I half-agree with this. Yes, transcendent players generally win it all, and those guys are generally top 3 picks (which is why what the sixers are doing is quite interesting). What I dont agree with is that only transcendent players win it all. (of course, it depends on what you mean when you say "transcendent").
I think guys like healthy D-Rose, future Anthony Davis and even future Andrew Wiggins, have a chance to win it all. A troika of Dwight-Harden-Bosh will have a legit chance and who's transcendent there?
I'd say come back and ask me that question when they DO win. At the time, the Shaq-Penny tandem looked like a sure fire dynasty. How'd that work out for them?
And last time I saw him, Davis looked like he just might be the next dominant player.
Penny got injured. Shaq went on it win titles in LA (and Miami). What's your point?
And regarding your barb towards the KG-PP era, how many titles do you need for a core to win it all for it to be considered successful?
My point is you're asking me to speculate on players who haven't won yet. Any of the could, but until they do, and do it repeatedly, there's nothing to discuss, really. just like with Shaq/Penny. Lots of people speculated on them at the time, but it was a moot point. They won nothing.
How many titles to be considered successful? Just one. Winning one is success. And KG/PP won one. But the Lakers won the next two years in a row, including one against the Celtics.
I want a team that is successful over the course of 10+ years. I realize it's a different sport, but the analogy still holds - Peyton Manning is good, but many argue that Brady is better. Why? Brady has three rings, Peyton Manning has one. I want the Celtics to have a run that leaves no doubt that their core was the best of its era.
While I agree with your 3rd paragraph and want the same thing, it doesn't really connect with your first 2 paragraphs or your original point in general.
With my first post, where I agreed transcendent players are most likely to find the success, I also disagreed with the notion that only transcendent players win it all. This statement of mine runs directly against a statement you made in your original post. To quote you:
Bottom line is - teams don't win without a transcendent player. An elite, for the ages talent. The Celtics don't have one, and won't have one until they draft him. Until then, it truly doesn't matter what they do, as much as we would like to believe otherwise.
I think teams can win without a 'transcendent' player, unless of course (and this was my caveat), we're not aligned with how you have defined "a transcendent player, an elite, for the ages talent".
What confused me is when you pointed out Shaq and Penny, which seems to have nothing to do with anything.
1. Are you telling me that neither were transcendent which is why they amounted to nothing? But Shaq won multiple titles.
2. Are you telling me that it wasn't worth talking about them at the time because they hadn't won anything yet? If so, then why do you bring up Durant who has won as much as the Shaq/Penny duo?
----
My point is you're asking me to speculate on players who haven't won yet. Any of the could, but until they do, and do it repeatedly, there's nothing to discuss, really. just like with Shaq/Penny. Lots of people speculated on them at the time, but it was a moot point. They won nothing.
Just to point out a few things that are strange with this whole secondary point of yours.
First, are you telling me that Lebron, before he joined the Heat and formed the big3 with Wade and Bosh, there was nothing to discuss about him? After all, at that time, we would've all been speculating on a player who hasn't won anything yet.
Secondly, if Bosh didn't get that rebound and Ray Allen hadn't hit that tremendous 3, the Heat wouldn't have been able to "do it repeatedly".
Thirdly, you consider the '08 C's as a "success" because they did win one. But taking the quoted above paragraph as your truth, does this mean that yes, they were a success, but that no one on that team is worth 'discussing really' with you because they weren't able to 'do it repeatedly' (with the exception of Posey and Ray Allen)?
Topic: It's all just re-arranging deck chairs... (Read 9311 times)