You give too much credit to MJ. He didn't "form a core", he was the best player on his team and the Bulls were able to assemble and retain a good enough supporting case to win a bunch of titles.

How the hell would Harden, Durant and Irving work? There are not enough balls on the planet to go around for those three.

It wasn't just Jordan - I don't think many of the players of that era worked like that. They manoeuvred to improve their chances, but it didn't seem as blatant as now. "Rings are everything" seems more of a modern creation. Current players would've grown up hearing about Barkley not winning a ring, Stockton and Malone, etc. Any of those guys could've engineered a superteam.

I guess once you have a certain level of talent, the money is a given. What else is there to differentiate your professional career - it's either one-team player (whatever that's worth) or winning a ring.

The abstraction of a club to NBA Jam felt right, in that teams were represented by a star pairing. The trio superteams just seem a bit imbalanced.

I think you are spot on Isaac. When I was growing up as a basketball fan during the 2nd Bulls three-peat era in particular when news about the league was more accessible online, the lack of rings for guys like Malone/Barkley/etc was a big talking point as their careers wound down, and you started seeing ring chasing even back then, although not guys in their prime to be fair (Houston Rockets with Drexler/Barkley in particular). It was just a natural progression from there - players today know they will be judged on their ability to win titles. It was/is still the dominant talking point in the LBJ-Jordan debate.

Maybe what I find ironic about this whole topic, especially using MJ as an example, is that MJ is maybe the best player to point at to explain why things are at the point they are now - there was (and are) way more Michael Jordan fans than there ever was Chicago Bulls fans. Players are the dominant face of the NBA, probably more so than any other top tier league in the world - that's the end result of how the game was marketed, officiated, and rules were designed/changed over the past couple of decades. The way it all went down following the Bulls' 2nd three-peat with tearing the team up I think could also be looked at as another milestone in the mutual lack of loyalty between teams and players today.

guys became ring conscious because you could be the best player of all time, but not have the rings to show for it, like LeBron, and people will act like youre not top 100 of all time.

Im not saying James is GOAT, but people swore (and still swear to this day) that he isnt top 2-3 all time, purely because he had less rings. Despite his numbers being on par with anybody and his level of dominance being the same.

Memes and social media have created these entitled stars, so if you've ever made a reamrk about a ringless star or you have used it in a debate to diminish the guys greatness, you are a part of why these dudes all started teaming up

#572.... exactly, theres Horry and a hand full of Celtics better than jordan.

Guys get judged on rings crazilly.

I think rings can be used as a tie breaker, not as a full blown metric to measure greatness. Like, for me, Tim Duncan > KG as GOAT PF. The resumes are both phenomenal and theyre supremely dominant and both could do it all on both ends. howeverm Duncans 5 rings and 2 mvps trumped 1 ring and one MVP for KG.

in the situation where a player is dominant and will retire an all time great, him saying "eh F this, im gonna join some guys that are already making noise" just to chase insanely watered down titles doesnt really fix his legacy. but in saying that, staying ringless doesnt either.

Plain and simply put. Everybody cant win. There has to be somebody that dominates for 20 years and leaves the game with nothing.

Bucks forming a very nice starting 5

PG - Jrue
SG - Bogdanovic
SF - Middleton
PF - Anteteknfojfjfdmpo
C - Lopez

Getting rid of Bledsoe in the proces, very nice. This will also mean Giannis will sign on with the Bucks.

I'd get rid of Kyrie. Seems divisive to me.

KOC:

Brooklyn are throwing the kitchen sink in the Harden Trade. All the future picks, all pick swaps + Dinwiddie and Levert

Daryl Morey will offer more than just Ben Simmons in the Harden trade, but Tilman Fertitta won't trade Harden to Morey

Revolutional update of captcha recognition package "XRumer 19.0 + XEvil":

Captcha recognition of Google (ReCaptcha-2 and ReCaptcha-3), Facebook, BitFinex, Bing, Hotmail, SolveMedia, Yandex,
and more than 12000 another subtypes of captcha,
with highest precision (80..100%) and highest speed (100 img per second).
You can use XEvil 5.0 with any most popular SEO/SMM programms: iMacros, XRumer, SERP Parser, GSA SER, RankerX, ZennoPoster, Scrapebox, Senuke, FaucetCollector and more than 100 of other software.

Interested? You can find a lot of demo videos about XEvil in YouTube.

Free XEvil Demo available.

Good luck ;)

I would definitely take Harden over Kyrie

It'd be hilarious if Kyrie orchestrated his way to Brooklyn, only to get traded to Houston to make way for Harden! :D