"Big Three" a flawed formula?

[b2tha2ndpwr]

There's an insider article on ESPN.com right now questioning the "Big Three" formula for building an NBA team. I'm unable to read the entire article but the 1st paragraph points out something that I've been thinking since the Heat came together, and even moreso with the new NBA CBA.

The Heat, Knicks, Lakers each have rosters where 3 guys take up more than 80% of their team's salary cap space (Lakers' Kobe, Gasol, and Bynum literally consume the whole thing! yikes!). This leaves very little, if any room for a GM to complete the rest of the roster with players that have great impacts. Even moreso now because for some teams, their mid level exceptions are much smaller due to being in the luxury tax.

Boston's "big three" was unique in the sense that while they may have all been all stars, they were completely different players and were aquired in a variety of different ways that allowed them to have a PG named Rajon Rondo, Kendrick Perkins, Tony Allen, James Posey, Sam Cassell, Leon Powe, and Brian Scali... just kidding on the team to fill out that roster.

But anyway, With a more balanced Dallas Mavericks team winning it all last year, and an extremely balanced San Antonio Spurs team looking like the best team this year, and the fact that in the next few years teams will be even more restricted with how much money they are allowed to spend in team salary, maybe people are starting to realize that this whole "we gotta get 3 max players" formula might be a tad overrated.

[b2tha2ndpwr]

I didn't feel the need to post the link at first and then it dawned on me that just because I don't have insider access doesn't mean others don't lol.

http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/story...e-model-faults

[dramachild11]

I don't think it's a flawed formula as long as its constructed the right way, and by that I mean thru the draft the way OKC did it.. They have 3 players that are all 25 or younger and while they will all be max players the team as a whole is much better than Miami, Boston, LA, by, etc.

[XFactah416]

It's flawed if the team is constructed poorly.

Miami's two best players both need the ball in their hands to make things happen.

In OKC, it's OK if Westbrook dominates the ball because KD can get open through screens and what not. Since Miami is missing Bosh, a guy who helps spread the floor and more importantly give both Bron and Wade space to do their thing, it really shows. Miami's supporting cast consists of three point shooters or rebounders; neither of which are happening at the moment. Miami's issues just go to how the team is built. Mike Miller is useless now and needs to be amnestied. They don't have a legitimate center either.

[fluent2332]

I don't think it's flawed. You can only have 5 guys on the court at one time. If 3 of those guys are max-level talents, then I'd say you have a pretty good shot at winning the game. Of course, it doesn't always work out perfectly, as we've seen in NY with Melo/Amare/Chandler. But even that situation has time to change and become better. But if it works out for you, like in Miami/OKC, it gives you a great opportunity to win games.

[VDusen04]

I haven't read the article yet, but I plan on doing so later.

Just as an initial thought, I think a "Big Three" can be very successful but it's surely not guaranteed (obviously). Oftentimes I think stars on any level (not just NBA) can struggle to co-exist with one another. By this, I am not necessarily referring to attitude. Rather, I often feel there can be a sense of deference developed amongst those involved. Whereas before, a star may have been able to operate with a sense of knowing they'd be constantly allowed and expected to attack. When grouped with two other very able stars, I think it can be easy to misunderstand as to how to pick one's spots, when to defer to others and when to seize the moment. It's trickier than what many are led to believe.

[eye guy]

I said it when the question was first asked and i'll say it again.

Miami only needed Bosh. Wade needed a support player, not a sibling rivalry. And I strongly believe this wouldv'e worked for Cleveland had they kept James and acquired Bosh somehow.

The development of other players like Chalmers would have been a lot better because their roles would've been more demanding, thus giving them more minutes to bond with their team-mates in any game situation. This doesn't help the team because no-one else is given any (more) opportunities to flourish and grow with the 3 because so much planning revolves around them.

There is so much more to this than just the talent these three bring to every game. In my opinion, these three players needed to excel in 3 different aspects of the game to really come together and succeed the way the Celtics , Spurs and Pistons have shown in the last ten years.

It's not a flawed formula, but roles and the inclusion of other team-mates needs to be balanced.

[The 24th Letter]

Every formula has its flaws....

Your deep team of non superstars playing great as a group may fall short without a player to lift them to that next level

Your big 3 may fall short because they lack the flexibility to sign depth

We've even teams with one or two superstars AND decent help fall short..

Basically, We've seen all these types of teams lose and win in this league.....they all have their flaws..

[JerzeyReign]

I don't think its flawed -- name one Big 3 that hasn't contended?

[King_B_Mack]

Quote: Originally Posted by SalutationsNJ

I don't think its flawed -- name one Big 3 that hasn't contended?

McGee, Blatche and Young

Spoiler