nameant wrote:I understand why they believe otherwise. He's a huge upgrade for them. And I agree he had a problem with being unmotivated and disinterested sometimes as the #2 guy, but that's his problem. That is what separates the top tier from the second tier. Yes Nash is older, but we have 3 superstars on this team now, 3 future HOFers. Do you believe any of them will be less motivated playing with each other? Plenty of teams have/have had 2+ franchise players at the same time and have flourished. The Heat just won it all with 2 franchise players, the Celtics had 3 of them that contributed at an equal level during their run, the old Lakers had Kobe and Shaq, Showtime had Magic, Worthy, & Kareem, the Bulls had Jordan and Pippen, and the list goes on.
Actually, most folks would disagree with you here. Guys who are unsatisfied with being the #2 guy and hunger for that #1 option role often make the best leaders provided they're actually good enough to fill that #1 spot. Now if you have a player who isn't as good as he thinks he is, then yes, I'd agree with you. However Andrew is incredibly talented and a force on the floor when he's eager and motivated. Right now it's a bit of a toss up with him as he's had his ups and his downs over the years, but most folks are betting on him being motivated in his new surroundings.
With regards to Nash, he's an aging superstar hunting for a chip, and thus while he's not being relegated to role player status, history will tell us that players in his position are often more willing to defer a bit more than a player in his prime with two rings looking to forge his own legacy elsewhere. Comparing Drew's situation with Steve's is apples to oranges as they both have completely different goals at this point in their respective careers. It's why Boston's Big Three worked in '08 as all three of those guys were into the twilight years of their careers and hunting for their first chip. Conversely it's why Shaq and Kobe couldn't be held together beyond '04. Had one of those guys been ok with being a #2, they'd have dominated the league for a decade. Instead we all know how that turned out.
nameant wrote:As Drew became more established he seemed to zone out more when things weren't going his way. That was the one thing I didn't like about him. Dominating didn't seem to come natural to him even though he has the talent. The kind of players that aren't happy being on a contender and winning b/c they aren't the #1 guy aren't usually capable of being the #1 guy, or at least have a different focus other than winning. I have no doubt Drew will put up 20 and 10 for years to come with Philly, but do I believe those numbers will amount to anything and Philly will be legitimate title contenders with Drew as their franchise guy? Definitely not. I wouldn't mind being wrong b/c Philly would make Miami's run tougher, but I just can't see it. If Drew was capable of that, why would we have traded him in the 1st place? We upgraded to get THAT GUY, that franchise capable player.
I agree, but that has more to do with the reasons I described above i.e. said players aren't as good as they think they are. With regards to having that sort of #1 option mindset however, you just described what goes on in the heads of players like Michael, Shaq and Kobe who combined for half of the chips over the last two decades.
As for why we traded Drew if he's capable of being "that guy", because sometimes a player simply isn't able or willing to be as good as he can be if his surroundings aren't tailored to his needs and wants. Most of us believe that Drew does have franchise player potential, but that he simply didn't have enough room here in LA to turn that potential into production. FWIW, I think Drew has more #1 option potential than Dwight as he's seemingly always had more fire and passion for the game (when motivated) than Howard, I just happen to think that Howard is a better fit for our needs. At this point it simply depends on whether or not Bynum can keep himself motivated and focused for a full 82 game season + playoffs.