If the Big Three was formed 10 years ago...

[AboveLegit]

How would people view their careers? Would they still be Hall of Famers? I remember Garnett saying he wished he came to Boston earlier in his career, but this would have also negated his MVP award among many other statistical achievements.

 

Would the rings they could have potentially won together weigh more towards their legacy than the amount of stats they racked up as the clear cut best players on their respective teams?

[Flash]

They'd probably have gotten to same hate that Miami is getting now and IMO would've really challenged the Kobe/Shaq Lakers, if not beat those teams and win possibly every ring until about 09. Ray Allen in his prime was filthy.

 

They'd all be HOF'ers but I don't think any would take home an MVP award.

Edited November 22, 2010 by Flash

[Nitro]

I remember Garnett saying he wished he came to Boston earlier in his career, but this would have also negated his MVP award among many other statistical achievements.

 

I think what he meant when he said that was he wish he was traded in like 2005 or 2006, not 2000 or 2001.

 

As for this topic, there are SO many X-factors. First off, would they have been able to put their ego's aside at such a young stage of their careers? Without Doc as their coach and Thibs as an assistant, would they have had such good chemistry and willingness to dominate on the defensive end? Would they have developed the same as they eventually did? Would Ainge have built as strong of a supporting cast around the Big 3?

 

Assuming they had the same coaching and all had a willingness to put their ego's aside, and they put around solid talent around the Big 3, they probably would have at least 6 championships by now. I figure 3-4 years they would have some injuries or would be beat in tough, long series' by eventual champions. But yeah, they would have plenty of hardware by now.

[Sun Tzu]

Might've tampered with their development and leadship skills and everything but I think they actually would be alright and probably still win two championships at least.

[Rog]

Ehhhh still think the Lakers teams would have been better, but I'm biased.

[Lkr]

They wouldn't have Rondo, Big Baby, Perkins, and some other key role players that have helped them. I think that would have hurt them a lot against the Spurs and Lakers who were complete in their runs(first run for the Lakers). They would have won another title or two for sure though, I don't know what to say about HOF though. KG was definitely at an all star level at that point in his career. I think he would have won an MVP award, he would have won it in 2008 if it wasn't for the Gasol trade to LA.

I don't know if the 2008 version of the Celtics was better than some of the other champions from earlier in the decade either.

Edited November 23, 2010 by Lkr

[Real Deal]

Didn't Pierce once say that his development was partially due to the hard work he put in because the Celtics were struggling so much under him? The more he scored, the worse their record was?

 

Allen, KG and Pierce all went through that phase. They all became leaders that way.

 

I'm afraid that, if you were to stick them on the same team in the late 90s and ask them to start from there, things may have been a bit different without a clear-cut leader, a proven leader at that.

 

Eventually, they would start winning rings, but I doubt that those three would've tackled the dynasty Lakers OR that Spurs team that Pop ran with for so long, to be honest. They would've handled the Heat and Pistons, started beating the Lakers in 2003 or 2004, but the Kobe-Shaq dynasty would've turned them inside-out back in the first part of the decade.

[AllenIverson#1fan]

They'd all probably be in the situation that the Heat are in. Hated by many liked by few. I'm happy they didn't form a while ago. They would all be selfish and would fall apart. (Like what's happening to the Heat)The time they formed together was perfect.