Who are the "franchise players" in the NBA?

[PhoSita]

That's a strange definition of "franchise player."  To me, there are only two legitimate franchise players in the NBA right now:  James and Durant (maybe Paul).

I think I'm starting to understand now why you were always so incensed by people proclaiming that this year's draft might have "7 or 8 franchise players."  Even by my definition I think that was always pretty much just hype, but still.

If you're setting the bar that high, there can't have been very many franchise players in the history of the NBA, can there?  I mean, you're talking about generational talents.


To me, a "franchise player" is a guy around whom you can plausibly build a very good team (read: top 10 in the league, has a chance at the Finals) without requiring another player of the same caliber.  You will undoubtedly need to surround any good player with talented teammates -- even LeBron and Durant are subject to that rule -- but a "franchise" player can be the clear-cut best guy on a team with a chance to go all the way. 

That doesn't mean, in my book, that a "franchise player" must be so transcendent that he turns any collection of decent players into a favorite to win the conference and perhaps the championship.  That seems to be your interpretation.


To me, "franchise player" implies that they can be the face of your team, the undisputed main man.  You tailor your offense, and perhaps your defense, to that player.  You acquire other players specifically to fit with that player's strengths and weaknesses.  You would almost never consider trading that player, unless a once-in-a-generation guy like LeBron, Durant, Kobe, Duncan, Shaq, MJ, etc becomes available (and such players almost NEVER do).

I think there are many more players in the league that the majority of NBA GMs, coaches, and players would tell you are "franchise players" than just LeBron and Durant.

I mean, wasn't Paul Pierce a franchise player at one point in time?  I think he was.


Maybe a simpler way to describe what I mean by "franchise player" is that they are the players who in any given season have what it takes to be mentioned in the MVP conversation, but they need not be considered a favorite (or even a top contender) for the award.

[PhoSita]

The first Celtic is Brandon Bass at 101

Hopefully I'm wrong and missed someone

 

You seem to be right.  Win Shares is not a kind metric to players on bad teams.

ESPN has Hollinger stats, and by the "Estimated Wins Added" metric (which I think is a bit fairer to players on teams without many wins), Jared Sullinger is #1 on the Celtics with 5.6, tied for 76th in the league.

The Celtics just aren't a talented team at the moment.

[D.o.s.]

That's a strange definition of "franchise player."  To me, there are only two legitimate franchise players in the NBA right now:  James and Durant (maybe Paul).

I think I'm starting to understand now why you were always so incensed by people proclaiming that this year's draft might have "7 or 8 franchise players."  Even by my definition I think that was always pretty much just hype, but still.

If you're setting the bar that high, there can't have been very many franchise players in the history of the NBA, can there?  I mean, you're talking about generational talents.


To me, a "franchise player" is a guy around whom you can plausibly build a very good team (read: top 10 in the league, has a chance at the Finals) without requiring another player of the same caliber.  You will undoubtedly need to surround any good player with talented teammates -- even LeBron and Durant are subject to that rule -- but a "franchise" player can be the clear-cut best guy on a team with a chance to go all the way. 

That doesn't mean, in my book, that a "franchise player" must be so transcendent that he turns any collection of decent players into a favorite to win the conference and perhaps the championship.  That seems to be your interpretation.


To me, "franchise player" implies that they can be the face of your team, the undisputed main man.  You tailor your offense, and perhaps your defense, to that player.  You acquire other players specifically to fit with that player's strengths and weaknesses.  You would almost never consider trading that player, unless a once-in-a-generation guy like LeBron, Durant, Kobe, Duncan, Shaq, MJ, etc becomes available (and such players almost NEVER do).

I think there are many more players in the league that the majority of NBA GMs, coaches, and players would tell you are "franchise players" than just LeBron and Durant.

I mean, wasn't Paul Pierce a franchise player at one point in time?  I think he was.


Maybe a simpler way to describe what I mean by "franchise player" is that they are the players who in any given season have what it takes to be mentioned in the MVP conversation, but they need not be considered a favorite (or even a top contender) for the award.

TP for a very nice summary. I agree.

[Moranis]

That's a strange definition of "franchise player."  To me, there are only two legitimate franchise players in the NBA right now:  James and Durant (maybe Paul).

I think I'm starting to understand now why you were always so incensed by people proclaiming that this year's draft might have "7 or 8 franchise players."  Even by my definition I think that was always pretty much just hype, but still.

If you're setting the bar that high, there can't have been very many franchise players in the history of the NBA, can there?  I mean, you're talking about generational talents.


To me, a "franchise player" is a guy around whom you can plausibly build a very good team (read: top 10 in the league, has a chance at the Finals) without requiring another player of the same caliber.  You will undoubtedly need to surround any good player with talented teammates -- even LeBron and Durant are subject to that rule -- but a "franchise" player can be the clear-cut best guy on a team with a chance to go all the way. 

That doesn't mean, in my book, that a "franchise player" must be so transcendent that he turns any collection of decent players into a favorite to win the conference and perhaps the championship.  That seems to be your interpretation.


To me, "franchise player" implies that they can be the face of your team, the undisputed main man.  You tailor your offense, and perhaps your defense, to that player.  You acquire other players specifically to fit with that player's strengths and weaknesses.  You would almost never consider trading that player, unless a once-in-a-generation guy like LeBron, Durant, Kobe, Duncan, Shaq, MJ, etc becomes available (and such players almost NEVER do).

I think there are many more players in the league that the majority of NBA GMs, coaches, and players would tell you are "franchise players" than just LeBron and Durant.

I mean, wasn't Paul Pierce a franchise player at one point in time?  I think he was.


Maybe a simpler way to describe what I mean by "franchise player" is that they are the players who in any given season have what it takes to be mentioned in the MVP conversation, but they need not be considered a favorite (or even a top contender) for the award.

You seem to be describing transcendent players not franchise players.  A franchise player is a guy that could realistically be the best player on a team that competes for titles year after year.

The franchise players are (in no particular order):
Lebron James
Kevin Durant
Paul George
Dwight Howard
James Harden
Chris Paul

Possible franchise players (in no particular order) (either too young or not quite enough team success as the guy to really know):
Anthony Davis
Kevin Love
Blake Griffin
Lamarcus Aldridge
Russell Westbrook
Carmelo Anthony
Demarcus Cousins

Former franchise players (in no particular order):
Kevin Garnett
Dirk Nowitzki
Tim Duncan
Kobe Bryant
Dwayne Wade

[slamtheking]

I can see both sides of the argument depending on how you define franchise player.  I think I lean more towards Celtic18's definition.  I see franchise as a transcendent player versus a top-level talent that's a cornerstone of the franchise

Really only 2 franshise players: Lebron and Durant.  They're the only ones really good enough to make their teams contenders regardless of the surrounding talent. 

Anthony Davis could get into the discussion in a year or two as could Paul George.  Derrick Rose pre-injury would be in the discussion as well.

As for the others suggested (CP3, Melo, Love, DH, Harden, Griffin, etc....), they're certainly top-level talent and would be cornerstone pieces for any franchise but they're not good enough to put a team on their back throughout the season and carry that team deep into the playoffs without some significant help from teammates. 

[fitzhickey]

That's a strange definition of "franchise player."  To me, there are only two legitimate franchise players in the NBA right now:  James and Durant (maybe Paul).

I think I'm starting to understand now why you were always so incensed by people proclaiming that this year's draft might have "7 or 8 franchise players."  Even by my definition I think that was always pretty much just hype, but still.

If you're setting the bar that high, there can't have been very many franchise players in the history of the NBA, can there?  I mean, you're talking about generational talents.


To me, a "franchise player" is a guy around whom you can plausibly build a very good team (read: top 10 in the league, has a chance at the Finals) without requiring another player of the same caliber.  You will undoubtedly need to surround any good player with talented teammates -- even LeBron and Durant are subject to that rule -- but a "franchise" player can be the clear-cut best guy on a team with a chance to go all the way. 

That doesn't mean, in my book, that a "franchise player" must be so transcendent that he turns any collection of decent players into a favorite to win the conference and perhaps the championship.  That seems to be your interpretation.


To me, "franchise player" implies that they can be the face of your team, the undisputed main man.  You tailor your offense, and perhaps your defense, to that player.  You acquire other players specifically to fit with that player's strengths and weaknesses.  You would almost never consider trading that player, unless a once-in-a-generation guy like LeBron, Durant, Kobe, Duncan, Shaq, MJ, etc becomes available (and such players almost NEVER do).

I think there are many more players in the league that the majority of NBA GMs, coaches, and players would tell you are "franchise players" than just LeBron and Durant.

I mean, wasn't Paul Pierce a franchise player at one point in time?  I think he was.


Maybe a simpler way to describe what I mean by "franchise player" is that they are the players who in any given season have what it takes to be mentioned in the MVP conversation, but they need not be considered a favorite (or even a top contender) for the award.

You seem to be describing transcendent players not franchise players.  A franchise player is a guy that could realistically be the best player on a team that competes for titles year after year.

The franchise players are (in no particular order):
Lebron James
Kevin Durant
Paul George
Dwight Howard
James Harden
Chris Paul

Possible franchise players (in no particular order) (either too young or not quite enough team success as the guy to really know):
Anthony Davis
Kevin Love
Blake Griffin
Lamarcus Aldridge
Russell Westbrook
Carmelo Anthony
Demarcus Cousins

Former franchise players (in no particular order):
Kevin Garnett
Dirk Nowitzki
Tim Duncan
Kobe Bryant
Dwayne Wade

I reckon Paul Pierce was a franchise player.

[CelticG1]

That's a strange definition of "franchise player."  To me, there are only two legitimate franchise players in the NBA right now:  James and Durant (maybe Paul).

I think I'm starting to understand now why you were always so incensed by people proclaiming that this year's draft might have "7 or 8 franchise players."  Even by my definition I think that was always pretty much just hype, but still.

If you're setting the bar that high, there can't have been very many franchise players in the history of the NBA, can there?  I mean, you're talking about generational talents.


To me, a "franchise player" is a guy around whom you can plausibly build a very good team (read: top 10 in the league, has a chance at the Finals) without requiring another player of the same caliber.  You will undoubtedly need to surround any good player with talented teammates -- even LeBron and Durant are subject to that rule -- but a "franchise" player can be the clear-cut best guy on a team with a chance to go all the way. 

That doesn't mean, in my book, that a "franchise player" must be so transcendent that he turns any collection of decent players into a favorite to win the conference and perhaps the championship.  That seems to be your interpretation.


To me, "franchise player" implies that they can be the face of your team, the undisputed main man.  You tailor your offense, and perhaps your defense, to that player.  You acquire other players specifically to fit with that player's strengths and weaknesses.  You would almost never consider trading that player, unless a once-in-a-generation guy like LeBron, Durant, Kobe, Duncan, Shaq, MJ, etc becomes available (and such players almost NEVER do).

I think there are many more players in the league that the majority of NBA GMs, coaches, and players would tell you are "franchise players" than just LeBron and Durant.

I mean, wasn't Paul Pierce a franchise player at one point in time?  I think he was.


Maybe a simpler way to describe what I mean by "franchise player" is that they are the players who in any given season have what it takes to be mentioned in the MVP conversation, but they need not be considered a favorite (or even a top contender) for the award.

You seem to be describing transcendent players not franchise players.  A franchise player is a guy that could realistically be the best player on a team that competes for titles year after year.

The franchise players are (in no particular order):
Lebron James
Kevin Durant
Paul George
Dwight Howard
James Harden
Chris Paul

Possible franchise players (in no particular order) (either too young or not quite enough team success as the guy to really know):
Anthony Davis
Kevin Love
Blake Griffin
Lamarcus Aldridge
Russell Westbrook
Carmelo Anthony
Demarcus Cousins

Former franchise players (in no particular order):
Kevin Garnett
Dirk Nowitzki
Tim Duncan
Kobe Bryant
Dwayne Wade

I reckon Paul Pierce was a franchise player.

Yeah i absolutely see no way you can put Dwayne wade on this list and possible carmelo anthony without Paul Pierce

Edit. And really? Paul George and James Harden have already reached franchise player status? Might as well through vince carter on the past and even Chris Paul you better be pyutting Steve Nash as a past franchise player as well

[Moranis]

That's a strange definition of "franchise player."  To me, there are only two legitimate franchise players in the NBA right now:  James and Durant (maybe Paul).

I think I'm starting to understand now why you were always so incensed by people proclaiming that this year's draft might have "7 or 8 franchise players."  Even by my definition I think that was always pretty much just hype, but still.

If you're setting the bar that high, there can't have been very many franchise players in the history of the NBA, can there?  I mean, you're talking about generational talents.


To me, a "franchise player" is a guy around whom you can plausibly build a very good team (read: top 10 in the league, has a chance at the Finals) without requiring another player of the same caliber.  You will undoubtedly need to surround any good player with talented teammates -- even LeBron and Durant are subject to that rule -- but a "franchise" player can be the clear-cut best guy on a team with a chance to go all the way. 

That doesn't mean, in my book, that a "franchise player" must be so transcendent that he turns any collection of decent players into a favorite to win the conference and perhaps the championship.  That seems to be your interpretation.


To me, "franchise player" implies that they can be the face of your team, the undisputed main man.  You tailor your offense, and perhaps your defense, to that player.  You acquire other players specifically to fit with that player's strengths and weaknesses.  You would almost never consider trading that player, unless a once-in-a-generation guy like LeBron, Durant, Kobe, Duncan, Shaq, MJ, etc becomes available (and such players almost NEVER do).

I think there are many more players in the league that the majority of NBA GMs, coaches, and players would tell you are "franchise players" than just LeBron and Durant.

I mean, wasn't Paul Pierce a franchise player at one point in time?  I think he was.


Maybe a simpler way to describe what I mean by "franchise player" is that they are the players who in any given season have what it takes to be mentioned in the MVP conversation, but they need not be considered a favorite (or even a top contender) for the award.

You seem to be describing transcendent players not franchise players.  A franchise player is a guy that could realistically be the best player on a team that competes for titles year after year.

The franchise players are (in no particular order):
Lebron James
Kevin Durant
Paul George
Dwight Howard
James Harden
Chris Paul

Possible franchise players (in no particular order) (either too young or not quite enough team success as the guy to really know):
Anthony Davis
Kevin Love
Blake Griffin
Lamarcus Aldridge
Russell Westbrook
Carmelo Anthony
Demarcus Cousins

Former franchise players (in no particular order):
Kevin Garnett
Dirk Nowitzki
Tim Duncan
Kobe Bryant
Dwayne Wade

I reckon Paul Pierce was a franchise player.

Paul Pierce was on some teams with really crappy records in a really crappy eastern conference.  Now sure those teams weren't loaded with talent, but a true franchise player and they are at least making the playoffs. 

EDIT: Pierce was also never even on a 50 win team until Garnett.  The East was really bad in the early 2000's, but the Pierce led Celtics could only max out at 49 wins.  I just can't call him a franchise player.  He was certainly a very good player (a HOFer even), but I would have never felt confident that a team in which Pierce was the best player was going to win a title.  I think he is pretty similar to Anthony in that regard (though Anthony is a much better scorer than Pierce ever was and Anthony has never missed the playoffs despite playing much of his career in a far better conference).  I put Anthony in the second list because he still has a little time to go up a level or drop off entirely, I just don't think Pierce ever quite hit Anthony's level none-the-less the level higher.

[D.o.s.]

Dwyane Wade was the best player on a championship team. Pierce couldn't do that in his prime. Which is a bummer, because obviously I want to say that Pierce is better than Wade.

[Moranis]

That's a strange definition of "franchise player."  To me, there are only two legitimate franchise players in the NBA right now:  James and Durant (maybe Paul).

I think I'm starting to understand now why you were always so incensed by people proclaiming that this year's draft might have "7 or 8 franchise players."  Even by my definition I think that was always pretty much just hype, but still.

If you're setting the bar that high, there can't have been very many franchise players in the history of the NBA, can there?  I mean, you're talking about generational talents.


To me, a "franchise player" is a guy around whom you can plausibly build a very good team (read: top 10 in the league, has a chance at the Finals) without requiring another player of the same caliber.  You will undoubtedly need to surround any good player with talented teammates -- even LeBron and Durant are subject to that rule -- but a "franchise" player can be the clear-cut best guy on a team with a chance to go all the way. 

That doesn't mean, in my book, that a "franchise player" must be so transcendent that he turns any collection of decent players into a favorite to win the conference and perhaps the championship.  That seems to be your interpretation.


To me, "franchise player" implies that they can be the face of your team, the undisputed main man.  You tailor your offense, and perhaps your defense, to that player.  You acquire other players specifically to fit with that player's strengths and weaknesses.  You would almost never consider trading that player, unless a once-in-a-generation guy like LeBron, Durant, Kobe, Duncan, Shaq, MJ, etc becomes available (and such players almost NEVER do).

I think there are many more players in the league that the majority of NBA GMs, coaches, and players would tell you are "franchise players" than just LeBron and Durant.

I mean, wasn't Paul Pierce a franchise player at one point in time?  I think he was.


Maybe a simpler way to describe what I mean by "franchise player" is that they are the players who in any given season have what it takes to be mentioned in the MVP conversation, but they need not be considered a favorite (or even a top contender) for the award.

You seem to be describing transcendent players not franchise players.  A franchise player is a guy that could realistically be the best player on a team that competes for titles year after year.

The franchise players are (in no particular order):
Lebron James
Kevin Durant
Paul George
Dwight Howard
James Harden
Chris Paul

Possible franchise players (in no particular order) (either too young or not quite enough team success as the guy to really know):
Anthony Davis
Kevin Love
Blake Griffin
Lamarcus Aldridge
Russell Westbrook
Carmelo Anthony
Demarcus Cousins

Former franchise players (in no particular order):
Kevin Garnett
Dirk Nowitzki
Tim Duncan
Kobe Bryant
Dwayne Wade

I reckon Paul Pierce was a franchise player.

Yeah i absolutely see no way you can put Dwayne wade on this list and possible carmelo anthony without Paul Pierce

Edit. And really? Paul George and James Harden have already reached franchise player status? Might as well through vince carter on the past and even Chris Paul you better be pyutting Steve Nash as a past franchise player as well

You mean the Dwayne Wade that was the best player on a title team with multiple top 5 finishes in MVP voting.  Wade had a higher peak than Pierce.  That is just the simple reality.  His peak was shorter (in large part as a result of injuries), but he definitely had a higher peak.

Nash is an interesting candidate.  Suns had some very good teams, but they were much more in the mold of the Pistons.  And I know Nash was winning MVP's, but it always seemed to me that those teams would go as far as Amare could take them, not Nash.

As for George, he is the third best player in the league and Harden is probably 4th or 5th.  If you are that good, you are a franchise player.  It also doesn't mean they will win titles, I mean Karl Malone and Charles Barkley are two of the top 5 best PF's in history, and neither won a title, but both were clearly franchise players.  Lebron James was a franchise player in Cleveland.  Kevin Durant has yet to win a title and no one questions he is a franchise player.


As far as transcendent players, there are 3 active in the league; Tim Duncan, Kobe Bryant, and Lebron James.  To be transcendent you must have multiple championships as your team's best player, MVP's, and multiple other deep playoff runs.  You must be the best player on a team that everyone pencils into a top two seed and would be shocked if the team isn't one of the last 4 playing year after year.  Those are the players in the special room in the HOF and those three guys are the only active ones that meet that criteria. 

[D.o.s.]

Nash is an interesting candidate.  Suns had some very good teams, but they were much more in the mold of the Pistons.  And I know Nash was winning MVP's, but it always seemed to me that those teams would go as far as Amare could take them, not Nash.

Gotta strongly disagree with that. Steve Nash was the engine that made the 7SoL Suns go.

[Mr Green]

I can see both sides of the argument depending on how you define franchise player.  I think I lean more towards Celtic18's definition.  I see franchise as a transcendent player versus a top-level talent that's a cornerstone of the franchise

Really only 2 franshise players: Lebron and Durant.  They're the only ones really good enough to make their teams contenders regardless of the surrounding talent. 

Anthony Davis could get into the discussion in a year or two as could Paul George.  Derrick Rose pre-injury would be in the discussion as well.

As for the others suggested (CP3, Melo, Love, DH, Harden, Griffin, etc....), they're certainly top-level talent and would be cornerstone pieces for any franchise but they're not good enough to put a team on their back throughout the season and carry that team deep into the playoffs without some significant help from teammates.

I completely agree with this.

To me a franchise player is more than just a talented cornerstone player who could potentially win a championship. A franchise player is someone who can turn a basketball team into an international brand or changes the culture of the game, which generates buckets of mainstream attention and profit for their team's owners and the league. They're ballers with universally household reps like Dr J, Larry, Magic, MJ, Shaq, or LeBron. You can give that list of names to most people in the street and they'll tell you exactly who they are. Joe Public likes winners and likes being entertained, not defensive win shares or PER analysis.

All the Cavs backboards in my neighborhood turned into Miami backboards after LeBron's decision. The Lakers threw a huge contract at Kobe recently because he's Kobe. His name makes the Lakers huge money even when he's not playing. People who don't follow the NBA know who he is. If LeBron or Kobe signed with Portland you would start seeing bulk Blazers crap everywhere all over the globe. LaMarcus Aldridge is a great player, but unless you seriously follow the NBA or live in the North-West the Blazers and Aldridge are really just an afterthought.

I think this type of transcendence is what ultimately determines who is a franchise player.

[Edgar]

Franchise:

Jordan, Kobe, Iversons prime, yeah yeah yeah Le Diva.

Duncan, and (Pierce, Garnett, Allen combo)

and

magic, bird, thomas


and

McHale

and

karrem and olajuwon

and

shaq

there are few



cornerstones... there are a lot

[Moranis]

I can see both sides of the argument depending on how you define franchise player.  I think I lean more towards Celtic18's definition.  I see franchise as a transcendent player versus a top-level talent that's a cornerstone of the franchise

Really only 2 franshise players: Lebron and Durant.  They're the only ones really good enough to make their teams contenders regardless of the surrounding talent. 

Anthony Davis could get into the discussion in a year or two as could Paul George.  Derrick Rose pre-injury would be in the discussion as well.

As for the others suggested (CP3, Melo, Love, DH, Harden, Griffin, etc....), they're certainly top-level talent and would be cornerstone pieces for any franchise but they're not good enough to put a team on their back throughout the season and carry that team deep into the playoffs without some significant help from teammates.

I missed this post earlier, but I ask you about Dwight Howard

If you recall he took Orlando to the NBA Finals with a mish mash and hodge podge of other players.  During the playoffs that year Dwight's PER was 25.5.  The next closest rotation player was Rashad Lewis at 16.9 (Gortat, Howard's backup was next at 15.6, followed by Pietrus at 14 and Turkoglu at 13.2).  To me it seems like that is the definition of putting a team on his back and leading them on a deep playoff run.  I mean in the 06/07 season in which everyone acknowledges Lebron led a crappy Cleveland team to the Finals.  Lebron's PER during the playoffs was 23.9.  The next closest rotation player was Big Z at 18.  Boobie Gibson was at 16.8.  Gooden 15.7 and Varejao 14.9.  Thus, if you ranked those players in order by PER you get Howard, James, Big Z, Lewis, Gibson, Gooden, Gortat, Varejao, Pietrus, Turkoglu.  It seems to me that you can't just discount Howard because he is a bit of a clown.  The guy by your definition is a franchise player.

[D.o.s.]

The big question about Dwight is whether he can be that guy again after his back surgery