Skip to main content

Replies sorted oldest to newest

The Bucks-Warriors comparisons as well as a potential matchup are and would have been fascinating at many levels.

1. In terms of a comparison of the ownership groups, the Bucks ownership group is willing to spend money to be competitive, but they have their limits. PJ Tucker would have cost way more than he was actually worth on the court because of the luxury tax, but would having one more defensive wing have been enough to get by Boston while waiting for Middleton to return? We'll obviously never know, but if the Warriors had been in the same position, they'd have resigned Tucker (or at least made a competitive offer before telling him to go find something to match). The Warriors ownership group spent 176 million on salaries and paid 170 million of luxury tax. They paid to keep a team intact that hadn't won a title since 2018 that included a max guy who didn't play for 900 days and another max guy who averaged ~8/7/7 the last 4 years. It probably cost them over 100 million a year for the two previous years to stick with Klay and Draymond and not even make the playoffs.  Would any other teams, not just the Bucks, do that?  PJ Tucker didn't get resigned because it would have been an extra 20-25 million with luxury tax. Not peanuts, but definitely not the Warriors approach.

2. Jordan Poole plays the Grayson Allen role for the Warriors.  He's a guy that is supposed to hit the open shots you get from being a great-shooting 4th option on the floor.  He's a better offensive player than Allen, but if anything, he's even worse on defense than Allen. Somehow the Warriors schemes hid him enough on defense to be a difference maker on offense. Poole was 15 for 39 from three against the Celtics. Allen was 5 for 24. In spite of everything else that happened, if Allen shoots 36% in the Celtics series like Poole did, the Bucks are probably playing in the Finals.

3. Brook Lopez would have been played off the floor, and I'm not sure Portis could have stayed on either. The Bucks had the perfect guy to guard Curry for 20 minutes a game to spell Holiday, but would Bud stubbornly not used Jevon Carter against the Warriors like he refused to use him against the Celtics.

4. Could Draymond Green have slowed down Giannis enough?

@Chongo posted:

Lowest viewership nationally in decades. Not much interest nationally, and if the Bucks aren't in it even less in these parts.

Buck were the only reason I even bothered to care passively last year.

It's partially a result of the national media (especially ESPN) talking about the Lakers and Nets all the time (LeBron, Kyrie, Durant). Curry is one of the most dynamic players the league has ever seen. Doncic, Giannis, and Jokic are all generational talents. But ESPN has contributed to the idea that if the Nets or Lakers aren't playing, then it's not worth watching.

@Goalline posted:

Steph was brilliant last night. Warriors win despite the best efforts of Clay to give Boston the game. Man, Clay was brutal๐Ÿ˜‚

What killed Boston the whole series was the turnovers. Why Bud didn't play Carter more against the Celtics and make their suspect ball handlers work harder remains baffling. Especially when putting Holiday on Chris Paul (one of the best ballhandlers of all time) and just wearing him out more by contesting full court was enough to swing the Finals last year.

When Marcus Smart is your primary ballhandler, it's a weakness you need to try to exploit. Especially when Tatum and Brown make Khris Middleton's ballhandling look elite.

Not surprised Boston lost.  Smart is not a PG and Tatum basically disappeared in the Finals.  Letโ€™s also not forget, they barely got past a banged up Milwaukee and Miami team just to get there.  

Bucks v Warriors would have been fascinating.   Unlike Boston, Milwaukee could have ignored Green on defense because he canโ€™t shoot.   The Celtics secondary options could all shoot.

It's partially a result of the national media (especially ESPN) talking about the Lakers and Nets all the time (LeBron, Kyrie, Durant). Curry is one of the most dynamic players the league has ever seen. Doncic, Giannis, and Jokic are all generational talents. But ESPN has contributed to the idea that if the Nets or Lakers aren't playing, then it's not worth watching.

MLB viewership way down also...people have other things on their mind right now other than sports. I'll leave it at that.

I had zero interest in watching the Finals once Milwaukee bowed out.  The Miami/Boston series was terrible basketball to watch.  

Steph Curry is must see TV, but unless you live in Boston no one cares about Jaylen Brown or Marcus Smart or Jason Tatum because not one of them are superstars.  Giannis is a superstar and Milwaukee v Golden State and Curry would have drawn much higher ratings.

It's partially a result of the national media (especially ESPN) talking about the Lakers and Nets all the time (LeBron, Kyrie, Durant). Curry is one of the most dynamic players the league has ever seen. Doncic, Giannis, and Jokic are all generational talents. But ESPN has contributed to the idea that if the Nets or Lakers aren't playing, then it's not worth watching.

I used to be a pretty big NBA fan but then ESPN took over broadcasting and covering it.  I guess I got tired of how they covered it and the constant LABron ball washing gets really old.  I swear if ESPN knew what the consistency and color of LABron's bowel movements they would have a 24X7 coverage of it.

Add Reply

×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×