Honestly how many teams are truly competing for one, mind you I didn't say winning one I mean putting pieces together to compete against the Like of Miami ?
If you ask every owner what have you done or what are you doing to compete for a title what percentage do you think can honestly say they are ?
And the other percentage of owners are doing what ?
I don't know,
the better question is,
how many of the Big Money teams are going after one?
I know we're not.
When we recognize only a handful of owners are competing for a NBA Championship, then we can debate all the other approached ideas owners come up with to appease the fan base.
I don't see a reason why big market teams should not always be pursuing a championship.
Look at any football league in Europe or South America and the big money teams are expected to always be going after the championship.
To my mind there is no excuse for a team with unlimited cash to be chasing anything outside of a championship.
Makes no sense.
I understand the Timberwolves, the freakin' Pelicans?
But New York? Lakers? Boston? You have the pockets, what else would you do with them? It's only logical
playa2 wrote:
And the other percentage of owners are doing what ?
Making money. You buy a franchise. Get the revenue in the black, sell the team for a huge profit.
Do the Hoky Poky and turn yourself around......Thats what its all about!!!!
Nalod wrote:playa2 wrote:
And the other percentage of owners are doing what ?
Making money. You buy a franchise. Get the revenue in the black, sell the team for a huge profit.
Do the Hoky Poky and turn yourself around......Thats what its all about!!!!
Maybe it's idealistic, but you'd like to think that if someone gets into a basketball team they at least have some small interest in winning for the sake of winning. I don't know, probably highly idealistic.
IronWillGiroud wrote:Nalod wrote:playa2 wrote:
And the other percentage of owners are doing what ?
Making money. You buy a franchise. Get the revenue in the black, sell the team for a huge profit.
Do the Hoky Poky and turn yourself around......Thats what its all about!!!!
Maybe it's idealistic, but you'd like to think that if someone gets into a basketball team they at least have some small interest in winning for the sake of winning. I don't know, probably highly idealistic.
They are "winning".........
IronWillGiroud wrote:Nalod wrote:IronWillGiroud wrote:Nalod wrote:playa2 wrote:
And the other percentage of owners are doing what ?
Making money. You buy a franchise. Get the revenue in the black, sell the team for a huge profit.
Do the Hoky Poky and turn yourself around......Thats what its all about!!!!
Maybe it's idealistic, but you'd like to think that if someone gets into a basketball team they at least have some small interest in winning for the sake of winning. I don't know, probably highly idealistic.
They are "winning".........
Yup
Woah woah, what about Mark Cuban?
IronWillGiroud wrote:IronWillGiroud wrote:Nalod wrote:IronWillGiroud wrote:Nalod wrote:playa2 wrote:
And the other percentage of owners are doing what ?
Making money. You buy a franchise. Get the revenue in the black, sell the team for a huge profit.
Do the Hoky Poky and turn yourself around......Thats what its all about!!!!
Maybe it's idealistic, but you'd like to think that if someone gets into a basketball team they at least have some small interest in winning for the sake of winning. I don't know, probably highly idealistic.
They are "winning".........
Yup
Woah woah, what about Mark Cuban?
Easy there horsey,
One chip and he blows it up. Winning? Or whining? Cuban's a self-absorbed, loud mouth cartoon character. Ours is just a self-absorbed troll. And they do have one chip. Would that be enough for all the whiners in here? I doubt it. Texas is a different world.
Never take direction from a billionaire who gives investment advice like: store up a lifetime supply of toothpaste.
playa2 wrote:Honestly how many teams are truly competing for one, mind you I didn't say winning one I mean putting pieces together to compete against the Like of Miami ?If you ask every owner what have you done or what are you doing to compete for a title what percentage do you think can honestly say they are ?
And the other percentage of owners are doing what ?
unfortunately there's a direct relationship between league expansion and the popularity of the NBA on the one hand and the disinterestedness in winning on the other. most billionaires are interested more in making money as a form of "winning." seems there are too many so-called basketball fans who are okay with that no matter how bad the "product" actually is. it really is a shame. cynical owners are like roman emperors and the gullible fanbase is like the roman people.
it's really about "bread and circuses."
another side effect is the dilution of the talent pool and where the draft becomes increasingly a crapshoot because the majority of top picks are no longer 4-year college players. in fact top picks are more likely just one- or two-year players whose career trajectory is not a given.
so owners and their management teams have to come up with novel and creative ways to assemble a roster. stability at the management level is key if anything close to a true contender is the real goal.
that the knicks have been floundering for as long as they have is really a testament to the black hole that is dolan.
Big-market teams can't always contend for titles because money isn't the the advantage it used to be. Between the salary cap, maximum individual contracts and the media pressure that no longer allows for great players who don't have rings, players have more incentive than ever to join up together. LeBron James and Dwight Howard are the two biggest examples of players turning down money to improve their situation. The root cause of it is owners and general managers who don't know how to scout/draft, because nobody wants to be The Big Ticket in Minnesota or LeBron James in Cleveland. European football teams don't have to contend with salary caps or other artificial rules to keep leagues competitive.
Competing for a championship simply means getting the horses and doing what it takes to keep the horses. Getting those players is largely a matter of luck and the right ping-pong ball (which actually encourages teams like Boston to sell) and using that to set up a a great situation to attract free agents. If those things don't happen, most teams aren't going anywhere. (which is true about the NBA)
The smart team like Boston finds a sucker like Brooklyn to purchase bad assets and contracts (the big 3, who at this point, aren't winning a title). That team still has a young player in Rondo that they can pair with a top player from the upcoming draft (assuming they tell Rondo to sit to make sure they're horrendous). Those two players combined with a top free agent means Boston's on the way back up. Of course it takes luck for that to work (like Wiggins or whoever no being a total bust), but that's what the model encourages.
OKC is the biggest example in recent memory of team that prioritizes money over competing for a title even though they actually had the players, and that was monumentally stupid.
Excellent responses Dk7th & Y2zipper
jrodmc wrote:
One chip and he blows it up. Winning? Or whining? Cuban's a self-absorbed, loud mouth cartoon character. Ours is just a self-absorbed troll.
I don't have to go too far out on a limb to say any person that owns a franchise must be self-absorbed, right? Even if silent?
IronWillGiroud wrote:I don't see a reason why big market teams should not always be pursuing a championship.Look at any football league in Europe or South America and the big money teams are expected to always be going after the championship.
To my mind there is no excuse for a team with unlimited cash to be chasing anything outside of a championship.
Makes no sense.
I understand the Timberwolves, the freakin' Pelicans?
But New York? Lakers? Boston? You have the pockets, what else would you do with them? It's only logical
Do you know what a salary cap is?
