Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Relic

NBA 2021 - Randle Hearts

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

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.

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

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Proudfeet said:

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.

Not making the playoffs for a decade while having the same person own the team over that time frame? Saying the Suns finally made the playoffs is not a good reason to absolve them of being truly terrible for ten years. You argued otherwise. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

Not making the playoffs for a decade while having the same person own the team over that time frame? Saying the Suns finally made the playoffs is not a good reason to absolve them of being truly terrible for ten years. You argued otherwise. 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Proudfeet said:

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.

Please read articles about the Suns owner then. Sarver is truly hated. He's ultra cheap, they've had no success under him outside of what he bought into and he's supposed to be rewarded for that? Buying a team when it was in a good state, coasting off of that and then being a disaster for ten years is what would get anyone fired. Them finally making the playoffs after such a drought is not something to be proud of if you own the team. 

Plus he seems to be the business type that wanted to buy a team to make easy money and use it to meet people. Actually making the team better appears to be a low priority. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

Please read articles about the Suns owner then. Sarver is truly hated. He's ultra cheap, they've had no success under him outside of what he bought into and he's supposed to be rewarded for that? Buying a team when it was in a good state, coasting off of that and then being a disaster for ten years is what would get anyone fired. Them finally making the playoffs after such a drought is not something to be proud of if you own the team. 

Plus he seems to be the business type that wanted to buy a team to make easy money and use it to meet people. Actually making the team better appears to be a low priority. 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Proudfeet said:

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.

Again. Ten. Straight. Years. Of. Missing. The. Playoffs. In. A. League. In. Which. More. Than. 50%. Of. The. Teams. Make. The. Playoffs.

If that isn't terrible leadership, please hire me to your company and let me collect a check while being actively terrible at my job.

Especially one in which I can hire Ayton over Luka and not lose my job after the results make it clear who you should have hired. That would be great.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Again. Ten. Straight. Years. Of. Missing. The. Playoffs. In. A. League. In. Which. More. Than. 50%. Of. The. Teams. Make. The. Playoffs.

If that isn't terrible leadership, please hire me to your company and let me collect a check while being actively terrible at my job.

Especially one in which I can hire Ayton over Luka and not lose my job after the results make it clear who you should have hired. That would be great.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, Proudfeet said:

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.

We can make mistakes in a quarter. Even over the course of a year or two. But ten years? TEN? And that's okay because in year eleven the guy got it right.

Give me a break. If he didn't own the team he would have been fired after two-three losing seasons. 

Turning the corner after ten years of failing? FFS man.

Edited by Tywin et al.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

We can make mistakes in a quarter. Even over the course of a year or two. But ten years? TEN? And that's okay because in year eleven the guy got it right.

Give me a break. If he didn't own the team he would have been fired after two-three losing seasons. 

Turning the corner after ten years. FFS man.

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. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Proudfeet said:

Except that he only appoints the GM. And he did fire the GM, albeit after five years.

Owners don't just appoint the GMs, especially when they're fan owners. 

Quote

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.

You can turn over an entire organization in two to three years if you want to. It's really not that hard.

Quote

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. :lol:

Are you even trying? If you inherit a team that makes the playoffs every year for over a decade and then after a few years of riding that out make the playoffs three times in sixteen tries, you're fucking trash at your job and deserve to be fired.

Why are you championing mediocrity so hard? It's bizarre, especially in the defense of the clueless owner who bought the team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Owners don't just appoint the GMs, especially when they're fan owners. 

:dunno: 

Your complaint was that Taylor was bad at hiring. Sarver seems to have succeeded with his second try.

7 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

You can turn over an entire organization in two to three years if you want to. It's really not that hard.

Sure, but luck plays into it. Sixers took four which is half of your ten years gone.

9 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Are you even trying? If you inherit a team that makes the playoffs every year for over a decade and then after a few years of riding that out make the playoffs three times in sixteen tries, you're fucking trash at your job and deserve to be fired.

Why are you championing mediocrity so hard? It's bizarre, especially in the defense of the clueless owner who bought the team.

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Proudfeet said:

:dunno: 

Your complaint was that Taylor was bad at hiring. Sarver seems to have succeeded with his second try.

If you're a business and operate in the red for a decade after acquiring a good product then finally say we've had a good year, you've failed. Abjectly and without question. 

Please tell me the job you could fail at and then on the 11th year promised to finally make it work? Again, you'd be fired after a couple of years. Tops. Don't sidestep this.

Quote

Sure, but luck plays into it. Sixers took four which is half of your ten years gone.

Five, and they had to abuse the process heavily to make it work. Wasn't that one of your major complaints? That teams would do specifically that, and that my counter was we should be punishing those teams, regardless if they were tanking for several years or manipulating the draft playoff tournament?

And ten years was one of many suggestions. I also did say five consecutive top five picks. Like I said, I'm not wed to any one idea, just the one that best achieves my goal if it can be found.

But defending the Sixers and Suns as what teams should do is to say it's okay for teams to just openly suck for years on end and not give a damn, and in the meantime not do a great job of developing their high value picks. Keep in mind how many top picks each team has totally wasted. The Sixers got lucky with Embiid and Booker is a good second, but after that, what's there to show? Has Simmons, LeBron 2.0, developed at all since he's joined the league?

Quote

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. 

There are six teams with bad records. One is clearly trying. Among the other five, I can't tell that any of the five are, but three of them I can tell are intentionally being bad. That's why you should consider making them play for their picks. Again, before tonight the bottom five teams were 7-43 over each of their last ten games, and in a majority of cases that was intentional. Punish them for that rather than rewarding them. 

Realistically you can't relegate teams or owners, so make it harder to get a top pick. That's why I suggested a tournament. 

And yes, saying after ten years of failure you had one good year and that should absolve the past is absolutely mediocrity. Pitch that the next time you're seeking a promotion and see what happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone defending Dolan has no fucking idea what they are saying. Zero. The repeated attempts up thread to white wash Dolan are idiotic. The Knicks have been an abysmal organization since he took over in 2001. Its not just the losing, the star hunting, the trading of picks, the hiring of poor personal and sky high ticket prices that makes the Garden faithful chant "fire dolan" year after year. There is soooo much more, but i wont get into it just to prove a point here, cuz i finally feel positive about a Knicks team (even tho we are relying on a rapist to score 20 a game). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

If you're a business and operate in the red for a decade after acquiring a good product then finally say we've had a good year, you've failed. Abjectly and without question. 

Please tell me the job you could fail at and then on the 11th year promised to finally make it work? Again, you'd be fired after a couple of years. Tops. Don't sidestep this.

Except that this isn't a business and the owner isn't directly responsible. 

41 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Five, and they had to abuse the process heavily to make it work. Wasn't that one of your major complaints? That teams would do specifically that, and that my counter was we should be punishing those teams, regardless if they were tanking for several years or manipulating the draft playoff tournament?

And ten years was one of many suggestions. I also did say five consecutive top five picks. Like I said, I'm not wed to any one idea, just the one that best achieves my goal if it can be found.

But defending the Sixers and Suns as what teams should do is to say it's okay for teams to just openly suck for years on end and not give a damn, and in the meantime not do a great job of developing their high value picks. Keep in mind how many top picks each team has totally wasted. The Sixers got lucky with Embiid and Booker is a good second, but after that, what's there to show? Has Simmons, LeBron 2.0, developed at all since he's joined the league?

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? :lmao:

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. 

51 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

There are six teams with bad records. One is clearly trying. Among the other five, I can't tell that any of the five are, but three of them I can tell are intentionally being bad. That's why you should consider making them play for their picks. Again, before tonight the bottom five teams were 7-43 over each of their last ten games, and in a majority of cases that was intentional. Punish them for that rather than rewarding them. 

Realistically you can't relegate teams or owners, so make it harder to get a top pick. That's why I suggested a tournament. 

And yes, saying after ten years of failure you had one good year and that should absolve the past is absolutely mediocrity. Pitch that the next time you're seeking a promotion and see what happens.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Relic said:

Anyone defending Dolan has no fucking idea what they are saying. Zero. The repeated attempts up thread to white wash Dolan are idiotic. The Knicks have been an abysmal organization since he took over in 2001. Its not just the losing, the star hunting, the trading of picks, the hiring of poor personal and sky high ticket prices that makes the Garden faithful chant "fire dolan" year after year. There is soooo much more, but i wont get into it just to prove a point here, cuz i finally feel positive about a Knicks team (even tho we are relying on a rapist to score 20 a game). 

Its not about Dolan. Its about providing an objective measure of failure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Proudfeet said:

Except that this isn't a business and the owner isn't directly responsible. 

A sports team isn't a business? 

And the owner of a shitty team isn't responsible for it being shitty?

Wtf?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Proudfeet said:

Its not about Dolan. Its about providing an objective measure of failure.

That measure would be James Dolan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

A sports team isn't a business? 

And the owner of a shitty team isn't responsible for it being shitty?

Wtf?

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.

17 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

That measure would be James Dolan.

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

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.

Owning a few individual shares is great for showing off purposes but it grants you no say in the way that big of a club is being run. If you would like to have some influence in club decisions you would need a specific percentage of overall shares at which point you are no longer just a fan showing off by owning part of his/her favourite club but are looking after your investment. That could be done through many fans joining together in some kind of organisation, electing their representatives, people to serve in the club board etc. and joining the decision making process that way. That would take years and is not something that government can take part in.

Also, if the government bought 51% of the shares of clubs and could only sell them to fan organisations, I don't see how the price of shares would hold at the current level so government would have to take a major hit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, Proudfeet said:

Clearly, if you're going on about sporting results and not profitability. It isn't hard to understand.

Sigh. Sports teams are 100% businesses. Take of those rose tinted glasses. 

Quote

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.

How many awful owners have run successful franchises? Because I can quickly start listing off owners who oversaw decades of abject failure. 

Again, all we need to do is look at the Clippers. 29 years of not winning a playoff game. Being a joke for decades, with everyone pointing at the owner as the reason why. They did get good at the end of his tenure, but it was in spite of him, and now that he's gone the organization is respected and thriving. 

Quote

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. 

I started with a high bar because it's not realistic to start at three owners get relegated each year. 

5 hours ago, baxus said:

Owning a few individual shares is great for showing off purposes but it grants you no say in the way that big of a club is being run. If you would like to have some influence in club decisions you would need a specific percentage of overall shares at which point you are no longer just a fan showing off by owning part of his/her favourite club but are looking after your investment. That could be done through many fans joining together in some kind of organisation, electing their representatives, people to serve in the club board etc. and joining the decision making process that way. That would take years and is not something that government can take part in.

Maybe? @A Horse Named Stranger discussed how he's got a vote, but I'm not sure how that works for German clubs.

Quote

Also, if the government bought 51% of the shares of clubs and could only sell them to fan organisations, I don't see how the price of shares would hold at the current level so government would have to take a major hit.

Demand for shares of the big clubs would be really high. I'd be more concerned about the smaller clubs and how long it would take the government to sell said shares.

Edited by Tywin et al.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...