I kinda hate this NBA Superteam mentality. MLB is becoming the same. Can’t do it in the NFL.
What superteams won anything besides Miami, and that's if they are a superteam? Piling up great players doesn't always mean success which is why I give Miami Credit for pulling it off.
The Celtics, the Warriors, the Cavs, the Lakers a couple years ago...
Right, there have definitely been other super teams. Just usually built by the GM, as in Danny Ainge trading for Garnett and Allen whereas Miami started the whole players determining who they team up with phenomenon.
This weekend we rock Portland
0
Options
The Juggler
Behind that bush over there. Posts: 47,288
I kinda hate this NBA Superteam mentality. MLB is becoming the same. Can’t do it in the NFL.
What superteams won anything besides Miami, and that's if they are a superteam? Piling up great players doesn't always mean success which is why I give Miami Credit for pulling it off.
The Celtics, the Warriors, the Cavs, the Lakers a couple years ago...
Celtics? What'd they win? Warriors were all draft picks and winning even before KD and won when he left. Lakers? The Bubble team w Lebron?
The NBA Championship. Warriors won 2 after KD went there. Yeah, the bubble team when Lebron and AD went there.
0
Options
The Juggler
Behind that bush over there. Posts: 47,288
I guess you could even make the argument that the Sixers of the early 80's were the original super team.
I guess you could even make the argument that the Sixers of the early 80's were the original super team.
If we are going that far back then ok.I thought we were talking the past few years. A bunch of times it was tried and didn't work out. The Nets Twice now in the last 10 years, The Lakers w Nash, Malone and Peyton, Rockets w Olajuwon, Barkley and Drex, Clippers w PG and Kawhi.
Am I missing any?
0
Options
The Juggler
Behind that bush over there. Posts: 47,288
I guess you could even make the argument that the Sixers of the early 80's were the original super team.
If we are going that far back then ok.I thought we were talking the past few years. A bunch of times it was tried and didn't work out. The Nets Twice now in the last 10 years, The Lakers w Nash, Malone and Peyton, Rockets w Olajuwon, Barkley and Drex, Clippers w PG and Kawhi.
Am I missing any?
Every other team I mentioned went back just a year or two before you did with the Celtics.
Plus these other teams you are mentioning were all really good and either lost in the finals or conference finals mostly...just came across better teams eventually. A lot them featured stars who were on their last legs though.
I guess you could even make the argument that the Sixers of the early 80's were the original super team.
If we are going that far back then ok.I thought we were talking the past few years. A bunch of times it was tried and didn't work out. The Nets Twice now in the last 10 years, The Lakers w Nash, Malone and Peyton, Rockets w Olajuwon, Barkley and Drex, Clippers w PG and Kawhi.
Am I missing any?
Every other team I mentioned went back just a year or two before you did with the Celtics.
Yes that's why I didn't include them as they were mentioned already.
The Cavs though? They traded a first round pick in Wiggins for an outside shooter in Love. A good piece but not a superteam piece IMO. I also thought you meant newer Celtics, not 08 Celtics.
Also The Warriors were not as stated previously and which Lakers team won that was a superteam? Not the Bubble one?
0
Options
The Juggler
Behind that bush over there. Posts: 47,288
I guess you could even make the argument that the Sixers of the early 80's were the original super team.
If we are going that far back then ok.I thought we were talking the past few years. A bunch of times it was tried and didn't work out. The Nets Twice now in the last 10 years, The Lakers w Nash, Malone and Peyton, Rockets w Olajuwon, Barkley and Drex, Clippers w PG and Kawhi.
Am I missing any?
Every other team I mentioned went back just a year or two before you did with the Celtics.
Yes that's why I didn't include them as they were mentioned already.
The Cavs though? They traded a first round pick in Wiggins for an outside shooter in Love. A good piece but not a superteam piece IMO. I also thought you meant newer Celtics, not 08 Celtics.
Also The Warriors were not as stated previously and which Lakers team won that was a superteam? Not the Bubble one?
The Cavs got Lebron, Kyrie and Kevin Love. How's that not a super team? Nah, that originally Danny Ainge Celtic team was sort of the first super team in this era. How were the Warriors not? They added one of the maybe 10 greatest players ever to Curry and Thompson. That's an obvious one. The Lakers added Anthony Davis to a team featuring Lebron still in his prime, that's a super team.
I guess you could even make the argument that the Sixers of the early 80's were the original super team.
If we are going that far back then ok.I thought we were talking the past few years. A bunch of times it was tried and didn't work out. The Nets Twice now in the last 10 years, The Lakers w Nash, Malone and Peyton, Rockets w Olajuwon, Barkley and Drex, Clippers w PG and Kawhi.
Am I missing any?
Every other team I mentioned went back just a year or two before you did with the Celtics.
Yes that's why I didn't include them as they were mentioned already.
The Cavs though? They traded a first round pick in Wiggins for an outside shooter in Love. A good piece but not a superteam piece IMO. I also thought you meant newer Celtics, not 08 Celtics.
Also The Warriors were not as stated previously and which Lakers team won that was a superteam? Not the Bubble one?
The Cavs got Lebron, Kyrie and Kevin Love. How's that not a super team? Nah, that originally Danny Ainge Celtic team was sort of the first super team in this era. How were the Warriors not? They added one of the maybe 10 greatest players ever to Curry and Thompson. That's an obvious one. The Lakers added Anthony Davis to a team featuring Lebron still in his prime, that's a super team.
OK so two people is not a Superteam to me, that's just a difference of the meaning though. The Bulls adding Rodman and Kukoc makes them a superteam? Cavs is a longshot to me but I can see it. Nobody was raving about Love until he got to the Cavs though. Warriors again were stacked from draft picks, adding KD was over the top yes. AD and LBJ aren't a superteam when the rest were bit players.
It's an interesting perspective to talk about. I disagree with throwing around the term though. Adding a piece is different from loading up with players. The Nets acquiring 3 future HOFers was definitely a superteam.
Like the Kobe/Shaq Lakers I would not consider a superteam. That was a good player leaving for another team and they gelled. I mean Kobe was good before shaq when he got there he became great.
I agree on the Celtics to a point. Ray Allens numbers dropped significantly when he went to Boston but still good.
I guess you could even make the argument that the Sixers of the early 80's were the original super team.
If we are going that far back then ok.I thought we were talking the past few years. A bunch of times it was tried and didn't work out. The Nets Twice now in the last 10 years, The Lakers w Nash, Malone and Peyton, Rockets w Olajuwon, Barkley and Drex, Clippers w PG and Kawhi.
Am I missing any?
Every other team I mentioned went back just a year or two before you did with the Celtics.
Yes that's why I didn't include them as they were mentioned already.
The Cavs though? They traded a first round pick in Wiggins for an outside shooter in Love. A good piece but not a superteam piece IMO. I also thought you meant newer Celtics, not 08 Celtics.
Also The Warriors were not as stated previously and which Lakers team won that was a superteam? Not the Bubble one?
The Cavs got Lebron, Kyrie and Kevin Love. How's that not a super team? Nah, that originally Danny Ainge Celtic team was sort of the first super team in this era. How were the Warriors not? They added one of the maybe 10 greatest players ever to Curry and Thompson. That's an obvious one. The Lakers added Anthony Davis to a team featuring Lebron still in his prime, that's a super team.
I agree on the Celtics to a point. Ray Allens numbers dropped significantly when he went to Boston but still good.
He averaged 17.4 in the title year, a noticeable drop off from the previous 2 seasons where he was basically the entire offense in Seattle sure, but not like he stopped scoring. He was not asked to carry the entire load suddenly when teamed up with 2 other hall of famers. Averaged 18.2 the following year. His career average is 18.9. The real drop off came when he went to Miami for his final 2 seasons.
KD just should have gone to the Knicks like he wanted to.
I remember him saying specifically that The Knicks aren't a team that players want to play for. "The cool thing is not the Knicks"
But the Nets were? Even with the players they got were still the 2nd team in the city
We talked about the Nets way more, for better or worse. Theres only so many times you can talk about Julius Randle...
I doubt they sold out every game
We've talked about this before too, Knicks fans are delusional... They may have been "2nd" in attendance over the Knicks but had a better shot at winning a title.
0
Options
The Juggler
Behind that bush over there. Posts: 47,288
^ This got me curious. Believe it or not the Bulls lead the league in attendance. Would never have guessed that http://www.espn.com/nba/attendance
KD just should have gone to the Knicks like he wanted to.
I remember him saying specifically that The Knicks aren't a team that players want to play for. "The cool thing is not the Knicks"
But the Nets were? Even with the players they got were still the 2nd team in the city
We talked about the Nets way more, for better or worse. Theres only so many times you can talk about Julius Randle...
I doubt they sold out every game
Knicks fans are delusional...
They are funny. They think their franchise is one of the NBA's elite franchises. 2 titles all time, last one 50 years ago, The elite NBA franchises start and end with the Celtics and Lakers, Honorable mentions to Bulls, Warriors, Spurs and Sixers. Knicks are only relevant in the media because of the city they play in. As a franchise they are pretty much a joke, especially under Dolan.
KD just should have gone to the Knicks like he wanted to.
I remember him saying specifically that The Knicks aren't a team that players want to play for. "The cool thing is not the Knicks"
But the Nets were? Even with the players they got were still the 2nd team in the city
We talked about the Nets way more, for better or worse. Theres only so many times you can talk about Julius Randle...
I doubt they sold out every game
Knicks fans are delusional...
They are funny. They think their franchise is one of the NBA's elite franchises. 2 titles all time, last one 50 years ago, The elite NBA franchises start and end with the Celtics and Lakers, Honorable mentions to Bulls, Warriors, Spurs and Sixers. Knicks are only relevant in the media because of the city they play in. As a franchise they are pretty much a joke, especially under Dolan.
Funny you mention where they play. In the news here there is talk of having MSG moved... My guess is they want the space to create another skyscraper and build the arena somewhere else.
I guess you could even make the argument that the Sixers of the early 80's were the original super team.
Clippers w PG and Kawhi.
I am so, so glad that one is not working out.
actually, I root for them all to fail.
If I had known then what I know now...
Vegas 93, Vegas 98, Vegas 00 (10 year show), Vegas 03, Vegas 06
VIC 07
EV LA1 08
Seattle1 09, Seattle2 09, Salt Lake 09, LA4 09
Columbus 10
EV LA 11
Vancouver 11
Missoula 12
Portland 13, Spokane 13
St. Paul 14, Denver 14
Philly I & II, 16
Denver 22
0
Options
The Juggler
Behind that bush over there. Posts: 47,288
KD just should have gone to the Knicks like he wanted to.
I remember him saying specifically that The Knicks aren't a team that players want to play for. "The cool thing is not the Knicks"
But the Nets were? Even with the players they got were still the 2nd team in the city
We talked about the Nets way more, for better or worse. Theres only so many times you can talk about Julius Randle...
I doubt they sold out every game
We've talked about this before too, Knicks fans are delusional... They may have been "2nd" in attendance over the Knicks but had a better shot at winning a title.
Obviously the Nets had the better players. I'm talking about relevance. It's not delusional it's fact. Sure if they had won 2 or 3 titles they might have taken over NY. But they didn't. Not sure what you have against the Knicks. I've never seen someone hate a team that hasn't won in over 50 years
KD just should have gone to the Knicks like he wanted to.
I remember him saying specifically that The Knicks aren't a team that players want to play for. "The cool thing is not the Knicks"
But the Nets were? Even with the players they got were still the 2nd team in the city
We talked about the Nets way more, for better or worse. Theres only so many times you can talk about Julius Randle...
I doubt they sold out every game
We've talked about this before too, Knicks fans are delusional... They may have been "2nd" in attendance over the Knicks but had a better shot at winning a title.
Obviously the Nets had the better players. I'm talking about relevance. It's not delusional it's fact. Sure if they had won 2 or 3 titles they might have taken over NY. But they didn't. Not sure what you have against the Knicks. I've never seen someone hate a team that hasn't won in over 50 years
Never ever have I stated that I hate the Knicks. I just think the fans are delusional in thinking that they have something special year, after year after year... It's not hope, it's delusional. I have hope for the Angels doing better than what they have done, not thinking they have a shot at winning a WS.
The Nets with their big 3 were more relevant at first. Then the stupid shit started piling up and became the talk of the town for a different reason.
The Mets, like the Nets sometimes gain more traction than their cross town rivals in relevance, it happens.
0
Options
The Juggler
Behind that bush over there. Posts: 47,288
The Knicks have not been relevant since Patrick Ewing left town.
KD just should have gone to the Knicks like he wanted to.
I remember him saying specifically that The Knicks aren't a team that players want to play for. "The cool thing is not the Knicks"
But the Nets were? Even with the players they got were still the 2nd team in the city
We talked about the Nets way more, for better or worse. Theres only so many times you can talk about Julius Randle...
I doubt they sold out every game
We've talked about this before too, Knicks fans are delusional... They may have been "2nd" in attendance over the Knicks but had a better shot at winning a title.
Obviously the Nets had the better players. I'm talking about relevance. It's not delusional it's fact. Sure if they had won 2 or 3 titles they might have taken over NY. But they didn't. Not sure what you have against the Knicks. I've never seen someone hate a team that hasn't won in over 50 years
Never ever have I stated that I hate the Knicks. I just think the fans are delusional in thinking that they have something special year, after year after year... It's not hope, it's delusional. I have hope for the Angels doing better than what they have done, not thinking they have a shot at winning a WS.
The Nets with their big 3 were more relevant at first. Then the stupid shit started piling up and became the talk of the town for a different reason.
The Mets, like the Nets sometimes gain more traction than their cross town rivals in relevance, it happens.
You get excited when a huge free agent turns us down. It's not our fault the media names us as a possible destination. And no we don't think we have something special year after year. And I could be wrong but were the Nets on ESPN/ABC and TNT more than the Knicks?
KD just should have gone to the Knicks like he wanted to.
I remember him saying specifically that The Knicks aren't a team that players want to play for. "The cool thing is not the Knicks"
But the Nets were? Even with the players they got were still the 2nd team in the city
We talked about the Nets way more, for better or worse. Theres only so many times you can talk about Julius Randle...
I doubt they sold out every game
We've talked about this before too, Knicks fans are delusional... They may have been "2nd" in attendance over the Knicks but had a better shot at winning a title.
Obviously the Nets had the better players. I'm talking about relevance. It's not delusional it's fact. Sure if they had won 2 or 3 titles they might have taken over NY. But they didn't. Not sure what you have against the Knicks. I've never seen someone hate a team that hasn't won in over 50 years
Never ever have I stated that I hate the Knicks. I just think the fans are delusional in thinking that they have something special year, after year after year... It's not hope, it's delusional. I have hope for the Angels doing better than what they have done, not thinking they have a shot at winning a WS.
The Nets with their big 3 were more relevant at first. Then the stupid shit started piling up and became the talk of the town for a different reason.
The Mets, like the Nets sometimes gain more traction than their cross town rivals in relevance, it happens.
You get excited when a huge free agent turns us down. It's not our fault the media names us as a possible destination. And no we don't think we have something special year after year. And I could be wrong but were the Nets on ESPN/ABC and TNT more than the Knicks?
EVERY free agent turns the Knicks down... The players talk, nobody wants to come here. They love playing here and beating the Knicks but they don't want to play for them.
As far as having something special in a team year after year? I listen to enough sports radio to get an ear full from the fans.
KD just should have gone to the Knicks like he wanted to.
I remember him saying specifically that The Knicks aren't a team that players want to play for. "The cool thing is not the Knicks"
But the Nets were? Even with the players they got were still the 2nd team in the city
We talked about the Nets way more, for better or worse. Theres only so many times you can talk about Julius Randle...
I doubt they sold out every game
We've talked about this before too, Knicks fans are delusional... They may have been "2nd" in attendance over the Knicks but had a better shot at winning a title.
Obviously the Nets had the better players. I'm talking about relevance. It's not delusional it's fact. Sure if they had won 2 or 3 titles they might have taken over NY. But they didn't. Not sure what you have against the Knicks. I've never seen someone hate a team that hasn't won in over 50 years
Never ever have I stated that I hate the Knicks. I just think the fans are delusional in thinking that they have something special year, after year after year... It's not hope, it's delusional. I have hope for the Angels doing better than what they have done, not thinking they have a shot at winning a WS.
The Nets with their big 3 were more relevant at first. Then the stupid shit started piling up and became the talk of the town for a different reason.
The Mets, like the Nets sometimes gain more traction than their cross town rivals in relevance, it happens.
You get excited when a huge free agent turns us down. It's not our fault the media names us as a possible destination. And no we don't think we have something special year after year. And I could be wrong but were the Nets on ESPN/ABC and TNT more than the Knicks?
EVERY free agent turns the Knicks down... The players talk, nobody wants to come here. They love playing here and beating the Knicks but they don't want to play for them.
As far as having something special in a team year after year? I listen to enough sports radio to get an ear full from the fans.
Not every free agent otherwise all our players would only be draft picks.
KD just should have gone to the Knicks like he wanted to.
I remember him saying specifically that The Knicks aren't a team that players want to play for. "The cool thing is not the Knicks"
But the Nets were? Even with the players they got were still the 2nd team in the city
We talked about the Nets way more, for better or worse. Theres only so many times you can talk about Julius Randle...
I doubt they sold out every game
We've talked about this before too, Knicks fans are delusional... They may have been "2nd" in attendance over the Knicks but had a better shot at winning a title.
Obviously the Nets had the better players. I'm talking about relevance. It's not delusional it's fact. Sure if they had won 2 or 3 titles they might have taken over NY. But they didn't. Not sure what you have against the Knicks. I've never seen someone hate a team that hasn't won in over 50 years
Never ever have I stated that I hate the Knicks. I just think the fans are delusional in thinking that they have something special year, after year after year... It's not hope, it's delusional. I have hope for the Angels doing better than what they have done, not thinking they have a shot at winning a WS.
The Nets with their big 3 were more relevant at first. Then the stupid shit started piling up and became the talk of the town for a different reason.
The Mets, like the Nets sometimes gain more traction than their cross town rivals in relevance, it happens.
You get excited when a huge free agent turns us down. It's not our fault the media names us as a possible destination. And no we don't think we have something special year after year. And I could be wrong but were the Nets on ESPN/ABC and TNT more than the Knicks?
EVERY free agent turns the Knicks down... The players talk, nobody wants to come here. They love playing here and beating the Knicks but they don't want to play for them.
As far as having something special in a team year after year? I listen to enough sports radio to get an ear full from the fans.
Not every free agent otherwise all our players would only be draft picks.
KD just should have gone to the Knicks like he wanted to.
I remember him saying specifically that The Knicks aren't a team that players want to play for. "The cool thing is not the Knicks"
But the Nets were? Even with the players they got were still the 2nd team in the city
We talked about the Nets way more, for better or worse. Theres only so many times you can talk about Julius Randle...
I doubt they sold out every game
We've talked about this before too, Knicks fans are delusional... They may have been "2nd" in attendance over the Knicks but had a better shot at winning a title.
Obviously the Nets had the better players. I'm talking about relevance. It's not delusional it's fact. Sure if they had won 2 or 3 titles they might have taken over NY. But they didn't. Not sure what you have against the Knicks. I've never seen someone hate a team that hasn't won in over 50 years
Never ever have I stated that I hate the Knicks. I just think the fans are delusional in thinking that they have something special year, after year after year... It's not hope, it's delusional. I have hope for the Angels doing better than what they have done, not thinking they have a shot at winning a WS.
The Nets with their big 3 were more relevant at first. Then the stupid shit started piling up and became the talk of the town for a different reason.
The Mets, like the Nets sometimes gain more traction than their cross town rivals in relevance, it happens.
And I could be wrong but were the Nets on ESPN/ABC and TNT more than the Knicks?
Comments
Warriors won 2 after KD went there.
Yeah, the bubble team when Lebron and AD went there.
Am I missing any?
Plus these other teams you are mentioning were all really good and either lost in the finals or conference finals mostly...just came across better teams eventually. A lot them featured stars who were on their last legs though.
The Cavs though? They traded a first round pick in Wiggins for an outside shooter in Love. A good piece but not a superteam piece IMO.
I also thought you meant newer Celtics, not 08 Celtics.
Also The Warriors were not as stated previously and which Lakers team won that was a superteam? Not the Bubble one?
The Cavs got Lebron, Kyrie and Kevin Love. How's that not a super team?
Nah, that originally Danny Ainge Celtic team was sort of the first super team in this era.
How were the Warriors not? They added one of the maybe 10 greatest players ever to Curry and Thompson. That's an obvious one.
The Lakers added Anthony Davis to a team featuring Lebron still in his prime, that's a super team.
Cavs is a longshot to me but I can see it. Nobody was raving about Love until he got to the Cavs though.
Warriors again were stacked from draft picks, adding KD was over the top yes.
AD and LBJ aren't a superteam when the rest were bit players.
It's an interesting perspective to talk about. I disagree with throwing around the term though. Adding a piece is different from loading up with players. The Nets acquiring 3 future HOFers was definitely a superteam.
Like the Kobe/Shaq Lakers I would not consider a superteam. That was a good player leaving for another team and they gelled. I mean Kobe was good before shaq when he got there he became great.
I agree on the Celtics to a point. Ray Allens numbers dropped significantly when he went to Boston but still good.
I enjoy the conversation, so thank you.
His career average is 18.9.
The real drop off came when he went to Miami for his final 2 seasons.
This got me curious. Believe it or not the Bulls lead the league in attendance. Would never have guessed that
http://www.espn.com/nba/attendance
The elite NBA franchises start and end with the Celtics and Lakers, Honorable mentions to Bulls, Warriors, Spurs and Sixers.
Knicks are only relevant in the media because of the city they play in. As a franchise they are pretty much a joke, especially under Dolan.
actually, I root for them all to fail.
Vegas 93, Vegas 98, Vegas 00 (10 year show), Vegas 03, Vegas 06
VIC 07
EV LA1 08
Seattle1 09, Seattle2 09, Salt Lake 09, LA4 09
Columbus 10
EV LA 11
Vancouver 11
Missoula 12
Portland 13, Spokane 13
St. Paul 14, Denver 14
This is the stupid shit that the powers of be are discussing...
The Nets with their big 3 were more relevant at first. Then the stupid shit started piling up and became the talk of the town for a different reason.
The Mets, like the Nets sometimes gain more traction than their cross town rivals in relevance, it happens.
And I could be wrong but were the Nets on ESPN/ABC and TNT more than the Knicks?
As far as having something special in a team year after year? I listen to enough sports radio to get an ear full from the fans.
The confetti dropped.
NBA schedule 2022-23: Which teams have the most games on national TV? Warriors, Lakers, Celtics... - AS USA
Last season 26 for Nets, 22 for Knicks
National TV Games By Team: 2021-22 : nba (reddit.com)