Reply With Quote
he dropped a couple of 40 point games that year, against the timperpuppies and the cavs
I'm the last thing from a Manu homer and even I know he would have been a franchise player for another team. I mean, technically Michael Finley was a franchise player for 3-4 years in Dallas, so it's pretty obvious Manu could have been one. But I also feel pretty confident in saying he would never win a ring in that role either.
he dropped a couple of 40 point games that year, against the timperpuppies and the cavs
Sure... For two years, maybe. Then he'd be broken and on his way out of the league.
You guys are making the concept of "franchise player" nebulous, especially if you think Michael Finley was one. He was a starter, and a good one, but Dirk was the franchise. The Mavs didn't build a team around Michael Finley, not really. How many franchise players does a team have?
I consider each team to have basically one at any given time. You have a big 3 system where Manu was indeed a franchise player although off the bench, but if you want to consider he wasn't a franchise player even though he was part of the big 3, then you're saying he has to be a starter and perhaps even the face of the franchise.
I'm still waiting for someone to list the players on the 30 NBA teams who were faces of the franchise, that Manu would replace.
in the 07-08 season, if we're sticking to that one as an example, the wizards made the playoffs and their leading scorer/best player was antawn jamison. the sixers with iguodala. the hawks were a playoff team (albeit with 37 wins) led by joe johnson with averages of 22 points and 6 assists, in a season where ginobili averaged 20 and 5 in 9 less minutes. the pistons were the #2 seed in the east... who was their franchise player? chauncey billups?
in the west you had the jazz with deron williams and carlos boozer running the show.
and that's just among playoff teams, if you're making that a cutoff for a franchise player. otherwise you had guys like kevin martin, al jefferson, brandon roy, rudy gay, danny granger, ben gordon, michael redd, zach randolph/jamal crawford (knicks), gerald wallace/jason richardson (bobcats) all as the faces of their respective teams
lol fat boy just got destroyed
Manu was a ing beast, and he definitely could've been a franchise player. Not sure how long his body would've held up, but that's a different debate. Those who disagree can off.
Manu averaged his points against 2nd units. You have to factor that in. You cannot have a franchise guy for that one year when he was good.
Pick one, Boozer or Willams, which was the franchise player?
Sixers just traded their franchise guy (Allen Iverson) to Denver, leaving AI as the best player on the team. They didn't build around Andre Iguodala.
Gilbert Arenas was the Wizards franchise player. He was injured most of the season leaving Jamison to lead the team. That doesn't make him the franchise guy since they didn't build around him.
You cannot make a franchise guy out of a 1 year prime person.
From Wiki:
In professional sports, a franchise player is an athlete who is not simply the best player on their team, but one that the team can build their "franchise" around for the foreseeable future. The term may be used alongside a particular position name to describe a player, such as a "franchise quarterback" in American football.
So the examples you gave were just "best on the team" guys. They weren't franchise players. Tell me a franchise player was worse than Manu Ginobili. Tell me a franchise that could have built it's roster around Manu as the central piece.
You scrape any more money together yet to back up your take or you still chicken ?
- you cant say definitively that manu went up against second teamers. he played starters minutes, and you can't say with any certainty that ginobili's in/out schedule lined up exactly with his counterpart on the other team. such that if they were playing against the lakers, just because the spurs subbed manu in doesn't mean the lakers subbed kobe out.
- ok, lets say AK47 was better than manu. good for him. we all know dirk is a franchise player. but i cant say "well, duncan was better than dirk, so if the spurs acquired dirk, does that mean he's no longer a franchise player?" he's still of that caliber. same goes for manu here, and that's assuming we agree that ak > manu. and during that time period, i wouldn't agree with that whatsoever. kirilenko's output declined pretty drastically around 2006
- iverson left the sixers during the 06-07 season, and iggy was their best player until 2012. thats a significant stretch including several playoff runs
- i agree that you cant make a franchise guy out of a 1 year prime. i initially used the 07-08 year specifically to show where manu ranked among his peers in various stats (both box and advanced), and just went along with that to make a point. manu was of that caliber from about 2005-2011
1st, Manu was a franchise player in SA. The bench was built around him constantly. He wasn't the face of the franchise, but he was absolutely a "build around" guy for many years. It was just the bench that was built to Manu's style of play.
2nd, because Manu was a bench player, you can say with enough certainty that he played 2nd units more often than 1st units. Otherwise what's the point of the thread?
If you just want the benefit of the doubt that maybe Manu played most of his minutes against starters, you'll need to figure that one out. Bench players are bench players, 2nd units, and called that for a reason.
Duncan was a franchise player and so was Dirk. AK47 wasn't a franchise player so if you agree AK47 was better than Manu (questionable) then you have to consider that Manu wouldn't have been a better player on that team, so why would they build around him instead of Boozer/Williams?- ok, lets say AK47 was better than manu. good for him. we all know dirk is a franchise player. but i cant say "well, duncan was better than dirk, so if the spurs and mavs swapped duncan and dirk, dirk would no longer be a franchise player." he's still of that caliber, and that's assuming we agree that ak > manu
Best player /= franchise player. You cited that season specifically. You cannot stretch it out to other seasons unless you also want to look at Manu's effectiveness then as well. For the season you cherry picked, AI was not a franchise player.- iverson left the sixers during the 06-07 season, and iggy was their best player until 2012. thats a significant stretch including several playoff runs
You cherry picked the best year you could find. This we know. So live with that season unless you want to move the goalpost forward or back to another season.- i agree that you cant make a franchise guy out of a 1 year prime. i initially used the 07-08 year specifically to show where manu ranked among his peers in various stats (both box and advanced), and just went along with that to make a point. manu was of that caliber from about 2005-2011
so on one hand, you tell me that we cant use a 1 season sample to determine that somebody is a franchise player, yet on the other hand you insist that we stick to one season. you're all over the place
It's always a tough question, even with players that franchises decided to build around and didn't pan out (or did)... for example, there was little doubt Dirk with the Mavs was a 'franchise player' because that's the role he had, but until they broke out and won that ring, there were always questions whether he should be in that 'franchise player' category or was a 2nd wheel...
In Manu's case, he was the top dog everywhere but the NBA, and willingly so. So I don't generally get into these discussions, because there's a lot of coulda, shoulda that you just can't prove. I am of the opinion that he could've been but then his career would've been way shorter, especially since he came relatively late in his career to the NBA...
You used the one season sample so you need to stick with that season. You cannot take 2007 Manu and consider him as a franchise player on a 2012 team.
But then anyone could have been if the team built around them. Just look at Randle, Ingram or Russell in LA. When Magic said everyone is trade bait except Ingram, then you consider Ingram a franchise guy, but if Paul George comes over, Paul George is now the franchise guy until Ingram proves to be the next coming of some GOAT, at which time he's the franchise guy.
I think on teams like SA where they have a "big 3", there's a franchise group. Manu was part of that. Tim was the center piece, no doubt, but the franchise ran the team as a group of 3 and built around them. Kawhi is now the franchise guy. There's little doubt of that.
Let's assume for arguendo that Tim and Tony leave in 2008. Does Manu become the franchise player or does Pop bring in a superstar?
It's more like the franchise actively tried. With Ingram, I don't know that happened yet. KG in the Wolves was a 'franchise player', even though it's debatable he was successful there at that.
The Spurs never really tried, so that's why this is more or less a moot question that goes into the imaginary. I think he was talented enough to do it, had the guts and charisma to do it, he also had the stamina in his prime to do it (IIRC, he played all the way to the WCF, and starting, in 2004, then won Olympics over the summer, then followed up with a championship being arguably the best player in the Finals in 2005). Now his career would've probably ended by 2007, tbh...
Off the top of my head and teams that have made the playoffs, the Sonics with Ray Allen, the Sixers with Iverson, the Suns with Stephon Marbury, the Pistons with whoever you wanna say was their franchise player, the Warriors with Baron Davis. And there are many, many more, easily more than half the league had worse franchise players than Manu. The Bulls (the team that should have drafted Manu with the number one pick of the 99 draft) had Ben ing Gordon as their go to guy.
Seriously, this shouldn't even be debatable.
really? You think Manu was a better player than Ray Allen and Allen Iverson?
You say who their franchise player was (Pistons) since you picked them.
You guys think the best player on the team is automatically the franchise player. That's not the case. Manu could be (still) the best player on the Lakers. Wouldn't make him a franchise player.
I shouldn't go the route of the guy who put toghether the 4th best tesm on the NBA? If you say so.
Something like that, less garbled.
Someone who hires Mike D to form a run and shoot offense with little to no defense and pays a guy absurd amounts to spend all night making it rain at the club as he mails it in during the playoffs, I wouldn't trust that guy one lick.
4th best team in the league... lol if you say so.
Yeah, he is better than both. Iverson is my favourite player ever and I watched as many of his games as I could, and that's why I know of his many limitations. A 5'11'' guy taking 30 mid range fadeaways per game at a 40% clip isn't very conductive to winning, tbh. That's why he never won anything, not even with team US against Euro scrubs.
You say who their franchise player was (Pistons) since you picked them.
You guys think the best player on the team is automatically the franchise player. That's not the case. Manu could be (still) the best player on the Lakers. Wouldn't make him a franchise player.
By record they were actually the 3rd best team in the NBA.
Anyway, Morey isn't the only guy that would have thrown max money to Manu in today's NBA. Folks that run NBA teams look at stats and numbers to make serious analysis and take smart decisions. They can't go around eye testing and thinking things like "Curry is an Kobe wannabe" or "Draymond Green doesn't fit on the Warriors starting lineup".
Damn, I just read some of the supidity DMC spoutted. Manu being the 47th best player in the NBA on his prime, him being a Jamal Crowford, Jason Terry level player.
You look at a guy 40 years old who's been in the NBA for 15 years as a reserve player and you have to consider that, if he could have been a franchise player on another team he would have. Any team can make any player a franchise player, doesn't mean they would win. Manu couldn't have played starter minutes because his body couldn't handle it. There's a reason he's called El Contusion.
Crawford won 6th man 3 times. Manu only once. Andre Iguodala won a Finals MVP. Manu didn't win any. Jason Terry was big for Dallas.Damn, I just read some of the supidity DMC spoutted. Manu being the 47th best player in the NBA on his prime, him being a Jamal Crowford, Jason Terry level player.
Don't overvalue excitement vs effectiveness.
He was rated 47th by the same media that rated Kobe 12th all time, you seemed ok with that.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
