Author Topic: Cuban fined 600k for tanking talk  (Read 1727 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Cuban fined 600k for tanking talk
« Reply #30 on: February 22, 2018, 09:15:14 PM »

Online tazzmaniac

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3907
  • Tommy Points: 353
This fine is a mockery. Its following the letter of the law perhaps, but not the spirit.

The Hawks, Suns, Kings, Magic, Grizzles, Bulls, and Knicks are currently in tank mode. There may not have been any official memos, but starting g-league players and holding out legit NBA players with fake injuries may as well be a memo.

The Sixers did far more to damage the competitiveness of the NBA than the Mavs. The Mavs have tried to do things the right way. They try to sign upside players (Barnes, Jordan, Matthews), they develop rotational talent in house (Barea, Curry, Kleiber, Powell, etc.), and they tried to win games. Where did it get them?

They've been a middle-of-the-pack playoff team in the West without a real shot at the championship for the last 7 years.

Meanwhile, in the same time, the Sixers had solid starting talent (Holliday, Iggy, Vucevic, Williams, and Young) and were also a middle-of-the-pack playoff team -- with their youth, they were on the rise. After the 2011-2012 season, they had 5 straight losing seasons, largely as part of the process.

Its the height of hypocrisy to follow the letter of the law with the Mavs while promoting the Sixers as one of the most exciting products in the NBA.

Still, if Cuban had to pay 600k to get a top 5 draft pick this year, I'm sure he would. If they pick right, it could set the franchise up for the next two decades.
Iggy and Vucevic were traded in the Bynum deal though.  You can't put that trade in anywhere the same category as the other trades.  In fact, it was that failed attempt to land a game changing star, that forced Philly into its terrible situation, since they not only traded Iggy and Vucevic, but also Harkless and a future 1st (which btw became #5 pick De'Aaron Fox).  Philly went all in in trying to acquire a star, and it destroyed their team.  They were left in a terrible situation when Hinkie took over, which is why they made the moves they did. 

The 15/16 Mavericks had the following people start at least 30 games that the team let go after the off season - Chandler Parsons, Raymond Felton, Zaza Pachulia.  They also let key rotation players David Lee and Charlie Villanueva leave.  Let's not pretend they were trying to win.  They did bring in Barnes, but Barnes isn't going to carry a team under basically any circumstances.  They brought back Deron Williams only to waive him at the deadline.  They did acquire Noel (for Anderson, Bogut, and a couple of 2nd's), and that didn't work, but even if it had was Noel going to make them a winner.  After all, Noel anchored those terrible Sixers teams.  The Mavs did absolutely nothing this past summer except eat the contract of Josh McRoberts (a pure tanking move).    The Mavs have been full on tanking for 1.5 seasons and unlike the Sixers have absolutely nothing to show for it (I mean Fox wasn't even from their own pick).  The Sixers did it for 3 seasons.  In the past teams like the Sonics/Thunder blatantly tanked for 2.5 seasons.  I just don't get the hate for the Sixers, when everyone in the league has been tanking for the dawn of time.

Meh. I get your point about the early Sixers trade, but that was a homerun or strikeout type of move. They struck out, which sent them into tank mode.

As far as the Mavs go, the moves they have made (before this season) have been about trying to win, not trying to tank. Barnes, Noel, Matthews, Williams, Barea, were all solid moves. Moving on from Villanueva (left the league), Felton (struggled to find a new team), and Parsons (who didn't play enough to warrant his contract) were smart moves made in an attempt to win more games, not lose more games.

If the Mavs tanked last year, they wouldn't have had the 9th pick. They were a middle-of-the-pack team because they tried to win and failed.

This year they have been tanking. I would say they do have something to show for their rebuild in Smith. They, you know, actually drafted a player they could build around, instead of drafting and USING young players like the Sixers did.
Who did the Sixers draft and USE?  What does that even mean? 

The Sixers gave a bunch of young low end players playing time to prove themselves while getting paid a nice NBA salary.  Most failed as would be expected but they have two undrafted successes in Covington and McConnell.

I can't think of a better word to use for what the Sixers did with MCW, Noel, Okafor, Turner, and Tony Wroten (among others). They were used for their prospect value and not treated like actual people, or actual players.

They were being used as commodities, or cogs in a machine. Trust the "process" indeed.

In comparison, the Celtics have developed players, made them important cogs to winning teams (not just empty stat guys) and made them money. They developed players in a way that allowed them to have a sustainable career in the NBA. That was true of Jordan Crawford, Evan Turner, Jared Sullinger, and Kelly Olynyk. It will be true of Smart, Rozier, Yabusele, Ojeleye, Larkin, Theis, Brown, and Tatum.

I know people will disagree with me on this, but I'm unlikely to change my opinion. I think what the Sixers did to the careers of Noel, Okafor, Wroten, MCW, and Turner (plus possibly more) in the name of the "process" was detestable. The players that lay in the wake of the process are normally forgotten as we assess it.

Players are not static commodities. Their ability on the court waxes and wanes with the stability of the organizations and how they develop them to have a long and successful career. The Sixers developed their players to be empty stat guys, and then traded them when they inflated their value. The guys I listed above may never recover from being part of the "process" in their formative years, even if they were able to be part of a stable organization moving forward.

That's what I mean by "used."

I certainly don't think anyone that is trying to be objective can say there isn't a pretty reasonable chance the careers of noel and okafor were destroyed by the process. That was of the few things I thought was valuable from the recent piece about Hinkie. The other gms mentioned that Hinkie didn't even like to be around the players early on and the gms commented there was no guidance for the really young players as humans. For some players, this wouldn't have mattered. Embiid seemed to just fine with it despite not even playing for two years. Okafor and Noel seemed to come into the situation with their own maturity issues and probably needed extra attention from staff as humans to keep their careers on track. I don't know if Okafor would have been getting in fights, driving around at a hundred miles per hour on bridges and getting guns pulled on him at clubs if he had some vets and more support in place for him. I don't know if Noel is trashing houses, skipping practices and pouting as much in a different situation. It now appears unlikely that those guys will have super impressive careers at this point and I do wonder if they would have been better players on a different team.
So what's your excuse for all the young players on other teams who fail to perform to their draft pick expectations or get into trouble on other teams?  What about all the other Sixers players, not just Embiid, who did just fine under the process?  How's Okafor doing on the Nets?  How's Noel doing on the Mavs? 

Why do you assume these other GMs have some great insight into how the Sixers operated?  Did they mention that the Sixers kept metrics on player's effort and used that to allocate playing time?  Did they mention that all the players, including Noel and Okafor, have great things to say about Coach Brown.  Did they mention Hinkie and Embiid still text each other?
The fact is the Sixers had a good culture even while losing a lot of games. 

Here's how TJ McConnell answered a couple culture questions in a recent The Athletic piece. 

Quote
What does the idea of culture mean to you? Two years ago, you guys lose 72 games and thatís all anybody can talk about. And now that youíre winning, I feel like it doesnít get mentioned much.

For me, culture is how hard we work every day, what kind of people we have here which are great people, and the way we play. And I think thatís all been instilled by Coach Brown just by how good of a person he is, and our staff has great people, and our players are great people. We all come in and work hard every day and we play hard. What else can you ask for?

You have some older players on the team now. Do you not think the culture was a problem a few years ago?

No, it wasnít. I honestly just think obviously we didnít have talented-enough players to win games. Everyone still wanted to come in and work hard every day. Even though we won 10 games, it was still fun to be around the guys and play for Coach Brown. And I think everybody will agree with that.


Here's a quote from Thomas Robinson who was initially perturbed that the Sixers claimed him a couple years ago. 

Quote
ďUnderstanding the situation, understanding that we are young and rebuilding, itís going to be a tough stage,Ē Robinson said. ďThatís what the outside world sees right now, but once I got here and saw the inside of things, I see that Coach [Brett] Brown is trying to restructure this organization and is doing it the right way. People have to understand that it is going to take time.Ē




Re: Cuban fined 600k for tanking talk
« Reply #31 on: February 22, 2018, 10:26:12 PM »

Offline celticsclay

  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9346
  • Tommy Points: 1021
This fine is a mockery. Its following the letter of the law perhaps, but not the spirit.

The Hawks, Suns, Kings, Magic, Grizzles, Bulls, and Knicks are currently in tank mode. There may not have been any official memos, but starting g-league players and holding out legit NBA players with fake injuries may as well be a memo.

The Sixers did far more to damage the competitiveness of the NBA than the Mavs. The Mavs have tried to do things the right way. They try to sign upside players (Barnes, Jordan, Matthews), they develop rotational talent in house (Barea, Curry, Kleiber, Powell, etc.), and they tried to win games. Where did it get them?

They've been a middle-of-the-pack playoff team in the West without a real shot at the championship for the last 7 years.

Meanwhile, in the same time, the Sixers had solid starting talent (Holliday, Iggy, Vucevic, Williams, and Young) and were also a middle-of-the-pack playoff team -- with their youth, they were on the rise. After the 2011-2012 season, they had 5 straight losing seasons, largely as part of the process.

Its the height of hypocrisy to follow the letter of the law with the Mavs while promoting the Sixers as one of the most exciting products in the NBA.

Still, if Cuban had to pay 600k to get a top 5 draft pick this year, I'm sure he would. If they pick right, it could set the franchise up for the next two decades.
Iggy and Vucevic were traded in the Bynum deal though.  You can't put that trade in anywhere the same category as the other trades.  In fact, it was that failed attempt to land a game changing star, that forced Philly into its terrible situation, since they not only traded Iggy and Vucevic, but also Harkless and a future 1st (which btw became #5 pick De'Aaron Fox).  Philly went all in in trying to acquire a star, and it destroyed their team.  They were left in a terrible situation when Hinkie took over, which is why they made the moves they did. 

The 15/16 Mavericks had the following people start at least 30 games that the team let go after the off season - Chandler Parsons, Raymond Felton, Zaza Pachulia.  They also let key rotation players David Lee and Charlie Villanueva leave.  Let's not pretend they were trying to win.  They did bring in Barnes, but Barnes isn't going to carry a team under basically any circumstances.  They brought back Deron Williams only to waive him at the deadline.  They did acquire Noel (for Anderson, Bogut, and a couple of 2nd's), and that didn't work, but even if it had was Noel going to make them a winner.  After all, Noel anchored those terrible Sixers teams.  The Mavs did absolutely nothing this past summer except eat the contract of Josh McRoberts (a pure tanking move).    The Mavs have been full on tanking for 1.5 seasons and unlike the Sixers have absolutely nothing to show for it (I mean Fox wasn't even from their own pick).  The Sixers did it for 3 seasons.  In the past teams like the Sonics/Thunder blatantly tanked for 2.5 seasons.  I just don't get the hate for the Sixers, when everyone in the league has been tanking for the dawn of time.

Meh. I get your point about the early Sixers trade, but that was a homerun or strikeout type of move. They struck out, which sent them into tank mode.

As far as the Mavs go, the moves they have made (before this season) have been about trying to win, not trying to tank. Barnes, Noel, Matthews, Williams, Barea, were all solid moves. Moving on from Villanueva (left the league), Felton (struggled to find a new team), and Parsons (who didn't play enough to warrant his contract) were smart moves made in an attempt to win more games, not lose more games.

If the Mavs tanked last year, they wouldn't have had the 9th pick. They were a middle-of-the-pack team because they tried to win and failed.

This year they have been tanking. I would say they do have something to show for their rebuild in Smith. They, you know, actually drafted a player they could build around, instead of drafting and USING young players like the Sixers did.
Who did the Sixers draft and USE?  What does that even mean? 

The Sixers gave a bunch of young low end players playing time to prove themselves while getting paid a nice NBA salary.  Most failed as would be expected but they have two undrafted successes in Covington and McConnell.

I can't think of a better word to use for what the Sixers did with MCW, Noel, Okafor, Turner, and Tony Wroten (among others). They were used for their prospect value and not treated like actual people, or actual players.

They were being used as commodities, or cogs in a machine. Trust the "process" indeed.

In comparison, the Celtics have developed players, made them important cogs to winning teams (not just empty stat guys) and made them money. They developed players in a way that allowed them to have a sustainable career in the NBA. That was true of Jordan Crawford, Evan Turner, Jared Sullinger, and Kelly Olynyk. It will be true of Smart, Rozier, Yabusele, Ojeleye, Larkin, Theis, Brown, and Tatum.

I know people will disagree with me on this, but I'm unlikely to change my opinion. I think what the Sixers did to the careers of Noel, Okafor, Wroten, MCW, and Turner (plus possibly more) in the name of the "process" was detestable. The players that lay in the wake of the process are normally forgotten as we assess it.

Players are not static commodities. Their ability on the court waxes and wanes with the stability of the organizations and how they develop them to have a long and successful career. The Sixers developed their players to be empty stat guys, and then traded them when they inflated their value. The guys I listed above may never recover from being part of the "process" in their formative years, even if they were able to be part of a stable organization moving forward.

That's what I mean by "used."

I certainly don't think anyone that is trying to be objective can say there isn't a pretty reasonable chance the careers of noel and okafor were destroyed by the process. That was of the few things I thought was valuable from the recent piece about Hinkie. The other gms mentioned that Hinkie didn't even like to be around the players early on and the gms commented there was no guidance for the really young players as humans. For some players, this wouldn't have mattered. Embiid seemed to just fine with it despite not even playing for two years. Okafor and Noel seemed to come into the situation with their own maturity issues and probably needed extra attention from staff as humans to keep their careers on track. I don't know if Okafor would have been getting in fights, driving around at a hundred miles per hour on bridges and getting guns pulled on him at clubs if he had some vets and more support in place for him. I don't know if Noel is trashing houses, skipping practices and pouting as much in a different situation. It now appears unlikely that those guys will have super impressive careers at this point and I do wonder if they would have been better players on a different team.
So what's your excuse for all the young players on other teams who fail to perform to their draft pick expectations or get into trouble on other teams?  What about all the other Sixers players, not just Embiid, who did just fine under the process?  How's Okafor doing on the Nets?  How's Noel doing on the Mavs? 

Why do you assume these other GMs have some great insight into how the Sixers operated?  Did they mention that the Sixers kept metrics on player's effort and used that to allocate playing time?  Did they mention that all the players, including Noel and Okafor, have great things to say about Coach Brown.  Did they mention Hinkie and Embiid still text each other?
The fact is the Sixers had a good culture even while losing a lot of games. 

Here's how TJ McConnell answered a couple culture questions in a recent The Athletic piece. 

Quote
What does the idea of culture mean to you? Two years ago, you guys lose 72 games and thatís all anybody can talk about. And now that youíre winning, I feel like it doesnít get mentioned much.

For me, culture is how hard we work every day, what kind of people we have here which are great people, and the way we play. And I think thatís all been instilled by Coach Brown just by how good of a person he is, and our staff has great people, and our players are great people. We all come in and work hard every day and we play hard. What else can you ask for?

You have some older players on the team now. Do you not think the culture was a problem a few years ago?

No, it wasnít. I honestly just think obviously we didnít have talented-enough players to win games. Everyone still wanted to come in and work hard every day. Even though we won 10 games, it was still fun to be around the guys and play for Coach Brown. And I think everybody will agree with that.


Here's a quote from Thomas Robinson who was initially perturbed that the Sixers claimed him a couple years ago. 

Quote
ďUnderstanding the situation, understanding that we are young and rebuilding, itís going to be a tough stage,Ē Robinson said. ďThatís what the outside world sees right now, but once I got here and saw the inside of things, I see that Coach [Brett] Brown is trying to restructure this organization and is doing it the right way. People have to understand that it is going to take time.Ē

I don't really know how to debate with you on the 76ers because you are so overly defensive of anything associated with them. Yesterday you were trying to make the bizarre point that current gms may have said a few things that could be construed as negative about hinkie cause they were jealous of the unemployed blackballed hinkie. Today you are arguing against the pretty benign point that a few guys with maturity issues may have been particularly vulnerable to an organization that bu hinkies and others admission was a bit hands off and bad at dealing with players and agents. Like seriously? It's pretty over the top. You can not act like a pit bull defending his owner every time someone says something neutral towards philly lol
« Last Edit: February 22, 2018, 10:32:50 PM by celticsclay »

Re: Cuban fined 600k for tanking talk
« Reply #32 on: February 22, 2018, 11:13:02 PM »

Offline nickagneta

  • Global Moderator
  • Walter Brown
  • ********************************
  • Posts: 32889
  • Tommy Points: 5389
Put 19 year old kids in a losing atmosphere after all they have done their entire lives is dominate the competition, and you're doing severe damage to their confidence and psyche. The only stars they have out of all those picks were never assocuated with that culture. Embiid recuped for two years and a half and didn't lose and Simmons was noehere near losing last year.

Except for Covington, I can't see where they developed anyone. Embiid was a monster in college. Simmons is as good now as he was in college. Saric is as good now as he was overseas. Noel, Okafor and MCW were never developed.

Re: Cuban fined 600k for tanking talk
« Reply #33 on: February 23, 2018, 06:20:03 AM »

Offline Moranis

  • Global Moderator
  • Bill Sharman
  • *******************
  • Posts: 19163
  • Tommy Points: 906
Put 19 year old kids in a losing atmosphere after all they have done their entire lives is dominate the competition, and you're doing severe damage to their confidence and psyche. The only stars they have out of all those picks were never assocuated with that culture. Embiid recuped for two years and a half and didn't lose and Simmons was noehere near losing last year.

Except for Covington, I can't see where they developed anyone. Embiid was a monster in college. Simmons is as good now as he was in college. Saric is as good now as he was overseas. Noel, Okafor and MCW were never developed.
man that losing thay Durant and Westbrook suffered really messed them up.  Most of the great players are on losing teams when they start out. That is what happens when you get drafted to bad teams.  Winning or losing at the start makes no real difference long term.  It is all on the player.

Re: Cuban fined 600k for tanking talk
« Reply #34 on: February 23, 2018, 09:17:29 AM »

Online DefenseWinsChamps

  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2302
  • Tommy Points: 423
Put 19 year old kids in a losing atmosphere after all they have done their entire lives is dominate the competition, and you're doing severe damage to their confidence and psyche. The only stars they have out of all those picks were never assocuated with that culture. Embiid recuped for two years and a half and didn't lose and Simmons was noehere near losing last year.

Except for Covington, I can't see where they developed anyone. Embiid was a monster in college. Simmons is as good now as he was in college. Saric is as good now as he was overseas. Noel, Okafor and MCW were never developed.
man that losing thay Durant and Westbrook suffered really messed them up.  Most of the great players are on losing teams when they start out. That is what happens when you get drafted to bad teams.  Winning or losing at the start makes no real difference long term.  It is all on the player.

I disagree with this assessment. Some players have the opportunity to transcend a terrible organization and lift it temporarily out of the mire, but most players aren't capable of doing that. The difference is not necessarily ability, or talent, or athleticism (although those can help).

Compare it to a regular job. Some employees might be great in any situation. Great companies are able to make great employees, not just attract them.

Westbrook and Durant were able to be good, but they were definitely unique players. Lebron James was another. These are what people call "transcendent talent."

What about Andrew Wiggins? He had a lot of ability, but learned a lot of really bad habits playing for a losing team? What about Okafor? What about Noel? What about MCW? What about Russell? Hezonja? WCS? Gordon? Randle? Payton? Lavine? Len? Oladipo (pre-pacers)? Bennett? McLemore? Bender?

It's one of the reasons I'm worried that Devin Booker might not be everything he could be. He has learned a lot of bad habits on both sides of the ball that might hold his team back from winning.

Some of those players I listed admittedly aren't as talented as others who have succeeded, but why did Olynyk, McCullom, and Adams get big second contracts while Bennet, KCP, McLemore, Noel, Len, and MCW struggle to find NBA teams or get long-term money? There is a common denominator, and it's not primarily talent level when they came into the league. It's that they team they played for was lousy and failed to develop them properly. There may be other factors, but that is foundation of it all.

This is not a victim game. The players are still responsible for themselves and their development. I'm just saying that not all situations are equal, and that some situations actually work against a player's long-term development -- the worst of those situations is the team that let's the talented young player put up empty stats while they are losing, without any accountability to playing the game the right way.

Re: Cuban fined 600k for tanking talk
« Reply #35 on: February 23, 2018, 10:27:06 AM »

Offline green_bballers13

  • NCE
  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2190
  • Tommy Points: 266
I thought the PHI tank job was detestable, and I think Cuban coming out and saying that they're tanking is detestable.

The difficult challenge at hand is to a) improve your team through the draft while b) not alienating your fanbase.

Now, if you're a Philly fan and ok with losing badly for over a half of a decade, then you prob. favor tanking. I want to think that most Philly/Dallas fans would rather spend their time doing something else than watching a team that is not actively trying to win.

Yes, Danny tanked for a short period of time, but by no means would I favor him doing so for over a season. That is absolute BS that should repel fans.

I actually think its funny that Cuban was naive enough to think that he could say something like that without recourse. You can tell your close friends that you're cheating on your girlfriend, but its not a good decision to tell the world. Unless you want your girlfriend (fans) to break up with you.

I think the pressure is on Dallas to improve quickly now. I'm not sure about their cap situation, but they should be buyers in FA very soon.

Re: Cuban fined 600k for tanking talk
« Reply #36 on: February 23, 2018, 10:30:24 AM »

Offline Moranis

  • Global Moderator
  • Bill Sharman
  • *******************
  • Posts: 19163
  • Tommy Points: 906
Put 19 year old kids in a losing atmosphere after all they have done their entire lives is dominate the competition, and you're doing severe damage to their confidence and psyche. The only stars they have out of all those picks were never assocuated with that culture. Embiid recuped for two years and a half and didn't lose and Simmons was noehere near losing last year.

Except for Covington, I can't see where they developed anyone. Embiid was a monster in college. Simmons is as good now as he was in college. Saric is as good now as he was overseas. Noel, Okafor and MCW were never developed.
man that losing thay Durant and Westbrook suffered really messed them up.  Most of the great players are on losing teams when they start out. That is what happens when you get drafted to bad teams.  Winning or losing at the start makes no real difference long term.  It is all on the player.

I disagree with this assessment. Some players have the opportunity to transcend a terrible organization and lift it temporarily out of the mire, but most players aren't capable of doing that. The difference is not necessarily ability, or talent, or athleticism (although those can help).

Compare it to a regular job. Some employees might be great in any situation. Great companies are able to make great employees, not just attract them.

Westbrook and Durant were able to be good, but they were definitely unique players. Lebron James was another. These are what people call "transcendent talent."

What about Andrew Wiggins? He had a lot of ability, but learned a lot of really bad habits playing for a losing team? What about Okafor? What about Noel? What about MCW? What about Russell? Hezonja? WCS? Gordon? Randle? Payton? Lavine? Len? Oladipo (pre-pacers)? Bennett? McLemore? Bender?

It's one of the reasons I'm worried that Devin Booker might not be everything he could be. He has learned a lot of bad habits on both sides of the ball that might hold his team back from winning.

Some of those players I listed admittedly aren't as talented as others who have succeeded, but why did Olynyk, McCullom, and Adams get big second contracts while Bennet, KCP, McLemore, Noel, Len, and MCW struggle to find NBA teams or get long-term money? There is a common denominator, and it's not primarily talent level when they came into the league. It's that they team they played for was lousy and failed to develop them properly. There may be other factors, but that is foundation of it all.

This is not a victim game. The players are still responsible for themselves and their development. I'm just saying that not all situations are equal, and that some situations actually work against a player's long-term development -- the worst of those situations is the team that let's the talented young player put up empty stats while they are losing, without any accountability to playing the game the right way.
It is obviously harder to find high draft picks on great teams, but Darko flamed out despite all of that structure in Detroit.  Bargnani was terrible for a #1 pick despite starting out on a 47 win team as a rookie.  Speaking of Toronto, how is Poeltl doing?  Tyus Thomas, the 4th pick in 2006, started out on a 49 win Bulls team.  How'd his career end up?  Embiid is doing just fine coming out of Philly. Covington, McConnell, and Grant had no issues either, yet Noel, Okafor, and MCW did poorly and continued to do poorly after leaving.  It has nothing to do with winning or losing, it really is about the player.  Some guys are just losers as players and some guys are not.  The starting situation doesn't change that player makeup.  It might mask it for awhile or make it really come out immediately, but at the end of the day, the player is the one that dictates the players fate. 

The reality is, most of the all time greats started on bad teams because most of the all time greats are high draft picks and those by and large end up on bad teams and very few players come in immediately and change the win total (James, Shaq, etc. did that, but those guys are transcendent, not merely just great).  Even many of the good players, guys like Mike Conley, often started their career on bad teams.  Curry's first 3 years in Golden State 26, 36, and 28.58* wins.  DeRozan had 40 wins as a rookie only to fall to 22 wins in year 2 and a 28.58 win pace in year 3.  He seems just fine now.  Harden has never missed the playoffs in his career, yet he is thought of as a choker who can't win the big game. 

Re: Cuban fined 600k for tanking talk
« Reply #37 on: February 23, 2018, 10:37:14 AM »

Online DefenseWinsChamps

  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2302
  • Tommy Points: 423
Put 19 year old kids in a losing atmosphere after all they have done their entire lives is dominate the competition, and you're doing severe damage to their confidence and psyche. The only stars they have out of all those picks were never assocuated with that culture. Embiid recuped for two years and a half and didn't lose and Simmons was noehere near losing last year.

Except for Covington, I can't see where they developed anyone. Embiid was a monster in college. Simmons is as good now as he was in college. Saric is as good now as he was overseas. Noel, Okafor and MCW were never developed.
man that losing thay Durant and Westbrook suffered really messed them up.  Most of the great players are on losing teams when they start out. That is what happens when you get drafted to bad teams.  Winning or losing at the start makes no real difference long term.  It is all on the player.

I disagree with this assessment. Some players have the opportunity to transcend a terrible organization and lift it temporarily out of the mire, but most players aren't capable of doing that. The difference is not necessarily ability, or talent, or athleticism (although those can help).

Compare it to a regular job. Some employees might be great in any situation. Great companies are able to make great employees, not just attract them.

Westbrook and Durant were able to be good, but they were definitely unique players. Lebron James was another. These are what people call "transcendent talent."

What about Andrew Wiggins? He had a lot of ability, but learned a lot of really bad habits playing for a losing team? What about Okafor? What about Noel? What about MCW? What about Russell? Hezonja? WCS? Gordon? Randle? Payton? Lavine? Len? Oladipo (pre-pacers)? Bennett? McLemore? Bender?

It's one of the reasons I'm worried that Devin Booker might not be everything he could be. He has learned a lot of bad habits on both sides of the ball that might hold his team back from winning.

Some of those players I listed admittedly aren't as talented as others who have succeeded, but why did Olynyk, McCullom, and Adams get big second contracts while Bennet, KCP, McLemore, Noel, Len, and MCW struggle to find NBA teams or get long-term money? There is a common denominator, and it's not primarily talent level when they came into the league. It's that they team they played for was lousy and failed to develop them properly. There may be other factors, but that is foundation of it all.

This is not a victim game. The players are still responsible for themselves and their development. I'm just saying that not all situations are equal, and that some situations actually work against a player's long-term development -- the worst of those situations is the team that let's the talented young player put up empty stats while they are losing, without any accountability to playing the game the right way.
It is obviously harder to find high draft picks on great teams, but Darko flamed out despite all of that structure in Detroit.  Bargnani was terrible for a #1 pick despite starting out on a 47 win team as a rookie.  Speaking of Toronto, how is Poeltl doing?  Tyus Thomas, the 4th pick in 2006, started out on a 49 win Bulls team.  How'd his career end up?  Embiid is doing just fine coming out of Philly. Covington, McConnell, and Grant had no issues either, yet Noel, Okafor, and MCW did poorly and continued to do poorly after leaving.  It has nothing to do with winning or losing, it really is about the player.  Some guys are just losers as players and some guys are not.  The starting situation doesn't change that player makeup.  It might mask it for awhile or make it really come out immediately, but at the end of the day, the player is the one that dictates the players fate. 

The reality is, most of the all time greats started on bad teams because most of the all time greats are high draft picks and those by and large end up on bad teams and very few players come in immediately and change the win total (James, Shaq, etc. did that, but those guys are transcendent, not merely just great).  Even many of the good players, guys like Mike Conley, often started their career on bad teams.  Curry's first 3 years in Golden State 26, 36, and 28.58* wins.  DeRozan had 40 wins as a rookie only to fall to 22 wins in year 2 and a 28.58 win pace in year 3.  He seems just fine now.  Harden has never missed the playoffs in his career, yet he is thought of as a choker who can't win the big game.

I think we are going to have to agree to disagree. Players obviously have responsibility for their own development, but its widely recognized that poorly run organizations and losing teams tend to not develop players as well.

Re: Cuban fined 600k for tanking talk
« Reply #38 on: February 23, 2018, 10:49:41 AM »

Offline green_bballers13

  • NCE
  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2190
  • Tommy Points: 266
Put 19 year old kids in a losing atmosphere after all they have done their entire lives is dominate the competition, and you're doing severe damage to their confidence and psyche. The only stars they have out of all those picks were never assocuated with that culture. Embiid recuped for two years and a half and didn't lose and Simmons was noehere near losing last year.

Except for Covington, I can't see where they developed anyone. Embiid was a monster in college. Simmons is as good now as he was in college. Saric is as good now as he was overseas. Noel, Okafor and MCW were never developed.
man that losing thay Durant and Westbrook suffered really messed them up.  Most of the great players are on losing teams when they start out. That is what happens when you get drafted to bad teams.  Winning or losing at the start makes no real difference long term.  It is all on the player.

I disagree with this assessment. Some players have the opportunity to transcend a terrible organization and lift it temporarily out of the mire, but most players aren't capable of doing that. The difference is not necessarily ability, or talent, or athleticism (although those can help).

Compare it to a regular job. Some employees might be great in any situation. Great companies are able to make great employees, not just attract them.

Westbrook and Durant were able to be good, but they were definitely unique players. Lebron James was another. These are what people call "transcendent talent."

What about Andrew Wiggins? He had a lot of ability, but learned a lot of really bad habits playing for a losing team? What about Okafor? What about Noel? What about MCW? What about Russell? Hezonja? WCS? Gordon? Randle? Payton? Lavine? Len? Oladipo (pre-pacers)? Bennett? McLemore? Bender?

It's one of the reasons I'm worried that Devin Booker might not be everything he could be. He has learned a lot of bad habits on both sides of the ball that might hold his team back from winning.

Some of those players I listed admittedly aren't as talented as others who have succeeded, but why did Olynyk, McCullom, and Adams get big second contracts while Bennet, KCP, McLemore, Noel, Len, and MCW struggle to find NBA teams or get long-term money? There is a common denominator, and it's not primarily talent level when they came into the league. It's that they team they played for was lousy and failed to develop them properly. There may be other factors, but that is foundation of it all.

This is not a victim game. The players are still responsible for themselves and their development. I'm just saying that not all situations are equal, and that some situations actually work against a player's long-term development -- the worst of those situations is the team that let's the talented young player put up empty stats while they are losing, without any accountability to playing the game the right way.
It is obviously harder to find high draft picks on great teams, but Darko flamed out despite all of that structure in Detroit.  Bargnani was terrible for a #1 pick despite starting out on a 47 win team as a rookie.  Speaking of Toronto, how is Poeltl doing?  Tyus Thomas, the 4th pick in 2006, started out on a 49 win Bulls team.  How'd his career end up?  Embiid is doing just fine coming out of Philly. Covington, McConnell, and Grant had no issues either, yet Noel, Okafor, and MCW did poorly and continued to do poorly after leaving.  It has nothing to do with winning or losing, it really is about the player.  Some guys are just losers as players and some guys are not.  The starting situation doesn't change that player makeup.  It might mask it for awhile or make it really come out immediately, but at the end of the day, the player is the one that dictates the players fate. 

The reality is, most of the all time greats started on bad teams because most of the all time greats are high draft picks and those by and large end up on bad teams and very few players come in immediately and change the win total (James, Shaq, etc. did that, but those guys are transcendent, not merely just great).  Even many of the good players, guys like Mike Conley, often started their career on bad teams.  Curry's first 3 years in Golden State 26, 36, and 28.58* wins.  DeRozan had 40 wins as a rookie only to fall to 22 wins in year 2 and a 28.58 win pace in year 3.  He seems just fine now.  Harden has never missed the playoffs in his career, yet he is thought of as a choker who can't win the big game.

You're making the argument that a player's team does not factor into their development.

I'd be shocked if many on this blog agreed with this hot take. I appreciate the heat though!

Re: Cuban fined 600k for tanking talk
« Reply #39 on: February 23, 2018, 12:41:46 PM »

Offline celticsclay

  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9346
  • Tommy Points: 1021
Put 19 year old kids in a losing atmosphere after all they have done their entire lives is dominate the competition, and you're doing severe damage to their confidence and psyche. The only stars they have out of all those picks were never assocuated with that culture. Embiid recuped for two years and a half and didn't lose and Simmons was noehere near losing last year.

Except for Covington, I can't see where they developed anyone. Embiid was a monster in college. Simmons is as good now as he was in college. Saric is as good now as he was overseas. Noel, Okafor and MCW were never developed.
man that losing thay Durant and Westbrook suffered really messed them up.  Most of the great players are on losing teams when they start out. That is what happens when you get drafted to bad teams.  Winning or losing at the start makes no real difference long term.  It is all on the player.

I disagree with this assessment. Some players have the opportunity to transcend a terrible organization and lift it temporarily out of the mire, but most players aren't capable of doing that. The difference is not necessarily ability, or talent, or athleticism (although those can help).

Compare it to a regular job. Some employees might be great in any situation. Great companies are able to make great employees, not just attract them.

Westbrook and Durant were able to be good, but they were definitely unique players. Lebron James was another. These are what people call "transcendent talent."

What about Andrew Wiggins? He had a lot of ability, but learned a lot of really bad habits playing for a losing team? What about Okafor? What about Noel? What about MCW? What about Russell? Hezonja? WCS? Gordon? Randle? Payton? Lavine? Len? Oladipo (pre-pacers)? Bennett? McLemore? Bender?

It's one of the reasons I'm worried that Devin Booker might not be everything he could be. He has learned a lot of bad habits on both sides of the ball that might hold his team back from winning.

Some of those players I listed admittedly aren't as talented as others who have succeeded, but why did Olynyk, McCullom, and Adams get big second contracts while Bennet, KCP, McLemore, Noel, Len, and MCW struggle to find NBA teams or get long-term money? There is a common denominator, and it's not primarily talent level when they came into the league. It's that they team they played for was lousy and failed to develop them properly. There may be other factors, but that is foundation of it all.

This is not a victim game. The players are still responsible for themselves and their development. I'm just saying that not all situations are equal, and that some situations actually work against a player's long-term development -- the worst of those situations is the team that let's the talented young player put up empty stats while they are losing, without any accountability to playing the game the right way.
It is obviously harder to find high draft picks on great teams, but Darko flamed out despite all of that structure in Detroit.  Bargnani was terrible for a #1 pick despite starting out on a 47 win team as a rookie.  Speaking of Toronto, how is Poeltl doing?  Tyus Thomas, the 4th pick in 2006, started out on a 49 win Bulls team.  How'd his career end up?  Embiid is doing just fine coming out of Philly. Covington, McConnell, and Grant had no issues either, yet Noel, Okafor, and MCW did poorly and continued to do poorly after leaving.  It has nothing to do with winning or losing, it really is about the player.  Some guys are just losers as players and some guys are not.  The starting situation doesn't change that player makeup.  It might mask it for awhile or make it really come out immediately, but at the end of the day, the player is the one that dictates the players fate. 

The reality is, most of the all time greats started on bad teams because most of the all time greats are high draft picks and those by and large end up on bad teams and very few players come in immediately and change the win total (James, Shaq, etc. did that, but those guys are transcendent, not merely just great).  Even many of the good players, guys like Mike Conley, often started their career on bad teams.  Curry's first 3 years in Golden State 26, 36, and 28.58* wins.  DeRozan had 40 wins as a rookie only to fall to 22 wins in year 2 and a 28.58 win pace in year 3.  He seems just fine now.  Harden has never missed the playoffs in his career, yet he is thought of as a choker who can't win the big game.

You're making the argument that a player's team does not factor into their development.

I'd be shocked if many on this blog agreed with this hot take. I appreciate the heat though!

Yea I am pretty baffled by this argument. It just comes of being super defensive about Philadelphia.

Some young players are very resilient and can survive and thrive in any kind of environment. Embiid and Saric did this in Philly themselves. Durant and Westbrook did it in OKC. However, some players are less mature at 19 years old and are more prone to struggle without extra attention from veterans and the front office. Noel and Okafor have both had well chronicled maturity issues. It is possible that being on a team where the front office admits they were very hands off, there was constant losing and as limited veteran presence as any team in the NBA increased there chances of not developing.

Seriously? How is this such a controversial take? You could be talking about guys taking a job building motorcycles in a factory and saying if they are immature and have issues coming in, the management is hands off and there are no mentors to help them they will be less likely to become good at building motorcycles than in a highly structured environment. The fact that people are arguing the mere possibility that a couple of immature guys may have not been put into the position to succeed on a very young, veteran free team. I swear to god some of this stuff with Philadelphia becomes like a cult to people where even the slightest discussion of some small aspect MAYBE being suboptimal for certain players is fought tooth and nail.

Re: Cuban fined 600k for tanking talk
« Reply #40 on: February 23, 2018, 12:51:29 PM »

Offline Moranis

  • Global Moderator
  • Bill Sharman
  • *******************
  • Posts: 19163
  • Tommy Points: 906
Put 19 year old kids in a losing atmosphere after all they have done their entire lives is dominate the competition, and you're doing severe damage to their confidence and psyche. The only stars they have out of all those picks were never assocuated with that culture. Embiid recuped for two years and a half and didn't lose and Simmons was noehere near losing last year.

Except for Covington, I can't see where they developed anyone. Embiid was a monster in college. Simmons is as good now as he was in college. Saric is as good now as he was overseas. Noel, Okafor and MCW were never developed.
man that losing thay Durant and Westbrook suffered really messed them up.  Most of the great players are on losing teams when they start out. That is what happens when you get drafted to bad teams.  Winning or losing at the start makes no real difference long term.  It is all on the player.

I disagree with this assessment. Some players have the opportunity to transcend a terrible organization and lift it temporarily out of the mire, but most players aren't capable of doing that. The difference is not necessarily ability, or talent, or athleticism (although those can help).

Compare it to a regular job. Some employees might be great in any situation. Great companies are able to make great employees, not just attract them.

Westbrook and Durant were able to be good, but they were definitely unique players. Lebron James was another. These are what people call "transcendent talent."

What about Andrew Wiggins? He had a lot of ability, but learned a lot of really bad habits playing for a losing team? What about Okafor? What about Noel? What about MCW? What about Russell? Hezonja? WCS? Gordon? Randle? Payton? Lavine? Len? Oladipo (pre-pacers)? Bennett? McLemore? Bender?

It's one of the reasons I'm worried that Devin Booker might not be everything he could be. He has learned a lot of bad habits on both sides of the ball that might hold his team back from winning.

Some of those players I listed admittedly aren't as talented as others who have succeeded, but why did Olynyk, McCullom, and Adams get big second contracts while Bennet, KCP, McLemore, Noel, Len, and MCW struggle to find NBA teams or get long-term money? There is a common denominator, and it's not primarily talent level when they came into the league. It's that they team they played for was lousy and failed to develop them properly. There may be other factors, but that is foundation of it all.

This is not a victim game. The players are still responsible for themselves and their development. I'm just saying that not all situations are equal, and that some situations actually work against a player's long-term development -- the worst of those situations is the team that let's the talented young player put up empty stats while they are losing, without any accountability to playing the game the right way.
It is obviously harder to find high draft picks on great teams, but Darko flamed out despite all of that structure in Detroit.  Bargnani was terrible for a #1 pick despite starting out on a 47 win team as a rookie.  Speaking of Toronto, how is Poeltl doing?  Tyus Thomas, the 4th pick in 2006, started out on a 49 win Bulls team.  How'd his career end up?  Embiid is doing just fine coming out of Philly. Covington, McConnell, and Grant had no issues either, yet Noel, Okafor, and MCW did poorly and continued to do poorly after leaving.  It has nothing to do with winning or losing, it really is about the player.  Some guys are just losers as players and some guys are not.  The starting situation doesn't change that player makeup.  It might mask it for awhile or make it really come out immediately, but at the end of the day, the player is the one that dictates the players fate. 

The reality is, most of the all time greats started on bad teams because most of the all time greats are high draft picks and those by and large end up on bad teams and very few players come in immediately and change the win total (James, Shaq, etc. did that, but those guys are transcendent, not merely just great).  Even many of the good players, guys like Mike Conley, often started their career on bad teams.  Curry's first 3 years in Golden State 26, 36, and 28.58* wins.  DeRozan had 40 wins as a rookie only to fall to 22 wins in year 2 and a 28.58 win pace in year 3.  He seems just fine now.  Harden has never missed the playoffs in his career, yet he is thought of as a choker who can't win the big game.

You're making the argument that a player's team does not factor into their development.

I'd be shocked if many on this blog agreed with this hot take. I appreciate the heat though!
No I am making the argument that winning or losing doesn't play a role in the ultimate development of a player.  A great coach is obviously a positive for development.  Style of play plays a role.  The amount of minutes the player gets plays a role.  The competition for playing time plays a role.  Etc.  What doesn't play a role is whether the team wins a bunch of games or loses a bunch of games. 

Re: Cuban fined 600k for tanking talk
« Reply #41 on: February 23, 2018, 01:30:23 PM »

Online DefenseWinsChamps

  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2302
  • Tommy Points: 423
Put 19 year old kids in a losing atmosphere after all they have done their entire lives is dominate the competition, and you're doing severe damage to their confidence and psyche. The only stars they have out of all those picks were never assocuated with that culture. Embiid recuped for two years and a half and didn't lose and Simmons was noehere near losing last year.

Except for Covington, I can't see where they developed anyone. Embiid was a monster in college. Simmons is as good now as he was in college. Saric is as good now as he was overseas. Noel, Okafor and MCW were never developed.
man that losing thay Durant and Westbrook suffered really messed them up.  Most of the great players are on losing teams when they start out. That is what happens when you get drafted to bad teams.  Winning or losing at the start makes no real difference long term.  It is all on the player.

I disagree with this assessment. Some players have the opportunity to transcend a terrible organization and lift it temporarily out of the mire, but most players aren't capable of doing that. The difference is not necessarily ability, or talent, or athleticism (although those can help).

Compare it to a regular job. Some employees might be great in any situation. Great companies are able to make great employees, not just attract them.

Westbrook and Durant were able to be good, but they were definitely unique players. Lebron James was another. These are what people call "transcendent talent."

What about Andrew Wiggins? He had a lot of ability, but learned a lot of really bad habits playing for a losing team? What about Okafor? What about Noel? What about MCW? What about Russell? Hezonja? WCS? Gordon? Randle? Payton? Lavine? Len? Oladipo (pre-pacers)? Bennett? McLemore? Bender?

It's one of the reasons I'm worried that Devin Booker might not be everything he could be. He has learned a lot of bad habits on both sides of the ball that might hold his team back from winning.

Some of those players I listed admittedly aren't as talented as others who have succeeded, but why did Olynyk, McCullom, and Adams get big second contracts while Bennet, KCP, McLemore, Noel, Len, and MCW struggle to find NBA teams or get long-term money? There is a common denominator, and it's not primarily talent level when they came into the league. It's that they team they played for was lousy and failed to develop them properly. There may be other factors, but that is foundation of it all.

This is not a victim game. The players are still responsible for themselves and their development. I'm just saying that not all situations are equal, and that some situations actually work against a player's long-term development -- the worst of those situations is the team that let's the talented young player put up empty stats while they are losing, without any accountability to playing the game the right way.
It is obviously harder to find high draft picks on great teams, but Darko flamed out despite all of that structure in Detroit.  Bargnani was terrible for a #1 pick despite starting out on a 47 win team as a rookie.  Speaking of Toronto, how is Poeltl doing?  Tyus Thomas, the 4th pick in 2006, started out on a 49 win Bulls team.  How'd his career end up?  Embiid is doing just fine coming out of Philly. Covington, McConnell, and Grant had no issues either, yet Noel, Okafor, and MCW did poorly and continued to do poorly after leaving.  It has nothing to do with winning or losing, it really is about the player.  Some guys are just losers as players and some guys are not.  The starting situation doesn't change that player makeup.  It might mask it for awhile or make it really come out immediately, but at the end of the day, the player is the one that dictates the players fate. 

The reality is, most of the all time greats started on bad teams because most of the all time greats are high draft picks and those by and large end up on bad teams and very few players come in immediately and change the win total (James, Shaq, etc. did that, but those guys are transcendent, not merely just great).  Even many of the good players, guys like Mike Conley, often started their career on bad teams.  Curry's first 3 years in Golden State 26, 36, and 28.58* wins.  DeRozan had 40 wins as a rookie only to fall to 22 wins in year 2 and a 28.58 win pace in year 3.  He seems just fine now.  Harden has never missed the playoffs in his career, yet he is thought of as a choker who can't win the big game.

You're making the argument that a player's team does not factor into their development.

I'd be shocked if many on this blog agreed with this hot take. I appreciate the heat though!
No I am making the argument that winning or losing doesn't play a role in the ultimate development of a player.  A great coach is obviously a positive for development.  Style of play plays a role.  The amount of minutes the player gets plays a role.  The competition for playing time plays a role.  Etc.  What doesn't play a role is whether the team wins a bunch of games or loses a bunch of games.

Your point is well-noted, but isn't the best (albeit most oversimplistic) way to determine goaching, style of play, minutes, competition, etc. the record of the team.

Re: Cuban fined 600k for tanking talk
« Reply #42 on: February 23, 2018, 01:43:25 PM »

Offline Big333223

  • NCE
  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4512
  • Tommy Points: 415
Is there any evidence that Noel and Okafor's disappointing careers are a result of the culture in Philly? Some seem to be taking for granted that this is a true thing but what is the evidence that this is the case?

That they played for Philly and are having disappointing careers is not, in and of itself, evidence of poor culture and its affect.
1957, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1968, 1969, 1974, 1976, 1981, 1984, 1986, 2008, 2019

Re: Cuban fined 600k for tanking talk
« Reply #43 on: February 23, 2018, 02:11:45 PM »

Offline makaveli

  • Jim Loscutoff
  • **
  • Posts: 2732
  • Tommy Points: 251
  • The Truth
i was like...i wont make that money in my entire life...good thing i'm not in the nba
what doesn't kill you makes you stronger

Re: Cuban fined 600k for tanking talk
« Reply #44 on: February 23, 2018, 02:35:37 PM »

Offline Spilling Green Dye

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1869
  • Tommy Points: 103
$600k is a tax write off. They should drop Dallas down to the last pick in the lottery.

I agree that a fine is not sufficient.  This is one of the 30 owners openly admitting mid-way through the season that he wants to lose.  That is atrocious for a business.  Punishment should definitely impact his lottery chances.