NBA GMs Across League Fill Out Their Survey
- Thread starter Broadway
- Start date
I will add Galloway to the list too.
Im hoping hard for a much improve Calderon, Early, and L.Thomas.
What happen to Cavs Tristan Thompson?
Tristan & Mozgov were the best defensive tandem bigs in the postseason games.
My thoughts on the GS Warriors championship rings ..
Thas me!
Steezo
Benchwarmer
Boy I wish this was around during the 90s
sometimes its better to be lucky than good.. but you have to be good to be in position to be lucky in this league. No need to take anything from the warriors, they are a good and talented team. it is not their fault the spurs are older and injured and that the clippers could not win their series.
my thoughts on their ring is congrats to that team, I wish the knicks were them, heck I wish this knick team was half as good as that team.
Last edited:
Steezo
Benchwarmer
If we had managed to win the title in '94, and the subsequent years occured exactly as they had happened (i.e. the franchises' only Finals appearances, hypothetical '94 championship and the only series win over Chicago during Ewing's tenure, both coinciding w/ Jordan's departure), would you consider this to be the same as what I bolded? Obviously not the same circumstances, but I think you get the drift
AFAIC, the 90s Rockets, and this decades' Mavs and GS championships are all in the same boat, all having extremely favorable circumstances--moreso than other champions--to say the very least
Last edited:
what conditions are favorable for any team winning a championship? to win you have to beat the best available. The rockets won back to back, they beat the best available, the mavs won a ring dirk beat the heat with lebron, the best available. Had the knicks won, I would not consider us lucky at all, you are not talking about 45 win 8th seeds winning a title, the teams that have won, have been solid franchises, with a history of winning, the same for the knicks in the 90's.. Now sometimes a team can catch a break here and there, we can call that luck, but you have to be good to be in position to be lucky in this game.. I am going to give the warriors the benefit of the doubt , they beat everyone in the regular season.
the warriors are no different, they clearly were the best team in basketball and they beat the team with the best player in the game.. THE END!
I will add this, the rockets won their second title as a 6th seed.. what was favorable about that?
so to answer your question, yes I would say the same thing, it is not about jordan being gone, but what we did, had we won in 94 we would have beat the best, including the pippen led bulls and Hakeem and the rockets. Hakeem arguably the best player in the NBA at that time..
Last edited:
Later for calling it luck .. mybad, the Warriors championship was phoney, like other NBA Championships was PHONEY! Dallas, the last ring Shaq n Kobe Lakers won (Kings series) and 2 of the Spurs rings were phoney.
The Knicks beating Hakeem in the FINALS in 1994. would've been PHONEY! not bc of the missing Jordan era.
Hakeem proved to be the best NCAA center for two years straight .. out performing centers Sampson, Ewing, and Bowie.
Ewing won the MVP in 1984 NCAA Championship, plus Ewing knew Hakeem was going to be the 1984 first pick in NBA.
Rookie Hakeem & Sampson took the Houston Rockets to the 1984-85 NBA FINALS.
The Rockets Hakeem & Drexler vs Pat Riley Knicks Ewing & Starks .. were great advertisement for the NBA FINALS in the missing Jordan era .... The vegas odds favored the Houston Rockets
for some reason you don't seem to be doing a good job of explaining how those championships were "phoney", maybe I am missing something. maybe you should state the criteria or your criteria of what makes a team a legitimate champion. I have the feeling you are going to have a hard time doing that and discrediting some if not all of the teams you mentioned. especially if your criteria is balanced and fair..
Chicago is still a good team, but they also seem ready to implode at a moment's notice. I think the Bucks are a huge wildcard in the East that can be better than almost anyone, except Cleveland. In my mind, the West is harder to gauge because you are trying to put in order a bunch of teams that could all win 55 games, at least.
Steezo
Benchwarmer
The only thing about Dallas' title, is that their ring was determined by the play of LeBron James-- the best player in basketball playing well below his standards. You can say what you want about his team or the defense he played, that doesn't negate the fact that no superstar-- the NBA's best player mind you-- that I can think of in recent memory, played such below their standards in the Finals. You don't agree w/ it, but in the minds of most, Dallas getting that title was more about LeBron's play than anything Dallas did (although they did play great)
As for Golden State, none of the teams they beat were any great. All were injured, plus they were lucky to avoid the Spurs, and less so the Clippers. I'll see what they do next Spring and I'll eat my words if they actually beat some great teams and get back to the Finals
Houston, same story, none of the teams they beat either year were any great. The fact that Houston won as a 6th seed, and an 8th seed nearly won two rounds the year before should tell you the quality of the NBA during that time. Plus Houston relied on luck MUCH MORE than any team I can think of in '95, really the only round I feel that luck didn't play into the equation was the WCF series (which happens to be Hakeem's shining moment of his career). It's either Houston got really lucky in '95, or if you believe the better team won that year, than you'd have to admit the teams they beat weren't so hot.
As for what I bolded in your quote, you're lying to yourself. Don't get me wrong, I would've loved to have had the Rangers and Knicks win the same year, but I wouldn't delude myself. To win our only title when Jordan was gone, and against a team that we didn't have HCA against, to lose the very next year to a Pacer team that never won ****, while having HCA, would tell me that we were very fortunate to have Mike not there
Steezo
Benchwarmer
Milwaukee won't be doing anything major with MCW at the 1
so if it is phoney, why watch? why root for the knicks to win anything? I just don't get your logic here... Im sorry
Steezo
Benchwarmer
I disagree w/ your mindset that we would've been lucky to defeat Houston back when-- it went the distance with Ewing shooting as poorly as he did. Had he managed to shoot even 40% we would've won 1994. But this isn't the main reason I quoted you...
It has to do with the bolded. I'm guessing you're referring to the Horry hipcheck lol. I can see the argument there, however it seemed like Phoenix just lost their cool (they knew the rules, I mean damn, we should've been a shining example ten years preceding this), plus Nash admittedly didn't immediately get up when he knew he could, just to try to draw a foul. Had he gotten right up as he should've, the suspensions wouldn't have happened. And they had everyone back for game 6 AT HOME, and lost anyways
come on now, this sound reasoning at all.. First of all lebron playing below standards is not the fault of the mavs .. I bet you can go back in history and find a team that lost, playing below standards, usually that is what happens when teams lose, and often they play below standards because the other team is making it look that way. It is that simple. And remember lebron did have wade and bosh on that team... And for the record, Dirk played out of his mind down the stretch of games.. Almost historic.
As far as the warriors, none of the teams they beat were great is not their fault.. the fact remains they were great, thats all that matters..And please stop with the spurs and clippers.. the warriors beat the rockets who beat the clippers who beat the spurs.. THE END!
The Houston teams that won had probably the best player in the NBA on their team.. there is nothing lucky with that..And tell me again, what is lucky about Houston coming from a 6th seed and winning the title? they beat the 1,2 and 3 seeds to win the title!! Jeezus christ... The better team did win, Houston beat the top 3 seeds... According to your logic then, Golden state is legit, they did what a #1 seed should have done.... WIN!!! you can't have it both ways man..
and I am not lying to myself, this is what you are doing by making up all of these ridiculous excuses to discredit teams..
Last edited:
RunningJumper
Super Moderator
There are some scenarios that you can make the argument about luck, having an less hard route to a championship, etc. The Warriors though won 67 games in the regular season, and won the championship. The Cavs' injuries sure did have an impact, but Curry wasn't even at his best during the series, a lot of it anyway, and they won. They had a lot of weapons. Don't forget that they changed up the line-up, starting Iguodala and on LeBron, which had such an impact that he won the Finals MVP.
And the Mavs/LeBron 2011 Finals thing, you can't even make that argument. You know why? LeBron played, he was healthy, it doesn't MATTER how he usually plays, he played unusual, and it wasn't good. There is no what if scenario there. LeBron had his chance. It doesn't matter that it was the Heat's first year, LeBron won MVP twice before joining the Heat, he was a veteran in his first year of the Heat, he just didn't play that well.
The Spurs missed free throws at the end of Game 6 in the 2013 Finals. They were up five points with what? Thirty something seconds to go? They missed free throws, and lost that game. The Spurs had another chance to prove they were the best, they didn't win. It doesn't matter if the best player in basketball doesn't play well, or players who don't usually don't miss free throws miss free throws, the fact is, it happened, it wasn't unfair, it happened. The better team won. What is potential, what is the usual, they don't matter. What matters is what was. They had their chance!
On top of the first gap without Jordan, we can talk about what if Jordan played with the Bulls in the 1998-1999 season? They just went 62-20 in the regular season with Jordan being the scoring champion, MVP, and Finals MVP, in which they won the championship in Game 6. He didn't play though. I've thought about Jordan's first gap before, but it doesn't matter. He didn't play.
Yes, I UNDERSTAND people's opinions and feelings in some scenarios, but things happen. Unless a pretty obvious mediocre team won the title, you have to give teams credit.
And the Mavs/LeBron 2011 Finals thing, you can't even make that argument. You know why? LeBron played, he was healthy, it doesn't MATTER how he usually plays, he played unusual, and it wasn't good. There is no what if scenario there. LeBron had his chance. It doesn't matter that it was the Heat's first year, LeBron won MVP twice before joining the Heat, he was a veteran in his first year of the Heat, he just didn't play that well.
The Spurs missed free throws at the end of Game 6 in the 2013 Finals. They were up five points with what? Thirty something seconds to go? They missed free throws, and lost that game. The Spurs had another chance to prove they were the best, they didn't win. It doesn't matter if the best player in basketball doesn't play well, or players who don't usually don't miss free throws miss free throws, the fact is, it happened, it wasn't unfair, it happened. The better team won. What is potential, what is the usual, they don't matter. What matters is what was. They had their chance!
On top of the first gap without Jordan, we can talk about what if Jordan played with the Bulls in the 1998-1999 season? They just went 62-20 in the regular season with Jordan being the scoring champion, MVP, and Finals MVP, in which they won the championship in Game 6. He didn't play though. I've thought about Jordan's first gap before, but it doesn't matter. He didn't play.
Yes, I UNDERSTAND people's opinions and feelings in some scenarios, but things happen. Unless a pretty obvious mediocre team won the title, you have to give teams credit.
Last edited:
Steezo
Benchwarmer
Yea but Dell Jr played all 6 games; Love and Irving only played one game between them in those Finals, you can't be serious comparing injuries like that.......
AFA the '11 Finals, all I really wanted to know was about any other superstars playing such below their standards as LeBron did in an NBA Finals setting. You'll probably say "whatever, doesn't matter, etc", but just a simple question, lol
And I don't see how you can compare Jordan's first LOA when he was 30, to the 2nd one when he was 36 and having played 13 seasons already, plus with Pippen just exiting his prime with beginning back problems. I don't really subscribe to Jordan's 2nd LOA anyways outside of the Knicks, I just brought that up to demonstrate a circumstance (our last Finals appearances since the days of Willis Reed). The fact remains that our only Finals apperances coincided with Jordan not playing at all (and for the record I do believe had Jordan not left in '98 the Bulls would've beaten us yet again in '99), and Houston only won titles when Jordan didn't play a full season. How one chooses to view that is entirely up to the eye of the beholder