Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
JakePA_Titan

Mavericks trade for Porzingis

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, CaliTitan3518 said:

What do you consider a super team? The discussion has been about super teams ruining the NBA.

There are multiple ways to have a super team. 

6 minutes ago, CaliTitan3518 said:

 

The early warriors team ruined the NBA by drafting 3 all nba players outside of the top 5 in the draft? Maybe they did it by signing two vets in Iggy and Livingston? Trading for Bogut? What about that team made them a super team? 

Why do idiots think a super team cant be a super team because the players were drafted? How idiotic is that. 

 

I also have never said super team(s) have ruined the NBA, so direct that question to someone else. 

 

So if OKC kept Harden, Westbrook, and Durant, they would have been considered more of a super team because some were picked higher than Curry and Draymond and Klay even though they couldnt beat those that were drafted later in their respective drafts? Fucking moronic. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, JakePA_Titan said:

There are multiple ways to have a super team. 

Why do idiots think a super team cant be a super team because the players were drafted? How idiotic is that. 

 

I also have never said super team(s) have ruined the NBA, so direct that question to someone else. 

 

So if OKC kept Harden, Westbrook, and Durant, they would have been considered more of a super team because some were picked higher than Curry and Draymond and Klay even though they couldnt beat those that were drafted later in their respective drafts? Fucking moronic. 

We just have completely different opinions on what a super team is. 

 

How the fuck are you a super team by drafting and developing young talent? So by your theory any good team made up of elite players makes them a super team? 

 

I dont think OKC was a super team. 

 

Imo super teams are teams made up of players who were acquired via lopsided trades or signing multiple elite FA players. Just because you become a good team or  franchise doesn’t make you a super team imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, CaliTitan3518 said:

We just have completely different opinions on what a super team is. 

 

How the fuck are you a super team by drafting and developing young talent? So by your theory any good team made up of elite players makes them a super team? 

Uh yea. So again, if OKC kept Harden, Westbrook, and Durant...they wouldnt be a super team? 3 MVP players not a super team because they were drafted by that team? That's really how you feel? 

 

So then there could never be a super team in the MLB or NFL because it's simply impossible to draft all of your players. 

 

Simply ignorant. 

Quote

 

I dont think OKC was a super team. 

They weren't because Harden had not yet developed into what he is now. 2 superstars dont make a super team. But if they still had all three in current form, everyone would say they are. 

 

Except for maybe OKC fans and Warriors fans who somehow think it makes them better and less of a super team because they drafted em. Foolish.

Quote

 

Imo super teams are teams made up of players who were acquired via lopsided trades or signing multiple elite FA players. Just because you become a good team or  franchise doesn’t make you a super team imo.

A super team is a team that has multiple (more than 2) superstars regardless of how they were acquired. 

 

So in your opinion, during LAs 3 peat, they weren't a super team because they only signed one elite FA. Oh maybe you consider them a super team because they actually traded for Kobe before Kobe waa actually Kobe....

 

But then because they signed an old Malone and Payton, ppl called em a super team even though they got beat by a non super team? Lmao. Ok. Great logic there. 

Edited by JakePA_Titan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, JakePA_Titan said:

Uh yea. So again, if OKC kept Harden, Westbrook, and Durant...they wouldnt be a super team? 3 MVP players not a super team because they were drafted by that team? That's really how you feel? 

 

So then there could never be a super team in the MLB or NFL because it's simply impossible to draft all of your players. 

 

Simply ignorant. 

They weren't because Harden had not yet developed into what he is now. 2 superstars dont make a super team. But if they still had all three in current form, everyone would say they are. 

 

Except for maybe OKC fans and Warriors fans who somehow think it makes them better and less of a super team because they drafted em. Foolish.

A super team is a team that has multiple (more than 2) superstars regardless of how they were acquired. 

 

So in your opinion, during LAs 3 peat, they weren't a super team because they only signed one elite FA. Oh maybe you consider them a super team because they actually traded for Kobe before Kobe waa actually Kobe....

 

But then because they signed an old Malone and Payton, ppl called em a super team even though they got beat by a non super team? Lmao. Ok. Great logic there. 

Ya I do feel that way. So you just consider any good team with multiple (more than 2j elite players as a super team. You really feel that way? That explains why you don’t think super teams are bad for the nba because every top team is a super team by your theory. 

 

You are comparing apples to oranges with the other sports argument. 

 

I dont consider the lakers a super team in their 3 peat years. They were an all time great team but they didn’t acquire their roster in an unfair way to the league. Once again we clearly have different opinions on what a super team is so we can’t do this name a super team game. 

 

 

Why do you think people (not you) think super teams are bad for the NBA? 

How could someone really think drafting and developing 3 elite players is a bad thing for the NBA? 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, CaliTitan3518 said:

Ya I do feel that way. So you just consider any good team with multiple (more than 2j elite players as a super team. You really feel that way? That explains why you don’t think super teams are bad for the nba because every top team is a super team by your theory. 

Couldn't be more wrong. I dont consider MIL, DEN, TOR, OKC, or BOS super teams. They are all top teams currently, are they not? 

Quote

 

You are comparing apples to oranges with the other sports argument. 

Lmao. You're lost. 

Quote

 

I dont consider the lakers a super team in their 3 peat years. They were an all time great team but they didn’t acquire their roster in an unfair way to the league.

No team can have a sustained success and not be a super team. 

 

So Curry has 3 titles right? So did those early Lakers. So your "partial" super team has had the same success as those early Lakers. So does that make that Lakers team better because they accomplished the same while not being a super team?

Quote

 

Once again we clearly have different opinions on what a super team is so we can’t do this name a super team game. 

 

 

Why do you think people (not you) think super teams are bad for the NBA? 

Jealousy. If it was their team, they wouldnt give two fucks. If there were 6 super teams and not just one or two, fans would eat it the fuck up.

 

You honestly think if LA somehow trades for AD, then signs Kyire or Kemba, the NBA wouldn't love seeing them in the WCF against GSW if they kept KD, Curry, and Klay? Please. Highest ratings ever would result. You think of BOs acquires AD and pairs him with Kyrie, Heyward, and Tatum and faced the current Warriors in the Finals, fans wouldnt eat that shit up?

Quote

How could someone really think drafting and developing 3 elite players is a bad thing for the NBA? 

 

 

 

Who is saying it is? 

 

A super team is not dependent on how players were acquired. Its dependent on the quality of players and what they accomplish.

 

If you guys lost all but one Finals, would you still be considered a super team? I would say no. 

 

You cant be a super team and lose more than you win. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, JakePA_Titan said:

Couldn't be more wrong. I dont consider MIL, DEN, TOR, OKC, or BOS super teams. They are all top teams currently, are they not? 

Lmao. You're lost. 

No team can have a sustained success and not be a super team. 

 

So Curry has 3 titles right? So did those early Lakers. So your "partial" super team has had the same success as those early Lakers. So does that make that Lakers team better because they accomplished the same while not being a super team?

Jealousy. If it was their team, they wouldnt give two fucks. If there were 6 super teams and not just one or two, fans would eat it the fuck up.

 

You honestly think if LA somehow trades for AD, then signs Kyire or Kemba, the NBA wouldn't love seeing them in the WCF against GSW if they kept KD, Curry, and Klay? Please. Highest ratings ever would result. You think of BOs acquires AD and pairs him with Kyrie, Heyward, and Tatum and faced the current Warriors in the Finals, fans wouldnt eat that shit up?

Who is saying it is? 

 

A super team is not dependent on how players were acquired. Its dependent on the quality of players and what they accomplish.

 

If you guys lost all but one Finals, would you still be considered a super team? I would say no. 

 

You cant be a super team and lose more than you win. 

No point in continuing this. we’re just not on the same page. Pointless discussion. 

Edited by CaliTitan3518

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, CaliTitan3518 said:

What’s your guys opinion on what a super team is??

 

@wiscotitansfan @Oiler FANatic @Bink @headhunter

Why is a super team, to you, only dependent on how the team was constructed?

 

I find it beyond retarded that if OKC drafted Durant, Harden, Westbrook, and let's say Boogie and they all became what they are today and they kept that team together for 5+ years and won 4 titles, that there is someone who couldnt bring themselves to see them as a super team...

Edited by JakePA_Titan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, JakePA_Titan said:

Why is a super team, to you, only dependent on how the team was constructed?

 

I find it beyond retarded that if OKC drafted Durant, Harden, Westbrook, and let's say Boogie and they all became what they are today and they kept that team together for 5+ years and won 4 titles, that there is someone who couldnt bring themselves to see them as a super team...

Because I feel a super team is a team that is constructed in an unfair manner to the league. That’s why I think super teams are bad for the competitive equity of the league. If all stars elect to go to a group of teams there isn’t enough talent for the rest of the league to compete with those teams. 

 

You don’t think super teams are bad for the NBA because you think they are something completely different than me. Which is fine it just makes for a pointless discussion between us. The point we try to argue won’t matter because we are looking at it completely differently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, CaliTitan3518 said:

Lol what are you talking about. You said the warriors super team has been beat. Who beat them? They weren’t a super team before KD. 

They're 28-3 in the playoffs against everyone but the Rockets against whom they're just 4-3. So no one else has even come close besides Houston.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Oiler FANatic said:

They're 28-3 in the playoffs against everyone but the Rockets against whom they're just 4-3. So no one else has even come close besides Houston.

Lmao wtf does this have to do with the discussion? 

 

Just wants to get his choking Rockets involved 😂😂😂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, CaliTitan3518 said:

Because I feel a super team is a team that is constructed in an unfair manner to the league. That’s why I think super teams are bad for the competitive equity of the league. If all stars elect to go to a group of teams there isn’t enough talent for the rest of the league to compete with those teams. 

So what if a team like Denver kicks yall out of the playoffs this year? That would totally crumble your thought that super teams are bad and untouchable. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, JakePA_Titan said:

So what if a team like Denver kicks yall out of the playoffs this year? That would totally crumble your thought that super teams are bad and untouchable. 

At the end of the day the teams still have to go out and play. Just because you are constructed as a super team doesn’t mean you will perform like one. The odds will be in your favor but it doesn’t mean you are guaranteed anything. Miami was a perfect example of that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, CaliTitan3518 said:

At the end of the day the teams still have to go out and play. Just because you are constructed as a super team doesn’t mean you will perform like one. The odds will be in your favor but it doesn’t mean you are guaranteed anything. Miami was a perfect example of that. 

A perfect example of how super teams arent hurting the NBA.

 

So let's keep it real. 

 

The KG, Pierce, and Allen Celtics only won one title. They should be considered a super team because they made two and won one just because they signed KG and Ray in FA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...