Minnesota Sports Forum

monsterpile wrote:

MinneapolisMatt wrote:Would you guys give Iggy 4 years $70 Mil? It may take an offer like that to pry him from the Warriors.

Pass. That's too much money for too many years for a guy that is already 33.

khans2k5 wrote:

thedoper wrote:I was watching The Meaning of Life on Netflix last night and I had forgotten the Rugby game where the pros play the students. I thought it was kind of appropriate. I know ratings were high for the first couple of games but I tuned out for the last 2. I just don't know how the NBA can be excited about this product.

Last night's game was the highest rated ever. Game 5 elimination drew more viewers than any game 7 ever. That's what the league cares about. The longer their great play goes the more people will want to tune in to see them fall. That's sports and dynasties. The viewership grows because of the added dimension of wanting to see them fail more than just having feel good stories get to the end and half the country doesn't care about another city winning a title because of a feel good reason. Everyone thinks it's bad for the NBA, but this is the stuff that grows casual fans and most of the die hard fans aren't leaving the sport anyway. That's how the game grows. Die hard fan's don't matter for growing the league and making the TV deals worth it. It's all about brining in the casual fan market and giving them a narrative to root for and the narrative for a juggernaut conveniently goes from wanting to get to the top and then the longer they are on top the more people will want them to fall. The numbers just don't reflect that this is bad for basketball and both times basketball exploded in popularity before this recent 3 year stretch was with the show time Lakers and Celtics and Jordan in the 90's. It's actually what's best for basketball on a grander scale than what the die hard fan's think is best for basketball.

MinneapolisMatt wrote:

Q12543 wrote:I personally think Golden State is probably the best NBA team ever assembled. You literally have three of the greatest shooters of all time on one team and one of the greatest role players of all time. You can't beat them unless you score 110-115 points or more, as they are impossible to defend well over a long stretch of time. And speaking of defense, they are also an elite defensive team.

I think one of the areas that surprised me, and this was mentioned before, is how well Golden State rebounded the ball. That was one areas where I thought a front line of LeBron, Love, and Thompson could take advantage of them. Nope. They had that base covered too, with great team rebounding.

I honestly don't think there is much to learn by watching Golden State (other than beholding their Greatness). They are an aberration created by a multitude of fortuitous circumstances. I mean adding Durant to a 73-win team.....ridiculous. The NBA can't let that happen again.

Honestly, the Curry rebounding numbers in the finals couldnt even be done in NBA2K...

monsterpile wrote:It's a hypothetical thing and some people won't agree with me but honestly I am not sure the Warriors win this series or it for sure goes 7 games if they don't have Durant. There were so many times in this series he hit a shot when they needed it. He was terrific offensively and defensively he was an asset. The Cavs were very good opponent even with their flaws and they showed that the last 3 games of the series.

monsterpile wrote:It's a hypothetical thing and some people won't agree with me but honestly I am not sure the Warriors win this series or it for sure goes 7 games if they don't have Durant. There were so many times in this series he hit a shot when they needed it. He was terrific offensively and defensively he was an asset. The Cavs were very good opponent even with their flaws and they showed that the last 3 games of the series.

MinneapolisMatt wrote:

monsterpile wrote:It's a hypothetical thing and some people won't agree with me but honestly I am not sure the Warriors win this series or it for sure goes 7 games if they don't have Durant. There were so many times in this series he hit a shot when they needed it. He was terrific offensively and defensively he was an asset. The Cavs were very good opponent even with their flaws and they showed that the last 3 games of the series.

I agree..

I think the Cavs really missed Delly though. He bully balled curry into two years of uneventful finals statlines. I think the Warriors pull it out even without Durant because of that this year.

thedoper wrote:I was watching The Meaning of Life on Netflix last night and I had forgotten the Rugby game where the pros play the students. I thought it was kind of appropriate. I know ratings were high for the first couple of games but I tuned out for the last 2. I just don't know how the NBA can be excited about this product.

MinneapolisMatt wrote:

monsterpile wrote:It's a hypothetical thing and some people won't agree with me but honestly I am not sure the Warriors win this series or it for sure goes 7 games if they don't have Durant. There were so many times in this series he hit a shot when they needed it. He was terrific offensively and defensively he was an asset. The Cavs were very good opponent even with their flaws and they showed that the last 3 games of the series.

I agree..

I think the Cavs really missed Delly though. He bully balled curry into two years of uneventful finals statlines. I think the Warriors pull it out even without Durant because of that this year.