Originally Posted by wordofi
Am I the only one who thinks that having more than one franchise player on a team is a bad idea?
Take a look at the Heat. James and Wade still haven't figured out how to play together because they're essentially the same player, and neither has a 3 point shot. They should have only gotten Wade, Bosh, and Miller.
The same thing can be said of the Knicks. They have Anthony and Stoudemire. They score 50 points combined, which doesn't leave a lot of opportunities for anybody else.
What both teams have in common is that they have no bench, and they have more than one alpha male. I really think it's better when you have just one franchise player (like the Lakers, Magic, Thunder, Mavericks, etc.). Am I the only one who thinks this way?
Think back to the Celtics Big Trio- essentially Three Franchise Players in one package. You have to REEEEEEAAAAAALLLLLLLY stretch things a bit to eliminate any of them from said label- age, effectiveness, inability to guide teams to titles, etc- so they're all top guys.
And they prove that a Multiple Franchise Guy system CAN work, but that it takes considerably more effort than just showing up.
Okay, I'm editing so I can properly explain my point. Here's what you want in a 'Multiple Star'-style roster;
1. Your Stars must have skillsets that compliment one another.
1a. If Stars do not have complimentary games, one or more Stars must 'shift' their game to fill in what is needed.
2. Your Stars must establish the pecking order between themselves so they know who the primary Alpha Dog is and who can fill in if said Alpha Dog is forced to leave the game.
3. Your Supporting Cast- typically scrubs or ring chasers- need to possess quality skills that compliment what the stars already bring to the table.
3a. Your Supporting Cast also typically needs to have at least one or two high-character guys who can have a positive effect on team chemistry.
It's a basic and simple set of rules. 1 and 2 involve the Stars properly meshing and adjusting to their new dynamic, while 3 involves just a basic guideline of what you want from the supporting cast.
The biggest problem with the Heat is rules 1 and 2. LeBron and Wade currently struggle with Alpha Dog issues and too-similar skillsets, but it's difficult to do a better job at finding a supporting cast that compliments them and Bosh based on what was available. A ton of warm bodies at the 5? Check. Perimeter Shooters? Check, believe it or not.
Two things could've potentially happened differently. First, they could've saved money spent on Mike Miller- you gotta figure at least one or two scrubs could've been had for cheaper money and similar perimeter production- and put it towards a higher quality 5. This is assuming one was available. Second was finding one of those Glue Guys, like James Posey for Boston's 08 title team. Again, this is subjective to the idea that someone like that existed in the Free Agent Pool and that someone could've off-set whatever Ego problems LeBron and company brought to the table.
They have these problems and they still have a hot record and are a dangerous team no matter what night it is, and at the very worst they look like they could use a standard off-season tune-up of the supporting cast, if not a rapid shifting of play philosophy from either one of the Big 2.
New York is in the same boat, only they butchered the majority of the Supporting Cast to get Anthony, and are more or less just treading water until the off-season, when they can start stockpiling bench players again. Then again, they're ahead in one key factor; Stoudemire has essentially changed himself in terms of attitude if not his actual game and went balls-out back when he was the only star. If Melo is anything close to smart he'll follow that example.
And then there's Boston.
You start off with Paul Pierce and get Kevin Garnett and Ray Allen in a series of trades which don't totally drain the bench. Right off the bat these guys score a Grand Slam because all three have perfectly complimentary games between one another, and all three became hardwired to win titles and were willing to sacrifice what it took to get there. Think of an intagible weakness one of them may have had, and you'll probably find it as a strength in another, if not both of the other two. Same for the game. Garnett plays up close- more High Post than Low Post but it's still a close-up game. Allen's the deadeye shooter bombing threes from all over. And Pierce works in-between much like your typical perimeter Superstar.
And their bench? Posey was the ultimate Glue Guy. They had a series of big bodies down low to compliment Garnett, they had Rondo at his embryonic stage when all he needed to do was bring the ball up and dish- and look how he turned out! Then they had Eddie House back when he was still effective raining threes at the point and they almost got Reggie freaking Miller to be Allen's understudy for 10-15 minutes a pop!
Yeah, the 'One Superstar' formula is tried and tested and what-not, but it's not the be-all end-all of basketball roster strategy. You can win with a multiple-star format, or even a no-superstar format. I grant you, it takes much more effort to construct the right team and coach them, but it's doable.