Xatticus wrote:RickB-Orlando wrote:Xatticus wrote:
I think you just do what moves the franchise forward. Stars aren't created just by stat lines, but also by the standings. If the Magic start winning a lot of games, the perceived value of our players will scale up accordingly. The contributions of players on team performance is complex. I don't really buy into this idea that we need to acquire a star (whatever your definition is). If you are running your franchise well, stars will happen. This is where we have failed, but that shouldn't lead to desperation moves that mortgage the future of the franchise for any tarnished "star" that hits the market.
So I was with you until that one line.
If you are running your franchise well, stars will happen
.
I think that's a ridiculous statement, to be honest. What does it even mean?
It means that the designation "star" is highly subjective, but that a team that wins a lot of games will have someone on their roster designated as such. It's a matter of perception. The Hawks won 60 games from nowhere and suddenly Horford's value skyrocketed. Marc Gasol became an elite defensive center when nobody could come up with any other explanation for Memphis' success. Kawhi is considered to be one of the top few players in the NBA because the Spurs roster is underwhelming, but their results are exceptional. Team success creates or legitimizes "stars." Isaiah Thomas still has his detractors, but they are rapidly dwindling since he was traded to a team that is winning.
What makes a legitimate "star" so valuable is that their salary is artificially suppressed by the maximum contract rule, but scoring 20 PPG is just about enough to ensure a player will receive a maximum contract, regardless of their actual contribution to team success. We throw the term around as though it is a boolean absolute. You are or aren't a star. A team does or doesn't have a star. We have difficulty quantifying the impacts of each player on team success, but reductionist reasoning gets you nowhere. You can still get value for the money you spend without acquiring one of those few players whose value so obviously exceeds the CBA's limitations on their compensation. Constructing a roster is far more complex than simply acquiring "stars." This should be really obvious to anyone that recalls Isiah Thomas' tenure in New York.
So to you, 'Star' is nothing more than an indicator of an economic ratio?
I know that's a very simple reduction of what you've said, nut that is a bit how it reads.
To me star is that player that makes others around them better, that can put a team on their back and carry it during games, every game, when the team is faltering. It's a non-linear attribute that you know when you see it (sort of like porn). The only player on this team that has shown flashes of this quality is Elfrid, which is why so many are critical of him,; it's *because* he has shown flashes of that 'star-ness' that people grumble when he plays 'just OK.'
To me, the one thing it isn't is a factor of paycheck.
