Who are the "franchise players" in the NBA?

[Timdawgg]

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

This is great...I think there are more franchise players than everyone is stating.  Pierce was a former one.   I think a few need to move up to Franchise. Anthony Davis has arrived it is in my opinion #3 behind Durant and Lebron. I think almost all of your potential ones can move up to Franchise players. Melo, Westbrook, Love are players to build around.. Sure there are a tiny amount of Superstars in the NBA but plenty of Franchise players I think.

I guess it boils down to the definition of Franchise Player.  Mine is a player your can build a team around..It doesn't need to be the face of the Franchise as players move around too much these days to be the face of a Franchise...example Dwight Howard.

[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.

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.

I understand your viewpoint, but I didn't include DH for a couple of reasons:
1) it was a fluke his team got to the finals.  If KG or even Powe were healthy for that series, C's win. 
2) DH has needed shooters around him to make him effective in Orlando and elsewhere.  He doesn't have the impact on the offensive end to carry his team. 

He's certainly a cornerstone player and one of the top players in the league but he actually doesn't fit my personal definition/opinion of a franchise player.

think of it like this, you put Durant or Lebron on any team in the league and that team is part of the title discussion.  You put DH on any team in the league, they're part of a playoff discussion not necessarily a title discussion.  Houston wouldn't be in the title discussion without Harden regardless of having DH.

[nzea]

What separates a stars "franchise" players is their multidimensional impact on the game. Players like KD, Davis, Lebron, CP3 and George are already exceptional at spring, passing, defending etc. So that they can affect the game in multiple ways.

On not-so-great teams with star players like the Wolves (Love) and Knicks (Carmelo), you have players who are good enough at two or three things that they offset the weaknesses in their game enough to constitute a star label. That's what makes the second tier necessary.

For me, the above players are the only guys I'd really have an easy time building a team around. You can go the way of the Rockets, however, and collect two really good players and build around them. But individually, a player has to have no glaring flaws to be considered a franchise player. 

Edit: Pre-injury Derrick probably belongs on that list too, although I don't watch enough of him to know if he's a good defender. I would assume he is because of his athleticism and Thibs but you never know.

[Celtics18]

According to Elrod Enchilada, here are the guys who fit PhoSita's definition of a "franchise player" over the course of the past fifteen seasons:

http://basketball.realgm.com/article/229430/Who-Are-The-Best-Players-On-Teams-That-Won-And-Contended-For-Titles-Section-B

Lebron James
Tim Duncan
Kevin Durant
Dirk Nowitzki
Kobe Bryant
Rajon Rondo
Dwight Howard
Kevin Garnett
Ben Wallace
Shaquille O'Neal
Jason Kidd
Jalen Rose
Paul George
Marc Gasol
Derrick Rose
Steve Nash
Chauncey Billups
Tony Parker
Chris Webber
Ray Allen
Allen Houston
Rasheed Wallace
Patrick Ewing
Reggie Miller
Carlos Boozer

[D.o.s.]

think of it like this, you put Durant or Lebron on any team in the league and that team is part of the title discussion.  You put DH on any team in the league, they're part of a playoff discussion not necessarily a title discussion.

This seems like a pretty excellent smell test to me, and I advocate that we all adopt it.

[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.

I understand your viewpoint, but I didn't include DH for a couple of reasons:
1) it was a fluke his team got to the finals.  If KG or even Powe were healthy for that series, C's win. 
2) DH has needed shooters around him to make him effective in Orlando and elsewhere.  He doesn't have the impact on the offensive end to carry his team. 

He's certainly a cornerstone player and one of the top players in the league but he actually doesn't fit my personal definition/opinion of a franchise player.

think of it like this, you put Durant or Lebron on any team in the league and that team is part of the title discussion.  You put DH on any team in the league, they're part of a playoff discussion not necessarily a title discussion.  Houston wouldn't be in the title discussion without Harden regardless of having DH.

They went to the ECF the following year.  And the year before were in the 2nd round.  It wasn't just a one year fluke.  That team was Dwight Howard.  The other pieces kept changing, they lost Hedo, added Carter, lost Nelson for basically the entire Finals run, etc.  Dwight and Lewis were the only real constants, and Lewis was a glorified role player.   They went from basically a 50 win team to a 20 win team when Dwight left. 

I can see docking him because of the back, but he sure seems to be mostly recovered from those effects now.  Houston was a 45 win 8th seed last year, they already have 49 wins and are currently in the 4th position this year (should end up right around 55 wins).  Upgrading from Asik to Howard is the only real change to the team.  A relatively healthy Howard is in fact the type of player you are talking about.  He is that good.

And for the record, the things you knock Dwight for are also there for a guy like Anthony Davis, who you think will likely be a "franchise" player.

[Timdawgg]

think of it like this, you put Durant or Lebron on any team in the league and that team is part of the title discussion.  You put DH on any team in the league, they're part of a playoff discussion not necessarily a title discussion.

This seems like a pretty excellent smell test to me, and I advocate that we all adopt it.

Not sure about that one...Lebron or Durant on the Sixers or Bucks is not even going to smell the playoffs let alone contend for a title.  I just don't think Title Discussion is a requirement for a Franchise player....

[D.o.s.]

think of it like this, you put Durant or Lebron on any team in the league and that team is part of the title discussion.  You put DH on any team in the league, they're part of a playoff discussion not necessarily a title discussion.

This seems like a pretty excellent smell test to me, and I advocate that we all adopt it.

Not sure about that one...Lebron or Durant on the Sixers or Bucks is not even going to smell the playoffs let alone contend for a title.  I just don't think Title Discussion is a requirement for a Franchise player....

Go back and take another look at the Roster that LeBron dragged to the Finals in '07. That was a bad basketball team. By virtue of his absence, James was almost-singlehandedly responsible for the biggest single-season decline in a team's record in NBA history.

[Moranis]

think of it like this, you put Durant or Lebron on any team in the league and that team is part of the title discussion.  You put DH on any team in the league, they're part of a playoff discussion not necessarily a title discussion.

This seems like a pretty excellent smell test to me, and I advocate that we all adopt it.

Not sure about that one...Lebron or Durant on the Sixers or Bucks is not even going to smell the playoffs let alone contend for a title.  I just don't think Title Discussion is a requirement for a Franchise player....

Go back and take another look at the Roster that LeBron dragged to the Finals in '07. That was a bad basketball team. By virtue of his absence, James was almost-singlehandedly responsible for the biggest single-season decline in a team's record in NBA history.

It is probably just as good as the roster Dwight dragged to the NBA Finals in '09 and the Magic's drop off post Dwight was epic as well.

[Timdawgg]

think of it like this, you put Durant or Lebron on any team in the league and that team is part of the title discussion.  You put DH on any team in the league, they're part of a playoff discussion not necessarily a title discussion.

This seems like a pretty excellent smell test to me, and I advocate that we all adopt it.

Not sure about that one...Lebron or Durant on the Sixers or Bucks is not even going to smell the playoffs let alone contend for a title.  I just don't think Title Discussion is a requirement for a Franchise player....

Go back and take another look at the Roster that LeBron dragged to the Finals in '07. That was a bad basketball team. By virtue of his absence, James was almost-singlehandedly responsible for the biggest single-season decline in a team's record in NBA history.

That team was no-where near the sixers bad...I am not saying Lebron did not carry them but that team had a good Larry Hughes best year at the time, Big Z, Varejao, Daniel Gibson, a Drew Goodens best years, Eric Snow, Sasha Pavlovic... (hell that team probably easily makes the playoffs with no Lebron)  no comparison to the Philly team etc....and by the time Lebron left 4 seasons later, they had no talent left just a mediocre Ramon sessions and hickson and Varejao.

[Moranis]

think of it like this, you put Durant or Lebron on any team in the league and that team is part of the title discussion.  You put DH on any team in the league, they're part of a playoff discussion not necessarily a title discussion.

This seems like a pretty excellent smell test to me, and I advocate that we all adopt it.

Not sure about that one...Lebron or Durant on the Sixers or Bucks is not even going to smell the playoffs let alone contend for a title.  I just don't think Title Discussion is a requirement for a Franchise player....

Go back and take another look at the Roster that LeBron dragged to the Finals in '07. That was a bad basketball team. By virtue of his absence, James was almost-singlehandedly responsible for the biggest single-season decline in a team's record in NBA history.

That team was no-where near the sixers bad...I am not saying Lebron did not carry them but that team had a good Larry Hughes best year at the time, Big Z, Varejao, Daniel Gibson, a Drew Goodens best years, Eric Snow, Sasha Pavlovic... (hell that team probably easily makes the playoffs with no Lebron)  no comparison to the Philly team etc....and by the time Lebron left 4 seasons later, they had no talent left just a mediocre Ramon sessions and hickson and Varejao.

Yeah they basically lost everyone from the 61 win team to the 19 win team.  Lebron left, Big Z left, Mo Williams was trade for B Diddy who was cut, Shaq left, Delonte left.  The only carry overs were JJ Hickson, Anthony Parker, Booby Gibson, washed up Jamison, and Varejao who went from 76 games to 31 games.  Now sure Lebron was by far the biggest reason the team went from 61 to 19, but there were a lot of other major defections from that team.-

[D.o.s.]

Look at the players you guys are mentioning and please try to tell me with a straight face that they were meaningfully contributing to winning basketball games.

If you put LeBron on the Sixers squad, they're in the mix for a mid-level playoff spot. They also probably don't trade Turner and Hawes for nothing.

If you put LeBron on this season's Bucks team, they're in the mix for a mid-level playoff spot.

[Who]

I don't think Dwight is the same player he was 3-4 years ago. I'd have him up there with LeBron/Durant back then but nowadays I'd have him more as a second tier franchise player alongside the likes of James Harden.

[CelticSince83]

This was a good thread.  Think I am closer to phosita's side of the spectrum here.

Franchise Player = Player you would feel comfortable building your franchise around for the foreseeable future. 

Surefire Franchise Players-
LBJ
Durant
CP3
Anthony Davis
John Wall

Probably-
James Harden
Carmelo Anthony

Maybe they are, Maybe they aren't-
Kevin Love
Steph Curry
Demarcus Cousins
Paul George
Kyrie Irving
Damien Lillard
Russell Westbrook
Rajon Rondo- the fact that the Celtics are unsure of whether or not they feel comfortable building around him as their franchise guy is pretty indicative that he is somewhere near where the line is between franchise and non-franchise players
Dwight Howard

After a few drinks, I still wouldn't be convinced

Blake Griffin
Lamarcus Aldridge



Kobe, Dirk, Duncan have obviously been franchise players of their respective teams for the last decade or two.

[BballTim]

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. 

  How many players fit that list though. If you look at your list you have CP 3rd on your list of franchise players and Griffin right below him. If you downgrade Paul so he's not close to Griffin's level you don't really have a chance at the finals. Likewise if you downgrade Griffin to the point that he's not close to Paul's level you don't really have a shot at the finals. While this isn't so bad for Griffin because of his age, Paul's in his 9th year, has won a total of two playoff series in his career, and even now would be something of a long-shot to get to the conference finals without a player comparable to him in the lineup.

  This doesn't mean that Chris Paul shouldn't be widely considered a franchise player, but that your definition of a franchise player seems to be pretty consistent with Celtic18's.