Cavaliers vs. Celtics (playoffs, finals, wild card, win)

[sleepy eyes 1979]

Who would win in a seven game series between the Cavs and Celtics with the roster currently the way they are and assuming that Kevin Garnet will be 100 percent?

I think the Cavs have the edge because there core players are younger and the improved depth on the perimeter.

I'm not quiet sure if Rasheed Wallace really will help them because he has lost has passion to play defense as well as to bang down low in the paint. His temper will be an issue in critical moments of the game. Cavs in six!

[Puddy4LyF]

I would tend to agree.

When the Celtics were at their pinnacle just two years ago, the Cavaliers found themselves down just 89-88 in Game 7 of the Eastern Conference Finals in Boston.

Since then, I think it's very hard to argue that Cleveland hasn't improved its stock more than Boston has. The additions of Shaq, Parker, Moon, Powe with only very minimal losses certainly do more for a Cavaliers team than a Rasheed Wallace does for Boston.

Boston is no slouch, though. With a healthy Garnett, they certainly take Cleveland to 6 games.

[CTownNative]

The Cavs have by far improved their team more than the Celtics have. Now don't get me wrong, with a healthy Kevin Garnett they have a monster starting 5. I think where the Cavs would have the advantage is the fact that they grabbed so many quality bench players in free agency. You could actually make a case that Anthony Parker should start over Delonte. I've always thought he would be better coming off the bench anyway.

[wesside]

Now I don't like either team - - But in terms of in the playoffs, where it counts, I'd take the Celtics over the Cavs. The Celtics are a clutch team capable of winning it all, again. The Cavs on the other hand, are more capable of crumbling down in clutch moments and/or choking altogether (as they did against the Magic).

[CaliDude1]

Definitely not a fan of either team. But if everyone is healthy I have to take Boston. To me, the 2008 playoff series did not mean as much as people think. If Cleveland can hang with Boston because of that series then the Hawks must be contenders.

Boston's front court is downright nasty. KG, Perkins, Rasheed, and Big Baby will be formidable against ANY team. I was especially impressed with Perkins in the 2009 playoffs. I also think the experience of having already been there as a team gives Boston an edge.

Lastly, the reason I would take Boston over the Cavs (and any of the other elite teams) is they have more balance. Even with Shaq, the Cavs will still over rely on LeBron. Boston can beat you in so many different ways.

[CTownNative]

Yeah but don't count the Cavs out to make a huge trade. They have a big expiring contract in Z's, and alot of teams are looking to dump salary for the 2010 free agency. I wouldn't be suprised to see the Cavs get a very good PF, which would easily put them over the top.

[CaliDude1]

Originally Posted by CTownNative

Yeah but don't count the Cavs out to make a huge trade. They have a big expiring contract in Z's, and alot of teams are looking to dump salary for the 2010 free agency. I wouldn't be suprised to see the Cavs get a very good PF, which would easily put them over the top.

I don't doubt the Cavs could make a big trade. But at this point you have to go with what teams already have. Also, roster shake ups with two thirds of the season gone (a February trade) are not always a good idea. I see the Lakers, Spurs, and Celtics all going into the playoffs with the same roster they start with in September. That gives them an edge.

Of course, the wild card in injuries. All teams have to worry about it, but the Celtics are especially vulnerable. I would add that Cleveland is also vulnerable with Shaq.