PDA

View Full Version : Franchise Player or Superstar, which has more value?



JordansBulls
08-16-2009, 01:48 AM
Franchise Player or Superstar, which has more value?


Is a Franchise Player a player that is a superstar?


Thoughts!!!



I bring this up because you hear both terms frequently. For instance, Chris Bosh is considered a franchise player in Toronto, but not a superstar. Carmelo Anthony and Brandon Roy are considered superstara but not really a franchise player by most.

fairandbalanced
08-16-2009, 01:52 AM
Franchise Player or Superstar, which has more value?


Is a Franchise Player a player that is a superstar?


Thoughts!!!



I bring this up because you hear both terms frequently. For instance, Chris Bosh is considered a franchise player in Toronto, but not a superstar. Carmelo Anthony and Brandon Roy are considered superstara but not really a franchise player by most.

You make no sense dude.

nipo10847
08-16-2009, 02:03 AM
Franchise Player or Superstar, which has more value?


Is a Franchise Player a player that is a superstar?


Thoughts!!!



I bring this up because you hear both terms frequently. For instance, Chris Bosh is considered a franchise player in Toronto, but not a superstar. Carmelo Anthony and Brandon Roy are considered superstara but not really a franchise player by most.



Stupid thread!!!...who told u that Brandon Roy is not a franchise player???????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????????????????

nipo10847
08-16-2009, 02:05 AM
Franchise Player or Superstar, which has more value?


Is a Franchise Player a player that is a superstar?


Thoughts!!!



I bring this up because you hear both terms frequently. For instance, Chris Bosh is considered a franchise player in Toronto, but not a superstar. Carmelo Anthony and Brandon Roy are considered superstara but not really a franchise player by most.



Stupid thread!!!...who told u that Brandon Roy is not a franchise player???????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????????????????

blazerman
08-16-2009, 02:34 AM
A superstar is the the best of all NBA players and is a franchise player means that that particular player is extremely valuable to their team and all superstars are franchise players(teams can have multiple superstars too and share the franchise tag) at the same time for instance;
Kobe is a superstar and the Lakers franchise player same with LeBron is a franchise player and a superstar,D Wade and Chris Paul are both franchise players and nba superstars

Now Danny Granger is Indiana's franchise player but not a superstar, Devin Harris is New Jerseys franchise player but not a superstar, Durant is a franchise player but not yet a superstar.

Some teams best player really isnt even a franchise player like D Lee is the Knicks best player but you wouldnt want to give him a max deal or Charolttes Gerald Wallace is their best player but wouldnt be considered a franchise player and wouldnt command a max contract.

Some teams have had multiple Superstar/franchise players at one time and here are a few combos;
Kobe/Shaq, Pippen/Jordan, Tim Duncan/David Robinson or Tim Duncan/Tony Parker, Russell/Cousy, Magic/Kareem (James Worthy was an allstar but not franchise or superstar) and maybe even KG/Pierce ( Ray Allen would not be considered a superstar)

Then you have superstars that are not really franchise players anymore like Shaq because he is on the downside of his career but he will still maintain superstar status because he has already cemented himself as one of the alltime greats and his name is bigger than basketball now and is seriously famous (household name)

Ebbs
08-16-2009, 03:05 AM
It depends a Franchise player has more value towards selling tickets and team cooperation. a superstar has more worth towrds wins.

blazerman
08-16-2009, 03:34 AM
It depends a Franchise player has more value towards selling tickets and team cooperation. a superstar has more worth towrds wins.

A superstar does both and every superstar is a franchise player or was at one point (the only reason a superstar wouldnt be a franchise player is because they're old like Shaq but he is still considered a superstar because he is mega famous around the world).

samus
08-16-2009, 03:55 AM
franchesco

Tom81
08-16-2009, 04:00 AM
for me a Franchise Player is Duncan,MJ,Shaq(Prime)

Chronz
08-16-2009, 04:00 AM
Semantics rule

DetroitRipCity
08-16-2009, 05:04 PM
Roy is a franchise player he just signed a long max contract

Hawkeye15
08-16-2009, 05:07 PM
depends. Superstars win games, franchise players can do this too sometimes, but they generate revenue. Ming, Iverson, these are franchise players.
LeBron, Kobe, these are both. SO I think Superstars really are franchise players, but not the other way around.

DCSportsIsPain
08-16-2009, 05:26 PM
SO I think Superstars really are franchise players, but not the other way around.

Shaq is no franchise player. Would you consider him a superstar?

Hawkeye15
08-16-2009, 05:29 PM
Shaq is no franchise player. Would you consider him a superstar?

not any more. And he was a franchise player at one time.
Franchise players are cash cows. They don't necessarily produce wins.
Superstars produce wins, and usually can bring in money as well. But there are guys like Yao Ming, who are franchise players. They will generate tons of revenue for their owner, and it doesn't mean a lot on the court. Heck, it would be more financially beneficial to Houston, to sign him to a max deal for 3 years, and let him sit injured in a suit. Won't help them win any games, but the owner will rake it in. Just a single example.

DCSportsIsPain
08-16-2009, 05:33 PM
not any more. And he was a franchise player at one time.
Franchise players are cash cows. They don't necessarily produce wins.
Superstars produce wins, and usually can bring in money as well. But there are guys like Yao Ming, who are franchise players. They will generate tons of revenue for their owner, and it doesn't mean a lot on the court. Heck, it would be more financially beneficial to Houston, to sign him to a max deal for 3 years, and let him sit injured in a suit. Won't help them win any games, but the owner will rake it in. Just a single example.

So, to your way of thinking, Dirk Nowitzki would be a franchise player, but not a superstar?

I'm not trying to argue, but more to determine if I agree or disagree with your line of thinking.

Hawkeye15
08-16-2009, 05:41 PM
So, to your way of thinking, Dirk Nowitzki would be a franchise player, but not a superstar?

I'm not trying to argue, but more to determine if I agree or disagree with your line of thinking.

Franchise players: Ming, Iverson, VC. Just examples. Players who are stars, but their value, imo, is more thru team revenue.
Superstars: Nowitzki, Roy, Paul.

Both: LeBron, Wade, Kobe.

I guess its such a fuzy subject, since some players can be either/or, and some players are both.

Now, what do I think franchise players should be? Guys who earn the team money, and produce wins. But it isn't that way

DCSportsIsPain
08-16-2009, 06:00 PM
Franchise players: Ming, Iverson, VC. Just examples. Players who are stars, but their value, imo, is more thru team revenue.
Superstars: Nowitzki, Roy, Paul.

Both: LeBron, Wade, Kobe.

I guess its such a fuzy subject, since some players can be either/or, and some players are both.

Now, what do I think franchise players should be? Guys who earn the team money, and produce wins. But it isn't that way

I tend to think of a franchise player as one a team will lock up for his entire career. Superstars don't tend to stay on the same team, whereas franchise players do. That is the distinction I make between the two. Choosing one over the other depends upon the player, in my opinion.

JordansBulls
08-16-2009, 06:11 PM
Franchise players: Ming, Iverson, VC. Just examples. Players who are stars, but their value, imo, is more thru team revenue.
Superstars: Nowitzki, Roy, Paul.

Both: LeBron, Wade, Kobe.

I guess its such a fuzy subject, since some players can be either/or, and some players are both.

Now, what do I think franchise players should be? Guys who earn the team money, and produce wins. But it isn't that way

This is more or less what I was looking for in an explanation.

daleja424
08-16-2009, 06:13 PM
I tend to think of a franchise player as one a team will lock up for his entire career. Superstars don't tend to stay on the same team, whereas franchise players do. That is the distinction I make between the two. Choosing one over the other depends upon the player, in my opinion.

A franchise player is someone you associate with a particular team... a superstar is a guy you associate with greatness...

When I think Roy... I think Portland, when I like Lebron...I think Lebron...

daleja424
08-16-2009, 06:14 PM
Superstar= Kobe, Wade, Lebron

Franchise Player= Pierce, Duncan, Roy, Durant, Mello

Hawkeye15
08-16-2009, 06:57 PM
I tend to think of a franchise player as one a team will lock up for his entire career. Superstars don't tend to stay on the same team, whereas franchise players do. That is the distinction I make between the two. Choosing one over the other depends upon the player, in my opinion.

fair enough. But many of those can be dictated on team success, and the front office's ability to do so. Tim Duncan is the ultimate definition of franchise player by your account. But, if Minnesota were have been able to surround KG with talent, as they went, would he not be the same? I guess it all matters on how their career plays out, as to which they are defined.

DetroitRipCity
08-16-2009, 07:01 PM
A franchise player is someone you associate with a particular team... a superstar is a guy you associate with greatness...

When I think Roy... I think Portland, when I like Lebron...I think Lebron...


Superstar= Kobe, Wade, Lebron

Franchise Player= Pierce, Duncan, Roy, Durant, Mello

When i think Kobe i think greatness and Lakers so Kobe is both a franchise player and a Superstar.

daleja424
08-16-2009, 07:08 PM
I say Kobe is a superstar b/c he is bigger then the Lakers. A franchise player makes money for his team, a susperstar makes money for the league.

DCSportsIsPain
08-16-2009, 07:09 PM
fair enough. But many of those can be dictated on team success, and the front office's ability to do so. Tim Duncan is the ultimate definition of franchise player by your account. But, if Minnesota were have been able to surround KG with talent, as they went, would he not be the same? I guess it all matters on how their career plays out, as to which they are defined.

I agree. It depends upon how each individual career plays out. I think a player has to have titles and MVP considerations to be a SuperStar, but only has to be a solid and consistent, irreplaceable team leader to be a franchise player.

The best comparison off the top of my head would be the aforementioned Tim Duncan versus the aforementioned Dirk Nowitzki.

daleja424
08-16-2009, 07:10 PM
wade, lebron, and kobe are the only ones that make money for the entire NBA and not just their teams.

Giantwarrior
08-16-2009, 07:11 PM
this thread does not make any sense. isnt a franchise player a superstar? kobe is a franchise player and a superstar. sooo.. wheres your logic?

daleja424
08-16-2009, 07:12 PM
Heres another example:

If a Pacers fan goes to a Ind vs SA they are there to see the Spurs play the Pacers. If you go to a Lakers Ind game the main draw is to see Kobe...not the Lakers...\

People pay money to watch Kobe, Lebron, and Wade

daleja424
08-16-2009, 07:13 PM
this thread does not make any sense. isnt a franchise player a superstar? kobe is a franchise player and a superstar. sooo.. wheres your logic?

Theres all kinds of logic in this thread...you might have to actually read it though before posting...

FlakeyFool
08-16-2009, 07:13 PM
Andrea Bargnani

hes both, hes god.