Quote:
Originally Posted by Thespiralgoeson
Fair enough, but it seems arbitrary. Again, I think it's a difference without a distinction. If the end result is the same- one team being dominant- what does it matter how the team came together. (Oh and not for nothing, but Pippen was absolutely a franchise player. He was a top 10 player of that era, and carried the Bulls to a 55 win season without Jordan.)
|
You mean him and Phil Jackson. I do see some of point but I also look at what he did when he went to Houston and Portland which wasn't much. I'm not sure that I would label him a top 10 player of that era either. In no specific order, consider Malone, Stockton, Robinson, Barkley, Shaq, Hakeem, Reggie, Drexler, Payton. I consider all of those to be legit franchise players and ahead of Pippen with maybe the exception of Payton.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thespiralgoeson
Uh.... Rondo???? The Celtics big three was KG, Ray, and Pierce- not Rondo. Pierce had been their franchise player for a decade. By your definition, that was definitely a superteam.
|
I totally stand corrected on this one. It's late afternoon and my mind is about shot I guess.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thespiralgoeson
Again, it seems like an arbitrary label. That Bulls team was the greatest team ever. But they weren't... super?
|
The greatest team ever? I don't think so. They had arguably the best player and coach ever.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thespiralgoeson
Eh. I don't think restricting player movement or limiting teams to only having one star would be good for the product. I think it would just result in a lot of really, really mediocre basketball, and water the talent pool down even more.
|
Valid argument, but I'm spit-balling how to prevent the Lebron and KD from teaming up or GS from forming in the first place. Yes, you water the talent pool down to balance out the teams in the league. It's not possible to give every team a Lebron or KD.