Looknsee Photography wrote:
I think I agree that LeBron is the best player in the league right now.  His ability to take over a game is amazing.  I don't feel comfortable when there's a debate about whether he or Michael Jordan is the best of all time.  One thing that MJ did that LeBron didn't was that MJ made his teammates better.  As far as taking over a game, I think no one did it better than Wilt Chamberlain -- heck, they had to change the rules of the game because he was so gifted physically.  But today, LeBron is the gold standard.

There is no debate. LeBron is no Micheal Jordan.

Cavs will win again and Cleveland will talk about it for another fucking year.

Brian Diaz wrote:
There's been a lot of chatter about salaries this year, especially since this is the third straight Cavs/Warriors Finals AND together they have lost a total of 1 playoff game.  There's a serious imbalance going on here.

This isn't the players' fault or the teams' fault.  They're both doing whatever they can within the rules (or what they can get away with outside the rules) to win championships.  That's the goal.  But it's making the sport less fun to watch. 

This is the league's fault.

There's a $94 million salary cap, and if you go over that, you pay a "luxury tax" to the league.  Well, the Cavs have gone way over that figure in salaries, and are reportedly paying over $50 million in luxury tax.  So instead of $94 million going toward building a good team, they're paying about $182 million.  That seems to go against the point of a salary cap.

To make maters worse, the NBA has individual maximum salaries for players, limiting what teams have to pay to get the top players.  There's no way for teams to compete for the top players except by accumulating other top players.  I can't blame Durant for wanting to play with Curry, or for that matter for Jame and Love for wanting to play with Irving.  All those guys, particularly Lebron, should be making more.  If teams could actually have competed for him based on salary, he'd likely be making $50, $60, maybe $70 million a year.  And if he were, the Cavs wouldn't be able to afford to pay Irving and Love what they're worth.

I'm tired of teams packed with superstars in predictable playoff scenarios.  I want to see superstars and super coaches elevating the games of their teammates, creating surprising and exciting seasons.

That said, Warriors in 6.

Interesting ... I mostly agree, except I think it'll be Warriors in 5.

Brian Diaz wrote:
There's been a lot of chatter about salaries this year, especially since this is the third straight Cavs/Warriors Finals AND together they have lost a total of 1 playoff game.  There's a serious imbalance going on here.
This isn't the players' fault or the teams' fault.  They're both doing whatever they can within the rules (or what they can get away with outside the rules) to win championships.  That's the goal.  But it's making the sport less fun to watch. 
This is the league's fault.
There's a $94 million salary cap, and if you go over that, you pay a "luxury tax" to the league.  Well, the Cavs have gone way over that figure in salaries, and are reportedly paying over $50 million in luxury tax.  So instead of $94 million going toward building a good team, they're paying about $182 million.  That seems to go against the point of a salary cap.
To make maters worse, the NBA has individual maximum salaries for players, limiting what teams have to pay to get the top players.  There's no way for teams to compete for the top players except by accumulating other top players.  I can't blame Durant for wanting to play with Curry, or for that matter for Jame and Love for wanting to play with Irving.  All those guys, particularly Lebron, should be making more.  If teams could actually have competed for him based on salary, he'd likely be making $50, $60, maybe $70 million a year.  And if he were, the Cavs wouldn't be able to afford to pay Irving and Love what they're worth.
I'm tired of teams packed with superstars in predictable playoff scenarios.  I want to see superstars and super coaches elevating the games of their teammates, creating surprising and exciting seasons.
That said, Warriors in 6.

Even without the luxury tax, there are still many other free agents rules that allow wealthy teams to stack up talents or prevent small market teams to compete. The WNBA has a hard salary cap, however it has more or less the free-agency structure. such as restricted free agents which the original team has first right of refusal. And the WNBA is exactly like the NBA, there are two teams the stacked with superstars while the rest of the leagues are average to mediocre.

Even Kevin Durant is longer is Oklahoma, I'm still rooting for the Cavs. Cleveland needs it more than Oakland.

Besides, Draymond Green is such a dirty player.

Brian Diaz wrote:
So, can the Cavs come back at home?  Or are we looking at the second time a team will sweep LeBron in the Finals?

Well, the Cavs were down 0-2 last year, and they came back to win the series.  Winning in Cleveland would be a significant test for the Warriors.  We'll see.

Looknsee Photography wrote:
Still, Warriors sweeping the entire playoffs -- that's a record that can never be broken.

Haha, yeah, I guess it can't--unless the league somehow adds games to the playoffs.  But I really don't see that happening.

I wonder if LeBron is one game away from becoming the first player to be swept twice in the Finals (2007 and 2017).

Edit:  Nope, he won't because the Lakers were swept in both 83 and 89, with Kareem, Magic, Worthy, and Michael Cooper on both teams.

Nor-Cal Photography wrote:
Even with LeBron being the closest thing to superman the NBA has ever seen, Warriors easily in 5 games.  Average margin of victory in their 4 wins will be 13 points.

Prediction made BEFORE the start of the first game.  Right on, huh!?

Looknsee Photography wrote:
Sure, watching a seven game series between the Warriors & Cavs can be fun, but no one really wants to watch a seven game series between the 76ers & the Knicks.  My point -- the elite competition is elite, but the average competition is not as good as college basketball.

College basketball has it's own elite group too.

Looknsee Photography wrote:
Sure, watching a seven game series between the Warriors & Cavs can be fun, but no one really wants to watch a seven game series between the 76ers & the Knicks.  My point -- the elite competition is elite, but the average competition is not as good as college basketball.

Chuckarelei wrote:
College basketball has it's own elite group too.

Semi-true.  There are more than two teams in the "elite group" of college teams.  Indeed, there are over a dozen elite teams, any one of which is likely to win the championship.  Further, all teams are expected to turn over their player personnel every (one to) four years.  There is no comparison.

Further, they call the NCAA tournament in March "Madness" for a reason.  The 68 best teams, all of which are on a "lose or go home" basis.  Meanwhile, the Warriors & the Cabs got to the playoff with something like a combined 24-1 record.  Not really competitive.

Heck -- I wonder:  could the NCAA champions beat the "average" NBA team in a short series?