Tell me, what was so different between the CBA in 2004, and say ... 2007 when Garnett, Pierce, and Ray Allen joined up, and Garnett was bringing in 23 mil that year, and Ray and Pierce were both making over 15m per year? IF someone wanted to do it back then, they could have.
Lastly, I think it is EXTREMELY disingenuous to suggest that the only options available to superstar is to play on a team with minimal talent, and play with MULTIPLE All-Stars.
Durant had THREE CHANCES TO CLOSE OUT GS AND FAILED TO! Explain to ME, how in the FUCK is that OKC'S FAULT? Then you JOIN THE TEAM THAT PUT YOU OUT THE VERY NEXT SEASON?
Are you seriously condoning this, bro? Leaving isn't a problem, but the team that just beat you?? Are you seriously telling me, the competitor in you would rather play with the team that took your cookies, than come back and beat them, if not with OKC, another squad?
No one has EVER said players don't need help. But, there is a difference between help and stacking the deck so much in your favor that you're virtually guaranteed to win. Then we want to pat these people on the back for the chips they won like that wasn't the most obvious outcome when they teamed up. "OH, LEBRON HAS BEEN TO SIX STRAIGHT FINALS. THAT HASN'T BEEN DONE SINCE BLAH, BLAH..."
....it hasn't been done since ANOTHER super-star had a stacked deck.
I'm to the point that if someone played with multiple no. 1 options, and they are also a no. 1 option, their rings don't mean the same. Come the fuck on. Any superstar team up with a couple of All-Stars and look like great champions. That shit is like sending an NBA team back to college and acting genuinely surprised that they NBA team is winning or competing in the Finals every year.
But, once again, I get it. Some of you aren't competitors. Call it what the fuck it is. You play games and set the difficulty on beginner, and beat your chest when you win. Cool.