Welcome To aBlackWeb

Register

2019 NBA Finals: Toronto Raptors vs Golden State Warriors (RAPTORS WIN 1️⃣st NBA TITLE)

Who wins the NBA Title?

  • Total voters
    49
  • Poll closed .
AZTG said:
If im boogie im going to the highest bidder with the longest offer. He already got injured a second time, he shouldnt risk more money on a short term deal anymore. Take the longest deal unless the money really really isnt there.

Gsw cant pay Boogie cause they are over the cap and wont have his bird rights to go over the cap for another 3-4 years. So itll be a 5-10 mil a yeae contract for the next 4 years.

Fuck all that play on a contender shit and set your fam up for generations.
Click to expand...

I get this and I would agree.

I didn’t know about their restrictions in being able to pay him.

4 years? Nah it ain’t worth that.

I do think he will have trouble getting a big contract tho. Unless he proves he’s healthy

A Big with foot problems nearing 30 isn’t a great bet for an up and coming team.
 
Last edited:
Peace_79 said:
#1 - Your wrong on the facts.

PHI and BOS are contending teams this year.

PHI was one shot away from advancing past the team that many have favored to win the Championship against said Warriors.

And PHI did that with Embiid playing wildly inconsistent.

PHI has an MVP caliber player
A lot of talent at the Top
And some good role players

They’d have at the very least, a puncher’s chance in the Finals.




BOS was a win away from the Finals last year.

They added a Top 20 player and one of the best scorers in the game.

The have a ton of depth and a Top 4 coach. Most of the basketball community had them penciled in the Finals at the beginning of the season.

Chemistry issues preventing them from putting it together doesn’t mean we get to pretend they should not be considered a contender.





OKC has 2 MVP caliber players a lot of length and quickness on defensive and a solid supporting cast.

They have always given the Warriors trouble and with a healthy PG I still thinking they are as dangerous as any team in the league.

Most consider that team a Contender.





#3 - Your wrong by your own Definition

Even if we use the most restrictive definition possible for a “good team” (A Championship Contender), that STILL leaves 9 teams that fit your definition.

God forbid we use a more reasonable definition of a “good team” ... then that number grows into the double digits.

You said that it was being “generous” to even have 6 teams. - in other words you thought there were more like 4 maybe 5.

By any standard, that’s a pretty aggressive exaggeration you used to try and support your point.







#2 - Your wrong on the history.

Name me any year in NBA history where there were MORE than 6 teams legitimately contending for a Championship

I could argue that for most of the 90s there was ONLY one team contending for a Championship.

The 80s were dominated by 4 teams total; for 10 years ... not just one.



You seem to romanticize past decades like they didn’t have dominant teams.

Do you think Steph and KD are head and shoulders better than

- Prime Shaq and Kobe?
- Magic Kareem, Cooper, Worthy?
- Bird, Mchale, Parrish etc?
- Jordan, Pippen?
- Duncan, Robinson, Manu, Parker, Kawhi, Pop
- Bron, Wade, Bosh,



There have always been dominant teams
Click to expand...

First, I'm going to need for you to understand the difference between an opinion and a fact. You clearly have problems with that. You think I'm wrong about something, cool, but stop acting like any of this shit you post definitively proves your point. Let's take Philly for example. If I tell you, I look at contenders as teams I believe could give the champs a good run, how does them pushing Toronto mean they could give GS a good run. Hell, we don't even know for sure yet that Toronto can give GS a good run. If GS wins the next 3 games, then Toronto didn't even prove to measure up well, so the fact that Philly was a tough match for Toronto doesn't mean anything. And that's assuming this bunk transitive reasoning you're using was valid, which we both know it is. Match-ups mean a lot, and just because the 76ers can give Toronto trouble doesn't mean they match up with GS well enough to do the same with that team.

Let me just ask you a question. This is a little bit of a tangent, but I think it's worthwhile. This season we saw GS lose the player that is generally agreed to be the best player on their team. They played the Western Conference Finals completely without that player. They basically coasted through 2 and a half - 3 quarters of every game and then turn it on in the fourth quarter. They played like that and still swept Portland. Portland demonstrated through winning in the playoffs that they should be considered the second best in the Western Conference and they got toyed with by a weakened team. Look at the players and associated teams you referenced. Which of them do you think could have done that? You think the Bulls still would have swept the Magic in 96 without MJ? You think the Lakers still would have swept the Spurs in 01 without Shaq? I don't think so bruh. As good as those teams were, the competition was too good for them to have been weakened that much and still walked away unscathed. You may think I'm being to restrictive by say I only consider teams to be good if they can give the champs a challenge in a series. That's fine. I can understand why, but I'm going to have to disagree with you when you say the the league has always been like this. It hasn't. There have certainly been times here and there when its been true, but it's been like that for like 5 years for the league now.
 
Nah Son said:
Well damn



DADPNYRXoAAsq_z.jpg
Click to expand...

There wasn't any Toronto lingo. But queue the philly fan with a New York phrase as his sn.

giphy - 2019-06-03T133008.016.gif
 
Infamous114 said:
No at the bolded. And difference is GS was never up double digits in Game 1 with Kawhi not playing as well. Yall were while Curry was shooting bricks.
Click to expand...

You do work here nigga stop it "mod squad". And what difference does it make how much either team is up. Both teams have proven that doesn't matter to them. They can come back from a big deficit.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Peace_79 said:
I’ll say it again.

If I were Boogie, I would stay in Golden state. I don’t know what team is going to give him a bag without a full year of health under his belt.

He can be a 1B here. If he proves he can be healthy for a season they'll pay him.

Dude has seen how miserable it is to waste away on a bad or subpar team. GS is the best situation for him IMO.
Click to expand...
i agree this is a recovery year next year is a rebound year then get your money
 
The Lonious Monk said:
First, I'm going to need for you to understand the difference between an opinion and a fact. You clearly have problems with that. You think I'm wrong about something, cool, but stop acting like any of this shit you post definitively proves your point. Let's take Philly for example. If I tell you, I look at contenders as teams I believe could give the champs a good run, how does them pushing Toronto mean they could give GS a good run. Hell, we don't even know for sure yet that Toronto can give GS a good run. If GS wins the next 3 games, then Toronto didn't even prove to measure up well, so the fact that Philly was a tough match for Toronto doesn't mean anything. And that's assuming this bunk transitive reasoning you're using was valid, which we both know it is. Match-ups mean a lot, and just because the 76ers can give Toronto trouble doesn't mean they match up with GS well enough to do the same with that team.

Let me just ask you a question. This is a little bit of a tangent, but I think it's worthwhile. This season we saw GS lose the player that is generally agreed to be the best player on their team. They played the Western Conference Finals completely without that player. They basically coasted through 2 and a half - 3 quarters of every game and then turn it on in the fourth quarter. They played like that and still swept Portland. Portland demonstrated through winning in the playoffs that they should be considered the second best in the Western Conference and they got toyed with by a weakened team. Look at the players and associated teams you referenced. Which of them do you think could have done that? You think the Bulls still would have swept the Magic in 96 without MJ? You think the Lakers still would have swept the Spurs in 01 without Shaq? I don't think so bruh. As good as those teams were, the competition was too good for them to have been weakened that much and still walked away unscathed. You may think I'm being to restrictive by say I only consider teams to be good if they can give the champs a challenge in a series. That's fine. I can understand why, but I'm going to have to disagree with you when you say the the league has always been like this. It hasn't. There have certainly been times here and there when its been true, but it's been like that for like 5 years for the league now.
Click to expand...


Notice that the team in your example, does not appear in either or our Top 10 current teams in the league.

You are comparing the 2019 Portland Trailblazers - In their first year as a unit playing outside of the first round. To -

Tim Duncan’s Spurs &
Shaq and Penny’s Orlando Magic.

Both Top 3 teams in their respective eras.

Apples. Oranges.

Even still, GS trailed more in that series than they led. They knew the could preserve energy and flip the switch with them because of their suspect depth and inexperience.

This is a cherry picked scenario to make your point.

Let’s see GS sweep Houston, Milwaukee, or Toronto without KD.




In general though I can agree with your premise (GS is an All time great team even without their best player) l just don’t understand how it leads you to your conclusion (the competition, therefore, must be vastly inferior to the competition of other All Time Great Teams).
 
I'm not comparing the this year's POR team to any of those classic teams. Where did you get that? I mentioned POR because they were in that list of teams where you told me to say which ones weren't good, so I'm assuming you consider them to be a good team. It's not a cherry picked example. As I noted, POR proved itself through competition in the playoffs as the second best team in the West, and by your own admission GS was able to toy with them. GS isn't going to sweep TOR, but if the series ends up 4-1 GS without KD for most of the games, what does that say?

If GS was at full strength throughout the playoffs, their success wouldn't really say anything about the competition. However, my whole point was that GS can still be just as successful even when they are greatly hampered by injuries. Again, vs POR they were missing Durant, Cousins, and Iggy for part of the time. Tell me which other All Time Great Team faced such weak competition that they could be missing 2 starters and a good role player and still sweep the Conference Finals.
 
Ehh ... I didn’t see it at all real time. They probably needed super slo mo to catch it.

There have been hundreds of calls that close that were missed in the playoff history before they had all this technology.
 
Wasn't there also an obvious no call early in the game when Siakam layed the ball up and Klay came and hit the net/rim and virtually knocked the ball out??
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top