PDA

View Full Version : Have "stacked" teams and "Big 3's" ruined the league?



XpLiCiTT
07-31-2014, 03:25 PM
The NBA is getting more and more talented by the year, yet there are roughly only 4-6 teams (generously) each year that have a realistic chance at winning a title. Recent years we've seen "big 3's" formed and to me it kind of ruins the league.

Personally, I would rather see teams build through the draft and have superstar players more scattered throughout the league. It would definitely make things much more interesting. What do you guys think?

bucketss
07-31-2014, 03:33 PM
its okay as long as the stars are traded for apparently and not signed via free agency. thats what i was told, so the boston big 3 was okay, but the miami big 3 ruined the nba.

kdspurman
07-31-2014, 03:36 PM
The Spurs & the Mavs proved what you can do to beat teams structured that way. Coaching, defense, team ball, etc... Problem is, a lot of teams aren't willing to be patient enough to take that route.

I don't think it ruins the league necessarily. I just think other teams need to step up their game in terms of drafting/developing/scouting/etc...

WSU Tony
07-31-2014, 03:40 PM
Yes.

Stars used to think they'd have a chance winning it all staying with the team that drafted them. They thought they might be able to lure a FA or someone would develop to help them. Now, though, this dream is not realistic. Stars need to demand trades or sign with a team who is already established. The league is 6-7 deep with one "out of no where" extra team which could surprise. The rest of the league is a farm system. Even a team which got as lucky as OKC and has made almost every correct decision still doesn't have a title. They're about to lose Durant, too.

A hard cap means nothing if a pure economic system within isn't working. When players take 1/3 of their value in contracts it messes everything up. Cap space to a small market team means absolutely nothing. Their simply is no value.

Stacked teams sign players to 1/3 of their true value while small market teams pay 2X the value for a player.

TheIlladelph16
07-31-2014, 03:41 PM
Yes. I miss the days like the 80's when there was a ton of balance and parity in the league. /s

abe_froman
07-31-2014, 03:43 PM
when has that not been true? ...also,what big 3's are there?

ldawg
07-31-2014, 03:44 PM
I'll admit I like that Lebron left and bosh decided to stay with wade.

ghettosean
07-31-2014, 03:45 PM
Yes...

In the past it was all management/ownership that decided how to construct a team but now a days you have players planning and plotting moves to form super teams with each other now a days while they are still playing for a different team. Kind of sucks for a lot of the small market teams out there who just don't have a chance.

Big Zo
07-31-2014, 03:46 PM
Did two teams (Boston, and LA) winning championships almost every year since the '50's ruin the league?

bucketss
07-31-2014, 03:47 PM
Yes. I miss the days like the 80's when there was a ton of balance and parity in the league. /s

you mean 70's, the 80's was all about the lakers and celtics.

Dade County
07-31-2014, 03:48 PM
The NBA is getting more and more talented by the year, yet there are roughly only 4-6 teams (generously) each year that have a realistic chance at winning a title. Recent years we've seen "big 3's" formed and to me it kind of ruins the league.

Personally, I would rather see teams build through the draft and have superstar players more scattered throughout the league. It would definitely make things much more interesting. What do you guys think?

If you truly felt this way, then you would have brought up that the 80's lakers & C's started this mess and it's because of stern that only a few teams have actually won a title.

Start at the route Op, don't blame the teams of today.

bucketss
07-31-2014, 03:50 PM
Did two teams (Boston, and LA) winning championships almost every year since the '50's ruin the league?

you notice when the celts/lakers are stacking no one says a thing, ie: celtics in 2008, but as soon as other teams like miami get in on it all hell breaks loose. like how dare they put themselves in a position to win multiple championships? lol

Big Zo
07-31-2014, 03:51 PM
you mean 70's, the 80's was all about the lakers and celtics.

And Boston, and LA won championships that decade, too.

abe_froman
07-31-2014, 03:52 PM
you notice when the celts/lakers are stacking no one says a thing, ie: celtics in 2008, but as soon as other teams like miami get in on it all hell breaks loose. like how dare they put themselves in a position to win multiple championships? lol
even then its an outdated reaction because miami doesnt even have one anymore.i mean looking around the nba right now i cant find any super stacked or even big 3 right now.this is the most parity i've ever seen

Goose17
07-31-2014, 03:53 PM
Are you serious? There's always been big 3's and big 2's.


Garnett, Allen, Pierce.
Jordan, Pippen, Rodman.
Duncan, Parker, Ginobili.
Chamberlain, Baylor, West.
Magic, KAJ, Worthy.
Russell, Cousy, Heinsohn.
Bird, McHale, Parish.
Run TMC.
Olajuwon, Drexler, Barkley.
Isiah, Dumars, Laimbeer.
Kobe, Gasol, Bynum.
Nash, Matrix, Stat.


When you look at NBA Champions most have some form of a Big 3. Since the early 80s, Big 3s have played a part in 18/19 championships.



What's changed is how they're being formed (through free agency) but I personally have no issue with that as long as it's not all the time. I mean Lebron left a team where the management had 7 years to build around him and failed miserably over and over. If your team isn't capable of signing the big FAs or building through the draft why shouldn't you take matters into your own hands? I wonder if people would have reacted differently if Wade left Miami and Bosh left Toronto to go to Cleveland. Or if they had all forced their way via trade to one specific team.

MonroeFAN
07-31-2014, 03:53 PM
The Spurs


I've never understood why this is the general opinion. They have more stars on that team than any other in the league. Just because they buy into a team concept and their stars don't dominate the ball often enough to post gaudy numbers doesn't mean they aren't stacked.

Duncan is arguably the best PF of all time for crying out loud. Some fans believe Parker is the best Point in the league. Manu might have lost some of his luster, but at one point he was a top 3 SG (briefly). Leonard just won the finals MVP, and their big man rotation was considerably better than Miami's. On the other side of the spectrum, Lebron is amazing, Bosh is good/great and Wade is a turd.

:confused:

McCluskey88
07-31-2014, 03:54 PM
No. It's made the league better. Spurs didn't win through free agency.

beliges
07-31-2014, 03:54 PM
No matter how talented you are as a squad, no matter how stacked you are as a team, it is tremendously difficult to win titles. Miami showed this by only winning 2 out of 4. The most talented team in the league doesnt always win.

smith&wesson
07-31-2014, 03:55 PM
I like the stacked teams. as a fan, I have no problem with it. I tried to watch every clipper, heat game I could. why ? because they were/are entertaining.

Big Zo
07-31-2014, 03:56 PM
you notice when the celts/lakers are stacking no one says a thing, ie: celtics in 2008, but as soon as other teams like miami get in on it all hell breaks loose. like how dare they put themselves in a position to win multiple championships? lol

Seriously. You'd think that a team like Miami winning would have been seen as a breath of fresh air, but no. Boston, LA, Chicago need more championships. : /

D-Leethal
07-31-2014, 03:57 PM
There is always going to be a couple teams at the top who, through savvy management (or nowadays collusion) build a stacked team with a couple or triple of HOFers. The OKC's of the world, the SAS of the world. Thats never gonna change and those teams will win.

I just wish the other guys had enough ball to try and grow their own team organically or take them out on their own. It should be "as long as I'm here we're good enough to win", instead its "If ya can't beat em, join em". The warrior spirit is gone.

I miss Patrick Ewing and guys like David Robinson, Reggie Miller, Hakeem Olajuwan, Dirk. Instead of flocking to team up with Reggie at the nearest FA, Pat went after the Bulls year after year after year after year by himself. Sure, they didn't win, but they were badass. These guys are pansies.

XpLiCiTT
07-31-2014, 03:59 PM
Are you serious? There's always been big 3's and big 2's.


Garnett, Allen, Pierce.
Jordan, Pippen, Rodman.
Duncan, Parker, Ginobili.
Chamberlain, Baylor, West.
Magic, KAJ, Worthy.
Russell, Cousy, Heinsohn.
Bird, McHale, Parish.
Run TMC.
Olajuwon, Drexler, Barkley.
Isiah, Dumars, Laimbeer.
Kobe, Gasol, Bynum.
Nash, Matrix, Stat.


When you look at NBA Champions most have some form of a Big 3. Since the early 80s, Big 3s have played a part in 18/19 championships.



What's changed is how they're being formed (through free agency) but I personally have no issue with that as long as it's not all the time. I mean Lebron left a team where the management had 7 years to build around him and failed miserably over and over. If your team isn't capable of signing the big FAs or building through the draft why shouldn't you take matters into your own hands? I wonder if people would have reacted differently if Wade left Miami and Bosh left Toronto to go to Cleveland. Or if they had all forced their way via trade to one specific team.

I'm completely aware the league has always had forms of "big 3's", but my point was how they're now being assembled. The league is changing into players just communicating with each other and more or less making a plan of where to play, it's not based off team management.

As I said in the OP, I would rather see teams build through the draft and add smaller role pieces to the puzzle through free agency. The league would be better if more teams could be competitive, but many teams don't even have a chance to be..which has been the case for a long long time.

smith&wesson
07-31-2014, 03:59 PM
KG wasted most of his career with the twolves playing with a bunch of scrubs, and now klove in the same boat. I have no problem with those types of players leaving for better chances of winning.

Players have more control over where they land now a days, and its a great thing because teams like the raptors or twovles for example, have pressure on them to build around their good players rather than just selling seats and merchandise and doing nothing to help those players win.

valade16
07-31-2014, 04:00 PM
The Spurs & the Mavs proved what you can do to beat teams structured that way. Coaching, defense, team ball, etc... Problem is, a lot of teams aren't willing to be patient enough to take that route.

I don't think it ruins the league necessarily. I just think other teams need to step up their game in terms of drafting/developing/scouting/etc...

They also happened to have a good deal of luck with Duncan and Dirk panning out.

If they weren't on those teams none of Pop's or Rick's wizardry would have mattered at all.

D-Leethal
07-31-2014, 04:00 PM
If management couldn't put a team around you to beat those superteams, it should just be accepted that it wasn't in the cards. Instead, these guys are manufacturing their own deck and forcing the hand to find the easiest route for a championship.

I guess it goes hand in hand with this generation of adults compared to those of the past. Hard work, dedication, dealing with adversity is gone, this generation would rather skip right past that and get right to the glory.

smith&wesson
07-31-2014, 04:01 PM
Seriously. You'd think that a team like Miami winning would have been seen as a breath of fresh air, but no. Boston, LA, Chicago need more championships. : /

what does la and boston have like 30+ ships between them ? and then the spurs and bulls... and then every one else.

D-Leethal
07-31-2014, 04:03 PM
KG wasted most of his career with the twolves playing with a bunch of scrubs, and now klove in the same boat. I have no problem with those types of players leaving for better chances of winning.

Players have more control over where they land now a days, and its a great thing because teams like the raptors or twovles for example, have pressure on them to build around their good players rather than just selling seats and merchandise and doing nothing to help those players win.

If you're on a bottom feeder I understand, but if your on a 50-60 win team and still need to leave because you don't have a superstar sidekick? Thats a little much.

numba1CHANGsta
07-31-2014, 04:04 PM
A Big 3 in their prime ruins the league

Goose17
07-31-2014, 04:05 PM
If management couldn't put a team around you to beat those superteams, it should just be accepted that it wasn't in the cards. Instead, these guys are manufacturing their own deck and forcing the hand to find the easiest route for a championship.

I guess it goes hand in hand with this generation of adults compared to those of the past. Hard work, dedication, dealing with adversity is gone, this generation would rather skip right past that and get right to the glory.

Those two comments are contradictory.

It is dedication to do everything you can to become successful, it is hard work. Probably more hard work.

And Lebron dealt with way more adversity in Miami than he ever did in Cleveland.

Bostonjorge
07-31-2014, 04:07 PM
Yes James and co ruined the the league. The east has been a joke and the east playoffs have been the least exciting for any sport.

Thankfully the spurs saved the league. They had 4 rounds of exciting basketball and ended up making history. They beat Miami so bad that a certain player literally ran home.

Spurs win was good for young players in any sport. Instead of losing and just wanting to change jerseys kids will want to get better the next year and concour what they been working for.

Hawkeye15
07-31-2014, 04:12 PM
there have always been big 3's. People just get pissed off now because of Miami's big 3 coming together they way they did. How you come together makes no difference.

Big Zo
07-31-2014, 04:21 PM
Yes James and co ruined the the league. The east has been a joke and the east playoffs have been the least exciting for any sport.

Thankfully the spurs saved the league. They had 4 rounds of exciting basketball and ended up making history. They beat Miami so bad that a certain player literally ran home.

Spurs win was good for young players in any sport. Instead of losing and just wanting to change jerseys kids will want to get better the next year and concour what they been working for.

So for the record, you're saying that your own team is a joke because they play in the east, right?

Hellcrooner
07-31-2014, 04:28 PM
Magic, Kareem and Wilkes ( worhty)
Bird, Mchale, Parish, D Johnson.
Dr J, Moses Malone, Mo Cheeks
Thomas, Dumars, Lambieer, Aguirre, rodman.
Moncrief, Lanier, Cowens, Marques Johnson.
Wilkins, Willis, Mo malone, Doc rivers, Theus.
Karl malone, Stockton, griffith.
Aguirre, Backman, Harper, tarpley.
Price, Nance, Daugherty, Healthy Ron harper
Porter, Van de whege, Drexler.

and etc etc ec


thats 80s for you.

"big threes" or " stacked teams" are nothing new.

get over it.

D-Leethal
07-31-2014, 04:30 PM
there have always been big 3's. People just get pissed off now because of Miami's big 3 coming together they way they did. How you come together makes no difference.

I think it does, when at the time of coming together there was not even a big 2 comparable talent wise. Boston's big 3 were all 35+. They were out to trump the competition like ants with a sledgehammer. It didn't work out the way they predicted and hoped, but they colluded to completely annihilate the competition and "make it easy", and like Lebron said in his SI letter, he learned it wasn't that easy.

D-Leethal
07-31-2014, 04:32 PM
LeBron and Bosh alone would have made the Finals in 2011. Wade and Bosh alone the same. They didn't need all three but they did it anyway, because they wanted it to be easy.

XpLiCiTT
07-31-2014, 04:32 PM
"big threes" or " stacked teams" are nothing new.

get over it.

It's not "stacked teams" being new, it's the way they're being formed. Players strategically choosing who and where they're playing, not so much actual team management forming great teams.

abe_froman
07-31-2014, 04:34 PM
I think it does, when at the time of coming together there was not even a big 2 comparable talent wise. Boston's big 3 were all 35+. They were out to trump the competition like ants with a sledgehammer. It didn't work out the way they predicted and hoped, but they colluded to completely annihilate the competition and "make it easy", and like Lebron said in his SI letter, he learned it wasn't that easy.

but why ***** about it as if its happening now,after its over

kdspurman
07-31-2014, 04:34 PM
I've never understood why this is the general opinion. They have more stars on that team than any other in the league. Just because they buy into a team concept and their stars don't dominate the ball often enough to post gaudy numbers doesn't mean they aren't stacked.

Duncan is arguably the best PF of all time for crying out loud. Some fans believe Parker is the best Point in the league. Manu might have lost some of his luster, but at one point he was a top 3 SG (briefly). Leonard just won the finals MVP, and their big man rotation was considerably better than Miami's. On the other side of the spectrum, Lebron is amazing, Bosh is good/great and Wade is a turd.

:confused:

Right but they actually developed and drafted their guys. It's slightly different than what Boston/LA/Miami etc... And let's not act like Duncan is in his prime right now, or Manu for that matter. That's the biggest difference. They didn't all decide to team up, they are a product of the Spurs doing their due diligence (outside of Timmy of course) in scouting/drafting/developing.

Now it doesn't matter, teams/players are free to do whatever they want. But the differences are obvious. If nothing else, the 2011/2014 finals showed you don't need multiple bonafide superstars in their prime to win the whole thing.

Hellcrooner
07-31-2014, 05:03 PM
It's not "stacked teams" being new, it's the way they're being formed. Players strategically choosing who and where they're playing, not so much actual team management forming great teams.

wilt, kareem, barkley.......among others forced trades to determinate franchises in the past.
Kobe,van de wehge, Danny Ferry , Steve francis , forced trades on draft day ( or later) to go where they wanted.

Russell and Bird became celtics with shady draft day moves by Auerbach.

and so on and on.

bucketss
07-31-2014, 05:06 PM
So for the record, you're saying that your own team is a joke because they play in the east, right?

hes a laker fan.

Hawkeye15
07-31-2014, 05:09 PM
I think it does, when at the time of coming together there was not even a big 2 comparable talent wise. Boston's big 3 were all 35+. They were out to trump the competition like ants with a sledgehammer. It didn't work out the way they predicted and hoped, but they colluded to completely annihilate the competition and "make it easy", and like Lebron said in his SI letter, he learned it wasn't that easy.

I don't think it matters how they come together. Do we penalize players for being part of teams that give them no help, but reward Magic, Bird, or Duncan for being on teams that gave them awesome players?

valade16
07-31-2014, 05:09 PM
For all this talk of "their have always been big 3's" I think people are selling this instance short.

When was the last time 3 Top 10 players in the league got together in their prime?

valade16
07-31-2014, 05:15 PM
I don't think it matters how they come together. Do we penalize players for being part of teams that give them no help, but reward Magic, Bird, or Duncan for being on teams that gave them awesome players?

In reality we do reward all those players by virtue of their better teams winning titles.

All 3 of them are top 10 best ever on the PSD list and those that have 1 or fewer titles aren't in the top 10 at all.

Like it or not, the team around you affects your legacy, a lot.

surf and turf
07-31-2014, 05:18 PM
Yeah in a way. I remember when second tier players going to a good team from a bad team was a gig deal. Now theres amazing players choosing who they play for.Could you imagine if Larry Bird decided that he didn't want to play for Boston and would only except a trade to Chicago or LA. Thats a fairy tale that would never happen,,,,then .not now. Larry Bird was responsible for the biggest turn around in NBA history until David Robinson was drafted but they made mosre moves then Boston. Bird is still credited with the biggest turn around adding just one player. And Boston waited 1 year before they got him to play. Thats called the "Larry Bird Rule' AND IS NOT ALLOWED ANYMORE ,,,and it should be. If a team wanted to Draft Tyrus Battle as a Freshman and wait till he is ready to come out before they get their hands on him it would encourage more players to stay in school longer and would prevent players from trying to choose which team they play for.

Big Zo
07-31-2014, 05:24 PM
Why do people see "Players teaming up with their friends" as something new? Did Wade and LeBron seriously invent this concept 60+ years into the NBA's existence?

Big Zo
07-31-2014, 05:35 PM
Yeah in a way. I remember when second tier players going to a good team from a bad team was a gig deal. Now theres amazing players choosing who they play for.Could you imagine if Larry Bird decided that he didn't want to play for Boston and would only except a trade to Chicago or LA. Thats a fairy tale that would never happen,,,,then .not now. Larry Bird was responsible for the biggest turn around in NBA history until David Robinson was drafted but they made mosre moves then Boston. Bird is still credited with the biggest turn around adding just one player. And Boston waited 1 year before they got him to play. Thats called the "Larry Bird Rule' AND IS NOT ALLOWED ANYMORE ,,,and it should be. If a team wanted to Draft Tyrus Battle as a Freshman and wait till he is ready to come out before they get their hands on him it would encourage more players to stay in school longer and would prevent players from trying to choose which team they play for.

Why would he have wanted to leave, tho? He was drafted by a big market team with other hall of famers. What if he had been drafted by the Clippers, or another perrenial loser? Obviously all the all-time great players would say they wouldn't have teamed up since they were already drafted by stacked teams that played in big markets.

slashsnake
07-31-2014, 05:37 PM
The NBA is getting more and more talented by the year, yet there are roughly only 4-6 teams (generously) each year that have a realistic chance at winning a title. Recent years we've seen "big 3's" formed and to me it kind of ruins the league.

Personally, I would rather see teams build through the draft and have superstar players more scattered throughout the league. It would definitely make things much more interesting. What do you guys think?

It's actually I would say a lot more spread out currently. Go back a couple decades and you were more likely to find an NBA finals with either the Celtics or Lakers than without. Bird had 4-5 HOF'ers, so did Magic, and when talking about superstars not scattered, teams like Russel's Celtics or the early 70's Knicks put the big 3 to shame.

And while Parity is fine, I'd rather not have mediocrity across the board. I like having 4-6 elite teams, rather than 20 teams playing at a level of the Hawks and T'wolves. And those teams change pretty often.



Go back 4 years. Who were your elite teams? Magic, Celtics, Cavs in the East, Lakers, Suns, Mavericks, and maybe the Nuggets in the West. Last year 1 of those power teams (8th seeded Mavs) made the playoffs. That's parity, without mediocrity all around. If you don't want the same old same old, this is the most exciting era ever for the NBA.


Go back, pick a year at random and it probably was the Celtics, the Lakers, and another team with a good run (Knicks, Bulls, Pistons, Rockets 76ers).

Kevj77
07-31-2014, 05:45 PM
It doesn't matter one bit how a team is put together. If you want to talk about the mentality of today's players compared to past generations of NBA players that is a different subject. I have zero problem with people becoming free agents then deciding their own future.

YAALREADYKNO
07-31-2014, 05:52 PM
no i personally think its cool to see stars join with each other, But i do miss how the NBA was back in the early to mid 2000's. You had the spurs and lakers who were always dominating then you would have the mavericks and kings who would step in every now and then

Hellcrooner
07-31-2014, 06:04 PM
For all this talk of "their have always been big 3's" I think people are selling this instance short.

When was the last time 3 Top 10 players in the league got together in their prime?
In 60s celtics Cousy,Russell and Jones then Hondo.


Wilt was out of prime and baylor dying esentially when they were with west.



Kareem was old when worhty came in to add with magic.


and bosh IS NOT and has never been a top 10 player.

kdspurman
07-31-2014, 06:05 PM
I don't think it matters how they come together. Do we penalize players for being part of teams that give them no help, but reward Magic, Bird, or Duncan for being on teams that gave them awesome players?

FWIW, in Duncan's case, those awesome players took time to groom into what they became. He didn't immediately come into a team that had some awesome players. He came at a time most of their guys were on their way out. Wasn't till the mid 2000's that Manu started doing his thing and TP shortly thereafter.

It's means front offices/coaching staff's need to do their job better first and foremost. It's "easier" to go out and try and sign and/or trade for marquis players rather than develop your guys internally and try and draft a gem late. And when teams strike out, they will just be bad to mediocre.

For that reason, I don't blame the players for leaving. But there should be a certain level of patience from stars/front offices. Doesn't have to be, but there should be.

valade16
07-31-2014, 06:15 PM
In 60s celtics Cousy,Russell and Jones then Hondo.


Wilt was out of prime and baylor dying esentially when they were with west.



Kareem was old when worhty came in to add with magic.


and bosh IS NOT and has never been a top 10 player.

Top 15 for Bosh then, but as you just proved, my point still stands.

With the exception of the 60's Celtics, there has never been a time when 3 players that highly thought of, were on the same team in their primes.

And look at the last team that applied to, the best player (Russell) was just voted 11th on the PSD best ever list in large part because people contribute his 10 rings to his incredible supporting cast (nevermind his 5 MVPs).

So we collectively are going to punish Russell for the exact same thing people are saying we shouldn't punish Bron for.

Can't have it both ways.

slashsnake
07-31-2014, 06:26 PM
Why would he have wanted to leave, tho? He was drafted by a big market team with other hall of famers. What if he had been drafted by the Clippers, or another perrenial loser? Obviously all the all-time great players would say they wouldn't have teamed up since they were already drafted by stacked teams that played in big markets.

Exactly. You got drafted to LA or Boston you stayed with your 4 HOF buddies. You weren't leaving there to build your own legacy of what you could do without elite talent and coaching around you. But you get picked up by the Bucks, and are an amazing player who wants rings, you go to LA like Kareem. You go join up in NY like Debusschere, Earl Monroe, and Jerry Lucas to join a stacked team with Walt Frazier, Bill Bradley and Willis Reed. Erving and Moses Malone teamed up from elsewhere to win a ring with Maurice Cheeks.

ManRam
07-31-2014, 06:28 PM
Yes. I miss the days like the 80's when there was a ton of balance and parity in the league. /s

I don't buy the lack of parity. There never has really been, nor will there ever be. Great players impact teams far more profoundly than other sports.

I don't think you can argue that the 80s had more parity. The 70s probably. Definitely not the 90s or 60s.

Super teams have always existed. The notion that they're just popping up now all because LeBron, Wade and Bosh proactively teamed up is a bit silly. They came about their "stacked" team in a different way, but that doesn't negate history's other stacked teams. Or even if it's the KG, Paul, Ray team that's the impetus for this belief....

And what "stacked" team is there this year? Or during the rest of the 2000s?

I think this upcoming season is the most exciting in quite some time. So many interesting storylines.

Goose17
07-31-2014, 06:30 PM
When was the last time 3 Top 10 players in the league got together in their prime?

Good point. Even with Miami Wade was far removed from his prime.

ManRam
07-31-2014, 06:47 PM
For all this talk of "their have always been big 3's" I think people are selling this instance short.

When was the last time 3 Top 10 players in the league got together in their prime?

Willingly "got together", maybe never. Again, it doesn't negate the fact that there have been hugely stacked teams in the past a la the Heat.

I just don't buy the notion that there's less parity today. I mean, the Heat "only" won 2 of 4. We've had 5 different champions in 7 years. That's pretty good for the NBA :shrug:

And this year things look pretty wide open too.

I think plenty of teams compare. Depending on Bosh's ratedness the Heat may or may have no had 3 of the top-10 players in a given season. I think there's only one year where it was a possibility, but Bosh never made an All-NBA team in Miami (top-15 player?). And there are tons of teams have have had two top-10 players (Wade was top-10 in 2011 and 2012 for sure) and then guys who were close. SAS compares in the late 2000s. The 86 C's compare. The 96-era Bulls compare. Mid-60s Cs. 72-era Lakers. 71 Bucks. 83 76ers. And so on. All had two clear top-10 players and some guys or a guy who was close to top-10.

NYKNYGNYY
07-31-2014, 07:02 PM
Yup

TheIlladelph16
07-31-2014, 07:05 PM
I don't buy the lack of parity. There never has really been, nor will there ever be. Great players impact teams far more profoundly than other sports.

I don't think you can argue that the 80s had more parity. The 70s probably. Definitely not the 90s or 60s.

Super teams have always existed. The notion that they're just popping up now all because LeBron, Wade and Bosh proactively teamed up is a bit silly. They came about their "stacked" team in a different way, but that doesn't negate history's other stacked teams. Or even if it's the KG, Paul, Ray team that's the impetus for this belief....

And what "stacked" team is there this year? Or during the rest of the 2000s?

I think this upcoming season is the most exciting in quite some time. So many interesting storylines.

Oh I agree with everything you said. Sarcasm is difficult to convey via text haha. This thread crops up every few months and its always people remembering things with rose colored glasses.

ManRam
07-31-2014, 07:09 PM
Oh I agree with everything you said. Sarcasm is difficult to convey via text haha. This thread crops up every few months and its always people remembering things with rose colored glasses.

You literally added "/s".

:laugh2:

I'm an idiot. But yeah, my point stands

DaBear
07-31-2014, 08:16 PM
The Spurs & the Mavs proved what you can do to beat teams structured that way. Coaching, defense, team ball, etc... Problem is, a lot of teams aren't willing to be patient enough to take that route.

I don't think it ruins the league necessarily. I just think other teams need to step up their game in terms of drafting/developing/scouting/etc...

That's easier said than done.

Hawkeye15
07-31-2014, 08:28 PM
In reality we do reward all those players by virtue of their better teams winning titles.

All 3 of them are top 10 best ever on the PSD list and those that have 1 or fewer titles aren't in the top 10 at all.

Like it or not, the team around you affects your legacy, a lot.

I don't disagree with that, I disagree with the notion that LeBron going and getting his own help should be frowned upon when comparing him to those that were lucky enough to have it given to them..

Hawkeye15
07-31-2014, 08:30 PM
FWIW, in Duncan's case, those awesome players took time to groom into what they became. He didn't immediately come into a team that had some awesome players. He came at a time most of their guys were on their way out. Wasn't till the mid 2000's that Manu started doing his thing and TP shortly thereafter.

It's means front offices/coaching staff's need to do their job better first and foremost. It's "easier" to go out and try and sign and/or trade for marquis players rather than develop your guys internally and try and draft a gem late. And when teams strike out, they will just be bad to mediocre.

For that reason, I don't blame the players for leaving. But there should be a certain level of patience from stars/front offices. Doesn't have to be, but there should be.

Duncan plays for the best run sports franchise of the major 4 sports in the last 20 years. By no means I am using that to downplay his greatness, I am simply saying he has been beyond fortunate. But so many of the greatest of the great have the same blessing.

kdspurman
07-31-2014, 08:31 PM
That's easier said than done.

For sure. It involves a ton of good things to happen. But it can be done.

kdspurman
07-31-2014, 08:39 PM
Duncan plays for the best run sports franchise of the major 4 sports in the last 20 years. By no means I am using that to downplay his greatness, I am simply saying he has been beyond fortunate. But so many of the greatest of the great have the same blessing.

He has been, & a huge part of it is the front office putting little pieces in the right places vs getting big pieces and expecting immediate success. There's a lot of patience/development involved, that was the point I was trying to hit home.

valade16
07-31-2014, 08:44 PM
Good point. Even with Miami Wade was far removed from his prime.

I'm just curious, in your revisionist history world did events like WWII and the Moonlanding happen or did you wipe those away too?

Wade had in no way fallen off when he teamed up with Bron. He was coming off 2 stellar seasons.

No one could have predicted Wade would have fallen off that hard, that fast but to act like people didn't think it was a peak Wade when the decision went down is simply a gross distortion of the truth.

valade16
07-31-2014, 08:45 PM
I don't disagree with that, I disagree with the notion that LeBron going and getting his own help should be frowned upon when comparing him to those that were lucky enough to have it given to them..

I mean, you don't have to hold it against him but shouldn't we factor in his tremendous help when determining bow impressive his titles were?

THE MTL
07-31-2014, 08:54 PM
Yes. I miss the days like the 80's when there was a ton of balance and parity in the league. /s

Guys im pretty sure he is being sarcastic. We all know in the 1980s if you werent the Lakers, Pistons, Celtics, or Sixers....you werent worth a damn

Hawkeye15
07-31-2014, 08:55 PM
I mean, you don't have to hold it against him but shouldn't we factor in his tremendous help when determining bow impressive his titles were?

we should factor it the same we do Bird, Magic, Kobe, Duncan, or any of them. Because they all had awesome help.

THE MTL
07-31-2014, 08:59 PM
The NBA is getting more and more talented by the year, yet there are roughly only 4-6 teams (generously) each year that have a realistic chance at winning a title. Recent years we've seen "big 3's" formed and to me it kind of ruins the league.

Personally, I would rather see teams build through the draft and have superstar players more scattered throughout the league. It would definitely make things much more interesting. What do you guys think?


I can tell you grew up watching basketball in the 00s probi during the worst era in the NBA besides the 60s. But you need to learn your history.

See the 1980s where basketball was at its golden age and see what 2 teams actually were in competition for a title. Im NOT going to tell you, but it was worst than it was now. You're mad about a Big 3, see some teams that had 4-5 hall of famers on the same team, then get back to me.

kobe4thewinbang
07-31-2014, 09:04 PM
No, but it's like drinking from the poisonous well. Now you have Cleveland trying to swing Kevin Love, Kyrie Irving *and* LeBron James.

Yanks All Day
07-31-2014, 09:18 PM
The NBA is 64 years old. Think about this:

Celtics: 17 titles
Lakers: 16 titles
Bulls: 6 titles

3 teams own 39 out of 64 of the championships in the history of the league. That's 61%. Even taking out Chicago, the Lakers and Celtics have 33/64 (51.5%). Basketball has never had any true parity.

Chicago (6), San Antonio (5), 76ers (3), Pistons (3), Miami (3), Warriors (3), Knicks (2), and Rockets (2) are the only teams who have won multiple titles. The Lakers, Celtics, and Bulls were some of the most stacked teams in NBA history.

"Super teams" have been around long before Miami. LeBron and company didn't do anything new or unprecedented. Basketball used to be all about a regular season, whether good or bad, that just led to Boston or Los Angeles winning it all. Throw in Chicago during the Jordan years.

If anything, Miami's Big 3 made basketball fun again. Whether you loved or hated them, you had a strong opinion. People talked about them. People watched their games. A lot of the time, the Heat were amazing to watch. If Big 3s ruined the league because of the super team advantage, then the NBA was ruined from the start. Personally, I think they did wonders for the NBA. Gotta keep up with the NFL somehow- Miami helped that.

And never use the Spurs as an example- they are always the outlier. You can't just "be" the Spurs. They're an anomaly that comes around maybe once in a lifetime. Top to bottom, San Antonio is the best run organization in sports. You can't just be the Spurs. You have to try to be the best of the rest, in terms of organizational structure.

Also, in terms of "ruining the league," I can't remember a time where there were more fun teams to watch in a long time. People want to watch San Antonio, OKC, Clippers, Rockets, Blazers, Warriors, Phoenix, Denver, New Orleans, Cleveland, Miami (still), Lakers (still), Toronto, Indiana, NYK (still), Chicago (still), and Brooklyn play ball. There are so many good teams that can put on a great show. Given, there are only a handful of true title contenders, but that's exactly how the NBA has been for its entire existence. There's plenty of talent and fun teams to watch today. I don't think the league is ruined at all.

Kevj77
07-31-2014, 09:45 PM
Duncan plays for the best run sports franchise of the major 4 sports in the last 20 years. By no means I am using that to downplay his greatness, I am simply saying he has been beyond fortunate. But so many of the greatest of the great have the same blessing.Spurs are a great organization. I think the Patriots can also claim to be close to the best run franchise in the last 20 years. They have a lot in common great coaching, player development and franchise players that are also team leaders. Duncan and Brady are much better leaders than say Kobe. When your best player is also a great locker room presence it is huge.

Another thing they have in common is both teams won championships early in their franchise players and coaches tenure. Brady won a Superbowl his first year as a starter, Duncan won a title his second year in the NBA. Having that ring already makes it a lot easier to be patient.

WillisLovechild
07-31-2014, 10:28 PM
Yes.

All this talk on ESPN chastising stars for not taking less money and allowing other stars to come play with them is ********. I like stars being spread out and creating parity in the league.

Oefarmy2005
07-31-2014, 10:33 PM
Yes, but a poll would be nice!

rex.reyesiii
07-31-2014, 10:59 PM
No.

GM and/or those in charge of getting players for their team is the Problem e.g. Billy King.

hugepatsfan
07-31-2014, 10:59 PM
its okay as long as the stars are traded for apparently and not signed via free agency. thats what i was told, so the boston big 3 was okay, but the miami big 3 ruined the nba.

The difference for me is the process that each team took to get there. How did BOS get in position to get their Big 3? The had the #5 pick in the draft to trade for Ray Allen. For KG they had Al Jefferson, a young double double big man that wasn't much older than 20. It took some basketball acumen on the part of Ainge to put that together.

How did MIA's Big 3 happen? A recruiting pitch. That's all. They had a bunch of cap space and convinced players to sign. It was about marketing the idea to Lebron/Bosh more than it was any sort of basketball acumen.

A league full of teams developing young players and looking to trade them for stars is something I can get excited about. A league full of teams hoarding cap space and trying to recruit star FAs makes for an awful product in the meantime until you get to that free agency.

Chronz
08-01-2014, 01:23 AM
The difference for me is the process that each team took to get there. How did BOS get in position to get their Big 3? The had the #5 pick in the draft to trade for Ray Allen. For KG they had Al Jefferson, a young double double big man that wasn't much older than 20. It took some basketball acumen on the part of Ainge to put that together.

How did MIA's Big 3 happen? A recruiting pitch. That's all. They had a bunch of cap space and convinced players to sign. It was about marketing the idea to Lebron/Bosh more than it was any sort of basketball acumen.

A league full of teams developing young players and looking to trade them for stars is something I can get excited about. A league full of teams hoarding cap space and trying to recruit star FAs makes for an awful product in the meantime until you get to that free agency.

It took Boston sucking and probably tanking, Miami had to wait just as long to create the necessary cap space to contend. You make it sound like tanking is more honorable that at least biding your time and remaining competitive in the process. Not to mention the backdoor maneuvering KG had to pull just to get in Boston, this after already refusing to join them.

Chronz
08-01-2014, 01:29 AM
He has been, & a huge part of it is the front office putting little pieces in the right places vs getting big pieces and expecting immediate success. There's a lot of patience/development involved, that was the point I was trying to hit home.
He was contending from day 1. He almost left San Antonio despite already being given a championship supporting cast. I wouldn't have blamed him either way, its his career to play out. I must be old school but I focus on how the player performs more than anything.

Mr.B
08-01-2014, 01:36 AM
The Spurs & the Mavs proved what you can do to beat teams structured that way. Coaching, defense, team ball, etc... Problem is, a lot of teams aren't willing to be patient enough to take that route.

I don't think it ruins the league necessarily. I just think other teams need to step up their game in terms of drafting/developing/scouting/etc...
Agreed! Stacked teams like the Heat can be beat. Spurs and Mavs proved that. In addition to patience those a team has to have stars that are willing to sacrifice parts of their game for the betterment of the team. There are not a lot of superstars in today's game that are willing to do that unfortunately.

hugepatsfan
08-01-2014, 09:28 AM
It took Boston sucking and probably tanking, Miami had to wait just as long to create the necessary cap space to contend. You make it sound like tanking is more honorable that at least biding your time and remaining competitive in the process. Not to mention the backdoor maneuvering KG had to pull just to get in Boston, this after already refusing to join them.

BOS never had the intention of tanking. They entered the 06-07 season hoping to compete for a playoff spot, like they did the year before. Then Paul Pierce and Wally Scervbiak (sp?) got hurt. Those were our 2 best players at the time. That allowed for Tony Allen to get minutes and play out of his mind amazing... before he tore his ACL. We traded a high 1st round pick for Sebastian Telfair and he busted for us. The only "tanking" we did was sit Pierce down at the end of the year rather than push him after he came back from that first injury and wasn't himself. I know the popular storyline is that we were tanking for KD/Oden and then failed but made the best of our bad luck but it really isn't true at all.

I understand what MIA had to do to put themselves in position to add their Big 3 but at the end of the day it came down to a recruiting pitch. That's what annoys me. I find it incredibly boring and disinteresting that so many teams set themselves up years in advance to make a recruiting pitch. It's annoying to me that I turn on ESPN and hear KD talking about where KD will sign in 2016. In the baseball segments I don't hear talk about where guys will sign 2 and 3 years down the road. In the football segments I don't hear about where next year's crop of FAs will end up. Not even during the slow periods for those sports do I hear that. They don't talk about hockey much but when they do it isn't about that either. For me, that's why basketball is probably the least entertaining of the 4 sports. Maybe you don't share that opinion with me but at the end of the day this thread question is pretty subjective in nature so we're all entitled to feel how we feel about things.

D-Leethal
08-01-2014, 09:34 AM
The Miami big 3 basically mocked the entire league. You guys have short memories. Wade and Bosh taking a picture with an empty chair in the middle, both with **** eating grins on their faces, tweeting it for the world to see, saying "it really feels like someone is missing from this picture". They basically were laughing at the rest of the league, than proclaimed it was all gonna be easy, yada yada yada. How can you respect that? Not to mention, these guys were in their mid ****ing 20s when they decided to collude and ring chase. Nobody does that. Name me someone else who gave up on their team, caved in the face of adversity that early in their careers to go ring chase.

D-Leethal
08-01-2014, 09:46 AM
LeBron crumbled in the face of adversity, went to "college" and joined an all star team for 4 years to win guaranteed chips so his legacy would have champion attached to it, and once he got that "out of the way", he went back to Cleveland to be where he should have been all along trying to grab that elusive championship for his hometown. Now when adversity strikes he can always say "hey at least I got those easily-had chips to rest my head on".

LeBron will always be known as one of the best to ever do it, but your trippin' if you don't think all that crap is going to be a major dent on his legacy, and people won't remember his fragile mental state and lack of warrior spirit.

D-Leethal
08-01-2014, 09:48 AM
The Boston Big 3 were all on the decline when they formed, their time in this league was coming up, they had about 3 years left of all star caliber play. They knew it was now or never and put in their decade of service. Miami big 3 were in their mid 20s. Wade a little older since he was a 22 yr old rookie.

Heatcheck
08-01-2014, 10:04 AM
I hear a lot of crying and moaning. they didn't break any rules, their contracts expired and decided to play together. the fo then put a team around them to win a franchise. none of the players boston sent Minnesota did ****, and ended up somewhere else. they might as well have not gotten anything.

the whole not3 not4 thing shows the wwf mentality in this country. they were bullshitting around on stage at a pep rally, right after he said that, LeBron said, but seriously, if we work hard and what we're supposed to we can definetly win multiple championships.

Lebron spent 7 years with a crap FO in a city that cant attract any free agents. they wasted 7 years and there was nothing indicating they wouldn't waste his prime, and he left. so he didn't go to your team, cry me a river. and he didn't go to another crappy situation to validate this ******** idea you have that one superstar with his trusty sidekicks (which has happened twice in 34 years, and only because Jordan retired) is suppose to win the championship, wah wah wah.

D-Leethal
08-01-2014, 10:09 AM
I hear a lot of crying and moaning. they didn't break any rules, their contracts expired and decided to play together. the fo then put a team around them to win a franchise. none of the players boston sent Minnesota did ****, and ended up somewhere else. they might as well have not gotten anything.

the whole not3 not4 thing shows the wwf mentality in this country. they were bullshitting around on stage at a pep rally, right after he said that, LeBron said, but seriously, if we work hard and what we're supposed to we can definetly win multiple championships.

Lebron spent 7 years with a crap FO in a city that cant attract any free agents. they wasted 7 years and there was nothing indicating they wouldn't waste his prime, and he left. so he didn't go to your team, cry me a river. and he didn't go to another crappy situation to validate this ******** idea you have that one superstar with his trusty sidekicks (which has happened twice in 34 years, and only because Jordan retired) is suppose to win the championship, wah wah wah.

They set out to make a mockery of the NBA and completely demolish the competition. They wanted to show "THIS is how much better we are than all of you". They were mocking the competition before they even stepped foot on the floor. And it wasn't only during the pep rally. It backfired. Dirk humbled them.

mightybosstone
08-01-2014, 10:11 AM
Someone posted earlier about parity in the 80s, which is totally ridiculous, and it got me thinking. How much parity have we have actually had in this league since the 80s. I would actually argue that we've had more parity in the league in terms of champions over the last 9 years than at any other point since the 80s. Look at these stretches:

80-88: 3 teams won 9 titles (Lakers-5, Celtics-3, Sixers-1)
89-98: 3 teams won 11 titles (Bulls-6, Rockets-2, Pistons-2)
99-05: 3 teams won 7 titles (Spurs-3, Lakers-3, Pistons-1)
06-14: 5 teams won 9 titles (Heat-3, Spurs-2, Lakers-2, Celtics-1, Mavs-1)

And the crazy thing is that FEWER stacked teams have won an NBA titles in that 9-year stretch than any of the previous stretches of basketball. Let's look at the "stacked" teams that have won titles since the 80s:

80s Lakers: Magic, Kareem, Worthy
80s Celtics: Bird, McHale, Parrish
80s-90s Pistons: Thomas, Dumars, Dantley (in 89)
90s Bulls: Jordan, Pippen
95 Rockets: Olajuwon, Drexler
99 Spurs: Duncan, Robinson
00-03 Lakers: Shaq, Kobe
05, 07 Spurs: Duncan, Parker, Manu
06 Heat: Wade, Shaq
08 Celtics: KG, Pierce, Allen
09-10 Lakers: Kobe, Pau
12-13 Heat: Lebron, Wade, Bosh

Now let's take a look at the teams few people could argue as being "stacked":
94 Rockets: Hakeem with role players
03 Spurs: Duncan with role players before Manu, Parker became studs
04 Pistons: Epitome of a balanced team, only two real All-Stars on the roster, but great starting five, no "stars"
11 Mavs: Dirk with role players
14 Spurs: Arguably stacked, but Duncan, Manu well past their prime, no real "stars" on the roster except for arguably Parker

So essentially in the last 35 years of NBA basketball, 30 teams have won a championship with 2-3 stars on the roster that are unquestionable Hall of Fame players playing in their prime. Of the five I just mentioned that arguably were the least "stacked" teams in terms of sheer star power, two won titles in the last four years and four won titles in the last 12 years.

You could argue (and I would) that this era of NBA baskeball we live in now has as much parity as any era of basketball we've seen in the last 35 years. Just look at the Western Conference where a 48-win team did not make the playoffs last year and nearly every single postseason team has at least two All-Star caliber players in their prime and at least one future guaranteed Hall of Famer. And every single first round matchup in that postseason was insanely close in the West last year.

So do I think it's "ruining" the league? No. Not remotely.

hugepatsfan
08-01-2014, 10:15 AM
They set out to make a mockery of the NBA and completely demolish the competition. They wanted to show "THIS is how much better we are than all of you". They were mocking the competition before they even stepped foot on the floor. And it wasn't only during the pep rally. It backfired. Dirk humbled them.

This is laughably dramatic.

Heatcheck
08-01-2014, 10:23 AM
They set out to make a mockery of the NBA and completely demolish the competition. They wanted to show "THIS is how much better we are than all of you". They were mocking the competition before they even stepped foot on the floor. And it wasn't only during the pep rally. It backfired. Dirk humbled them.

the pep rally was just an example I used to demonstrate how melodramatic people are being, e.g. "making a mockery of the nba".

How that picture was mocking the competition before they stepped on the floor is beyond me. it think your mad because you think they knew where they were going all along. why is beyond me.

and Dirk didn't humble shite. from what I recall JJ Barea and Jason Terry had the series of their life, Dirk took a **** load of free throws. and a team, who themselves said they didn't expect to make it to the finals in the first year because it takes time to build a roster, had to play a finals with a mike bibby (statistically the worst performance by a starting pg in finals history, and nonexistent defensively) and erik dampier who couldn't jump over a credit card at that point in his career. Dallas was a much better, and complete team that year, sorta like the Spurs this last year.

Wade had a better series than Dirk

JasonJohnHorn
08-01-2014, 10:31 AM
I'm not sure how one defines a 'stacked' team.

To mean the teams that were 'stacked' are teams like the 92 Suns, the 04 Lakers, and the 13 Lakers. Big names, multiple All-Stars and often NO chemistry.



Since the last time Magic won a ring, the league has seldom seen a team with more than two current All-Stars win a title.

89- Pistons
90-------------- Pistons had three All-Stars
91- Bulls
92- Bulls
93- Bulls
94- Rockets
95- Rockets
96- Bulls
97- Bulls
98- Bulls
99- Spurs
00- Lakers
01- Lakers
02- Lakers
03- Spurs
04- Pistons
05- Spurs
06- Heat
07- Spurs
08---------------- Celtics had 3 All-Stars
09- Lakers
10- Lakers
11- Mavericks
12----------------Heat had three All Stars
13----------------Heat had three All Stars
14- Spurs



These teams, with only three exceptions since 1989 (the Pistons in 1990, the Celtics on 08 and the Heat in 12 and 13), only had one or two CURRENT All Stars.


Teams like the 98 Lakers, that had FOUR All-Stars, don't frequently win. In fact, they were SWEPT out of the playoffs by a team with two AGING All-Star and a center named Greg Ostertag.

The most consistent teams over the last 15 years have been the Mavs and the Spurs, who have combined for 6 championships, 8 finals appearances and pretty much every South-West division title since Duncan and Dirk came into the league.


As for 'big threes', the Mikan Lakers and Russell Celtics had more than three HOFers on their teams, as did the 76ers, Lakers and Celtics of the 80's.

Teams that build through the draft, make shrewd free agent signings, and good trades are going to do better than team that dump salaries, create cap space and sign hired guns.


We saw the Heat lose twice in four years, and ALMOST lose to BOTH the Pacers AND the Spurs last year.

Teams need depth to win, and the only way to create that is by building through the draft and making shrewd free agent signings.

If you invest your entire cap in three players, you are going to have a VERY hard time filling out the other two starting spots and the bench. The Heat got lucky that they had some ring chasers take a discount and some players who got amnestied take less because they were already getting paid, but there were still enough holes in the roster that the when they got to the finals this year they got embarrassed.

But this 'team-ball' is actually a move away from where the league was. In the 80's, every team that won from 1980-88 had three all stars or more (Lakers, Celtics and 76ers).

This isn't 'ruining' the league. What the Heat pulled off was an anomaly, but that said, teams are always trying to load up on talent. It's how the league works. It's just a great coach and GM will work together to build a team with chemistry rather than a team with big names.


Who do you think would win: between the following teams:


TEAM A
PG: John Stockton
SG: Ray Allen
SF: Scottie Pippen
PF: Tim Duncan
C: Joakim Noah

or

TEAM B
PG: Allen Iverson
SG: Kobe Bryant
SF: Elgin Baylor
PF: Charles Barkley
C: Wilt Chamberlain


If you went on a player-by-player comparison, most people would pick three or four guys from team B over the corresponding player from Team A, but as a team, which do you think would honestly perform better?

D-Leethal
08-01-2014, 10:35 AM
the pep rally was just an example I used to demonstrate how melodramatic people are being, e.g. "making a mockery of the nba".

How that picture was mocking the competition before they stepped on the floor is beyond me. it think your mad because you think they knew where they were going all along. why is beyond me.

and Dirk didn't humble shite. from what I recall JJ Barea and Jason Terry had the series of their life, Dirk took a **** load of free throws. and a team, who themselves said they didn't expect to make it to the finals in the first year because it takes time to build a roster, had to play a finals with a mike bibby (statistically the worst performance by a starting pg in finals history, and nonexistent defensively) and erik dampier who couldn't jump over a credit card at that point in his career. Dallas was a much better, and complete team that year, sorta like the Spurs this last year.

Wade had a better series than Dirk

It wasn't the fact that they came together, it was the arrogance and the mockery that made them despised.

KG, Pierce and Allen were thankful and humble when they came together after the 10+ years of service they had already put into the league, knowing this was their best and only shot. LeBron, Bosh and Wade acted as if they would have championships handed to them on a silver platter for the next decade.

And come on, they knew the ****ing pep rally was going to be televised. They 1) shouldn't have had a ****ing pep rally in the first place before ever playing a game (we can blame the organization and Pat the Rat for that). 2) They shouldn't have mocked the entire league knowing it would be all over ESPN. That was more than a pep rally for the fans once they knew it would be televised.

Heatcheck
08-01-2014, 10:48 AM
It wasn't the fact that they came together, it was the arrogance and the mockery that made them despised.

KG, Pierce and Allen were thankful and humble when they came together after the 10+ years of service they had already put into the league, knowing this was their best and only shot. LeBron, Bosh and Wade acted as if they would have championships handed to them on a silver platter for the next decade.

And come on, they knew the ****ing pep rally was going to be televised. They 1) shouldn't have had a ****ing pep rally in the first place before ever playing a game (we can blame the organization and Pat the Rat for that). 2) They shouldn't have mocked the entire league knowing it would be all over ESPN. That was more than a pep rally for the fans once they knew it would be televised.

If you look on the top right hand corner of the screen, it said heattv. it was meant to be on foxsports, the local channel for the heat. It was televised because after game six of the cavs-celtics series, this obsession about where Lebron was going began, that engulfed all things sports. companies do research on what people are interested and want to watch, and when you consider the only thing being discussed on internet forums, radio shows, the ridiculous amount of internet searches that related to where he was going, and the ratings of segments on espn where they discussed his potential move, you can understand why espn paid for rights to show it nationally. they basically gave the people what they wanted.

again you sound like a Wrestling fan, and im not trying to rag on you. you sound real dramatic and over the top. LeBron and wade and bosh for that matter have always sounded humble and been a team guys who take responsibility and spread credit in all interviews, and ive met them in public and are cool as ***, unlike other "celebrities" I know of with half the fame, money, or success. ive seen it for four years, so when someone tells me they are huge dbags because of that one month, I cant help but think they are just mad. mad they went to Miami and not their team.

Confusious
08-01-2014, 10:55 AM
When you think about it, the league hasn't been too competitive throughout its history. Cough cough Boston LA.

D-Leethal
08-01-2014, 10:59 AM
If you look on the top right hand corner of the screen, it said heattv. it was meant to be on foxsports, the local channel for the heat. It was televised because after game six of the cavs-celtics series, this obsession about where Lebron was going began, that engulfed all things sports. companies do research on what people are interested and want to watch, and when you consider the only thing being discussed on internet forums, radio shows, the ridiculous amount of internet searches that related to where he was going, and the ratings of segments on espn where they discussed his potential move, you can understand why espn paid for rights to show it nationally. they basically gave the people what they wanted.

again you sound like a Wrestling fan, and im not trying to rag on you. you sound real dramatic and over the top. LeBron and wade and bosh for that matter have always sounded humble and been a team guys who take responsibility and spread credit in all interviews, and ive met them in public and are cool as ***, unlike other "celebrities" I know of with half the fame, money, or success. ive seen it for four years, so when someone tells me they are huge dbags because of that one month, I cant help but think they are just mad. mad they went to Miami and not their team.

LeBron threw his teammates under the bus in Cleveland and did it again this year in Miami.

Humble and LeBron/DWade do not belong in the same sentence.

I am not "mad" at anyone but the apologists who claim this was something ordinary that happens all the time.

D-Leethal
08-01-2014, 10:59 AM
And I haven't watched fake fighting since I was six years old. If anything was pro-wrestling esque it was the pre-game championship parade that was held where the competition that was to be faced in upcoming years was insulted and mocked as nothing but speedbumps in the way to "easy" titles.

mightybosstone
08-01-2014, 11:03 AM
I'm not sure how one defines a 'stacked' team. To mean the teams that were 'stacked' are teams like the 92 Suns, the 04 Lakers, and the 13 Lakers. Big names, multiple All-Stars and often NO chemistry.
This is true and a good point. Some stacked teams just do not fit as well in reality as they do on paper. And just because you get the talent doesn't mean you're going to be successful.


Since the last time Magic won a ring, the league has seldom seen a team with more than two current All-Stars win a title. These teams, with only three exceptions since 1989 (the Pistons in 1990, the Celtics on 08 and the Heat in 12 and 13), only had one or two CURRENT All Stars.
Eh.... I don't really like this as a criteria to prove your point, because it's pretty damn hard for a team to have three All-Star players on the same roster. And players who would normally be All-Stars on one roster would have seriously diminished roles playing with two other stars. Also, duos like MJ and Pippen or Shaq and Kobe should hold more weight than a trio of Thomas, Dumars and Rodman.

Also, the All-Star game is totally subjective and doesn't take into consideration All-Star caliber players who had great seasons but just didn't make the team that year. For example, Manu was an All-Star in the 05 season, but Parker was an All-Star in 07. Both guys were worthy both years, but they made the teams in different seasons, so the 05 and 07 Spurs don't qualify for your list.


The most consistent teams over the last 15 years have been the Mavs and the Spurs, who have combined for 6 championships, 8 finals appearances and pretty much every South-West division title since Duncan and Dirk came into the league.
I get your point here, but I think you're only telling one side of the story. Because the Lakers have as many titles during that stretch as anyone and the Heat won three rings with a combination of drafting, signings and trades.


Teams that build through the draft, make shrewd free agent signings, and good trades are going to do better than team that dump salaries, create cap space and sign hired guns.
This isn't necessarily true at all. You're being really, really one-sided in your perspective. If anything, teams have shown that you almost have to do BOTH to be successful. The Spurs were great the last couple of years, but there is plenty of talent on that team they didn't draft. And looking at your Mavs example is kind of a poor one. They were "consistent" in that they never won a title until '11. What did they do differently that season? They acquired Tyson Chandler, which helped get them over the edge.

The bottom line is that you can't win a title without doing a little bit of both. Miami signed Bosh and Lebron, but they don't create that big three if they hadn't drafted Wade. Boston acquired Allen and Garnett, but those guys don't become Celtics if Pierce isn't there.


If you invest your entire cap in three players, you are going to have a VERY hard time filling out the other two starting spots and the bench. The Heat got lucky that they had some ring chasers take a discount and some players who got amnestied take less because they were already getting paid, but there were still enough holes in the roster that the when they got to the finals this year they got embarrassed.
I don't necessarily think Miami lost this season because they lacked depth. I think they lost because NOBODY aside from Lebron stepped up. It was supposed to be a big three, but in the Finals it felt like a big one and role players. Wade and Bosh just completely underperformed in that series with San Antonio. That's not a depth issue. It's a sucking issue.


Who do you think would win: between the following teams:

TEAM A
PG: John Stockton
SG: Ray Allen
SF: Scottie Pippen
PF: Tim Duncan
C: Joakim Noah

or

TEAM B
PG: Allen Iverson
SG: Kobe Bryant
SF: Elgin Baylor
PF: Charles Barkley
C: Wilt Chamberlain

If you went on a player-by-player comparison, most people would pick three or four guys from team B over the corresponding player from Team A, but as a team, which do you think would honestly perform better?
What does this have to do with anything? After all your talk about All-Stars, you essentially put together two starting fives of only All-Stars. I get what point you're trying to make, but I fail to see how these two teams help you make that point. A better argument would be to just focus on how the 04 Pistons, 11 Mavs and 14 Spurs beat teams with superior top end talent by having more balanced, home-grown rosters.

NYCkid12
08-01-2014, 11:22 AM
....... Name me someone else who gave up on their team, caved in the face of adversity that early in their careers to go ring chase.

Carmelo Anthony ??

He forced his way to the Knicks after Stat signed there and then the plan was for CP3 to follow....there was this talk of them being at Chris Paul's wedding and talking about playing together etc......

Just because his plan failed, doesn't mean he wasn't trying to do the same thing lol

omdigga
08-01-2014, 11:51 AM
i dont think it ruined the league... if anything it made offseason free agent signings alot more exciting.

JasonJohnHorn
08-01-2014, 11:58 AM
What does this have to do with anything? After all your talk about All-Stars, you essentially put together two starting fives of only All-Stars. I get what point you're trying to make, but I fail to see how these two teams help you make that point. A better argument would be to just focus on how the 04 Pistons, 11 Mavs and 14 Spurs beat teams with superior top end talent by having more balanced, home-grown rosters.

The point is that just because one team has the bigger 'names' doesn't mean they have better chemistry.

Heatcheck
08-01-2014, 11:59 AM
LeBron threw his teammates under the bus in Cleveland and did it again this year in Miami.

Humble and LeBron/DWade do not belong in the same sentence.

I am not "mad" at anyone but the apologists who claim this was something ordinary that happens all the time.

I didn't say you watched it, I said you act like some of those grown men who get emotional about staged fighting.

you can claim your not mad all you want, but your being incredibly over dramatic about something, that doesn't happen all the time, but isn't that serious.

and he didn't throw his teammates under the bus any where. he carried a bunch of scrubs to multiple 60 win seasons and a finals appearance. and now he decided to go back home, and play where he grew up again. theres no such thing as an easy title, in any sport.

ManRam
08-01-2014, 12:00 PM
Carmelo Anthony ??

He forced his way to the Knicks after Stat signed there and then the plan was for CP3 to follow....there was this talk of them being at Chris Paul's wedding and talking about playing together etc......

Just because his plan failed, doesn't mean he wasn't trying to do the same thing lol

I'm with hpf, D-Leethal is being hugely dramatic. What LeBron did at least to some extent was certainly unprecedented. He just pulled it off better than others before him...and at the very least he is FAR from the first player to "give up" on his team after 7 years. That's just preposterous.

In addition to Melo, these guys "gave up on their teams" and while "ring chasing" is hard to define, they all certainly left because they weren't winning and/or thought they'd have a better chance where they signed or forced themselves too.

Deron Williams
Dwight Howard
Carmelo Anthony
Chris Paul (essentially)
Kevin Love (soon)
Chris Bosh
Vince (allegedly)
Shaq
Hill and T-Mac wanted a Big Three with Duncan when they signed with Orlando
So on and so on...

He didn't force his way out. He just left in free agency, which is his right, and which is something thousands and thousands of players have done before. The leaving shouldn't be the problem. If you blame him for "giving up" that's fine. It's silly, but fine. Have a problem with the "team up" I guess, but hey, props to him for (more or less) pulling it off. Others have tried, few have succeeded.

D-Leethal
08-01-2014, 12:01 PM
Carmelo Anthony ??

He forced his way to the Knicks after Stat signed there and then the plan was for CP3 to follow....there was this talk of them being at Chris Paul's wedding and talking about playing together etc......

Just because his plan failed, doesn't mean he wasn't trying to do the same thing lol

That is highly debatable, I think Melo left a better team to go to a worse one to expand his brand more than anything (which he has done a damn good job at thus far). It would have taken a million different strings to be pulled to get CP3 to NYC. It might have been in the back of his mind but I would hardly call it "ring chasing" leaving a perennial 55 win team to go to a below .500 team.

Either way, if the plan was to "try" and lure CP3 to NYC, it was in direct retaliation to the precedent that was set and is now rampant around the league. Don't sign extensions, line up FA with your buddies and form a super team.

Chronz
08-01-2014, 12:12 PM
BOS never had the intention of tanking. They entered the 06-07 season hoping to compete for a playoff spot, like they did the year before. Then Paul Pierce and Wally Scervbiak (sp?) got hurt. Those were our 2 best players at the time. That allowed for Tony Allen to get minutes and play out of his mind amazing... before he tore his ACL. We traded a high 1st round pick for Sebastian Telfair and he busted for us. The only "tanking" we did was sit Pierce down at the end of the year rather than push him after he came back from that first injury and wasn't himself. I know the popular storyline is that we were tanking for KD/Oden and then failed but made the best of our bad luck but it really isn't true at all.
Sitting a star out when hes cleared to play is tanking IMO.


I understand what MIA had to do to put themselves in position to add their Big 3 but at the end of the day it came down to a recruiting pitch.
LOL, BOTH came down to a recruiting pitch, or are we going to forget KG rejecting going to Boston the first time around, only to agree once they added Ray Allen. The only difference is that at least Miami's Big3 had the decency to wait until they were actually free agents.


That's what annoys me. I find it incredibly boring and disinteresting that so many teams set themselves up years in advance to make a recruiting pitch. It's annoying to me that I turn on ESPN and hear KD talking about where KD will sign in 2016. In the baseball segments I don't hear talk about where guys will sign 2 and 3 years down the road. In the football segments I don't hear about where next year's crop of FAs will end up. Not even during the slow periods for those sports do I hear that. They don't talk about hockey much but when they do it isn't about that either. For me, that's why basketball is probably the least entertaining of the 4 sports. Maybe you don't share that opinion with me but at the end of the day this thread question is pretty subjective in nature so we're all entitled to feel how we feel about things.
Bill Simmons harped on this, Basketball is becoming a full year round sport and these off the court antics always raise interest. With players becoming free agents alot sooner, it will continue. Hell you already have some talking about where Brons going next year.

NYCkid12
08-01-2014, 12:13 PM
That is highly debatable, I think Melo left a better team to go to a worse one to expand his brand more than anything (which he has done a damn good job at thus far). It would have taken a million different strings to be pulled to get CP3 to NYC. It might have been in the back of his mind but I would hardly call it "ring chasing" leaving a perennial 55 win team to go to a below .500 team.

Either way, if the plan was to "try" and lure CP3 to NYC, it was in direct retaliation to the precedent that was set and is now rampant around the league. Don't sign extensions, line up FA with your buddies and form a super team.

It literally would of taken them letting Billups contract play out, instead of amnestying him and signing Chandler. After Billups contract expired, they'd have the cap room and CP3 would of been a free agent.

Anyways, I actually think this makes the league more exciting in my opinion. The off-seasons have been a lot of fun with the speculation of where guys will end up and whether you love/hate the Heat, they were good for the league in the sense that when they were on or playing in the playoffs, you were watching either to see them fail or succeed.

If you don't like the way the team was formed, I can understand where you're coming from (I don't agree with you, but understand it) but to say it has ruined the league is way off base in my opinion. For as long as the NBA has been around there only 5-6 (being generous) teams that could win a title, and it's no different now, so I don't get your point.

Chronz
08-01-2014, 12:17 PM
LeBron crumbled in the face of adversity, went to "college" and joined an all star team for 4 years to win guaranteed chips so his legacy would have champion attached to it, and once he got that "out of the way", he went back to Cleveland to be where he should have been all along trying to grab that elusive championship for his hometown. Now when adversity strikes he can always say "hey at least I got those easily-had chips to rest my head on".
Why so extreme? He definitely didn't have it easy and definitely didn't have an All-Star team unless you just focus on the names on the back of the jersey instead of their actual performance.


LeBron will always be known as one of the best to ever do it, but your trippin' if you don't think all that crap is going to be a major dent on his legacy, and people won't remember his fragile mental state and lack of warrior spirit.

Wouldn't prevent people from looking back on those rings and putting his performance in rare air. You dont know what the alternative would have been, neither of us does, but I would disagree that staying in Cleveland those 4 years would have helped his legacy more than actually winning in dominant fashion with Miami.



The Miami big 3 basically mocked the entire league. You guys have short memories. Wade and Bosh taking a picture with an empty chair in the middle, both with **** eating grins on their faces, tweeting it for the world to see, saying "it really feels like someone is missing from this picture". They basically were laughing at the rest of the league, than proclaimed it was all gonna be easy, yada yada yada. How can you respect that? Not to mention, these guys were in their mid ****ing 20s when they decided to collude and ring chase. Nobody does that. Name me someone else who gave up on their team, caved in the face of adversity that early in their careers to go ring chase.

Sounds like harmless fun, they also talked about all the hard work it would take to win and then again to repeat, yadda yadda yadda.

Wade was nearing his 30's and Bron didn't want to make the same mistake KG and other greats did, in waiting too long to force the issue.

Chronz
08-01-2014, 12:23 PM
They set out to make a mockery of the NBA and completely demolish the competition. They wanted to show "THIS is how much better we are than all of you". They were mocking the competition before they even stepped foot on the floor. And it wasn't only during the pep rally. It backfired. Dirk humbled them.

As they should. Without that mindset we never get that historic winning streak and flashes of peak Bulls dominance, sadly Wade's inconsistent health never allowed that sort of meshing.

mightybosstone
08-01-2014, 12:24 PM
The point is that just because one team has the bigger 'names' doesn't mean they have better chemistry.

Tim Duncan, John Stockton and Scottie Pippen are some pretty big names. That's arguably three of the top 25 players in the history of the NBA. And Allen is certainly in that top 50 all-time discussion.

Chronz
08-01-2014, 12:25 PM
LeBron threw his teammates under the bus in Cleveland and did it again this year in Miami.

Humble and LeBron/DWade do not belong in the same sentence.

I am not "mad" at anyone but the apologists who claim this was something ordinary that happens all the time.
Its not exactly rare either. I have no idea what you're alluding to here but Im almost certain your favorite wrestlers errr NBA players have gone through it before.

Chronz
08-01-2014, 12:31 PM
That is highly debatable, I think Melo left a better team to go to a worse one to expand his brand more than anything (which he has done a damn good job at thus far). It would have taken a million different strings to be pulled to get CP3 to NYC. It might have been in the back of his mind but I would hardly call it "ring chasing" leaving a perennial 55 win team to go to a below .500 team.

Either way, if the plan was to "try" and lure CP3 to NYC, it was in direct retaliation to the precedent that was set and is now rampant around the league. Don't sign extensions, line up FA with your buddies and form a super team.

Is it more honorable to not prioritize winning? And its not as new as you think, Grant Hill and Tmac almost convinced Duncan to come to Orlando. The only reason it feels new is because this kind of free agency hasn't been around very long. It was much harder to force your way out in the olden days. Thank you Big O for changing the game.

YAALREADYKNO
08-01-2014, 03:36 PM
no, i actually think its kinda cool to see stars join up and play together But i do miss how the NBA was back in the early to mid 2000's. You had the spurs and lakers that were straight up dominating the west then you would have the kings and mavericks who would step in every now and then

Vee-Rex
08-01-2014, 04:12 PM
I think it can ruin the NBA if players are collaborating.

If you look at the past 50 years you'll see a great number of stacked teams. Celtics, Lakers, Pistons, Bulls, etc...

People don't hate those situations because those occurred naturally; management and front office that trade and/or develop draft picks.

However, people hated the Heat because they collaborated. They signed contracts that allowed them to become free agents the same year and then each took less money to be able to play together. That, IMO, hurts the integrity of the game. It's manipulation of the system. Where do you draw the line?

Would people be ok with Dwight Howard, Kevin Durant, Lebron James, Chris Paul, Blake Griffin, James Harden, and Kobe Bryant all signing contracts that end in the same year, then signing 2 million per year contracts to join up with the Lakers? Of course that would never happen, but it's the principal and that's why people disliked the construction of the Heat in 2010. You have to draw the line at that kind of manipulation, otherwise the league suffers.

So personally I'm ok with stars somehow lining up together through free agency or trades, but I don't think it's good for the league when they decide to do it through taking less money and pre-meditated contract lengths.

Heatcheck
08-01-2014, 04:19 PM
I think it can ruin the NBA if players are collaborating.

If you look at the past 50 years you'll see a great number of stacked teams. Celtics, Lakers, Pistons, Bulls, etc...

People don't hate those situations because those occurred naturally; management and front office that trade and/or develop draft picks.

However, people hated the Heat because they collaborated. They signed contracts that allowed them to become free agents the same year and then each took less money to be able to play together. That, IMO, hurts the integrity of the game. It's manipulation of the system. Where do you draw the line?

Would people be ok with Dwight Howard, Kevin Durant, Lebron James, Chris Paul, Blake Griffin, James Harden, and Kobe Bryant all signing contracts that end in the same year, then signing 2 million per year contracts to join up with the Lakers? Of course that would never happen, but it's the principal and that's why people disliked the construction of the Heat in 2010. You have to draw the line at that kind of manipulation, otherwise the league suffers.

So personally I'm ok with stars somehow lining up together through free agency or trades, but I don't think it's good for the league when they decide to do it through taking less money and pre-meditated contract lengths.

where do you draw the line? you draw the line at the rules. that's their purpose, to draw the line. everything is legal unless its made illegal. teams trade expiring contracts, the receiving team doesn't really want the player, and they aren't making the trade in the spirit of winning more games like they should, but its done.

and btw, that scenario of yours is a terrible comparison. those eight guys at 2 mil is different than 3 guys at 18-20 mil with a 65 mil cap. if it was like that, the heat would've signed MUCH better and younger players. its a matter of "my team didn't do it, so **** those guys".

Goose17
08-01-2014, 05:04 PM
For years people thought players should take less money to help the team. Now players are taking less money to help the team (Miami-Big 3) and people are saying they shouldn't take less money, they should take the max and stick to the team they were on and continue to lose for another decade.

Make up your mind.

Next time a guy like Hayward signs a max deal, I don't want to see any of you complaining or questioning it... or would you rather see him sign for the minimum in Cleveland to help them?

JEDean89
08-01-2014, 05:41 PM
Nope, in fact it provided an opportunity for smaller market teams to reach contender status. Who were the best teams in the league? SAS, MIA, OKC, LAC, PORT, IND, Memph... Notice a trend amongst those teams? Whats that? Only LA and MIA can actually be considered large markets (MIA itself isn't but when most of FL watches you it is a huge market), why's that? Mainly because in the attempt to make a big 3, LAL, NYK, BKLYN all overpaid players to try and recreate what MIA did and they all failed, why? Because there were only 1 set of Wade's, LBJ's and Bosh's. Melo and Amare were poor mans versions of these players, Same with JJ, DWill, Nash, Gasol etc... The point is that not only did the Heat lock the East down for 4 years straight, they also took out their main competitors who couldn't recreate what they did.

The era of the big 3 was short lived, I believe the Rockets will ultimately fail at their attempt and with teams like the Suns, Spurs, Mavs, Nuggs (homer pick to have HCA in the west), Raptors, Grizz all focusing on team ball (Not one of those teams have a max player) I believe the league will shift. This is a league of copycats, the Spurs proved that not only were they the best team in the league last year, but they were a quantum leap over the leagues next best (the thunder, not the heat). If a big 3 of prime LBJ, a healthy and capable Bosh and Wade can't even sniff a team where the highest contract was 12 mil a year, what Big 3 can?

Hangin n Wangin
08-01-2014, 06:14 PM
Yes. The NBA is now a clown fest. It has turned into the WWF, and Lebron is Shane McMahon.

SILVER SEAVER
08-01-2014, 07:23 PM
I used to believe that it did but it's not like the perennial cellar teams or middle of the road franchises even if they have a superstar talent are ever able to keep them longer because they either cant' afford to keep them or the player doesn't want to waste anymore years of their career in a dead end zone. Players talk more to each other and are more fiends with other players while their careers are still going so that open line of communication leads players to talk more about getting together and forming these super teams. If you can make it work more power to you. After all, in the end isn't it about winning a championship that drives most of these players to want to play together? And I said MOST....not all players.

valade16
08-01-2014, 07:55 PM
Is it more honorable to not prioritize winning? And its not as new as you think, Grant Hill and Tmac almost convinced Duncan to come to Orlando. The only reason it feels new is because this kind of free agency hasn't been around very long. It was much harder to force your way out in the olden days. Thank you Big O for changing the game.

Orlando only had money to sign 2 of them. They hosted Duncan and Hill and only when Duncan said he was staying a Spur did they offer McGrady his max contract.

kdspurman
08-01-2014, 08:16 PM
Orlando only had money to sign 2 of them. They hosted Duncan and Hill and only when Duncan said he was staying a Spur did they offer McGrady his max contract.

I'm pretty sure they had enough for all 3. Just at a lesser salary.

http://m.deseretnews.com/article/770074/Magic-eye-Hill-Duncan-AND-McGrady.html?pg=all&ref=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F%3Fref%3Dhttps% 3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F

valade16
08-01-2014, 09:35 PM
I'm pretty sure they had enough for all 3. Just at a lesser salary.

http://m.deseretnews.com/article/770074/Magic-eye-Hill-Duncan-AND-McGrady.html?pg=all&ref=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F%3Fref%3Dhttps% 3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F

Damn, looks like I'm wrong.

That would have been scary (well assuming Hill didn't break down).

jmartin80
08-01-2014, 10:05 PM
I think right now, it is more Lebron then a big 3. He has wanted the crown since the beginning. Referred to himself as the King, took it, wanted to be Jordan (took 23) and brought all this on himself. He jumps around just to win championships to take the easier road and then takes it back to Cleveland and demands Love. Blah. Dumb.

If anything, Lebron has ruined the NBA more than stacked teams. That is my opinion. It is sad when someone with that much talent and the ability to raise the NBA standards constantly takes the easy way out and makes the NBA and playoffs more boring.

JustinTime
08-01-2014, 10:09 PM
Yes it has and it's all thanks to that p*ssy Lebron. Lebron is responsible for the player-Gm superteams trend and also the spoiled 16-year old girl trend in NBA players. Lebron is the worst thing to ever happen to the NBA, go back and watch games before Lebron and tell me it wasn't better back then.

NBA_Starter
08-01-2014, 10:22 PM
I was going to say look at the Spurs but even they have a Big 3.

SILVER SEAVER
08-01-2014, 10:24 PM
I think right now, it is more Lebron then a big 3. He has wanted the crown since the beginning. Referred to himself as the King, took it, wanted to be Jordan (took 23) and brought all this on himself. He jumps around just to win championships to take the easier road and then takes it back to Cleveland and demands Love. Blah. Dumb.

If anything, Lebron has ruined the NBA more than stacked teams. That is my opinion. It is sad when someone with that much talent and the ability to raise the NBA standards constantly takes the easy way out and makes the NBA and playoffs more boring.

There are a few superstar players who won't take that easier road and they are Kobe, Duncan and Rose just to name three. They want to stay with their original time and don't do any heavy recruiting to even have players go to their locations. Dying breed. Sure Rose wanted Gasol and Love but he didn't do much for Melo other than just appear at the United Center only because he was probably asked to be there. He is one of those who doesn't believe in recruiting or jumping ship. It's LeBron's prerogative to go to Miami and back to Cleveland with a more talented squad but if he ever wants to be in that rare air with Michael Jordan that went out the window when he lost three finals (two of them his team was dominated) and when he left Cleveland and now Miami. He can be mentioned in the conversation as one of the best all-time but never thee best. IMO the Mount Rushmore of the NBA is Jordan, Magic, Bird and Kareem.

Munkeysuit
08-01-2014, 10:43 PM
At the end of the day, these grown men get payed to play a child's game...Let's not look into "stacked" teams as the one dynamic that forces the balance of power to shift, let's look at this from a competitive/ competitors standpoint. It would definitely be more gratifying (as a competitor) to beat a stacked team, so with that in mind, I'd definitely try harder to be better or find ways to beat them, they'd bring out the best in me.
Its all in the way you look at it, I mean these stacked teams are spending money to acquire players that can perform at a high enough level to help them win...bottom line! is that so wrong? I mean who is to really say that there is a general floor plan to winning? especially in the NBA, I mean there have been so much different styles of coaching philosophies that have been successful, and I am willing to bet that they all were developed from men that were just tired of losing.

kdspurman
08-01-2014, 11:19 PM
Damn, looks like I'm wrong.

That would have been scary (well assuming Hill didn't break down).

T-Mac was talking like Lebron was about potential of that happening lol. He was saying they would be battling the Lakers for the championship for several years. I think they would have been crazy good. They would have had a little of everything from those guys from defense, scoring, post presence, whatever. I was nervous as hell he would be leaving but i'm glad he stayed obviously. But they would have been fun to watch

benny01
08-02-2014, 12:05 AM
Isn't there at least one stacked team or one big three team every year the league has existed? Don't we call them championship teams?

Heatcheck
08-02-2014, 12:13 PM
There are a few superstar players who won't take that easier road and they are Kobe, Duncan and Rose just to name three. They want to stay with their original time and don't do any heavy recruiting to even have players go to their locations. Dying breed. Sure Rose wanted Gasol and Love but he didn't do much for Melo other than just appear at the United Center only because he was probably asked to be there. He is one of those who doesn't believe in recruiting or jumping ship. It's LeBron's prerogative to go to Miami and back to Cleveland with a more talented squad but if he ever wants to be in that rare air with Michael Jordan that went out the window when he lost three finals (two of them his team was dominated) and when he left Cleveland and now Miami. He can be mentioned in the conversation as one of the best all-time but never thee best. IMO the Mount Rushmore of the NBA is Jordan, Magic, Bird and Kareem.

Kobe forced his way to the lakers, who had shaq, then he told everyone to "get their bulls jerseys", at which point his team made one of the most lopsided trades ive ever seen to get gasol from a team whos GM was Jerry West (go figure).

Duncan was drafted to a team with David Robinson, and a FO who surrounded him with 2 other allstars, and actually know how to draft. having pop doesn't hurt either.

Rose has been hurt almost as much as he's been active, so its kind of hard to go to a better situation when YOUR the reason the team cant compete for a ring.

But yeah, gee golly whiz, LeBron shouldve just worked harder and ate his vitamins so he could single handedly win the championship like Jordan. even though Jordan had pippen and a 20/10 Horace Grant his first three rings and then an even better Pippen and Dennis Rodman for the second.

Cohiba
08-03-2014, 12:36 AM
If management couldn't put a team around you to beat those superteams, it should just be accepted that it wasn't in the cards. Instead, these guys are manufacturing their own deck and forcing the hand to find the easiest route for a championship.

I guess it goes hand in hand with this generation of adults compared to those of the past. Hard work, dedication, dealing with adversity is gone, this generation would rather skip right past that and get right to the glory.

I think the generational gap was part of it in regards to Lebron and the Heat..sure it would be great to play with his buds etc..but in todays day and age, where you have the internet and information in your pocket instead of just a newspaper and one or two sports shows, it must get to a man hearing about how "he's never won one".."Kobe's got this many Jordan had this many..." with unlimited accessibility and exposure

I don't think it's a bad thing these big three's, if you can do it you can do it...should we not credit the Pat Rileys of the world for their work? As an earlier poster said, take a look at the Lakers in the 80's, I mean Jesus Magic Johnson was in the finals for most of his damn career.

Besides - hate the Heatles era or not - you sure as hell enjoyed watching them play together at least a few times.

The Spurs have the advantage of the continuity of their big three, and Pop's system and his players buy in to it. But I don't think it's really that different other than the fact the Spurs know how to find value in the draft; but all of those guys signed big contracts at one point, and it's not like it was unknown to them the other two were there lol. They got fair value contracts, how is it any different if they just left the team to go join two others? It's kinda cool they did it in a smaller market though

I don't think there is anything wrong with ideas like Love going to Cleveland - why the hell wouldn't he wanna go play with the best player in the league if he had a choice on where to go?

Cohiba
08-03-2014, 01:03 AM
Agreed. The Bulls still made the conference finals when Jordan "retired", it's not like you took one of the stars away (even if it was Jordan) and the team fell apart and sucked. They had guys in their prime playing alongside Jordan.

Lebron was surrounded by guys who seemed to just say "ok, we got Lebron he's got this". One guy doesn't win titles, even if history gets washed out and guys like Jordan get remembered that they did it all themselves with a bunch of scrubs. Mo Williams and washed up past their primes Larry Hughes, Antwan Jamison and Shaq aren't quite Pippen and Rodman etc

I have no allegiance to Lebron or Jordan, however you can't fault Lebron for making the finals and losing. I think thats stupid. As a young man he brought Cleveland to the finals - and lost to a big three. Since when is making the finals a bad thing? If they just made the conference finals then thats not a black mark? I always thought that argument was silly.

Again with the revisionist history on Kobe too - he wasn't even drafted by LA as most people forget - he simply told the Hornets he wouldn't play for them and wanted to go to the Lakers. And if it weren't for Deng-Gate back in 2007, Kobe would be a Bull, by his choice too.

Hellcrooner
08-03-2014, 01:11 AM
Kobe forced his way to the lakers, who had shaq, then he told everyone to "get their bulls jerseys", at which point his team made one of the most lopsided trades ive ever seen to get gasol from a team whos GM was Jerry West (go figure).

Duncan was drafted to a team with David Robinson, and a FO who surrounded him with 2 other allstars, and actually know how to draft. having pop doesn't hurt either.

Rose has been hurt almost as much as he's been active, so its kind of hard to go to a better situation when YOUR the reason the team cant compete for a ring.

But yeah, gee golly whiz, LeBron shouldve just worked harder and ate his vitamins so he could single handedly win the championship like Jordan. even though Jordan had pippen and a 20/10 Horace Grant his first three rings and then an even better Pippen and Dennis Rodman for the second.

Little Marc, All star and Defensive player of the year goes and says hello to you.

Jamiecballer
08-03-2014, 01:15 AM
The Miami big 3 basically mocked the entire league. You guys have short memories. Wade and Bosh taking a picture with an empty chair in the middle, both with **** eating grins on their faces, tweeting it for the world to see, saying "it really feels like someone is missing from this picture". They basically were laughing at the rest of the league, than proclaimed it was all gonna be easy, yada yada yada. How can you respect that? Not to mention, these guys were in their mid ****ing 20s when they decided to collude and ring chase. Nobody does that. Name me someone else who gave up on their team, caved in the face of adversity that early in their careers to go ring chase.
And how many front offices had done the necessary legwork in advance to make such a situation possible? You accuse others of having short memories...

MILLERHIGHLIFE
08-03-2014, 02:30 PM
Are you serious? There's always been big 3's and big 2's.


Garnett, Allen, Pierce.
Jordan, Pippen, Rodman.
Duncan, Parker, Ginobili.
Chamberlain, Baylor, West.
Magic, KAJ, Worthy.
Russell, Cousy, Heinsohn.
Bird, McHale, Parish.
Run TMC.
Olajuwon, Drexler, Barkley.
Isiah, Dumars, Laimbeer.
Kobe, Gasol, Bynum.
Nash, Matrix, Stat.


When you look at NBA Champions most have some form of a Big 3. Since the early 80s, Big 3s have played a part in 18/19 championships.



What's changed is how they're being formed (through free agency) but I personally have no issue with that as long as it's not all the time. I mean Lebron left a team where the management had 7 years to build around him and failed miserably over and over. If your team isn't capable of signing the big FAs or building through the draft why shouldn't you take matters into your own hands? I wonder if people would have reacted differently if Wade left Miami and Bosh left Toronto to go to Cleveland. Or if they had all forced their way via trade to one specific team.

Ray Allen, Glenn Robinson, Sam Cassell for the Bucks then George Karl broke it up.

D-Leethal
08-03-2014, 08:32 PM
The Miami big 3 basically mocked the entire league. You guys have short memories. Wade and Bosh taking a picture with an empty chair in the middle, both with **** eating grins on their faces, tweeting it for the world to see, saying "it really feels like someone is missing from this picture". They basically were laughing at the rest of the league, than proclaimed it was all gonna be easy, yada yada yada. How can you respect that? Not to mention, these guys were in their mid ****ing 20s when they decided to collude and ring chase. Nobody does that. Name me someone else who gave up on their team, caved in the face of adversity that early in their careers to go ring chase.
And how many front offices had done the necessary legwork in advance to make such a situation possible? You accuse others of having short memories...

How many FOs traded or cut every player on their roster so three buds could collude and take up 80% of their salary cap? Not many. But plenty have had the ample cap space so im not sure of your point.

ziglur
08-03-2014, 09:19 PM
I've never understood why this is the general opinion. They have more stars on that team than any other in the league. Just because they buy into a team concept and their stars don't dominate the ball often enough to post gaudy numbers doesn't mean they aren't stacked.

Duncan is arguably the best PF of all time for crying out loud. Some fans believe Parker is the best Point in the league. Manu might have lost some of his luster, but at one point he was a top 3 SG (briefly). Leonard just won the finals MVP, and their big man rotation was considerably better than Miami's. On the other side of the spectrum, Lebron is amazing, Bosh is good/great and Wade is a turd.

:confused:

I dont like Wade either but hes the reason they won 2 titles. Hes use to be unstoppable but hes has slipped and so has their ability to win more titles. Hes a turd but he was great.

Shlumpledink
08-03-2014, 09:41 PM
I think this speaks to the depth of the league nowadays. Back in the 80s, having 3 all-stars on your team meant you had a dynasty. Now it is just a way to make you a playoff team.

Now there are so many good players in the league that we can focus them on teams without ruining the rest of the league. Remember in the 60's when the talent was focused on two or three teams? One team ended up winning every single championship. Now teams are LUCKY to win 3 championships in a row, it is even rarer in our recent history than in years past to win 3 in a row.

That is because the league is more balanced in terms of talent than it ever has been before. Boston started it by amassing talent, but the league quickly adapted. The league has made some shady moves that compromised the integrity of the league, but that kept another Laker Dynasty from emerging, which made every other team happy.

Seizabmc
08-03-2014, 11:05 PM
The thread makes no sense because he is trying to say that having teams with 3 stars on the team is recent thing to happen when in reality, there have been teams that have been stacked since the nba formed.

Going back to 1973 with the knicks and clyd / Monroe/ reed

All the laker teams that had multiple stars on there teams.
Magic/ Kareem / wilt/ shaq/ Kobe/ Payton / Karl malon/ worthy/

And the celtics teams/ bill russel/ bird/ pierce/ kg/ ray Allan /

Bulls/ Jordan / pipped/ Phil Jackson

And even today I think the league is very spread out with a lot of teams that have multiple stars .

Clips/ doc/ cp3 / Blake/ DJ
Cavs/ Irving / LBJ/ wiggins/ love
Miami / wade/ bosh/ deign / granger
Dubs/ curry/klay/David lee
Bk/ d will/ brook/ Jj/kg

I can go on and on.

I think the spurs are the most stacked team.
Pop/ Duncan/ Parker / Manu / Kwai l

But in reality
I think the players are the ones who put the work in and do the most.

But what it comes down to is the coach an the system in place and how much chemistry a team has.

That's why every now and then if a team is all on the same track and buy into a system than any team has a chance.

Just look at the pistons,
Both Wallace's , bilups, prince,
They had great chemistry.

And then the mavs, great coach great system great chemistry great year.
Rick c/ Tyson/ dirk/ Shawn/

But anyways, I think it's crazy to say that the league has been ruined by big 3's.

Because it has been going on since day 1.

And it's not always how good the talent is on the floor,
But instead, how well the talent plays together.

Because great chemistry and great team work and a great system and a great coach with not great but good players will beat a big 3 any time.

Seizabmc
08-03-2014, 11:13 PM
Just take the lakers for example.

Dwight/ Kobe/ Nash/ pau

No chemistry

Played like trash

The knicks
Melo/ stat/ Tyson

All great players
That just could not seem to mesh well.

Take the bull for example

The only great player they had was Noah because rise was injured . And maybe deing

But they had a great coach and a great system and everyone played together on the same page, not a lot talent but a great team that could beat anyone .

Just like what I expect from the knicks this season,
Not tons of talent besides melo,
And maybe jr if he can stay focused.
But with Phil Jackson on board, he demands so much respect that the players will be motavated once again and hopefully buy into the system and maybe be able to have a great season.

I think people under estimate what Phil will bring to the table.
People forget that Phil made Jordan and Kobe who they are.

And I'm hoping that he can help melo along his way as well.

TylerSL
08-04-2014, 12:28 AM
No, and to the people saying yes, you all watch the NBA more when super teams are around. You pay higher prices to go to games. You say you hate it, yet u just watch more. There is a reason ratings were down during the cool down period after the 80's (Lakers/Celtics won 8 of 9 championships from 80-88) and 90's, (Bulls won 6 of 8 championships from 91-98) that only got back up after the Heat formed.

ewing
08-04-2014, 09:11 AM
if you look at the super teams its not like they didn't play well together like you guys want to say. I mean the Celtics had great team chemistry. I think the Heat had very good chemistry and that guys really augmented there games to fit together. Yes the Lakers failed but not everything comes up roses. I prefer the idea of teams that develop organically but the super teams that stayed together for a period and were successful didn't just out talent people

likemystylez
08-04-2014, 11:08 AM
If management couldn't put a team around you to beat those superteams, it should just be accepted that it wasn't in the cards. Instead, these guys are manufacturing their own deck and forcing the hand to find the easiest route for a championship.

I guess it goes hand in hand with this generation of adults compared to those of the past. Hard work, dedication, dealing with adversity is gone, this generation would rather skip right past that and get right to the glory.

sometimes management doesnt want it as bad as other management teams. a championship is something that requires hard work and dedication through out the organization- if a star player is giving it everything he has and management isnt even trying to bring in other stars because they are content being middle of the pack team that occasionally gets to the second round..... then the player should look for an organization that has the same objectives as himself. (maybe the player remaining with the poorly managed team is whats "not in the cards"

and you expect men who have been extremely competitive through out their lives to "accept" failure for their entire careers because they should assume it isnt in the cards? F THAT. if you want to win and your team is tanking every 3 yrs- it isnt a good fit

KnicksYanks
08-04-2014, 11:12 AM
when has that not been true? ...also,what big 3's are there?
Well there's going to be LeBron, Irving, and love

Jamiecballer
08-04-2014, 12:37 PM
How many FOs traded or cut every player on their roster so three buds could collude and take up 80% of their salary cap? Not many. But plenty have had the ample cap space so im not sure of your point.
Really? Cite the case please. I don't remember any prominent superstar before Wade whose entire team was basically jettisoned or signed to expire all in the same off season.

Heatcheck
08-04-2014, 02:25 PM
its called forsight....instead of overpaying for Villanueva and Gordon...you hold out and go for a bigger prize that's good enough to, I don't know, go to 4 straight finals.

robdesign13
08-04-2014, 03:28 PM
Yes.
Lakers, Celtics and Heat have made it so that if you don't have 3 legit all-stars or in the running to add another soon, you might as well be tanking/rebuilding. That's why there's such a disparity between good and (really) bad teams.
And you're kidding yourself if you think otherwise. (and its probably because you are a fan of one of these teams)

slashsnake
08-04-2014, 09:20 PM
No, and to the people saying yes, you all watch the NBA more when super teams are around. You pay higher prices to go to games. You say you hate it, yet u just watch more. There is a reason ratings were down during the cool down period after the 80's (Lakers/Celtics won 8 of 9 championships from 80-88) and 90's, (Bulls won 6 of 8 championships from 91-98) that only got back up after the Heat formed.


I've got to agree there. Part of the reason the Spurs championship series have been historically not watched, is they don't have any drama there. It is "boring basketball" to the casual fan, and that is what most NBA fans are. Superteams give you someone to cheer for, or against. I was in awe of how well Jordan played, but was not a bulls fan in the 90's, quite the opposite, so I cheered on the Knicks, Suns, Sonics, etc when they played the Bulls and kept watching. Same with the 80's which made today's superteams look mediocre. When you had Kareem (backed up by McAdoo), Magic, Worthy, Nixon, and Wilkes all teamed up to win rings, you had a team to love or hate. And if you hated them, you cheered for the other superteam. Bird, McHale, Parish, Archibald, Cowens... And even after the higher talent at the top, I'd say guys like AC Green, Michael Cooper, Byron Scott, Dennis Johnson, Danny Ainge, and Cedric Maxwell were 10 times better than anything else the Heat had.

Seizabmc
08-04-2014, 09:20 PM
I am not a fan of any of those teams, I'm a knick
Fan and the only star they have is melo.

And I do not think that having multiple stars on a team is. A bad thing.

I think it's good for the league .
And I hope that the knicks will be able to attract more stars to my team.

But like someone mentioned earlier, it's not anybody's fault but the dumb gm that overpaid for guys such as c. vilunavai
Or even amare .

If a team is stupid enough to over pay these guys and then not have enough money to sign other guys or even offer there own rookie FA.
Top dollar, then why do other teams have to pay for there mistakes.

Anybody can form a big 3!

It just takes time and money and some teams don't want to wait or they just simply don't want to spend the money.

For example the knicks when they gave amare that big contract, or when they traded there whole house for melo.


Or look at the wiz now, they are on there way to forming there own big 3.
With wall / beil/ and ?
But lets see if they will be willing to pay the money to keep there guys for one and also maybe spend more money for another guy.

Or look at okc, they could of had kd/ Westbrook and harden.

But they did not want to spend the money!

It's called being a moron.

So why do teams that are smart enough to be able to form a big 3 have to pay for the teams that are either to stupid or to cheap?

championships
08-04-2014, 09:26 PM
#freeCrooner