Bynum isn't getting anymore max deals, now is he? Curry even with the shoddy ankles is going to demand a max contract the next go around and he will probably get it. I love Curry's game, but no way I'd give him a max contract either
That wasn't the point - I said at position value:
If Bynum had proven to have equal value to Curry on the market amidst all his chronic knee issues, would he be worth the max right now? You mentioned that
i'f a PG loses a step, he doesn't have size to fall back on or be a defensive anchor, and that a big man is always going to be a big man no matter what happens to his wheels' - albeit he would probably be playing better than he is now, if beforehand he proved to be 'worth the max'', but I don't see any difference between the two.
Bynum can no longer effectively use his size (basically no defense and can no longer use his body to get adequate post position)
Bynum can't transition into any other position
He's in the same boat as Curry is he not? Case-by-case aren't you running the same risk at all positions? What's the difference between a 6'5 2-guard and a 6'3 PG who can score at will, with the exact same injury issues?
This is a ridiculous question breh since hindsight is 20/20, you can point to nearly any championship team and say "replace X with Y". You could say the Heat would have won a title last year with Harden at the two with how limited Wade was in the playoffs. This is like asking if the Pacers would be contenders with Melo instead of Paul George, you can't just look at good/title teams after the fact and say "Well drop them on there instead of"....how about building around a PG and getting those results to begin with.
That's my point - lemme ask you this:
What PGs over the past decade do you believe were worth (or close to it) the max - and what were their current rosters during that time? And how were they any different to the rosters built around 'franchise' 2s, 3s, 4s or 5s that didn't have any success?
We've never had an adequate enough sample size of teams building around PGs, to dismiss this idea that they aren't worth the max. Which brings me onto my next point - if the PG doesn't have a SG skill set or high-end athleticism, I don't believe they're worth the max (strictly in today's game) - I simply don't believe you can build around them .
Rose, Westbrook, Kyrie, Wall, Curry are the type of point guards I believe are worth the max. Not necessarily them per say, but that proven type.
Nevermind the fact that you drop Rose/Wall/Paul onto the Spurs in 06-07 and it's still Duncan that the team is built around, not them. Also, Parker wasn't worth a max contract when he signed his extension in 2004, he wasn't even an all-star at the point and was laying eggs in the playoffs, shot 38% against Gary Payton/Derek Fisher that very same summer.
He wasn't in 04, but his play throughout 06-08 (and probably beyond) warranted that sort of money. in conjunction with what other players were getting at the time:
Jermaine - $18m
Kidd - $18m
Webber - $17m
Iverson - $17m
Marbury - $17m
There's no reason to suggest he wasn't worth equal or near those type of salaries.
The point is that making a PG your franchise player and building around them is a losing proposition backed up by decades worth of history. Instead of using a time machine to travel backwards and placing a better player than Parker in his place, build a title team around a PG that would win a title.
That's the problem, we really haven't.
If we were to take the ratio of teams who had PGs on max salaries who reached contention - either winning or coming close (Zeke, Stockton, Nash) and the PGs who didn't, the gap in the relationship is no bigger than all teams that have failed building around a SG, SF, PF, C. To go even further, for 90+% of title teams, there was always a Robin to every Batman. Where are all these examples of teams that built around their PG that also had a sidekick?
This is why building around a player, basically has nothing to do with the actual position (not taking away from the balance of a big man and backcourt/wing duo), it just so happens that the majority of great players over the last 20-30 years have been in the positions other than the PG.
What you also failed to realise is that, because more and more teams are starting to build around their point guard (or giving them the max), the probability of one putting the right roster around their PG is higher than ever.
It's only logical that one of these teams will be one hit away. Word to Beans.
The Pacers beat them pretty soundly with CP3 in Bron's spot. Conversely Bron and Blake would create all kinds of matchup issues that CP3 and Blake just can't.
You are 
ing me aren't you? 
Got me again 
