In the OKC thread there was a discussion about whether Paul George or Klay Thompson are "franchise players" that can be the top player on a team that you build around and that can lead said team to success. Now some people said definitely not, they are great players but aren't in the same tier as Curry, Durant, Harden, Lebron James, Lenoard, etc. I can't argue with that. But that led me to think. How many true franchise players are there really active in the NBA right now? Here's one thought experiment: Imagine rosters for all teams are empty. Experts come up with a list of top 30 players. Each team is randomly assigned a player but all teams only know their own assigned player. Team can either sign said player to supermax contract or pass. All teams that pass go into a new drawing and those players are instead signed to below supermax contracts. If a player is drawn that a team would sign to supermax without hesitation, then I think he qualifies as a franchise player. But if that player would be passed, then he doesn't belong because you'd rather pay less for a different player and have more cap room. Note that we have to ignore things like audience draw, ratings and such and only consider whether you want said player as your cornerstone for winning purposes. Also you can't consider future potential, it has to be for winning right now. This isn't the only way to figure out who is a franchise player but is one thought experiment that works.
As the Oklahoma City Thunder continued stay in the toilet reminds us, what will celebrevida's next question thread be?
As the Oklahoma City Thunder continued stay in the toilet shows, neither westbrook nor carmelo nor george are the franchise players
Okay, so under my thought experiment, if Westbrook's names was drawn, you would pass on him??? Not saying he is better than Curry, Durant, Harden, etc. but I think if you were a GM, you'd sign him to supermax without hesitation rather than pass and sign someone else for less. You might end up with the 30th best player instead and Westbrook is still far from that. Westbrook might not be a top franchise player but he is still a franchise player IMHO.
There are only 3 franchise players (for now) that I’d consider true franchise players that can lead u as the best player to real success (championship). Lebron,Curry,Harden. I don’t consider Durant a franchise player because he doesn’t want to be a franchise player. I don’t consider leonard a franchise player because i simply don’t think he is as good as most people think. Without pop (even with pop) i think he is not good enough to win you a ship. Now there are a few young players that COULD become franchise players in the future: Giannis (needs to develop a jumper), Porzingis, Devin Booker (still only 20!!!! Years old), embiid (healthy) That’s definetely a topic with a million different opinions, but that’s my opinion. PS: refs have been calling the pivot foot travel A damn lot more this year, i kinda wonder if leonard suffers. Probably not because of his superstar status
Now that’s a tough one. Do you own your franchise to win a championship? To make money? If you want to win a ship, you pass on westbrook. He will never, never ever, lead a team to a championship imo. If you want to sell tickets and jerseys, he’s your picture perfect franchise player. Exiting playstyle for casual fans, amazing(lmao) tripple doubles.
Durant said he doesn't care to be a "leader". But you don't need him to be a leader. The coach can do all the leading and just let Durant play his game. Durant is probably the 2nd best player in the NBA right now after Lebron. To say he is not a franchise player simply because he doesn't want to be a leader is a bit much.
Durant is a tough one for me, he doesn’t seem to be the kind of player to be able to be your leader. As a franchise player, i think he only really works with a suuuuper dominant coach like popovich (duncan style). Agree with your take on durant prob being the 2nd best player. I put harden right next to him tho.
The criteria is team success on the court only not fan draw or merchandising draw. Anyway here is the Washington Post list of top 100 players: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/sports/nba-top-100-players-2017/?utm_term=.bd61010ae496 They rank Westbrook 5th and Bradley Beal 30th. If you drew Westbrook and passed and redrew to sign Bradley Beal for less, you'd get hammered by fans and analysts of your team for sure.
Durant was honest and admitted he doesn't want to be a vocal team leader. I bet Harden is the same way too but just hasn't felt the need to say it out loud like Durant.
Now you might think im crazy but if it’s only about winning a championship, i will take beal over westbrook for less money. Beal is still young, very good shooter, not delusional, maybe potential to grow. I don’t ever think beal will win a ship as the best player either, but im really 100% sure westbrook won’t do it. Also, i think he’s on the way to fall off a cliff in about 2-3 years. He relies heavily on athleticism and has knee injurys and even an injection. Notice how his numbers are going down this season. Disgraceful 39% fg. I think he has 2 more „good“ years and will then fall off a cliff
Let's put it like this . . . Fill in the BLANK . . . . . IF YOU PUT _____________________ ON THE DALLAS MAVERICKS . . . THE MAVERICKS WOULD WIN ______________ MORE GAMES? If the second number is not 10~20 .. . they probably not a Franchise Player Rocket River
I think a franchise player is someone a legitimate championship contending team could be built around. I think only 6 of those exist Curry Lebron Harden Westbrook Kawai Durant
I see only 5. You can't build around Westbrook. He had 2 other Franchise players and both left and became better all around players.
$200mm for a 29 year old stat padding guard who who is shooting 38% on the season and doesn't make anyone better, pass for sure all things considered.
You can “bet” all you want, but Harden didn’t run away from shouldering the load and carrying his team.
Lol@KD being the 2nd best player. Ever hear of James Harden? There's a reason the Rox have a better record than GSW despite having 2 stars vs 5. The OP's point about teams paying the super max etc. doesn't make sense because he is talking about demand and not the supply. For example if the NBA players don't increase but you now have 1M teams then lots of teams will be forced to pay the supermax to even bench players because there are not enough stars. For me superstars are those that can lead a good team to a ring or lead a crap team to the playoffs, like they can duel the other teams best player and put up a fight. That would be around top 10-15 stars in the league. OTH franchise players IMHO are those guys who can make a franchise great, like Harden, Curry, KD and Lebron who put their teams on their backs. There are actually a lot of potential franchise players coming up like Giannis, Porzingis, Towns, Embiid etc.
