5-on-5: Where are Cavaliers, Thunder headed this season?
The
Cleveland Cavaliers and
Oklahoma City Thunder square off at 3:30 p.m. ET (ABC and WatchESPN) as the second half of the NBA season gets into full swing. Who's going further this season?
Our experts weigh in on the state of two teams with ambitions to dethrone the
Golden State Warriors.
1. Which team has the better big three?
J.A. Adande, ESPN.com: The Thunder. Oklahoma City's top three players seem to have a better understanding of their roles -- even if Russell Westbrook's role is to not conform to any roles. Also, OKC's big three has more potential for the future, as Kevin Durant enters the heart of his prime years while LeBron James grows older. But will OKC's top trio be around as long?
Dave McMenamin, ESPN.com: The Thunder. I don't think the talent gap between the two trios is all that pronounced, but Oklahoma City's core of
Kevin Durant,
Russell Westbrook and
Serge Ibaka (we're still counting him -- not
Dion Waiters -- as the third Beatle, right?) has played together so much more than the Cavs' trio, so the Thunder get the nod.
Marc Stein, ESPN.com: OKC's big three not only has the edge in both cohesion and history, but also, there is the small matter of Durant and Westbrook playing the best ball of their lives at the same time.
LeBron James,
Kyrie Irving and
Kevin Love arguably have a higher ceiling as a trio, as Love is a more versatile offensive talent than Ibaka, but we haven't seen that come close to fruition often enough. We can talk about potential for only so long.
Brian Windhorst, ESPN.com: The Thunder. This is a tight one, and you can make legitimate arguments both ways, and it could be pointed out that LeBron has generally dominated the Thunder in his career. More than anything else, this is a vote for how strong Westbrook has become. He and Durant are in their absolute primes, even if that is being overlooked because of the Warriors. This is a hat tip to that.
Royce Young, ESPN.com: The Thunder. They have really become less about a big three and more about a massive two. Even so, Westbrook and Durant are at a level that gives them a slight edge over the Cavs' trio. Ibaka is still a game-changer with his defensive versatility and stretchability (hashtag Jay Bilas voice), but even with LeBron still being, well, LeBron, Westbrook and Durant as a pair are at the best they've ever been.
2. Fact or fiction: OKC should have done more at the deadline.
Adande: Fiction. The Thunder made their moves last year when they brought in Enes Kanter and Dion Waiters with the mindset that it would be their last big splash for a while. Why not see how this group fares in a playoff run with a healthy Durant before deciding to break it up?
McMenamin: Fiction. Getting back to my previous answer, the Thunder's continuity is a strength. Why sacrifice that just for the sake of shaking things up? The argument could be made that OKC hasn't had a legitimate shot to recreate its 2012 Finals run solely because of injuries. I like the understated
Randy Foyeaddition and standing pat with what the team has.
Stein: Fiction. The Thunder have done enough tweaking since Trade Deadline 2015 to keep the focus on letting all the changes of the past year marinate. They really need to win it all this season to enhance their chances of keeping Durant ... but was a move to get them closer really available this trade season? I didn't see it.
Windhorst: Fiction. They tried. They were one of the teams that looked into
Ryan Anderson. At the same time, they were 40-14. They felt OK about their latest meeting with the Warriors. They know they're underdogs, but they were in no way desperate.
Young: Fiction. A significant shake-up could make some level of sense on the surface, given the anxiety about Durant's looming free agency, but this is a team that has found its rhythm the past two months. The Thunder worked a number of angles -- they tried for
Courtney Lee -- but in the end, they like their rotation enough to see just how good it is.
3. Fact or fiction: The Cavs should have traded Kevin Love.
Adande: Fiction. There were no scenarios in which the Cavs would have received a player better than Kevin Love. And there were no scenarios in which the Cavs would have received a prospect better than the one they gave up for Love (Andrew Wiggins). Another case of needing to see what happens in a full playoff run before rendering judgment.
McMenamin: Fiction. I understand that his five-point outing in that embarrassing home loss to the Warriors, coupled with perhaps even more anemic defense, brings up big questions about what Love's role would be in a potential Cleveland-Golden State rematch, but giving up on him so soon based on one hypothetical scenario is bad business. Plus, what trade package would have upgraded the Cavs automatically? Even if Houston had dangled
Dwight Howard and
Trevor Ariza for Love, I still don't know how much better that would have made Cleveland in the long run.
Stein: Allow me to go the faction route. I do think a Love trade is inevitable at this point, so I can't criticize the Cavaliers for not doing something that I expect will happen this summer. I'm convinced the Cavs are going to change the complexion of the team in the offseason, but the reality is that trading a player of Love's magnitude is easier in the summer. The Cavs will have more trade options and more time to blend in the new pieces. They're better off keeping this group together for the rest of the season, after so much upheaval already over the past several months in Cleveland. And who knows? If by some miracle Golden State is knocked out before the NBA Finals, Love might find his niche against a different opponent.
Windhorst: Fiction. There are two types of teams in the league: those who have stars and those who are trying to get stars. There's a reason the Celtics want Love: They see an underused player. The Cavs have to find a way to use Love better, especially considering he has three years left on his contract.
Young: Fiction. It's unfair to make the
Chris Bosh-
Kevin Love comparison because Bosh did so much more for the Heat's big three, but the same principle applies. When you're a star and you join other stars, your production is going to dip, and then it becomes about how you can help the team win. Kevin Love can help the Cavs win.
4. How big a role will Channing Frye play in Cleveland?
Adande: It's hard to see him changing the dynamic when his greatest asset -- a big man with 3-point range -- duplicated what Kevin Love already brings to the Cavaliers. But he'll be more useful to Cleveland than Anderson Varejao was.
McMenamin: He's a specialist. Against certain small-ball lineups, he'll get burn, and if his shot is falling, there will be significant minutes to be had. Ideally, depending on Frye's fit, the Cavs would like him to assume not only some of
Timofey Mozgov's minutes but also some of the playing time currently going to
Richard Jefferson and
James Jones. That said, we're talking about a 15-minute-per-game type of guy.
Stein: Floor spacers always have a role, and I tend to believe Frye will be dangerous with the looks he's going to get on a
LeBron James team. This was a smart trade. It was costly from the emotional side, given the intangibles lost with Anderson Varejao's exit, but it makes basketball sense.
Windhorst: A minor role. The Cavs took a player who was mostly out of their rotation, Varejao, and turned his spot into a ninth man while saving $10 million. If Frye helps them win a playoff game or two with a timely 3-pointer, then they will have done well.
Young: Probably not a big one. In a lot of ways, he's redundant with what Love is already bringing the team, but he at least adds options. Could the Cavs have had the Warriors and a potential matchup with that Death Lineup in mind when they made this move?
5. Which team is a bigger threat to the Warriors?
Adande: The Thunder. You need firepower against Golden State, and the combination of Durant and Westbrook gives Oklahoma City a shot. The question is whether OKC can beat the Spurs to get its chance.
McMenamin: Cleveland. I understand Golden State has only improved since capturing the championship, but I keep thinking about that Finals series (and the Christmas Day rematch), and I come away convinced that the Cavs, as long as they have James healthy, can dictate the style of play against the Dubs. On the flip side, the Thunder would likely try to run-and-gun with the Warriors and beat them at their own game, which I don't think is as sound of an approach.
Stein: Cleveland. The Cavs' ability to slow the game down and control tempo against these Warriors ... we've seen few teams do it as well as they can. That doesn't mean they can do so four times in a seven-game series, but I suspect Golden State privately fears the slow-down game, combined with the LeBron factor, even more than the idea of Durant and Westbrook going nuts in the same game.
Windhorst: The Warriors collectively laugh at the thought that they're threatened by anything.
Young: The Thunder, I guess. At this point, the idea of a threat to the Warriors seems a little like the idea that grass is a threat to a lawnmower. But if we're going to go on what we know, the Cavs have been roasted by the Warriors twice, while the Thunder had a chance to win in the final three minutes in Oracle.
