Which is the better situation?

Some of you may have heard some of the free agent buzz started by one Dwight Howard, and there have even been whispers of the possibility of a big 3 between Chris/Cliff Paul, Dwight Howard, and James Harden. And it got me to thinking about Miami and their "Big 3" and how they said that they wanted to win not 1 championship, not 2, not 3....and so on and on. But because of all the moves it takes to get a big 3 together, you're obviously pretty locked in until one of the 3's contract expires (or you decide it's worth trading said player). The only minor problem with this is that you don't quite know if it's going to get you a championship or not. But what I'm wondering from everyone out there on CF's is what situation would you rather be in during the next 5 year period? A situation like Boston (from 03' - 08') where they were terrible for 4 years then got the big 3 won a title and are now headed towards irrelevancy again. Or would you rather be like the Spurs last 5 years and be great every year but with no championships?

 

I would like to think it's obvious, but with CF's it's never obvious. But some teams never get a championship, so it's definitely something to cherish, so my personal vote would be to get the 1 ring and just take my lumps otherwise.

 

Nowhere did I say I was against bringing 3 superstars, I was just merely saying questioning how do people on CF's believe success will be defined. Is being great until D12/CP3/JH aren't Rockets anymore better than winning one and not coming close ever again.

Basically is it better to be the Bills in the 90's or the Saints of the 2000's

 

Thanks!

One would think that, and that was my vote, but a lot of people like having a relevant team to cheer for every year as opposed to knowing in the off-season you're already headed to the lottery.