NBA Superteams that worked out and didn't work out

[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

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/.../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/.../gamelog/2003/

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

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%

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