Poll: Best Player to Build a Franchise Around

[liam]

Tough question. And whenever such a tough question comes up I go to the default correct answer for all these type questions.

Larry Bird.

Ding ding ding!!!!

We have a winner!

[slamtheking]

Giannis - showed he can be "THE MAN" on a title team with a decent supporting cast.

Luka doesn't play D.  Jokic isn't a primary ball handler. Tatum right behind Giannis for being the guy to start a franchise with.

[Jvalin]

Giannis - showed he can be "THE MAN" on a title team with a decent supporting cast.

Luka doesn't play D.  Jokic isn't a primary ball handler. Tatum right behind Giannis for being the guy to start a franchise with.

Only on CelticsStrong.

Imo, you can't go wrong with any of Giannis / Luka / Jokic. Gun to my head, I'd probably opt for Luka. I'd rank Tatum at #4. He's an exceptional talent. He's only 24 years old. He almost never misses games. He can play on or off the ball. It's super easy to build a team around him. He's a 2-way player. Can't say enough good things about his game. That said, right now I believe Steph, KD and Embiid are better players than Tatum.

[slamtheking]

Giannis - showed he can be "THE MAN" on a title team with a decent supporting cast.

Luka doesn't play D.  Jokic isn't a primary ball handler. Tatum right behind Giannis for being the guy to start a franchise with.

Only on CelticsStrong.

Imo, you can't go wrong with any of Giannis / Luka / Jokic. Gun to my head, I'd probably opt for Luka. I'd rank Tatum at #4. He's an exceptional talent. He's only 24 years old. He almost never misses games. He can play on or off the ball. It's super easy to build a team around him. He's a 2-way player. Can't say enough good things about his game. That said, right now I believe Steph, KD and Embiid are better players than Tatum.

so you're saying you'd prefer to build a franchise around Steph, KD and Embiid?  feel free to do so.  I'll start mine off with Tatum over them --> Steph and KD are over 30 and Embiid hasn't carried the Sixers all that far.

not saying you can go wrong with starting with Luka or Jokic but I think Tatum is the better starting point.  Luka doesn't play D and Jokic isn't the guy that'll be able to bring the ball up and start an offense. 

[Who]

I think Luka's defensive limitations get over-stated.

There is a virtue to being a middle sized player with medium speed in today's switch heavy league over being an oversized player with low speed (Jokic) or a undersized player with plus speed (Trae Young). Luke is harder to exploit on switches than these players.

This is a big part as to why Dallas has been able to build high end defenses (6th best def eff last year) around Luka despite his lack of athleticism / defensive chops.

Luka is closer to an average defender than he is terrible defender.

[Somebody]

Why are we talking about Doncic's defence when Magic's (even his older iterations) is never brought up in ATDs? I think Doncic's defence is perfectly fine - he's bulkier and grittier than Magic, has a more consistent motor and isn't prone to breakdowns off-ball when he's stationary. He's not going to provide significant value to a team as a defender, but he certainly won't be the weak link that drags everything down.

[Somebody]

Tough question. And whenever such a tough question comes up I go to the default correct answer for all these type questions.

Larry Bird.

The correct answer

[Somebody]

Luka

What’s the argument for Luka over Giannis?  Age, yes.  But can he ever make up the defensive gap?

Two different players. Luka is like Oscar Robertson. Giannis is a taller Doctor J.

I like the Luka model because he is a one-man offense. Both a prolific scorer and a prolific playmaker.

Giannis gives you less offense but much more defense.

It is more a stylistic choice. They're both at a similar level (to me at least).

I always thought that the bulk of Erving's impact came on offence (which doesn't mean that he's a poor defender, he's just not a great one). Giannis to me is the newest rendition of the two-way titan ala Wilt/Walton/Hakeem/Robinson/Duncan/Garnett/Davis - an all-timer on defence who also happens to be a star on offence.

[Moranis]

Why are we talking about Doncic's defence when Magic's (even his older iterations) is never brought up in ATDs? I think Doncic's defence is perfectly fine - he's bulkier and grittier than Magic, has a more consistent motor and isn't prone to breakdowns off-ball when he's stationary. He's not going to provide significant value to a team as a defender, but he certainly won't be the weak link that drags everything down.

When Luka wins a whole bunch of championships, we can talk about him like we do Magic. 

Heck, I'd just take a season where the Mavs aren't basically the same team whether Luka is on the floor or not.  His on/off differential per 100 possessions for his career is just +0.2 (which is what it is this year). 

Luka hasn't quite figured out how to scale back the ball dominance.  He is an excellent passer, but he literally does everything, which actually harms everyone else.  When he isn't on the floor, the Mavs play a much better team oriented style of basketball.  They get along better and all end up playing better, especially because Luka isn't a good defender.  He hasn't been able to make it work all well with the 2nd best players on his team i.e. Porzingis and Brunson, such that they couldn't wait to get out of Dallas either. 

Luka is a great player and has a chance to go down as one of the handful of greatest players ever, but he has to learn how to play better within a system and not be the system, because he isn't good enough on both ends of the floor to be the system.  I don't think he is even as good as Curry defensively, and Curry isn't the ball dominant offensive player, let alone guys like James and of course Jordan.  That is also what sets him apart from Magic at this point, Magic wasn't the Lakers system.  Magic played perfectly in the system, but the Lakers were never so totally dependent on Magic that they couldn't function with him on the bench. 

[Vermont Green]

Why are we talking about Doncic's defence when Magic's (even his older iterations) is never brought up in ATDs? I think Doncic's defence is perfectly fine - he's bulkier and grittier than Magic, has a more consistent motor and isn't prone to breakdowns off-ball when he's stationary. He's not going to provide significant value to a team as a defender, but he certainly won't be the weak link that drags everything down.

When Luka wins a whole bunch of championships, we can talk about him like we do Magic. 

Heck, I'd just take a season where the Mavs aren't basically the same team whether Luka is on the floor or not.  His on/off differential per 100 possessions for his career is just +0.2 (which is what it is this year). 

Luka hasn't quite figured out how to scale back the ball dominance.  He is an excellent passer, but he literally does everything, which actually harms everyone else.  When he isn't on the floor, the Mavs play a much better team oriented style of basketball.  They get along better and all end up playing better, especially because Luka isn't a good defender.  He hasn't been able to make it work all well with the 2nd best players on his team i.e. Porzingis and Brunson, such that they couldn't wait to get out of Dallas either. 

Luka is a great player and has a chance to go down as one of the handful of greatest players ever, but he has to learn how to play better within a system and not be the system, because he isn't good enough on both ends of the floor to be the system.  I don't think he is even as good as Curry defensively, and Curry isn't the ball dominant offensive player, let alone guys like James and of course Jordan.  That is also what sets him apart from Magic at this point, Magic wasn't the Lakers system.  Magic played perfectly in the system, but the Lakers were never so totally dependent on Magic that they couldn't function with him on the bench.

This is all true.  I don't even know where the idea that Magic didn't play defense comes from.  Magic did everything, defense included.

All the criticism of Doncic is fair.  Right now, Doncic is more Russell Westbrook or Harden than Magic Johnson in terms of making the team or others better.  But he is also only 23.  And he makes plays that no one else in the league can make.  It is like in baseball where Homeruns get more attention than say OPS or on base percentage.  It isn't necessarily fair or representative of contribution to winning, but it is what it is.

I don't think Doncic is the top guy to build a franchise around, but he is in the discussion.  Tatum is ahead of him by a little in this poll.  Wonder how this would be on a non-Celtics forum.  I have Tatum a little ahead of Doncic right now but that may change in the near future. 

My top guy is Giannis.  I expect he will continue to be at or near the top of his game for maybe 5 more years.  Others are getting better though.

[Kernewek]

my answer depends on a number of factors.

are we starting this franchise from scratch, draft and cast offs from other teams ala an expansion team? if so, then youth is key concern for me as well as talent.

are we building a franchise that can sign free agents, other top talent, then an established star would be more attractive and more likely to draw other top talent.

but based upon this thread alone, i chose antetokounmpo.

A new franchise that can draft and attract FAs, make trades, whatever any other franchise can do to build the best team possible.

And presuming this is today at their current point in their careers, which is why you included ages. Otherwise I think you pick Chris Paul or James and be done with it (lukewarm spicy take). As it stands now, it's gotta be GA.

[Vermont Green]

my answer depends on a number of factors.

are we starting this franchise from scratch, draft and cast offs from other teams ala an expansion team? if so, then youth is key concern for me as well as talent.

are we building a franchise that can sign free agents, other top talent, then an established star would be more attractive and more likely to draw other top talent.

but based upon this thread alone, i chose antetokounmpo.

A new franchise that can draft and attract FAs, make trades, whatever any other franchise can do to build the best team possible.

And presuming this is today at their current point in their careers, which is why you included ages. Otherwise I think you pick Chris Paul or James and be done with it (lukewarm spicy take). As it stands now, it's gotta be GA.

Not sure I follow.  A poll asking if you have to pick one player to make a run at a championship this season and only for one season.  That might return a different answer (although I would still pick Giannis  for that case as well).   If you could go back in time and pick any player when they were say 25, that would be too hypothetical for me but I think that is what you are asking.  And then maybe yes, you pick 25 year old LeBron probably over 25 year old Giannis.

The only other player that I did not include in this poll but I though about was Victor Wembanyama.  You could decide he has the best future.  I wouldn't, too much risk compared to a young but established NBA star.  But that is at least worthy of consideration.

[Kernewek]

my answer depends on a number of factors.

are we starting this franchise from scratch, draft and cast offs from other teams ala an expansion team? if so, then youth is key concern for me as well as talent.

are we building a franchise that can sign free agents, other top talent, then an established star would be more attractive and more likely to draw other top talent.

but based upon this thread alone, i chose antetokounmpo.

A new franchise that can draft and attract FAs, make trades, whatever any other franchise can do to build the best team possible.

And presuming this is today at their current point in their careers, which is why you included ages. Otherwise I think you pick Chris Paul or James and be done with it (lukewarm spicy take). As it stands now, it's gotta be GA.

Not sure I follow.  A poll asking if you have to pick one player to make a run at a championship this season and only for one season.  That might return a different answer (although I would still pick Giannis  for that case as well).   If you could go back in time and pick any player when they were say 25, that would be to hypothetical for me but I think that is what you are asking.  And then maybe yes, you pick 25 year old LeBron probably over 25 year old Giannis.

The only other player that I did not include in this poll but I though about was Victor Wembanyama.  You could decide he has the best future.  I wouldn't, too much risk compared to a young but established NBA star.  But that is at least worthy of consideration.

Sure, my question came from this bit of the OP:   

For this question, I am saying that if you were starting a new NBA franchise and could pick one player to start to build around, who would you pick?  Not just for one season, but to build a franchise around (whatever time horizon you think).

(Another wrinkle: 'today' is in the poll but not in the thread title).

I think on more reflection if I had free reign as a GM I might pick Jokic tbh, just because I love bigs with elite playmaking.

[Phantom255x]

I love Doncic but even Mavs fans will tell you there's a lot to be desired with his defense and unlike Giannis/Tatum, it's not like Doncic is often being asked to guard the opposing team's best scorer. No question though he's an ELITE scorer

[Roy H.]

I think on more reflection if I had free reign as a GM I might pick Jokic tbh, just because I love bigs with elite playmaking.

He might be my second choice, before Doncic or Tatum.  He's having a down year so far compared to his prior two seasons, but the on/off numbers for Denver are remarkable.