But if you look at the past 20 years, wing players have been the majority leader for championship teams. Wing players are key to winning a championships. History shows it.
Oh come on. You're basically talking about Jordan, the best player ever, and Kobe (whose team had no chance until they got Pau). 9 of the last 20 champions were teams led by Hakeem, Shaq or Duncan. Plus the Heat for whom Shaq was equally important as Wade, and the Celtics for whom Garnett was arguably the most important player.
It's mute? How terrible... A debate that doesn't speak. Is it physical or psychosomatic? Is there therapy available? What about surgery?
No i'm not just talking about Jordan. The 94 championship was dominated by Hakeem. The 95 championship had Drexler who played a big part for Houston. Shaq needed Kobe during their Lakers run. The 99 championship was dominated by Duncan and Robinson against Camby and no big bodies. The 03, 05, 07 championship had guys like Manu and TP. 06 championship was won based off of Wade's performances and everyone knows it. Pierce was the leader of the 08 championship as well. Yeah Garnett was important but not nearly as much as Paul Pierce.
Of course it is misleading but in a way true because elite big men are rare. Good wings are to be found more often in comparison. so I would say big guys are more appreciated.
The gist of it is you don't have to get the lottery pick or the second pick to get an elite wing. but every other guy is after the best center in a draft.....
Now you're changing your argument. You said that wings were the leader, not "an important part". Who was the leader and most important player of the Rockets in 94 and 95? Hakeem. Of the four Spurs champions? Duncan. Of the first Lakers 3-peat? Shaq. Would the Celtics have even sniffed a title without Garnett? Not a chance. Why didn't they make it back to the Finals in 2009? Because Garnett was out with a knee injury.
Chris can make everyone on this team better because of his vision and creativity. Hell, If he turned Chandler into a semi all-star what do you think he can do to Martin, Ariza and Scola's game? Chris can also defend. He always makes all NBA defensive teams and is always at the top of steals leaders every year. Defense wins championships and Paul can. Offense, Defense, Playmaking. Granger can score. that's about it. He is an avg. defender at best and doesn't make plays for others (notice he only avg. a shade under 3 assits per games) Ariza averages more.
somewhat irrelevant the difference between a top 3-5 player and a top 20 player when both are healthy
added there is a reason why the second, the fifth and the tenth best player in the league last season were signed first in free agency this summer.
We need inside presence to win Championship. I don't know if Scola is good enough..he's proven he's effective. If you look at the recent history of Champions, they all seem to have dominant big men inside...Lakers w/ Pau and Baynum, Celtics w/ Garnett and BIG BABY & Davis....Spurs got Duncan and Robinson.
Interesting topic thread in the slow days of summer. When looking to acquire superstar talent, like drafting players, we should not consider team makeup in the decision making. As Morey said, teams can always find balance later on, getting a superstar talent is enough in and of itself. Now in regards to Paul versus Granger, the most successful teams have an end of shot clock, end of game creator. In tight playoff/important games, the team with the best and most consistent creator typically wins. Paul is nearly unstoppable in a pick-and-roll situation and in isolation as he easily gets to the lane, stops, has the floater ready and the eyes of all 5 defenders on him as he picks the best scoring option. Granger can score, no doubt, but he only averaged 2.8 assists per game on a terrible team that required him to handle the ball almost every possession. Though his teammates aren't world-class, they're NBA players. A good creator should average at least 5 assists even on a bad team. All of this said, Paul is a punk while Granger looks like the perfect company man.
We have a lot of offensive weapons, but we won't be able to maximize that potential without a guy who can organize the offense and distribute the ball where it needs to go. So, I go with Paul, assuming the talent cost in trade is the same.
why is everybody a punk automatically when he is not satisfied with his cast and wants to win badly? at least he did not kick out the best center
