Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Page 11 of 11 pages
2 years. technically, 2 years is multiple years, but if they can do in 2 years what sacramento still hasn't been able to do in the last 10, i think they deserve more credit for that than ridicule.
Every argument you are making can be turned around: the lesson of a franchise like Sacramento isn't TANK! it's "High lotto picks may well pretty much get you diddly-squat." The teams in the East that got better last year--Toronto and Washington--did it by adding veterans to a couple of lotto picks (and Wash. even had room for Al Harrington).
The teams in the East that got better last year--Toronto and Washington--did it by adding veterans to a couple of lotto picks
the players and coaches aren't tanking. they compete to win every game and i guarantee that guys like hollis thompson and brandon davies, guys who are literally playing for their NBA lives, put more effort into playing on last year's team than any veteran you could get to come to play for the sixers right now.
In a city where you don't even dominate basketball news, due to college being pretty much on par, you should avoid alienating large segments of the fan base.
Dumping Thad Young would shameful, assuming he's not demanding out. He's young enough, good enough, versatile and on a favorable enough contract to where they should try make him a piece of their next not terrible team.
This has only happened once before in sports history, with the Astros.
Draft guys that are actually going to play?
The problem with tanking is, once you go down, it's really really hard to get back up. Draft picks aren't guarantees. In addition, management can always use an excuse to keep cutting payroll and not pay anyone. The Sixers are $20 million under the floor right now. They aren't even trying. Hell, you could give Al Harrington a max and not come close to hitting the cap.
I think these long term "lose for five year" plans are really bad. I don't think they work all that much, and it's terrible for the NBA in a fan and competitive sense. The teams that do hit it in the lottery (anecdotally), go down, get one good hit, and then bounce back up. If they even go down at all.
this coming season will be year number two, but the point still stands. this hasn't been a decade of tanking, it's been a decade of competitive sub-mediocrity followed by 13 months (so far) of tanking.
Yet, why does the Sixers taking bother me? I don't know.
...And [the sixers] are not alone. Teams dealt first-round picks with various protections under lottery rules the league now wants to scrap. Take the situation between the Lakers and Suns: The Lakers owe Phoenix a top-five protected first-round pick in the 2015 draft, the last goodie Phoenix will get from the Steve Nash trade. The Lakers keep that pick if it falls within the top five; otherwise, it goes to the Suns.
If the Lakers finish with, say, the eighth-worst record in the league next season, the chances of that pick leaping into the top five might be very different if the lottery determines the first six picks instead of the first three.
Tanking like this can even work when it fails. The Bobcats broke up an aging, pricey roster ahead of the 2011-12 season and bricked their way into a historically awful 7-59 record. They lost the Anthony Davis lottery, ending up with Michael Kidd-Gilchrist instead.
The cap flexibility they got from dumping Gerald Wallace, Stephen Jackson, Tyson Chandler, and (eventually) Boris Diaw netted extra draft picks and the space to gamble in free agency on Al Jefferson and Lance Stephenson. They snagged another extra first-rounder by swallowing the extra year on Ben Gordon’s contract, a deal that worked out about as well as possible when the Pistons fell to no. 9 in the lottery and forked over the pick that became Noah Vonleh.
That said, there is cautious and justified optimism that equalizing the odds at something like 11 percent for the four or five worst teams will change things on the margins in the league’s basement. Rebuilding teams might be willing to splurge on good players, even though those players might add four or five wins. Those wins don’t do as much damage if the half-dozen worst teams have more or less the same chance of winning the lottery.
The league’s proposal doesn’t do that. But it might be a step in the right direction — a useful in-between structure to the lottery. Implementing any major change like this should likely wait until at least after the 2017 collective bargaining talks. Philly is right to object on that basis.
i don't think they're alienating anyone in Philly besides angelo catadli, who's a clownish maroon.
The average fan knew the Sixers' chance at contending was over as soon as it turned out the Andrew Bynum trade had destroyed the team, about two games into the Andrew Bynum era.
But now the team is telling fans "You'd have to be stupid to watch us. You'd have to be an absolute idiot to pay money to watch us. Come back in two years when we're not intentionally losing. We are literally intentionally losing. We aren't rebuilding, all we are doing is trying to lose. If we win a game, we throw chairs in the office and scream at the coach that he'd better start losing games again.
I agree with this 100%. Honestly, sometimes I think I'm a moron for even wasting energy complaining; that I should just ignore basketball, and hope the 76ers either fire management, leave town, or that it works for them. I doubt I would pick up another pro team.
I agree Cataldi is a clown, but my existence alone is proof enough against that statement. I would go to 5 or so games a year, sometimes more. Before work too me to the distant suburbs and long hours, it would be closer to 10. I know at least a few dozen people who are/were 76ers fans that are boycotting them, and for at least one the tanking was the last straw.
The 76ers, as noted, are more like the Astros have been than the Cubs have been
but the most important distinction being that the sixers decision was based on a desire to be competitive, whereas the cubs and astros decisions appear to be motivated primarily to ease the financial burden their owners took on in purchasing their respective franchises.
That seems a helluva lot better than trying to thread several needles to get an Iguodala/Collins-led team into the ECF or something.
Really can't believe that any long-term Sixers fan can hold anything against current management. The Sixers have a clearcut plan, are stockpiling talent, being patient and going for upside everywhere they can. That seems a helluva lot better than trying to thread several needles to get an Iguodala/Collins-led team into the ECF or something.
You seem to be assuming that things will work out for Hinkie. But they may not.
But there is no reason they can't make a trade like that and still put in offers for Bledsoe, Hayward, Monroe or whoever to go with their young high upside players.
Simply due to the nature of the sports I'm more confident the 76ers plan will work out than I am the Cubs or Astros will.
but they aren't making an effort to reinvest their cap space yet.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
Login to Join (0 members)
Page rendered in 1.9134 seconds, 57 querie(s) executed