Honestly an IT/Horford/PG13/Hayward lineup would be unlikely to win a championship, and would be absurdly expensive to keep together next year.
Aside from the 2004 Pistons, what was the last team to win an NBA championship without a top-10 player?
We might have just dodged a major bullet.
I think you could make the case that Paul George is a top 10 player
Maybe.
But since the 1980's every title team was led by someone better than him except for maybe the 2004 Pistons.
If he's our best player it's highly unlikely we win a championship.
This is the cold, hard reality of the NBA.
The vast majority of championship teams are led by all-time great players like LeBron, MJ, Russell, Duncan, Kobe, Bird, Kareem, Shaq, Hakeem etc.
So were those guys all time greats before they won a championship? Or did they win a championship, and we're then considered all-time greats?
Where does Wade land? Kawhi? Paul Pierce?
How about up and coming/current ringless stars like Giannis? Anthony Davis? Harden? Westbrook?
Nah, you can usually tell who the true blue-chip players are.
Harden and Westbrook are both very overrated. I've been saying that for years. Davis is great but plays for one of the most inept organizations in pro sports. I give him a pass, and I'd trade the farm for him. Giannis is so young it is hard to tell what he will become.
Pierce had KG, who was arguably a top-5 player at the time. I love PP, but he wouldn't have won without KG, who was the better player.
Wade had Shaq, LeBron, and, most importantly, David Stern.
And are you seriously gonna compare PG13 to Bird/Kareem/MJ etc? He isn't close to that caliber. Those guys CHANGED THE LEAGUE when they came in.
And apparently most of the NBA agrees about George, because a good chunk of the league could have beaten OKC's offer.
George is an all-star, but he's not an all-time player.
Don't get me wrong, I like him a lot. But I'll be very surprised if he's ever the best player on a championship team.
I wasn't comparing PG to MJ, etc. I just don't buy the whole "you need an all time great to win a ring" narrative. PG may not be in the strata of Bird/Magic in terms of changing the league, but IMO, if he won a ring here, he'd then be considered to be an all-time great. It's not crazy to think he could have an MVP-type impact IMO, especially given how he's performed in the past.
I bring up Pierce because neither Pierce nor KG could've won it without the other. And I don't think Pierce was considered an all-timer before he won a ring. An all-star, yes, but not, all-time. Shaq was clearly past his prime in Miami, and Duncan was clearly past his prime when he won his last ring. Wade and Kawhi both carried those teams. Were they considered all-time greats at the time? Or did their reputation suddenly boom after that first ring?
One of my fave examples is TMac. I really think if TMac stayed healthy, and he and Kobe had been switched (aka TMac played with Shaq), I really think the narrative would've been different on his career. Currently, I don't think he's considered as one of the all-time greats, but if he played next to Shaq and won 3 rings, I think he would've been.