Is a Big Two better than a Big Three for NBA teams?
(Snip)
The Clippers and Nets surround two stars with real depth that mostly skews young or toward guys in their primes. There is power and longevity in that model. Teams strip to the studs to fit three superstars. They trade away quality depth and the draft picks that would help replenish that depth. They trawl for minimum-salaried graybeards and ring-chasers. The centerpiece stars can't count on those guys for long.
Meanwhile, Brooklyn and the Clippers have about a dozen combined supporting rotation players and recent draft picks age 28 or younger. The Big Three model has won a lot of championships, but there are other paths. The Lakers (Shaquille O'Neal and Kobe Bryant) and Bulls (Michael Jordan and Scottie Pippen) won with historically great Big Twos. (Your mileage will vary in deciding whether Horace Grant -- a one-time All-Star -- and then Dennis Rodman shove either iteration of the three-peat Bulls into true Big Three territory.)
The league just watched the Raptors complete an improbable championship run with something like a Big One structure -- one top-five (at worst) superstar surrounded by seven starter-quality players. The 2019 Raptors have drawn a lot of comparisons to the 2011 Mavericks -- with Dirk Nowitzki in the Leonard role. The 2004 Pistons are perhaps the most famous outlier champion.
A few executives suggested that classifying the Raptors as a pure Big One underrates their star power. Kyle Lowry has made the past five All-Star Games. (I am a card-carrying member of the Kyle Lowry Is A Real Star, Damn It! club.) Marc Gasol is a three-time All-Star who made the team as recently as 2017. Pascal Siakam almost made it last season. Fine. They are hard to categorize. But they are not a Big Three team.
https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/27533126/is-big-two-better-big-three-nba-teams