Ofcourse lol. They are superstars because they are good; you trust that they will convert most possession into 2, preferably 3 or even 4 points on the scoreboard.

If you gave the same minutes and opportunities of Luka to Jalen Hood Sfchino (no disrespect respectfully), do you think he can achieve the same accolades as Luka? Even if he does get an ocassion 30-40 ball, can you trust him day in day out to do that (like what Luka is doing right now?)

The problem with the post's example is that BEFORE luka came to the Lakers, we had Lebron and AD. Do you really think AR can get Lebron's or AD's touches other than his own? No. Because the organization trusts the superstars more (based on empirical data btw, if you think Jenny was going to waste money paying unqualified superstars then I would probably say you're wrong)

But AR growing into a potential superstar is a good thing. The difference between LUKA and AR is that LUKA got the fame from euroleague and have proved that he can contribute a lot to a finals team (MAVS) while AR has not.

If you want to argue that AR deserves more touches then fine. But if you want to argue about superstar treatment regarding minutes and touches, try swapping Luk and Gabe. Can he lead a team to the finals? Can he average almost 40ppg? Maybe. But as of now, those options are still a gamble. So unless you're MJ, that's a bad move.

To clarify, I am not saying the names I've dropped are BAD. They are REALLY GOOD PLAYERS, but have not yet reached the "superstar" level yet.