Build a title team from your fav franchise w/ <20 AS's

[trex_8063]

Here's how it works:

Build a team (5 starters, top 3 off the bench) for your favorite franchise that could win a title in any era. Players picked:

*Must have played at least 5 seasons in the NBA (if they miss an entire year with injury (like doesn't even suit up once all year), it does not count toward these five--->i.e. one could not use Derrick Rose, for example).
*Must have played at least 2 seasons of their careers for your franchise (again, an entire year missed with injury does not count). For this you can choose from any era, and are allowed to go back to prior team names or even prior cities (e.g. if your team is the Kings, you can use players from back when they were the Rochester or Cincinnati Royals).
*The eight players you choose must have LESS THAN 20 total All-Star selections between them. For instance, my team is the Bulls: I cannot simply say "Jordan + Pippen" and then throw some role players around them: Jordan and Pip already have 21 All-Stars between them (2 more than is allowed).

I'll get started....

My team: Chicago Bulls.

PG - Ron Harper (0)
SG - Michael Jordan (14)
SF - Luol Deng (2)
PF - Horace Grant (1)
C - Tyson Chandler (1)

Bench:
Toni Kukoc
B.J. Armstrong (1)
Luc Longley

Total - 19 All-Stars

**Alternate line-up I thought was maybe get rid of Chandler and Armstrong, shift Longley into the starting line-up, then have Steve Kerr and Jerry Sloan alongside Kukoc off the bench. Anyone like that line-up better?

[Quotatious]

Portland Trail Blazers

Bill Walton (2)
LaMarcus Aldridge (2, well, probably 3 counting current season)
Clyde Drexler (10)
Brandon Roy (3)
Terry Porter (2)

Bench:

Mychal Thompson
Jerome Kersey
Damon Stoudamire

Total: 20 All-Star apeearances

This team would be a real dynasty if Walton and Roy stayed healthy for a few seasons.

[trex_8063]

Total: 20 All-Star apeearances
.

Ah-ah. That's a breach of rules: must have LESS THAN 20 All-Stars. You need to make a small adjustment somewhere. EDIT #2: Disregard. We shouldn't count Aldridge's third until it happens, so you actually only have 19 AS's.

EDIT: fwiw, the fact that Walton and Roy were both at one point a couple of the best players in the league, and then quickly got all banged up (thus limiting their all-star selections)......sort of makes them ideal for purposes of this exercise. Very fortuitous that the Trailblazers have TWO individuals with that kind of history. That was almost too easy for you, wasn't it?

[Texas Chuck]

Tarpley --- 0
Dirk -- 11
Aquirre -- 3
Finley -- 2
Harper -- 0

JET -- 0 (wanted Dale Ellis but he made 1)
Detlef -- 3
Perkins --0

No dynasty here but if we can keep Tarpley clean we can contend for a long time with he and Dirk paired together.

[D Nice]

Can we add the stipulation that they are considered to be the same level player they were when they were with the franchise? Otherwise, for example, as a Laker fan I could abuse this re: Horace Grant, Ron Harper, Gary Payton, Dennis Rodman, Glen Rice, etc?

Going with my stipulation (listing 2-year windows)...

PG: Magic Johnson 86-87 (11)
SG: Eddie Jones 97-98 (3)
SF: Rick Fox 01-02 (0)
PF: Pau Gasol 09-10 (4)
Cc: Vlade Divac 94-95 (1)

Key Bench: Byron Scott 88-89 (0), Lamar Odom 08-09 (0), Robert Horry 01-02 (0)

[trex_8063]

It's not a bad stipulation for the Lakers. Might make things too tough for some less storied franchises, though. Besides, half the guys mentioned don't qualify anyway (Nash, Malone, Payton, Rodman all played LESS than 2 seasons for the Lakers.....so they're not eligible).

Edit: Lakers lucky in this exercise, too, as Odom and Scott are probably two of the very best NON-allstars in NBA history (imho). Gasol has probably deserved more than the 4 selections he's received, too, for that matter.

[B_Creamy]

Can we add the stipulation that they are considered to be the same level player they were when they were with the franchise? Otherwise, for example, as a Laker fan I could abuse this re: Horace Grant, Ron Harper, Gary Payton, Dennis Rodman, Glen Rice, etc?

At the same time the players you listed did not obtain there All-Star selections on the Lakers so I think it's fair to be able to get a player who played for your team and put him in at his peak regardless of whether or not that was while they were on your team.

PG: LeBron James (9)
SG: Glen Rice (3)
SF: Shane Battier (0)
PF: Brian Grant (0)
C: Alonzo Mourning (7)

Bench:
Mike Miller
Sherman Douglas
Rony Seikaly

Eh, the Heat probably aren't the best team for this particular exercise.

[D Nice]

Can we add the stipulation that they are considered to be the same level player they were when they were with the franchise? Otherwise, for example, as a Laker fan I could abuse this re: Horace Grant, Ron Harper, Gary Payton, Dennis Rodman, Glen Rice, etc?

At the same time the players you listed did not obtain there All-Star selections on the Lakers so I think it's fair to be able to get a player who played for your team and put him in at his peak regardless of whether or not that was while they were on your team.

I've read this post 3 or 4 times and I still don't understand. How does not obtaining their all-star appearances on your team justify it being fair to take them at their peak regardless of year/location?

Edit: Lakers lucky in this exercise, too, as Odom and Scott are probably two of the very best NON-allstars in NBA history (imho). Gasol has probably deserved more than the 4 selections he's received, too, for that matter.

I disagree. There's one or two snubs every year at least on the same level as prime Odom (although Odom himself was a huge snub in '04 so he should probably have one). And 4 all-star appearances is just about right for Gasol. He's not a perennial all-star type guy, he's a 4-6 all-star type guy. He's a bit below James Worthy, for example. Considering he played a big portion of his prime in a conference with Webber/Nowitski/Garnett/Duncan/Randolph 4 appearances is an impressive achievement.

There are worse PFs with more all-star appearances (Bosh, for example, has 9, which is crazy), but in general 4 or 5 is about right for a player of Pau's caliber.

Byronn Scott does provide HUGE value in this exercise though, he's a steal.

[B_Creamy]

Can we add the stipulation that they are considered to be the same level player they were when they were with the franchise? Otherwise, for example, as a Laker fan I could abuse this re: Horace Grant, Ron Harper, Gary Payton, Dennis Rodman, Glen Rice, etc?

At the same time the players you listed did not obtain there All-Star selections on the Lakers so I think it's fair to be able to get a player who played for your team and put him in at his peak regardless of whether or not that was while they were on your team.

I've read this post 3 or 4 times and I still don't understand. How does not obtaining their all-star appearances on your team justify it being fair to take them at their peak regardless of year/location?

Shaq played 2 very good AS years on my team. 13 elsewhere. I should not have to carry all of that baggage unless I'm getting the best Shaq. Of course I could just not pick Shaq and follow the stipulations but like trex said not every team is as deep as the Lakers. The only reason my team works is because I got a younger and more athletic Battier.

[D Nice]

But Shaq was a top 3-5 player for the Heat in 2005/2006 and an MVP candidate, so even if you take the Heat version of Shaq there's hardly a huge drop-off. And a young Shane Battier is hardly distinguishable (from an impact perspective) from old Shane Battier.

It's to avoid cases like the examples I provided. For example, being able to use prime Horace Grant ( 0 appearances) or prime Glenn Rice (3 appearances) for the Lakers isn't really adhering to the spirit of the thread and just isn't fair. I'm sure there are tons of other examples, these are just the ones off the top of my head.

Like, if I were a Suns fan, there is no reason I should be able to use Peak/Prime Shaq. Nobody associates Shaq's beast-mode with Phoenix. Nobody.

[Texas Chuck]

Can we add the stipulation that they are considered to be the same level player they were when they were with the franchise?

Yeah thats the way I did the Mavs. Detlef is the only guy on my team who didnt play his best ball for the Mavs. But since I paid 3 AS games for him I figured it was okay. But the rest of my team are all known for their work as Mavericks. Sam Perkins played a long time post Dallas, but he didnt play better than he did as a Mav.

[B_Creamy]

But Shaq was a top 3-5 player for the Heat in 2005/2006 and an MVP candidate, so even if you take the Heat version of Shaq there's hardly a huge drop-off. And a young Shane Battier is hardly distinguishable (from an impact perspective) from old Shane Battier.

It's to avoid cases like the examples I provided. For example, being able to use prime Horace Grant ( 0 appearances) or prime Glenn Rice (3 appearances) for the Lakers isn't really adhering to the spirit of the thread and just isn't fair. I'm sure there are tons of other examples, these are just the ones off the top of my head.

But If I were a suns fan, for example, there is no reason I should be able to use Peak/Prime Shaq. Nobody associates Shaq's beast-mode with Phoenix. Nobody.

There is a significant drop off from being indisputably the best player in the league and maybe the best player of all time to being "just" a Top 5.

Anyway I need the Battier with more stamina because I don't want to tire out LeBron putting him against quicker guards since he's playing Point.

[MisterHibachi]

Can we add the stipulation that they are considered to be the same level player they were when they were with the franchise? Otherwise, for example, as a Laker fan I could abuse this re: Horace Grant, Ron Harper, Gary Payton, Dennis Rodman, Glen Rice, etc?

At the same time the players you listed did not obtain there All-Star selections on the Lakers so I think it's fair to be able to get a player who played for your team and put him in at his peak regardless of whether or not that was while they were on your team.

PG: LeBron James (9)
SG: Glen Rice (3)
SF: Shane Battier (0)
PF: Brian Grant (0)
C: Alonzo Mourning (7)

Bench:
Mike Miller
Sherman Douglas
Rony Seikaly

Eh, the Heat probably aren't the best team for this particular exercise.

How much does it kill to leave Wade off? I understand why you did it tho, him and LeBron would've taken up all the all-star counts.

[trex_8063]

Edit: Lakers lucky in this exercise, too, as Odom and Scott are probably two of the very best NON-allstars in NBA history (imho). Gasol has probably deserved more than the 4 selections he's received, too, for that matter.

I disagree. There's one or two snubs every year at least on the same level as prime Odom (although Odom himself was a huge snub in '04 so he should probably have one). And 4 all-star appearances is just about right for Gasol. He's not a perennial all-star type guy, he's a 4-6 all-star type guy. He's a bit below James Worthy, for example. Considering he played a big portion of his prime in a conference with Webber/Nowitski/Garnett/Duncan/Randolph 4 appearances is an impressive achievement.

There are worse PFs with more all-star appearances (Bosh, for example, has 9, which is crazy), but in general 4 or 5 is about right for a player of Pau's caliber.

Byronn Scott does provide HUGE value in this exercise though, he's a steal.

Yeah, Byron in '88 was easily an All-Star. Many years, those numbers (for that kind of team) will get you All-NBA 2nd Team. '89 really isn't too far behind.

I totally agree that in any given year there are generally 25-27 players in the league playing at legit All-Star level.....so some people by necessity have to get left out. But I think Odom was more or less playing at an All-Star level (or VERY near to it) from 03-04 straight thru to 07-08. So that's five consecutive years he's left out. Overlooked that many times starts to feel like a snub.

And fwiw, I'm not sure we're actually disagreeing on Gasol. I sort of added him on as an after-thought saying 4 might be a little skimpy, and you replied essentially saying 4 is OK as a minimum acceptable for him (but 5 or even 6 would be acceptable, too).

[D Nice]

As someone who had to sit through the bulk of Odom's career I couldn't disagree more. He was a complete and utter failure from 2005-2007, and he was having his worst stretch as a Laker (offensively) until Gasol was acquired in 2008. He did, however, turn himself into an exceptional defender in '08, that combined with his post-Pau-acquisition play might merit a selection. I don't really think he was a snub though. To me, 2004 is really his only good case.

If they gave out all-star selections for taking an advantage of an undersized opponent in a singular playoff series then Odom would make it in 2006, but that's it. Non-Laker fans overrate '06 Odom tremendously because of the matchup and gameplan Phil drew up. And honestly he stopped being really impressive in that series after game 4, but I blame that more on Phil's lack of mid-series adjustments than Odom. D'Antoni started bringing doubles from the baseline and opposite corner and Odom had no idea what to do.

But maybe I'm being harsh because he played for my team. I'd be willing to entertain a pro-Lamar all-star argument for those seasons, if for no other reason then to affirm my stance.

[Colbinii]

Minnesota Timberderps!

Sam Cassell - 1
Corey Brewer - 0
Wally Szczerbiak - 1
Kevin Love - 2
Kevin Garnett - 15

Bench:
Joe Smith
Ricky Rubio
Nikola Pekovic

[D Nice]

Minnesota Timberderps!

Sam Cassell - 1
Corey Brewer - 0
Wally Szczerbiak - 1
Kevin Love - 2
Kevin Garnett - 15

Bench:
Joe Smith
Ricky Rubio
Nikola Pekovic

I think I'd slide KG to SF, use Wally as a 6th man, and start Joe Smith. Either that or just bench Wally and add Trenton Hassell to the starting lineup. As great as an offensive team as that is, a team starting Sam, Wally, and Love would probably surrender 110ppg. Love's spacing gives you the benefit of being able to replace Wally with a non-3pt shooter, I think to actually win a ring you'd need to take advantage of that.

[ronnymac2]

Patrick Ewing (11)
David Lee (2)
Bernard King (4)
Allan Houston (2)
Derek Harper (0)

Ray Felton (0)
Marcus Camby (0)
Iman Shumpert (0)

Pretty sick team. I can invert my offense since I have bigs who can shoot (Prefer Lee's jumper over Oak or Mason) and put King down in the post with Houston and Harper spreading the floor, too. Camby is an amazing backup big, Felton is a solid backup PG, and Shump is a glue guy off the bench.

Lot of different permutations I could have used though. Here were some of my other players:

Tyson Chandler (1)
Walt Frazier (7)
Anthony Mason (1)
Charles Oakley (1)
Dave Bebusschere (8)
Carmelo Anthony (8)

Using Chandler, Oak, and Mason was tempting. Get great value there. I just really wanted to use Ewing though.

[D Nice]

^^^Sick team, I'd opt for Oak over Lee though.

Harper/Houston/King is more than enough offensive support for Pat but you're leaving him on an island defensively. He's a GOAT defender, of course, so I'm sure he'd manage, but I think all of the defensive idiosyncrasies Oak brings to the table trumps Lee's scoring and floor spacing. Otherwise Derek Harper is the only even average defensive player in your starting 5.

Even as a UNC alumn I really don't like Felton except for 2011. Gimmie Ward or Childs any day. I'm splitting hairs though, that's a title team either way.

[trex_8063]

I too would opt for Oakley over Lee. I'd not include Harper in the discussion of "leaving Pat on an island" defensively. Harper was a very good perimeter defender. But even so, Lee/King/Houston means you have more weak links than not defensively. That's too many, imo.

And with Houston, Harper, King, and Ewing.....that's MORE than enough offense already; not like you really need Lee out there.