|
|
Post by DERRENMATTS on Jun 23, 2017 22:21:46 GMT -5
You've heard many times before that this is a superstar league, and you aren't going to be a champ without a superstar on your team. And the numbers back it up. Go back 25 years or so and you'll see that each year, the championship team had at least one superstar. You'll see that only teams that had Bird, Magic, Jordan, Olajuwon, Robinson, Duncan, Kobe, Shaq, KG, Dirk, Lebron, Wade, or Curry won a title -- the lone exception was the early 2000's Pistons team, but they were a team that collectively played like 1 superstar.
So with that in mind, we could possibly be putting together a really good team, if we do indeed trade for Paul George and sign Gordon Hayward in free agency -- but neither guy is a superstar.
Even if Jaylen Brown and Jayson Tatum emerge as impact players years ahead of schedule, they're not superstars.
Do NBA execs and GM's and coaches think we can upset Golden State by bringing in Hayward and George? Do those who follow the NBA think we have a shot?
Do you?
|
|
|
|
Post by Roadrunner on Jun 23, 2017 22:58:45 GMT -5
Depends on the definition of superstar. First team or second/third team all-NBA? I think superstar is like generational players.
|
|
|
|
Post by jmost on Jun 24, 2017 6:45:28 GMT -5
If we put together George, Hayward, and IT, and Brown and Tatum develop as they should, and we have decent luck with the Nets pick, yeah, we have a chance. A real chance I think.
|
|
|
|
Post by afceltic on Jun 24, 2017 20:57:26 GMT -5
In the regular season yes, in the playoffs no. Not since Stern changed the rules to make the NBA about individual players and not teams to help Jordan win Championships in the 90's. Since then it is all about superstars.
|
|
|
|
Post by DERRENMATTS on Jun 24, 2017 22:34:36 GMT -5
In the regular season yes, in the playoffs no. Not since Stern changed the rules to make the NBA about individual players and not teams to help Jordan win Championships in the 90's. Since then it is all about superstars. AF, what you said made me pause and think. I've felt for sometime now that neither Curry, nor Thompson, nor Draymond, are superstars. What I mean is that, alone, individually, Curry is not a superstar -- a guy who, by himself, can change a franchise (the way Lebron can). To me that would determine who is a superstar, and who is merely a really outstanding star player. But together, playing as a well oiled team, they each look like superstars. So back to your statement, I think Golden State just showed the world that basketball can be won without a superstar, if you have a really good offensive and defensive group of players who look play extremely well as a cohesive team. Meanwhile, CLE, who has a genuine superstar (who played the best he has EVER played in his career) could only muster 1 win. |
|
|
|
Post by Roadrunner on Jun 24, 2017 22:58:01 GMT -5
In the regular season yes, in the playoffs no. Not since Stern changed the rules to make the NBA about individual players and not teams to help Jordan win Championships in the 90's. Since then it is all about superstars. AF, what you said made me pause and think. I've felt for sometime now that neither Curry, nor Thompson, nor Draymond, are superstars. What I mean is that, alone, individually, Curry is not a superstar -- a guy who, by himself, can change a franchise (the way Lebron can). To me that would determine who is a superstar, and who is merely a really outstanding star player. But together, playing as a well oiled team, they each look like superstars. So back to your statement, I think Golden State just showed the world that basketball can be won without a superstar, if you have a really good offensive and defensive group of players who look play extremely well as a cohesive team. Meanwhile, CLE, who has a genuine superstar (who played the best he has EVER played in his career) could only muster 1 win. The team to beat GS will be able to defend the perimeter, and have an inside presence. CLE might have won one more game had GS not coasted in the West, because they injured Leonard on an illegal play. |
|
|
|
Post by afceltic on Jun 25, 2017 0:51:05 GMT -5
AF, what you said made me pause and think. I've felt for sometime now that neither Curry, nor Thompson, nor Draymond, are superstars. What I mean is that, alone, individually, Curry is not a superstar -- a guy who, by himself, can change a franchise (the way Lebron can). To me that would determine who is a superstar, and who is merely a really outstanding star player. But together, playing as a well oiled team, they each look like superstars. So back to your statement, I think Golden State just showed the world that basketball can be won without a superstar, if you have a really good offensive and defensive group of players who look play extremely well as a cohesive team. Meanwhile, CLE, who has a genuine superstar (who played the best he has EVER played in his career) could only muster 1 win. The team to beat GS will be able to defend the perimeter, and have an inside presence. CLE might have won one more game had GS not coasted in the West, because they injured Leonard on an illegal play. IMO the Spurs are the Champs right now if Mongo doesn't take of Leonard. He was doing whatever he wanted when he wanted against GS, that is why they took him out. |
|
|
|
Post by afceltic on Jun 25, 2017 0:52:10 GMT -5
AF, what you said made me pause and think. I've felt for sometime now that neither Curry, nor Thompson, nor Draymond, are superstars. What I mean is that, alone, individually, Curry is not a superstar -- a guy who, by himself, can change a franchise (the way Lebron can). To me that would determine who is a superstar, and who is merely a really outstanding star player. But together, playing as a well oiled team, they each look like superstars. So back to your statement, I think Golden State just showed the world that basketball can be won without a superstar, if you have a really good offensive and defensive group of players who look play extremely well as a cohesive team. Meanwhile, CLE, who has a genuine superstar (who played the best he has EVER played in his career) could only muster 1 win. The team to beat GS will be able to defend the perimeter, and have an inside presence. CLE might have won one more game had GS not coasted in the West, because they injured Leonard on an illegal play. That is why they added KD, he's a top 3 player in the league and that is what made the difference in the series against the Cavs. |
|
|
|
Post by DERRENMATTS on Jun 25, 2017 1:08:11 GMT -5
It definitely helped having KD on the team, but I don't think we can honestly know how GSW would have been if they didn't bring KD in. You could say that KD was the difference maker, but we forget that when KD came to the team, Klay Thompson's and Draymond Green's production output changed. Their roles changed. These are fantastic players in their own right, but they took a back seat to a degree because of KD.
2 years ago, GSW beat CLE without KD. Last year they would have beat CLE for the second consecutive time if Curry wasn't hurt and if Draymond wasn't suspended -- again without KD.
We don't know how this year's GSW team would have been if KD wasn't on it. We don't know how much more effective and productive Klay and Draymond would have been.
|
|
|
|
Post by DERRENMATTS on Jun 25, 2017 1:16:45 GMT -5
The team to beat GS will be able to defend the perimeter, and have an inside presence. CLE might have won one more game had GS not coasted in the West, because they injured Leonard on an illegal play. IMO the Spurs are the Champs right now if Mongo doesn't take of Leonard. He was doing whatever he wanted when he wanted against GS, that is why they took him out. I really like Kawhi, and think he's one of the best players in the league, primariy because of his two way abilities. But San Antonio is really good because of their system, in addition to Kawhi. Look at how many no-names become household names because of their system. Danny Green, Patty Mills, Simmons, Dedmon, Baynes, etc. They are so good because they play as a team. Even their last championship (2013-2014) was won without anyone on the team playing at a superstar level. Kawhi was only in his 3rd year, and he averaged 13 ppg on the season. A team that has stars that play really well as a team offensively and defensively can win even without a superstar. |
|
|
|
Post by jmost on Jun 25, 2017 6:58:03 GMT -5
That's a really good point. That particular Spurs team had no superstars. Duncan was well past his prime, and Leonard wasn't a superstar yet, but they destroyed the Heat. So we can add that Spurs team to the Pistons team that beat the Lakers as teams who have won without a superstar.
|
|
|
|
Post by eja117 on Jun 25, 2017 8:47:26 GMT -5
Well we're winning right now without a super star unless you consider IT a superstar. But I think it would be very difficult to win in the finals without one.
|
|
|
|
Post by runrondo on Jun 25, 2017 12:36:24 GMT -5
I honestly don't see a way in which we truly compete with the Warriors in the next several years unless Brown or Tatum become the next Lebron or Pierce overnight which is wishful thinking at best. Even if we added Hayward and George I don't think we'd be better than any Lebron-led team for the next couple years. Maybe down the road we could flip some young players for a star similar to how we paired Ray and Garnett with Pierce, but it'll be tough at best for the stars to align like that. Doesn't happen too often. We'd also need to really knock it out of the park with our draft picks which, as history shows, doesn't really happen unless you get that [HASH]1 pick during a draft with a Lebron in it. Still, I think we'll get a better idea of our chances once we make a final decision with IT.
|
|
|
|
Post by FLCeltsFan on Jun 25, 2017 16:05:18 GMT -5
I don't think we need a superstar to beat the Warriors or the Cavs. There are very few superstars in the league. There are a lot of all star level talent and If a team has a few of those along with a cohesive system and a team that plays as a unit I think that team can win without a superstar.
The Celtics have been able to give the Warriors all they could handle in the regular season over the last two years. I know it's different in the playoffs but I think a big more firepower and more consistency from the players and the Celtics will be able to compete.
|
|
|
|
Post by DERRENMATTS on Jun 26, 2017 2:36:52 GMT -5
Yeah, funny thing is we beat the Warriors twice on their own court -- only team to do this. When Jae told KD (when we were recruiting him) we have a game plan to defeat Golden State, it wasn't just talk. But I doubt we could beat them in a 7 game series.
But as we continue to add higher level talent, we could build a Warriors' killer.
This is what we'll need -- 5 guys on the court who can score, pass, rebound and defend at a high level. The more skilled players we have the better.
|
|
