|
|
Post by sdm3 on Aug 14, 2019 11:01:10 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Aug 14, 2019 11:51:51 GMT
I wish this were the case in all sports.
|
|
|
|
Post by screamingtreefrogs on Aug 14, 2019 12:02:21 GMT
I wish this were the case in all sports. Tanking works if done properly and a team/fanbase has the patience for it realizing you're going to have your hits and misses over the years and to stay patient and keep kicking the ball down the road swapping assets for more assets - the fruits of your labor will be realized 6 years down the road or so I can't wait to see what the Oklahoma City Thunder look like in the mid/late 2020's. IMO it's better to tank - put up with the 'misses' over the years - then eventually strike gold with some generational talent - instead of being stuck in 'mediocrity hell' where you're completely irrelevant year after year. Kudos to the Cleveland Browns as well - well done boys  
|
|
|
|
Post by nutsberryfarm 🏜 on Aug 14, 2019 12:09:14 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Aug 14, 2019 12:22:36 GMT
I wish this were the case in all sports. Tanking works if done properly and a team/fanbase has the patience for it realizing you're going to have your hits and misses over the years and to stay patient and keep kicking the ball down the road swapping assets for more assets - the fruits of your labor will be realized 6 years down the road or so I can't wait to see what the Oklahoma City Thunder look like in the mid/late 2020's. IMO it's better to tank - put up with the 'misses' over the years - then eventually strike gold with some generational talent - instead of being stuck in 'mediocrity hell' where you're completely irrelevant year after year. Kudos to the Cleveland Browns as well - well done boys  I say this every time we have this conversation, but your odds of getting lucky with generational talent are the same whether you're intentionally tanking or not. No dynasty in the history of the NBA was built on tanking. The latest NBA dynasty, the Warriors, didn't tank. They got their generational talent out of the top 5 (Curry #7 in 2009, Thompson #11 in 2011 and Green #35 in 2012) and shrewd trades/signings. As of right now, the Sixers are a contender who haven't even gotten to an ECF. The Celtics made it farther in the playoffs than Philly two years ago with their two biggest stars sidelined with injuries. The Raptors didn't tank. The Bucks didn't tank. The truth is in the NBA, you've either got that generational talent or you're stuck in 'mediocrity hell.' There is no in-between in that league. You can't 'get hot' and luck your way to a title in the NBA (unless you make it to the Finals and the Warriors entire roster goes down with injuries). Did tanking work for the Sixers? The jury is out until they actually win something. One thing I can say for certain is tanking is not necessary to build a winner, and it's a shitty thing to do to a fanbase.
|
|
|
|
Post by screamingtreefrogs on Aug 14, 2019 12:29:29 GMT
Tanking works if done properly and a team/fanbase has the patience for it realizing you're going to have your hits and misses over the years and to stay patient and keep kicking the ball down the road swapping assets for more assets - the fruits of your labor will be realized 6 years down the road or so I can't wait to see what the Oklahoma City Thunder look like in the mid/late 2020's. IMO it's better to tank - put up with the 'misses' over the years - then eventually strike gold with some generational talent - instead of being stuck in 'mediocrity hell' where you're completely irrelevant year after year. Kudos to the Cleveland Browns as well - well done boys  I say this every time we have this conversation, but your odds of getting lucky with generational talent are the same whether you're intentionally tanking or not. No dynasty in the history of the NBA was built on tanking. The latest NBA dynasty, the Warriors, didn't tank. They got their generational talent out of the top 5 (Curry #7 in 2009, Thompson #11 in 2011 and Green #35 in 2012) and shrewd trades/signings. As of right now, the Sixers are a contender who haven't even gotten to an ECF. The Celtics made it farther in the playoffs than Philly two years ago with their two biggest stars sidelined with injuries. The Raptors didn't tank. The Bucks didn't tank. The truth is in the NBA, you've either got that generational talent or you're stuck in 'mediocrity hell.' There is no in-between in that league. You can't 'get hot' and luck your way to a title in the NBA (unless you make it to the Finals and the Warriors entire roster goes down with injuries). Did tanking work for the Sixers? The jury is out until they actually win something. One thing I can say for certain is tanking is not necessary to build a winner, and it's a shitty thing to do to a fanbase. World domination begins this year. It was all about setting yourself up for 'Multiple Chips' - not just '1' like the Raptors. The fanbase here (the smart ones) were fully on board. They knew this day was coming. We are now blessed with Embiid/Simmons and a crew of J-Rich, Horford, and Tobie. I'll ask you - who's in a better situation going forward - Sixers or Celtics? I think the answer is quite clear 
|
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Aug 14, 2019 13:22:42 GMT
I say this every time we have this conversation, but your odds of getting lucky with generational talent are the same whether you're intentionally tanking or not. No dynasty in the history of the NBA was built on tanking. The latest NBA dynasty, the Warriors, didn't tank. They got their generational talent out of the top 5 (Curry #7 in 2009, Thompson #11 in 2011 and Green #35 in 2012) and shrewd trades/signings. As of right now, the Sixers are a contender who haven't even gotten to an ECF. The Celtics made it farther in the playoffs than Philly two years ago with their two biggest stars sidelined with injuries. The Raptors didn't tank. The Bucks didn't tank. The truth is in the NBA, you've either got that generational talent or you're stuck in 'mediocrity hell.' There is no in-between in that league. You can't 'get hot' and luck your way to a title in the NBA (unless you make it to the Finals and the Warriors entire roster goes down with injuries). Did tanking work for the Sixers? The jury is out until they actually win something. One thing I can say for certain is tanking is not necessary to build a winner, and it's a shitty thing to do to a fanbase. World domination begins this year. It was all about setting yourself up for 'Multiple Chips' - not just '1' like the Raptors. The fanbase here (the smart ones) were fully on board. They knew this day was coming. We are now blessed with Embiid/Simmons and a crew of J-Rich, Horford, and Tobie. I'll ask you - who's in a better situation going forward - Sixers or Celtics?I think the answer is quite clear  I guess we'll find out come playoff time. I'm just glad I didn't have to sit through multiple unwatchable seasons to get here.
|
|
|
|
Post by FrankSobotka1514 on Aug 14, 2019 13:39:59 GMT
I wish this were the case in all sports. Tanking works if done properly and a team/fanbase has the patience for it realizing you're going to have your hits and misses over the years and to stay patient and keep kicking the ball down the road swapping assets for more assets - the fruits of your labor will be realized 6 years down the road or so I can't wait to see what the Oklahoma City Thunder look like in the mid/late 2020's. IMO it's better to tank - put up with the 'misses' over the years - then eventually strike gold with some generational talent - instead of being stuck in 'mediocrity hell' where you're completely irrelevant year after year. Kudos to the Cleveland Browns as well - well done boys   Hold on a minute there, the Browns haven’t done shit yet. See if they can finish above .500 this millennium first.
|
|
|
|
Post by screamingtreefrogs on Aug 14, 2019 14:21:36 GMT
Browns will win the AFC North and go to the AFC Championship Game vs. the Pats (Chiefs will disappoint - I've changed my Super Bowl selection).
Book it Baby.
I've yet to determine who will be coming out of the AFC - Brownies or Pats.
|
|
|
|
Post by klawrencio79 on Aug 14, 2019 14:26:17 GMT
The problem the Orioles have is they have expensive guys that nobody wants. Nobody in their right mind would trade used dogshit bags for Chris Davis so until that contract expires, the Orioles are stuck with him. I think having him on your roster is punishment enough.
|
|
|
|
Post by Xcalatë on Aug 14, 2019 14:32:35 GMT
I didn't see it but that sentence still made me spit out my beer LMAO!
|
|
|
|
Post by FrankSobotka1514 on Aug 14, 2019 14:39:51 GMT
Browns will win the AFC North and go to the AFC Championship Game vs. the Pats (Chiefs will disappoint - I've changed my Super Bowl selection). Book it Baby. I've yet to determine who will be coming out of the AFC - Brownies or Pats. I’ll take the “under” on that one.
|
|
|
|
Post by SportsFan19 on Aug 15, 2019 13:17:03 GMT
I say this every time we have this conversation, but your odds of getting lucky with generational talent are the same whether you're intentionally tanking or not. No dynasty in the history of the NBA was built on tanking. The latest NBA dynasty, the Warriors, didn't tank. They got their generational talent out of the top 5 (Curry #7 in 2009, Thompson #11 in 2011 and Green #35 in 2012) and shrewd trades/signings. As of right now, the Sixers are a contender who haven't even gotten to an ECF. The Celtics made it farther in the playoffs than Philly two years ago with their two biggest stars sidelined with injuries. The Raptors didn't tank. The Bucks didn't tank. The truth is in the NBA, you've either got that generational talent or you're stuck in 'mediocrity hell.' There is no in-between in that league. You can't 'get hot' and luck your way to a title in the NBA (unless you make it to the Finals and the Warriors entire roster goes down with injuries). Did tanking work for the Sixers? The jury is out until they actually win something. One thing I can say for certain is tanking is not necessary to build a winner, and it's a shitty thing to do to a fanbase. So everyone that doesn't have LBJ is 'mediocrity hell'? Thompson and Green are nowhere near generational talents. lol Curry isn't either.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Aug 15, 2019 13:18:34 GMT
I say this every time we have this conversation, but your odds of getting lucky with generational talent are the same whether you're intentionally tanking or not. No dynasty in the history of the NBA was built on tanking. The latest NBA dynasty, the Warriors, didn't tank. They got their generational talent out of the top 5 (Curry #7 in 2009, Thompson #11 in 2011 and Green #35 in 2012) and shrewd trades/signings. As of right now, the Sixers are a contender who haven't even gotten to an ECF. The Celtics made it farther in the playoffs than Philly two years ago with their two biggest stars sidelined with injuries. The Raptors didn't tank. The Bucks didn't tank. The truth is in the NBA, you've either got that generational talent or you're stuck in 'mediocrity hell.' There is no in-between in that league. You can't 'get hot' and luck your way to a title in the NBA (unless you make it to the Finals and the Warriors entire roster goes down with injuries). Did tanking work for the Sixers? The jury is out until they actually win something. One thing I can say for certain is tanking is not necessary to build a winner, and it's a shitty thing to do to a fanbase. So everyone that doesn't have LBJ is 'mediocrity hell'? Thompson and Green are nowhere near generational talents. lol Curry isn't either. Ok?
|
|
|
|
Post by Jep Gambardella on Aug 15, 2019 16:31:25 GMT
Not familiar with baseball. Why would they do that intentionally? To try to get in a better position for the draft?
|
|
|
|
Post by twothousandonemark on Aug 15, 2019 21:22:31 GMT
MLB is on a collision course. They won't pay young players anymore, they won't pay middle aged veterans anymore... wtf is left.
Baseball owners have skated by far too long on false premise they're penniless. No salary cap.
|
|
|
|
Post by klawrencio79 on Aug 15, 2019 21:37:44 GMT
MLB is on a collision course. They won't pay young players anymore, they won't pay middle aged veterans anymore... wtf is left. Baseball owners have skated by far too long on false premise they're penniless. No salary cap. That's not really true. The balancing act to the notion that "they don't pay middle aged veterans anymore" lies in the fact that baseball contracts are 100% guaranteed so teams are less willing to dish out those 3-4-5 year deals for guys that 33 or older. In the NFL, you cut a guy and barring whatever guarantees he has (which are usually reserved for your star players), that's it, he doesn't get another penny regardless of how many years/dollars he has remaining. You get a cap hit of varying degrees, but that's the only downside. In baseball, you can DFA a guy and you're still on the hook for every cent of his contract. In baseball, a guy gets hurt and you still owe him every cent of his contract (unless you have insurance, in which case your premium costs will go up if its covered). If baseball went to the NFL's model, they'd be much more willing to dole out those contracts for veterans, but frankly, if you're Todd Frazier and you're hitting .230, you shouldn't be getting 5 years, $50m. Dallas Keuchel, while a viable arm, isn't worth the money he was asking for as his peripherals have dropped consistently the past few years. If anything, the reluctance to hand out contracts to aging players has resulted in younger players getting longer term deals as a means of buying out their arbitration and free agent years - the players get security and millions of dollars and the teams get the players at what could be a discount, but still isn't free. Ronald Acuna, Ozzie Albies, Aaron Nola, Jorge Polanco, Max Kepler, Eloy Jiminez, Scott Kingery, Tim Anderson, Paul DeJong, Christian Yelich all signed contracts that were favorable to both player and team, and that's just off the top of my head from the past few years.
|
|
|
|
Post by FrankSobotka1514 on Aug 15, 2019 21:43:01 GMT
MLB is on a collision course. They won't pay young players anymore, they won't pay middle aged veterans anymore... wtf is left. Baseball owners have skated by far too long on false premise they're penniless. No salary cap. That's not really true. The balancing act to the notion that "they don't pay middle aged veterans anymore" lies in the fact that baseball contracts are 100% guaranteed so teams are less willing to dish out those 3-4-5 year deals for guys that 33 or older. In the NFL, you cut a guy and barring whatever guarantees he has (which are usually reserved for your star players), that's it, he doesn't get another penny regardless of how many years/dollars he has remaining. You get a cap hit of varying degrees, but that's the only downside. In baseball, you can DFA a guy and you're still on the hook for every cent of his contract. In baseball, a guy gets hurt and you still owe him every cent of his contract (unless you have insurance, in which case your premium costs will go up if its covered). If baseball went to the NFL's model, they'd be much more willing to dole out those contracts for veterans, but frankly, if you're Todd Frazier and you're hitting .230, you shouldn't be getting 5 years, $50m. Dallas Keuchel, while a viable arm, isn't worth the money he was asking for as his peripherals have dropped consistently the past few years. If anything, the reluctance to hand out contracts to aging players has resulted in younger players getting longer term deals as a means of buying out their arbitration and free agent years - the players get security and millions of dollars and the teams get the players at what could be a discount, but still isn't free. Ronald Acuna, Ozzie Albies, Aaron Nola, Jorge Polanco, Max Kepler, Eloy Jiminez, Scott Kingery, Tim Anderson, Paul DeJong, Christian Yelich all signed contracts that were favorable to both player and team, and that's just off the top of my head from the past few years. If Chris Davis was in the NFL not only would he not get another penny, he’d get a bill.
|
|
|
|
Post by SportsFan19 on Aug 15, 2019 23:00:00 GMT
MLB is on a collision course. They won't pay young players anymore, they won't pay middle aged veterans anymore... wtf is left. Baseball owners have skated by far too long on false premise they're penniless. No salary cap. That's not really true. The balancing act to the notion that "they don't pay middle aged veterans anymore" lies in the fact that baseball contracts are 100% guaranteed so teams are less willing to dish out those 3-4-5 year deals for guys that 33 or older. In the NFL, you cut a guy and barring whatever guarantees he has (which are usually reserved for your star players), that's it, he doesn't get another penny regardless of how many years/dollars he has remaining. You get a cap hit of varying degrees, but that's the only downside. In baseball, you can DFA a guy and you're still on the hook for every cent of his contract. In baseball, a guy gets hurt and you still owe him every cent of his contract (unless you have insurance, in which case your premium costs will go up if its covered). If baseball went to the NFL's model, they'd be much more willing to dole out those contracts for veterans, but frankly, if you're Todd Frazier and you're hitting .230, you shouldn't be getting 5 years, $50m. Dallas Keuchel, while a viable arm, isn't worth the money he was asking for as his peripherals have dropped consistently the past few years. If anything, the reluctance to hand out contracts to aging players has resulted in younger players getting longer term deals as a means of buying out their arbitration and free agent years - the players get security and millions of dollars and the teams get the players at what could be a discount, but still isn't free. Ronald Acuna, Ozzie Albies, Aaron Nola, Jorge Polanco, Max Kepler, Eloy Jiminez, Scott Kingery, Tim Anderson, Paul DeJong, Christian Yelich all signed contracts that were favorable to both player and team, and that's just off the top of my head from the past few years. Yeah, it's almost like people learned from those Prince Fielder and Albert Pujols contracts. A vert similar thing has been happening in the NHL for a while now, after their salary cap was around for a bit, and they restricted the length of contracts.
|
|
|
|
Post by northern on Aug 16, 2019 0:29:23 GMT
The Jays are in a rebuild mode as I can assure you they aren't tanking games.
|
|