What would it take for you to be Pro Draft?

[Csfan1984]

So, you're artificially making it seem like everyone wants to tank by not giving a "Nothing" option?

Read the post. And having that option wouldn't be answering the question technically.

I read the post, hence my comment.  You're giving people the option to disagree with you in posts, why not in the poll?

I can't think of any situation where I would be okay with trading guys like AB for pennies on the dollar just to slightly improve out pick (and don't try to say it could help our pick next year, short of going full 6ers we aren't likely to be worse than the Nets next year, not to mention that tanking would help the Nets)

Not in poll because the question is "What would it take". You can't answer never going be Pro Draft to answer, "what would it take to be Pro Draft". Get it? So I put answer in comments if you believe in never going Pro draft route. It's not artificial it's answering a question of a sum.

All it seems like is a way to say "Look, everyone would approve of Tanking if I change the name of it!".  Add in that your definition involves moves that I (and probably others) would not want to do, and it's not really a good poll.  Get it?

I guess I'd say, then, that you need an option of "AB/IT/others have career ending injuries" or "Not if it involves selling off our good young players for nothing just because they are a year or two past their rookie deals"

The whole idea makes no sense, anyway.  It's not like we have a shot at the #1 pick from our spot this year, and tanking next year would help the Nets more than us, so why do it? Just keep on the path we're on

Your issue is the question then not the answers if that is your reasoning and denial to accept the facts of the statements. Seems you want to keep crying about people seeing this team as a troubled one. They have issues and they are far from contenders. Sometimes (especially in the NBA) you have to bottom out a little before you get better. The question remains how much does it take before we are ready to be that. And there is always a limit to what people will accept or else it's insanity.

[Roy H.]

Under what circumstances would I consider dumping our best players for garbage, just to lose more?

It what have to involve me being hired by a division rival, I guess. Otherwise, having good veteran players on cheap contracts seems like the gold standard.

[Csfan1984]

Under what circumstances would I consider dumping our best players for garbage, just to lose more?

It what have to involve me being hired by a division rival, I guess. Otherwise, having good veteran players on cheap contracts seems like the gold standard.

First part was great last not so good. Good vets cheap a gold standard talk about green kool-aid.

[BitterJim]

So, you're artificially making it seem like everyone wants to tank by not giving a "Nothing" option?

Read the post. And having that option wouldn't be answering the question technically.

I read the post, hence my comment.  You're giving people the option to disagree with you in posts, why not in the poll?

I can't think of any situation where I would be okay with trading guys like AB for pennies on the dollar just to slightly improve out pick (and don't try to say it could help our pick next year, short of going full 6ers we aren't likely to be worse than the Nets next year, not to mention that tanking would help the Nets)

Not in poll because the question is "What would it take". You can't answer never going be Pro Draft to answer, "what would it take to be Pro Draft". Get it? So I put answer in comments if you believe in never going Pro draft route. It's not artificial it's answering a question of a sum.

All it seems like is a way to say "Look, everyone would approve of Tanking if I change the name of it!".  Add in that your definition involves moves that I (and probably others) would not want to do, and it's not really a good poll.  Get it?

I guess I'd say, then, that you need an option of "AB/IT/others have career ending injuries" or "Not if it involves selling off our good young players for nothing just because they are a year or two past their rookie deals"

The whole idea makes no sense, anyway.  It's not like we have a shot at the #1 pick from our spot this year, and tanking next year would help the Nets more than us, so why do it? Just keep on the path we're on

Your issue is the question then not the answers if that is your reasoning and denial to accept the facts of the statements. Seems you want to keep crying about people seeing this team as a troubled one. They have issues they are far from contenders. Sometimes (especially in the NBA) you have to bottom out a little before you get better. The question remains how much does it take before we are ready to be that. And there is always a limit to what people will accept or else it's insanity.

I'm honored that you constructed a whole new group of opinions for me based on not wanting to sell of guys like Bradley, IT, and Crowder in order to bottom out, even if we are struggling a bit, though I think I'll stick with my current ones (if you don't mind)

Being far from contenders doesn't mean that we should just blow everything up.  We are in year 3 of a rebuild.  Scrapping our current progress just doesn't make sense right now, even if we go on a 6 game losing streak (which 8 teams have done already, with the Rockets poised to join them) or not having shown improvement after the all star break.  If you also consider the Nets pick swap, it just doesn't make sense.

Even if we went full 6ers right now, we would have a hard time getting a top three pick, and trading away good young players for less than their value to move up a few spots just doesn't make sense.  As for it helping us next year, it wouldn't have that much of an effect UNLESS the Nets get way better over the summer (which is a possibility, although I doubt it will happen).  Even if the Nets have modest improvement, the biggest effect of tanking next year would be to improve the pick the Nets get (since they get the worse of our pick or theirs, which would probably only be in the lottery if we tank) I'm not going to get into the relative strengths of the next few drafts, either, since a LOT can change between now and then (just look at how hyped up the 2014 draft was)

Let me rephrase my first post:

You should add an option for "Nothing that happens this year would make me 'Pro-Draft' ", since some people may not think that a setback this season would be enough to justify selling off guys like AB or IT. 

I trust the process and don't think that stumbling this year should lead to us starting over

[Csfan1984]

So, you're artificially making it seem like everyone wants to tank by not giving a "Nothing" option?

Read the post. And having that option wouldn't be answering the question technically.

I read the post, hence my comment.  You're giving people the option to disagree with you in posts, why not in the poll?

I can't think of any situation where I would be okay with trading guys like AB for pennies on the dollar just to slightly improve out pick (and don't try to say it could help our pick next year, short of going full 6ers we aren't likely to be worse than the Nets next year, not to mention that tanking would help the Nets)

Not in poll because the question is "What would it take". You can't answer never going be Pro Draft to answer, "what would it take to be Pro Draft". Get it? So I put answer in comments if you believe in never going Pro draft route. It's not artificial it's answering a question of a sum.

All it seems like is a way to say "Look, everyone would approve of Tanking if I change the name of it!".  Add in that your definition involves moves that I (and probably others) would not want to do, and it's not really a good poll.  Get it?

I guess I'd say, then, that you need an option of "AB/IT/others have career ending injuries" or "Not if it involves selling off our good young players for nothing just because they are a year or two past their rookie deals"

The whole idea makes no sense, anyway.  It's not like we have a shot at the #1 pick from our spot this year, and tanking next year would help the Nets more than us, so why do it? Just keep on the path we're on

Your issue is the question then not the answers if that is your reasoning and denial to accept the facts of the statements. Seems you want to keep crying about people seeing this team as a troubled one. They have issues they are far from contenders. Sometimes (especially in the NBA) you have to bottom out a little before you get better. The question remains how much does it take before we are ready to be that. And there is always a limit to what people will accept or else it's insanity.

I'm honored that you constructed a whole new group of opinions for me based on not wanting to sell of guys like Bradley, IT, and Crowder in order to bottom out, even if we are struggling a bit, though I think I'll stick with my current ones (if you don't mind)

Being far from contenders doesn't mean that we should just blow everything up.  We are in year 3 of a rebuild.  Scrapping our current progress just doesn't make sense right now, even if we go on a 6 game losing streak (which 8 teams have done already, with the Rockets poised to join them) or not having shown improvement after the all star break.  If you also consider the Nets pick swap, it just doesn't make sense.

Even if we went full 6ers right now, we would have a hard time getting a top three pick, and trading away good young players for less than their value to move up a few spots just doesn't make sense.  As for it helping us next year, it wouldn't have that much of an effect UNLESS the Nets get way better over the summer (which is a possibility, although I doubt it will happen).  Even if the Nets have modest improvement, the biggest effect of tanking next year would be to improve the pick the Nets get (since they get the worse of our pick or theirs, which would probably only be in the lottery if we tank) I'm not going to get into the relative strengths of the next few drafts, either, since a LOT can change between now and then (just look at how hyped up the 2014 draft was)

Let me rephrase my first post:

You should add an option for "Nothing that happens this year would make me 'Pro-Draft' ", since some people may not think that a setback this season would be enough to justify selling off guys like AB or IT. 

I trust the process and don't think that stumbling this year should lead to us starting over

Again this is completely off topic. You are crying about the question. I don't care if you don't like the question or that the poll answers are only answers to the question, smh. The question is, What would it take to be Pro Draft. You can always come up with an awesome answer like Roy did. Being hired by a rival. Or maybe marrying a rich Knicks fan and having change your team. Don't hate the question hate that C's are so mediocre to the point that people think we may have to bottom out.

[BitterJim]

So, you're artificially making it seem like everyone wants to tank by not giving a "Nothing" option?

Read the post. And having that option wouldn't be answering the question technically.

I read the post, hence my comment.  You're giving people the option to disagree with you in posts, why not in the poll?

I can't think of any situation where I would be okay with trading guys like AB for pennies on the dollar just to slightly improve out pick (and don't try to say it could help our pick next year, short of going full 6ers we aren't likely to be worse than the Nets next year, not to mention that tanking would help the Nets)

Not in poll because the question is "What would it take". You can't answer never going be Pro Draft to answer, "what would it take to be Pro Draft". Get it? So I put answer in comments if you believe in never going Pro draft route. It's not artificial it's answering a question of a sum.

All it seems like is a way to say "Look, everyone would approve of Tanking if I change the name of it!".  Add in that your definition involves moves that I (and probably others) would not want to do, and it's not really a good poll.  Get it?

I guess I'd say, then, that you need an option of "AB/IT/others have career ending injuries" or "Not if it involves selling off our good young players for nothing just because they are a year or two past their rookie deals"

The whole idea makes no sense, anyway.  It's not like we have a shot at the #1 pick from our spot this year, and tanking next year would help the Nets more than us, so why do it? Just keep on the path we're on

Your issue is the question then not the answers if that is your reasoning and denial to accept the facts of the statements. Seems you want to keep crying about people seeing this team as a troubled one. They have issues they are far from contenders. Sometimes (especially in the NBA) you have to bottom out a little before you get better. The question remains how much does it take before we are ready to be that. And there is always a limit to what people will accept or else it's insanity.

I'm honored that you constructed a whole new group of opinions for me based on not wanting to sell of guys like Bradley, IT, and Crowder in order to bottom out, even if we are struggling a bit, though I think I'll stick with my current ones (if you don't mind)

Being far from contenders doesn't mean that we should just blow everything up.  We are in year 3 of a rebuild.  Scrapping our current progress just doesn't make sense right now, even if we go on a 6 game losing streak (which 8 teams have done already, with the Rockets poised to join them) or not having shown improvement after the all star break.  If you also consider the Nets pick swap, it just doesn't make sense.

Even if we went full 6ers right now, we would have a hard time getting a top three pick, and trading away good young players for less than their value to move up a few spots just doesn't make sense.  As for it helping us next year, it wouldn't have that much of an effect UNLESS the Nets get way better over the summer (which is a possibility, although I doubt it will happen).  Even if the Nets have modest improvement, the biggest effect of tanking next year would be to improve the pick the Nets get (since they get the worse of our pick or theirs, which would probably only be in the lottery if we tank) I'm not going to get into the relative strengths of the next few drafts, either, since a LOT can change between now and then (just look at how hyped up the 2014 draft was)

Let me rephrase my first post:

You should add an option for "Nothing that happens this year would make me 'Pro-Draft' ", since some people may not think that a setback this season would be enough to justify selling off guys like AB or IT. 

I trust the process and don't think that stumbling this year should lead to us starting over

Again this is completely off topic. You are crying about the question. I don't care if you don't like the question or that the poll answers are only answers to the question, smh. The question is, What would it take to be Pro Draft. You can always come up with an awesome answer like Roy did. Being hired by a rival. Or maybe marrying a rich Knicks fan and having change your team. Don't hate the question hate that C's are so mediocre to the point that people think we may have to bottom out.

I'm not "crying" about anything...

I think you need to realize that some people (like myself) would not under any *reasonable* circumstances be pro-tanking this year.  I don't know why it makes you so angry, but that's how it is.  And, whether you like it or no, it's a valid answer.  I can't make you add it to the poll, I just don't get why you're so hardset against it

Even a "None of the above, would need to be worse" would make sense, because none of your options would make me pro-tanking

[Csfan1984]

I don't have a problem with people not wanting to be Pro draft. It's why I said comment below. I do have a problem when people try to call me out and don't know what they are writing about when they call it artificial. The question is the question. I also clearly stated why I wasnt going to post a nonanswer option. I expect plenty to comment no. What I want to know is still the question, What would it take. You went out on a tangent and off topic. That is the truth of the matter.

[BitterJim]

I don't have a problem with people not wanting to be Pro draft. It's why I said comment below. I do have a problem when people try to call me out and don't know what they are writing about when they call it artificial. The question is the question. I also clearly stated why I wasnt going to post a nonanswer option. I expect plenty to comment no. What I want to know is still the question, What would it take. You went out on a tangent and off topic. That is the truth of the matter.

So you won't have a "nonanswer" option because you expect people to comment "no"?  Why not have them vote and comment?

The only explanation I can come up with is that you don't want it to outnumber the other options.  You're welcome to explain why you don't want that option on there, but until then I'm just going to assume that you don't want to have it outnumber the other options.

[Csfan1984]

I don't have a problem with people not wanting to be Pro draft. It's why I said comment below. I do have a problem when people try to call me out and don't know what they are writing about when they call it artificial. The question is the question. I also clearly stated why I wasnt going to post a nonanswer option. I expect plenty to comment no. What I want to know is still the question, What would it take. You went out on a tangent and off topic. That is the truth of the matter.

So you won't have a "nonanswer" option because you expect people to comment "no"?  Why not have them vote and comment?

The only explanation I can come up with is that you don't want it to outnumber the other options.  You're welcome to explain why you don't want that option on there, but until then I'm just going to assume that you don't want to have it outnumber the other options.

I told you geesh. It's not a sum answer to say flat out no. Look at the poll question and answers. They are related to being worse than we currently are. They are searching for a tipping point for a pro draft majority. It's not about why we should not it's about what will be the point capable of changing people's majority opinion.

[BitterJim]

I don't have a problem with people not wanting to be Pro draft. It's why I said comment below. I do have a problem when people try to call me out and don't know what they are writing about when they call it artificial. The question is the question. I also clearly stated why I wasnt going to post a nonanswer option. I expect plenty to comment no. What I want to know is still the question, What would it take. You went out on a tangent and off topic. That is the truth of the matter.

So you won't have a "nonanswer" option because you expect people to comment "no"?  Why not have them vote and comment?

The only explanation I can come up with is that you don't want it to outnumber the other options.  You're welcome to explain why you don't want that option on there, but until then I'm just going to assume that you don't want to have it outnumber the other options.

I told you geesh. It's not a sum answer to say flat out no. Look at the poll question and answers. They are related to being worse than we currently are. They are searching for a tipping point for a pro draft majority. It's not about why we should not it's about what will be the point capable of changing people's majority opinion.

If that's the case, then why not add an option that says it would take more than the options being put out there?  I doubt I'm the only one who thinks it would take more than the options you presented to be convinced.

Also, saying "I want people to comment" isn't a reason to not have that option.  They aren't mutually exclusive.  Having the option would just give people an idea of how many people have that opinion

[Csfan1984]

I don't have a problem with people not wanting to be Pro draft. It's why I said comment below. I do have a problem when people try to call me out and don't know what they are writing about when they call it artificial. The question is the question. I also clearly stated why I wasnt going to post a nonanswer option. I expect plenty to comment no. What I want to know is still the question, What would it take. You went out on a tangent and off topic. That is the truth of the matter.

So you won't have a "nonanswer" option because you expect people to comment "no"?  Why not have them vote and comment?

The only explanation I can come up with is that you don't want it to outnumber the other options.  You're welcome to explain why you don't want that option on there, but until then I'm just going to assume that you don't want to have it outnumber the other options.

I told you geesh. It's not a sum answer to say flat out no. Look at the poll question and answers. They are related to being worse than we currently are. They are searching for a tipping point for a pro draft majority. It's not about why we should not it's about what will be the point capable of changing people's majority opinion.

If that's the case, then why not add an option that says it would take more than the options being put out there?  I doubt I'm the only one who thinks it would take more than the options you presented to be convinced.

Also, saying "I want people to comment" isn't a reason to not have that option.  They aren't mutually exclusive.  Having the option would just give people an idea of how many people have that opinion

Are you kidding me. Let me repeat for the 5th time. Again it's a sum answer to the question. What would it take to be Pro draft? If the poll question is what will would it take, you answer what it would take. If you don't want to answer the question then you comment. There is no point to putting a no or never up there as it isn't an answer to the question.

[BornReady]

i chose other as im not sure any of the mentioned options makes you want to tank

looking at the playoff standings
we could go either way to making the playoffs again or barely missing it

we continuously lose close games
but win games where we r dominating

i would tank if it looked like there was 0 chance at us making the 8th seed
as were still a talented, young, well-coached team
that shouldnt be outright losing like the 76ers

[BitterJim]

I don't have a problem with people not wanting to be Pro draft. It's why I said comment below. I do have a problem when people try to call me out and don't know what they are writing about when they call it artificial. The question is the question. I also clearly stated why I wasnt going to post a nonanswer option. I expect plenty to comment no. What I want to know is still the question, What would it take. You went out on a tangent and off topic. That is the truth of the matter.

So you won't have a "nonanswer" option because you expect people to comment "no"?  Why not have them vote and comment?

The only explanation I can come up with is that you don't want it to outnumber the other options.  You're welcome to explain why you don't want that option on there, but until then I'm just going to assume that you don't want to have it outnumber the other options.

I told you geesh. It's not a sum answer to say flat out no. Look at the poll question and answers. They are related to being worse than we currently are. They are searching for a tipping point for a pro draft majority. It's not about why we should not it's about what will be the point capable of changing people's majority opinion.

If that's the case, then why not add an option that says it would take more than the options being put out there?  I doubt I'm the only one who thinks it would take more than the options you presented to be convinced.

Also, saying "I want people to comment" isn't a reason to not have that option.  They aren't mutually exclusive.  Having the option would just give people an idea of how many people have that opinion

Are you kidding me. Let me repeat for the 5th time. Again it's a sum answer to the question. What would it take to be Pro draft? If the poll question is what will would it take, you answer what it would take. If you don't want to answer the question then you comment. There is no point to putting a no or never up there as it isn't an answer to the question.

Are you kidding me. Let me repeat for the 3rd time.  You can have an answer like "It would take more", because the ones you suggested aren't enough for me (and I'm sure for others as well)

You can keep saying "it's a sum answer to the question", but no matter how many times you repeat it it still won't make sense as a statement.  Can you maybe explain in different words, because that doesn't mean anything

Edit: I see you added an option for "Other", so you can ignore the first part

[Csfan1984]

I didn't add the other mod did.

Point of the poll is to know what it would take. Thus you answer what would it take.

Off topic thing I wanted to say; for someone to say never bottom out and rebuild is fooling themselves and doesn't understand NBA. No team in the modern era  has won a title without getting a big contribution from a top 10 pick. Thus you need a player that was a top ten pick to be a top two leader of your team. No team (other than Pistons aka largest finals upset) has won a title without a top 10 NBA caliber player. No team has had success without at least one of their own top 10 draft picks being a top 3 on team leader. No team has won a title without a top 15 picked big man. Knowing these facts for people to look at building through the draft as a negative is foolish. You need the draft to build a championship team.

[littleteapot]

You should work in a presidential candidate's campaign.