RealGM

Franchise Player or Superstar, which has more value?


Is a Franchise Player a player that is a superstar?

Is a superstar necesarily a franchise player?


Thoughts!!!

I'm not too fond of the word "superstar", but in the context that's it's normally used, I would think they were one in the same.

Some people use the term lightly. If a superstar isn't a franchise player, then he's neither of the above.

I bring this up because you hear both terms frequently. For instance, Chris Bosh is considered a franchise player in Toronto, but not a superstar. Carmelo Anthony or Allen Iverson in Denver is considered a superstar but not really a franchise player by most.

I think a superstar has to be a franchise player before he can become a superstar

isnt Boston the only team where their superstar and franchise star are different (KG vs. PP?)

anyway, i'd go with superstar.

there are 20~30 franchise stars, but only 0-10 superstars.

JordansBulls wrote:I bring this up because you hear both terms frequently. For instance, Chris Bosh is considered a franchise player in Toronto, but not a superstar. Carmelo Anthony or Allen Iverson in Denver is considered a superstar but not really a franchise player by most.

i dont think the use of the term matters much.

the "better player" is more valuable.

A franchise player is the one player who the team is built around, and warrants this. Not all teams have one (Chicago, Atlanta) but I think most do.

To me, a superstar is a top-tier franchise player, (1st team All-NBA)

Superstahs have MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH more value than the so-called Franchise Players who go 10-72 in a season.

Maybe that's why they make tons of $$$ and their games are always on TNT/ESPN?!?!

A superstar is a franchise player fool.

Well the way I see it, superstars are franchise players that are marketable. So, superstars > franchise players since the more marketable you are the more likely the league + Stern + refs will back you.

Patterns wrote:A superstar is a franchise player fool.

So do you consider Allen Iverson a franchise player? What about John Stockton?

Superstar suggests an elite caliber of basketball player, often highly marketable. In my opinion, there are only about 5 in the league at any given time, so the term is being thrown around way too often.

Franchise player suggests one that you build around, often a very young player. Superstars may not necessarily be franchise players if they get up there in age, especially if you relax the term to include some 20-50 people as is often done.

This is an intresting question. Its like asking who has more value? Kobe Bryant or the Lakers?

Patterns wrote:A superstar is a franchise player fool.

This should be an option on the poll.

JordansBulls wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



So do you consider Allen Iverson a franchise player? What about John Stockton?

Ofcourse they are franchise players.....duh (Iverson WAS a franchise player def..dunno about now)

all superstars are franchise players, but not every franchise player is a superstar. like a poster before said, there are anywhere from 1-5 superstars in the league in my opinion. maybe only 2 right now.

Greg Oden is probably already a superstar because of his hype and popularity, but by no means a franchise player atm. Tony Parker is a superstar because of his popularity and exposure, but not a franchise player. On the contrary, TD is a franchise player, but not a "superstar" in that sense of marketing. So yes, there is a difference between the two, and they are both valuable depending on if you want $$$ or rings.

The_Believer wrote:Greg Oden is probably already a superstar because of his hype and popularity, but by no means a franchise player atm. Tony Parker is a superstar because of his popularity and exposure, but not a franchise player. On the contrary, TD is a franchise player, but not a "superstar" in that sense of marketing. So yes, there is a difference between the two, and they are both valuable depending on if you want $$$ or rings.

different people have different definitions of a superstar

JordansBulls wrote:I bring this up because you hear both terms frequently. For instance, Chris Bosh is considered a franchise player in Toronto, but not a superstar. Carmelo Anthony or Allen Iverson in Denver is considered a superstar but not really a franchise player by most.

The only people who I think should be called superstars are Kobe Bryant, Lebron James, Tim Duncan (for the fact that the Spurs have remained an elite team for quite some time with and without Tony Parker and Ginobli).

Dwight Howard, Chris Paul are approaching that level fast. Other than these guys, thats it.