Reply With Quote
Curry actually led GS to a le before Durant mercked his way there. Durant isn’t. Just look at BKN.
Do you think there are 30 franchise players? One per team?
By your definition there is almost no franchise Player even Curry and Durant are not.
Curry actually led GS to a le before Durant mercked his way there. Durant isn’t. Just look at BKN.
Do you think there are 30 franchise players? One per team?
Aren't klay and Draymond all stars? Franchise players are players who people can immediately associate with a Franchise and immediately make the team a contentor whether they eventually win a championship is not mandatory. Like Yao Ming and Rockets like Malone to Jazz like Payton to Supersonics. What you describe is more in line with GOAT status.
Difference of opinion. Everybody wants a franchise guy in the draft. They’re not looking for a face for the franchise. We have that in Keldon, but he won’t lead us to a le, or even the playoffs. KG never made the Timberwolves contenders. That’s why I don’t consider him a franchise guy. He played with 5 different All Stars, Starbury, Gugliotta, Sczerbiak,cassell, and Spree, and made only one conference final as The Guy.
Draymond was really exposed when the other two were out, and would you be saying Tim wasn’t a franchise guy because he had Tony and Manu? They were All Stars BECAUSE of Tim, just like Klay and Draymond because of Steph. Tim or Steph never moved around to make super teams like KG did, because he couldn’t get it done.
So Robinson wasn't a franchise guy?
If you go by narratives. By any objective measures, Garnett is up there.
He is definitely below Duncan in the all time rankings, and all of that really comes down to playoffs success, and that is really a function of two things:
1) The make up of the team, of which they were gutted due to the Joe Smith signing; and
2) Garnett couldn't carry a team on offence like Duncan or Kobe could
Hypothetically, I don't think Garnett would win 5 les if you were to replace him with Duncan, or even particularly close. I don't see him carrying the Spurs offence like Duncan did in those 4 down years (99, 03 and 05), and by 2014, Garnett was just totally done. The only le I see them winning was 2007, and that would be a stretch as it would be tough for the Spurs to go past the Suns with Garnett carrying that offence.
That said, I don't see Duncan winning one single le with the Wolves either, that franchise was just so poorly run.
If you replace Garnett with Kobe on the Wolves team, they don't even make the playoffs most years, and if you replace Kobe with Garnett on those 3 peat Lakers team, the Lakers will likely win a couple of les, at minimum, with 02 being the only maybe as Shaq was that dominant.
Looking at the numbers:
Garnett Duncan Kobe MVPs 1 2 1 League Leader RPG 4 times, total points once Tot Reb once Points 4 times, PPG twice League Leader Career 10th in Reb, 55th in assists, 19th in steals, 20th in blocks, 22nd in points 7th in rebs, 6th in blocks, 18th in points 33rd in assists, 17th in steals, 4th in points Career Playoffs 42nd in points, 18th in rebounds, 61st in assists, 36th in steals, 23rd in blocks 6th in points, 3rd in rebounds, 34th in assists, 44th in steals, 1st in blocks 4th in points, 46th in rebounds, 11th in assists, 6th in steals, 41st in blocks Advanced Stats Lead 1st in PER twice, 1st in WS twice, 1st in BPM twice, 1st in VORP twice, 1st in DRtg twice 1st in WS twice, 1st in DWS 5 times, 1st in DBPM once, 1st in VORP once, 1st in Drtg 4 times 1st in usage thrice
When you look at the numbers, Kobe does not even compare other than points, and especially when you look at advanced stats. Garnett's advanced stats peak is higher than Duncan's peak, and that is a function of him having to carry everything because his team sucks. Kobe's peak years is comparable to Duncan's and Garnett's career average in advanced stats. The only thing that saved his butt was a) He had Shaq or the most dominate frontline in the league (MVPau, Odom, and to a lesser extent Bynum), and b) He died early. Before his death, he was routinely rated as a top 10 to 15 player, while Duncan was in the 5 to 7 range, with Garnett in the 15 to 20 range, after his death, he is in all the top 10 lists, and often finish top 5 or even top 3 by some of those fanbois.
If I were to start a team, I would still choose Duncan over both of them any day, but it's a tough choice between Garnett and Kobe. It's much easier to find another Pierce than it is to find another Shaq.
I am not ready to put Stephon Marbury and Wally Szcerbiak in the same library section, let alone sentence, as Ginobili and Parker.
He’s KG, with a late career savior. Without Duncan, he’d be lumped in with Stockton, Malone, Ewing, Barkley as a guy who couldn’t get it done.
The next coach will be here long term, just like Snyder was with the Jazz, Tomlin with the Steelers, etc. Certain franchises, that becomes part of their schtick.
Like all of them, it won't matter though. The personnel will.
At the old RINGZ! without context argument.
Garnett didn't have a legitimate chance until he was traded to the Celtics, where he immediately won a championship.
Meanwhile, Curry benefitted from avoiding/beating decimated teams.
Just because Garnett and Robinson weren't Duncan and Olajuwon in terms of not being back-to-the-basket centric and therefore unable to be go-to scorers on a championship contender, there's no credible argument for their not being franchise players.
Your definition of Franchise guy sets a very high bar, even Bird and Magic has multiple all stars on their team in order to win championship. Also Curry has shown that without Klay the warriors is only an average team 2 years ago.
Eh there are variations of franchise players which I think shows the wide gulf between Tim and KG. KG needed all stars around him to contend. Tim won a championship without any other all star on the team in 03 and had them in the WCFs with a ty team as well. KG was never at that level.
As far as the KG ringz count with the Spurs it would probably be at most 3. And the only way he gets 3 is if we 3peat from 06-08. KG wasn’t tough enough in the post to win against the 05 pistons. He isn’t beating Shaq and Kobe in any series from 200-2004. And he would’ve gotten demolished by the Blazers in 99. 09 Manu was hurt and 2010 maybe we make the WCFs with him. I don’t know if we beat Phoenix that year regardless.
KG is an enigma for me to rank. I have DRob well above him bc Drobs teams were worse, his ownership was just as bad, and he least at won in the regular season which is something KG never did. It’s unsettling to me that he was always the 8th seed and bounced in the first round. I think to me that shows KG was immature and a bad leader. I think he learned a lot about leadership in Boston but had zero in Minnesota. You can’t lose in the first round 8 times, miss the playoffs in ur prime twice, and then just be known as a high end franchise guy. Something between his ears just doesn’t click as a franchise player to me.
Also Curry led his team to the finals 6 times. He’s allowed an off year
KG is great, not in the same sentence as TD. He's in the DRob and Dirk range, under both tho, but top 25 still imo
Bird MADE McHale and Parrish All Stars. Curry MADE Klay and Donkey All Stars. Neither of them failed, and then ran off to form super teams with their friends.
All-Star
HOFer
Franchise Player
Superstar
All-Time Great
Is that the proper hierarchy? If so, I see KG definitely being a franchise player, but not quite on the cusp of Superstar. Tim, Kobe, Shaq to me are the ones who fall in the "Superstar" category over this time frame, with Lebron just getting started in that category. Iverson, KG, Wade, Nash, Kidd, Dirk being the "franchise players" of the time. TMac might be the cutoff between right below franchise player. I think having Franchise Player above HOFer is appropriate. Guys like Tony and Manu are clear HOFers, but not franchise guys. I also think it is very possible to be a franchise guy without being a superstar.
Fun message board topic.
what an absurd definition of franchise player lmao. so until what, 2012, lebron wasn't a franchise player? jordan wasn't a franchise player for the first 7-8 years of his career?
or once somebody wins a ring, do you retroactively say they were a franchise player all along? laughable
^
Franchise player = Superstar.
MVP caliber
All-NBA caliber
All-Star caliber
If you're perennially in the first two, you're HOF caliber.
Of course, within' tiers there's subsets. Using the names you provided, since all were regarded as MVP caliber at various points, James is tier 1, Duncan and O'Neal are tier 2, Bryant, Garnett and Nowitzki are tier 3, Wade and McGrady are tier 4, Nash, Kidd and Iverson are tier 5.
Both LeBron and MJ were thought of as choking losers until they won. Detroit beat their asses for like 6 years with less talent. I lived through the totality of both of their careers. LeBrons legacy will also be tarnished for two things: moving around so much to form super teams, and losing so many goddam finals.
ok but was lebron a franchise player? and if so, was he only a franchise player specifically in the years that he won championships but none of the years in between?
I am not arguing that Bird or Curry is not a franchise player, but the point that KG needs 2 all stars player with him to win a championship makes him a non franchise player. To me a franchise player is the best player on a team and make them a contender or make general public aware of the team and KG definitely make people notice the wolves. Of course not every best player is a franchise player, like our current team has none. I would be interested to know your definition of a franchise player.
I think a franchise player can be one who brings regular season success and playoff success. You don’t need to win the le to be considered one, but you can’t be bounced in the first round every year like Carmelo or KG. Like if you lead your team to around 55 wins and make the semis, CFs, or Finals regularly then you are a franchise player.
In this scenario Lebron would be a franchise player bc he led Cleveland to plenty of second rounds and had back to back seasons of 60+ wins. He also led them to the finals. Lebron was a high end franchise player during that span. But he wasn’t an all timer yet bc he hadn’t won anything. He was in the Barkley category (when he played for the Suns).
At least they did much better than Anthony "who is better than Timmy as claimed by Lakers fan" Davis.
That’s a rather long nickname
But I mean I don’t consider AD a franchise player either. The dude is just too wimpy. He has all the talent to be and none of the will power. Just like Carmelo had all the talent and none of the maturity. And KG had all the tools but none of the leadership. None of them are really franchise players but they should’ve been. Also for context the Timberwolves as an actual franchise have 2 playoff series victories. That’s it. Two. If KG is your franchise guy then you and your employees don’t have to worry about any schedule conflicts once April ends. You have wide open summers for any trips you want to plan.
punishment for the mrs barry incident tbh
I would say franchise players also have to play most of the time with one franchise. aka Lebron would not be a franchise player because you cant really put him with one franchise.
I'd love to debate whether someone is a franchise player (someday).
In the meantime, Merry Christmas to all.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
