doclinkin wrote: dobrojim wrote:
Dat2U wrote:Agreed, It actually crushed me that we somehow managed to beat a horrible Knicks team by one point. It's like false hope. Hell, this entire season is about having enough false hope to go-all-in for the playoffs when in reality were really a 35 win team.
I get what you're saying but am still thinking baby steps/incremental improvement.
This was a game we would have lost traditionally.
My eyes were saying we were the better team and we were ahead more
than behind (WAG) so we 'should' have won. The ugly part is we should
have won by more than we did, up 15 early in the 2nd half and up 7 early/middle
of the 4th. But I'll take the 1 pt win especially after 3/4 losses were so close
and winnable. And to get the MSG monkey off our backs.
Against the easy schedule that being an eastern conference team confers,
I'm pretty sure we're more than a 35 win team. Unless Wall gets hurt. He's
indispensable with Maynor/Temple waiting in the wings. How much more than
35 wins remains to be seen as well as how high a seed we can manage. Anything above
7-8 gives us a legit shot to win a playoff round.
And that's all well and good for us to look back fondly in 3 years remembering that one time we made it to the playoffs and surprised somebody. Felt good about ourselves. Forced Ted's hand to re-ink the core starters at whatever the market price was (Ariza, Gortat) and renew GMEG and -- okay lost our draft pick...
... only to see the East seeded with franchise caliber-talent in the top 5 slots, who proceed to catch and pass us. And teams all around us grow comfortable scouting with advanced metrics in the Adam Silver era. And we rely on a scouting and talent evaluation department that amounts to expenses-paid trips to Treviso Italy, for that real eyes-on evaluation of what one sub-par talent looks like against other non-NBA euroscrubs.
Off and on I've been 'benefit-of-the-doubt' on both Ernie and Ted. Looking at the secret plan of designed futility, building a bench before recruiting top talent, so we can still select high draft picks while adding developing talent that either has a high home-run swing potential or high character glue guys that work hard but are not transcendent, just fit a hard hat culture. All of which would add good attitude and effort even while losing, preserving the chance at the truly transcendent talent needed to contend at the upper echelon --- so as not to get stuck in mediocrity. 'Suck until you suck lucky'. If that was the secret plan then great! John Wall, Brad Beal were strokes of luck. Whether or not this was the secret subtext, it was implicitly suggested in Ted's 10(-ish) point plan -- if he could execute it right.
But he was hemorrhaging corporate dollars to more attractive sporting events, losing box seats and sponsors and asses in the seats. So he flinched and allowed another 'all in for mediocrity' plan. Didn't want his high lotto talent to become disillusioned and accustomed to losing (in the 'taking my talents to South Beach' era). He flinched. Winced. Swerved. Could not hold true to the vision, and re-defined success multiple times, trying to buy his own bull[dumplings]. Tried to convince us he believed what he was saying. Tried to put a positive face on everything including failure.
And bless him, he continued the long Wiz/Bullet tradition of valuing loyalty above success. His 10 point plan states he wants his front office to be like an ethnic family, arguing vociferously at the dinner table, but defending each other in public. Contrast with Pat Riley who comes off as though he'd fire his nephew from the paper route if he had a Salvadoran family who would deliver the whole stack by 5AM for the cost of one plantain each. Yes you'd rather eat dinner with Ted. Unless winning a championship is the only food you are hungry for.
But worse yet, and here's the point where they lose me: Ted allowed both GM and Coach to enter a contract year with a win-now mandate : providing incentive for them to dump valuable assets for immediate gain. This with a coach who has a proven record of sucking at drafting, who therefor prefers to swap picks out for veteran players who can give immediate gain, if lower upside, who under a prior 'win-now' mandate TRADED STEF CURRY FOR A BUCKET OF DRIED COW CHIPS AND Mike MIller's stupid hairband.
Under this mandate ("win something or other") the coach will surely run the few reliable players he can trust into the ground, scratching desperately for wins to salvage his job here, or audition for his next position. And the GM is in an all-or-nothing shot to hang onto this job this year, since at his age and with his track record there may not be another kush front-office job waiting for him in this game. He will swap any future asset for any minimal gain, or to replace any burned out player the coach runs into the ground.
Clusterfelching all around.
Yes we may win one round, with all healthy. In a weakened East. But do we have the wind to sustain it? One leg of a relay race we can replay years later, and not even a bronze medal on the mantlepiece. But for 50 yards we were ahead of the pack weren't we? Well not ahead, but like neck and neck with that first guy on the Jamaican relay team, not Usain Bolt but like the guy nobody remembers, what's-his-name guy. Man we almost beat them then...
It's a weird feeling enjoying a win and feeling hollow about it. Wins without hope. Unless both Brad and John Wall take a remarkable leap every year, and, and… and.... can't see it.