Cavs Super Team or Beneficiary of Weak EC?

[Vyle203]

Well I consider the Warriors to be a super team. They have 3 All NBA players. Not many teams in history can make that claim.

The Cavs have the best player of his generation. They also have some very good supporting players. If not for the Warriors they would be the presumptive favorites to win the title this year and next year. But with the Warriors they are the presumptive 2nd fiddle.

Who knows man. The Warriors have set the bar pretty high considering they have possibly the best team ever on paper. I don't think it means the Cavs aren't a superteam (whatever the hell that actually means), they have the best player on the planet along with two other all stars, they seem super to me.

If for whatever reason the Warriors had only won 51 games this year, would they lose Superteam status?

 

[flyerhawk]

Who knows man. The Warriors have set the bar pretty high considering they have possibly the best team ever on paper. I don't think it means the Cavs aren't a superteam (whatever the hell that actually means), they have the best player on the planet along with two other all stars, they seem super to me.

If for whatever reason the Warriors had only won 51 games this year, would they lose Superteam status?

Well IMO it would dilute from their accomplishments. Has any team every averaged 69 wins a season over a 3 year span? That is a massive achievement.

If the Warriors were to only wing 51 that would be considered a massive disappointment, IMO.

Who are the super teams in NBA history?

 

[Vyle203]

Well IMO it would dilute from their accomplishments. Has any team every averaged 69 wins a season over a 3 year span? That is a massive achievement.

If the Warriors were to only wing 51 that would be considered a massive disappointment, IMO.

Who are the super teams in NBA history?

You'll have to give me a little bit of time for that one lol

 

[flyerhawk]

You'll have to give me a little bit of time for that one lol

That's fair.

It seems to me that the term "super term" is being used as a pejorative to criticize a team in a backhanded sort of way.

Were the mid-80s Lakers and Celtics super teams? Mid 90s Bulls Mid-2000s Lakers?

 

[Vyle203]

That's fair.

It seems to me that the term "super term" is being used as a pejorative to criticize a team in a backhanded sort of way.

Were the mid-80s Lakers and Celtics super teams? Mid 90s Bulls Mid-2000s Lakers?

I think you could make a case for some of those teams.

I agree that it is a backhanded compliment, or at least it started out that way because some people took issue with how the Heat were constructed. They were the first team to get the superteam label right?

 

[msgkings322]

Can I get macaroni salad w/ my grilled cheeseburger instead?

Steak cut fries FTW

 

[msgkings322]

They won 51 games because they were uninterested and lazy.
They were 10-14 last 24, many against non playoff teams.
12-1 since playoffs started.
You can't use the regular season record in any analysis.
Go by players and payroll.
Best player in the game.
2 other current all stars.
Highest payroll ever, supplemented by 2 additions who are both in the rotation.
That HAS to lead to championship expectations.
Unique situation because Warriors on paper are even better, but that doesn't change anything.

We're just arguing over semantics. Yes this team, like the Warriors, is championship or bust. Does that make them both "super"? It's just a word.

 

[msgkings322]

At least 1 superstar and at least 2 more star players who are considered as a top 20/25 player in the league

That means there's been quite a few superteams in NBA history, including all the ones we mention like the 90s Bulls, 80s Lakers and Celtics, Kobe/Shaq lakers, 2008 Celtics, LeHeat, some of the Spurs teams since Duncan arrived, etc

 

[bksballer89]

That means there's been quite a few superteams in NBA history, including all the ones we mention like the 90s Bulls, 80s Lakers and Celtics, Kobe/Shaq lakers, 2008 Celtics, LeHeat, etc

Who was the 3rd star on the Shaq/Kobe lakers? I already said the 2008 Celtics and the Lebron Heat were super teams.

 

[msgkings322]

Who was the 3rd star on the Shaq/Kobe lakers? I already said the 2008 Celtics and the Lebron Heat were super teams.

I'm not being argumentative I'm just saying your definition is fairly broad.

On the Lakers they had names that were not selected for the all star game that year (were all 3 2008 Celtics Allstars?) but were all star type talent: Ron Harper, Glen Rice, Robert Horry, etc. Also, does it count as a superteam if you have only 2 allstars but they are both top 15 players in history, in or near their primes?

 

[bksballer89]

I'm not being argumentative I'm just saying your definition is fairly broad.

On the Lakers they had names that were not selected for the all star game that year (were all 3 2008 Celtics Allstars?) but were all star type talent: Ron Harper, Glen Rice, Robert Horry, etc. Also, does it count as a superteam if you have only 2 allstars but they are both top 15 players in history, in or near their primes?

I also think people tend to avoid calling teams a super team if they were actually homegrown and built through the draft which is probably a reason why the term super team was never used with the Spurs and was not used with the Warriors until they signed Durant.

As for your question, I would not consider that a super team. In that case, would you consider OKC with KD/Russ a super team? I know I wouldn't.

 

[bksballer89]

Found a article from CBS last summer and they make some key points about super teams.

A Super Team needs at least two superstars and at least on additional star

First you'd have to define "stars" and that itself can be tricky. You can have "stars" like Al Horford or DeMar DeRozan, who are multiple-time All-Stars and marquee players on their teams ... and then there are "stars" like LeBron James and Dwyane Wade. The Triad Heat provide the best kind of model for how to evaluate these teams.

You need three stars. If you have two stars, that is not a super-team; no one ever called the Thunder a super-team despite Serge Ibaka being a near All-Star. You need three legitimate stars, but you also need at least two "superstars." Chris Bosh, despite ultimately proving more important in that run for Miami than Dwyane Wade, was still not a superstar for the duration.

As another example, Paul Pierce and Kevin Garnett were superstars when the Boston Celtics' super-team formed in 2008; Ray Allen was that complementary star.

A Super Team cannot form from the draft alone

This is why the Warriors, who drafted Stephen Curry, Draymond Green and Klay Thompson, were not truly considered a true super-team. You can't draft a super-team, but if you draft the other members of a super-team, and then add a free agent (Kevin Durant) when the other players you drafted have become stars (or superstars, arguably), then you are definitely a super-team. But the Showtime Lakers already had Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, then drafted Magic Johnson, and while Jamaal Wilkes and Michael Cooper were stars and Hall-of-Fame caliber guys, they don't resonate on the same star level.

By the same notion, the San Antonio Spurs have featured three future-Hall-of-Fame players and won multiple titles with Tim Duncan, Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili. They then added Kawhi Leonard, yet were still not considered a super-team. Even more interesting if you take into account the "free agent star acquisition" corollary, the Spurs weren't even considered a super-team last year after having those four and then adding LaMarcus Aldridge.

 

[bksballer89]

Here are CBS list of super teams as of last summer.

2016-17 Golden State Warriors
Superstars: Stephen Curry, Kevin DurantStars: Klay Thompson, Draymond Green*

(*You can definitely make the argument for those two as superstars, I'm just playing it conservatively here.)

2014-16 Cleveland Cavaliers
Superstars: LeBron James
Stars: Kevin Love, Kyrie Irving

2003-04 Los Angeles Lakers
Superstars: Kobe Bryant, Shaquille O'Neal, Karl Malone, Gary Payton
Stars: None

2012-13 Los Angeles Lakers
Superstars: Kobe Bryant, Dwight Howard, Steve Nash, Pau Gasol*
Stars: None

(*Nash had slipped, but was still an incredible player coming off the 2012 season; the injuries hadn't really ruined him yet because he was still with Phoenix's magical training staff. Gasol was still considered one of, if not the best big man in the league at that point.)

2010-14 Miami Heat
Superstars: LeBron James, Dwyane Wade
Stars: Chris Bosh

2007-13 Boston Celtics
Superstars: Kevin Garnett, Paul Pierce*
Stars: Ray Allen, Rajon Rondo

(*Realistically this was only a super-team until about 2012 when they lost to the Heat in the Eastern Conference finals. What's interesting is that they were a super-team with the "Three Amigos" and then at the time when Allen started to slide with age, becoming just a spot-up shooter, Rondo emerged.)

 

[bksballer89]

2011-16 Oklahoma City Thunder
Superstars: Russell Westbrook, Kevin Durant
Star: Serge Ibaka

Not a super-team because: All their star talent was drafted.

1997-15 San Antonio Spurs
Superstars: Tim Duncan, Tony Parker
Stars: David Robinson, Manu Ginobili, Kawhi Leonard

Not a super-team because: All their star talent was drafted.

 

[LALakersboy24.7]

Super Team???

 

[bksballer89]

Thoughts on what I just posted from CBS fellas?

@flyerhawk @Vyle203 @msgkings322

 

[bksballer89]

Full article if you guys want to read it.

Knicks vs. Warriors: Examining what makes an NBA 'super-team'

 

[msgkings322]

Thoughts on what I just posted from CBS fellas?

@flyerhawk @Vyle203 @msgkings322

It's interesting, and like most arguments about sports you can't really "prove" the position. Calling the Payton/Malone Lakers team "super"? Eh, maybe, but those guys were pretty old.

It's all in good fun.

 

[bksballer89]

It's interesting, and like most arguments about sports you can't really "prove" the position. Calling the Payton/Malone Lakers team "super"? Eh, maybe, but those guys were pretty old.

It's all in good fun.

I agree. I would not call that lakers team a super team at all. Malone and GP was way past their prime. But I do agree with the article that if your team is built strictly through the draft then I would not call you a super team. You need to acquire at least one of the stars via trade or free agency

 

[msgkings322]

I agree. I would not call that lakers team a super team at all. Malone and GP was way past their prime. But I do agree with the article that if your team is built strictly through the draft then I would not call you a super team. You need to acquire at least one of the stars via trade or free agency

I guess, sure, but is a team any less "super" if they are loaded with great players, no matter how they were brought in? So it's just a vocabulary argument. I agree it's "better" to build through the draft but then I think, why is that so important? Wins are wins.