2011 CB Historical Draft - Draft Thread

[GreenFaith1819]

Do players like Gary Payton or Sam Cassell or Steve Smith who jumped on the end of a bench at the end of their careers to win a championship while playing sparingly or quite awful, really make them championship level players their entire careers?

To me a championship caliber player is an player that during their prime was an integral part of winning a championship. The greats come to mind, of course, but a player like Sean Elliott, Robert Horry, John Salley, Danny Ainge, or Kurt Rambis, in my mind, would seem to fit the designation as a championship level player before a guy who got old and decided to jump on the end of a bench to get his ring because in his prime he couldn't do it.

Just one man's opinion. 

Agreed - and a player who makes that late jump for a title opportunity are diminished in my eyes. i would have kept a high level of respect for Karl Malone had he not jumped on the Laker bandwagon after being a Jazz his entire career. that move was made even worse by the fact that he was so desperate that he sold out and played for one of the Jazz biggest rivals to try to get a ring.

Malone had his chances and wasn't able to get it done - so i don't call him a championship level player. i call him a great player who maybe didn't have that little extra inside himself that guys like Bird, Magic, Russell, Jordan, Cowens, Garnett, Duncan and Olajuwon had.

And tenn-smoothie - please don't forget that:

Larry had Chief and Kevin. And Red to even pull off getting Chief for Joe Barry Carroll.

Magic had Kareem..and Worthy..and Coop. Was Magic going to guard Larry in the 80's (like Coop did)?

Russell wasn't winning it by himself, either.

Garnett had that "IT" factor to elevate his teammates, but he wasn't going to win it without Ray and Paul.

Timmy was a great player, even early in his career...but he was in fact shielded by David Robinson.

Hakeem is a player who baffles me, in that he had no "Stars" beside him as he won rings. He had Otis Thorpe who was a good PF, and Kenny Smith was a fine PG, but besides Ralph Sampson no other names really jump out at me as far as who Hakeem had on his teams.

[KCattheStripe]

Hakeem is a player who baffles me, in that he had no "Stars" beside him as he won rings. He had Otis Thorpe who was a good PF, and Kenny Smith was a fine PG, but besides Ralph Sampson no other names really jump out at me as far as who Hakeem had on his teams.

Hakeem Dream Shakes your expectations.

[nickagneta]

Do players like Gary Payton or Sam Cassell or Steve Smith who jumped on the end of a bench at the end of their careers to win a championship while playing sparingly or quite awful, really make them championship level players their entire careers?

To me a championship caliber player is an player that during their prime was an integral part of winning a championship. The greats come to mind, of course, but a player like Sean Elliott, Robert Horry, John Salley, Danny Ainge, or Kurt Rambis, in my mind, would seem to fit the designation as a championship level player before a guy who got old and decided to jump on the end of a bench to get his ring because in his prime he couldn't do it.

Just one man's opinion. 

Agreed - and a player who makes that late jump for a title opportunity are diminished in my eyes. i would have kept a high level of respect for Karl Malone had he not jumped on the Laker bandwagon after being a Jazz his entire career. that move was made even worse by the fact that he was so desperate that he sold out and played for one of the Jazz biggest rivals to try to get a ring.

Malone had his chances and wasn't able to get it done - so i don't call him a championship level player. i call him a great player who maybe didn't have that little extra inside himself that guys like Bird, Magic, Russell, Jordan, Cowens, Garnett, Duncan and Olajuwon had.

And tenn-smoothie - please don't forget that:

Larry had Chief and Kevin. And Red to even pull off getting Chief for Joe Barry Carroll.

Magic had Kareem..and Worthy..and Coop. Was Magic going to guard Larry in the 80's (like Coop did)?

Russell wasn't winning it by himself, either.

Garnett had that "IT" factor to elevate his teammates, but he wasn't going to win it without Ray and Paul.

Timmy was a great player, even early in his career...but he was in fact shielded by David Robinson.

Hakeem is a player who baffles me, in that he had no "Stars" beside him as he won rings. He had Otis Thorpe who was a good PF, and Kenny Smith was a fine PG, but besides Ralph Sampson no other names really jump out at me as far as who Hakeem had on his teams.

Hakeem won his championships in a league watered down by unneeded expansion and a lack of truly talented players. There were a number but with the number of teams and the advent of the best athletes starting to go to football, the 90's became a thin era for superior NBA talent.

Also, Michael was suspended two years for gambling....ooops....I mean he decided to go play minor league baseball so Hakeem had his opening.

[KCattheStripe]

Hakeem won his championships in a league watered down by unneeded expansion and a lack of truly talented players. There were a number but with the number of teams and the advent of the best athletes starting to go to football, the 90's became a thin era for superior NBA talent.

This to me is bogus, with the exception of the Pistons every team Michael went through on his way to being the GOAT was still together when Hakeem won his rings. And he did it with less help than Michael.

[mgent]

You can compare talent all you want, Ray to Reggie, LeBron to Jordan.  But at the end of the day rings are what separate them.

Yeah but in this game that logic is flawed because, at age 27, Ray Allen and Reggie Miller had the same number of rings, and that's what we're comparing.

Same with KG/Malone (for the years picked).

I don' think there is anything wrong with selling your guys as 'NBA Champions', but make sure they won one in the year your picked or before it, because otherwise, it doesn't make any sense.

That's not what was currently being argued.  I already said I know that the "championship experience" they gained later in life doesn't apply.  For the record, I do however think the fact that Ray was able to win a championship later on in life still applies.  You can't argue that his personality caused him to be a career-loser, you can't argue that he was a team cancer, he proved that he had that championship heart, and I don't think that's something that can be learned or taken away.  It's something he had when he was 27, and with Reggie you'll never know.

[GreenFaith1819]

Do players like Gary Payton or Sam Cassell or Steve Smith who jumped on the end of a bench at the end of their careers to win a championship while playing sparingly or quite awful, really make them championship level players their entire careers?

To me a championship caliber player is an player that during their prime was an integral part of winning a championship. The greats come to mind, of course, but a player like Sean Elliott, Robert Horry, John Salley, Danny Ainge, or Kurt Rambis, in my mind, would seem to fit the designation as a championship level player before a guy who got old and decided to jump on the end of a bench to get his ring because in his prime he couldn't do it.

Just one man's opinion. 

Agreed - and a player who makes that late jump for a title opportunity are diminished in my eyes. i would have kept a high level of respect for Karl Malone had he not jumped on the Laker bandwagon after being a Jazz his entire career. that move was made even worse by the fact that he was so desperate that he sold out and played for one of the Jazz biggest rivals to try to get a ring.

Malone had his chances and wasn't able to get it done - so i don't call him a championship level player. i call him a great player who maybe didn't have that little extra inside himself that guys like Bird, Magic, Russell, Jordan, Cowens, Garnett, Duncan and Olajuwon had.

And tenn-smoothie - please don't forget that:

Larry had Chief and Kevin. And Red to even pull off getting Chief for Joe Barry Carroll.

Magic had Kareem..and Worthy..and Coop. Was Magic going to guard Larry in the 80's (like Coop did)?

Russell wasn't winning it by himself, either.

Garnett had that "IT" factor to elevate his teammates, but he wasn't going to win it without Ray and Paul.

Timmy was a great player, even early in his career...but he was in fact shielded by David Robinson.

Hakeem is a player who baffles me, in that he had no "Stars" beside him as he won rings. He had Otis Thorpe who was a good PF, and Kenny Smith was a fine PG, but besides Ralph Sampson no other names really jump out at me as far as who Hakeem had on his teams.

Hakeem won his championships in a league watered down by unneeded expansion and a lack of truly talented players. There were a number but with the number of teams and the advent of the best athletes starting to go to football, the 90's became a thin era for superior NBA talent.

Also, Michael was suspended two years for gambling....ooops....I mean he decided to go play minor league baseball so Hakeem had his opening.

lol....but Nick brings up a very interesting point.

So - would Hakeem Olajuwon have won those two rings if Michael had played those two years?

[GreenFaith1819]

In fairness to Hakeem, though - I don't recall Michael ever facing a truly dominant center like him...someone with his skillset, athleticism, quickness, etc - and will to win.

Hakeem changed games.

[nickagneta]

Hakeem won his championships in a league watered down by unneeded expansion and a lack of truly talented players. There were a number but with the number of teams and the advent of the best athletes starting to go to football, the 90's became a thin era for superior NBA talent.

This to me is bogus, with the exception of the Pistons every team Michael went through on his way to being the GOAT was still together when Hakeem won his rings. And he did it with less help than Michael.

It doesn't change the fact that expansion in the 90's watered down the talent pool and that the advent of football popularity started having kids who would have normally played basketball, playing football instead, which watered down the talent level.

In the 60's many teams had 3-4 Hall of Famers and needed them to win championships.

In the 70's expansion watered down the league and usually 2 Hall of Fame type talents is all you needed to win. The two teams that won more than one championship in the 70's had multiple Hall Players for many years.

In the 80's the talent level expanded again and it took 3-4 Hall level talents to win a championship.

Expansion happened again in the 90's and football went nuts in the media and on a youth level in the late 80's and 90's and the 90's became a watered down era.

[KCattheStripe]

lol....but Nick brings up a very interesting point.

So - would Hakeem Olajuwon have won those two rings if Michael had played those two years?

"But if I had to pick a center, I would take Olajuwon. That leaves out Shaq, Patrick Ewing. It leaves out Wilt Chamberlain. It leaves out a lot of people. And the reason I would take Olajuwon is very simple: he is so versatile because of what he can give you from that position. It's not just his scoring, not just his rebounding or not just his blocked shots. People don't realize he was in the top seven in steals. He always made great decisions on the court. For all facets of the game, I have to give it to him.-"


MJ Sounds scared.

[KCattheStripe]

Hakeem won his championships in a league watered down by unneeded expansion and a lack of truly talented players. There were a number but with the number of teams and the advent of the best athletes starting to go to football, the 90's became a thin era for superior NBA talent.

This to me is bogus, with the exception of the Pistons every team Michael went through on his way to being the GOAT was still together when Hakeem won his rings. And he did it with less help than Michael.

It doesn't change the fact that expansion in the 90's watered down the talent pool and that the advent of football popularity started having kids who would have normally played basketball, playing football instead, which watered down the talent level.

In the 60's many teams had 3-4 Hall of Famers and needed them to win championships.

In the 70's expansion watered down the league and usually 2 Hall of Fame type talents is all you needed to win. The two teams that won more than one championship in the 70's had multiple Hall Players for many years.

In the 80's the talent level expanded again and it took 3-4 Hall level talents to win a championship.

Expansion happened again in the 90's and football went nuts in the media and on a youth level in the late 80's and 90's and the 90's became a watered down era.

So does that mean Michael's titles are watered down or is Hakeem's first more impressive because he did it with no other Hall of Famers?

[GreenFaith1819]

lol....but Nick brings up a very interesting point.

So - would Hakeem Olajuwon have won those two rings if Michael had played those two years?

"But if I had to pick a center, I would take Olajuwon. That leaves out Shaq, Patrick Ewing. It leaves out Wilt Chamberlain. It leaves out a lot of people. And the reason I would take Olajuwon is very simple: he is so versatile because of what he can give you from that position. It's not just his scoring, not just his rebounding or not just his blocked shots. People don't realize he was in the top seven in steals. He always made great decisions on the court. For all facets of the game, I have to give it to him.-"


MJ Sounds scared.

Oh, trust me Brother I hear ya.

I picked Olajuwon 1st last year when the draft was 90's through 2000's.

[indeedproceed]

Hakeem won his championships in a league watered down by unneeded expansion and a lack of truly talented players. There were a number but with the number of teams and the advent of the best athletes starting to go to football, the 90's became a thin era for superior NBA talent.

This to me is bogus, with the exception of the Pistons every team Michael went through on his way to being the GOAT was still together when Hakeem won his rings. And he did it with less help than Michael.

It doesn't change the fact that expansion in the 90's watered down the talent pool and that the advent of football popularity started having kids who would have normally played basketball, playing football instead, which watered down the talent level.

In the 60's many teams had 3-4 Hall of Famers and needed them to win championships.

In the 70's expansion watered down the league and usually 2 Hall of Fame type talents is all you needed to win. The two teams that won more than one championship in the 70's had multiple Hall Players for many years.

In the 80's the talent level expanded again and it took 3-4 Hall level talents to win a championship.

Expansion happened again in the 90's and football went nuts in the media and on a youth level in the late 80's and 90's and the 90's became a watered down era.

So does that mean Michael's titles are watered down or is Hakeem's first more impressive because he did it with no other Hall of Famers?

I think it means both. Michael's 6 titles can still be watered down and impressive, just like Hakeem's "Sans-Michael" Titles were an accomplishment that was somewhat tarnished.

[KCattheStripe]

Hakeem won his championships in a league watered down by unneeded expansion and a lack of truly talented players. There were a number but with the number of teams and the advent of the best athletes starting to go to football, the 90's became a thin era for superior NBA talent.

This to me is bogus, with the exception of the Pistons every team Michael went through on his way to being the GOAT was still together when Hakeem won his rings. And he did it with less help than Michael.

It doesn't change the fact that expansion in the 90's watered down the talent pool and that the advent of football popularity started having kids who would have normally played basketball, playing football instead, which watered down the talent level.

In the 60's many teams had 3-4 Hall of Famers and needed them to win championships.

In the 70's expansion watered down the league and usually 2 Hall of Fame type talents is all you needed to win. The two teams that won more than one championship in the 70's had multiple Hall Players for many years.

In the 80's the talent level expanded again and it took 3-4 Hall level talents to win a championship.

Expansion happened again in the 90's and football went nuts in the media and on a youth level in the late 80's and 90's and the 90's became a watered down era.

So does that mean Michael's titles are watered down or is Hakeem's first more impressive because he did it with no other Hall of Famers?

I think it means both. Michael's 6 titles can still be watered down and impressive, just like Hakeem's "Sans-Michael" Titles were an accomplishment that was somewhat tarnished.

Quiet, peacemaker!

[nickagneta]

Honestly, at this point, I think the votes are going where they will so I am just talking but, Hakeem, as talented as he was, I think, played in a watered down league which enhances his standing because people don't realize this.

For instance, Cowens won an MVP in 1972-73 while being a 6'9" center with such talent at the big man position as Wilt Chamberlain, Kareem Abdul Jabbar, Spencer Haywood, Wes Unseld, Willis Reed, Nate Thurmond, Bob Lanier, Walt Bellamy, Connie Hawkins, Clifford ray, Bob Love, Bob McAdoo,  and Elmore Smith and he had to play one or two of these guys every game because there were only 17 teams.

In Hakeem's prime(1993-94) there were 27 teams and just not nearly as many top quality big men in the league or that many quality big men per team.

Yet, people will downplay Cowens as a player and yet enhance Hakeem in this endeavor yet I think Cowens played better competition on a nightly basis, most of the time against bigger players and dominated that league that year and for many years and Hakeem is held as one of the best ever.

I just don't think the older players get quite the respect they deserve and that newer players get way more than they deserve.

[KCattheStripe]

Honestly, at this point, I think the votes are going where they will so I am just talking but, Hakeem, as talented as he was, I think, played in a watered down league which enhances his standing because people don't realize this.

For instance, Cowens won an MVP in 1972-73 while being a 6'9" center with such talent at the big man position as Wilt Chamberlain, Kareem Abdul Jabbar, Spencer Haywood, Wes Unseld, Willis Reed, Nate Thurmond, Bob Lanier, Walt Bellamy, Connie Hawkins, Clifford ray, Bob Love, Bob McAdoo,  and Elmore Smith and he had to play one or two of these guys every game because there were only 17 teams.

In Hakeem's prime(1993-94) there were 27 teams and just not nearly as many top quality big men in the league or that many quality big men per team.

Yet, people will downplay Cowens as a player and yet enhance Hakeem in this endeavor yet I think Cowens played better competition on a nightly basis, most of the time against bigger players and dominated that league that year and for many years and Hakeem is held as one of the best ever.

I just don't think the older players get quite the respect they deserve and that newer players get way more than they deserve.

It's a good thing I have them both.