Is Scottie like the defensive JALEN JOHNSON?

[HumbleRen]

JJ currently has the highest BPM this season out of the 21 draft btw.

[canada_dry]

Not sure you want to ride on 11 games from a guy who hasn't managed more than 59% TS in a season to date after 4 previous years. Especially when it's taking him shooting over 74.6% FT (80.4) on career-high volume (career-best .321 FTr to date, beating previous best of .242) while shooting 81% in the RA in order to reach that. He's been a career 72.8% shooter there prior to this season.

I don't disagree with you, but referencing specific stats at this moment probably isn't The Way. He's definitely not crappy.

He's inconsistent, and he's s***-useless at actually staying on the court, but when he's healthy, he's a talented guy.

Sure lets look at last year. 19/10/5 on 57TS% is crappy?

Its just a crazy statement to make lol

I would argue that he's benefitting a lot from playing with a top 5 guard in the league. If Barnes and Johnson swapped places its obvious Barnes numbers would jump even higher.

Just dropped a super efficient 25/10/7 to lead the hawks to their 5th straight win without trae... but whatever narratives you're trying to push i guess...

Sent from my SM-G960W using RealGM Forums mobile app

[canada_dry]

What a strange post...

So cuz jalen is good we should trade scottie?

Sent from my SM-G960W using RealGM Forums mobile app

[SFour]

It's not crazy to say Jalen could become the Hawk's franchise player....it's already known they want to move on from Trae

Barnes is a franchise player in the same sense that Lowry was.... you don't necessarily have to be the top scorer.

[tsherkin]

It's not crazy to say Jalen could become the Hawk's franchise player....it's already known they want to move on from Trae

Barnes is a franchise player in the same sense that Lowry was.... you don't necessarily have to be the top scorer.

I suppose that comes down to the semantics of what people mean when they say "franchise player." To me, I have generally seen that used to describe a player who can anchor a title squad. That was Kawhi, albeit briefly, although Lowry was obviously a critical piece. Scottie is definitely a strong contributor to this team, but if you're a guy whose main efficacy has to be unlocked by another player, you can't fit into my definition of "franchise player." YMMV, of course. Same same someone like Jalen, IMHO.

Still. Both of these guys are very valuable guys under the right circumstances, so a label like that seems somewhat secondary to the idea that the team is succeeding, so their deployment is working, I guess.

[YogurtProducer]

It's not crazy to say Jalen could become the Hawk's franchise player....it's already known they want to move on from Trae

Barnes is a franchise player in the same sense that Lowry was.... you don't necessarily have to be the top scorer.

I suppose that comes down to the semantics of what people mean when they say "franchise player." To me, I have generally seen that used to describe a player who can anchor a title squad. That was Kawhi, albeit briefly, although Lowry was obviously a critical piece. Scottie is definitely a strong contributor to this team, but if you're a guy whose main efficacy has to be unlocked by another player, you can't fit into my definition of "franchise player." YMMV, of course. Same same someone like Jalen, IMHO.

Still. Both of these guys are very valuable guys under the right circumstances, so a label like that seems somewhat secondary to the idea that the team is succeeding, so their deployment is working, I guess.

Agreed. A franchise player is a guy that is damn near untradeable unless they are asking out (or, you are getting another franchise player). Its the type of guy that gets a reaction like luka did if he got moved.

SGA, Jokic, Luka, Giannis, Wemby might be the only franchise players left in the NBA right now.

Then there is the next tier of Cade and Maxey and Booker who are amazing players but you trade them for one of those 5 ^ without thinking.

Then you get to the Barnes of the world. Really, really good players -- even all-nba players -- but guys that you can't really imagine them ever being a #1 on a championship team. This is like Barnes and Lowry.

[tsherkin]

Agreed. A franchise player is a guy that is damn near untradeable unless they are asking out (or, you are getting another franchise player). Its the type of guy that gets a reaction like luka did if he got moved.

That's certainly my definition. I just wanted to discuss it because SFour might be looking at it more from a "we can build a GOOD team with this guy as a central piece" sort of framework, and I don't want to get bogged down in a terminology debate. I generally think of franchise players and superstars as the same thing, but it gets to be a pretty tight definition, so I can understand why people might want to broaden the notion.

Lowry was the #1 for us for a long while, even if he wasn't specifically our leading scorer. He was our primary playmaker and our second scorer, much more efficient than our volume first option. And a much better defender. So he was doing a lot of heavy lifting. I can at least see where one would be coming from calling a guy like that the franchise, you know?

[brownbobcat]

Agreed. A franchise player is a guy that is damn near untradeable unless they are asking out (or, you are getting another franchise player). Its the type of guy that gets a reaction like luka did if he got moved.

That's certainly my definition. I just wanted to discuss it because SFour might be looking at it more from a "we can build a GOOD team with this guy as a central piece" sort of framework, and I don't want to get bogged down in a terminology debate. I generally think of franchise players and superstars as the same thing, but it gets to be a pretty tight definition, so I can understand why people might want to broaden the notion.

Lowry was the #1 for us for a long while, even if he wasn't specifically our leading scorer. He was our primary playmaker and our second scorer, much more efficient than our volume first option. And a much better defender. So he was doing a lot of heavy lifting. I can at least see where one would be coming from calling a guy like that the franchise, you know?

Sometimes guys aren't franchise players until they are - there's a tremendous amount of growth that can happen between years 3-6 of a NBA career.

Broadly, I'll call a franchise player anyone who has made or is very capable of making All NBA 1st team. The '04 Pistons might be the only championship team in the past 40 years that had no one with that honour on his resume.

[Tha Cynic]

The better question is - was there a franchise player in the Barnes draft? Personally I don’t think any of those guys have established themselves as more than a Siakam type which imo is less than a Lowry with Raptors type.

[tsherkin]

Agreed. A franchise player is a guy that is damn near untradeable unless they are asking out (or, you are getting another franchise player). Its the type of guy that gets a reaction like luka did if he got moved.

That's certainly my definition. I just wanted to discuss it because SFour might be looking at it more from a "we can build a GOOD team with this guy as a central piece" sort of framework, and I don't want to get bogged down in a terminology debate. I generally think of franchise players and superstars as the same thing, but it gets to be a pretty tight definition, so I can understand why people might want to broaden the notion.

Lowry was the #1 for us for a long while, even if he wasn't specifically our leading scorer. He was our primary playmaker and our second scorer, much more efficient than our volume first option. And a much better defender. So he was doing a lot of heavy lifting. I can at least see where one would be coming from calling a guy like that the franchise, you know?

Sometimes guys aren't franchise players until they are - there's a tremendous amount of growth that can happen between years 3-6 of a NBA career.

Broadly, I'll call a franchise player anyone who has made or is very capable of making All NBA 1st team. The '04 Pistons might be the only championship team in the past 40 years that had no one with that honour on his resume.

We can agree to disagee on that definition. It is waaaaaay too loose for me. But development and environment are a thing. I dont think guys who are heavily reliant upon others to become effective should count.

That said, our situation is looking pretty bright, regardless of labels. It's nice to see Scottie and RJ playing well around BI, and everything else that is happening. I think we all know we arent buildiing a contender, but this team is fun to watch and looks to be much improved, and that is enough.

[Clay Davis]

The better question is - was there a franchise player in the Barnes draft? Personally I don’t think any of those guys have established themselves as more than a Siakam type which imo is less than a Lowry with Raptors type.

Cade definitely is. He has that rizz.

Now, is Cade in the Damian Lillard/PG13/AD stratosphere or the KD/Kawhi/Curry stratosphere? ?!? ???

[bballsparkin]

The better question is - was there a franchise player in the Barnes draft? Personally I don’t think any of those guys have established themselves as more than a Siakam type which imo is less than a Lowry with Raptors type.

Yeah for sure. It's looking like one of the best drafts ever for #2's. I still think Mobley can establish himself as the player who should have went first. If he gets stronger, meaner and improves his defensive impact. But there are many who could become the player who comes out top in this draft. Or perhaps none do. What's important to us is Scottie has improved his game so far this season and gotten back into the conversation.

[anotherhomer]

The better question is - was there a franchise player in the Barnes draft? Personally I don’t think any of those guys have established themselves as more than a Siakam type which imo is less than a Lowry with Raptors type.

Cade definitely is. He has that rizz.

Now, is Cade in the Damian Lillard/PG13/AD stratosphere or the KD/Kawhi/Curry stratosphere? ?!? ???

Cade for sure....I was on the trade scottie for cade after his rookie season or even 2nd season

[bballsparkin]

The better question is - was there a franchise player in the Barnes draft? Personally I don’t think any of those guys have established themselves as more than a Siakam type which imo is less than a Lowry with Raptors type.

Cade definitely is. He has that rizz.

Now, is Cade in the Damian Lillard/PG13/AD stratosphere or the KD/Kawhi/Curry stratosphere? ?!? ???

I think AD is closer to the top stratosphere. He just can't stay healthy. But then again Kawhi can't either. It's hard to impact winning as a big like a wing or forward can. You basically have to be a Giannis or Jokic level player to do that. Which I think AD could have had he not been so fragile.

I hope for Pistons fans sakes Cade does. It's been a rough go for them. My co worker grew up in Detroit during the Bad Boy years. I'm happy for him his team is finally decent.

[YogurtProducer]

The better question is - was there a franchise player in the Barnes draft? Personally I don’t think any of those guys have established themselves as more than a Siakam type which imo is less than a Lowry with Raptors type.

Cade definitely is. He has that rizz.

Now, is Cade in the Damian Lillard/PG13/AD stratosphere or the KD/Kawhi/Curry stratosphere? ?!? ???

See to me the first 3 are not franchise players. AD is the closest, but none of those first 3 are like a "wow - they are immeditely title favorites cause they have them"

Those first 3 guys were all #2's at some point in their career, and those teams still were not unstoppable teams. IMO, if you are a "franchise player", you are at a minimum a playoff team just due to your existence. TWO franchise players = contenders.

Now, in the new CBA this is all drastically changing so it is way more murky now than it used to be.

Re Cade: I did have him almost on my "Franchise player list", but there is still a lot of guys you are trading Cade for without even hesitating. I think a franchise player requires some hesitation at a minimum

[YogurtProducer]

Agreed. A franchise player is a guy that is damn near untradeable unless they are asking out (or, you are getting another franchise player). Its the type of guy that gets a reaction like luka did if he got moved.

That's certainly my definition. I just wanted to discuss it because SFour might be looking at it more from a "we can build a GOOD team with this guy as a central piece" sort of framework, and I don't want to get bogged down in a terminology debate. I generally think of franchise players and superstars as the same thing, but it gets to be a pretty tight definition, so I can understand why people might want to broaden the notion.

Lowry was the #1 for us for a long while, even if he wasn't specifically our leading scorer. He was our primary playmaker and our second scorer, much more efficient than our volume first option. And a much better defender. So he was doing a lot of heavy lifting. I can at least see where one would be coming from calling a guy like that the franchise, you know?

Lowry was awesome - he is my favorite player of all time - but he was not a franchise player. Every single year of Lowrys career, there was a dozen guys *at minimum* you would have traded him for without even thinking about it.

Franchise players are guys you build around his (minimal) flaws and keep at all costs. But when you flaw is "not a #1 scorer" you automatically can't be a franchise player.

[YogurtProducer]

Broadly, I'll call a franchise player anyone who has made or is very capable of making All NBA 1st team. The '04 Pistons might be the only championship team in the past 40 years that had no one with that honour on his resume.

See in the last few years that means guys like Tatum, Mitchell, and Booker, would all be "franchise players". I think there is a significant gap between them and others.

I think the real threshold is "a player capable of winning the MVP trophy".

[brownbobcat]

Broadly, I'll call a franchise player anyone who has made or is very capable of making All NBA 1st team. The '04 Pistons might be the only championship team in the past 40 years that had no one with that honour on his resume.

See in the last few years that means guys like Tatum, Mitchell, and Booker, would all be "franchise players". I think there is a significant gap between them and others.

I think the real threshold is "a player capable of winning the MVP trophy".

There is obviously a big gap between Mitchell and someone like Jokic. I think a franchise guy is someone you build around, a player you think is capable of being the best player on a championship team. My point about All-NBA was moreso about putting some objective benchmarks in place because otherwise the first definition can be a bit circular (e.g. you only get defined as a "franchise player" after winning a championship).

Functionally, it's a player you build around and never trade unless your hand is forced or a miracle falls into your lap - not because they're generational superstars, but just because it would be really really hard to get someone better. If you go back 5 years, it's a really small list of guys, and even smaller when you exclude guys that might never be the same again due to injury.

Of course, there's going to be a highly questionable All-NBA selection like DeAndre Jordan every now and then.

[Clay Davis]

The better question is - was there a franchise player in the Barnes draft? Personally I don’t think any of those guys have established themselves as more than a Siakam type which imo is less than a Lowry with Raptors type.

Cade definitely is. He has that rizz.

Now, is Cade in the Damian Lillard/PG13/AD stratosphere or the KD/Kawhi/Curry stratosphere? ?!? ???

See to me the first 3 are not franchise players. AD is the closest, but none of those first 3 are like a "wow - they are immeditely title favorites cause they have them"

Those first 3 guys were all #2's at some point in their career, and those teams still were not unstoppable teams. IMO, if you are a "franchise player", you are at a minimum a playoff team just due to your existence. TWO franchise players = contenders.

Now, in the new CBA this is all drastically changing so it is way more murky now than it used to be.

Re Cade: I did have him almost on my "Franchise player list", but there is still a lot of guys you are trading Cade for without even hesitating. I think a franchise player requires some hesitation at a minimum

I see. I personally differentiate between franchise player/superstar and the type of player who can lead a championship team. I like your definition and I think it has less false positives than mine, but would it characterize a guy like prime KG as a superstar?

Personally I differentiate between tier 1 superstars and tier 2 superstars. Tier 2 superstars can sometimes win you a play-off round but they are not capable of carry-jobs that make you think you're witnessing generational all-time greatness like the tier 1 superstars. It is a different level of rizz.

[PushDaRock]

Broadly, I'll call a franchise player anyone who has made or is very capable of making All NBA 1st team. The '04 Pistons might be the only championship team in the past 40 years that had no one with that honour on his resume.

See in the last few years that means guys like Tatum, Mitchell, and Booker, would all be "franchise players". I think there is a significant gap between them and others.

I think the real threshold is "a player capable of winning the MVP trophy".

Tatum gets a lot of slander but making All-NBA 1st Team 4 years in a row and not being considered a franchise player seems a bit harsh.