 current All-Stars on the court.

Cleveland is led by the best NBA player of his generation. He's backed up by two other All-Stars.  So while not as "Super" as other teams, it's akin to the Bulls teams of the 90s - a superstar who is transcendent backed by two other great players (Irving/Love now, Pippen/Worm back then). When your best comparison is a team that won 6 NBA Championships, you're also a Super Team.

#2
You can't point to talent dilution and then say they're not Super Teams. By the standard of today's NBA, they're easily Super Teams. That's like pointing to the Celtics of the 60s and saying they weren't a Super Team because those guys couldn't compete in today's NBA. You play - and are judged - by the rules of when you competed and trying to argue otherwise is silly.

[Surferdad]

In ANY sport, I never bought the argument that expansion leads to "watering down" of talent.  Such a suggestion, implies that there is a fixed amount of talent out there for leagues in the range of 300-1000 individuals. That makes no sense in global world where literally millions of young people can and do aspire to the profession in very popular sports.  So, an expansion that adds a couple of teams, representing anywhere from 30-70 players (depending on the sport) is going to water down the talent?  I don't see it.  There are many very, VERY talented young athletes competing for a chance at millions of dollars.  If this is watering things down, I may try out for a team myself!

[Donoghus]

Yes, they are.

[KGs Knee]

Yes, they are.

I strongly disagree about the Cavs being a superteam.  They have only one legit future HOF player.  You need multiple players that fit that designation to be a superteam.

[KGs Knee]

I will say, claiming the league is watered down is false.  Think of all the talent in the NBA today from foreign countries.  The overall talent pool from which to choose NBA players has grown tremendously.