LeBron: "I don't believe I've played for a superteam"
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

 
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> General Basketball Discussion Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
gblews
Starting Rotation
Starting Rotation


Joined: 07 Feb 2007
Posts: 224

PostPosted: Wed Jun 28, 2017 7:55 pm    Post subject:

activeverb wrote:
gblews wrote:
activeverb wrote:
gblews wrote:
If you're going to include great teams who were put together through the draft, you might as well drop the term, "superteam" because NBA history is littered with those types of teams.


Very few great teams were put together entirely through the draft -- virtually every ring team in league history since the 1980s was created through a combination of trades, free agency and drafting.

The only ring teams I can think who drafted all their stars were the first Warriors team and the Spurs.

So what's the tipping point?

The first Warriors team was not a superteam but the second was?

If you have three stars, are you a superteam only if you drafted none of them? Or one? Or two?

What exactly is your definition of a superteam?

I would say that a team that already has one or two "superstar" players, meaning anything from "franchise player" to "perennial' all-star, and adds one or more of the same type of player through trade or FA, qualifies as a superteam. The Warrios might be an exception because they had a two time MVP and added another former MVP who was still in his prime. I'll add that aall of the aforementioned players should be in their primes or perhaps just nearing the down side.


By and large, I agree with you about the amount of talent a team needs to be considered a superteam. We differ in that I don't think it matters how that talent was accumulated. You don't think a superteam can be drafted; but can only be created by a general manager.

You've misunderstood my point a bit. As I'v written, I believe superteams can be put together through trades or free agency. This of course encompasses GM constructions as well as free agent player constructions.

Quote:
I don't see why Bosh and Lebron joining Wade in Miami is a superteam by your definition, but if those exact players had all gone to, say, Milwaukee together they would not be a superteam.

Okay, sounds like you're misunderstanding me again. If all 3 of the Miami stars had gone to Milwaukee through trades or free agency, then Milwaukee would be considered a superteam. This has been my position from my first post.

The term superteam was coined to differentiate between teams that are put together by deliberately teaming established superstars, from teams put together through the draft, where you have no real idea of whether or not the guys you're picking will even be contributors, much less superstars.

Because some believe that building a team using the superteam concept is "taking a shortcut", the distinction is usually made.

I think you may be getting hung up on the word, "superteam". Perhaps it should be capitalized when being used in reference to the teaming up of superstars model - "Superteam". There needs to be some kind of distinction made because the two methods of team building are not the same.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Telleris
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 28 May 2013
Posts: 2259

PostPosted: Wed Jun 28, 2017 9:37 pm    Post subject:

Kyrie, Love and Bosh were high numbers on bad teams guys, especially those first two. Kyrie would also never make an asg on the west coast. Wade was a legit high numbers on a good team player and a legit superstar in his own right, but that's really the only one Lebron played with.
_________________
Entertainment comes before Sport in ESPN
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
activeverb
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 24646

PostPosted: Thu Jun 29, 2017 9:04 am    Post subject:

gblews wrote:
activeverb wrote:
gblews wrote:
activeverb wrote:
gblews wrote:
If you're going to include great teams who were put together through the draft, you might as well drop the term, "superteam" because NBA history is littered with those types of teams.


Very few great teams were put together entirely through the draft -- virtually every ring team in league history since the 1980s was created through a combination of trades, free agency and drafting.

The only ring teams I can think who drafted all their stars were the first Warriors team and the Spurs.

So what's the tipping point?

The first Warriors team was not a superteam but the second was?

If you have three stars, are you a superteam only if you drafted none of them? Or one? Or two?

What exactly is your definition of a superteam?

I would say that a team that already has one or two "superstar" players, meaning anything from "franchise player" to "perennial' all-star, and adds one or more of the same type of player through trade or FA, qualifies as a superteam. The Warrios might be an exception because they had a two time MVP and added another former MVP who was still in his prime. I'll add that aall of the aforementioned players should be in their primes or perhaps just nearing the down side.


By and large, I agree with you about the amount of talent a team needs to be considered a superteam. We differ in that I don't think it matters how that talent was accumulated. You don't think a superteam can be drafted; but can only be created by a general manager.

You've misunderstood my point a bit. As I'v written, I believe superteams can be put together through trades or free agency. This of course encompasses GM constructions as well as free agent player constructions.

Quote:
I don't see why Bosh and Lebron joining Wade in Miami is a superteam by your definition, but if those exact players had all gone to, say, Milwaukee together they would not be a superteam.

Okay, sounds like you're misunderstanding me again. If all 3 of the Miami stars had gone to Milwaukee through trades or free agency, then Milwaukee would be considered a superteam. This has been my position from my first post.

The term superteam was coined to differentiate between teams that are put together by deliberately teaming established superstars, from teams put together through the draft, where you have no real idea of whether or not the guys you're picking will even be contributors, much less superstars.

Because some believe that building a team using the superteam concept is "taking a shortcut", the distinction is usually made.

I think you may be getting hung up on the word, "superteam". Perhaps it should be capitalized when being used in reference to the teaming up of superstars model - "Superteam". There needs to be some kind of distinction made because the two methods of team building are not the same.



By I get your point: You see a superteam as one that adds an established star to a couple of other stars.

So I guess by your definition the earliest superteam is Wilt/West/Elgin in 68.

Others would be: (and I will put an * near some of the teams that don't fit your personal criteria, but which most other people do consider superteams)

Wilt/Elgin/Russell
Moses/Dr. J
Kareem/Magic/Worthy*
Bird/McHale/Parish/Johnson
Jordan/Pippen/Rodman*
Shaq/Kobe/Malone/Payton*
Garnett/Pierce/Allen
Lebron/Wade/Bosh
Kobe/Howard/Nash*
Lebron/Irving/Love
Curry/Durant/Thompson/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
gblews
Starting Rotation
Starting Rotation


Joined: 07 Feb 2007
Posts: 224

PostPosted: Thu Jun 29, 2017 5:36 pm    Post subject:

activeverb wrote:
gblews wrote:
activeverb wrote:
gblews wrote:
activeverb wrote:
gblews wrote:
If you're going to include great teams who were put together through the draft, you might as well drop the term, "superteam" because NBA history is littered with those types of teams.


Very few great teams were put together entirely through the draft -- virtually every ring team in league history since the 1980s was created through a combination of trades, free agency and drafting.

The only ring teams I can think who drafted all their stars were the first Warriors team and the Spurs.

So what's the tipping point?

The first Warriors team was not a superteam but the second was?

If you have three stars, are you a superteam only if you drafted none of them? Or one? Or two?

What exactly is your definition of a superteam?

I would say that a team that already has one or two "superstar" players, meaning anything from "franchise player" to "perennial' all-star, and adds one or more of the same type of player through trade or FA, qualifies as a superteam. The Warrios might be an exception because they had a two time MVP and added another former MVP who was still in his prime. I'll add that aall of the aforementioned players should be in their primes or perhaps just nearing the down side.


By and large, I agree with you about the amount of talent a team needs to be considered a superteam. We differ in that I don't think it matters how that talent was accumulated. You don't think a superteam can be drafted; but can only be created by a general manager.

You've misunderstood my point a bit. As I'v written, I believe superteams can be put together through trades or free agency. This of course encompasses GM constructions as well as free agent player constructions.

Quote:
I don't see why Bosh and Lebron joining Wade in Miami is a superteam by your definition, but if those exact players had all gone to, say, Milwaukee together they would not be a superteam.

Okay, sounds like you're misunderstanding me again. If all 3 of the Miami stars had gone to Milwaukee through trades or free agency, then Milwaukee would be considered a superteam. This has been my position from my first post.

The term superteam was coined to differentiate between teams that are put together by deliberately teaming established superstars, from teams put together through the draft, where you have no real idea of whether or not the guys you're picking will even be contributors, much less superstars.

Because some believe that building a team using the superteam concept is "taking a shortcut", the distinction is usually made.

I think you may be getting hung up on the word, "superteam". Perhaps it should be capitalized when being used in reference to the teaming up of superstars model - "Superteam". There needs to be some kind of distinction made because the two methods of team building are not the same.



By I get your point: You see a superteam as one that adds an established star to a couple of other stars.

So I guess by your definition the earliest superteam is Wilt/West/Elgin in 68.

Others would be: (and I will put an * near some of the teams that don't fit your personal criteria, but which most other people do consider superteams)

Wilt/Elgin/Russell
Moses/Dr. J
Kareem/Magic/Worthy*
Bird/McHale/Parish/Johnson
Jordan/Pippen/Rodman*
Shaq/Kobe/Malone/Payton*
Garnett/Pierce/Allen
Lebron/Wade/Bosh
Kobe/Howard/Nash*
Lebron/Irving/Love
Curry/Durant/Thompson/

I assume you meant Wilt/Elgin/West. Additionally, I see no evidence that "most people" agree with your definition of how a "superteam" is constructed and what constitutes a "superteam".
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
activeverb
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 24646

PostPosted: Thu Jun 29, 2017 11:07 pm    Post subject:

^

I don't think there is a firm definition of what constitutes a superteam. Seems to be an eye of the beholder thing. That said, when I see lists of superteams the above 11 are generally always on the list, so I'd say these 11 teams are as good a representation of what people think a superteam is as anything.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Buck32
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 30 Apr 2001
Posts: 6334

PostPosted: Fri Jun 30, 2017 4:13 am    Post subject:

activeverb wrote:
^

I don't think there is a firm definition of what constitutes a superteam. Seems to be an eye of the beholder thing. That said, when I see lists of superteams the above 11 are generally always on the list, so I'd say these 11 teams are as good a representation of what people think a superteam is as anything.


When Dr. J joined the Sixers in 76-77, he was the leading ABA scorer before the league folded. He joined established stars McGinnis and Doug Collins. And they also had Henry Bibby and World B. Free, and Dawkins and Joe Bryant.
Them losing to the Blazers was considered then a huge upset.
That Sixer team I think was also a superteam.
_________________
“Properly read, the bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived.”
― Isaac Asimov
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
activeverb
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 24646

PostPosted: Fri Jun 30, 2017 7:22 am    Post subject:

Buck32 wrote:
activeverb wrote:
^

I don't think there is a firm definition of what constitutes a superteam. Seems to be an eye of the beholder thing. That said, when I see lists of superteams the above 11 are generally always on the list, so I'd say these 11 teams are as good a representation of what people think a superteam is as anything.


When Dr. J joined the Sixers in 76-77, he was the leading ABA scorer before the league folded. He joined established stars McGinnis and Doug Collins. And they also had Henry Bibby and World B. Free, and Dawkins and Joe Bryant.
Them losing to the Blazers was considered then a huge upset.
That Sixer team I think was also a superteam.


Seems like you could make a case for them as a superteam though I've never heard them mentioned as one by anyone before this.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Aeneas Hunter
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 18355

PostPosted: Fri Jun 30, 2017 8:53 am    Post subject:

activeverb wrote:
Buck32 wrote:
activeverb wrote:
^

I don't think there is a firm definition of what constitutes a superteam. Seems to be an eye of the beholder thing. That said, when I see lists of superteams the above 11 are generally always on the list, so I'd say these 11 teams are as good a representation of what people think a superteam is as anything.


When Dr. J joined the Sixers in 76-77, he was the leading ABA scorer before the league folded. He joined established stars McGinnis and Doug Collins. And they also had Henry Bibby and World B. Free, and Dawkins and Joe Bryant.
Them losing to the Blazers was considered then a huge upset.
That Sixer team I think was also a superteam.


Seems like you could make a case for them as a superteam though I've never heard them mentioned as one by anyone before this.


Actually, there was a lot of hype about that team at the time. The reason why you don't hear much about them is that they were a dysfunctional bust right from the start. I can remember an SI article mocking them as a bunch of selfish individualists. They did end up winning the East, but their record was pedestrian. Still, a team with Julius Erving, Henry Bibby, Doug Collins, and George McGinnis should have been a juggernaut, especially with a supporting cast that included Caldwell Jones, Steve Mix, Lloyd Free, and a young Darrell Dawkins. Think of them as the superteam that wasn't.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
nevitt_smrek
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 15 Jun 2009
Posts: 2494

PostPosted: Fri Jun 30, 2017 10:13 pm    Post subject:

I think if all of these movement options were available back in the 60s and 70s, in any past era, that players would have taken advantage of them. But we'll never truly know. Logo is one of the few who openly admitted he would have done so.
_________________
Smrek 2, Nevitt 1, Barkley 0
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
nevitt_smrek
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 15 Jun 2009
Posts: 2494

PostPosted: Fri Jun 30, 2017 10:31 pm    Post subject:

Super teams have always existed. Many people have a problem with how they are being formed these days. It's viewed as weak (not unreasonable), but there's so much pressure for guys to "win that ring." It's just how sports have evolved.

Winning is one thing, but there's nothing wrong with thinking that it should be done the right way. If Ovechkin joins the Penguins, how much would that Cup title truly mean? Wouldn't be highly regarded legacy-wise.
_________________
Smrek 2, Nevitt 1, Barkley 0
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
SuperboyReformed
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 07 Oct 2012
Posts: 2932

PostPosted: Sat Jul 01, 2017 3:32 pm    Post subject:

nevitt_smrek wrote:
I think if all of these movement options were available back in the 60s and 70s, in any past era, that players would have taken advantage of them. But we'll never truly know. Logo is one of the few who openly admitted he would have done so.

it's not the formation or the existence of it that i find annoying. it would appear that every era had the teams with a lot of stars on them and others simply did not. but these discussions turn into a thing of "who is the best or greatest" and they just look at it as standalone things, ignoring the evolution it took to get to the place we are now. like most people ignore that someone like oscar robertson had to go to the supreme court and fight for rights that players now enjoy. and then the players simply say this guy was better than oscar. in what sense? that guy had to go to the friggin supreme court and guys now are just getting $30 mill a year...so different.

and jerry had to stay on one team and lose time and time again to the celtics. it's so different. it's really the fans and the media making these points that can be like nails on a chalkboard...at least it would be to me if i were a player from a previous era listening to it. i'll never forget drob going off on it with the espn guys.
_________________
U+1F49C
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
gblews
Starting Rotation
Starting Rotation


Joined: 07 Feb 2007
Posts: 224

PostPosted: Mon Jul 03, 2017 6:37 pm    Post subject:

activeverb wrote:
^

I don't think there is a firm definition of what constitutes a superteam. Seems to be an eye of the beholder thing. That said, when I see lists of superteams the above 11 are generally always on the list, so I'd say these 11 teams are as good a representation of what people think a superteam is as anything.

I believe there is a firm definition. The term "superteam" was coined by the NBA media to describe teams that were put together by joining established superstars. It is a relatively new term, one I first heard used to describe the Lakers' 2004 team with Malone and Peyton. I have been watching the NBA for many many years and I don't believe the term was ever used before this. No one called the Warriors a superteam ast season/ That term was only applied to them AFTER KD joined them.

This term was coined, and has been used since, strictly for the purpose of describing teams put together by joining established superstars. I don't really understand why you're trying to expand the meaning to include pretty much ALL great teams.

This why keep writing that the word "superteam" should be capitalized when describing the teams put together by joining established superstars.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
activeverb
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 24646

PostPosted: Tue Jul 04, 2017 11:39 am    Post subject:

Aeneas Hunter wrote:
activeverb wrote:
Buck32 wrote:
activeverb wrote:
^

I don't think there is a firm definition of what constitutes a superteam. Seems to be an eye of the beholder thing. That said, when I see lists of superteams the above 11 are generally always on the list, so I'd say these 11 teams are as good a representation of what people think a superteam is as anything.


When Dr. J joined the Sixers in 76-77, he was the leading ABA scorer before the league folded. He joined established stars McGinnis and Doug Collins. And they also had Henry Bibby and World B. Free, and Dawkins and Joe Bryant.
Them losing to the Blazers was considered then a huge upset.
That Sixer team I think was also a superteam.


Seems like you could make a case for them as a superteam though I've never heard them mentioned as one by anyone before this.


Actually, there was a lot of hype about that team at the time. The reason why you don't hear much about them is that they were a dysfunctional bust right from the start. I can remember an SI article mocking them as a bunch of selfish individualists. They did end up winning the East, but their record was pedestrian. Still, a team with Julius Erving, Henry Bibby, Doug Collins, and George McGinnis should have been a juggernaut, especially with a supporting cast that included Caldwell Jones, Steve Mix, Lloyd Free, and a young Darrell Dawkins. Think of them as the superteam that wasn't.


I remember Dr. J and McGinnis not meshing. When you look at them on paper, the 76ers do like a perfect team. They are actually a team I think of when people talk about how easy it was for such-and-such team to win.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Aeneas Hunter
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 18355

PostPosted: Tue Jul 04, 2017 2:09 pm    Post subject:

activeverb wrote:
I remember Dr. J and McGinnis not meshing. When you look at them on paper, the 76ers do like a perfect team. They are actually a team I think of when people talk about how easy it was for such-and-such team to win.


I've had that thought, too. Building a team is not the same as collecting trading cards.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Vancouver Fan
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 17 Apr 2006
Posts: 13942

PostPosted: Tue Jul 04, 2017 3:24 pm    Post subject:

Not 5, not 6, not 7...........
_________________
Music is my medicine
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Krispy Kreme
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 30 Mar 2003
Posts: 12098

PostPosted: Wed Jul 05, 2017 11:30 am    Post subject:

gblews wrote:
activeverb wrote:
gblews wrote:
activeverb wrote:
gblews wrote:
If you're going to include great teams who were put together through the draft, you might as well drop the term, "superteam" because NBA history is littered with those types of teams.


Very few great teams were put together entirely through the draft -- virtually every ring team in league history since the 1980s was created through a combination of trades, free agency and drafting.

The only ring teams I can think who drafted all their stars were the first Warriors team and the Spurs.

So what's the tipping point?

The first Warriors team was not a superteam but the second was?

If you have three stars, are you a superteam only if you drafted none of them? Or one? Or two?

What exactly is your definition of a superteam?

I would say that a team that already has one or two "superstar" players, meaning anything from "franchise player" to "perennial' all-star, and adds one or more of the same type of player through trade or FA, qualifies as a superteam. The Warrios might be an exception because they had a two time MVP and added another former MVP who was still in his prime. I'll add that aall of the aforementioned players should be in their primes or perhaps just nearing the down side.


By and large, I agree with you about the amount of talent a team needs to be considered a superteam. We differ in that I don't think it matters how that talent was accumulated. You don't think a superteam can be drafted; but can only be created by a general manager.

You've misunderstood my point a bit. As I'v written, I believe superteams can be put together through trades or free agency. This of course encompasses GM constructions as well as free agent player constructions.

Quote:
I don't see why Bosh and Lebron joining Wade in Miami is a superteam by your definition, but if those exact players had all gone to, say, Milwaukee together they would not be a superteam.

Okay, sounds like you're misunderstanding me again. If all 3 of the Miami stars had gone to Milwaukee through trades or free agency, then Milwaukee would be considered a superteam. This has been my position from my first post.

The term superteam was coined to differentiate between teams that are put together by deliberately teaming established superstars, from teams put together through the draft, where you have no real idea of whether or not the guys you're picking will even be contributors, much less superstars.

Because some believe that building a team using the superteam concept is "taking a shortcut", the distinction is usually made.

I think you may be getting hung up on the word, "superteam". Perhaps it should be capitalized when being used in reference to the teaming up of superstars model - "Superteam". There needs to be some kind of distinction made because the two methods of team building are not the same.



I already told you guys, a super team refers to superstar players (NOT ROLEPLAYERS) that are franchise type players all being on the same team.

As I said before, Bosh, Wade, Kyrie, Love were all franchise players in their prime that teamed up with Lebron.

How often do you have 3 #1 franchise option franchise type players on 1 squad? Golden State doesn't even have that. Chicago didn't have that. Spurs didn't have that. We didn't have that with Shaq/Kobe.

That's why the Heat were the first super team. Whether Lebron's ego wants to admit it or not. And so are the Cavs. Just because Love and Bosh struggled to play with Lebron doesn't make them any less of a super team.
_________________
Choke City
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
activeverb
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 24646

PostPosted: Wed Jul 05, 2017 12:54 pm    Post subject:

Krispy Kreme wrote:
gblews wrote:
activeverb wrote:
gblews wrote:
activeverb wrote:
gblews wrote:
If you're going to include great teams who were put together through the draft, you might as well drop the term, "superteam" because NBA history is littered with those types of teams.


Very few great teams were put together entirely through the draft -- virtually every ring team in league history since the 1980s was created through a combination of trades, free agency and drafting.

The only ring teams I can think who drafted all their stars were the first Warriors team and the Spurs.

So what's the tipping point?

The first Warriors team was not a superteam but the second was?

If you have three stars, are you a superteam only if you drafted none of them? Or one? Or two?

What exactly is your definition of a superteam?

I would say that a team that already has one or two "superstar" players, meaning anything from "franchise player" to "perennial' all-star, and adds one or more of the same type of player through trade or FA, qualifies as a superteam. The Warrios might be an exception because they had a two time MVP and added another former MVP who was still in his prime. I'll add that aall of the aforementioned players should be in their primes or perhaps just nearing the down side.


By and large, I agree with you about the amount of talent a team needs to be considered a superteam. We differ in that I don't think it matters how that talent was accumulated. You don't think a superteam can be drafted; but can only be created by a general manager.

You've misunderstood my point a bit. As I'v written, I believe superteams can be put together through trades or free agency. This of course encompasses GM constructions as well as free agent player constructions.

Quote:
I don't see why Bosh and Lebron joining Wade in Miami is a superteam by your definition, but if those exact players had all gone to, say, Milwaukee together they would not be a superteam.

Okay, sounds like you're misunderstanding me again. If all 3 of the Miami stars had gone to Milwaukee through trades or free agency, then Milwaukee would be considered a superteam. This has been my position from my first post.

The term superteam was coined to differentiate between teams that are put together by deliberately teaming established superstars, from teams put together through the draft, where you have no real idea of whether or not the guys you're picking will even be contributors, much less superstars.

Because some believe that building a team using the superteam concept is "taking a shortcut", the distinction is usually made.

I think you may be getting hung up on the word, "superteam". Perhaps it should be capitalized when being used in reference to the teaming up of superstars model - "Superteam". There needs to be some kind of distinction made because the two methods of team building are not the same.



I already told you guys, a super team refers to superstar players (NOT ROLEPLAYERS) that are franchise type players all being on the same team.

As I said before, Bosh, Wade, Kyrie, Love were all franchise players in their prime that teamed up with Lebron.

How often do you have 3 #1 franchise option franchise type players on 1 squad? Golden State doesn't even have that. Chicago didn't have that. Spurs didn't have that. We didn't have that with Shaq/Kobe.

That's why the Heat were the first super team. Whether Lebron's ego wants to admit it or not. And so are the Cavs. Just because Love and Bosh struggled to play with Lebron doesn't make them any less of a super team.


I'd say the first team that had three number one franchise type players were the 68 Lakers with Wilt, Baylor, and West.

If you're talking about a team that brought together three guys that had previously been number one franchise players with different teams, I would say that would be the Celtics with Garnett, Pierce, and Allen.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Aeneas Hunter
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 18355

PostPosted: Wed Jul 05, 2017 1:17 pm    Post subject:

Krispy Kreme wrote:
As I said before, Bosh, Wade, Kyrie, Love were all franchise players in their prime that teamed up with Lebron.


You lost me right there. Bosh, Kyrie, and Love were franchise players? I think not. None of them were top tier players when they joined Lebron. Irving and Love had never made the playoffs, and Bosh had played in a total of two playoff series.

I understand that discussions of Lebron tend to generate funny reactions, but let's keep some perspective here. Bosh, Irving, and Love were borderline all-stars before they joined Lebron. They put up good numbers on bad teams, but few people took them very seriously.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Krispy Kreme
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 30 Mar 2003
Posts: 12098

PostPosted: Wed Jul 05, 2017 1:20 pm    Post subject:

I agree with Boston being a super team. But I still feel Miami was more talented. But you're right they were a super team. Lebron still played for a super team for Miami and the Cavs.
_________________
Choke City
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
activeverb
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 24646

PostPosted: Wed Jul 05, 2017 2:29 pm    Post subject:

Krispy Kreme wrote:
I agree with Boston being a super team. But I still feel Miami was more talented. But you're right they were a super team. Lebron still played for a super team for Miami and the Cavs.


Personally, I could accept definitions of superteams that allowed 10-25 of them in NBA history.

Not sure whether the Heat or Celtics had more overall talent. The Heat had a GOAT level guy in Lebron, and the Celtics didn't have anyone on his level, but I think the Celtics were stronger from 2-9. That said, there have been lots of teams in NBA history with more talent than either of them.

In my view, the NBA team with the most total talent was probably the 85-86 Celtics with Bird, McHale, Parish, Johnson, Ainge, Walton and Wedman.


Last edited by activeverb on Wed Jul 05, 2017 2:41 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
activeverb
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 24646

PostPosted: Wed Jul 05, 2017 2:36 pm    Post subject:

Aeneas Hunter wrote:
Krispy Kreme wrote:
As I said before, Bosh, Wade, Kyrie, Love were all franchise players in their prime that teamed up with Lebron.


You lost me right there. Bosh, Kyrie, and Love were franchise players? I think not. None of them were top tier players when they joined Lebron. Irving and Love had never made the playoffs, and Bosh had played in a total of two playoff series.

I understand that discussions of Lebron tend to generate funny reactions, but let's keep some perspective here. Bosh, Irving, and Love were borderline all-stars before they joined Lebron. They put up good numbers on bad teams, but few people took them very seriously.



"Franchise player" is a pretty loose term. If you consider the 30 best players in the league (one per franchise) to be a franchise player, you don't even need to be an all-star to be one.

Heck, by that definition you could say the Holford/Thomas/Hayward Celtics are a superteam.

The Heat and Cavs were more about a GOAT-level guy in Lebron joining up with a couple of all-stars. Add Bosh/Wade or Irving/Love to another player of their level and it's not that big a deal.

But this definition of three franchise players as a superteam leaves out the Moses Malone/Dr. J 76ers. So basically the definition is saying that Irving/Love is more valuable than a prime Moses Malone, which I think we all know is silly.

For that reason, it's hard for me to care much about all these semantics effort in trying to define a superteam.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Krispy Kreme
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 30 Mar 2003
Posts: 12098

PostPosted: Thu Jul 06, 2017 11:08 am    Post subject:

Aeneas Hunter wrote:
Krispy Kreme wrote:
As I said before, Bosh, Wade, Kyrie, Love were all franchise players in their prime that teamed up with Lebron.


You lost me right there. Bosh, Kyrie, and Love were franchise players? I think not. None of them were top tier players when they joined Lebron. Irving and Love had never made the playoffs, and Bosh had played in a total of two playoff series.

I understand that discussions of Lebron tend to generate funny reactions, but let's keep some perspective here. Bosh, Irving, and Love were borderline all-stars before they joined Lebron. They put up good numbers on bad teams, but few people took them very seriously.



They were still franchise leaders. I didn't say they were winners. By franchise type players I mean superstars that are the #1 option on their respective teams. Yes, I agree with you that Love and Bosh put up big numbers on bad teams. Either way, they were still all-stars and not role players.
_________________
Choke City
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
governator
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 28 Jan 2006
Posts: 5680

PostPosted: Thu Jul 06, 2017 11:16 am    Post subject:

Vancouver Fan wrote:
Not 5, not 6, not 7...........


but 8 straight Eastern Conference Champ... GOAT (big fish in a small pond)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
activeverb
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 24646

PostPosted: Thu Jul 06, 2017 11:27 am    Post subject:

Krispy Kreme wrote:
Aeneas Hunter wrote:
Krispy Kreme wrote:
As I said before, Bosh, Wade, Kyrie, Love were all franchise players in their prime that teamed up with Lebron.


You lost me right there. Bosh, Kyrie, and Love were franchise players? I think not. None of them were top tier players when they joined Lebron. Irving and Love had never made the playoffs, and Bosh had played in a total of two playoff series.

I understand that discussions of Lebron tend to generate funny reactions, but let's keep some perspective here. Bosh, Irving, and Love were borderline all-stars before they joined Lebron. They put up good numbers on bad teams, but few people took them very seriously.



They were still franchise leaders. I didn't say they were winners. By franchise type players I mean superstars that are the #1 option on their respective teams. Yes, I agree with you that Love and Bosh put up big numbers on bad teams. Either way, they were still all-stars and not role players.



A big trouble is all these terms -- franchise player, superstar, even all-star -- mean different things to different people.

And even if we agree on a definition for these terms, all franchise players or all all-stars are not equal. Even if we say Kevin Durant and Kevin Love are both franchise players, we all know they are on entirely different tiers. Even if we acknowledge Andre Drummond and Kawhi Leonard have made all-star teams in the past two years, we all know they are not equal players.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Krispy Kreme
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 30 Mar 2003
Posts: 12098

PostPosted: Thu Jul 06, 2017 11:33 am    Post subject:

fair enough. but when im talking "super teams" I'm talking about the top heavy talent. if any team to me has three different #1 options like the Cavs/Heat did, then I call them a super team. if other people don't, that's fine.
_________________
Choke City
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> General Basketball Discussion All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Page 5 of 6
Jump to:  

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum






Graphics by uberzev
© 1995-2010 LakersGround.net. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy. Terms of Use.
LakersGround is an unofficial news source serving the fan community since 1995.
We are in no way associated with the Los Angeles Lakers or the National Basketball Association.


Powered by phpBB