NBA Superteams that worked out and didn't work out

[SavageMode]

Worked out:
2011-present: Miami Heat - Lebron, Wade, Bosh
2003-present: San Antonio Spurs - Ginobili, Duncan, Parker
2007-2008: Boston Celtics - Pierce, KG, Allen

Failed teams:
2012-2013: Los Angeles Lakers - Nash, Kobe, Gasol, Howard
2013- present: Brooklyn Nets - Pierce, KG, Lopez, Deron Williams, Joe Johnson
2011- present: New York Knicks - Melo, Amare, Chandler
1996-1997: Houston Rockets - Hakeem, Drexler, Barkley
2003-2004: Los Angeles Lakers - Shaq, Kobe, Malone, Payton

[scm5]

I would consider the 03' - present Spurs to be a super team, so add them to one of the ones that have worked out.

Less so now of course with the decline of Duncan and Manu, but those two with Parker would definitely be considered a super team.

[Marchesk]

1988-89 Atlanta Hawks - Wilkins, M. Malone, R. Theus, Rivers, Levingston

They were supposed to be an all-star team with the additions of Moses and Reggie Theus, but it didn't lead to a title. Too much competition in the East.

[SavageMode]

I would consider the 03' - present Spurs to be a super team, so add them to one of the ones that have worked out.

Less so now of course with the decline of Duncan and Manu, but those two with Parker would definitely be considered a super team.
Added.

[Mr Exlax]

Didn't we have Pippen that year with Barkley and Clyde and Hakeem or did we get him after Clyde retired? I can't remember for shit and don't feel like looking. "We" being the Rockets lol

[CanYouDigIt]

Kobe-Gasol-Odom-PJAX

[BoutPractice]

To me a superteam is a team assembled through free agency or trade like 2008 Boston or 2011 Miami. The Spurs Big 3 were all drafted by the organization.

Of course we could define superteam as just a team with super players on it, but then the list would be incredibly long.

[Norcaliblunt]

Lol. Spurs were never a super team.

[blazerftc]

I would add the 99-00 blazers to the failed teams. Just 12 minutes away...

[scm5]

To me a superteam is a team assembled through free agency or trade like 2008 Boston or 2011 Miami. The Spurs Big 3 were all drafted by the organization.

Of course we could define superteam as just a team with super players on it, but then the list would be incredibly long.

I guess I just consider a super team a team w/ a "Big 3".

For example, Shaq and Kobe are two of the most dominant players of their era. Arguably the best and second best players in the league at the time. I don't think they were considered a Super Team.

However, I consider the Spurs a Super Team because they've got a "Big 3".

I guess everyone has a different definition, and you're right, the list would be long if we included teams that drafted their star players.

OKC for example... Westbrook, Harden, Durant, Ibaka... that team I would consider a Super Team whereas you and others might not. They were no doubt "super" and made it to the Finals.

[CelticBaller]

the 03 spurs were a superteam? :lol

[scm5]

the 03 spurs were a superteam? :lol

Oops, I guess from 05' on when Manu became Batmanu.

I just remembered the Spurs won the championship in 03', didn't realize that Manu wasn't exactly a star player yet.

[CelticBaller]

Oops, I guess from 05' on when Manu became Batmanu.

I just remembered the Spurs won the championship in 03', didn't realize that Manu wasn't exactly a star player yet.
and lol OP just agreed with you without doubt. blatantly showing he didn't watch basketball until the summer of 2010 :lol

[BlackVVaves]

Worked out:
2011-present: Miami Heat - Lebron, Wade, Bosh
2003-present: San Antonio Spurs - Ginobili, Duncan, Parker
2007-2008: Boston Celtics - Pierce, KG, Allen

Failed teams:
2012-2013: Los Angeles Lakers - Nash, Kobe, Gasol, Howard
2013- present: Brooklyn Nets - Pierce, KG, Lopez, Deron Williams, Joe Johnson
2011- present: New York Knicks - Melo, Amare, Chandler
1996-1997: Houston Rockets - Hakeem, Drexler, Barkley
2003-2004: Los Angeles Lakers - Shaq, Kobe, Malone, Payton

How do the Knicks or Spurs qualify as super teams? Wtf?

[scm5]

How do the Knicks or Spurs qualify as super teams? Wtf?

Spurs: Duncan, Parker, Manu

Duncan - Best PF
Parker - Top 5 PG
Manu - Top 5 SG

[BlackVVaves]

People are misconceiving good teams for super teams

A super team is a roster that adds 2-3 stars/former stars to its ranks.

[L.Kizzle]

I would consider the 03' - present Spurs to be a super team, so add them to one of the ones that have worked out.

Less so now of course with the decline of Duncan and Manu, but those two with Parker would definitely be considered a super team.
Spurs are not super team. Team, was built from the draft. That's like saying the 60s Celtics were a superteam.

[scm5]

Spurs are not super team. Team, was built from the draft. That's like saying the 60s Celtics were a superteam.

Where does it say that a Super Team has to be constructed through Free Agency and not through the draft?

[CelticBaller]

Also, Parker and Ginobili weren't that good. They weren't the players you see now, especially Parker.

[rmt]

I would consider the 03' - present Spurs to be a super team, so add them to one of the ones that have worked out.

Less so now of course with the decline of Duncan and Manu, but those two with Parker would definitely be considered a super team.

Manu wasn't good until 05 and Parker blossomed in 06 (made his first all-star team).

[L.Kizzle]

1988-89 Atlanta Hawks - Wilkins, M. Malone, R. Theus, Rivers, Levingston

They were supposed to be an all-star team with the additions of Moses and Reggie Theus, but it didn't lead to a title. Too much competition in the East.
Not a Superteam, Reggie Theus hadn't been an All-Star in over 5 seasons. Malone was not the same Malone in Houston and Phila and Doc and Cliff, members of a superteam?

[SCdac]

Where does it say that a Super Team has to be constructed through Free Agency and not through the draft?

So would you consider the Thunder a super team when they had Harden?

Players who were once franchise players all joining together seems like the short definition of "Super teams" to me... ie. the Heat, 08 Celtics, etc.

[L.Kizzle]

Well add the 04 Pistons as a Superteam why don't you.

Run-TMC = Big three, so a Superteam

[L.Kizzle]

So would you consider the Thunder a super team when they had Harden?

Players who were once franchise players all joining together seems like the short definition of "Super teams" to me... ie. the Heat, 08 Celtics, etc.
That would mean it's a superteam like every year, more than one even.

Arenas/Jamison/Butler Wiz = Superteam
How about Dirk/Finley/Walker/Jamison Mavs from 04 = Superteam
Allen/Robinson/Cassell Buck = Superteam

[scm5]

Also, Parker and Ginobili weren't that good. They weren't the players you see now, especially Parker.

2005 Spurs:
Duncan: 20/11/3
Manu: 16/4/4
Tony Parker: 17/4/6

2014 Heat:
Lebron: 26/6/6
Wade: 19/5/5
Bosh: 14/6

You have to realize that Pop limits all his players minutes very well. They all played right around 30mpg and their stats look much better per 36.

Per 36 05' Spurs:
Duncan: 22/12/3 w/ 3blks
Manu: 20/5/5 w/ 2spg
Parker: 18/4/7 w/ 1spg

I don't see how they weren't that good back then.

[scm5]

So would you consider the Thunder a super team when they had Harden?

Players who were once franchise players all joining together seems like the short definition of "Super teams" to me... ie. the Heat, 08 Celtics, etc.

Fine, I concede... you all seem to have a different opinion of what a Super Team is than I do. I'm the minority and I realize that now.

It's just silly to me that the Thunder "could have" a team composed of Westbrook/Harden/Durant/Green/Ibaka and not be considered a Super Team simply because they were all drafted. That team would be more stacked than most Super Teams.

[jbryan1984]

Spurs just knew how to draft and they lucked out that year D-Rob was hurt and got Duncan in the draft. I think they have missed the playoffs like once in the last 25 years. They selected Ginobili when 47 teams passed on him. They drafted Parker late in the first round. They know how to scout.

[Fresh Kid]

How do the Knicks or Spurs qualify as super teams? Wtf?
that's what im saying, spurs weren't a super team but they were kinda stacked and lucky with their draft picks too, and tha knicks haven't had a super team since tha damn 70s:facepalm

[Mirko Cro Cop]

The spurs were never a super team so take that shit off. They were just another championship team that found success with the right roster. If you want to call them a super team just because they were so successful with the same 3 guys then you might as well call every repeat champs who used the same 2-3-4 guys as super teams.

Super teams by definition should be a team assembled with already established stars with the intent of creating a dominant team right off the bat aka the 08 Celtics. Teams like that are built to win as soon as possible, that's what a super team is supposed to be.

The spurs were never expected to be THAT achieving especially right off the bat. Until they actually won, no one thought they were going to be that good. You must think the 11' Mavs were a superteam as well then ...

[Genaro]

I don't see Lakers 04 as a fail, unless of course you think it's rings or bust. They got to the Finals and Malone got hurt what really undermined their chances.

[jzek]

Didn't work out:

2004 Lakers
2012 Lakers


Each had 5 Hall of Famers in the starting lineup.

[Mirko Cro Cop]

I wouldn't call OKC a super team either, sure they have Durant and Westbrook and maybe a top 10 PF in Ibaka but they were built to be good a few years down the line just like a traditional franchise should do.

People need to understand the term "Super team" that the media uses these days is meant for teams who want to find the "easy way out" (even tho I don't agree with this idea) by putting together superstars and getting a team that can contend for the title at the moment. i.e. Miami Heat, 08 Celtics, 12' Lakers.

Not to be confused with teams that are built the traditional way through drafts and smart trades over the years so they can be good in the long run (i.e. Spurs, OKC, 04-05 Pistons, even the 3-Peat Lakers), those are just successful teams backed by smart front offices.

[tmacattack33]

I wouldn't call OKC a super team either, sure they have Durant and Westbrook and maybe a top 10 PF in Ibaka but they were built to be good a few years down the line just like a traditional franchise should do.

People need to understand the term "Super team" that the media uses these days is meant for teams who want to find the "easy way out" by putting together superstars and getting a team that can contend for the title at the moment. Not to be confused with teams that are built the traditional way through drafts and smart trades over the years so they can be good in the long run, those are just successful teams backed by smart front offices.

What Pat Riley did in the summer of 2010 is just as smart as what OKC's front office did with drafting Durant, Westbrook, and Harden.

And actually is much smarter, since OKC didn't have a good enough plan to keep Harden there once he turned into a star and now he is gone.

[Mirko Cro Cop]

What Pat Riley did in the summer of 2010 is just as smart as what OKC's front office did with drafting Durant, Westbrook, and Harden.
I left that part out which is that I don't think it's necessarily an "easy way out" to put together superstars and make a title contender ASAP. I mean if you have the cap space and the pieces fit then by all means, go for it.

[Mirko Cro Cop]

And the Knicks were supposed to be a super team because if you haven't forgotten, the whole idea of pinning together Amare, Carmelo, and Tyson Chandler was to offset the imbalance created by the Heat's big three.

[$LakerGold]

Oops, I guess from 05' on when Manu became Batmanu.

I just remembered the Spurs won the championship in 03', didn't realize that Manu wasn't exactly a star player yet.


and lol OP just agreed with you without doubt. blatantly showing he didn't watch basketball until the summer of 2010 :lol


Manu obviously helped them out, but, I wouldn't say the Spurs at that time were a super-team, but he was obviously one of the reasons why they won. Manu became Manu when he entered the league -- he was a threat.

[$LakerGold]

Also, Parker and Ginobili weren't that good. They weren't the players you see now, especially Parker.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/p/parketo01/gamelog/2003/

[It's A VC3!!!]

This entire thread gets discredited when the 2013-14 Knicks are considered a super team because Amare is on it.

[guy]

2008-09 Suns? Nash, Amare, Shaq?

[scm5]

This entire thread gets discredited when the 2013-14 Knicks are considered a super team because Amare is on it.

See. People keep saying that Super teams are teams that put together a bunch of all-stars or former all-stars. That's exactly what management had in mind when they put together the current Knicks roster.

Meanwhile, teams that are clearly "Super Teams" in the sense that they have 3 or more actual Top Tier players, aren't considered Super Teams because they drafted them.

Ex.

OKC- Westbrook, Harden, Durant, Ibaka
Not a super team because they were drafted

SAS- Parker, Manu, Duncan
Not a super team because they were drafted

13-14' Nets- Deron, JJ, Pierce, KG, Lopez, AK
Super team because of big names, but they're performing at non-star levels.

[PieceOfFelt]

So any team that adds a few washed up former all stars is a super team?

[CelticBaller]

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/p/parketo01/gamelog/2003/
1 game in finals where he scored 20+ points...on 42% :rolleyes:

And Parker couldn't shoot. How the **** was this a super team?

[fpliii]

Second threepeat Bulls.

[$LakerGold]

1 game in finals where he scored 20+ points...on 42% :rolleyes:

And Parker couldn't shoot. How the **** was this a super team?
42%, & that's bad because? I liked how you ignored my other post. inb4, things they would do that doesn't show up in the stat-sheet.

[mr beast]

I would consider the 03' - present Spurs to be a super team, so add them to one of the ones that have worked out.

Less so now of course with the decline of Duncan and Manu, but those two with Parker would definitely be considered a super team.


spurs is a super team but they did it through their own scouting and developed the talent to all star level

versus all the other teams just traded pieces to form a super team

[CelticBaller]

42%, & that's bad because? I liked how you ignored my other post. inb4, things they would do that doesn't show up in the stat-sheet.
I'm not even going to argue why 42% is a bad FG% for a PG. I thought everybody should've known that already.

And I didn't ignore your first reply, I just thought it would be stupid to argue if Ginobili was a threat. The main argument was if the 03 Spurs were a super team. When your second best players averages 16 ppg and comes off the bench? No.

[Scholar]

2003-04 Lakers made the NBA Finals, though. :confusedshrug: WTF? So if making the NBA Finals and not winning counts as 'failure,' why are the 2010-11 Heat in the 'Worked Out' category?

[CelticBaller]

2003-04 Lakers made the NBA Finals, though. :confusedshrug: WTF? So if making the NBA Finals and not winning counts as 'failure,' why are the 2010-11 Heat in the 'Worked Out' category?
Because they won the year after?

[$LakerGold]

I'm not even going to argue why 42% is a bad FG% for a PG. I thought everybody should've known that already.

And I didn't ignore your first reply, I just thought it would be stupid to argue if Ginobili was a threat. The main argument was if the 03 Spurs were a super team. When your second best players averages 16 ppg and comes off the bench? No.


Also, Parker and Ginobili weren't that good. They weren't the players you see now, especially Parker.

Nah, first you made it sound like Manu & Parker were useless. If they were NOT THAT good, then why bother keeping them for another decade? Why did they win it all that year? Because they were making things happen for them & that's why they won that year. & about that 42%, says who? What's the difference? I could understand if a Center or a 4 is hittin' below 50%, but a PG? Not so much... I don't know where that came from. A PG has to facilitate, run the court, etc., especially the likes of Tony. & on top of that there are different types of POINT GUARDS.

Like I said, they weren't a super-team, it's just that you made it sound like Manu & Parker were not as efficient as they are now, I can agree to some level, but they WERE ALSO THE MAIN REASON why they won that year. Remember when the Spurs choked back in 2000 against the Lakers, w/out Manu & Parker? Yeah, that was when Kobe & Shaq were murdering them. Blowout after blowout. That's how much of a difference they made in 03'. You can never discredit those two.

[CelticBaller]

Nah, first you made it sound like Manu & Parker were useless. If they were NOT THAT good, then why bother keeping them for another decade? Why did they win it all that year? Because they were making things happen for them & that's why they won that year. & about that 42%, says who? What's the difference? I could understand if a Center or a 4 is hittin' below 50%, but a PG? Not so much... I don't know where that came from. A PG has to facilitate, run the court, etc., especially the likes of Tony. & on top of that there are different types of POINT GUARDS.

Like I said, they weren't a super-team, it's just that you made it sound like Manu & Parker were not as efficient as they are now, I can agree to some level, but they WERE ALSO THE MAIN REASON why they won that year. Remember when the Spurs choked back in 2000 against the Lakers, w/out Manu & Parker? Yeah, that was when Kobe & Shaq were murdering them. Blowout after blowout. That's how much of a difference they made in 03'. You can never discredit those two.
Look at the quote I said weren't that good, never said they were bad. The guy was acting like they were the player we see today, I just disagreed with him. Never said they weren't bad role players, but no way in hell they put off as big of an impact as guys like Bosh,Wade,KG. You know, members of other super teams
:coleman:

But ofc I should've fvkcing said Manu and Parker were great, all stars. Parker who avg a belo 40% fg in the finals and avg less than 5 assist and Ginobili who avg 7.3 ppg the entire season :coleman:

[$LakerGold]

Look at the quote I said weren't that good, never said they were bad. The guy was acting like they were the player we see today, I just disagreed with him. Never said they weren't bad role players, but no way in hell they put off as big of an impact as guys like Bosh,Wade,KG. You know, members of other super teams
:coleman:

But ofc I should've fvkcing said Manu and Parker were great, all stars. Parker who avg a belo 40% fg in the finals and avg less than 5 assist and Ginobili who avg 7.3 ppg the entire season :coleman:
Stop contradicting yourself. lol

The only answer I wanna hear is "They were GREAT", Saying "They weren't that good" is like you're discrediting them. Seriously, if you think they weren't that good, check out their game against the Lakers back in 01. 4-0 WITHOUT MANU & TONY.

AND Read my post AGAIN. I agreed that they were not a super-team. Oh my goodness. :lol

[$LakerGold]

90-104 L.
81-88 L.
72-111 L.
82-111 L.

4-0 L.

[$LakerGold]

I won. Hee-Hee-Hee :D

[Myth]

Didn't we have Pippen that year with Barkley and Clyde and Hakeem or did we get him after Clyde retired? I can't remember for shit and don't feel like looking. "We" being the Rockets lol

Not sure if this has been answered yet, but Clyde retired before Pippen joined.

[CelticBaller]

Stop contradicting yourself. lol

The only answer I wanna hear is "They were GREAT", Saying "They weren't that good" is like you're discrediting them.

I'm sorry, but they weren't

I won. Hee-Hee-Hee :D
If it makes you sleep at night. ok.

[$LakerGold]

I'm sorry, but they weren't

If it makes you sleep at night. ok.
:oldlol: Everyone has their own opinion then. lmfao