Can the face of a franchise realistically take a non-starting reduced role

[bdm860]

I’m laughing at how this thread got off course talking about who the face of the franchise is…

Ok so not talking about face of the franchise, but how about popular All-Star players who were key pillars in the past for their teams (does that take some of argument out of it)?

I think it could happen.  McHale and Havlicek were good examples of big name Celtics (not saying McHale was the face of the franchise though) coming off the bench.

Michael Jordan (the face of the league) was coming off the bench for the Wizards (at least some of the time) but still averaging 20ppg (though he was 39).

Dan Marjele, one of the most popular Suns, was voted an All-Star starter in ’95 despite coming off the bench for half the season.

I think in ’95-’96 most would consider Chris Mullin and Tim Hardaway to be the face of the Warriors, both were coming off the bench (and Hardaway still had a few All-NBA seasons left in him as he showed with the Heat, and Mullin went on to start on the Pacers who took the Bulls to 7 in the ECF and also went to the FInals).

And while some cases are arguable, often they were better than the player starting over them.  But bringing a guy off the bench help gives a team a different look.  Helps bring in a fresh starter quality player in to face slightly fatigued starters or 2nd unit on the other team.  Would it help Pierce to let LeBron run around for 6-10 minutes before Pierce came in, could very well make it easier for Pierce on both offense and defense?

Only problem is, you need to have enough firepower in the starting lineup to make it work, and I don’t think the C’s would if you take out Pierce.  Though if Green came back along with Garnett and Allen, signed a guy like Kaman, and started a lineup of Rondo/Allen/Green/Garnett/Kaman, that’s 5 potential mid-to-low double digit scorers, so I suppose that could work.

For it to work, I don’t think you need a guy better than Pierce to play in front of him, but you will need some more scoring from the starting lineup.

I could see bringing any of Allen/Pierce/Garnett off the bench, and I think any of them coming off the bench be helpful to the team (considering the other players we might have, no way now though as the  team is too depleted).

[GreenFaith1819]

I think that because of what BOS has stood for basketball-wise, either of those three would take a non-starting role as long as they thought that it would help the team.

I remember Ray Allen considered coming off the bench a couple of years ago to placate Tony Allen. I know it was discussed, but TA eventually left for MEM.

I'm sure KG or Paul would do the same as well. This isn't just any franchise, here.

But with that being said - that replacement player had better be an upgrade. if we get Austin in the draft, he'd have HUGE shoes to fill in replacing Ray Allen.

Paul, right now, is a top 5 SF in the NBA, overall. Next year? I just don't see Paul regressing THAT much due to age. I'd STILL peg him as perhaps a top 6 or 7 SF even next year.

What other SF's (besides Durant, Melo, or Lebron) would be better than Paul Pierce even next year? And even with Melo, Paul statistically is a better player than Melo.

KG is playing out of his mind to be a 35 yr-old. I don't see that regressing too much even next year.

But yeah..because of UBUNTU I'm sure either of the Three would take a non-starting role if they believed it would help the team.

[BballTim]

Pierce is not the face of the Celtics anymore, Rajon Rondo is the face of the Celtics.
But there are only 5 or so players in the league that might start over him at the 3 spot, so I doubt his game will have declined that much next year.

 Rondo is the face of the Celtics now and Pierce could easily come off the bench next season. Depends where our scoring comes from, if we have a scoring center+scoring shooting guard+scoring power forward it might pay to have Pierce come in off the bench and score 15 every night a la James Harden, Jamal Crawford, Mo Williams etc...

Pierce is the franchise. You wouldn't say Bynum is the face of the lakers would you?

To us Celtics fans Pierce is the franchise.
To the NBA and the majority of NBA fans(casual, uneducated basketball wise fans) Rondo is the face of the franchise. It's Rondos team now.

Kobe is the leading scorer in the NBA still portrays him as the face of the franchise. The NBA does not portray Bynum as the face of the Lakers.

Actually I think if anything casual NBA fans consider Pierce the face. Captain, leading scorer, all-star, drafted by team and been playing for 15the years, finals mvp. I don't see how anyone could think Pierce isn't the face of the franchise

Up until the end of 2009-10, it's arugable that Pierce was the face. Some would say the year Rondo became an All Star it became his team.
I think that Rondo is clearly the face of the franchise now- he is on the majority of the marketing and is one of the most beloved players in the NBA. in 2011 he was the third highest selling jersey of all players behind Kobe and Lebron.(he sold more than Rose lol, obviously this will probably change this season, we'll see).
He was also one of 11 players this season to have over 500,000 All Star Votes.(He was 11th highest overall, missed out on starting by one place).

It's different when you're wearing green glasses.
Pierce is older, slower and scores less than 20 a night because he is now one of a 'big 3' which is on the decline.
Two years ago I'd have no argument with you.
To all of us, of course it's Paul Pierces town, but to the rest of the world, Pierce is about to be carted off to the old folks home and now it's Rondo's town.

Not that selling jerseys or all star stuff mean anything but maybe pierce wasn't 3rdthat in jersey sales because millions of fans ALREADY HAVE his jersey.

  Does this mean that you don't think that millions of fans ALREADY HAVE Kobe's jersey?

Good point.

Do you think Rondo is the face of the franchise though? If you do I guess that makes 2 people

  I think that you could make the case that Rondo or PP or KG are the face of the franchise. But Rondo's frequently referred to as the team's best player, does the best in all-star and all-nba voting among the Celts and finished highest in espn's player ratings, and of course there's those jersey sales. If you think that only 1-2 people would call him the face of the franchise, you're in fairly deep denial.

[European NBA fan]

I think that because of what BOS has stood for basketball-wise, either of those three would take a non-starting role as long as they thought that it would help the team.

I remember Ray Allen considered coming off the bench a couple of years ago to placate Tony Allen. I know it was discussed, but TA eventually left for MEM.

I'm sure KG or Paul would do the same as well. This isn't just any franchise, here.

But with that being said - that replacement player had better be an upgrade. if we get Austin in the draft, he'd have HUGE shoes to fill in replacing Ray Allen.

Paul, right now, is a top 5 SF in the NBA, overall. Next year? I just don't see Paul regressing THAT much due to age. I'd STILL peg him as perhaps a top 6 or 7 SF even next year.

What other SF's (besides Durant, Melo, or Lebron) would be better than Paul Pierce even next year? And even with Melo, Paul statistically is a better player than Melo.

KG is playing out of his mind to be a 35 yr-old. I don't see that regressing too much even next year.

But yeah..because of UBUNTU I'm sure either of the Three would take a non-starting role if they believed it would help the team.

I agree with most of your points. Maybe I see Deng, Igoudala, Ginobili (if he is considered a sf) and Joe Johnson (since he moved to sf) as equal to Pierce, and Gallinari as one who will probably catch him next year. The next in line are Batum and  Gay, but I don't see them being better than Pierce, unless he has a serious drop in production.

As for "the face of the franchise", I think that Ubuntu also has made that title void. The Celtics don't want to put anyone ahead of the team, and that's the way it should be with this squad.

[2short]

I thought this thread was about Paul Pierce an all time Celtics great moving to the bench.

If its an argument over the face of the franchise it is not Rajon Rondo, it is not Paul Pierce, it is not Larry Bird, Dave Cowens or even Bill Russell.

Red Auerbach was, is and will always be the face of the Boston Celtics.

[Moranis]

While he was still a starter til retirement, David Robinson took on an increasingly reduced role once the Spurs got Tim Duncan. I think it takes a certain type of player, but it can be done.

Reggie Miller started every game he played from his third season until he retired (and all but 4 in his second year).  His minutes dropped the last three seasons and he wasn't the primary scorer, but he wasn't regulated to the bench.  Same thing with Robinson. 

Heck Duncan has already reduced his minutes and role (as has Pierce really), but they are still starting and playing all the minutes that truly matter.

[Moranis]

I think my initial premise was not communicated very well.  I wasn't suggesting that Pierce, Kobe, Dirk, Duncan, etc. should be coming off the bench right now, but merely questioning whether or not it would be something that could work down the road.  Sure, they could go physically go to the bench, but is that something that would work given the history.  I can't think of a single all time great that came off the bench for the team that he was the franchise of.  Even Kareem was still starting for the Lakers when he was 41 and playing less than 23 minutes a game.  It is almost a slap in the face for the franchise to relegate the "franchise" to the bench.  Mullin did ride the pine his final season (in 12 of the 20 games he played that year), and it was in Golden State, but he had been in Indiana for three seasons before that and the last 2 of those he was coming off the bench.  Jordan was on the bench in Washington after not playing for a few seasons (again not Chicago).  Could you imagine Jordan coming off the bench in Chicago.  Or Bird coming off the bench in Boston.  Or Magic coming off the bench in L.A.  I just don't think you can do it to the guy that was your "franchise". 

[Jon]

While the Celtics have a great history of 6th men, I also think the idea of bringing any of the Big Three off the bench is highly overrated.  Yes, Red did say that it didn't matter who starts the game, it matters who finishes them.  But that also pertains to this argument too.  Why go through the drama and/or the potential adjustment period of doing so?

Assume the Danny looks at the free agent crop next year, decides he's better off waiting till 2013, and brings Ray and KG back for another year.  Let's say Jeff Green comes back too and doesn't miss a beat.  Could we bring Ray or Paul off the bench and start Jeff Green?  Sure.  But what does that really accomplish?  That Ray or Paul provides a scoring punch for the bench?  Maybe.  But one could argue that Green might be better at that at this point.  Furthermore, couldn't that just as easily be done by treating Paul or Ray like KG and taking one of them out 5 minutes into the game?  Then Doc could actually bring two of the Big Three back in with 2 minutes left in the 1st quarter WITH the bench.  

I think the much bigger debate should've always been and should be (if the Big Three are back next year) about playing them fewer minutes and giving other players big roles.  I think who actually starts is fairly unimportant.  After the first 10 minutes or so, who started and who didn't doesn't really matter anyway.  

[CelticG1]

Pierce is not the face of the Celtics anymore, Rajon Rondo is the face of the Celtics.
But there are only 5 or so players in the league that might start over him at the 3 spot, so I doubt his game will have declined that much next year.

 Rondo is the face of the Celtics now and Pierce could easily come off the bench next season. Depends where our scoring comes from, if we have a scoring center+scoring shooting guard+scoring power forward it might pay to have Pierce come in off the bench and score 15 every night a la James Harden, Jamal Crawford, Mo Williams etc...

Pierce is the franchise. You wouldn't say Bynum is the face of the lakers would you?

To us Celtics fans Pierce is the franchise.
To the NBA and the majority of NBA fans(casual, uneducated basketball wise fans) Rondo is the face of the franchise. It's Rondos team now.

Kobe is the leading scorer in the NBA still portrays him as the face of the franchise. The NBA does not portray Bynum as the face of the Lakers.

Actually I think if anything casual NBA fans consider Pierce the face. Captain, leading scorer, all-star, drafted by team and been playing for 15the years, finals mvp. I don't see how anyone could think Pierce isn't the face of the franchise

Up until the end of 2009-10, it's arugable that Pierce was the face. Some would say the year Rondo became an All Star it became his team.
I think that Rondo is clearly the face of the franchise now- he is on the majority of the marketing and is one of the most beloved players in the NBA. in 2011 he was the third highest selling jersey of all players behind Kobe and Lebron.(he sold more than Rose lol, obviously this will probably change this season, we'll see).
He was also one of 11 players this season to have over 500,000 All Star Votes.(He was 11th highest overall, missed out on starting by one place).

It's different when you're wearing green glasses.
Pierce is older, slower and scores less than 20 a night because he is now one of a 'big 3' which is on the decline.
Two years ago I'd have no argument with you.
To all of us, of course it's Paul Pierces town, but to the rest of the world, Pierce is about to be carted off to the old folks home and now it's Rondo's town.

Not that selling jerseys or all star stuff mean anything but maybe pierce wasn't 3rdthat in jersey sales because millions of fans ALREADY HAVE his jersey.

  Does this mean that you don't think that millions of fans ALREADY HAVE Kobe's jersey?

Good point.

Do you think Rondo is the face of the franchise though? If you do I guess that makes 2 people

  I think that you could make the case that Rondo or PP or KG are the face of the franchise. But Rondo's frequently referred to as the team's best player, does the best in all-star and all-nba voting among the Celts and finished highest in espn's player ratings, and of course there's those jersey sales. If you think that only 1-2 people would call him the face of the franchise, you're in fairly deep denial.

Yeah we just don't have the same definition of the phrase

[2short]

While the Celtics have a great history of 6th men, I also think the idea of bringing any of the Big Three off the bench is highly overrated.  Yes, Red did say that it didn't matter who starts the game, it matters who finishes them.  But that also pertains to this argument too.  Why go through the drama and/or the potential adjustment period of doing so?

Assume the Danny looks at the free agent crop next year, decides he's better off waiting till 2013, and brings Ray and KG back for another year.  Let's say Jeff Green comes back too and doesn't miss a beat.  Could we bring Ray or Paul off the bench and start Jeff Green?  Sure.  But what does that really accomplish?  That Ray or Paul provides a scoring punch for the bench?  Maybe.  But one could argue that Green might be better at that at this point.  Furthermore, couldn't that just as easily be done by treating Paul or Ray like KG and taking one of them out 5 minutes into the game?  Then Doc could actually bring two of the Big Three back in with 2 minutes left in the 1st quarter WITH the bench.  

I think the much bigger debate should've always been and should be (if the Big Three are back next year) about playing them fewer minutes and giving other players big roles.  I think who actually starts is fairly unimportant.  After the first 10 minutes or so, who started and who didn't doesn't really matter anyway.  

I think it would have a best case scenario in working to rondo's strengths.  Not knocking Pierce but he hasn't filled the lanes that well this year (or ray).  If Green were to start at sf mind you that gives us a 6'9" small forward to help in rebounding and he is faster than PP now on break.  Use speed and our rondo's passing ability in the open court to start games.  I have even posted trying PP as starting sg and he & kg could be the trailers on fast breaks for 3's or open jumpers.  Not sure if Paul could handle guarding those little guys at this point.  Lastly it would even keel the team, rondo and green go out (or green moved to pf) and paul is there to run offense as point small forward helping bradley or whomever we have as backup pg.

[Jon]

While the Celtics have a great history of 6th men, I also think the idea of bringing any of the Big Three off the bench is highly overrated.  Yes, Red did say that it didn't matter who starts the game, it matters who finishes them.  But that also pertains to this argument too.  Why go through the drama and/or the potential adjustment period of doing so?

Assume the Danny looks at the free agent crop next year, decides he's better off waiting till 2013, and brings Ray and KG back for another year.  Let's say Jeff Green comes back too and doesn't miss a beat.  Could we bring Ray or Paul off the bench and start Jeff Green?  Sure.  But what does that really accomplish?  That Ray or Paul provides a scoring punch for the bench?  Maybe.  But one could argue that Green might be better at that at this point.  Furthermore, couldn't that just as easily be done by treating Paul or Ray like KG and taking one of them out 5 minutes into the game?  Then Doc could actually bring two of the Big Three back in with 2 minutes left in the 1st quarter WITH the bench.  

I think the much bigger debate should've always been and should be (if the Big Three are back next year) about playing them fewer minutes and giving other players big roles.  I think who actually starts is fairly unimportant.  After the first 10 minutes or so, who started and who didn't doesn't really matter anyway.  

I think it would have a best case scenario in working to rondo's strengths.  Not knocking Pierce but he hasn't filled the lanes that well this year (or ray).  If Green were to start at sf mind you that gives us a 6'9" small forward to help in rebounding and he is faster than PP now on break.  Use speed and our rondo's passing ability in the open court to start games.  I have even posted trying PP as starting sg and he & kg could be the trailers on fast breaks for 3's or open jumpers.  Not sure if Paul could handle guarding those little guys at this point.  Lastly it would even keel the team, rondo and green go out (or green moved to pf) and paul is there to run offense as point small forward helping bradley or whomever we have as backup pg.

My stance is that it's more a matter of minutes management than starting.  All of what you say really only applies to the first part of the first quarter.  After that, everything else is essentially up in the air. 

I'd like to see something like this:

Start the current starters.  Take out KG and Ray at the 7 minute mark.  Bring in Green and another big man.  At the 2-3 minute mark, bring Ray and KG back in with Bradley and someone like Pietrus (and perhaps another big).  Keep rotations like that the whole game. 

I think the bigger problem isn't so much who starts and who comes off the bench, I think it's finding better balance in the rotations.  And simply bringing someone off the bench doesn't inherently solve that. 

[2short]

While the Celtics have a great history of 6th men, I also think the idea of bringing any of the Big Three off the bench is highly overrated.  Yes, Red did say that it didn't matter who starts the game, it matters who finishes them.  But that also pertains to this argument too.  Why go through the drama and/or the potential adjustment period of doing so?

Assume the Danny looks at the free agent crop next year, decides he's better off waiting till 2013, and brings Ray and KG back for another year.  Let's say Jeff Green comes back too and doesn't miss a beat.  Could we bring Ray or Paul off the bench and start Jeff Green?  Sure.  But what does that really accomplish?  That Ray or Paul provides a scoring punch for the bench?  Maybe.  But one could argue that Green might be better at that at this point.  Furthermore, couldn't that just as easily be done by treating Paul or Ray like KG and taking one of them out 5 minutes into the game?  Then Doc could actually bring two of the Big Three back in with 2 minutes left in the 1st quarter WITH the bench.  

I think the much bigger debate should've always been and should be (if the Big Three are back next year) about playing them fewer minutes and giving other players big roles.  I think who actually starts is fairly unimportant.  After the first 10 minutes or so, who started and who didn't doesn't really matter anyway.  

I think it would have a best case scenario in working to rondo's strengths.  Not knocking Pierce but he hasn't filled the lanes that well this year (or ray).  If Green were to start at sf mind you that gives us a 6'9" small forward to help in rebounding and he is faster than PP now on break.  Use speed and our rondo's passing ability in the open court to start games.  I have even posted trying PP as starting sg and he & kg could be the trailers on fast breaks for 3's or open jumpers.  Not sure if Paul could handle guarding those little guys at this point.  Lastly it would even keel the team, rondo and green go out (or green moved to pf) and paul is there to run offense as point small forward helping bradley or whomever we have as backup pg.

My stance is that it's more a matter of minutes management than starting.  All of what you say really only applies to the first part of the first quarter.  After that, everything else is essentially up in the air. 

I'd like to see something like this:

Start the current starters.  Take out KG and Ray at the 7 minute mark.  Bring in Green and another big man.  At the 2-3 minute mark, bring Ray and KG back in with Bradley and someone like Pietrus (and perhaps another big).  Keep rotations like that the whole game. 

I think the bigger problem isn't so much who starts and who comes off the bench, I think it's finding better balance in the rotations.  And simply bringing someone off the bench doesn't inherently solve that. 

agree completely, not sure if i was getting my point across, but yes make a better team, who starts doesn't matter, who scores the most etc etc
i think the team might be better with green starting but come 4th quarter i want paul in there
maybe a running team of:
kg center
jg pf
pp sf
ray sg
rondo pg

I could also argue for start of game, rondo, pietrus, pierce, kg and other player then bring ray off bench.  I think next year if ray is resigned either he or pp will be coming off the bench.

I think doc has done a nice job adjusting rotations to get a balance this year with all the injuries.  Greg is getting a lot of good time and doing the job, he will only get better.

[GreenFaith1819]

I think that because of what BOS has stood for basketball-wise, either of those three would take a non-starting role as long as they thought that it would help the team.

I remember Ray Allen considered coming off the bench a couple of years ago to placate Tony Allen. I know it was discussed, but TA eventually left for MEM.

I'm sure KG or Paul would do the same as well. This isn't just any franchise, here.

But with that being said - that replacement player had better be an upgrade. if we get Austin in the draft, he'd have HUGE shoes to fill in replacing Ray Allen.

Paul, right now, is a top 5 SF in the NBA, overall. Next year? I just don't see Paul regressing THAT much due to age. I'd STILL peg him as perhaps a top 6 or 7 SF even next year.

What other SF's (besides Durant, Melo, or Lebron) would be better than Paul Pierce even next year? And even with Melo, Paul statistically is a better player than Melo.

KG is playing out of his mind to be a 35 yr-old. I don't see that regressing too much even next year.

But yeah..because of UBUNTU I'm sure either of the Three would take a non-starting role if they believed it would help the team.

I agree with most of your points. Maybe I see Deng, Igoudala, Ginobili (if he is considered a sf) and Joe Johnson (since he moved to sf) as equal to Pierce, and Gallinari as one who will probably catch him next year. The next in line are Batum and  Gay, but I don't see them being better than Pierce, unless he has a serious drop in production.

As for "the face of the franchise", I think that Ubuntu also has made that title void. The Celtics don't want to put anyone ahead of the team, and that's the way it should be with this squad.

Good point, European NBA Fan - I had forgotten about Iggy, Manu, Gallo and Deng. I'd even consider Rudy Gay as a top SF in the NBA as well.

[OmarSekou]

Absolutely. Look at Chauncey Billups, Tracey McGrady, Vince Carter,Grant Hill, and Jason Richardson. Mutombo did it, Kareem did it, DJ did it, Walton did it.

Granted a lot of those guys went to other franchises and some took lesser roles as opposed to non-starting roles, but it can definitely be done if a guy's ego isn't too big and he buys into the team's concept. I think the Big 3 fit that mold. The issue is that other teams may be willing to overpay for them.

[CelticG1]

Absolutely. Look at Chauncey Billups, Tracey McGrady, Vince Carter,Grant Hill, and Jason Richardson. Mutombo did it, Kareem did it, DJ did it, Walton did it.

Granted a lot of those guys went to other franchises and some took lesser roles as opposed to non-starting roles, but it can definitely be done if a guy's ego isn't too big and he buys into the team's concept. I think the Big 3 fit that mold. The issue is that other teams may be willing to overpay for them.

I'm not gonna disagree that the face of a franchise would do this but not one of those guys were the face of their respective franchise when they took a reserve role right?