# OT: What is a Franchise player?



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

...I'm curious to know because the term is often tossed about without anyone of us seeming to operate by the same standard. I partically care beause you have guys that tend to have their on belief of what one is, yet exclude certain players who even qualify by their own standard. So once again, what is a franchise player?


----------



## alphaorange (Jul 2, 2006)

*Exactly what the name implies....*

A player that can lead a team to contender status. The one guy a team can't do without. The centerpiece of a contender. The guy who delivers when needed. Honestly, Twink, I assume you are targeting me (no problem) but there is no way I see Curry as a franchise player. Ewing was a franchise player. Shaq, Duncan, Garnett, Kobe, D. Robinson, 'Melo, AI, Hakeem, Barkley, Jabbar, Wilt,Bird, MJ, Magic, LeBron, etc. See? Not every franchise is lucky enough to have a franchise player. Curry is a dynamic low post scorer but to compare him with other franchise centers will be to find him enormously lacking in all around game and consistency. Bottom line is this: Curry is a one trick pony. Maybe he will develop into a more complete player but at this rate he is likely to not even be HOF, no less a franchise player.


----------



## Pain5155 (May 28, 2006)

*Re: Exactly what the name implies....*

Chris Bosh.


----------



## alphaorange (Jul 2, 2006)

*Bosh is not.....*

yet. He may become that, though. He is very young and has not flattened out in his development. Best player on your team? Yep. Really good player? Yep. Franchise player? No, not yet. Make no mistake though, I would trade any Knick plus more for him in a heartbeat.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

*Re: Exactly what the name implies....*



alphaorange said:


> A player that can lead a team to contender status. The one guy a team can't do without. The centerpiece of a contender. The guy who delivers when needed. Honestly, Twink, I assume you are targeting me (no problem) but there is no way I see Curry as a franchise player. Ewing was a franchise player. Shaq, Duncan, Garnett, Kobe, D. Robinson, 'Melo, AI, Hakeem, Barkley, Jabbar, Wilt,Bird, MJ, Magic, LeBron, etc. See? Not every franchise is lucky enough to have a franchise player. Curry is a dynamic low post scorer but to compare him with other franchise centers will be to find him enormously lacking in all around game and consistency. Bottom line is this: Curry is a one trick pony. Maybe he will develop into a more complete player but at this rate he is likely to not even be HOF, no less a franchise player.


Exactly what the name implies? No where in that title do I see the word "contender" or "title." Franchise as defined by Merriam-Webster is "the right of membership in a professional sports league." Player is defined as "one actively involved especially in a competitive field or process : participant." From that, it's pretty easy to deduce that a franchise player is basically the participant of a team that defines the team in a professional sports league; the face of the franchise. Eddy Curry is exactly that because his game helps this team go; the best anology would be to compared Curry to an aircraft carrier because while it is critical to being successful in war, it is nothing without a fleet to support it.

Put it this way, when you think of the Hawks in the 80's, you think Dominque Wilkins because he was the face of the franchise. Were the Hawks ever really contenders? Rest my case.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

*Re: Bosh is not.....*



alphaorange said:


> yet. He may become that, though. He is very young and has not flattened out in his development. Best player on your team? Yep. Really good player? Yep. Franchise player? No, not yet. Make no mistake though, I would trade any Knick plus more for him in a heartbeat.


Bosh is a franchise player, Curry is a franchise player, Kidd is a franchise player, Pierce is a franchise player, Wade, Arenas, Howard, Lebron, Billups, etc.


----------



## Pain5155 (May 28, 2006)

*Re: Bosh is not.....*

he is a franchise player, wat do u call a guy who drops 23/12, and leads his team in the 4th q with clutch baskets, a franchise player, and who is untouchable in trade talks.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

*Re: Bosh is not.....*



Pain5155 said:


> he is a franchise player, wat do u call a guy who drops 23/12, and leads his team in the 4th q with clutch baskets, a franchise player, and who is untouchable in trade talks.



I wouldn't say that a franchise player is defined by his status in trade talks. Shaq was the Lakers franchise player and he got moved. Carter with the Raptors and got moved. McGrady was the Magic and he got moved, etc. Even at this moment, we have guys like Jason Kidd and Ray Allen constantly in trade rumors steming from the trade deadline and heading into the offseason.

I don't necessarily believe a franchise player hits clutch baskets or carry you in the 4th. To that, I submit to you Shaquille O'neal who did neither with the Lakers; Kobe carried the team in the 4th and hit the clutch shots.


----------



## alphaorange (Jul 2, 2006)

*Gimme a break...*

Regardless of what Webster says, a franchise player in the sporting world denotes the cornerstone of a franchise. A McNabb or Peyton Manning....a Gretsky...a Shaq. Argue all you wish but that is the real meaning. Bosh is not one, and Curry less so. Put it to a vote.


----------



## kamego (Dec 29, 2003)

*Re: Gimme a break...*

A Franchise player is a person everyone would go see play even if they knew that team was going to lose. Just how I view it


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

*Re: Gimme a break...*



alphaorange said:


> Regardless of what Webster says, a franchise player in the sporting world denotes the cornerstone of a franchise. A McNabb or Peyton Manning....a Gretsky...a Shaq. Argue all you wish but that is the real meaning. Bosh is not one, and Curry less so. Put it to a vote.


Okay, so a franchise player is what you say it is because you say so. Thanks for breaking that down to me. While your at it, why don't you attempt to see if "no trespassing signs; trespassers will be shot" are up for interpretation; let's see how successful you are with that one.


----------



## Truknicksfan (Mar 25, 2005)

I tend to agree with dog on this one, bosh is not YET a franchise player and Curry has work to do before being an all-star, nevermind a franchise player.

P.S- This thread was a good idea.


----------



## da1nonly (May 8, 2006)

A player you cant imagine a team win a game without


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

Truknicksfan said:


> I tend to agree with dog on this one, bosh is not YET a franchise player and Curry has work to do before being an all-star, nevermind a franchise player.
> 
> P.S- This thread was a good idea.


Just as it is foolish to believe that all all-stars are of the same echelon, it is foolish to believe that all franchise players are of the same caliber. In my opinion, Curry is a franchise player but not of the level of a Kobe Bryant or Lebron James.


----------



## USSKittyHawk (Jul 22, 2005)

*Re: Gimme a break...*



kamego said:


> A Franchise player is a person everyone would go see play even if they knew that team was going to lose. Just how I view it


What's up kam, I forgot to tell you welcome back! :cheers: Anyway, here is a question for you....the Pistons during their championship season played as a team. In your opinion do you think you have a franchise player on your squad and if so, who is that player? If not, do you believe that all teams must have a franchise player like (KG, Wade, Shaq, MJ, Magic, Bird) in order to win a championship?


----------



## Truknicksfan (Mar 25, 2005)

> Just as it is foolish to believe that all all-stars are of the same echelon, it is foolish to believe that all franchise players are of the same caliber. In my opinion, Curry is a franchise player but not of the level of a Kobe Bryant or Lebron James.


Where did I say all all-stars or on the same echelon, and that all franchise players are on the same level? Re-post what I said and highlight were I said all franchise players are on the same level and that there arnt different levels of it?


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

Truknicksfan said:


> Where did I say all all-stars or on the same echelon, and that all franchise players are on the same level? Re-post what I said and highlight were I said all franchise players are on the same level and that there arnt different levels of it?


I shouldn't have copied and pasted what you said because the intent of the post was to speak to a wider audience who felt that Curry must be compareable to a particular player in order to qualify as a franchise player. At the time, I felt your post touched on that lightly and wanted to elaborate further on something I had not included in my earlier post; I felt the time was right though since your post was in the ballpark.


----------



## Truknicksfan (Mar 25, 2005)

> I shouldn't have copied and pasted what you said because the intent of the post was to speak to a wider audience who felt that Curry must be compareable to a particular player in order to qualify as a franchise player. At the time, I felt your post touched on that lightly and wanted to elaborate further on something I had not included in my earlier post; I felt the time was right though since your post was in the ballpark.


Thats fine, just make sure you pick the right post to try and make a point next time. Cause I dont believe all franchise players are on the same level.


----------



## Gotham2krazy (Nov 22, 2005)

*Re: Exactly what the name implies....*



TwinkieFoot said:


> Exactly what the name implies? No where in that title do I see the word "contender" or "title." Franchise as defined by Merriam-Webster is "the right of membership in a professional sports league." Player is defined as "one actively involved especially in a competitive field or process : participant." From that, it's pretty easy to deduce that a franchise player is basically the participant of a team that defines the team in a professional sports league; the face of the franchise. Eddy Curry is exactly that because his game helps this team go; the best anology would be to compared Curry to an aircraft carrier because while it is critical to being successful in war, it is nothing without a fleet to support it.
> 
> Put it this way, when you think of the Hawks in the 80's, you think Dominque Wilkins because he was the face of the franchise. Were the Hawks ever really contenders? Rest my case.


Okay, a franchise player is basically the most recognizable face on a team. When his name is mentioned, he gets automatically associated with his ball club. His team may not be great, but he is the face of the franchise. Like say Yao Ming, you instantly connect him with the Rockets. But, even though you're the faceboy of a franchise, you also have to be good in order to get recognition. Eddy Curry is not at that level yet, he cannot dominate so well, but he's getting there. Possibly next year, he will become the face of the franchise. But as of right now, I hate to admit, the franchise player of the Knicks is Stephon Marbury.


----------



## Truknicksfan (Mar 25, 2005)

> Okay, a franchise player is basically the most recognizable face on a team. When his name is mentioned, he gets automatically associated with his ball club. His team may not be great, but he is the face of the franchise. Like say Yao Ming, you instantly connect him with the Rockets. But, even though you're the faceboy of a franchise, you also have to be good in order to get recognition. Eddy Curry is not at that level yet, he cannot dominate so well, but he's getting there. Possibly next year, *he will become the face of the franchise. But as of right now, I hate to admit, the franchise player of the Knicks is Stephon Marbury.*


I would of never thought I would see you post those words lol.:lol: :cheers:


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

Truknicksfan said:


> Thats fine, just make sure you pick the right post to try and make a point next time. Cause I dont believe all franchise players are on the same level.


That's fine and dandy but then why is Curry not a franchise player in your opinion if you, do in fact, feel that way? Because....he isn't on the level of the other players you had in mind? If that's your answer then it does seem like my post may have had some merit.


----------



## Truknicksfan (Mar 25, 2005)

> That's fine and dandy but then why is Curry not a franchise player in your opinion if you, do in fact, feel that way? Because....he isn't on the level of the other players you had in mind? If that's your answer then it does seem like my post may have had some merit.


Lets just say theres not a level of a franchise player in my book low enough for Eddy yet.:lol:


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

*Re: Exactly what the name implies....*



Gotham2krazy said:


> Okay, a franchise player is basically the most recognizable face on a team. When his name is mentioned, he gets automatically associated with his ball club. His team may not be great, but he is the face of the franchise. Like say Yao Ming, you instantly connect him with the Rockets. But, even though you're the faceboy of a franchise, you also have to be good in order to get recognition. Eddy Curry is not at that level yet, he cannot dominate so well, but he's getting there. *Possibly next year, he will become the face of the franchise. But as of right now, I hate to admit, the franchise player of the Knicks is Stephon Marbury.[/*QUOTE]
> 
> Actually, when I think about it, I do not believe you are off at all. I think Curry has the skill to be considered a franchise player which is what most doubted but the fact is that Marbury is really our franchise player at the moment. We all saw how we fell flat on our face last year after that 6 game win streadk when he got hurt. Even this year, I think Marbury is the guy that makes things go. Marbury's relationship with Curry could be similar to that of a Cassell-Brand last year. Brand is the guy that puts you in the game but Marbury is the one who keeps you in the game.


----------



## Truknicksfan (Mar 25, 2005)

> Actually, when I think about it, I do not believe you are off at all. I think Curry has the skill to be considered a franchise player which is what most doubted but the fact is that Marbury is really our franchise player at the moment. We all saw how we fell flat on our face last year after that 6 game win streadk when he got hurt. Even this year, I think Marbury is the guy that makes things go. Marbury's relationship with Curry could be similar to that of a Cassell-Brand last year. Brand is the guy that puts you in the game but Marbury is the one who keeps you in the game.


I feel I can add to that. You can see what a players worth to a team sometimes when they get injuried. And IMO when JC went down I wasnt all to worried, but if it was steph that went down instead of JC then I would guess that we would have went crashing down.


----------



## urwhatueati8god (May 27, 2003)

A franchise player doesn't have a definition. Teams can obviously have more than one franchise player, but they have to represent multiple dimensions and they have to be efficient in what they do. 

From a perspective of a team franchise player, you have your top tier guys like Dirk Nowitzki, Dwyane Wade, Yao Ming, Kevin Garnett, LeBron James, Tim Duncan, Manu Ginobili, Tracy McGrady, Steve Nash, Kobe Bryant, and Michael Redd stand out the most because even if they're the only productive players on the team and the rest of your guys are mediocre players you'll still have a chance to sneak in to the playoffs. Should they go down, then you're instantly top three in the lottery, much like Memphis with Pau Gasol. I might consider him on that list too.

From a marketing perspective, it's completely different. Some of the guys will still be on there like Wade, James, McGrady, and Bryant, but the rest of them are questionable. Yao could be on there too from an international standpoint. In addition to these players you have guys like Vince Carter, Carmello Anthony, and Allen Iverson. These are the types of players who won't lead you to a championship at this point of their career, but will sell a lot of merchandise and bring in a nice sum of money to the team. This is not a waste as that money can then go to other players if you have a general manager smart enough to capitalize off of it.

Finally, you have based off of a potential standpoint. This is the most wide open of all the franchise players as you can choose your components to build off of, but not everyone will materialize. There are far too many of these to list.

The Knicks currently do not have a franchise player. If anything is going to get the Knicks to the playoffs it will not be because they rode the coattails of any individual player, it will have to come as a total team effort. The closest thing I'd label to a franchise player would be David Lee, because he is somebody who for where he's at right now has good enough intangibles to the point where you could build around him, but the core around him does need massive overhauling. Realistically, Lee is the most productive player on the team and he plays the best with Balkman so that could be a one-two punch right there. Curry is in no way shape or form a franchise player. He is far too one dimensional to build a team around and hope for playoff contention at least at this stage in his career. That's not likely to improve. In fact, per 48 of all the people who have played center for at least half of their team's available minutes:

Curry
26.8 points per 48 minutes
9.7 rebounds per 48 minutes
0.7 blocks per 48 minutes
1.1 assist per 48 minutes
0.6 steals per 48 minutes
4.7 turnovers per 48 minutes
.584 field goal percentage
.611 free throw percentage
22.76 efficiency rating per 48 minutes
-4.2 +/- rating
+0.3 Roland rating

Pachulia
20.2 points per 48 minutes
<b>11.6 rebounds per 48 minutes</b>
<b>0.9 blocks per 48 minutes</b>
<b>2.4 assists per 48 minutes</b>
<b>1.7 steals per 48 minutes</b>
<b>3.7 turnovers per 48 minutes</b>
.456 field goal percentage
<b>.793 free throw percentage</b>
<b>23.43 efficiency rating per 48 minutes</B>
<b>+2.6 +/- rating</b>
<b>+1.3 Roland rating</b>

Okafor

20.0 points per 48 minutes
<b>15.7 rebounds per 48 minutes</B>
<b>3.8 blocks per 48 minutes</b>
<b>1.5 assists per 48 minutes</b>
<b>1.2 steals per 48 minutes</b>
<b>2.3 turnovers per 48 minutes</B>
.542 field goal percentage
.582 free throw percentage
<B>30.33 efficiency rating per 48 minutes</b>
<B>+4.7 +/- rating</b>
<b>+6.2 Roland rating</b>

Wallace
8.7 points per 48 minutes
<B>14.4 rebounds per 48 minutes</b>
<b>3.1 blocks per 48 minutes</b>
<b>3.1 assists per 48 minutes</b>
<B>2.1 steals per 48 minutes</b>
<b>1.9 turnovers per 48 minutes</b>
.443 field goal percentage
.409 free throw percentage
22.26 efficiency rating per 48 minutes
-6.0 +/- rating
-0.4 Roland rating

Ilgauskas

19.9 points per 48 minutes
<b>14.3 rebounds per 48 minutes</b>
<b>2.3 blocks per 48 minutes</b>
<b>2.3 assists per 48 minutes</b>
<b>1.1 steals per 48 minutes</b>
<b>3.2 turnovers per 48 minutes</b>
.462 field goal percentage
<b>.757 free throw percentage</b>
<b>26.12 efficiency rating per 48 minutes</b>
<b>+5.7 +/- rating</b>
<b>+3.7 Roland rating</B>

Dampier

13.9 points per 48 minutes
<b>14.1 rebounds per 48 minutes</b>
<b>2.0 blocks per 48 minutes</b>
0.9 assists per 48 minutes
0.6 steals per 48 minutes
<b>2.6 turnovers per 48 minutes</b>
<b>.653 field goal percentage</b>
<b>.622 free throw percentage</b>
<b>24.19 efficiency rating per 48 minutes</b>
<B>+8.2 +/- rating</b>
<b>+2.9 Roland rating</B>

Camby

16.2 points per 48 minutes
<b>16.7 rebounds per 48 minutes</b>
<b>4.5 blocks per 48 minutes</b>
<b>4.7 assists per 48 minutes</b>
<b>1.6 steals per 48 minutes</b>
<b>2.5 turnovers per 48 minutes</b>
.474 field goal percentage
<b>.690 free throw percentage</b>
<b>32.48 efficiency rating per 48 minutes</b>
<b>+2.2 +/- rating</b>
<b>+4.4 Roland rating</b>

Biedrins

16.4 points per 48 minutes
<b>15.6 rebounds per 48 minutes</b>
<b>3.1 blocks per 48 minutes</b>
<b>2.0 assists per 48 minutes</b>
<b>1.3 steals per 48 minutes</b>
<b>2.5 turnovers per 48 minutes</b>
<b>.600 field goal percentage</b>
.500 free throw percentage
<b>28.89 efficiency rating per 48 minutes</b>
<b>+8.8 +/- rating</b>
<b>+2.0 Roland rating</b>

Kaman

16.7 points per 48 minutes
<b>13.1 rebounds per 48 minutes</b>
<b>2.5 blocks per 48 minutes</b>
<b>1.5 assists per 48 minutes</b>
<b>1.0 steals per 48 minutes</b>
<b>3.5 turnovers per 48 minutes</b>
.455 field goal percentage
<b>.708 free throw percentage</b>
21.79 efficiency rating per 48 minutes
-5.8 +/- rating
-5.9 Roland rating

Bogut

17.4 points per 48 minutes
<b>12.5 rebounds per 48 minutes</b>
<b>.8 blocks per 48 minutes</b>
<b>4.1 assists per 48 minutes</b>
<b>1.1 steals per 48 minutes</b>
<b>3.1 turnovers per 48 minutes</b>
.545 field goal percentage
.571 free throw percentage
<b>24.71 efficiency rating per 48 minutes</b>
<b>+0.8 +/- rating</b>
-0.8 Roland rating

Blount

20.2 points per 48 minutes
9.4 rebounds per 48 minutes
<b>1.2 blocks per 48 minutes</b>
<b>1.3 assists per 48 minutes</b>
<b>.7 steals per 48 minutes</b>
<b>3.1 turnovers per 48 minutes</b>
.520 field goal percentage
<b>.771 free throw percentage</b>
20.89 efficiency rating per 48 minutes
-4.7 +/- rating
-3.3 Roland rating

Chandler

12.0 points per 48 minutes
<b>17.3 rebounds per 48 minutes</b>
<b>2.5 blocks per 48 minutes</b>
1.1 assists per 48 minutes
<b>0.7 steals per 48 minutes</b>
<b>2.3 turnovers per 48 minutes</b>
<b>.615 field goal percentage</b>
.500 free throw percentage
<b>26.23 efficiency rating per 48 minutes</b>
<b>+4.1 +/- rating</b>
<b>+2.8 Roland rating</b>

Milicic

16.1 points per 48 minutes
<b>11.0 rebounds per 48 minutes</b>
<b>3.4 blocks per 48 minutes</b>
<b>2.2 assists per 48 minutes</b>
<b>1.2 steals per 48 minutes</b>
<b>3.3 turnovers per 48 minutes</b>
.432 field goal percentage
.602 free throw percentage
19.99 efficiency rating per 48 minutes
<b>+0.8 +/- rating</b>
<b>+2.1 Roland rating</b>

Dalembert

16.8 points per 48 minutes
<b>14.5 rebounds per 48 minutes</b>
<b>3.2 blocks per 48 minutes</b>
1.0 assists per 48 minutes
<b>1.0 steals per 48 minutes</b>
<b>3.1 turnovers per 48 minutes</b>
.532 field goal percentage
<b>.717 free throw percentage</b>
<b>26.12 efficiency rating per 48 minutes</b>
<b>+7.1 +/- rating</b>
<b>+3.1 Roland rating</b>

Stoudemire

<b>30.4 points per 48 minutes</B>
<b>14.4 rebounds per 48 minutes</b>
<b>1.9 blocks per 48 minutes</b>
<b>1.3 assists per 48 minutes</b>
<b>1.2 steals per 48 minutes</b>
<b>3.9 turnovers per 48 minutes</b>
<b>.586 field goal percentage</B>
<b>.795 free throw percentage</b>
<b>35.25 efficiency rating per 48 minutes</b>
<b>+8.4 +/- rating</b>
<b>+9.0 Roland rating</b>

Duncan

<b>28.3 points per 48 minutes</b>
<b>14.8 rebounds per 48 minutes</b>
<b>3.2 blocks per 48 minutes</b>
<b>4.7 assists per 48 minutes</b>
<b>1.1 steals per 48 minutes</b>
<b>3.9 turnovers per 48 minutes</b>
.538 field goal percentage
<b>.660 free throw percentage</b>
<b>35.71 efficiency rating per 48 minutes</b>
<b>+14.0 +/- rating</b>
<b>+13.9 Roland rating</b>

Okur

25.6 points per 48 minutes
<b>10.4 rebounds per 48 minutes</b>
0.7 blocks per 48 minutes
<b>2.8 assists per 48 minutes</b>
<b>0.7 steals per 48 minutes</b>
<b>2.4 turnovers per 48 minutes</b>
.460 field goal percentage
<b>.788 free throw percentage</b>
<b>25.84 efficiency rating per 48 minutes</b>
-7.4 +/- rating
-0.5 Roland rating

Average Center

19.2 points per 48 minutes
13.5 rebounds per 48 minutes
2.3 blocks per 48 minutes
2.2 assists per 48 minutes
1.1 steals per 48 minutes
3.1 turnovers per 48 minutes
.497 field goal percentage
.652 free throw percentage
26.12 efficiency rating per 48 minutes
+2.3 +/- rating
+2.4 Roland rating

Curry

26.8 points per 48 minutes
9.7 rebounds per 48 minutes
0.7 blocks per 48 minutes
1.1 assist per 48 minutes
0.6 steals per 48 minutes
4.7 turnovers per 48 minutes
.584 field goal percentage
.611 free throw percentage
22.76 efficiency rating per 48 minutes
-4.2 +/- rating
+0.3 Roland rating

Difference

+7.6 points per 48 minutes
-3.8 rebounds per 48 minutes
-1.6 blocks per 48 minutes
-1.1 assists per 48 minutes
+1.6 turnovers per 48 minutes
+.087 field goal percentage
-.041 free throw percentage
-3.36 efficiency rating per 48 minutes
-6.5 +/- rating
-2.1 Roland rating

So yes, Curry does excel on the offensive end of the board when he has control in the paint, but his deficiencies in every other possible category make him a player that can't be built around.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

urwhatueati8god said:


> A franchise player doesn't have a definition. Teams can obviously have more than one franchise player, but they have to represent multiple dimensions and they have to be efficient in what they do.
> 
> From a perspective of a team franchise player, you have your top tier guys like Dirk Nowitzki, Dwyane Wade, Yao Ming, Kevin Garnett, LeBron James, Tim Duncan, Manu Ginobili, Tracy McGrady, Steve Nash, Kobe Bryant, and Michael Redd stand out the most because even if they're the only productive players on the team and the rest of your guys are mediocre players you'll still have a chance to sneak in to the playoffs. Should they go down, then you're instantly top three in the lottery, much like Memphis with Pau Gasol. I might consider him on that list too.
> 
> ...


Curry is only 24 years old and despite being one of the best players at his position, your able to deduce that he is a player who can not be built around? He's the center piece of a team. David Lee is a role player, granted a high caliber role player like an Antawn Walker on the Celtics or Rasheed Wallace on the Pistons.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes (Jul 1, 2005)

A franchise player is the player that everyone associates the team with. A representative. A franchise player is a status, and can be taken away when a player goes to another team (Rasheed Wallace). It can also be taken away with age and the emergence on another franchise player (David Robinson to Tim Duncan and Reggie Miller to Jermaine O'Neal), but usually by that time, that player has already moved to another team (Gary Payton and Karl Malone). It's a combination of both age and playing for another team. It's a very common situation for an aging franchise player to leave that franchise and take a reserve role to a franchise player on another team, best shown by Gary Payton and Karl Malone.

A team can have more than one franchise player, because there is no technical definition for a franchise player. An example would be Kobe and Shaq, or T-Mac and Yao. Depending on who you ask, you'll get a different answer.

I think a franchise player is better described by an outsider. They tend to assume things about a certain team, and that assumption makes a certain player a franchise player. I consider Stephon Marbury the franchise player for the Knicks, but once he gets leaves, he will not be ever considered at that level.


----------



## urwhatueati8god (May 27, 2003)

TwinkieFoot said:


> Curry is only 24 years old and despite being one of the best players at his position, your able to deduce that he is a player who can not be built around? He's the center piece of a team. David Lee is a role player, granted a high caliber role player like an Antawn Walker on the Celtics or Rasheed Wallace on the Pistons.


Not at all. I'm saying that Eddy Curry isn't a top player at his position. He's not top five. He's not top five in the East. He's not top five in the west. I'd argue that he's not top fifteen in the league. If he's the centerpiece, this team or any other team goes lottery.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

urwhatueati8god said:


> Not at all. I'm saying that Eddy Curry isn't a top player at his position. He's not top five. He's not top five in the East. He's not top five in the west. I'd argue that he's not top fifteen in the league. If he's the centerpiece, this team or any other team goes lottery.


By what standard? Because he's not amongst the better rebounding or shot blocking centers in the league? In either case, the quality that seperates and ultimately places Curry ahead of these guys is his ability to change the game with his scoring. His rebounding is irrelevant because we don't need him to do so.


----------



## urwhatueati8god (May 27, 2003)

At this point in time, the team needs defense to come from somewhere. Is Eddy Curry's scoring ability more valuable of an asset than David Lee's rebounding? Absolutely not, especially when this team is already overburdened by a team that has too many guards who think they're the second coming of Allen Iverson. The true team franchise player can take a team in shambles and turn it into a contender. Eddy Curry is nothing more than an average player in the league. If you notice the list above, notice how he is the only player of all those guys on the list who averages more turnovers than assists, steals, and blocks, and he does so at a rate of nearly two to one. It doesn't matter how valuable of an asset you are with the ball in your hands, if you're averaging less than ten rebounds per forty-eight minutes and you're nearly twice as of a turnover machine as you are a distributer and defender combined and you're making nine million a year, you're not really a useful player in the league.


----------



## Kiyaman (Aug 14, 2006)

*Who in his or her right mind would even consider Eddy Curry as a FRANCHISE Player this soon in his lopsided NBA career? Jamar Crawford is more of a Franchise Player than Curry is on this team (Crawford LOST more Knick Games than any single Knick Player in my 30 years of watching the Knicks).* 

The Knicks Franchise Player is "ZEKE" controlling the strings to the puppet players. 
The same way last season Charlie Brown was the Franchise Player with his million lineup changes and quick substitutions for no-reason at all. 

*This season you seen & see Zeke doing his best to make something out of Eddy Curry by giving him the oportunities inwhich no other coach gave him in the NBA. *


----------



## alphaorange (Jul 2, 2006)

*I'll make this simple....*

A franchise player is a guy that a GM would choose to build his team around if he was starting from scratch. That's it. It may mean something different to some of you but that is what is meant from a practical sense. IT builds around Curry because that is who he has. There is nobody else on this team that can fill that role. If you asked every GM in the league if they would consider choosing Curry to build a team around, they would laugh you out of the room. Curry would be a nice SECOND guy to compliment a real star. There probably isn't 10 franchise players in the league right now. Thats just the way it is and has always been. Get a franchise player and a great #2 guy and you can compete for a title. Very few exceptions, but the Pistons were the latest.


----------



## Gotham2krazy (Nov 22, 2005)

urwhatueati8god said:


> A franchise player doesn't have a definition. Teams can obviously have more than one franchise player, but they have to represent multiple dimensions and they have to be efficient in what they do.
> 
> From a perspective of a team franchise player, you have your top tier guys like Dirk Nowitzki, Dwyane Wade, Yao Ming, Kevin Garnett, LeBron James, Tim Duncan, Manu Ginobili, Tracy McGrady, Steve Nash, Kobe Bryant, and Michael Redd stand out the most because even if they're the only productive players on the team and the rest of your guys are mediocre players you'll still have a chance to sneak in to the playoffs. Should they go down, then you're instantly top three in the lottery, much like Memphis with Pau Gasol. I might consider him on that list too.
> 
> ...


Hey man, not to degrade your argument here, but I don't think 48 minute stats are really all that important. No player gets put on the floor for 48 minutes straight. I do understand that you make a great point of Eddy's scoring dominance, but 48 minute stats are not the strongest point to go from.


----------



## urwhatueati8god (May 27, 2003)

Gotham2krazy said:


> Hey man, not to degrade your argument here, but I don't think 48 minute stats are really all that important. No player gets put on the floor for 48 minutes straight. I do understand that you make a great point of Eddy's scoring dominance, but 48 minute stats are not the strongest point to go from.


Most of these players actually do play more minutes than Curry or at least very close to it with the exception of Pachulia, Blount, Milicic, and Biedrins. They are easily in better shape than Curry and could go the same amount of time, but of these four players, there are four crappy overrated coaches who think that 6'8" guys can be centers.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

urwhatueati8god said:


> At this point in time, the team needs defense to come from somewhere. Is Eddy Curry's scoring ability more valuable of an asset than David Lee's rebounding? Absolutely not, especially when this team is already overburdened by a team that has too many guards who think they're the second coming of Allen Iverson. The true team franchise player can take a team in shambles and turn it into a contender. Eddy Curry is nothing more than an average player in the league. If you notice the list above, notice how he is the only player of all those guys on the list who averages more turnovers than assists, steals, and blocks, and he does so at a rate of nearly two to one. It doesn't matter how valuable of an asset you are with the ball in your hands, if you're averaging less than ten rebounds per forty-eight minutes and you're nearly twice as of a turnover machine as you are a distributer and defender combined and you're making nine million a year, you're not really a useful player in the league.


Eddy Curry is an avarage player in this league at best? That is a completely ridiculous statement. When you consider the fact that Eddy is basically a 20ppg player and shoots nearly 60% in the process, he certainly is anything but average. Does he have flaws in his game? Yes but many players do in the league as well. It still does not change the fact that the man changes the game dramatically with his low post play. 

That game is invalueable to teams around the league and definately respected? Why? Because such a game is a lost art in the NBA. Although Eddy might not have the numbers in other stat categories, you can not deduce that that makes him a lesser player. I thought that stats don't tell the whole story. *If I do recall correctly as well, the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.* You do a poll of who teams would prefer to have on there team, and it's certain that Curry will be on most of those lists. Give him time and I'm sure he'll finish rounding out his game as has Dirk Nowitki who was also a poor rebounder and shot blocker at 7 ft.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

*Re: I'll make this simple....*



alphaorange said:


> A franchise player is a guy that a GM would choose to build his team around if he was starting from scratch. That's it. It may mean something different to some of you but that is what is meant from a practical sense. IT builds around Curry because that is who he has. There is nobody else on this team that can fill that role. *If you asked every GM in the league if they would consider choosing Curry to build a team around, they would laugh you out of the room.* Curry would be a nice SECOND guy to compliment a real star. There probably isn't 10 franchise players in the league right now. Thats just the way it is and has always been. Get a franchise player and a great #2 guy and you can compete for a title. Very few exceptions, but the Pistons were the latest.


So funny that the Bulls attempted to do it right before us until they lost Curry to the Knicks.


----------



## alphaorange (Jul 2, 2006)

*Just stop.....*

You have to stop making statements that you can't know are true. The wanted to keep him but I never saw anywhere that they considered him the centerpiece, only their lowpost scorer.....they had plenty of other talent. Curry is an incomplete player; that is beyond doubt. His effort is also inconsistent.

Please don't compare him to Dirk, either. You embarrass yourself. Dirk has been over 9 boards since his 2nd year, as well as 20+ points, 1+ Blocks (from a perimeter guy), under 2 TOs, and 2 plus assists, great foul shooting, and very good fg% considering the nature of his game. He has no holes in his game compared to Curry's one dimensional game. These are not my opinion, they are facts. Stats don't tell the whole story put they do give you the Reader's Digest version.


----------



## mmmdk (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: Just stop.....*



alphaorange said:


> You have to stop making statements that you can't know are true. The wanted to keep him but I never saw anywhere that they considered him the centerpiece, only their lowpost scorer.....they had plenty of other talent. Curry is an incomplete player; that is beyond doubt. His effort is also inconsistent.
> 
> Please don't compare him to Dirk, either. You embarrass yourself. Dirk has been over 9 boards since his 2nd year, as well as 20+ points, 1+ Blocks (from a perimeter guy), under 2 TOs, and 2 plus assists, great foul shooting, and very good fg% considering the nature of his game. He has no holes in his game compared to Curry's one dimensional game. These are not my opinion, they are facts. Stats don't tell the whole story put they do give you the Reader's Digest version.


Finally, somebody tells the truth. Unless Curry, by magic or something, turns his game around then he'll dwindle as a "star" in the NBA in a year or two. The waiting game on Curry will soon be over; so Curry better conjure some magic and become more of a complete playeror else...


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

*Re: Just stop.....*



alphaorange said:


> You have to stop making statements that you can't know are true. The wanted to keep him but I never saw anywhere that they considered him the centerpiece, only their lowpost scorer.....they had plenty of other talent. Curry is an incomplete player; that is beyond doubt. His effort is also inconsistent.
> 
> Please don't compare him to Dirk, either. You embarrass yourself. Dirk has been over 9 boards since his 2nd year, as well as 20+ points, 1+ Blocks (from a perimeter guy), under 2 TOs, and 2 plus assists, great foul shooting, and very good fg% considering the nature of his game. He has no holes in his game compared to Curry's one dimensional game. These are not my opinion, they are facts. Stats don't tell the whole story put they do give you the Reader's Digest version.



The comparison between Dirk and Curry comes into play from the fact that most considered Dirk to be a one dimensional player coming into the league. Since that time, he has managed to augment his game since that time. You mention the fact that he grabbed 9rpg after his 2nd year but you don't seem to focus in on the fact that it took him nearly 40mpg in order to do that and even so today. By no means if Dirk was not the solid scorer that he is today, he'd be able to claim the franchise player tag because the rest of his game is relatively average. LOL, and his blocks as a big man come from in the paint area because while he plays the perimeter on offense, he plays closer to the basket on defense defending natural PF's. It took Dirk till he was almost 30 years of age in order to even reach the pleateu with the rest of his game. Why would it be so hard to believe that Curry at 24 could do the same but as a post player? He is showing dramatic improvement since last year endurance wise as well as with is intelligence. Why would it be so hard to believe that the rest of his game will improve from the sole fact that he'll be on the floor longer and make better decisions? After all, this kid has not had much experience playing against top notch talent (missing out in college and logging role player minutes in the NBA).


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

Kiyaman said:


> *Who in his or her right mind would even consider Eddy Curry as a FRANCHISE Player this soon in his lopsided NBA career? Jamar Crawford is more of a Franchise Player than Curry is on this team (Crawford LOST more Knick Games than any single Knick Player in my 30 years of watching the Knicks).*
> 
> The Knicks Franchise Player is "ZEKE" controlling the strings to the puppet players.
> The same way last season Charlie Brown was the Franchise Player with his million lineup changes and quick substitutions for no-reason at all.
> ...


Robert Horry has won more games (directly with his buzzer beaters) than Shaquille O'neal but do not get the facts twisted; Shaq was the focal point of that Laker team. Had Shaq and Kobe not been the players they were, Horry would not have gotten a majority of the shots that made him look so good. By that same measure, Curry is more of the focal point of the Knicks team despite how many last second shots Crawford may have made. Still, Marbury is the franchise player but Curry certainly is not a distant second and likely will succeed Steph in the coming years.


----------



## alphaorange (Jul 2, 2006)

Do you ever read what you write? Dirk isn't even 30 years old NOW. He has been putting up very good numbers since 00-01, which made him, what, about 23? Curry has been in the league 5 years....same as Dirk, basically. Who has shown the most improvement? Who has had the more rounded game since the beginning? BTW, Curry plays nearly 40 minutes, too, and he never wanders more than 12 feet from the hoop. Who should get more rebounds, the guy who is 6'11, 285 and lives in the paint? Or the guy who spends most of his time on the perimeter? Dude, you are so far off on so many levels on this one that you are just embarrassing yourself every time you try to defend this position. Curry is good offensively in a very limited way. He is Below par on every other facet. period, end of story. Don't talk about what might be, or could be, or should be. Lets keep it real. Compare stats on NBA.com and get back with facts, not supposition.


----------



## alphaorange (Jul 2, 2006)

*Horry has won more games than Shaq?*

Come on, man, that's just stupid. He has had more buzzer beaters but that just means he's clutch, nothing more. Shaq has won games by scoring a ton, rebounding a ton, and blocking a ton. He changed the way teams defended in ways Curry can only dream about. Not even sure why you brought up Horry but are you taking medication? Nobody said anything about JCs last second shots either. Horry was a role player, Shaq made every team he has been on. DO NOT try to compare Curry to Shaq now. You're making a really big deal about a guy that averages 19+ points, around 7 boards, 1 assist, and 1 block and a zillion bad turnovers. Are you kidding? Post up Lee 12 times a game and I bet he blows Curry's numbers away all across the board.


----------



## Kiyaman (Aug 14, 2006)

TwinkieFoot said:


> Robert Horry has won more games (directly with his buzzer beaters) than Shaquille O'neal but do not get the facts twisted; Shaq was the focal point of that Laker team. Had Shaq and Kobe not been the players they were, Horry would not have gotten a majority of the shots that made him look so good. By that same measure, Curry is more of the focal point of the Knicks team despite how many last second shots Crawford may have made. Still, Marbury is the franchise player but Curry certainly is not a distant second and likely will succeed Steph in the coming years.


*Wazup Twinkiefoot*, very good point but ....... 
Horry is a Franchise Team Player! He proved that in his first TWO Championship Rings with the Houston Rockets. That was a SORRY Trade Houston made giving up their TWO Prime Team-Players (Horry & Cassell for Barkley) *that fit great with the League Number-One Franchise Player Olyjuwon.* 

*The Lakers Franchise Player was Coach Phil Jackson! not Shaq and not Kobe. * 
Coach Phil Jackson got 110% more out of his other 3 Starters (Horry, Harper, and ???) than he did out of No-Defense Kobe & Shaq to WIN their first NBA Title. Kobe & Shaq was just offensively unstoppable in the NBA. The Year before Phil Jackson coached the Lakers all four of the Lakers Starters (Kobe, Shaq, Eddie, and ???) made the ALL-STAR Team but could'nt put a dent in the playoff series with the Portland Trailblazzers (That's why Phil Jax was hired). 

*The Knicks Franchise Player was supposed to be Sophmore Channing Frye this season playing alongside of his Rookie Partners David Lee and Nate Robinson for 30 MPG.* *But President/Coach Isiah Thomas put a stop to that by taking Channing Frye out of the equation of being in the low-post playing above the rim collecting free trips to the foul-line.* 
*Isiah Thomas had to "SAVE-FACE" with his Eddy Curry trade that gave away Two unprotected first round picks.* So Coach Isiah Thomas forced practically every other play this season to go straight to Eddy Curry down low. As if 6.11 Channing Frye did not exist down low in the paint, they had Frye comming 20 to 25 FT outside the paint so Eddy Curry could go one on one in the paint (Curry caused more Turnovers in grabbing the ball, walking, 3 second violations, offensive-fouls in the first three months of the season it was plain to see that Curry did not learn anything in his 3 years in Chicago and last season with the Knicks. But Isiah Thomas was not going to give up. *Isiah Thomas OWES alot of Thanks to Strong ambidextrous 6.9 David Lee who actually picked up Curry Game and Talent out of the garbage and made something of it game after game after game.).*


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

There are exceptions and anomalies, but generally:

A franchise player is someone who can potentially be the focal point of a title contending team while raising the level of his teammates *more than they influence him.* 

A franchise player inflates an average player to good, a good player into a borderline all-star, and the levels from there raise similarly within perception. 

It has as little to do with being a public face as much as it does your ability to potentially raise *all* of your teammates abilities to another level with your presence. Your positive impact to your teammates must outweigh your liabilities. 

It's not always about you carrying your team and being a one man show (though that's expected at clutch times of you), it's about your skills being a ticket, through ball distribution or decreased pressure, to your teammates being able to perform at a higher level themselves, not just by riding your coattail. 

With that, I'm going to sleep.


----------



## alphaorange (Jul 2, 2006)

*Nice job.......nm*

nm


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

alphaorange said:


> Do you ever read what you write? Dirk isn't even 30 years old NOW. He has been putting up very good numbers since 00-01, which made him, what, about 23? Curry has been in the league 5 years....same as Dirk, basically. Who has shown the most improvement? Who has had the more rounded game since the beginning? BTW, Curry plays nearly 40 minutes, too, and he never wanders more than 12 feet from the hoop. Who should get more rebounds, the guy who is 6'11, 285 and lives in the paint? Or the guy who spends most of his time on the perimeter? Dude, you are so far off on so many levels on this one that you are just embarrassing yourself every time you try to defend this position. Curry is good offensively in a very limited way. He is Below par on every other facet. period, end of story. Don't talk about what might be, or could be, or should be. Lets keep it real. Compare stats on NBA.com and get back with facts, not supposition.



While your telling me to compare stats on NBA.com, I suggest that you do the same as well. Dirk has been in this league for 8 seasons as opposed to Curry who has been in the league just 5 seasons. When you acknowledge the fact that professional European play, like Dirk saw, was much more competitive than high school play, which is what Curry saw, you could see why one was more polished than the other. Dirk has also had the added advantage of stability (coaching) and all-stars around him during his career. Curry has had no such advantage.

I just have to chuckle at how inflated an ego you have of yourself and what your saying. Curry minutes approach 40 minutes per game as does Dirk's. Your defense that Curry should be a better rebounder than Dirk is ridiculous. Guess what, Curry being closer to the basket on offense might put him in better for offensive rebounds but has no bearing on his defensive rebounds. Since neither is a practically good rebounder, your defense is invalid. Once again, Curry could very well be considered a franchise player because while he may not be multi-faceted, he still has the oppurtunity of developing his game.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

*Re: Horry has won more games than Shaq?*



alphaorange said:


> Come on, man, that's just stupid. He has had more buzzer beaters but that just means he's clutch, nothing more. Shaq has won games by scoring a ton, rebounding a ton, and blocking a ton. He changed the way teams defended in ways Curry can only dream about. Not even sure why you brought up Horry but are you taking medication? Nobody said anything about JCs last second shots either. Horry was a role player, Shaq made every team he has been on. DO NOT try to compare Curry to Shaq now. You're making a really big deal about a guy that averages 19+ points, around 7 boards, 1 assist, and 1 block and a zillion bad turnovers. Are you kidding? Post up Lee 12 times a game and I bet he blows Curry's numbers away all across the board.



You really need to shut up, and think about what you say before you say it because your ignorance is really starting to piss me off. I have never implied or beleived that Horry was a bigger factor in a game than Shaq was. I thought I made that pretty clear when I stated that "Had Shaq and Kobe not been the players they were, Horry would not have gotten a majority of the shots that made him look so good." I guess some are beyond basic reading comprehension; maybe DaGrinch was onto something. 

It was Kiyaman who stated that "Jamar Crawford is more of a Franchise Player than Curry is on this team (Crawford LOST more Knick Games than any single Knick Player in my 30 years of watching the Knicks)." In his post, he continues to imply the fact that the guy who takes the last second shot is more of a franchise player for that reason. I submitted to him the comparison of Horry and the Lakers to counter this belief in order to devalidate it. Feel free to remove your foot from your mouth.


----------



## alphaorange (Jul 2, 2006)

*Shoulda, woulda, coulda*

Another game that Curry leaves a pile of poop on the floor. 4-9fg, 5-11ft, 6 turnovers...AFTER several days of rest in the last week and re-committing himself to leading the team. I thought he meant wins, silly me. Outside of Dirk's first 2 years, he has been nearly a 10 rebound a game guy..and 20+..and all the other categories that he is better than Curry in...including being 3 times better at shot blocking. He has been remarkably good and consistent throughout his career. Curry, on the other hand has actually gone down in rebound effectiveness, FT% (career low), FG% (from his best and dropping), but his TOs are up. Tell me again how he is developing? He has more moves and is more consistent when not dunking, I'll grant that. His overall game is not elite by ANYONE"S standards. He is not much (if any) better of a player now than he ever was. Come back with this discussion when Curry actually becomes a top tier player. As it is, you are simply expressing your hopes and dreams, far-fetched as they are. If IT insists on making Eddy the centerpiece of this team, he, the team, and the fans are doomed.


----------



## alphaorange (Jul 2, 2006)

*And....*

Your reading comprehension leaves much to be desired. Kiyaman's full quote:

"Who in his or her right mind would even consider Eddy Curry as a FRANCHISE Player this soon in his lopsided NBA career? Jamar Crawford is more of a Franchise Player than Curry is on this team (Crawford LOST more Knick Games than any single Knick Player in my 30 years of watching the Knicks)."

Where does he imply anything about shooting last second shots? Maybe he did mean that but I did not get that out of it. He certainly did not write that. Or suggest that. I'm starting to understand you. You have a reading issue and have trouble understanding what you read. Sorry.


----------



## Truknicksfan (Mar 25, 2005)

> Another game that Curry leaves a pile of poop on the floor. 4-9fg, 5-11ft, 6 turnovers...AFTER several days of rest in the last week and re-committing himself to leading the team. I thought he meant wins, silly me. Outside of Dirk's first 2 years, he has been nearly a 10 rebound a game guy..and 20+..and all the other categories that he is better than Curry in...including being 3 times better at shot blocking. He has been remarkably good and consistent throughout his career. Curry, on the other hand has actually gone down in rebound effectiveness, FT% (career low), FG% (from his best and dropping), but his TOs are up. Tell me again how he is developing? He has more moves and is more consistent when not dunking, I'll grant that. His overall game is not elite by ANYONE"S standards. He is not much (if any) better of a player now than he ever was. Come back with this discussion when Curry actually becomes a top tier player. As it is, you are simply expressing your hopes and dreams, far-fetched as they are. If IT insists on making Eddy the centerpiece of this team, he, the team, and the fans are doomed.


Sadly Im starting to feel the same way. He has not grown as much as we need him to, and as much as the team(and zeke) tries to advertise that he has.

I understand he is dealing with new defense on him but still he needs to help with other parts of his game. How about some more blocked shots on the defensive end. How about some more offensive and defense boards. How about some better help defense. How about making good passes out of the doubles that turn into dimes. How about not turning the ball over 4 + times a night. The point is Currys game only has one thing to it(scoring in paint), and when teams focus on shutting it down, he is useless and clueless.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

*Re: And....*



alphaorange said:


> Your reading comprehension leaves much to be desired. Kiyaman's full quote:
> 
> "Who in his or her right mind would even consider Eddy Curry as a FRANCHISE Player this soon in his lopsided NBA career? Jamar Crawford is more of a Franchise Player than Curry is on this team (Crawford LOST more Knick Games than any single Knick Player in my 30 years of watching the Knicks)."
> 
> Where does he imply anything about shooting last second shots? Maybe he did mean that but I did not get that out of it. He certainly did not write that. Or suggest that. I'm starting to understand you. You have a reading issue and have trouble understanding what you read. Sorry.



On second thought, maybe you should take a look in the mirror with that reading comphrension statement. You may have had some ground with what you said had Kiyaman not responded directly after my last post that "Wazup Twinkiefoot, very good point but .......Horry is a *Franchise* *Team Player*!" Considering he believes Horry to be a franchise player for late game heroics and the fact he stated that I had a "good point," that would suggest that he did believe that this was true. It's so nice to see you try so hard though. Maybe next time you might actually get it right?


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

*Re: Shoulda, woulda, coulda*



alphaorange said:


> Another game that Curry leaves a pile of poop on the floor. 4-9fg, 5-11ft, 6 turnovers...AFTER several days of rest in the last week and re-committing himself to leading the team. I thought he meant wins, silly me. Outside of Dirk's first 2 years, he has been nearly a 10 rebound a game guy..and 20+..and all the other categories that he is better than Curry in...including being 3 times better at shot blocking. He has been remarkably good and consistent throughout his career. Curry, on the other hand has actually gone down in rebound effectiveness, FT% (career low), FG% (from his best and dropping), but his TOs are up. Tell me again how he is developing? He has more moves and is more consistent when not dunking, I'll grant that. His overall game is not elite by ANYONE"S standards. He is not much (if any) better of a player now than he ever was. Come back with this discussion when Curry actually becomes a top tier player. As it is, you are simply expressing your hopes and dreams, far-fetched as they are. If IT insists on making Eddy the centerpiece of this team, he, the team, and the fans are doomed.


Silly me, I thought I was the one who stated Curry wasn't a completed player which means he's not beyond having these kind of games.

No where did I mention he was an elite player (except maybe at scoring in the low post)? Like I said, he is a developing player evident by the fact he is only 24 years old and they only get smarter and more experienced. I think Curry's major problem is just that. He skipped out on college which was a valueable learning experience for a guy his size. As I mentioned earlier a few months back, the first time a guy like Curry ever played against someone that could counter his overwhelming physical gifts was in the NBA. Despite being in the league 5 years, that is not nearly enough time to round out these skills since they are relatively in their infancy; especially considering it takes big men much longer to develop than your average NBA player. The sheer fact that Curry has learned to stay on the floor longer and perfecting what he has up until this point to warrant all-star consideration proves a point that he is improving. I think that shows that he didn't make and stay in the league solely on his physical gifts. Give him time.


----------



## alphaorange (Jul 2, 2006)

*You did it again....*

Kiyaman said he was a franchise TEAM player....meaning a valuable PIECE to a team. Quite different than a franchise player, actually. The rest of what you say is contradictory. He is so incomplete he simply cannot be even CONSIDERED a franchise player, in fact he has not played at anything remotely close to an all-star level in a long time. There is NOTHING to suggest that he can improve in his areas of weakness.....no improvement. He has learned how to stay on the floor by playing less defense than he did before. That is a very dubious accomplishment. Check his improvement: 

Fg% always good, no real difference

Rebounding no improvement except more minutes, more boards (horrible rate)

Blocks no improvement

Passing no discernible improvement

Defense his style is "TURNstyle"

Turnovers worse

Minutes More at the expense of defense (but he IS better conditioned)

Considering he has been the focal point of the staff's attention, I find his "improvement" lacking in a big way.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

*Re: You did it again....*



alphaorange said:


> Kiyaman said he was a franchise TEAM player....meaning a valuable PIECE to a team. Quite different than a franchise player, actually. The rest of what you say is contradictory. He is so incomplete he simply cannot be even CONSIDERED a franchise player, in fact he has not played at anything remotely close to an all-star level in a long time. There is NOTHING to suggest that he can improve in his areas of weakness.....no improvement. He has learned how to stay on the floor by playing less defense than he did before. That is a very dubious accomplishment. Check his improvement:
> 
> Fg% always good, no real difference
> 
> ...



Honestly, what the hell is a franchise team player? That has been something that has just been made up on the spot that neither your or I really know the definition of. It's self-defeating in the sense, your sense, that you associate the franchise player as a player that can not be moved, yet team players are often moved and/or replaced on teams.

You may be right when you say that there is nothing that suggests that Curry can improve but there is nothing that suggests that he can NOT improve. Like I said, he is a 24 year old player that is as nimble as a danzer (male ballet dancer) but as powerful as big men come in this league. On top of that, Curry is still learning this game which many have not realized. Like I said, 5 years is not nearly enough to develop the kind of skills and nuisances of the game that he got away with against playing smaller opponents. 

The improvement that Curry has seen can not necessarily be measured by stats. If you notice, he's out on the floor much longer, and that is indicative of improved conditioning and smarter play on the floor. That alone should serve Curry well because the only way he can develop the rest of those skills is by playing the game against competition that matters. That is the first step in Curry's progression to a more complete player. You can make the arguement that this is probably the biggest step since he'll be able to gain the kind of experience that will allow him to develop his game as a franchise player.


P.S., the fact of the matter is that when the team was healthy, Curry played at an all-star level. As of right now, his low post scoring does not really help our team because the shooters we have to capitalize on the spacing he creates are injuried. That's why the focus of scoring has shifted from him to backcourt players like Marbury and Francis. This could be a blessing in disguise because this will especially make Curry look for ways to help the team outside of scoring. This ephany will not be easily reached or realized because you'll ask him to do something he has never really done before but it is very well possible under these conditions.


----------



## alphaorange (Jul 2, 2006)

*couple of things....*

Only Kman knows what he meant by franchise team player but it seems evident to me......an extremely valuable role player. As far as not being able to suggest he isn't capable of improving, I submit his resume to date. Five years and so little improvement suggest he has a low ceiling. I also don't see where he plays smarter, and as far as getting in shape....big deal, he SHOULD be. Big men take longer but not this much longer.Moses made an immediate impact and even D Dawkins became a force sooner. The kid from the Lakers will be much further along at 24. What examples can you cite? Besides, there is a long list of bigmen that left college early and were a force by 24...same amount of experience. IT gambled with Curry and needs to do everything to make him a star. I think he would make a great 2nd option but I doubt he will ever be able to handle the defensive pressure of being the primary.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

*Re: couple of things....*



alphaorange said:


> Only Kman knows what he meant by franchise team player but it seems evident to me......an extremely valuable role player. As far as not being able to suggest he isn't capable of improving, I submit his resume to date. Five years and so little improvement suggest he has a low ceiling. I also don't see where he plays smarter, and as far as getting in shape....big deal, he SHOULD be. Big men take longer but not this much longer.Moses made an immediate impact and even D Dawkins became a force sooner. The kid from the Lakers will be much further along at 24. What examples can you cite? Besides, there is a long list of bigmen that left college early and were a force by 24...same amount of experience. IT gambled with Curry and needs to do everything to make him a star. I think he would make a great 2nd option but I doubt he will ever be able to handle the defensive pressure of being the primary.



Your right, only Kman knows what he meant....so then why are you still trying to tell me what he meant?

Since you obviously appear hard of reading, it'll rehash what I said before once again because of your poor reading and comphrension skills. The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence; Curry's numbers in other statistical categories do not reflect the only form of improvement he can or has made. The knowledge and physical fitness to stay on the floor will probably be more important than any stat. As good as Curry may be or become, what use would he be if we'd only be able to use him for a limited amount of time? The ability to stay on the floor is probably the biggest step Curry has had to make and he is doing so at the moment. This will ultimately allow Curry to develop his overall skill because as I said before, they have never been utilized prior to the NBA against lesser opponents who could not stop Curry from being effective regardless. To date, Curry has had only 5 seasons experience against formidable opponents and has not gotten signficant minutes during that time or forced to expand his overall game. Under these conditions, he will able to reinforce what he has learned in the NBA and expand on them emmensely.

As for Moses and Dawkins, they were Moses and Dawkins (special/unique players) because they did perform at a high level very early on, DUH!!! Next time you have something bright to say, keep it to yourself. I'll be reposting this post if you somehow don't submit any kind of new evidence into this argument or beat the dead horse that you currently are beating.


----------



## alphaorange (Jul 2, 2006)

*Just dumb....*

I don't feel the need to ague further. It has all been said.......let the jury decide whether or not Curry is a franchise player. I say he'll Frye.


----------

