Poll: Would you lose interest in the NBA if Leonard went to Lakers

[celticsclay]

I think you could make a pretty good argument that the mid-80's Sixers were fairly equivalent to this hypothetical Lakers team.  They had an aging, but still very good Dr. J.  They had Malone still in his prime.  They had a rising star in Barkley.  They had HOF role players in Cheeks and Jones.  They had an old former MVP in McAdoo riding their bench.  As well as some other quality depth (guys like Sedale Threatt).  For Barkley's rookie year they also had recent all star Andrew Toney (though Barkley wasn't as good that year).

How old are you, Moranis? 12?  You clearly are not old enough to remember the mid-80's basketball landscape. For you to argue that the mid-eighties 76er team is the equivalent to the hypothetical Laker team is bogus to an insulting level. I hereby revoke your Moderator card for the next season.

If Leonard joins the Lakers (which I expect he will), they will have 3 of the top 5 players in the NBA who will be able to play next season. Since Durant and Thompson are out, they don't count.  Other than Giannis and (maybe) Embiid, there is no one else worth discussing. And forget arguing that Davis didn't make all NBA last season; we all know that if he played the entire year and avoided the Rich Paul shenanigans, he is likely a first team all NBA. Same with Lebron (whom I know you realize is still one of the top 2-3 players).

Stop this contrarian BS.

tough but fair. I’ve heard a lot of nba historians and star geeks discuss the history of the league, and this is the first time I have ever heard the 82-83 76ers as a super team in the league. The contrarian take has really gone off the rails.

This is worse, CC. He is arguing that the 84/85 Sixers (Barkley's rookie year) was better.

84-85 Erving was like 34 and averaging 20 points a game. They had one true superstar in Malone. Cheeks was an elite role player then. Barkley was a rookie and only averaged 14 points. Quite a bit off from Durant, klay, curry and draymond all in their primes

Hypothetical Lakers team is not the same as the Warriors.  I mean if you are going to quote my posts, at least read them before commenting. 

The 83 Sixers are considered one of the greatest teams in league history.  And they have that catchy Fo, Fi, Fo slogan.  Until the 01 Lakers they had the best playoff record of any team in history (which the warriors also eclipsed in 17).  They had 2 MVP's in their prime (Dr. J and Moses), perhaps the greatest defender of the generation (Jones), and another all league defender (Cheeks).  They had a rising star in Toney (injuries derailed his career).  They inexplicably lost early in the 84 playoffs (one of the greatest upsets in league history) and just got beaten by a bit better Celtics team in 85 before Malone got injured and then left and Dr. J continued the inevitable aging process.  Had Malone stayed though with the rise of Barkley who knows what the late 80's in the East would have looked like as Malone was still a beast through the end of the decade.

In any given season only 2 or 3 teams have realistic shots at winning the title (and many of those seasons there is in fact a heavy favorite - ala the Warriors, the Heat, the Lakers, the Bulls, etc.).  This has been borne out time and time again.

You should probably reply to footey not me. I just agreed with him. Also weren't you 4 years old during the 83 philly team? It feels like you are describing them like you watched them 3 years ago.

[mmmmm]

Count me in the, "This makes no difference to me", column.

The NBA has and always will be dominated by a tiny handful of teams during any given era.   That's just the nature of the game.

How strong a singular favorite any one team is doesn't change that.   Even if Kawhi joins the Lakers and even if they suddenly were to be 'historically highest favorites' to win the title next year, that doesn't really mean much.   That's the kind of stat that some team has to own after all.

The Warriors were able to add Durant through a unique convergence of events.   In particular, the fact of his free agency happening at the exact time when the NBA's new TV contract caused a massive spike in the salary cap.   That, more than anything, was what lead to their ability to form that 'super team'.

And even having done that, they still were not invulnerable to the competitive balance forces and the random fortunes of injury.   They won two titles and then the CBA realities and the wear and tear grind (playing all those extra playoff games every year takes a toll) have caught up to them.

The Lakers may or  may not be able to replicate being just as strong of a 'super team' as the Warriors were.  Unlike the Warriors, they aren't benefiting from an anomalous spike in the salary cap to simply 'add to an already strong roster'.   They have had to completely strip down to bare bones first to trade for Davis and then to make cap room for Kawhi (they hope).   They could end up far more top-heavy, with their three superstars and pretty much nothing else around them.   One injury to any of the big 3 could derail everything.

I will definitely not lose any interest if Kawhi goes there.  It will just be part of the story to watch play out.

This is a good point, but Leonard and James and Davis may be so good it doesn't matter. It is hard to say. The worst problem though with a huge prohibitive favorite like the warriors is that teams stop going for it. There are a ton of comments from executives or stories from writers like Lowe where teams talked about doing a longer rebuild, not wanting to sacrifice assets to compete because the warriors were so good it was pointless. It is entirely possible our very own Celtics did not pull the trigger on trades for Butler or George cause Ainge felt the team still most likely wouldn't beat the warriors (to be fair, i don't think i ever saw that in writing, but it is a reasonable examples).

To me, that falls under worrying about a hypothetical.  I don't believe there is really much reason to believe that is a real problem.   Media buzz maybe.  But all evidence I see is that teams seemed to still keep trying to compete.   The Spurs looked like they were a good bet to challenge GSW out of the West up to the moment Kawhi got injured.   Houston has kept throwing everything they can at them each year.

[celticsclay]

Count me in the, "This makes no difference to me", column.

The NBA has and always will be dominated by a tiny handful of teams during any given era.   That's just the nature of the game.

How strong a singular favorite any one team is doesn't change that.   Even if Kawhi joins the Lakers and even if they suddenly were to be 'historically highest favorites' to win the title next year, that doesn't really mean much.   That's the kind of stat that some team has to own after all.

The Warriors were able to add Durant through a unique convergence of events.   In particular, the fact of his free agency happening at the exact time when the NBA's new TV contract caused a massive spike in the salary cap.   That, more than anything, was what lead to their ability to form that 'super team'.

And even having done that, they still were not invulnerable to the competitive balance forces and the random fortunes of injury.   They won two titles and then the CBA realities and the wear and tear grind (playing all those extra playoff games every year takes a toll) have caught up to them.

The Lakers may or  may not be able to replicate being just as strong of a 'super team' as the Warriors were.  Unlike the Warriors, they aren't benefiting from an anomalous spike in the salary cap to simply 'add to an already strong roster'.   They have had to completely strip down to bare bones first to trade for Davis and then to make cap room for Kawhi (they hope).   They could end up far more top-heavy, with their three superstars and pretty much nothing else around them.   One injury to any of the big 3 could derail everything.

I will definitely not lose any interest if Kawhi goes there.  It will just be part of the story to watch play out.

This is a good point, but Leonard and James and Davis may be so good it doesn't matter. It is hard to say. The worst problem though with a huge prohibitive favorite like the warriors is that teams stop going for it. There are a ton of comments from executives or stories from writers like Lowe where teams talked about doing a longer rebuild, not wanting to sacrifice assets to compete because the warriors were so good it was pointless. It is entirely possible our very own Celtics did not pull the trigger on trades for Butler or George cause Ainge felt the team still most likely wouldn't beat the warriors (to be fair, i don't think i ever saw that in writing, but it is a reasonable examples).

To me, that falls under worrying about a hypothetical.  I don't believe there is really much reason to believe that is a real problem.   Media buzz maybe.  But all evidence I see is that teams seemed to still keep trying to compete.   The Spurs looked like they were a good bet to challenge GSW out of the West up to the moment Kawhi got injured.   Houston has kept throwing everything they can at them each year.

It isn’t really a hypothetical with the warriors. Low wrote a number of times in his columns over the last few years that he would talk to a number of teams and they would basically say it wasn’t worth them making x trade cause of the warriors. I agree with you that morey was fully trying to beat the warriors the last theee years and thought he could. I don’t think any other team thought they could. Worse, while this is at least partly speculation on my part but maybe the reasons the Celtics did not make some trades the last few years for butler and George

[footey]

I think you could make a pretty good argument that the mid-80's Sixers were fairly equivalent to this hypothetical Lakers team.  They had an aging, but still very good Dr. J.  They had Malone still in his prime.  They had a rising star in Barkley.  They had HOF role players in Cheeks and Jones.  They had an old former MVP in McAdoo riding their bench.  As well as some other quality depth (guys like Sedale Threatt).  For Barkley's rookie year they also had recent all star Andrew Toney (though Barkley wasn't as good that year).

How old are you, Moranis? 12?  You clearly are not old enough to remember the mid-80's basketball landscape. For you to argue that the mid-eighties 76er team is the equivalent to the hypothetical Laker team is bogus to an insulting level. I hereby revoke your Moderator card for the next season.

If Leonard joins the Lakers (which I expect he will), they will have 3 of the top 5 players in the NBA who will be able to play next season. Since Durant and Thompson are out, they don't count.  Other than Giannis and (maybe) Embiid, there is no one else worth discussing. And forget arguing that Davis didn't make all NBA last season; we all know that if he played the entire year and avoided the Rich Paul shenanigans, he is likely a first team all NBA. Same with Lebron (whom I know you realize is still one of the top 2-3 players).

Stop this contrarian BS.

tough but fair. I’ve heard a lot of nba historians and star geeks discuss the history of the league, and this is the first time I have ever heard the 82-83 76ers as a super team in the league. The contrarian take has really gone off the rails.

This is worse, CC. He is arguing that the 84/85 Sixers (Barkley's rookie year) was better.

84-85 Erving was like 34 and averaging 20 points a game. They had one true superstar in Malone. Cheeks was an elite role player then. Barkley was a rookie and only averaged 14 points. Quite a bit off from Durant, klay, curry and draymond all in their primes

Hypothetical Lakers team is not the same as the Warriors.  I mean if you are going to quote my posts, at least read them before commenting. 

The 83 Sixers are considered one of the greatest teams in league history.  And they have that catchy Fo, Fi, Fo slogan.  Until the 01 Lakers they had the best playoff record of any team in history (which the warriors also eclipsed in 17).  They had 2 MVP's in their prime (Dr. J and Moses), perhaps the greatest defender of the generation (Jones), and another all league defender (Cheeks).  They had a rising star in Toney (injuries derailed his career).  They inexplicably lost early in the 84 playoffs (one of the greatest upsets in league history) and just got beaten by a bit better Celtics team in 85 before Malone got injured and then left and Dr. J continued the inevitable aging process.  Had Malone stayed though with the rise of Barkley who knows what the late 80's in the East would have looked like as Malone was still a beast through the end of the decade.

In any given season only 2 or 3 teams have realistic shots at winning the title (and many of those seasons there is in fact a heavy favorite - ala the Warriors, the Heat, the Lakers, the Bulls, etc.).  This has been borne out time and time again.

You should probably reply to footey not me. I just agreed with him. Also weren't you 4 years old during the 83 philly team? It feels like you are describing them like you watched them 3 years ago.

For what it's worth:

I was going to law school in Philadelphia in the early 80's, and went to some of those games in the Spectrum vs. the Celtics.  Great rivalry.

The '83 Sixer team was an awesome team.  A dominant team.

BUT:  It did not have 3 out of the top 5 players on the NBA playing on it, like the new Laker roster would have. No one ever has in modern league history if memory serves me.  That includes the recent Warriors.

Maybe, maybe 2: Moses Malone (definitely) and Dr. J (maybe). It also had great role players. Actually the guy who absolutely was the Celtics' Achilles Heal was Andrew (a/k/a Android) Toney. 

Other contemporaries playing then clearly among top 5: Larry Bird; Magic Johnson; Kareem; Sidney Moncrief.  Erving and Malone were first team all nba, but no Sixer was on the 2nd team.

In addition, Moranis was arguing that the 84/85 Sixer team had more talent than the hypothetical Laker team. (it's up there above somewhere). That was Barkley's rookie year.  It was also the year that Toney started experiencing foot problems, which would end up curtailing his career. That team was not very good.  Only Malone made All NBA (he was on 1st team). No other Sixer made 1st or 2nd team.

[PhoSita]

This tweet seems relevant to this raging debate between Clay and Moranis:

Josh Eberley  🇨🇦
‏
Verified account
 
@JoshEberley
 3s3 seconds ago
More
If the Lakers get Kawhi Leonard, they'd have three of the top eight players in PER last season.

The last time that happened?
Warriors? No.
Heatles? No.
Jordan's Bulls? No.
Showtime? No.
Bird's Celtics? No.

1968-69: Lakers; West, Wilt, and Baylor. . .[/b]

[esel1000]

I would lose interest, but not because three top players teamed up. If a team had managed their cap well and it resulted in 3 top players then good for them. Parity is great but if a team can create a juggernaut through good business decisions then all the power to them.

The fact that it can happen on the Lakers, one of the least deserving teams in the league, is a big problem. If the Lakers were in Utah or almost any other location, they’d be in the toilet right now.

LA isn’t a draw in any other sport but for some reason it’s a huge deal in the NBA... and it’s a big problem.

I’ll probably still watch the Cs because I believe it will be a like able, entertaining team to watch. But I wont be very invested in the league until they fix this, even if it results in a lockout. I’m losing interest now even without Kawhi signing (yet), just because the Lakers are in this position at all...

[SHAQATTACK]

I would lose interest, but not because three top players teamed up. If a team had managed their cap well and it resulted in 3 top players then good for them. Parity is great but if a team can create a juggernaut through good business decisions then all the power to them.

The fact that it can happen on the Lakers, one of the least deserving teams in the league, is a big problem. If the Lakers were in Utah or almost any other location, they’d be in the toilet right now.

LA isn’t a draw in any other sport but for some reason it’s a huge deal in the NBA... and it’s a big problem.

I’ll probably still watch the Cs because I believe it will be a like able, entertaining team to watch. But I wont be very invested in the league until they fix this, even if it results in a lockout. I’m losing interest now even without Kawhi signing (yet), just because the Lakers are in this position at all...

TP

[Moranis]

I think you could make a pretty good argument that the mid-80's Sixers were fairly equivalent to this hypothetical Lakers team.  They had an aging, but still very good Dr. J.  They had Malone still in his prime.  They had a rising star in Barkley.  They had HOF role players in Cheeks and Jones.  They had an old former MVP in McAdoo riding their bench.  As well as some other quality depth (guys like Sedale Threatt).  For Barkley's rookie year they also had recent all star Andrew Toney (though Barkley wasn't as good that year).

How old are you, Moranis? 12?  You clearly are not old enough to remember the mid-80's basketball landscape. For you to argue that the mid-eighties 76er team is the equivalent to the hypothetical Laker team is bogus to an insulting level. I hereby revoke your Moderator card for the next season.

If Leonard joins the Lakers (which I expect he will), they will have 3 of the top 5 players in the NBA who will be able to play next season. Since Durant and Thompson are out, they don't count.  Other than Giannis and (maybe) Embiid, there is no one else worth discussing. And forget arguing that Davis didn't make all NBA last season; we all know that if he played the entire year and avoided the Rich Paul shenanigans, he is likely a first team all NBA. Same with Lebron (whom I know you realize is still one of the top 2-3 players).

Stop this contrarian BS.

tough but fair. I’ve heard a lot of nba historians and star geeks discuss the history of the league, and this is the first time I have ever heard the 82-83 76ers as a super team in the league. The contrarian take has really gone off the rails.

This is worse, CC. He is arguing that the 84/85 Sixers (Barkley's rookie year) was better.

84-85 Erving was like 34 and averaging 20 points a game. They had one true superstar in Malone. Cheeks was an elite role player then. Barkley was a rookie and only averaged 14 points. Quite a bit off from Durant, klay, curry and draymond all in their primes

Hypothetical Lakers team is not the same as the Warriors.  I mean if you are going to quote my posts, at least read them before commenting. 

The 83 Sixers are considered one of the greatest teams in league history.  And they have that catchy Fo, Fi, Fo slogan.  Until the 01 Lakers they had the best playoff record of any team in history (which the warriors also eclipsed in 17).  They had 2 MVP's in their prime (Dr. J and Moses), perhaps the greatest defender of the generation (Jones), and another all league defender (Cheeks).  They had a rising star in Toney (injuries derailed his career).  They inexplicably lost early in the 84 playoffs (one of the greatest upsets in league history) and just got beaten by a bit better Celtics team in 85 before Malone got injured and then left and Dr. J continued the inevitable aging process.  Had Malone stayed though with the rise of Barkley who knows what the late 80's in the East would have looked like as Malone was still a beast through the end of the decade.

In any given season only 2 or 3 teams have realistic shots at winning the title (and many of those seasons there is in fact a heavy favorite - ala the Warriors, the Heat, the Lakers, the Bulls, etc.).  This has been borne out time and time again.

You should probably reply to footey not me. I just agreed with him. Also weren't you 4 years old during the 83 philly team? It feels like you are describing them like you watched them 3 years ago.

For what it's worth:

I was going to law school in Philadelphia in the early 80's, and went to some of those games in the Spectrum vs. the Celtics.  Great rivalry.

The '83 Sixer team was an awesome team.  A dominant team.

BUT:  It did not have 3 out of the top 5 players on the NBA playing on it, like the new Laker roster would have. No one ever has in modern league history if memory serves me.  That includes the recent Warriors.

Maybe, maybe 2: Moses Malone (definitely) and Dr. J (maybe). It also had great role players. Actually the guy who absolutely was the Celtics' Achilles Heal was Andrew (a/k/a Android) Toney. 

Other contemporaries playing then clearly among top 5: Larry Bird; Magic Johnson; Kareem; Sidney Moncrief.  Erving and Malone were first team all nba, but no Sixer was on the 2nd team.

In addition, Moranis was arguing that the 84/85 Sixer team had more talent than the hypothetical Laker team. (it's up there above somewhere). That was Barkley's rookie year.  It was also the year that Toney started experiencing foot problems, which would end up curtailing his career. That team was not very good.  Only Malone made All NBA (he was on 1st team). No other Sixer made 1st or 2nd team.

my post was actually referring to the 85/86 team when Barkley had clearly started his rise (that is why I mentioned the prior season being Barkley's rookie year).  He obviously wasn't yet at his peak, but even that season and playing next to Moses he went for 20 and 13 and finished 6th in MVP voting.  Moses went for 24 and 12 (10th in MVP voting).  Dr. J was obviously on the down side but was still an 18/5/3.5 player.  Cheeks was still very much in prime making his 2nd all star game and the 1st of 3 straight averaging 15/3/9 as a 1st Team All Defense.  Jones was still a good defender, but wasn't elite any more, but he was their 5th best player.  They had former MVP (and HOFer) McAdoo on their deeper bench and long time starter Sedale Threat on the rise.

Obviously it isn't meant to be an exact comparison, but in that scenario you have the HOF talent that hasn't yet proven himself (Barkley/Davis).  The MVP candidate in his prime and the discussion for best player in the world (Moses/Kawhi).  The again HOFer who can still perform at a high level (Dr. J/Lebron).  Now those aren't all exactly the same comparison and Lebron will almost certainly outperform Dr. J (though I'm not so sure Davis and Kawhi outperform Barkley and Moses).  The Sixers also had things the Lakers aren't going to have in a player like Cheeks.  They may find a Jones or McAdoo type (though a former MVP on the last legs probably isn't happening).  And Kuzma is better than Threatt, but I'm not sure he ends up with a better career.  That was the point I was trying to make.  The league is littered with teams with all sorts of great players that are playing on the same team.  Heck that Sixers team had 4 former or future MVP's playing on it.  I don't think any team in history can claim that.  The Thunder are the only team I can think of with 3 (I didn't exactly look so maybe it has happened before).

As for things like PER, it is very difficult for teammates to finish in the top ten, let alone 3 teammates all doing it.  So it would have to be situations in which players were on different teams the prior season.  You know like the trio of James, Wade, and Bosh who finished 1, 2, and 4 in the 2009-2010 season (you know the year before they joined up).  So clearly the person with the check mark didn't do a very good job of fact checking.

[Moranis]

This tweet seems relevant to this raging debate between Clay and Moranis:

Josh Eberley  🇨🇦
‏
Verified account
 
@JoshEberley
 3s3 seconds ago
More
If the Lakers get Kawhi Leonard, they'd have three of the top eight players in PER last season.

The last time that happened?
Warriors? No.
Heatles? No.
Jordan's Bulls? No.
Showtime? No.
Bird's Celtics? No.

1968-69: Lakers; West, Wilt, and Baylor. . .[/b]

I didn't want this to get lost in my prior post, but in 2009-2010, Lebron, Wade, and Bosh finished 1, 2, and 4 in PER.  They were all teammates the next season.

[celticsclay]

I think you could make a pretty good argument that the mid-80's Sixers were fairly equivalent to this hypothetical Lakers team.  They had an aging, but still very good Dr. J.  They had Malone still in his prime.  They had a rising star in Barkley.  They had HOF role players in Cheeks and Jones.  They had an old former MVP in McAdoo riding their bench.  As well as some other quality depth (guys like Sedale Threatt).  For Barkley's rookie year they also had recent all star Andrew Toney (though Barkley wasn't as good that year).

How old are you, Moranis? 12?  You clearly are not old enough to remember the mid-80's basketball landscape. For you to argue that the mid-eighties 76er team is the equivalent to the hypothetical Laker team is bogus to an insulting level. I hereby revoke your Moderator card for the next season.

If Leonard joins the Lakers (which I expect he will), they will have 3 of the top 5 players in the NBA who will be able to play next season. Since Durant and Thompson are out, they don't count.  Other than Giannis and (maybe) Embiid, there is no one else worth discussing. And forget arguing that Davis didn't make all NBA last season; we all know that if he played the entire year and avoided the Rich Paul shenanigans, he is likely a first team all NBA. Same with Lebron (whom I know you realize is still one of the top 2-3 players).

Stop this contrarian BS.

tough but fair. I’ve heard a lot of nba historians and star geeks discuss the history of the league, and this is the first time I have ever heard the 82-83 76ers as a super team in the league. The contrarian take has really gone off the rails.

This is worse, CC. He is arguing that the 84/85 Sixers (Barkley's rookie year) was better.

84-85 Erving was like 34 and averaging 20 points a game. They had one true superstar in Malone. Cheeks was an elite role player then. Barkley was a rookie and only averaged 14 points. Quite a bit off from Durant, klay, curry and draymond all in their primes

Hypothetical Lakers team is not the same as the Warriors.  I mean if you are going to quote my posts, at least read them before commenting. 

The 83 Sixers are considered one of the greatest teams in league history.  And they have that catchy Fo, Fi, Fo slogan.  Until the 01 Lakers they had the best playoff record of any team in history (which the warriors also eclipsed in 17).  They had 2 MVP's in their prime (Dr. J and Moses), perhaps the greatest defender of the generation (Jones), and another all league defender (Cheeks).  They had a rising star in Toney (injuries derailed his career).  They inexplicably lost early in the 84 playoffs (one of the greatest upsets in league history) and just got beaten by a bit better Celtics team in 85 before Malone got injured and then left and Dr. J continued the inevitable aging process.  Had Malone stayed though with the rise of Barkley who knows what the late 80's in the East would have looked like as Malone was still a beast through the end of the decade.

In any given season only 2 or 3 teams have realistic shots at winning the title (and many of those seasons there is in fact a heavy favorite - ala the Warriors, the Heat, the Lakers, the Bulls, etc.).  This has been borne out time and time again.

You should probably reply to footey not me. I just agreed with him. Also weren't you 4 years old during the 83 philly team? It feels like you are describing them like you watched them 3 years ago.

For what it's worth:

I was going to law school in Philadelphia in the early 80's, and went to some of those games in the Spectrum vs. the Celtics.  Great rivalry.

The '83 Sixer team was an awesome team.  A dominant team.

BUT:  It did not have 3 out of the top 5 players on the NBA playing on it, like the new Laker roster would have. No one ever has in modern league history if memory serves me.  That includes the recent Warriors.

Maybe, maybe 2: Moses Malone (definitely) and Dr. J (maybe). It also had great role players. Actually the guy who absolutely was the Celtics' Achilles Heal was Andrew (a/k/a Android) Toney. 

Other contemporaries playing then clearly among top 5: Larry Bird; Magic Johnson; Kareem; Sidney Moncrief.  Erving and Malone were first team all nba, but no Sixer was on the 2nd team.

In addition, Moranis was arguing that the 84/85 Sixer team had more talent than the hypothetical Laker team. (it's up there above somewhere). That was Barkley's rookie year.  It was also the year that Toney started experiencing foot problems, which would end up curtailing his career. That team was not very good.  Only Malone made All NBA (he was on 1st team). No other Sixer made 1st or 2nd team.

my post was actually referring to the 85/86 team when Barkley had clearly started his rise (that is why I mentioned the prior season being Barkley's rookie year).  He obviously wasn't yet at his peak, but even that season and playing next to Moses he went for 20 and 13 and finished 6th in MVP voting.  Moses went for 24 and 12 (10th in MVP voting).  Dr. J was obviously on the down side but was still an 18/5/3.5 player.  Cheeks was still very much in prime making his 2nd all star game and the 1st of 3 straight averaging 15/3/9 as a 1st Team All Defense.  Jones was still a good defender, but wasn't elite any more, but he was their 5th best player.  They had former MVP (and HOFer) McAdoo on their deeper bench and long time starter Sedale Threat on the rise.

Obviously it isn't meant to be an exact comparison, but in that scenario you have the HOF talent that hasn't yet proven himself (Barkley/Davis).  The MVP candidate in his prime and the discussion for best player in the world (Moses/Kawhi).  The again HOFer who can still perform at a high level (Dr. J/Lebron).  Now those aren't all exactly the same comparison and Lebron will almost certainly outperform Dr. J (though I'm not so sure Davis and Kawhi outperform Barkley and Moses).  The Sixers also had things the Lakers aren't going to have in a player like Cheeks.  They may find a Jones or McAdoo type (though a former MVP on the last legs probably isn't happening).  And Kuzma is better than Threatt, but I'm not sure he ends up with a better career.  That was the point I was trying to make.  The league is littered with teams with all sorts of great players that are playing on the same team.  Heck that Sixers team had 4 former or future MVP's playing on it.  I don't think any team in history can claim that.  The Thunder are the only team I can think of with 3 (I didn't exactly look so maybe it has happened before).

As for things like PER, it is very difficult for teammates to finish in the top ten, let alone 3 teammates all doing it.  So it would have to be situations in which players were on different teams the prior season.  You know like the trio of James, Wade, and Bosh who finished 1, 2, and 4 in the 2009-2010 season (you know the year before they joined up).  So clearly the person with the check mark didn't do a very good job of fact checking.

These posts have reminded me of those scenes in the titanic . Where the captain decides to go down with the ship. Tp for battling like hell in the face of 70% opposition

[celticsclay]

This tweet seems relevant to this raging debate between Clay and Moranis:

Josh Eberley  🇨🇦
‏
Verified account
 
@JoshEberley
 3s3 seconds ago
More
If the Lakers get Kawhi Leonard, they'd have three of the top eight players in PER last season.

The last time that happened?
Warriors? No.
Heatles? No.
Jordan's Bulls? No.
Showtime? No.
Bird's Celtics? No.

1968-69: Lakers; West, Wilt, and Baylor. . .[/b]

Thanks man I appreciate it this obviously is not business for usual if this Happens. Also, the part that makes this debate kind of extra weird is the league itself views it as a problem. The Supermax was an attempt to stop this, but it did not work. The next cab will probably have a super high max for players as proposed by Roy and others. The league doesn’t want 3 of the top 6 players on the same team. It’s u precedented and bad (weird mid 80’s 76ers comparison aside)

[Moranis]

I think you could make a pretty good argument that the mid-80's Sixers were fairly equivalent to this hypothetical Lakers team.  They had an aging, but still very good Dr. J.  They had Malone still in his prime.  They had a rising star in Barkley.  They had HOF role players in Cheeks and Jones.  They had an old former MVP in McAdoo riding their bench.  As well as some other quality depth (guys like Sedale Threatt).  For Barkley's rookie year they also had recent all star Andrew Toney (though Barkley wasn't as good that year).

How old are you, Moranis? 12?  You clearly are not old enough to remember the mid-80's basketball landscape. For you to argue that the mid-eighties 76er team is the equivalent to the hypothetical Laker team is bogus to an insulting level. I hereby revoke your Moderator card for the next season.

If Leonard joins the Lakers (which I expect he will), they will have 3 of the top 5 players in the NBA who will be able to play next season. Since Durant and Thompson are out, they don't count.  Other than Giannis and (maybe) Embiid, there is no one else worth discussing. And forget arguing that Davis didn't make all NBA last season; we all know that if he played the entire year and avoided the Rich Paul shenanigans, he is likely a first team all NBA. Same with Lebron (whom I know you realize is still one of the top 2-3 players).

Stop this contrarian BS.

tough but fair. I’ve heard a lot of nba historians and star geeks discuss the history of the league, and this is the first time I have ever heard the 82-83 76ers as a super team in the league. The contrarian take has really gone off the rails.

This is worse, CC. He is arguing that the 84/85 Sixers (Barkley's rookie year) was better.

84-85 Erving was like 34 and averaging 20 points a game. They had one true superstar in Malone. Cheeks was an elite role player then. Barkley was a rookie and only averaged 14 points. Quite a bit off from Durant, klay, curry and draymond all in their primes

Hypothetical Lakers team is not the same as the Warriors.  I mean if you are going to quote my posts, at least read them before commenting. 

The 83 Sixers are considered one of the greatest teams in league history.  And they have that catchy Fo, Fi, Fo slogan.  Until the 01 Lakers they had the best playoff record of any team in history (which the warriors also eclipsed in 17).  They had 2 MVP's in their prime (Dr. J and Moses), perhaps the greatest defender of the generation (Jones), and another all league defender (Cheeks).  They had a rising star in Toney (injuries derailed his career).  They inexplicably lost early in the 84 playoffs (one of the greatest upsets in league history) and just got beaten by a bit better Celtics team in 85 before Malone got injured and then left and Dr. J continued the inevitable aging process.  Had Malone stayed though with the rise of Barkley who knows what the late 80's in the East would have looked like as Malone was still a beast through the end of the decade.

In any given season only 2 or 3 teams have realistic shots at winning the title (and many of those seasons there is in fact a heavy favorite - ala the Warriors, the Heat, the Lakers, the Bulls, etc.).  This has been borne out time and time again.

You should probably reply to footey not me. I just agreed with him. Also weren't you 4 years old during the 83 philly team? It feels like you are describing them like you watched them 3 years ago.

For what it's worth:

I was going to law school in Philadelphia in the early 80's, and went to some of those games in the Spectrum vs. the Celtics.  Great rivalry.

The '83 Sixer team was an awesome team.  A dominant team.

BUT:  It did not have 3 out of the top 5 players on the NBA playing on it, like the new Laker roster would have. No one ever has in modern league history if memory serves me.  That includes the recent Warriors.

Maybe, maybe 2: Moses Malone (definitely) and Dr. J (maybe). It also had great role players. Actually the guy who absolutely was the Celtics' Achilles Heal was Andrew (a/k/a Android) Toney. 

Other contemporaries playing then clearly among top 5: Larry Bird; Magic Johnson; Kareem; Sidney Moncrief.  Erving and Malone were first team all nba, but no Sixer was on the 2nd team.

In addition, Moranis was arguing that the 84/85 Sixer team had more talent than the hypothetical Laker team. (it's up there above somewhere). That was Barkley's rookie year.  It was also the year that Toney started experiencing foot problems, which would end up curtailing his career. That team was not very good.  Only Malone made All NBA (he was on 1st team). No other Sixer made 1st or 2nd team.

my post was actually referring to the 85/86 team when Barkley had clearly started his rise (that is why I mentioned the prior season being Barkley's rookie year).  He obviously wasn't yet at his peak, but even that season and playing next to Moses he went for 20 and 13 and finished 6th in MVP voting.  Moses went for 24 and 12 (10th in MVP voting).  Dr. J was obviously on the down side but was still an 18/5/3.5 player.  Cheeks was still very much in prime making his 2nd all star game and the 1st of 3 straight averaging 15/3/9 as a 1st Team All Defense.  Jones was still a good defender, but wasn't elite any more, but he was their 5th best player.  They had former MVP (and HOFer) McAdoo on their deeper bench and long time starter Sedale Threat on the rise.

Obviously it isn't meant to be an exact comparison, but in that scenario you have the HOF talent that hasn't yet proven himself (Barkley/Davis).  The MVP candidate in his prime and the discussion for best player in the world (Moses/Kawhi).  The again HOFer who can still perform at a high level (Dr. J/Lebron).  Now those aren't all exactly the same comparison and Lebron will almost certainly outperform Dr. J (though I'm not so sure Davis and Kawhi outperform Barkley and Moses).  The Sixers also had things the Lakers aren't going to have in a player like Cheeks.  They may find a Jones or McAdoo type (though a former MVP on the last legs probably isn't happening).  And Kuzma is better than Threatt, but I'm not sure he ends up with a better career.  That was the point I was trying to make.  The league is littered with teams with all sorts of great players that are playing on the same team.  Heck that Sixers team had 4 former or future MVP's playing on it.  I don't think any team in history can claim that.  The Thunder are the only team I can think of with 3 (I didn't exactly look so maybe it has happened before).

As for things like PER, it is very difficult for teammates to finish in the top ten, let alone 3 teammates all doing it.  So it would have to be situations in which players were on different teams the prior season.  You know like the trio of James, Wade, and Bosh who finished 1, 2, and 4 in the 2009-2010 season (you know the year before they joined up).  So clearly the person with the check mark didn't do a very good job of fact checking.

These posts have reminded me of those scenes in the tianto. Where the captain decides to go down with the ship. Tp for battling like hell in the face of 70% opposition

to be fair the poll question and this debate aren't the same (it is also 60/40 in voting).

[Moranis]

This tweet seems relevant to this raging debate between Clay and Moranis:

Josh Eberley  🇨🇦
‏
Verified account
 
@JoshEberley
 3s3 seconds ago
More
If the Lakers get Kawhi Leonard, they'd have three of the top eight players in PER last season.

The last time that happened?
Warriors? No.
Heatles? No.
Jordan's Bulls? No.
Showtime? No.
Bird's Celtics? No.

1968-69: Lakers; West, Wilt, and Baylor. . .[/b]

Thanks man I appreciate it this obviously is not business for usual if this Happens. Also, the part that makes this debate kind of extra weird is the league itself views it as a problem. The Supermax was an attempt to stop this, but it did not work. The next cab will probably have a super high max for players as proposed by Roy and others. The league doesn’t want 3 of the top 6 players on the same team. It’s u precedented and bad (weird mid 80’s 76ers comparison aside)

as I've said that tweet was wrong as 3 of the top 4 finishers in PER played on the same team the following season. And frankly I'm not so sure Davis is actually better than Bosh was. Lebron was clearly a better version of himself back then. Kawhi is better than Wade, but Wade was an absolute monster and a top 5 player in the world.

This unprecedented stuff isn't quite so unprecedented when you actually look at things.

[celticsclay]

This tweet seems relevant to this raging debate between Clay and Moranis:

Josh Eberley  🇨🇦
‏
Verified account
 
@JoshEberley
 3s3 seconds ago
More
If the Lakers get Kawhi Leonard, they'd have three of the top eight players in PER last season.

The last time that happened?
Warriors? No.
Heatles? No.
Jordan's Bulls? No.
Showtime? No.
Bird's Celtics? No.

1968-69: Lakers; West, Wilt, and Baylor. . .[/b]

Thanks man I appreciate it this obviously is not business for usual if this Happens. Also, the part that makes this debate kind of extra weird is the league itself views it as a problem. The Supermax was an attempt to stop this, but it did not work. The next cab will probably have a super high max for players as proposed by Roy and others. The league doesn’t want 3 of the top 6 players on the same team. It’s u precedented and bad (weird mid 80’s 76ers comparison aside)

as I've said that tweet was wrong as 3 of the top 4 finishers in PER played on the same team the following season. And frankly I'm not so sure Davis is actually better than Bosh was. Lebron was clearly a better version of himself back then. Kawhi is better than Wade, but Wade was an absolute monster and a top 5 player in the world.

This unprecedented stuff isn't quite so unprecedented when you actually look at things.

You lost me at bosh being better than Davis. Agree to disagree on that. Honestly not sure why you are so invested in this

[celticsclay]

I think you could make a pretty good argument that the mid-80's Sixers were fairly equivalent to this hypothetical Lakers team.  They had an aging, but still very good Dr. J.  They had Malone still in his prime.  They had a rising star in Barkley.  They had HOF role players in Cheeks and Jones.  They had an old former MVP in McAdoo riding their bench.  As well as some other quality depth (guys like Sedale Threatt).  For Barkley's rookie year they also had recent all star Andrew Toney (though Barkley wasn't as good that year).

How old are you, Moranis? 12?  You clearly are not old enough to remember the mid-80's basketball landscape. For you to argue that the mid-eighties 76er team is the equivalent to the hypothetical Laker team is bogus to an insulting level. I hereby revoke your Moderator card for the next season.

If Leonard joins the Lakers (which I expect he will), they will have 3 of the top 5 players in the NBA who will be able to play next season. Since Durant and Thompson are out, they don't count.  Other than Giannis and (maybe) Embiid, there is no one else worth discussing. And forget arguing that Davis didn't make all NBA last season; we all know that if he played the entire year and avoided the Rich Paul shenanigans, he is likely a first team all NBA. Same with Lebron (whom I know you realize is still one of the top 2-3 players).

Stop this contrarian BS.

tough but fair. I’ve heard a lot of nba historians and star geeks discuss the history of the league, and this is the first time I have ever heard the 82-83 76ers as a super team in the league. The contrarian take has really gone off the rails.

This is worse, CC. He is arguing that the 84/85 Sixers (Barkley's rookie year) was better.

84-85 Erving was like 34 and averaging 20 points a game. They had one true superstar in Malone. Cheeks was an elite role player then. Barkley was a rookie and only averaged 14 points. Quite a bit off from Durant, klay, curry and draymond all in their primes

Hypothetical Lakers team is not the same as the Warriors.  I mean if you are going to quote my posts, at least read them before commenting. 

The 83 Sixers are considered one of the greatest teams in league history.  And they have that catchy Fo, Fi, Fo slogan.  Until the 01 Lakers they had the best playoff record of any team in history (which the warriors also eclipsed in 17).  They had 2 MVP's in their prime (Dr. J and Moses), perhaps the greatest defender of the generation (Jones), and another all league defender (Cheeks).  They had a rising star in Toney (injuries derailed his career).  They inexplicably lost early in the 84 playoffs (one of the greatest upsets in league history) and just got beaten by a bit better Celtics team in 85 before Malone got injured and then left and Dr. J continued the inevitable aging process.  Had Malone stayed though with the rise of Barkley who knows what the late 80's in the East would have looked like as Malone was still a beast through the end of the decade.

In any given season only 2 or 3 teams have realistic shots at winning the title (and many of those seasons there is in fact a heavy favorite - ala the Warriors, the Heat, the Lakers, the Bulls, etc.).  This has been borne out time and time again.

You should probably reply to footey not me. I just agreed with him. Also weren't you 4 years old during the 83 philly team? It feels like you are describing them like you watched them 3 years ago.

For what it's worth:

I was going to law school in Philadelphia in the early 80's, and went to some of those games in the Spectrum vs. the Celtics.  Great rivalry.

The '83 Sixer team was an awesome team.  A dominant team.

BUT:  It did not have 3 out of the top 5 players on the NBA playing on it, like the new Laker roster would have. No one ever has in modern league history if memory serves me.  That includes the recent Warriors.

Maybe, maybe 2: Moses Malone (definitely) and Dr. J (maybe). It also had great role players. Actually the guy who absolutely was the Celtics' Achilles Heal was Andrew (a/k/a Android) Toney. 

Other contemporaries playing then clearly among top 5: Larry Bird; Magic Johnson; Kareem; Sidney Moncrief.  Erving and Malone were first team all nba, but no Sixer was on the 2nd team.

In addition, Moranis was arguing that the 84/85 Sixer team had more talent than the hypothetical Laker team. (it's up there above somewhere). That was Barkley's rookie year.  It was also the year that Toney started experiencing foot problems, which would end up curtailing his career. That team was not very good.  Only Malone made All NBA (he was on 1st team). No other Sixer made 1st or 2nd team.

my post was actually referring to the 85/86 team when Barkley had clearly started his rise (that is why I mentioned the prior season being Barkley's rookie year).  He obviously wasn't yet at his peak, but even that season and playing next to Moses he went for 20 and 13 and finished 6th in MVP voting.  Moses went for 24 and 12 (10th in MVP voting).  Dr. J was obviously on the down side but was still an 18/5/3.5 player.  Cheeks was still very much in prime making his 2nd all star game and the 1st of 3 straight averaging 15/3/9 as a 1st Team All Defense.  Jones was still a good defender, but wasn't elite any more, but he was their 5th best player.  They had former MVP (and HOFer) McAdoo on their deeper bench and long time starter Sedale Threat on the rise.

Obviously it isn't meant to be an exact comparison, but in that scenario you have the HOF talent that hasn't yet proven himself (Barkley/Davis).  The MVP candidate in his prime and the discussion for best player in the world (Moses/Kawhi).  The again HOFer who can still perform at a high level (Dr. J/Lebron).  Now those aren't all exactly the same comparison and Lebron will almost certainly outperform Dr. J (though I'm not so sure Davis and Kawhi outperform Barkley and Moses).  The Sixers also had things the Lakers aren't going to have in a player like Cheeks.  They may find a Jones or McAdoo type (though a former MVP on the last legs probably isn't happening).  And Kuzma is better than Threatt, but I'm not sure he ends up with a better career.  That was the point I was trying to make.  The league is littered with teams with all sorts of great players that are playing on the same team.  Heck that Sixers team had 4 former or future MVP's playing on it.  I don't think any team in history can claim that.  The Thunder are the only team I can think of with 3 (I didn't exactly look so maybe it has happened before).

As for things like PER, it is very difficult for teammates to finish in the top ten, let alone 3 teammates all doing it.  So it would have to be situations in which players were on different teams the prior season.  You know like the trio of James, Wade, and Bosh who finished 1, 2, and 4 in the 2009-2010 season (you know the year before they joined up).  So clearly the person with the check mark didn't do a very good job of fact checking.

These posts have reminded me of those scenes in the tianto. Where the captain decides to go down with the ship. Tp for battling like hell in the face of 70% opposition

to be fair the poll question and this debate aren't the same (it is also 60/40 in voting).

I don’t mean to be condescending here but your comment is very strange like you don’t understand polls. About 3% of people say this would make them more interested in the league. 57% say they would lose at least a little interest. 85 76ers aside that’s bad man. Keep being you though man