Would you rather be the best player on a losing team or the worst player on a winning team?
The age old debate between money and success.
Being the best player on a winning team = big money. Most of the worst teams tend to have tons of money to spend maybe one or two all-star caliber players. Unfortunately, you’ll still need to build a team around those all-stars and if not, then you’re stuck making big bucks but met with very limited success. In the end, while the money and stats will certainly make you “comfortable” and a household name, it will continue to eat you up inside because you was never able to win the big one. Don’t believe me? Look at Patrick Ewing, Karl Malone, and Charles Barkley.
Being the worst player on a winning…hmmm. Yeah, you’re riding on cloud 9. Championship after championship, you’re on top of the world! Unfortunately, you’ll wake up and realize that your position could have just as easily belonged to someone else. You were there just to fill in a limited-man roster. You could have been there just because everyone thinks you’re a nice guy. Hell, it could just simply be because you “looked good” in that team’s uniform. Yeah, you’ll be very successful with very little wealth and for some people, that may be okay. But, how would you feel with that black cloud over your head the rest of your career/life with people accusing you of riding the coattails of other players? Being a journeyman is not all that it’s cracked up to be.
So there are pros and cons to both. I’m undecided…sorry!
