Starting a Franchise...Prime KG or Lebron?

[Chris435]

Me personally I would have to go with KG. He can do everything and really I just think he wants to win more

this is pretty straightforward and i am big fan of KG basically for these reasons.

I'd be sold on Prime KG if Miami can't get it done this and next year.

[crimsonkb24]

I dont want a team with a star and 11 jumpshooters, so i cant take Lebron.

And no, Lebron wouldnt take the Wolves to the WCFs. The West was amazing at that time.

[singlepurposeac]

Lebron is a better player. And I don't really understand the point of the thread... surely if we're taking them to build a franchise around we'd take them from the start of their careers, rather than at a selective time designed to favour KG.

[singlepurposeac]

Prime KG was one of the greatest players the league has ever seen, but he didn't have the support necessary to compete legitimately for a title. I'll wait and see what Lebron manages in Miami, but we're talking Oscar Robertson versus Bill Russell with offense here, in a sense (until/unless Lebron proves otherwise).

KG was flipping incredible, no questions, no hesitation. The only reason he isn't ranked higher on a GOAT list is that he doesn't have the team achievements to stack up with the big dogs at the top of the list. In his hey-day, he could stand with anyone you cared to mention.

He wasn't as good as TD, and nobody credible at the time really advanced that argument. KG fans have since used his success in Boston to try and rewrite history, but TD was clearly regarded as a superior player, and it wasn't super close either. He couldn't stand with Shaq either. That's 2 guys in the timeframe he played to name a few. KG is an awesome player, probably top 20 all time, but people need to stop overrating him.

[Shaq Daddy]

Prime KG was one of the greatest players the league has ever seen, but he didn't have the support necessary to compete legitimately for a title. I'll wait and see what Lebron manages in Miami, but we're talking Oscar Robertson versus Bill Russell with offense here, in a sense (until/unless Lebron proves otherwise).

KG was flipping incredible, no questions, no hesitation. The only reason he isn't ranked higher on a GOAT list is that he doesn't have the team achievements to stack up with the big dogs at the top of the list. In his hey-day, he could stand with anyone you cared to mention.

He wasn't as good as TD, and nobody credible at the time really advanced that argument. KG fans have since used his success in Boston to try and rewrite history, but TD was clearly regarded as a superior player, and it wasn't super close either. He couldn't stand with Shaq either. That's 2 guys in the timeframe he played to name a few. KG is an awesome player, probably top 20 all time, but people need to stop overrating him.

Oh please give prime Garnett the supporting cast of Duncan and he has just as many if not more titles

[chefy]

LBJ

[singlepurposeac]

Prime KG was one of the greatest players the league has ever seen, but he didn't have the support necessary to compete legitimately for a title. I'll wait and see what Lebron manages in Miami, but we're talking Oscar Robertson versus Bill Russell with offense here, in a sense (until/unless Lebron proves otherwise).

KG was flipping incredible, no questions, no hesitation. The only reason he isn't ranked higher on a GOAT list is that he doesn't have the team achievements to stack up with the big dogs at the top of the list. In his hey-day, he could stand with anyone you cared to mention.

He wasn't as good as TD, and nobody credible at the time really advanced that argument. KG fans have since used his success in Boston to try and rewrite history, but TD was clearly regarded as a superior player, and it wasn't super close either. He couldn't stand with Shaq either. That's 2 guys in the timeframe he played to name a few. KG is an awesome player, probably top 20 all time, but people need to stop overrating him.

Oh please give prime Garnett the supporting cast of Duncan and he has just as many if not more titles

KG had many, many teams better than TD's 2003 support cast, and he had much, much less to show for it. This is a ridiculous historical rewrite by KG fans. In 2002 TD had a support cast at least as bad as most of the ones KG had, and the outcome (a 58 win season and a 2nd round loss to the Lakers) was at least as good as every one of KG's Wolves seasons, except MAYBE the year he had 2 other all-stars on his team (one of whom had a career year).

[bastillon]

in 2002 Duncan had rookie Parker, all-defensive Bowen, 40% 3p shooters, David Robinson and Malik Allen off the bench, with Pop as a coach. that's a great supporting cast in comparison to KG's, who only had young and inexperienced Billups for half season as a starter and 3rd year Szczerbiak.

not to mention that in 2003 Duncan barely finished ahead of KG in MVP voting so if this is your "TD was clearly regarded as a superior player, and it wasn't super close either" argument then its pretty weak. Duncan played that year with S-Jax, DRob, TParker, Manu, Bowen, Malik Allen and some shooters on his way to 58W. KG had half season from Szczerbiak, Troy Hudson, Peeler, old Gill and Rasho and Wolves won 50 games. if you seriously believe the difference in supporting cast and coaching was 8 wins, then im done here.

[DR1983]

in 2002 Duncan had rookie Parker, all-defensive Bowen, 40% 3p shooters, David Robinson and Malik Allen off the bench, with Pop as a coach. that's a great supporting cast in comparison to KG's, who only had young and inexperienced Billups for half season as a starter and 3rd year Szczerbiak.

not to mention that in 2003 Duncan barely finished ahead of KG in MVP voting so if this is your "TD was clearly regarded as a superior player, and it wasn't super close either" argument then its pretty weak. Duncan played that year with S-Jax, DRob, TParker, Manu, Bowen, Malik Allen and some shooters on his way to 58W. KG had half season from Szczerbiak, Troy Hudson, Peeler, old Gill and Rasho and Wolves won 50 games. if you seriously believe the difference in supporting cast and coaching was 8 wins, then im done here.

Malik Rose.

[singlepurposeac]

in 2002 Duncan had rookie Parker, all-defensive Bowen, 40% 3p shooters, David Robinson and Malik Allen off the bench, with Pop as a coach. that's a great supporting cast in comparison to KG's, who only had young and inexperienced Billups for half season as a starter and 3rd year Szczerbiak.

not to mention that in 2003 Duncan barely finished ahead of KG in MVP voting so if this is your "TD was clearly regarded as a superior player, and it wasn't super close either" argument then its pretty weak. Duncan played that year with S-Jax, DRob, TParker, Manu, Bowen, Malik Allen and some shooters on his way to 58W. KG had half season from Szczerbiak, Troy Hudson, Peeler, old Gill and Rasho and Wolves won 50 games. if you seriously believe the difference in supporting cast and coaching was 8 wins, then im done here.

Rookie parker was not a good player, his numbers support that position. Even sophomore Parker was so raw that he lost his minutes in the finals to Speedy Claxton, who was barely in the NBA after that. All defensive Bowen was incredibly bad on offence, so bad he couldn't get full starters minutes, and only was able to function to the level he did because he played with a guy who sucked the defence into him, and created overlaps for Bowen to hit open corner 3's (his only scoring move). Being a good defensive player does not have some special value that being an equally good offensive player lacks. You look at a player holistically. If Bowen was so valuable, and if defensive role players with poor offence were so valuable, then guys like Battier, Michael Curry, Nat McMillan, etc, would have garnered huge contracts to reflect that. Instead they never did, because being a great defensive player by itself doesn't change your overall value as a player. D.Rob was finished by 2003, playing minimal minutes for minimal output. Malik Allen? Are you serious? I assume you mean Malik Rose, who was awful, and showed the extent of his awfulness when we managed to trade him to NY.

KG had teams as good multiple times. Billups was a hell of alot better than anyone TD had in 2002 or even 2003. T.Brandon was a great player before his injuries, and KG played with pre-injured Brandon. He played with Marbury when he was still good. He played with a healthy Tom Gugliotta, who people forget was an all-star, and put up a very good 20, 9 & 4 in 97 and 98 (off good shooting #'s). KG had useful role players like T.Porter (before he played for our 99 title team), Sam Mitchell, Joe Smith (famed as a great role player through his career, though a terrible #1 pick), B.Jax before he went to the King or got hurt. Wally made an all-star team, though he probably shouldn't have he was still a very nice player to have in his prime. Sealy and Peeler weren't bad role players at the time either. The KG excuses are tired. He had help more than comparable (and better) than TD's 2002-2003 teams for instance, but he got nowhere with it.

[bastillon]

If Bowen was so valuable, and if defensive role players with poor offence were so valuable, then guys like Battier, Michael Curry, Nat McMillan, etc, would have garnered huge contracts to reflect that. Instead they never did, because being a great defensive player by itself doesn't change your overall value as a player.

im done

KG had teams as good multiple times. Billups was a hell of alot better than anyone TD had in 2002 or even 2003. T.Brandon was a great player before his injuries, and KG played with pre-injured Brandon. He played with Marbury when he was still good. He played with a healthy Tom Gugliotta, who people forget was an all-star, and put up a very good 20, 9 & 4 in 97 and 98 (off good shooting #'s). KG had useful role players like T.Porter (before he played for our 99 title team), Sam Mitchell, Joe Smith (famed as a great role player through his career, though a terrible #1 pick), B.Jax before he went to the King or got hurt. Wally made an all-star team, though he probably shouldn't have he was still a very nice player to have in his prime. Sealy and Peeler weren't bad role players at the time either. The KG excuses are tired. He had help more than comparable (and better) than TD's 2002-2003 teams for instance, but he got nowhere with it.

if you're going like that... Duncan played with D-Rob, Manu, Parker, SJax, borderline DPOY Bowen, Turkoglu, Richard Jefferson, McDyess, Steve Smith, Eliot, Elie, Horry and tons of other great role players. I know, not at the same time... but guess what ? the same applies to KG.

there was not a one single year that Duncan's cast was comparable to Garnett, other than 2004, when Wolves actually won MORE games.

in 2002 really good PG production but horrible defense from wing players, as well as poor production. no bigs to speak of other than KG. Duncan had great 3p shooters creating spacing, one of the best centers in the league in D-Rob, good bench and great coaching.

in 2003 horrible defense from all 3 perimeter players and no scoring threat outside of Garnett. Duncan's cast was far superior in every way possible. other than KG and Duncan being a wash, I dont see how any player on Wolves roster was comparable to his counterpart in San Antonio. rookie Manu or sophomore Parker as "bad" as they were, they'd still be 2nd best players in Minnesota by far (not to mention perfect fit next to KG).

[bastillon]

in 2002 Duncan had rookie Parker, all-defensive Bowen, 40% 3p shooters, David Robinson and Malik Allen off the bench, with Pop as a coach. that's a great supporting cast in comparison to KG's, who only had young and inexperienced Billups for half season as a starter and 3rd year Szczerbiak.

not to mention that in 2003 Duncan barely finished ahead of KG in MVP voting so if this is your "TD was clearly regarded as a superior player, and it wasn't super close either" argument then its pretty weak. Duncan played that year with S-Jax, DRob, TParker, Manu, Bowen, Malik Allen and some shooters on his way to 58W. KG had half season from Szczerbiak, Troy Hudson, Peeler, old Gill and Rasho and Wolves won 50 games. if you seriously believe the difference in supporting cast and coaching was 8 wins, then im done here.

Malik Rose.

at the time he was like DeJuan Blair and one of the better bigs coming off the bench in the NBA. he could guard Shaq 1on1 with help from his teammates...

[singlepurposeac]

Michael Curry was regarded as a very, very good defensive perimeter player. He was starting and was paid purely on the back of his good D. Indeed, he was the starter for the Pistons in 2001-2003 on the back of that D (after which, at 35 years of age) he fell off and out of the NBA. He wasn't Bowen or anything, but he was thought of as a very good defender, and a lamentable offensive player. You've also ignored the point. There are lots of good defensive role players with no offense, but we don't see them paid like stars, which is strange, because if D is so valuable why wouldn't people be shelling out huge money for the Battiers or Nat McMillan's and Thabo's of the NBA? I think you know the answer.

Malik Rose had a period where he was a solid role player, but D.Blair is pushing it. As a sophomore Blair has already shown more than Rose ever did. Rose was not a good player, even the modest contract he got was a huge overpayment, and recognised a such by commentators (it was designed to entice Tim to stay). Once he re-signed, we did everything we could to ship out Rose, who became the most overpaid player on the Knicks, no easy feat. When a guy is grossly overpaid at 6 mill or so a year, he's nothing but a role player.

I figured you'd be able to do the checking yourself, but KG definitely had comparable teams to 2002 and 2003 on the Spurs rosters. Looking at the 7 first round exits KG oversaw (during which the averaged 46 regular season wins) he had the following help:
97- All-star Googs, young Marbury, and 2 nice role players; Sam Mitchell and Terry Porter (who Spurs fans found to be a fantastic role player when he was 2 years older in 99).
98- Young Marbury again, all-star Googs (but missed half the season), Sam Mitchell & Porter are back, and he adds Peeler, who fans forget was once a good role player (the guy averaged 13ppg shooting 445 from the field, and 453 from the 3pt line, with 3.4rpg, 3.8apg & 1.7spg to go with it)
99- Marbury traded, but over the season KG gets a combination or Marbury/T.Brandon at the PG spot. B.Jax, Peeler, Sealy and Mitchell round out a very nice backcourt, and Joe Smith, one of the better role players in the NBA, joins the team too. And just so people remember, Brandon made 2 all-star games, he was a great player, certainly better than anyone Duncan had in 2002 or 2003.
2000- Brandon, still only 29, is on the team. Joe Smith is here too, and so are B.Jax, Sealy, Mitchell (now 36 though) and Peeler. The team also adds Wally, though he wasn't that good this year.
2001- Brandon is here still and healthy. Wally playing better too. Peeler is still serviceable, and you add Billups as a role player.
2002- Joe Smith is back, and Billups explodes after Brandon's injury. Peeler and Rasho are serviceable role players (though nothing more), and Wally makes the all-star team this year, shooting the lights out.
In 2003 his team got weaker, then in 2004 it got much, much stronger. In 2005 and 2006 he had decentish teams too.

Looking at those teams, I don't see how you can assert TD had some huge advantage in 2002 or 2003. In some years KG has a clearly stronger team, sometimes with 1-2 all-stars next to him, whereas nobody Duncan had was even close to being an all-star.

[bastillon]

97- All-star Googs, young Marbury, and 2 nice role players; Sam Mitchell and Terry Porter (who Spurs fans found to be a fantastic role player when he was 2 years older in 99).

lost to Dream/Barkley/Drexler Rockets. what a shame on you, Kevin Garnett...

98- Young Marbury again, all-star Googs (but missed half the season), Sam Mitchell & Porter are back, and he adds Peeler, who fans forget was once a good role player (the guy averaged 13ppg shooting 445 from the field, and 453 from the 3pt line, with 3.4rpg, 3.8apg & 1.7spg to go with it)

that right there screws your credibility completely. all Peeler could do was shoot, and he scored because he played next to KG who set great screens and was dishing off to him for open shots. he had no scoring abilities whatsoever, no handles to speak of, one of the worst perimeter defenders I've ever seen and it was actually a consensus that Peeler was a scrub. where was Peeler outside of Wolves ? exactly.

99- Marbury traded, but over the season KG gets a combination or Marbury/T.Brandon at the PG spot. B.Jax, Peeler, Sealy and Mitchell round out a very nice backcourt, and Joe Smith, one of the better role players in the NBA, joins the team too. And just so people remember, Brandon made 2 all-star games, he was a great player,certainly better than anyone Duncan had in 2002 or 2003.

thats a 20W team without Garnett, at best. other than PG, there are some good shooters, everyone plays poor defense, and there are no bigs aside from Garnett.

2000- Brandon, still only 29, is on the team. Joe Smith is here too, and so are B.Jax, Sealy, Mitchell (now 36 though) and Peeler. The team also adds Wally, though he wasn't that good this year.

same here.

2001- Brandon is here still and healthy. Wally playing better too. Peeler is still serviceable, and you add Billups as a role player.

Billups was a career journeyman wondering around the NBA. he was a good backup and a really good shooter but he developed as a player under Larry Brown in 2004. wasnt much of a point guard before that.

still no rebounders, no defenders, no 2nd option etc...

2002- Joe Smith is back, and Billups explodes after Brandon's injury. Peeler and Rasho are serviceable role players (though nothing more), and Wally makes the all-star team this year, shooting the lights out.

so, no rebounders or defenders, one scoring guard without experience and freaking Wally. what a great team. wonder why they didnt win a title that year.

In 2003 his team got weaker, then in 2004 it got much, much stronger. In 2005 and 2006 he had decentish teams too.

thats just pathetic. maybe drza will come here and respond to this BS.

there wasnt one instance when Wolves without KG could win 25 games. they were like 3-20 when Garnett was injured. I mean what you're calling a great team was basically one borderline all-star who hardly deserved it (Gugliotta, Marbury, Wally at different points) and some role players who weren't complete disasters. Duncan meanwhile had a 20/10 all-defensive big alongside him, all time coach, great 3p shooting, and good perimeter defenders... then he had one of the best backcourts in the NBA, all-defensive wing in Bowen and still awesome coaching. great role players all along too.

there wasnt one year when Duncan's cast wasnt far superior to KG's.

[singlepurposeac]

Slow down there chief.

In 97 he lost to the Rockets, yes, but the team only won 40 games, which is why they were playing the Rockets in the first place. Let's not act like they drew some unfair match up here, they were mediocre in the extreme, whereas Duncan's weak Spurs won 58 games in 2002, and lost in the 2nd round to the Lakers. In 2003 Duncan won the title. This does not help your cause.

Peeler was not as bad as you claim, and you use this to ignore the actual point, which was the 98 team was not bad at all. They only won 45 games and got waxed in the first round. Again, how does this compare to 2002 or 2003?

Your characterisation of the 99 team is totally dishonest. They had an all-star at the PG spot, or close to it, and a solid collection of role players. Again, how does it compare to Ducan's 2002 support cast? Quite well I'd have though, but they were a 500. team who again lost the first round.

You don't really offer any other analysis for the other years, though the Billups stuff is pretty dishonest too. He caught fire after Brandon got hurt, and the team lost him the following year because they told him with Brandon coming back he couldn't start. Big mistake obviously. He was a really nice player this year.

You seem to forget you're comparing these teams to the Spurs cast in 2002 and 2003, where Duncan didn't have a single guy who could even sniff the all-star team. KG has multiple guys here who were clearly all-stars, some who made the team, and others who had a good case to make it, not to mention some nice role players.

[bastillon]

ok, since when 1 all-star + scrubs equals better team than D-Rob, S-Jax, Bowen, Manu and Parker ? first of all, not one word mentions defense in your posts. Spurs won because of their defense. Wolves lost because they lacked defense and rebounding. neither Marbury nor Brandon are going to change the fact that Wolves perimeter defense sucked, they had no valuable big alongside KG and no rebounders to speak of. meanwhile Spurs had solid rebounding bigs in D-Rob and Malik Allen, great defensive team all around and they won with their defense. between Manu, S-Jax, Bowen and D-Rob focused on nothing but defense, you had 4 all-defense all-stars.

your understanding of basketball is just very poor honestly. you seem to completely ignore the defense and rebounding. the strength of your team is determined by big names (Gugliotta!!!111one11) instead of their value. Spurs had a very good team around Duncan, they had defenders, great shooters, rebounders. put Pau Gasol instead of Timmy and they still win around 45-50 easily. Duncan did his part very well but he didnt have more impact on his team than Garnett.

[singlepurposeac]

ok, since when 1 all-star + scrubs equals better team than D-Rob, S-Jax, Bowen, Manu and Parker ? first of all, not one word mentions defense in your posts. Spurs won because of their defense. Wolves lost because they lacked defense and rebounding. neither Marbury nor Brandon are going to change the fact that Wolves perimeter defense sucked, they had no valuable big alongside KG and no rebounders to speak of. meanwhile Spurs had solid rebounding bigs in D-Rob and Malik Allen, great defensive team all around and they won with their defense. between Manu, S-Jax, Bowen and D-Rob focused on nothing but defense, you had 4 all-defense all-stars.

your understanding of basketball is just very poor honestly. you seem to completely ignore the defense and rebounding. the strength of your team is determined by big names (Gugliotta!!!111one11) instead of their value. Spurs had a very good team around Duncan, they had defenders, great shooters, rebounders. put Pau Gasol instead of Timmy and they still win around 45-50 easily. Duncan did his part very well but he didnt have more impact on his team than Garnett.

I'm going to quote this, because I don't want you changing it (btw, it's Malik Rose, this is the 2nd time you've done this, a sure sign you know very little about him).

You keep throwing out names like TONY PARKER and MANU!! But you do it without any context. The 2002 team didn't have Manu, and Tony was mediocre as a rookie. He wasn't alot better the next year, and Manu was very ordinary for a rookie in 2003. D.Rob was totally washed up by 2002 and 2003, and he hadn't made an all-defensive team in years, nor been in consideration. There was nobody close to being an all-star on these teams.

You throw out the word defence like it has a special value offence does not. In reality both are important, and the Spurs teams suffered horribly from poor offence. Nor was the team full of good defenders, some like S.Smith, A.Daniels, Tony, etc, were terrible defenders in those years. Bowen didn't even play all the season in 2002. Manu was no an all-defence all-star in 2003, and wasn't on the team in 2002. S.Jax has never been a defensive all-star, and he certainly wasn't in 2003. Defensive "all-star" implies that someones defence is good enough to make the all-star team, like Mutumbo or Ben Wallace or Rodman. That definitely doesn't fit any of our guys. The Wolves had more talented PLAYERS, regardless of whether some were better on D than some of the Spurs players (and at any rate, Brandon and Marbury weren't bad defenders in those years, in fact Marbury used to burn rookie and sophomore parker so badly it was embarassing, I remember the suns playoff series in 2003 quite well, Marbury completely owned Parker on both ends, it was painful to watch. I don't know what Googs has done to be labelled as a poor defender. He wasn't especially good, but he wasn't bad either. Terry Porter was very strong on D. Smith is a v.good defender)

Your whole response is just totally dishonest. Defensive all-stars who barely got minutes and weren't given any consideration as defensive teamers (let alone all-stars). The few good defenders we had (bowen in 59 games in 2002, and D.Rob) both had to play limited minutes because they hurt us so much on the other end (or because they were old and worn out). I mean, look at D.Rob's playoff #'s in 2003, the guy barely did anything that year. To hear you call him a defensive all-star is absurd. You act as though you have a special knowledge of the value of defence, that is apparently lost on NBA teams... otherwise why would "defensive all-star" S.Jax have been given a contract the following year by the Hawks (the worst and most desperate team in the NBA that year) which paid him $1mill? Didn't teams appreciate his valuable all-star defence? Or are you smarter than them? Bruce Bowen played for 13 years, and his salary per year only went above $4mill once ($4.125 mill in 2008). Why didn't teams appreciate his defensive all-star value (apparently superior to an offensive all-star) and pay him accordingly, chasing after him each offseason? Because he was a very limited role player who had no offence, and because being good defensively doesn't give you some extra special bonus in value if your overall game is weak.

I think they probably would win 40-45 games with Pau there, but that says more about how awesome Pau is than it does about KG. Rather, it suggests the gap between KG and Pau isn't as big as people make out. It does little to help your argument.

[bastillon]

they were .500 team without Duncan at all.

[singlepurposeac]

:lol:

they were .500 team without Duncan at all.

huh? I don't even begin to understand what you're saying here, but it surely can't be that the 2002 oe 2003 Spurs would be a 500. team without Duncan...

[bastillon]

2004 Spurs were. they were 7-7 without Duncan. 9-7 in 2005. guess what, no all-stars there either. must be something wrong, right ?

2006 Wolves were 2-4 without KG. 2007 Wolves 0-6.

thats 2-10 combined vs 16-14. Garnett's "decent" teams vs Duncan's horrible cast without anyone approaching all-star team.

2003 Wolves without KG:
pts scored - 87.4
pts allowed - 104.5
-17.1

2003 Spurs without Duncan:
pts scored - 91.7
pts allowed - 97.9
-6.2

care to add any wise words about all-stars ?

btw, by "defensive all-stars" I meant guys who would make all-star teams if only defense was considered. Spurs were STACKED on defense at the time.