The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

So, basically, the 76ers are intentionally bad, tanking to get picks.  And it's not that the players on the court aren't trying, but they're intentionally leaving the cupboard bare, trading away their best players to build picks for the future to make a run.

Statistically, this might make long term sense, but what does it say for the integrity of the league?  For the full faith and credit of an NBA ticket?  What does it mean if it works and you have multiple teams getting bad on purpose?

I think we already have multiple teams being bad on purpose. The bottom of the league in the NBA is a travesty. My team is a lottery team and I am not ashamed to say I have not watched a single one of their games this year.

This is why I love my Phoenix Suns so much. They realistically didn't have any shot this year to compete with the best in the West for an NBA title, but our GM was out there, wheeling and dealing, trying to make us better, so we could win as many games as possible. We even gave up our most valuable draft asset, a protected pick from the gawd-awful Lakers, which is nearly a lock to be a top-10 pick in 2016, just so we could land Brandon Knight, who was a better fit with Bledsoe in our backcourt than either free agent-to-be Goran Dragic or too-short Isaiah Thomas.

Time will tell if it was a smart move, but I am proud of my team for going out there and fighting their asses off anyway.

As far as the 76ers go, I think they have done a few things right...and a few things wrong. I think the tandem of Nerlens Noel and Joel Embiid has the potential to be scary good, and I really like Covington at the 3. I thought Philly was stupid for dealing Michael Carter-Williams to Milwaukee (in the same 3-team deal that netted Phoenix Brandon Knight) for that probable top-10 pick in 2016. Carter-Williams was already a proven commodity, winning the rookie of the year award last year, and seemingly a perfect fit (scoring PG) for that Noel-Embiid frontcourt duo. Not sure what they were thinking on that one...

Time will tell if the 76ers did the right thing, but until that time comes (2017? 2018?), their fans really have to watch a crappy team on the court every night.

^^^Or not watch based on their attendance figures.

^^^ True that, but Philly fans are fickle, and the moment their team starts winning again, the fans will all come back, and they'll all say that they never left.

Then they'll throw more snowballs at Santa Claus...

As a cubs fan, isn't this normal? 

Last season the cubs traded away a ton of their best players for prospects. 

There's a reason why the NBA instituted the draft lottery beginning in 1985.  So teams like the 76ers couldn't tank the season for the top overall pick.  The NFL would be wise to do the same thing. 

The most angry I have been at the Knicks this year is the last 2 weeks when they "went on a tear" to close out the season on a 3-7 run and pass the Wolves as the 2nd worst team in the league. Ping pong balls may still bounce our way, but what the fuck did those 3 wins do for the franchise?

^^^ I could understand that a little more if there were a consensus "top-2" players in this draft class, with a marked drop-off after the #2 spot, but I don't see this class that way at all.

I thought the Pistons were going to be in the running, but I was pleasantly surprised with the moves by SVG and the team's improvement.

I think that "waiting to see how it works out" is part of the problem.  I feel that it's unethical either way...arguably even more so if it works.  If it works, many teams will likely tank and then your league could crumble.

The league depends on an integrity that every team is trying to win.  I know that this has probably been going on in some sense forever, but never this blatant.

I have a question for you that I feel is very important as to determining what should be done:

Who is the aggrieved victim in this tanking scenario?

- it's not the fans of the tanking team, because (as seen above) they complain even more loudly if you are dumb enough to win with a bad team
- it's not the fans of the teams that are beating the tanking teams, because no one complains about free wins

So who is being hurt, exactly?  In other words, why should we care?  It seems to me that the lottery is sufficient incentive to dissuade teams from issuing explicit directions to lose (which is very far removed from trading away promising players for future picks, or giving a lot of minutes to undeveloped players).

It's the league as a whole.  It's fans who want to watch competitive basketball.  It's not just about raising a trophy.  It's about a long-term competitive product.  It's about a fan of every other city that has to watch the 76ers come and play...might as well forfeit the games.

Over the long-term, the league depends on competition.  And fans deserve faith in a ticket that you're getting two teams trying to win.

Otherwise, the brand image will be hurt and EVERYONE will lose out.

The fans of every other city get to watch the 76ers come to their city and lose to their team.  I doubt this is a source of complaint.

It seems to me that the only people you hear complaining about this are fans of the teams that are also bad, but not bad enough to be at the top of the lottery.  And in what is surely a coincidence, the Miami Heat recently joined the ranks of these teams.

I don't remember hearing much discussion here about tanking in the four years prior to this season, when Heat fans were utterly unconcerned about such matters.  Similarly, the time I heard the most complaints about tanking (from Dolphins fans) was when IND got Luck.

The HEAT aside, fans of all teams except the 76ers and the team they're playing have an interest in their games.  That's a problem. 

Fans want to watch good basketball...or at least teams that are trying to win.

The 76ers sucking don't mean squat to me as a HEAT fan.  I just wish that when they play the Knicks or whatever, that the game might matter.

I mean, is a Kings vs. Hornets game really that much more interesting for you?

Even without tanking, watching two bad teams play is not going to be compelling basketball if you aren't a fan of those teams.  For comparison, no one is accusing the Browns or Jags of tanking, and a CLE vs. JAX game is still approximately equivalent to being punched in the face.

I gave up watching NBA basketball (with the exception of the playoffs) back in the 90's.  The refs suck and the players coast over half the season.  I switched to pretty much watching college basketball exclusively, but now that is filled with players that jump ship after one season.  I'm really in favor of all college athletes having to complete 2 semesters academically before being eligible to even practice.  There really are very few ethics in sports anymore.

If we're going to talk about ethics in sports, I'd say everything else in this thread is a distant second to the NBA owners and the union colluding to make sure that young players are essentially forced to play in college for free* before entering the league.

*the only "compensation" for playing in college is a degree that everyone involved knows the player has no intention of completing, and that most draftable players don't care about and won't even use

If the Knicks were good, I would have no problem with them beating a tanking team by 70 points. I would not feel cheated.

A lot of damage, that's what.  Draft lottery just ended.  Minnesota gets the first pick.  Knicks fell to 4.  That screws them out of getting Winslow, Okafor, or Towns.  They might have to settle for Cauley-Stein.

Winslow? He "might" crack the top-5, but that isn't even a sure thing. New York needs a point guard, and they're pretty much guaranteed to be able to get one of the consensus top-2 PGs in this class, Mudiay or Russell. If they really want Winslow, the chances are very good, imo, that they could grab him at #4.

Lakers get the second pick. I'm happy with either Okafor or Towns. The rebuilding is starting now  >:D

Knicks needed a center more than anything, a point guard is much more common than a great center.

Phil Jackson is basically undoing his whole legacy by what he has done with the Knicks so far. He's always been followed around by the notion that he can't win anything without multiple Hall of Famers on his roster. Not really proving his detractors wrong so far.

1) There is only 1 center in this draft (Towns), and unless you are picking first you aren't getting him (unless his agent causes a stir that his player won't play in Minny.) And he isn't the 2nd coming of Shaq or Duncan so its not like he is a dominate future NBA superstar, he isn't!

2) the NBA is played on the wings now, the days of needing a center are long over.

3) Bashing Phil Jackson now is laughable and silly and shows you have a low basketball IQ. It is more than a 1 year turnaround job in NY, it's a total blow up and rebuild.  This year had to happen for him to turn this franchise around. He had to remove all the garbage, bottom out, and clear out the bad contracts. There is no other way to do it in the NBA with how the rules are set up

I am not sure LA is taking Okafor if he is there at #2. They already have Randall. They might go with one of the two guards.  I mean they could take Okafor, not saying they won't. Just don't think its a done deal. I think there is a chance Okafor slides to 4 honestly, he is all offense, no defense, can't shoot foul shots. He's not what the hype about him is. And this is a game where the point guards and wing players dominate in the current NBA. Teams need guards in this league you don't need size!

LA would jump to get Towns as every team would, but he is probably going #1 unless his agent plays a game of hardball and says his client refuses to play in Minnesota and creates a mess. Okafor I'm not sure LA needs or will want. Will be interesting

1.  There's a lot more than one center.  Cauley-Stein might end up being a better center than his front court mate at Kentucky.

2.  And it's a crying shame that it is.  It used to be a game of centers.

3.  Like other posters say, why do you have to come off as a boorish jackass?

That's not gonna happen.

And of course there is more than 1 center but talking Top couple picks of the draft, not all 2 rounds..  ::)

This draft seems like it has a decent amount of first round-talent centers. There are 5-6 that I think will turn into decent, if not superstar, NBA players.

I actually like Cauley-Stein as well...he looks an awful lot like Tyson Chandler. Excellent interior defender, solid rebounder and a perfect complement to a team that has a lot of PG/SG/SF scorers.

The terrible contracts were already gone, just one year left on Amare and Bargnani.  He bought out Amare and Bargnani just expired. However, he did ADD a terrible contract in Jose Caulderon, who he later tried to trade months later.

This was the worst season in Knicks history when it didn't have to be. He introduced the triangle and it didn't work because it's outdated and not for today's game.

It didn't work cause he has no players. And yeah, one year left on those deals...which is why last year was going to happen! There was no way around last year not happening! It had to happen and it was going to be a disaster and there was no way around it.

I don't even have a favorite NBA team, but gotta be fair to Phil Jackson you can't grade and judge him after 1 year walking into a dumpster fire.

He traded JR Smith and Iman Shumpert to Cleveland, valuable pieces mind you, for a 2019 2nd Rounder and 3 guys they either waived or are now done with the team. That's pretty damn bad. 2019 means the kid is in 9th grade. Combine that with his irrational Twitter rants about how 3 point shooting is overrated and not that valuable in today's game and he seems like a man out of touch with 2015 NBA.

Maybe he turns it around. I pray to God he does, but this year has been a gigantic 0 for 1. He has a lot of catching up to do in free agency.

i'm ok with New York Misery .. i hope every single professional team from New York (and New Jersey) lose every single game they ever play ever.

Good job getting on that Phil Jackson

This is kind of like having a chicken and the egg argument. Are the days of needing a center over, possibly but I don't think so. I think there is just a glaring hole in the NBA where a dominant big man is not available in most instances. Let's have another dominant big come into the game (and when I say dominant they need to be of the Shaq, Ewing, Duncan caliber so it isn't going to be easy) and see how their team performs.

You can win with a roster built around a dominant center...and you can win with a roster NOT built around a dominant center. If you can get a Duncan-esque center, you'd be an idiot not to. If you can't, you build off a talented PG or wings.

You can definitely get by with a tall guy in the middle with little skill as most teams have that, but if you have a very good center, then you have the advantage over 90% of the league. Who wouldn't want that?

The Sacramento Kings have one of the best centers (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/202326/stats/) in the NBA, and they're garbage.  They definitely don't have an "advantage over 90% of the league."

No, I'd say they still have an advantage, they are just terrible everywhere else. If you have a positive player where other teams have a neutral or negative player, then you have an advantage. They are just negative everywhere else.

Well, every team with a top 3 player at their position has an advantage at that position.

I just don't agree that center is as important as you say.

And what did those guys do last night?   Nada.  Smith was held scoreless the ENTIRE SECOND HALF. 

I can see what Jackson's mentality is.  It's the same as the Marlins.  If we aren't winning with expensive players, get rid of them and lose with cheap players

Not Jackson's mentality is at all. It's to clear cap space. Get rid of mediocre players who are overpaid to open cap space to bring in better players at a better price