[tarheeljks]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the argument against this is that detroit had very little chance of winning multiple championships and was very fortunate to win the first one.

[/ QUOTE ]

A team that took the Spurs to Game 7 in the Finals had "very little chance" of winning another championship? Nah. Between the time they traded for Rasheed in 2004 until Ben really started to decline in 2006, that team was incredible. They're underrated by basically everyone, for the most part because they don't fit with people's preconceived notions of what it takes to win an NBA title, so people downgrade those Pistons with revisionist history. I'm tired of the tall tales about how Kobe sabotaged the Lakers when the reality is that those Lakers were a very good team (who would've been considered an all-time great team, had they won those Finals) and the Pistons just came in there and flat-out kicked their asses.

[/ QUOTE ]

yes they had very little chance of winning again, think about how many teams get that close and never get back. you can say until such and such started happening-- the aging of ben wallace was always a problem they faced. that team overachieved and had two great years. kudos to them for it, but they were fortunate to win the first one. i'm not saying detroit didn't deserve to win; they earned it by outplaying the lakers,but they lose to a dysfunctional lakers squad ~75% of the time. even if you want to call detroit an exception that still fits into my previous point that a gm shouldn't be trying to unload his roster just b/c he doesn't have an elite level player. sometimes things can fall into place and teams get lucky.