SoGood

Source: NBA.com feature

I think the article is on point.
There might be a few others that get on to that prestigious list in the near future like Roy and possibly Durant. I think Howard should be there right now.

what do you guys think?

LX

Howard is not there now. And I don't go for the transcendent junk. What does that really mean? Kobe won precisely because he finally got over the need to be that way. There's no doubt it came into play with Jordan, but going beyond that example does a disservice to the game.

oneironaught

If Bosh doesn't improve a fair margin, I think he may be exposed, seeing as many eyes will be upon him this year. Being a fan of this club -watching many games- I've always felt Bosh is a 2nd tier 'franchise guy'. And now that the rest of the league is going to key in on him this year, it should become clear that he's not a max contract star. Personally, I think Bargs should be taking the most shots on this team. Then again, we've yet to see Bosh's 'new' and 'improved' body/game at full stead. So maybe this year he proves me wrong.

Superjudge

That was a good article.

Nice to read one every once in a while.

LX

I don't see how a lot of those examples win without a good cast around them. Does Magic win without Kareem? Not so much. Does Garnett get anywhere without some other guys? Obviously no. Kobe clearly needed more than just a couple really good players to get anywhere. Duncan has always had a good cast around him. If one player was so important, then repeating wouldn't be so hard, but again, aside from Jordan, that's not the case.

Ligeia

I like Vincent Thomas, and I think that's a good, mostly realistic article.

Sick, Wicked and Nasty!

I agree with the article for the most part. I've said all along there are only a handful of guys in the league that can truly be a standalone star not requiring a significant supporting cast to win.

There are a few things though that tie into discussions we've had on this forum worth noting.

1. Language: Franchise vs foundation. These are just words this author chose to define his categories. When you hear Jack Armstrong refer to Chris Bosh as the Raptors franchise player..this does not mean he's saying Bosh is as good as Kobe. It just means he's talking about Bosh as a foundation player(by this author's standards). There's nothing wrong with using the lable franchise player for Bosh, because it's true...as long as you have a different lable for the Kobe's and Lebrons.

2. Max money player: It's fair to say all this articles 'franchise' players are or will be max money guys. The foundation list however is not as cut and dried. I think most would be willing to give max to Dirk, Pierce and some others while guys like Rondo probably not so much. This is the problem with the league. 30 teams, only 6 franchise guys...but if you don't have one or two foundation guys fi you're not one of the 6 lucky teams you're going nowhere. Foundation guys still bring fans to the seats and you still need to pay them except in situations where they go to one of the franchise guys teams. Bosh's value is going to be determined by the market. If one team(other than Toronto) is willing to max pay him, then that's his value. It's easy to say then to let him go.. but considering he's the only guy we have on either the franchise or foundation lists that wouldn't be a very smart move for BC to make now would it? ...wrt both building a winner and a financially successful franchise.

LX

There's also a bunch of guys on the foundation list that can still define themselves as transformational or transcendent. And I think Chauncey has been very close to crossing the line at different times. He beat two franchise guys in Shaq and Kobe, but he somehow didn't do it by being transcendent? I can't get caught up in the difference between those two categories too much. I think if you're dealing with intangibles, then you can't suddenly make it about hard and fast definitions. I wish he had allowed for some fluidity there.

Apollo

This is what I've been saying. This is why I've questioned people for suggesting he's worth $20-27M/yr (1/3 the salary cap).

LX

That story hasn't been entirely written yet though. He is going to have a chance to prove his worth.

insight_tor

The interesting thing is that NBA has 30 teams, still only 21 foundation players + 6 franchise players and half of them are old enough to consider retirement quite soon. We got one of these really small list of elites (and a young one) and many still wants him traded away. Basically, he can be as good as any other from the list of 20 foundation players, do you really think we can get any of 6 franchise players?


BTW .... what the heck is Rondo doing in that list. I know he is a good player, but he doesn't belong to that list!

LX

Never mind Rondo - how does T-Mac qualify as any kind of foundation guy? Baron Davis? On any given year I suppose. Where the hell is Tony Parker? Rondo is more valuable than him?

Really this is shit the more you look at it. My biggest problem is that he calls it a definitive list, when there just isn't any such thing. You need the right combination of players period.

highonpsi

This writer knows basketball.

Dark Knight

Swell? Wow.......

Rene_13

You make a very good point about his description of the list. He should refer to it as the subjective list, he's creating what is "definitive" and what simply does not make the cut. So if LeBron James suffers a career ending injury, he's still a definitive franchise guy. Quite plainly, nothing in life is definitive.