Cavs Super Team or Beneficiary of Weak EC?

[flyerhawk]

It definitely helps if they are, but believe it or not, you can have superteams that fail miserably. Case in point...the Kobe/Dwight/Nash Lakers.

No way to describe that team other than a superteam that failed miserably.

All fair.

 

[Vyle203]

Again, what definition is there? It's a vocabulary word, there's no "proof" that Team X is "super" but Team Y isn't. It's just yakking, it's fun to give your take on it. Some championship teams are pretty obviously "super" like the recent Warriors. Some are obviously not like Olajuwon's Rockets or the 2004 Pistons. The rest are in the middle and you can argue either way.

And do you even need a Championship to be considered a Superteam? Because THIS Warriors team hasn't won anything yet.

 

[Vyle203]

Thoughts on what I just posted from CBS fellas?

@flyerhawk @Vyle203 @msgkings322

I tend to agree with most of it based on what I understand Superteam to mean.

 

[flyerhawk]

And do you even need a Championship to be considered a Superteam? Because THIS Warriors team hasn't won anything yet.

Yes it has. History isn't going to differentiate between the 2015 team and the 2017 team just because they added Durant.

 

[Vyle203]

Yes it has. History isn't going to differentiate between the 2015 team and the 2017 team just because they added Durant.

This year's Warriors team had more roster changes than simply adding Durant(losing Barnes and Bogut namely) and I never heard the Superteam term used for them prior to this season.

 

[flyerhawk]

This year's Warriors team had more roster changes than simply adding Durant(losing Barnes and Bogut namely) and I never heard the Superteam term used for them prior to this season.

They won 67 games in 2015. They won 73 games in 2016. Went to the finals both years.

You didn't hear the superteam term because it is used as a pejorative to imply that the team somehow did something unfair.

 

[Vyle203]

They won 67 games in 2015. They won 73 games in 2016. Went to the finals both years.

You didn't hear the superteam term because it is used as a pejorative to imply that the team somehow did something unfair.

Well then we're back to definitions again. We can't really intelligently discuss this until we figure out what we're talking about. I, for one am getting more confused as we go.

 

[flyerhawk]

Well then we're back to definitions again. We can't really intelligently discuss this until we figure out what we're talking about. I, for one am getting more confused as we go.

It seems to me that there at least 2 definitions being bandied about here.

1. A really really good team filled with superstars.
2. An "artificially" constructed team unfairly put together.

Definition 1 is fairly non-controversial. Definition 2 is a way to delegitimize a team and to suggest that their dominance doesn't count the same way as some other team's dominance.

 

[Vyle203]

It seems to me that there at least 2 definitions being bandied about here.

1. A really really good team filled with superstars.
2. An "artificially" constructed team unfairly put together.

Definition 1 is fairly non-controversial. Definition 2 is a way to delegitimize a team and to suggest that their dominance doesn't count the same way as some other team's dominance.

Well for now, since the exact idea of what a Superteam means is beyond me, ill have to go with how they've been branded. There was no mention of the Warriors in the discussion prior to this season as far as I can recall.

Also, I don't think anyone felt that GS did anything "unfair" because they aquired Durant, that would be idiotic. It was more that Durant abandoned a very good situation to go to a sure thing and took the easy way out.

 

[DirtDirtDirt]

if the Cavs played in the West, they would be playing GS in the Western Conference Finals

 

[trojanfan12]

It seems to me that there at least 2 definitions being bandied about here.

1. A really really good team filled with superstars.
2. An "artificially" constructed team unfairly put together.

Definition 1 is fairly non-controversial. Definition 2 is a way to delegitimize a team and to suggest that their dominance doesn't count the same way as some other team's dominance.

That's fairly accurate. Definition 1 is the actual definition. #2 is used if the team fails or if someone doesn't like how the team was constructed. For example, those who don't like Lebron hopping from team to team looking for an easier path. Or KD heading to a 73 win team.

Personally, I'd only use #2 for a superteam that fails. Lebron and KD changing teams doesn't bother me. They were both free agents and did what they felt was best for them.

 

[flyerhawk]

That's fairly accurate. Definition 1 is the actual definition. #2 is used if the team fails or if someone doesn't like how the team was constructed. For example, those who don't like Lebron hopping from team to team looking for an easier path. Or KD heading to a 73 win team.

Personally, I'd only use #2 for a superteam that fails. Lebron and KD changing teams doesn't bother me. They were both free agents and did what they felt was best for them.

I pretty much agree with everything you said here.

Although I don't think that Lebron went back to Cleveland because it was the easier path. I think he did that for legacy reclamation.

 

[trojanfan12]

I pretty much agree with everything you said here.

Although I don't think that Lebron went back to Cleveland because it was the easier path. I think he did that for legacy reclamation.

It was both, imo. The Heat's run, as far as winning titles, was pretty much over and Lebron needed more rings to move up the all time great list. D-Wade couldn't stay healthy and now we have seen what happened with Bosh (although to be fair, no one knew that was going to happen).

Cleveland had a budding young superstar in Kyrie, a solid piece in TT and an owner that Lebron could control and that would allow him to re-make the roster the way he wanted it (11 players who were on the roster the season before Lebron showed up, were replaced).

Then, when you add in the potential for legacy reclamation, it made it a pretty easy decision for him.

 

[flyerhawk]

It was both, imo. The Heat's run, as far as winning titles, was pretty much over and Lebron needed more rings to move up the all time great list. D-Wade couldn't stay healthy and now we have seen what happened with Bosh (although to be fair, no one knew that was going to happen).

Cleveland had a budding young superstar in Kyrie, a solid piece in TT and an owner that Lebron could control and that would allow him to re-make the roster the way he wanted it (11 players who were on the roster the season before Lebron showed up, were replaced).

Then, when you add in the potential for legacy reclamation, it made it a pretty easy decision for him.

There were probably 10 teams that Lebron could have gone to that would have provided as much or greater chances of success at the time. The Cavs had a promising young PG but he was hardly a proven commodity. TT is solid player who is better because of Lebron. Any number of teams could meet that requirement. They had, at the time, a No. 1 overall pick as well but it was far from certain that they would be able to get Kevin Love.

I don't believe for a second that Lebron goes back to Cleveland if he didn't have the history there and the image to recover there.

 

[bksballer89]

if the Cavs played in the West, they would be playing GS in the Western Conference Finals

Not sure about that. I feel a healthy Spurs team and the Rockets can really push the cavs and possibly beat them

 

[trojanfan12]

There were probably 10 teams that Lebron could have gone to that would have provided as much or greater chances of success at the time. The Cavs had a promising young PG but he was hardly a proven commodity. TT is solid player who is better because of Lebron. Any number of teams could meet that requirement. They had, at the time, a No. 1 overall pick as well but it was far from certain that they would be able to get Kevin Love.

I don't believe for a second that Lebron goes back to Cleveland if he didn't have the history there and the image to recover there.

Those 10 teams didn't have an owner that Lebron could control. Part of the reason he left Miami was the Heat wouldn't cede to all of his demands.

Also, it was never that far from certain that they would get Love. The actual trade was held up because the Wolves were trying to get more for Love and the contracts had to be done a certain way. There were never more than 2 teams in the running for him and the 2nd team (I think it was the Warriors offering Klay) pulled out when Jerry West told the Warriors not to do it.

I agree that if not for the history, Lebron likely doesn't go back, but that was just the icing on the cake when you consider the level of control he was given. The Cavs were basically a perfect storm situation. They had Kyrie who was being called a young D-Wade, a solid guy in TT, an owner that was willing to hand over his franchise and the opportunity to repair a huge hit to his legacy. Imo, going back to Cleveland was the smartest thing for him to do at the time.

 

[DirtDirtDirt]

Not sure about that. I feel a healthy Spurs team and the Rockets can really push the cavs and possibly beat them

Mayyybe a healthy Spurs....The Cavs would absolutely score at will, probably exceeding 120 every game vs the Rockets.....And as we saw against the Spurs, the Rockets are more than capable of throwing up some offensive stinkers

 

[DirtDirtDirt]

I pretty much agree with everything you said here.

Although I don't think that Lebron went back to Cleveland because it was the easier path. I think he did that for legacy reclamation.

Yup, there were faaaaar better teams and situations Lebron could have went to, than Cleveland

 

[bksballer89]

Mayyybe a healthy Spurs....The Cavs would absolutely score at will, probably exceeding 120 every game vs the Rockets.....And as we saw against the Spurs, the Rockets are more than capable of throwing up some offensive stinkers

Yeah you're right but Houston can push them to 6 or possibly 7. Cleveland defense isn't the greatest. Houston put up some stinkers against the Spurs but that was against a top 2 defense

 

[DirtDirtDirt]

Yeah you're right but Houston can push them to 6 or possibly 7. Cleveland defense isn't the greatest. Houston put up some stinkers against the Spurs but that was against a top 2 defense

Cleveland defense isnt great, but Im sure Lebron would just man up on Harden, and if he limits him, that would be a quick series IMO