Kevin Martin is not a franchise player

[PoundForPound]

I've been reading a lot of posts, and it seems that a lot of people think that in the future, Kevin Martin is going to lead this team to the promised land? Personally, I do not think Kevin Martin is the player that you all want him to be or refer to him as. Let's face it, with the roster we have, any "good" scorer can play with us and look like an all-star caliber player. Now, K-Mart is a fantastic scorer and hes tremendous skill sets, but is he really somebody that you can build around and look to the future with? We're putting so much pressure on a guy who at best, can help a contending team, but not be the main component. First of all, i simply don't think he has the mentality, leadership, or as good as he is, the ability. What do you guys think?

 

[Vlade4GM]

I think most people would admit he's not a franchise player you build around.

 

[Jer]

I don't think we really know for certain since he's spent the majority of this season in a suit, but that's probably a correct assessment. K-Mart isn't a superstar player that demands double teams and can score at will on single coverage; he works as a second option with one or two other serious weapons on the floor.

He's a great player when the defense isn't solely focused on him, as this gives him opportunities to come off screens and get into the lane for his one-handed runner or to draw fouls.

Ultimately, Martin isn't going to take this team anywhere by himself; that much should be obvious. However, as part of our rebuilding effort and the emergence of other personnel on our team, he can play a critical, core role in a successful Kings team here in the future.

 

[Entity]

I've been reading a lot of posts, and it seems that a lot of people think that in the future, Kevin Martin is going to lead this team to the promised land? Personally, I do not think Kevin Martin is the player that you all want him to be or refer to him as. Let's face it, with the roster we have, any "good" scorer can play with us and look like an all-star caliber player. Now, K-Mart is a fantastic scorer and hes tremendous skill sets, but is he really somebody that you can build around and look to the future with? We're putting so much pressure on a guy who at best, can help a contending team, but not be the main component. First of all, i simply don't think he has the mentality, leadership, or as good as he is, the ability. What do you guys think?

I think your wrong. People do not think Kevin is a franchise player. But they do talk about building for the future and they always mention Kevin as a part of it. Nobody says he is the the player that will lead us to contention. What he is a part of a contending team. We just need to figure out who is the rest. Just because we mention Kevin as always being here doesn't mean we think he is the franchise. Just a piece we already have. So we say building around Kevin meaning that one piece that we do have. Next year as they grow you may see the same stuff said about Thompson and/or Hawes. Not because they are Franchise players but they are good pieces. We just have to find that piece. As it stands a PG or SF would be ideal as that franchise piece. A player like Chris Paul, Deron Williams at PG or a Player like Carmello, Lebron at SF. If we could get both pieces then we would definatley be in contention. We just have to develope Hawes and Thompson and try to get the PG or SF right now then build from there. Who knows Greene with time could become something, just don't know yet. I do know that our pg's are not viable pieces on a contending team. AT least not as starters.

 

[calisfinest]

Kevin Martin Is Soft

Kevin martin is too soft as a player, as you can see he's laid down on his team.........

 

[Entity]

Kevin martin is too soft as a player, as you can see he's laid down on his team.........

This will probably get deleted but, are you really that stupid?

 

[Kings Faithful]

Kevin Martin can be a leading scorer on a championship contending team. Think...Manu Ginobli or Rip Hamilton.....thats why he is valuable to us. Martin gives us the ability to look for other things in a star rather than scoring. He's important and hopefully a big piece to the 2011 championship Kings!

 

[captain bill]

i Think Your Wrong. People Do Not Think Kevin Is A Franchise Player. But They Do Talk About Building For The Future And They Always Mention Kevin As A Part Of It. Nobody Says He Is The The Player That Will Lead Us To Contention. What He Is A Part Of A Contending Team. We Just Need To Figure Out Who Is The Rest. Just Because We Mention Kevin As Always Being Here Doesn't Mean We Think He Is The Franchise. Just A Piece We Already Have. So We Say Building Around Kevin Meaning That One Piece That We Do Have. Next Year As They Grow You May See The Same Stuff Said About Thompson And/or Hawes. Not Because They Are Franchise Players But They Are Good Pieces. We Just Have To Find That Piece. As It Stands A Pg Or Sf Would Be Ideal As That Franchise Piece. A Player Like Chris Paul, Deron Williams At Pg Or A Player Like Carmello, Lebron At Sf. If We Could Get Both Pieces Then We Would Definatley Be In Contention. We Just Have To Develope Hawes And Thompson And Try To Get The Pg Or Sf Right Now Then Build From There. Who Knows Greene With Time Could Become Something, Just Don't Know Yet. I Do Know That Our Pg's Are Not Viable Pieces On A Contending Team. At Least Not As Starters.

Qft

 

[bajaden]

I know that I can just ignore this whole thead, but I can't resist the urge. This subject has been beat to death in about three other threads, as recently as yesterday. Why we have keep going over this again and again is beyond me.

I'll cut the thread starter some slack on the premise that perhaps he hasn't read the other threads, which I would advise him to do. So lets be clear here. Neither myself, nor the majority of posters on this fourm think that Martin is a franchise player. Its been stated adnauseam, that he's at best a second option and perhaps, depending on the team, a third option.

Kevin himself has never referred to himself as a franchise player, nor, to the best of my knowledge has any of the Kings management. He has been called the best player on the team, which is an entirely different thing. At present, without Martin playing, Salmons would probably be refered to as the best player on the team. I doubt anyone would refer to him as a franchise player.

 

[Amory]

Qft

QFT x 2!

Martin, Hawes and Thompson are pieces that we should build around because they are good players.

Whenever just about anyone on these forums talk about down the road we always talk about who the superstar is that we are going to get.

I don't think I have ever heard someone say that martin is a "superstar"

 

[pdxKingsFan]

I think he's a Peja type player (not in style, but in value to the Kings team), we need someone like him if we ever get a superstar. Unfortunately while the team was in the dumps he became for lack of other options the face of the franchise and was considered by many to be untouchable when he was probably at the peak of his trade value (minimal contract and could have been packaged with KT when he still had multiple years on his deal).

 

[Kingzrool]

I know that I can just ignore this whole thead, but I can't resist the urge. This subject has been beat to death in about three other threads, as recently as yesterday. Why we have keep going over this again and again is beyond me.

I'll cut the thread starter some slack on the premise that perhaps he hasn't read the other threads, which I would advise him to do. So lets be clear here. Neither myself, nor the majority of posters on this fourm think that Martin is a franchise player. Its been stated adnauseam, that he's at best a second option and perhaps, depending on the team, a third option.

Kevin himself has never referred to himself as a franchise player, nor, to the best of my knowledge has any of the Kings management. He has been called the best player on the team, which is an entirely different thing. At present, without Martin playing, Salmons would probably be refered to as the best player on the team. I doubt anyone would refer to him as a franchise player.

Although it is clearly true that fans do not consider Kevin a Franchise player, I do seem to remember a whole big shindig after his re-signing in which the Maloofs either directly or indirectly referred to Kev as the Franchise player.

 

[bajaden]

Although it is clearly true that fans do not consider Kevin a Franchise player, I do seem to remember a whole big shindig after his re-signing in which the Maloofs either directly or indirectly referred to Kev as the Franchise player.

As I said, I don't personally remember anyone saying that. I've heard him referred to as the face of the franchise. In any event, I think the consensus of the majority is that he's not a franchise player.

 

[Amory]

Kinda off topic...

Remember when we were talking about throwing him into a package just to sweeten just about any deal? This is when he would score like 3 points a game.

Glad we didn't ever do that.

 

[Bricklayer]

This is another strangely timed thread seemingly inspired by somebody wanting to harp on an old grudge. Yes, Kevin is not a franchise player. That has already been decided for some time amongst most rational watchers. This thread would have been cutting edge and caught all sorts of heat a year or two ago. But today? Its like me starting a thread "Mikki Moore is not the answer at PF".

Now the more interesting question is is Kevin untouchable? A year ago I said yes -- that the team had invested too much in hyping him up and the fanbase was trying to wish him into golden child status. I suspect that is all still true, but as I menetioned a few weeks ago he has begun to suffer from the Pejaesque bloom is off the rose syndrome, hsi coach just got canned despite Kevin apparently being his biggest supporter, and we have a logjam of swingman types and apprently the abilty to acquire more. That still does not mean he gets traded, nor does it mean I think we should trade him uiless we get a superstar back -- every superstar needs a wingman, and we already have one, so it would stupid to give him up for nothing. But I do think its not as inconceivable as it was jsut a short time ago. Disappointment and disillusionment begins opening up all sorts of doors.

 

[Entity]

As of right now I would say that Salmons has the greater trade value. Mostly because of the contract.

 

[SacTownKid]

I don't disagree, there are very few real "franchise" players that lead anyone to the promised land. I will say I am sure the same things could have and were said about a certain team that put Sac on the map. Sure they didn't win but it was close enough to where a few bounces, and bad calls made all the difference in the world.

 

[Widowmaker2k]

This is another strangely timed thread seemingly inspired by somebody wanting to harp on an old grudge. Yes, Kevin is not a franchise player. That has already been decided for some time amongst most rational watchers. This thread would have been cutting edge and caught all sorts of heat a year or two ago. But today? Its like me starting a thread "Mikki Moore is not the answer at PF".

Now the more interesting question is is Kevin untouchable? A year ago I said yes -- that the team had invested too much in hyping him up and the fanbase was trying to wish him into golden child status. I suspect that is all still true, but as I menetioned a few weeks ago he has begun to suffer from the Pejaesque bloom is off the rose syndrome, hsi coach just got canned despite Kevin apparently being his biggest supporter, and we have a logjam of swingman types and apprently the abilty to acquire more. That still does not mean he gets traded, nor does it mean I think we should trade him uiless we get a superstar back -- every superstar needs a wingman, and we already have one, so it would stupid to give him up for nothing. But I do think its not as inconceivable as it was jsut a short time ago. Disappointment and disillusionment begins opening up all sorts of doors.

Bingo. It seems that some fans are ready to trade Kevin Martin because he's not Kobe Bryant...that's just silly. He was a steal where he was drafted, and he means a lot to this franchise and the vast majority of the fans. If somebody offers you a top 10 (youngish) player for Martin, then yes, you absolutely make that trade, but you do not actively try and ship him out. He is still, by far, the most untouchable player on the team. I don't think that we will trade Martin. To be honest, I think that it's little more than fan boy frustration.

I'm not so sure the Peja comparison is apt here. In my opinion, Peja's biggest downfall was his apparent apathy towards basketball in general. It seemed that it was just a job to him. Martin doesn't seem at all like that. By all accounts he's a very hard worker, who could still make improvements to his game. If we can somehow land a franchise guy through free agency, trade, or the draft, we'll be glad that we have a guy like Kevin around.

 

[ParniValjak]

Bingo. It seems that some fans are ready to trade Kevin Martin because he's not Kobe Bryant...that's just silly. He was a steal where he was drafted, and he means a lot to this franchise and the vast majority of the fans. If somebody offers you a top 10 (youngish) player for Martin, then yes, you absolutely make that trade, but you do not actively try and ship him out. He is still, by far, the most untouchable player on the team. I don't think that we will trade Martin. To be honest, I think that it's little more than fan boy frustration.

I'm not so sure the Peja comparison is apt here. In my opinion, Peja's biggest downfall was his apparent apathy towards basketball in general. It seemed that it was just a job to him. Martin doesn't seem at all like that. By all accounts he's a very hard worker, who could still make improvements to his game. If we can somehow land a franchise guy through free agency, trade, or the draft, we'll be glad that we have a guy like Kevin around.

No offence but no one makes it in the NBA unless they work hard on their game. So this notion of Peja being lazy or not hard working enough it just pure fabrication. If he were like that I can guarantee you that he wouldn't have had the sort of career in the NBA that he has had to date. Peja is a good player or was a very good player. A franchise player he never was, never will be and never had the potential to be one.

There is only a certain level that a player can reach and Peja probably reached somewhere close to his maximum level.

Martin is very similar in terms of ceiling. He is a VERY good wingman to a franchise player just like Peja was a great wingman to Webber. Peja couldn't do it without Webber and Martin can't do it without a superstar.

How or if we get one remains to be seen, but Martin is a very nice piece going forward. A very good scorer and nothing more. Is he untouchable?! NO! When you have a team like the Kings EVERYONE is tradable for the right price. You wouldn't trade him just for the sake of trading him but you would absolutly trade him for a better player. No hesitation!

 

[Jerryaki]

No offence but no one makes it in the NBA unless they work hard on their game. So this notion of Peja being lazy or not hard working enough it just pure fabrication.

true, but i don't think the notion that "peja doesn't really care about the game/hunger for the wins" is incorrect. there's a certain love of the game and competitive spirit that the higher level players have, that i don't think is in him. kevin at least has some of that, and i hope that that spirit can endure past this rebuilding period.

 

[Kingster]

He's not a franchise player in that we aren't paying him franchise money. He's a very good player, good enough to envision as the starting 2-guard on an NBA championship team. It's interesting that these conversations seem to occur when hasn't been playing for some time because of injury. Once Martin gets back and up to his typical performance level, this kind of post will miraculously dissapear...

 

[DesertFox]

You don't NEED franchise players. I really don't like that term at all.

I think a lot of this sort of talk has no real merit.

Billups, Hamilton, and Wallace were all flawed and far from franchise players. But they won a championship.

Those 3 players suddenly didn't become tough or elite superstars. They just were on a better team with good coaching, and their reputations benefited. Wallace didn't change, but his media perception went from head case to tough veteran. He still gets technicals. Hamilton was the same player he always had been. Billups is a good player but was miscast as an MVP candidate because he was on a good team.

Kevin Martin isn't one of the top 20 players in the league, but a team can still win if he is their best player.

 

[VF21]

It's amazing how we get a few of these threads every once in a while. And each and every time they simply restate the old, tired and erroneous assumption. No, Kevin Martin is not a franchise player... and if the OP actually read the threads around here, I think he'd realize no one here is claiming that he is. The OP might want to use that assumption as a basis for a thread, but it's no more valid today than it was the last 10 times it was brought up...

And water is still wet, unless of course it's frozen into ice or snow. Isn't water, as a matter of fact, the only substance that can actually be liquid, solid or gas without the use of a lot of fancy equipment to convert it from one form of matter to another?

 

[Jerryaki]

You don't NEED franchise players. I really don't like that term at all.

I think a lot of this sort of talk has no real merit.

Billups, Hamilton, and Wallace were all flawed and far from franchise players. But they won a championship.

well, since no one is pointing it out i might as well: you're talking about the lone team in the past 29 years to win a championship without a superstar. you're actually making a case for franchise players.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/ian_thomsen/12/19/weekly.countdown/index.html

 

[Amory]

well, since no one is pointing it out i might as well: you're talking about the lone team in the past 29 years to win a championship without a superstar. you're actually making a case for franchise players.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/ian_thomsen/12/19/weekly.countdown/index.html

Thanks for posting that. Nice read while bored at work!

 

[kupman]

well, since no one is pointing it out i might as well: you're talking about the lone team in the past 29 years to win a championship without a superstar. you're actually making a case for franchise players.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/ian_thomsen/12/19/weekly.countdown/index.html

I really do not know what the agreed upon definition of "superstar" is. But, I will say that Isiah does not fit my definition of super star - only "very good player/all-star." That would mean that 3 championships have been won in the past 29 years without a super star presence. Add to that, just before 1980, the Blazers, Sonics, and possibly the Bullets (don't know if Hayes would be a super star) all won rings without a "superstar."

I see the point though.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

I really do not know what the agreed upon definition of "superstar" is. But, I will say that Isiah does not fit my definition of super star - only "very good player/all-star." That would mean that 3 championships have been won in the past 29 years without a super star presence.

This is absolutely wrong. Isaiah Thomas was a superstar by any reasonable standard. Twelve-time All-Star, Finals MVP, and not only the unquestioned star player of one of the top teams in what was arguably the Golden Age of basketball, but one of the five or six most popular players from that era. Pretty much a household name in that era, and a proven clutch player.

Regarding the 1977 and 1978 championships... I can't take anybody who doesn't consider Elvin Hayes and Bill Walton to have been superstars seriously; Walton was an icon before he was even drafted...

 

[bajaden]

This is absolutely wrong. Isaiah Thomas was a superstar by any reasonable standard. Twelve-time All-Star, Finals MVP, and not only the unquestioned star player of one of the top teams in what was arguably the Golden Age of basketball, but one of the five or six most popular players from that era. Pretty much a household name in that era, and a proven clutch player.

Regarding the 1977 and 1978 championships... I can't take anybody who doesn't consider Elvin Hayes and Bill Walton to have been superstars seriously; Walton was an icon before he was even drafted...

Unfortunately, your showing your age. Unfortunately, because of my age I have to agree with you. As much as I hated Isaiah as a GM or a coach, I loved him as a player. Anyone that saw him play in his day and doesn't think he was a superstar, just doesn't know anything about basketball.

You can say what you want about Walton's mouth, but before he became hindered with injuries, he was one of the best passing and clutch players in the league. He was a terrific pressure player. I think the injuries that shortened his career are what removes him from the superstar status in some peoples minds.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

I hated the Pistons and Isaiah, heck I am pretty sure I even rooted for the Lakers against them. I'm thirding the "unquestionably a superstar".

I went to Bill Walton basketball camp after the Celts 86 title. The guy had stepped on a broken bottle at the beach and so he was even injured for basketball camp. But in the 70s he was awesome. One of the best college players ever.

 

[kupman]

Geesh, can't a guy express an opinion around here. If you want to call Isiah and Walton a superstar - fine. It all depends on where you draw the line in the sand. For me, I equate "superstars" with the likes of Jordon, Magic, Bird, Shaq, Wilt, Russell etc. I just don't think that Isiah and Walton are in the same category.