Well no, best team ever is probably the Russell Celtics, especially in their prime.  Through the course of that dynasty, 10 hall of fame players were on that team at various points.  At one point 1962-63 season), the team had 8 Hall of Fame players on the roster.  Shoot, Havlicek was coming off the bench.  In terms of talent richness, that's on a whole other level.  I'm pretty sure that's second to only to the Dream Team and certain All Star teams.  They lost in the finals once after Russell was injured and were denied a Finals appearance only once.  They were 11 and 0 in deciding games in the finals, so if you were down 3 in the finals you might as well go home.  

This level of depth is what made them nearly invincible in the finals and why Wilt's ring from 67 is given more weight than probably any other ring:  his 76ers were the only team to ever beat the Celtics at full strength. 

And yeah, the Warriors are pretty similar.  Not as preposterously deep, but still 4 guaranteed hall of fame players, maybe 5 and a really good supporting cast.

These Warriors vs Showtime lakers or dynasty bulls would be amazing to watch. I don't care who's better. Just watching it would be exciting and entertaining

Quite frankly I find these comparisons pointless because all these teams played in different eras of the league with different rules. If this Warriors team played the 96 Bulls under the 1996 rules, I would take the Bulls. If they played under modern rules, I'd take the Warriors.

Thank you

Hand checking and physicality makes a huge difference. Either way, both are great teams. It can go either way abd it wouldn't be surprising

Modern NBA designed for shooters or the old 1980s/1990s NBA, hard fouls and cheap shots to batter opposition players into submission. 

Still pure speculation. I do not care about your age, I do not care about what you saw. You never saw Golden States Warriors 2017 against Chicago Bulls 96.

Deal with it, your opinion is nothing.

User was warned for flaming - Aura7541

Though you also have to consider the league the 60s Celtics played in. There were only about 8-10 teams, so only one or two elimination rounds before the finals. No three point shooting and the game and the players were still developing. Imagine Bob Cousy playing now. He would be limited due to his poor shooting (only 38% career FG percentage), kinda making him like Rondo with no attitude.

Nevertheless, I give credit to those Celtics cause they took advantage of other teams adjusting to the 24 second clock rule and utilize defense to create fast breaks. And they were great in the clutch as you mentioned. Elimination games or game 7s were where the Cetics were at their best.

And their consecutive finals appearances are why I appreciate LeBron's seven straight trips, win or lose. It takes a lot out of you physically, mentally, and emotionally to prepare and play for about 100 games a year. With all the travel, social media, and player movement, it's hard to maintain good teams and compete for years of championships. To do that for seven straight years is incredible. Sure LeBron plays in the East, but you can only play whats in front of you. The Showtime Lakers did, the Celtic dynasty did, so you gotta go play. The only other team that could potentially match that are the Warriors if they stay healthy and retain all their key guys. The Showtime Lakers were close but lost to Houston twice. Jordan could've done it, but retired in the middle of his prime (he admitted lost motivation and zest for the game and mental fatigue though others might cite conspiracy theories due to his gambling problems). So regardless of what happens this series, it's an incredible accomplishment.

lol, lets be real, the 60s Celtics would get thrashed by multiple teams. The 80s Lakers/Celtics, probably the Bad Boy Pistons, definitely the 90s Bulls, the Shaq-Kobe Lakers, the current Warriors would all beat them.

Basketball just has evolved a long way from the 1960s and there's nothing wrong with admitting that. The Russell Celtics wouldn't know how to even guard half the modern day players, they'd never have seen anyone like Shaq, Jordan, Durant, Curry, etc. they'd have no answer for their offensive sets, or the physical play of certain teams and the sheer size of many teams either.

They're a tiny team by modern basketball standards too 

Russell - 6'10 

Cousy - 6'1

K.C. Jones - 6'1

Sam Jones - 6'4

Havlicek - 6'5

Heinhson - 6'7

Sanders - 6'6 (power forward)

They had like one regular over 6'10. They'd get killed IMO, sorry I know nostalgia is a hell of a drug, but some things get better with time and you can say that about other sports too. The 1960s NHL Stanley Cup champions (Leafs/Habs) would get murdered playing just about any modern NHL team. 

The 60s Celtics put into modern basketball would be the smallest and one of the least athletic teams in the league. 

Nope the Warriors really aren't that great and Russell Westbrook will be the regular season MVP deal with that.  You being a big time homer for the Warriors is nothing.

They hadn't seen Shaq but they had seen Wilt who was faster, stronger, jumped higher, had a perimeter game, and had far, far more endurance.

They hadn't seen Jordan but they had seen Elgin Baylor, the true father or Show Time.  (Not saying he's better than Jordan but he was one heck of an inside player).

They hadn't played Curry but they played West, the second or third best shooting guard of all time depending on who you ask, who had an outside shot and was basically a 2010s player born many decades early.  Again, not saying he's exactly like Curry, he didn't have the same ball handling, just sayin.

And as for physicality, the Celtics played in a league with NO flagrant fouls.  The 60s was far, far, far, far, FAR more physical and rough and fast paced than todays league.  Take a team from today and stick them on the court back then and most wouldn't be able to go the distance, they would be completely gassed by halfway through a series.  The game has evolved a ton.  Not every evolution has resulted in better play though, nor in better conditioning for players.  

The Celtics faced unstoppable offenses in their day and stopped them.  Shoot, in 69 they faced a Lakers team with what is hands dlwn the most ridiculous big 3 ever leading it:  West, Baylor, and Wilt.  Not only were they arguably the number 1, 2, and 3 best players in the league in terms of individual skill, they are also top 5 all time in ther positions, Wilt and West being top 3 all time.  You could stick that set in any era and they would make a team that would rock the world.  But they got beat by the Celtics, who were at that point actually getting pretty old.

And the reason is as I said: depth.  No, none of the Celtics players back then are top 5 all time.  Shoot, Russell is the only top 10.  But the sheer numbers and team focused play make up for that.  

As for all those teams you mentioned, it would be a battle for all of them.  It would also depend largely on whose rules they play by.  If they play by 60s rules, I definitely give the edge to the Celtics.