CelticsStrong
Around the League => Around the NBA => Topic started by: tazzmaniac on February 21, 2018, 06:32:43 PM
-
I thought Cuban would get fined but 600K. WOW!!
I have no problem with teams tanking but to have a dinner with your players and tell them that losing is the best option is a bridge too far. It is funny to see him try to justify his tanking when he was so critical of the Sixers tanking.
http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/22532215/mark-cuban-dallas-mavericks-owner-fined-600000-tanking-comments
-
Hypocritical until they fine when 76ers for “trust the process.”
What is the process? Someone tell me. If it involves tanking for a few years. Fine the 76ers and take their next few years draft picks
-
Hypocritical until they fine when 76ers for “trust the process.”
What is the process? Someone tell me. If it involves tanking for a few years. Fine the 76ers and take their next few years draft picks
Hinkie didn't talk about tanking and he didn't tell his players that losing was the best option.
-
$600k is a tax write off. They should drop Dallas down to the last pick in the lottery.
-
What he said was true. If the NBA and the other owners don't like it, they could go ahead and change the rules. Even the changes going into effect next year don't change the fact that a team in Dallas's position would be better off losing every single game.
-
What he said was true. If the NBA and the other owners don't like it, they could go ahead and change the rules. Even the changes going into effect next year don't change the fact that a team in Dallas's position would be better off losing every single game.
Yeah. I understand the fine but it's a shame someone gets fined, not just for telling the truth but for telling a truth that everybody is already fully aware of.
-
What he said was true. If the NBA and the other owners don't like it, they could go ahead and change the rules. Even the changes going into effect next year don't change the fact that a team in Dallas's position would be better off losing every single game.
Yeah. I understand the fine but it's a shame someone gets fined, not just for telling the truth but for telling a truth that everybody is already fully aware of.
Agreed. Relatedly, Cuban has been a great addition to Shark Tank.
-
This is nothing compared to what the fallout might be from the sexual harassment accusations against the Mavs front office, brought to light in a recent SI article.
-
I would imagine Cuban was warned after he opening talked about tanking last year after the Mavs were eliminated.
-
This is nothing compared to what the fallout might be from the sexual harassment accusations against the Mavs front office, brought to light in a recent SI article.
He should be ousted for this. Now we may know why he was so against Sterling getting ousted.
-
What he said was true. If the NBA and the other owners don't like it, they could go ahead and change the rules. Even the changes going into effect next year don't change the fact that a team in Dallas's position would be better off losing every single game.
I agree every semi informed NBA fan understands the value in tanking when your team isn't even a playoff contender let alone a championship contender. Fining an owner for stating the obvious is ridiculous. Its on the same level as the NBA trying to control tampering. Its all happening the NBA offices just don't want to hear about it.
This is in no way a long thought out plan but along with more drastic lottery reform the league should consider some type of revenue sharing system tied to a teams wins. Maybe take a percentage of revenue sharing away from any franchise with a sub .320 winning percentage? Or perhaps make it a lose of a percentage of revenue sharing for any team with consecutive sub .320% seasons.
The owners will never agree to it but it would use economics to fight the tank epidemic.
-
$600k is a tax write off. They should drop Dallas down to the last pick in the lottery.
Who exactly is hurt by Cuban openly stating this?
Who is going to Mavs games in March thinking the team is trying to win, or even entertain?
It is within the league's power to change the incentives if they want teams to focus on winning in the second half of seasons in which they have no hope of making the playoffs.
-
Tanking is borderline point shaving. I'm surprised wise guys haven't hit up the players that play for such teams and have no problem openly sucking.
-
This fine is a mockery. Its following the letter of the law perhaps, but not the spirit.
The Hawks, Suns, Kings, Magic, Grizzles, Bulls, and Knicks are currently in tank mode. There may not have been any official memos, but starting g-league players and holding out legit NBA players with fake injuries may as well be a memo.
The Sixers did far more to damage the competitiveness of the NBA than the Mavs. The Mavs have tried to do things the right way. They try to sign upside players (Barnes, Jordan, Matthews), they develop rotational talent in house (Barea, Curry, Kleiber, Powell, etc.), and they tried to win games. Where did it get them?
They've been a middle-of-the-pack playoff team in the West without a real shot at the championship for the last 7 years.
Meanwhile, in the same time, the Sixers had solid starting talent (Holliday, Iggy, Vucevic, Williams, and Young) and were also a middle-of-the-pack playoff team -- with their youth, they were on the rise. After the 2011-2012 season, they had 5 straight losing seasons, largely as part of the process.
Its the height of hypocrisy to follow the letter of the law with the Mavs while promoting the Sixers as one of the most exciting products in the NBA.
Still, if Cuban had to pay 600k to get a top 5 draft pick this year, I'm sure he would. If they pick right, it could set the franchise up for the next two decades.
-
What he said was true. If the NBA and the other owners don't like it, they could go ahead and change the rules. Even the changes going into effect next year don't change the fact that a team in Dallas's position would be better off losing every single game.
Yeah. I understand the fine but it's a shame someone gets fined, not just for telling the truth but for telling a truth that everybody is already fully aware of.
Agreed. Who cares. It's evident when a team tanks. The only difference is they are not open about it. Cuban spoke honestly and it was the truth. You would think that he knows better by know what he can and can't say but I don't think he really cares at this point. Teams tank to get top picks. Realistically there are 1-2 possibly 3 franchise type players in each draft depending on the draft. A lot of drafts don't have any franchise types but the statistics go up when you can secure a top 5 pick. Of course there will always be players in each draft that defy the logic but getting a top 5 pick helps a team in their rebuild.
-
Soo you can tank, you just can’t talk about tanking??? Lol
-
Hypocritical until they fine when 76ers for “trust the process.”
What is the process? Someone tell me. If it involves tanking for a few years. Fine the 76ers and take their next few years draft picks
Hinkie didn't talk about tanking and he didn't tell his players that losing was the best option.
What? That’s all he talked about...
Maybe we’re talking about different Hinkies? I’m talking about the old 76ers GM, the one that was open about having a 7 year rebuild plan that included getting as many future picks as possible, trading away most of their veteran players, and not trying hard to win current games. Which one are you talking about?
-
Cuban should have been smarter than that. What really p---es me off is that he can be that callous and just throw away 600k like it was nothing. And what does the NBA do with this fine money?
-
This fine is a mockery. Its following the letter of the law perhaps, but not the spirit.
The Hawks, Suns, Kings, Magic, Grizzles, Bulls, and Knicks are currently in tank mode. There may not have been any official memos, but starting g-league players and holding out legit NBA players with fake injuries may as well be a memo.
The Sixers did far more to damage the competitiveness of the NBA than the Mavs. The Mavs have tried to do things the right way. They try to sign upside players (Barnes, Jordan, Matthews), they develop rotational talent in house (Barea, Curry, Kleiber, Powell, etc.), and they tried to win games. Where did it get them?
They've been a middle-of-the-pack playoff team in the West without a real shot at the championship for the last 7 years.
Meanwhile, in the same time, the Sixers had solid starting talent (Holliday, Iggy, Vucevic, Williams, and Young) and were also a middle-of-the-pack playoff team -- with their youth, they were on the rise. After the 2011-2012 season, they had 5 straight losing seasons, largely as part of the process.
Its the height of hypocrisy to follow the letter of the law with the Mavs while promoting the Sixers as one of the most exciting products in the NBA.
Still, if Cuban had to pay 600k to get a top 5 draft pick this year, I'm sure he would. If they pick right, it could set the franchise up for the next two decades.
Iggy and Vucevic were traded in the Bynum deal though. You can't put that trade in anywhere the same category as the other trades. In fact, it was that failed attempt to land a game changing star, that forced Philly into its terrible situation, since they not only traded Iggy and Vucevic, but also Harkless and a future 1st (which btw became #5 pick De'Aaron Fox). Philly went all in in trying to acquire a star, and it destroyed their team. They were left in a terrible situation when Hinkie took over, which is why they made the moves they did.
The 15/16 Mavericks had the following people start at least 30 games that the team let go after the off season - Chandler Parsons, Raymond Felton, Zaza Pachulia. They also let key rotation players David Lee and Charlie Villanueva leave. Let's not pretend they were trying to win. They did bring in Barnes, but Barnes isn't going to carry a team under basically any circumstances. They brought back Deron Williams only to waive him at the deadline. They did acquire Noel (for Anderson, Bogut, and a couple of 2nd's), and that didn't work, but even if it had was Noel going to make them a winner. After all, Noel anchored those terrible Sixers teams. The Mavs did absolutely nothing this past summer except eat the contract of Josh McRoberts (a pure tanking move). The Mavs have been full on tanking for 1.5 seasons and unlike the Sixers have absolutely nothing to show for it (I mean Fox wasn't even from their own pick). The Sixers did it for 3 seasons. In the past teams like the Sonics/Thunder blatantly tanked for 2.5 seasons. I just don't get the hate for the Sixers, when everyone in the league has been tanking for the dawn of time.
-
Soo you can tank, you just can’t talk about tanking??? Lol
First rule of Tank Club: Don't talk about Tank Club.
Second rule of Tank Club: Don't talk about Tank Club.
-
This fine is a mockery. Its following the letter of the law perhaps, but not the spirit.
The Hawks, Suns, Kings, Magic, Grizzles, Bulls, and Knicks are currently in tank mode. There may not have been any official memos, but starting g-league players and holding out legit NBA players with fake injuries may as well be a memo.
The Sixers did far more to damage the competitiveness of the NBA than the Mavs. The Mavs have tried to do things the right way. They try to sign upside players (Barnes, Jordan, Matthews), they develop rotational talent in house (Barea, Curry, Kleiber, Powell, etc.), and they tried to win games. Where did it get them?
They've been a middle-of-the-pack playoff team in the West without a real shot at the championship for the last 7 years.
Meanwhile, in the same time, the Sixers had solid starting talent (Holliday, Iggy, Vucevic, Williams, and Young) and were also a middle-of-the-pack playoff team -- with their youth, they were on the rise. After the 2011-2012 season, they had 5 straight losing seasons, largely as part of the process.
Its the height of hypocrisy to follow the letter of the law with the Mavs while promoting the Sixers as one of the most exciting products in the NBA.
Still, if Cuban had to pay 600k to get a top 5 draft pick this year, I'm sure he would. If they pick right, it could set the franchise up for the next two decades.
Iggy and Vucevic were traded in the Bynum deal though. You can't put that trade in anywhere the same category as the other trades. In fact, it was that failed attempt to land a game changing star, that forced Philly into its terrible situation, since they not only traded Iggy and Vucevic, but also Harkless and a future 1st (which btw became #5 pick De'Aaron Fox). Philly went all in in trying to acquire a star, and it destroyed their team. They were left in a terrible situation when Hinkie took over, which is why they made the moves they did.
The 15/16 Mavericks had the following people start at least 30 games that the team let go after the off season - Chandler Parsons, Raymond Felton, Zaza Pachulia. They also let key rotation players David Lee and Charlie Villanueva leave. Let's not pretend they were trying to win. They did bring in Barnes, but Barnes isn't going to carry a team under basically any circumstances. They brought back Deron Williams only to waive him at the deadline. They did acquire Noel (for Anderson, Bogut, and a couple of 2nd's), and that didn't work, but even if it had was Noel going to make them a winner. After all, Noel anchored those terrible Sixers teams. The Mavs did absolutely nothing this past summer except eat the contract of Josh McRoberts (a pure tanking move). The Mavs have been full on tanking for 1.5 seasons and unlike the Sixers have absolutely nothing to show for it (I mean Fox wasn't even from their own pick). The Sixers did it for 3 seasons. In the past teams like the Sonics/Thunder blatantly tanked for 2.5 seasons. I just don't get the hate for the Sixers, when everyone in the league has been tanking for the dawn of time.
Meh. I get your point about the early Sixers trade, but that was a homerun or strikeout type of move. They struck out, which sent them into tank mode.
As far as the Mavs go, the moves they have made (before this season) have been about trying to win, not trying to tank. Barnes, Noel, Matthews, Williams, Barea, were all solid moves. Moving on from Villanueva (left the league), Felton (struggled to find a new team), and Parsons (who didn't play enough to warrant his contract) were smart moves made in an attempt to win more games, not lose more games.
If the Mavs tanked last year, they wouldn't have had the 9th pick. They were a middle-of-the-pack team because they tried to win and failed.
This year they have been tanking. I would say they do have something to show for their rebuild in Smith. They, you know, actually drafted a player they could build around, instead of drafting and USING young players like the Sixers did.
-
Soo you can tank, you just can’t talk about tanking??? Lol
First rule of Tank Club: Don't talk about Tank Club.
Second rule of Tank Club: Don't talk about Tank Club.
TP!
-
This fine is a mockery. Its following the letter of the law perhaps, but not the spirit.
The Hawks, Suns, Kings, Magic, Grizzles, Bulls, and Knicks are currently in tank mode. There may not have been any official memos, but starting g-league players and holding out legit NBA players with fake injuries may as well be a memo.
The Sixers did far more to damage the competitiveness of the NBA than the Mavs. The Mavs have tried to do things the right way. They try to sign upside players (Barnes, Jordan, Matthews), they develop rotational talent in house (Barea, Curry, Kleiber, Powell, etc.), and they tried to win games. Where did it get them?
They've been a middle-of-the-pack playoff team in the West without a real shot at the championship for the last 7 years.
Meanwhile, in the same time, the Sixers had solid starting talent (Holliday, Iggy, Vucevic, Williams, and Young) and were also a middle-of-the-pack playoff team -- with their youth, they were on the rise. After the 2011-2012 season, they had 5 straight losing seasons, largely as part of the process.
Its the height of hypocrisy to follow the letter of the law with the Mavs while promoting the Sixers as one of the most exciting products in the NBA.
Still, if Cuban had to pay 600k to get a top 5 draft pick this year, I'm sure he would. If they pick right, it could set the franchise up for the next two decades.
Iggy and Vucevic were traded in the Bynum deal though. You can't put that trade in anywhere the same category as the other trades. In fact, it was that failed attempt to land a game changing star, that forced Philly into its terrible situation, since they not only traded Iggy and Vucevic, but also Harkless and a future 1st (which btw became #5 pick De'Aaron Fox). Philly went all in in trying to acquire a star, and it destroyed their team. They were left in a terrible situation when Hinkie took over, which is why they made the moves they did.
The 15/16 Mavericks had the following people start at least 30 games that the team let go after the off season - Chandler Parsons, Raymond Felton, Zaza Pachulia. They also let key rotation players David Lee and Charlie Villanueva leave. Let's not pretend they were trying to win. They did bring in Barnes, but Barnes isn't going to carry a team under basically any circumstances. They brought back Deron Williams only to waive him at the deadline. They did acquire Noel (for Anderson, Bogut, and a couple of 2nd's), and that didn't work, but even if it had was Noel going to make them a winner. After all, Noel anchored those terrible Sixers teams. The Mavs did absolutely nothing this past summer except eat the contract of Josh McRoberts (a pure tanking move). The Mavs have been full on tanking for 1.5 seasons and unlike the Sixers have absolutely nothing to show for it (I mean Fox wasn't even from their own pick). The Sixers did it for 3 seasons. In the past teams like the Sonics/Thunder blatantly tanked for 2.5 seasons. I just don't get the hate for the Sixers, when everyone in the league has been tanking for the dawn of time.
Meh. I get your point about the early Sixers trade, but that was a homerun or strikeout type of move. They struck out, which sent them into tank mode.
As far as the Mavs go, the moves they have made (before this season) have been about trying to win, not trying to tank. Barnes, Noel, Matthews, Williams, Barea, were all solid moves. Moving on from Villanueva (left the league), Felton (struggled to find a new team), and Parsons (who didn't play enough to warrant his contract) were smart moves made in an attempt to win more games, not lose more games.
If the Mavs tanked last year, they wouldn't have had the 9th pick. They were a middle-of-the-pack team because they tried to win and failed.
This year they have been tanking. I would say they do have something to show for their rebuild in Smith. They, you know, actually drafted a player they could build around, instead of drafting and USING young players like the Sixers did.
Cuban openly admitted last year the Mavs were tanking, they just didn't start until they were a bad team after the year had started. That is why they did things like waive Deron Williams so that Yogi Ferrell could get a ton of minutes. It is why this summer they did absolutely nothing in free agency. And when the Mavs strike out again in free agency, I totally expect them to tank again.
-
pocket change
fine him making him pick LAST in draft
or
25 million .......get his attention.
-
Soo you can tank, you just can’t talk about tanking??? Lol
Just the same as with sexual harassment. As long as everybody keeps their mouth shut there's no problem :-X .
-
This fine is a mockery. Its following the letter of the law perhaps, but not the spirit.
The Hawks, Suns, Kings, Magic, Grizzles, Bulls, and Knicks are currently in tank mode. There may not have been any official memos, but starting g-league players and holding out legit NBA players with fake injuries may as well be a memo.
The Sixers did far more to damage the competitiveness of the NBA than the Mavs. The Mavs have tried to do things the right way. They try to sign upside players (Barnes, Jordan, Matthews), they develop rotational talent in house (Barea, Curry, Kleiber, Powell, etc.), and they tried to win games. Where did it get them?
They've been a middle-of-the-pack playoff team in the West without a real shot at the championship for the last 7 years.
Meanwhile, in the same time, the Sixers had solid starting talent (Holliday, Iggy, Vucevic, Williams, and Young) and were also a middle-of-the-pack playoff team -- with their youth, they were on the rise. After the 2011-2012 season, they had 5 straight losing seasons, largely as part of the process.
Its the height of hypocrisy to follow the letter of the law with the Mavs while promoting the Sixers as one of the most exciting products in the NBA.
Still, if Cuban had to pay 600k to get a top 5 draft pick this year, I'm sure he would. If they pick right, it could set the franchise up for the next two decades.
Iggy and Vucevic were traded in the Bynum deal though. You can't put that trade in anywhere the same category as the other trades. In fact, it was that failed attempt to land a game changing star, that forced Philly into its terrible situation, since they not only traded Iggy and Vucevic, but also Harkless and a future 1st (which btw became #5 pick De'Aaron Fox). Philly went all in in trying to acquire a star, and it destroyed their team. They were left in a terrible situation when Hinkie took over, which is why they made the moves they did.
The 15/16 Mavericks had the following people start at least 30 games that the team let go after the off season - Chandler Parsons, Raymond Felton, Zaza Pachulia. They also let key rotation players David Lee and Charlie Villanueva leave. Let's not pretend they were trying to win. They did bring in Barnes, but Barnes isn't going to carry a team under basically any circumstances. They brought back Deron Williams only to waive him at the deadline. They did acquire Noel (for Anderson, Bogut, and a couple of 2nd's), and that didn't work, but even if it had was Noel going to make them a winner. After all, Noel anchored those terrible Sixers teams. The Mavs did absolutely nothing this past summer except eat the contract of Josh McRoberts (a pure tanking move). The Mavs have been full on tanking for 1.5 seasons and unlike the Sixers have absolutely nothing to show for it (I mean Fox wasn't even from their own pick). The Sixers did it for 3 seasons. In the past teams like the Sonics/Thunder blatantly tanked for 2.5 seasons. I just don't get the hate for the Sixers, when everyone in the league has been tanking for the dawn of time.
Meh. I get your point about the early Sixers trade, but that was a homerun or strikeout type of move. They struck out, which sent them into tank mode.
As far as the Mavs go, the moves they have made (before this season) have been about trying to win, not trying to tank. Barnes, Noel, Matthews, Williams, Barea, were all solid moves. Moving on from Villanueva (left the league), Felton (struggled to find a new team), and Parsons (who didn't play enough to warrant his contract) were smart moves made in an attempt to win more games, not lose more games.
If the Mavs tanked last year, they wouldn't have had the 9th pick. They were a middle-of-the-pack team because they tried to win and failed.
This year they have been tanking. I would say they do have something to show for their rebuild in Smith. They, you know, actually drafted a player they could build around, instead of drafting and USING young players like the Sixers did.
Cuban openly admitted last year the Mavs were tanking, they just didn't start until they were a bad team after the year had started. That is why they did things like waive Deron Williams so that Yogi Ferrell could get a ton of minutes. It is why this summer they did absolutely nothing in free agency. And when the Mavs strike out again in free agency, I totally expect them to tank again.
Cuban admitted to tanking last year in his recent comments.
"Adam would hate to be hearing that. But at least I sat down and I explained it to them. And I explained what our plans are going to be this summer, that we're not going to tank again. This is like a year and a half of tanking. That was too brutal for me."
-
This fine is a mockery. Its following the letter of the law perhaps, but not the spirit.
The Hawks, Suns, Kings, Magic, Grizzles, Bulls, and Knicks are currently in tank mode. There may not have been any official memos, but starting g-league players and holding out legit NBA players with fake injuries may as well be a memo.
The Sixers did far more to damage the competitiveness of the NBA than the Mavs. The Mavs have tried to do things the right way. They try to sign upside players (Barnes, Jordan, Matthews), they develop rotational talent in house (Barea, Curry, Kleiber, Powell, etc.), and they tried to win games. Where did it get them?
They've been a middle-of-the-pack playoff team in the West without a real shot at the championship for the last 7 years.
Meanwhile, in the same time, the Sixers had solid starting talent (Holliday, Iggy, Vucevic, Williams, and Young) and were also a middle-of-the-pack playoff team -- with their youth, they were on the rise. After the 2011-2012 season, they had 5 straight losing seasons, largely as part of the process.
Its the height of hypocrisy to follow the letter of the law with the Mavs while promoting the Sixers as one of the most exciting products in the NBA.
Still, if Cuban had to pay 600k to get a top 5 draft pick this year, I'm sure he would. If they pick right, it could set the franchise up for the next two decades.
Iggy and Vucevic were traded in the Bynum deal though. You can't put that trade in anywhere the same category as the other trades. In fact, it was that failed attempt to land a game changing star, that forced Philly into its terrible situation, since they not only traded Iggy and Vucevic, but also Harkless and a future 1st (which btw became #5 pick De'Aaron Fox). Philly went all in in trying to acquire a star, and it destroyed their team. They were left in a terrible situation when Hinkie took over, which is why they made the moves they did.
The 15/16 Mavericks had the following people start at least 30 games that the team let go after the off season - Chandler Parsons, Raymond Felton, Zaza Pachulia. They also let key rotation players David Lee and Charlie Villanueva leave. Let's not pretend they were trying to win. They did bring in Barnes, but Barnes isn't going to carry a team under basically any circumstances. They brought back Deron Williams only to waive him at the deadline. They did acquire Noel (for Anderson, Bogut, and a couple of 2nd's), and that didn't work, but even if it had was Noel going to make them a winner. After all, Noel anchored those terrible Sixers teams. The Mavs did absolutely nothing this past summer except eat the contract of Josh McRoberts (a pure tanking move). The Mavs have been full on tanking for 1.5 seasons and unlike the Sixers have absolutely nothing to show for it (I mean Fox wasn't even from their own pick). The Sixers did it for 3 seasons. In the past teams like the Sonics/Thunder blatantly tanked for 2.5 seasons. I just don't get the hate for the Sixers, when everyone in the league has been tanking for the dawn of time.
Meh. I get your point about the early Sixers trade, but that was a homerun or strikeout type of move. They struck out, which sent them into tank mode.
As far as the Mavs go, the moves they have made (before this season) have been about trying to win, not trying to tank. Barnes, Noel, Matthews, Williams, Barea, were all solid moves. Moving on from Villanueva (left the league), Felton (struggled to find a new team), and Parsons (who didn't play enough to warrant his contract) were smart moves made in an attempt to win more games, not lose more games.
If the Mavs tanked last year, they wouldn't have had the 9th pick. They were a middle-of-the-pack team because they tried to win and failed.
This year they have been tanking. I would say they do have something to show for their rebuild in Smith. They, you know, actually drafted a player they could build around, instead of drafting and USING young players like the Sixers did.
Who did the Sixers draft and USE? What does that even mean?
The Sixers gave a bunch of young low end players playing time to prove themselves while getting paid a nice NBA salary. Most failed as would be expected but they have two undrafted successes in Covington and McConnell.
-
Who did the Sixers draft and USE? What does that even mean?
I think he's saying that the Mavs acquired players with the intent of trying to integrate them into a team that was meant to be entertaining and win games, whereas the Sixers during the time period only acquired players to fill out their roster, serve as pieces in trades, etc. They were not making a good faith effort to build an actual roster that fans could be excited about.
Instead, they sold their fans on players to be drafted later.
Of course, I think you could argue the Sixers actually gave their fans a better product to be excited about, in a way, than the Mavs have the last several years.
Nobody created a podcast with a rabid listenerbase or coined any catchy slogans based on the five year "Dirk Rides Off Into the Sunset" era.
-
This fine is a mockery. Its following the letter of the law perhaps, but not the spirit.
The Hawks, Suns, Kings, Magic, Grizzles, Bulls, and Knicks are currently in tank mode. There may not have been any official memos, but starting g-league players and holding out legit NBA players with fake injuries may as well be a memo.
The Sixers did far more to damage the competitiveness of the NBA than the Mavs. The Mavs have tried to do things the right way. They try to sign upside players (Barnes, Jordan, Matthews), they develop rotational talent in house (Barea, Curry, Kleiber, Powell, etc.), and they tried to win games. Where did it get them?
They've been a middle-of-the-pack playoff team in the West without a real shot at the championship for the last 7 years.
Meanwhile, in the same time, the Sixers had solid starting talent (Holliday, Iggy, Vucevic, Williams, and Young) and were also a middle-of-the-pack playoff team -- with their youth, they were on the rise. After the 2011-2012 season, they had 5 straight losing seasons, largely as part of the process.
Its the height of hypocrisy to follow the letter of the law with the Mavs while promoting the Sixers as one of the most exciting products in the NBA.
Still, if Cuban had to pay 600k to get a top 5 draft pick this year, I'm sure he would. If they pick right, it could set the franchise up for the next two decades.
Iggy and Vucevic were traded in the Bynum deal though. You can't put that trade in anywhere the same category as the other trades. In fact, it was that failed attempt to land a game changing star, that forced Philly into its terrible situation, since they not only traded Iggy and Vucevic, but also Harkless and a future 1st (which btw became #5 pick De'Aaron Fox). Philly went all in in trying to acquire a star, and it destroyed their team. They were left in a terrible situation when Hinkie took over, which is why they made the moves they did.
The 15/16 Mavericks had the following people start at least 30 games that the team let go after the off season - Chandler Parsons, Raymond Felton, Zaza Pachulia. They also let key rotation players David Lee and Charlie Villanueva leave. Let's not pretend they were trying to win. They did bring in Barnes, but Barnes isn't going to carry a team under basically any circumstances. They brought back Deron Williams only to waive him at the deadline. They did acquire Noel (for Anderson, Bogut, and a couple of 2nd's), and that didn't work, but even if it had was Noel going to make them a winner. After all, Noel anchored those terrible Sixers teams. The Mavs did absolutely nothing this past summer except eat the contract of Josh McRoberts (a pure tanking move). The Mavs have been full on tanking for 1.5 seasons and unlike the Sixers have absolutely nothing to show for it (I mean Fox wasn't even from their own pick). The Sixers did it for 3 seasons. In the past teams like the Sonics/Thunder blatantly tanked for 2.5 seasons. I just don't get the hate for the Sixers, when everyone in the league has been tanking for the dawn of time.
Meh. I get your point about the early Sixers trade, but that was a homerun or strikeout type of move. They struck out, which sent them into tank mode.
As far as the Mavs go, the moves they have made (before this season) have been about trying to win, not trying to tank. Barnes, Noel, Matthews, Williams, Barea, were all solid moves. Moving on from Villanueva (left the league), Felton (struggled to find a new team), and Parsons (who didn't play enough to warrant his contract) were smart moves made in an attempt to win more games, not lose more games.
If the Mavs tanked last year, they wouldn't have had the 9th pick. They were a middle-of-the-pack team because they tried to win and failed.
This year they have been tanking. I would say they do have something to show for their rebuild in Smith. They, you know, actually drafted a player they could build around, instead of drafting and USING young players like the Sixers did.
Who did the Sixers draft and USE? What does that even mean?
The Sixers gave a bunch of young low end players playing time to prove themselves while getting paid a nice NBA salary. Most failed as would be expected but they have two undrafted successes in Covington and McConnell.
I can't think of a better word to use for what the Sixers did with MCW, Noel, Okafor, Turner, and Tony Wroten (among others). They were used for their prospect value and not treated like actual people, or actual players.
They were being used as commodities, or cogs in a machine. Trust the "process" indeed.
In comparison, the Celtics have developed players, made them important cogs to winning teams (not just empty stat guys) and made them money. They developed players in a way that allowed them to have a sustainable career in the NBA. That was true of Jordan Crawford, Evan Turner, Jared Sullinger, and Kelly Olynyk. It will be true of Smart, Rozier, Yabusele, Ojeleye, Larkin, Theis, Brown, and Tatum.
I know people will disagree with me on this, but I'm unlikely to change my opinion. I think what the Sixers did to the careers of Noel, Okafor, Wroten, MCW, and Turner (plus possibly more) in the name of the "process" was detestable. The players that lay in the wake of the process are normally forgotten as we assess it.
Players are not static commodities. Their ability on the court waxes and wanes with the stability of the organizations and how they develop them to have a long and successful career. The Sixers developed their players to be empty stat guys, and then traded them when they inflated their value. The guys I listed above may never recover from being part of the "process" in their formative years, even if they were able to be part of a stable organization moving forward.
That's what I mean by "used."
-
This fine is a mockery. Its following the letter of the law perhaps, but not the spirit.
The Hawks, Suns, Kings, Magic, Grizzles, Bulls, and Knicks are currently in tank mode. There may not have been any official memos, but starting g-league players and holding out legit NBA players with fake injuries may as well be a memo.
The Sixers did far more to damage the competitiveness of the NBA than the Mavs. The Mavs have tried to do things the right way. They try to sign upside players (Barnes, Jordan, Matthews), they develop rotational talent in house (Barea, Curry, Kleiber, Powell, etc.), and they tried to win games. Where did it get them?
They've been a middle-of-the-pack playoff team in the West without a real shot at the championship for the last 7 years.
Meanwhile, in the same time, the Sixers had solid starting talent (Holliday, Iggy, Vucevic, Williams, and Young) and were also a middle-of-the-pack playoff team -- with their youth, they were on the rise. After the 2011-2012 season, they had 5 straight losing seasons, largely as part of the process.
Its the height of hypocrisy to follow the letter of the law with the Mavs while promoting the Sixers as one of the most exciting products in the NBA.
Still, if Cuban had to pay 600k to get a top 5 draft pick this year, I'm sure he would. If they pick right, it could set the franchise up for the next two decades.
Iggy and Vucevic were traded in the Bynum deal though. You can't put that trade in anywhere the same category as the other trades. In fact, it was that failed attempt to land a game changing star, that forced Philly into its terrible situation, since they not only traded Iggy and Vucevic, but also Harkless and a future 1st (which btw became #5 pick De'Aaron Fox). Philly went all in in trying to acquire a star, and it destroyed their team. They were left in a terrible situation when Hinkie took over, which is why they made the moves they did.
The 15/16 Mavericks had the following people start at least 30 games that the team let go after the off season - Chandler Parsons, Raymond Felton, Zaza Pachulia. They also let key rotation players David Lee and Charlie Villanueva leave. Let's not pretend they were trying to win. They did bring in Barnes, but Barnes isn't going to carry a team under basically any circumstances. They brought back Deron Williams only to waive him at the deadline. They did acquire Noel (for Anderson, Bogut, and a couple of 2nd's), and that didn't work, but even if it had was Noel going to make them a winner. After all, Noel anchored those terrible Sixers teams. The Mavs did absolutely nothing this past summer except eat the contract of Josh McRoberts (a pure tanking move). The Mavs have been full on tanking for 1.5 seasons and unlike the Sixers have absolutely nothing to show for it (I mean Fox wasn't even from their own pick). The Sixers did it for 3 seasons. In the past teams like the Sonics/Thunder blatantly tanked for 2.5 seasons. I just don't get the hate for the Sixers, when everyone in the league has been tanking for the dawn of time.
Meh. I get your point about the early Sixers trade, but that was a homerun or strikeout type of move. They struck out, which sent them into tank mode.
As far as the Mavs go, the moves they have made (before this season) have been about trying to win, not trying to tank. Barnes, Noel, Matthews, Williams, Barea, were all solid moves. Moving on from Villanueva (left the league), Felton (struggled to find a new team), and Parsons (who didn't play enough to warrant his contract) were smart moves made in an attempt to win more games, not lose more games.
If the Mavs tanked last year, they wouldn't have had the 9th pick. They were a middle-of-the-pack team because they tried to win and failed.
This year they have been tanking. I would say they do have something to show for their rebuild in Smith. They, you know, actually drafted a player they could build around, instead of drafting and USING young players like the Sixers did.
Who did the Sixers draft and USE? What does that even mean?
The Sixers gave a bunch of young low end players playing time to prove themselves while getting paid a nice NBA salary. Most failed as would be expected but they have two undrafted successes in Covington and McConnell.
I can't think of a better word to use for what the Sixers did with MCW, Noel, Okafor, Turner, and Tony Wroten (among others). They were used for their prospect value and not treated like actual people, or actual players.
They were being used as commodities, or cogs in a machine. Trust the "process" indeed.
In comparison, the Celtics have developed players, made them important cogs to winning teams (not just empty stat guys) and made them money. They developed players in a way that allowed them to have a sustainable career in the NBA. That was true of Jordan Crawford, Evan Turner, Jared Sullinger, and Kelly Olynyk. It will be true of Smart, Rozier, Yabusele, Ojeleye, Larkin, Theis, Brown, and Tatum.
I know people will disagree with me on this, but I'm unlikely to change my opinion. I think what the Sixers did to the careers of Noel, Okafor, Wroten, MCW, and Turner (plus possibly more) in the name of the "process" was detestable. The players that lay in the wake of the process are normally forgotten as we assess it.
Players are not static commodities. Their ability on the court waxes and wanes with the stability of the organizations and how they develop them to have a long and successful career. The Sixers developed their players to be empty stat guys, and then traded them when they inflated their value. The guys I listed above may never recover from being part of the "process" in their formative years, even if they were able to be part of a stable organization moving forward.
That's what I mean by "used."
I certainly don't think anyone that is trying to be objective can say there isn't a pretty reasonable chance the careers of noel and okafor were destroyed by the process. That was of the few things I thought was valuable from the recent piece about Hinkie. The other gms mentioned that Hinkie didn't even like to be around the players early on and the gms commented there was no guidance for the really young players as humans. For some players, this wouldn't have mattered. Embiid seemed to just fine with it despite not even playing for two years. Okafor and Noel seemed to come into the situation with their own maturity issues and probably needed extra attention from staff as humans to keep their careers on track. I don't know if Okafor would have been getting in fights, driving around at a hundred miles per hour on bridges and getting guns pulled on him at clubs if he had some vets and more support in place for him. I don't know if Noel is trashing houses, skipping practices and pouting as much in a different situation. It now appears unlikely that those guys will have super impressive careers at this point and I do wonder if they would have been better players on a different team.
-
This fine is a mockery. Its following the letter of the law perhaps, but not the spirit.
The Hawks, Suns, Kings, Magic, Grizzles, Bulls, and Knicks are currently in tank mode. There may not have been any official memos, but starting g-league players and holding out legit NBA players with fake injuries may as well be a memo.
The Sixers did far more to damage the competitiveness of the NBA than the Mavs. The Mavs have tried to do things the right way. They try to sign upside players (Barnes, Jordan, Matthews), they develop rotational talent in house (Barea, Curry, Kleiber, Powell, etc.), and they tried to win games. Where did it get them?
They've been a middle-of-the-pack playoff team in the West without a real shot at the championship for the last 7 years.
Meanwhile, in the same time, the Sixers had solid starting talent (Holliday, Iggy, Vucevic, Williams, and Young) and were also a middle-of-the-pack playoff team -- with their youth, they were on the rise. After the 2011-2012 season, they had 5 straight losing seasons, largely as part of the process.
Its the height of hypocrisy to follow the letter of the law with the Mavs while promoting the Sixers as one of the most exciting products in the NBA.
Still, if Cuban had to pay 600k to get a top 5 draft pick this year, I'm sure he would. If they pick right, it could set the franchise up for the next two decades.
Iggy and Vucevic were traded in the Bynum deal though. You can't put that trade in anywhere the same category as the other trades. In fact, it was that failed attempt to land a game changing star, that forced Philly into its terrible situation, since they not only traded Iggy and Vucevic, but also Harkless and a future 1st (which btw became #5 pick De'Aaron Fox). Philly went all in in trying to acquire a star, and it destroyed their team. They were left in a terrible situation when Hinkie took over, which is why they made the moves they did.
The 15/16 Mavericks had the following people start at least 30 games that the team let go after the off season - Chandler Parsons, Raymond Felton, Zaza Pachulia. They also let key rotation players David Lee and Charlie Villanueva leave. Let's not pretend they were trying to win. They did bring in Barnes, but Barnes isn't going to carry a team under basically any circumstances. They brought back Deron Williams only to waive him at the deadline. They did acquire Noel (for Anderson, Bogut, and a couple of 2nd's), and that didn't work, but even if it had was Noel going to make them a winner. After all, Noel anchored those terrible Sixers teams. The Mavs did absolutely nothing this past summer except eat the contract of Josh McRoberts (a pure tanking move). The Mavs have been full on tanking for 1.5 seasons and unlike the Sixers have absolutely nothing to show for it (I mean Fox wasn't even from their own pick). The Sixers did it for 3 seasons. In the past teams like the Sonics/Thunder blatantly tanked for 2.5 seasons. I just don't get the hate for the Sixers, when everyone in the league has been tanking for the dawn of time.
Meh. I get your point about the early Sixers trade, but that was a homerun or strikeout type of move. They struck out, which sent them into tank mode.
As far as the Mavs go, the moves they have made (before this season) have been about trying to win, not trying to tank. Barnes, Noel, Matthews, Williams, Barea, were all solid moves. Moving on from Villanueva (left the league), Felton (struggled to find a new team), and Parsons (who didn't play enough to warrant his contract) were smart moves made in an attempt to win more games, not lose more games.
If the Mavs tanked last year, they wouldn't have had the 9th pick. They were a middle-of-the-pack team because they tried to win and failed.
This year they have been tanking. I would say they do have something to show for their rebuild in Smith. They, you know, actually drafted a player they could build around, instead of drafting and USING young players like the Sixers did.
Who did the Sixers draft and USE? What does that even mean?
The Sixers gave a bunch of young low end players playing time to prove themselves while getting paid a nice NBA salary. Most failed as would be expected but they have two undrafted successes in Covington and McConnell.
I can't think of a better word to use for what the Sixers did with MCW, Noel, Okafor, Turner, and Tony Wroten (among others). They were used for their prospect value and not treated like actual people, or actual players.
They were being used as commodities, or cogs in a machine. Trust the "process" indeed.
In comparison, the Celtics have developed players, made them important cogs to winning teams (not just empty stat guys) and made them money. They developed players in a way that allowed them to have a sustainable career in the NBA. That was true of Jordan Crawford, Evan Turner, Jared Sullinger, and Kelly Olynyk. It will be true of Smart, Rozier, Yabusele, Ojeleye, Larkin, Theis, Brown, and Tatum.
I know people will disagree with me on this, but I'm unlikely to change my opinion. I think what the Sixers did to the careers of Noel, Okafor, Wroten, MCW, and Turner (plus possibly more) in the name of the "process" was detestable. The players that lay in the wake of the process are normally forgotten as we assess it.
Players are not static commodities. Their ability on the court waxes and wanes with the stability of the organizations and how they develop them to have a long and successful career. The Sixers developed their players to be empty stat guys, and then traded them when they inflated their value. The guys I listed above may never recover from being part of the "process" in their formative years, even if they were able to be part of a stable organization moving forward.
That's what I mean by "used."
I certainly don't think anyone that is trying to be objective can say there isn't a pretty reasonable chance the careers of noel and okafor were destroyed by the process. That was of the few things I thought was valuable from the recent piece about Hinkie. The other gms mentioned that Hinkie didn't even like to be around the players early on and the gms commented there was no guidance for the really young players as humans. For some players, this wouldn't have mattered. Embiid seemed to just fine with it despite not even playing for two years. Okafor and Noel seemed to come into the situation with their own maturity issues and probably needed extra attention from staff as humans to keep their careers on track. I don't know if Okafor would have been getting in fights, driving around at a hundred miles per hour on bridges and getting guns pulled on him at clubs if he had some vets and more support in place for him. I don't know if Noel is trashing houses, skipping practices and pouting as much in a different situation. It now appears unlikely that those guys will have super impressive careers at this point and I do wonder if they would have been better players on a different team.
So what's your excuse for all the young players on other teams who fail to perform to their draft pick expectations or get into trouble on other teams? What about all the other Sixers players, not just Embiid, who did just fine under the process? How's Okafor doing on the Nets? How's Noel doing on the Mavs?
Why do you assume these other GMs have some great insight into how the Sixers operated? Did they mention that the Sixers kept metrics on player's effort and used that to allocate playing time? Did they mention that all the players, including Noel and Okafor, have great things to say about Coach Brown. Did they mention Hinkie and Embiid still text each other?
The fact is the Sixers had a good culture even while losing a lot of games.
Here's how TJ McConnell answered a couple culture questions in a recent The Athletic piece.
What does the idea of culture mean to you? Two years ago, you guys lose 72 games and that’s all anybody can talk about. And now that you’re winning, I feel like it doesn’t get mentioned much.
For me, culture is how hard we work every day, what kind of people we have here which are great people, and the way we play. And I think that’s all been instilled by Coach Brown just by how good of a person he is, and our staff has great people, and our players are great people. We all come in and work hard every day and we play hard. What else can you ask for?
You have some older players on the team now. Do you not think the culture was a problem a few years ago?
No, it wasn’t. I honestly just think obviously we didn’t have talented-enough players to win games. Everyone still wanted to come in and work hard every day. Even though we won 10 games, it was still fun to be around the guys and play for Coach Brown. And I think everybody will agree with that.
Here's a quote from Thomas Robinson who was initially perturbed that the Sixers claimed him a couple years ago.
“Understanding the situation, understanding that we are young and rebuilding, it’s going to be a tough stage,” Robinson said. “That’s what the outside world sees right now, but once I got here and saw the inside of things, I see that Coach [Brett] Brown is trying to restructure this organization and is doing it the right way. People have to understand that it is going to take time.”
-
This fine is a mockery. Its following the letter of the law perhaps, but not the spirit.
The Hawks, Suns, Kings, Magic, Grizzles, Bulls, and Knicks are currently in tank mode. There may not have been any official memos, but starting g-league players and holding out legit NBA players with fake injuries may as well be a memo.
The Sixers did far more to damage the competitiveness of the NBA than the Mavs. The Mavs have tried to do things the right way. They try to sign upside players (Barnes, Jordan, Matthews), they develop rotational talent in house (Barea, Curry, Kleiber, Powell, etc.), and they tried to win games. Where did it get them?
They've been a middle-of-the-pack playoff team in the West without a real shot at the championship for the last 7 years.
Meanwhile, in the same time, the Sixers had solid starting talent (Holliday, Iggy, Vucevic, Williams, and Young) and were also a middle-of-the-pack playoff team -- with their youth, they were on the rise. After the 2011-2012 season, they had 5 straight losing seasons, largely as part of the process.
Its the height of hypocrisy to follow the letter of the law with the Mavs while promoting the Sixers as one of the most exciting products in the NBA.
Still, if Cuban had to pay 600k to get a top 5 draft pick this year, I'm sure he would. If they pick right, it could set the franchise up for the next two decades.
Iggy and Vucevic were traded in the Bynum deal though. You can't put that trade in anywhere the same category as the other trades. In fact, it was that failed attempt to land a game changing star, that forced Philly into its terrible situation, since they not only traded Iggy and Vucevic, but also Harkless and a future 1st (which btw became #5 pick De'Aaron Fox). Philly went all in in trying to acquire a star, and it destroyed their team. They were left in a terrible situation when Hinkie took over, which is why they made the moves they did.
The 15/16 Mavericks had the following people start at least 30 games that the team let go after the off season - Chandler Parsons, Raymond Felton, Zaza Pachulia. They also let key rotation players David Lee and Charlie Villanueva leave. Let's not pretend they were trying to win. They did bring in Barnes, but Barnes isn't going to carry a team under basically any circumstances. They brought back Deron Williams only to waive him at the deadline. They did acquire Noel (for Anderson, Bogut, and a couple of 2nd's), and that didn't work, but even if it had was Noel going to make them a winner. After all, Noel anchored those terrible Sixers teams. The Mavs did absolutely nothing this past summer except eat the contract of Josh McRoberts (a pure tanking move). The Mavs have been full on tanking for 1.5 seasons and unlike the Sixers have absolutely nothing to show for it (I mean Fox wasn't even from their own pick). The Sixers did it for 3 seasons. In the past teams like the Sonics/Thunder blatantly tanked for 2.5 seasons. I just don't get the hate for the Sixers, when everyone in the league has been tanking for the dawn of time.
Meh. I get your point about the early Sixers trade, but that was a homerun or strikeout type of move. They struck out, which sent them into tank mode.
As far as the Mavs go, the moves they have made (before this season) have been about trying to win, not trying to tank. Barnes, Noel, Matthews, Williams, Barea, were all solid moves. Moving on from Villanueva (left the league), Felton (struggled to find a new team), and Parsons (who didn't play enough to warrant his contract) were smart moves made in an attempt to win more games, not lose more games.
If the Mavs tanked last year, they wouldn't have had the 9th pick. They were a middle-of-the-pack team because they tried to win and failed.
This year they have been tanking. I would say they do have something to show for their rebuild in Smith. They, you know, actually drafted a player they could build around, instead of drafting and USING young players like the Sixers did.
Who did the Sixers draft and USE? What does that even mean?
The Sixers gave a bunch of young low end players playing time to prove themselves while getting paid a nice NBA salary. Most failed as would be expected but they have two undrafted successes in Covington and McConnell.
I can't think of a better word to use for what the Sixers did with MCW, Noel, Okafor, Turner, and Tony Wroten (among others). They were used for their prospect value and not treated like actual people, or actual players.
They were being used as commodities, or cogs in a machine. Trust the "process" indeed.
In comparison, the Celtics have developed players, made them important cogs to winning teams (not just empty stat guys) and made them money. They developed players in a way that allowed them to have a sustainable career in the NBA. That was true of Jordan Crawford, Evan Turner, Jared Sullinger, and Kelly Olynyk. It will be true of Smart, Rozier, Yabusele, Ojeleye, Larkin, Theis, Brown, and Tatum.
I know people will disagree with me on this, but I'm unlikely to change my opinion. I think what the Sixers did to the careers of Noel, Okafor, Wroten, MCW, and Turner (plus possibly more) in the name of the "process" was detestable. The players that lay in the wake of the process are normally forgotten as we assess it.
Players are not static commodities. Their ability on the court waxes and wanes with the stability of the organizations and how they develop them to have a long and successful career. The Sixers developed their players to be empty stat guys, and then traded them when they inflated their value. The guys I listed above may never recover from being part of the "process" in their formative years, even if they were able to be part of a stable organization moving forward.
That's what I mean by "used."
I certainly don't think anyone that is trying to be objective can say there isn't a pretty reasonable chance the careers of noel and okafor were destroyed by the process. That was of the few things I thought was valuable from the recent piece about Hinkie. The other gms mentioned that Hinkie didn't even like to be around the players early on and the gms commented there was no guidance for the really young players as humans. For some players, this wouldn't have mattered. Embiid seemed to just fine with it despite not even playing for two years. Okafor and Noel seemed to come into the situation with their own maturity issues and probably needed extra attention from staff as humans to keep their careers on track. I don't know if Okafor would have been getting in fights, driving around at a hundred miles per hour on bridges and getting guns pulled on him at clubs if he had some vets and more support in place for him. I don't know if Noel is trashing houses, skipping practices and pouting as much in a different situation. It now appears unlikely that those guys will have super impressive careers at this point and I do wonder if they would have been better players on a different team.
So what's your excuse for all the young players on other teams who fail to perform to their draft pick expectations or get into trouble on other teams? What about all the other Sixers players, not just Embiid, who did just fine under the process? How's Okafor doing on the Nets? How's Noel doing on the Mavs?
Why do you assume these other GMs have some great insight into how the Sixers operated? Did they mention that the Sixers kept metrics on player's effort and used that to allocate playing time? Did they mention that all the players, including Noel and Okafor, have great things to say about Coach Brown. Did they mention Hinkie and Embiid still text each other?
The fact is the Sixers had a good culture even while losing a lot of games.
Here's how TJ McConnell answered a couple culture questions in a recent The Athletic piece.
What does the idea of culture mean to you? Two years ago, you guys lose 72 games and that’s all anybody can talk about. And now that you’re winning, I feel like it doesn’t get mentioned much.
For me, culture is how hard we work every day, what kind of people we have here which are great people, and the way we play. And I think that’s all been instilled by Coach Brown just by how good of a person he is, and our staff has great people, and our players are great people. We all come in and work hard every day and we play hard. What else can you ask for?
You have some older players on the team now. Do you not think the culture was a problem a few years ago?
No, it wasn’t. I honestly just think obviously we didn’t have talented-enough players to win games. Everyone still wanted to come in and work hard every day. Even though we won 10 games, it was still fun to be around the guys and play for Coach Brown. And I think everybody will agree with that.
Here's a quote from Thomas Robinson who was initially perturbed that the Sixers claimed him a couple years ago.
“Understanding the situation, understanding that we are young and rebuilding, it’s going to be a tough stage,” Robinson said. “That’s what the outside world sees right now, but once I got here and saw the inside of things, I see that Coach [Brett] Brown is trying to restructure this organization and is doing it the right way. People have to understand that it is going to take time.”
I don't really know how to debate with you on the 76ers because you are so overly defensive of anything associated with them. Yesterday you were trying to make the bizarre point that current gms may have said a few things that could be construed as negative about hinkie cause they were jealous of the unemployed blackballed hinkie. Today you are arguing against the pretty benign point that a few guys with maturity issues may have been particularly vulnerable to an organization that bu hinkies and others admission was a bit hands off and bad at dealing with players and agents. Like seriously? It's pretty over the top. You can not act like a pit bull defending his owner every time someone says something neutral towards philly lol
-
Put 19 year old kids in a losing atmosphere after all they have done their entire lives is dominate the competition, and you're doing severe damage to their confidence and psyche. The only stars they have out of all those picks were never assocuated with that culture. Embiid recuped for two years and a half and didn't lose and Simmons was noehere near losing last year.
Except for Covington, I can't see where they developed anyone. Embiid was a monster in college. Simmons is as good now as he was in college. Saric is as good now as he was overseas. Noel, Okafor and MCW were never developed.
-
Put 19 year old kids in a losing atmosphere after all they have done their entire lives is dominate the competition, and you're doing severe damage to their confidence and psyche. The only stars they have out of all those picks were never assocuated with that culture. Embiid recuped for two years and a half and didn't lose and Simmons was noehere near losing last year.
Except for Covington, I can't see where they developed anyone. Embiid was a monster in college. Simmons is as good now as he was in college. Saric is as good now as he was overseas. Noel, Okafor and MCW were never developed.
man that losing thay Durant and Westbrook suffered really messed them up. Most of the great players are on losing teams when they start out. That is what happens when you get drafted to bad teams. Winning or losing at the start makes no real difference long term. It is all on the player.
-
Put 19 year old kids in a losing atmosphere after all they have done their entire lives is dominate the competition, and you're doing severe damage to their confidence and psyche. The only stars they have out of all those picks were never assocuated with that culture. Embiid recuped for two years and a half and didn't lose and Simmons was noehere near losing last year.
Except for Covington, I can't see where they developed anyone. Embiid was a monster in college. Simmons is as good now as he was in college. Saric is as good now as he was overseas. Noel, Okafor and MCW were never developed.
man that losing thay Durant and Westbrook suffered really messed them up. Most of the great players are on losing teams when they start out. That is what happens when you get drafted to bad teams. Winning or losing at the start makes no real difference long term. It is all on the player.
I disagree with this assessment. Some players have the opportunity to transcend a terrible organization and lift it temporarily out of the mire, but most players aren't capable of doing that. The difference is not necessarily ability, or talent, or athleticism (although those can help).
Compare it to a regular job. Some employees might be great in any situation. Great companies are able to make great employees, not just attract them.
Westbrook and Durant were able to be good, but they were definitely unique players. Lebron James was another. These are what people call "transcendent talent."
What about Andrew Wiggins? He had a lot of ability, but learned a lot of really bad habits playing for a losing team? What about Okafor? What about Noel? What about MCW? What about Russell? Hezonja? WCS? Gordon? Randle? Payton? Lavine? Len? Oladipo (pre-pacers)? Bennett? McLemore? Bender?
It's one of the reasons I'm worried that Devin Booker might not be everything he could be. He has learned a lot of bad habits on both sides of the ball that might hold his team back from winning.
Some of those players I listed admittedly aren't as talented as others who have succeeded, but why did Olynyk, McCullom, and Adams get big second contracts while Bennet, KCP, McLemore, Noel, Len, and MCW struggle to find NBA teams or get long-term money? There is a common denominator, and it's not primarily talent level when they came into the league. It's that they team they played for was lousy and failed to develop them properly. There may be other factors, but that is foundation of it all.
This is not a victim game. The players are still responsible for themselves and their development. I'm just saying that not all situations are equal, and that some situations actually work against a player's long-term development -- the worst of those situations is the team that let's the talented young player put up empty stats while they are losing, without any accountability to playing the game the right way.
-
I thought the PHI tank job was detestable, and I think Cuban coming out and saying that they're tanking is detestable.
The difficult challenge at hand is to a) improve your team through the draft while b) not alienating your fanbase.
Now, if you're a Philly fan and ok with losing badly for over a half of a decade, then you prob. favor tanking. I want to think that most Philly/Dallas fans would rather spend their time doing something else than watching a team that is not actively trying to win.
Yes, Danny tanked for a short period of time, but by no means would I favor him doing so for over a season. That is absolute BS that should repel fans.
I actually think its funny that Cuban was naive enough to think that he could say something like that without recourse. You can tell your close friends that you're cheating on your girlfriend, but its not a good decision to tell the world. Unless you want your girlfriend (fans) to break up with you.
I think the pressure is on Dallas to improve quickly now. I'm not sure about their cap situation, but they should be buyers in FA very soon.
-
Put 19 year old kids in a losing atmosphere after all they have done their entire lives is dominate the competition, and you're doing severe damage to their confidence and psyche. The only stars they have out of all those picks were never assocuated with that culture. Embiid recuped for two years and a half and didn't lose and Simmons was noehere near losing last year.
Except for Covington, I can't see where they developed anyone. Embiid was a monster in college. Simmons is as good now as he was in college. Saric is as good now as he was overseas. Noel, Okafor and MCW were never developed.
man that losing thay Durant and Westbrook suffered really messed them up. Most of the great players are on losing teams when they start out. That is what happens when you get drafted to bad teams. Winning or losing at the start makes no real difference long term. It is all on the player.
I disagree with this assessment. Some players have the opportunity to transcend a terrible organization and lift it temporarily out of the mire, but most players aren't capable of doing that. The difference is not necessarily ability, or talent, or athleticism (although those can help).
Compare it to a regular job. Some employees might be great in any situation. Great companies are able to make great employees, not just attract them.
Westbrook and Durant were able to be good, but they were definitely unique players. Lebron James was another. These are what people call "transcendent talent."
What about Andrew Wiggins? He had a lot of ability, but learned a lot of really bad habits playing for a losing team? What about Okafor? What about Noel? What about MCW? What about Russell? Hezonja? WCS? Gordon? Randle? Payton? Lavine? Len? Oladipo (pre-pacers)? Bennett? McLemore? Bender?
It's one of the reasons I'm worried that Devin Booker might not be everything he could be. He has learned a lot of bad habits on both sides of the ball that might hold his team back from winning.
Some of those players I listed admittedly aren't as talented as others who have succeeded, but why did Olynyk, McCullom, and Adams get big second contracts while Bennet, KCP, McLemore, Noel, Len, and MCW struggle to find NBA teams or get long-term money? There is a common denominator, and it's not primarily talent level when they came into the league. It's that they team they played for was lousy and failed to develop them properly. There may be other factors, but that is foundation of it all.
This is not a victim game. The players are still responsible for themselves and their development. I'm just saying that not all situations are equal, and that some situations actually work against a player's long-term development -- the worst of those situations is the team that let's the talented young player put up empty stats while they are losing, without any accountability to playing the game the right way.
It is obviously harder to find high draft picks on great teams, but Darko flamed out despite all of that structure in Detroit. Bargnani was terrible for a #1 pick despite starting out on a 47 win team as a rookie. Speaking of Toronto, how is Poeltl doing? Tyus Thomas, the 4th pick in 2006, started out on a 49 win Bulls team. How'd his career end up? Embiid is doing just fine coming out of Philly. Covington, McConnell, and Grant had no issues either, yet Noel, Okafor, and MCW did poorly and continued to do poorly after leaving. It has nothing to do with winning or losing, it really is about the player. Some guys are just losers as players and some guys are not. The starting situation doesn't change that player makeup. It might mask it for awhile or make it really come out immediately, but at the end of the day, the player is the one that dictates the players fate.
The reality is, most of the all time greats started on bad teams because most of the all time greats are high draft picks and those by and large end up on bad teams and very few players come in immediately and change the win total (James, Shaq, etc. did that, but those guys are transcendent, not merely just great). Even many of the good players, guys like Mike Conley, often started their career on bad teams. Curry's first 3 years in Golden State 26, 36, and 28.58* wins. DeRozan had 40 wins as a rookie only to fall to 22 wins in year 2 and a 28.58 win pace in year 3. He seems just fine now. Harden has never missed the playoffs in his career, yet he is thought of as a choker who can't win the big game.
-
Put 19 year old kids in a losing atmosphere after all they have done their entire lives is dominate the competition, and you're doing severe damage to their confidence and psyche. The only stars they have out of all those picks were never assocuated with that culture. Embiid recuped for two years and a half and didn't lose and Simmons was noehere near losing last year.
Except for Covington, I can't see where they developed anyone. Embiid was a monster in college. Simmons is as good now as he was in college. Saric is as good now as he was overseas. Noel, Okafor and MCW were never developed.
man that losing thay Durant and Westbrook suffered really messed them up. Most of the great players are on losing teams when they start out. That is what happens when you get drafted to bad teams. Winning or losing at the start makes no real difference long term. It is all on the player.
I disagree with this assessment. Some players have the opportunity to transcend a terrible organization and lift it temporarily out of the mire, but most players aren't capable of doing that. The difference is not necessarily ability, or talent, or athleticism (although those can help).
Compare it to a regular job. Some employees might be great in any situation. Great companies are able to make great employees, not just attract them.
Westbrook and Durant were able to be good, but they were definitely unique players. Lebron James was another. These are what people call "transcendent talent."
What about Andrew Wiggins? He had a lot of ability, but learned a lot of really bad habits playing for a losing team? What about Okafor? What about Noel? What about MCW? What about Russell? Hezonja? WCS? Gordon? Randle? Payton? Lavine? Len? Oladipo (pre-pacers)? Bennett? McLemore? Bender?
It's one of the reasons I'm worried that Devin Booker might not be everything he could be. He has learned a lot of bad habits on both sides of the ball that might hold his team back from winning.
Some of those players I listed admittedly aren't as talented as others who have succeeded, but why did Olynyk, McCullom, and Adams get big second contracts while Bennet, KCP, McLemore, Noel, Len, and MCW struggle to find NBA teams or get long-term money? There is a common denominator, and it's not primarily talent level when they came into the league. It's that they team they played for was lousy and failed to develop them properly. There may be other factors, but that is foundation of it all.
This is not a victim game. The players are still responsible for themselves and their development. I'm just saying that not all situations are equal, and that some situations actually work against a player's long-term development -- the worst of those situations is the team that let's the talented young player put up empty stats while they are losing, without any accountability to playing the game the right way.
It is obviously harder to find high draft picks on great teams, but Darko flamed out despite all of that structure in Detroit. Bargnani was terrible for a #1 pick despite starting out on a 47 win team as a rookie. Speaking of Toronto, how is Poeltl doing? Tyus Thomas, the 4th pick in 2006, started out on a 49 win Bulls team. How'd his career end up? Embiid is doing just fine coming out of Philly. Covington, McConnell, and Grant had no issues either, yet Noel, Okafor, and MCW did poorly and continued to do poorly after leaving. It has nothing to do with winning or losing, it really is about the player. Some guys are just losers as players and some guys are not. The starting situation doesn't change that player makeup. It might mask it for awhile or make it really come out immediately, but at the end of the day, the player is the one that dictates the players fate.
The reality is, most of the all time greats started on bad teams because most of the all time greats are high draft picks and those by and large end up on bad teams and very few players come in immediately and change the win total (James, Shaq, etc. did that, but those guys are transcendent, not merely just great). Even many of the good players, guys like Mike Conley, often started their career on bad teams. Curry's first 3 years in Golden State 26, 36, and 28.58* wins. DeRozan had 40 wins as a rookie only to fall to 22 wins in year 2 and a 28.58 win pace in year 3. He seems just fine now. Harden has never missed the playoffs in his career, yet he is thought of as a choker who can't win the big game.
I think we are going to have to agree to disagree. Players obviously have responsibility for their own development, but its widely recognized that poorly run organizations and losing teams tend to not develop players as well.
-
Put 19 year old kids in a losing atmosphere after all they have done their entire lives is dominate the competition, and you're doing severe damage to their confidence and psyche. The only stars they have out of all those picks were never assocuated with that culture. Embiid recuped for two years and a half and didn't lose and Simmons was noehere near losing last year.
Except for Covington, I can't see where they developed anyone. Embiid was a monster in college. Simmons is as good now as he was in college. Saric is as good now as he was overseas. Noel, Okafor and MCW were never developed.
man that losing thay Durant and Westbrook suffered really messed them up. Most of the great players are on losing teams when they start out. That is what happens when you get drafted to bad teams. Winning or losing at the start makes no real difference long term. It is all on the player.
I disagree with this assessment. Some players have the opportunity to transcend a terrible organization and lift it temporarily out of the mire, but most players aren't capable of doing that. The difference is not necessarily ability, or talent, or athleticism (although those can help).
Compare it to a regular job. Some employees might be great in any situation. Great companies are able to make great employees, not just attract them.
Westbrook and Durant were able to be good, but they were definitely unique players. Lebron James was another. These are what people call "transcendent talent."
What about Andrew Wiggins? He had a lot of ability, but learned a lot of really bad habits playing for a losing team? What about Okafor? What about Noel? What about MCW? What about Russell? Hezonja? WCS? Gordon? Randle? Payton? Lavine? Len? Oladipo (pre-pacers)? Bennett? McLemore? Bender?
It's one of the reasons I'm worried that Devin Booker might not be everything he could be. He has learned a lot of bad habits on both sides of the ball that might hold his team back from winning.
Some of those players I listed admittedly aren't as talented as others who have succeeded, but why did Olynyk, McCullom, and Adams get big second contracts while Bennet, KCP, McLemore, Noel, Len, and MCW struggle to find NBA teams or get long-term money? There is a common denominator, and it's not primarily talent level when they came into the league. It's that they team they played for was lousy and failed to develop them properly. There may be other factors, but that is foundation of it all.
This is not a victim game. The players are still responsible for themselves and their development. I'm just saying that not all situations are equal, and that some situations actually work against a player's long-term development -- the worst of those situations is the team that let's the talented young player put up empty stats while they are losing, without any accountability to playing the game the right way.
It is obviously harder to find high draft picks on great teams, but Darko flamed out despite all of that structure in Detroit. Bargnani was terrible for a #1 pick despite starting out on a 47 win team as a rookie. Speaking of Toronto, how is Poeltl doing? Tyus Thomas, the 4th pick in 2006, started out on a 49 win Bulls team. How'd his career end up? Embiid is doing just fine coming out of Philly. Covington, McConnell, and Grant had no issues either, yet Noel, Okafor, and MCW did poorly and continued to do poorly after leaving. It has nothing to do with winning or losing, it really is about the player. Some guys are just losers as players and some guys are not. The starting situation doesn't change that player makeup. It might mask it for awhile or make it really come out immediately, but at the end of the day, the player is the one that dictates the players fate.
The reality is, most of the all time greats started on bad teams because most of the all time greats are high draft picks and those by and large end up on bad teams and very few players come in immediately and change the win total (James, Shaq, etc. did that, but those guys are transcendent, not merely just great). Even many of the good players, guys like Mike Conley, often started their career on bad teams. Curry's first 3 years in Golden State 26, 36, and 28.58* wins. DeRozan had 40 wins as a rookie only to fall to 22 wins in year 2 and a 28.58 win pace in year 3. He seems just fine now. Harden has never missed the playoffs in his career, yet he is thought of as a choker who can't win the big game.
You're making the argument that a player's team does not factor into their development.
I'd be shocked if many on this blog agreed with this hot take. I appreciate the heat though!
-
Put 19 year old kids in a losing atmosphere after all they have done their entire lives is dominate the competition, and you're doing severe damage to their confidence and psyche. The only stars they have out of all those picks were never assocuated with that culture. Embiid recuped for two years and a half and didn't lose and Simmons was noehere near losing last year.
Except for Covington, I can't see where they developed anyone. Embiid was a monster in college. Simmons is as good now as he was in college. Saric is as good now as he was overseas. Noel, Okafor and MCW were never developed.
man that losing thay Durant and Westbrook suffered really messed them up. Most of the great players are on losing teams when they start out. That is what happens when you get drafted to bad teams. Winning or losing at the start makes no real difference long term. It is all on the player.
I disagree with this assessment. Some players have the opportunity to transcend a terrible organization and lift it temporarily out of the mire, but most players aren't capable of doing that. The difference is not necessarily ability, or talent, or athleticism (although those can help).
Compare it to a regular job. Some employees might be great in any situation. Great companies are able to make great employees, not just attract them.
Westbrook and Durant were able to be good, but they were definitely unique players. Lebron James was another. These are what people call "transcendent talent."
What about Andrew Wiggins? He had a lot of ability, but learned a lot of really bad habits playing for a losing team? What about Okafor? What about Noel? What about MCW? What about Russell? Hezonja? WCS? Gordon? Randle? Payton? Lavine? Len? Oladipo (pre-pacers)? Bennett? McLemore? Bender?
It's one of the reasons I'm worried that Devin Booker might not be everything he could be. He has learned a lot of bad habits on both sides of the ball that might hold his team back from winning.
Some of those players I listed admittedly aren't as talented as others who have succeeded, but why did Olynyk, McCullom, and Adams get big second contracts while Bennet, KCP, McLemore, Noel, Len, and MCW struggle to find NBA teams or get long-term money? There is a common denominator, and it's not primarily talent level when they came into the league. It's that they team they played for was lousy and failed to develop them properly. There may be other factors, but that is foundation of it all.
This is not a victim game. The players are still responsible for themselves and their development. I'm just saying that not all situations are equal, and that some situations actually work against a player's long-term development -- the worst of those situations is the team that let's the talented young player put up empty stats while they are losing, without any accountability to playing the game the right way.
It is obviously harder to find high draft picks on great teams, but Darko flamed out despite all of that structure in Detroit. Bargnani was terrible for a #1 pick despite starting out on a 47 win team as a rookie. Speaking of Toronto, how is Poeltl doing? Tyus Thomas, the 4th pick in 2006, started out on a 49 win Bulls team. How'd his career end up? Embiid is doing just fine coming out of Philly. Covington, McConnell, and Grant had no issues either, yet Noel, Okafor, and MCW did poorly and continued to do poorly after leaving. It has nothing to do with winning or losing, it really is about the player. Some guys are just losers as players and some guys are not. The starting situation doesn't change that player makeup. It might mask it for awhile or make it really come out immediately, but at the end of the day, the player is the one that dictates the players fate.
The reality is, most of the all time greats started on bad teams because most of the all time greats are high draft picks and those by and large end up on bad teams and very few players come in immediately and change the win total (James, Shaq, etc. did that, but those guys are transcendent, not merely just great). Even many of the good players, guys like Mike Conley, often started their career on bad teams. Curry's first 3 years in Golden State 26, 36, and 28.58* wins. DeRozan had 40 wins as a rookie only to fall to 22 wins in year 2 and a 28.58 win pace in year 3. He seems just fine now. Harden has never missed the playoffs in his career, yet he is thought of as a choker who can't win the big game.
You're making the argument that a player's team does not factor into their development.
I'd be shocked if many on this blog agreed with this hot take. I appreciate the heat though!
Yea I am pretty baffled by this argument. It just comes of being super defensive about Philadelphia.
Some young players are very resilient and can survive and thrive in any kind of environment. Embiid and Saric did this in Philly themselves. Durant and Westbrook did it in OKC. However, some players are less mature at 19 years old and are more prone to struggle without extra attention from veterans and the front office. Noel and Okafor have both had well chronicled maturity issues. It is possible that being on a team where the front office admits they were very hands off, there was constant losing and as limited veteran presence as any team in the NBA increased there chances of not developing.
Seriously? How is this such a controversial take? You could be talking about guys taking a job building motorcycles in a factory and saying if they are immature and have issues coming in, the management is hands off and there are no mentors to help them they will be less likely to become good at building motorcycles than in a highly structured environment. The fact that people are arguing the mere possibility that a couple of immature guys may have not been put into the position to succeed on a very young, veteran free team. I swear to god some of this stuff with Philadelphia becomes like a cult to people where even the slightest discussion of some small aspect MAYBE being suboptimal for certain players is fought tooth and nail.
-
Put 19 year old kids in a losing atmosphere after all they have done their entire lives is dominate the competition, and you're doing severe damage to their confidence and psyche. The only stars they have out of all those picks were never assocuated with that culture. Embiid recuped for two years and a half and didn't lose and Simmons was noehere near losing last year.
Except for Covington, I can't see where they developed anyone. Embiid was a monster in college. Simmons is as good now as he was in college. Saric is as good now as he was overseas. Noel, Okafor and MCW were never developed.
man that losing thay Durant and Westbrook suffered really messed them up. Most of the great players are on losing teams when they start out. That is what happens when you get drafted to bad teams. Winning or losing at the start makes no real difference long term. It is all on the player.
I disagree with this assessment. Some players have the opportunity to transcend a terrible organization and lift it temporarily out of the mire, but most players aren't capable of doing that. The difference is not necessarily ability, or talent, or athleticism (although those can help).
Compare it to a regular job. Some employees might be great in any situation. Great companies are able to make great employees, not just attract them.
Westbrook and Durant were able to be good, but they were definitely unique players. Lebron James was another. These are what people call "transcendent talent."
What about Andrew Wiggins? He had a lot of ability, but learned a lot of really bad habits playing for a losing team? What about Okafor? What about Noel? What about MCW? What about Russell? Hezonja? WCS? Gordon? Randle? Payton? Lavine? Len? Oladipo (pre-pacers)? Bennett? McLemore? Bender?
It's one of the reasons I'm worried that Devin Booker might not be everything he could be. He has learned a lot of bad habits on both sides of the ball that might hold his team back from winning.
Some of those players I listed admittedly aren't as talented as others who have succeeded, but why did Olynyk, McCullom, and Adams get big second contracts while Bennet, KCP, McLemore, Noel, Len, and MCW struggle to find NBA teams or get long-term money? There is a common denominator, and it's not primarily talent level when they came into the league. It's that they team they played for was lousy and failed to develop them properly. There may be other factors, but that is foundation of it all.
This is not a victim game. The players are still responsible for themselves and their development. I'm just saying that not all situations are equal, and that some situations actually work against a player's long-term development -- the worst of those situations is the team that let's the talented young player put up empty stats while they are losing, without any accountability to playing the game the right way.
It is obviously harder to find high draft picks on great teams, but Darko flamed out despite all of that structure in Detroit. Bargnani was terrible for a #1 pick despite starting out on a 47 win team as a rookie. Speaking of Toronto, how is Poeltl doing? Tyus Thomas, the 4th pick in 2006, started out on a 49 win Bulls team. How'd his career end up? Embiid is doing just fine coming out of Philly. Covington, McConnell, and Grant had no issues either, yet Noel, Okafor, and MCW did poorly and continued to do poorly after leaving. It has nothing to do with winning or losing, it really is about the player. Some guys are just losers as players and some guys are not. The starting situation doesn't change that player makeup. It might mask it for awhile or make it really come out immediately, but at the end of the day, the player is the one that dictates the players fate.
The reality is, most of the all time greats started on bad teams because most of the all time greats are high draft picks and those by and large end up on bad teams and very few players come in immediately and change the win total (James, Shaq, etc. did that, but those guys are transcendent, not merely just great). Even many of the good players, guys like Mike Conley, often started their career on bad teams. Curry's first 3 years in Golden State 26, 36, and 28.58* wins. DeRozan had 40 wins as a rookie only to fall to 22 wins in year 2 and a 28.58 win pace in year 3. He seems just fine now. Harden has never missed the playoffs in his career, yet he is thought of as a choker who can't win the big game.
You're making the argument that a player's team does not factor into their development.
I'd be shocked if many on this blog agreed with this hot take. I appreciate the heat though!
No I am making the argument that winning or losing doesn't play a role in the ultimate development of a player. A great coach is obviously a positive for development. Style of play plays a role. The amount of minutes the player gets plays a role. The competition for playing time plays a role. Etc. What doesn't play a role is whether the team wins a bunch of games or loses a bunch of games.
-
Put 19 year old kids in a losing atmosphere after all they have done their entire lives is dominate the competition, and you're doing severe damage to their confidence and psyche. The only stars they have out of all those picks were never assocuated with that culture. Embiid recuped for two years and a half and didn't lose and Simmons was noehere near losing last year.
Except for Covington, I can't see where they developed anyone. Embiid was a monster in college. Simmons is as good now as he was in college. Saric is as good now as he was overseas. Noel, Okafor and MCW were never developed.
man that losing thay Durant and Westbrook suffered really messed them up. Most of the great players are on losing teams when they start out. That is what happens when you get drafted to bad teams. Winning or losing at the start makes no real difference long term. It is all on the player.
I disagree with this assessment. Some players have the opportunity to transcend a terrible organization and lift it temporarily out of the mire, but most players aren't capable of doing that. The difference is not necessarily ability, or talent, or athleticism (although those can help).
Compare it to a regular job. Some employees might be great in any situation. Great companies are able to make great employees, not just attract them.
Westbrook and Durant were able to be good, but they were definitely unique players. Lebron James was another. These are what people call "transcendent talent."
What about Andrew Wiggins? He had a lot of ability, but learned a lot of really bad habits playing for a losing team? What about Okafor? What about Noel? What about MCW? What about Russell? Hezonja? WCS? Gordon? Randle? Payton? Lavine? Len? Oladipo (pre-pacers)? Bennett? McLemore? Bender?
It's one of the reasons I'm worried that Devin Booker might not be everything he could be. He has learned a lot of bad habits on both sides of the ball that might hold his team back from winning.
Some of those players I listed admittedly aren't as talented as others who have succeeded, but why did Olynyk, McCullom, and Adams get big second contracts while Bennet, KCP, McLemore, Noel, Len, and MCW struggle to find NBA teams or get long-term money? There is a common denominator, and it's not primarily talent level when they came into the league. It's that they team they played for was lousy and failed to develop them properly. There may be other factors, but that is foundation of it all.
This is not a victim game. The players are still responsible for themselves and their development. I'm just saying that not all situations are equal, and that some situations actually work against a player's long-term development -- the worst of those situations is the team that let's the talented young player put up empty stats while they are losing, without any accountability to playing the game the right way.
It is obviously harder to find high draft picks on great teams, but Darko flamed out despite all of that structure in Detroit. Bargnani was terrible for a #1 pick despite starting out on a 47 win team as a rookie. Speaking of Toronto, how is Poeltl doing? Tyus Thomas, the 4th pick in 2006, started out on a 49 win Bulls team. How'd his career end up? Embiid is doing just fine coming out of Philly. Covington, McConnell, and Grant had no issues either, yet Noel, Okafor, and MCW did poorly and continued to do poorly after leaving. It has nothing to do with winning or losing, it really is about the player. Some guys are just losers as players and some guys are not. The starting situation doesn't change that player makeup. It might mask it for awhile or make it really come out immediately, but at the end of the day, the player is the one that dictates the players fate.
The reality is, most of the all time greats started on bad teams because most of the all time greats are high draft picks and those by and large end up on bad teams and very few players come in immediately and change the win total (James, Shaq, etc. did that, but those guys are transcendent, not merely just great). Even many of the good players, guys like Mike Conley, often started their career on bad teams. Curry's first 3 years in Golden State 26, 36, and 28.58* wins. DeRozan had 40 wins as a rookie only to fall to 22 wins in year 2 and a 28.58 win pace in year 3. He seems just fine now. Harden has never missed the playoffs in his career, yet he is thought of as a choker who can't win the big game.
You're making the argument that a player's team does not factor into their development.
I'd be shocked if many on this blog agreed with this hot take. I appreciate the heat though!
No I am making the argument that winning or losing doesn't play a role in the ultimate development of a player. A great coach is obviously a positive for development. Style of play plays a role. The amount of minutes the player gets plays a role. The competition for playing time plays a role. Etc. What doesn't play a role is whether the team wins a bunch of games or loses a bunch of games.
Your point is well-noted, but isn't the best (albeit most oversimplistic) way to determine goaching, style of play, minutes, competition, etc. the record of the team.
-
Is there any evidence that Noel and Okafor's disappointing careers are a result of the culture in Philly? Some seem to be taking for granted that this is a true thing but what is the evidence that this is the case?
That they played for Philly and are having disappointing careers is not, in and of itself, evidence of poor culture and its affect.
-
i was like...i wont make that money in my entire life...good thing i'm not in the nba
-
$600k is a tax write off. They should drop Dallas down to the last pick in the lottery.
I agree that a fine is not sufficient. This is one of the 30 owners openly admitting mid-way through the season that he wants to lose. That is atrocious for a business. Punishment should definitely impact his lottery chances.
-
$600k is a tax write off. They should drop Dallas down to the last pick in the lottery.
I agree that a fine is not sufficient. This is one of the 30 owners openly admitting mid-way through the season that he wants to lose. That is atrocious for a business. Punishment should definitely impact his lottery chances.
Is it?
Do you think Mavs fans are so dense that they didn't realize their team was going to lose lots more games to end the season before Cuban said something on NBA TV?
-
$600k is a tax write off. They should drop Dallas down to the last pick in the lottery.
I agree that a fine is not sufficient. This is one of the 30 owners openly admitting mid-way through the season that he wants to lose. That is atrocious for a business. Punishment should definitely impact his lottery chances.
Is it?
Do you think Mavs fans are so dense that they didn't realize their team was going to lose lots more games to end the season before Cuban said something on NBA TV?
And the reality is someone has to lose. There is only 1 winner and 1 loser from every game. There is no real difference between Dallas and Brooklyn (well except Brooklyn has played 2 more games going 1-1 in those games). I mean I think we all agree Brooklyn isn't tanking while Dallas is, yet they are both awful, so what is the difference.
Now sure if Cuban told the Mavs players to not try and to lose on purpose, then that is an issue, but Cuban obviously would never do that.
-
From a business perspective, I think it's fair to say that fielding a roster devoid of anybody exciting -- i.e. what the Sixers did for several years -- is a lot worse than publicly acknowledging that your old and injury-prone team will probably be best-served by packing it in for a good draft pick in June.
To put it another way, the Sixers said a lot more about their intentions to lose, in a much more blatant way, from the start of each season, than Marc Cuban has ever done, without ever putting it into an explicit statement.
In either case, though, I think you can also argue that tanking is actually a good plan from a fan-interest perspective, because selling your fanbase on exciting draft prospects is a lot easier than getting them jazzed up about watching a bunch of journeymen and past-their-prime stars try to win enough games to earn the privilege of being swept in the 1st round.
-
From a business perspective, I think it's fair to say that fielding a roster devoid of anybody exciting -- i.e. what the Sixers did for several years -- is a lot worse than publicly acknowledging that your old and injury-prone team will probably be best-served by packing it in for a good draft pick in June.
To put it another way, the Sixers said a lot more about their intentions to lose, in a much more blatant way, from the start of each season, than Marc Cuban has ever done, without ever putting it into an explicit statement.
In either case, though, I think you can also argue that tanking is actually a good plan from a fan-interest perspective, because selling your fanbase on exciting draft prospects is a lot easier than getting them jazzed up about watching a bunch of journeymen and past-their-prime stars try to win enough games to earn the privilege of being swept in the 1st round.
Were the Sixers really devoid of anyone exciting? At least in comparison to the Mavs. I mean even that 10 win team had 20 year old Okafor averaging 17.5/7 as a rookie, had 21 year old Noel pumping out 11/8 coming off of an incredible defensive performance as a rookie, had Covington just entering his prime, had McConnell and Holmes showing promise as rookies, and intriguing play from younger players like Stauskas, Grant, Smith. I just don't see how that is less exciting than the Mavs and frankly I'd be way more excited about young guys then over the hill vets like Dirk, Barea, Harris, and Matthews. Sure Dallas has Smith and Barnes, Ferrell, Powell, etc. aren't old, but are they exciting?
-
From a business perspective, I think it's fair to say that fielding a roster devoid of anybody exciting -- i.e. what the Sixers did for several years -- is a lot worse than publicly acknowledging that your old and injury-prone team will probably be best-served by packing it in for a good draft pick in June.
To put it another way, the Sixers said a lot more about their intentions to lose, in a much more blatant way, from the start of each season, than Marc Cuban has ever done, without ever putting it into an explicit statement.
In either case, though, I think you can also argue that tanking is actually a good plan from a fan-interest perspective, because selling your fanbase on exciting draft prospects is a lot easier than getting them jazzed up about watching a bunch of journeymen and past-their-prime stars try to win enough games to earn the privilege of being swept in the 1st round.
Were the Sixers really devoid of anyone exciting? At least in comparison to the Mavs. I mean even that 10 win team had 20 year old Okafor averaging 17.5/7 as a rookie, had 21 year old Noel pumping out 11/8 coming off of an incredible defensive performance as a rookie, had Covington just entering his prime, had McConnell and Holmes showing promise as rookies, and intriguing play from younger players like Stauskas, Grant, Smith. I just don't see how that is less exciting than the Mavs and frankly I'd be way more excited about young guys then over the hill vets like Dirk, Barea, Harris, and Matthews. Sure Dallas has Smith and Barnes, Ferrell, Powell, etc. aren't old, but are they exciting?
First of all, Dirk is beloved so he's always going to have some excitement factor with Mavs fans, as he should. It's not like he's decrepit.
Also the leaders in minutes played on that 10-win Sixers team were:
Hollis Thompson
Jerami Grant
Isaiah Canaan
Nerlens Noel
Rob Covington
Of those players, only one has since secured a regular starting gig in the NBA. None of them averaged more than 13 points per game.
Even Jahlil Okafor wasn't inspiring too many folks that season despite his 17 points per game, what with his speeding and bar fights and terrible defense.
As I recall, most Sixers fans just seemed annoyed he wasn't Embiid.
-
I just don't see how that is less exciting than the Mavs and frankly I'd be way more excited about young guys then over the hill vets like Dirk, Barea, Harris, and Matthews. Sure Dallas has Smith and Barnes, Ferrell, Powell, etc. aren't old, but are they exciting?
Casual fans aren't typically excited about watching young players with very little offensive ability try to grind out low scoring wins (they averaged 97 points per game).
-
From a business perspective, I think it's fair to say that fielding a roster devoid of anybody exciting -- i.e. what the Sixers did for several years -- is a lot worse than publicly acknowledging that your old and injury-prone team will probably be best-served by packing it in for a good draft pick in June.
To put it another way, the Sixers said a lot more about their intentions to lose, in a much more blatant way, from the start of each season, than Marc Cuban has ever done, without ever putting it into an explicit statement.
In either case, though, I think you can also argue that tanking is actually a good plan from a fan-interest perspective, because selling your fanbase on exciting draft prospects is a lot easier than getting them jazzed up about watching a bunch of journeymen and past-their-prime stars try to win enough games to earn the privilege of being swept in the 1st round.
Were the Sixers really devoid of anyone exciting? At least in comparison to the Mavs. I mean even that 10 win team had 20 year old Okafor averaging 17.5/7 as a rookie, had 21 year old Noel pumping out 11/8 coming off of an incredible defensive performance as a rookie, had Covington just entering his prime, had McConnell and Holmes showing promise as rookies, and intriguing play from younger players like Stauskas, Grant, Smith. I just don't see how that is less exciting than the Mavs and frankly I'd be way more excited about young guys then over the hill vets like Dirk, Barea, Harris, and Matthews. Sure Dallas has Smith and Barnes, Ferrell, Powell, etc. aren't old, but are they exciting?
First of all, Dirk is beloved so he's always going to have some excitement factor with Mavs fans, as he should. It's not like he's decrepit.
Also the leaders in minutes played on that 10-win Sixers team were:
Hollis Thompson
Jerami Grant
Isaiah Canaan
Nerlens Noel
Rob Covington
Of those players, only one has since secured a regular starting gig in the NBA. None of them averaged more than 13 points per game.
Even Jahlil Okafor wasn't inspiring too many folks that season despite his 17 points per game, what with his speeding and bar fights and terrible defense.
As I recall, most Sixers fans just seemed annoyed he wasn't Embiid.
Yea... one of the main reasons the NBA got involved was because so few people were interested in watching their roster they were killing teams at the gates. The owners of other teams said they were losing a home game because of it.
http://www.espn.com/nba/boxscore?gameId=400828392
If Nowitski was not playing I think this would be a bit different, but people do want to see a hall of famer even if he is fairly washed up.