Why the Rockets Can't Lose: The McGrady Trade and the Myth of Team Building

did u really write that ????

 

Interesting take. Thanks.

The other variable, of course, is the team and system that surrounds that key player. Would Duncan have been "franchise worthy" if he'd been drafted by an inept Grizz organization or surrounded by the same cast as Garnett? Could Garnett have led a Spurs-like team given complimentary players, systems and coaching?

I could also quibble why Nowitski makes the cut as Franchise when he hasn't had any more success then Nash or Iverson?

I did like the read. Thanks.

A++++ would rep again.

 

So there's a method to Golden State's madness?

Excellent post. But I just don't think you can gameplan to strike it rich in the lottery. It's better to try and be the exception to the rule if you don't have the franchise player. You can try and do something like the Pistons did while keeping your eye open about acquiring a franchise player through trade.

I think you also have to consider matchups. Just an example, our current squad + Yao would be a huge problem for the Lakers, limiting many of their strengths. If you can do that, you could get by with less of a franchise player to lead the team.

 

Good read.

Slightly disagree on your net of "franchise players" though- I think Barkley, Malone/Stockton (ugh), and Webber all were very much capable of winning it all had they not been in the same era as the Bulls/Lakers dynasties. Those teams just had great players in their prime at the wrong time.

You're dead on about the bad franchises overpaying for all-star, but not dominant, players- like Arenas, Brand, and Mcgrady.

 

I don't think Durand and Roy can be counted as franchise player right now, though they are most likely on their way to be one. But who's to know that a career ending injury might happen. Also, the stats can be a little off sometime, i.e. the Kings vs Lakers series.

 

I also disagree with you on the def of a franchise player, i.e. Pierce, had the Celtic not gotten Allen and KG, he would still just be a good player. T Mac has the ability to become a franchise player, had he been healthy and a better cast to work with.

Just replace Pierce with T Mac two years ago, don't tell me that T Mac couldn't win the titile.

 

A healthy YAO is a franchise player you can build a team around.

 

Good read. But by your post, the Rockets can lose.. if we get into the play-offs and don't win.

 

It seems Clippers are doing the right thing:

suck--->high draft pick ---> try the guy for 3 years---> no, he is not our franchise player, go----> suck again---> draft another one,..., ----suck still----

 

Really good post - but there's just 2 issues I'd want to take up here!

(1) A franchise player does NOT always lead his team to the promised land. You CAN be an absolute winner who doesn't quite manage to make it to the 'promised land' of winning a title - because of an incompetent front office. You kind of acknowledged this with your selection of 'franchise players' (the likes of Howard, Drexler, Malone, James) - so it's certainly possible to be a franchise player who does NOT win a title.

(2) Committing to the draft for 5 years is a flawed strategy. Look at teams who have done that in recent years and see what percentage of them have elevated back to the top! Generally speaking there isn't a "great rising up" of teams....

I think we can look to acquire a 'franchise player' without having to suck in order to do it. Maybe it's picking up someone who is unwanted by a cash strapped franchise, or perhaps it's actually making a move on draft day to trade 'proven talent' for a shot at a franchise player (ala the Lakers and Kobe).

Thanks for writing - I disagree with the implied premise that we need to hit the lottery hard. But I agree that we don't HAVE to make a big move with McGrady's contract just for the sake of it!

 

Good read but there are some assumptions that could easily be challenged. For instance, is there really a common definition of franchise player? Who is the authority that determines a player to be a franchise? Is LeBron James a franchise player because ESPN made him so? Why is Barkley not a franchise player when he led the Suns to two great finals appearances, and what about Drexler who led the Blazers to two finals appearances and many other great winning seasons?

Pat Riley once said that the teams during Jordan's career were among the best ever the NBA has produced. Unfortunately, they all came at a time when a player named Jordan was playing in the NBA. Indeed, the Jordan factor alone may question the validity of the data that was put forth in the OP's analysis. Riley's off the cuff but very apt observation may be validated by the preponderance in the OP's list of "franchise" and "non franchise" albeit, great players, who played during Jordan's NBA career.

Kudos though to a very insightful and interesting read.

 

Good read, but I think there are some holes in your logic.

1. As people have stated, you've left someone like Charles Barkley off the list of franchise players when he's clearly better than a lot of people who you classify as franchise players.

You might be right that you need a franchise player to win a championship. (The Pistons team would be the exception) But, your logic says that players who do not win championships are automatically not franchise players. This is not necessarily true.

There are star players who have certainly been good enough to win a championship, but either A) didn't have the help around them to accomplish this, or B) may have matched up poorly based on circumstances.

2. You call Paul Pierce a franchise player because, in your opinion, he was the best player on that Celtics team. You could easily make the argument that Garnett was much more important to the Celtics than Paul Pierce. Keep in mind that before Garnett came on board, the Celtics were a perennial lottery team in a very weak Eastern Conference. It took the acquisition of two perennial all stars from western conference teams for Paul Pierce to even be in the playoffs, much less in the Finals. To me, this does not qualify him as a franchise guy.

I would argue that either Garnett was the franchise player on that team, or that the Celtics may have found a happy medium between the traditional "build around one or two stars" mentality and the Pistons "win with great role players and no stars" team. That Celtics team had three really really good players, none of which may have been "franchise" quality.

3. You list Patrick Ewing as a franchise player.....

Regardless, it's a great analysis that will start a great discussion. The BBS could use a lot more posts of this quality.

 

...also note that between the time Hakeem left his prime and when Yao entered the league, Shaq had no real competition on the court - literally there might not be another center who gets his jersey retired by his own team who was a center who played in the NBA in the "dominate Shaq" era. Obviously Shaq was a good player, but would he have dominated if he was playing centers like Hakeem, Ewing, Mourning, Robinson, Mutumbo, Vlade, Smits, and Sabonis IN THEIR PRIME night after night? Literally there was no one in his time frame that made him work for it. He just happens to be a very very lucky athlete to be born with the gifts he had in that specific time frame.

 

Yeah - that's what surprised me too. There's no way you can legitimately put DRob and Chuck on the pretenders list and have Pat on that franchise player list. They were both considered significantly better than him.... making the finals shouldn't increase his worth in this instance.

 

Good read, however there are a few points that I disagree with.

For starters, this whole "building through the draft is the only way!" approach has clearly been debunked in recent years. The Lakers won their championship because of the Gasol trade. Same with the Celtics amassing all those stars that were entirely incapable of carrying teams on their own. Same with the Heat becoming serious once they acquired Shaq. Same with the '04 Pistons making the season changing trade for Rasheed. The point is those are just some modern examples of how you can take a good team that's seemingly plateaued and turn them into a contender via trade. Hell, that was the line of thinking for us last year too when we went "all in" to get Artest.

Your implication that the trade that brought McGrady to Houston not being worth it is quite puzzling. As if that 45-win Steve Francis lead team was ever going to get us anywhere. 40-50 wins and yearly first-round exits certainly sounds like mediocrity to me. What good could have a then 24-year-old, top five player in the league have done for us.....right? My gut tells me if McGrady had that "fire" and all the intangibles that separate him from a player like Kobe, that this conversation might have a different tone when discussing him. McGrady, at the time of his arrival in Houston, was EXACTLY the type of player teams hope to draft, cultivate and eventually let loose onto the rest of the league.

Also, (not just you but...) I grow tired of hearing about the infamous Denver game with Mark Madsen chucking 3's in OT. As if winning or losing that game REALLY impacted our chances of finishing ahead or behind of Portland in the fricken draft lottery. Again, people that stress this point usually like to pretend like the draft lottery or our other 81-games that season didn't exist.

Give Derrick Rose some time. I understand your point about PG's being overrated in the grand scheme of things to a degree, however any formula or mixture of an elite playmaker + the right pieces can equal a championship team or a dynasty. There's really no set mold that guarantees no great PG can lead a team to a championship. I have no doubt that a CP3 type could be that type of player when surrounded by the right personnel.

Also, what's your stance on John Wall then? If PG's are generally overrated does that mean teams should shy away from him merely because of his position? These are the type of questions you have to ask yourself when you make your points as cut-and-dry as you do.

Overall, great read though. I especially enjoyed your subtle jabs at KG, as I have been calling him out for being unable to deliver in the clutch for years! For years, people have loved his energy, intensity, hustle....whatever so they always felt the need to make excuses for him. People would always turn a blind eye to his continued shortcomings then try to act like he's on Duncan's level at the same time. Very annoying.

 

Winning championships is not as important as you make it out to be, this is a business and owners need to make money, you can't go several years of tanking to be lucky enough to land a franchise player. Usually teams are very very lucky to receive franchise players.

 

tl;dr