My current framing of the MJ vs LeBron debate

[msgkings322]

Jordan 100 percent would not have won a title with the 07 Cavs roster. Just as Lebron didn't.

Yep

To be fair to Jordan I don't know that I would call the first 3 titles a "superteam"

Agreed, that team was really good, but the 2nd 3 peat was an all timer team. The 96 Bulls are among the very best ever teams (86 Celtics, 85/87 Lakers, 17 Warriors are my top 4 in no particular order with room to discuss a couple others like the 01 Lakers or maybe one of those Spurs teams)

But it was most definitely better than what Lebron had.

For real.

 

[Stakesarehigh]

Yep

Agreed, that team was really good, but the 2nd 3 peat was an all timer team. The 96 Bulls are among the very best ever teams (86 Celtics, 85/87 Lakers, 17 Warriors are my top 4 in no particular order with room to discuss a couple others like the 01 Lakers or maybe one of those Spurs teams)

For real.

96 to 98 Bulls were definitely a super team.

But to everyone's point Jordan couldn't have just left and gone to Boston or whatever and made anywhere near the money.

Regardless it's not a fair point. The Cavs were building an atrocious roster around Lebron.

 

[broncosmitty]

96 to 98 Bulls were definitely a super team.

But to everyone's point Jordan couldn't have just left and gone to Boston or whatever and made anywhere near the money.

Regardless it's not a fair point. The Cavs were building an atrocious roster around Lebron.

It’d be interesting to see what everyone constitutes as a Superteam.

It’s popped up a few times in this thread on occasions I wouldn’t think to say it.

 

[Stakesarehigh]

It’d be interesting to see what everyone constitutes as a Superteam.

It’s popped up a few times in this thread on occasions I wouldn’t think to say it.

today's version is much different than then imo. I just wanted to highlight I personally view the latter 3 Bulls teams as superior to the first 3.

80s Lakers and Celtics feel like superteams...albeit constructed organically.

 

[broncosmitty]

today's version is much different than then imo. I just wanted to highlight I personally view the latter 3 Bulls teams as superior to the first 3.

80s Lakers and Celtics feel like superteams...albeit constructed organically.

So do I.

I’d never really thought of anything pre-Rodman Bulls as a Superteam before.

And honestly, I’d just thought of them as the best team. Not a “Super” team. But the best. Ever.

Ainge was always where it started for Super

Not like I consider him the best GM or anything. Cuz I don’t.

Whole separate topic from this really.

 

[tlance]

Jordan 100 percent would not have won a title with the 07 Cavs roster. Just as Lebron didn't.

To be fair to Jordan I don't know that I would call the first 3 titles a "superteam"

But it was most definitely better than what Lebron had.

I agree with that statement that the first 3 title teams were not a super team.

But the 90s were an era completely devoid of superteams.

The only one for the entire decade was the 96-98 Bulls.

The only other superstar in the entire league who got to play with a teammate anywhere close to the caliber of Scottie Pippen was Karl Malone.

Stars just weren’t teamed up in that era.

 

[Stakesarehigh]

So do I.

I’d never really thought of anything pre-Rodman Bulls as a Superteam before.

And honestly, I’d just thought of them as the best team. Not a “Super” team. But the best. Ever.

Ainge was always where it started for Super

Not like I consider him the best GM or anything. Cuz I don’t.

Whole separate topic from this really.

that's a fair take

 

[tlance]

So do I.

I’d never really thought of anything pre-Rodman Bulls as a Superteam before.

And honestly, I’d just thought of them as the best team. Not a “Super” team. But the best. Ever.

Ainge was always where it started for Super

Not like I consider him the best GM or anything. Cuz I don’t.

Whole separate topic from this really.

The Ainge Celtics were the first time I ever heard the term “superteam”.

When we go back in history we can certainly find others like the Celtics and Lakers from the 80s that meet the criteria.

But to me, it is 2 prime superstars + at least 1 3rd star.

Got to have 2 superstars to be a super team.

Not exactly sure who the 3rd star was on even the 96-98 Bulls. It wasn’t Rodman. He was a big name, but not a star. Kukoc maybe?

Whether they were a superteam or not, they were absolutely loaded.

 

[Stakesarehigh]

The Ainge Celtics were the first time I ever heard the term “superteam”.

When we go back in history we can certainly find others like the Celtics and Lakers from the 80s that meet the criteria.

But to me, it is 2 prime superstars + at least 1 3rd star.

Got to have 2 superstars to be a super team.

Not exactly sure who the 3rd star was on even the 96-98 Bulls. It wasn’t Rodman. He was a big name, but not a star. Kukoc maybe?

Whether they were a superteam or not, they were absolutely loaded.

I'd consider 90s Rodman on par on stardom with a Ray Allen

 

[Stakesarehigh]

But regardless of all that no one knows for sure what Jordan would've done if saddled with the Cavs roster. We know he values winning over pretty much everything

 

[tlance]

I'd consider 90s Rodman on par on stardom with a Ray Allen

Only because of his off court antics.

By the time he got to Chicago His actual play on the court was that of a very high level role player.

Ray Allen was a 10 time all star and an all NBA level player. As great as Rodman was defensively, he wasn’t close to that. Especially not later in his career when he basically stopped trying to be an offensive threat.

 

[eaglesnut]

Would have been!?!

Best two players in their prime playing the same position.

Ya dope.

 

[broncosmitty]

The Ainge Celtics were the first time I ever heard the term “superteam”.

When we go back in history we can certainly find others like the Celtics and Lakers from the 80s that meet the criteria.

But to me, it is 2 prime superstars + at least 1 3rd star.

Got to have 2 superstars to be a super team.

Not exactly sure who the 3rd star was on even the 96-98 Bulls. It wasn’t Rodman. He was a big name, but not a star. Kukoc maybe?

Whether they were a superteam or not, they were absolutely loaded.

It was Rodman.

Kukoc didn’t get MVP votes, DPY votes, lead the league in boards or even start much. Rodman played a lot more minutes with a lot more impact.

Steve Kerr and Kukoc were great bench guys. But great bench guys are still bench guys.

 

[Stakesarehigh]

Only because of his off court antics.

By the time he got to Chicago His actual play on the court was that of a very high level role player.

Ray Allen was a 10 time all star and an all NBA level player. As great as Rodman was defensively, he wasn’t close to that. Especially not later in his career when he basically stopped trying to be an offensive threat.

I just feel Rodman is that Ben Wallace type who's impact is difficult to fully appreciate because it doesn't necessarily show up on a stat sheet. Similar to Draymond.

If I'm building a team I'm not necessarily going Ray in every case if I don't need Ray as much as a Draymond.

 

[tlance]

I just feel Rodman is that Ben Wallace type who's impact is difficult to fully appreciate because it doesn't necessarily show up on a stat sheet. Similar to Draymond.

If I'm building a team I'm not necessarily going Ray in every case if I don't need Ray as much as a Draymond.

I agree.

But also why as good as they were, I don’t think the ‘96 Bulls meet the 3 star definition of a superteam.

They had 2 superstars and some very good players who complemented them perfectly.

And like I said before, it was an era where they didn’t have to beat any superteams. Jordan and Pip as a 1-2 combo was a lot better than anyone else’s 1-2. And the Bulls 3 - 7 were pretty damn good too even though maybe not a true super team.

 

[shopson67]

The Ainge Celtics were the first time I ever heard the term “superteam”.

When we go back in history we can certainly find others like the Celtics and Lakers from the 80s that meet the criteria.

But to me, it is 2 prime superstars + at least 1 3rd star.

Got to have 2 superstars to be a super team.

Not exactly sure who the 3rd star was on even the 96-98 Bulls. It wasn’t Rodman. He was a big name, but not a star. Kukoc maybe?

Whether they were a superteam or not, they were absolutely loaded.

Hell, the 60's Celtics could be considered super teams, littered with HOFers. Of course, built much differently in a very different time in a much smaller league.

 

[Stakesarehigh]

I agree.

But also why as good as they were, I don’t think the ‘96 Bulls meet the 3 star definition of a superteam.

They had 2 superstars and some very good players who complemented them perfectly.

And like I said before, it was an era where they didn’t have to beat any superteams. Jordan and Pip as a 1-2 combo was a lot better than anyone else’s 1-2. And the Bulls 3 - 7 were pretty damn good too even though maybe not a true super team.

you're wrong

I kid

 

[tlance]

Hell, the 60's Celtics could be considered super teams, littered with HOFers. Of course, built much differently in a very different time in a much smaller league.

Yep. I agree.

Just saying 2008 is the first time I ever heard that term actually being used.

 

[msgkings322]

I agree.

But also why as good as they were, I don’t think the ‘96 Bulls meet the 3 star definition of a superteam.

They had 2 superstars and some very good players who complemented them perfectly.

And like I said before, it was an era where they didn’t have to beat any superteams. Jordan and Pip as a 1-2 combo was a lot better than anyone else’s 1-2. And the Bulls 3 - 7 were pretty damn good too even though maybe not a true super team.

Yeah and Steph and KD were better than anyone's 1-2 combo in 2017. It's all semantics but I put that 96 Bulls team against anyone and they can hang. One of the best teams ever, that's a 'superteam' to me

 

[Jordan23]

They couldn't. Free agency was very different in those days. They didn't have the freedom of movement that todays players have. We don't know what they would have done.

Additionally, Magic, Bird and MJ were on "superteams" with ownership that was committed to winning titles.

We don't know what they would have done if they, for example, went to a team like the Clippers when Donald Sterling owned them.

Not sure why you can't seem to grasp that.

The point doesn’t change. Players today team up regardless if they can or not. Hence basketball was better back then without all the colluding and buying titles