Jump to content
Relic

NBA Playoffs - Play In? PLAY-IN It Cool

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

If you have a better title go ahead and suggest it. 

Also, please don't come in here and try to say that the Knicks wouldnt have been a better team these last 20 years if it Dolan had died in a fire. 

 

Edited by Relic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Relic said:

If you have a better title go ahead and suggest it. 

Also, please don't come in here and try to say that the Knicks wouldnt have been a better team these last 20 years if it Dolan had died in a fire. 

 

The man is in the house!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Edwards, if he stays healthy, is going to be a potential top five player in the league by 2025. He came in so raw and is already the team's best player. All the heart Wiggins' lacked he has ten fold. 

10 hours ago, Proudfeet said:

Sports teams are. Sporting results aren't. Your analogy doesn't work.

It's not an analogy. Sports teams ARE businesses, first and foremost. That's why, for example, in the NFL a few years ago the Raiders had to trade a top three defensive player in the league. Not because they didn't want him, but because they lacked the funds to put in escrow to pay him. That affects the operations and the sporting results. The business concerns the quality of the product in U.S. sport in a lot of cases. 

Quote

:dunno:

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.

Some owners wanted to be like Cuban, others don't want you to know they even exist. But you're right to expect the GM to be the one making the decisions. But who hires the GMs? 

Quote

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.
 

That's not my criteria. That's a very high bar starting point, so it's good that barely anyone would meet it. If I started at say three years, would anyone even want to own a team in a capped league? 
 

Quote

Well, lower it and let's see where we are then? And by realistic do you mean fair or practical?

How would you feel about a point based system determined by where you finish each season over five years, and if you fail to meet a threshold the league buys the team at say 110% fair value and resells it? And just for shits and giggles, what if the owner could buy it back for 150%?

Quote

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.

Trading for Butler wasn't the mistake. Not understanding the personal side of things was. Paul would have probably hated KAT and Wiggs too.

I know I cut some of your post out, so if you feel like I didn't address something of importance please let me know.

Share this post


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

It's not an analogy. Sports teams ARE businesses, first and foremost. That's why, for example, in the NFL a few years ago the Raiders had to trade a top three defensive player in the league. Not because they didn't want him, but because they lacked the funds to put in escrow to pay him. That affects the operations and the sporting results. The business concerns the quality of the product in U.S. sport in a lot of cases. 

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?

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

Some owners wanted to be like Cuban, others don't want you to know they even exist. But you're right to expect the GM to be the one making the decisions. But who hires the GMs? 

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.

11 hours ago, Proudfeet said:

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.

 

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

That's not my criteria. That's a very high bar starting point, so it's good that barely anyone would meet it. If I started at say three years, would anyone even want to own a team in a capped league? 

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?

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

How would you feel about a point based system determined by where you finish each season over five years, and if you fail to meet a threshold the league buys the team at say 110% fair value and resells it? And just for shits and giggles, what if the owner could buy it back for 150%?

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? 

2 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Trading for Butler wasn't the mistake. Not understanding the personal side of things was. Paul would have probably hated KAT and Wiggs too.

:lol:

It was a jibe. 

2 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

I know I cut some of your post out, so if you feel like I didn't address something of importance please let me know.

I put it back in. I wonder why you didn't feel it important. Seems like a simple way of sorting out our differences.

Share this post


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

Some owners wanted to be like Cuban, others don't want you to know they even exist. But you're right to expect the GM to be the one making the decisions. But who hires the GMs? 

The GM is the decision maker on teams that aren't run very well.  On the better run teams that person is usually President.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jokic has been playing an awesome season so far. Deserved MVP if he gets it. I will put some money on the Nuggets winning the whole thing. I know not very likely but if it’s possible then in a season like this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Arakan said:

Jokic has been playing an awesome season so far. Deserved MVP if he gets it. I will put some money on the Nuggets winning the whole thing. I know not very likely but if it’s possible then in a season like this. 

I feel like with the developments of the past month, IF Murray were healthy, Denver would realistically be the favorite right now.  Without him...it's really hard to see them holding on through the slugfest that the West is going to be. 

Of course, lots of teams that are struggling with injuries this season (LAL, Brooklyn, GSW, Miami, the list goes on...), and that's part of the reason why Denver would be a favorite if it weren't for injuries.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This year's NBA playoffs seem to be wide open in terms of teams that could possibly win it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

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.

Edited by Proudfeet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I moved away two years ago, but I assume this is the most Knicks hype since that insane Boston series in 13? And of course Linsanity before it (holy shit working my first bar gig in New York a block from MSG was some damn trip for that couple weeks). The city deserves some serious Knicks excitement again. I'm a total Thibs fan from the Rose/Deng/Noah days, and man is he a perfect fit to coach for that organization.

And fuck the Nets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Magic lose, meaning they'll at least be tied for the 3rd-worst record (OKC just started playing the Clippers).  Phew.  After the Sixers clinched the one seed on Friday I was a little worried they'd just play scrubs tonight.  They pretty much did, but Orlando persevered to lose anyway.  Heart of a champion!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, DMC said:

Magic lose, meaning they'll at least be tied for the 3rd-worst record (OKC just started playing the Clippers).  Phew.  After the Sixers clinched the one seed on Friday I was a little worried they'd just play scrubs tonight.  They pretty much did, but Orlando persevered to lose anyway.  Heart of a champion!

Meanwhile the Wolves are trying to be a .500 club over the last third of the season after being the worst team in the league prior to that.

We can't even getting the losing part right despite how I detest the mindset.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Thunder beat the Clippers!  Meaning Orlando is in sole possession of 3rd place.  So they have about a 52% chance at a top 4 pick.

On the downside, the Bulls beat the Bucks, placing them in a three way tie for eighth.  Not sure about the tiebreakers there, but regardless they have only about a 20% chance of a top four pick.  That pick turning into the 8-10th pick in the draft makes the Vuc trade look pretty damn good.  Based on the strength of the draft, they also have a very good chance at adding two impact players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Detroit secures the 2nd worst record.

Assuming Houston picks Cunningham No.1, a lot of projections are for the 7footer Mobley to go as the 2nd pick.

Were Detroit to draw that pick, next year's starting lineup should be-

Killian Hayes, Sadiq Bey, Jerami Grant, Isiah Stewart, and Evan Mobley.

That's a long, athletic Defense that can cover all over the court with speed, rim protection and excellent wingspan.

Power up Pistons, were gonna be back in this fight in no time!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DMC said:

The Thunder beat the Clippers!  Meaning Orlando is in sole possession of 3rd place.  So they have about a 52% chance at a top 4 pick.

On the downside, the Bulls beat the Bucks, placing them in a three way tie for eighth.  Not sure about the tiebreakers there, but regardless they have only about a 20% chance of a top four pick.  That pick turning into the 8-10th pick in the draft makes the Vuc trade look pretty damn good.  Based on the strength of the draft, they also have a very good chance at adding two impact players.

According to this, its a random draw.

The Clippers though. I don't think they were trying to manipulate their seeding because they are tied with the Nuggets and its a three way tie for the teams below them, but they lost to both the Thunder and the Rockets from resting all their starters. It seems overboard for rest, but I guess they want to avoid any freak injuries, especially with the injury history of their players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No idea what to expect from my Nuggets, though for obvious reasons I am not super high.  Joker will be awesome, he is a known commodity.  But the last time we saw MPJ in the playoffs Donavon played him right off the court.  Rivers will be starting and he was picked up on a 10 day near the end of the season.

The only good news is our guards are more defensive minded now, so IF the Joker/MPJ combo can win their match-ups we dont need a guard to stay even with the Dame/CJ blitz...just make it slightly more difficult.

Damn it I miss Murray.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Proudfeet said:

The Clippers though. I don't think they were trying to manipulate their seeding because they are tied with the Nuggets and its a three way tie for the teams below them, but they lost to both the Thunder and the Rockets from resting all their starters. It seems overboard for rest, but I guess they want to avoid any freak injuries, especially with the injury history of their players.

I think that the Clippers made the decision that they didn't care at all about being the 3 or the 4 seed, and that health/rest was the best advantage they could give themselves.  Which I guess you could take as a slight of the Nuggets, since it says they don't expect to meet them in the WCF, but I don't really expect them to make the WCF either. 

The Lakers-Warriors play in game could be a doozy.  Might not, who knows, but it has the potential to be a very exciting start to the playoffs. 

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.


×
×
  • Create New...