2022 NBA Finals - Game 6 | Golden State Warriors vs. Boston Celtics (GSW WINS 4-2)

[Coxy]

Have to ask Celtics fans, what happened to Derrick White in the final 2 games? Dude was -39 in both of those games. He looks great in the 1st 4 games, and a legit extra problem for GS to worry about. The final 2 games he just turned to garbage.

[AussieCeltic]

Have to ask Celtics fans, what happened to Derrick White in the final 2 games? Dude was -39 in both of those games. He looks great in the 1st 4 games, and a legit extra problem for GS to worry about. The final 2 games he just turned to garbage.

He’s a confidence guy. You can tell from his first shot whether he’ll have a good or bad game. If he misses his first 2, I’m benching him.

Also, he seemed to get matched up on Wiggins a lot defensively and Wiggins was just too big for him.

[dhsilv2]

It was very bad playoffs overall. No real epic moments, no epic games 7 (Celtics - Bucks was meh, Celtics - Heat not good). Finals sucked. It was one of the worst postseasons in recent NBA history.

For me it was mid, the only good series was Wolves v. Grizz and even that series was blowout city.

MId is great man! Unless you're a white girl...and then you're got so many other issues. But we all hope for mid!

[Crunch 99]

That KD sign and trade really ended up resulting in a championship lol.

No GSW fan should have any animus against KD.

Bob Meyers is a brilliant, successful GM, but wasn't the signing of free agent KD in the first place back in 2016, which has now turned in to Wiggins and Kuminga, heavily enabled by a fluke, one time, record big jump in NBA salary cap due to big new national NBA TV contracts?

Warriors also had the unusual circumstance of Curry starring on a dramatically undervalued contract, $12 mill per year, due to concerns about his ankles. I think Meyers probably wrote that Curry contract though. Many other GMs have experienced the exact opposite results, where they go ahead and give an injury prone star max money and then the star misses many critical games. Seems like nearly all budding stars get the big contracts now, regardless of injury proneness. Everyone expects Zion Williamson to get a massive contract.

[Jerry Maine]

Probably a bit harsh to call it a fluke, but certainly some luck involved. The GM's were aware of the cap rise just before the trade deadline in Feb 2015, a little over a year earlier.

Bob had to let Barnes and Ezeli walk, and trade Bogut to Dallas for nothing, in order to make a legit offer to KD.

Had they signed Barnes to an extension in 2015 or made a trade taking on any long term salary it would have been impossible, barring further moves.

[michaelm]

That KD sign and trade really ended up resulting in a championship lol.

No GSW fan should have any animus against KD.

Bob Meyers is a brilliant, successful GM, but wasn't the signing of free agent KD in the first place back in 2016, which has now turned in to Wiggins and Kuminga, heavily enabled by a fluke, one time, record big jump in NBA salary caps due to big new national NBA TV contracts?

Warriors also had the unusual circumstance of Curry starring on a dramatically undervalued contract, $12 mill per year, due to concerns about his ankles. I think Meyers probably wrote that Curry contract though. Many other GMs have experienced the exact opposite results, where they go ahead and give an injury prone star max money and then the star misses many critical games. Seems like nearly all budding stars get the big contracts now, regardless of injury proneness. Everyone expects Zion Williamson to get a massive contract.

I joined the GSW bandwagon with Andrew Bogut, but while that Curry contract extension ended up as possibly the all time bargain contract relative to era in NBA history in hindsight hardly any years later, it was thought at the time to be a risk and that he would have chronic problems with his ankles. They backed their judgement when many of the team’s fans preferred Monta Ellis. Curry himself took it as GSW having backed him when his future was unclear, and never complained about the contract, quoting his father iirc who told him to never count the money in another man’s pocket.

Sure the salary cap rise helped, but they happen, and it was actually the players’ association who didn’t want the cap rise smoothed. I was actually a Barnes partisan most of that year, but he knocked back an early season contract session for more money than Green and Thompson let alone Curry were currently contracted for, and wanted close to KD money to stay, which is I believe when GSW started to think in earnest about acquiring the actual KD instead, and I strongly suspect they had decided to move on from Barnes well before his performance in the finals.

[robdog_5]

When you spend more than anyone else you should win. Doesn't always happen. But as long as rules allow it. The league will favor owners/teams willing to foot the bill

[xdrta+]

When you spend more than anyone else you should win. Doesn't always happen. But as long as rules allow it. The league will favor owners/teams willing to foot the bill

The only reason they're paying more than anyone else is that they are willing to pay market rates to keep the players they drafted and developed. Supposedly, the league wants teams to keep drafted players, that's the reason for Bird exceptions, super-maxes, rookie scale extensions....but then they penalize a team that keeps them with outrageous luxury taxes. There should be a change in the way luxury taxes are applied to a team's own drafted players. But the non-taxpaying teams would never go for it. They like having the unearned millions come in.

[robdog_5]

When you spend more than anyone else you should win. Doesn't always happen. But as long as rules allow it. The league will favor owners/teams willing to foot the bill

The only reason they're paying more than anyone else is that they are willing to pay market rates to keep the players they drafted and developed. Supposedly, the league wants teams to keep drafted players, that's the reason for Bird exceptions, super-maxes, rookie scale extensions....but then they penalize a team that keeps them with outrageous luxury taxes. There should be a change in the way luxury taxes are applied to a team's own drafted players. But the non-taxpaying teams would never go for it. They like having the unearned millions come in.

I'm not saying it's against the rules. But I am saying it's clearly and advantage they are willing to use. Other franchises whether it's a cheap owner, a small market they decide they can't afford to keep everyone. Golden state used a cap boom year to get KD which set them up to go way over cap and still add people when KD left. They have decided they can keep that cap spot basically with overpaying. If your a fan on GS that's a great owner. One whose willing to continue to pay for a chance to win. They've honestly set themselves up to keep winning if these draft picks can hit too (Kuminga, Moody or maybe Wiseman).

[xdrta+]

When you spend more than anyone else you should win. Doesn't always happen. But as long as rules allow it. The league will favor owners/teams willing to foot the bill

The only reason they're paying more than anyone else is that they are willing to pay market rates to keep the players they drafted and developed. Supposedly, the league wants teams to keep drafted players, that's the reason for Bird exceptions, super-maxes, rookie scale extensions....but then they penalize a team that keeps them with outrageous luxury taxes. There should be a change in the way luxury taxes are applied to a team's own drafted players. But the non-taxpaying teams would never go for it. They like having the unearned millions come in.

I'm not saying it's against the rules. But I am saying it's clearly and advantage they are willing to use. Other franchises whether it's a cheap owner, a small market they decide they can't afford to keep everyone. Golden state used a cap boom year to get KD which set them up to go way over cap and still add people when KD left. They have decided they can keep that cap spot basically with overpaying. If your a fan on GS that's a great owner. One whose willing to continue to pay for a chance to win. They've honestly set themselves up to keep winning if these draft picks can hit too (Kuminga, Moody or maybe Wiseman).

My point is, Wiggins is the only high-priced player they didn't draft. Why should they be penalized for keeping the players they drafted? That's a contradiction in the goals of the NBA, which is to cut down on player movement and have players stay with the teams that drafted them. Otherwise, why have super-maxes, for example. Teams can pay super-maxes to players they draft, then get slammed with luxury taxes because of it. Doesn't make sense.

[robdog_5]

The only reason they're paying more than anyone else is that they are willing to pay market rates to keep the players they drafted and developed. Supposedly, the league wants teams to keep drafted players, that's the reason for Bird exceptions, super-maxes, rookie scale extensions....but then they penalize a team that keeps them with outrageous luxury taxes. There should be a change in the way luxury taxes are applied to a team's own drafted players. But the non-taxpaying teams would never go for it. They like having the unearned millions come in.

I'm not saying it's against the rules. But I am saying it's clearly and advantage they are willing to use. Other franchises whether it's a cheap owner, a small market they decide they can't afford to keep everyone. Golden state used a cap boom year to get KD which set them up to go way over cap and still add people when KD left. They have decided they can keep that cap spot basically with overpaying. If your a fan on GS that's a great owner. One whose willing to continue to pay for a chance to win. They've honestly set themselves up to keep winning if these draft picks can hit too (Kuminga, Moody or maybe Wiseman).

My point is, Wiggins is the only high-priced player they didn't draft. Why should they be penalized for keeping the players they drafted? That's a contradiction in the goals of the NBA, which is to cut down on player movement and have players stay with the teams that drafted them. Otherwise, why have super-maxes, for example. Teams can pay super-maxes to players they draft, then get slammed with luxury taxes because of it. Doesn't make sense.

Well they are penalized because they are paying more then what is "allowed". I mean part of what allows them to do that is bird rights and the ability to pay your own more than what should he allowed. So in a way they are choosing to be penalized by paying their own more than they should actually be able to pay on the open market. So basically the rules are made so players can pay more than what they could pay on the open market to keep them. GSW has used these rules to build a great team because they drafted/developed well and got lucky to get Durant in the super boom offseason which has allowed them to kick that max asset down the road. Without signing Durant they likely get 1 or less more titles and don't have as many picks to rebuild.

[PlatinumState]

Watch on YouTube