Originally Posted by Money 23
I think there was one super team from 2008 - 2010, that being the Celtics. They didn't dominate in 2009 because of KG being injured, but I really think that team is what set this whole chain of events into motion.
I think the Lakers even more stacked roster in 2010 compared to 2009 also sparked the birth of the "superteam era" ...
Think about it, LeBron and Wade had no chance of getting past the Celtics with the rosters they had. They couldn't even get out of the ECF, and then they saw out in the WCF when Kobe got gifted Gasol in 2008 for nothing, then they added a healthy Bynum and snagged Ron Artest, with Lamar Odom being their 6th man.
They had no choice but to respond with escalation by teaming up. And it's probably a good thing they did given OKC's evolution, and the now current Lakers super team.
Do you agree?
I agree to an extent, yes. What I was trying to say is that the main contenders from '08-'10 weren't that talented at the top. You compare the Lakers duo of Kobe and Gasol to the two best players of the other contenders other than a healthy Celtics team, and the Lakers have the best 1-2 by a pretty wide margin and their #3 (Odom) was pretty comparable to their #3 as well. The other teams, though, made up most of the gap with the rest of their supporting cast. And before someone jumps on me about hating on Kobe, I'm not trying take away from his championships. Yes, those Lakers tams with he and Gasol were one of the best teams in the league '09 and '10, but they weren't lapping the field in talent or anything.
But yes, the Celtics (when healthy) were a superteam and I think they showed they were clearly better than the Lakers in 2008. Obviously 2009 doesn't really count because Garnett got hurt in February and they were a completely different team without him. 2010 was strange because they entered the playoffs as the 4-seed. No one was really giving them much of a chance to make a run. Maybe a tough second round series, but that's about it. Even when they beat the Cavs in the second round,, there was a bunch of people accrediting that to LeBron "quitting" and not the Celtics play. It wasn't until they got to the Finals you felt maybe they really could win one more championship together, and even then, I didn't feel great about their chances against the defending champs.
Anyway, back to your question. I do feel the KG/Pierce/Allen Celtics spurred the "superteam" era. I wasn't and I'm still not one of those that was happy with LeBron's decision. I don't think the only reason he decided to join Wade and Bosh in Miami was because of Boston. I think it was that coupled with him coming to the realization he probably wasn't ever going to get enough hep in Cleveland. I don't care how good you are as an individual and how deep your team is, it's really hard to win when your best teammate is Mo Williams.
I don't really thin he thought he couldn't get past the Celtics - specifically - after the 2010 playoffs because, even then, the Celtics were already considered old and on their last legs. I just think he realized what he had in Cleveland wasn't going to get it done. I still wish he had gone somewhere like Chicago to team up with Rose or New York, but he didn't.
I'd be lying if I said I didn't relish in his miserable 2011 Finals performance. However, after his dominating 2012 season and playoffs, I am much more forgiving. People can say he had to have Wade and Bosh to win it all and knock him all they want, but his performance in the playoffs kind of negates that in my opinion. He was far-and-away the best player in the league last year and this is coming from a huge Durant/OKC fan.