Page 13 of 20 FirstFirst ... 3 11 12 13 14 15 ... LastLast
Results 241 to 260 of 398

Thread: Signs Of Tanking?

  1. #241
    Super Moderator CalgaryRapsFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    4,329
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote p00ka wrote: View Post
    So tell us again, how did they tank? They obtained "Nique, hardly a tank move, and except for missing a couple of weeks due to injury, played him big minutes for very decent production. They also lost their 2nd best player in recent years (Sam Elliot,), due to injury, half way through the season, who they had been riding pretty hard. What steps do you say they took to "tank hard"?
    I view that SA situation as similar to how I viewed the Raptors situation during the lockout-shortened season - due to the circumstances, playing to win in the current season was no longer the best option for the team. Some call it tanking, others call it good management based on unique circumstances.

    The Spurs didn't go out of their way to replace those veterans, which they could have, by getting active in trades and mortgaging their future to remain as competitive as possible that year. Instead, they took a realistic view at their chances, in light of the injuries, weighed their options and considered the external factors (ie: upcoming draft pool). By not doing everything in their power to try and win that season, some people claim that it's tanking (the same people who claimed BC signing the likes Rasual Butler was semi-tanking).

    I am not a pro-tanker. However, I was at one point referred to as the 'tank commander' during the 2011 offseason. The Raptors were only a year removed from losing Bosh, had a young roster (ie: Bargnani, DeRozan, Amir, Davis) had just drafted Valanciunas (who was known to be spending another season in Europe), had just hired a new coach, had no training camp and were projected to be a bubble team at best (most experts didn't consider them a playoff team), while the 2012 draft class was expected to be fairly decent. So, given all those factors, I thought it made perfect sense to give the young players lots of playing time for both individual development and team chemistry, while giving the new coach a chance to evaluate his roster (you know, assuming a GM and coach would work together, on the same page). The team would fast-track its organic growth, while simultaneously maximizing their draft position, enabling them to add 2 top rookies to an improved young team for the 2012-2013 season. The lockout season was a write-off anyway, with the championship all but conceded to the Heat. I considered that approach to be strategic long-term team building, as opposed to outright tanking. Of course, BC decided to fast-track the rebuilding into building (despite his best new building block playing in Europe) and useless players that weren't part of the team's future lead the ragtag group to a few too many victories over truly tanking teams, resulting in the Raptors adding Ross instead of Beal/Lillard (my personal top 2 targets).

    Situational management might have a tanking aspect to it, but I think it's a far cry from all-out, deliberate, blatant tanking (which includes proactively gutting the roster).
    Last edited by CalgaryRapsFan; Wed Aug 14th, 2013 at 05:26 PM.

  2. #242
    Raptors Republic All-Star wallz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    New Brunswick
    Posts
    2,244
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Xixak wrote: View Post
    No it isn't.

    You explained how having Jonas makes it easier to get two all-star talents since we already have one (only need to get one more).

    But that does not explain how getting Jonas increases the odds of getting another all-star talent.
    Like Nilanka said, stars like playing with stars. Don't need stats to explain that

  3. #243
    Raptors Republic Hall of Famer mcHAPPY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    19,648
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Xixak wrote: View Post
    No it isn't.

    You explained how having Jonas makes it easier to get two all-star talents since we already have one (only need to get one more).

    But that does not explain how getting Jonas increases the odds of getting another all-star talent.
    Quote Xixak wrote: View Post
    Matt let me give you an analogy to help illustrate how incorrect what you said is.

    In the part I bolded you said



    That is like flipping a coin and getting heads, and then saying my chance of getting another heads has increased. No it hasn't. Your chance of getting TWO heads has gone up because you only had 1, but your chance of getting a heads on the next toss is exactly the same.
    Quote BobLoblaw wrote: View Post
    What he meant is that having Jonas increases odds of a successful rebuilding project, i.e. ending up with two foundational players.
    Quote Xixak wrote: View Post
    I think we can both agree that's not even close to the same thing as:
    Quote BobLoblaw wrote: View Post
    But it's clearly what he meant, nonetheless. I guess underline the word "another". You can't get "another" without getting the first one.
    I'm glad BobLoblaw understood the point.

    If the context was getting just one all-star, Xixak, you have a point.

    Unfortunately the entire context was about getting 2 all-star talents. The Raptors already have an all-star talent (whether he maximizes that talent/potential is another story). So back to the topic of getting 2 all-star talents because as previous posts have shown having just 1 ensures low ceiling and a rebuild just around the corner if you lack financial flexibility which current and Bosh-era Raptors did not.

    As I said previously, 40% chance to get star talent in top 5 and attempting to get 2 all-star talents in consecutive drafts means 40% x 40% = 16% probability of success. What I said and if I did not say it what I meant (which clearly at least one other person understood) is that the Raptors already have 1 all star talent therefore they are going in to 2014 draft (assuming they had a top 5 pick) with a 40% chance of acquiring ANOTHER 2nd all-star talent BECAUSE THEY ALREADY HAVE ONE.


    If I made a mistake, so be it. Happened before and will happen again. Unfortunately I think you're spending too much time trying to trip me on each individual sentence rather than looking at the context of the entire post. But whatever floats your boat bro.
    "You donít know the Bruno Caboclo......"
    Bruno Caboclo

    Basketball has clear winners every night --
    except at the draft, which is all homework, politics and chance.

  4. Like LBF liked this post
  5. #244
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    744
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote CalgaryRapsFan wrote: View Post
    I view that SA situation as similar to how I viewed the Raptors situation during the lockout-shortened season - due to the circumstances, playing to win in the current season was no longer the best option for the team. Some call it tanking, others call it good management based on unique circumstances.

    The Spurs didn't go out of their way to replace those veterans, which they could have, by getting active in trades and mortgaging their future to remain as competitive as possible that year. Instead, they took a realistic view at their chances, in light of the injuries, weighed their options and considered the external factors (ie: upcoming draft pool). By not doing everything in their power to try and win that season, some people claim that it's tanking (the same people who claimed BC signing the likes Rasual Butler was semi-tanking).
    This is just simply not true. First of all the Spurs were capped out. Their payroll was $30,785,500, and the salary cap was about 24.363M (Sources: http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/SAS/1997.html & http://www.insidehoops.com/nba-salary-cap.shtml).

    Additionally, young players had less value in trades back then (teams relied on veterans more to win), and even if they didn't all the young assets the Spurs had were late 1st round picks (like Cory Alexander), 2nd round picks (like Jaime Feick) or undrafted players (like Devin Gray). They had nothing to barter with.

    I am not a pro-tanker. However, I was at one point referred to as the 'tank commander' during the 2011 offseason. The Raptors were only a year removed from losing Bosh, had a young roster (ie: Bargnani, DeRozan, Amir, Davis) had just drafted Valanciunas (who was known to be spending another season in Europe), had just hired a new coach, had no training camp and were projected to be a bubble team at best (most experts didn't consider them a playoff team), while the 2012 draft class was expected to be fairly decent. So, given all those factors, I thought it made perfect sense to give the young players lots of playing time for both individual development and team chemistry, while giving the new coach a chance to evaluate his roster (you know, assuming a GM and coach would work together, on the same page). The team would fast-track its organic growth, while simultaneously maximizing their draft position, enabling them to add 2 top rookies to an improved young team in the 2012-2013 season. The lockout season was a write-off anyway, with the championship all but conceded to the Heat. I considered that approach to be strategic long-term team building, as opposed to outright tanking. Of course, BC decided to fast-track the rebuilding into building (despite his best new building block playing in Europe) and useless players that weren't part of the team's future lead the ragtag group to a few too many victories over truly tanking teams, resulting in the Raptors adding Ross instead of Beals/Lillard (my personal top 2 targets).
    I 100% agree with you on this. In 2011-2012 we hardly had any talent on the roster, especially since Jonas wasn't with us yet. This was a perfectly good and reasonable time to tank as hard as possible. Calderon should've been shipped out (possibly Bargs as well). I'm not sure why the hell Barbosa, AA and Kleiza were taking minutes away from our young guys. The smart move would've been to ship all the vets out for 2nd round picks and start:

    Bayless
    DD
    Forbes/JJ
    Ed
    Amir

    And just watch the losses pile-up while also figuring out just how good our young guys were. Like you said this SCREWED us in the draft and cost us a chance at Beal, MKG, Lillard or even Barnes.

    Situational management might have a tanking aspect to it, but I think it's a far cry from all-out, deliberate, blatant tanking (which includes proactively gutting the roster).
    Last edited by Xixak; Wed Aug 14th, 2013 at 05:33 PM.

  6. #245
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    744
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Matt52 wrote: View Post
    I'm glad BobLoblaw understood the point.

    If the context was getting just one all-star, Xixak, you have a point.

    Unfortunately the entire context was about getting 2 all-star talents. The Raptors already have an all-star talent (whether he maximizes that talent/potential is another story). So back to the topic of getting 2 all-star talents because as previous posts have shown having just 1 ensures low ceiling and a rebuild just around the corner if you lack financial flexibility which current and Bosh-era Raptors did not.

    As I said previously, 40% chance to get star talent in top 5 and attempting to get 2 all-star talents in consecutive drafts means 40% x 40% = 16% probability of success. What I said and if I did not say it what I meant (which clearly at least one other person understood) is that the Raptors already have 1 all star talent therefore they are going in to 2014 draft (assuming they had a top 5 pick) with a 40% chance of acquiring ANOTHER 2nd all-star talent BECAUSE THEY ALREADY HAVE ONE.


    If I made a mistake, so be it. Happened before and will happen again. Unfortunately I think you're spending too much time trying to trip me on each individual sentence rather than looking at the context of the entire post. But whatever floats your boat bro.
    That's fine, blame me for your mistake.

  7. #246
    Super Moderator CalgaryRapsFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    4,329
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Xixak wrote: View Post
    That's fine, blame me for your mistake.
    You're the only one that thinks he made a mistake in the first place, as far as I can tell.

    The way I read his post, it goes back to your series of posts that points out the futility of several teams attempting to build through the draft, despite consecutive trips to the lottery. A big part of their failure to become competitive was their inability to land a couple franchise-altering (at least all-star or near all-star caliber) players with their lottery picks. All Matt52 was pointing out was that Toronto was in a favorable position compared to most of those other teams, because they're starting a new rebuilding phase under MU with one such star (JV) already in place. Therefore, the Raptors don't need to strike oil twice via the draft to acquire a pair of stars, since they already have one.

    Your own posts pointed out how much uncertainty there was in building through the drafts, especially to acquire star players. Matt52 was essentially agreeing with your assessment, while pointing out the silver lining, which is the fact that the Raptors already have a young, cheap stud in JV. The Raptors are already halfway towards achieving the goal of building around 2 young star players, which means the probability/chances/liklihood of them ultimately ending up with 2 young stars to build around via the draft are much higher than a team starting from scratch (since the Raps are starting out half done already).

    Maybe it was his inclusion of math that clouded an otherwise straightforward point.

  8. Like LBF, Axel, mcHAPPY liked this post
  9. #247
    Raptors Republic Hall of Famer mcHAPPY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    19,648
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Xixak wrote: View Post
    That's fine, blame me for your mistake.
    Exactly.

    And blame me for not understanding the meani g of the word "another" in the context of a discussion about obtaining 2 all-star talents when the Raptors already have 1.

  10. Like LBF liked this post
  11. #248
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    744
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    The Raptors already have him which significantly increases odds of getting another all-star talent.

    If he had said, "The Raptors already have Jonas which significantly increases the odds of having two all-star talents" it would have made sense.

    But he said "The Raptors already have him which significantly increases odds of getting another all-star talent.", which is worded in a way that would mean having Jonas increases our chances of getting an all-star in the draft. Which simply is not true.

    I want to study law so maybe I'm examining the wording too thoroughly, but like I said before an analogy would be this:

    What Matt said: Since I already got heads on my first toss, I have a better chance of getting heads on my next toss. This is not true, because they are independent events, the odds of getting heads on toss #2 are still 50%.

    What Matt apparently meant to say: Since I already got heads on my first toss, I now have a better chance of obtaining two heads. This is true, because you only need one more heads (50%) chance as opposed to 2 more (50%*50% = 25% chance) to obtain 2 in total.

  12. #249
    Super Moderator CalgaryRapsFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    4,329
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Xixak wrote: View Post
    The Raptors already have him which significantly increases odds of getting another all-star talent.

    If he had said, "The Raptors already have Jonas which significantly increases the odds of having two all-star talents" it would have made sense.

    But he said "The Raptors already have him which significantly increases odds of getting another all-star talent.", which is worded in a way that would mean having Jonas increases our chances of getting an all-star in the draft. Which simply is not true.

    I want to study law so maybe I'm examining the wording too thoroughly, but like I said before an analogy would be this:

    What Matt said: Since I already got heads on my first toss, I have a better chance of getting heads on my next toss. This is not true, because they are independent events, the odds of getting heads on toss #2 are still 50%.

    What Matt apparently meant to say: Since I already got heads on my first toss, I now have a better chance of obtaining two heads. This is true, because you only need one more heads (50%) chance as opposed to 2 more (50%*50% = 25% chance) to obtain 2 in total.
    So basically you understood what he meant, but were nitpicking that he typed "another" instead of "a second"?

    I think you're just a little too eager for a pissing match with Matt52.

    It was pretty simple, as it was all in response to a series of messages you had posted. We want 2. We got 1. Our chances of ending up with 2 are better than teams that don't have 1 yet.


    I'd suggest - and not just to you - that we all give our fellow posters the benefit of the doubt and read what they typed and take a moment to think about what they really meant, rather than use every little opportunity to show them up.
    Last edited by CalgaryRapsFan; Wed Aug 14th, 2013 at 05:59 PM.

  13. Like LBF, Axel, mcHAPPY liked this post
  14. #250
    Raptors Republic Hall of Famer mcHAPPY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    19,648
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Xixak wrote: View Post
    The Raptors already have him which significantly increases odds of getting another all-star talent.

    If he had said, "The Raptors already have Jonas which significantly increases the odds of having two all-star talents" it would have made sense.

    But he said "The Raptors already have him which significantly increases odds of getting another all-star talent.", which is worded in a way that would mean having Jonas increases our chances of getting an all-star in the draft. Which simply is not true.

    I want to study law so maybe I'm examining the wording too thoroughly, but like I said before an analogy would be this:

    What Matt said: Since I already got heads on my first toss, I have a better chance of getting heads on my next toss. This is not true, because they are independent events, the odds of getting heads on toss #2 are still 50%.

    What Matt apparently meant to say: Since I already got heads on my first toss, I now have a better chance of obtaining two heads. This is true, because you only need one more heads (50%) chance as opposed to 2 more (50%*50% = 25% chance) to obtain 2 in total.
    Yeah, you still don't get it.

    The Raptors haven't tossed a coin yet.
    Get it?
    They obtained JV in the last rebuild.
    Get it now?
    That rebuild or session of coin flips is OVER.
    Becoming clearer?
    Trading for Lowry, signing Fields, trading for Gay, extending DD all killed that coin flipping session.
    Crystal yet?
    The team is built to compete for the playoffs - but that is it - and not even a given.
    Understand?


    The argument is to start a new rebuild now while JV is still an all-star talent on a rookie deal.
    It has worked out in Toronto's favour that he spent one year overseas.
    Otherwise he'd be going in to year 3 of his rookie deal with one less draft and one less free agency period before his extension kicks in.


    All your coin flipping chatter is irrelevant because the first coin is not going to be flipped until June 2014.... assuming the Raptors jump in to the tank.


    As a poster pointed out yesterday it is clear you have an axe to grind. Keep sharpening.
    "You donít know the Bruno Caboclo......"
    Bruno Caboclo

    Basketball has clear winners every night --
    except at the draft, which is all homework, politics and chance.

  15. Like LBF liked this post
  16. #251
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    1,016
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Xixak wrote: View Post
    Lmao I still think it's hilarious that people say the Spurs tanked for Duncan.

    No they did not, this is not up for debate and there's no room for discussion.

    They were 59-23 the year before: http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/SAS/1996.html and finished FIRST in the Western Conference

    With a starting 5 of:
    Avery Johnson (13ppg, 10apg)
    Vinny Del negro (14.5ppg)
    Sean Elliot (20ppg, 5rpg)
    Charles Smith (10ppg, 6rpg)
    David Robinson (25ppg, 12rpg)

    That offseason (the offseason before the 96-97 season at the end of which they drafted TD), they tried to bolster their core even more. They brought back all 5 starters, while adding Vernon Maxwell (solid scorer off the bench at 13ppg) and Dominique Wilkins who despite being 37 had averaged 18ppg in 94-95 before missing 95-96 due to injury. They were set to try and make a deeper playoff run after losing to Utah, but The Admiral got injured in the preseason, and Sean Elliot missed over half the season due to injury. So basically their top two players were out.

    Despite this, they did not trade A SINGLE key player, like you would expect a tanking team to do. Del Negro, Nique and Avery all played the entire season.

    Their lack of depth and go-to scoring as a result of losing their two best players (this would be equivalent to the Thunder losing Durant and Westbrook last year and asking KMart and Ibaka to carry the load), resulted in them winning just 20 games and firing their coach Bob Hill after 18 games (why would they do this if they were tanking) to hire Pop.
    Quote Xixak wrote: View Post
    This is just simply not true. First of all the Spurs were capped out. Their payroll was $30,785,500, and the salary cap was about 24.363M (Sources: http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/SAS/1997.html & http://www.insidehoops.com/nba-salary-cap.shtml).

    Additionally, young players had less value in trades back then (teams relied on veterans more to win), and even if they didn't all the young assets the Spurs had were late 1st round picks (like Cory Alexander), 2nd round picks (like Jaime Feick) or undrafted players (like Devin Gray). They had nothing to barter with.
    Bravo! You put in more effort than I ever did to debunk that ever-lasting myth. It boggles the mind that someone spouts stuff like "the Spurs tanked to get Duncan" and it becomes fact for so many. The ironic thing is, the team that truly did tank to chase Duncan, the Celtics, lost the lottery, picked Billups 3rd, who collided with then coach Pitino. They traded him half way through his 1st year to the Raps, and despite getting Pierce the next year, went on to:
    - 4 losing seasons, out of the playoffs
    - followed by 4 seasons of 1st round fodder
    - followed by 2 more losing seasons out of the playoffs before getting KG and Allen to revive the franchise.
    One might say that tank cost the franchise 10 years of bouncing between hapless to mediocre

  17. Like Xixak liked this post
  18. #252
    Raptors Republic Hall of Famer mcHAPPY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    19,648
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote p00ka wrote: View Post
    Bravo! You put in more effort than I ever did to debunk that ever-lasting myth. It boggles the mind that someone spouts stuff like "the Spurs tanked to get Duncan" and it becomes fact for so many. The ironic thing is, the team that truly did tank to chase Duncan, the Celtics, lost the lottery, picked Billups 3rd, who collided with then coach Pitino. They traded him half way through his 1st year to the Raps, and despite getting Pierce the next year, went on to:
    - 4 losing seasons, out of the playoffs
    - followed by 4 seasons of 1st round fodder
    - followed by 2 more losing seasons out of the playoffs before getting KG and Allen to revive the franchise.
    One might say that tank cost the franchise 10 years of bouncing between hapless to mediocre
    It is definitely a risk.
    "You donít know the Bruno Caboclo......"
    Bruno Caboclo

    Basketball has clear winners every night --
    except at the draft, which is all homework, politics and chance.

  19. #253
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    744
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    I'd also like to point out that Cleveland did the tank job in the way that most people want it to be done.

    In 2011 they acquired a pick from the Clippers which luckily ended up being the #1 pick in the draft, a future potential superstar in Kyrie Irving. Since then they haven't really done anything right in the draft, mainly because they keep trying to outsmart other teams and then just end up outsmarting themselves.

    They have gotten Tristan Thompson with the 4th pick in 2011, Waiters 4th in 2012 and now Bennett 1st in 2013. None of these players appear to have anything close to star potential. If Bynum can't stay healthy next season (which is very likely considering his track record), Cleveland will still be a cellar-dwellar despite having done the tank "perfectly" in the sense that every year they tried to be as bad as possible.

    It just doesn't always work out the way you want it to. In fact most of the time it doesn't.

  20. #254
    Raptors Republic Superstar enlightenment's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    3,138
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Man Cleveland was so dumb to pass on Val..
    The Baltic Beast is unstoppable!

  21. #255
    Raptors Republic All-Star
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    1,116
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Xixak wrote:
    They have gotten Tristan Thompson with the 4th pick in 2011, Waiters 4th in 2012 and now Bennett 1st in 2013. None of these players appear to have anything close to star potential.
    Thompson is a very strong young power forward who still has upside for development, probably maxing out at the "borderline All Star" level. Bennett clearly has star potential (whether or not he lives up to it is a judgement call). Waiters is the question mark and probably the worst pick of the three, and he's still not a bad pick per se; Harrison Barnes or Andre Drummond just would have been better for Cleveland, and a lot of teams were worried about Barnes' confidence and maturity at the time, ditto Drummond (which is why they both slid). You're selling Cleveland's picks short, frankly.
    Last edited by magoon; Wed Aug 14th, 2013 at 08:57 PM.

  22. Like planetmars liked this post
  23. #256
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    1,016
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    I hesitate to wade into this, but this Xixak / Matt52 kerfuffle started with a reasonable question about a specific statement made by a self-professed nit-picker, started to blow up when a virtual non-responsive brush-off was given as a reply, then several ganged up and went after Xixak scoffing at him not understanding what wasn't said. Sad to say that school yard gang-ups happen here when simple and clear answers aren't given to simple and clear questions. Matt52, as a self-professed nit-picker yourself, why didn't you just answer the guy's question with something other than a somewhat snotty brush-off?

  24. Like Xixak, enlightenment liked this post
  25. #257
    Raptors Republic Superstar enlightenment's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    3,138
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote magoon wrote: View Post
    [blockquote]They have gotten Tristan Thompson with the 4th pick in 2011, Waiters 4th in 2012 and now Bennett 1st in 2013. None of these players appear to have anything close to star potential.[/blockquote]

    Thompson is a very strong young power forward who still has upside for development, probably maxing out at the "borderline All Star" level. Bennett clearly has star potential (whether or not he lives up to it is a judgement call). Waiters is the question mark and probably the worst pick of the three, and he's still not a bad pick per se; Harrison Barnes or Andre Drummond just would have been better for Cleveland, and a lot of teams were worried about Barnes' confidence and maturity at the time, ditto Drummond (which is why they both slid). You're selling Cleveland's picks short, frankly.
    Imagine Cleveland picked Harrison Barnes instead, and Jonas instead.

    Irving
    Miles
    Barnes
    Bennett
    Jonas

    + Cody Zeller
    The Baltic Beast is unstoppable!

  26. #258
    Raptors Republic All-Star
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    1,199
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    At the time, a lot of people thought the Spurs were tanking. That's how the Bob Hill firing was interpreted by many fans. They started poorly but that hardly was Hill's fault, most of their starters (including Robinson) were injured.

    Bob Hill was considered a great coach, and they went from him to a guy with no head coaching experience (Pops) right before David Robinson was supposed to come back from injury.

    As it turns out, in hindsight, Pops became one of the greatest coaches of all time. Besides, none of it would've mattered because David Robinson got injured again, soon after he got back. So their season was done either way.

    But at the time, it looked like "Oh hell no, we are probably out of the playoffs anyway, Hill/Robinson will just get us to 30 wins now, no chance at Tim Duncan or Keith Van Horn. Lets fire the coach."

    In the end, it's hard to say one way or the other. It could easily be that Popovich simply didn't like Bob Hill for some reason, or wanted to coach, or wanted to change the Spurs identity and happened to pick that moment. Maybe he was afraid that if he waits and Bob Hill turns the season around that year with a healthy Robinson, he wouldn't be able to fire Hill.

    Who knows. It's all just speculation. A lot of people suspected a tank at the time, and those questions won't go away. Besides, people had a reason to be suspicious: the Spurs tanked to get David Robinson, so it was natural to assume they were back to their old tricks.

  27. #259
    Raptors Republic Superstar Chr1s1anL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Ottawa, Ontario
    Posts
    3,987
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    We don't know if JV is a sure fire all-star yet. We shouldn't put all our eggs in a basket. Start tanking. If JV is that good than he should make thanking extremely hard than.

  28. #260
    Raptors Republic Hall of Famer mcHAPPY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    19,648
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote p00ka wrote: View Post
    I hesitate to wade into this, but this Xixak / Matt52 kerfuffle started with a reasonable question about a specific statement made by a self-professed nit-picker, started to blow up when a virtual non-responsive brush-off was given as a reply, then several ganged up and went after Xixak scoffing at him not understanding what wasn't said. Sad to say that school yard gang-ups happen here when simple and clear answers aren't given to simple and clear questions. Matt52, as a self-professed nit-picker yourself, why didn't you just answer the guy's question with something other than a somewhat snotty brush-off?
    Good question.

    I thought it was clear. I directed him to my response. There had been a couple of instances where he either twisted replies in to something that was not said or he ignored a post that answered another. There comes a point in time when you have someone always attempting to take out your legs you take a stand.

    This was another example of him twisting an argument in to something that was not said. His interpretation was incorrect. Was my wording off? Possibly if you look at the context of one sentence. If you look at the context of the paragraph and post, then I would say no. The fact other posters understood exactly what I meant because they did not focus on one word in one sentence is kind of telling.

    Your school yard gang-ups is an interesting analogy. But what happens if that school yard gang up is a result of the distracting/annoying/disrespectful kid finally being put in his place by the frustrated classmates who continually have to deal with his disturbances during class and teases/taunts/annoyances during recess, lunch, in the halls, and on the bus? If you are going to continually be an ass to others on the playground (or forums) don't be surprised when it comes right back at you. I know I am opinionated and arrogant in my views. The difference, in my opinion, is I'm not attempting to belittle anyone questioning their intelligence/knowledge or attempting to undermine them with statements beginning and ending in "dude" and "bro" - well, one exception.
    "You donít know the Bruno Caboclo......"
    Bruno Caboclo

    Basketball has clear winners every night --
    except at the draft, which is all homework, politics and chance.

  29. Like LBF, p00ka, wallz liked this post
Page 13 of 20 FirstFirst ... 3 11 12 13 14 15 ... LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •