There were a couple of superteams in the 1980s, and it would seem even prior to that. No one referred to them as superteams back then tho, part of the reason being that the rosters were usually made up of players that were like actually drafted by the team. It wasn't a situation where contenders were built on the fly, like the Celtics did in 2008 or Heat did shortly after. You'd have a core that was primarily drafted and then, if you drafted or acquired the right star to complement that established group, it became a perennial powerhouse. Teams weren't thinking like 'it's okay if we fuck this year, because next year so-and-so is a free agent or we may get this-or-that prospect through the draft'. If your braintrust weren't on top of their sh*t, than that was pretty much your ass.
The first time the thought of a superteam actually crossed my mind was when the Bulls got Dennis Rodman. I even thinking at the time like 'damn, it's unfair for a single team to have a best rebounder and best scorer'. But in hindsight, I realize there may have been more to the Bulls success than just exceptional talent. But anyway, the three best players on that team besides Rodman - Jordan, Pippen and Kukoc - were all drafted by the Bulls. So really, it was like Rodman joined the Bulls and made the likelihood of them winning another championship under Jordan more probable than it already was.
So the first actual superteam, at least I would say in the time I've been watching the NBA, was the 1998-99 Houston Rockets. Two members of their big 3, Pippen and Barkley, were perennial allstars who did not make a name for themselves playing for Houston. But that team failed for a number of reasons, one being that all its superstars were pretty much past their prime and secondly, because of incompatible diva issues.
And that's nothing compared to today. In the Jordan era, via the success of MJ, players were just learning how much they're worth to the NBA and even economy at large. By the time the 2010s rolled around, during the Lebron era, that lesson had been well learnt. So now we have the indisputable stars of the league, if they so desire, requesting trades at will. And the situation has also developed such that now, once those requests go public, the organization really has no choice but to do so.
And it's exciting in a way, never knowing how rosters are going to look from season to the next, kinda like a videogame where you can just put together any teams you want. And there have been at least three or four solid superteam success stories of this nature, just in the last 15 years. But remember, these are divas we're talking about. So, it's like piss them off at your risk, and the risks are many.
For instance it was clear, at least to me, that when Lebron left Miami to go back to Cleveland, he was feeling at least partially guilty for leaving the Cavs in the first place. Sometimes, like these folks who be trying to say that LBJ is overrated, people forget just how garbage the Cavs actually were without him. When Lebron left and Kyrie was running the show, Irving may have been must-watch himself, but the team was garbage. But the thing is that, LBJ had to betray Miami to go back to Cleveleand, just like he 'betrayed' Cleveland to go to Miami. And no, it wasn't actual betrayal, as he was, to my remembrance, a free agent both times. But oftentimes, organizations get attached to their superstars. In the case of Miami, he also actually had a couple of homeys on the team. And both times LBJ did that, it sent the franchise spiraling and therefore wasn't a good look for him as far as being committed is concerned.
Now, we have this Nets debacle. I don't feel like digging through the archives right now, but I'm pretty sure I never really had anything good to say about the pairing of Durant, Irving and the Beard. One reason is that they're playing styles were incompatible. A bigger reason was that they all had major injury histories by the time they teamed up. But most importantly was by then it gad also established, . when the Beard forced himself out of Houston even though it looked like they did all they could for him, that all three were divas, and divas are unpredictable.
So first we had Harden bounce, which wasn't that big of a deal since the Nets got quality depth in return. But then, when you really knew things had the potential to go south is when the Celtics bust their asses in the playoffs. Why? Because superstar divas do not like losing, at all.
When KD was on the Thunder they were perennial contenders and probably would be til this day, if he hadn't left. But once he became convinced they may not win the big one, he bounced for a team that was more likely to do so. With the superstar divas of today, it ain't all about the money, as in times past. Now, they alo need to be on a squad with palpable and instant championship potential. And getting humiliated in the 1st round, like the Nets just did, doesn't scream that your team will be winning it all anytime in the near future.
So first Kyrie started acting iffy. KD looked like he had his back but then was like fuck it. You know what I mean? If the fellow superstar who you went to a team to play with acts like he can just leave you behind, then what's going to compel you to be loyal to him? And it's funny because if you were you to go to NBC Sports `right now, they have Durant on their "free agent tracker" list, even though he is very much under contract. You know what I'm saying? Now that he requested a trade it's practically inevitable he'll get one, with Brooklyn losing its biggest star in the process. And that shows just how powerful these superstars have knowingly become, like the franchise itself having less leverage than a single individual does.
CONCLUSION
And what I'm really trying to get at is that the Nets are the real losers in this equation, just like the Lakers are currently with LBJ and them. If Kyrie and KD go to different teams, then where is that going to leave the Nets? If KD leaves and Kyrie stays, still, where is that going to leave to Nets? Because history has already proven that Kyrie needs superstar, not average, help.
And as for me, I'm always critical of star chasing, or dickriding, if you want to call it that. But the NBA is a business, and success isn't all about winning. For instance the Knicks are the most highly-valued team in the league for how long now?, but they haven't been contenders for over 20 years.
No comments:
Post a Comment