I think most teams don't want a one man team. The 2-man or 3-man game is much better for obvious reasons, but you have two limitations: money and supply. Not every team can afford two or three top players along with the rest of the team's salaries. And, there are only so many super stars out there. If you are one of those casual NBA fans, there are a bunch teams out there who you don't even know any of the players are because they don't have one super star.
This is why I think they are gone before 2010 Teams never really worried about the franchise player leaving because of the amount of money on the table. Now these players for what ever reason do not see the need to waste time when they can leave for better teams and front offices I understand two to three years of doing the one man team thing but 7-10 years? They players are not willing to gamble like that anymore so I don't see those types of teams much anymore.
I don't think you need three superstars just a better balanced team like two players that can create their own shot and build around them. Not one guy burning himself out during the reg season and playoffs round after round that must be draining. You seen when Westbrook went down and Durant had to do it all he looked burned out by the 4th quarter.
did you forget about the current bulls?
Your right but I think even the cheap ass bulls will get Rose some one or he will get burned out also.
That's true. The coach may want to run the 2-man game.
