Just Because we finally have a #1 doesn't mean that we need a #2.

[Spud2nique]

1 minute ago, Diesel said:

Or the Three Bombadere's was Curry, Klay and KD??

Well you did forget about Iggy.. self ban I’ll see myself out. 

[Diesel]

1 minute ago, Spud2nique said:

Well you did forget about Iggy.. self ban I’ll see myself out. 

Spudd.. The guy said Kenny Smith was the #2???

We talking about Easter!!!

He probably don't know that Kenny was a Hawk and he hates the Hawks because he was a Hawk... because of Dominique.

Easter!!

He watched TNT, sees Chuck, Shaq, and Kenny and think Kenny musta been good because he has a ring and Charles dont.

If only Charles could have won one in Houston.   His Body gave up. 

 

[Spud2nique]

2 minutes ago, Diesel said:

OO

If you have a couple guys as efficient and smart as OO, I agree you don’t need a clear cut #2 guy, the chemistry takes precedence in the scenario. 
 

So it can be:

Star/star/ knucklehead/knucklehead/knucklehead 

or

Star/2-3 efficient glue guys/1 regular rotational

 

I guess they wouldn’t be knuckleheads but in the first scenario they would just be regular rotational guys.

[Sothron]

37 minutes ago, Diesel said:

We're talking about a consistent #2 guy.

Off the top, 

Houston's first championship was Hakeem alone. 

Golden State's first championship..  Steph was the star, Klay was supposed to be the #2.. but in the finals, Klay was neutralized.  Last two games, he scored 12 and 5 points respectively while Steph also struggled.   Iguadala was named Finals MVP & couldn't hit free throws.   They were about to give Finals MVP to Lebron but felt that the MVP should come from the championship team. 

Dallas' Championship team didn't have a true #2.   It was by committee much like Houston.

Everybody forgets Toronto.  They didn't have a true #2.  JC scores more than Lowry did for that season. 

 

So here's my point.  People readily ignore that there are several teams that have won championships with 1 superstar... (That's what we're talking about Ron.).   Can 1 star win a championship.   There have been a Bevy of teams to get to the finals with 1 superstar.  

A defined #2 is not needed for that. 

There aren't that many teams that won championships with zero or one superstar. it certainly has happened in the past but the vast majority of championships have been won with at least 2 superstars. You said we're talking about a consistent #2 guy is needed. Ok, I'll explore that one with you. We don't have that either. JC is the closest thing to that but he's not really consistent enough. He doesn't have plays drawn up for him and so much of his offense is release valve shooting on the wings or the odd mismatch in the post area where JC has that sweet turnaround jumper that usually goes in. 

To your argument's credit I am on record and will repeat here that I honestly think if Trae had not been hurt in the ECF that we not just go to the Finals but we would have won it. And that certainly would have been one of the few times a team with no or just one superstar won a chip. So you have recency bias in your favor with this very team as recently as last season to bolster your argument.

[Spud2nique]

2 minutes ago, Diesel said:

The guy said Kenny Smith was the #2???

Ya no, Kenny was mainly a spot up shooter. If anything, watching that series it was a confident rookie point Sam I am that had a great deal to do with the rockets success even early in his career. He was like our OO for the rockets.

[Diesel]

19 minutes ago, Sothron said:

There aren't that many teams that won championships with zero or one superstar. it certainly has happened in the past but the vast majority of championships have been won with at least 2 superstars. You said we're talking about a consistent #2 guy is needed. Ok, I'll explore that one with you. We don't have that either. JC is the closest thing to that but he's not really consistent enough. He doesn't have plays drawn up for him and so much of his offense is release valve shooting on the wings or the odd mismatch in the post area where JC has that sweet turnaround jumper that usually goes in. 

To your argument's credit I am on record and will repeat here that I honestly think if Trae had not been hurt in the ECF that we not just go to the Finals but we would have won it. And that certainly would have been one of the few times a team with no or just one superstar won a chip. So you have recency bias in your favor with this very team as recently as last season to bolster your argument.

Let me help this conversation:

Dirk - 23 ppg, Kidd - 7.9 ppg, Terry-15.8 ppg, Butler -15 ppg, Marion 12.5 ppg, Chandler - 10.1 ppg.

Toronto:

Leonard 26.6 ppg, Lowry 14.2 ppg, Siakim 16.9 ppg, Green - 10.3 ppg, Van Vleet 11.0 ppg, Ibaka 15 ppg. Gasol 9.1 ppg

Atlanta:

Trae - 27.7 ppg, Collins - 16.7 ppg, Capela - 11.3 ppg, Huerter - 11.5 ppg,  Hunter - 12.8 ppg, Bogi - 12.6 ppg, Gallo - 10.2 ppg, OO - 9.7 pg,  Lou - 7.1 ppg.

 

I've put up the major contributors for Dallas and Toronto during their championship years...

Just for grins... GS too.

Curry - 23.8 ppg, Klay 21.7 ppg, Green - 11.7 ppg.  Barnes 10.1 ppg, Iguodala - 7.8 ppg. Bogut - 6.3 ppg.

This golden state team won 67 games.  In the finals, Iguodala was the Finals MVP.

 

When you look at our team, we get scoring from a lot of people.  We have a lot of contributors.  We have 2 full units of double digit scorers.   We don't have a bonafide #2.. But my concession is just like Dallas and Toronto before us.. we don't need one.   We are deep with scorers.  Deeper than Dallas or Toronto or GS.   It's that diversity that I believe is our strength.   Moreover, as OO gets better on Offense... this team will be more unstoppable. 

So when you guys make that plea for a #2.  You should be specific...

Are you talking scoring or are you talking facilitator?  Because we score better than most of the teams on this list.  Our offensive rating is high...not just because of Trae.. and because of Trae. 

 

[Diesel]

24 minutes ago, Spud2nique said:

Ya no, Kenny was mainly a spot up shooter. If anything, watching that series it was a confident rookie point Sam I am that had a great deal to do with the rockets success even early in his career. He was like our OO for the rockets.

There was also vernon maxwell and a host of other guys who stepped up.   That's what I think we have a bunch of guys who can step up. 

 

[FL_BRYANT]

Need Huerter,Bogi, and Hunter to be more consistent and aggressive if we forgo a #2.

[JTB]

On the Toronto team spicy p was the number 2. He was the teams 2nd best player that season next to Leonard and also showed up in the playoffs.

today siakam is supposedly their number 1 guy or first option. Even though FVV tends to get more coverage than Siakam from the media.

[Wretch]

I don't know how I missed this thread.........

What is a #2?
We don't really need to define what a #2 is.  For the sake of this conversation, we'll say its a 2nd All-NBA or All-Star caliber player that compliments a team's primary scorer. 

Do we need a #2?
Following up on the previous question, the key word  is "COMPLIMENT."  Just throwing in a rando All-Star is not enough.  A 1A and 1B need to fit in a way that makes it difficult to commit to one or the other.  Additionally, and almost as important, when a 1A is struggling or injured, a 1B should be talented enough to carry the team in the interim. 

Yes, carry.  When Trae is struggling or out, there is nobody on this team that can bridge that drop in production.  We simply become a very different team and is also something that we don't really need to define or elaborate on.

What do we need?
The problem is that people tend to look at teams one dimensionally.  "Defense wins!"  or "You need size and inside scoring!" or "The game has changed and you need to shoot 3s!" or "Coaching!" or "You need a star!"  Winning a championship is hard and consequently is an unrealistic expectation for me as a fan.  I just want a contender.  True contenders have a good balance of all of these things people clamor for led by, IMO the most important factor, a superstar tandem.

Trae is an anomaly and we are beyond fortunate to have chanced upon him.  Offensively, he not only elevates the game of everyone around him, but he's nigh un-guardable outside of straight up ball denial and dedicated traps.  The most telling part in that is it's very often highly effective against us.  We manage to beat it when Trae does the impossible with ridiculous shooting or passing...OR someone other than Trae gets hot.  Which is why it's so noticeable when Bogi goes hot or cold.

What do we need?  We must find an alpha shooter/scorer that reliably can punish the defense for over-committing to Trae.  Period.  I had been struggling with where/how Simmons lines up or makes sense outside of trading Collins.  Then somebody (@thecampster?) suggested an intriguing Bogi/Simmons trade (without moving Collins) and @Sothron mentioned starting him at the PG.  Like *slaps forehead* duh, why didn't I see that....?

Simmons
Trae
Hunter
Collins
Clint/OO 

We'd really need Hunter and Collins on their A-game from the perimeter and Trae moving off the ball.  However, that's a terrifying defensive lineup.  Landing Simmons without giving up Collins brings up another point.

Do we need a big 3?
No.  I don't subscribe to the necessity of a big 3 and never have.  However, IMO John Collins completes a big 3 for us.  He's also the heart of this team and if we can't get a 2nd star without trading him, then I simply don't want to do it.

Bottom line: we have a once-in-a-lifetime talent and we have to make every effort to build this man the best team possible.  You don't necessarily need any specific thing, to include a legit #2, but contender status is going to be MUCH more easily attained and sustained if we find Trae a legit offensive compliment.

[Spud2nique]

3 minutes ago, Wretch said:

we have a once-in-a-lifetime talent and we have to make every effort to build this man the best team possible.

I agree but is Simmons the best we can do for Trae? I mean, I dunno, I definitely get the upgrade in talent for sure but chemistry is volatile is all I’m adding.

[Diesel]

4 minutes ago, Wretch said:

I don't know how I missed this thread.........

What is a #2?
We don't really need to define what a #2 is.  For the sake of this conversation, we'll say its a 2nd All-NBA or All-Star caliber player that compliments a team's primary scorer. 

Do we need a #2?
Following up on the previous question, the key word  is "COMPLIMENT."  Just throwing in a rando All-Star is not enough.  A 1A and 1B need to fit in a way that makes it difficult to commit to one or the other.  Additionally, and almost as important, when a 1A is struggling or injured, a 1B should be talented enough to carry the team in the interim. 

Yes carry.  When Trae is struggling or out, there is nobody on this team that can bridge that drop in production.  We simply become a very different team and is also something that we don't really need to define or elaborate on.

What do we need?
The problem is that people tend to look at teams one dimensionally.  "Defense wins!"  or "You need size and inside scoring!" or "The game has changed and you need to shoot 3s!" or "Coaching!" or "You need a star!"  Winning a championship is hard and consequently is an unrealistic expectation for me as a fan.  I just want a contender.  True contenders have a good balance of all of these things people clamor for led by, IMO the most important factor, a superstar tandem.

Trae is an anomaly and we are beyond fortunate to have chanced upon him.  Offensively, he not only elevates the game of everyone around him, but he's nigh un-guardable outside of straight up ball denial and dedicated traps.  The most telling part in that is it's very often highly effective against us.  We manage to beat it when Trae does the impossible with ridiculous shooting or passing...OR someone other than Trae gets hot.  Which is why it's so noticeable when Bogi goes hot or cold.

What do we need?  We must find an alpha shooter/scorer that reliably can punish the defense for over-committing to Trae.  Period.  I had been struggling with where/how Simmons lines up or makes sense outside of trading Collins.  Then I somebody (@thecampster?) suggest an intriguing Bogi/Simmons trade (without moving Collins) and @Sothron mentioned starting him at the PG.  Like *slaps forehead* duh, why didn't I see that....?

Simmons
Trae
Hunter
Collins
Clint/OO 

We'd really need Hunter and Collins on their A-game from the perimeter and Trae moving off the ball.  However, that's a terrifying defensive lineup.  Landing Simmons without giving up Collins brings up another point.

Do we need a big 3?
No.  I don't subscribe to the necessity of a big 3 and never have.  However, IMO John Collins completes a big 3 for us.  He's also the heart of this team and if we can't get a 2nd star without trading him, then I simply don't want to do it.

Bottom line: we have a once-in-a-lifetime talent and we have to make every effort to build this man the best team possible.  You don't necessarily need any specific thing, to include a legit #2, but contender status is going to be MUCH more easily attained and sustained if we find Trae a legit offensive compliment.

Very thoughtful. 

I agree with a lot of what you said... I don't know about the definition per se... when you talk Stockton/Malone... do you consider Malone a #2?  You take Stockton away, Malone is not going to run the PNR as well with anybody else.   The offense becomes predictable and easily stopped.   It's an easier jump to make with Jordan/Pippen and Kobe/Shaq.  But other tandems... not so much. 

However, let's use your definition. 

Let's take Trae out of the equation for a game or two.

We have Simmons, Kev, Hunter, Collins, and OO...   Can this team win?  Is it much better than:

Wright, Bogi, Hunter, Collins, OO?

 

I like Simmons because of his defense.   Offensively, I like the fact that he's 6'10 and he can pass the ball. 

BUT

Even though he's Allstar Level, I don't think he can be the main driver of an offense that is predicated on creating openness with the three point shot. 

You are 1000% correct Trae is an Anomaly.   He gets the assists of Nash.. but he has the scoring affinity of AI.   Nobody has ever had that combination in recent memory.. Maybe John Wall.   Maybe Harden.. but neither was as efficient as Trae. 

The question is when you do put him with another Allstar type.. what does taking the ball out of Trae's hands do?  I considered Simmons for this because he's not thinking score first.   He would actually get others involved.  BUT.. He's not Pippen.  He's not going to get you 20.  That was his problem with Embiid.   Embiid needed somebody to go get points and Simmons was good at getting others involved but he wasn't a go get you twenty every night kind of guy. 

If we could get Simmons for Bogi, I would do it in a heartbeat.   But I would know that we'd have further moves to make. 

[Wretch]

1 minute ago, Spud2nique said:

I agree but is Simmons the best we can do for Trae? I mean, I dunno, I definitely get the upgrade in talent for sure but chemistry is volatile is all I’m adding.

I'm warmed up to the idea and wouldn't complain.  Simmons can score.  He just isn't a demonstrated in-game shooter.  What he can do is run the pick and roll as well as Trae - with the difference here being Hunter and Trae moving off the ball/spotting up after the defense collapses.  You also have the option of rim-running with Simmons and having JC spot up.  I only wince at the idea of what Ben does if he's not in the pick and roll.

I should state for the record though that Ben is not my first choice as a compliment.

[Diesel]

6 minutes ago, Wretch said:

I should state for the record though that Ben is not my first choice as a compliment.

I'm intrigued.

You leave us with these Juicy Nuggets and then you tell us that we can't taste them yet. 

FTR, I'm 1000% with you on Simmons.  I was the first to say I would trade for Simmons but the headcase of it all has taken my zeal away from the move.  IF he had just played through this, I would be on Board 1000000%. But him sitting, pouting.. makes me wonder... if he's going to Kyrie Irving the next team that gets him.   I hate giving in to primadonnas.  Becuase if anything goes off a little, they are ready to quit. 

 

[Wretch]

1 minute ago, Diesel said:

Very thoughtful. 

I agree with a lot of what you said... I don't know about the definition per se... when you talk Stockton/Malone... do you consider Malone a #2?  You take Stockton away, Malone is not going to run the PNR as well with anybody else.   The offense becomes predictable and easily stopped.   It's an easier jump to make with Jordan/Pippen and Kobe/Shaq.  But other tandems... not so much. 

However, let's use your definition. 

Let's take Trae out of the equation for a game or two.

We have Simmons, Kev, Hunter, Collins, and OO...   Can this team win?  Is it much better than:

Wright, Bogi, Hunter, Collins, OO?

 

I like Simmons because of his defense.   Offensively, I like the fact that he's 6'10 and he can pass the ball. 

BUT

Even though he's Allstar Level, I don't think he can be the main driver of an offense that is predicated on creating openness with the three point shot. 

You are 1000% correct Trae is an Anomaly.   He gets the assists of Nash.. but he has the scoring affinity of AI.   Nobody has ever had that combination in recent memory.. Maybe John Wall.   Maybe Harden.. but neither was as efficient as Trae. 

The question is when you do put him with another Allstar type.. what does taking the ball out of Trae's hands do?  I considered Simmons for this because he's not thinking score first.   He would actually get others involved.  BUT.. He's not Pippen.  He's not going to get you 20.  That was his problem with Embiid.   Embiid needed somebody to go get points and Simmons was good at getting others involved but he wasn't a go get you twenty every night kind of guy. 

If we could get Simmons for Bogi, I would do it in a heartbeat.   But I would know that we'd have further moves to make. 

Remove either your 1A or 1B and clearly the team is different.  We all know this.  Let me reiterate though, that all you really need is a way to BRIDGE the production drop.  In the Stockton/Malone example...  Their legacy is inseparable and consequently, people forget/overlook how offensively talented Stockton was:

That duo was dangerous because both were very good.  They are not the same without each other obviously, but in the absence of either you could "get by."

With Simmons, running point, we could effectively run the same offense.  For one, the trap isn't going to work the same against his big ass.  He will throw right over the top of it.  Secondly, if we're running a big lineup with Trae sitting, you can post him up against smaller guards.  From a longterm standpoint, Simmons/Huerter >>>> Wright/Bogi backcourt.  It's less outside shooting, but it's a bigger, more stable, more athletic, and better defensive backcourt.  Also...Ben is still an All-Star.  The man has 30 career triple-doubles.  Ben alone is >>> Wright.

More importantly, if we're talking Trae missing lots of games...we are obviously not the same, but I don't think we won't drop below the NBA "poverty line."  That's a better than .500 ballclub, just a different animal.  This team led by Wright for an extended amount of time is not going to win very many games. 

[Spud2nique]

56 minutes ago, Wretch said:

I should state for the record though that Ben is not my first choice as a compliment.

Who?

[Wretch]

46 minutes ago, Spud2nique said:

Who?

I only really "like" a few guys that may or may not be available.  For example, I LIKE Brandon Ingram, but it's mostly a wash in tradeoff of Ingram's scoring/shooting over Ben's facilitating, defense, and athleticism.  Also Ben fits better and not disruptive to the starting lineup at the PG as opposed to playing Ingram at what...big guard?  Trade Hunter...? *shudder*

If I'm being really honest, I JUST want to make the playoffs without making any moves right now.  I want this team to get it together and sort it out in the offseason.  I know we need a #2, but I do not know that Ben Simmons is it.  So, I'll have to get back to you on exactly "who" my first choice is...but I can sho'll 'nuff tell you who it was:
 

Spoiler

I was locked in on him after that game.