Are two stars enough ?

With the formation of the big three in Miami many of us become filled with the idea that it will take a team with Stat, Melo and Chris Paul to compete for a championship. Yet is it so ?

Miami has two def stars, a Jordan and Pippen with James and Wade. Yet, Bosh is going to have to become a role player a Horace Grant lile player I think. The ball can only be shared so much and Bosh is not a shooter and I doubt he will be the primary post player although he could be.

Lets imagine the knicks had Melo or if Gallo emerges as a bonafide 20 pt performer would that be enough ? Does the league now require three stars ? Can two top performers and a team of role players be the last team standing ?

I like Stat with Melo for example or perhaps Stat with Gallo, as it would be inside/outside on the offiense woth the ablity to fast break.

kobe and gasol have been enough.

of course you need to fill the team with good starter and benchmen.

Given how Ny is building the team theres not enough cap to get the god benchmen and starters so it woudl be better to trade for Melo, then grab parker in Fa and mimic the heat model of getting good vets for

league minimums and not so vets with Mle.

You really are underrating Bosh. Bosh is a solid mid range shooter and of course hes going to be their primary post player.

And to answer your question, yes 2 stars are enough. 2 stars with a solid bench and great role players in the rest of your starting lineup should be enough.

I'm getting sick of hearing about the "Big 3"

one star and two bandwagon jumpers who rather than compete decided to buddy up with someone who already has a ring

How are they the Big 3 if 2 of them will have to play slightly diminished roles for it to work?

Everyone in the NBA is talented, stars are pretty much a dime a dozen

Marbury was a star

Steve Francis was a star

Tracey McGrady was a star

Not a championship ring between the three of um

screw stars... just get a me a team that plays unselfishly, takes pride in defense, and hustles for a city that DESERVES another NBA championship

I believe the combination for success is you got your 2 main stars like Lebron and Wade and one very talented player such as Bosh that has to sacrifice their individual game to succeed as a team

OR

you have 3 stars like Boston that all sacrifice their game to succeed

Either way, the Knicks have got good depth right now we would be just fine (assuming we traded Gallo and Chandler) going in with Melo and Amare with guys like Anthony Randolph, Raymond Felton sharing the load.

I don't think a team needs to have X amount of Stars to be special and or be a winner, I think what makes a team a winner is a team that is able to succeed if their Star(s) are not available, ie. Injuries/Foul trouble.

In other words, a team that has the least amount of weaknesses, and holes is what is needed to win, and I don't think 'Stars' necessarily make that up. You need to have a cohesive unit, and someone to lead it, and the others to follow...

Rick Barry

Butch Beard

Charles Johnson

Jeff Mullin

Cliff Ray

Phil Smith

Jamaal Wilkes

Charles Dudley

Steve Bracey

Bill Bridges

George Johnson

Frank Kendrick

Derrick Dudley

Apart from Barry, most are not household NBA names. Two players over 6'9". Who are these guys? 1974-75 NBA champions GS Warriors. To answer your question 2 stars is enough.

DET recently proved you don't need a big star to win chips. That team played so well together. I am of the believer that if you took a mediocre team and kept them together for 4-5 years they would become an elite team. Look at the EURO teams, they are nowhere near as talented but they play together and know each other so well.

But the NBA is a win-now mentality where GM's make trades and fire coaches just to say they made a change.