NBA Playoffs

[auror]

New Orleans somehow being just as good with Mirotic as with Cousins ruined the Brow dream for now. I don't know who the guy to get is after that.

Honestly I think Celtics should attempt to trade up in the draft depending what works out with the lottery. Trade next year's Kings pick plus their own to get into the top 5. Get Jaren Jackson.

A good big on a rookie scale is the missing piece to inherit Horford while having 3 max guys. Maybe you can just wait and draft it next year with that King's pick, but this is a good big draft (Ayton, Bagley, Jackson, Bamba).

 

[the Q]

Honestly I think Celtics should attempt to trade up in the draft depending what works out with the lottery. Trade next year's Kings pick plus their own to get into the top 5. Get Jaren Jackson.

A good big on a rookie scale is the missing piece to inherit Horford while having 3 max guys. Maybe you can just wait and draft it next year with that King's pick, but this is a good big draft (Ayton, Bagley, Jackson, Bamba).

I'm down for Jackson or Bamba.

I'm assuming Ayton is 1-1 for now.

 

[nomar]

The best way to land a big is to get the #3 pick and take MO BAMBA.

I have planted my flag in Bamba.

No I will not give it up.

yes the marketing potential is also amazing.

I'd be happy with any of the top big guys (Bagley, Ayton, Bamba). I doubt we'll get one, but who knows.

 

[nomar]

It's all about LeBron. He played soft in game 1. That was left over from the 1st two series. Toronto played soft D on him, and he was allowed to get a head of steam on virtually every possession against bigger guys or back down smaller guys.
The Celtics put contact on him far out from the rim.
If he wants it, he's going to have to work for it. The refs are going to let the C's handcheck and body him, and, as usual, he'll absorb a lot of contact with no calls. But the only way the Cavs have a chance is if LeBron decides he's going to force the drive, and all the other support players work hard to force the ball inside. If he does, the Celtics will be in foul trouble and the Cavs will win at the line.
Rodney Hood is not the answer. The reason the Cavs were not scoring is not because nobody but James can create a shot - we all knew that already. They were not scoring because James chose not to fight through the physical defense.
It's really that simple.
In game 1 the refs allowed a lot of hand checking, foreams, and bodying by the Cs. That's just part of the game (unfortunately). The Cavs shouldn't spend a second crying about it. They have to play with it. And the way to do that is to have James force contact off the dribble every possession. Sure, put 5 guys on him. It won't matter if he keeps driving - once they get to the bonus, the Cs are in trouble.
Of course, that takes a lot of energy, and he's not 22, and his supporting cast is very limited.

But I'm damn curious to see if he can pull it off.

Wait, you're saying LeBron doesn't get calls?

 

[nomar]

New Orleans somehow being just as good with Mirotic as with Cousins ruined the Brow dream for now. I don't know who the guy to get is after that.

Who knows what the future holds. I agree it doesn't look like he's on the move.

 

[UConn990411]

New Orleans somehow being just as good with Mirotic as with Cousins ruined the Brow dream for now. I don't know who the guy to get is after that.

That guy might already be on their roster.

 

[HuskyHawk]

I can only go off of what you posted. You posted about Hayward for Leonard and linked to Kellerman talking about Hayward for Leonard. Nomar also said he wouldn't trade Hayward for Leonard.

But my post was in response to MadDog talking about trading Hayward + ????? for Leonard. My point was simply, who is ???? If it's a bag of rocks, that's one thing. If it's Rozier + Hayward, no thanks.

Nomar's point is not so much that it wouldn't be a good trade from a player perspective, but rather than it would be a publicity problem and might deter free agents from coming to Boston.

 

[champs99and04]

I think Lowe said he'd consider taking Stevens over anyone not in that elite tier.

No way I'm passing on AD for any non-player.

As for Kawhi, I'm not trading (a) Brown or Tatum, both still on their rookie deals and both looking like future stars or (b) Hayward, which would be a huge to him and Stevens, and would send a message to any future FAs that you'll be on the block the minute you sign your deal. I like that Ainge is cold as ice but that would not be a good look. Horford was the first big name FA to sign with the Celtics ever. I wouldn't want Hayward to be the last.

If we could do Rozier plus picks, I'd certainly do it, but they wouldn't.

I would have said it was crazy six months ago or even two weeks ago to refuse a Brown or Tatum for Kawhi deal, but yeah, with the way those two have played, there isn't much reason to believe there are more than a handful of players in the league with more value considering age, contract, and talent.

That said, it isn't as if Kawhi is 32. He'll turn 27 in June and is a year younger than Hayward. Although I can appreciate the loyalty factor, I'm skeptical that A) Ainge wouldn't jump at the chance to make that deal, B) Stevens wouldn't get over it very quickly, and C) It would have any impact at all on their ability to sign free agents moving forward.

I do agree with you that a big should be their priority. Plus, this particular hypothetical is kind of pointless since the Spurs aren't trading Kawhi for a dude who just snapped his leg in half.

 

[husky429]

If I'm the Celts I am looking very, very carefully at next years crop of Bigs.

If I don't see something I like, I'm trading up with some combination of Rozier, a lower level asset, Kings pick, to get one of the top few bigs in this class. Ayton, Bagley, Jaren Jackson would all fit the bill. I'm partial to Jackson.

Otherwise, hold on with Horf for another year, hoping he doesn't age too much. Draft a big man next year, and dominate as long a Kyrie, Tatum, Brown, and the newly acquired big man can stay healthy.

 

[Dogdeacon]

It's all about LeBron. He played soft in game 1. That was left over from the 1st two series. Toronto played soft D on him, and he was allowed to get a head of steam on virtually every possession against bigger guys or back down smaller guys.
The Celtics put contact on him far out from the rim.
If he wants it, he's going to have to work for it. The refs are going to let the C's handcheck and body him, and, as usual, he'll absorb a lot of contact with no calls. But the only way the Cavs have a chance is if LeBron decides he's going to force the drive, and all the other support players work hard to force the ball inside. If he does, the Celtics will be in foul trouble and the Cavs will win at the line.
Rodney Hood is not the answer. The reason the Cavs were not scoring is not because nobody but James can create a shot - we all knew that already. They were not scoring because James chose not to fight through the physical defense.
It's really that simple.
In game 1 the refs allowed a lot of hand checking, foreams, and bodying by the Cs. That's just part of the game (unfortunately). The Cavs shouldn't spend a second crying about it. They have to play with it. And the way to do that is to have James force contact off the dribble every possession. Sure, put 5 guys on him. It won't matter if he keeps driving - once they get to the bonus, the Cs are in trouble.
Of course, that takes a lot of energy, and he's not 22, and his supporting cast is very limited.
But I'm damn curious to see if he can pull it off.

I don't think its that simple, Love, Korver & Hill played better in the Toronto series because the defense was worse and didn't make any adjustments. LeBron alone could beat them b/c they didn't double and had no one who could defend LeBron one-on one. Part of playing against LeBron is outsmarting him or at least doing things he doesn't expect. I'm sure he expected physical play and MMorris did pickup 2 fouls in first 4 minutes, but as everyone knew Celtics were ready with lots more bodies to throw at LeBron. The surprise was extra switching by the Celtics when they didn't like the LeBron matchup and the quick double team at times. Both produced steals. The Cavs consistently did try to pound it inside to exploit matchups (i.e. Rozier switches on picknroll onto LeBron), but they did so slowly and the Celtics rotated over a 2nd switch or double team before the Cavs got the ball inside.

The Cavs slowness is recognizing this led to harder late shot-clock looks. So besides going big, I'd guess the Cavs will either attack matchups quicker or move the ball quicker, which may or may not result in better shots and may or may not result in a sustainable pace. Besides matching up with Morris, Horford, Smart & Semi, LeBron does have to deal with Brad Stevens' moves which are a more difficult than COY Dwayne Casey's.

LeBron may or probably will get a lot more buckets driving hard to the basket, but I don't think the Celtics are going to leave or let up on Love, Korver & JR - they are going to continue to force those guys into taking tough 3's & ultimately LeBron might have to shoot 40 times to get 45pts. Regardless though Cavs will shoot way better at home, LeBron will get a favorable whistle there and I think this series will come down to an ultra pivotal game 5 at 2-2. In that situation it might be the scheme vs monster LeBron mode.

 

[intlzncster]

I don't think its that simple, Love, Korver & Hill played better in the Toronto series because the defense was worse and didn't make any adjustments. LeBron alone could beat them b/c they didn't double and had no one who could defend LeBron one-on one. Part of playing against LeBron is outsmarting him or at least doing things he doesn't expect. I'm sure he expected physical play and MMorris did pickup 2 fouls in first 4 minutes, but as everyone knew Celtics were ready with lots more bodies to throw at LeBron. The surprise was extra switching by the Celtics when they didn't like the LeBron matchup and the quick double team at times. Both produced steals. The Cavs consistently did try to pound it inside to exploit matchups (i.e. Rozier switches on picknroll onto LeBron), but they did so slowly and the Celtics rotated over a 2nd switch or double team before the Cavs got the ball inside.

The Cavs slowness is recognizing this led to harder late shot-clock looks. So besides going big, I'd guess the Cavs will either attack matchups quicker or move the ball quicker, which may or may not result in better shots and may or may not result in a sustainable pace. Besides matching up with Morris, Horford, Smart & Semi, LeBron does have to deal with Brad Stevens' moves which are a more difficult than COY Dwayne Casey's.

LeBron may or probably will get a lot more buckets driving hard to the basket, but I don't think the Celtics are going to leave or let up on Love, Korver & JR - they are going to continue to force those guys into taking tough 3's & ultimately LeBron might have to shoot 40 times to get 45pts. Regardless though Cavs will shoot way better at home, LeBron will get a favorable whistle there and I think this series will come down to an ultra pivotal game 5 at 2-2. In that situation it might be the scheme vs monster LeBron mode.

If the C's are going to win this series, I feel they have to take the Cavs punch in game 2 and he'd to Cleveland up 2-0.

Lue and is completely outmatched by Stevens, so I think it's gonna be LeBron having to figure it out, and be more assertive than he was in game 1. Have to attack inside more.

 

[the Q]

If I'm the Celts I am looking very, very carefully at next years crop of Bigs.

If I don't see something I like, I'm trading up with some combination of Rozier, a lower level asset, Kings pick, to get one of the top few bigs in this class. Ayton, Bagley, Jaren Jackson would all fit the bill. I'm partial to Jackson.

Otherwise, hold on with Horf for another year, hoping he doesn't age too much. Draft a big man next year, and dominate as long a Kyrie, Tatum, Brown, and the newly acquired big man can stay healthy.

With the Celtics 2018 pick, the Kings pick, and 2 nice (but not premium picks) from Memphis and the Clippers coming, PLUS dancing bear, they have the ammo to make that big move up.

I wonder if anyone will let them make that move though.

 

[auror]

With the Celtics 2018 pick, the Kings pick, and 2 nice (but not premium picks) from Memphis and the Clippers coming, PLUS dancing bear, they have the ammo to make that big move up.

I wonder if anyone will let them make that move though.

That Memphis pick COULD be pretty premium. They're bad and it's unprotected as early as 2021, but it's unlikely to convey until then (or convey at a worse pick if they have a decent year with Gasol and Conley back).

 

[the Q]

That Memphis pick COULD be pretty premium. They're bad and it's unprotected as early as 2021, but it's unlikely to convey until then (or convey at a worse pick if they have a decent year with Gasol and Conley back).

Yeah, i mean with better health and a top pick this year it could convey next year (where I believe it's top 8 protected). It would still likely be a top 10ish pick though.

 

[Dogdeacon]

With the Celtics 2018 pick, the Kings pick, and 2 nice (but not premium picks) from Memphis and the Clippers coming, PLUS dancing bear, they have the ammo to make that big move up.

I wonder if anyone will let them make that move though.

I don't think the Celtics will trade the future draft picks they painstakingly acquired to move into this year's draft (assuming they don't luck into Laker's #2 or #3). That would be the antithesis of what they've done. Why adopt the mortgage the future to 'win now' philosophy that they are currently benefiting from? The Celtics have created a hybrid of Patriots and Hinkie's philosophy to collect draft picks and use them to increase the odds of getting a superstar. Because that has potentially worked given where they are in playoffs and with bright futures for Brown, Tatum & Rozier that does not mean sell everything else you got for 1 shot at a guy you like and winning in 2019 or 20. They are setup to be competitive for multiple years, and as this season has shown, if you have a good system + roster, you contend every year even with rookies playing pivotal roles.

They traded one pick (Brooklyn's this year) to get a top say 7 in the league guy, but unlikely they trade future picks for a current pick/roll of the dice (they don't need a guy now/yet) versus an equal chance at a good pick/diceroll in years to come. Unless highly unlikely case that Danny is 99% confident Luka Doncic is Larry Bird or Ayton is Olajuwon (I say no there from limited I've seen) maybe there is a price they make such a move at. But wait, they thought Justise Winslow was a transcendent talent - I say the fortune of dodging that bullet helps them see they can't trust a gamble like that on an unknown.

 

[intlzncster]

I don't think the Celtics will trade the future draft picks they painstakingly acquired to move into this year's draft (assuming they don't luck into Laker's #2 or #3). That would be the antithesis of what they've done. Why adopt the mortgage the future to 'win now' philosophy that they are currently benefiting from? The Celtics have created a hybrid of Patriots and Hinkie's philosophy to collect draft picks and use them to increase the odds of getting a superstar. Because that has potentially worked given where they are in playoffs and with bright futures for Brown, Tatum & Rozier that does not mean sell everything else you got for 1 shot at a guy you like and winning in 2019 or 20. They are setup to be competitive for multiple years, and as this season has shown, if you have a good system + roster, you contend every year even with rookies playing pivotal roles.

They traded one pick (Brooklyn's this year) to get a top say 7 in the league guy, but unlikely they trade future picks for a current pick/roll of the dice (they don't need a guy now/yet) versus an equal chance at a good pick/diceroll in years to come. Unless highly unlikely case that Danny is 99% confident Luka Doncic is Larry Bird or Ayton is Olajuwon (I say no there from limited I've seen) maybe there is a price they make such a move at. But wait, they thought Justise Winslow was a transcendent talent - I say the fortune of dodging that bullet helps them see they can't trust a gamble like that on an unknown.

Exactly. What if the guy you pick ends up being a bum? And all of a sudden you're out all your future picks.

In drafting situations, you should almost always err on the side of assets. Every draft is a gamble. The more chances you have to hit, the better off you'll be. Belichick as worked this system to perfection, and Danny Ainge has followed suit.

You trade future quality athletes for studs only (Kyrie).

 

[MadDogRevival]

Wait, you're saying LeBron doesn't get calls?

That's what I'm saying.
Guy absorbs more contact with no foul called than any other non-center I have seen in my 40 years of watching basketball.
You breathed on Jordan and you got a foul. Yeah, the play was rougher then, but that didn't apply to him. He was the league's savior and he could do no wrong.
His last championship he had a pretty poor year, by his standards. Excluding his partial year, his lowest shooting year in a decade, into the 238 from 3, assists and rebounds down in more minutes . . . but the guy's free throw attempts went up almost 2 a game.
If MJ got hit like LBJ, he'd have shot 20 frees a game instead of 8.8. LeBron's shooting 6.5 a game this year, BTW.
The concept that LeBron gets the whistle is laughable, when you consider how much he handles the ball, how much he rebounds, and how much he drives. If he got the favor of the whistle as much as Mike he'd already be the 2nd career scorer.

 

[Dogdeacon]

That's what I'm saying.
Guy absorbs more contact with no foul called than any other non-center I have seen in my 40 years of watching basketball.
You breathed on Jordan and you got a foul. Yeah, the play was rougher then, but that didn't apply to him. He was the league's savior and he could do no wrong.
His last championship he had a pretty poor year, by his standards. Excluding his partial year, his lowest shooting year in a decade, into the 238 from 3, assists and rebounds down in more minutes . . . but the guy's free throw attempts went up almost 2 a game.
If MJ got hit like LBJ, he'd have shot 20 frees a game instead of 8.8. LeBron's shooting 6.5 a game this year, BTW.
The concept that LeBron gets the whistle is laughable, when you consider how much he handles the ball, how much he rebounds, and how much he drives. If he got the favor of the whistle as much as Mike he'd already be the 2nd career scorer.

And if you took away hand checking Jordan would have averaged at least 5PPG more. LeBron definitely gets the superstar benefit of the whistle though he does absorb some contact as well. But you must have missed every Shaq game cuz that's the guy where the rules were totally different.

 

[the Q]

And if you took away hand checking Jordan would have averaged at least 5PPG more. LeBron definitely gets the superstar benefit of the whistle though he does absorb some contact as well. But you must have missed every Shaq game cuz that's the guy where the rules were totally different.

Yes, the fact that every post player wasn’t in trouble by the 6 minute mark in q1 was a farce. The NBA horribly officiated Shaq because calling the rules would’ve made him unstoppable and the product unwatchable.

But it’s embarrassing how much they screwed Shaq over in his career

 

[auror]

I don't think the Celtics will trade the future draft picks they painstakingly acquired to move into this year's draft (assuming they don't luck into Laker's #2 or #3). That would be the antithesis of what they've done. Why adopt the mortgage the future to 'win now' philosophy that they are currently benefiting from? The Celtics have created a hybrid of Patriots and Hinkie's philosophy to collect draft picks and use them to increase the odds of getting a superstar. Because that has potentially worked given where they are in playoffs and with bright futures for Brown, Tatum & Rozier that does not mean sell everything else you got for 1 shot at a guy you like and winning in 2019 or 20. They are setup to be competitive for multiple years, and as this season has shown, if you have a good system + roster, you contend every year even with rookies playing pivotal roles.

They traded one pick (Brooklyn's this year) to get a top say 7 in the league guy, but unlikely they trade future picks for a current pick/roll of the dice (they don't need a guy now/yet) versus an equal chance at a good pick/diceroll in years to come. Unless highly unlikely case that Danny is 99% confident Luka Doncic is Larry Bird or Ayton is Olajuwon (I say no there from limited I've seen) maybe there is a price they make such a move at. But wait, they thought Justise Winslow was a transcendent talent - I say the fortune of dodging that bullet helps them see they can't trust a gamble like that on an unknown.

It is much worse in say the NFL to trade up than in the NBA. The NFL roster size and sheer quantity of talent you need vs. the individual player impact of high NBA draft picks is the main difference. The bust rate is also much lower in the NBA than say a franchise QB. Plus the rookie scale doesn't properly account for the extreme impact of the top players (it scales, but not as drastically as it should).

It's a good idea to accumulate picks to increase your whacks at the pinatta, but what if you've already nailed it? The Hinkie plan is the best for rebuilding, but competing for a title is a different strategy. At some point you need to take advantage of your prime window and draft picks aren't as valuable when veteran stars (who 90% of the time are better than rookies or 2nd years) want to come and win with you and you can sign them in Free Agency at minimum or exception rates without surrendering any assets other than cap space. Additionally, in the NBA having a lot of good is good, but having a couple great is better. Consolidating talent into fewer but marginally better players is worth it.

For the Celtics specifically, it's about opportunity, timing, and certainty.

For opportunity, this year's class is exceptionally loaded with bigs, which is the Celtics main need going forward into the future. They are set for at least 2 years at every other position. If they were going to cash in assets to make a move, this would be the time. The Celtics have the ammo because they have potentially 5 1st round picks the next 2 years. They can't even roster that many first round picks. Sure you can draft and stash, but...

The timing is ideal because they don't have minutes for role players as it is the next few years, let alone with Hayward and Irving fully healthy. How are they going to develop those guys when they can't even crack the top 10 of the rotation? Further, the Celtics roster is currently constructed more in the "a lot of good is good" way. They will be unable to pay all these players because the salary cap is a bitch, so their ideal championship window is the next 2 years. Sure you can draft replacements when those picks convey, but there are few guarantees those picks will be valuable enough to do so at an impact level in a quick enough time to matter.

Unlike the NFL or NHL, the best teams in the NBA win basically every year. There is no "getting hot" or having a hot goalie, etc. The team with the most talent that plays the hardest wins almost every series. As mentioned above, the more elite, elite talent you can get, the better off you are. There is less risk in potentially shortening your competing window if you get yourself the best roster in the league. Whereas in the NFL, even with the best player of all time, it's best to elongate your window and try for as many shots at it as possible.

You're not mortgaging the future by trading excess picks for a pick. It's still giving yourself a future. NBA teams have 7 years of control of a top draft pick, 4 of which are at great cost savings. Say you trade your own this year, the future Kings pick (likely to be in the 5-7 range) but protect it top 1, and the Clippers pick (possibly mid round 1st, downside of a 2nd) to Mavs for #3. You've still got all your own picks and the Memphis pick.

 

[the Q]

It is much worse in say the NFL to trade up than in the NBA. The NFL roster size and sheer quantity of talent you need vs. the individual player impact of high NBA draft picks is the main difference. The bust rate is also much lower in the NBA than say a franchise QB. Plus the rookie scale doesn't properly account for the extreme impact of the top players (it scales, but not as drastically as it should).

It's a good idea to accumulate picks to increase your whacks at the pinatta, but what if you've already nailed it? The Hinkie plan is the best for rebuilding, but competing for a title is a different strategy. At some point you need to take advantage of your prime window and draft picks aren't as valuable when veteran stars (who 90% of the time are better than rookies or 2nd years) want to come and win with you and you can sign them in Free Agency at minimum or exception rates without surrendering any assets other than cap space. Additionally, in the NBA having a lot of good is good, but having a couple great is better. Consolidating talent into fewer but marginally better players is worth it.

For the Celtics specifically, it's about opportunity, timing, and certainty.

For opportunity, this year's class is exceptionally loaded with bigs, which is the Celtics main need going forward into the future. They are set for at least 2 years at every other position. If they were going to cash in assets to make a move, this would be the time. The Celtics have the ammo because they have potentially 5 1st round picks the next 2 years. They can't even roster that many first round picks. Sure you can draft and stash, but...

The timing is ideal because they don't have minutes for role players as it is the next few years, let alone with Hayward and Irving fully healthy. How are they going to develop those guys when they can't even crack the top 10 of the rotation? Further, the Celtics roster is currently constructed more in the "a lot of good is good" way. They will be unable to pay all these players because the salary cap is a bitch, so their ideal championship window is the next 2 years. Sure you can draft replacements when those picks convey, but there are few guarantees those picks will be valuable enough to do so at an impact level in a quick enough time to matter.

Unlike the NFL or NHL, the best teams in the NBA win basically every year. There is no "getting hot" or having a hot goalie, etc. The team with the most talent that plays the hardest wins almost every series. As mentioned above, the more elite, elite talent you can get, the better off you are. There is less risk in potentially shortening your competing window if you get yourself the best roster in the league. Whereas in the NFL, even with the best player of all time, it's best to elongate your window and try for as many shots at it as possible.

You're not mortgaging the future by trading excess picks for a pick. It's still giving yourself a future. NBA teams have 7 years of control of a top draft pick, 4 of which are at great cost savings. Say you trade your own this year, the future Kings pick (likely to be in the 5-7 range) but protect it top 1, and the Clippers pick (possibly mid round 1st, downside of a 2nd) to Mavs for #3. You've still got all your own picks and the Memphis pick.

The kings pick is already protected top 1 for philly.

 

[champs99and04]

If the C's are going to win this series, I feel they have to take the Cavs punch in game 2 and he'd to Cleveland up 2-0.

Lue and is completely outmatched by Stevens, so I think it's gonna be LeBron having to figure it out, and be more assertive than he was in game 1. Have to attack inside more.

Ty Lue deserves more credit than he gets. If he's outmatched against Stevens, it's only because it's Stevens. He's held his own in every other match-up since he took over. This team is thin and their front office has done him no favors.

 

[Scoe]

Just hand GS the title already barring major injury no one will be close to beating this team, there is just not margin for error against, teams feel they have to chuck up 3's and you combine that with Durant getting star treatment from the officials you tell me how this team can lose.

 

[auror]

I'm not positive Durant is a human being.

 

[champs99and04]

Warriors-Rockets looks like a lot of what we expected. The x's and o's of this particular match-up re-enforce the macro trends rather than counter them. Houston is good enough to the point that they can reliably get Harden iso'd on the guy they want, but he can't exert that sort of energy every possession for 48 minutes.

Consider the fact that Klay Thompson might be the fourth best defender in the lineup Golden State started tonight and he's an all-NBA caliber defensive player. Tucker, Ariza, and Mbah a Moute aren't going to cut it, not when the guy they're guarding on the other end is maybe the best scorer on the planet. I mean, I don't know exactly what the Warriors numbers defensively were during the regular season. I don't think it matters. They go to dark places when they're dialed in and could absolutely win a championship with a league average offense. Draymond and Durant are so good defensively that you could build a championship roster with Trevor Ariza types filling out the starting five. Add Curry and Thompson to the mix and it's just a joke. They had the greatest shooting backcourt of all-time under Mark Jackson and have since added two of the best players in the world.

It's almost as if this series would have been perfectly even had Durant stayed out of it. Add him to the mix and it's probably over in 5 or 6. That's how good he is.