Do Celtics Fans Feel Grateful?

[Kernewek]

It's been a few years since I looked into this but Wyc is considered "cheap" because he's in the bottom 5 of NBA owners net worth if you don't count the franchise. Most owners are billionaires and the NBA teams are their hobbies.

He's a VC that convinced a bunch of other VCs to start a new firm that owns a basketball franchise. He leveraged his way into this position.

On the other hand, that mostly doesn't matter. If you're unable to afford a championship team, you should probably sell the team. Don't wind up like the Maloofs.

I don't think Wyc is a cheap owner, in the grand scheme of things.

The Wyc numbers are highly suspect, anyway.  The internet has had him worth $400 million literally for the past 15 - 20 years.  He must be the worst business man ever, despite owning a $4+ billion asset.

I doubt he's the worst business man ever, although he was a rich kid (sometimes they go hand in hand). I think there are people that inherited a lot and lost their parents' wealth. I assume he inherited less than $400m, but I'm not certain.

How did a thread discussing gratitude turn into bad-mouthing Wyc? Seems like an odd detour.

Grateful for the performance of the team to date with reservations that the owner isn't opening his wallet as wide as he could to swing for a championship seems pretty reasonable to me.

[green_bballers13]

It's been a few years since I looked into this but Wyc is considered "cheap" because he's in the bottom 5 of NBA owners net worth if you don't count the franchise. Most owners are billionaires and the NBA teams are their hobbies.

He's a VC that convinced a bunch of other VCs to start a new firm that owns a basketball franchise. He leveraged his way into this position.

On the other hand, that mostly doesn't matter. If you're unable to afford a championship team, you should probably sell the team. Don't wind up like the Maloofs.

I don't think Wyc is a cheap owner, in the grand scheme of things.

The Wyc numbers are highly suspect, anyway.  The internet has had him worth $400 million literally for the past 15 - 20 years.  He must be the worst business man ever, despite owning a $4+ billion asset.

I doubt he's the worst business man ever, although he was a rich kid (sometimes they go hand in hand). I think there are people that inherited a lot and lost their parents' wealth. I assume he inherited less than $400m, but I'm not certain.

How did a thread discussing gratitude turn into bad-mouthing Wyc? Seems like an odd detour.

Grateful for the performance of the team to date with reservations that the owner isn't opening his wallet as wide as he could to swing for a championship seems pretty reasonable to me.

What specifically do people want Wyc to do to show that he's not cheap? Use TPEs to acquire guys that will sit on the bench? Look at this stacked roster. Wyc won't be the reason that they lose a championship. Jayson, Jaylen, Porzingis, DWhite, Jrue Holliday, and Al Horford will be the reasons.

[greg683x]

 Wyc can’t do much more right now.

It’s on the players and the coach that his GM hired at this point.

The only thing that could come out about Wyc that could be pretty brutal is if the reason we got stuck with Mazzula is bc Wyc didn’t want to shell out for a higher end coach.

[Redz]

The Celtics have a ton of talent and a legit chance to win each year.  I’m grateful for that.  I enjoy watching guys develop and grow and I think the two main characters have been fascinating to see together for so long.  It’s been nice to see Pritchard and Hauser grow too.  Hell, I even get excited seeing what a guy like Queta can do, given the opportunity.

I enjoyed watching many bad Celtics team when they had some glimmer of hope and played hard.

These guys seem to play hard and care, plus they’re [dang] good.  So, yes, I’m grateful for that.  Beats watching reruns.

[Moranis]

It's been a few years since I looked into this but Wyc is considered "cheap" because he's in the bottom 5 of NBA owners net worth if you don't count the franchise. Most owners are billionaires and the NBA teams are their hobbies.

He's a VC that convinced a bunch of other VCs to start a new firm that owns a basketball franchise. He leveraged his way into this position.

On the other hand, that mostly doesn't matter. If you're unable to afford a championship team, you should probably sell the team. Don't wind up like the Maloofs.

I don't think Wyc is a cheap owner, in the grand scheme of things.

The Wyc numbers are highly suspect, anyway.  The internet has had him worth $400 million literally for the past 15 - 20 years.  He must be the worst business man ever, despite owning a $4+ billion asset.

I doubt he's the worst business man ever, although he was a rich kid (sometimes they go hand in hand). I think there are people that inherited a lot and lost their parents' wealth. I assume he inherited less than $400m, but I'm not certain.

How did a thread discussing gratitude turn into bad-mouthing Wyc? Seems like an odd detour.

Grateful for the performance of the team to date with reservations that the owner isn't opening his wallet as wide as he could to swing for a championship seems pretty reasonable to me.

Thanks. Didn't think I was off base on that one.  The team has simply let assets expire without using them, when using them could make a real difference.  Look how close the team was last year.  A 15 million dollar player (or players) easily could have made the difference in 1 of the 4 games we lost to the Heat (especially game 2 where we were outscored by 14 points in the 4th to lose by 6).  And they seemingly didn't use them because of financial reasons.  Even this year they let Grant walk and then didn't use the TPE.  They didn't use any 1st at the deadline either.

If Boston comes up short again, these little moves not made could be the reason.

[Kernewek]

It's been a few years since I looked into this but Wyc is considered "cheap" because he's in the bottom 5 of NBA owners net worth if you don't count the franchise. Most owners are billionaires and the NBA teams are their hobbies.

He's a VC that convinced a bunch of other VCs to start a new firm that owns a basketball franchise. He leveraged his way into this position.

On the other hand, that mostly doesn't matter. If you're unable to afford a championship team, you should probably sell the team. Don't wind up like the Maloofs.

I don't think Wyc is a cheap owner, in the grand scheme of things.

The Wyc numbers are highly suspect, anyway.  The internet has had him worth $400 million literally for the past 15 - 20 years.  He must be the worst business man ever, despite owning a $4+ billion asset.

I doubt he's the worst business man ever, although he was a rich kid (sometimes they go hand in hand). I think there are people that inherited a lot and lost their parents' wealth. I assume he inherited less than $400m, but I'm not certain.

How did a thread discussing gratitude turn into bad-mouthing Wyc? Seems like an odd detour.

Grateful for the performance of the team to date with reservations that the owner isn't opening his wallet as wide as he could to swing for a championship seems pretty reasonable to me.

What specifically do people want Wyc to do to show that he's not cheap? Use TPEs to acquire guys that will sit on the bench? Look at this stacked roster. Wyc won't be the reason that they lose a championship. Jayson, Jaylen, Porzingis, DWhite, Jrue Holliday, and Al Horford will be the reasons.

I think you're right, but one recent example might be: empowering his GM to hire assistant coaches to replace departed coaching staff during the season, rather than letting their new head coach go through the ringer and effectively punting on what could have been a championship season.

[rocknrollforyoursoul]

Perhaps I missed something earlier in the thread, but is no one going to acknowledge that this thread is basically just a swipe at anyone who has any criticisms at all of this team? I know that there are trolls out there, and they make life more difficult, but there are legitimate criticisms of any team, no matter how good, especially when that team has yet to win a title. It's not like this team has any rings and has therefore earned the benefit of the doubt.

There are clearly some posters on CS, and over on CB, who absolutely hate to see any criticism of this team, and act like the team is beyond reproach simply because they have the best record. So then my question becomes: When is it okay to criticize? After they're eliminated from the playoffs? Hopefully they don't get eliminated, but if they do, I already know the answer to that question: "Even if they're eliminated, they still had a good season, so you have nothing to complain about."

People are, of course, free to do what they want, whether they're optimists, pessimists, or ambivalent, but I'm tired of the Positivity Police patrolling these boards like it's their sacred duty to stamp out all dissent.

[green_bballers13]

Perhaps I missed something earlier in the thread, but is no one going to acknowledge that this thread is basically just a swipe at anyone who has any criticisms at all of this team? I know that there are trolls out there, and they make life more difficult, but there are legitimate criticisms of any team, no matter how good, especially when that team has yet to win a title. It's not like this team has any rings and has therefore earned the benefit of the doubt.

There are clearly some posters on CS, and over on CB, who absolutely hate to see any criticism of this team, and act like the team is beyond reproach simply because they have the best record. So then my question becomes: When is it okay to criticize? After they're eliminated from the playoffs? Hopefully they don't get eliminated, but if they do, I already know the answer to that question: "Even if they're eliminated, they still had a good season, so you have nothing to complain about."

People are, of course, free to do what they want, whether they're optimists, pessimists, or ambivalent, but I'm tired of the Positivity Police patrolling these boards like it's their sacred duty to stamp out all dissent.

I think criticism (and free speech) is always welcome. That goes both ways though. If someone criticizes the Celtics and their criticism is flawed, they should be able to be called out. Focusing on unused TPE's for players that would ride the pine is an example. Criticizing Joe (when he never should have been the coach because of Ime's immoral actions) is another. Focusing on Wyc's cheapness while this team is absolutely stacked with big time contracts is another.

I do think that we find faults with the league's best team. I think the amount of negativity is surprising. I wanted to get a sense of how many people realize how lucky they are to follow this team vs the Knicks or the Wizards.

[bdm860]

It's been a few years since I looked into this but Wyc is considered "cheap" because he's in the bottom 5 of NBA owners net worth if you don't count the franchise. Most owners are billionaires and the NBA teams are their hobbies.

He's a VC that convinced a bunch of other VCs to start a new firm that owns a basketball franchise. He leveraged his way into this position.

On the other hand, that mostly doesn't matter. If you're unable to afford a championship team, you should probably sell the team. Don't wind up like the Maloofs.

I don't think Wyc is a cheap owner, in the grand scheme of things.

The Wyc numbers are highly suspect, anyway.  The internet has had him worth $400 million literally for the past 15 - 20 years.  He must be the worst business man ever, despite owning a $4+ billion asset.

I doubt he's the worst business man ever, although he was a rich kid (sometimes they go hand in hand). I think there are people that inherited a lot and lost their parents' wealth. I assume he inherited less than $400m, but I'm not certain.

How did a thread discussing gratitude turn into bad-mouthing Wyc? Seems like an odd detour.

Grateful for the performance of the team to date with reservations that the owner isn't opening his wallet as wide as he could to swing for a championship seems pretty reasonable to me.

What specifically do people want Wyc to do to show that he's not cheap? Use TPEs to acquire guys that will sit on the bench? Look at this stacked roster. Wyc won't be the reason that they lose a championship. Jayson, Jaylen, Porzingis, DWhite, Jrue Holliday, and Al Horford will be the reasons.

I think you're right, but one recent example might be: empowering his GM to hire assistant coaches to replace departed coaching staff during the season, rather than letting their new head coach go through the ringer and effectively punting on what could have been a championship season.

I'll counter that with look how quickly good assistants get hired.  Usually they're all hired in June or very early July.  Mazzulla/Udoka switch happened at the end of September, so by then you're left with no good assistants on the market (everyone would have committed to a team for the year).  At that point your left with unemployed former head coaches who would be questionable fits as assistants (and who could possibly disrupt the locker room more as they try to position themselves to take over as head coach).  It was a tough situation all around.

I'll echo one of the strengths greg683x mentioned last page.  I love that this ownership group has minimal coaching and GM changes.  I think that's a hugely underrated strength for a franchise (Heat share this).  If you're constantly hiring/firing coaches/executives, what does that say for your ownership's decision making? (Of course, for the many of you who want Mazzulla gone, I can see how this might not be viewed as a strength lol, and there is an argument made that it's a strength to be able to quickly fix an incorrect decision, but that's a whole philosophical debate...).

It's been a few years since I looked into this but Wyc is considered "cheap" because he's in the bottom 5 of NBA owners net worth if you don't count the franchise. Most owners are billionaires and the NBA teams are their hobbies.

He's a VC that convinced a bunch of other VCs to start a new firm that owns a basketball franchise. He leveraged his way into this position.

On the other hand, that mostly doesn't matter. If you're unable to afford a championship team, you should probably sell the team. Don't wind up like the Maloofs.

I don't think Wyc is a cheap owner, in the grand scheme of things.

The Wyc numbers are highly suspect, anyway.  The internet has had him worth $400 million literally for the past 15 - 20 years.  He must be the worst business man ever, despite owning a $4+ billion asset.

This is an interesting thing I've thought about, but the internet is very unclear on. 

Is Wyc thee owner, or is Wyc simply an owner, one of several.   Obviously he's part of an ownership group, but what's Wyc's stake?  Does he only own a small piece (<10%), or does he own a significant chuck (30%, 40%, 50%)?  (Wikipedia  lists 16 founding members, if all equal owners, then Wyc's stake would have been 6.25%).

I've commented before about how I view Wyc as a politician, and this is part of it.  I think his stake is on the smaller side (<10%), but he positioned himself to become the face of the ownership group, and so a lot of people associate him as thee owner of the Celtics, as opposed to a part owner of the Celtics.  I wouldn't be surprised if he's one of the least successful members of the ownership group.  That's not to hate on Wyc (being the least successful in a multi-billion dollar ownership group is still pretty amazing), but I do think this guy is a big time politician, so I wouldn't be surprised if he's a lot less successful than we all think.

[liam]

Perhaps I missed something earlier in the thread, but is no one going to acknowledge that this thread is basically just a swipe at anyone who has any criticisms at all of this team? I know that there are trolls out there, and they make life more difficult, but there are legitimate criticisms of any team, no matter how good, especially when that team has yet to win a title. It's not like this team has any rings and has therefore earned the benefit of the doubt.

There are clearly some posters on CS, and over on CB, who absolutely hate to see any criticism of this team, and act like the team is beyond reproach simply because they have the best record. So then my question becomes: When is it okay to criticize? After they're eliminated from the playoffs? Hopefully they don't get eliminated, but if they do, I already know the answer to that question: "Even if they're eliminated, they still had a good season, so you have nothing to complain about."

People are, of course, free to do what they want, whether they're optimists, pessimists, or ambivalent, but I'm tired of the Positivity Police patrolling these boards like it's their sacred duty to stamp out all dissent.

I think criticism (and free speech) is always welcome. That goes both ways though. If someone criticizes the Celtics and their criticism is flawed, they should be able to be called out. Focusing on unused TPE's for players that would ride the pine is an example. Criticizing Joe (when he never should have been the coach because of Ime's immoral actions) is another. Focusing on Wyc's cheapness while this team is absolutely stacked with big time contracts is another.

I do think that we find faults with the league's best team. I think the amount of negativity is surprising. I wanted to get a sense of how many people realize how lucky they are to follow this team vs the Knicks or the Wizards.

If you lived through the 1990s Celtics experience you'd be really happy right now! Those were the dark days and I still got excited every year and bought the Sporting News preview mag. I still watched all the games. Go Celtics!

[Kernewek]

It's been a few years since I looked into this but Wyc is considered "cheap" because he's in the bottom 5 of NBA owners net worth if you don't count the franchise. Most owners are billionaires and the NBA teams are their hobbies.

He's a VC that convinced a bunch of other VCs to start a new firm that owns a basketball franchise. He leveraged his way into this position.

On the other hand, that mostly doesn't matter. If you're unable to afford a championship team, you should probably sell the team. Don't wind up like the Maloofs.

I don't think Wyc is a cheap owner, in the grand scheme of things.

The Wyc numbers are highly suspect, anyway.  The internet has had him worth $400 million literally for the past 15 - 20 years.  He must be the worst business man ever, despite owning a $4+ billion asset.

I doubt he's the worst business man ever, although he was a rich kid (sometimes they go hand in hand). I think there are people that inherited a lot and lost their parents' wealth. I assume he inherited less than $400m, but I'm not certain.

How did a thread discussing gratitude turn into bad-mouthing Wyc? Seems like an odd detour.

Grateful for the performance of the team to date with reservations that the owner isn't opening his wallet as wide as he could to swing for a championship seems pretty reasonable to me.

What specifically do people want Wyc to do to show that he's not cheap? Use TPEs to acquire guys that will sit on the bench? Look at this stacked roster. Wyc won't be the reason that they lose a championship. Jayson, Jaylen, Porzingis, DWhite, Jrue Holliday, and Al Horford will be the reasons.

I think you're right, but one recent example might be: empowering his GM to hire assistant coaches to replace departed coaching staff during the season, rather than letting their new head coach go through the ringer and effectively punting on what could have been a championship season.

I'll counter that with look how quickly good assistants get hired.  Usually they're all hired in June or very early July.  Mazzulla/Udoka switch happened at the end of September, so by then you're left with no good assistants on the market (everyone would have committed to a team for the year).  At that point your left with unemployed former head coaches who would be questionable fits as assistants (and who could possibly disrupt the locker room more as they try to position themselves to take over as head coach).  It was a tough situation all around.

I'll echo one of the strengths greg683x mentioned last page.  I love that this ownership group has minimal coaching and GM changes.  I think that's a hugely underrated strength for a franchise (Heat share this).  If you're constantly hiring/firing coaches/executives, what does that say for your ownership's decision making? (Of course, for the many of you who want Mazzulla gone, I can see how this might not be viewed as a strength lol, and there is an argument made that it's a strength to be able to quickly fix an incorrect decision, but that's a whole philosophical debate...).

Yeah agree with you, just providing a potential example for discussion.

To be honest, I'm just happily enjoying the fact that the Celtics are on pace to have the most efficient offense in NBA history, even if it's not the most aesthetically pleasing. That's quite a turnaround from what we saw in the last Finals appearance, which was laboured scoring (to put it politely).

[scaryjerry]

Of course I’m grateful? I’d still be watching and grateful if they were a 9 win team. Doesn’t change the fact that they’ve come up short for years and this year is championship or bust and roster wise probably the best chance we will ever have in the Tatum era so if they don’t get it done now it probably isn’t happening. The expectations are absolutely sky high and so is the criticism. But yeah I’m thankful for Celtics basketball.

[rocknrollforyoursoul]

Perhaps I missed something earlier in the thread, but is no one going to acknowledge that this thread is basically just a swipe at anyone who has any criticisms at all of this team? I know that there are trolls out there, and they make life more difficult, but there are legitimate criticisms of any team, no matter how good, especially when that team has yet to win a title. It's not like this team has any rings and has therefore earned the benefit of the doubt.

There are clearly some posters on CS, and over on CB, who absolutely hate to see any criticism of this team, and act like the team is beyond reproach simply because they have the best record. So then my question becomes: When is it okay to criticize? After they're eliminated from the playoffs? Hopefully they don't get eliminated, but if they do, I already know the answer to that question: "Even if they're eliminated, they still had a good season, so you have nothing to complain about."

People are, of course, free to do what they want, whether they're optimists, pessimists, or ambivalent, but I'm tired of the Positivity Police patrolling these boards like it's their sacred duty to stamp out all dissent.

I think criticism (and free speech) is always welcome. That goes both ways though. If someone criticizes the Celtics and their criticism is flawed, they should be able to be called out. Focusing on unused TPE's for players that would ride the pine is an example. Criticizing Joe (when he never should have been the coach because of Ime's immoral actions) is another. Focusing on Wyc's cheapness while this team is absolutely stacked with big time contracts is another.

I do think that we find faults with the league's best team. I think the amount of negativity is surprising. I wanted to get a sense of how many people realize how lucky they are to follow this team vs the Knicks or the Wizards.

I have no problem with calling out flawed arguments—though I think, generally speaking, that is too often done sarcastically instead of civilly—but in recent times I've seen a good deal of sentiment around CS and CB that, IMO, can be boiled down to: "They have the best record, so there's nothing to complain about. Period." Even if it's a putrid game, like that recent Lakers game, it seemed like criticism of their play in that one game was met with a lot of "It's just one game, so don't complain and don't worry about it; they'll be fine." (Though that opens the door for discussion of what "fine" means, but I digress.)

Anyway, I tend to be a pessimist with sports-related things, I think as a way of protecting myself against what usually ends up being a disappointing ending to the season, but I try to not exaggerate or overreact (don't always succeed), so when I sometimes see people saying "Don't complain," I presume they're lumping me in with others—and I probably shouldn't presume that, but because I do, the complaints about the complainers sometimes rub me the wrong way. Sorry if I explained all of that in a confusing way.

[green_bballers13]

Perhaps I missed something earlier in the thread, but is no one going to acknowledge that this thread is basically just a swipe at anyone who has any criticisms at all of this team? I know that there are trolls out there, and they make life more difficult, but there are legitimate criticisms of any team, no matter how good, especially when that team has yet to win a title. It's not like this team has any rings and has therefore earned the benefit of the doubt.

There are clearly some posters on CS, and over on CB, who absolutely hate to see any criticism of this team, and act like the team is beyond reproach simply because they have the best record. So then my question becomes: When is it okay to criticize? After they're eliminated from the playoffs? Hopefully they don't get eliminated, but if they do, I already know the answer to that question: "Even if they're eliminated, they still had a good season, so you have nothing to complain about."

People are, of course, free to do what they want, whether they're optimists, pessimists, or ambivalent, but I'm tired of the Positivity Police patrolling these boards like it's their sacred duty to stamp out all dissent.

I think criticism (and free speech) is always welcome. That goes both ways though. If someone criticizes the Celtics and their criticism is flawed, they should be able to be called out. Focusing on unused TPE's for players that would ride the pine is an example. Criticizing Joe (when he never should have been the coach because of Ime's immoral actions) is another. Focusing on Wyc's cheapness while this team is absolutely stacked with big time contracts is another.

I do think that we find faults with the league's best team. I think the amount of negativity is surprising. I wanted to get a sense of how many people realize how lucky they are to follow this team vs the Knicks or the Wizards.

I have no problem with calling out flawed arguments—though I think, generally speaking, that is too often done sarcastically instead of civilly—but in recent times I've seen a good deal of sentiment around CS and CB that, IMO, can be boiled down to: "They have the best record, so there's nothing to complain about. Period." Even if it's a putrid game, like that recent Lakers game, it seemed like criticism of their play in that one game was met with a lot of "It's just one game, so don't complain and don't worry about it; they'll be fine." (Though that opens the door for discussion of what "fine" means, but I digress.)

Anyway, I tend to be a pessimist with sports-related things, I think as a way of protecting myself against what usually ends up being a disappointing ending to the season, but I try to not exaggerate or overreact (don't always succeed), so when I sometimes see people saying "Don't complain," I presume they're lumping me in with others—and I probably shouldn't presume that, but because I do, the complaints about the complainers sometimes rub me the wrong way. Sorry if I explained all of that in a confusing way.

TP, I gotcha.

One of the reasons why Moranis is such a great poster is that he writes hot takes and does a decent job of backing up his claims. He has the ability to convince you that the sky is red, and then gives you 10 different data points to back up that claim. I often disagree with his conclusions, but I can see the dots that he connected to get there.

I get irritated when I see quick hitters like "Wyc is cheap", "the Celtics have no heart", "Joe is an idiot", "Jaylen has low basketball IQ", etc. There's often very little meat on the bone to substantiate these claims, so I (and I'm sure some others) feel the need to question such comments.

[rocknrollforyoursoul]

Perhaps I missed something earlier in the thread, but is no one going to acknowledge that this thread is basically just a swipe at anyone who has any criticisms at all of this team? I know that there are trolls out there, and they make life more difficult, but there are legitimate criticisms of any team, no matter how good, especially when that team has yet to win a title. It's not like this team has any rings and has therefore earned the benefit of the doubt.

There are clearly some posters on CS, and over on CB, who absolutely hate to see any criticism of this team, and act like the team is beyond reproach simply because they have the best record. So then my question becomes: When is it okay to criticize? After they're eliminated from the playoffs? Hopefully they don't get eliminated, but if they do, I already know the answer to that question: "Even if they're eliminated, they still had a good season, so you have nothing to complain about."

People are, of course, free to do what they want, whether they're optimists, pessimists, or ambivalent, but I'm tired of the Positivity Police patrolling these boards like it's their sacred duty to stamp out all dissent.

I think criticism (and free speech) is always welcome. That goes both ways though. If someone criticizes the Celtics and their criticism is flawed, they should be able to be called out. Focusing on unused TPE's for players that would ride the pine is an example. Criticizing Joe (when he never should have been the coach because of Ime's immoral actions) is another. Focusing on Wyc's cheapness while this team is absolutely stacked with big time contracts is another.

I do think that we find faults with the league's best team. I think the amount of negativity is surprising. I wanted to get a sense of how many people realize how lucky they are to follow this team vs the Knicks or the Wizards.

I have no problem with calling out flawed arguments—though I think, generally speaking, that is too often done sarcastically instead of civilly—but in recent times I've seen a good deal of sentiment around CS and CB that, IMO, can be boiled down to: "They have the best record, so there's nothing to complain about. Period." Even if it's a putrid game, like that recent Lakers game, it seemed like criticism of their play in that one game was met with a lot of "It's just one game, so don't complain and don't worry about it; they'll be fine." (Though that opens the door for discussion of what "fine" means, but I digress.)

Anyway, I tend to be a pessimist with sports-related things, I think as a way of protecting myself against what usually ends up being a disappointing ending to the season, but I try to not exaggerate or overreact (don't always succeed), so when I sometimes see people saying "Don't complain," I presume they're lumping me in with others—and I probably shouldn't presume that, but because I do, the complaints about the complainers sometimes rub me the wrong way. Sorry if I explained all of that in a confusing way.

TP, I gotcha.

One of the reasons why Moranis is such a great poster is that he writes hot takes and does a decent job of backing up his claims. He has the ability to convince you that the sky is red, and then gives you 10 different data points to back up that claim. I often disagree with his conclusions, but I can see the dots that he connected to get there.

I get irritated when I see quick hitters like "Wyc is cheap", "the Celtics have no heart", "Joe is an idiot", "Jaylen has low basketball IQ", etc. There's often very little meat on the bone to substantiate these claims, so I (and I'm sure some others) feel the need to question such comments.

That's understandable, and I generally agree with that. Though I do think there could be some merit with certain of those statements (or variations of those statements) if presented in a civil fashion and backed up with examples/data. For example, I don't think it's true that Joe is an idiot, but I think it could be reasonably argued that he's made some bad/incorrect decisions. The problem is that in the moment, people are often inflamed with emotion, so instead of saying the latter, they say the former. My guess is that many of us could do with extending a little more grace, especially after a loss.

And a TP to you too.