Should teams without a superstar even draft based upon need? Or, should they ALWAYS take the best player available. The guy that has the "potential" of netting them the right piece (or maybe will become the right piece for them) when they get lucky in the draft and nab themselves a SUPERSTAR?
I have been doing this since I have becoming interested in the NBA Draft (aka the day Michael Jordan retired. Well, the second time he retired, from the Bulls). I always look at teams creating a good "nucleus" of young talent to build off of. But, as I am sitting here like you guys pouring over potential draft picks and what teams will have, and who goes where, and this and that...I realized that a "nucleus" isn't really what it used to be. At least not a "nucleus" that is built from the draft, it's not.
What every team does is the get "lucky" in the draft and land themselves a Superstar. Some teams, like LA, swindle another team out of a Top 5 guy like Kobe. Other teams like Cleveland suck, get the #1, and get that #1 in a GOOD year to have the #1. Not like 2006 (sorry Raptor fans). All the teams in the playoffs right now are a good example of this. Kobe, Lebron, Carmelo, and Dwight Howard. All were drafted by their current teams. Everyone that is currently around those guys haven't been drafted with the Superstar fitting in, it's been the other way around, and most of the time everyone BUT the superstar gets traded away for role players. Let's take a look (just the contributors):
KOBE - 3 titles with different roster, Fischer, FA; Pau Gasol, TRADE; Lamar Odom, TRADE; Trevor Ariza, TRADE; Shannon Brown, TRADE; Bynum, DRAFT; Farmar, DRAFT; Walton, DRAFT;
LEBRON - Mo Williams, FA ; Delonte West, TRADE; Ben Wallace, TRADE; Wally Szczerbiak, TRADE; Joe Smith, FA; Anderson Varejao, DRAFT, Big Z DRAFT
CARMELO - Chauncey Billups, TRADE; Kenyon Martin, TRADE; Chris Anderson, FA; JR Smith, TRADE; Dahntay Jones, TRADE; Anthony Carter, FA; Nene, DRAFT
HOWARD - Rashard Lewis, FA; Mickael Pietrus, FA; H. Turkoglu, FA; Rafer Alston, TRADE; Anthony Johnson, FA; Courtney Lee, DRAFT, Jameer Nelson, DRAFT
Forgive me if I forgot a couple guys here or there, but for the most part the 2 - 3 main "core" guys weren't drafted to be a part of these current contenders. I saw a question, which is a better core: OKC or MEM? The answer would be Durant, because HE IS the core. Portland will not be able to keep all 10 guys they drafted on their team when they are contending for a title in 3 years. Memphis has some good players, but their "core" will change the instant they draft a Superstar. Not a VERY GOOD star, like they had in Pau Gasol, but a Top 10 in the NBA guy.
Miami almost won a title in 2005, keep the Superstar (Wade) then they trade away half their team, bringing in a huge amount of players that helped them win in 2006.
Lakers win 3, blow up the team (see Miami, above), keep their Superstar (Kobe), rob MEM blind and are in the Finals in 08 and 09 (too premature?)
Celtics are bottom feeders in 2007, keep their Superstar (Pierce), trade away half their team, win in 2008
San Antonio Spurs win title in 1999, keep Superstar (Duncan), win 3 more with no other remaining player from 1999 title team on the 2007 team
I can keep going, but even something as simple as my Bulls. They went to the playoffs a few times, peaking when they beat the defending champ Heat in 2007. The miss the playoffs in 2008, and when they are back in 2009 only 1 starter is in the lineup on the 2009 team against the Celtics that was also a starter on the 2007 playoff team. But, it doesn't matter because the 2005, 2006, and 2007 playoff teams didn't have a Superstar. The 2009 team did, so the rest of the players are either used as bargaining chips or are let go. Or they are now role players, regardless of how much more important their role used to be.
My point is, are we ever going to REALLY see a "nucleus" being put together through the draft?
Or, are the teams without the "Superstar" better off just drafting "best player available" (BPA) without much care for team need or positional need? I am starting to think the latter.
What do you guys think?
Well Griffin+ Gordon could make up a 2 superstar core...
You mean Ben Gordon or Eric Gordon? Does it matter though, because to me they are the exact same player. Except Ben Gordon requires more money since he hit some monster shots in one of the best playoff series I've ever seen. Seriously, I think that they are probably the easiest to compare to each other and they have the same name. It cracks me up.
I am just kidding clippers, I know which Gordon you mean. Neither Gordon is going to be a superstar. Trust me, I just watched Ben for the last 4 years and he is exactly what he is going to be. If Eric Gordon learns how to guard a guy that has a few inches on him and can fight through screens, he might be an all-star. If he is a Top 5 guard in the NBA ever I will probably choke on my own disbelief.
Blake Griffin has a shot to be a superstar though, you are right on that. I am not completely sold on him but you have a chance to have something special there for your team man. You should be excited! I remember how awesome I felt last year at this time when I knew the Bulls were taking Rose. I also sat there thinking about how he was going to mesh with the Bulls current roster and what their "nucleus" was going to be in the future. Do you think that I thought Joakim Noah was going to be part of Derrick Rose's "nucleus" for the next 5 years? Hell no, I thought the Bulls were going to give him away for a bag of balls. But when you get that superstar on the team, certain players seem to change for the better and some change for the worse. The ones that change for the worse are out the door, because you win in the league with superstars. Plus, you should be excited because the Clippers have enough talent to be in the Playoffs next year for sure. I don't like a lot of the guys on the team, but it doesn't matter. When Blake Griffin is winning championships as a superstar, none of the other guys I don't like (Baron Davis, Zack Randolph, Marcus Camby) will probably be there. If Gordon is there, great. But, if he were traded this season because he doesn't fit in the team's long term plans to build around Griffin I wouldn't be surprised. They might have to package him with Zack Randolph just to get rid of his contract before the 2010 off-season. You never know, that's what I am saying in this post man.
i think u have not seen enough Eric Gordon to judge. He is actually a great defender due to his long arms and otherworldly strength for a 2 guard. Also, he is not a streaky, inefficient shooter like Ben Gordon is. He plays very smart basketball. He makes the right decision most of the time. His playmaking ability is MUCH better than most think it is. Trust me, he will be a top 5 sg in the nba someday. Also, why don't u like Camby?
The Bulls built their championship teams mostly throught the draft(Jordan, Grant, Kukoc, Pippen was a draft day trade). So that was a perfect example of building a dynasty through the draft. Orlando almost built a dynasty through the draft with Penny, Shaq, Anderen, DScott. So obviously it can be done. But to win a championship, you have to be on top of all elements of your game as a GM (draft, trades, Free-agency).
See my comments above. Since the salary cap has changed (see Garnett's salary vs. everyone else's) and the 1 year in college rule I feel it's a different game. You can't sign players forever anymore like you used to be able to. There is a lot more movement. I mean, Kobe could have left the Lakers once before, could again after this season, and probably could again before he's even past his prime. Orlando almost did, you are right. They got the #1 pick 2 straight years, and one of those years was Top 3 of all-time center. I think that the game has changed. I really do. Look at the problem that Cleveland and LA are having (were with the Lakers until the Griz gave away Gasol in the most lopsided trade since the Lakers swindled the Hornets with Kobe/Divac).
Oh, and the lottery has been altered since the Orlando days too. It is a completely different system than it used to be. Obviously not foolproof, look at the Bulls 1.7% last year. But different than it used to be. Because of Orlando, actually.
Plus, with the High School guys having to go to college for a year it gives less potential sleepers like Amare, Rashard Lewis and Kobe (that's definitely debatable, I believe it's true though)
@clippers - I have seen Gordon play since high school. I know that he was pretty damn good last year but I don't think that he will be a Top 5 guard. I could be wrong, but I don't think you will find that many people who will agree with you on Gordon. Probably on Griffin, but not on Gordon. I guess it depends on how you use the term superstar.
It is possible too, I didn't mean to leave that out. The Celtics had it. The Bulls of the 90's had it. The Lakers of Kobe and Shaq had it. But, with the salary cap restrictions that have been put into place since Garnett last signed his deal, and the 1 year in college rule was put into effect, it is REALLY hard to have a 2 superstar core. Man, if the Heat would have got the 1st pick last year and picked Rose they could have had one too. Phew, that goodness they didn't.
Are you the same guy who said that Griffin and Gordon will be the closest thing to Shaq and Kobe? Funny stuff, I guess you have to be a little delusional if you are a Clippers fan though.
if u term mayo a future superstar imo u have to term gordon one too.
Also, the Bulls second 3-peat had Kukoc, Pippen, and Jordan yes. But Rodman, Longley, Harper, Kerr, and other bench guys were free agents or trades. Grant, BJ, Cartwright were gone. Also, those teams were considered some of the BEST EVER (see 72-10) which is the exception, not the rule.
My original point was that having a "core" or "nucleus" isn't really there with anyone except superstars. Yes, if OKC would have scored HUGE and got the #1 this year, we would be talking about a core of Durant-Griffin. I know a lot of people are high on Westbrook, but I don't think that Jeff Green is part of the "core". Hell, his name comes up in trade talks RIGHT NOW. I don't think that Durant's name is going to come up in any trade talks. He's the "core" of OKC. Portland has a great "nucleus", and if Oden pans out...whoa, look out. But if he doesn't look like a sure thing allstar center in 2 seasons, he will probably sign somewhere other than Portland because Roy, Aldridge, Fernandez, etc. will cost too much when their contracts are up. Does it make sense what I am saying? I feel like I am not getting my point across correctly. I talk about the "core" and "nucleus" too, but if there are any ?'s about a guy, he probably isn't your "core".
When the Bulls were putting together their team from the draft, they resigned Pippen to one of the best contracts for a forward in NBA history. Pippen insisted that it had to be for a LONG time, even though Jerry Reinsdorf of all people said that it was stupid to do so. He told Pippen that it would be an outdated contract in a couple years, but Pippen didn't care he wanted the length for financial security. Well, sure enough, the league changed and Pippen was underpaid 2 years later and wanted a new contract. Reinsdorf and Krause told him tough &$#%#&@!. We warned you this would happen, but you did it anyway. That's why he always bad mouthed Krause, because he wanted the risk to fall on the Bulls no matter what. That kind of stuff doesn't happen anymore. You won't get a Top 50 of all-time NBA player in an outdated low ball contract anymore. Plus, it was really the Jordan show anyway. Remember in 1995 how Pippen was almost traded for Shawn Kemp? Good thing he wasn't, for the Bulls and the single ladies of Chicago. Plus, 3 years after their last championship of the 1st 3-peat, the Bulls had an entirely different team than they originally had.
I don't with Mayo. Same reason I don't term Westbrook. Or Gordon.
What do they do that the other team can't stop, match-up wise? If they don't miss a shot all game? Okay, there is that. They can't post up. They aren't going to drive at will every game. They aren't shut down defenders. They aren't really versatile enough to play more than 1 position, and I really don't think saying SG and PG counts, because they are all REALLY SG but aren't as tall as NBA GM's hope for.
But what do you do to stop Kobe? Stop his drive? Fine he'll post up. Give him the shot? In your face all night. Oh, and he also prevents your best guard from getting his points too, so 32 points is more like 38 or 40.
Who prevents Lebron from scoring 40? Nobody. He is unguardable. Post up, screen, drive, jumper. He can do it all, and he can guard your PG, SG, SF, PF, and sometimes your C. You can also put 2 PG's out there, 2 C's.
Carmelo is another guy who has the body of a PF but could bring the ball up the court and score in ten different ways.
All 3 of these guys are UNBELIEVABLE PASSERS TOO!
Howard? Only the best center in basketball, it's not surprising when he puts up 30 and 20 with 5 blocks. He opens up 10 -20 more jump shots a game for his teammates than most centers in the league.
Nash, Dirk, CP3, Durant. They all do something better than anyone else, or they create constant match-up problems, or make their teammates A LOT better just by being a focus or getting them the ball in ways that others can't. There is a reason why Durant can average 30 a game and a shooter like Eric Gordon won't. He is 6'10''. If his jump shot isn't working, he'll just go post someone up like a forward. Nash and CP3 are PURE PG who make average players ABOVE AVERAGE. If you are talking a young guy, a superstar is the guy who knows he will get a max deal from any team in the league, he just wants to make sure that the team is going in the right direction. News is made if there is even a hint that they are available, with GM's tripping over themselves at the unique opportunity to trade for them. Like Garnett, it makes headlines on the front page of Yahoo! when you go to check your email when he gets traded.
Gordon and Mayo don't do that in my opinion. They can be good players, or great players, or even All-Stars. But, I don't think that they will ever be an "untouchable". They aren't right now and I don't think they will be next season, the season after that, or ever.
Your "core" or "nucleus" is only your untouchable. Everyone else is expendable.
actually gordon is the only untouchable clipper right now. the clippers have said it constantly so yeah.
About not doing anything but shoot: He will be able to drive at will because of how freakishly strong he is in comparison with most 2 guards. Also, another thing that makes a superstar is being a leader and he was that when the clippers had injury problems forcing him to lead (in his rookie season mind you)! Also, being clutch is another attribute you missed and he has that as well as he was big down the stretch of close games for the clippers (there was not a lot of them tho). Once Gordon develops how do you stop him? hand in his face to stop the shot, he will blow right by you with his excellent first step. Are u going to back off a little to keep him from driving, he will shoot in your face and nail it with his very quick release. Are you going to double him, he is a very smart and unselfish player so therefore he will not just jack up shots: he will create for others and make himself a decoy. He did that against the Lakers late in the season with Kobe guarding him to give Baron an open game winner but Baron could not convert however. Oh and his defense is very good which is showed by his shutting of O.J. mayo in their only legit matchup. As he develops he will become a superstar due to the above reasons.
If the Clippers have said that he is an untouchable, then they deserve to be called the Clippers. Wait, did that make sense. Look man, I think that it's awesome that you are such a devout Clippers fan. I really don't want to rip on your team because it sucks for you. It's probably all you ever hear and right now is actually a GREAT time to be a Clippers fan. Also, I know that you will be very interested in this site probably every year around this time. But...
Gordon, really? Tell me one thing there that you talked about that is unique. He is not freakishly strong. Ben Gordon looks cut too, that's why they are so similar, but he isn't freakishly strong. Ben Gordon is clutch too. Eric Gordon has an opportunity to be VERY GOOD. But he doesn't possess unique skills. Being able to shoot a jumper if they don't let you drive isn't a unique skill for a starting shooting guard. He has no versatility. He doesn't make the other guys on the team better BASED ON HIS UNIQUE SET OF SKILLS. I am not saying he isn't a good leader, or that he doesn't try to get his teammates involved (although he didn't average even 3 assists per game, c'mon). He only shoots! That's it!
He was 53 in the league in steals, 36 among guards
He was 62 in the league in assists, 52 among guards - 30 teams, 2 starting guards per team, he was 52!?!?
He was 4 among rookies in turnovers per game, behind Westbrook, Mayo, and Rose
In Points + Rebounds + Assists he was 5 among rookies behind (guess who?) Rose, Mayo, Westbrook, and Lopez
In Points + Rebounds + Assists he was 45 in the league AMONG GUARDS! That shows very limited overall game
In Points + Rebounds + Assists Ben Gordon was 13th. If E. Gordon reaches 13th in 4 years, Clippers fans should throw him a parade!
How does this show you the potential to have an all-around game that translates into superstar? Dude, I am not going to bother anymore because I'm tired but if Eric Gordon becomes a Top 5 guard (PG,SG) in the NBA at any point in his career GM's around the league will name the GM of the year trophy in Mike Dunleavy's honor. What these stats show is that Eric Gordon is exactly who people thought he would be. He is an undersized shooter, a REALLY GOOD to GREAT shooter, but pretty much a SHOOTER! Not to beat a dead horse here, but from personal experience, a jump shooter looks great until you get into the playoffs and need him to do other things. When he can't, and he is also too small to defend a 6'7'' SG in the post and he is not quick enough to handle the VERY FAST PG's in the league, you will realize that you have a player with GLARING DEFICIENCIES! What, don't you get a chance to watch Clippers AND Lakers games where you live?
Last thing. Ben Gordon, who in his rookie year became the only player in NBA history to win the 6th man of the year award as a rookie, averaged 15.1, 2.6, and 2.0 his rookie season. Oh, and his team went to the playoffs as one of the youngest playoff teams in NBA History.
Ben Gordon rookie year - 15.1, 2.6, 2.0 Minutes Per Game 24.4
Eric Gordon rookie year - 16.1, 2.6, 2.8 Minutes Per Game 34.3
One started 65 games, one started 3. Guess which one.
Sorry man, you don't know what a superstar guard looks like, even though he plays 41 games a year on your home court, just in a different colored uniform. Have fun in 28 days though.
Im a clipper fan buh I do not see him being a SUPERSTAR such as Durant,Melo,LeBron,CP3, but as a Future Alll-Star, and 3-Pt Champion. What people also don't see in his game is that he CAN slash to the hoop and throw it down, and he's not scared too either. But yes I do classify him as a GREAT to almost MILLER-time like shooter.
Shooters can be great, think of Glen Rice, who won the All Star MVP award during his prime, but he is not Glen Rice. Gordon is a undersized 2 who has will have trouble guarding guys like Kobe but he does hold his own against players because he has strength and lots of it to make up for his height.
Think of him as a Modern version of Mitch Ritchmond. Yes i said it.
Maybe its because I'm a fan of the clipps, but Gordon had the strongest desire to win all season being very vocal even as a rookie. He managed to play throughout the season and carry the team while everyone was injured. Yes Mitch won ROY averaging 20sum ppg but he did not have baron and zach chucking up shots. Nonetheless, he will the best scorer of his draft when it is all said and done.
Back to the original topic of a team building their 'nucleus' I can say the clippers are going in the right direction with thier SuperStar Blake Griffin (Hopefully, i have high hopes for this kid even though he hasn't played in a single nba game), a future All Star (Hopefully) Eric Gordon and hopefully a 6th man award in Thornton one day. Maybe my hopes are too high but they are realistic. Non the other the clippers are still owed a 1st pick from the T'wolves which is unprotected in the future, so hopefully the Wolves will still be in the bottom so that the clippers can benefit from that.
That isn't a bad upside, Mitch Richmond. Unlike most people around here, I am not a University of Illinois fan, I went to the University of Iowa (sad, I know, but a GREAT party school). People who are fans of Illinois HATE Eric Gordon for the most part because they feel he reneged on his commitment to Illinois to play for that dirtball Calvin Sampson at Indiana.
I don't like Sampson. Can you tell? That guy cheats when he is in a room alone watching Jeopardy. But, I actually like Gordon and he was a Top 10 pick, you can't say he screwed up. My problem with him is only that someone called him a Superstar and "untouchable" which goes against the whole point I was trying to make in this thread. He will probably be an All-Star someday, but I don't think that his game says Mitch Richmond to me. Richmond came into the league averaging 22.0 points, 6 rebounds, and 4 assists per game. Richmond's stats blew all other rookie stats out of the water. Of course, different time/different coach, but you could see right away that he had the opportunity to become one of the best guards in the game based on how he performed right out of the gate. He was a 6-time all-star, and made All-NBA 2nd team 3 times and All-NBA 3rd team 2 times. Also, Gordon is 20 and Richmond was 23 when he entered the league. I think that is Gordon's absolute CEILING, but I don't see him reaching it. Also, Richmond might not be considered an Superstar, but I think he's close. If he played on the Knicks instead of Sacramento, it might have been a different story.
Eric Gordon is listed at 6'3'' on this site, as is Ben Gordon. Now, Ben Gordon is about 6'0'' and I don't know if Eric Gordon is a legit 6'3'' or not so they could be different players. But, I don't know if his stats right now scream out that he will be better than what I see, which is an undersized 2 guard with a GREAT shot. Judging by his assist totals, he likes to take his when he gets his. But you are right, having Baron Davis and Zach Randolph on the team makes it almost impossible not to shoot when you have the chance.
Griffin is the new "core", Gordon might be a huge part of that as well if he can compliment his game. But, as a Clippers fan, you see how much a "core" can change in just a couple of years. Especially when they are young. Brand, Miles, Maggette, Richardson. Everyone said that they were a great "core" and Miles and Richardson were gone in 2 seasons. The reason is they had to move Darius to get a PG, and they got a great one in Andre Miller. Etc., Etc.
But, as a Clippers fan you should be REALLY excited. You now have a real "core" in Griffin, and Gordon might be a good complimentary piece, unless they have to use him as a bargaining chip to get someone who will better exploit Blake Griffin's game. It could be Gordon, but if they don't mesh well we all know who is out the door. Plus, the Clippers get a stud young SG in a draft and all of the sudden he is expendable. You know?
Maybe I was a bit rash in my thought process, it's just amazing to me how much we make out these awesome young teams on paper when we look on this site and then I realized that they almost NEVER stay together longer than a couple of years unless they are Superstar potential. Plus, when you look at most of the Final Four NBA teams the last few years, you notice that most have their "core" consisting of 1 or 2 guys MAX and everyone else is a rotating part. Pistons are an exception, although they were VERY unique in today's NBA. Hawks right now could also be an exception, although I think they need to move a couple of guys from that core to be real contenders.
Gordon put up a pretty amazing 59.3 True Shooting percentage last year as a 20 year old rookie.
In comparison Kobe's career best TS% is 58%. Wade's best is 58.3%.
To say Gordon is "just a scorer" underplays how efficient he is.
But, I am still not convinced...wait, how I determine TS% again?
True Shooting Percentage = Points / 2 * Field goals Attempts + .44 * Free throws attempts.
IS TS%, I FOUND IT, SORRY ABOUT DOUBLE POST ABOUT THE SAME THOUGHT!
Kerr's all-time shooting % for his career is .5932
I would call him only a shooter. Now, he's one of the most efficient shooters of ALL TIME!
But, he isn't a superstar, allstar, untouchable, etc.
He was a VERY GOOD to GREAT role player
Kevin Martin is a GREAT player as well, but I could see Sacramento trading him right now. He is not a superstar, and he is 11th ALL-TIME in the NBA with a .6055 TS%. Plus, I don't think that this stat would disprove my idea of him as a shooter, I don't.
I am looking at the all-time list, topped by #1 Artis Gilmore, #2 Cedric Maxwell, #3 James Donaldson, #4 Adrian Dantley, and #5 Jeff Ruland. Good to Great, sure. Do they come up in talks of "I would start a franchise with...Jeff Ruland."? No, that's crazy. Also, I didn't include ABA stats here, but for those who are interested: http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/ts_pct_career.html
Don't get me wrong, there are some elite players on this list too. But when MJ is 71, right below Andrei Kirilenko, with Dwyane Wade at 88 below them, I don't think this does anything to change my mind. I feel that Eric Gordon is a shooter first and foremost, and he isn't tall enough to supplement it with post-ups, consistent drives to the basket, or the ELITE passing ability to make defenders pay for cheating towards the jump shot.
I remember when MJ came into the league and Orlando Woolridge was on the squad. He is above Dwyane Wade on the All-Time TS%, at 81. The Bulls couldn't ship him out of town fast enough. But, he is topped by the Bulls' very own Brad Miller, at 77. Four spots below Chris Paul and six spots below MJ. I am sorry if this statistic is supposed to tell me anything to change my mind but it's not. My original point is that he isn't going to be an untouchable and he has done very little to change my mind that he will find his PRIMARY ROLE in the NBA as a shooter.
Bird 92, Oscar Robertson 94, Kobe Bryant 114, MITCH RICHMOND (who someone else on this thread wants to compare Gordon too, which I feel could be his ceiling, but I don't think he'll reach it) 117, Lebron James 130, Glen Rice 139, Ben Gordon 143. I just don't see any rhyme or reason to how TS% shows anything about a jump shooter or multi-faceted scorer. Efficient yes, but I don't know how it determines he has more to his game than just a jump shot. Look, he might be able to do a lot more right now, but in my opinion he will turn into mostly a shooter if and when he is part of a winning team.
Could somebody change my mind, because I just don't see how this correlates to an all-around scorer or negates my thoughts on his limited game. That being said, I like Eric Gordon and I think he'll be a really good player. He just won't be a Top 10 guard in the league in my opinion. But, since he's only 20, he could improve by a DRAMATIC MARGIN next season and make me look like an idiot. That's what I love about the NBA now, I think that it was gone but now it's back. Young guys have got some TALENT!
actually i disagree with a couple of things...one lamar odom was actually drafted with a super star fitting he just never lived up to it..kenyon martian was also drafted with the idea of him becomming a superstar ( nets president at the time said hed become a superstar) but he of course never became that. joe smith was also drafted on the hope that he would become a superstar( the coach and other coaches though thats how he would turn out to be considering he was drafted over other guys who were projexted to be super stars..ala jerry stackhouse and rasheed wallace)...for the most part you need to drat that superstar in order to win the title unless you have 5 basic stars on the roster like detroit had..so the best way to go is to get that core superstar and build around him..and just about everytime once you get that core superstar all you can do is get other players to build around him because youre so much better you dont get a chance to draft another superstar ...sometimes you can get on via trade but most of the time you have to give up youre superstar unless you have a smart gm like my lakers( getting paul for almost nothing)
ben gordan is 6.2.25.. with a 6'8.25 wingspan eric gordan is 6'3.25 with a 6'9 wing span...ben 37 inch max vert...gordan 40
First, you are the Bryant Markson of Utah, correct? If you are, I caught you play a couple of times and you have game man. It's nice to talk to you.
I think that you and I agree actually. I know that all of these guys were drafted as superstars, but they weren't/aren't. That's what's hard about the draft.
My point is, having a "core" of OJ Mayo, Rudy Gay, Marc Gasol, Hasheem Thabeet (possibly), and Mike Conley isn't really a "core". All of us on this site like to talk about a team's young "core", INCLUDING ME. But, the point is, there really isn't ever a starting 5 "core" that is built through the draft anymore. OKC? Their "core" of Durant, Westbrook, and Green is really a "core" of Durant, with the other guys being able to be moved without hesitation to surround Durant with what he needs to succeed.
thanks and correct ....as far as bulding through the draft you cant because you cant afford to keep them all. and thats pretty much how you build a title team..draft a superstar and draft or sign free agents or trade for players that you can place around the star
You are right Bryant. I think that we always want to draft a young stud at every "position", like with the Grizzlies. "They need a center, draft Thabeet"
I say it too, I have it that way on my mock draft. I say, "Move Gasol to PF, put Thabeet at C, then Gay SF, Mayo SG, and Conley PG" It's stupid. They should draft the guy they think can be a STAR. Because, in my opinion (and I could be wrong, it could be OJ Mayo) they don't have one that's even close. If they think that Rubio could star for them (and he won't say screw you Memphis and stay in Spain) they should take him. Then, in 5 years when they might have put together a championship caliber team with Rubio, or maybe Mayo, and some guy in Europe or in high school right now who we never heard of, they can just sign Thabeet when he's a free agent.
Unless anyone thinks that Hasheem Thabeet could be a Superstar, which isn't the most ludicrous statement in the world. If his offensive game improves dramatically (he's been playing basketball as long as Jordan Hill has, who we always give credit for "potential" because he started playing the game at a later date than most) he could be the guy who brings Africa into the NBA fold. He could be the Father of African basketball, with Dikembe and Manute as the Grandfathers. I don't think that this is going to HAPPEN IN A MILLION YEARS. But, we could all be wrong and this guy could be the superstar of this draft class.
Anyway, my point is, having a young PG, SG, SF, PF, and C to put together a "nucleus" is stupid. They won't stay together longer than a couple of years even if they aren't busts and are all pretty good. Hell, especially if they are all good. They'll either be traded or they will high tail it out of Memphis.
1st off Read Mock Draft 4.0
The reason why nucleus is not important is because there are no dynasties in the NBA.
mo wasn't signed as a free agent by the cavs. they acquired him in a multi-team trade last offseason.
i disagree with your spurs point. 1999-2007 is a pretty long span of time and it's just natural that players grow old and retire. how bout you look into the 03-07 run of the spurs? they had a nucleus of duncan, ginobili, bowen and parker in the 3 championships they won during that time. duncan, ginobil and parker were all drafted by the spurs.