Franchise Players

[jemagee]

So, I'm being told that Andre Iguodala is supposed to be the 'franchise player' over the sixers over at another blog and it occurs to me that it's asinine to call him a franchise player - he's not...and he shouldn't be called one...but then it occurs to me that maybe the average fan thinks that ever franchise HAS to have a franchise player?  I look around the NBA and a bunch of teams out there don't have a guy I would consider a franchise player - maybe my standards are too high but I can look at a lot of teams that while they ahve some real good players I wouldnt' consider them franchise players - maybe to me a franchise player is a guy who doesn't get traded - ever - even considered it - and plays at an obscenely high level that leaves others in awe...does ever team HAVE to have a franchise player or is Iguodala going to suffer because of unrealistic expectations based on his contract size and people 'wanting' him to be the franchise player (and the franchise possibly trying to make him the franchise player)

I think the sixers have two POTENTIAL franchise players on their roster - but neither of them are Iguodala and neither of them are even close to ready to assume that mantle.

In the same post someone compared Iguodala to Abreu and McNabb - and somehow blamed Abreu and McNabb for how the fans treated them, which was telling to me in an entirely different way...

[Skates]

The best Iggy can be is a Pippen, not a franchise guy.  Problem is you can't be an effective Pippen (not saying he is Scottie, just making the analogy) without a franchise guy.  Ditto for Brand.  Franchise guys have to produce every night, be capable of dominating games for stretches and be considered obvious all-stars.  Some, like Nash, don't have to be dominant scorers if they can do other things in a dominant manner.  Here would be my list of franchise, and near franchise players, in the game today:

LeBron James
Kevin Garnett and Paul Pierce - at their ages/stages they can be franchise material when needed, not all of the time, hence they are a franchise pair.
Dwight Howard
Joe Johnson - near
Dwayne Wade
Chris Bosh - near
Danny Granger - near
Kobe Bryant
Chris Paul
Yao Ming (no, not Tracy McGrady anymore, Ron-Ron is closer)
Tim Duncan
Amare Stoudemire
Steve Nash - was, slipping
Deron Williams - near
Brandon Roy - near
Dirk Nowitzki
Carmelo Anthony - not quite, but easily could be

That is about it for me.  Young guys like Derick Rose, Thad, Speights, Mayo and Durant are on the way, but not there yet.  Boozer is another Brand.  I don't thing Beasly ever makes it as he looks more like Glenn Robinson than anything.  Anyone in GS can be a franchise guy for a night, but none do it consistently.  Arenas and Iverson are no longer dominant because of age or injuries.  Am I missing anyone?

[jemagee]

Does a franchise player have to 'make his teammates' better?  NOt that that's a phrase I've ever understood...I think they also have to have complete games - the knock on Melo has always been that he's one dimensional and defensively weak though suppoosedly he's improved this year...

[jemagee]

BTW - you only listed 10 'clear cut' franchise players

Just saying

[Skates]

BTW - you only listed 10 'clear cut' franchise players

Just saying

That would be about right, with a  number of others who are close to it.  Do you have to make your team mates better? In a way.  You can do that by your intensity translating to your team a la Kevin Garnett, by literally making them better as a passer like Magic did, or by covering up for their weaknesses - no need for a passing PG in Cleveland.  But primarily you have to be able to make the entire team better by being able to put the team on your back and take control of the game at critical times, even against good defenses - Michael, Bird or Kobe as examples.  Finally you can be simply unstoppable like most franchise big men - Shaq, Wilt, Moses, Duncan.  If you don't have at least one of those qualities you can't be considered more than very good, greatness is limited by its own definition.

[tk76-]

maybe to me a franchise player is a guy who doesn't get traded - ever - even considered it - and plays at an obscenely high level that leaves others in awe...

Franchise players get traded.  Shaq, AI, KG, Moses, Wilt and other franchise players have been traded.  Having a franchise player is usually enough to get you a few rounds into the playoffs, but they alone can't get you a championship.

I think to be the franchise player you need to be the focal point around which the team is constructed.  If that was the case with Iguodala they would have gone for Josh Smith instead of Brand, because of how they fit with Iguodala preferred style of play.  Similar to how a Nash led team will always play an early offense style to fit his strength. 

Guys like Kobe, Lebron and Wade will never be put with PG's who run the show, becasue that would not fit them as franchise players.  You will know they are no longer franchise players when teams start them in a more conventional PG led offense.  Like how Barkley and Drexler were no longer franchise players by the time they made their more team oriented run in Houston.  Likewise, you knew Shaq was no longer a franchise player when he was thrown into offensive schemes that were not built around having a dominant center.

[Skates]

Are you implying the Sixers have an actual offensive scheme?   

[jemagee]

Ok - so maybe the not trading thing was a mis-statement - i really should think these things through when i right out my thought processes as they happen.

But it seems that my premise (or the one i thought i had) that not every team has a franchise player - and that Iguodala isn't a franchise player nor should be be expected to be on by rational fans - seems to hold some water?