Board Man Gets Trophy

I was all set to write a post about the NBA. It was going to be about how the Warriors won 4 titles in 5 years, and the one year they didn't win was the year they won 73 games and were up 3-1 in the Finals. I was then going to make a point how the Warriors are obviously incredible, but also that you have to give LeBron a ton of credit for being able to interrupt that dynasty to bring a title to Cleveland of all places.

But thanks to Toronto, that's not the post I'm writing today.

- - -

Let's look back at how the Raptors did it. In the first round, they dropped their first game to the Magic at home before reeling off four straight.

The Raptors trailed the 76ers 2-1 in the next round. In Game 7, with the game on the line, Kawhi got the ball and did this.



His shot hit the rim, he crouched, and still had time to wait for the ball to go in.

And then in the next round, the #1 Milwaukee was up 2-0. The Warriors were in the process of sweeping Portland so everyone was already talking about if they needed Durant back to beat Giannis in the Finals. And then the Raptors won 4 straight.

Then the Raptors beat the Warriors in 6. 3-0 at Oracle. They closed that arena for good by owning it. They trailed in every playoff series except the Finals.

And now the Raptors have their first title in franchise history.
For the first time in history, the NBA Champion is not from the United States.
A Canadian team has won the World Series and NBA title more recently than the Stanley Cup.

Kawhi has a Finals MVP in multiple countries, which is a record that is unlikely to be matched anytime soon.

- - -

Since the Spurs and Wade have retired, the list of active players with multiple titles is short.

There's Curry-Iggy-Draymond-Klay-Livingston with 3.
There's LeBron with 3.
Durant with 2.
Kawhi and Green with 2.

(And it's hard to tell because there's not a great tool out there that has active filters, but I don't think there's that many more stars that I'm missing.)

- - -

And after all that, I have to remind everyone how fragile these narratives are. How things outside of your control affect your narrative all the time. At the end of the game, Curry had a good look to win. Klay is out with a torn ACL and Durant is out with a torn achilles. But Curry's shot affects their ring totals and legacies. And times that times a million, with all the plays and transactions and injuries.

No title should have an asterisk. But in a way, every title could have one because of all the little things outside your control that alter your legacy. (When you look back at Brady, if you change 3 plays of things outside Brady's control (Dee Ford offsides, Falcons sack in 28-3, Seahawks passing from the 1) the Patriots could be 0-6 in the Super Bowl since 2004. And then if you change 3 in the other direction, the Patriots could be 9-0 including 19-0. All without changing a thing from Brady's actual play. That's the fragileness that I'm talking about. Do everything the same and you might win 6 Super Bowls in or you might win zero.

Klay and Durant played at an All-Star level this year. But whether or not they get a ring was outside their control.

LeBron and Durant: NBA Decisions

Two years ago, LeBron had a choice. Having won two titles in Miami, he could have gone anywhere. I wrote about the attractiveness of returning to Cleveland. That worked out pretty well for him. He delivered a championship to the city that needed it most and produced the signature highlight of his career.

One thing about that championship: He was clearly the MVP and was without question amazing. And yet if he does everything exactly the same, but Curry and Thompson make one more three each, then LeBron's story is completely different. No parade in Cleveland. The Warriors set the record for wins in a year + title. They are a dynasty in the making. And people talk about LeBron's poor record in the finals. And that's if LeBron does everything the same. I wrote about this before...when Brady's Patriots went 18-1. Brady led the Pats down the field for a potential game-winning touchdown. And then he's on the sideline for the helmet catch and the moment the Giants win the game. The line between winning and losing a championship is sometimes razor thin, and sometimes has nothing to do with the players that we give the credit/blame to. 

The round before Cleveland wins a title, the Thunder were up 3-1 on the Warriors. 

In Game 6, the Thunder led the whole game and were 3 minutes away from closing out the Warriors in OKC. 

In Game 7, the Thunder come out strong and again lead big before the Warriors come back to win. 

If the Thunder win either of those games, they're in the Finals. Could they beat the Cavs? Yeah, it's a tossup. If they win a title, does Durant and Westbrook re-up in OKC? If they don't win, Durant still might leave, but does he go to the Warriors? Yeah, I guess they'd still be a 73-win team and a great fit, but it might seem funny to go to the team you just beat. Hard to say exactly. But now it's clear that Westbrook isn't sticking with OKC. So the Thunder could let another star walk for nothing or they could try and trade him this year, attempt to get 80 cents on the dollar for him. They are basically in a rebuild now, and they were 3 minutes away from a Finals appearance, potentially a Finals win and locking up their future. 

So now we get to Durant's decision. 

He was drafted by Seattle in 2007 and signed a 4-year contract. 

In 2010, at age 21, he chose to stay in OKC, signing a 5-year extension, ensuring he'd be on the Thunder through 2016. 

Now he's 27 and again has a choice to make. Every team in the league wanted to give him the most money possible to play for them. It's a good position to be in. 

There's all kinds of reasons to pick a place to work/live. I moved across the country to a place where I had no friends because I just wanted to be in Colorado. And I don't regret it at all. I love it here. 

So obviously it's wherever he want's to go, he's earned that choice. But if I was his friend, I'll think about what makes the most sense to me. 

What matters most is winning titles. 

It's not as simple though as going to the best team in this moment, which is obviously Golden State. It's about going to the team that will give you the most chances over the next 6ish years, when you're still in your prime. 

To get the most money, you have to sign a 1+1 deal, opt-out and then sign a new deal when the cap is even bigger. But if you go to the Warriors in 2016 and then go to the T-Wolves once their stars are ready and then to the 76ers when their picks are in their prime, just chasing the current best team, then you really look like a moocher. 

So I think you have to imagine that you're going to be with this next team for a bit, even though you're signing a short-term deal for financial reasons. With that in mind, I thought Boston made a lot of sense. They've got some decent players, plus a slew of draft picks and they're in the East which is still going to be weak for a while longer. 

It's definitely a better story for your legacy to be the Superstar that wins in Boston than joining a 73-win team. 

But here's the thing about LeBron's return to Cleveland that made for an incredible story: he already had two rings. And the first is the hardest to get. 

Durant still has many great seasons ahead of him, but he doesn't want to be Malone, Iverson, or Barkley, great players that never won titles. So I can definitely see the appeal in joining a team with a great coach, a play style that fits your own, and by the way, an amazing group of players that can make everyone more efficient. It's definitely the best choice to try and win a title in 2017. 

Does it carry a risk, if the Warriors only win 60 games and are the #2 seed in the West, that people decide acquiring Durant was a mistake? Eh....not really. His game is really built for their offense and defense, so it would be shitty for anyone to criticize adding him no matter how many wins they get. 

So if you're Durant, it's a good move. And if you're the Warriors, it's a dream come true. If you're a Warriors fan, it's beyond belief. 

And yet, there's plenty of people who are ragging on him for picking the Warriors, because they're too good.

And I get that on an emotional level. It sucks for fans of other teams. And even though any team could win, the Warriors are now 2-3 favorites. In a 30-team league, you'd have to put up $150 to win $100. Right now you'd only have to put up 3 bucks on the Thunder to win $100.

A system where superstars are spread out is more interesting as a general sports fan. Imagine if the 30 best players in the league were mandated to be on different teams. It would really feel like LeBron's Cavs vs Curry's Warriors vs Klay's Kings vs Durant's Celtics vs Westbrook's Thunder. And we'd get to see which star came out on top and it would prove to us that say LeBron was the best player of his generation because him + role players beat Curry + role players. 

But that's now what we have. We have a system that is heavily, heavily about building the best team, not just seeing who gets lucky enough to draft the best player. And the Warriors have done the best job of building the best team on paper. Just like the Seahawks built a Championship team because they had a Pro Bowl QB on a rookie deal, the Warriors are underpaying Curry and able to build around him. It's unfair to expect that Durant should pick a shittier team for the sake of sports fans interests.

I certainly want to create the best ads that I can and win the most awards that I can. Shouldn't I be expected to go to the agency that gives me that best opportunity? Well...yes. But also maybe. The most famous agency in the country is Wieden + Kennedy in Portland. They do amazing work like this ad for Coca-Cola. But if I worked for them, I would be a little fish in a big pond. If I work my way up at a smaller agency achieving success on a smaller scale, I could be a decent sized-fish in a small pond. 

Of course, I'm not in an industry where you're only measured by winning championships. I'm also not Kevin Durant, so I'm not sure how helpful that analogy is. But that commercial is pretty nifty.

Ultimately, this is the best example of: Don't hate the player, hate the game. The system we have allows for this. If you don't like it, hate the system. 

So five paragraphs up, I used a hypothetical example of the 30 best players on 30 different teams. Obviously that's ridiculous. But what if there was some sort of solution to super teams?

Right now, you hear the term max contract a lot. The simple version is that players are generally allowed to earn 25% or 30% of the cap, depending on how long they've been in the league. 

But what if a team was only allowed to have one "Tier One" contract of say 35%. Then allowed to have a Tier Two contract of 25%. And all other contracts must be under 20%. The point isn't the exact numbers, but the idea that you couldn't make a big three of players that all get paid 25%--if you want to keep Curry and Durant for their next contract one's gotta take a pay cut, or ideally they would both want the 35% and go to separate teams. 

Regardless of all of this, good for Durant. I think the Warriors offense will certainly be fun to watch. 

- - -

I have a bonus LeBron theory that I've never shared. 

So LeBron plays 7 seasons in Cleveland. (When I think about those days I think about this game that I saw in a NYC bar. Just incredible.) His last season there, the 2009-2010 Cavs, here were the players besides LeBron leading the team in minutes:

Mo Williams

Anthony Parker

Anderson Varejeo

J.J. Hickson

Delonte West

That team is DOGSHIT! That team was the #1 seed in the East!

Even with the best player in the world, their odds of winning a title in the next 6 years were not great. With LeBron, they weren't getting high draft picks. So they were acquiring players like a 37-year-old Shaq to try and get over the hump. It wasn't working. 

So here's my theory. The best way for LeBron to deliver a Championship to Cleveland was by leaving. 

I'm not saying that LeBron consciously knew this or planned this. And he could never say it because of the implication. But I think it's true. 

In 2011 without LeBron they went from the #1 seed to 19-63. They earned the #4 pick in the lottery. And they went into rebuild mode, trading Mo Williams and Jamario Moon for Baron Davis and the Clippers first round pick. The Cavs had a 19% chance of winning the lottery with their own pick and a 3% chance of winning it with the Clippers pick. They won it with the Clippers pick and used it to get Kyrie at #1. Their own pick was now #4 so they used that to draft Tristan Thompson. 

Amazingly the rebuilding Cavs would draft #1 again in 2013 and 2014. Those picks were used on Bennett and Wiggins and would be traded to get Kevin Love. 

And even with that incredible and lucky rebuild effort, the 2016 Cavs barely won the title because there was a Golden State juggernaut. 

So no, I don't think LeBron could have willed his way to a title in Cleveland without those picks. Which means taking his talents to South Beach was the best thing he ever did for the Cavaliers.