Overall, it was a tremendous season by the Cavs.  They should be celebrated and lauded for so many different reasons.  But the pain they are currently experiencing is just as important.  Sometimes it takes crushing defeat to be forced into fixing what needs to be fixed.  This goes for Danny Ferry, this goes for Mike Brown and this goes for LeBron James.  The Cavs need some more dynamic offense players, they need a more dynamic offensive system and they need their most dynamic player to become more complete.

The Spurs had an easier road through the playoffs this year compared to previous championship seasons.  They were blessed with few injuries and had the good fortune of watching their biggest obstacle getting bounced in the first round.  Despite all this I agree with Tim: "This one's sweeter," Duncan said. As a fan my reason is simple:  I LOVE this team.

I don't care if the fans of every other team hate them.  I don't care if they are labeled as dirty, ugly, boring, thugs or floppers.  I don't care if they fail to fit some arbitrary definition of a dynasty.  The media, the fans, the rest of the NBA players and coaches can all piss the hell off.

Because I love this team, we love this team, and we're the champs.  Four for four!

Underappreciated in this series: Manu Ginobili. This is one of those instances when plus/minus can make you aware of something that wasn't othewise evident. Consider this: over the four games of this series, the Spurs outscored the Cavaliers when Tim Duncan, Tony Parker, and Bruce Bowen was on the bench. But when Manu Ginobili was on the bench, they were -18. In total, the Spurs were 64 with Ginobili on the floor compared to when he was off, 22 with Duncan, 18 with Bowen, and 12 with Parker. (Even in his "miserable" 0-7 Game 3, Ginobili was 11, second only to Brent Barry.) Yet somehow Manu Ginobili didn't even enter the MVP discussion.

As much as the media wants to make this story, the point of a dynasty is that is both historic and difficult. That is why there has only ever been one team in baseball to have a true dynasty (Three different runs by the Yankees), only four teams to do it in hockey (Toronto 44-51, Montreal 65-79, New York 80-83, and Edmonton 84-90), and arguably one in the NFL (The Steelers 4 in 6 during the '70s). Now here is my one caveat: if the Spurs do repeat next season, all will be forgiven in the dynasty discussion. Winning 4 titles in 6 years, with the essential repeat present in this case, along with the same core of players present, would indeed make the Spurs a dynasty. Even in that scenario however, there is no way that the '99 title should be included in any dynasty discussion. Calling the Spurs current run a dynasty does nothing but fill newspaper copy and cheapen the term.