They can still make moves.

Trade Wiggins and the high draft pick for a few Iguodala type roll players.

GSW in a 7 game series against the Lakers will get eaten alive by AD and Bron in the interior.


Teams around the league I believe aren't going to go Morey Ball anymore.

No way in hell they do it.

They can afford to stand pat, use the mid level to add quality player for 1 year.

They are saving every available cap space size for 2021 free agency. 2021 they will only have AD and Bron on the books.

They are going for Giannis and possibly Kawhi.

If they only have AD/Bron on 10 year maxes they won't be able to afford another vet max though.

yhtsi

I think across sports, age-related declines are a bit overstated. Obviously you lose some athleticism as you age but I think a lot of athletes falling off, especially in early 30's, when you should still be relatively close to your best physically, is more about specific injuries, not being able to adapt to changes in the game and changes in your own body, as well as loss of motivation, especially on the mental end. Not everyone wants to keep learning and keep adapting - as people age, they are more set in their ways, a certain amount of arrogance sets in (I don't have to study and practice, I already know all this), but the game changes in subtle ways making them less effective, not to mention that other players adapt against you over time.

With that said, Steph is a marginal athlete in the NBA to begin with, and if he has to shoulder a greater burden on the offensive end, his defense will be even more exposed. A big part of the Warriors success and Steph's value also had to do with Steph being a perfectly reasonable defender. And the bigger source of relative decline for Steph to me is that the average offense is simply a lot better, so his own efficiency isn't quite as exceptional as it used to be and the league as a whole I think is better at defending against him and other great shooters.

If you remember the ASG, Embiid's still got Unstoppable/BPITL equity in him fo sho

All good points but we're dealing with a very small sample size. Altogether, they went 8-8 in the playoffs with a net rating of -1.4 - this doesn't say a whole lot about the team. And Kanter who was probably their 3rd best player in the first two rounds was both injured and generally unplayable against the Warriors. The Blazers lost a few more games than they really should've this season due to a bunch of injuries and having to incorporate randos into their rotation, but fundamentally this isn't a very different team.

They were 8-4 before they met the Warriors, which is very good for a third seed. They're point differential was positive at that point despite a 30 point loss along the way.

Anyway theyre obviously no Lakers, but they were a very good team that the Warriors swept without Durant.

KCP is *not* opting in.

Unless it's a wink wink type deal but there's no assurance he'll get paid in the future so it's all kind of moot.

THAY THAY with the TRUTH BOMB �� yet again!

Best possible deal the Warriors can make is for Embiid.

Some variation of:

Embiid to Warriors

Wiggins + #2 pick + Minny 2021 pick to Wizards (Like c'mon be real Wizards, Beal and Wall at their best still ain't doing shi.t)

and Beal to 76ers

with 76ers likely throwing another (small) asset Wizards' way.

http://www.espn.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=y6ktc5zm

Edit: This trade is win/win/win all around. Embiid is a BEAST on the Warriors and will be incredibly motivated. Beal fits perfectly on the 76ers and the Wizards get a bundle of assets for Beal meanwhile taking a flyer on Wiggins' athleticism and can continue to run an up tempo offense with Wall.

I don't know what your definition of a "very good team" is but that team would win something like 40 to 45 games on average in a regular season. They probably ran a little hot in the previous two rounds and ran a little cold against the Warriors. These things do happen. Mediocre teams get swept by good teams all the time. Just this year, the Heat swept the Pacers and nearly swept the Bucks. A better version of those Blazers got swept by the 48-win Pelicans the year before in the first round. You're reading far too much into literally a handful of games.

7 games is enough of a sample size that if you're a much better team, you should expect to win the series with a very high probability. But beyond that, the results of individual games are going to be subject to high variance. As favorites, winning 4-0 vs 4-2 shouldn't change anyone's priors by much. Losing 0-4 or 1-4 might, if you were expected to be a much better team.

Shouldn't that proposed trade have another two firsts or so included in the deal going from the Warriors?

No Carmelo in the Nuggets picture? That's cold.

I'd go with Walton for the Blazers but I can't imagine Dame doesn't win that. WTF at Carmelo in the Blazers group.

Honestly, I think the real test is for Kerr. I don't see Curry/Klay/Draymond being significantly different from what we expect them to be, barring injuries. And Kerr did a great job coaching until KD arrived and their system and approach were just ahead of everyone else. It's very hard to evaluate how well Kerr did since - their massive talent advantage was such that we don't know if Kerr did what he had to do consistently convert that advantage to titles, or the league slowly caught up to them but the talent advantage was too overwhelming for them to lose. Turning the young Warriors squad into an all-time great team was a massive coaching accomplishment, but winning 2 titles in 3 years with Curry/KD/Klay/Draymond/Iggy is something you could argue most head coaches would've done.

KCP already opted out.

Prolly. At least another first.

It was mostly just an idea for a trade and a starting point for discussion for a clear win/win/win all around which in NBA 3 team trades is pretty damn hard to accomplish.

Or maybe they didn't. You could just be wrong.

I think you are under rating that 9 and a half game stretch of which 7 were on the road.

There's also the stat the Warriors were 28-1 in regular season games Curry played and Durant didn't.

Nothing is guaranteed, but no one should be sleeping on the Warriors.

This isn't about me being right or wrong - I'm just telling you what the numbers are saying. Statistically, if, in the short term, you're significantly outperforming your long-term expectations, you're running hot. The Warriors without KD weren't 10 points per game better than these Blazers, who in turn weren't 6 points better per game than the Thunder. The Raptors probably weren't 6 points better than the Warriors either.

I have no idea what you're referring to here but what is even there to underrate in a 9-game sample? Even terrible teams are going to have a 9-game stretch where they look good. Also, it's completely unreasonable here to exclude the games where KD played and the Warriors didn't look great. You have to use all available evidence.

Just looking at the 2016-2017 season, the Warriors were 16-3 without Durant but with Curry, so I'm sure this was conveniently cherry-picked to exclude some of these losses. And the 2021 Warriors are 4 years removed from the 2017 Warriors.

I know there's a tendency to see the KD + Warriors teams as though they are all the same, but that masks significant declines over that period. The Warriors were completely unbeatable in 2017, but they got a lot worse each year. It's possible that they weren't the best team in the league at full strength by 2019. Their net rating in the playoffs went from +13.5 in 2017 to +10.3 in 2018 to +3.4 in 2019. Obviously they lost KD for roughly half these games, but that would only bring the net rating back to about +6, which is nothing special. In comparison, the Lakers this season were +7.0, the Raptors last season were +5.6 and the 2016 Cavs were +9.5 and the 2015 Warriors were +8.2. Of course, championship teams on average are lucky, so +6 isn't bad even for a championship team, but that's a typical championship team, not an unbeatable all-time great team that should've been favored against the field.

Also, if you're thinking maybe KD wasn't such a great fit on this team and maybe they were better without him, that's not true either. In the 2019 playoffs, the Warriors had a net rating of +8.2 with KD and 0 without KD.

A third seed winning both their first two series are "what the numbers are saying"

Obviously. But youve already noted that 7 game series work out which teams are better.

Side note that they probably were that much better than the Blazers.

Arent we trying to work out how the Warriors will be next year without Durant?

My bad, the stat i read was they won 28 of the last 29 with Curry and without Durant. The article was the during the playoff in 2019. So the most recent 29 games. So maybe it missed the start of his time there. I cant be bothered doing the numbers, but maybe they are like only on 75 win pace.

And I mean 16-3 is so terrible...


Youve literally lost any credibility for internetting. They were one Klay knee away from at worst having 7 games in the Finals. This without Durant. But some how not the best team.

2019 Warriors is the GOAT collection of talent. ****, even a fully fit Cousins would have been enough.

They obviously arent better without him. I never said anything of the sort. All Im saying is this years Warriors team has Championship equity and there ia literally no evidence (other than injury) that says otherwise.

Your comment that "teams can run hot for 9 games" doesnt hold much weight when theyd won 28 of the 29 before that.

This isnt ancient history. It's 15 months ago.

And fwiw i dont think the Warriors will dominate next year. If Curry stays healthy and Klay is pre-ACL Klay, they should win 55ish games.

Dame dolla nec

Dame rang count seems a little low to be #1Brazzer oat