Guest Blogger: Corey Bennett is back for more!

In light of the dead-air (and the impending Battle of the Brads), Corey volunteered to fill the void with a few post-NBA finals reflections.

1. I knew the Spurs would sweep the Cavs. In fact, I said it before the series began (see Dave’s previous post). There are two simple reasons for the sweep: San Antonio is championship-caliber and Cleveland is not. That’s right. Keep sobbing all you underdog-loving, LeBron-bandwagoneers. Cleveland is still just one of the better teams in the Eastern Conference. But did anyone notice that ESPN.com’s “top performers” scoreboard featured (almost exclusively) everyone but LeBron? He managed to finish each game with respectable numbers…for a second-class superstar. The Cavs looked like the Bulls of the early-90s, but without the dominant superstar or perfect sidekick. Would the Bulls have won anything (even a first-round series) with Bill Wennington, B.J. Armstrong and Horace Grant running the show? Didn’t think so. The truth is LeBron is clearly more of a self-alleged global brand than he is an “all-time great.” Every year, every series, every game I see is an affirmation that no one will ever touch MJ’s greatness.

2. I knew the Spurs would look underwhelming in their sweep of the Cavs. I can’t downplay Tim Duncan’s steady, underappreciated play in recent years. He is a great player. Tony Parker is improving. Ginobli isn’t half-bad either. But how can one ignore so many lackluster performances that resulted in a championship? I’m not saying the Spurs weren’t the best team in the playoffs, but they were boring to watch and their “stars” were disappointing in at least one game each. On a side note, Robert Horry now has seven championship rings. I’ll give you a second to wipe the vomit from your chin. If I had the time and inclination, I’d try to dig up other undeserving, highly-decorated players—just to prove it can happen—but it’s too depressing to spend any more time thinking about.

3. I knew the media would dub the Spurs a dynasty. Some say it’s hard to make a strong argument against it. But seriously, is the threshold four titles in nine years (and three in five) for attaining such a status? Wait a minute! There is an argument against it! The Spurs won in 1999, 2003, 2005 and 2007. What happened in between? The Lakers had a “dynasty in 2000-2002, the Pistons won in 2004, and the Heat in 2006. So the Spurs dynasty spans 1999-2007 but there was another dynasty within that time? Huh?!?! It really doesn’t matter. It’s mostly semantics—just aimless conversation, the outcome of which doesn’t have much of an impact on anything. The Lakers, Celtics and Bulls dynasties hold a place in basketball history much more revered than that which the Spurs occupy. The Spurs would have to win next year and probably one more to justify inclusion in the same breath…which leads me to my last point…
4. I know the Spurs won’t win the NBA championship next year. Yeah, I’m a little uneasy going out on that limb because I know the volatility of the Suns and the underachieving tendencies of the Mavs. Something tells me both of those teams will be hungrier and the Spurs won’t be so lucky. The Nuggets will have a full season with Melo and AI. The Jazz will mature. Who knows what a Kobe or KG trade would do to the balance of power, not to mention how Durant and Oden could make the Sonics and Blazers playoff contenders. Where is the East in all of this? I have no freakin’ clue. All I can say is “Keep on keepin’ on Baby Bulls!”