There’s a reason why they call these super teams super
Fans might complain about stacked Warriors and Cavs, but they’re not looking away
They call them “super teams” in some quarters, NBA rosters constructed with multi hall-of-famers, brilliant players in the primes of their careers who band together to lay wreckage to the rest of the league, teams that stand so far apart that there are those who wonder how much of a scourge they are on the game.
Guess no one was paying attention more than a quarter of a century ago — or at least no one had access to the information and opinion overload that exists today — because no matter what the Golden State Warriors and Cleveland Cavaliers are, they are hardly new. How about Magic Johnson, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and James Worthy? What were Larry Bird, Kevin McHale and Robert Parish? How come no one complained too vociferously about Michael Jordan, Scottie Pippen and Dennis Rodman, hall-of-famers all? Tim Duncan, David Robinson, Manu Ginobili, Tony Parker? How come that wasn’t known as “superduper” team since all four will eventually be enshrined in Springfield, Mass.
No, neither the Stephen Curry-Klay Thompson-Kevin Durant tripling in Golden State nor the LeBron James-Kyrie Irving-Kevin Love triumvirate in Cleveland are a recent phenomenon, and the discussion of “super teams” leading up to the opening of the NBA final on Thursday in Oakland is, in the parlance of the day, noise.
The fact is these two teams, laden with all-stars and players that have dominated this era, are the best two teams in the league and should play for the title.
Just like the Lakers and Celtics did in the 1980s, like the Chicago Bulls did in the 1990s, the San Antonio Spurs in the 2000s, the Miami Heat (with James, Dwyane Wade and Chris Bosh together on one team) did in the 2010s. Bad for the game? How about perfect for the game? It may not sit well with fans of teams that have been unable compete with the Warriors and Cavaliers but that says as much about management of those other franchises than it does about Golden State and Cleveland, teams that played by the rules of the game and build what they have.
It is not a stretch to suggest the best-of-seven series will draw among the largest audiences to ever watch an NBA playoff series, especially if it drags to a sixth or seventh game.
Fans in Toronto and Boston and Indianapolis, in Portland and Salt Lake City and San Antonio will tune in, despite their teams being routed in the run-up to this series.
The global impact will be phenomenal given the stature of the players in the series, the history of the twoyear-old rivalry and the NBA’s international reach.
The casual sports fan, inundated with stories and highlights and hype, will tune in. Bad for the game? Quite the contrary. What sticks in the craw of some fans is how the teams were constructed, as if the Warriors or Cavaliers broke some rules in putting together their rosters. Cleveland bottomed out in the first post-LeBron era, made what’s turned out to be astute draft pick in Irving, who, remember, had played 11 college games before being drafted, and traded an- other No. 1pick, Andrew Wiggins, for Love.
They got James back because they had the cap room to do it and his long-standing ties to Ohio were unique.
The Warriors were almost equally as inept and got the chance to draft Curry because Minnesota messed up; they lived through his ankle woes and got him to agree to an astonishingly good (from the team perspective) contract. Draymond Green was a second-round pick, Thompson was inspired drafting.
Durant? The Warriors got him because of what they had built and — this is forgotten in some quarters — because they were able to dump salary on teams that knew they were helping the rich get richer but still did it.
So instead of bellyaching about the star-studded lineups that will contest one of the most eagerly anticipated championship series in recent memory, it’s time to celebrate greatness.
And remember that it is not new, nor has it been done in any nefarious manner.