A crazy way to fix tanking in the NBA

[AshBlackstone]

Not winning is not always because an organisation is run poorly. What about injuries, suspensions, trade demands and other happenstance circumstances? Are you telling me the Spurs were 'run poorly' the year before they got Duncan in the draft?

No, what I'm saying is losing consistently is a result of poor management and only poorly management. San Antonio being bad for one year because of injuries had nothing to do with this conversation.

I'm not talking about isolated seasons. If you haven't made the postseason for at least 3 years, there is no case to be made that you're being run well.

Also, if your star is demanding to be dealt, you're being ran poorly.

Sorry but everytime I challenge what you're saying you change the parameters. First it's playoffs = well run, lottery = poorly run, then it's three years of not making the playoffs = poorly run and now, each time I give a counter example you say you don't want to talk about isolated seasons.

There's no point carrying on the discussion.

You're completely making that up. Not once did I ever say a team missing the playoffs one time means you're a bad organization, or being poorly run. Look at the teams I referenced. Minnesota, Orlando, etc. Teams who have missed the playoffs for years. I said that from the beginning. I used the term "languished for years" more than once. Never once did I ever say anything close to

Playoffs = well run
No playoffs = poorly run


I didn't even mention playoff teams until later in the discussion, and never once did I even imply that going to the playoffs meant you are definitely well run.

The only person trying to change the parameters, is you.

For example....

"But what about San Antonio the year they got Duncan?"

What about it? It has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. It's like I'm discussing apples, and you want to talk about oranges.

You have a reading comprehension problem. You want to argue for the sake of arguing. And the original premise of the thread is something a 12 year old would have dreamed up. A completely unrealistic idea. But after chatting with you, that doesn't surprise me. You clearly live in a fantasy world.

[npiper17]

No, what I'm saying is losing consistently is a result of poor management and only poorly management. San Antonio being bad for one year because of injuries had nothing to do with this conversation.

I'm not talking about isolated seasons. If you haven't made the postseason for at least 3 years, there is no case to be made that you're being run well.

Also, if your star is demanding to be dealt, you're being ran poorly.

Sorry but everytime I challenge what you're saying you change the parameters. First it's playoffs = well run, lottery = poorly run, then it's three years of not making the playoffs = poorly run and now, each time I give a counter example you say you don't want to talk about isolated seasons.

There's no point carrying on the discussion.

You're completely making that up. Not once did I ever say a team missing the playoffs one time means you're a bad organization, or being poorly run. Look at the teams I referenced. Minnesota, Orlando, etc. Teams who have missed the playoffs for years. I said that from the beginning. I used the term "languished for years" more than once. Never once did I ever say anything close to

Playoffs = well run
No playoffs = poorly run


I didn't even mention playoff teams until later in the discussion, and never once did I even imply that going to the playoffs meant you are definitely well run.

The only person trying to change the parameters, is you.

For example....

"But what about San Antonio the year they got Duncan?"

What about it? It has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. It's like I'm discussing apples, and you want to talk about oranges.

You have a reading comprehension problem. You want to argue for the sake of arguing. And the original premise of the thread is something a 12 year old would have dreamed up. A completely unrealistic idea. But after chatting with you, that doesn't surprise me. You clearly live in a fantasy world.

It's ironic that you would resort to personal insults in the same paragraph as likening me to having the thought processes of a 12 year old.

The thread (and idea) was meant to illicit discussion (which it has done) and whilst people have criticised and highlighted several issues with the idea (I also did this at the end of my original post by the way), they have managed to do so without insulting me or other posters. Isn't that a better way to act on a message board?

As for your reading comprehension point, I believe if you read back on what you wrote you will find this:

If you don't win, it's always because you're run poorly. But winning doesn't necessarily mean you're well run.

You quite clearly state that if you don't win, it's always because you're run poorly. That is what I disagree with. That is why I have provided examples of teams who haven't won but would not be considered as 'poorly run.' These are the same examples that you say are irrelevant and have nothing to do with the discussion - yes they do in counter to your statement above.

But look if you disagree with someone then fine. I have tried to end the discussion amicably and you resorted to personal insults. Maybe next time, just don't post again if you can't help yourself.