Specific
events are always mentioned in history classes as turning points: Christianity
becoming the official religion of the Roman Empire, The Magna Carta, the Battle
of Stalingrad, LeBron James' 'The Decision' special on ESPN. Wait---LeBron James'
'The Decision' special on ESPN? Yes, you read that right. Why is that moment in
the same league as the Magna Carta? The assembling of the Miami Heat’s ‘Big
Three’, in 2010, was a major turning point by popularizing the concept of a
team with three bona fide superstars, which quickly caught on as a practiced
philosophy and ushered in the Superteam era, in my opinion. (I define a
superteam team to be one assembled primarily through free agency). Plus, the
NBA is equally as important as any religion, government, or war, in case you
didn’t know. Since that day when LeBron took his talents to South Beach, Big
Threes have been formed and broken, and some teams have bought into the system
more eagerly and confidently than others. Most recently, LeBron and his talents
went to Cleveland (it just doesn’t have the same ring to it does it?), along
with brilliant big man Kevin Love, to start a big three with Kyrie Irving, the
young point guard already in Cleveland. What has followed has not been the
performance expected of a team that was projected to be an Eastern Conference
and NBA Finals contender. Of course, the season is still young and the Cavs are
currently on a three-game win streak after dropping to 5-7, but their
disorganized play and ‘fragile’ quality, as James called it, begs concern. Is
the Big Three method worth the investment in the NBA today?
The
Big Three that started it all, Miami’s core of James, Dwayne Wade, and Chris
Bosh from 2010-2014, saw plenty of success. They went to the NBA Finals every
one of those years, winning two. Obviously, the assembly of star power took the
team far, but hindered them in three crucial areas: starting the 2010 season, a
lack of a good supporting cast, and no future guarantee. Pretty much every
superteam had struggled out of the gate, for obvious reasons. Most of the free
agent talent coming in is used to being the top dog on their team, so obviously
with three major stars, there is some confusion and hesitation initially,
something the Cavaliers currently struggle with and the Heat had issues with as
well. With so much talent, time is needed to effectively blend playing styles
and overcome initial awkwardness. For major markets like Los Angeles or New
York, patience is not a practiced virtue, and this adjustment period can be too
much for fans or front offices to handle. Secondly, superteams are wildly
expensive to assemble. With so much money being spent on stars, there is little
room to add a quality supporting cast. Miami struggled with this problem all
four years, going through at least four different starting backcourt mates for
Wade and about another four different starting frontcourt mates for Bosh. Miami
was forced to get older, washed-up players like Mike Miller, or use young, and
frankly mediocre players such as Mario Chalmers. The disparity of talent
hindered the Heat against the two teams they lost the Finals to: the
well-balanced 2010-2011 Mavericks and the talented, ball-sharing 2013-2014
Spurs. Lastly, with assembled talent there’s a lesser guarantee for the future,
as exhibited by LeBron’s departure following the Heat’s embarrassing play in
the 2014 Finals.
While the Heat
had tons of fans during the days when they had Big Three, their interest has
declined without LeBron. With a team that builds itself from the ground up,
like current powerhouses San Antonio and Oklahoma City (once Durant returns)
and teams recently becoming elite like Golden State and Washington. The players
on those teams feel more personal to the fans and the city, as they have
endured bad times and stuck with the team anyway. Especially for a franchise
like San Antonio, who has kept the same core of players for nearly 15 years,
the loyalty shown results in a feel-good quality for both the team and the
fans. In the NBA of yore, players would stick with the team that drafted them
for their whole careers much more often, so players staying put nowadays feels
like a refreshing novelty act. With the money becoming an increasingly more
influential factor to players in terms of whether to go to a new team, players
who don’t leave are applauded for staying true, while those that leave seeking
more money are criticized for selling out.
Superteams
have had varying levels of success this decade. Obviously the Heat had a great
run while it lasted, but teams like the 2012-2013 Lakers (Kobe Bryant, Dwight
Howard, Steve Nash) and the 2011-2013 Knicks (Carmelo Anthony, Tyson Chandler,
Amar’e Stoudemire) and epically failed trying to use the model. So what went
wrong? For starters, a smart coach is needed to balance all of the egos and
talent. Mike D’Antoni and Mike Woodson were not effective in that regard.
Secondly, the players can’t be old. That’s just a fact that’s been proven by
the Lakers superteam, as Steve Nash played a grand total of 65 games in three
years. The positioning has to work as well, something the Knicks struggled
with, as all of their big three were primarily post players. Their backcourt
always struggled, as it was hard to afford guards with three stars, including
the incredibly pricey Anthony, on the payroll. Also with the positioning,
Chandler was a defensive specialist who didn’t contribute that much on offense,
and Anthony is a scoring machine but a liability on defense. When either paired
with Stoudemire, it didn’t go too well.
If you’re
going to assemble a superteam, the Heat model of three players in their prime
who make sense together on the court, with a smart and effective coach to
orchestrate the system, it can work. This is possible primarily for
large-market teams, and in the most demand for those markets as well. As a GM
of a large-market team, I would say assembling a superteam is acceptable, and
maybe even encouraged if you do it right. However, superteams tend to disband
quickly, so for smaller markets or GMs looking for a dynasty and longevity of
success, building from the ground up, with added veteran pieces as needed, is
the most effective model.
