05-20-2012, 03:11 PM
|
#1
|
Rookie
OVR: 4
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Raleigh, NC
|
"Big Three" a flawed formula?
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.
|
|
|