Author Topic: Media scrutiny, rings, and super teams  (Read 1137 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Media scrutiny, rings, and super teams
« on: February 17, 2019, 07:42:16 AM »

Offline Green-18

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1253
  • Tommy Points: 130
I was talking to a friend about the situation with player movement in the NBA and I began to wonder if things will organically shift in a different direction.  Going back to LeBron's "Decision" in 2010, it's fair to assume that the relentless pressure and media scrutiny played a major role in him teaming up with Wade & Bosh.  The same can be said for Kevin Durant in his move to Golden State.

If the "Superteam" trend continues, I see a possibility of the media (including social media) shifting the narrative back in the favor of "Supserstars" who try to win with their original (or slightly lesser) squad.  Westbrook would be the prime example of this. There's no doubt that 90% of NBA fans and critics would view Westbrook as more of a winner than Durant if OKC won a title.  This is the #1 reason why I am rooting for OKC in the Western Conference.

I'm not suggesting that players will stop teaming up.  I'm just hopeful that we will see an end to 3+ All-NBA players joining forces. 

 


Re: Media scrutiny, rings, and super teams
« Reply #1 on: February 17, 2019, 09:01:27 AM »

Offline Moranis

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33461
  • Tommy Points: 1533
I was talking to a friend about the situation with player movement in the NBA and I began to wonder if things will organically shift in a different direction.  Going back to LeBron's "Decision" in 2010, it's fair to assume that the relentless pressure and media scrutiny played a major role in him teaming up with Wade & Bosh.  The same can be said for Kevin Durant in his move to Golden State.

If the "Superteam" trend continues, I see a possibility of the media (including social media) shifting the narrative back in the favor of "Supserstars" who try to win with their original (or slightly lesser) squad.  Westbrook would be the prime example of this. There's no doubt that 90% of NBA fans and critics would view Westbrook as more of a winner than Durant if OKC won a title.  This is the #1 reason why I am rooting for OKC in the Western Conference.

I'm not suggesting that players will stop teaming up.  I'm just hopeful that we will see an end to 3+ All-NBA players joining forces. 
I just don't see much difference in a superteam that is drafted or traded for or one that is created via free agency.  Should the 80's Celtics and Lakers teams be treated differently or the Bulls or the Spurs.  I mean there are interviews with Magic where he has flat out said he would have gone back to school another year had the Lakers not gotten the 1st pick because he wanted to play with Kareem (and didn't want to go to Chicago).  Why is it different that the Celtics drafted Bird, traded for the draft pick that became McHale and got Parish in that trade?  That team then added Dennis Johnson and Bill Walton.  Why is that any different the modern teams?  The Bulls added Dennis Rodman via free agency to a team with the best player in basketball and perhaps the 2nd best player in basketball.  The Spurs tanked so they could add Duncan to Robinson and then added Parker and Manu via the draft.  They later traded a pick to acquire Leonard.  If Leonard doesn't get hurt, maybe big time free agent Aldridge wins a title with that group.

I just don't see the distinction.  That said, Durant's problem was he joined a 73 win team that had already won a title with the same core and that beat his team after it choked in the WCF just before the move.  That is always going to be treated differently then another type of superteam because Durant joined an already formed "superteam".
2023 Historical Draft - Brooklyn Nets - 9th pick

Bigs - Pau, Amar'e, Issel, McGinnis, Roundfield
Wings - Dantley, Bowen, J. Jackson
Guards - Cheeks, Petrovic, Buse, Rip

Re: Media scrutiny, rings, and super teams
« Reply #2 on: February 17, 2019, 10:01:14 AM »

Offline Green-18

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1253
  • Tommy Points: 130
I was talking to a friend about the situation with player movement in the NBA and I began to wonder if things will organically shift in a different direction.  Going back to LeBron's "Decision" in 2010, it's fair to assume that the relentless pressure and media scrutiny played a major role in him teaming up with Wade & Bosh.  The same can be said for Kevin Durant in his move to Golden State.

If the "Superteam" trend continues, I see a possibility of the media (including social media) shifting the narrative back in the favor of "Supserstars" who try to win with their original (or slightly lesser) squad.  Westbrook would be the prime example of this. There's no doubt that 90% of NBA fans and critics would view Westbrook as more of a winner than Durant if OKC won a title.  This is the #1 reason why I am rooting for OKC in the Western Conference.

I'm not suggesting that players will stop teaming up.  I'm just hopeful that we will see an end to 3+ All-NBA players joining forces. 
I just don't see much difference in a superteam that is drafted or traded for or one that is created via free agency.  Should the 80's Celtics and Lakers teams be treated differently or the Bulls or the Spurs.  I mean there are interviews with Magic where he has flat out said he would have gone back to school another year had the Lakers not gotten the 1st pick because he wanted to play with Kareem (and didn't want to go to Chicago).  Why is it different that the Celtics drafted Bird, traded for the draft pick that became McHale and got Parish in that trade?  That team then added Dennis Johnson and Bill Walton.  Why is that any different the modern teams?  The Bulls added Dennis Rodman via free agency to a team with the best player in basketball and perhaps the 2nd best player in basketball.  The Spurs tanked so they could add Duncan to Robinson and then added Parker and Manu via the draft.  They later traded a pick to acquire Leonard.  If Leonard doesn't get hurt, maybe big time free agent Aldridge wins a title with that group.

I just don't see the distinction.  That said, Durant's problem was he joined a 73 win team that had already won a title with the same core and that beat his team after it choked in the WCF just before the move.  That is always going to be treated differently then another type of superteam because Durant joined an already formed "superteam".

Great points across the board.  That said, I still believe the perception of players orchestrating their moves  in unison will be viewed in a different light, even if it's not completely fair.  At the end of the day it's really a legacy conversation for the games greatest players.  Superstars who stick it out through adversity or join new teams early in their ascent will always be viewed more favorably.       

It's also worth noting that players and organizations are evaluated under different criteria.  Teams should do everything in their power to win at all costs.  For example, The Warriors deserve nothing but credit for everything they have built.  At the same time we can still view Durant's decision as being weak.  His two rings haven't really enhanced his legacy, at least not yet.





Re: Media scrutiny, rings, and super teams
« Reply #3 on: February 17, 2019, 10:11:08 AM »

Offline Celtics4ever

  • NCE
  • Johnny Most
  • ********************
  • Posts: 20000
  • Tommy Points: 1323
Quote
Going back to LeBron's "Decision" in 2010, it's fair to assume that the relentless pressure and media scrutiny played a major role in him teaming up with Wade & Bosh.  The same can be said for Kevin Durant in his move to Golden Stat

LeBron was not an alpha male at that time.   He was greatest player on the planet but he needs a Wade or Bosh to take over when he cracks under pressure.   I think he has improved a lot in regards to this happening.   But even a few years it was Kyrie who took over in crunch time.  He knew this and so did anyone who followed basketball closely, casual fans not so much.   He is counting on the same thing happening in LA, though each year there his ability to contribute and his health could become more suspect. 

I think Durant pulled a gollum and went ring chasing.  This the way this generation of players think.  Bird, Jordan and Magic would have never ever done this...

I also don't buy it was media pressure, players have always had that.

Re: Media scrutiny, rings, and super teams
« Reply #4 on: February 17, 2019, 10:31:18 AM »

Online Neurotic Guy

  • Dave Cowens
  • ***********************
  • Posts: 23317
  • Tommy Points: 2509
I was talking to a friend about the situation with player movement in the NBA and I began to wonder if things will organically shift in a different direction.  Going back to LeBron's "Decision" in 2010, it's fair to assume that the relentless pressure and media scrutiny played a major role in him teaming up with Wade & Bosh.  The same can be said for Kevin Durant in his move to Golden State.

If the "Superteam" trend continues, I see a possibility of the media (including social media) shifting the narrative back in the favor of "Supserstars" who try to win with their original (or slightly lesser) squad.  Westbrook would be the prime example of this. There's no doubt that 90% of NBA fans and critics would view Westbrook as more of a winner than Durant if OKC won a title.  This is the #1 reason why I am rooting for OKC in the Western Conference.

I'm not suggesting that players will stop teaming up.  I'm just hopeful that we will see an end to 3+ All-NBA players joining forces. 
I just don't see much difference in a superteam that is drafted or traded for or one that is created via free agency.  Should the 80's Celtics and Lakers teams be treated differently or the Bulls or the Spurs.  I mean there are interviews with Magic where he has flat out said he would have gone back to school another year had the Lakers not gotten the 1st pick because he wanted to play with Kareem (and didn't want to go to Chicago).  Why is it different that the Celtics drafted Bird, traded for the draft pick that became McHale and got Parish in that trade?  That team then added Dennis Johnson and Bill Walton.  Why is that any different the modern teams?  The Bulls added Dennis Rodman via free agency to a team with the best player in basketball and perhaps the 2nd best player in basketball.  The Spurs tanked so they could add Duncan to Robinson and then added Parker and Manu via the draft.  They later traded a pick to acquire Leonard.  If Leonard doesn't get hurt, maybe big time free agent Aldridge wins a title with that group.

I just don't see the distinction.  That said, Durant's problem was he joined a 73 win team that had already won a title with the same core and that beat his team after it choked in the WCF just before the move.  That is always going to be treated differently then another type of superteam because Durant joined an already formed "superteam".

The best player in all your team examples was drafted by the team they won with and remained with the same team throughout their careers (exception:Jordan).

Shaq, Lebron, KD, AD, KL, did/will take their top-level talents to preferred places where they can orchestrate a super-team. They have the right to do so, but that’s the distinction.

Re: Media scrutiny, rings, and super teams
« Reply #5 on: February 17, 2019, 10:32:20 AM »

Offline LilRip

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6857
  • Tommy Points: 391
I was talking to a friend about the situation with player movement in the NBA and I began to wonder if things will organically shift in a different direction.  Going back to LeBron's "Decision" in 2010, it's fair to assume that the relentless pressure and media scrutiny played a major role in him teaming up with Wade & Bosh.  The same can be said for Kevin Durant in his move to Golden State.

If the "Superteam" trend continues, I see a possibility of the media (including social media) shifting the narrative back in the favor of "Supserstars" who try to win with their original (or slightly lesser) squad.  Westbrook would be the prime example of this. There's no doubt that 90% of NBA fans and critics would view Westbrook as more of a winner than Durant if OKC won a title.  This is the #1 reason why I am rooting for OKC in the Western Conference.

I'm not suggesting that players will stop teaming up.  I'm just hopeful that we will see an end to 3+ All-NBA players joining forces. 
I just don't see much difference in a superteam that is drafted or traded for or one that is created via free agency.  Should the 80's Celtics and Lakers teams be treated differently or the Bulls or the Spurs.  I mean there are interviews with Magic where he has flat out said he would have gone back to school another year had the Lakers not gotten the 1st pick because he wanted to play with Kareem (and didn't want to go to Chicago).  Why is it different that the Celtics drafted Bird, traded for the draft pick that became McHale and got Parish in that trade?  That team then added Dennis Johnson and Bill Walton.  Why is that any different the modern teams?  The Bulls added Dennis Rodman via free agency to a team with the best player in basketball and perhaps the 2nd best player in basketball.  The Spurs tanked so they could add Duncan to Robinson and then added Parker and Manu via the draft.  They later traded a pick to acquire Leonard.  If Leonard doesn't get hurt, maybe big time free agent Aldridge wins a title with that group.

I just don't see the distinction.  That said, Durant's problem was he joined a 73 win team that had already won a title with the same core and that beat his team after it choked in the WCF just before the move.  That is always going to be treated differently then another type of superteam because Durant joined an already formed "superteam".

You don’t see the distinction?

Magic and Bird were highly touted but they were rookies. Dennis Rodman was a really good player but not an MVP candidate. Parker and Manu weren’t projected to be some world beaters either, nor was Kawhi.

Juxtapose that with KD joining Steph’s Warriors or Wade and Lebron teaming up in Miami. Both cases, 2 legit MVP candidates at the height of their powers teamed up to win a chip. It would’ve been like Bird and Magic teaming up.

The reason there’s a difference in perception lies in the connotation of trades and drafts vs free agency.

In trades, the feeling is that both teams gave up something of value to get another thing of value. Look at the Tatum-Fultz trade. In hindsight, the Sixers got robbed. But on draft night? Not that certain. Look at the Kyrie-IT trade. In hindsight, DA once again came out ahead. But during the trade? Not that certain either.

Same with the draft. You never know what you’re going to get. The hype around guys like Wiggins and Oden was crazy. The hype around Tony Parker? Not much

However, with free agency, you absolutely know what you’re going to get. Mainly because guys are already established when they move teams. Unlike trades, there’s no fair value leaving the team, and unlike the draft, there’s no uncertainty either.
- LilRip

Re: Media scrutiny, rings, and super teams
« Reply #6 on: February 17, 2019, 10:46:13 AM »

Offline Moranis

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33461
  • Tommy Points: 1533
I was talking to a friend about the situation with player movement in the NBA and I began to wonder if things will organically shift in a different direction.  Going back to LeBron's "Decision" in 2010, it's fair to assume that the relentless pressure and media scrutiny played a major role in him teaming up with Wade & Bosh.  The same can be said for Kevin Durant in his move to Golden State.

If the "Superteam" trend continues, I see a possibility of the media (including social media) shifting the narrative back in the favor of "Supserstars" who try to win with their original (or slightly lesser) squad.  Westbrook would be the prime example of this. There's no doubt that 90% of NBA fans and critics would view Westbrook as more of a winner than Durant if OKC won a title.  This is the #1 reason why I am rooting for OKC in the Western Conference.

I'm not suggesting that players will stop teaming up.  I'm just hopeful that we will see an end to 3+ All-NBA players joining forces. 
I just don't see much difference in a superteam that is drafted or traded for or one that is created via free agency.  Should the 80's Celtics and Lakers teams be treated differently or the Bulls or the Spurs.  I mean there are interviews with Magic where he has flat out said he would have gone back to school another year had the Lakers not gotten the 1st pick because he wanted to play with Kareem (and didn't want to go to Chicago).  Why is it different that the Celtics drafted Bird, traded for the draft pick that became McHale and got Parish in that trade?  That team then added Dennis Johnson and Bill Walton.  Why is that any different the modern teams?  The Bulls added Dennis Rodman via free agency to a team with the best player in basketball and perhaps the 2nd best player in basketball.  The Spurs tanked so they could add Duncan to Robinson and then added Parker and Manu via the draft.  They later traded a pick to acquire Leonard.  If Leonard doesn't get hurt, maybe big time free agent Aldridge wins a title with that group.

I just don't see the distinction.  That said, Durant's problem was he joined a 73 win team that had already won a title with the same core and that beat his team after it choked in the WCF just before the move.  That is always going to be treated differently then another type of superteam because Durant joined an already formed "superteam".

The best player in all your team examples was drafted by the team they won with and remained with the same team throughout their careers (exception:Jordan).

Shaq, Lebron, KD, AD, KL, did/will take their top-level talents to preferred places where they can orchestrate a super-team. They have the right to do so, but that’s the distinction.
And the best player on the Warriors was drafted by the Warriors. 

Free agency though is different in all sports in the modern era with the money at stake.  You would have seen a lot more player movement back in those days with other players trying to compete with the juggernaut teams.  And at the end of the day when you are drafted to a team that has at least 1, if not multiple, other HOFers and top 5 players, why would you leave?  If Magic ended up on the Bulls, does he stay in Chicago the whole time?  If the Celtics didn't make the McHale/Parish trade, does he stay the whole time?  Even if they did, do they have the success they ended up with?
2023 Historical Draft - Brooklyn Nets - 9th pick

Bigs - Pau, Amar'e, Issel, McGinnis, Roundfield
Wings - Dantley, Bowen, J. Jackson
Guards - Cheeks, Petrovic, Buse, Rip

Re: Media scrutiny, rings, and super teams
« Reply #7 on: February 17, 2019, 10:54:00 AM »

Offline Green-18

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1253
  • Tommy Points: 130
Going back to my original question, does anyone think that we might see a change in player movement IF someone like Westbrook, Harden, or Giannis wins a ring?  I have no doubt that there would be plenty of debates/discussions about their title win being more significant than what Durant accomplished in Golden State.  Most of these players are very sensitive to public opinion.