RealGM

Who would you rather build a team around?

Without knowing anything else, Harden and Kg are the more talented duo and I see no problem with their fit.

Jordan's the ultimate playoff performer and I'm high on peak HoGrant. Give me them.

Two mvps vs one isn't a very hard question

Harden/KG is the better duo but there's potential with the MJ/Grant duo to add a much better #2 that could hypothetically make them into the better team I would say. Because Grant is not a #2 or getting paid like one even today.

Pau Gasol is a better input for Grant

Cavsfansince84 wrote:Harden/KG is the better duo but there's potential with the MJ/Grant duo to add a much better #2 that could hypothetically make them into the better team I would say. Because Grant is not a #2 or getting paid like one even today.

I think the idea is both these guys are max contracts and the rest is equal supporting casts

Id love to see a team realistically add a Garnett/Harden type after paying Jordan a massive amount of the cap.

Cavsfansince84 wrote:Harden/KG is the better duo but there's potential with the MJ/Grant duo to add a much better #2 that could hypothetically make them into the better team I would say. Because Grant is not a #2 or getting paid like one even today.

What does a #2 get paid like? Under the CBA someone like Grant would leverage a max contract or something along those lines probably.

What players around Grant's level do not take up a significant chunk of the cap space? Look at Al Hoford's contracts.

Anyway, you could easily counter that argument by saying Harden/Garnett can sign a 3rd guy and it would just be back to square one. Realistically speaking both teams would not have cap space to sign another guy unless the team was literally just those two and no one else.

Colbinii wrote:

Cavsfansince84 wrote:Harden/KG is the better duo but there's potential with the MJ/Grant duo to add a much better #2 that could hypothetically make them into the better team I would say. Because Grant is not a #2 or getting paid like one even today.

I think the idea is both these guys are max contracts and the rest is equal supporting casts

Id love to see a team realistically add a Garnett/Harden type after paying Jordan a massive amount of the cap.

Why though? Grant was a guy who made 1 all star game in his entire career. It seems silly to try and say a team is not allowed to get someone better to pair up with him and MJ and it says nowhere in the op that a team couldn't. That's just elevating Grant to something he wasn't.

Cavsfansince84 wrote:

Colbinii wrote:

Cavsfansince84 wrote:Harden/KG is the better duo but there's potential with the MJ/Grant duo to add a much better #2 that could hypothetically make them into the better team I would say. Because Grant is not a #2 or getting paid like one even today.

I think the idea is both these guys are max contracts and the rest is equal supporting casts

Id love to see a team realistically add a Garnett/Harden type after paying Jordan a massive amount of the cap.

Why though? Grant was a guy who made 1 all star game in his entire career. It seems silly to try and say a team is not allowed to get someone better to pair up with him and MJ and it says nowhere in the op that a team couldn't. That's just elevating Grant to something he wasn't.

Because what's the point of comparing two duos if it's secretly being implied that you're actually going to relegating one of the players to #3 status? I feel like "Who would you rather build a team around?" implies that you're, well, building around that duo. Not bringing in a better player to be the new #2.

Harden/KG easily.

jalengreen wrote:
Because what's the point of comparing two duos if it's secretly being implied that you're actually going to relegating one of the players to #3 status? I feel like "Who would you rather build a team around?" implies that you're, well, building around that duo. Not bringing in a better player to be the new #2.

It is building around them but taking the question realistically enough to understand that no franchise in the nba would spend 10+ years building around them by insisting on Grant to be a #2. That's just completely unrealistic to a degree that makes the question silly imo. You'd just have 5+ years of MJ wondering what the hell his f/o is doing until he leaves. I'm not talking even a #2 along the lines of Harden or KG so much as one that can just do more offensively than Grant.

Colbinii wrote:Pau Gasol is a better input for Grant

Good call I just thought of that after looking at the poll

Jordan and Grant already won 3 titles together. Harden hasn't won one and he has played with some great players in Dwight, CP3, Durant, Westbrook, Embiid to name a few. KG won one title as well playing with great players. KG/Harden may be a great duo but no telling if they actually ever win a title. Jordan and Grant already had 3 titles together.

JordansBulls wrote:Jordan and Grant already won 3 titles together. Harden hasn't won one and he has played with some great players in Dwight, CP3, Durant, Westbrook, Embiid to name a few. KG won one title as well playing with great players. KG/Harden may be a great duo but no telling if they actually ever win a title. Jordan and Grant already had 3 titles together.

Go get your wife to blow you because thinking clearly isn't something you stimulate.

You know better. Warned. trex

Cavsfansince84 wrote:

Colbinii wrote:

Cavsfansince84 wrote:Harden/KG is the better duo but there's potential with the MJ/Grant duo to add a much better #2 that could hypothetically make them into the better team I would say. Because Grant is not a #2 or getting paid like one even today.

I think the idea is both these guys are max contracts and the rest is equal supporting casts

Id love to see a team realistically add a Garnett/Harden type after paying Jordan a massive amount of the cap.

Why though? Grant was a guy who made 1 all star game in his entire career. It seems silly to try and say a team is not allowed to get someone better to pair up with him and MJ and it says nowhere in the op that a team couldn't. That's just elevating Grant to something he wasn't.

I agree it's a good consideration to have in mind [somewhere, at least in the very back of your mind]; especially considering Grant was one of those guys who was almost ALWAYS actually better that the common perception of him.

Stands to reason that he [usually, at least] wouldn't have the same contract value as Harden/Garnett (which thus leaves the team with more cap space to fill in the roster around them).

It's a factor which perhaps should push the needle slightly toward Jordan/Grant, all other things being equal.

As it stands, though, all other things are NOT equal [imo]; although on second pass (thinking about this for the 2nd time), the difference between the two duos isn't quite as big as I'd previously thought.

In a vacuum, though (and especially with a mind toward modern league), I'd take Harden/Garnett.

If we're specifically saying early-mid 90s NBA or earlier......idk, there I might go with Jordan/Grant (with the salary consideration in mind).

Let me imagine this in the current league

Peak Harden and garnett replace d angelo and towns in minessota (aka the two biggest contracts pre gobert trade)

Peak jordan and grant replace derozan and lavine in chicago (the two big contracts there)

Lonzo/caruso/jordan/grant/vucevic

Vs

D'angelo/harden/vanderbilt?/garnett/gobert

Which of these teams is better?

Minnesota has the best frontcourt but chicago has wild perimeter defense

Chicago has the more resilient offensive weapon but garnett is more capable as a second option that grant

Cavsfansince84 wrote:

jalengreen wrote:
Because what's the point of comparing two duos if it's secretly being implied that you're actually going to relegating one of the players to #3 status? I feel like "Who would you rather build a team around?" implies that you're, well, building around that duo. Not bringing in a better player to be the new #2.

It is building around them but taking the question realistically enough to understand that no franchise in the nba would spend 10+ years building around them by insisting on Grant to be a #2. That's just completely unrealistic to a degree that makes the question silly imo. You'd just have 5+ years of MJ wondering what the hell his f/o is doing until he leaves. I'm not talking even a #2 along the lines of Harden or KG so much as one that can just do more offensively than Grant.

Eh. Guys like De'Aaron Fox, Julius Randle or CJ McCollum are max-ish contract guys in the current league, and Grant is a much better player than that.

He's not close to Jordan/KG/Harden, no ****, but he peaked as a very clear all-star, and that's a max contract today.

Jaivl wrote:Eh. Guys like De'Aaron Fox, Julius Randle or CJ McCollum are max-ish contract guys in the current league, and Grant is a much better player than that.

He's not close to Jordan/KG/Harden, no ****, but he peaked as a very clear all-star, and that's a max contract today.

That's mostly because gms are stupid and overpay for offense. I think he'd get John Collins type money which is like $25m per year. To me that's realistic. He is not getting a max contract in today's league. Plus he wasn't even good defensively early on. He took a ton of coaching to become good on that end and no guarantee he gets that today.

trex_8063 wrote:

Cavsfansince84 wrote:

Colbinii wrote:
I think the idea is both these guys are max contracts and the rest is equal supporting casts

Id love to see a team realistically add a Garnett/Harden type after paying Jordan a massive amount of the cap.

Why though? Grant was a guy who made 1 all star game in his entire career. It seems silly to try and say a team is not allowed to get someone better to pair up with him and MJ and it says nowhere in the op that a team couldn't. That's just elevating Grant to something he wasn't.

I agree it's a good consideration to have in mind [somewhere, at least in the very back of your mind]; especially considering Grant was one of those guys who was almost ALWAYS actually better that the common perception of him.

Stands to reason that he [usually, at least] wouldn't have the same contract value as Harden/Garnett (which thus leaves the team with more cap space to fill in the roster around them).

It's a factor which perhaps should push the needle slightly toward Jordan/Grant, all other things being equal.

As it stands, though, all other things are NOT equal [imo]; although on second pass (thinking about this for the 2nd time), the difference between the two duos isn't quite as big as I'd previously thought.

In a vacuum, though (and especially with a mind toward modern league), I'd take Harden/Garnett.

If we're specifically saying early-mid 90s NBA or earlier......idk, there I might go with Jordan/Grant (with the salary consideration in mind).

tbh, at least from a winning perspective KG probably had the most impressive regular season of any of them in 04. And then Harden has been the best player on 60+ win teams. Maybe if you give jordan pippen it's closer, but this feels like a mismatch