I think most of the responses here are missing the point.
I don't think this is a question of whether you want a team with a starting linup full of superstars and no bench, or a team with with 10 solid role players and no stars (Denver).
I think what the OP is moreso intending to ask is what would you prefer:
1. A team with 3 All-Stars and a very deep bench
2. A team with 2 superstars, 1 All-Star, and a shallow bench
In this scenario, I'm going to go with option 2. Let me tell you why.
2011-2012 what got in the way of Boston getting to the finals? Injruies (Allen, Green, Wilcox, Bradley, etc).
2010-2011 what got in the way of Boston making the finals? Chemistry and Injuries (Shaq, JO, Perk).
2009-2010 what got in the way of Boston winning the finals? Injuries (Perk).
2008-2009 what got in the way of Boston making the finals? Injuries (KG).
2007-200 no key injuries, won the title.
Are we starting to detect a theme here? Boston's biggest weakness last season is that when the starters sat down, their offense died...then when the starters came back in they had to put in all their energy to dig the team out of the whole their reserves put them in. We were at our strongest when we had Bass, Allen and Wilcox coming off then bench because we continued to put points on the board even when our starters sat.
Same is true for the previous season. Nate Robinson, Delonte West, Jeff Green and Big Baby were our key guys off the bench. Robinson, West and Baby all dissapeared in the playoffs, and Jeff Green (who was our most consistent scorer in those playoffs) struggled because he didn't know the system. Again our starters were dominant, but as soon as that bench came in we were digging ourselves into a hole.
The one thing this Boston team always needed more than anything was a true 6th man - somebody who will comes off the bench and gives you a consistent offensive threat every single night. Someone of the Jason Terry / Jamal Crawford / James Harden / Stephen Jackson mould.
The closest we ever had to that was Big Baby, but he was wildly inconsistent and was capable (rather than dominant) offensively.
Jason Terry gives us that 10 - 20 points every night off the bench that we have so desperately needed for years on end, and if he even has an off game Jeff Green gives us a second guy who is a nightly double figure threat. Wilcox and Lee give us the added perimeter threat while Wilcox and Sullinger give us the inside presence. That's a VERY well rounded bench with two key guys and a very good supporting cast.
All of this means that when out starters come back in the game, not only do the NOT have to dig us out of a hole, but they might even come back in with lead bigger then when they sat down. That's the type of thing that builds trust in a team - when everybody knows they can depend on each other, and no one is 'dragging the chain'.
Miami was mentioned as a top heavy team, but they had some decent depth to their lineup as well. Ray Allen gives them that pure 6th man, while guys like Haslem, Battier, Cole and Miller give them a nice supporting cast. Their weakness is that (unlike Boston - Sully and Wilcox) they don't really have an inside presence on their bench. Even Haslem has limited inside game and is really more of a jump shooter these days. Still, they do have a pretty decent (if not spectacular) bench.
People are quick to use Miami as an example of a top heavy team that suceeded, and the Nuggests as a deep team that failed.
On the other hand you can also point to the Knicks (Amare, Carmello, Chandler) as a top heavy team that failed. The Spurs had a deep lineup which made it to the WCF. You could argue that Boston was neither top heavy (no bonafide superstar) nor deep yet they almost knocked off Miami.
OKC are essentially a top heavy team (Durant, Westbrook, Harden - the rest are role players)and they got positively destroyed by Miami.
The 2010-2011 Bulls (Rose, Boozer, Deng) were also a fairly top heavy team that failed to make it past the ECF.
Ultimately I don't think it matters if your team is top heavy or deep. If you want to go far in the playoffs you preferably want both, but the most important thing is that everybody has a key role and plays that role too perfection.
The Pistons were listed as a rare example of a deep team that won. To appreciate this fully you need to think about who the Lakers team they beat - Payton, Kobe, Malone and Shaq makes one of the most top heavy teams in history. Payton didn't do much, Malone got hurt, and the Pistons won with suffocating defense and teamwork.
At the end of the day it's all about how your 'pieces' all fit together in the overall system.
