Author Topic: big three or big two  (Read 2320 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

big three or big two
« on: July 21, 2014, 10:54:04 AM »

Offline boscel33

  • Jim Loscutoff
  • **
  • Posts: 2667
  • Tommy Points: 166
a lot is being made over cleveland trying to get love to have their big three.  my question is, what is the smarter move, a big three with filler or a big two with above average role players.

if a team signs three players to max deals, there is not going to be much room under the cap for much else, whereas, if a team signs two max deals, there is that room to surround those two with much better players.
"There's sharks and minnows in this world. If you don't know which you are, you ain't a shark."

Re: big three or big two
« Reply #1 on: July 21, 2014, 11:04:06 AM »

Offline D.o.s.

  • NCE
  • Cedric Maxwell
  • **************
  • Posts: 14061
  • Tommy Points: 1239
In a vacuum, I'd say you'd want three Max Contract level players, rather than 2.

I'll submit the twin stories of the Miami Heat and the Oklahoma City Thunder from 2012-2014 as my anecdotal evidence.
At least a goldfish with a Lincoln Log on its back goin' across your floor to your sock drawer has a miraculous connotation to it.

Re: big three or big two
« Reply #2 on: July 21, 2014, 11:38:49 AM »

Offline Mr October

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6129
  • Tommy Points: 247
Normally i would say a big three, but with the harsher luxury tax penalties it is going to be hard to pay a big 3, plus 2 or 3 more high end role players for an extended number of years.

We might start seeing a big 2 plus 3 or 4 elite role players as champions soon. Perhaps the Spurs are of that kind already. Parker and Duncan are the focal point of the offense, and then they have a stack of guys who score or defend at a high level in any given game. (I am not ready to call Kawhi Leonard a big star player yet. He might remain a border line all star like Chauncey Billups who has a finals MVP feather in his cap).

Re: big three or big two
« Reply #3 on: July 21, 2014, 11:47:22 AM »

Offline Csfan1984

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8825
  • Tommy Points: 289
Big three. I feel it is because in the current NBA seems 75% of the teams overpay 1/3 of the roster. So value wise I'd rather see money spent on a big three. With a big three it helps in recruit 3 or 4 vet/mle level fillers at reduced cost. Hopefully team could also have 3 decent players still on rookie contracts to supplement cost to talent. So there is your teams 9/10 man rotation.

Re: big three or big two
« Reply #4 on: July 21, 2014, 12:01:29 PM »

Offline Mr October

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6129
  • Tommy Points: 247
This thread raises two questions.

What qualifies as a big three?

Answer: I would say 3 year in year out all stars, also probably considered top 5 at their position, and worthy of being paid the max or near max. These are the names that come to mind when one thinks big three:

Bird, Parish, McHale - Garnett, Pierce, Allen - James, Bosh, Wade

Which current teams have a big three?

Answer: none

The Clippers might come the closest. Paul and Griffin are arguably the best their their positions. And Jordan is at least a top 10 center. But he isn't top 5, and has not made multiple all star games or even one all star game. The same goes for Durant, Westbrook and Ibaka. Or Bosh, Wade, Deng. Or Parker, Duncan, Leonard.

The league has a lot contenders with 2 perennial all stars, not 3. Three is very hard to get and very expensive to maintain.

Re: big three or big two
« Reply #5 on: July 21, 2014, 12:11:20 PM »

Offline manl_lui

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6571
  • Tommy Points: 427
This thread raises two questions.

What qualifies as a big three?

Answer: I would say 3 year in year out all stars, also probably considered top 5 at their position, and worthy of being paid the max or near max. These are the names that come to mind when one thinks big three:

Bird, Parish, McHale - Garnett, Pierce, Allen - James, Bosh, Wade

Which current teams have a big three?

Answer: none

The Clippers might come the closest. Paul and Griffin are arguably the best their their positions. And Jordan is at least a top 10 center. But he isn't top 5, and has not made multiple all star games or even one all star game. The same goes for Durant, Westbrook and Ibaka. Or Bosh, Wade, Deng. Or Parker, Duncan, Leonard.

The league has a lot contenders with 2 perennial all stars, not 3. Three is very hard to get and very expensive to maintain.

very well said. But I kind of like the Spurs way. They don't exactly have a big 3, but they surround their veterans (Duncan, Parker, maybe even Giniobli) with quality and above average players.

I rather model our team after the Spurs than something like the Heat. Sure they were able to sign 3 stars and got 2 champs out of it, but the Spurs maintained and played at a high level for over a decade! That's a team I want to see. Rondo or no Rondo, or whoever we will build our team around, I want to see a player come in and retire in Green

Re: big three or big two
« Reply #6 on: July 21, 2014, 12:22:31 PM »

Offline Cman

  • K.C. Jones
  • *************
  • Posts: 13068
  • Tommy Points: 120
This thread raises two questions.

What qualifies as a big three?

Answer: I would say 3 year in year out all stars, also probably considered top 5 at their position, and worthy of being paid the max or near max. These are the names that come to mind when one thinks big three:

Bird, Parish, McHale - Garnett, Pierce, Allen - James, Bosh, Wade

Which current teams have a big three?

Answer: none

The Clippers might come the closest. Paul and Griffin are arguably the best their their positions. And Jordan is at least a top 10 center. But he isn't top 5, and has not made multiple all star games or even one all star game. The same goes for Durant, Westbrook and Ibaka. Or Bosh, Wade, Deng. Or Parker, Duncan, Leonard.

The league has a lot contenders with 2 perennial all stars, not 3. Three is very hard to get and very expensive to maintain.

very well said. But I kind of like the Spurs way. They don't exactly have a big 3, but they surround their veterans (Duncan, Parker, maybe even Giniobli) with quality and above average players.

I rather model our team after the Spurs than something like the Heat. Sure they were able to sign 3 stars and got 2 champs out of it, but the Spurs maintained and played at a high level for over a decade! That's a team I want to see. Rondo or no Rondo, or whoever we will build our team around, I want to see a player come in and retire in Green

Agreed, but... much easier said than done. Tim Duncan is a once in a generation type player.
Celtics fan for life.

Re: big three or big two
« Reply #7 on: July 21, 2014, 12:26:04 PM »

Offline Who

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 47136
  • Tommy Points: 2401
It depends on your stars.

When you have two MVP quality stars - like Shaq and Kobe - you don't need a third star.

If you have only one top 5 player, then you need (at least) a 3rd star.

If you have only one top 10 player but lack a top star alongside him (I don't know - say a top 20 player in league), then you need to adjust plans again and forget about a Dynamic Duo or Big Three and move on to either (1) a Big Four - like CP3 with D.West, T.Chandler and P.Stojakovic - or (2) Hakeem's 94 Rockets teams or LeBron's old Cavaliers teams in 2008-2010 that are balanced teams whose roster is loaded with strength in depth. Need an MVP caliber player for 2nd option.

If you lack that top 5 player, then you move towards the 2004 Pistons or 1979 Sonics formula. Top notch defensive teams, strong rebounding squads, balanced starting fives with excellent depth. Lack a top 10 player but built with multiple lower level stars (guys who are top 5 or top 10 players at their respective positions).
« Last Edit: July 21, 2014, 12:34:37 PM by Who »

Re: big three or big two
« Reply #8 on: July 21, 2014, 02:36:10 PM »

Offline Csfan1984

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8825
  • Tommy Points: 289
It depends on your stars.

When you have two MVP quality stars - like Shaq and Kobe - you don't need a third star.

If you have only one top 5 player, then you need (at least) a 3rd star.

If you have only one top 10 player but lack a top star alongside him (I don't know - say a top 20 player in league), then you need to adjust plans again and forget about a Dynamic Duo or Big Three and move on to either (1) a Big Four - like CP3 with D.West, T.Chandler and P.Stojakovic - or (2) Hakeem's 94 Rockets teams or LeBron's old Cavaliers teams in 2008-2010 that are balanced teams whose roster is loaded with strength in depth. Need an MVP caliber player for 2nd option.

If you lack that top 5 player, then you move towards the 2004 Pistons or 1979 Sonics formula. Top notch defensive teams, strong rebounding squads, balanced starting fives with excellent depth. Lack a top 10 player but built with multiple lower level stars (guys who are top 5 or top 10 players at their respective positions).

Totally agree with that formula.  Strange that a lot of basketball fans believe this and yet few teams are built in accordance.  I don't understand how teams let business effect winning strategy. If you win fans will spend their $ and stick around.

Re: big three or big two
« Reply #9 on: July 21, 2014, 02:40:15 PM »

Offline Celticjay

  • Brad Stevens
  • Posts: 210
  • Tommy Points: 19
New formula is Big 2 with some solid young players on their rookie deals.  Then your end of career former star vets who come in as hired guns.  Mix of star power, youth and experienced vets.  Need young players to get through the 82 game season and keep the salaries down!!

Re: big three or big two
« Reply #10 on: July 21, 2014, 02:55:18 PM »

Offline Future Celtics Owner

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3097
  • Tommy Points: 191
  • Celtic's only raise championship Banners
It depends on your stars.

When you have two MVP quality stars - like Shaq and Kobe - you don't need a third star.

If you have only one top 5 player, then you need (at least) a 3rd star.

If you have only one top 10 player but lack a top star alongside him (I don't know - say a top 20 player in league), then you need to adjust plans again and forget about a Dynamic Duo or Big Three and move on to either (1) a Big Four - like CP3 with D.West, T.Chandler and P.Stojakovic - or (2) Hakeem's 94 Rockets teams or LeBron's old Cavaliers teams in 2008-2010 that are balanced teams whose roster is loaded with strength in depth. Need an MVP caliber player for 2nd option.

If you lack that top 5 player, then you move towards the 2004 Pistons or 1979 Sonics formula. Top notch defensive teams, strong rebounding squads, balanced starting fives with excellent depth. Lack a top 10 player but built with multiple lower level stars (guys who are top 5 or top 10 players at their respective positions).
Even though Kobe and Shaq were MVP candidates, shaw was much much more dominant.

Re: big three or big two
« Reply #11 on: July 21, 2014, 03:01:13 PM »

Online Moranis

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33464
  • Tommy Points: 1533
I never understood the notion of a big 3 because by and large championship teams aren't built that way historically.  Even in the Big 3 era (starting with Boston's most recent) only 3 of the 7 title teams had a big three (Boston and Miami twice).  The Lakers were a big 2, Dallas was a big 1, and the Spurs were a deep team with a lot of good players, but no real stars (TD is past his big star period and Parker is good, but not a star level player). 
2023 Historical Draft - Brooklyn Nets - 9th pick

Bigs - Pau, Amar'e, Issel, McGinnis, Roundfield
Wings - Dantley, Bowen, J. Jackson
Guards - Cheeks, Petrovic, Buse, Rip

Re: big three or big two
« Reply #12 on: July 21, 2014, 03:16:42 PM »

Offline Mr October

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6129
  • Tommy Points: 247
I never understood the notion of a big 3 because by and large championship teams aren't built that way historically.  Even in the Big 3 era (starting with Boston's most recent) only 3 of the 7 title teams had a big three (Boston and Miami twice).  The Lakers were a big 2, Dallas was a big 1, and the Spurs were a deep team with a lot of good players, but no real stars (TD is past his big star period and Parker is good, but not a star level player).

TP. People dont see how rare a big three is. Most contenders have to have a lot of balance in their starting lineup or even top 8.

The younger spurs had a big three when you include Ginobili in his prime. That brings a total up to 3 contender rosters total over the span of 25 years had a big three of stars.

Other contenders or champions without a big three: Bryant/Gasol Lakers, Shaq/Kobe Lakers, Dirk Mavs, Duncan/Robinson Spurs, Rasheed/Billups Pistons, Wade/Shaq Heat, Howard Magic, Webber Kings, Rasheed Blazers and so on...

I dont consider OKC as ever havng a big three. James Harden left before he became a "big star" worthy of big three status.