Here’s what we learned about the Denver Nuggets over the course of the NBA’s All-Star weekend in New Orleans:

The Nuggets have legitimate young stars.

The Nuggets do not have an All-Star.

And because of those two truths, we can also deduct this: Denver is on the verge of becoming a perennial playoff team, but they’re still not close to being a contender.

I know, “Thanks, Captain Obvious,” you just said to yourself. (You’re welcome.) That’s not exactly earth-shattering news. Facts are facts. Jamal Murray, who won the Rising Stars Challenge MVP on Friday night, has huge upside. Nikola Jokic, who also played in the Rising Stars Challenge, and who came within a split second of winning the Skills Challenge, has more than upside; as I argued last week, Jokic is arguably an All-Star. The West is crowded when it comes to All-Star centers, but the difference between “being an All-Star” and “being worthy of being an All-Star” is negligible.

And you know the rule in the NBA: Not only does a team need one, bona fide superstar to win a title, in reality, it needs two.

Think back to the list of recent NBA champions. This rule holds true without fail. LeBron and Kyrie. Steph and Klay. Duncan, Parker, Ginobili and Kawhi. Miami’s “Big Three.” Nowitzki and Kidd. Kobe and Pau. Boston’s “Big Three.” The list goes on.

Further examination of that list reveals something else. Notice any name on the list that wasn’t, at that time, an established veteran? Kawhi Leonard was only in his third season when he and the Spurs won it all – and he was named the Finals MVP – but he was also surrounded by one of the most savvy veteran cores in basketball history. But in each superstar pairing good enough to win a championship has been around the block a time or two.

With that in mind, the Nuggets must ask themselves a few important questions.

First, and probably most importantly, do Murray and Jokic have the potential to become those kinds of stars? If the opinion is unequivocally yes, then it’s simply a matter of filling in an adequate roster around them (and by adequate, I mean very good, if not including another borderline star player) and time. Look, even if Jokic and Murray are title-caliber stars, they’ll have to pay their dues; let’s call it two or three years.

Depending on the answer to the first question, the organization will have a few more to answer. If there’s strong faith in Murray and Jokic, do they want to expedite the process? Or, if the Nuggets like their young stars in the making, but aren’t willing to wager this soon that they’re indeed players worthy of “building around,” do they want to hedge their bet? Regardless of the answer, and assuming the Nuggets would just as soon hurry things along, they’ll need to bring in another player – scratch that, they’ll need to bring in a player that’s already an established star. (Note: Danilo Gallinari, Wilson Chandler and Kenneth Faried are all nice players; none of them are stars – by this stage in their career, players either are or are not stars, and those three are not.)

I liked my man Sean Walsh’s suggestion for star hunting – go big and try to haul in Chicago’s Jimmy Butler via a trade. With Butler, Denver would have one very established player at a current position of need. He’s a “clear out and let him win it” kind of talent, and the Bulls are a bit of a mess right now. Jokic is an incredible young talent, but big men by themselves rarely decide the fate of a game in the waning moments – guards and forwards do that. Imagine a Denver version of “The Big Three” in Jokic, Murray and Butler.

Over the All-Star break, the NBA learned that Denver is indeed a team on the rise (if it hadn’t noticed already). But the Association also knows that Denver is a piece or two, and a year or two, away.

That’s okay. With a bevy of resources to bring in a major difference-making piece, and enough young talent that surrounds Jokic and Murray already, the Nuggets have the means to become a contender sooner than later.

They might be a contender “later” as it stands already. But who wants to wait until “later”?

I don’t.