Nalod wrote:Should wins matter?
My guess is, and it's just my perception here, that Penny Hardaway is discussing an aspect of a player's "Q Rating" in which part of the metrics used determines the franchise's net worth under the scenario that you leave your current franchise. Also the flip side, what would the net work increase be for your destination franchise.
For example. If Russell Westbrook took free agency the very first chance he got, and signed with the Atlanta Hawks, the actual overall value of the franchise in a tangible sense would increase. The overall value of the Thunder would tank.
If the Hawks were put on the sale block, with Westbrook on the roster, prospect buyers would get into a bidding war, because Westbrook provides instant marketing and a player to build the franchise around from a business perspective.
Personally I think Westbrook is a very talented but actually a pretty deficient overall player. Can he help his team win? Yes. But there are other elements to his game that are really limiting in terms of getting his team to contend.
In my mind, franchise player = Player you can build around to try to contend
And
Superstar player = Player whom operationally skyrockets or tanks your overall franchise resale price depending on if he stays or goes
Steve Ballmer paid two billion. TWO BILLION. For the Clippers. He's not paying that much if Chris Paul, but esp Blake Griffin are not there.
LeBron James. Kevin Durant. Russell Westbrook. Blake Griffin.
I know people are going to say how does Griffin make this list but not Steph Curry. Curry and guys like Harden don't likely have the same international appeal and don't hit the highlight reels enough.
I think people forget how marketable Michal Vick was, even though he was actually a pretty flawed quarterback. Vick in his prime going to another franchise would spike the value. It would have also sunk the Falcons value.
LBJ is probably the most extreme case. One could argue that his return to the Cavs was worth a couple of billion to the franchise.
Do wins and rings have something to do with it? To some degree. But Blake Griffin could never win a ring and still would have a major marketing impact to a franchise's value.
The most interesting case in the modern era would probably be Grant Hill. Came from a good school. Stable parents. Semi famous wife. Good looking guy. Handled the media well. Success at all levels. Hill, if he wanted to be that kind of player, could have been a perennial highlight player. But he played a much more organic team type of ball. He's the most interesting case of a player who could have been a "superstar" but simply chose to play and act a different way.
I don't think Penny Hardaway is totally off base, but like most former players, he's going to be quoted out of context and he didn't make himself clear enough. ( He's always been sort of an idiot in that regard, not as dumb as Chris Webber, but maybe close)
