I think a team need elite versatility and diversity in skillset. 2 elite scoring options (1 in the front court and one in the back court) and 2 elite defensive options (again back and front court). If you have elite 2 way players even better, but you have to have those options every game. Lbj is elite on both ends, allowing a need for only one other major scorer in either back or front court sense he can play in either 1-4. As long as either bosh or wade show up on either end of the court they have a good shot at winning. As this relates to the rockets pursuits. I would be just as happy if they got D12 + a defensive big like smith that gives them diversity in skill set IMO. D12 + CP3 + Harden would be scary, but you give up some flexibility and versatility with all the money you tie up in those three.
Big 3 without bench or the best player and a deep bench in the league? I take the best player with a deep bench.
A lineup consisting of.. Chris Paul James Harden Chandler Parsons (insert servicable PF here) Dwight Howard would be the favorites each season to win it all. You basically have arguably the three best players at their position. No redundancies.
Bench depth is overrated come playoffs. Every team shortens their rotations in the post-season. Get three stars on your team and you will easily have good role players taking paycuts to join your super team.
Lakers didn't have a big 3 just Kobe and Pau. Mavs had Dirk and...? Bulls gad Jordan and pippen Etc. History has proven that you don't need a big 3
A "Big Three" is not necessary. Just reference the history of the NBA. What's important is balance and team chemistry......YOU NEED TO HAVE A POST PLAYER that can impact the game on both ends of the floor.... Plus another bonafide star. The rest you balance out with defense, rebounding, shooting, taking care of the ball (and pace), good coaching, etc. TEAM! Not this formulaic, patched together, short term, instant gratification nightmare that free agency in sports has created...
As others have mentioned what is needed is a big 2 1/2. Bosh and Manu would be the 1/2, though yeah this season not so much. Essentially a borderline all star guy like harden was for OKC or Schrempf with the Sonics or Rodman for the Bulls. I don't think Parsons is there yet. If you only add Dwight we need that borderline guy. Idk about Josh Smith as that guy, Iggy would be ideal a two way guy and then either he or parsons could be the sixth man spark plug.
Even if having 3 great players is the best recipe (see the Lakers/Celtics of the 80s, Bulls of the 90s), the economics of the new hard cap will prevent that in the future. The new recipe will be 2 max players, plus excellent role players on reasonable contracts. What will not change is that you will need the best player in the game to be on your team to have the best chance to win.
I would say that Parsons and Asik are already on their way to being elite roll-players. Parsons could definitely be a borderline all-star at some point depending on where his ceiling ends up. I think if you get Howard you have your foundation set. Even if you don't get him you don't know how much better Lin, Asik, and Parsons will get. Next season is going to be exciting either way.
Many folks here are missing the point. It's not that Bosh sucks, because he doesn't. He is very good. Miami doesn't win titles if he does not provide his good defense in the paint, athleticism in the passing lanes, and rebounding. In a league with a salary cap and monetary constraints, the question is how do you get max production. My point is that you should not pay max salary for that production. It's not whether you're better off with Bosh or without him. It is whether you are better off with (i) Bosh, or (ii) taking that money and getting a non-max player who gives you defense, rebounding, athleticism and some ability to hit open shots (which is what Bosh does because he does not get the ball), PLUS another valuable player.
I think the third guy in a Big 3 is not optimized in the offense, but can be pretty devestating if the value he brings is on defense - a Mutombo or Ben Wallace. When Healthy is his middle name.
If #3 isn't so great, expect Morey to hold onto cap space for future possibilities. That said, I wouldn't be surprised to see Parsons or one of our young PFs to get a level or two better over the next season.
The reason I'd like to see the Rox with 3 superstars is because Maureei has proven himself way better than most GMs at find quality non-star players to fill out a roster. You could spot the average GM 3 superstars and he wouldn't be able to hand you a quality team.
Of course they could have won it without Bosh. Bosh didn't play like someone earning almost 18 million dollars. Maybe they don't win if you remove Bosh from the team and don't replace him with any other players. But, with 18 million dollars to play with, you can add maybe a couple of players that would have made just as much of an impact as Bosh and Miami could have still won. The point I'm making is that Bosh didn't play like a superstar and Miami still won. So, no you don't have to have three superstars to win a championship, and Miami just proved it.
The argument for a Big 3 is extremely weak in terms of having 3 max contracts. The diminishing return is simply not economically sound in the aggregate. As with anything, there surely can particular cases where this false, in which 3 max contracts mirror production well enough to be justifiable. These cases are rare. However, if you happen to draft a star player, it may be optimal to have that rookie plus 2 max players and flip one (for picks/expirings) when the rookie becomes a RFA, to then match and continue with 2 stars.
Rockets won 1994 with Hakem alone, won 1995 with Hakeem and clyde。 With the Big Three of Hakeem/Clyde/Barkley, and then Hakeem/Barkley/Pippen, they didn't win nothing.
