Laimbeer wrote:Manocad wrote:Laimbeer wrote:I don't see how anyone can question what the Sixers did. They're one of the better teams in the league and their core is young and locked up. They did screw things up after Hinkie, but the all-out tank was a success, without a doubt.
Making the playoffs and getting whomped without ever making a finals sounds kinda like treadmill territory to me.
If you don't make the finals you're a treadmill team? They've been competing for three seasons since the tank and in that time only three teams have made the finals. They have one of the best players in the league at 26, and an all-NBA guy who's 24. Most teams would trade spots with them real quick.
Getting crushed early in the playoffs is EXACTLY what people have been defining as being within the treadmill. Now, are the Sixers a perennial squeak in and get stomped team? No, but they're no further from that than they are closer to being a serious contender for a championship. And their tank started 8 years ago, dude.
I don't have any strong opinions on the precise method by which a championship team is built. And while I don't claim to understand every move Weaver made, I'm not an NBA GM, don't claim to be, and thus would never criticize the method until it fails and never looked very good along the way--like the Pistons in the last 10 years. I see where the Pistons are heading and I'm pretty happy with it, thus I have no reason not to trust what Weaver is doing. Those who say he should be fired for not tanking "properly" are holding the Sixers up as the standard, and it doesn't appear to be working out too well in my opinion.
My point is very simple--if you want to criticize Weaver for not doing things the way the Sixers have and holding up the Sixers' method as the proper way to build a championship team, that method should, oh I don't know, include a championship maybe?