PDA

View Full Version : Fading Star vs Young Upstart, which would you rather add to your bench?



Chronz
03-21-2010, 04:16 PM
Pretty straightforward, if given the choice between 2 players of similar abilities but one was a youngster with the possibility of improving and the other was a bonafide HOF`er on his last legs, which would you take. Think an old GP vs a young Larry Hughes or something in that mold. GP brought all his intangibles and leadership but you knew somewhere down the line Hughes would have 1 all-star ish season.

Personally I have a soft spot for this kind of thing and no matter how old Shaq/Duncan get I would love them on my team even if it was over a young Biedrins or someone.

kswissdaf
03-21-2010, 04:19 PM
Depends if your team is trying t win now fading star a rebuilding team young upstart

Miltown34
03-21-2010, 04:24 PM
Pretty straightforward, if given the choice between 2 players of similar abilities but one was a youngster with the possibility of improving and the other was a bonafide HOF`er on his last legs, which would you take. Think an old GP vs a young Larry Hughes or something in that mold. GP brought all his intangibles and leadership but you knew somewhere down the line Hughes would have 1 all-star ish season.

Personally I have a soft spot for this kind of thing and no matter how old Shaq/Duncan get I would love them on my team even if it was over a young Biedrins or someone.

Depends, but Well when you said Shaq/Duncan over Biedrins, there is no competition. Depends on a lot of factors though like contract situation. If I'm an older team trying to get over the hump or trying to continue my path to the championship. But if I'm a bad team and say I have Anthony Randolph and KG on my team. IF we are a young up and coming team, but we aren't a winner I would start a young Anthony Randolph( when he 's healthy) or at least give him split minutes at the worst.

td0tsfinest
03-21-2010, 04:24 PM
I agree, I think I would go for the aging vet if my team was heading into the playoffs.

jimbobjarree
03-21-2010, 04:25 PM
we have plenty of youth, I'd take a vet

JasonJohnHorn
03-21-2010, 04:33 PM
Depends on the player. Payton over Hughes is a no brainer. As is an aging Duncan over Biedrins (Duncan is still putting up numbers comparable to his prime and is in my opinion still the best player at his position in the league).

It depends on the player to. I personally think the Celtics would have been better off grabbing McDeyss than Wallace. McDeyss hasn't won, is still hungry and played his balls off all season last year and especially in the post season, while Wallace seems to give up early in games and (from what I see and soley in my opinion) seems to rest on his past accomplishments. So even from vet to vet it would be different, let alone comparing a vet to a prospect.

It all really depends on your team's chemistry and what you need exactly off the bench and what you have already. A team with a lot of young players might be able to use a vet, a team filled with vets could use another guy who knows what he's doing, or a guy with fresh legs to provide a spark.

Hawkeye15
03-21-2010, 04:42 PM
depends on circumstances obviously. If you are a piece away from being a top 3 team for instance, then you take the veteran leadership and skillset. If you are a rebuilding team, you take the youth. If you are right in the middle, it depends on what will help your team both on the court, and in the books financially.

B.JenningsMVP
03-21-2010, 05:01 PM
Well if you look at a team like the Celtics I would think they'd want a young gun coming off the bench.. Not an aging vet, (tho they did just get Michael Finley lol)

MrFastBreak
03-21-2010, 05:19 PM
If its a championship team thats won it all recent years before and their core is starting to show their age but still has enough left to contend, theyd need a young guy to come off the bench to fill in the holes of missing youth and help you contend for a championship and then get ready to rebuild. If it was a young team thats just starting to be contenders and is inexperienced, it would only be wise to add a fading star who still has something left in the tank (not to mention a veteran) to come in and give you that scoring punch and efficiency off the bench.

lakerssssssss
03-21-2010, 07:57 PM
young star

avrpatsfan
03-21-2010, 08:29 PM
If its a championship team thats won it all recent years before and their core is starting to show their age but still has enough left to contend, theyd need a young guy to come off the bench to fill in the holes of missing youth and help you contend for a championship and then get ready to rebuild. If it was a young team thats just starting to be contenders and is inexperienced, it would only be wise to add a fading star who still has something left in the tank (not to mention a veteran) to come in and give you that scoring punch and efficiency off the bench.

This.

Chronz
03-21-2010, 10:30 PM
say ur not a contender but not a bottom dweller which do u go for? and i wasnt talking bout duncan now but a few years down the line.

JasonJohnHorn
03-21-2010, 10:43 PM
say ur not a contender but not a bottom dweller which do u go for? and i wasnt talking bout duncan now but a few years down the line.

The young talent with potential. One aging vet isnt going to turn a cellar dwellar into a playoff team, let alone a contender, so the best bet is to make an investment in the future.

nuggetsyankees
03-21-2010, 11:19 PM
depends if I'm a young team like the Thunder I want a vet but if I'm an old team like the Spurs I go for a young guy

Raph12
03-22-2010, 12:24 AM
Depends on your team really... And the quality of player matters as well.

Like you said, I'd take a 34 yr old Duncan over a younger Biedrins... but I wouldn't take today's 34 yr old Garnett over a younger Zach Randolph.

Korman12
03-22-2010, 01:14 AM
It depends more on the team than anything else. At the peak of the Iverson era the Sixers tried to bring veterans over young talent figuring they were only one piece away from a title, but they eventually screwed themselves over and face years of rebuilding.

It's kinda hard, but when taking a veteran player in the mold of Shaq/Duncan, you really have to know the true level of the team and whether or not that player is going to make the difference. So, if I honestly had to decide between, let's say KG over a young Lamarcus Aldridge, I may go Aldridge at the assumption that if my team doesn't win a title, at least Aldridge can be part of the future (and likely won't cost as much in the short term).

BkOriginalOne
03-22-2010, 01:37 AM
Veteran.

ChiSox219
03-22-2010, 05:38 AM
Nicolas Batum or Quentin Richardson?

Hawkeye15
03-22-2010, 06:41 AM
say ur not a contender but not a bottom dweller which do u go for? and i wasnt talking bout duncan now but a few years down the line.

again, depends. If your roster is already full of young talent (OKC), then you bring in that vet. If your team is full of in their prime players who just don't add up to an elite team, you bring in the young talent.

Iodine
03-22-2010, 11:02 AM
Honestly I would probably just decide to sign Kareem to a 10 day and that super 5th grader who wrecks **** to a 10 day and see who wins then kill the loser cut him up and throw him into the gulf stream (No Dexter). Then of course I would offer Lebron the max

Chronz
03-22-2010, 01:37 PM
again, depends. If your roster is already full of young talent (OKC), then you bring in that vet. If your team is full of in their prime players who just don't add up to an elite team, you bring in the young talent.

Your team is balanced, which do you bring?

Chronz
03-22-2010, 01:38 PM
Honestly I would probably just decide to sign Kareem to a 10 day and that super 5th grader who wrecks **** to a 10 day and see who wins then kill the loser cut him up and throw him into the gulf stream (No Dexter). Then of course I would offer Lebron the max

****in love dexter

Tony_Starks
03-22-2010, 02:19 PM
Off the bench I'd prefer the fading star. Brings more reliabilty to your bench. A young upstart I'd rather have in a key starting role so they can improve. The young players generally don't do that well with smaller or inconsistent minutes.

Iodine
03-22-2010, 02:37 PM
****in love dexter

If he has HCA he is unbeatable

JordansBulls
03-22-2010, 09:58 PM
Pretty straightforward, if given the choice between 2 players of similar abilities but one was a youngster with the possibility of improving and the other was a bonafide HOF`er on his last legs, which would you take. Think an old GP vs a young Larry Hughes or something in that mold. GP brought all his intangibles and leadership but you knew somewhere down the line Hughes would have 1 all-star ish season.

Personally I have a soft spot for this kind of thing and no matter how old Shaq/Duncan get I would love them on my team even if it was over a young Biedrins or someone.

Depends on the team. If I have an older team, then I would probably want the veteran.

Swashcuff
03-22-2010, 10:17 PM
Depends on the team and their situation. There is no right or wrong answer to the original question. But if the team is a weak team building from scratch..... give me the upstart. Tyrus Thomas would make more sense for a team rebuilding team that Antonio McDyess