First, I hope in his next interview someone asks him this question. Now, let's discuss. Most here think Morey is "star chasing" and obsessed with superstar players, but that's not quite what he says. He uses the term "elite" a lot and today said you need 3 elite players to win a title with only a few exceptions in history. When you first hear that you think "superstars." Maybe 3 top 10-15 players, which sort of seems ridiculous to accomplish. But is that what Morey means? Let's consider Morey's approach over the years and things he's said. 1) Morey targeted Dirk with the max this year 2) Morey was ready to pair Gasol/Nene as part of a championship core 3) Morey thinks OKC is a championship team based on interviews 4) Morey considers Bosh elite 5) If most champions with few exceptions meet his "3 elite players" criteria, then he can't mean the Bulls didn't have 3 elite players or that the Spurs don't have 3 elite players because that would rule out "most champions" 6) He thought Artest might be good enough to be the 3rd part of a Big 3 with Yao/Tracy So, what is an elite player? I think maybe we overshoot what that term means when we think of who Morey pursues. Perhaps it means elite at one skill? Maybe elite in terms of on court/off court impact? Is Nene still someone he considers an elite player? Gasol? What do you think? Most on this board would have said that neither Bosh nor Dirk are elite players anymore, yet Morey considered both to be part of a Big 3 elite pairing.
Furthering this conversation, let's focus on the statement he made that with few exceptions, almost all the teams that have won a title did so with 3 elite players. This to me is the clearest signal that we don't know what he means by elite. We think star, but that can't be right because if superstar, top 10 player is right then the Bulls, Rockets and Lakers don't fit his criteria. Every team from the 1990s and early 2000s would fail the "3 superstar" test. So elite has to be defined differently. Was Horace Grant elite the way Morey is defining the term? Rodman? I really want someone to ask him this so we can get clarification.
Parker - Top 5 Duncan - Top 10 Manu - Top 10 Kwahi - Top 10 or would you push them out of the top 10? Rocket River
I mentioned them in another thread. If you just go with the general consensus opinions, I think all 4 of those are top 10 at their position easily. By most advanced stats all for are top 10 with the exception of...TONY PARKER who comes in at #11 for PG in some stats. Still, I think this probably the best definition. Elite probably means top 7 or 8 at their respective position, not in the league overall, using some statistical combination.
Morey has his own criteria. Elite doesn't necessarily mean a top player at their position or even a top 10 overall player. Who knows.
I don't know if I would say the requirement is top X at their position. If I had to guess, I'd say elite means that the player has a real chance to takeover a game and win it for you (mostly on offense, but defense as well, such as Ibaka). Or another way of saying it, no one would be surprised if said player put up 25+ points and dominated the game and was clearly the reason why the team won. It's kind of hard to gauge what that means on defense, but at least offensively, that pretty much fits most of the players described in the OP.
Thinking about it, on the defensive side, I'd guess it'd be something like being an elite defender and contributing enough on offense to consistently be a #3 option in points.
It is not what you want, but what you can get, elite or not. This team has two superstars, and lots of team have no one. I though that we should place Lowry as the no. 1 option at the beginning, then we have a good chance to pass the first round with him. Now we run into a risk of losing Howard if we are not competing something.
Despite what the resident insider said, I think Lowry was option 1. They offered him a deal day 1 of free agency. If he had accepted that deal then Melo and Bosh would have been dead options.
I think you have to be at least on one of the all-nba or NBA All-Defensive teams. Horace Grant was a 4x NBA All-defensive Second teamer. Serge Ibaka is a 2 x NBA All-defensive first teamer. Rodman is a hall of famer for his rebounding and defense. I think your exact ranking compared to others at your position matters less than how close you are to the guys above you. PG is a loaded position in the NBA so Parker might be 11th on someone's list, but he isn't way behind who ever is #1. Chandler Parsons and Trevor Ariza are a lot closer comparisons than Chandler Parsons and Lebron, Durant, Carmelo, or Paul George at the small forward position though. Maybe Parsons improves, but it seems pretty unlikely he ever reaches near that elite level.
All-star level quality, obviously. He wants at-that-level - not maybe at that level or potentially at that.
I honestly don't think Chandler Parsons is top 10 at his position. SF's better than Chandler Parsons no question. 1. Lebron James 2. Kevin Durant 3. Carmelo Anthony 4. Paul George 5. Kawhi Leonard 6. Rudy Gay (Now that Chandler also has a bad contract Rudy Gay is definitely better) 7. Nicholas Batum (We all watched the playoffs) 8. Josh Smith (Now that Chandler also has a bad contract Josh Smith is definitely better) 9. Andre Iguodala SF's that might be better than Chandler Parsons or are similar Paul Pierce (Factor Age, Parsons has more potential) Luol Deng (If not for injuries he would for sure be better than Chandler) Jabari Parker (Factor Age, Parker has more potential) Gordon Hayward (Same player) Andrew Wiggins(Factor Age, Wiggins has more potential) Thad Young Jeff Green And personally for this Rockets team I think Trevor Ariza is also better. Rockets need Defense and 3 pointers and those are both skills that Ariza was better than Parsons at.
