Jump to content

2014-2015 NBA thread


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 12.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

QUOTE (Jake @ Jul 31, 2014 -> 02:48 PM)
You want every team trying to be good. It's no fun to watch a league where half the teams are disappointed when they win

 

The 10 teams tanking this season were going to suck regardless. No one was going to watch them play even if they tried. The Pelicans "tried" and no one watched them and they have the next superstar on their roster.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (bmags @ Jul 31, 2014 -> 02:54 PM)
Also basketball is just different with one player being so important to future of the franchise.

 

And that's part of the problem too. There are too many teams out there with not enough talent. Cut 10 teams from the league and the "superstar" player becomes less important. Teams that are good all around could still contend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are small market teams that are managed well that do contend with deep teams. If you have good management, you can contend in the NBA. If you have bad management, all the draft picks in the world won't save you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 31, 2014 -> 08:54 PM)
Because it's not really a reward for being bad purposefully, it's a reward for being bad period.

 

But it includes teams who are bad purposefully.

 

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 31, 2014 -> 08:54 PM)
No 50 win team is tanking the next season to get another playoff piece. The teams that tank are teams that aren't going to be very good anyway. Philly tanking next year is a smart move on their part because there's no way they're making the playoffs.

 

Yeah, it's a smart move because they're going to be rewarded with a high draft pick. If that reward wasn't there, they wouldn't be doing it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (bmags @ Jul 31, 2014 -> 03:03 PM)
There are small market teams that are managed well that do contend with deep teams. If you have good management, you can contend in the NBA. If you have bad management, all the draft picks in the world won't save you.

 

They "manage" well by backing into hall of fame/superstar caliber players though. It's not like they're making shrewd moves to compete. And they rarely win, win. The Pacers are a well run organization but they needed Reggie to get to Finals, and they needed Paul George and no Derrick Rose for 2 years to get to the ECF the last two years.

Edited by Jenksismybitch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (bmags @ Jul 31, 2014 -> 03:17 PM)
Pacers, Nuggets, Phoenix, Memphis and Portland all have good management and built those teams largely with only 1 top 5 pick and then finding gold in 8-15.

 

But none have been in the Finals in the last 10 years. Tanking would have been a better management move.

 

I see the tanking as a good move from management's perspective. They're trying to get to a point where they can contend for a championship. And the only way you do that is getting a couple of all-star, super-star quality players. It's incredibly difficult to sign those guys, so you have to draft them. It makes no sense to waste money on a bad team with one all-star player. It's not getting you anywhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (bmags @ Jul 31, 2014 -> 03:44 PM)
Okay, and how many of the teams in the finals the past decade have tanked? It's not as good of a strategy as you believe.

 

It's not, and it's not a problem that needs to be rectified either. I think this is all overblown nonsense personally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (chw42 @ Jul 31, 2014 -> 03:45 PM)
Looks like Rose is going to make it on the USA FIBA World Cup team.

 

scs is impressed. Hard not to be unless you think it's merely based on the fact that Thibs is on the coaching staff. If they're really trying to win that'd mean he's outplayed 1 or 2 of Wall/Lillard/Irving.

 

Really excited to watch the showcase game tomorrow. Teams aren't going to go 100% but never the less it's gonna be fun to watch Pooh match up against Irving/Lillard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (bmags @ Jul 31, 2014 -> 03:17 PM)
Pacers, Nuggets, Phoenix, Memphis and Portland all have good management and built those teams largely with only 1 top 5 pick and then finding gold in 8-15.

 

Kind of silly to leave out the Spurs. Sure, they tanked bad for Duncan and Robinson was still around for their first title team, but they've masterfully added players over the years to stay relevant.

 

As you said, tanking is far from a magic bullet. You're far more likely to end up with something like Charlotte's picks than OKC's. Ending up a pick too late happens constantly, like when they got MKG instead of Davis. Even if you do hit, there are plenty of one-star situations that didn't work.

 

That said, there really isn't a sure-fire approach other than signing/trading for a proven stud. You might as well if you're going to win 30 games anyways. It's not like watching the Bucks was any better.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is that many teams don't conduct themselves like tanking is a bad bet. Finally Charlotte decided it was far better to just get in the playoffs and be watchable than it is to perennially be among the worst 3-5 teams in the league. Not everyone can win the Finals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (bmags @ Jul 31, 2014 -> 04:17 PM)
Pacers, Nuggets, Phoenix, Memphis and Portland all have good management and built those teams largely with only 1 top 5 pick and then finding gold in 8-15.

Chicago did the same thing. Rose aside...

 

Noah #9

Taj - #26

Butler - #30

Snell - #20

Mirotic - #23

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Jake @ Jul 31, 2014 -> 11:24 PM)
The problem is that many teams don't conduct themselves like tanking is a bad bet. Finally Charlotte decided it was far better to just get in the playoffs and be watchable than it is to perennially be among the worst 3-5 teams in the league. Not everyone can win the Finals.

Tanking and just being terrible aren't always the same thing. Charlotte didn't really "tank" until they traded Wallace and Jackson a few years ago and finished with 7 wins during the lockout year. They've actually won 30 games for most of their existence (remember that they were an expansion team).

 

For all the tanking talk, the Bucks were the worst team in the league. They went out and signed a bunch of guys because their owner didn't want to throw away a season. Sometimes teams just make awful decisions and the results aren't good.

Edited by ZoomSlowik
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Aug 1, 2014 -> 09:04 AM)
So JR came out with a statement stating Joe Cowley Guillen-Rose is spreading lies again.

 

Rose acknowledged the rift though, unless Cowley is totally misquoting him.

 

“I know it’s been there,’’ Rose told the Sun-Times in reference to the tension. “I heard there were some upset people.

“I’m happy I didn’t personally see it. I don’t want to see that. I kind of wonder where it was coming from because it seemed like whenever I was around, everything was all right. It bothered me because when I wasn’t around, I would hear from certain people that everything wasn’t all right.’’

Edited by Jenksismybitch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (ZoomSlowik @ Aug 1, 2014 -> 02:59 AM)
Kind of silly to leave out the Spurs. Sure, they tanked bad for Duncan and Robinson was still around for their first title team, but they've masterfully added players over the years to stay relevant.

 

As you said, tanking is far from a magic bullet. You're far more likely to end up with something like Charlotte's picks than OKC's. Ending up a pick too late happens constantly, like when they got MKG instead of Davis. Even if you do hit, there are plenty of one-star situations that didn't work.

 

That said, there really isn't a sure-fire approach other than signing/trading for a proven stud. You might as well if you're going to win 30 games anyways. It's not like watching the Bucks was any better.

 

I left them out because theirs was the one example of strategic tanking that worked. But even so, they built that roster in the later rounds.

 

I think I just want to see competent organizations rewarded more often. I've said it before, but I'm very, very pissed off that Cleveland could be managed so horrendously and fall ass backwards into a championship contending team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Bulls are probably pissed that Rose is referencing "hearing things" but never personally experiencing it, and Cowley alluding to a lot without any actual evidence that the FO was pouting about Rose's involvement.

 

Honestly, I'd believe him, but I've read like 4 different versions of events on Rose's role in Anthony's recruiting. All have been pretty different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...