Terrific response. I've come down from my kool-aid buzz now, so I'll try to "refute" or "slap back" or whatever we're doing here:
Knicks highest payroll for years running, no rings, not even close to sniffing one in fact.
Spurs one of the leanest payrolls for years running and have 4 titles to show for it.
I wasn't necessarily talking about huge payrolls. The Knicks made stupid payroll decisions. I was looking at teams with, like I said, 2 or 3 great players. The Knicks haven't had this. And yeah, the Spurs did exactly what you said. I never said you couldn't win a title without 2 or 3 great players. All I was aiming for was that if you
do have 2 or 3 great players, you will do well. I never said anything about teams that don't have 2 or 3 great players. Spurs are an example of great all-around "team" basketball.
Shaq was there before Kobe was drafted, Kobe wasn't even a starter when he did come, and he left because of issues with the Magic organization.
They both played their first season with the Lakers in the same year, if I'm not mistaken. All I'm saying is that the Lakers paid big bucks to bring in a superstar - and there was a lot of anticipation at the same time for what Kobe was going to become. But, the more I think about it, I'll humbly agree with you that this probably doesn't fit the category of "buying a championship". But, you do hear a lot of fans say that teams like the Yankees and Lakers are known for "buying a world championship". Isn't that the common perception of those two teams? Do you disagree with that perception? Do you think those two teams' high levels of success are for reasons other than being able to bring in great players at huge prices?
Memphis was salary dumping.
Right. So what does that mean? I know Gregg Popovich, everyone's favorite coach, was
absolutely livid at the way the whole thing went down, as were many GM's, owners, players, and fans. Most of them thought it was more or less "stealing".
Garnett and Allen were both acquired by trade.
I obviously forget how those transactions went down. Free agents or trades, what I was really getting at was that when the Celts were able to bring those 2 guys on board (along with Pierce), the Big 3 brought them a title in short fashion. And I know there are a lot of smaller market teams that could not (or would not be willing to) pay the price to bring in 3 big guns like that.
If you consider going to the finals and losing an epic flop I don't know what to say about that, seems you've drank the kool aid. Especially since Malone injured his shoulder the round before and was toughing it out because the team lacked depth behind the starting unit.
In Los Angeles, when that team was put together, everyone was saying that if they didn't win it all, it would be a huge flop. Dr. Jerry Buss, the owner himself, has been quoted as saying that basically anything short of a World Championship in unsuccessful in his book. So, you may have thought it was a success and I may have even thought they did pretty darn good that year, but he wasn't happy.
Either way, the point was that if you have a roster of 12 Hall of Famers (or 4), I don't really think the players on the team are thinking, "Well, we lost in the Finals, but we still did really good." A team with 1 or 2 Hall of Famers, maybe you just say, "Hey guys, good year. Good job. We'll get 'em next time." 4 HOF's - big things are expected.
Aside from all my miscues, my point in my last post was simple: if you are able to compile a team with 2 or 3 great players, you
usually do pretty well. It's harder to do that in the other leagues. That's all - nothing too outlandish about that.
Back to the kool-aid. Good stuff.