Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 26 to 38 of 38
  1. #26
    Veteran Spursfanfromafar's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Post Count
    2,908
    Interesting analysis.

    But for me, the question to ask is not, how long does it take a team to acquire a franchise player/ All-NBA player, but how long does it take for them to get into contention once they are out of playoffs. Most teams in the league have been subject to boom-bust cycles because of the nature of the small/big markets, the lottery system and the limited number of superstar players in every cohort. There is also the question of whether a team that goes through a bust cycle in order to reach a boom one has the financial heft to do that.

    My hypothesis is this - only those teams that are in relatively larger markets or have an owner who belongs to a sector in the economy that is inured to boom-bust cycles in itself - can afford to tank badly before getting into contention. Smaller markets, especially those with owners from traditional industry, have to be much more creative, shrewd and have the ability to work on the weaknesses in this skewed market in order to be in a position to contend for rings.

    So, the next question is this - will tanking badly increasing the chances of a franchise player help the Spurs to contend after a short downturn? The answer to that in my view is that it makes sense to tank badly only if there is enough talent already in the mix and the Spurs are short of one or two pieces and are unable to get that in the FA market.

    I think the Spurs are in a position to do so now. They have secondary playmakers, the defenders, the hustle players and the high IQ youngsters as part of their core. They need a fillip in the form of a talent who can be a superstar who can lift them to the top while the others maintain a winning mentality around him. I think the Spurs must play less of Derozan, Mills and Gay going forward this season and let the chips fall in place. A Cunningham/ Mobley / Suggs / Green in that order can help the Spurs breach the contention mark in a season or two provided they play the FA market well too.

  2. #27
    Veteran Dejounte's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Post Count
    13,619
    Post update, 4/7/21 @ 11:10AM CST - See original post.

  3. #28
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Post Count
    2,179
    I think franchise player " level" could be the good name for what dejounte is pointed out. Because you have a lot of factors after the talent that can make a really good player looking "bad" : Mentality, enviornment, coachs, teammates ....

    I agree with most of the first post, for me we are talking about a player who can be the centerpiece of a franchise not a true FP.

    Imo Towns, Fox and others who interrogates us, are totally that but they need a few things to pan out.

  4. #29
    Veteran Dejounte's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Post Count
    13,619
    Observations:

    The Hawks have had 31 years and 10 lottery seasons. Using trades/ FA/ draft at their disposal, they only have Trae to show for it.

    The Pacers have the largest ratio of playoff seasons to lottery seasons. They have had only five seasons in the lottery in 23 years, if they had a better scouting department they could have had their franchise player (Kawhi Leonard) by now along with their compe ive team.

    The Warriors were a horrific organization for a long time.

    It's important to note here that some of the teams who attained a FP/BFP was not solely through the draft: Nets, Lakers, Clippers, Rockets. They changed their destiny through trades/ FA. What do most of these teams have in common? They are big market teams.

    If we ignore all the teams (who had / have a bad GM) : Hawks, Knicks, Pacers, Warriors , Nets, Kings, Bucks, Pistons, 76ers, T-Wolves, Magic - the number of lottery seasons needed to find that player goes down to a lot less = 2 lottery seasons.
    Last edited by Dejounte; 04-07-2021 at 12:26 PM.

  5. #30
    5. timvp's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Post Count
    59,748
    Post update, 4/7/21 @ 11:10AM CST:




    RE: timvp , tbdog , Maddog

    Teams spent an average of 10 years before they were able to find another Franchise/Borderline Franchise player. Half that time (5 years), they were in the lottery. [/SIZE]
    Great stuff

    That's a more realistic picture.

    Obviously, no one is going to agree 100% on what is/isn't a franchise player. My top disagreements with your selections:

    -Arenas wasn't a franchise player. Beal isn't either. I don't think the Wizards/Bullets have had a legit franchise player since Elvin Hayes 40+ years ago.
    -Brandon Roy wasn't a franchise player. You have to go back and pick someone from the Jail Blazers (a la Billups and the Pistons) or go back to Clyde.
    -Of the current players, LaVine, Morant, Siakam and LaMelo are highly questionable. Even players like Booker, Fox and SGA could easily look like non-franchise players in retrospect depending on what happens in the coming years. But, yeah, that's a difficult cut-off to make. If I had to pick one of those, I'd say LaVine is the most difficult to swallow. No way he's been the Bulls franchise player since 2014, especially because he wasn't on the team then

    Good work. Anecdotally, it seems like teams get a franchise player candidate about once a decade ... so that's in line with what you found.

  6. #31
    Veteran Dejounte's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Post Count
    13,619
    Great stuff

    That's a more realistic picture.

    Obviously, no one is going to agree 100% on what is/isn't a franchise player. My top disagreements with your selections:

    -Arenas wasn't a franchise player. Beal isn't either. I don't think the Wizards/Bullets have had a legit franchise player since Elvin Hayes 40+ years ago.
    -Brandon Roy wasn't a franchise player. You have to go back and pick someone from the Jail Blazers (a la Billups and the Pistons) or go back to Clyde.
    -Of the current players, LaVine, Morant, Siakam and LaMelo are highly questionable. Even players like Booker, Fox and SGA could easily look like non-franchise players in retrospect depending on what happens in the coming years. But, yeah, that's a difficult cut-off to make. If I had to pick one of those, I'd say LaVine is the most difficult to swallow. No way he's been the Bulls franchise player since 2014, especially because he wasn't on the team then

    Good work. Anecdotally, it seems like teams get a franchise player candidate about once a decade ... so that's in line with what you found.
    Good catch on LaVine

    Yes, there are some controversial calls I had to make here, including the year a team peaked with their previous FP/ BFP. I chose the year before it was clear said team needed to find a new BF/ BFP to compete & build around.

  7. #32
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Post Count
    12,916
    The Jazz among small market teams are the best at transitioning from era to era. They went from Stockton-Malone to Deron-Boozer and now Donovan-Gobert.

  8. #33
    Believe.
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Post Count
    739
    Clippers didn't get Kawhi through the draft?

  9. #34
    Big Body look_at_g_shred's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Post Count
    7,319
    The Jazz among small market teams are the best at transitioning from era to era. They went from Stockton-Malone to Deron-Boozer and now Donovan-Gobert.
    You are missing Hayward-Millsap

  10. #35
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Post Count
    12,916
    You are missing Hayward-Millsap
    You can throw that one in there also.

  11. #36
    Veteran Maddog's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Post Count
    1,909
    Nice work.

    I think another metric might be to look at how many of those "franchise" players brought a championship, and/or deep playoff success to the team that actually drafted them.

    And for someone like Kawhi, he wasn't the franchise in 2014, so he would be excluded from that.

    Drafting a franchise player is only the first part of the equation. Then it's keeping him, and making deep playoff runs with him.

    The "success" metric gets a lot smaller looking at it that way. We tank, and we could suck for a very, very long time.
    To me, the only current franchise players are:

    Lebron
    Kawhi
    Jokic
    Curry
    Embiid
    Lillard
    Harden
    Durant
    Doncic
    Healthy Anthony Davis
    Freak
    Well looking at that list- I could quibble but reasonable-5 of the 10 have left their original team either in straight up free agency or forced a trade

  12. #37
    Big Body look_at_g_shred's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Post Count
    7,319
    Well looking at that list- I could quibble but reasonable-5 of the 10 have left their original team either in straight up free agency or forced a trade
    So a 50% chance the franchise player you drafted will leave.

  13. #38
    Veteran Maddog's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Post Count
    1,909
    So a 50% chance the franchise player you drafted will leave.
    If you where drafted by a small market the percentage goes up
    Curry, Embid and Doncic where all drafted by teams in major metro areas.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •