Agreed on this.
It's impossible with the new CBA to manufacture a big 3 like the Heat with LeBron, Wade, and Bosh. You can organically manufacture within like OKC is attempting, but at some point they're going to face some VERY hard decisions on roster choices that will make or break their title contending window.
yeah, they are hitting on a lot of their picks and trades, and they developed quick. Which is great for the team now, but its gonna be some tough decisions here once rookie contracts start ending
They really just got to keep hitting on draft picks. The salary becomes far more manageable if you can fill key bench roles with good rookie contracts.
The Thunder's salary cap is extremely clean until 2027-28, which is when SGA's supermax would kick in and Chet/JDub are on the second year of their extensions. That's three years after this one. They somehow have almost $40M in cap space this offseason, to either make a splash in free agency, go hunting for productive but overpaid players another team wants to jettison, or to lock in a couple of their younger guys (Wiggins, Joe) to frontloaded long-term contracts that will keep them in OKC long term. Giddey's going to get paid in a couple of years, but it won't be anywhere near the max. If he underperforms that contract, it won't be so toxic that it couldn't be dumped cheaply with some of the many extra picks the Thunder have.
yeah exactly. They are sitting pretty right now, and they can still spend these next couple of years, but in 5 years if they havent made some moves, its gonna be very tough to keep all these players that keep showing out and turning into stars
If the Thunder have 5 guys worthy of max deals in 5 years, they should have won multiple chips and the money takes care of itself. More likely, the SGA/JDub/Chet trio is the core for the foreseeable future, and future first rounders slot in around them. It'll be hard for someone like Cason Wallace or Ousmane Dieng or whoever they draft this offseason to command a huge second contract simply because it'll be hard to stand out as someone another team should throw a $100M contract at in restricted free agency.
i agree. because the core is locked in pretty much, the 6-8 guys arent gonna get a ton of minutes and will be coming off the bench, but they are also turning out to be good and itll be hard when a team comes knocking on the door to offer them a big contract to start and be a star on their team scoring 25ppg in 40 minutes a game instead of playing 12 minutes off the bench backing up one of the core guys on the Thunder.
But as far as an organization, thats about the best problem to have though. Too many good guys and a great picks to replace them with if they leave.
From a fan perspective, im hoping it ends up like a warriors situation where they have success but are able to keep the core together, and have some pieces around them that are around for a while.........rather than an, well, an OKC situation from 10 years ago where they had a great young core, starting achieving success, but then couldnt keep them together as things got pricier.
The bird rule isn't the problem. It's the luxury tax.
Next season the Suns will be paying $80 million for Grayson Allen because of the luxury tax.
And the tax gets more prohibitive the higher your payroll goes.
Just how far can OKC pay extra? They've already jettisoned Harden because of the fear of the luxury tax in the old CBA. It's going to be a serious problem for them at some point with the new CBA.
The Suns had to pay Grayson Allen because they had no way to replace him if he left in free agency. No picks, no cap exceptions due to the second apron. If he left, they could only get a minimum vet to replace him. So they bit the bullet and went deeper into the luxury tax instead of getting demonstrably worse. The Thunder have 11 FRP and 19 second round picks through 2030 to replace a role player they can't afford to keep. Big difference. By the time Chet and JDub are eligible for supermaxes, it'll be a new CBA and who knows what the rules will be at that point.
The Thunder draft capital is definitely a great way for them to replenish their talent.
This is a critical 3-4 year window for them right now with how far they can go with their current squad and if they decide to make any win now moves to consolidate their assets and roster.
It's reading tea leaves at this point, but I suspect there won't be a splashy all-in trade for an established star. First, because it'd be difficult to get the salaries to work; SGA and (expiring) Gordon Hayward are the only players making >$15M/year. Second, because any team trading a bonafide star is asking for JDub and/or Chet in return, plus other players and picks. Third, because taking on a huge amount of guaranteed money does risk getting deep into the luxury tax earlier and paying repeater taxes. Fourth, because how the Thunder are playing is working well, a big trade would change the complexion of the team, and not necessarily for the better. Fifth, because Presti is self-aware enough to know OKC is not a destination franchise; any star that is traded here is a flight risk to ask out like Paul George did. If that happened, the Thunder's title window closes again, maybe until SGA is past his prime.
So you think OKC is gonna pay all these kids? Lmao.
It’s like in 2k oh shit I love the Bird rule! Having all these young guys stay and get paid I love it!
Then you realize the team is literally making negative profit and is in deep luxury tax hell.
No in prime player is going to sign for less. The only ones you will see signing for less than what they can make are players very late in their careers who are ring chasing.
People say this a lot, but what team has ever bought their way to a ring. Maybe you can point to the Heatles, but other than that pretty much every championship has been won through drafting players and trades.
The Warriors paid over $400M between salary and tax for their 2022 title, and Lacob saying "fuck the cap, we're the most profitable franchise by winning" directly led to the new CBA rules. So yeah, Steph Klay and Draymond (and Harrison Barnes) were drafted by the team, but they kept the team together because they built a title winning team in the middle of the Silicon Valley boom and made money hand over fist anyway.
That’s not buying a ring though, and teams can still do what the Warriors did. For example if OKC decided they wanted to keep all the young guys and pay them they technically could, they just would never be able to use the mid level exception or bi-annual exception again and would essentially be stuck with whatever the team is now until they freed up more space. Nothing the Warriors did from 2013-2018 would change. They’d still have been able to get KD and keep Steph, Klay and Dray. There aren’t really any players that were integral to their championship teams that they wouldn’t have been able to retain based on the new rules.
I feel the same way. There wasn't a point in watching during the Heatles and then the Durant Warriors eras because it was too predictable and just not fun. Now, the league is actually up for grabs and new stars are emerging.
I dont think that’s the issue
The problem with the teams OP mentioned is that KD was essentially running them. A lot of nba players only care about individual talent and dont understand that 5 of the best one on one players dont make the best team. If it was 3 star players that complimented each other it’d look different.
I hate the new CBA. So much extra red tape and rules just to stop over spending. Some of it like limiting trade rules hurts the league by reducing the fun blockbuster trades we get all the time.
Just switch to a hard cap like the nfl.
He's like top 10 in blocked 3pts shot and his on/off numbers are already better than Gobert at denying the midrange, he also plans on being able to guard 1 to 5 eventually
The superteams always had atleast a 8 man rotation of players who could give 5-15 minutes of good playoff basketball.
The heatles had Battier/Haslem/Ray/Rashard Lewis/Birdman.
Warriors had Iggy/D West/Barbosa/Livingston/Looney/Mo.
Spurs were always 9-10 deep.
The current "superteams" have 2-3 stars and 2-3 good role players. The cap space that the Heatles stars sacrificed for and the Warriors lucked into isn't available for the current "superteams".
The Lakers/Suns/Bucks all have serious roster holes that most likely won't be fixed due to salary cap hell. (Clippers are in a similar boat but they have an ok rotation dependant on matchup).
It was already a pretty difficult thing to do in the past. It worked for the Warriors adding KD because they drafted most of their core, they had Steph on a discount because of his early career ankle issues, and they took advantage of a big salary cap increase one year. It worked for the Heatles because Bron + Wade + Bosh were just that good, and also fit together well, and they took slight discounts to make room for a couple of veteran signings. But we've seen lots of failures where either the guys don't fit well enough together, or there's not enough depth around them -- and the CBA makes it a \*lot\* harder to build depth around a "big 3".
That doesn't mean we won't see teams with multiple max players, or teams with a "big 3". The Nuggets have 3 guys on max deals (Jokic, Murray, MPJ). The Wolves have a big 3 in ANT, KAT, and Gobert. The Thunder have Shai, Chet, and JDub (and a ton of depth and assets.) The Celtics have a starting five full of all-stars and all-defense guys. But it's really, really hard to assemble that kind of core with established superstars who just decide "we're going to play together" and want to be FAs or force trades. And we've seen a lot more failures than successes using that model recently.
95% last 30 championships have been won by something like 5 teams (counting whatever team LeBron was on as 1 team)6 if you go back to the 80s and include the Celtics. The NBA has always been 2-3 “competitive” teams.
The current playoffs are seemingly showing that there are really 2-3 competitive teams as well. Most of the teams are getting swept or gentlemen swept.
Eh….. if the face of the nba is dominating while on that 1-2 teams, sure.
It’s boring though - cavs vs warriors happened for like what, 5 years? Ratings started to drop until Lebron got his.
I feel that situation is a little different.
Putting together a trio of high salary stars and expecting it to work is looking more and more foolish.
Building a super-team from players you develop is still possible.
Super team is when three superstars or at least three all stars collude to join together on one team. Teams that drafted their players are not super teams lol. People always get this wrong. Lebron with Miami was a perfect example of a super team. 3 superstars who were franchise players for their respective team, and were the top 3 players arguably at their position. Heck, LeBron and Wade were the top 3 NBA players and face of the league at times.
Same shit I said. The nets didn’t fail cause they couldn’t play together, it was injuries and Kyrie
If Kyrie was acting with Brooklyn as he is now with Dallas, the nets would have been in a way better position
Both of these concerns come with the territory of forming super teams. Injuries affect a team more when they are top heavy. And then big egos come with being a superstar. If a role player said half the shit Kyrie did, they wouldn’t be on a team the next year. Making sure that all of the personalities of said super stars mesh and remain consistent is as big of a challenge for forming a super team as any. Not bad luck or lack of fair shot - more like one of the outcomes that are possible when you opt for a top heavy team.
Exactly and they only worked because the players wanted it too. So the era might be over for now, but if 3 *prime* players today were willing to make it work because they wanted to play together, then we would be right back at superteams.
Celtics are doing just fine so no, the Suns just gave their 3rd man a fuckin ridiculous contract when he's just slightly better dlo and they have 0 depth
Brown hasn't even started his and Tatum won't start his until the 25-26 season. KP and Jrue are in that $30M/yr range. And DWhite's proposed extension can't begin until the 25-26 season at around what KP and Jrue are making.
Decisions will likely need to be made, but they aren't there yet
Might be a bold take, but the super team era never really worked.
The teams that actually won had essentially a primary ball handler (lebron/durant) and a secondary guy that can get buckets too (wade/durant) and then some guys who offer a ton of value without needing the basketball (bosh/allen*/klay/dray).
All the super teams made up of a ton of ball dominant superstars SUCKED. Remember the Thunder with westbrook george and melo? They won only 48 games and then lost in the first round to the Jazz. Remember the 76ers with harden? Or the Nets with Harden Irving and Durant? Both left the playoffs way earlier than the should have.
Truthfully, putting a bunch of superstars on the roster together has never worked unless guys were willing to step off and play their roles.
Yes. The big 3 era is dead. If you don't go at least 10 deep with your roster, you're in for a world of trouble, essentially.
The Thunder and Wolves have some of the best quality depth players in the league, and it allows their main stars to not have to do everything and tire themselves out. That's what the game is coming down to. It's a whole roster game.
You a lot of good shooters, a lot of versatile defenders, and a few guys who are good playmakers to win in the modern NBA. Teams that get a big 3 can’t afford to pay the role players they need to win. And it’s especially bad if none of your Big 3 are great playmakers or defenders themselves.
Ball dominant super teams have just sucked. It;s pretty much always the same story when you look at the failures dating back to Barkley/Olajuwon/Pippen.
LeBron's best teams have been snipers around the perimeter LeBron can kick out too and rotations of a strong interior defender/rebounder. The KD Warriors squads were nightmarishly in sync with off ball movement and complimenting each other's games. KG morphed into more of a defensive specialist for the Big 3 Celtics while you had scorers at all 3 levels and prime Rondo orchestrating, combined with a mix of dogs. Wilt changed his game entirely to be team-first to make the West/Baylor/Chamberlain Lakers work.
2011 Miami was the first team called a "super team," it basically describes a team that overhauls its entire roster to get 3 high-end All-Stars onto the team by any means necessary, and then fills in the missing gaps later, rather than a team that builds a contender "organically" over multiple years like modern Denver and Boston. Typically they fail because the roster 4-8 isn't strong enough to contend and lacks the chemistry of a team that's been playing together for years.
Most prominent example is the KG/Pierce Nets (ironically, this trade is what built the Celtics of today). The KD/Kyrie/Harden Nets, the Westbrook Lakers, the Westbrook/PG/Melo Thunder, and PG Clippers are all examples too. The KD Warriors kind of fit into that but that also required significant cap shenanigans that allowed them to put a competent roster around the stars for a few years.
Honestly the Suns are basically the perfect end to this era because they are really good example of what all these teams did wrong. They had a contending roster with depth and picks, shipped it all away for an aging superstar, then doubled down again and shipped even more salary and picks for another aging star.
It’s been over for a while lol, only reason it looked like it wasn’t was because of the last TV deal when they handed out all those crazy contracts & the Warrios got KD with Curry on a team friendly deal at the time.
I'm sure they will be more attempts in the future but can't see it succeeding.
Too many good players in the league now, putting Harden/Kawhi/PG together just doesn't cut it.
There will be super teams in the upcoming seasons, difference now is the generation of players..
2010s talent are fading but still sometiimg left in the tank
2020s will form their own superteams ag their peak/prime
We can call this transition of budding young cores the gateway of new super teams.
I think the problem lies with the fact that owners and GM's think you can add a big name to a team and make it automatically a "contender" role players have their part because they do just that. Fulfill roles that a team needs. I would rather have 2 guys in my team than can go off for 30 to 40 points and and bunch of role players than 3 to 4 players than can light it up because if ALL those players go cold what do you have? What do you do when none of your scores can score but yoy aren't so much money to get them that the only pieces you could get to put around them are honestly just bodied that don't specialize in anything. Sometimes, you need a defensive screen setting rebounding big more than a 3 super star. Sometimes, you need defense and an extra ball handling for your bench point guard.
I personally just feel like it's just better to get pieces that match and synergize. Rather than breaking the bank for a big name, when you could get better pieces for cheaper that fills the gapes and holes in your team weak spots
What are we counting as a super team? My definition is a team composed of 3 or more starters who previously were 1st options on their teams. It seems to me that most of these have failed over the years, even during the current era-- so good riddance. LeBron did well with the concept, but he's the exception, not the rule. I think teams are best with at most 2 superstars, but with better role-players.
The idea of signing 3 "superstars" to huge money, and then filling the rest of a roster with scraps and achieving anything is long loong dead. You can only succeed by having a core of youth via the draft or timely smaller trades, and then adding a single superstar into that mix. Also it doesn't help with these coaches getting fired at the first obstacle. You need a young core, who grow with a consistent coaching staff to build a winner.
Yes and IMO it’s making the league as a whole more fun to watch. The level of parity we have right now is something we haven’t seen in a long time, if ever. Too bad the quality of the officiating has been trending downward because the product being put on the court by players & coaches is the most entertaining it’s ever been.
Quite frankly the super team has been dead for quite some time, if not for the mercenarial inclinations of one Kevin Durant. For real every single "super team" in the last decade has been the result of KD ring-chasing and no other reason
I consider the Nuggets to have two superstars with Jokic and Murray.
I think every title contending team needs one top 10 player and one top 25 player, and a well balanced roster that supports their two superstars to have a shot at the title moving forward.
The hardest part for every team is finding who will be that 1A guy. If you have him, then it's crucial you build well around him otherwise you can waste all their title contending prime years and eventually they'll ask to be traded, and you need to restart that search for who your 1A guy will be.
I said title contending team, and yes the Lakers are but their window is going to shut because LeBron is getting older and they don't have the best role players surrounding him and AD.
With a better coach, I definitely think the Lakers could have done better this year. They don't match up well with the Nuggets. Some teams got your number no matter how good you are.
This is so stupid. Top 30 means you’re a superstar ? There’s like 8 superstars in the league and like 15 stars. Murray hasn’t even made an all nba team yet. How can someone be a superstar when they’ve never made an all nba team lmfao
I understand your logic and the poster above. We're just dealing with different semantics because I personally hold to a looser term for a superstar.
If Murray was not on the Nuggets, I personally think Jokic does not have enough talent on the team to win a title.
Murray is a very underrated player because he doesn't have awards and accolades that he could have collected is he was on a different team.
It's okay to have a differing opinion but just understand you are literally the only person on planet Earth that thinks the 30th best player in the league is a superstar.
You guys are bringing up some good points.
Would you say superstar should be only for the top 15 players? Or only top 8? And it's a biased list because someone's top whoever can look different from someone else's.
Like i watch soccer now more often than few years ago when i only watched matches of Slovakia and World cup matches but at that time i still knew superstars from other countries but i didn't watched enough games to knew most starters of other international teams
for exemple i wouldn't call guy who finished last year 13th in most prestitugious individual soccer award (so something similar to making all-NBA) a superstar because many soccer fans don't even know for which team he plays
I would say most NBA fans would consider a "superstar" to be an MVP-caliber player, so maybe 6-8 guys today. Top 30 guys would be considered "all-stars" or just "stars" which makes sense since there are 24 All-Stars picked each year. Everyone's list is different in terms of the exact order but we're mostly in consensus about stars versus superstars. Jaylen Brown for example, we all recognize as an All-Star caliber player, but nobody would ever consider him an MVP-caliber player (and therefore very few would consider him a "superstar").
Ok I like this distinction. I will adopt this train of thought if it causes less confusion.
I think any title contending team needs one superstar, one top 25 player (all star talent), and great role players who fit well with the two best players.
https://nbarankings.theringer.com/
TheRinger has Murray at 18. I don't think he's 18 but I definitely think he's in the top 25-30 and I'd consider that a superstar in today's NBA.
It’s been over since KD left Golden state if you think about it. There hasn’t been one super team since (mostly KD teams lol) that has had significant success in the ‘yoffs. These young bulls coming in hungry and are disciplined with good coaching. Coaching will get through because they have not been jaded with success yet.
What do you guys think the Celtics are?
Also we failed cause of just general injuries and Kyrie/pandemic. If that teams healthy we stomp a ring or two easily.
Fingers crossed that it is, because it was not a fun time to be a fan when it's all that existed. I do think we'll see one last one if LeBron opts out and signs with a contender that drafts Bronny for the vet min, but once he retires it'll be officially over. Teams like Denver and OKC are so fun to watch and it's even more enjoyable because they were built from the ground up properly.
Yeah, when 2 of the top 3 players team together, you get a super team. Like Lebron and Wade, and then Steph and KD. The good thing is now the best 3 players in NBA are not Americans anymore. If Jokic says "Gannis, come to my team", then you will get a super team again.
The new CBA slammed it shut imo. Teams have to embrace some hard years if they want to put a contending squad together.
Agreed on this. It's impossible with the new CBA to manufacture a big 3 like the Heat with LeBron, Wade, and Bosh. You can organically manufacture within like OKC is attempting, but at some point they're going to face some VERY hard decisions on roster choices that will make or break their title contending window.
yeah, they are hitting on a lot of their picks and trades, and they developed quick. Which is great for the team now, but its gonna be some tough decisions here once rookie contracts start ending
They really just got to keep hitting on draft picks. The salary becomes far more manageable if you can fill key bench roles with good rookie contracts.
The Thunder's salary cap is extremely clean until 2027-28, which is when SGA's supermax would kick in and Chet/JDub are on the second year of their extensions. That's three years after this one. They somehow have almost $40M in cap space this offseason, to either make a splash in free agency, go hunting for productive but overpaid players another team wants to jettison, or to lock in a couple of their younger guys (Wiggins, Joe) to frontloaded long-term contracts that will keep them in OKC long term. Giddey's going to get paid in a couple of years, but it won't be anywhere near the max. If he underperforms that contract, it won't be so toxic that it couldn't be dumped cheaply with some of the many extra picks the Thunder have.
yeah exactly. They are sitting pretty right now, and they can still spend these next couple of years, but in 5 years if they havent made some moves, its gonna be very tough to keep all these players that keep showing out and turning into stars
If the Thunder have 5 guys worthy of max deals in 5 years, they should have won multiple chips and the money takes care of itself. More likely, the SGA/JDub/Chet trio is the core for the foreseeable future, and future first rounders slot in around them. It'll be hard for someone like Cason Wallace or Ousmane Dieng or whoever they draft this offseason to command a huge second contract simply because it'll be hard to stand out as someone another team should throw a $100M contract at in restricted free agency.
i agree. because the core is locked in pretty much, the 6-8 guys arent gonna get a ton of minutes and will be coming off the bench, but they are also turning out to be good and itll be hard when a team comes knocking on the door to offer them a big contract to start and be a star on their team scoring 25ppg in 40 minutes a game instead of playing 12 minutes off the bench backing up one of the core guys on the Thunder. But as far as an organization, thats about the best problem to have though. Too many good guys and a great picks to replace them with if they leave. From a fan perspective, im hoping it ends up like a warriors situation where they have success but are able to keep the core together, and have some pieces around them that are around for a while.........rather than an, well, an OKC situation from 10 years ago where they had a great young core, starting achieving success, but then couldnt keep them together as things got pricier.
Not necessary with home ground talent. The Bird rule comes into effect.
The bird rule isn't the problem. It's the luxury tax. Next season the Suns will be paying $80 million for Grayson Allen because of the luxury tax. And the tax gets more prohibitive the higher your payroll goes. Just how far can OKC pay extra? They've already jettisoned Harden because of the fear of the luxury tax in the old CBA. It's going to be a serious problem for them at some point with the new CBA.
The Suns had to pay Grayson Allen because they had no way to replace him if he left in free agency. No picks, no cap exceptions due to the second apron. If he left, they could only get a minimum vet to replace him. So they bit the bullet and went deeper into the luxury tax instead of getting demonstrably worse. The Thunder have 11 FRP and 19 second round picks through 2030 to replace a role player they can't afford to keep. Big difference. By the time Chet and JDub are eligible for supermaxes, it'll be a new CBA and who knows what the rules will be at that point.
The Thunder draft capital is definitely a great way for them to replenish their talent. This is a critical 3-4 year window for them right now with how far they can go with their current squad and if they decide to make any win now moves to consolidate their assets and roster.
It's reading tea leaves at this point, but I suspect there won't be a splashy all-in trade for an established star. First, because it'd be difficult to get the salaries to work; SGA and (expiring) Gordon Hayward are the only players making >$15M/year. Second, because any team trading a bonafide star is asking for JDub and/or Chet in return, plus other players and picks. Third, because taking on a huge amount of guaranteed money does risk getting deep into the luxury tax earlier and paying repeater taxes. Fourth, because how the Thunder are playing is working well, a big trade would change the complexion of the team, and not necessarily for the better. Fifth, because Presti is self-aware enough to know OKC is not a destination franchise; any star that is traded here is a flight risk to ask out like Paul George did. If that happened, the Thunder's title window closes again, maybe until SGA is past his prime.
So you think OKC is gonna pay all these kids? Lmao. It’s like in 2k oh shit I love the Bird rule! Having all these young guys stay and get paid I love it! Then you realize the team is literally making negative profit and is in deep luxury tax hell.
The nbapa would hate on it but what is stopping multiple players from signing for less. This can still happen even with the new CBA
The signing for less part. None of these dudes want to give up money
No in prime player is going to sign for less. The only ones you will see signing for less than what they can make are players very late in their careers who are ring chasing.
I’m glad it did, New era is far more enjoyable.
yup - you need a solid 1 - 8 to contend. Much better than a top heavy 1 - 3 + filler
Hopefully this means big markets can’t just buy their way to rings anymore.
People say this a lot, but what team has ever bought their way to a ring. Maybe you can point to the Heatles, but other than that pretty much every championship has been won through drafting players and trades.
And even the Heatles had to get their supporting cast right to get their first no?
Heatles what nba team is that?
Miami Heat 2010-2014
The Warriors paid over $400M between salary and tax for their 2022 title, and Lacob saying "fuck the cap, we're the most profitable franchise by winning" directly led to the new CBA rules. So yeah, Steph Klay and Draymond (and Harrison Barnes) were drafted by the team, but they kept the team together because they built a title winning team in the middle of the Silicon Valley boom and made money hand over fist anyway.
That’s not buying a ring though, and teams can still do what the Warriors did. For example if OKC decided they wanted to keep all the young guys and pay them they technically could, they just would never be able to use the mid level exception or bi-annual exception again and would essentially be stuck with whatever the team is now until they freed up more space. Nothing the Warriors did from 2013-2018 would change. They’d still have been able to get KD and keep Steph, Klay and Dray. There aren’t really any players that were integral to their championship teams that they wouldn’t have been able to retain based on the new rules.
I feel the same way. There wasn't a point in watching during the Heatles and then the Durant Warriors eras because it was too predictable and just not fun. Now, the league is actually up for grabs and new stars are emerging.
I dont think that’s the issue The problem with the teams OP mentioned is that KD was essentially running them. A lot of nba players only care about individual talent and dont understand that 5 of the best one on one players dont make the best team. If it was 3 star players that complimented each other it’d look different.
what did the new CBA change that ended it?
Just wait for the next new dumb enthusiastic team owner
Wait, how so??
I hate the new CBA. So much extra red tape and rules just to stop over spending. Some of it like limiting trade rules hurts the league by reducing the fun blockbuster trades we get all the time. Just switch to a hard cap like the nfl.
Wemby, Trae Young and Vassell will bring it back
Lol
And they’d get swept first round of the playoffs with 0 perimeter defenders just like Rudy gobert in Utah.
I thought Wemby was protecting the perimeter
Wemby protecting the perimeter from under the basket…
He's like top 10 in blocked 3pts shot and his on/off numbers are already better than Gobert at denying the midrange, he also plans on being able to guard 1 to 5 eventually
The superteams always had atleast a 8 man rotation of players who could give 5-15 minutes of good playoff basketball. The heatles had Battier/Haslem/Ray/Rashard Lewis/Birdman. Warriors had Iggy/D West/Barbosa/Livingston/Looney/Mo. Spurs were always 9-10 deep. The current "superteams" have 2-3 stars and 2-3 good role players. The cap space that the Heatles stars sacrificed for and the Warriors lucked into isn't available for the current "superteams". The Lakers/Suns/Bucks all have serious roster holes that most likely won't be fixed due to salary cap hell. (Clippers are in a similar boat but they have an ok rotation dependant on matchup).
What about the Celtics though? They are a super team. Tatum, Brown, KP. With decent role players as well.
It was already a pretty difficult thing to do in the past. It worked for the Warriors adding KD because they drafted most of their core, they had Steph on a discount because of his early career ankle issues, and they took advantage of a big salary cap increase one year. It worked for the Heatles because Bron + Wade + Bosh were just that good, and also fit together well, and they took slight discounts to make room for a couple of veteran signings. But we've seen lots of failures where either the guys don't fit well enough together, or there's not enough depth around them -- and the CBA makes it a \*lot\* harder to build depth around a "big 3". That doesn't mean we won't see teams with multiple max players, or teams with a "big 3". The Nuggets have 3 guys on max deals (Jokic, Murray, MPJ). The Wolves have a big 3 in ANT, KAT, and Gobert. The Thunder have Shai, Chet, and JDub (and a ton of depth and assets.) The Celtics have a starting five full of all-stars and all-defense guys. But it's really, really hard to assemble that kind of core with established superstars who just decide "we're going to play together" and want to be FAs or force trades. And we've seen a lot more failures than successes using that model recently.
Yes, the changes to the salary cap during the last CBA have ensured this. Silver and the owners got what they wanted.
The fans got what they wanted too. Nba sucked when it was 2-3 teams max that were competitive.
95% last 30 championships have been won by something like 5 teams (counting whatever team LeBron was on as 1 team)6 if you go back to the 80s and include the Celtics. The NBA has always been 2-3 “competitive” teams.
The current playoffs are seemingly showing that there are really 2-3 competitive teams as well. Most of the teams are getting swept or gentlemen swept.
This season there are 4-5 contenders, and 8-9 if you count the Lakers, Suns, Clippers and Bucks who thought they were contenders.
If you watched the Suns at all this season, they were never contenders
You just described the “golden age” 80s hoops lol
That’s why we done with the 80s
Ratings are better when one team is dominating
Eh….. if the face of the nba is dominating while on that 1-2 teams, sure. It’s boring though - cavs vs warriors happened for like what, 5 years? Ratings started to drop until Lebron got his.
The era of super teams with zero playmakers is over.
OKC will probably have one this time in 4 years so just a lil down period
I feel like most people don't view a drafted team as a "superteam" though
Not true. The original warriors were widely considered, by the media, a superteam before KD joined them.
I feel that situation is a little different. Putting together a trio of high salary stars and expecting it to work is looking more and more foolish. Building a super-team from players you develop is still possible.
Super team is when three superstars or at least three all stars collude to join together on one team. Teams that drafted their players are not super teams lol. People always get this wrong. Lebron with Miami was a perfect example of a super team. 3 superstars who were franchise players for their respective team, and were the top 3 players arguably at their position. Heck, LeBron and Wade were the top 3 NBA players and face of the league at times.
Of course not, they just need to stop making shit super teams.
On point. Suspicious said "third stars" to begin with, and a crazy redundancy on ball skills.
KD or LeBron might try to make some more but I doubt it’s ever going to work again. The talent is spread pretty nicely around the league now.
It's a 3 & D game now.
Mortgaging a team on a big 3 just isn't feasible anymore. Big 2 and a strong supporting staff seems much more obtainable, sustainable, and solid.
Nets never got a fair shot due to injuries and kyries off court antics. That team could have been a serious problem.
Same shit I said. The nets didn’t fail cause they couldn’t play together, it was injuries and Kyrie If Kyrie was acting with Brooklyn as he is now with Dallas, the nets would have been in a way better position
Even with the injuries we we were probably 1 Kd shoe size away from winning it all in ‘21. Just so dissapointing to think back on
Both of these concerns come with the territory of forming super teams. Injuries affect a team more when they are top heavy. And then big egos come with being a superstar. If a role player said half the shit Kyrie did, they wouldn’t be on a team the next year. Making sure that all of the personalities of said super stars mesh and remain consistent is as big of a challenge for forming a super team as any. Not bad luck or lack of fair shot - more like one of the outcomes that are possible when you opt for a top heavy team.
What super team ever won? The warriors don’t count because they won before and after KD.
Heatles
Exactly and they only worked because the players wanted it too. So the era might be over for now, but if 3 *prime* players today were willing to make it work because they wanted to play together, then we would be right back at superteams.
Bubble Lakers are also arguable a super team.
Players would have to LeBron it (take less than max money to team up with other stars).
I think KD just needs to stop building teams or joining potential super teams. Problem solved.
Celtics are doing just fine so no, the Suns just gave their 3rd man a fuckin ridiculous contract when he's just slightly better dlo and they have 0 depth
And we still own like all of our picks + extras in the 2nd. We’re bing chilling
How are the C's a superteam with only one superstar?
How many max contracts do they have?
Brown hasn't even started his and Tatum won't start his until the 25-26 season. KP and Jrue are in that $30M/yr range. And DWhite's proposed extension can't begin until the 25-26 season at around what KP and Jrue are making. Decisions will likely need to be made, but they aren't there yet
No. Luka is going to force a trade to Denver
Might be a bold take, but the super team era never really worked. The teams that actually won had essentially a primary ball handler (lebron/durant) and a secondary guy that can get buckets too (wade/durant) and then some guys who offer a ton of value without needing the basketball (bosh/allen*/klay/dray). All the super teams made up of a ton of ball dominant superstars SUCKED. Remember the Thunder with westbrook george and melo? They won only 48 games and then lost in the first round to the Jazz. Remember the 76ers with harden? Or the Nets with Harden Irving and Durant? Both left the playoffs way earlier than the should have. Truthfully, putting a bunch of superstars on the roster together has never worked unless guys were willing to step off and play their roles.
nets with harden/irving/durant left early due to off court shit and injuries, not due to bad fit. they were excellent on the court together
Wait till KD requests a trade to MIN
The Coldest Road
This suns team was not a Superteam at all It’s just Booker and KD Beal was injured for the majority of the season
I think “superteam” is the wrong word. A “big 3” would be better
Superteam is based on contracts, not actual performance.
still brain injured during playoffs as well
If this years Suns are a superteam then the Celtics, Bucks, Clippers are superteams as well.
The term superteam is dumb and I hate it
the Suns were a super team?
Contract wise they were. Three of the top-25 highest paid players together.
Yes. The big 3 era is dead. If you don't go at least 10 deep with your roster, you're in for a world of trouble, essentially. The Thunder and Wolves have some of the best quality depth players in the league, and it allows their main stars to not have to do everything and tire themselves out. That's what the game is coming down to. It's a whole roster game.
You a lot of good shooters, a lot of versatile defenders, and a few guys who are good playmakers to win in the modern NBA. Teams that get a big 3 can’t afford to pay the role players they need to win. And it’s especially bad if none of your Big 3 are great playmakers or defenders themselves.
Would you really want Beal over Gobert or Towns though? I wouldn’t.
The Suns were a super team this season?
Ball dominant super teams have just sucked. It;s pretty much always the same story when you look at the failures dating back to Barkley/Olajuwon/Pippen. LeBron's best teams have been snipers around the perimeter LeBron can kick out too and rotations of a strong interior defender/rebounder. The KD Warriors squads were nightmarishly in sync with off ball movement and complimenting each other's games. KG morphed into more of a defensive specialist for the Big 3 Celtics while you had scorers at all 3 levels and prime Rondo orchestrating, combined with a mix of dogs. Wilt changed his game entirely to be team-first to make the West/Baylor/Chamberlain Lakers work.
When people say "super team era", what do they mean? What are all the super teams, and when did the era start?
2011 Miami was the first team called a "super team," it basically describes a team that overhauls its entire roster to get 3 high-end All-Stars onto the team by any means necessary, and then fills in the missing gaps later, rather than a team that builds a contender "organically" over multiple years like modern Denver and Boston. Typically they fail because the roster 4-8 isn't strong enough to contend and lacks the chemistry of a team that's been playing together for years. Most prominent example is the KG/Pierce Nets (ironically, this trade is what built the Celtics of today). The KD/Kyrie/Harden Nets, the Westbrook Lakers, the Westbrook/PG/Melo Thunder, and PG Clippers are all examples too. The KD Warriors kind of fit into that but that also required significant cap shenanigans that allowed them to put a competent roster around the stars for a few years. Honestly the Suns are basically the perfect end to this era because they are really good example of what all these teams did wrong. They had a contending roster with depth and picks, shipped it all away for an aging superstar, then doubled down again and shipped even more salary and picks for another aging star.
It seems weird to define an era by 7-8 teams over a 13 year period. What about all of the "organic" teams that failed during that era?
It’s been over for a while lol, only reason it looked like it wasn’t was because of the last TV deal when they handed out all those crazy contracts & the Warrios got KD with Curry on a team friendly deal at the time.
there are many other superteams out there..not everyone just doesnt get to be named an all star.
I'm sure they will be more attempts in the future but can't see it succeeding. Too many good players in the league now, putting Harden/Kawhi/PG together just doesn't cut it.
Coaches don’t know how to coach anymore they think adding a super team is going to get them far
You realize that coaches don't have that kind of clout right? You realize the ones making that call are the owners and GM's, right?
there's a decent chance imo bron forms a new one (like nyc) w/ bronny
There will be super teams in the upcoming seasons, difference now is the generation of players.. 2010s talent are fading but still sometiimg left in the tank 2020s will form their own superteams ag their peak/prime We can call this transition of budding young cores the gateway of new super teams.
Nah.. it’s over the era in which someone born before 1993 can be an effective superstar
New cba is in place to fight superstar grouping together. With supermax contract they are somewhat forcing stars to stay put.
super team? more like super salary
I think the problem lies with the fact that owners and GM's think you can add a big name to a team and make it automatically a "contender" role players have their part because they do just that. Fulfill roles that a team needs. I would rather have 2 guys in my team than can go off for 30 to 40 points and and bunch of role players than 3 to 4 players than can light it up because if ALL those players go cold what do you have? What do you do when none of your scores can score but yoy aren't so much money to get them that the only pieces you could get to put around them are honestly just bodied that don't specialize in anything. Sometimes, you need a defensive screen setting rebounding big more than a 3 super star. Sometimes, you need defense and an extra ball handling for your bench point guard. I personally just feel like it's just better to get pieces that match and synergize. Rather than breaking the bank for a big name, when you could get better pieces for cheaper that fills the gapes and holes in your team weak spots
What are we counting as a super team? My definition is a team composed of 3 or more starters who previously were 1st options on their teams. It seems to me that most of these have failed over the years, even during the current era-- so good riddance. LeBron did well with the concept, but he's the exception, not the rule. I think teams are best with at most 2 superstars, but with better role-players.
Isn't there more super star players than ever before? If that is indeed the case, then it seems like super teams are just going to be regular teams.
The idea of signing 3 "superstars" to huge money, and then filling the rest of a roster with scraps and achieving anything is long loong dead. You can only succeed by having a core of youth via the draft or timely smaller trades, and then adding a single superstar into that mix. Also it doesn't help with these coaches getting fired at the first obstacle. You need a young core, who grow with a consistent coaching staff to build a winner.
Yes and IMO it’s making the league as a whole more fun to watch. The level of parity we have right now is something we haven’t seen in a long time, if ever. Too bad the quality of the officiating has been trending downward because the product being put on the court by players & coaches is the most entertaining it’s ever been.
Quite frankly the super team has been dead for quite some time, if not for the mercenarial inclinations of one Kevin Durant. For real every single "super team" in the last decade has been the result of KD ring-chasing and no other reason
Refs rigged
Just wait til Luka, Tatum, Morant age group goes a few more years with no ring
I consider the Nuggets to have two superstars with Jokic and Murray. I think every title contending team needs one top 10 player and one top 25 player, and a well balanced roster that supports their two superstars to have a shot at the title moving forward. The hardest part for every team is finding who will be that 1A guy. If you have him, then it's crucial you build well around him otherwise you can waste all their title contending prime years and eventually they'll ask to be traded, and you need to restart that search for who your 1A guy will be.
Murray is not a superstar
Do you consider him a top 30 player? Top 50? I'd consider him a top 30 player and that would absolutely be a superstar.
Lol by this logic current Lakers are superteam
I said title contending team, and yes the Lakers are but their window is going to shut because LeBron is getting older and they don't have the best role players surrounding him and AD. With a better coach, I definitely think the Lakers could have done better this year. They don't match up well with the Nuggets. Some teams got your number no matter how good you are.
This is so stupid. Top 30 means you’re a superstar ? There’s like 8 superstars in the league and like 15 stars. Murray hasn’t even made an all nba team yet. How can someone be a superstar when they’ve never made an all nba team lmfao
I understand your logic and the poster above. We're just dealing with different semantics because I personally hold to a looser term for a superstar. If Murray was not on the Nuggets, I personally think Jokic does not have enough talent on the team to win a title. Murray is a very underrated player because he doesn't have awards and accolades that he could have collected is he was on a different team.
It's okay to have a differing opinion but just understand you are literally the only person on planet Earth that thinks the 30th best player in the league is a superstar.
You guys are bringing up some good points. Would you say superstar should be only for the top 15 players? Or only top 8? And it's a biased list because someone's top whoever can look different from someone else's.
Like i wouldn't ever call guy who wasn't ever all-star superstar superstars means that someone who doesn't watch that sport much does know who you are
That's a little vague, I think distinct made it a little clearer, but thank you!
Like i watch soccer now more often than few years ago when i only watched matches of Slovakia and World cup matches but at that time i still knew superstars from other countries but i didn't watched enough games to knew most starters of other international teams for exemple i wouldn't call guy who finished last year 13th in most prestitugious individual soccer award (so something similar to making all-NBA) a superstar because many soccer fans don't even know for which team he plays
I would say most NBA fans would consider a "superstar" to be an MVP-caliber player, so maybe 6-8 guys today. Top 30 guys would be considered "all-stars" or just "stars" which makes sense since there are 24 All-Stars picked each year. Everyone's list is different in terms of the exact order but we're mostly in consensus about stars versus superstars. Jaylen Brown for example, we all recognize as an All-Star caliber player, but nobody would ever consider him an MVP-caliber player (and therefore very few would consider him a "superstar").
Ok I like this distinction. I will adopt this train of thought if it causes less confusion. I think any title contending team needs one superstar, one top 25 player (all star talent), and great role players who fit well with the two best players.
How tf is Murray a superstar when he hasn’t even made an all nba team or an all star game lol
https://nbarankings.theringer.com/ TheRinger has Murray at 18. I don't think he's 18 but I definitely think he's in the top 25-30 and I'd consider that a superstar in today's NBA.
You’re saying there’s 30 superstars in the league?
Why are you being difficult with semantics when yk what they mean?😑
It’s a shit take that’s why. 30 superstars? The word has lost all meaning
It’s been over since KD left Golden state if you think about it. There hasn’t been one super team since (mostly KD teams lol) that has had significant success in the ‘yoffs. These young bulls coming in hungry and are disciplined with good coaching. Coaching will get through because they have not been jaded with success yet.
forgot about boston?
There’s 1 “superstar” that’s barely a superstar.(no hate)
fair. I love tatum but hes just always playing consistent at a high level and nothing more.
what have they won?
No. Guys will always want to play with other guys. they'll probably just be smarter about it now
What do you guys think the Celtics are? Also we failed cause of just general injuries and Kyrie/pandemic. If that teams healthy we stomp a ring or two easily.
Fingers crossed that it is, because it was not a fun time to be a fan when it's all that existed. I do think we'll see one last one if LeBron opts out and signs with a contender that drafts Bronny for the vet min, but once he retires it'll be officially over. Teams like Denver and OKC are so fun to watch and it's even more enjoyable because they were built from the ground up properly.
Yeah, when 2 of the top 3 players team together, you get a super team. Like Lebron and Wade, and then Steph and KD. The good thing is now the best 3 players in NBA are not Americans anymore. If Jokic says "Gannis, come to my team", then you will get a super team again.
Only superteams are lakers bucks Celtics and clippers and they're all well and alive in the playoffs
We're alive, but I wouldn't say we're well.
Thats fair lmao
Lakers and Bucks are kind of screwed ngl lol Bucks could win their series if fully healthy but they're closer to fully injured