Quote:
Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis
I hate having to agree with moon (may he be banned in peace), but the NBA is what it is, you need a superstar to win the title. Since the beginning of the David Stern era, there was exactly 1 team who won a title without a superstar, the 2004 Pistons. And to expand it to an even more absurd level, the 2004 Pistons are the only champs to do so with a top 40 all-time player (I guess you can argue Isiah Thomas, Paul Pierce, Dirk and Dwayne Wade, but then its top 50 or 60, as if that matters). David Stern made the decision to make the NBA about stars, and this is the system we know have.
Maybe the Adam Silver era will be different, but I doubt it. The game is ruled by superstars. It really, really sucks its gotta be this way, but putting together a team of really good players just doesn't seem to work. You gotta have that 1 guy it seems. Can DeMar get there? Not without substantially improving his shooting and shot selection. Getting more FTA per game than LeBron is a good start though.
|
My definition of superstar might be different, but I'll say you need a collection of all-stars/previous all-stars to win. Demar is even starting to get star treatment from the refs some of the calls that he got were atrocious calls. I just doubt that you can get a superstar for Demar not unless you're giving up a lot more. Trading for draft picks is an awful idea considering that the top 6 in this draft aren't even that great.
If you could get a superstar for Demar without overpaying, by all means you should accept the offer. But in the NBA the team that gets the best player usually wins the deal and I feel if we do ship Demar anywhere we will not be getting a talent that contributes similar to him in return.