I don't think I'm alone in this, but if they had kept Harden, traded Westbrook and let Harden run the offense, I think they (OKC) would be better. That's not the say I don't like Westbrook, because i really do. But i think Harden is better.
In response to the OP, I think it's essential that you don't have too many scorers, at least in certain lineups. That's why you have very good players who are scorers come off the bench. They can take the majority of the shots while other scorers are on the bench.
It's the reason why Thabo was starting over Harden the last two years. Also the reason Adrian Griffin (not many people even remember that guy) was starting for the Mavs on their 06 Finals team instead of Jerry Stackhouse. Every team needs defensive minded "hustle" guys that do the work that doesn't show up in the box score like crowding ball handlers, running the floor or just plain playing within the offense.
Too many "scorers", especially in today's NBA can't just move the ball around for the sake of ball movement. They have to try and make one on one moves or create for others when maybe just dumping the ball in to the post was the best basketball play they could have made.
but since many of you said that too many scorers is a bad idea, would you have built the U.S. Olympic team any differently?
Yes and no. Because some of those players are great defensive players also. Dwight Howard, Dwayne Wade, Jason Kidd (more so in his younger days). Tayshawn Prince was on the 08 team. Tyson Chandler was on this last year.
But at some point, talent over takes other teams no matter how well constructed they are. LeBron and Wade are pretty much the same type of player as far as skill set. Their abilities are a little redundant, but they are so talented that they can still win. Olympic teams are made up of dream teams where stats don't really matter in the end as long as you get a gold medal where as the regular NBA games are more meaningful stats-wise because players believe the better stats they have, the more money they will make. And that's true because there are plenty of GM's who will just see that a player scored a bunch of points and give him a bunch of money regardless of how they may fit with a team.
So in that respect, it's harder for players to accept lesser roles because their livelihood depends on stats where as the Olympic team doesn't even get paid (at least officially). So accepting a lesser more defined role on a team where you don't get paid and the end result of getting the win is the most important thing is easier to do.