CelticsBlog, a Boston Celtics community
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Rockets haven't won anything yet. "Superstar" thing can be taken out of context. You have perennial losers like Chris Paul, Blake Griffin and James Harden who haven't even reached the Finals.There's no guarantee you will win with superstars either. Talent, chemistry and luck comes all together to build a championship team. We have seen a collection of talents that didn't mesh well because of poor chemistry.
Quote from: mr. dee on February 17, 2018, 10:34:30 PMRockets haven't won anything yet. "Superstar" thing can be taken out of context. You have perennial losers like Chris Paul, Blake Griffin and James Harden who haven't even reached the Finals.There's no guarantee you will win with superstars either. Talent, chemistry and luck comes all together to build a championship team. We have seen a collection of talents that didn't mesh well because of poor chemistry.To be fair James Harden has played in the Finals when he was in OKC. They then let him go and they didn't get back to the Finals without him, so maybe he was more important to that team then people want to admit. Harden also led the Rockets back from 3-1 down to make the WCF (they lost to GS). He has also been in the playoffs every single season he has been in the league (something very few players ever can claim after 8 full seasons). Harden has obviously had some very poor showings in the playoffs, but he has also played like a man possessed at times as well.
Starting next season assuming a healthy Hayward and further development out of Brown and Tatum the Cs have the talent to be a championship level team. The issue is that the Warriors have raised the bar on winning a championship.Anthony Davis dreams aside I think the Cs will be in a position to ride things out and let the Warriors age themselves for a few seasons.In two yearsIrving 27 28 Curry 31Brown 23 Thompson 30Hayward 29 Iquodala 36Tatum 21 Durant 31 Horford 33 Green 29As for the Superstar debate I 100% believe that Irving can be the best player on a championship team. Look at the 2014 Spurs their best player that year was Tony Parker. They still had Tim Duncan but at that point he was 37 years old and they had Leonard but he was a 22 year old 13ppg player.
Kyrie can be that superstar guy. He has already won a championship. But he still needs more talent around him. You need a minimum of a big 3 to contend. Kyrie plus Horford isn't enough to get to the next level. Fortunately, we will get Hayward back next year. Plus if we make a big trade and add a Kawhi Leonard or an Anthony Davis, we get instantly vaulted into contender status with as talented a big 4 as you will see in this league.
I've always thought that superstars are anointed when they win. After our 2019 championship Brown, Tatum, Irving and Hayward will be considered superstars.
Do championship teams make superstars, or do superstars make championship teams?
It is arbitrary. The league is marketing players. 'Stars' just is a label for great players. Superstar is isolating out the best of the best. The formula isn't we need superstars. The best combination of players is a general idea. The superstar win rings narrative makes sense, especially since the media and league want them in the big games (revenue booster). It is hiding the teams like the 2014 Spurs, 2008 Celtics, 2004 Pistons. These teams had all-stars, but not the best players in the league. All-star is just another name for success full player. Overall, superstar or stars and championship end up hand in hand because you need talented players