Results 1 to 7 of 7
  1. #1
    Veteran R. DeMurre's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    4,126
    https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/...hree-nba-teams

    Interesting discussion on whether it's better to surround a big 2 with real depth rather than having a big three. Lots of scenarios discussed all the way back to Jordan/Pippen and Shaq/Kobe, but strangely the Spurs are never mentioned.

  2. #2
    Klaw Yogatti's Avatar
    My Team
    Los Angeles Clippers
    Post Count
    245
    Warriors had a BIG 4 for 3 years and won 2 les out of it. Dubs could’ve 3-peat if Kevin Durant wasn’t injured. KD would’ve probably stay on the Warriors as well

  3. #3
    coffee's for closers FrostKing's Avatar
    My Team
    Chicago Bulls
    Post Count
    19,410
    If Rodman isn't considered "Big" then neither should Thompson or Green

    Also forgotten Glen Rice in 2000.

  4. #4
    TheDrewShow is salty lefty's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    101,216
    If Rodman isn't considered "Big" then neither should Thompson or Green

    Also forgotten Glen Rice in 2000.

  5. #5
    I'll tumble for ya Chris Fall's Avatar
    My Team
    New Orleans Hornets
    Post Count
    1,086
    The trend towards two star teams is at least in part driven by financial restrictions. We saw that with what the Lakers tried to do pursuing Kawhi. They stripped their payroll as much as possible and still couldn't offer a full max. And if it weren't for the fact that Davis' salary was still on his last deal where it didn't pay a full max salary, Lakers wouldn't have been even close to offer a compe ive contract to Kawhi.

    NBA vets earn up to 35% of the payroll. So having a big 3 all in their prime makes it financially implausible to build. Not impossible. But extremely hard to do. If you draft a guy who becomes a superstar player in his first couple seasons on a rookie salary, it's doable. If you trade for a guy before he earns a max salary, that also makes it more possible. But realistically and financially, building a team around two superstars just makes more sense.

  6. #6
    Veteran LkrFan's Avatar
    My Team
    Los Angeles Lakers
    Post Count
    40,807
    If Rodman isn't considered "Big" then neither should Thompson or Green

    Also forgotten Glen Rice in 2000.
    You kidding me? If Rodman is not there, MJ does not get by Shaq, Penny, Horace Grant, etc.

    He was absolutely integral to MJ winning rangs 4 thru 6. He was such a badass, he made the HOF despite having averaged 7.3ppg over his career.

  7. #7
    coffee's for closers FrostKing's Avatar
    My Team
    Chicago Bulls
    Post Count
    19,410
    You kidding me? If Rodman is not there, MJ does not get by Shaq, Penny, Horace Grant, etc.

    He was absolutely integral to MJ winning rangs 4 thru 6. He was such a badass, he made the HOF despite having averaged 7.3ppg over his career.
    Agreed but the article argues the opposite. At best Year 3 Rodman was no longer star status but by then Kukoc finished games late, allowing Rodman to move to the 5 position where he benefited from his now bigger (lazy) frame

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •