How does quibbling over the number of team-up books and his fanship of the Titans change the fact that Perez was hot to do JLA and Wolfman presumably would desire working on the highest-profile book at DC at the time?

Wolfman "had" to work on a Titans book rather than a team-up book. That's the bottom line. From what I've gleaned, Wolfman expected Titans to tank, which god willing it should have. 

And still, nobody here gets it: the world would have been a better place with a Wolfman/Perez JLA than the New Teen Titans. Accept it, live it, be it. I can talk all day about why, but nobody seems to want to let go of their blind devotion to Teen Titans, a book whose history has been eradicated from DC lore as we speak. How essential is a comic book concept, no matter its success, that can easily be swept away? Is the New Teen Titans more essential than Geoff Johns' ludicrous multi-colored Lanterns crap, which is now a core concept at DC? Not according to the big brains running the show today. Oh, we still have Nightwing? What a relief! 

Am I saying Wolfman/Perez's JLA would be impossible to sweep under the rug? Absolutely. I think the impact on superhero comics in general would have been immeasurable. I've already stated that that singular run would, if nothing else, have altered DC's entire publishing history from 1980 on. I think it would have changed comics to the point of somebody like John Byrne still working for the company. Or maybe never having worked for the company.  

Anyway, anyone seriously suggesting the Teen Titans is as important a concept as the JLA has no grasp of comics' publishing history nor perspective on same. 

And, has anyone actually read those Titans books from the '80s again recently? It really is like revisiting the Claremont X-Men: overwritten, overwrought, and overindulgent in every way. Great art in both cases though.

***

It's the sheer unpredictability that made it all so fantastic and is one reason I love buying back issues from that time!

With *some* comics today, you'll pick up five or six consecutive issues of Superman moping around or talking to a priest for an entire issue. Back then, it was all so unpredictable. One month might feature Lex Luthor aiming some sort of ray at Superman, but the next month might feature Jimmy Olsen as a werewolf. The month after, it'd be Superman fighting bank robbers, but then the month after that, you might see Superman with an insect head!

Going back to Batman, I find it extremely hard to get into post WWII-pre-Neal Adams Batman. It's just not the character I love and certainly not the character as originally envisioned. (Conversely, I find it hard to accept Batman's depiction post 1992 most of them time) Superman is not quite as bad for me, since fantastic, fairy-tale themes fit a character like that better, but I still feel that he was more interesting from 1938-1945 (or so). I much prefer the "pulpy" feel of the stories to the silliness that was to come.  

***

I guess that shows, and this is a good thing, how people's preferences are different. Some of my favourite Superman and Batman tales are the quirky ones (and I do not use the word "quirky" in a pejorative sense).