Why do so many consider the Big Three "aging" or "old"?

[nickagneta]

Okay, they are in their 30's, but aging? Pierce is 31, Garnett is 32 and Ray Allen is 33. But are those ages now, or have they ever been, considered "aging" or "old"?

To answer this, I have to ask, were any of the following athletes considered "old" or "aging"?

Michael Jordan when he came back from his first retirement at 32 and then went on to win two more MVP awards, three more titles and three more NBA Finals MVP awards?

Karl Malone when he was named MVP in 1995 and 1997 at the ages that were a month short of 32 and 34, respectively.

David Robinson when he won his first World Title in 1999 at 34 years of age.

Shaquille O'Neal when he won his fourth title in 2006 at 34 years of age.

Hakeem Olajuwon when at 31 he won an MVP and won his second NBA title at 32.

I could go on and on listing players that did great things in the age bracket that the Big Three currently find themselves. Many of those players then continued to put up huge numbers and contribute to championship teams.

The point I'm making is that I am sick and tired of some in the media and even some people here at CB referring to the Big Three as "aging" or old. They are in the primes of their careers and considering the unbelievable condition all three keep their bodies in, they probably have many more years of excellent, high quality, dominating basketball left in them. It's time for people out there to realize that Pierce, Garnett and Allen aren't some delicate flowers that are going to whither away, die and blow away late in seasons or games or even as championship contender over the next couple of years. They could be contending for a title all together 3-4 seasons from now barring injury and the development of Rondo and Perk.

[xmuscularghandix]

i think people consider them old in the fact that we can't really build a team for the future around them, they won't be all-stars in 3 to 4 years like we can see Rondo being. But on the other hand, as you've pointed out, all three are HOF players and those are the ones that find a way to keep competing (shaq, jordan, malone, parish, Hondo)

also its probably just us not letting ourselves get too excited.

[Who]

In large part because KG and Ray spent their careers elsewhere. More noise about the age of an acquisition than a player who has been with a team for a long time (Kobe).

[Donoghus]

Anything on the wrong side of 30 is gonna be seen as "old" when it comes to the NBA.

I'm not saying its right but considering that today's NBA players are, oftentimes, coming into the league at 19-20 years old, by the time they hit 30 there is a lot of mileage on those tires. 

[LarBrd33]

Yeah the mileage thing is part of the concern.

This is KG's 14th season.   Bird only played 13.  Of course... Bird retired at 35 with major back problems and KG is still only 32... but the "mileage" thing is the concern.


But you're right... pretty much everyone on the dream team was still pretty effective at 35 years old...  so we should be ok for the next few years until their contracts run out.

[BballTim]

Yeah the mileage thing is part of the concern.

This is KG's 14th season.   Bird only played 13.  Of course... Bird retired at 35 with major back problems and KG is still only 32... but the "mileage" thing is the concern.


But you're right... pretty much everyone on the dream team was still pretty effective at 35 years old...  so we should be ok for the next few years until their contracts run out.

  But if Bird had been healthy he still would have been a dominant player.

[Toine43]

Okay, they are in their 30's, but aging? Pierce is 31, Garnett is 32 and Ray Allen is 33. But are those ages now, or have they ever been, considered "aging" or "old"?

To answer this, I have to ask, were any of the following athletes considered "old" or "aging"?

Michael Jordan when he came back from his first retirement at 32 and then went on to win two more MVP awards, three more titles and three more NBA Finals MVP awards?

Karl Malone when he was named MVP in 1995 and 1997 at the ages that were a month short of 32 and 34, respectively.

David Robinson when he won his first World Title in 1999 at 34 years of age.

Shaquille O'Neal when he won his fourth title in 2006 at 34 years of age.

Hakeem Olajuwon when at 31 he won an MVP and won his second NBA title at 32.

I could go on and on listing players that did great things in the age bracket that the Big Three currently find themselves. Many of those players then continued to put up huge numbers and contribute to championship teams.

The point I'm making is that I am sick and tired of some in the media and even some people here at CB referring to the Big Three as "aging" or old. They are in the primes of their careers and considering the unbelievable condition all three keep their bodies in, they probably have many more years of excellent, high quality, dominating basketball left in them. It's time for people out there to realize that Pierce, Garnett and Allen aren't some delicate flowers that are going to whither away, die and blow away late in seasons or games or even as championship contender over the next couple of years. They could be contending for a title all together 3-4 seasons from now barring injury and the development of Rondo and Perk.

No one is doubting what the Big Three are capable of doing in 2009 or 2010. They're "aging" because there's a great deal of uncertainty about 2011 and 2012 and beyond. And while each player individually is capable of maintaining his caliber of play late into his thirties, what are the chances that all three of them are going to be All-Stars at age 35? In the near future, the Big Three will not be enough to win us a title. Maybe two of them will still be stars, but it's only a matter of time before at least one of them will need to be replaced.

[Chief]

I think this could be Ray's last good year. I'd compare him to Mitch Richmond at this age.
 
http://www.nba.com/playerfile/mitch_richmond/index.html


Sacramento traded him at the right time for a fairly young Chris Webber and kept very competitive for 6-7 more years.

[billysan]

I for one have no doubt that each of our big three has a few good years left to offer. I think it is wise OTOH to be cautious about planning for the future with three HOF players nearing their mid thirties and on max contracts. I think the 'old label' is applied when thinking of the possibilities in the near term regarding these three.

Should we extend or resign each of these three to that level of money when the time comes? Will Danny be cautious and not offer enough years, thereby offending one of them? How do we build for the future with the potential of two suddenly aging players on max contracts and a third who has a career ending inury with a couple of years left on his contract? Who do we trade first when the time comes?

It will come all to soon for me.

[BrickJames]

Because they are.

[Ian]

Yeah the mileage thing is part of the concern.

This is KG's 14th season.   Bird only played 13.  Of course... Bird retired at 35 with major back problems and KG is still only 32... but the "mileage" thing is the concern.


But you're right... pretty much everyone on the dream team was still pretty effective at 35 years old...  so we should be ok for the next few years until their contracts run out.

  But if Bird had been healthy he still would have been a dominant player.

exactly, without the back problems I think Bird could have been effective until he was 50

[housecall]

Mutombo is still giving the finger wave at 56.

[BballTim]

I think this could be Ray's last good year. I'd compare him to Mitch Richmond at this age.
 
http://www.nba.com/playerfile/mitch_richmond/index.html


Sacramento traded him at the right time for a fairly young Chris Webber and kept very competitive for 6-7 more years.

  I thought Richmond was more of a Paul Pierce type than a Ray Allen type. Kind of Wade-ish

[bostonfan23]

I think this could be Ray's last good year. I'd compare him to Mitch Richmond at this age.
 
http://www.nba.com/playerfile/mitch_richmond/index.html

What a bizarre thing to say. He's having an exceptional season and you say this could be his last good year?

I'm not saying I think teams should hold on to players for too long.. but I think older athletes are generally tremendously undervalued/underrated-

First of all, vet players win championships in every sport. That's just how it is. There are exceptions, but in general, older guys who have been around win.

Second of all, they're generally cheaper. For example, Marcus Camby is only 34, and he's putting up 12/14/3 this season, and yet was acquired for nothing. He's only being paid 10m. If he was 24, he'd get a near max contract.

If Camby has a couple more very quality years left, why are those two years different from a young guy's two years?

[Jon]

You bring up a good point.  The Big Three indeed could be good for quite some more time.  However, pulling out names like Jordan and Malone really represent ideal scenarios.  It could happen, but is not incredibly likely.  And while some have tossed Bird's name around, the fact of the matter is that the wear and tear on Bird ultimately lead to a debilitating injury to him in his early thirties, and that could certainly happen to any of the Big Three at any time.  

And therein also lies the problem.  They are "The Big Three" to an even more literal sense than the original one.  Whereas if you looked at Bird, McHale, and Parish, Bird was clearly the dominant, "player for the ages" amongst them.  With the current Big Three, none of them are as good as Bird, and while Garnett would be the likely pick for the best of the three, it's not nearly as clear cut.  Simply put, if one goes down with a long term (or worse, career ending) injury, that could be the end of championship hopes.  You could argue that if Parish went down, and Bird and McHale were healthy, they'd still be contending.  

Also, I think Nick overexaggerates some of the players' accomplishments:

Shaq was a shadow of his former self in his championship in Miami, as he was arguably the third most valuable player in the Finals after Dwayne Wade and Antoine Walker of all people.  

Hakeem did win his titles around the time the Big Three did, but he was in decline by 34 and a shadow of himself by 35.  More importantly, he never saw the Finals again after 32.

The Admiral wasn't even the same player in 98-99 with his first title at 33 as he was just a few years earlier.  More importantly, by his second title 4 years later, he had declined to the point of being little more use than your average NBA center.  

So while I grant you that it's certainly possible that the Big Three could be still could for quite a few more years, I would also saying that using Jordan and Malone as examples of why it could happen is about as good of a reason as saying that the #3 pick in the draft will also be as good as Michal Jordan simply because they are both #3 picks.  Jordan and Malone were freak picks at their give positions, just as Jordan and Malone were athletic freaks for staying in shape so well over their careers.  It could happen for our guys, but I wouldn't bet the house on it.  

What does that mean?  Not too much.  The only thing I'd take from that is simply that Ainge should be doing everything in his power to win now.  Developing the youth should only be done if Ainge seriously thinks they can help this year or next.  If he thinks a player can't help for 3 or 4 more years, he should be stashed on the end of the bench, IR, or cut.