Jump to content

Proudfeet

Members
  • Content Count

    940
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Proudfeet

Contact Methods

  • ICQ
    Array

Recent Profile Visitors

4,447 profile views
  1. Yeah, I watched a couple of Denver games after the injury and while Campazzo works hard, his lack of height is hard to compensate for. Not to mention that all their other injuries leaves the bench a little thin, and while Porter and Gordon are good at finishing, they can't create well enough to sustain the offense while Jokic rests. And they are needed in the starting unit anyway, so staggering them is a lose/lose proposition. Maybe it gets better when Morris returns, but you really want Murray for both flexibility and maximum firepower. But its not like the other teams are faring much better in terms of injuries anyway. So there's still a chance. Utah missing Mitchell is a much bigger deal and the four stars of LA are always uncertain.
  2. In that context it is. You had some ridiculous example of a person who buys a new product line and makes a loss subsequently. It's not the case for a sport team. It's more like a landlord who has a management team buy certain properties that are entered annually in a design competition. The management team hires a lead designer and renovations could take years. Also, all participants in the competition are subject to occasional meteor strikes and there is limited mitigation. The properties themselves may or not make a profit as it is still let out through all this, but while placing well in the competition helps your occupancy rates, those in prime locations have more space, are able to charge more and have higher base occupancy rates anyway. That's how far you have to go for an analogy, and the landlord has so much separation from it that it is hard to blame him for not winning the competition even if he does provide input. As your example is an open and shut profitability case, your analogy fails. Firstly, you're judging them on performance in the competition. Secondly, teams in big markets will tend to make profits anyway. Despite losing. Third, you're basing it on the performance of the GM or maybe CEO in that example. Are you going to blame the majority shareholder instead of the CEO? Well, as Wilbur put it so nicely, even blind squirrels can make it once in a while. And as you so helpfully pointed out, the owners of the Wizards didn't change the GM for quite a while after they bought it over. And there's the Kings, who are making a good case for both sides of the argument. Which brings me back to this. That's all I have to work off of. If you have a case bring it instead of moving the goalposts all the time. You have this best idea but you haven't even established how its going to work? Same as above. You put out the system and we'll see where it lands. And no, that's horrific. You'd be encouraging people to buy the team to sell it back to the league for a quick buck. No risk, high return. If you want to expel an owner, just be done with it. Maintaining the value of a franchise is one thing, but this is putting the cart before the horse. You'd be better off with an indifferent owner or bad owner that tries to win. Do you ever think things through? It was a jibe. I put it back in. I wonder why you didn't feel it important. Seems like a simple way of sorting out our differences.
  3. Sports teams are. Sporting results aren't. Your analogy doesn't work. You've got to be exceptional either way to make a name for yourself, because you know, its the GM who makes decisions usually. I know that the OKC owners are cheap, but I don't know who they are although I know Presti. I don't know who owns the Sixers or what they are like, but I know Hinkie, Colangelo and Brand. Don't know Denver or Toronto either, but Ujiri has made a name for himself. I took a quick glance and despite all that they didn't make your criteria of ten straight playoff misses (unless you count them before they moved, not sure when they changed owners) or bottom five for five years. Organisation respected and thriving not making a conference finals despite Ballmer throwing as much money as realistically possible. You're making a good case for a commissioner taking control of another franchise and gifting them a star player and semi blowing up a rival by from letting their players know they weren't wanted. I'm sorry that your GM traded for Jimmy Butler instead of Chris Paul, saviour of franchises with awful owners. He helped OKC overachieve too. Well, lower it and let's see where we are then? And by realistic do you mean fair or practical? Look, I don't disagree that they are awful. Where I disagree is that 1) You can't win with them 2) That they are the ones responsible instead of the GM and changing them will turn your fortunes around. That they are THE problem instead of A problem. 3) That there is a fair and objective way of determining them You'd have had a better case last year. Except two prime candidates suddenly managed to get results, a couple of years after getting new GMs. __ There's a new thread by the way, if you want to take it there instead.
  4. Clearly, if you're going on about sporting results and not profitability. It isn't hard to understand. Sure, a bad owner contributes to a team being bad, but it is hard to pin down responsibility directly with all the randomness. Your argument is that you are doomed with one, not that they weigh your team down. Its a higher burden of proof which you're not able to provide. Miss the playoffs for ten consecutive years. No. Bottom five for five years. No. I'm not the one who came up with these standards. You are.
  5. Its not about Dolan. Its about providing an objective measure of failure.
  6. Except that this isn't a business and the owner isn't directly responsible. You're such a riot. You say its easy to turn around in two or three years and after I offered four, you counter with five to show how difficult it is to turn around? And no, that wasn't my complaint. That was yours. I was pointing out that your solution doesn't change anything and the same thing still applies. Yes, its pretty clear that your goal is to get rid of Taylor and are willing to bend and contort yourself into all sorts of positions to achieve it. And I'm not defending them. I'm using them as examples to show why your theory doesn't work out. Not sure what Simmons has to do with anything, but just because he hasn't got a good shot doesn't mean he hasn't improved, and even at his current level, he is a solid pick. Are you back to the tournament thing again? WELL. THE. SIXERS. ARE. TRYING. EVEN. HARDER. Get over yourself. And no, I'm saying that you aren't showing that the owner is responsible. To use your corporate example, you're firing the accountant for the R&D not being able to develop a product.
  7. Your complaint was that Taylor was bad at hiring. Sarver seems to have succeeded with his second try. Sure, but luck plays into it. Sixers took four which is half of your ten years gone. I'm not the one who came up with missing the playoffs for ten straight years. I'm just applying your criteria. I'm also not championing mediocrity. You have just never been able to show a clear link on how what you want to do is able to achieve your goal.
  8. Except that he only appoints the GM. And he did fire the GM, albeit after five years. Its not easy to make changes in the NBA too. You have to live with whatever you inherited, plus you only get a small time frame and limited tools to make changes. And missing the playoffs on 48 wins. That's such a failure. But it seems that now you think Dolan isn't bad enough to be gotten rid off after all. Since he didn't miss the playoffs for ten straight years.
  9. Yeah, they sucked so bad they missed out of the playoffs with 48 wins. The horror. Besides that, given that it seems like they are turning the corner, maybe he doesn't actually matter? And get over yourself. The GM picks. And Ayton over Luka was not a bad decision at that time. Its not as if they picked Bennett or Thabeet.
  10. So what? You need to show how he is preventing them from winning and how changing him will change that. Oh. Wait. His team is second in the league despite all that. You're not going to be able to kick people out on feels.
  11. You need to show how the owner is responsible. Or how the owner is preventing the team from doing so. The Suns making it without changing owners sure make it seem that he is secondary. Again, come out with your objective measure that you can apply. I've never bought into your argument of expelling owners, so I don't know what you're talking about.
  12. Yawn. Your entire thing is that teams can't succeed with bad owners. If making the playoffs isn't enough to succeed, you'd need to get rid of half the league. Come out with your objective measure of failure.
  13. Yeah, new owner fails. Old owner succeeds. That helps your argument how? And they succeed despite him. Objective measure for getting rid of him? As I said, falling below expectations isn't it. They shutdown Horford too. And they are periodically resting Dortz after he is showing that he can score.
  14. And the Kings have changed their owner this past decade as I recall. Meanwhile, the Suns are second or first in the NBA this season without changing owners. I don't think it helps your argument at all. Yeah, Dolan sucks. But you can't tie everything to him, and despite him sucking he got a second wind with Carmelo and Stoudemire and now a third with Randle. Also, I wasn't into the NBA at that time, but my impression is that a lot of it has to do with Isiah Thomas. Falling below expectations is too vague and not a legitimate and objective reason to get rid of him. Well, sure, please also ensure that the same owner does not later succeed despite failing at the start or other similar issues against your argument.
  15. Seems like that's the only example you have. They've made playoffs during that span. Despite Dolan. And are making it again with a new roster. Despite him. You're not showing that keeping the owner guarantees failure either. And you've come up with only three franchises, one of which has experienced some success, the other has changed owners but is still without success and lastly, one that has enough turnover that your last bastion of hope is that changing the owner would turn its fortunes around. Correlation isn't causation and there is too much randomness to definitively pin the blame on the owner. I didn't think so either. Which was why I raised the playoffs as a bar of not being relegated. As far as not finishing in the bottom five for five straight years, I took a quick look for the past decade and didn't seem as if any team qualified. Closest was the Sixers, Lakers and Magic. The Kings, Wolves and Knicks weren't close. Could be wrong of course. Had to go year by year which is not a very good format for looking and I couldn't be bothered to chart it out.
×
×
  • Create New...