This is a different topic, related, but different topic. For setting up a team purposes, go to Red's thread.
We have two superstars and I'm all for that for basketball reasons and aesthetically I'm down with it too. Three superstars though, I wouldn't like the feel of it. I mean, yeah, I'd still love the Knicks, that's not gonna stop, but I don't want to win that way, nor do I want to the Knicks to be known for three players and "the rest".
I know people want decade dominance with several championships, well, I rather get it by being tough and scrappy without three superstars. You can round out a team without it. No, let's not get into whether three superstars or a well rounded team is better at winning championships and dominating several years. I just would like the feel of getting a championship that.
The 1994 Knicks were a game away from winning a championship. Even though they didn't win, I would rather have had that team then three superstars. Starks, Oakley, Mason, man, I love the feel of a team like that. 1999 Knicks, Sprewell, Houston, Larry Johnson, Camby.
Let's not get into any rants or crazy debates here. As I said, this is about the "feel" of this.