michaelm wrote:bmurph128 wrote:ken6199 wrote:
Bigger challenge means bigger reward. That's why I do not understand this "xxx ruined the league" thing. Well, instead of complaining, do something about it. Give it your best shot. If you pull it off, that becomes a lifetime memory of achievement. Beating this Warriors team (in WCF) certainly serves as much weight in my heart as either of those Hakeem's championships. "We did the impossible" is the mentality.
You can suck, tank, rebuild, or you can gamble big. To me personally, I am glad our GM chose the latter. He didn't chicken out, "oh they will be good for another 3-4 years, lets just tank, accumulate assets, and wait for our turn". He knows superstars like Harden don't come to Houston every other year, so if you are lucky to have one, go all in, make the best out of it, even it means you can still end up winning nothing AND pay for the price for this gamble for the next half decade of being mediocre (ie going back to those Kevin Martin days).
But that's just me.
While I agree with this (I felt the Cavs were playing with house money in last years finals), it can't be much fun for NBA fans whose teams are not involved.
And those are the fans the league wants watching these games. The Warriors have only been challenged one time in the past four years, and by regular season standards, this is the best team the Warriors have played. I think that's why ratings are doing well.
But if the Warriors finish this in 5 games with four double digit wins, there doesn't appear to be much hope on the horizon. That would mean that the only challenger the Warriors faced in four year in the West was dismantled by them recruiting the best player from that team.
So if they do win the 3rd title and that constitutes breaking the league, they are to be condemned for succeeding at what LeBron has been trying to do for nearly a decade ?.
Yes! Exactly. The fact that LeBron failed at rigging the league and KD succeeded means KD gets all the ire. He also gets his reward - a huge number of basically free rings. You think you're identifying some kind of hypocrisy here, but there's none. The reason there's none is that the criticism comes from the result, not the intent.





























