MJ on superteams: It's bad for the league

Moderators: Capn'O, CoreyGallagher, magnumt, Yuri Vaultin, ken6199, Dirk, Mr. E, bwgood77, PockyCandy, BombsquadSammy, Duke4life831, LLcoleJ, KF10, GimmeDat, Domejandro, Knickstape1214, Prez

AdagioPace
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,639
And1: 1,553
Joined: Jan 03, 2017
Location: spaghettiland
   

Re: MJ on superteams: It's bad for the league 

Post#141 » by AdagioPace » Fri Oct 13, 2017 8:03 am

He shouldn't have said "superteams (very strong teams) are bad for the league" but "mvps in their primes joining forces is bad for the league"
(basically...the Warriors..and the WArriors)
Roddy B for 3
Rookie
Posts: 1,241
And1: 194
Joined: Jan 13, 2012
       

Re: MJ on superteams: It's bad for the league 

Post#142 » by Roddy B for 3 » Fri Oct 13, 2017 8:04 am

guy1 wrote:
Manute Lol wrote:
Bobalob wrote:
Stacked yes. Superteam no. There is a difference and a very simple one tbh

A superteam is when players, franchise players, number 1 options, come together en mass, in their prime to join one another.

That means the bulls werent one bc Rodman nor Kukoc were franchise players (and you could argue Pippen wasnt either, but regardless he was drafted anyway)

First of all, your definition of "superteam" is entirely arbitrary.

Second, the distinction you're trying to draw between Rodman coming to the Bulls for peanuts (Will Perdue + cash), and Durant signing with the Warriors is both sanctimonious and silly. Dennis Rodman is a hall of famer who still had plenty of gas left in the tank (as much as Wade had when Lebron went to Miami, at least) when he went to the Bulls. Who cares if he wasn't a "franchise player, number 1 option"? Adding another one of those guys rather than Rodman wouldn't have actually made the Bulls better; a team is more than the sum of its parts, and any definition of a "superteam" which ignores this basic fact belies an ignorance of how the game is played when the players actually take the court (as opposed to how they look on paper).

Rodman is a hall of famer, he came to join a team that had already won three chips, and he came basically for free. How is KD joining the Dubs worse for competitive balance than Rodman joining the Bulls, again?


This is a terrible comparison.


Was Rodman a Hof'er before he joined the Bulls?
7/1/2019
Dudeinthepaint1
Ballboy
Posts: 29
And1: 8
Joined: Aug 18, 2016
 

Re: MJ on superteams: It's bad for the league 

Post#143 » by Dudeinthepaint1 » Fri Oct 13, 2017 8:12 am

Rodman's rep has grown a lot over the years. I doubt he would've been considered a top 10 player back then.
axeman23
Junior
Posts: 405
And1: 293
Joined: Jul 31, 2009

Re: MJ on superteams: It's bad for the league 

Post#144 » by axeman23 » Fri Oct 13, 2017 8:14 am

DavidSterned wrote:
clyde21 wrote:
evilpimp972 wrote:How many rings Steph got before Klay and Draymond came into the fold?


0

but I'm not the one sitting here denying that the Warriors are a superteam, so I'm not sure what your point is?


Bulls' original dynasty grew entirely organically, their only free agent signings of note came later with Harper and Kerr, who were hardly superstars. And their 'superteam' went 34-31 without MJ in 1994-95.


The Cavs, in ANY iteration, would KILL to play .500 ball for an extended period of time with Lebron out. Yet you're saying this is a demonstration of how WEAK the Bulls sans MJ were??? :lol:
Pennebaker
Bench Warmer
Posts: 1,367
And1: 892
Joined: Nov 02, 2013

Re: MJ on superteams: It's bad for the league 

Post#145 » by Pennebaker » Fri Oct 13, 2017 8:20 am

People said the same thing about expansion in the 90's. Fans may have forgotten now, but all throughout the mid-90s there was a narrative about how weak the league had become due to expansion.

Charles Barkley, 1994:

The league has deteriorated. You have bad general managers drafting bad players. It's like the NFL. The older players are moving on, and the younger ones aren't there yet. You look at some of the guys starting in this league these days and it makes you shake your head.


Kevin McHale, 1995:

Put a player like Alonzo Mourning or Shaquille O'Neal or Larry Johnson or Christian Laettner on Boston or Detroit, and it's just as strong a league. But now the league is expanding again [to Toronto and/or Vancouver in 1995-96], and it will only get worse.


Larry Bird, 1996 [talking to Bob Costas]:

I think the expansion teams have really hurt the league, I think it's depleted the talent in our league.


Bob Costas to Dr. J, 1996 Bulls pre-game conversation:

You had Larry and Magic to test yourselves against, there's nothing comparable to that quality of competition at the top for these Chicago Bulls. So it seems a little awkward to talk about the Bulls as one of the best teams of all time.


New day, same story.
DavidSterned
Analyst
Posts: 3,555
And1: 1,317
Joined: Feb 18, 2010
         

Re: MJ on superteams: It's bad for the league 

Post#146 » by DavidSterned » Fri Oct 13, 2017 8:20 am

axeman23 wrote:
DavidSterned wrote:
clyde21 wrote:
0

but I'm not the one sitting here denying that the Warriors are a superteam, so I'm not sure what your point is?


Bulls' original dynasty grew entirely organically, their only free agent signings of note came later with Harper and Kerr, who were hardly superstars. And their 'superteam' went 34-31 without MJ in 1994-95.


The Cavs, in ANY iteration, would KILL to play .500 ball for an extended period of time with Lebron out. Yet you're saying this is a demonstration of how WEAK the Bulls sans MJ were??? :lol:


The Cavs this year would be at LEAST a .500 team without Lebron. A little tougher to say with IT out for so long, but their roster is extremely well rounded. Stop acting like your boy has no help.
Pennebaker
Bench Warmer
Posts: 1,367
And1: 892
Joined: Nov 02, 2013

Re: MJ on superteams: It's bad for the league 

Post#147 » by Pennebaker » Fri Oct 13, 2017 8:32 am

Roddy B for 3 wrote:
guy1 wrote:
Manute Lol wrote:First of all, your definition of "superteam" is entirely arbitrary.

Second, the distinction you're trying to draw between Rodman coming to the Bulls for peanuts (Will Perdue + cash), and Durant signing with the Warriors is both sanctimonious and silly. Dennis Rodman is a hall of famer who still had plenty of gas left in the tank (as much as Wade had when Lebron went to Miami, at least) when he went to the Bulls. Who cares if he wasn't a "franchise player, number 1 option"? Adding another one of those guys rather than Rodman wouldn't have actually made the Bulls better; a team is more than the sum of its parts, and any definition of a "superteam" which ignores this basic fact belies an ignorance of how the game is played when the players actually take the court (as opposed to how they look on paper).

Rodman is a hall of famer, he came to join a team that had already won three chips, and he came basically for free. How is KD joining the Dubs worse for competitive balance than Rodman joining the Bulls, again?


This is a terrible comparison.


Was Rodman a Hof'er before he joined the Bulls?


Absolutely. He won back-to-back DPOY awards in Detroit while winning 2 rings, and by the time he joined Chicago he had already led the league in rebounding for 4 consecutive seasons. In other words, when the Bulls signed Rodman they added the league's leading rebounder. And he would lead the league in rebounding AGAIN while in Chicago in 1996, whilst also making 1st Team All-Defense AGAIN FOR THE 7TH TIME.

Dennis Rodman was a mountain of a player.

If you weren't alive and/or aware in 1996 to watch all of this play out, the Rodman acquisition for Chicago fans was either IDEAL or UNREAL or both. The Bulls desperately needed someone to fill the roll of Horace Grant who had moved on to Orlando and they went above and beyond in acquiring Rodman. The only question was if Rodman would stay in line because he was known as eccentric. But those questions were answered in 1996 and he was nothing but awesome for the Bulls during his time there.
User avatar
clyde21
RealGM
Posts: 12,761
And1: 8,490
Joined: Aug 20, 2014
     

Re: MJ on superteams: It's bad for the league 

Post#148 » by clyde21 » Fri Oct 13, 2017 8:35 am

DavidSterned wrote:
axeman23 wrote:
DavidSterned wrote:
Bulls' original dynasty grew entirely organically, their only free agent signings of note came later with Harper and Kerr, who were hardly superstars. And their 'superteam' went 34-31 without MJ in 1994-95.


The Cavs, in ANY iteration, would KILL to play .500 ball for an extended period of time with Lebron out. Yet you're saying this is a demonstration of how WEAK the Bulls sans MJ were??? :lol:


The Cavs this year would be at LEAST a .500 team without Lebron. A little tougher to say with IT out for so long, but their roster is extremely well rounded. Stop acting like your boy has no help.


Last year the Warriors were a whopping- -.3 when Steph was on the bench.

What say you?
axeman23
Junior
Posts: 405
And1: 293
Joined: Jul 31, 2009

Re: MJ on superteams: It's bad for the league 

Post#149 » by axeman23 » Fri Oct 13, 2017 8:35 am

DavidSterned wrote:
axeman23 wrote:
DavidSterned wrote:
Bulls' original dynasty grew entirely organically, their only free agent signings of note came later with Harper and Kerr, who were hardly superstars. And their 'superteam' went 34-31 without MJ in 1994-95.


The Cavs, in ANY iteration, would KILL to play .500 ball for an extended period of time with Lebron out. Yet you're saying this is a demonstration of how WEAK the Bulls sans MJ were??? :lol:


The Cavs this year would be at LEAST a .500 team without Lebron. A little tougher to say with IT out for so long, but their roster is extremely well rounded. Stop acting like your boy has no help.


Like they were with Kyrie and K-Love piloting the ship? Cavs were at 1 stage last season 4/23 over the 3 seasons since Lebron returned. Will they up their win percentage without Lebron this year if he misses time? Who knows, but considering the record they have to beat, you'd bloody HOPE so. Still don't know what that has to do with a .500 record for the Bulls in that time without Jordan diminishes them as a supporting cast. Take the best player off most teams and they'd be MORE than happy to go +.500 over a decent stretch...
Roddy B for 3
Rookie
Posts: 1,241
And1: 194
Joined: Jan 13, 2012
       

Re: MJ on superteams: It's bad for the league 

Post#150 » by Roddy B for 3 » Fri Oct 13, 2017 8:46 am

Pennebaker wrote:
Roddy B for 3 wrote:
guy1 wrote:
This is a terrible comparison.


Was Rodman a Hof'er before he joined the Bulls?


Absolutely. He won back-to-back DPOY awards in Detroit while winning 2 rings, and by the time he joined Chicago he had already led the league in rebounding for 4 consecutive seasons. In other words, when the Bulls signed Rodman they added the league's leading rebounder. And he would lead the league in rebounding AGAIN while in Chicago in 1996, whilst also making 1st Team All-Defense AGAIN FOR THE 7TH TIME.

Dennis Rodman was a mountain of a player.

If you weren't alive and/or aware in 1996 to watch all of this play out, the Rodman acquisition for Chicago fans was either IDEAL or UNREAL or both. The Bulls desperately needed someone to fill the roll of Horace Grant who had moved on to Orlando and they went above and beyond in acquiring Rodman. The only question was if Rodman would stay in line because he was known as eccentric. But those questions were answered in 1996 and he was nothing but awesome for the Bulls during his time there.


Sounds like a "super" team to me.

I don't like NBA players "teaming" up. I like the best players on separate teams and more randomness in who will be the champion. Football 'esq.
7/1/2019
DavidSterned
Analyst
Posts: 3,555
And1: 1,317
Joined: Feb 18, 2010
         

Re: MJ on superteams: It's bad for the league 

Post#151 » by DavidSterned » Fri Oct 13, 2017 8:48 am

clyde21 wrote:
DavidSterned wrote:
axeman23 wrote:
The Cavs, in ANY iteration, would KILL to play .500 ball for an extended period of time with Lebron out. Yet you're saying this is a demonstration of how WEAK the Bulls sans MJ were??? :lol:


The Cavs this year would be at LEAST a .500 team without Lebron. A little tougher to say with IT out for so long, but their roster is extremely well rounded. Stop acting like your boy has no help.


Last year the Warriors were a whopping- -.3 when Steph was on the bench.

What say you?


They went 4-2 the last two years without Curry in the regular season and 4-2 in the 2016 playoffs without him. I think they could manage.
DavidSterned
Analyst
Posts: 3,555
And1: 1,317
Joined: Feb 18, 2010
         

Re: MJ on superteams: It's bad for the league 

Post#152 » by DavidSterned » Fri Oct 13, 2017 8:54 am

axeman23 wrote:
DavidSterned wrote:
axeman23 wrote:
The Cavs, in ANY iteration, would KILL to play .500 ball for an extended period of time with Lebron out. Yet you're saying this is a demonstration of how WEAK the Bulls sans MJ were??? :lol:


The Cavs this year would be at LEAST a .500 team without Lebron. A little tougher to say with IT out for so long, but their roster is extremely well rounded. Stop acting like your boy has no help.


Like they were with Kyrie and K-Love piloting the ship? Cavs were at 1 stage last season 4/23 over the 3 seasons since Lebron returned. Will they up their win percentage without Lebron this year if he misses time? Who knows, but considering the record they have to beat, you'd bloody HOPE so. Still don't know what that has to do with a .500 record for the Bulls in that time without Jordan diminishes them as a supporting cast. Take the best player off most teams and they'd be MORE than happy to go +.500 over a decent stretch...


Guys like Wade and IT have proven that they can lead a team on their own, and add in Love, Rose, Crowder, Smith, Thompson, Korver etc. and you have more than enough firepower in the Least to win 41+ games. This current Cavs unit is a far cry from the 2003-10 Cavs, who literally no one ever mentioned as a super team, and clearly superior to the teams of the past three years. There's a reason why they went an underwhelming 51-31 last year. They weren't that great.
BloodNinja
Rookie
Posts: 1,024
And1: 1,279
Joined: Mar 05, 2016

Re: MJ on superteams: It's bad for the league 

Post#153 » by BloodNinja » Fri Oct 13, 2017 9:31 am

Superteams aren't necessarily bad but we do lack contenders. GSW is the obvious superteam and that's about it. Cleveland is as good as LeBron is, Spurs are pretty strong and after that it's a bunch of question marks. If we had 4 actual contenders each year and 2-4 teams that can make some noise that would be perfect.
mademan
RealGM
Posts: 10,707
And1: 6,432
Joined: Feb 18, 2010

Re: MJ on superteams: It's bad for the league 

Post#154 » by mademan » Fri Oct 13, 2017 9:32 am

DavidSterned wrote:
axeman23 wrote:
DavidSterned wrote:
The Cavs this year would be at LEAST a .500 team without Lebron. A little tougher to say with IT out for so long, but their roster is extremely well rounded. Stop acting like your boy has no help.


Like they were with Kyrie and K-Love piloting the ship? Cavs were at 1 stage last season 4/23 over the 3 seasons since Lebron returned. Will they up their win percentage without Lebron this year if he misses time? Who knows, but considering the record they have to beat, you'd bloody HOPE so. Still don't know what that has to do with a .500 record for the Bulls in that time without Jordan diminishes them as a supporting cast. Take the best player off most teams and they'd be MORE than happy to go +.500 over a decent stretch...


Guys like Wade and IT have proven that they can lead a team on their own, and add in Love, Rose, Crowder, Smith, Thompson, Korver etc. and you have more than enough firepower in the Least to win 41+ games. This current Cavs unit is a far cry from the 2003-10 Cavs, who literally no one ever mentioned as a super team, and clearly superior to the teams of the past three years. There's a reason why they went an underwhelming 51-31 last year. They weren't that great.


Adding in guys like Wade and Rose, who were complete negatives last year, as positives is disingenuous. Like there's a reason one of them was bought out and the other could only get minimum offers around the league. And those 7 guys you put out there would have, by far, the worst defense in the league. Maybe they are a .500 team, but acting like it's even close to the Bulls cast, especially relative to league talent at the time, is ridiculous. IF IT is healthy and gets to last year form, thats one of the best supporting casts in the league; that's just incredibly unlikely to happen this year.
walk with me
Veteran
Posts: 2,916
And1: 1,748
Joined: Dec 01, 2013

Re: MJ on superteams: It's bad for the league 

Post#155 » by walk with me » Fri Oct 13, 2017 10:28 am

JGOJustin wrote:At this point I don't see how anyone could consciously believe that superteams are "bad" for the league though. Based on what grounds? Because YOU don't like them?

Superteam(s) breed storylines, dynasties, epic championship series, MVPs, etc. and the NBA has never been more alive than it is now. On what basis is superteams "bad?"

Because we know who's going to win? That's been the case for much of the NBA's existence.


They're bad for the league cause there's no point in watching the nba until the nba finals


There's no story line
There's no narrative
There's no incentive for middle of the road teams
There's no incentive for fans who's team is obviously going to get shellacked by the same team for like the 5 year in a row only to see the same finals for the 4th year in a row

Why are people so stubborn to admit the obvious. It has nothing to do with personal preferenfe. This is a bad product.
guy1
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,758
And1: 80
Joined: Aug 22, 2007

Re: MJ on superteams: It's bad for the league 

Post#156 » by guy1 » Fri Oct 13, 2017 11:06 am

Pennebaker wrote:
Roddy B for 3 wrote:
guy1 wrote:
This is a terrible comparison.


Was Rodman a Hof'er before he joined the Bulls?


Absolutely. He won back-to-back DPOY awards in Detroit while winning 2 rings, and by the time he joined Chicago he had already led the league in rebounding for 4 consecutive seasons. In other words, when the Bulls signed Rodman they added the league's leading rebounder. And he would lead the league in rebounding AGAIN while in Chicago in 1996, whilst also making 1st Team All-Defense AGAIN FOR THE 7TH TIME.

Dennis Rodman was a mountain of a player.

If you weren't alive and/or aware in 1996 to watch all of this play out, the Rodman acquisition for Chicago fans was either IDEAL or UNREAL or both. The Bulls desperately needed someone to fill the roll of Horace Grant who had moved on to Orlando and they went above and beyond in acquiring Rodman. The only question was if Rodman would stay in line because he was known as eccentric. But those questions were answered in 1996 and he was nothing but awesome for the Bulls during his time there.


Are you joking? Rodman was considered a cancer on the Spurs before he joined the Bulls. He was a malcontent that was considered a net negative despite the crazy rebounding numbers. By the way, he was basically that in all his stops AFTER the Bulls as well. There’s a reason why the Bulls were able to get him for “peanuts.”

There was a question about whether Rodman was going to make the HOF as it was already, so there’s absolutely no way he gets in without the years in Chicago. And I was alive and watching during that time. The move wasn’t universally praised at the time. There was questions about whether Rodman could be handled cause of how he was in San Antonio. Most people thought if any team could handle him, it would be the Bulls. Not nearly considered as much of a slam dunk as Durant going to the Warriors.
C_Alejandro
Sophomore
Posts: 163
And1: 106
Joined: Jul 04, 2017
 

Re: MJ on superteams: It's bad for the league 

Post#157 » by C_Alejandro » Fri Oct 13, 2017 12:07 pm

People never complained when the LA Lakers had the best point guard in the league, the best Center in the league, and a top 5 Small-Forward in James Worthy.

People didn't complain when the Lakers were appearing the Finals seemingly every year. 9 Finals appearances in 11 years, let that sink in.
User avatar
OakleyDokely
General Manager
Posts: 9,080
And1: 21,149
Joined: Aug 02, 2008
Location: 416
     

Re: MJ on superteams: It's bad for the league 

Post#158 » by OakleyDokely » Fri Oct 13, 2017 12:19 pm

Really, if Durant didn't join a 73 win team, the NBA would be really competitive. You'd have at least 5 teams with a realistic chance at a title - CLE, GS, HOU, SA, OKC. In NBA terms, that's quite a few teams. But Durant made his choice and the other contenders really need to hope that GS catches the injury bug.
LeBron_da_Don
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,672
And1: 989
Joined: Jul 07, 2009
     

Re: MJ on superteams: It's bad for the league 

Post#159 » by LeBron_da_Don » Fri Oct 13, 2017 12:20 pm

This is what happens when we tell generational greats that winning a championship is the only thing that matters and your position on the NBA's pantheon can only be 'consummated' with a championship....they're taking the power back and putting themselves in the best position to win.

But to his point, does it hurt the competition? Yes. Is it bad for the league? Arguable but to me it is not. The league seems to be as profitable/popular as it has ever been knowing that only 2 teams (and maybe 2-3 possibles) have a shot at contention.
Super Eagles GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!
NuggetsWY
Forum Mod - Nuggets
Forum Mod - Nuggets
Posts: 4,213
And1: 1,230
Joined: Oct 28, 2015
 

Re: MJ on superteams: It's bad for the league 

Post#160 » by NuggetsWY » Fri Oct 13, 2017 12:44 pm

LeBron_da_Don wrote:This is what happens when we tell generational greats that winning a championship is the only thing that matters and your position on the NBA's pantheon can only be 'consummated' with a championship....they're taking the power back and putting themselves in the best position to win.

But to his point, does it hurt the competition? Yes. Is it bad for the league? Arguable but to me it is not. The league seems to be as profitable/popular as it has ever been knowing that only 2 teams (and maybe 2-3 possibles) have a shot at contention.

Totally agree with your premise but your conclusion is weak. I remember the 1960s & even in the 1970s, few games were on TV and the finals were tape-delayed until after the 11 o'clock news. (My boss knew which nights the games were on just based on how I looked. :lol: ). The league does not "seem to be as profitable/popular as it has ever been". It is miles ahead of even 10 years ago - and I'm loving it. :nod:

Return to The General Board