Yogi Bear said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

I don't disagree with you, but as a Lakers fan it is really nice to be relevant again.

Lakers vs. Warriors will be a replay of Warriors vs Cavaliers. The questions is how the rest of the Lakers roster compares to the assorted Cavaliers teams. They don't have a Kyrie Irving but are arguably better than the 2018 Cav's roster. I think they will compete and have a fighters chance, though they are clearly an underdog.

---

Not that he's a world beater or anything, but who do the Lakers have besides Lebron that is as good as Kevin Love?

---

Offensively, the Lakers don't have anyone as good as Love,who I actually think is underrated offensively. Good shooter, good in the post, good on the glass. Defensively, the Lakers have like 6 guys who are way better. The Lakers graded out slightly above average last year on D. The Cavs were horrible, almost last in league. Lakers will be way better defensively than Cavs last year.

Paul George wanted the Lakers to trade for him, not sign him to show they really wanted him. Somehow that's how he assessed the situation. Not showing a great understanding of the how the sports business works but make sense from a player's perspective. And by golly he gets to live and play in OKC. Have fun with that. Giving up players prematurely while rebuilding would be a huge mistake and the Lakers avoided that.

Instead they had a very good draft with Kuzma, Ball and Hart. I hope they hold on to the young core and it looks like they will. The Lakers aren't likely to give away the store for Leonard, and that's smart. They'll just wait a year or do a trade during the season, when the Spurs look for some value if they don't trade him.

In other words, the Lakers are no longer run by Jim Buss. Lakers now run by Magic Johnson. He has 5 rings to the Warriors team total of 6. I'm good with Magic's and the Lakers decision making. Lakers need to add a superstar or two, and doing so wiithout dumping young talent is solid management. And no I don't believe you.

Looperbear said:

---

Yogi Bear said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

I don't disagree with you, but as a Lakers fan it is really nice to be relevant again.

Lakers vs. Warriors will be a replay of Warriors vs Cavaliers. The questions is how the rest of the Lakers roster compares to the assorted Cavaliers teams. They don't have a Kyrie Irving but are arguably better than the 2018 Cav's roster. I think they will compete and have a fighters chance, though they are clearly an underdog.

---

Not that he's a world beater or anything, but who do the Lakers have besides Lebron that is as good as Kevin Love?

---

Offensively, the Lakers don't have anyone as good as Love,who I actually think is underrated offensively. Good shooter, good in the post, good on the glass. Defensively, the Lakers have like 6 guys who are way better. The Lakers graded out slightly above average last year on D. The Cavs were horrible, almost last in league. Lakers will be way better defensively than Cavs last year.

---

Love is. Urgently ahead of anyone else on the Lakers but I very much suspect that will look different a year from now. Love doesn't move well at all and he won't have LBJ to facilitate for him.

But the bigger point wasn't one player, it was the totality of the roster, which I think favored the Lakers. And beyond that the point was the Lakers roster isn't good enough to beat GS, which it isn't. They'll compete and push GS but lose.

Another Bear said:

---

Paul George wanted the Lakers to trade for him, not sign him to show they really wanted him. Somehow that's how he assessed the situation. Not showing a great understanding of the how the sports business works but make sense from a player's perspective. And by golly he gets to live and play in OKC. Have fun with that. Giving up players prematurely while rebuilding would be a huge mistake and the Lakers avoided that.

Instead they had a very good draft with Kuzma, Ball and Hart. I hope they hold on to the young core and it looks like they will. The Lakers aren't likely to give away the store for Leonard, and that's smart. They'll just wait a year or do a trade during the season, when the Spurs look for some value if they don't trade him.

In other words, the Lakers are no longer run by Jim Buss. Lakers now run by Magic Johnson. He has 5 rings to the Warriors team total of 6. I'm good with Magic's and the Lakers decision making. Lakers need to add a superstar or two, and doing so wiithout dumping young talent is solid management. And no I don't believe you.

---

Geez, you sound like Souse when he writes about the Dodgers...

Don't be so defensive. The Lakers (and Dodgers) are both iconic franchises. Unfortunately, for fans of the Southland pro teams, the Dodgers haven't won the big prize in 30 years and the Lakers have been wandering in the desert for quite a few years. Maybe they both will get back to the top sometime soon, maybe not. However, it is safe bet that one or both will win it all at some point. In the meantime, life long Bay Area pro fans are enjoying the Warriors run, the recent Giants run and, of course, the upcoming resurrection of the Niners glory...

Remember - no one wins forever and no one loses forever...........

Lebron will get the lakers into the playoffs but still too early to say they will push the top teams.

I saw something yesterday (http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/23967758/how-close-lebron-james-los-angeles-lakers-winning-title-nba) that showed the projected RPM for the team next year and they are negative as a whole without Lebron. That said 538 projects 52 wins next year which would have been the 3rd best record in the West this past season. Lebron is a hell of a player but as currently constructed, I don't see a team pushing the Dubs or Rockets in any meaningful way.

tequila4kapp said:

---

but I very much suspect that will look different a year from now. Love doesn't move well at all and he won't have LBJ to facilitate for him.

But the bigger point wasn't one player, it was the totality of the roster, which I think favored the Lakers. And beyond that the point was the Lakers roster isn't good enough to beat GS, which it isn't. They'll compete and push GS but lose.

---

Agree that with totality of roster, Lakers better than Cavs especially on defense. I'm not sure about Lakers pushing GS. a historic team, next year assuming the Hampton 5 is healthy.
Will be interesting to see how rest of offseason plays out, Houston in particular. Their GM Morey is one of the best, he'll need to come up with something to replace Ariza and must resign Capela and try to unload Anderson.

All I can say is I grew up watching championship basketball and baseball. Growing up watching winners is different than watching it as an old man. Bay Area watched the Niners in the glory years but until the recent success for the Ws and Gs, it was an extremely long drought...50+ years and 30+ years. Meanwhile the Lakers last championship was 2010. The last big gap was between the '72 team and the Magic years...8 years. It seems it will be a little longer this time around but this is what the Lakers do...get big talent. They got Chamberlain. They got Jabbar. They got LBJ. They'll need another superstar but they'll get that too.

The W's are good but they're not the Lakers. Call me when they get to 15 titles. Oh and BTW, W's lucked out in getting Jerry West, the logo, the legend, a Laker, to swing some deals.

The dubs aren't competing with the Laker legacy, they are competing against the current league and obviously doing a pretty good job of it.

There is no question who the best team in the league is right now as well as the most fun to watch. I think everyone is aware that the Lakers and Celtics have the most historical titles (Dubs are a distant third) but old titles don't help you between the lines once you have your team in place. Right now the Dubs are obviously the premier free agent destination in the league but the Lakers with Lebron will get their fair share. The question is whether Lebron can stay at the top of his game long enough to build a roster that is better than replacement caliber. Right now that's TBD.

Another Bear said:

---

All I can say is I grew up watching championship basketball and baseball. Growing up watching winners is different than watching it as an old man. Bay Area watched the Niners in the glory years but until the recent success for the Ws and Gs, it was an extremely long drought...50+ years and 30+ years. Meanwhile the Lakers last championship was 2010. The last big gap was between the '72 team and the Magic years...8 years. It seems it will be a little longer this time around but this is what the Lakers do...get big talent. They got Chamberlain. They got Jabbar. They got LBJ. They'll need another superstar but they'll get that too.

The W's are good but they're not the Lakers. Call me when they get to 15 titles. Oh and BTW, W's lucked out in getting Jerry West, the logo, the legend, a Laker, to swing some deals.

---

There was no luck involved in getting Jerry West. He was available and Joe Lacob and Peter Gruber made him an offer and he accepted it. Sometimes, all you gotta do is ask....

Well, if we include the A's and Raiders (I'm not a fan but many, many are), the Bay Area has had 18 championships in the four major professional sports in the last 50 years. If we include the Ducks and Angels, the LA/Orange area has had 17 (heck, throw in San Diego and the number is still 17).

4 - A's
3 - Giants
2 - Raiders (in Oakland)
5 - 49ers
4 - Warriors
0 - Sharks

Total - 18

1 - Raiders (in Los Angeles)
0 - Rams (in Los Angeles/Anaheim)
2 - Dodgers
1 - Angels
11 - Lakers
2 - Kings
1 - Ducks

Total - 17

Interesting.........

Another Bear said:

---

The W's are good but they're not the Lakers. Call me when they get to 15 titles.

---

Call me when the Lakers get out of the second round of the playoffs.

71Bear said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

All I can say is I grew up watching championship basketball and baseball. Growing up watching winners is different than watching it as an old man. Bay Area watched the Niners in the glory years but until the recent success for the Ws and Gs, it was an extremely long drought...50+ years and 30+ years. Meanwhile the Lakers last championship was 2010. The last big gap was between the '72 team and the Magic years...8 years. It seems it will be a little longer this time around but this is what the Lakers do...get big talent. They got Chamberlain. They got Jabbar. They got LBJ. They'll need another superstar but they'll get that too.

The W's are good but they're not the Lakers. Call me when they get to 15 titles. Oh and BTW, W's lucked out in getting Jerry West, the logo, the legend, a Laker, to swing some deals.

---

There was no luck involved in getting Jerry West. He was available and Joe Lacob and Peter Gruber made him an offer and he accepted it. Sometimes, all you gotta do is ask....

Well, if we include the A's and Raiders (I'm not a fan but many, many are), the Bay Area has had 18 championships in the four major professional sports in the last 50 years. If we include the Ducks and Angels, the LA/Orange area has had 17 (heck, throw in San Diego and the number is still 17).

4 - A's
3 - Giants
2 - Raiders (in Oakland)
5 - 49ers
4 - Warriors
0 - Sharks

Total - 18

1 - Raiders (in Los Angeles)
0 - Rams (in Los Angeles/Anaheim)
2 - Dodgers
1 - Angels
11 - Lakers
2 - Kings
1 - Ducks

Total - 17

Interesting.........

---

Combined 17 to Lakers 16.... WEAK SAUCE! Go ahead and count total titles for franchises and then what's the count? Raiders are moving to Vegas baby!

Another Bear said:

---

71Bear said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

All I can say is I grew up watching championship basketball and baseball. Growing up watching winners is different than watching it as an old man. Bay Area watched the Niners in the glory years but until the recent success for the Ws and Gs, it was an extremely long drought...50+ years and 30+ years. Meanwhile the Lakers last championship was 2010. The last big gap was between the '72 team and the Magic years...8 years. It seems it will be a little longer this time around but this is what the Lakers do...get big talent. They got Chamberlain. They got Jabbar. They got LBJ. They'll need another superstar but they'll get that too.

The W's are good but they're not the Lakers. Call me when they get to 15 titles. Oh and BTW, W's lucked out in getting Jerry West, the logo, the legend, a Laker, to swing some deals.

---

There was no luck involved in getting Jerry West. He was available and Joe Lacob and Peter Gruber made him an offer and he accepted it. Sometimes, all you gotta do is ask....

Well, if we include the A's and Raiders (I'm not a fan but many, many are), the Bay Area has had 18 championships in the four major professional sports in the last 50 years. If we include the Ducks and Angels, the LA/Orange area has had 17 (heck, throw in San Diego and the number is still 17).

4 - A's
3 - Giants
2 - Raiders (in Oakland)
5 - 49ers
4 - Warriors
0 - Sharks

Total - 18

1 - Raiders (in Los Angeles)
0 - Rams (in Los Angeles/Anaheim)
2 - Dodgers
1 - Angels
11 - Lakers
2 - Kings
1 - Ducks

Total - 17

Interesting.........

---

Combined 17 to Lakers 16.... WEAK SAUCE! Go ahead and count total titles for franchises and then what's the count? Raiders are moving to Vegas baby!

---

Damn right we should be counting total titles.

Thus Princeton = best college football school ever with 27 titles. F u Alabama

My prediction is that there are only 2 years max in the Warriors' run as currently constructed. I just don't see them paying 4 max contracts and the associated tax bill that will come with it. I can see Klay giving a discount, but I don't see Green doing the same. I also would not be shocked if KD decides to leave next year once he matches LeBron's 3 titles.

YuSeeBerkeley said:

---

My prediction is that there are only 2 years max in the Warriors' run as currently constructed. I just don't see them paying 4 max contracts and the associated tax bill that will come with it. I can see Klay giving a discount, but I don't see Green doing the same. I also would not be shocked if KD decides to leave next year once he matches LeBron's 3 titles.

---

I think it is highly unlikely they keep all four. Probably make a tough choice between Klay and Draymond. Cousins will be a one-year rental only. KD is very happy with the Warriors and is unlikely to leave in my opinion.

Yogi Bear said:

---

YuSeeBerkeley said:

---

My prediction is that there are only 2 years max in the Warriors' run as currently constructed. I just don't see them paying 4 max contracts and the associated tax bill that will come with it. I can see Klay giving a discount, but I don't see Green doing the same. I also would not be shocked if KD decides to leave next year once he matches LeBron's 3 titles.

---

I think it is highly unlikely they keep all four. Probably make a tough choice between Klay and Draymond. Cousins will be a one-year rental only. KD is very happy with the Warriors and is unlikely to leave in my opinion.

---

Makes sense. I like what Draymond gives them emotionally and defensively more than I like Klay. I'd take Draymond over Klay right now. But projecting a few years out, there are lots of reasons to take Klay over Draymond (Draymond already appears to be on the decline, the natural wear and tear in Draymond's game is much more than in Klay's game, Klay's skill set is also more sustainable, the perception Klay will take a discount and the reports Draymond will not). I suspect that's what they'll do.

As for KD, he seems like a strange dude. He's very sensitive. I agree he's happy in GS now. But I could see that changing at practically any time.

YuSeeBerkeley said:

---

My prediction is that there are only 2 years max in the Warriors' run as currently constructed. I just don't see them paying 4 max contracts and the associated tax bill that will come with it. I can see Klay giving a discount, but I don't see Green doing the same. I also would not be shocked if KD decides to leave next year once he matches LeBron's 3 titles.

---

KD is tied heavily into the Silicon Valley and venture capitalists. He will sign a max deal with the Warriors after next season ($200 million+). Thompson and Green - I can't see either of the them leaving since, according to the rules, the Warriors can offer more cash than anyone else. Joe Lacob is about to move to the "SF Mint" (aka: Chase Center). He can afford whatever the tax is going to be... Cost is no object - he wants to win.

I won't be the one to complain if the Dubs have 4 championships in 5 years and can't keep the train rolling. That's a pretty good run that few other teams in the history of pro sports can touch.

They may still be a competitive team with just Steph, Klay and whoever they recruit to replace KD and Dray. When I look at some of the other contenders in the west right now, I don't see any that look scary 2 years out. Houston won't be able to keep it together and Lebron isn't getting any younger so the Lakers are unlikely to have the Lebron we currently know for more than 2 seasons. Of course Lebron is Lebron and will probably defy father time but all it takes is one small injury to derail a guy in his mid-30s.

Bottom line, if I'm looking at the future, I think the Dubs still have the highest expected value for near-term future championships and it really isn't close.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

I won't be the one to complain if the Dubs have 4 championships in 5 years and can't keep the train rolling. That's a pretty good run that few other teams in the history of pro sports can touch.

They may still be a competitive team with just Steph, Klay and whoever they recruit to replace KD and Dray. When I look at some of the other contenders in the west right now, I don't see any that look scary 2 years out. Houston won't be able to keep it together and Lebron isn't getting any younger so the Lakers are unlikely to have the Lebron we currently know for more than 2 seasons. Of course Lebron is Lebron and will probably defy father time but all it takes is one small injury to derail a guy in his mid-30s.

Bottom line, if I'm looking at the future, I think the Dubs still have the highest expected value for near-term future championships and it really isn't close.

---

You really don't think any team is set up now to be better than the Warriors 2 years out? Steph is one of my favorite players ever but I do think his cliff will be happen quickly. He'll always be able to shoot, but he's not great just because he can shoot. The Nuggets and TWolves, the Lakers always, the Rockets. That's 4 teams that have a shot two to three years down the line. The Warriors will be older and those cores will be entering their primes. Not many people saw the Warriors coming (although...I did as far back as April 2013 ). Contenders just don't last that long.

I don't know why I'm saying this. I know Warriors fans refuse to hear it and I gain nothing from it, but I just got the kids to sleep, I'm watching the Giants game, and I like the discussion.

GMP said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

I won't be the one to complain if the Dubs have 4 championships in 5 years and can't keep the train rolling. That's a pretty good run that few other teams in the history of pro sports can touch.

They may still be a competitive team with just Steph, Klay and whoever they recruit to replace KD and Dray. When I look at some of the other contenders in the west right now, I don't see any that look scary 2 years out. Houston won't be able to keep it together and Lebron isn't getting any younger so the Lakers are unlikely to have the Lebron we currently know for more than 2 seasons. Of course Lebron is Lebron and will probably defy father time but all it takes is one small injury to derail a guy in his mid-30s.

Bottom line, if I'm looking at the future, I think the Dubs still have the highest expected value for near-term future championships and it really isn't close.

---

You really don't think any team is set up now to be better than the Warriors 2 years out? Steph is one of my favorite players ever but I do think his cliff will be happen quickly. He'll always be able to shoot, but he's not great just because he can shoot. The Nuggets and TWolves, the Lakers always, the Rockets. That's 4 teams that have a shot two to three years down the line. The Warriors will be older and those cores will be entering their primes. Not many people saw the Warriors coming (although...I did as far back as April 2013 ). Contenders just don't last that long.

I don't know why I'm saying this. I know Warriors fans refuse to hear it and I gain nothing from it, but I just got the kids to sleep, I'm watching the Giants game, and I like the discussion.

---

What nobody is taking into account is the next wave. Yep, guys get old and, yep, younger guys come along and take their place. If you are an expert in identifying quality assets, understand intimately how to work the system and are willing to pay the big bucks, you will be a contender. That sounds like the Warriors braintrust to me......

Having said that, I know that no one wins forever. That is why you have to enjoy the ride while the merry-go-round is spinning...

Agreed. This ain't the nfl where the rules favor parity.

The dubs have several distinct advantages that MAY allow them to continue winning indefinitely

They're going to have a **** ton of money after moving into chase

They have owners who are willing to spend **** tons of money.

They have proximity to Silicon Valley

They have proximity to Asia

And you get to live in the Bay Area. And not f'ing Houston or Boston or okc or Philly. Cmon there's a reason lebron chose Miami and Los Angeles

Most of the dubs are making more bank in Silicon Valley and Asia than whatever they are making from their b-ball contracts.

Besides the lakers, I don't see any other franchise with as many built in advantages.

I could see them losing either draymond or klay. But if that happens, I guarantee you lacob will be making a very hard play at another superstar (ahem Anthony Davis)

GMP said:

---

You really don't think any team is set up now to be better than the Warriors 2 years out? Steph is one of my favorite players ever but I do think his cliff will be happen quickly. He'll always be able to shoot, but he's not great just because he can shoot. The Nuggets and TWolves, the Lakers always, the Rockets. That's 4 teams that have a shot two to three years down the line. The Warriors will be older and those cores will be entering their primes. Not many people saw the Warriors coming (although...I did as far back as April 2013 ). Contenders just don't last that long.

I don't know why I'm saying this. I know Warriors fans refuse to hear it and I gain nothing from it, but I just got the kids to sleep, I'm watching the Giants game, and I like the discussion.

---

You said something different from me. I said I don't see any current contenders in the West who look scary as constructed. Sure LA could build a great team but they don't have one now that looks like it will be great in 2 years. Maybe Magic will revive the team, who knows, but from where I sit Lebron and Pau are the only meaningful free agent signings they have had in the 20 years since they got Shaq. Teams in the East look more problematic in the future - Celtics and Sixers (trust the process). I don't see any reason to believe the Rockets will age better either. The bottom line is the Dubs have the best team now and we don't know what the teams will look like 2 years our because a lot will change.

I didn't say the Dubs will have an evergreen dynasty or be as successful as the Spurs over a decade plus. I do think it's way too early to declare woe is me over what might happen if they can't keep all 4 stars beyond next season.

GMP said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

I won't be the one to complain if the Dubs have 4 championships in 5 years and can't keep the train rolling. That's a pretty good run that few other teams in the history of pro sports can touch.

They may still be a competitive team with just Steph, Klay and whoever they recruit to replace KD and Dray. When I look at some of the other contenders in the west right now, I don't see any that look scary 2 years out. Houston won't be able to keep it together and Lebron isn't getting any younger so the Lakers are unlikely to have the Lebron we currently know for more than 2 seasons. Of course Lebron is Lebron and will probably defy father time but all it takes is one small injury to derail a guy in his mid-30s.

Bottom line, if I'm looking at the future, I think the Dubs still have the highest expected value for near-term future championships and it really isn't close.

---

You really don't think any team is set up now to be better than the Warriors 2 years out? Steph is one of my favorite players ever but I do think his cliff will be happen quickly. He'll always be able to shoot, but he's not great just because he can shoot. The Nuggets and TWolves, the Lakers always, the Rockets. That's 4 teams that have a shot two to three years down the line. The Warriors will be older and those cores will be entering their primes. Not many people saw the Warriors coming (although...I did as far back as April 2013 ). Contenders just don't last that long.

I don't know why I'm saying this. I know Warriors fans refuse to hear it and I gain nothing from it, but I just got the kids to sleep, I'm watching the Giants game, and I like the discussion.

---

Houston pretty much just forfeited their long term future with the cp3 contract.

They're going for it now (meaning next 1-2 years) but after that, the Chris Paul deal coupled with (I'm assuming) the Capela deal is going to completely cripple them. Cp3 maybe has 1-2 decent years in him...if that. And capela is not worth whatever the rockets are about to give him.

GMP said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

I won't be the one to complain if the Dubs have 4 championships in 5 years and can't keep the train rolling. That's a pretty good run that few other teams in the history of pro sports can touch.

They may still be a competitive team with just Steph, Klay and whoever they recruit to replace KD and Dray. When I look at some of the other contenders in the west right now, I don't see any that look scary 2 years out. Houston won't be able to keep it together and Lebron isn't getting any younger so the Lakers are unlikely to have the Lebron we currently know for more than 2 seasons. Of course Lebron is Lebron and will probably defy father time but all it takes is one small injury to derail a guy in his mid-30s.

Bottom line, if I'm looking at the future, I think the Dubs still have the highest expected value for near-term future championships and it really isn't close.

---

You really don't think any team is set up now to be better than the Warriors 2 years out? Steph is one of my favorite players ever but I do think his cliff will be happen quickly. He'll always be able to shoot, but he's not great just because he can shoot. The Nuggets and TWolves, the Lakers always, the Rockets. That's 4 teams that have a shot two to three years down the line. The Warriors will be older and those cores will be entering their primes. Not many people saw the Warriors coming (although...I did as far back as April 2013 ). Contenders just don't last that long.

I don't know why I'm saying this. I know Warriors fans refuse to hear it and I gain nothing from it, but I just got the kids to sleep, I'm watching the Giants game, and I like the discussion.

---

You asked the question "you really don't think any team IS set up NOW to be better than the Warriors 2 years out?" Then you named four teams that "have a shot" two to three years down the line.

I'm not saying the Warriors will win 2 and 3 years from now. That is an eternity. But if you had to bet now who will win the championship in 2020 and 2021, who else are you taking? Not who has a shot. Who has a BETTER shot. Now. That is the question.

If someone thinks the Warriors are guaranteed to keep winning, they are kidding themselves. If I have to bet whether or not the Warriors will not win the championship in one of the next three years, I'd certainly bet that they will lose one. But highest expected value BY TEAM. Yeah, it's the Warriors. If you don't think it is, name the team, not with a shot, but who has the highest expected value as of today.

That was my point OTB. The Warriors are the best right now, that much is clear. People seem to be discounting how good the Warriors will be without KD and say Dray, which is fair. But you also need to discount these other contenders, which is all I was saying. We have far less certainty on evaluating teams 2+ years out because there is so much turnover. I wouldn't pencil in the Warriors for the NBA finals a few years out, but I'm certainly not penciling in the Lakers, Rockets or anyone else in the West.

OaktownBear said:

---

GMP said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

I won't be the one to complain if the Dubs have 4 championships in 5 years and can't keep the train rolling. That's a pretty good run that few other teams in the history of pro sports can touch.

They may still be a competitive team with just Steph, Klay and whoever they recruit to replace KD and Dray. When I look at some of the other contenders in the west right now, I don't see any that look scary 2 years out. Houston won't be able to keep it together and Lebron isn't getting any younger so the Lakers are unlikely to have the Lebron we currently know for more than 2 seasons. Of course Lebron is Lebron and will probably defy father time but all it takes is one small injury to derail a guy in his mid-30s.

Bottom line, if I'm looking at the future, I think the Dubs still have the highest expected value for near-term future championships and it really isn't close.

---

You really don't think any team is set up now to be better than the Warriors 2 years out? Steph is one of my favorite players ever but I do think his cliff will be happen quickly. He'll always be able to shoot, but he's not great just because he can shoot. The Nuggets and TWolves, the Lakers always, the Rockets. That's 4 teams that have a shot two to three years down the line. The Warriors will be older and those cores will be entering their primes. Not many people saw the Warriors coming (although...I did as far back as April 2013 ). Contenders just don't last that long.

I don't know why I'm saying this. I know Warriors fans refuse to hear it and I gain nothing from it, but I just got the kids to sleep, I'm watching the Giants game, and I like the discussion.

---

You asked the question "you really don't think any team IS set up NOW to be better than the Warriors 2 years out?" Then you named four teams that "have a shot" two to three years down the line.

I'm not saying the Warriors will win 2 and 3 years from now. That is an eternity. But if you had to bet now who will win the championship in 2020 and 2021, who else are you taking? Not who has a shot. Who has a BETTER shot. Now. That is the question.

If someone thinks the Warriors are guaranteed to keep winning, they are kidding themselves. If I have to bet whether or not the Warriors will not win the championship in one of the next three years, I'd certainly bet that they will lose one. But highest expected value BY TEAM. Yeah, it's the Warriors. If you don't think it is, name the team, not with a shot, but who has the highest expected value as of today.

---

If I had to bet on today on the 2021 title, I'd probably take the Celtics and Sixers over the Warriors. As you say, that's an eternity in the NBA as the injuries, draft picks, and signings that will occur between now and then will change a lot.

But, my point is - the title seems to have caused many to forget how close the Warriors were to losing this year (the Rockets missed TWENTY SEVEN straight 3s in Game 7). It's hard to know what was going on (injuries, fatigue, complacency?) but the Warriors didn't seem invincible in this postseason and I think there's a decent chance this is the last title for this core. Maybe one more. Or perhaps it was a blip and they have another 3-4 years in this run. I dunno. But you rarely see the end coming, and then you look back and think, "How did we not see this coming?"

GMP said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

GMP said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

I won't be the one to complain if the Dubs have 4 championships in 5 years and can't keep the train rolling. That's a pretty good run that few other teams in the history of pro sports can touch.

They may still be a competitive team with just Steph, Klay and whoever they recruit to replace KD and Dray. When I look at some of the other contenders in the west right now, I don't see any that look scary 2 years out. Houston won't be able to keep it together and Lebron isn't getting any younger so the Lakers are unlikely to have the Lebron we currently know for more than 2 seasons. Of course Lebron is Lebron and will probably defy father time but all it takes is one small injury to derail a guy in his mid-30s.

Bottom line, if I'm looking at the future, I think the Dubs still have the highest expected value for near-term future championships and it really isn't close.

---

You really don't think any team is set up now to be better than the Warriors 2 years out? Steph is one of my favorite players ever but I do think his cliff will be happen quickly. He'll always be able to shoot, but he's not great just because he can shoot. The Nuggets and TWolves, the Lakers always, the Rockets. That's 4 teams that have a shot two to three years down the line. The Warriors will be older and those cores will be entering their primes. Not many people saw the Warriors coming (although...I did as far back as April 2013 ). Contenders just don't last that long.

I don't know why I'm saying this. I know Warriors fans refuse to hear it and I gain nothing from it, but I just got the kids to sleep, I'm watching the Giants game, and I like the discussion.

---

You asked the question "you really don't think any team IS set up NOW to be better than the Warriors 2 years out?" Then you named four teams that "have a shot" two to three years down the line.

I'm not saying the Warriors will win 2 and 3 years from now. That is an eternity. But if you had to bet now who will win the championship in 2020 and 2021, who else are you taking? Not who has a shot. Who has a BETTER shot. Now. That is the question.

If someone thinks the Warriors are guaranteed to keep winning, they are kidding themselves. If I have to bet whether or not the Warriors will not win the championship in one of the next three years, I'd certainly bet that they will lose one. But highest expected value BY TEAM. Yeah, it's the Warriors. If you don't think it is, name the team, not with a shot, but who has the highest expected value as of today.

---

If I had to bet on today on the 2021 title, I'd probably take the Celtics and Sixers over the Warriors. As you say, that's an eternity in the NBA as the injuries, draft picks, and signings that will occur between now and then will change a lot.

But, my point is - the title seems to have caused many to forget how close the Warriors were to losing this year (the Rockets missed TWENTY SEVEN straight 3s in Game 7). It's hard to know what was going on (injuries, fatigue, complacency?) but the Warriors didn't seem invincible in this postseason and I think there's a decent chance this is the last title for this core. Maybe one more. Or perhaps it was a blip and they have another 3-4 years in this run. I dunno. But you rarely see the end coming, and then you look back and think, "How did we not see this coming?"

---

I don't disagree with what you are saying, but with your portrayal of what Warriors fans are saying. In particular the post you responded to. He didn't say the Warriors are going to win it the next 3 years. He said they are set up the best. That is not an outlandish belief. Frankly, I think most would agree. If winning is the goal, I'd take being a Warrior fan over the next three years over anyone.

As for this year, they mailed in the regular season, their key player was out for weeks and played in a handful of games before The Houston series. Frankly, I thought they would lose to Houston and then realize they blew it and come back next year and crush everyone. My biggest fear for the Warriors is that they don't realize their cavalier attitude toward the regular season almost bit them in the butt and they pull the same thing again. That said, this was Houston's Best chance and they blew it. I would point out, though, that while you can point to 27 missed 3's, I'd point out that challengers tend to choke. Houston choked because they are Houston. The Warriors stayed calm because they are the Warriors.

Frankly, I don't see the challenge from the West this year. I think the Celtics should roll the East and I'd be more afraid of them than anyone else. Injuries can change everything of course.

OaktownBear said:

---

GMP said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

GMP said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

I won't be the one to complain if the Dubs have 4 championships in 5 years and can't keep the train rolling. That's a pretty good run that few other teams in the history of pro sports can touch.

They may still be a competitive team with just Steph, Klay and whoever they recruit to replace KD and Dray. When I look at some of the other contenders in the west right now, I don't see any that look scary 2 years out. Houston won't be able to keep it together and Lebron isn't getting any younger so the Lakers are unlikely to have the Lebron we currently know for more than 2 seasons. Of course Lebron is Lebron and will probably defy father time but all it takes is one small injury to derail a guy in his mid-30s.

Bottom line, if I'm looking at the future, I think the Dubs still have the highest expected value for near-term future championships and it really isn't close.

---

You really don't think any team is set up now to be better than the Warriors 2 years out? Steph is one of my favorite players ever but I do think his cliff will be happen quickly. He'll always be able to shoot, but he's not great just because he can shoot. The Nuggets and TWolves, the Lakers always, the Rockets. That's 4 teams that have a shot two to three years down the line. The Warriors will be older and those cores will be entering their primes. Not many people saw the Warriors coming (although...I did as far back as April 2013 ). Contenders just don't last that long.

I don't know why I'm saying this. I know Warriors fans refuse to hear it and I gain nothing from it, but I just got the kids to sleep, I'm watching the Giants game, and I like the discussion.

---

You asked the question "you really don't think any team IS set up NOW to be better than the Warriors 2 years out?" Then you named four teams that "have a shot" two to three years down the line.

I'm not saying the Warriors will win 2 and 3 years from now. That is an eternity. But if you had to bet now who will win the championship in 2020 and 2021, who else are you taking? Not who has a shot. Who has a BETTER shot. Now. That is the question.

If someone thinks the Warriors are guaranteed to keep winning, they are kidding themselves. If I have to bet whether or not the Warriors will not win the championship in one of the next three years, I'd certainly bet that they will lose one. But highest expected value BY TEAM. Yeah, it's the Warriors. If you don't think it is, name the team, not with a shot, but who has the highest expected value as of today.

---

If I had to bet on today on the 2021 title, I'd probably take the Celtics and Sixers over the Warriors. As you say, that's an eternity in the NBA as the injuries, draft picks, and signings that will occur between now and then will change a lot.

But, my point is - the title seems to have caused many to forget how close the Warriors were to losing this year (the Rockets missed TWENTY SEVEN straight 3s in Game 7). It's hard to know what was going on (injuries, fatigue, complacency?) but the Warriors didn't seem invincible in this postseason and I think there's a decent chance this is the last title for this core. Maybe one more. Or perhaps it was a blip and they have another 3-4 years in this run. I dunno. But you rarely see the end coming, and then you look back and think, "How did we not see this coming?"

---

I don't disagree with what you are saying, but with your portrayal of what Warriors fans are saying. In particular the post you responded to. He didn't say the Warriors are going to win it the next 3 years. He said they are set up the best. That is not an outlandish belief. Frankly, I think most would agree. If winning is the goal, I'd take being a Warrior fan over the next three years over anyone.

As for this year, they mailed in the regular season, their key player was out for weeks and played in a handful of games before The Houston series. Frankly, I thought they would lose to Houston and then realize they blew it and come back next year and crush everyone. My biggest fear for the Warriors is that they don't realize their cavalier attitude toward the regular season almost bit them in the butt and they pull the same thing again. That said, this was Houston's Best chance and they blew it. I would point out, though, that while you can point to 27 missed 3's, I'd point out that challengers tend to choke. Houston choked because they are Houston. The Warriors stayed calm because they are the Warriors.

Frankly, I don't see the challenge from the West this year. I think the Celtics should roll the East and I'd be more afraid of them than anyone else. Injuries can change everything of course.

---

1. When I say, "the title seems to have caused many to forget how close the Warriors were to losing this year," I'm not talking exclusively about Warriors fans, and certainly not just the post I'm responding to. I'm talking NBA media, Warriors fans on twitter, etc.

2. Re the Rockets. It's hard to say if they are the 2002 Kings (close, but never got there) or, say, the 1989-1990 Bulls, or even the 2013-2014 Warriors (on the cusp, about to do it). I really don't know, but I certainly wouldn't dismiss their chances of beating the Warriors like many Warriors fans (including your post, and others in this thread) have done. I'm sure Pistons fans thought the Bulls would never beat them after 1990. Everyone is a challenger until they win.

3. Let's revisit this in a few years. You say, "The Warriors stayed calm because they are the Warriors." Did they stay calm in the 4th quarters of Games 4 and 5 against Houston? I don't think so. They choked. As I said earlier, no one sees the end coming until it arrives, and then you look back and think, "How did we miss that?"

GMP said:

---

You really don't think any team is set up now to be better than the Warriors 2 years out?

---

No. Until Steph and KD start to decline or KD decides to go to a different team, there is no team in the league that has two MVP quality starters and two more All Star level players. It's not even close, even not taking Cousins into consideration (which is just gonna be a one year thing).

There's a lot of teams that I like what they're doing. Boston is set up to own the East until and unless Philadephia can put more good players around Simmons and Embiid (both of whom need to keep improving as well). Denver has great young talent and hopefully Milsap will contribute this year. Portland is maybe one big free agent signing from being dangerous. Rockets have Paul and Harden, but they need to replace Ariza and maybe add some bench guys on top of that.

But nobody else has two MVP level players. That's the trump card that the rest of the NBA can't match.

First what I want to make clear is that I don't think the dubs run will last forever.

With that said, I think people are discounting how the league has changed drastically over the years. This isn't magic/bird where the best players stay with the same teams.

There is so much more player movement now. And b-ball is so different than baseball and football in that star players are way more important (look at mike trout)

In the past, if you drafted a Jordan or Ewing or Duncan you could still be a small market team and win.

But now, the rules distinctly favor major market teams that are attractive to nba players. So id argue there are a handful of teams (like the lakers, dubs, knicks, Miami) that have huge advantages over everyone else.

Not the Knicks. They're the big market version of the Kings but worse.

You also have to take into account contract length, cap space, age of players, team culture, front office and ownership, etc. No one would have expected the Spurs to have such a lengthy championship window. I'm not even suggesting the Warriors will have a window that extends beyond the next few seasons, but they have as good a chance as any of the current contenders. That was my claim.

For whatever reason GMP is acknowledging the realities that will make it hard for the Dubs to keep it rolling but ignoring that the same issues will plague other contenders and that the Dubs have an undeniable advantage for the next one plus seasons. That's all you can ask for.