Reply With Quote
What other teams have done that tbh? It's pretty impressive. Drafting people at #1 does not count, thats a 50/50 chance that players becomes a superstar.
I didn't say those franchises didn't deserve their superteams, just that they did indeed build superteams.If you draft a "superteam" you deserve a superteam. They didnt trade they built. Dubs just became a superteam when they added DB
What other teams have done that tbh? It's pretty impressive. Drafting people at #1 does not count, thats a 50/50 chance that players becomes a superstar.
Reading comprehension, tbh. He said, Since Miami formed their superteam in '10". He didn't say, "5 different winners from 2010-2014."
1. Dallas
2. Miami (x2)
3. Spurs
4. Warriors
5. Cavs
5 different champs in 6 seasons. Numbers look right to me.
No, subject here is superteams, he was talking about that and added the warriors to the mix... they were not superfriends ´till now.
Spin it however you want to. You said he had the wrong numbers. He didn't.
You can say that you don't agree with his logic, but the tweet you quoted......nothing was wrong "with the numbers". It was 100% correct.
you are just missing the point of the thread. I mean you are right but superteam means a bought team in this thread.
It's obvious that draft supereams generally get the benefit of the doubt.
That Gary Oldman looking dude is a re , last superfriends team was the CHeat and thats 2010-2014, adding two more years that dont belong to the subject is like saying YES THERE ARE SUPERTEAMS BUT SINCE THE 90s THERE WERE 10 DIFFERENT CHAMPS IN 20 YEARS THATS DIVERSITY... IM SAYING THIS TO ADD MORE JUICE TO MY POINT EVEN IF IT DOESNT HAVE A BIT OF COHESION.
Also it doesnt count because Lebron left the Cheat after 2014, only to be in the finals with Cleveland, how so? the league is watered down and needs compe ion, not just 3 good teams.
Last edited by Mikeanaro; 07-16-2016 at 06:42 PM.
How many different teams have won the championship since 2010? The answer is 5 just like Red said. I know what you're trying to say Mike. But, gotdamnit the number is 5.
You disagree with his logic (I'm not saying you're wrong there), but you said his numbers were wrong.......they aren't. No amount of spinning it with change the fact that there has been 5 different champions the last 6 years.
I understand, but he is talking about superteams and the last one is from 2010 to 2014, anything else is useless to his point.
As I said before the league needs compe ion like was 8 years ago not just 3 good teams, last season there were only 4 good teams and now that Skanktula went to GS that leaves us with 3 good teams.
He is just saying that because he plans to jump ship in the future so whats better than cover his own ass, right?
True. Durant is a career loser btwThe majority of sports fans and sports media are idiots, tbh..they have short memories, too..
The part I find most laughable is how the media and fans began judging players with a larger emphasis on ring count in the 2000s, yet they get angry and mock players that form "super teams" to increase their number of championships
If players were judged and ranked appropriately, without having the "need to win or he's a career loser" pressure, you would have far more players staying in their respective situations..
The question isn't how many different teams have won; it's how many different teams have been compe ive. What team has made the Finals in the past 5 years in the East that hasn't been there in a decade?
You have
Heat (Lost to Dallas)
Heat (Beat OKC)
Heat (Beat SA)
Heat (Lost to SA)
Cleveland (Lost to GS)
Cleveland (Beat GS)
That's 6 super teams. Kyrie, Lebron and Love comprise a super team since each was a face of the franchise player already elsewhere. Wade, Bosh, Lebron and Ray Allen are also a super team.
So before that, it was the Lakers who... oh that's right, they were a super team when they were gifted Pau Gasol.
Lakers (Beat Orlando)
Lakers (beat Boston)
And who was before that? Oh that's right, another super team...
Boston (lost to LA)
Boston (beat LA)
Only three non-superteams to win a ring in the past oh... 9 or 10 years...
Mavs, Spurs and Golden State.
The term "super team" is a euphemism for "NBA caliber players instead of scrubs disguised as players"
Agreed for the most part, but that trend didn't start in the 2000s, it was there since the 80s, as far back as I can remember. The first thing people talk about when talking about NBA players is how many rings he won, and it's been like that for decades.The majority of sports fans and sports media are idiots, tbh..they have short memories, too..
The part I find most laughable is how the media and fans began judging players with a larger emphasis on ring count in the 2000s, yet they get angry and mock players that form "super teams" to increase their number of championships
If players were judged and ranked appropriately, without having the "need to win or he's a career loser" pressure, you would have far more players staying in their respective situations..
The thing is, the current economic environment is different. In the 80s, you are talking a max player making $2M, and some end of the bench guy making $200K or whatever. For a career that lasts maybe 10 to 12 years for a superstar, you want to get as many of those $2M contracts as you possibly can, because as much as a $20M career earning was, it can't sustain the lifestyles some of these guys wanted, so nobody would take less $ and make these super teams. Not to mention that only a handful few of these athletes were making substantial $ to market products back then.
This continued until it came to a point where a top flight superstar makes $20M a year, and the cap allows multiple superstars to make $18M instead of $24M a year for a couple of years, and then there are dozens of NBA players pulling in major ad $s where a few million of lost earnings for a couple of years isn't going to severely impact the lifestyles of these superstars, and they started to willingly take less $ to win a ring.
Then of course, players are much more connected in today's world. They socialize so much more and are friends off the court. If it wasn't for converse, Magic and Bird would still have hated each other.
Finally, social values are different as well. We talk more about this huggy feely thing now, and how no kids will fail grade school, and how everybody should be concerned for other people's well being and point of view (which really is to the benefit of society), we are missing these psycopaths in sports where they want to rip your lungs out and eat your children. So players nowadays are much more willing to team up together than to try and kill each other.
Hope Lebron signs for one year only with Cleveland.
Keep his options open for 2017-18.
Red 's point is actually ty. It's just a strawman argument. Who the was happy with the Celtics superteam? Or LeBron going to Miami? No one but fans of those teams. He's making up a ty argument to make a point, which doesn't work. No one made that point. This Durant thing is even worse, of course people are gonna find it pussy because it is.
Most non-Celtics fans thought that was bs too. But yes it got less flak because it partly happened via trade. Other teams had to let it happen and got something out of it. It isn't that easy to do. GSW just won 73 and straight up added a top 3-5 player onto it via free agency. Of course it's going to annoy people and get comments about how they're pussies for team stacking.
Yet another upcoming season of posts from beta bandwagon fans sucking the obvious favorite and defending the move so they can suck in peace.
My only issue with it is there isnt much talent in the NBA anymore so it makes the NBA seem very boring outside of 2 teams. Its always been 2 great teams each season but the other teams have still been good and worth watching. Right now, outside of GS and Cleveland the other teams are not serious le contenders unless injury takes place.
Laker fans complaining about parity is rich
Did you even read what I wrote? I dont take issue with super teams I just dislike the lack of talent in the league right nowLaker fans complaining about parity is rich
Anyone who says there isn't much talent in the league is stupid beyond belief. There is as much, if not more talent than there ever has been. The difference is that there are way more teams than before. 30 years ago, in the mid-80s, there were 23 teams. Now, there are 30 teams, and still talk of adding more. It's becoming more and more difficult to build a championship core through the draft. It's almost a necessity to build a championship core through free agency / trades now. I mean, just look over the past 16 years. The 5 championships the Lakers got, had a core that was 50% built through free agency / trade (Shaq and Pau/Kobe). The Celtics core were 66% built through free agency / trade (KG, Ray). Aside from Dirk, the entire Mavs team was built through free agency / trade. 66% of Miami's core was built through free agency. 100% of Detroit's core was not drafted (Billups, Rip, Sheed, Ben). The only teams that won a championship and built most of their core through the draft were the Spurs and the Warriors, and the Spurs decided to completely tank a season away in order to get their centerpiece, while the Warriors just got upset by a team with a core built through free agency / trades.
The league being diluted with more teams is the problem, NOT the talent level.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions