No, I don't agree, you cannot tell me these squads weren't super teams: 1982-83 Philadelphia 76ers 1985-86 Boston Celtics 1986-87 Los Angeles Lakers 1991-92 Chicago Bulls 1995-97 Chicago Bulls (72, 69 regular season wins) 1999-00 Los Angeles Lakers I don't agree with notion of a Super Team for Miami, they've got 3 stars, but they are rail thin on the bench. All of the teams I just listed were better overall than Miami. Most of all, The Heat received these players from free agent acquisition. Moreover, it's not like it's a novel tactic to have GMs clear out cap space to get go after multiple superstars. I honestly do not see the problem in players deciding to sign with the same team. If these were three marginal players, no one would care.
I have mixed feelings. I don't like loaded teams when other teams can't compete, like when it's a predictable 2-3 team race. It hasn't bothered me since last year because other teams in the East are trying to keep up with Miami while teams in the West caught up to the Lakers and got younger. Before the Gasol trade, numerous teams in the West were on the rise, injuries messed up Portland. Miami dominating the east for the next few years wouldn't have bothered me much because Lebron rarely got to play with another star in his prime. Some of these teams are fun to watch or sound intriguing. 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009 and 2011 were fun years this decade. It was a little different in the 80s and 90s because teams were deeper then. Also, many of those teams got better through the draft. The Lakers, Celtics and Bulls stood out the most because of titles and having one of the best players. Dallas had Sam Perkins, Derek Harper, Mark Aguirre, Roy Tarpley, and Rolando Blackman. Portland & Phoenix were good in the early 90s (I thought both were deeper than Chicago back then). Portland & Indiana were deep in the late 90s and early 2000s. Cleveland had Ron Harper, Mark Price, Brad Daugherty, Craig Ehlo, Hot Rod and Larry Nance. The Lakers of the late 90s had 4 all-stars. Orlando had a good squad until Shaq left and Penny kept getting injured. The Bulls from the late 80s & early 90s were not that loaded, the Bulls during the mid to late 90s were (Kukoc, Kerr and Harper are often overlooked). Pippen developed into an all-star, while he and Jordan had good role players. Seattle had good teams throughout the late 80s and the late 90s. Despite 4 teams dominating the 90s, it was still fun and wasn't as predictable. To be fair, there were other things that made those times fun too.
I hate to argue to such a good post, but the Western Conference of the 1980s was anything, but competitive. There were a number of seasons were the only team that won over 50 games were the Lakers and even when other teams broke through there was gigantic 10-16 game lead between the 1st and 2nd place team. Again, it's a matter of perspective, the Western Conference from about 1980-1987 was probably one of the least competitive periods in basketball history. Out of the last 10 season, more than half of the teams in the won over 50 games. In 2009-10, all eight playoff teams won at least 50 games or more. The 80s Western Conference, and the 80s/90s Eastern Conference never had that kind of competition. Even in this season, there were 10 teams in the West that had a winning record. To be fair, the 90s had teams who monopolized the championship, in that period only two teams won a title, during those years. That's not much parity. Moreover in nearly every season Chicago won the championship, they were no doubts the major favorites for the title, while they rarely had a serious challenger until conference round
I gotta be honest, I hate the idea of super teams but I have not been so interested in the NBA the last two seasons since Yao and TMac looked like they might do some good things together
This league is supposed to be about competition and fairness. Why even have teams like Charlotte, Sacramento, and Detroit, if, on average, Miami / LA / OKC win every year?
Fo-fi-Fo ? Moses was MVP and Erving was first team (and 2-4 would be a very good range for him at the time)
I've read the responses and and support the stance being okay with superteams. But you have to be really apologetic and short sighted to NOT see that the standards are being cheapened by petulant demanding bratty players and their agents. All in all, its just like every other level of basketball under the NBA. From college to AAU ball on down, the players choose their teams and its just continuing on in the pro level.
You don't even let players choose whatever teams they want in YMCA pickups. The logic is simple: It takes a lot of the fun out of competition when the best players band together to beat up on the rest of the people. This is exactly why I haven't watched one single Olympic basketball game.
There is a limitation in super players. SO if a couple of teams grans all of them what happens to rest of the teams?
I'd be fine with this if GM's actually went about their job in a logical and rational manner. I don't see what would have stopped Hennigan from accepting any of the reportedly better packages from all teams other than the Lakers. In the long run sitting Howard, letting him walk next season, and getting nothing in return is better than getting a couple middling players and picks because that promotes mediocrity. Dwight Howard's impact on the game is so great that he can shift the direction of a franchise. But, the team he's leaving has no obligation to send him where he wants. So there's nothing wrong with Dwight asking for the moon, but why did Hennigan give it to him.
Yes it does, that's why I love how the Rockets in 94 won it by assembling a team the right way and didn't win anything in 97 when we tried to go the same 'big three' or 'all all-star' route. However, with this latest deal it's not Howard going to LA that I have a problem with. It's the fact LA has to give up nothing (switching a good center for a great one). Maybe if Gasol and more picks had been involved and Bynum had actually gone to Orlando, I wouldn't have had a problem with it since Hollywood and fake personalities go well together.
