Build a championship team with Booker as the best player contest.

[Flagrant Fowl]

Jalen Suggs
Devin Booker
LeBron James
Naz Reid
Dereck Lively

I think taking LeBron would still require some kind of penalty, otherwise I'd go for someone like Murphy or Hart before Reid.

[Mori Chu]

But that's what I don't like about the exercise. Book could be part of a championship team without being the "best" player (which is subjective already).

The implication seems to be, it's impossible to build a championship team with Book as its #1 option, therefore we should trade Booker. But I don't agree with either part. It's plenty possible to build a contender with Book as your #1 or #1A, as we've already done. And you don't need to trade a guy just because he's making the max and is an imperfect player.

[Split T]

But that's what I don't like about the exercise. Book could be part of a championship team without being the "best" player (which is subjective already).

The implication seems to be, it's impossible to build a championship team with Book as its #1 option, therefore we should trade Booker. But I don't agree with either part. It's plenty possible to build a contender with Book as your #1 or #1A, as we've already done. And you don't need to trade a guy just because he's making the max and is an imperfect player.

Some people on here do believe that, but I was not implying that when I created the exercise.

[Split T]

Since putting together such a team would be difficult, and with our roster/cap situation probably impossible, that is exactly why we need to trade him.

We already built one championship contending team around Booker. And we arguably almost built a second, making a star-studded team that many expected to contend, except that we made bad trades (gave up too many players/picks for KD; didn't get enough return when trading Ayton; should not have ever acquired Beal). If those moves had been better, stocking the team with a better talent mix, we might be on another champ contending title run with another team built around Booker. How hard exactly can it be to build around this guy when we've already shown it can be done twice?

Even our currently dire situation can be pretty fully repaired with one big move (KD for youngs and picks) and put us on the path to build another contender. 2 years for Beal to come off the books, a big FA signing, start making a run around 2027-28.

This is about Booker being the best player on the team and building around him. He wasn't the best player on the 2020-21 team. Paul was (Paul finished 5th in the MVP vote, Booker didn't receive any votes) and by the time Booker passed Paul they weren't a contender anymore. And the Durant/Booker/Beal team isn't a contender and Booker's not the best player on the team. So no, we haven't seen Booker as the best player on a championship contender yet, and we probably won't.

I disagree, Booker was at worst in a 1a/1b situation with CP3. Booker would’ve won finals mvp if we won that series..and Booker was clearly better the next year when we set the franchise win record and had an even better team.

[Superbone]

But that's what I don't like about the exercise. Book could be part of a championship team without being the "best" player (which is subjective already).

This is true. But what's the last NBA champion without a superstar? Detroit in 2004? Before that? Seattle in 1979?

Who said we can't pair a superstar with him?

[Superbone]

But that's what I don't like about the exercise. Book could be part of a championship team without being the "best" player (which is subjective already).

The implication seems to be, it's impossible to build a championship team with Book as its #1 option, therefore we should trade Booker. But I don't agree with either part. It's plenty possible to build a contender with Book as your #1 or #1A, as we've already done. And you don't need to trade a guy just because he's making the max and is an imperfect player.

Exactly.

[The Bobster]

But that's what I don't like about the exercise. Book could be part of a championship team without being the "best" player (which is subjective already).

This is true. But what's the last NBA champion without a superstar? Detroit in 2004? Before that? Seattle in 1979?

Who said we can't pair a superstar with him?

The whole point of this thread was building a championship team with him as the best player though. If you have to bring in a player like Durant, that's counter to having Booker as the best player.

[LazarusLong]

I was thinking the same thing about the 2004 Pistons and the late '70s Sonics.

[Wally_West]

You want to build a championship team around Booker?? Then go and bring back DA. You’re welcome.

[Superbone]

You want to build a championship team around Booker?? Then go and bring back DA. You’re welcome.

Is that you, Jeremy?

[Wally_West]

You want to build a championship team around Booker?? Then go and bring back DA. You’re welcome.

Is that you, Jeremy?

DA > Book

[Mori Chu]

The whole point of this thread was building a championship team with him as the best player though. If you have to bring in a player like Durant, that's counter to having Booker as the best player.

I know KD is our all-star this year, and I know we struggled mightily when Book played but KD was out. But I still think Booker is our best overall player. He's certainly more valuable in terms of a "what could you get if you tried to trade this guy" standpoint, and I think he's got a larger overall positive impact on the team than KD. Others might disagree.

And in terms of this thread and its supposed exercise, if I'm supposed to build a contending team around Booker but I can't bring in a guy like KD next to him, I don't even know what we are talking about. "Build me a contender around Book, but don't bring in good teammates for him." Okay, and then what, drop and give you 20 pushups? I just feel like some people are trying to move goalposts until they can make their point and declare victory.

[Split T]

Nobody is saying you can’t bring good teammates in…just not one better than Booker. If you think Booker is better than KD then you can bring in KD. I put AD on mine and I think a lot of people would say AD is better than Booker. There’s room for debate…point was what does a championship team look like with Booker at the lead. That’s all.

[The Bobster]

The whole point of this thread was building a championship team with him as the best player though. If you have to bring in a player like Durant, that's counter to having Booker as the best player.

I know KD is our all-star this year, and I know we struggled mightily when Book played but KD was out. But I still think Booker is our best overall player. He's certainly more valuable in terms of a "what could you get if you tried to trade this guy" standpoint, and I think he's got a larger overall positive impact on the team than KD. Others might disagree.

And in terms of this thread and its supposed exercise, if I'm supposed to build a contending team around Booker but I can't bring in a guy like KD next to him, I don't even know what we are talking about. "Build me a contender around Book, but don't bring in good teammates for him." Okay, and then what, drop and give you 20 pushups? I just feel like some people are trying to move goalposts until they can make their point and declare victory.

Well, the thread title states it pretty simply - "Build a championship team with Booker as the best player" - some people think posting a good lineup built around Booker is filling the requirements, but the lineups they're posting don't look like teams capable of winning a title. I think you have to exclude anyone who's a perennial All-Star (including Anthony Davis, who's going for his 10th time) or All-NBA player.

I think you can build a playoff team, but not a championship contender.

[The Bobster]

Jalen Suggs
Devin Booker
LeBron James
Naz Reid
Dereck Lively

I think taking LeBron would still require some kind of penalty, otherwise I'd go for someone like Murphy or Hart before Reid.

40-year-old LeBron is still better than Booker. The only advantage Booker has is scoring average. LeBron is better at pretty much everything else and his scoring is more efficient than Booker's.

[ShelC]

It's hard to compare players at vastly different positions like SG and PF/C. It's more how they play and have they proven they can carry a team and win in the playoffs. I keep going back to Gasol with Kobe because he was the perfect complimentary big who affected the game on both ends but was clearly Robin to Kobe's Batman and wasn't able to carry the Grizzlies when he was the lead there. I think AD falls into that category. Chet probably does too. So in those instances, Book is probably the 1A and AD/Chet would be 1B. You're likely playing thru Book and he's dictating things as opposed to AD or Chet. And you can add JJJ and KAT to that as well. If you throw Jokic on the roster, he's clearly the 1A and the guy you're playing thru.

[The Bobster]

It's hard to compare players at vastly different positions like SG and PF/C. It's more how they play and have they proven they can carry a team and win in the playoffs. I keep going back to Gasol with Kobe because he was the perfect complimentary big who affected the game on both ends but was clearly Robin to Kobe's Batman and wasn't able to carry the Grizzlies when he was the lead there. I think AD falls into that category. Chet probably does too. So in those instances, Book is probably the 1A and AD/Chet would be 1B. You're likely playing thru Book and he's dictating things as opposed to AD or Chet. And you can add JJJ and KAT to that as well. If you throw Jokic on the roster, he's clearly the 1A and the guy you're playing thru.

You're looking at it from just the scoring perspective though Davis is a great defender and rebounder in addition to giving you 26 points a game. Also, you're comparing two first-ballot Hall of Fame players to Booker. You can add a Jaren Jackson Jr. or Karl-Anthony Towns to Booker and they simply aren't as good as Bryant/Gasol.

[Superbone]

Nobody is saying you can’t bring good teammates in…just not one better than Booker. If you think Booker is better than KD then you can bring in KD. I put AD on mine and I think a lot of people would say AD is better than Booker. There’s room for debate…point was what does a championship team look like with Booker at the lead. That’s all.

I think Adrian Dantley is a little long in the tooth at this stage.

[ShelC]

It's hard to compare players at vastly different positions like SG and PF/C. It's more how they play and have they proven they can carry a team and win in the playoffs. I keep going back to Gasol with Kobe because he was the perfect complimentary big who affected the game on both ends but was clearly Robin to Kobe's Batman and wasn't able to carry the Grizzlies when he was the lead there. I think AD falls into that category. Chet probably does too. So in those instances, Book is probably the 1A and AD/Chet would be 1B. You're likely playing thru Book and he's dictating things as opposed to AD or Chet. And you can add JJJ and KAT to that as well. If you throw Jokic on the roster, he's clearly the 1A and the guy you're playing thru.

You're looking at it from just the scoring perspective though Davis is a great defender and rebounder in addition to giving you 26 points a game. Also, you're comparing two first-ballot Hall of Fame players to Booker. You can add a Jaren Jackson Jr. or Karl-Anthony Towns to Booker and they simply aren't as good as Bryant/Gasol.

I was more talking about bigs who would be complimentary to Book. AD I think would still be the 1B but would be the kind of big you could win with. JJJ and KAT with Book wouldn't be as good as Kobe/Gasol, it's more the structure of the team I think we need.

[Wally_West]

Book
Mikal
CamJ
Camara
Ayton.

That would’ve been a dynasty smh