The "what you need" convo is so stupid.
You need super stars pretty much.
It used to be you need a bkue chip center.
Then it changed to, you need a "big man" blue chip guy
Then it turmed into, well I guess if you are a top swing player in the NbA that too
Such a ridicous joke of a conversation.
Anyway I think by far center is the least valu ale position in the NBA these days and I would invest the least amount of resources in aquiring one.
There's basically one top center (who really isn't even that good) and then you have a bunch of centers who really all mesh togther and don't make a dramatic difference
In my opinion, another misconception.
As I mentioned in my above post, maybe there aren't any Russell/Chamberlain/Kareem/Ewing type centers in the league anymore.
But, size is still a BIG part of the game.
You can't just throw out a bunch of guards and wing players and expect that to be a championship level team.
Sure, if we are talking making ESPN's top 10 highlights, maybe. But not for winning championships.
Both of you guys have the right idea. There is no "what you need" to have a championship team, championship teams are in themselves.
Size is still a big part of the game, but that doesn't equate to needing a top center (or big) who dominates. The Celtics didn't win by asserting their size, they had Perk or they went small. We won with jump shooting and defense. KG posted up some but overall didn't use his size often. Same thing with Bosh and the Heat. Miami didn't win because of their size in Bosh and Andersen, they also found a way to win without relying on their bigs. The Pistons relied more on Chauncey, Rip, and Prince than the Wallaces and managed to beat top 5 centers in Shaq and JO. This is because they had a better team, not better size
If Sully became a top 20 center (likely) and we signed or traded for a top 20 big, we'd be in the same position as if we had a top 10 center.
Edit: Actually were the O'Neals the two best centers that year? Yao was 23 and in his second year so I'm saying yeah.