Who would you rather have: Oladipo or Fournier?

[tiderulz]

If he got 30 and 10 and the team was playing bad then yeah, he would be a star. Those are crazy stats.

15 and 7 on a playoff team is good, but I think he would need to show a little more than that in the scoring department to gain star status.

I prefer the first scenario because at least he would be an known FORCE that could attract other stars to play with him. A 15 and 7 guy is cute, but not the same thing.

okay...i think i see what you would consider a "star" and its understandable...

for me...you would have to be on jordan, lebron, type level to be considered a "star"...

players that most people consider "stars" i woudnt...like chris paul, the unibrow, melo, kat, PG13, westbrook...

i would need to see couple championships and for the player to have a ridiculous presence in the game for them to be considered a "star"... for me kawhi and durant are like few inches away from that level...

gordon would have to be on this type of level to considered a star...at least to me...

if he gets 30 and 10 from next year on and never win a championship i cant call him a star....he would be in with the likes of malone, barkley, wilkins, iverson, ewing, reggie miller etc etc... great players and excellent company to have... but players that werent able to reach the final level.

That's crazy. There's a difference between a star and champion. Heck, there's a difference between a star and a superstar. I think you need to acknowledge reality. Stars are stars whether you want to call them that or not.

i agree with you Skin. There is "star" and then "superstar". And you dont have to have won a title to be either. Was the Mailman neither a star nor superstar? What about Byron Scott/Michael Cooper? Steve Nash never won a title but was league MVP, 8x allstar, but not a star by some definition? I dont agree. Charles Barkley didnt win a title, guess he was just a player?

[Skin]

so magic's POOR defence,who should be blame ?????

Defensive issues start with the C.

I don't think anyone is solely blaming Fournier. It's just that tiderulz wants to make it seem that way.

you literally just said

Fournier is a reason why we are losing because he's not a winner.

makes it sound like he is to blame for it.

Well, I said he's "a" reason, not "the" reason. Hopefully that clears it up a little.

To me, Fournier is like a Kevin Martin or Dion Waiters or Nick Young. All of those cats would be putting up buckets on our squad and a bunch of fans would think the world of them. You gotta be able to distinguish a keeper vs a non-keeper.

He's a 3rd option being asked to be a 1st option and this isn't a good team because of that. He doesn't have what it takes to be a #1 because he doesn't have the leadership qualities to do it.

For the record I don't see Gordon as a #1 option either.

[prizm]

okay...i think i see what you would consider a "star" and its understandable...

for me...you would have to be on jordan, lebron, type level to be considered a "star"...

players that most people consider "stars" i woudnt...like chris paul, the unibrow, melo, kat, PG13, westbrook...

i would need to see couple championships and for the player to have a ridiculous presence in the game for them to be considered a "star"... for me kawhi and durant are like few inches away from that level...

gordon would have to be on this type of level to considered a star...at least to me...

if he gets 30 and 10 from next year on and never win a championship i cant call him a star....he would be in with the likes of malone, barkley, wilkins, iverson, ewing, reggie miller etc etc... great players and excellent company to have... but players that werent able to reach the final level.

That's crazy. There's a difference between a star and champion. Heck, there's a difference between a star and a superstar. I think you need to acknowledge reality. Stars are stars whether you want to call them that or not.

i agree with you Skin. There is "star" and then "superstar". And you dont have to have won a title to be either. Was the Mailman neither a star nor superstar? What about Byron Scott/Michael Cooper? Steve Nash never won a title but was league MVP, 8x allstar, but not a star by some definition? I dont agree. Charles Barkley didnt win a title, guess he was just a player?

you guys make it seem like just because i dont call these players "stars" like im saying their just regular players... as if im saying their in the same level as guys like reggie jackson, paul millsap, will the thrill etc etc...

...their great players...i just dont think they reached that final level by winning the championship to be considered "stars" like jordan, duncan, kobe, etc ect...

[Skin]

That's crazy. There's a difference between a star and champion. Heck, there's a difference between a star and a superstar. I think you need to acknowledge reality. Stars are stars whether you want to call them that or not.

i agree with you Skin. There is "star" and then "superstar". And you dont have to have won a title to be either. Was the Mailman neither a star nor superstar? What about Byron Scott/Michael Cooper? Steve Nash never won a title but was league MVP, 8x allstar, but not a star by some definition? I dont agree. Charles Barkley didnt win a title, guess he was just a player?

you guys make it seem like just because i dont call these players "stars" like im saying their just regular players... as if im saying their in the same level as guys like reggie jackson, paul millsap, will the thrill etc etc...

...their great players...i just dont think they reached that final level by winning the championship to be considered "stars" like jordan, duncan, kobe, etc ect...

You're entitled to your own interpretation of labels, but I don't think I will get caught up in that. When I see and use the term "star", I'm just going to follow the rest of the world instead.

[Viper1500]

I would say Fournier is this teams best player behind Gordon. However, that isn't saying much.

[tiderulz]

Defensive issues start with the C.

I don't think anyone is solely blaming Fournier. It's just that tiderulz wants to make it seem that way.

you literally just said

Fournier is a reason why we are losing because he's not a winner.

makes it sound like he is to blame for it.

Well, I said he's "a" reason, not "the" reason. Hopefully that clears it up a little.

To me, Fournier is like a Kevin Martin or Dion Waiters or Nick Young. All of those cats would be putting up buckets on our squad and a bunch of fans would think the world of them. You gotta be able to distinguish a keeper vs a non-keeper.

He's a 3rd option being asked to be a 1st option and this isn't a good team because of that. He doesn't have what it takes to be a #1 because he doesn't have the leadership qualities to do it.

For the record I don't see Gordon as a #1 option either.

ok, i can agree to most of this.

[Orlando_kingdom]

I would say Fournier is this teams best player behind Gordon. However, that isn't saying much.

no way

[Nemesis21]

Read on Twitter