PDA

View Full Version : NBA Round Table: Franchise Players



ManRam
01-03-2012, 07:58 PM
http://img197.imageshack.us/img197/3501/roundtable1.png
http://img72.imageshack.us/img72/6778/roundtable4.png
http://img580.imageshack.us/img580/9928/roundtable3.png

Welcome to ProSportsDaily.com's Round Table discussion group. This is a continued series here at PSD where we pose a question to our writing staff and they answer.

These past few weeks we had some discussions among over over what makes a franchise player, and who currently can be regarded as such.

As a group we came to a consensus, or an almost unanimous consensus, on these franchise players: LeBron James, Dwyane Wade, Dwight Howard, Dirk Nowitzki, Kevin Durant, Chris Paul, Derrick Rose, Kobe Bryant, Carmelo Anthony, and Deron Williams.

After the consensus players, we found a bunch of people that we couldn't agree on. We picked six players to discuss in more detail. These six were Russell Westbrook, Blake Griffin, Pau Gasol, Eric Gordon, Paul Pierce and Kevin Love. We tried to mix old with young, big with little, and boring with exciting. We are aware that there are many other candidates, such as Amare Stoudamire, Chris Bosh, LaMarcus Aldridge etc, but we focused on these six.

The question asked was simple: are these six players franchise players. I asked seven of our Round Table members, Hawkeye15, ebbs, Mane, Iodine, Bruno87 and Greetard to answer the question briefly for each of these six players.

Enjoy what they wrote! You are encouraged to critique, compliment or scorn the answers provided. If you feel differently, let us know. You input is wanted. Please feel free to share your opinions and jump right in on the debate. Hope you enjoy!

First, What is a Franchise Player?



What Is A Franchise Player?

Submitted by Iodine:

A franchise player is something every team tries to acquire or say they have, but few do. You could make the argument that every team has it's own "franchise" player but they just differ in success. Really though thats saying that last year Antawn Jamison and Ben Gordon were franchise players, which is laughable. So now that we have established that a franchise player is not simply the best player on a team, let's get into what makes a legit franchise player, and let's try to stay away from the cliche's of "makes his teammates better", "inspires confidence in guys", and "he leads this team by example." There is much to analyze in this, but I will try to keep too three factors that cover the main range of things.

A franchise player should excel in a skill that is associated with the goals of his position. Whether its something akin to passing and court vision for a PG, penetration (pause) and wing scoring for a SF, or rebounding and post play for a C, they need to be one of the best at the position in what is considered a standard skill for a position. That is not to say that if they do not do so in a typical maner they cannot be a franchise player. Dirk, Dave Cowens, and Elgin Baylor were considered atypical at the times they played and still were dominating forces.

All that talent can't do anything for you if you lack consistency. If you back up a 30/12 game on insane efficiency with a 7/4 game with more bonehead plays than points, you are not a franchise guy (aka summing up Vince Carter's career in less than 100 words). If your team can't count on you night to night, no matter what the situation is, your not a franchise guy. A subsection of this is the concept of a player being "matchup proof": No matter who he is facing on a given night, he will produce.

The third part which does not always have a direct influence on the court is that a franchie player cannot strangle a franchise. I'm not saying the guy shouldn't get his money, what I am saying is that when the coaches and front office are devising team moves and such, they shouldn't have to worry about the guy, in fact they should rest assured with him. Also this has nothing to do with personality: Moses Malone, while a good guy who was painfully shy, had the personality of a rock when viewed from the outside while Magic......... Well was Magic. But both of these guys were franchise players because their teams knew that they would alter their games to help the situation and team. An ideal franchise player can have several different "peaks" in which they manage to dominate in different ways. Look at 88, 83, and 87 Bird, 02, 04, and 07 Duncan, and 82 and 79 Moses.

ManRam
01-03-2012, 07:59 PM
http://msn.foxsports.com/fe/images/NBA/Headshots/140x170/4390.jpg
Russell Westbrook
Tally: 0 "yes", 6 "no"

Hawkeye15- He is currently not a franchise player, but has the tools to possibly be one. His leadership skills have to be questioned after last year and in the playoffs, and one must almost see a resemblance to the Marbury/KG conflict in Minnesota in 1999. His skills on the floor are comparable to Derrick Rose, but mentally I just don't believe he is a franchise player down the line. Great #2 option, if he will accept that role.

ebbs- Mr. Westbrook has all the tools and talent necessary to be a franchise player. He has proven he can take over games with his all around scoring ability, he has also shown he is a competent defender. The problem has been consistency, often putting up poor percentages and posting poor numbers in a Thunder playoff run last year lead me to believe that at this time Westbrook is not a player to be relied on single handedly to carry a franchise.

Mane- Franchise player... no. Very good point guard who can be a number two option on a championship team? I think so. He needs to become more of a distributor for sure, but he has all the talent to become a all-star, and maybe one of the best 5 point guards in the league (if he isn't already). He is athletic, developing a more than average jumpshot, and plays great on d. I don't think he'll ever be a true "superstar". But he's pretty damn good.

Iodine- I remember seeing Westbrook dafted and thinking to myself "This kid has all the tools to wreak havoc on the pro game" and so far he has. I will be the first to bring up his shooting streaks can be bad, but he get's to the line really well for a guard and did so eight times a game last year, which can help numb the pain. For all the jab's at his passing, he did finish 6th in the league in assist percentage last year. Does he have the overall consistency to be the franchise? Probably not, but he does have freakish tools and the mental stuff can easily work itself out. Short Answer: No, but pretty damn close when he gets his head right.

Bruno87- No. As it remains to be see whether or not Westbrook can be a number two on a championship team, the question at hand poses a simple response. For his career he averages a below mediocre TS% of .507 on 15.8 FGA per game. How much worse would his efficiency be if he wasn't playing alongside this generations most talent scorer who constantly commands double teams? That poor of scoring efficiency from a point guard is not indicative of a francise level point guard. Westbrook has a career assist to turn over ratio of 2.03. Those who disagree with this analysis of Westbrook would need to provide a previous example of a shoot first PG with a below mediocre TS%, paired with a pedestrian assist to turnover ratio who was able to succeed as a clear-cut #1 option, or proclaim Westbrook at the exception to historical rules. Combine these statistical realities with maturity and ego issues and the answer to the question seems obvious.

Greetard- I remember sitting watching Russell Westbrook put the Thunder on his back against my beloved Nets last year. Why do I remember this game exactly? Well he had a triple-double and beat the Nets in 3OT (I think?), In which he scored every single point in the third OT. The only reason I actually watched the game was because Kevin Durant wasn't playing and I thought we would win. Well....**** you Russell Westbrook. Back to the point, he's an immature player. He's a chucker. He's like a poor mans DRose and as most of you know, I think DRose is vastly overrated. At the moment Russell has the potential to be a franchise player and a great PG in the league, but at the moment he isn't.


http://msn.foxsports.com/fe/images/NBA/Headshots/140x170/4561.jpg
Blake Griffin
tally: 3 "yes", 3 "no"


Hawkeye15- Absolutely a franchise player. The perfect attitude, work ethic, and disposition to be a leader and get better, along with the physical skills to climb into the top 5 player category by year 3-4. He is a physical specimen who doesn't take for granted his opportunity, and is a great teammate who leads by example. It showed when everyone on the Clippers last year, even Baron Davis, bought in and played hard, following their young rookie. His rookie numbers are Duncan-like, and as his overall game evolves, he will be an unstoppable force.

ebbs- Maybe the most exciting player since LeBron James the high flying rim rocker has all the flash, pizzazz and dazzle NBA fans dream of. At this time Blake has yet to show that same talent and skill level on the defensive end. Through 2 games Blake looks competent of ending the long lasting suffers of the Clippers but I would be a fool to do declare Blake a franchise player after 2 games. Look for Blake to be considered a franchise player by midseason.

Mane- Blake Griffin's athleticism is something we may have never seen before. He looks like he can develop the skills to make himself one of the most dominant players in the league. All signs point to him becoming a franchise player. He has a straight head on his shoulders, is a hard worker, and has mostly everything you want on a young freak-athlete. Blake Griffin is a franchise player.

Iodine- While not likely to be the 10th best player in the league this year like ESPN says, but besides the fact that all of his personality looks scripted, there is nothing I really don't like about the kid so far. He will need to add tools to reach the boss of all bosses status, but there are much worse players you could (and some teams are) building around. Short Answer: not yet, but value him as one for the future.

Bruno87- Yes. In a league with minimal talent at the center position, at the mid-night of the strongest PF era in league history, Griffins worth is compounded for reasons beyond his own individual talent. Being a franchise player can sometimes transcend evidence provided on the stat-sheet. Can you bring the crowd to its feet? Do you sell out 20,000 seat venues? Can you become a brand? Griffin has proven to have these intangibles in spades, all the while playing within one of basketball greatest markets and arenas. Griffin can pass, rebound and provides a physical post presence. Despite this praise there are two disclaimers. Health, and scoring efficiency. As witnessed in the health of Brandon Roy, health is monumental. How long will Blake last playing 38 minutes a night? Blake FG% is fine, but he struggles from the free-throw line, which cripples his TS% to that of levels of SG's or SF's. If Griffin can stay healthy he will be a league staple for a decade. If he can raise his FT% and develop a jump-shot from 15-18 he could retire as one of the greatest offensive power-forwards in league history. He will no doubt have to adapt his physical game as he gets older. Long term basketball IQ remains to be seen.

Greetard- I don't remember the last time I saw a player as exciting as Blake Griffin. I used to think that he was just a highlight player, with amazing dunks and that's it but after watching him play more, I realized that he has a very well refined offensive game. That mixed with his good rebounding makes him a very nice player, especially offensively. He needs to work on his defense for sure. He kind of gets bullied inside by good bigs. He might not be the player yet to be deemed a franchise player, but I'm going to call him one, for one main reason. He puts fans in their seats, and brings in a ridiculous amount of money for that franchise. That alone makes him a franchise player.


http://msn.foxsports.com/fe/images/NBA/Headshots/140x170/3513.jpg
Pau Gasol
tally: 0 "yes", 6 "no"

Hawkeye15- I think Pau is right on the border (I lean non-franchise player), and we already have the proof, so this one is a bit easier. He led a fairly talented Memphis team to the playoffs, but were constantly swept by the stronger west teams at the time. He is an elite two way player, but showed the world that he is far better suited for option 1b/2, than leading a team as its franchise player.

ebbs- Were not in Memphis anymore. . . Back in his Memphis days Pau continually had his underwhelming Grizz in the playoffs. A few years back during the trifecta of Lakers title appearances there are those who believe he was the best player on the team. However those days are done. Last year Pau faded away in the playoffs the only absence more notable may have been Carlos Boozers. Since then Pau was surrounded with trade rumors that in the end all fell through. At this point Pau is a fantastic second option and not much more I would not want to lean on Pau to take me to the promise land.

Mane- Pau Gasol is a good player. But, he doesn't have the "killer instinct". I know that's possibly nonexistent and overrated, but when have we ever see Pau Gasol take over in a big game? He's a great player, and has proven time and time again he can be the number 2 option on a championship team, but i really don't think he could take a team that far by himself. He's getting older, and never really showed much in Memphis either. So i'm voting no on this one.

Iodine- Short video prelude: (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZUPCB9533Y) Now that we got that out of the way, back to Pau. His skill-set is fabtasticulousness, doesn't demand things from the organization, and can usually be counted on. However that same skill-set is best served as a complimentary player on a really good team. For his days before Los Lakers, Pau was viewed as a really refined and efficient big, but couldn't be the true best player on a contender. Now? Well really the same thing. Short Answer: No, but Pau will take his career happily over thousands of others.

Bruno87- No. We have history here to back this opinion. As the number one option in Memphis, Gasol lead a mediocre squad to first-round sweeps and lottery selections. Simply taking those Memphis squads to the playoffs is worthy of praise, however if one were to surround Gasol with enough talent to get out of the second round, one would beging to ask whether or not Gasol was still the clear cut #1 option or franchise player on that given team. In Los Angeles Gasol posted the statistical numbers of #1 options, but he never developed the mentality that is mandatory to justify the definition. This is a matter of attitude and personality; Gasol prefers to defer. He feels more comfortable in this role,and he thrives in it. He solidified himself as one of the greatest second options on the block in league history during LALs back-to-back championship run in 2009 and 2010. Gasol side-by-side with a top tier wing has proven to crack the threshold of dynasty, but the fact remains that Gasol is always the less aggressive, deferring, selfless #2 option. Something which deserves plenty of praise outside the greater umbrella of the specific question at hand.

Greetard- This is a tough one. Pau's post game and face up game is amazing. He gets a soft persona because he used to play out of position at the C spot, but now that he can play PF with the Lakers he has really gotten rid of that. My one problem with Pau is that he can't be a teams main piece, he's probably the best complimentary player in the NBA, and that's not a knock on him, he's very good. You just can't have him as the #1 guy of your franchise. So I am going to say no, he's not a franchise player but he is a very very good one.


http://msn.foxsports.com/fe/images/NBA/Headshots/140x170/4469.jpg
Eric Gordon
tally: 1 "yes", 5 "no"

Hawkeye15- This is another borderline player for me. I think he will indeed be the cornerstone for the Hornets, and his offensive skills may put him in the top 5 SG's as soon as this year. I worry about his ability to develop distribution skills, and be a team leader, but his skillset is that of a great #2 on a contender. So no, I don't think he is a franchise player.

ebbs- Gordon is like Westbrook where I believe he has the talent to be a franchise player but has not yet fully shown it. Gordon trades inconsistency for just slightly below franchise numbers. Currently he has proven he is one of the best second options in the league shooting great percentages and in general being quite efficient with his court time. A playoff appearance and continued strong play would be needed to convince me his in the elite group.

Mane- Eric Gordon can do everything. And he's a good kid. He's never really had the leash taken off of him though. He's been plagued with horrible coaches for his entire young career, and has been overshadowed by other things in LA (see the Lakers, Blake Griffin). I think this year we can truly see what Eric Gordon is going to be. He will lead New Orleans to the playoffs, and put up career numbers while doing so. A franchise player.

Iodine- The biggest controversy EG has caused is that he picked Indiana over Illinois after a verbal commit. So he is like 4000009878656574 other people in this regard. I think it's safe to say most fans love Eric's game and his work ethic to improve. Last year he became a much more agressive player and it showed in his FTA's and an improved Assist%/TO% Ratio. Remember he did all of this after being arguably the second best player on the world championship team, so he put in major work on a body many considered (and some still do) fragile. All the praise being said, he is still below average on defense and while a great guy to have, unless you get some love child of Pritchard and Presti as your GM I cant see him being a franchise guy. Short Answer: No, but that shouldnt stop you from loving him.

Bruno87- No. History fights against him here. How many shooting guards in league history were able to develop into legitimate #1 options, franchise players for large portions of their given careers? The list is few and far between; the list gets even slimmer when we limit it's definition to undersized shooting-guards, which Gordon is. Combine this historical comparison along with injuries he has sustained early in his career and the odds are stacked against him. Gordon has vast potential and can possibly average 24-4-4 as the #1 option, but that team would have little to no chance of competing for playoffs. Gordon has a lot of upside, but the fact remains that the odds are against him here. He is yet to develop into a defensive force, a near universal requirement for successful franchise wings.

Greetard- I like EGs game. He's a great perimeter defender with an okay, not good but okay offensive game. He's young and talented and I think a change of scenery is going to help him tremendously. I'm not exactly sold on him yet, especially after a drop in TS% and eFG% last season. His AST% sky-rocketed but that could be a product of Blake coming and of course LAC lacking a good PG. I'm going to say no right now and I don't know if he'll ever become one to be honest.


http://msn.foxsports.com/fe/images/NBA/Headshots/140x170/3253.jpg
Paul Pierce
tally: consensus in his prime. iffy currently.

Hawkeye15- He was a franchise player through the prime of his career, arguably the toughest perimeter scorer to stop. His defense has always been underrated, but he was not able to lead a team to a championship until he got 2 other players that fit the "franchise player" descriptions alongside him. Pierce is far from a franchise player at this stage of his career, but from 2002-07', he was indeed a franchise player.

ebbs- “He may have had the best statistical season of his career last year!” – Boston fans everywhere. I don’t dislike Pierce he is a good player and he means a lot to the city of Boston. But the team had 3 other all stars on it last year. I think a good majority of people believe Rondo is their best player and I’m not sure I disagree. Paul is vital to a Celtics team that clearly misses him but I think he is one of four wheels on a car.

Mane- Paul Pierce was the best player on the Celtics for a long time. He had some garbage around him. Like real genuine garbage. After the "big 3" came along, they won some championships, and Paul Pierce was the best player on the team the entire time. Until more recently, Rondo may have taken that over. But, it's Pierces team, and it has been for a very long time. Definite franchise player. Easiest pick of the bunch to me.

Iodine- I'm going to assume this is referring to his career and not recently, so take my answer with that in mind. But from 2000-2008, he was a guy you could build some really good teams around. (Not that Celtics management tried as hard as they could to make sure it never happened) From killer slashing moves to a step back jumper that hurt many teams, Troophgoose was one of the few wings who knows he can pass out of an iso and still help the team. His defense has been of great debate, and depending on what side you read he is either a great tool to have due to his stocks (steals+blocks) and other game breaker plays, or a liability due to his lateral movement. I tend to side with the former however, so yeah..... gimme dat three four. Short Answer: Career Wise he has been, now? Lolno.

Bruno87- Yes. 964 regular season games in the same uniform, a thirteen- year career PER average above 20.0, 124.2 career regular season win-shares on a career TS% of .569. These numbers hardly even highlight Pierces ability as a lock-down defender, or as a master in the clutch. Although he didn't win a championship or earn his only Finals MVP without the presence of Kevin Garnett and Ray Allen, it's easy to forget that the Paul Pierce lead Celtics were only two wins away from matching up against the Jackson/Shaq/Bryant lead LA Lakers in the 2002 NBA finals. Pierce has only played less than 71 games twice during his thirteen-year career and is on the brink of passing Larry Bird as the #2 all-time scorer in Celtic history. Hey, if he wasn't a franchise player, wouldn't the Celtics have shipped him by now?

Greetard- This depends. If we're talking about right now, then no. But Paul Pierce was a monster in his prime and easily a franchise player. Paul Pierce could get to the basket with ease, he could hit the step-back jumper as good as anyone else and he hit his FTs. In my opinion Pierce's defense is highly underrated, he was a great defensive player and a smart one at that. This was the easiest pick for me, he's EASILY a franchise player in his prime.


http://msn.foxsports.com/fe/images/NBA/Headshots/140x170/4391.jpg
Kevin Love
tally: 4 "yes", 2 "no"

Hawkeye15- Trying to remove the homer from me.....Ok. Love, statistically, plays the role of a franchise player. But he has yet to show the necessary leadership skills that a franchise player must possess, and has had some of his worst games against the best competition. However, at age 23, coming off the MIP award and a season for the ages, its a bit early to judge outright if Love will be a franchise player. 2 games have gone by, its still way too early, but he has been very vocal, and demonstrative, in each game. But the wins must start coming, or the franchise player tag will sink away, and rightfully so. I think Love can be the best overall player on a contender, but he needs a very capable scorer with him, and to become consistently a leader on the floor and in the locker room. He is right on the fence as well.

ebbs- Scarily I really want to say yes. Kevin Love is dominant on the boards, and dominant on offense. His game isn’t as flashy nor is he as explosive as Blake Griffin, but he is reliable and night in and night out the best player on the T-wolves. He needs to continue working on the defensive side of the ball and keep doing what he’s doing shouldering the load. If Love can make the Wolves relevant this season at the very least in the hunt for a playoff spot he is worthy of franchise player talk. I believe Love will be a franchise player by next season, but at this very moment for just this season I wouldn’t want him to be my best player.

Mane- Might go down as the best rebounder of the modern era. A very creative scorer as well. Unfortunately, his defense is pitiful, but he's still young. I think he's a franchise player. He has a pretty young core around him, but look for the Wolves to be back in the playoffs in a few years. Franchise player to me.

Iodine- Best rebounder in the NBA? Check. Best court vision of any big under 29? Check. Big who can excel in the fastbreak and halfcourt sets? Check. Sneakily improving defender? Check. Fun personality to follow who gives back to the fans? Check. Before his insane breakout season last year, I remember love being a great rebounder. Dude averaged 11 in under 30 minutes a game while coming off the bench. (Insert David Khan reference here). So im not going to say I saw last year coming, but I wasnt as shocked as many others. Love will never be an all-NBA defender, but he is doing great work on improving and last year was above average thanks to better footwork. To quote Michael "The only reason I watch ESPN" Smith and hood laureate Sean Carter, Numbers don't lie. Short Answer: Hide yo kids, Hide yo wife, Kevin Love is raping your team tonight.

Bruno87- Yes. Do you remember the last time you saw a player put up thirty points and pull down thirty rebounds in a single game? You shouldn't, since this is an online forum dominated by teens and twenty-somethings; that feat hadn't been done in the twenty-eight previous season before Love accomplished the impossible in 2010. Tired of hearing about a single game? Fair enough. A lot of Loves worth is compounded, as it is with Blake Griffin. His impact on the glass in a league with minimal talent above 6'11 can not be under-valued. As a unique big-man capable of both spreading the floor and dominating the glass, Love does have several holes in his game. Like Griffin his career scoring efficiency (TS%) is below an elite level for a big, however unlike Griffin it isn't because of his FT%. Love was able to put up a brilliant TS% in 2011, only time will tell if that trend will continue, or if he'll sink back down his career averages. He needs to assert himself as a defensive presence, and he needs to work on his box-moves. Love would get more recognition if he wasn't in Minnesota, and if his game was as flashy as Griffins; but the stats don't lie. He would thrive in a big-market or on a successful Minnesota team. As Loves game isn't dependent on physical dominance, expect his game to age like a fine-wine. Baring major injuries, Loves game can continue to look as it does today as he enters his 30's.

Greetard- Kevin Love has it all. Great post game, god like rebounding, great personality. The only thing he gets knocked on is his defense, and I think it's underrated. He's not a great defender by any means, but he is an improving defender. I think he's actually underrated, I believe he's better than Blake Griffin, but he just doesn't have the flash that Griffin does. You can build a team around Kevin Love and I think eventually the TWolves will figure it out and create a great team. I'll take the best rebounding PF who has a great post game and can spread the floor any day of the week. He's easily a franchise player.

iliketurtles24
01-03-2012, 08:11 PM
i would agree with all of these, but to add to love. He is averaging 25-15 right now, seems like franchise to me.

John Walls Era
01-03-2012, 08:20 PM
Actually not that bad now that I looked at the Yes-No.

Il Mago50
01-03-2012, 08:46 PM
Westbrook: I believe that Westbrook is a not franchise player currently and doesn't fit well with the team around him. The man is an explosive athlete, scorer and a decent defender. He has all of the physical tangibles and skill set to be among the top scorers in the league. He has no hesitancy to take big shots late in games and that's a characteristic (ice-veins) that is a big factor as to what a player is for his team. Therefore, he has the elements of a franchise player but I believe he is more of a Monta Ellis type player in that he is a lethal scorer but his decision making and ability to make his team mates better (a skill I believe is crucial to be considered a franchise player as a PG) is just not there. If that develops, I think he is. Otherwise, he is just a high octane scorer, and those are more common then true franchise changers.

Griffin: At the moment, I believe he is still only borderline franchise player talent due to the things that he struggles in, and is closer to not being a franchise player in my book AT THE MOMENT. The reason I think this is because I do not believe Griffin is as good a player as his numbers indicate. Sure, Griffin averaged 20+ and 12 and is putting up very good numbers last year. He made countless highlight films with his dunks and is arguably the most marketable name in the NBA right now. That being said, Griffin is not a good defender and in a time when hand checking is out and dribble penetration in the lane towards the basket has never been higher, good post players need to be able and effective defenders in the lane. In my opinion, he does not provide that at all currently. Next, offensively, the man is a terrible FT shooter, cannot nail a mid-range jumper consistently and his post moves are still somewhat a work in progress.

I do not consider him a franchise player yet because he is still not a player that changes a team's fortunes. He is a very good player that with enough work will become a guy that does change a team's fortunes and add wins to the team instead of just higher point and rebounding totals. He's close but not yet there.

Eric Gordon: Borderline franchise player but I'll give it a no. Gordon is probably the third best SG in the league right now as an overall player. Gordon is a great shooter and scorer, plays very well defensively, rebounds and makes players around him better. He has obviously shown his abilities in the past to hit big shots but he plays with a high IQ that separates high octane scorers and someone that adds the small things too that aid your team in winning. Some may rip on me for saying yes to him and no to Griffin but I think that at the moment, Gordon is more of a franchise changing talent - someone that adds significant wins to your team - then Griffin.

Pau: Absolutely not. Skill-wise, Pau is probably the most skilled big man in the NBA. Unfortunately, Pau has demonstrated that while he can help a team get as far as the playoffs as THE guy, he does not possess enough of an effect on both sides of the court to be considered a franchise guy. He can be considered a franchise player from an offensive perspective as he does what few big men can do in a variety of ways but he simply doesn't have enough of an effect on the defensive end to add significant wins to his team, which separates him and Dwight Howard in this conversation.

Pierce: In his prime, of course he was. Top end if not the best SF defensively in his prime and still among the best at that aspect, high octane scorer, all-around player who has an effect on every aspect of the game, has that intangible mental edge that franchise/top NBA players need that lifts them above players that aren't as strong from that perspective.

Love: Absolutely not. Kevin Love is an all-star but I don't believe that he is a franchise talent by any means. He is a terrific rebounder but he isn't a good defender. He is a good offensive player but his talents aren't ones that are going to push a 30 win team into a 40 win team, they are ones that push a team with a star over the top. He is a very good player, but he is just a shorter, better rebounding version of Pau Gasol.

The term franchise player is thrown around way too loosely. A true franchise player is someone that can significantly improve a team's fortunes by their presence on the court for that team with their talents. That being said, I believe the players that fit this category are Lebron, Durant, Wade, Dwight, Rose and CP3. Kobe can't do it anymore on his own like he use to, Pierce is old, Shaq is gone, McGrady is injury riddled and players like Yao and A.I are gone.

When you think of the term "franchise player" simply think of it as asking 1000 people who they would start their team with if they could choose anyone, who would they take. The players these individuals take are the ones they realize will immediately bring wins to their team and I would be very surprised if anyone outside the six true franchise players were mentioned among those 1000 people.

NYKalltheway
01-04-2012, 05:03 AM
Agree with above statement

LakersIn5
01-04-2012, 01:02 PM
agree with those.

andrea bargnani though is a franchise player :p

Corey
01-04-2012, 03:05 PM
Of the players listed, I think only Pierce (in his prime) and Love are franchise players.

Blake has the marketability, but his game hasn't developed enough yet. He's the next closest of the players listed, though.

Westbrook is electric, and has tons of talent, but he's too inconsistent.

Ask Memphis how Gasol as a franchise player worked. Not well.

Gordon COULD be, but I think he's best served as a very good #2 option.

Kashmir13579
01-04-2012, 03:31 PM
Can the roundtable do one for Carmelo K. Anthony? And be honest. I think he is a franchise player, but i know some of his statistical flaws make it a legitimate debate. At the risk of butt-hurt Knick fans, i'd love to hear the roundtables opinions on this.

Great work so far, guys!

Greet
01-04-2012, 04:08 PM
Of the players listed, I think only Pierce (in his prime) and Love are franchise players.

Blake has the marketability, but his game hasn't developed enough yet. He's the next closest of the players listed, though.

Westbrook is electric, and has tons of talent, but he's too inconsistent.

Ask Memphis how Gasol as a franchise player worked. Not well.

Gordon COULD be, but I think he's best served as a very good #2 option.

Blake's marketability is why he's a franchise player.

Corey
01-04-2012, 04:09 PM
Blake's marketability is why he's a franchise player.

I disagree. A player isn't a franchise player simply because of marketability. I dont think he's shown enough development on the court yet. If he's not dunking or getting out on the break, he can't do much else right now.

Greet
01-04-2012, 04:16 PM
I disagree. A player isn't a franchise player simply because of marketability. I dont think he's shown enough development on the court yet. If he's not dunking or getting out on the break, he can't do much else right now.

I'd agree but there's no way he's scoring 26 PPG without any type of offensive post game. He can't be scoring 26 points on fast breaks and dunks.

Corey
01-04-2012, 04:32 PM
I'd agree but there's no way he's scoring 26 PPG without any type of offensive post game. He can't be scoring 26 points on fast breaks and dunks.

Through four games, he's made 40 field goals. 32 of those makes came within 9 feet of the rim (Layups, dunks, floaters)...Furthermore, at 10+ feet, he's shooting 33% so far.

:shrug:

He just isn't very versatile on offense at this point. He's only in his second year so there's obviously time to develop, but he's pretty one dimensional.

Greet
01-04-2012, 04:36 PM
Through four games, he's made 40 field goals. 32 of those makes came within 9 feet of the rim (Layups, dunks, floaters)...Furthermore, at 10+ feet, he's shooting 33% so far.

:shrug:

He just isn't very versatile on offense at this point. He's only in his second year so there's obviously time to develop, but he's pretty one dimensional.

So he's a low post player. If he's getting 26 PPG on Dunks/Layups/Floaters then I'll take it, since it's still 26 PPG.

Corey
01-04-2012, 04:41 PM
That's nice.

I still dont think he's a franchise player at this point.

THE GIPPER
01-04-2012, 05:00 PM
Through four games, he's made 40 field goals. 32 of those makes came within 9 feet of the rim (Layups, dunks, floaters)...Furthermore, at 10+ feet, he's shooting 33% so far.

:shrug:

He just isn't very versatile on offense at this point. He's only in his second year so there's obviously time to develop, but he's pretty one dimensional.

Does it matter how or where he scores his points? Shaq scored all his points in the paint when he was a franchise player.

Corey
01-04-2012, 05:02 PM
Shaq was also a dominante post player, a dominant rebounder, a dominant post defender, a dominant shot blocker.

Blake has minimal post game at this point. He's isnt a capable iso player yet.

wjmoffatt
01-04-2012, 05:12 PM
Franchise Players
A-List
Kobe (for a year or two)
Lebron
Dwight
Cp3
Wade
Durrant
Dirk (for a Year or two)
Rose

B-List
Love (soon to be A List)
Griffin (soon to move up)
DWill (he can't even get into the playoffs by himself and a decent big, Kobe use to be able to)
Westbrook
Pierce (for a couple years)
Wall
Amare
Aldridge (borderline A)

C-List
Rondo (could be a B on some night and others horrible with that jumper and FT%)
Bynum
Kyrie Irvin (moving up quick)
Gay
Curry
Ellis
Kevin Martin
Wallace (moving down)
Horford
A.I
Harden
Jason Terry
Parker
Gasol

Corey
01-04-2012, 05:25 PM
Dunno how you can put Kyrie on any list 5 games into his career.

rhymeratic
01-04-2012, 05:28 PM
Danillo Gallinari is a franchise player.... lmao

metsbulls1025
01-04-2012, 06:07 PM
Just because BG can score a lot of points doesn't make him a franchise player. There is a lot more to it than that. You can argue he isn't the best player on the team anymore.

JordansBulls
01-04-2012, 06:12 PM
To me what is a franchise player? A franchise player isn't someone who gets to a team that has already won it all already. A franchise player is someone who goes to a team that has to transform the team into legit contenders where that player is a clear cut best on the team.

Iodine
01-04-2012, 06:52 PM
Just because BG can score a lot of points doesn't make him a franchise player. There is a lot more to it than that. You can argue he isn't the best player on the team anymore.

My main point with Blake is that currently he is not a franchise player, but he should be regarded as a future one

Ebbs
01-04-2012, 07:20 PM
Can the roundtable do one for Carmelo K. Anthony? And be honest. I think he is a franchise player, but i know some of his statistical flaws make it a legitimate debate. At the risk of butt-hurt Knick fans, i'd love to hear the roundtables opinions on this.

Great work so far, guys!

I believe he is a franchise player. He can play defense when he chooses to he rebounds pretty well he is one of the best scorers off ball or when he controls the offense. He is at the bottom of the list and if he could take some smarter shots, put more work in on D he could move up. I would take him over Deron for sure.


Franchise Players
A-List
Kobe (for a year or two)
Lebron
Dwight
Cp3
Wade
Durrant
Dirk (for a Year or two)
Rose

B-List
Love (soon to be A List)
Griffin (soon to move up)
DWill (he can't even get into the playoffs by himself and a decent big, Kobe use to be able to)
Westbrook
Pierce (for a couple years)
Wall
Amare
Aldridge (borderline A)

C-List
Rondo (could be a B on some night and others horrible with that jumper and FT%)
Bynum
Kyrie Irvin (moving up quick)
Gay
Curry
Ellis
Kevin Martin
Wallace (moving down)
Horford
A.I
Harden
Jason Terry
Parker
Gasol

Terry, Harden, Parker??? lol list is crazy is Melo even on it?


To me what is a franchise player? A franchise player isn't someone who gets to a team that has already won it all already. A franchise player is someone who goes to a team that has to transform the team into legit contenders where that player is a clear cut best on the team.

Very similar to my original concept.


A franchise player in my opinion, is a player who keeps his team relevent while being the leading man on his team. A franchise player in theory should be able to take over games single handedly and have his team playing in a state where other teams aren't underestimating them. In my mind a franchise player can atleast take his team to the playoffs without other A+ level talent on the roster. While there are exceptions if you don't consider the player able to be the "guy" on a serious contender I think you know he isn't a franchise player.

metsbulls1025
01-04-2012, 07:50 PM
My main point with Blake is that currently he is not a franchise player, but he should be regarded as a future one

There is no doubt that he could be down the line. However if people are going to say well since he scores 26 points a game he is a franchise player they would be wrong.

Well Vince Carter and Tracy McGrady were just as flashy and scored a lot points to. They were not franchise players IMO.

Now Blake may have a better attitude and work ethic, but still just being able to score a lot of points doesn't make you a franchise player. It just makes you the face of the franchise which in this case is different.

Iodine
01-04-2012, 11:15 PM
I agree completely with that lol

Raph12
01-05-2012, 12:38 AM
Russell Westbrook - No - He's an elite player, although his courtvision is lacking, he's a good scorer, decent rebounder and good/willing defender - Ideally best as a 2nd option

Blake Griffin - Yes - He's already a top 15 player in his rookie season, he's a good/willing passer, a good rebounder, a fantastic scorer and has a great work ethic which makes you believe that he'll be a good defender someday - Ideally best as a primary option

Pau Gasol - No - Although I believe he is a top 10-15 player, he's best suited to be a complimentary player as he doesn't have a 1st option-like mentality - Ideally best as a 2nd option

Eric Gordon - No - He's a great scorer and on the up-and-ups, but he's not the kind of player you build around, he's more like the player you bring in to compliment your star - Ideally best as a 2nd option

Paul Pierce - No - He's a great player overall, but needs much more than a second option to be successful - Ideally best as a 2nd option or the primary option on a loaded team

Kevin Love - No - He's a fantastic player, top 15 for sure, great rebounder (maybe even the best), can score a lot without having too many plays ran for him and is fundamentally sound - Ideally best as a 2nd option

Amar'e Stoudamire - No - He's not nearly as good without a good/great PG, rebounding is lacking and defense is weak, good scorer and half-decent passer - Ideally best as a 2nd option

Chris Bosh - No - He has the scoring and passing capabilities, shown he could rebound when motivated, but lacks defensive intensity and the motivation to be the best he could be - Ideally best as a 2nd option

LaMarcus Aldridge - No - He's improving each and every season, although there are no glaring faults in his game, he doesn't have what it takes to lead a team deep into the playoffs - Ideally best as a 2nd option or the primary option on a loaded team

Greet
01-05-2012, 10:13 AM
^I don't know how Deron Williams is on a B-List and your comment is that he can't even get into the playoffs with a decent big. He hasn't played with Lopez yet this year. This is his first full year with the Nets lol
Deron Williams is EASILY a franchise player.

3RDASYSTEM
01-05-2012, 10:47 AM
See this wat messes up all debates when it comes to franchise players and developing type...can you develop into a franchise player? my answer is NO because if KB was a tru franchise player from day 1 him and SHAQ would have went to every FINAL for 8yrs they played together because SHAQ was truly Franchise type kinda of like how DUNCAN got with the aging Franchise player and they wont a couple rings in 3 1/2yrs,but they were both Franchise players from day 1, if WESTBROOK and those others aint a franchise type player now,then how will they be yrs later when they regress yrly, people keep thinking players get better and better yr in and out when the tru franchise guys establish themselves offtop and maintain while the rest try and play catch up,some do but most dont

AMARE/BLAKE/PIERCE and maybe GASOL...they all were when they were drafted projected to be and to me they delivered and didnt ride the bench for 3 of they first 4yrs

Corey
01-05-2012, 10:51 AM
I think its funny that Raph said yes for Griffin but no for LA.

Cal827
01-05-2012, 03:41 PM
Franchise Players currently (Superstars):
Lebron James
Dwayne Wade
Dwight Howard
Kobe Bryant
Dirk Nowitzki (I'm kinda iffy on this last one)

Stars well on their way to becoming Superstars:
Kevin Durant
Kevin Love (He posts 20+ and 15 for another year or two, it'll be hard to keep him off this list, even if his defense is subpar.)
Derrick Rose (Just need to see another stellar year)
Carmelo Anthony (Maybe)
Chris Paul (Maybe)
Blake Griffin
Deron Williams (Maybe)

Stars that will Remain Stars:
Amar'e Stoudemire
Chris Bosh
Lemarcus Aldridge (I'm sorry, but how exactly is he going to be the next big thing. Bosh averaged more in both scoring/rebounding in his final years with the Raptors. I think he's a star, but no way in hell a number 1 guy on a winning team)
Carmelo Anthony (Maybe)
Rajon Rondo
Monta Ellis
Pau Gaslol
Chris Paul (Injury Bug)

Old Superstars that have fallen off too much:
Pierce
KG

Young players about to take the step into stardom and possibly superstardom:

John Wall
Eric Gordon (Probably the highest potential since he's the # 1 guy in NO)
Demar Derozan
Andrew Bynum (Stay Healthy is Key)
Stephen Curry (Look Above)
Paul George
Tyreke Evans

Greet
01-05-2012, 05:30 PM
^That stuff still amazes me. How can you say DRose and CP3 can become superstars but Deron will only stay a star.

Cal827
01-05-2012, 07:13 PM
^That stuff still amazes me. How can you say DRose and CP3 can become superstars but Deron will only stay a star.

Ok, I'll admit it... I have Bias. I absolutely hate Deron Williams. :D He's probably with CP3 and Rose in the tier about to become superstars.

Iodine
01-05-2012, 07:20 PM
Ok, I'll admit it... I have Bias. I absolutely hate Deron Williams. :D He's probably with CP3 and Rose in the tier about to become superstars.

http://www.splitreason.com/Product_Images/90b193379837-xl.jpg

JermanJaysFan
01-05-2012, 07:38 PM
Agree with most of the player analysis, but Iodine's dig at Vince in the OP is off base. Carter was undoubtedly a franchise player before the "quitter bug" bit him.

Cal827
01-05-2012, 11:22 PM
http://www.splitreason.com/Product_Images/90b193379837-xl.jpg

:laugh: of course

Iodine
01-05-2012, 11:27 PM
Agree with most of the player analysis, but Iodine's dig at Vince in the OP is off base. Carter was undoubtedly a franchise player before the "quitter bug" bit him.

Talent, yes.

Actual performance? lol no. Dude went to a graduation ceremony (mind you not a required event) on the day of a crucial playoff game.

jimbobjarree
01-06-2012, 12:18 AM
iodine is the vince carter of psd posters

Iodine
01-06-2012, 12:23 AM
iodine is the vince carter of psd posters

Well I ripped off a great beginning, teased everyone with my activity, then derailed my career by self imposed issues.

Yeah pretty much

Mane
01-06-2012, 03:57 AM
Good job fellas. Especially myself.

- Mane, President of Prosportsdaily.

The_Jamal
01-06-2012, 04:22 AM
The only guy I have a real beef with being included in the discussion is Eric Gordon. He's no doubt going to put up some pretty numbers on NO, but him as a franchise guy is not a good place for a team to be. He's in my mind that perfect #2 wing option to a superstar big.

Il Mago50
01-07-2012, 07:02 PM
To me what is a franchise player? A franchise player isn't someone who gets to a team that has already won it all already. A franchise player is someone who goes to a team that has to transform the team into legit contenders where that player is a clear cut best on the team.

+1, exactly. That's a franchise player. There are only a few of those in the league versus dozens of guys that are marketing ploys to attract fans

Il Mago50
01-07-2012, 07:09 PM
Franchise Players
A-List
Kobe (for a year or two)
Lebron
Dwight
Cp3
Wade
Durrant
Dirk (for a Year or two)
Rose

B-List
Love (soon to be A List)
Griffin (soon to move up)
DWill (he can't even get into the playoffs by himself and a decent big, Kobe use to be able to)
Westbrook
Pierce (for a couple years)
Wall
Amare
Aldridge (borderline A)

C-List
Rondo (could be a B on some night and others horrible with that jumper and FT%)
Bynum
Kyrie Irvin (moving up quick)
Gay
Curry
Ellis
Kevin Martin
Wallace (moving down)
Horford
A.I
Harden
Jason Terry
Parker
Gasol

I'm sorry but this list is very badly made. B-list wise, John Wall is still not even that good of a player versus Rondo who is a great player on both ends of the floor being a C-lister :S.

Your C-list is the one I have the most problems with. Igoudala is a good player but in no way a franchise player by any means. Jason Terry is a one dimensional player as a scorer and is old, Tony Parker doesn't make his teammates better but instead is just a very good complementary 2nd option to a star. Harden hasn't proven to be anything more then a very solid young player, Gerald Wallace is a good player but not a franchise type guy and Kevin Martin??? The guy doesn't play a lick of defense and is in no way someone you build around.

smith&wesson
01-08-2012, 09:45 PM
i think love and griffen are franchise players. or will be if injuries dont get in the way.

good read, ill post more on other players later.

JordansBulls
01-10-2012, 02:07 PM
WHAT MAKES A CHAMPIONSHIP TEAM?

Although it seems obvious, even a brief review of the last 30 years of NBA history (roughly the modern era beginning with Bird and Magic) reveals an undeniable truth: no team can win without drafting a franchise player. Only once in the last three decades has an NBA team won a championship without a true franchise player, the Detroit Pistons in 2004. And in all that time, only two franchise player has switched teams in his prime—Shaquille O’Neal, who signed as a free agent with the Lakers in 1996. And Charles Barkley who was traded to the Suns in the summer of 1992.

Now what do I mean by a franchise player? I mean not only someone who is the best player on his team, but a player who can carry a team to the finals and give them a legitimate chance to win. A player you can build an entire team around. Not every “franchise” player in the last 30 years has won a title, but all of them, with the exception of two very recent draft picks, have played in the finals, and most have led their teams to victory. My list of franchise players in the last 30 years and their relative draft positions looks like this:




#1 PICKS – 7 FRANCHISE PLAYERS

Magic Johnson
Shaquille O'neal
Hakeem Olajuwon
Tim Duncan
LeBron
Dwight Howard
Patrick Ewing


TOP THREE PICKS – 5 FRANCHISE PLAYERS

M.Jordan (drafted #3)
Isiah Thomas (drafted #2)
Kevin Durant (drafted #2)
Jason Kidd (drafted #2)
Gary Payton (drafted #2)

TOP TEN PICKS – 5 FRANCHISE PLAYERS

Larry Bird (drafted #6)
Charles Barkley (drafted #5)
Paul Pierce (drafted #10)
Dirk Nowitzki (drafted #9)
Dwyane Wade (drafted #5)
Brandon Roy (drafted #6)


TOP FOURTEEN PICKS – 3 FRANCHISE PLAYERS

Kobe Bryant (drafted #13)
Clyde Drexler (drafted #14)
Karl Malone (drafted #13)


Obviously, you could argue about some of the players on this list. Durant, Roy , even Dwyane Wade may look like very different players in twenty years.

First, by my count, the last 30 years have produced only 21 franchise players (and maybe only 9 genuinely dominant players: Bird, Magic, Hakeem , Jordan , Shaq, Kobe , Duncan , Isiah, and LeBron). That means that in any given year, there is no better than a 60% chance that a franchise player is even available in the draft. Likewise, more often than not, that franchise player will not be the first player taken in the draft. Indeed, given that only seven franchise players have been taken #1 in the last three decades, there is only a roughly 23% chance that any year’s first pick will lead his team to a title someday. For every Shaq drafted, there are another three Joe Smiths or Greg Odens taken with the first pick. Moreover, even a slew of high draft picks is no guarantee of access to a franchise changing player. No teams have had more high draft picks in the last three decades than the Clippers, Grizzlies, and Timberwolves; yet by my analysis, those teams have only had the opportunity to draft franchise players a handful of times. The Grizzlies and Clippers passed on Nowitzki and Pierce in 1998. All three teams passed on Kobe in 1996, and the Timberwolves drafted–then traded!–Brandon Roy in 2006. But that’s it. The Duncans, Shaqs, Lebrons, and Howards of the last 30 drafts were never in their reach. Those franchises may be inept; but they’ve also been just plain unlucky.

DRAFT ODDS

What, you might ask, are the odds of drafting a franchise player in any given year?

With the #1 pick, you have a 60% chance of drafting a franchise player. If you can identify the Kobes (drafted #13) and Drexlers (#14) as easily as you spot the Duncans and Shaqs.

With a top three pick, you have a 36% chance of drafting a franchise player in any given year (based on an analysis of every player picked between #2 and #15 over the last three decades.)

With a top ten pick, you have a 26% chance of drafting a franchise player (based on an analysis of every player picked between #4 and #15 over the last three decades.)

And even with a top fourteen pick, you have a 10% chance of drafting a franchise player in any given year (based on every player picked between #11 and #14 over the last three decades.)

Even more interesting, however, is what all these players have in common, and what sets them apart from the “almost” greats. The franchise player list is composed of seven shooting guards; four centers; three small forwards; three power forwards; and four point guards.

What makes these franchise players special stands out when you compare them with the last three decades of draft picks who didn’t make the cut. A short list of talented, but non-franchise players (i.e., players you couldn’t rely upon as your best player to win a title), would have to include:

Shawn Kemp
Vince Carter
Tracy McGrady
Chris Webber
Steve Nash
John Stockton
Dominique Wilkins
Allen Iverson
Jason Kidd
Chris Paul

I would add to this list a host of players who, while talented, never won a title or made the finals as the best player on their team. That list would include:

Kevin Garnett
Gary Payton
David Robinson
Alonzo Mourning

Two things seem to set the franchise players apart from the pretenders. The first is that, almost without exception, the franchise players have the ability to impact the game both as crunch time scorers AND as devastating defenders. Indeed, players like Olajuwon , Jordan, Kobe, and Duncan could change games without scoring a point. During Jordan ’s first comeback, he and Pippen routinely broke the will of other teams through their full court defense. I’ve never seen a more fearsome defensive duo than those two during that period. Even franchise players like Larry Bird who were not great individual defenders were often excellent team defenders, who could take opponents entirely out of their game plans. In fact, Bird was a 2nd team All NBA defensive player three times in his career. If you were looking for one defining attribute for a franchise player it would be this: the greatest players of the last 30 years could not only lead the league in scoring if they wanted, they also routinely were first or second team all NBA defenders. Ultimately, that’s the quality that sets the greats (Kobe, Jordan, Hakeem, Duncan) apart from the pretenders (Iverson, Reggie Miller).


By contrast, the most questionable franchise players on the list—Durant, Nowitzki, and Barkley—are the ones whose defense is the weak part of their game. When you examine the list of talented non-franchise players, the weakness they most commonly exhibit is that they simply had no passion, or no talent, for playing defense. Indeed, some players like Nash and Carter are defensive liabilities. Scoring ability is consistently overrated, and defensive ability is underrated; but what good is it to score 24 pts a night if your opponent is routinely putting up 18-22 against you? This is why the Suns are the most overrated team of the last three decades.

Those talented non-franchise players who could play defense–great players like Alonzo Mourning, David Robinson, Kevin Garnett, and Jason Kidd, inevitably suffered from that other great Achilles heel—they simply could not be counted on to score in crunch time of close game. The Minnesota Timberwolves languished in mediocrity for years because Garnett simply did not have the ability to close out tough games. For all his talent, Garnett, like Chris Webber or Vince Carter, was not a player you could count on to take and make big shots in the last five minutes of an important contest.

The second thing that appears to set most of these franchise players apart is a quality you discussed at length in your book: an unquenchable hatred of losing; a will not just to win, but to dominate; a fierce competitiveness that is as rare as a talented seven footer. This quality doesn’t show up on a stat sheet. It can’t be measured like height or vertical leaping ability. But it’s clearly something that sets players like Michael Jordan and Kobe Bryant apart from the McGradys, Carters, and David Robinsons of the world. This desire to win–coupled with an understanding the “secret,” putting winning and teamwork before anything else–is what sets the great players apart from the very good players.

A third observation follows from the bare numbers: point guards and power forwards are overrated. Or rather, if your best player is a point guard get ready for disappointment. And if your best two players are your point guard and your power forward (Suns, Jazz, Hornets), get ready for big disappointment. History has been vastly unkind to this combination. See, for example, Stockton and Malone, Barkley and Kevin Johnson, Nash and Stoudamire, Payton and Kemp, Webber and Bibby. These combinations are a gamblers dream; I’d bet them every year to NOT win the title if I could.

If your best scorer is also your primary ball handler, there are simply not enough touches for your teammates. Likewise, unless your last name is Duncan or Rodman, it is difficult to dominate games defensively from the power forward position. There is something about the center, shooting guard, and small forward positions that lend themselves more easily to dominance on both ends of the court. If Derrick Fisher’s career stands for anything, it is the principle that good defense, a decent handle, and 36% shooting from three point range are all that a championship contender requires out of their point guard.


BUILDING A CHAMPIONSHIP FRANCHISE

Why are these observations important to franchise building? I’m glad you asked. The worst thing that can happen to a franchise is what happened to the Memphis Grizzlies during the Pau Gasol years or to the Minnesota Timberwolves during the Kevin Garnett era. That is: high level mediocrity. Those teams routinely won 45-50 games a year, and then got swept in the first round. Every year their fans thought, “This is the year,” and every year they were disappointed. It was always an illusion.

Look at the teams who’ve won (and their best player) over the last three decades:

Chicago (Jordan): 6 titles
Los Angeles (Magic): 5 titles
San Antonio (Duncan): 4 titles
Boston (Bird): 3 titles
Los Angeles (Shaq): 3 titles
Houston (Olajuwon): 2 titles
Detroit (Isiah Thomas): 2 titles
Los Angeles (Kobe): 2 titles
Boston (Pierce)
Philadelphia 76's (Moses Malone)
Miami (Wade)

Even when these teams weren’t winning, they often found themselves matched up in the finals against the teams who did. Of all these teams, the only dynasty led by a franchise player not noted for his defensive prowess was Magic Johnson. But Magic in his prime could make an impact on defense when he chose (he led the league in steals in 1982); Magic also had one of the best centers who ever lived (Kareem) guarding the rim.

By contrast, the best players on the great teams who never won a title in that same period all exhibited one of two obvious flaws: either they couldn’t score in crunch time or they couldn’t make an impact on defense.

Utah (Malone) (twice)
New Jersey (Kidd) (twice)
New York Knicks (Ewing)
Phoenix (Barkley)
Seattle Supersonics (Payton, Kemp)
New York Knicks (Sprewell)
Indiana Pacers (Miller)
Philadelphia (Iverson)
Dallas (Nowitzki)
Cleveland (Lebron)
Orlando (Howard)

Only Lebron James seems seriously out of place on the above list. (Maybe Malone/Barkley as well)

What I take from all of this is the following conclusion: NBA champions aren’t built; they’re drafted. It’s an impossible dream to think that your franchise is going to put together two or three very good players (say Gary Payton and Shawn Kemp) and beat one great player (like Jordan ). It’s not going to happen. There have been scores of terrific, highly entertaining teams built over the last 30 years who never had a genuine chance to win. Among them: Nash’s Suns, Barkley’s Suns, Mourning’s Miami Heat, Glen Robinson’s Milwaukee Bucks, and Reggie Miller’s Pacers. The illusion that gets perpetuated over time is the “Oh, if they just got that one break” theory that gets applied to all of these teams. If only the fight hadn’t broken out in the Suns/Spurs series; if only John Starks hadn’t gone 2 for 18 in game 7 of the finals; if only...if only..... But the fact is that the great players find a way to win. There is no “if only” when you talk about their careers. Players like Barkley, Miller, and Kemp never won a title for a good reason–they didn’t have what it takes.

More importantly, though, if your franchise doesn’t have one of these rare two way players, a talent who can score on one end and shut down his man on the other, your team is never going anywhere. You may win a lot games; you may win your division; you may even playoff series. But you will not win a championship. And in many ways, ending up with an “almost” great player as your cornerstone—a Garnett, a Barkley, or a Gasol—is even worse than just being a bad team. Because it condemns you to mediocrity. You will never win a title; but you will never draft high enough that you can acquire a franchise player. The stupidity of teams like the Philadelphia 76s who inked Andre Igodola to a long term near max deal or the Wizards who hitched their franchise to Gilbert Arenas is mind boggling. Signing these players to long term deals guaranteed not just losing seasons but losing millions of dollars at the box office for the foreseeable future.

The great general managers understand this: the only way to win in the NBA is to lose, and lose big. If you don’t have a franchise player, you must lose and keep losing until you can draft a franchise player. Don’t pay Gilbert Arenas 110 million dollars to insure that your team will never make the finals. Don’t keep adding talent around a star like Steve Nash who cannot be your best player. Don’t fool yourself into thinking that adding a scoring machine like Allen Iverson or Tracy McGrady will lead you to the promised land. You must lose—and keep losing—until you get that franchise player. Greg Popovitch’s single best decision was refusing to allow David Robinson to come back early in 1997. The Cleveland Cavaliers best coaching hire was John Lucas—a man who would not let pride come between him and the chance to coach Lebron.

An example of what not to do: four years ago, the Houston Rockets were mired in the midst of a terrible season that (deja vu) saw both Tracy McGrady and Yao Ming injured for large chunks of the year. With just seven games left in the season, the Rockets were a dozen games under .500 and playing the Timberwolves in an utterly meaningless game. Deep in the fourth quarter, the Timberwolves had a large lead. Then Jeff Van Gundy inserted recent D-League Call Up, Chuck Hayes. Chuck did not get the losing memo. He proceeded to single handedly track down every rebound and loose ball in the arena, and shame his team into an improbable comeback. Van Gundy refused to lay down and lose this game. In overtime, the Timberwolves–having cheated a guaranteed victory–spent the entire overtime period feeding Mark Madsen at the three point line. Surprise! The Rockets won the game. And by winning they lost. They lost big time. The Rockets finished the season 34-48. The Timberwolves finished 33-49. At the NBA draft, the Timberwolves selected Brandon Roy two spots ahead of the Rockets and traded him to Portland . The Rockets had to settle for a draft day trade for Shane Battier. The rest as they say is history. The Rockets lost out on a player they could have legitimately built around for the next decade. Van Gundy got fired the next season after losing to Utah in a game 7 on the Rockets home floor, because his team’s “closer,” Tracy McGrady, forgot to show up for the 4th quarter.

The fact remains: you can’t build a winner around good players. You must get lucky enough (or smart enough) to draft a franchise player. Only a few come along each decade. Sometimes years pass before another enters the league. (See 1999 to 2001 drafts for example.) You must be willing to keep losing. If you should find yourself forced to draft Kenyon Martin, Steve Francis, Elton Brand, Pau Gasol, or—God forbid—Kwame Brown, then there’s only one responsible choice: trade them for more draft picks. Don’t go about building 40 win teams around players who will never take you any further.


The current league is full of teams that aren’t good enough to win a title and aren’t bad enough to land a lottery pick. Among them? The Utah Jazz, the New Orleans Hornets, the Toronto Raptors, the Charlotte Bobcats, the Los Angeles Clippers, the Milwaukee Bucks, and the Phoenix Suns. These teams are like late night cable—all tease, no climax. I’d hate to be among their fans; their management is too scared to tear these teams down; too dumb to realize they’ll never win anything. Instead, these franchises fool themselves into thinking they can “build” a champion without actually possessing a championship caliber player. It’ll never happen. You can’t build your way to a franchise player.

I can’t tell you how to go about identifying franchise players. How could you know in 1996 that Kobe would grow up to be perhaps the best player in the league? How could you know that Chris Webber lacked the fire inside to win? It’s rarely obvious on draft day. But it’s almost always obvious within a player’s first three years in the league. The great ones have a will to win (and to improve) that the “almost” great players lack. By year three, the difference between the Elton Brands and the Dwight Howards of the world is usually obvious. The problem is that franchises are too committed to winning, and not committed enough to greatness.

There are a few obvious signs of greatness: shooting guards at 6’6’’ and above with standout athleticism. 6’ 10’’ and above centers with mobility, speed, and a clean bill of health. Small forwards blessed with outstanding shooting and passing touch. These players don’t come around often, but surprisingly teams consistently overrate size, “potential,” and skin color when it comes to evaluating players. (How else do you explain Adam Morrison, Stromile Swift, Darco Milicic, Mike Dunleavy, Kwame Brown, Eddy Curry, etc….). For the most part, the greatest franchise players had already enjoyed great success in college ball. They weren’t drafted on “potential.” The weirdest drops in recent NBA draft history (Paul Pierce, Brandon Roy, Chris Paul) followed on the heels of teams falling in love with “potential.” I’ll take a player like Dwayne Wade, who averaged 21.1 points a game for a major college program as a sophomore over a Chris Bosh who averaged 15 and nine boards. I’ll take a Durant who dominated college basketball over a Greg Oden who put up decent but not mind blowing numbers every time. Clyde Drexler had been to the NCAA finals two years in a row, and still dropped to #14 after such luminaries as Steve Stiponovitch, Russell Cross, Ennis Whatley, and Sidney Green had been snapped up. What were these teams thinking?

For a franchise committed to winning, the contrarian move would be to put the same effort into losing games that most teams put into winning. Teams that want to win a championship need to have a five year plan for tearing their franchises down, before try and build them up. Teams don’t want to trade next year’s draft choice. But that 2014 draft pick? Hell, most general managers figure they will be long gone by then. They are more than happy to trade away the distant future for a shot at current redemption. If I’m the Bucks or the Jazz or the Suns, I target 2014 the way most teams have targeted the free agent pool of 2010. I pick out the teams with the worst ownership and make trades hoping to land high picks. Meanwhile, I get rid of all my long term, big money deals. My goal is to create as much cap space as possible for the day I finally land that franchise player. Attendance may suffer, but if I’m 20 million under the cap I’ll still be doing just fine.

Now should the league reward intentional losing? Ideally, no. But the league does reward losing. And as long as this is the case, the smart teams should take full advantage. The problem is that bad teams like the Clippers can’t even make a concerted effort to lose. They just stumble along, decade after decade, occasionally teasing their fans with false hope but mostly just delivering a constant diet of disappointment. Give me three seasons of tanking over thirty years of unintentional mediocrity. You think Spurs fans wouldn’t trade three lost seasons for another Duncan? Of course they would. In a heartbeat.

What the Bulls need is what every franchise needs: that one great player you build a team around. I’m hoping Paxson finds a way. I’d love to see the Bulls win 50 games this year and make it back to the second round. But if we somehow miss the playoffs, then we have a top 15 pick, and there is always the chance we end up back in the lottery with a shot at greatness. And if we do get that special player, remember that he will look like this: he’ll score; he’ll defend like his life depended on it; and he will hate losing games even more than the most rabid fan.

SteveNash
01-10-2012, 06:24 PM
WHAT MAKES A CHAMPIONSHIP TEAM?

Although it seems obvious, even a brief review of the last 30 years of NBA history (roughly the modern era beginning with Bird and Magic) reveals an undeniable truth: no team can win without drafting a franchise player. Only once in the last three decades has an NBA team won a championship without a true franchise player, the Detroit Pistons in 2004. And in all that time, only two franchise player has switched teams in his prime—Shaquille O’Neal, who signed as a free agent with the Lakers in 1996. And Charles Barkley who was traded to the Suns in the summer of 1992.

Now what do I mean by a franchise player? I mean not only someone who is the best player on his team, but a player who can carry a team to the finals and give them a legitimate chance to win. A player you can build an entire team around. Not every “franchise” player in the last 30 years has won a title, but all of them, with the exception of two very recent draft picks, have played in the finals, and most have led their teams to victory. My list of franchise players in the last 30 years and their relative draft positions looks like this:

Not a real fair comparison, as there wasn't as much movement in the past. Besides that, we have the Sixers, '04 Pistons, '08 Celtics, and the '12 Heat.

Baller1
01-13-2012, 06:11 PM
WHAT MAKES A CHAMPIONSHIP TEAM?

Although it seems obvious, even a brief review of the last 30 years of NBA history (roughly the modern era beginning with Bird and Magic) reveals an undeniable truth: no team can win without drafting a franchise player. Only once in the last three decades has an NBA team won a championship without a true franchise player, the Detroit Pistons in 2004. And in all that time, only two franchise player has switched teams in his prime—Shaquille O’Neal, who signed as a free agent with the Lakers in 1996. And Charles Barkley who was traded to the Suns in the summer of 1992.

Now what do I mean by a franchise player? I mean not only someone who is the best player on his team, but a player who can carry a team to the finals and give them a legitimate chance to win. A player you can build an entire team around. Not every “franchise” player in the last 30 years has won a title, but all of them, with the exception of two very recent draft picks, have played in the finals, and most have led their teams to victory. My list of franchise players in the last 30 years and their relative draft positions looks like this:

Gary Payton was the best player on the Sonics when they went to the finals.

Raps18-19 Champ
01-13-2012, 10:47 PM
Why was I not part of this round table?

NYKalltheway
01-14-2012, 11:19 AM
"Franchise" players:

Lebron James
Kobe Bryant
Dwight Howard
Dwayne Wade
Kevin Durant
Carmelo Anthony
Dirk Nowitzki
Chris Paul
Derrick Rose

That's about it. No Celtics or Spurs players because they have a team-first approach and everyone is essential. Amare, Bosh, Gasol and a few other players do not have such an impact on a team imo and I'm not 100% certain Derrick Rose has that effect either. They have a pretty solid roster overall.

tredigs
01-14-2012, 12:18 PM
"Franchise" players:

Lebron James
Kobe Bryant
Dwight Howard
Dwayne Wade
Kevin Durant
Carmelo Anthony
Dirk Nowitzki
Chris Paul
Derrick Rose

That's about it. No Celtics or Spurs players because they have a team-first approach and everyone is essential. Amare, Bosh, Gasol and a few other players do not have such an impact on a team imo and I'm not 100% certain Derrick Rose has that effect either. They have a pretty solid roster overall.

What player that you listed up there doesn't? D. Rose has monster positive impact, even if he does chuck too many 3's.

Chi City23
01-14-2012, 01:54 PM
"Franchise" players:

Lebron James
Kobe Bryant
Dwight Howard
Dwayne Wade
Kevin Durant
Carmelo Anthony
Dirk Nowitzki
Chris Paul
Derrick Rose

That's about it. No Celtics or Spurs players because they have a team-first approach and everyone is essential. Amare, Bosh, Gasol and a few other players do not have such an impact on a team imo and I'm not 100% certain Derrick Rose has that effect either. They have a pretty solid roster overall.

You NY fans are funny :D

alencp3
01-14-2012, 11:10 PM
Add Rubio for real

MacFitz92
01-15-2012, 01:01 AM
I think this whole notion of defining a franchise player, having a #1 and #2, having this, that, and the other is dumb.

The best team wins the game. The best #1 and #2 doesn't. Some teams lose with what you guys are calling "franchise players", some teams win without them. The best team wins.

Iodine
01-15-2012, 10:06 PM
I think this whole notion of defining a franchise player, having a #1 and #2, having this, that, and the other is dumb.

The best team wins the game. The best #1 and #2 doesn't. Some teams lose with what you guys are calling "franchise players", some teams win without them. The best team wins.

Im going to quote this the next time you compare players

Geargo Wallace
01-16-2012, 11:55 PM
What a bull **** round table. No HellCrooner? No CousinsEvansDuo? No Gram? No me?

NYKalltheway
01-17-2012, 12:19 AM
You NY fans are funny :D

Why? Derrick Rose has not proven he can lead an average team. He plays for the Chicago Bulls which have Luol Deng, Joakim Noah and Carlos Boozer. That's better than 95% of the league. Great player for sure, but how do you differentiate Rose from Paul Pierce for example? On my list, Rose makes the "franchise players" list, while Pierce doesn't. But how does Rose effect his team more than Pierce (positively)?
Rose has been part of some pretty good rosters in his short career. Same applies to Durant but we all saw in 2010 world championship who's the man between the two.
Rose will definitely evolve into a top 5 player in the next 2-3 years, but we're talking about now aren't we? ;)

MacFitz92
01-17-2012, 03:57 AM
Im going to quote this the next time you compare players

You can compare players, their games, their strengths and weaknesses, their style, etc.

My point is the whole "#1", "#2", "superstar", "franchise player", **** gets overplayed, especially by people on this forum.

A perfect example is the NBA Redraft where whoever trades for the two best players win by vote. It isn't about two or three players. It's about a team of players. I think we witnessed that in the 2011 NBA Finals. Dallas "didn't have a #2" and Miami "had 3 all stars", it's not about that. It's about the team.

northsider
01-17-2012, 10:06 PM
Why? Derrick Rose has not proven he can lead an average team. He plays for the Chicago Bulls which have Luol Deng, Joakim Noah and Carlos Boozer. That's better than 95% of the league. Great player for sure, but how do you differentiate Rose from Paul Pierce for example? On my list, Rose makes the "franchise players" list, while Pierce doesn't. But how does Rose effect his team more than Pierce (positively)?
Rose has been part of some pretty good rosters in his short career. Same applies to Durant but we all saw in 2010 world championship who's the man between the two.
Rose will definitely evolve into a top 5 player in the next 2-3 years, but we're talking about now aren't we? ;)

Rose regardless of the team he is on is going to make them strides better and is a guy any team would be thrilled to build on. I can't think of one player who doesn't need some sort of above avg. team around him in order to be successful in the winning aspect. As an individual however if you are questioning whether Rose is a franchise piece then you are off your rocker. This isn't some notion only a homer would think of this is something common logic and a eye for the game would tell you.

jsthornton7
01-19-2012, 03:31 AM
Mane- "Paul Pierce was the best player on the Celtics for a long time. He had some garbage around him. Like real genuine garbage. After the "big 3" came along, they won some championships, and Paul Pierce was the best player on the team the entire time. Until more recently, Rondo may have taken that over. But, it's Pierces team, and it has been for a very long time. Definite franchise player. Easiest pick of the bunch to me."

why am i the only one who sees something wrong here lol

Greet
01-19-2012, 09:41 AM
Rose regardless of the team he is on is going to make them strides better and is a guy any team would be thrilled to build on. I can't think of one player who doesn't need some sort of above avg. team around him in order to be successful in the winning aspect. As an individual however if you are questioning whether Rose is a franchise piece then you are off your rocker. This isn't some notion only a homer would think of this is something common logic and a eye for the game would tell you.

Dwight Howard?

Take Rose off the Bulls and they could contend for a playoff seed, take Howard off the Magic and they would be a lottery team no doubt.

northsider
01-19-2012, 03:43 PM
Dwight Howard?

Take Rose off the Bulls and they could contend for a playoff seed, take Howard off the Magic and they would be a lottery team no doubt.

Whoopty ****ing doo a low seed in the East division. With Rose however we are a championship contender and that is what a franchise player can do. Cracking a spot in the East playoff picture isn't that impressive however being able to run with the big dogs at the top is. That is what Rose brings to the table.

EDIT: I might of misunderstood your answer. If you are saying Howard is surrounded by a less then avg. team then I guess that is an example however I don't know just how terrible his team is actually playing this year aside from him.

Evolution23
01-19-2012, 05:58 PM
You NY fans are funny :D

All of us?

Evolution23
01-19-2012, 06:01 PM
Good job fellas. Especially myself.

- Mane, President of Prosportsdaily.

wow you are so cool

Chi City23
01-19-2012, 07:52 PM
All of us?

There are always exceptions ;)

Snapshot
01-21-2012, 06:03 PM
lol @ any of those guys being Franchise players, the closest one on the list would be Blake, and he isn't even what I would consider one.. simply put, if any of the aforementioned players are your #1 option, you're looking at a 1st round exit from the Playoffs, year in and year out.

Bruno
01-24-2012, 05:05 AM
lol @ any of those guys being Franchise players, the closest one on the list would be Blake, and he isn't even what I would consider one.. simply put, if any of the aforementioned players are your #1 option, you're looking at a 1st round exit from the Playoffs, year in and year out.

that remains to be seen, 4/6th of these guys are young. Paul Pierce got the C's past the first round as the clear cut #1 several times.

i agree with you when it comes to Gordon, Westbrook, and Gasol.

imo, Griffin and Love will prove you wrong eventually.

BradfordIsElite
01-24-2012, 03:12 PM
The only true franchise player I see named above is Paul Pierce, credited during his prime. Griffen is the only player who I can see as a 'franchise' player and possibly Westbrook. Both have to polish their games a bit more though, obviously.

Celtics33
01-24-2012, 04:51 PM
Of the players listed, I think only Pierce (in his prime) and Love are franchise players.

Blake has the marketability, but his game hasn't developed enough yet. He's the next closest of the players listed, though.

Westbrook is electric, and has tons of talent, but he's too inconsistent.

Ask Memphis how Gasol as a franchise player worked. Not well.

Gordon COULD be, but I think he's best served as a very good #2 option.

x 2

mightybosstone
01-26-2012, 06:57 PM
Someone will have to explain to me why Eric Gordon is on that last to begin with. That guy does not deserve to be spoken in the same breath as the other players on that list and I would have considered Aldridge, Randolph, Ginobili and probably others before my mind would have come close to Gordon.

And the answer to who I consider to be a "franchise player" at this point is Love, Gasol and Griffin. Pierce is a little past that point of consideration, Westbrook hasn't proven to be efficient or consistent enough and Gordon is a definite "hell no." I'm a little surprised you guys aren't giving Pau more credit, though. Look at the guy's playoff numbers on two championship teams and the fact that he led the league in WS/48 last season.

The_Jamal
01-27-2012, 05:12 PM
Someone will have to explain to me why Eric Gordon is on that last to begin with. That guy does not deserve to be spoken in the same breath as the other players on that list and I would have considered Aldridge, Randolph, Ginobili and probably others before my mind would have come close to Gordon.

And the answer to who I consider to be a "franchise player" at this point is Love, Gasol and Griffin. Pierce is a little past that point of consideration, Westbrook hasn't proven to be efficient or consistent enough and Gordon is a definite "hell no." I'm a little surprised you guys aren't giving Pau more credit, though. Look at the guy's playoff numbers on two championship teams and the fact that he led the league in WS/48 last season.

Agreed on Gordon. I don't see what makes him much different from guys like Monta Ellis/Marcus Thornton/Kevin Martin. He's a great scorer, but he'll always be best suited as a #2 option

Greet
01-27-2012, 08:54 PM
Agreed on Gordon. I don't see what makes him much different from guys like Monta Ellis/Marcus Thornton/Kevin Martin. He's a great scorer, but he'll always be best suited as a #2 option

Uhh....he plays defense?

mightybosstone
01-30-2012, 02:38 AM
Uhh....he plays defense?

But it's not like he's an elite defensive player in the mold of players like Lebron, Dwight or Wade. He's an undersized 2-guard whose numbers aren't spectacular in really any category, and while he has good lateral quickness, he's going to get outmuscled by the stronger SG, while the average SG can easily shoot over him.

Gordon is not a "franchise player" in any sense of the word. It's not even close and anyone who thinks this should be able to back it up with something besides "he plays defense."

Greet
01-30-2012, 12:02 PM
But it's not like he's an elite defensive player in the mold of players like Lebron, Dwight or Wade. He's an undersized 2-guard whose numbers aren't spectacular in really any category, and while he has good lateral quickness, he's going to get outmuscled by the stronger SG, while the average SG can easily shoot over him.

Gordon is not a "franchise player" in any sense of the word. It's not even close and anyone who thinks this should be able to back it up with something besides "he plays defense."

Well I only said that since you used Monta Ellis, Kevin Martin and Marcus Thorton three notoriously bad defenders.

JasonJohnHorn
02-02-2012, 10:06 AM
Being called a franchise player is partly about context. A player in his prime who is playing on a team with no other all-stars, but still gets them into the playoffs, that is a franchise player in my mind. Pao Gasol comes to mind. He may not have been statistically as impressive as a Karl Malone, but he played on a team with no other legit first options and got them into the playoffs in a deep western conference. Once traded to LA, he took on a supporting role, and with Bynum's development he's taken on an even smaller role, but if you planted Gasol in Toronto's starting line up, he'd be putting up impressive numbers and would be a franchise player.

Blake Griffen is a no brainer for me. He is a beast on the boards and a great offensive player, and he's not slouch on defence. Even with CP3 on his team he is the first option. Paul runs plays for Griffen.

Can there be two franchise players on one team? It certainly seems that Miami has two (Wade and LBJ) and so do the Clippers (Blake and CP3). In each case these all-stars are still posting numbers they would be posting if they were the only star on the team. Can there be three franchise players on a team? No. Somebody is going to have to take a backseat if there are three players. There are just not enough balls in the game to allow for three franchise players.

In Toronto, Bosh was a franchise player. He was the best player on the team. He agreed to take a role as the third man in Miami. But even in Toronto he wasn't the kind of franchise player that say Charles Barkley was in Philly. And Toronto struggled to make the playoffs with Bosh in a shallow eastern conference where it should have been easy to make it to the post season.

So some players, like Bosh, can be considered a franchise player in a certain context, but at the same time be inferior to other franchise players. I mean honestly, Bosh is not even in the conversation as the best PF in the league. Eric Gordon? He is a franchise player to NO, because in his context he is the best player on the team, but he wouldnt even be the third best player on a team like the Lakers or the Heat.

I feel the term is used too much. I think it should be used only for guys you can build a team around. I believe you can build a team around Blake and Love, so in my mind they are franchise players. I do not believe you could build around Westbrook. If Westbrook is the best player on your team, you are not even going to make the playoffs. Durant is clearly a franchise player. Melo? He's on the fence. Can you build a team around him? Denver tried for 7 seasons, and the always made the playoffs, but never really had a shot at a title. Howard however, made it the NBA finals with a small supporting cast, illustrating that you CAN build a winner around him. Same with James and Wade. Both have been to the finals with teams that were built around them, so yeah, they can make it to the big stage as the alpha male. And since both of them were used to sharing ball handlign duties with their resepctive PGs in the past, they can still play to their max because they share the ball handling duties with each other. Bosh though, is not a franchise player. LBJ and Wade don't run plays for him first, they run them for each other, and sometimes put the ball into Bosh's hand, and sometimes the defence follows them and leaves Bosh open.

Then you have players who are past their prime but were franchise players. Pierce. Garnett. Was Allen ever a franchise player? I'd say so. I'd say the Bucks had a pretty good shot at the NBA finals when they played Philly and took them to 7 games. I believe a team that had Ray Allen as the best player could win a title. But it is so much hard to build around a great guard than it is to build around a great center or forward. None of the three are franchise players now. In fact, Rondo is the best player on the Celtics. Does that make Rondo a franchise player? I'd say no. If Rondo is the best player on your team you are not going to win a championship.

So for me, a franchise player is a player you can build a contender around. A guy that is the best player on the court and can contend with players that has no all-stars. Its a no brainer with some guys. LBJ. Wade. Kobe. Duncan. Howard. We've seen these guys in the NBA finals when they were playing with teams built around them. Melo? Amare? Nash? Its hard to say with these guys. Nash won the MVP twice and he wasn't even the best player on the team either time, Amare was. But Nash's contribution was more important because his play made other guys around him better even though he was not the best player on the court (if that makes any sense). Kidd was never a franchise player in my eyes, even though he got to the finals twice. The Nets were outclassed both times they got the finals and only made it to the finals because the east was so weak. Somebody was going to come out of the east that season to get to the finals, and everybody and their dog knew whoever won the east was going to be destroyed in the finals. If Jason Kidd, even in his prime, is your best player, you are not going to win a title.


If you believe you can build a contender around somebody, then that somebody is a franchise player. If the best player on your team is Barngani, then you are not going to win a title, and even though he may be considered that franchise's best player, he is not a franchise player.

He115ing
02-02-2012, 01:07 PM
First of all great thread and a very entertaining read!
Westbrook- not franchise player. Immature, concerned more about individual performace, rather than helpiong the team sometimes. Has illusions of grandeur

Griffin- borderline on this one. He is fun to watch and is very athletic, but right now he relies too much on his athleticism. If he develops a post game and improves his jump shot, then yes.
Gasol- No. Too old, to be a franchise player, not dominant enough, sometimes too soft for a big man.

Gordon- No. For me it is because he is young and already has a history of injuries. If he stays healthy, yes. But I don't think he will.

Pierce- No. Not at this stage in his career.

Love- Yes. Great Rebounder, stretches the floor with his threes, can go inside. And don't forget that game winner, he hit this season. His defense I think will improve.

Interesting candidates: Rubio, Kyrie Irving, Monta Ellis, John Wall, Michael Beasley.

iliketurtles24
02-02-2012, 02:07 PM
First of all great thread and a very entertaining read!
Westbrook- not franchise player. Immature, concerned more about individual performace, rather than helpiong the team sometimes. Has illusions of grandeur

Griffin- borderline on this one. He is fun to watch and is very athletic, but right now he relies too much on his athleticism. If he develops a post game and improves his jump shot, then yes.
Gasol- No. Too old, to be a franchise player, not dominant enough, sometimes too soft for a big man.

Gordon- No. For me it is because he is young and already has a history of injuries. If he stays healthy, yes. But I don't think he will.

Pierce- No. Not at this stage in his career.

Love- Yes. Great Rebounder, stretches the floor with his threes, can go inside. And don't forget that game winner, he hit this season. His defense I think will improve.

Interesting candidates: Rubio, Kyrie Irving, Monta Ellis, John Wall, Michael Beasley.

you are funny man... never will he be

sb123
02-09-2012, 11:03 PM
Jeremy Lin?

sb123
02-09-2012, 11:04 PM
Ricky Rubio?

OptiMized
02-11-2012, 05:47 PM
Mike James?

M.V.W.
02-13-2012, 11:38 AM
Andrew Bynum?

Ovratd1up
02-13-2012, 09:21 PM
David West?

benzni
02-14-2012, 01:00 PM
Franchise Players
A-List
Kobe (for a year or two)
Lebron
Dwight
Cp3
Wade
Durrant
Dirk (for a Year or two)
Rose

B-List
Love (soon to be A List)
Griffin (soon to move up)
DWill (he can't even get into the playoffs by himself and a decent big, Kobe use to be able to)
Westbrook
Pierce (for a couple years)
Wall
Amare
Aldridge (borderline A)

C-List
Rondo (could be a B on some night and others horrible with that jumper and FT%)
Bynum
Kyrie Irvin (moving up quick)
Gay
Curry
Ellis
Kevin Martin
Wallace (moving down)
Horford
A.I
Harden
Jason Terry
Parker
Gasol


I know you can't name them all and this was early on in the season but to add to it

Bargnani
David Lee
Tyreke Evans
Melo
Bosh

benzni
02-14-2012, 01:01 PM
you are funny man... never will he be

but he is beastling

CudiOnMyiPod
02-14-2012, 02:29 PM
Franchise Players
LeBron James
Dwyane Wade
Dirk Nowitzki
Dwight Howard
Kobe Bryant
Kevin Durant
Derrick Rose
Deron Williams

Not Quite
Carmelo Anthony
Amare Stoudemire
Blake Griffin
Kevin Love
LaMarcus Aldridge
Rajon Rondo