NBA 2021 - Randle Hearts

[Proudfeet]

14 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

I can't recall the details off the top of my head and I don't have time to look them up, but the league having to control the then NO Hornets is probably where you should look to see if it was exploited. 

I can't be bothered to look it up, but while the league did take control, I don't think they helped finance the eventual purchase. Why would they even do that? You can't pay? Team up with someone who can cover the difference.

14 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Bad GMs get fired though. Bad owners keep hiring failed front offices. See the Wolves. I hate shitting on Taylor because he's done a lot of good outside of his tenure as owner of the team, but he is god awful at hiring at every level.

 Repeat that to Jaime and Maith. Grunfeld lasted a long time.

I don't think its a good idea either way, it just seems more plausible and have largely the same effect. New owners might even keep the same GM. 

Putting all that aside, what teams do you even want that for, past and present? Wolves? Kings? The Knicks and Wizards have made playoffs, despite all their faults, and made it again* this season without changing owners. Cavs won. 

*Wizards might not, but they are firmly in the play in and seem to be surging.

[baxus]

13 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

The U.S. government can take property and I'd assume European governments can as well, but there would be no way to justify it in this case. What they could do that wouldn't run afoul of the law (I assume) is find a way to coerce owners into selling a majority share of their teams, and I think that could prove to be popular in England. 

Every government in the world can (and does) take property, but in most of the world it's restricted to property gained by illegal means. Even if UK government found out that one of the Premier League club owners bought it to launder drug money or whatever, the club might be seized but what are the chances of every single club being in that situation?

Even if owners were to be coerced into selling majority share of their clubs, how do you imagine fans would get the money to buy it? You are aware that it's hundreds of millions we're talking about?

[BigFatCoward]

In the UK we have compulsory purchase orders. If a new road is being built the government can force you to sell your property to them if its in the way. I doubt they are going to shell out 2 billion to buy man utd and give it to the fans though. 

[Rhom]

1 hour ago, BigFatCoward said:

In the UK we have compulsory purchase orders. If a new road is being built the government can force you to sell your property to them if its in the way. I doubt they are going to shell out 2 billion to buy man utd and give it to the fans though. 

In the US, it’s called Eminent Domain.  Traditionally for things like roads, but has been stretched some recently for other things that ostensibly are for the common good.

I don’t think even our courts could go so far as to do it for a sports franchise.

ETA:  Now... they need to take your grandma’s farm to build an arena for the betterment of the community?  Sure.  That could happen.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

7 hours ago, Proudfeet said:

I can't be bothered to look it up, but while the league did take control, I don't think they helped finance the eventual purchase. Why would they even do that? You can't pay? Team up with someone who can cover the difference.

I'll have to look later when I have more time, but I thought there were multiple examples of this across pro sports in which the league covers part of the cost in the short term if they want the sale to go through.

Quote

 Repeat that to Jaime and Maith. Grunfeld lasted a long time.

I don't think its a good idea either way, it just seems more plausible and have largely the same effect. New owners might even keep the same GM. 

That's what happened with the Zardos. Grunfeld was a bad GM for several years, a new owner took over and Grunfield was again a bad GM for nearly another decade.

Quote

Putting all that aside, what teams do you even want that for, past and present? Wolves? Kings? The Knicks and Wizards have made playoffs, despite all their faults, and made it again* this season without changing owners. Cavs won. 

*Wizards might not, but they are firmly in the play in and seem to be surging.

The Knicks have had two good seasons this century. What has been the constant there? The same is true of the Wolves, and the Kings haven't been relevant in like 15 years. Making the playoffs once in a blue moon while otherwise being shit is not a good defense of ownership. Since you can't relegate the team itself, who else can you get rid of? 

4 hours ago, baxus said:

Every government in the world can (and does) take property, but in most of the world it's restricted to property gained by illegal means. Even if UK government found out that one of the Premier League club owners bought it to launder drug money or whatever, the club might be seized but what are the chances of every single club being in that situation?

Even if owners were to be coerced into selling majority share of their clubs, how do you imagine fans would get the money to buy it? You are aware that it's hundreds of millions we're talking about?

No it's not. We're talking about several billions of dollars, but it would still be a drop in the bucket of government spending if they wanted to foot the bill in the short term while figuring out how to sell shares of ownership to the fans.

[Proudfeet]

6 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

That's what happened with the Zardos. Grunfeld was a bad GM for several years, a new owner took over and Grunfield was again a bad GM for nearly another decade.

So what would changing the owner do again?

6 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

The Knicks have had two good seasons this century. What has been the constant there? The same is true of the Wolves, and the Kings haven't been relevant in like 15 years. Making the playoffs once in a blue moon while otherwise being shit is not a good defense of ownership. Since you can't relegate the team itself, who else can you get rid of? 

Yeah, except that the Knicks have been good and are good again despite Dolan. The Kings have changed their owner midway through, doesn't seem to have made a difference. So that just leaves the Wolves? Which is what this is all about isn't it? Except that changing owners won't guarantee you success. You might just emulate the Kings.

And I'm not defending ownership. I'm saying that they are secondary. And making the playoffs is an objective measure. How else are you going to determine who should be relegated? Are you going after the three worst teams every year like European Football?

[baxus]

42 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

No it's not. We're talking about several billions of dollars, but it would still be a drop in the bucket of government spending if they wanted to foot the bill in the short term while figuring out how to sell shares of ownership to the fans.

I meant per club, but definitely made a mistake of not making that clear.

Still, it's not as if UK government can justify spending that much no matter how much more they are spending on other stuff.

Saying "We meant to spend these X billion pounds on schools, hospitals etc. but are now going to spend it to buy out a bunch of billionaires out of football clubs" would definitely not go down well with general public, regardless of how much money they'd still be spending on schools, hospitals etc.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

33 minutes ago, Proudfeet said:

So what would changing the owner do again?

Prevent an organization from hiring bad front office after bad front office. Just look to my Wolves as an example of an owner who can’t hire to save his life just like he can’t negotiate a deal to sell the team.

Quote

Yeah, except that the Knicks have been good and are good again despite Dolan. The Kings have changed their owner midway through, doesn't seem to have made a difference. So that just leaves the Wolves? Which is what this is all about isn't it? Except that changing owners won't guarantee you success. You might just emulate the Kings.

Pump the breaks there my friend. The Knicks have been a laughing stock for two decades. And yes, changing the owner doesn’t guarantee success, but keep awful owners in places likely means franchises will continue to be terrible.

Quote

And I'm not defending ownership. I'm saying that they are secondary. And making the playoffs is an objective measure. How else are you going to determine who should be relegated? Are you going after the three worst teams every year like European Football?

They’re secondary in a given year, but not when an organization has had a decade of abject failures. That’s at some point on the owner.

No I don’t think the European model would work. I’m not wed to a single idea, so maybe a good low bar starting point would be if a team misses the playoffs for X number of years? Or finishes in the bottom five for five straight years?

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

22 minutes ago, baxus said:

I meant per club, but definitely made a mistake of not making that clear.

Still, it's not as if UK government can justify spending that much no matter how much more they are spending on other stuff.

Saying "We meant to spend these X billion pounds on schools, hospitals etc. but are now going to spend it to buy out a bunch of billionaires out of football clubs" would definitely not go down well with general public, regardless of how much money they'd still be spending on schools, hospitals etc.

You can’t look at a single club. This would be the government buying 51% of not just the EPL, but every level of English club football. And I think you could make it work politically because you’d finance it over a long period of time and once you had sold back all those shares to the fans you’d probably have turned a profit.

[Proudfeet]

9 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Prevent an organization from hiring bad front office after bad front office. Just look to my Wolves as an example of an owner who can’t hire to save his life just like he can’t negotiate a deal to sell the team.

Seems like that's the only example you have.

17 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Pump the breaks there my friend. The Knicks have been a laughing stock for two decades. And yes, changing the owner doesn’t guarantee success, but keep awful owners in places likely means franchises will continue to be terrible.

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. 

32 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

They’re secondary in a given year, but not when an organization has had a decade of abject failures. That’s at some point on the owner.

No I don’t think the European model would work. I’m not wed to a single idea, so maybe a good low bar starting point would be if a team misses the playoffs for X number of years? Or finishes in the bottom five for five straight years?

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.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

35 minutes ago, Proudfeet said:

Seems like that's the only example you have.

Kings have missed for 14 straight years and the Suns have for 10. Those are the two longest active streaks.

And looking at streaks, I can’t tell which is more shocking, the Clippers not winning a playoff game for 29 years or the Spurs never missing the playoffs for more than one season.

Quote

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. 

Dolan has been in charge for 20 or so years and they’ve made the playoffs around a third of the time he’s been in charge, missing 13 times in the last 16 seasons. That’s important to note because they made it the first few years he was in charge because prior to him taking over they made the playoffs every year for more than a decade. Pretty clear his tenure as owner has been terrible.

Quote

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.

I’m at work right now so I can’t do a deeper dive, but there has to be a sweet spot which would  remove an owner every now and then. I’m looking for something that doesn’t remove too many owners too quickly but also doesn’t have such a high bar that it almost never removes one.

[baxus]

2 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

You can’t look at a single club. This would be the government buying 51% of not just the EPL, but every level of English club football. And I think you could make it work politically because you’d finance it over a long period of time and once you had sold back all those shares to the fans you’d probably have turned a profit.

There's no profit on resale, unless shares get resold to a different group of billionaires. There is no way fans could afford buying majority shares of clubs. That's kind of why government would need to step up in the first place.

It's a pipe dream, let's call it that and not derail the NBA thread any longer.  

[Proudfeet]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

Kings have missed for 14 straight years and the Suns have for 10. Those are the two longest active streaks.

And looking at streaks, I can’t tell which is more shocking, the Clippers not winning a playoff game for 29 years or the Spurs never missing the playoffs for more than one season.

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.

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

Dolan has been in charge for 20 or so years and they’ve made the playoffs around a third of the time he’s been in charge, missing 13 times in the last 16 seasons. That’s important to note because they made it the first few years he was in charge because prior to him taking over they made the playoffs every year for more than a decade. Pretty clear his tenure as owner has been terrible.

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.

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

I’m at work right now so I can’t do a deeper dive, but there has to be a sweet spot which would  remove an owner every now and then. I’m looking for something that doesn’t remove too many owners too quickly but also doesn’t have such a high bar that it almost never removes one.

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.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 hours ago, baxus said:

There's no profit on resale, unless shares get resold to a different group of billionaires. There is no way fans could afford buying majority shares of clubs. That's kind of why government would need to step up in the first place.

It's a pipe dream, let's call it that and not derail the NBA thread any longer.  

If you want to end the conversation we can, but I would just add they could do it sort of how the Packers do, where fans could buy individual shares. If the government initially bought the team they could sell small amounts of shares to individual fans. It would take a bit, but I think there would be fan buy in. It's not all that different from buying a jersey, except you can frame a document saying you own x number of shares of your team, hang it on your wall and show it off to your friends, proclaiming you're a co-owner.

1 hour ago, Proudfeet said:

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.

They did in 2013, but the new owner hasn't don't anything since he bought the team. He's the same guy who came up with the bright idea of playing 4 on 5 on defense so you could always have a cherry picker on offense. 

As for the Suns, a ten year playoff drought under one owner is a sign of a poorly run organization given that more than half the teams in the league make the playoffs. He's also notoriously cheap and while I don't know a ton of Suns fans, they do all hate him.

Quote

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.

Dolan is actually the owner you can point to more than just about any as being a negative drag on his team. Players don't want to play for him and the team has been poorly managed for a long time across multiple front offices. That's on him, and that's before you get to the dumb shit like beefing with a former beloved player. 

 

[Wilbur]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

...Dolan is actually the owner you can point to more than just about any as being a negative drag on his team. Players don't want to play for him and the team has been poorly managed for a long time across multiple front offices. That's on him, and that's before you get to the dumb shit like beefing with a former beloved player...

All you need to know about Dolan, you can learn in less than five minutes from Clyde...

 

[DMC]

As the tanking competition comes down to the wire, Oklahoma City deserves some kudos.  Since late March, they've gone 1-22, or 2-25.  That's impressive.  It also corresponds exactly to when SGA stopped playing, ostensibly for plantar fasciitis.

[Proudfeet]

6 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

They did in 2013, but the new owner hasn't don't anything since he bought the team. He's the same guy who came up with the bright idea of playing 4 on 5 on defense so you could always have a cherry picker on offense. 

As for the Suns, a ten year playoff drought under one owner is a sign of a poorly run organization given that more than half the teams in the league make the playoffs. He's also notoriously cheap and while I don't know a ton of Suns fans, they do all hate him.

Yeah, new owner fails. Old owner succeeds. That helps your argument how?

7 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Dolan is actually the owner you can point to more than just about any as being a negative drag on his team. Players don't want to play for him and the team has been poorly managed for a long time across multiple front offices. That's on him, and that's before you get to the dumb shit like beefing with a former beloved player. 

And they succeed despite him. Objective measure for getting rid of him? As I said, falling below expectations isn't it.

5 hours ago, DMC said:

As the tanking competition comes down to the wire, Oklahoma City deserves some kudos.  Since late March, they've gone 1-22, or 2-25.  That's impressive.  It also corresponds exactly to when SGA stopped playing, ostensibly for plantar fasciitis.

They shutdown Horford too. And they are periodically resting Dortz after he is showing that he can score.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

5 hours ago, DMC said:

As the tanking competition comes down to the wire, Oklahoma City deserves some kudos.  Since late March, they've gone 1-22, or 2-25.  That's impressive.  It also corresponds exactly to when SGA stopped playing, ostensibly for plantar fasciitis.

There are six teams competing for a top pick. Five are 7-43 over their last ten games. One is 6-4, and they're the only team set to lose their pick in a really good draft.

I know I've been railing against tanking, but JFC, how can you be god awful all year and then decide to win at the worst time when the competition is literally trying to give wins away.  

Thank you Cleveland for at least trying, and Boston, dafuq? Blowing it up sounds insane, but it seems like a lot of people think you need to.

[DMC]

Cleveland just beat the Celtics.  The means Orlando and the Thunder are now tied for third place at 21 wins (although OKC has lost one more game).  *Fingers crossed*

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

6 minutes ago, Proudfeet said:

Yeah, new owner fails. Old owner succeeds. That helps your argument how?

We can fire CEOs who have three consecutive underperforming quarters. Why can't we fire Owners who have sucked for five years? Why do we even need owners? The entire concept is a buffer from accountability, and even if you are the worst at it, you can still have financial success. See again one James Dolan.

Quote

And they succeed despite him. Objective measure for getting rid of him? As I said, falling below expectations isn't it.

Succeed? SUCCEED? The fuck you talking about buddy? I'm going tag team wrestling here because this is ridiculous. @Relic, your time to shine.