Grounded Polo wrote:The definition of a franchise player? Did you not watch the 2007 playoff series against Golden State? The definition of a franchise player is a guy who dominates when the games matter most and leads his teams to championships, not the NBA finals. Shaquille O'Neal and Tim Duncan have been the best players of this decade and not surprisingly, they're big men who are dominant post players.
One series does not make a player. Dirk Nowitzki has been one of the best players in the NBA for several years, and has led his team to the NBA Finals (where he played extremely well, I should add). Writing him off because his team was unable to win a series is just wrong. And yes, he is exactly the definition of a franchise player. Was KG not a franchise player because he had the misfortune of playing on a bad team for years? Of course not. Outside of Duncan, Shaq, and maybe Garnett, Dirk has basically been the most successful big in the NBA over the last 10 years.
I'd rather try gambling on Bayless and hope he develops into a nice PG than Danilo. He's going to get eaten alive because Donnie wants him to play PF.
And obviously the Knicks didn't. Bayless seemingly dropped a lot further than expected, and I expect there was a reason for that.
Everything involving the Knicks revolves around poor except for their player's bank accounts.
Again...a poor draft history doesn't mean every decision they'll ever make in the future is the wrong one.