picko wrote:There have always been superteams. The difference is now they are player-created rather than executive-created. Functionally there is little difference between Red and West running rings around their hapless peers and LeBron and KD leaving for a more favourable position.
What the player empowerment era has done is removed a lot of the 'luck' associated with success and failure. That's not necessarily a bad thing.
It didnt take away the luck. It took away the uncertainty and it took away the competition. It also took away the fire from so many players as they know they can just hook up with their friends and get that ring. Guys like Dame Lillard actually get pressured into joining superteams.
We spent a generation lambasting star players who never won a title. Barkley is a 'loser'. So too is the Mailman and Ewing. Of course, that coloured the attitudes of players who came through and when the opportunity presented itself to take control of their careers they took it.
I never agreed with the way the 90s stars got bashed and discredited for not winning rings. However the answer is not for star players to try to game the system and win cheap rings in order to avoid the criticism and avoid the pressure. That's
ridiculous.
Again, I don't think great players should be discredited and bashed for not winning rings. But I do think great players who do win rings, the right way, should be rewarded with an elevated legacy that puts them in another tier. That keeps the stakes high. That keeps winning, the right way, as the ultimate goal and ultimate prize.
Jordan had to go through the fire. He had to deal with the constant criticism of not winning. Nobody made excuses for him. No one cared that he didn't have a great team. He had to face the possibility he may never win. That drove him. Shaq had to go through it. Kobe had to go through it after Shaq left. Dirk and Giannis had to deal with it. These guys all dealt with it, persevered, and came out on top. Lebron and KD never actually did that. When faced with the criticism and the possibility of not winning they took the easy way out. Now championships barely even matter to this generation. Totally cheapened them.
It seems insane to me that people want to put asterisks on teams that are player-created but have no issue with superior teams winning because they were created by executives. LeBron's never played on a team with more talent than the 1995-96 Bulls or 1985-86 Celtics. Do you really think Magic would prefer LeBron's rosters against the ones he had from day one during his career? I doubt it.
The 95-96 Bulls were a team of cast offs. Yes they turned into the best team in league history but not because they had overwhelming talent. The 2011 and 2012 Heat were more talented as were the 2016 Cavs. No one wanted Dennis Rodman, Steve Kerr, and Luc Longley at the time.
I didn't personally enjoy the Durant-era Warriors - I prefer there to be at least some competitive balance - but I'm certainly not putting asterisks next to most of the championships that have occurred over the past decade. It seems pointless and infantile and driven by agenda rather than reflecting some consistent and coherent ideology.
As explained above rings have been totally cheapened in this era to the point many fans don't even include them when making all time lists. This board is notorious for that. By putting asterisks on these cheap, manufactured, bought and paid for rings we can raise the value of
real championships. Guys like Giannis, Dirk, Kobe, Kawhi, Shaq, Tim and others can actually get their credit for not taking the easy way out. Championships can become the ultimate prize again. Competition can return. We can actually see what the great players are made of when they actually face each other.
But as long as we keep praising these weak championships and anti-competitive spirit thats dominated the past decade its only going to get worse. Seriously look at the Lakers and the Nets roster. How is this good for anyone who loves basketball? Its weak and its cheap.