No superstar team build on purpose

[Ugly Duckling]

Superstars, even aging and potential ones that remain unproven, come at a premium, and rightfully so. They are the best in the world at one of the most popular sports in the world. Just looking at the NBC proposal makes you realize that they are actually underpaid.

That being said, with the supermax cap hit handcuffing GM's and all the future first rd picks and promising prospects that are given up for said superstars in trade scenarios, wouldn't it make more sense to proactively decide not to draft or trade for one? That way you wouldn't have to take risks in the draft or pay for one. This would theoretically allow you to draft solid, proven two-way players rather than drafting on potential and taking the risk on boom or bust players. It would also allow you the cap space to fill your roster with young but experienced and durable two way players on reasonable deals.

One thing I've noticed about these playoffs is teams are playing their starting lineups a lot with maybe a couple other guys to bring in some fresh legs and switch it up. Unless it's a blowout, which a lot of the times it is, teams are gassed at the end. There are also liabilities on defense and offense in most players that are exploited by the other team.

Now I know one argument some of you are thinking about is who's going to get you a bucket or create shots if there's no superstar? Who's going to force double teams or make the right play down the stretch? Well if you have 13 guys that can actually play both ends, you can sub them out every few minutes and have them go full energy during the time they're in the game. This could overwhelm even more talented players who will eventually get gassed.

Thoughts?

[badpotato]

Budenholzer Atlanta comes to mind as best case scenario. I'd pass.
Supermax for legitimate superstar is the best value contract you can have on the roster.

[Dominator83]

Budenholzer Atlanta comes to mind as best case scenario. I'd pass.
Supermax for legitimate superstar is the best value contract you can have on the roster.

2004 Pistons was the best case scenario

[Lalouie]

Superstars, even aging and potential ones that remain unproven, come at a premium, and rightfully so. They are the best in the world one of the most popular sports in the world. Just looking at the NBC proposal makes you realize that they are actually underpaid.

That being said, with the supermax cap hit handcuffing GM's and all the future first rd picks and promising prospects that are given up for said superstars in trade scenarios, wouldn't it make more sense to proactively decide not to draft or trade for one? That way you wouldn't have to take risks in the draft or pay for one. This would theoretically allow you to draft solid, proven two-way players rather than drafting on potential and taking the risk on boom or bust players. It would also allow you the cap space to fill your roster with young but experienced and durable two way players on reasonable deals.

One thing I've noticed about these playoffs is teams are playing their starting lineups a lot with maybe a couple other guys to bring in some fresh legs and switch it up. Unless it's a blowout, which a lot of the times it is, teams are gassed at the end. There are also liabilities on defense and offense in most players that are exploited by the other team.

Now I know one argument some of you are thinking about is who's going to get you a bucket or create shots if there's no superstar? Who's going to force double teams or make the right play down the stretch? Well if you have 13 guys that can actually play both ends, you can sub them out every few minutes and have them go full energy during the time they're in the game. This could overwhelm even more talented players who will eventually get gassed.

Thoughts?

drafting is a cr@ps00t in the first place

so, drafting for "proven,,,,,,,,,," is oxymoronic, by definition. a draftee has no resume. to further expand, the world is comfortable with status quo and to that extent resume is important and no one wants to take a chance on an unknown quantity. we're also talking about the fear of losing one's job - so it becomes safe to do the safe thing.

teams truncating their teams to 7or8 is a working example of the safety in reliability. if you are a lebron stan then you know his thoughts on reliable vets is well known

back to the draft......there's really only a half dozen at the very most boom or bust players in a draft, and practically speaking trying to find a gem is exponentially harder to do

[shrink]

Superstars, even aging and potential ones that remain unproven, come at a premium, and rightfully so. They are the best in the world one of the most popular sports in the world. Just looking at the NBC proposal makes you realize that they are actually underpaid.

That being said, with the supermax cap hit handcuffing GM's and all the future first rd picks and promising prospects that are given up for said superstars in trade scenarios, wouldn't it make more sense to proactively decide not to draft or trade for one? That way you wouldn't have to take risks in the draft or pay for one. This would theoretically allow you to draft solid, proven two-way players rather than drafting on potential and taking the risk on boom or bust players. It would also allow you the cap space to fill your roster with young but experienced and durable two way players on reasonable deals.

One thing I've noticed about these playoffs is teams are playing their starting lineups a lot with maybe a couple other guys to bring in some fresh legs and switch it up. Unless it's a blowout, which a lot of the times it is, teams are gassed at the end. There are also liabilities on defense and offense in most players that are exploited by the other team.

Now I know one argument some of you are thinking about is who's going to get you a bucket or create shots if there's no superstar? Who's going to force double teams or make the right play down the stretch? Well if you have 13 guys that can actually play both ends, you can sub them out every few minutes and have them go full energy during the time they're in the game. This could overwhelm even more talented players who will eventually get gassed.

Thoughts?

Consider that the winner of an NBA game is often determined by the team that can put the most talent on the floor for 240 (48x5) minutes. “13 guys that can play at both ends” isn’t that valuable when many will be spending the majority of their time on the bench. The reason that superstars (despite their expense) are so valuable is that they consolidate team talent into one great player outperforming his counterpart for 35-40 of those minutes.

If you want a real life example, it’s been 20 years since an NBA team won a championship without a Top 10 player, right? (Pistons).

I like your unconventional thinking, and teams can go too far down the superstar route if they don’t leave enough payroll for a couple bench players (PHX). But true contenders have superstars, and generally have to give them max deals to keep them.

[SelfishPlayer]

This doesn't work in the playoffs. Why? The team without a superstar will lack being the beneficiary of receiving superstar calls in their favor. This is what ignorant fans realize when they have a good team without a superstar. They then understand that superstars are a critical part of the game.

[Sign5]

People always reference '04 pistons, we already know they had an ATG defense that helped carry them but imo Billups was the OG playoffs Murray. An allstar caliber player that looked like a bonafide star in crucial times.

Was top 6 in MVP voting twice in his prime and although he didn't have the gaudy stats of a superstar, his impact and elite shot making was undeniable.

No coincidence Denver looked great as they did simply replacing Iverson for Billups as well (even considering fit).
I could be overselling him a bit but i always felt Chauncey was superb underrated player.

[rand]

Genuine superstars are what title teams (and dynasties) are built around. I'd like as many of them on my team as possible.

[Ugly Duckling]

People always reference '04 pistons, we already know they had an ATG defense that helped carry them but imo Billups was the OG playoffs Murray. An allstar caliber player that looked like a bonafide star in crucial times.

Was top 6 in MVP voting twice in his prime and although he didn't have the gaudy stats of a superstar, his impact and elite shot making was undeniable.

No coincidence Denver looked great as they did simply replacing Iverson for Billups as well (even considering fit).
I could be overselling him a bit but i always felt Chauncey was superb underrated player.

Nah Billups was pretty much the prototypical tweener guard. He was a walking bucket, but moved well without the ball. Rip would handle at times and Chauncy would come off of screens and wait for the corner 3. Honesty one of my fav players. Was he underrated? I'd say so. But this still doesn't answer my question as those Pistons weren't constructed to be solid across the board. They just happened to be that way and won despite not having much depth.

[Ugly Duckling]

Superstars, even aging and potential ones that remain unproven, come at a premium, and rightfully so. They are the best in the world one of the most popular sports in the world. Just looking at the NBC proposal makes you realize that they are actually underpaid.

That being said, with the supermax cap hit handcuffing GM's and all the future first rd picks and promising prospects that are given up for said superstars in trade scenarios, wouldn't it make more sense to proactively decide not to draft or trade for one? That way you wouldn't have to take risks in the draft or pay for one. This would theoretically allow you to draft solid, proven two-way players rather than drafting on potential and taking the risk on boom or bust players. It would also allow you the cap space to fill your roster with young but experienced and durable two way players on reasonable deals.

One thing I've noticed about these playoffs is teams are playing their starting lineups a lot with maybe a couple other guys to bring in some fresh legs and switch it up. Unless it's a blowout, which a lot of the times it is, teams are gassed at the end. There are also liabilities on defense and offense in most players that are exploited by the other team.

Now I know one argument some of you are thinking about is who's going to get you a bucket or create shots if there's no superstar? Who's going to force double teams or make the right play down the stretch? Well if you have 13 guys that can actually play both ends, you can sub them out every few minutes and have them go full energy during the time they're in the game. This could overwhelm even more talented players who will eventually get gassed.

Thoughts?

Consider that the winner of an NBA game is often determined by the team that can put the most talent on the floor for 240 (48x5) minutes. “13 guys that can play at both ends” isn’t that valuable when many will be spending the majority of their time on the bench. The reason that superstars (despite their expense) are so valuable is that they consolidate team talent into one great player outperforming his counterpart for 35-40 of those minutes.

If you want a real life example, it’s been 20 years since an NBA team won a championship without a Top 10 player, right? (Pistons).

I like your unconventional thinking, and teams can go too far down the superstar route if they don’t leave enough payroll for a couple bench players (PHX). But true contenders have superstars, and generally have to give them max deals to keep them.

That would defeat the purpose of this strategy, which I outlined in my OP above. Superstars are typically that way because, in addition to being talented, they have an incredible work ethic. So they can go an extra gear and out hustle their opponents. This average build strategy with constant fresh legs going nuts on both ends could destroy that advantage.

[Ugly Duckling]

Superstars, even aging and potential ones that remain unproven, come at a premium, and rightfully so. They are the best in the world one of the most popular sports in the world. Just looking at the NBC proposal makes you realize that they are actually underpaid.

That being said, with the supermax cap hit handcuffing GM's and all the future first rd picks and promising prospects that are given up for said superstars in trade scenarios, wouldn't it make more sense to proactively decide not to draft or trade for one? That way you wouldn't have to take risks in the draft or pay for one. This would theoretically allow you to draft solid, proven two-way players rather than drafting on potential and taking the risk on boom or bust players. It would also allow you the cap space to fill your roster with young but experienced and durable two way players on reasonable deals.

One thing I've noticed about these playoffs is teams are playing their starting lineups a lot with maybe a couple other guys to bring in some fresh legs and switch it up. Unless it's a blowout, which a lot of the times it is, teams are gassed at the end. There are also liabilities on defense and offense in most players that are exploited by the other team.

Now I know one argument some of you are thinking about is who's going to get you a bucket or create shots if there's no superstar? Who's going to force double teams or make the right play down the stretch? Well if you have 13 guys that can actually play both ends, you can sub them out every few minutes and have them go full energy during the time they're in the game. This could overwhelm even more talented players who will eventually get gassed.

Thoughts?

drafting is a cr@ps00t in the first place

so, drafting for "proven,,,,,,,,,," is oxymoronic, by definition. a draftee has no resume. to further expand, the world is comfortable with status quo and to that extent resume is important and no one wants to take a chance on an unknown quantity. we're also talking about the fear of losing one's job - so it becomes safe to do the safe thing.

teams truncating their teams to 7or8 is a working example of the safety in reliability. if you are a lebron stan then you know his thoughts on reliable vets is well known

back to the draft......there's really only a half dozen at the very most boom or bust players in a draft, and practically speaking trying to find a gem is exponentially harder to do

No doubt the draft isn't filled with boom or bust players, but potential exists on a spectrum. GM's will typically draft for potential and take a calculated risk.

For example, if you could draft a player A, who is proven and looks durable and is a long, two-way player who will most likely be a consistent serviceable starter or rotational piece for years to come or player B, who may not have superstar potential, but has more potential (maybe star potential), but also has one or more question marks (whether it's his shot, health, defense, what have you), nine times out of ten you're going to take player B, because your goal is to accumulate the most talented players.

Now think about how this approach adds up over years, not only in terms of extension money, but underperforming and/or injured players and consistent, good, healthy, two-way players who develop chemistry over time.

[winforlose]

Superstars, even aging and potential ones that remain unproven, come at a premium, and rightfully so. They are the best in the world one of the most popular sports in the world. Just looking at the NBC proposal makes you realize that they are actually underpaid.

That being said, with the supermax cap hit handcuffing GM's and all the future first rd picks and promising prospects that are given up for said superstars in trade scenarios, wouldn't it make more sense to proactively decide not to draft or trade for one? That way you wouldn't have to take risks in the draft or pay for one. This would theoretically allow you to draft solid, proven two-way players rather than drafting on potential and taking the risk on boom or bust players. It would also allow you the cap space to fill your roster with young but experienced and durable two way players on reasonable deals.

One thing I've noticed about these playoffs is teams are playing their starting lineups a lot with maybe a couple other guys to bring in some fresh legs and switch it up. Unless it's a blowout, which a lot of the times it is, teams are gassed at the end. There are also liabilities on defense and offense in most players that are exploited by the other team.

Now I know one argument some of you are thinking about is who's going to get you a bucket or create shots if there's no superstar? Who's going to force double teams or make the right play down the stretch? Well if you have 13 guys that can actually play both ends, you can sub them out every few minutes and have them go full energy during the time they're in the game. This could overwhelm even more talented players who will eventually get gassed.

Thoughts?

Joker and Murray. Luka and Kyrie. Brunson and Edwards. Tatum and Brown. Look at the Bucks without Dame and Giannis. This is a superstar league. Guys like Jones and McDaniels are the defensive stoppers, KAT and MPJ are the sharpshooters, Gobert and Gafford/Lively the rim protectors. Superstar is a role just like any other, and the team with the best superstar tends to win the most games. Take SGA off of the Thunder in round 1 and give Zion back to the Pels, does the sweep go the other way? Look at the impact of Chet and JW on OKC this year compared to last year. Your point makes some sense on paper, but basketball isn’t played on paper.

[Forbes]

You are forgetting how good these superstars really are.
Superstars are guys that actually change the whole game.
You legit have
Jokic
Luka
SGA
Giannis
Embiid

These guys production cannot be replicated by having 13 good 2 way players. The impact is just not the same.

13 Mikal Bridges won’t work.

Majority of these superstars are literally unstoppable.

[Ugly Duckling]

You are forgetting how good these superstars really are.
Superstars are guys that actually change the whole game.
You legit have
Jokic
Luka
SGA
Giannis
Embiid

These guys production cannot be replicated by having 13 good 2 way players. The impact is just not the same.

13 Mikal Bridges won’t work.

Majority of these superstars are literally unstoppable.

I don't know how "unstoppable" Luka or SGA would be with a fresh set of Mikal Bridges hounding them every few minutes. How do you?

[Forbes]

You are forgetting how good these superstars really are.
Superstars are guys that actually change the whole game.
You legit have
Jokic
Luka
SGA
Giannis
Embiid

These guys production cannot be replicated by having 13 good 2 way players. The impact is just not the same.

13 Mikal Bridges won’t work.

Majority of these superstars are literally unstoppable.

I don't know how "unstoppable" Luka or SGA would be with a fresh set of Mikal Bridges hounding them every few minutes. How do you?

These guys have trained to play all game. A fresh set of Mikal Bridges will still get torched by Luka or SGA like he does when he guards them now I promise you.

[SweaterBae]

Step 1. Draft Damian Lillard
Step 2. Don't Give 36 year old Damian Lillard $60,000,000.
Step 3. Send Terminator back in time.

[Jasen777]

You are forgetting how good these superstars really are.
Superstars are guys that actually change the whole game.
You legit have
Jokic
Luka
SGA
Giannis
Embiid

These guys production cannot be replicated by having 13 good 2 way players. The impact is just not the same.

13 Mikal Bridges won’t work.

Majority of these superstars are literally unstoppable.

I don't know how "unstoppable" Luka or SGA would be with a fresh set of Mikal Bridges hounding them every few minutes. How do you?

Even paying tax, how many Bridges level players can you get when they command 16% of the cap?

[FarBeyondDriven]

I get what you're saying. Draft a bunch of very good role players and have good depth but no stars so you don't have to deal with the massive ego, trade demands, outlandish contracts and diva attitude. This is usually how small markets have to conduct business. But this is a TV show and owners want fans in the seats to spend on concessions and keep them in the black year after year while their franchise's value increases annually. And owners want high-profile stars they can market heavily that fans by jerseys of and tune in to watch on tv so they can command top TV contracts. So while you can field a decent pretender, a team like this can't really compete for championships. Stars get star treatment especially in crunch time getting sent to the FT line. Stars don't get called for carries, travels, push offs, etc. Refs will call games to ensure the team with stars go deeper in the playoffs.

There's basically a ceiling for teams like this. And what ends up ruining it is owners get delusions of grander and think they actually can compete so they overpay for either their own talent because they can't afford to lose them or they overpay for a FA thinking he'll put them over the top. Teams like IND, WAS, DET, SAC, OKC, POR, CHA, ATL, LAC, best bet is to just try and remain a fun, competitive team but to not have Finals aspirations. That way fans and owners remain satisfied. Then "there's always next year" rather than rebuilding every 4-5 years like they do.

[Ugly Duckling]

You are forgetting how good these superstars really are.
Superstars are guys that actually change the whole game.
You legit have
Jokic
Luka
SGA
Giannis
Embiid

These guys production cannot be replicated by having 13 good 2 way players. The impact is just not the same.

13 Mikal Bridges won’t work.

Majority of these superstars are literally unstoppable.

I don't know how "unstoppable" Luka or SGA would be with a fresh set of Mikal Bridges hounding them every few minutes. How do you?

These guys have trained to play all game. A fresh set of Mikal Bridges will still get torched by Luka or SGA like he does when he guards them now I promise you.

That doesn't mean they play at their peak all game. We've seen how good Luka can be when he's had to play big minutes. What we haven't seen is how good Luka can be when he's had to play big minutes against two rested Mikal Bridges going absolutely bonkers on him every time he touches the ball, not worried in the slightest about conserving energy.

[Ugly Duckling]

I get what you're saying. Draft a bunch of very good role players and have good depth but no stars so you don't have to deal with the massive ego, trade demands, outlandish contracts and diva attitude. This is usually how small markets have to conduct business. But this is a TV show and owners want fans in the seats to spend on concessions and keep them in the black year after year while their franchise's value increases annually. And owners want high-profile stars they can market heavily that fans by jerseys of and tune in to watch on tv so they can command top TV contracts. So while you can field a decent pretender, a team like this can't really compete for championships. Stars get star treatment especially in crunch time getting sent to the FT line. Stars don't get called for carries, travels, push offs, etc. Refs will call games to ensure the team with stars go deeper in the playoffs.

There's basically a ceiling for teams like this. And what ends up ruining it is owners get delusions of grander and think they actually can compete so they overpay for either their own talent because they can't afford to lose them or they overpay for a FA thinking he'll put them over the top. Teams like IND, WAS, DET, SAC, OKC, POR, CHA, ATL, LAC, best bet is to just try and remain a fun, competitive team but to not have Finals aspirations. That way fans and owners remain satisfied. Then "there's always next year" rather than rebuilding every 4-5 years like they do.

Small markets don't do this at all. They still try to acquire the best possible talent through the draft and via trade. AFAIK, we haven't seen his strategy in action.

I didn't consider ego, although it can affect the locker room and overall morale + chemistry. Camaraderie. Kind of like the Knicks have. But most superstars are seeming more humble, at least to the media and fans.

And I get what you're saying about the wow factor, but America loves an underdog story (and the world tbf). And it's all about winning, right? I remember the Bulls Bench Mob from the D-Rose era. They were honesty more fun to watch and root for than the starters.