2 Max Salaries, 1 Franchise

Brooks isn't close to the ideal PG in my blueprint. Lowry is actually much closer.

Since I subscribe to the Wing + Big theory, the perfect type of PG is a guy who has good ballhandling skills but doesn't need the ball in his hands a lot (to score or assist), defends his position well and can provide low volume but efficient scoring all for a reasonable price so as not to interfere with your cap structure. For the most part, he'll never have impressive stats.

Derek Fisher, who we all love to rag on in his older years, wasn't perfect based on the above criteria but, in his prime, he was a solid defender who didn't need the ball in his hands for any reason. He wasn't the most efficient scorer but could hit the 3 and spread the floor and most importantly, he never cost more than 10% of the salary cap, even in his prime.

Let the Wing + Big get the majority of the touches (and dollars). Your PG shouldn't be carrying a heavy load in terms of scoring or even playmaking. For the most part, he just brings the ball up the court, rarely turns it over, defends his position well and lets his big guns do the majority of the work, providing a bit of scoring and decision-making as necessary.

Again, this isn't some steadfast rule. I'm just building upon what I expect from the various positions on my team and how to best allocate cap resources in my fictional franchise.

 

Honestly, I didn't think of it at the time and it's too late to edit the poll.

I already had in my mind that Wing + Big was the best combo so that probably affected my thought process.

Even Jordan and Pippen needed their Grant or Rodman and although Duncan and Robinson won a title, I figure that you generally want an elite perimeter player + an elite big man for a balance of talent on the inside and outside.

But you're right, if you like one of those as your ideal combinations, go ahead and state your case.

I still think that the Wing + Big is the optimal blueprint but it's hard to argue with Jordan/Pippen, who were clearly the best two players on the greatest dynasty of the last few decades.

Either of those two combinations still diminish the importance of the PG, which was my central point. I don't think that anybody would argue that PG + PG is the best combination. Can anybody envision a championship team built around 2 true PGs making max dollars?

I'm not saying that you'd want 2 pure players at any of the other 4 positions, either, but Jordan was versatile as is Duncan, which is often the case with players at those positions. It's a lot less common that a PG can play other positions, both offensively and defensively. Wings and Bigs are usually of more similar size and are more often able to play the other position in their grouping.

 

@kaleidosky

The one thing that I disagree with in your post is about how you seem to underestimate the importance of size. Regardless of how one labels a player, the fact is that what separates players like Kobe and Jordan and LeBron from elite PGs like Stockton and Nash and Paul is that they have a decided physical advantage. If CP3 is 6'6 with a similar skill set, I put him right there with James and Kobe and the other elite wings. But he's not.

Size is a crucial component to my argument. It's not just a nice bonus.

Over the last 30 years, I only count 4 teams where you could argue that one of their top 2 players was a player that was listed at 6'3 or under: the 2007 Spurs (Ginobili was far more key to the 2005 run and Parker was just finding his way in 2003 wth SJax and Ginobili playing bigger roles), the 2004 Pistons, the 1990 Pistons and the 1989 Pistons. Even on that 2004 Pistons team, you could argue that 4 or 5 players were of equal importance to their success and all had to be very good for them to get by that loaded Lakers team that was almost too talented for it's own good. Billups was the finals MVP though so I'll give him the nod. Those other Pistons teams also had phenomenal balance and needed all of it to squeeze a few titles away in between the Magic/Bird and Jordan eras but Isiah was pretty clearly one their 2 best players, at least for one of the runs.

Back to the point... instead of using position labels, let's just focus on size.

In the current cap era, it's really hard to build around more than 2 max players. The Celtics pulled it off but that was kind of an exception to the rule. I don't think any team before or since has been able to successfully build a team that way.

Given that restraint and the fact that history seems to tell us that small players rarely lead teams to championships (and have certainly never led the way to a dynasty), I'm pretty hesitant to make a Chris Paul or Deron Williams one of my two max players until the PG + Big model is proven to be a winner.

If I can't find a Wing + Big worthy of max contracts, I'd rather find one of the two then split my dollars more evenly across multiple positions, 2005 Pistons style, instead of paying max dollars to a near 6-footer. I'll take that route until I can hopefully land the missing piece in the more proven Wing + Big formula.

 

I'm pretty sure that his point was that, in a hypoethetical sense, if all else equal, you want the taller guy.

And Wade is listed at 6'4. Almost every player's listed height is w/ shoes. If you are going to go actual height with Wade, then every PG and every other player in the NBA loses an inch, sometimes two. Let's just be consistent and use the same method for all players. If Wade is 6'3.5 then Chris Paul is 5'11.75 and Deron Williams is 6'1.5, etc...

On top of that, while Wade is a little bit on the short side for what I would use as a blueprint wing player, he is obviously special - like once-in-a-generation special. His athleticism and wingspan make him practically 6'6 or 6'7. The dude blocks shots better than most PFs because of his length and hops.

Either way, Wade obviously qualifies as a player you want to build around, regardless if he is a couple of inches shorter than your typical 2-guard.

 

Yea, that's pretty much what kaleido said.

Fair enough, it just seems like that perimeter creator usually has good size 9 out of 10 times.

How many examples over the last 30-40 years are there where that perimeter guy is 6'2 or below? Very, very few.

The ability to shoot and pass over people seems like a critical characterisitc in that player's makeup.

 

Here's a much simpler way of expressing my point:

How many teams have won championships where one of their 2 best players was a true-sized PG (say 6'3 or below)?

If you are going to mention Parker, remember that he wasn't one of their 2 best players for the '03 or '05 championships. So, he gets put in that category for 1 championship, at most.

There were a few at most over the history of the NBA. Billups, Isiah, Parker in '07...

I believe that as along as guys like Chris Paul and Deron Williams are 2 of the best and highest paid players on their teams, that those teams will always get trumped by another team that is built around the Wing + Big formula, or some fomula that doesn't include PG, much like what happened with Kidd and Nash. At best, one of them maybe squeaks through 1 year and never tastes the finals again. They aren't building dynasties around the PG + X formula.

The best wings in the game will always trump the best PGs in the game due to their physical advantage and their ability to typically be effective playmakers.

Maybe things will change in the future but looking through history, you don't want a guy under 6'3 to be one of your 2 best players, with very few exceptions.

No team with that situation has ever turned into a dynasty.

 

Good point worth highlighting.

I didn't mean to suggest that if you find your Wing + Big that you don't need anything else, just that those are your ideal core pieces.

I think it's also worth questioning whether McGrady or Yao or both were good enough. Still, I think it was the right formula.