RealGM

All over the place I see people saying,

"Al is not a franchise player"

"Al is the big man version of Ricky Davis, putting up big numbers on a losing team"

"Al = Zach Randolph"

...and so on. What's with all the hatorade? He's a dynamic post player at 23 years old. If that's not a great peice to build around I guess I don't know what is.

He's not a franchise player. He's a future all-star but not a future MVP. If that opinion makes me a hater, I guess I'm a hater.

I don't know how people can just discard him as a franchise player already. He's better at this stage than KG was offensively.

He might eventually become borderline franchise player worthy, but I'm satisfied with a perennial all-star out of him. You can't expect much more than that.

Al has exceeded expectations offensively, and probably met them defensively. He will continue to improve. Who cares what people label him right now? I think Al actually gets a lot of props from most other teams commentators, more than I would expect. The Wolves are going to have a very high pick - this isn't football, there's no set definition of a franchise player, a team can have two, or three, or none.

Calinks3 wrote:I don't know how people can just discard him as a franchise player already. He's better at this stage than KG was offensively.

He's better in the low post but he is not better than KG was offensively. KG was averaging 23 points and 5 assists per game at Al's age.

Based on Al's progression from year to year, I think its still a bit early to judge what his potential ceiling is. He's already a 20-12 player, all he needs to do at this point is work on passing out of the double teams and playing better help defense.

I guess I might have a different definition of 'franchise player'.

I always thought of it as who on your team do you build your team around.

I think Al is that peice for the Wolves. I feel like if you put the right peices around him, there's no telling how good his career could be.

Worm Guts wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



He's better in the low post but he is not better than KG was offensively. KG was averaging 23 points and 5 assists per game at Al's age.

I was referring to years in the league. So far Al is the better scorer after 4 years than KG was after 4 years. Also seeing as Al is a low post player who should be more reliable down the stretch in close games than KG because his shots have a much higher percentage of dropping. Having a go to big man down low in invaluable.

I still doubt that Al will reach the level of KG, (I can't see him becoming a dominant defender), I still can't write him off as a potential franchise player.

well IMO he could be a franchise player but not on the same level as duncan, garnett or shaq (from 5 years ago)

Calinks3 wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



I was referring to years in the league. So far Al is the better scorer after 4 years than KG was after 4 years. Also seeing as Al is a low post player who should be more reliable down the stretch in close games than KG because his shots have a much higher percentage of dropping. Having a go to big man down low in invaluable.

I still doubt that Al will reach the level of KG, (I can't see him becoming a dominant defender), I still can't write him off as a potential franchise player.

KG was at 20.8 and 4.3 assists in his 4th year in the league. KG was better at the offensive end.
Jefferson is shooting 49 percent and doesn't get to the foul line much, I'm not sure why he would be any more reliable down the stretch in games.

I don't know why a player has to be an MVP to be considered a franchise player or a building block. Al is one of the top young bigs in the league, has a good work ethic, has shown no indication of being a cancer, and he is already playing very close to an allstar level. There is no reason not to consider him an integral piece to build around.

To answer your qustion i think it comes down to two things: we have six wins and everyone we put at the four seems to put up Al -like numbers, whether its Gomes or Smith.

C.lupus wrote:I don't know why a player has to be an MVP to be considered a franchise player or a building block. Al is one of the top young bigs in the league, has a good work ethic, has shown no indication of being a cancer, and he is already playing very close to an allstar level. There is no reason not to consider him an integral piece to build around.

A franchise guy is someone you can build a championship team around an MVP type player. Al is good player but I can't see him being a number #1 guy on a championship team.

Dr.Krapinsky wrote:To answer your qustion i think it comes down to two things: we have six wins and everyone we put at the four seems to put up Al -like numbers, whether its Gomes or Smith.

Yep. The offense is set up for the PF (whoever it is) to succeed. However, Al as of late has been putting up decent numbers at the 5 spot.

I think of Al as a co-captain, but not the one franchise player. I think it is smart to create a core of guys (potentially Al, Foye, and Beasley) to build around. We can't fall into the same trap of treating one player like the star of the team.

DET has done well with no "franchise player"

C.lupus wrote:I don't know why a player has to be an MVP to be considered a franchise player or a building block. Al is one of the top young bigs in the league, has a good work ethic, has shown no indication of being a cancer, and he is already playing very close to an allstar level. There is no reason not to consider him an integral piece to build around.

Smartest thing said in this thread. Kudos C.lupus. I also agree with funk that we should have a core of guys as opposed to one franchise guy.

I think there are a couple factors.

--Teams that wanted Kg (see Lakers) bash Jefferson in an attempt to promote Bynum

--Certain people have a man-crush on Michael Beasley and unless you see him as a 3 you have the problem of Al at 4 and Beasley at 4 so the way to justify Beasley is to assume he is the offspring of Bo Jackson/Michael Jordan and Al is just a number cruncher.

Al is a rare player, on and off the court. He is a building block.

Worm Guts wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



A franchise guy is someone you can build a championship team around an MVP type player. Al is good player but I can't see him being a number #1 guy on a championship team.

Eh, by that definition I guess you could say Billups is a franchise player. I think Al could be good enough to be put on the same tier as Billups.

Any definition of "franchise player" is going to be flawed in some aspect, and it's pretty much to each his own on which one they pick.

In regards to Al and KG, they're roughly on the same level if you go by Al's 4th year and KG's 4th year (remember, KG had a much, much better supporting cast back then), they just go/went about it in different ways. Now, that doesn't mean that Al will reach KG's level as a player, he doesn't have KG's athleticism and length, and while he seems to be a very hard worker, KG has a crazy work ethic that you can't exactly expect everybody to approach.

revprodeji wrote:Certain people have a man-crush on Michael Beasley and unless you see him as a 3 you have the problem of Al at 4 and Beasley at 4 so the way to justify Beasley is to assume he is the offspring of Bo Jackson/Michael Jordan and Al is just a number cruncher.

Who's been saying this?

He is this team's Franchise player. This is the guy they are going to build around. nuff said. My gosh he is only 23.