Would you rather

[Needstars1703]

Win 42-45 games consistently with a strong emotional connection to players or 53-55 games consistently with no emotional connection to players?


I bring this question up because I have to call it as I see it, there is 0 pressure by fans at all on neither the front office nor the owner to make this team a contender. Here’s why I say so:

- The Nets are ranked 8th in value, which despite being a loser for the last 2 1/2 years there is little incentive to go all out and take the necessary risks to transform the team into a team that is a top 3 seed team.

- Tsai values culture and so does Marks as they have been on record for it. To me it’s very easy to say Marks and Tsai brought in the big 3, but after Tsai and Marks failed to develop an emotional connection with the big 3 they are more likely to stray away from stars due to everything they had to deal with. Hence why they drafted effort guys over players that are more heavily touted to be superstar scorers.


- While they don’t necessarily want to lose, they know they don’t have to do all that much to get fans on board and winning is not necessarily everything to them (like a live or die diehard).

-So if the front office knows fans are easy, why would they kill themselves to try to build a team that is a top 3 seeded team if they can get an 6th seeded team that does the bare minimum of winning and gives fans the emotional connection they prioritize more over winning anyway?

I mean what’s going to change if fans don’t refuse to buy the tickets? What’s going to change if fans don’t demand and accept anything short of excellence from this front office and team? By excellence I mean nothing short of a top 3 seed.

-

[MaxZaslofskyJr]

hmmm. Given this choice "Win 42-45 games consistently with a strong emotional connection to players or 53-55 games consistently with no emotional connection to players? " I take that to mean the 1st choice are players you could like and pull for and, since, the 2nd choice doesn't necessarily go with a championship and are presumably less likeable... I'll actually go with option 1 and hope for the occasional playoff upset. I held my nose pulling for the knuckleheads involved the last time the Nets bubbled up near the top only because I thought they could win it all. I don't know if I could put up with that kind of stench again.

[Needstars1703]

I figured that. Never understood why people tried to convince me Nets fans were that serious about wanting to win more games that badly and that they didn’t prioritize emotional connection with players over winning more games. I get that fans didn’t want to come off as looking silly for valuing player likability more, but many of them are in denial when they say that winning more games is that important to them. It really isn’t especially when you consider fans would trade less regular season wins for player likability. Sadly this franchise is doomed to be a contender with no pressure put on the front office by the fans with the bar set so low.

[MaxZaslofskyJr]

I figured that. Never understood why people tried to convince me Nets fans were that serious about wanting to win more games that badly and that they didn’t prioritize emotional connection with players over winning more games. I get that fans didn’t want to come off as looking silly for valuing player likability more, but many of them are in denial when they say that winning more games is that important to them. It really isn’t especially when you consider fans would trade less regular season wins for player likability. Sadly this franchise is doomed to be a contender with no pressure put on the front office by the fans with the bar set so low.

I truthfully don't understand what you are saying. Figured what? That I represent all Nets fans? And... why would it be silly to pull for a "likeable" team that plays well together and is entertaining? Speaking ONLY for myself, I never totally understood why people get all worked up over a bunch of guys winning or losing that they don't know, likely never met and would leave in an instant for business reasons. (not that I don't pull for the Nets to win... but it ain't my life). And... "doomed" says who? They once said that about the Knicks. The final thing that I don't understand is why your only 2 posts are about this topic?!?

[Netaman]

id take whatever team wins more.

i think too much gets made of stuff like this when in reality we all just want to watch the best team we can, and one that has a direction.

in the first phase of marks tenure here with atkinson there was progress finding better and better players every year. there was player development and good drafting. there was no world where that group got to the level of big 3, which was the 2nd phase and a shot you take 100/100 times on an all time great player (KD). you do whatever you have to do to get him signed on the dotted line like they did.

we can count the current situation as phase 3 or phase 4, doesn't really matter if you want to delineate the bridges nets vs the current group, but it's basically an asset accumulation and development stage just like the Atkinson years. Just with more assets thanks to being able to cash in the big 3.

if you like basketball all of the stages have pros/cons. i have found enjoyment out of all of them, mainly because sean marks hits a lot more shots than he misses and the trajectory of his groups is always upward within whatever their respective phases. the only thing that derailed the big 3 phase was injuries/insanity. we all know they would have beaten giannis without the injuries.

[Needstars1703]

I figured that. Never understood why people tried to convince me Nets fans were that serious about wanting to win more games that badly and that they didn’t prioritize emotional connection with players over winning more games. I get that fans didn’t want to come off as looking silly for valuing player likability more, but many of them are in denial when they say that winning more games is that important to them. It really isn’t especially when you consider fans would trade less regular season wins for player likability. Sadly this franchise is doomed to be a contender with no pressure put on the front office by the fans with the bar set so low.

I truthfully don't understand what you are saying. Figured what? That I represent all Nets fans? And... why would it be silly to pull for a "likeable" team that plays well together and is entertaining? Speaking ONLY for myself, I never totally understood why people get all worked up over a bunch of guys winning or losing that they don't know, likely never met and would leave in an instant for business reasons. (not that I don't pull for the Nets to win... but it ain't my life). And... "doomed" says who? They once said that about the Knicks. The final thing that I don't understand is why your only 2 posts are about this topic?!?

I get that it’s not life or death for you — that’s fine. But for fans like me, it’s about more than just watching a game. It’s about how heavy winning instilling a feeling of pride, dominance, identity, power, and wanting a team that actually competes for something real during the regular season. If fans stay passive and just accept mediocrity, nothing changes. Owners don’t feel the pressure to win unless the fanbase demands more.

Front offices might not listen to individual fans, but they absolutely respond to fan behavior. Empty seats, bad PR, low ticket sales — that puts pressure on ownership. If a fanbase pushes back hard enough, it changes the energy around the team. That’s how shifts happen not the other way around.

Look at what happened with the Knicks under Dolan when fans revolted and the media piled on. Or Philly when ‘The Process’ made them a national joke until ownership had to act. Pressure builds. Fan apathy gives them cover — passion forces change.

That’s why I don’t believe much will change with this team for 2 reasons:

1.) Tsai went more for effort guys than guys who are more heavily touted to be a star. Knowing already what we know that Marks and Tsai want culture (hard working guys) and knowing they are very likely sick of dealing with past star drama they likely steered away from that in the draft and they are not as desperate previously like they were to win. I’m not saying they don’t care at all about winning, I’m saying it’s not that important to them to be a top 3 seeded winning team which is generally what is needed to win a title more of the time than less.

2.) The Nets are 8th in value, which means fans are still attending the games despite the Nets losing. That’s not signaling anything to ownership or the gm that they need to put beyond the minimum effort in to please fans and get them to attend games.

[Needstars1703]

I figured that. Never understood why people tried to convince me Nets fans were that serious about wanting to win more games that badly and that they didn’t prioritize emotional connection with players over winning more games. I get that fans didn’t want to come off as looking silly for valuing player likability more, but many of them are in denial when they say that winning more games is that important to them. It really isn’t especially when you consider fans would trade less regular season wins for player likability. Sadly this franchise is doomed to be a contender with no pressure put on the front office by the fans with the bar set so low.

I truthfully don't understand what you are saying. Figured what? That I represent all Nets fans? And... why would it be silly to pull for a "likeable" team that plays well together and is entertaining? Speaking ONLY for myself, I never totally understood why people get all worked up over a bunch of guys winning or losing that they don't know, likely never met and would leave in an instant for business reasons. (not that I don't pull for the Nets to win... but it ain't my life). And... "doomed" says who? They once said that about the Knicks. The final thing that I don't understand is why your only 2 posts are about this topic?!?

“why would it be silly to pull for a "likeable" team that plays well together and is entertaining?”

It’s not that it is silly to pull for a likable team it is just that it is silly to think that most fans putting no pressure on either ownership or the gm or just even the team will breed change into a team becoming a contender. There is influence that exists in indirect ways that does exist even if it is not measurable or quantifiable. As an example, when Timberwolves fans booed their team in a home game against the Knicks this year despite being a winning team, they demanded more. They ironically turned out better for it as they got to the western conference finals. I’m not saying there is a direct link to influence as it relates to play here, but influence exists. Knicks fans booed the team even when they were losing and had no expectations. Players hear things, gms hear things, owners hear things. In a world that is very loud how could you filter out all noise without at least being partially influenced at times.

[Needstars1703]

I never totally understood why people get all worked up over a bunch of guys winning or losing that they don't know, likely never met and would leave in an instant for business reasons


I mean this with respect, but couldn’t the same exact thing be said for rooting for easily liked players? I mean people get worked up positively about them when they don’t know them or never met them.

[Needstars1703]

id take whatever team wins more.

i think too much gets made of stuff like this when in reality we all just want to watch the best team we can, and one that has a direction.

in the first phase of marks tenure here with atkinson there was progress finding better and better players every year. there was player development and good drafting. there was no world where that group got to the level of big 3, which was the 2nd phase and a shot you take 100/100 times on an all time great player (KD). you do whatever you have to do to get him signed on the dotted line like they did.

we can count the current situation as phase 3 or phase 4, doesn't really matter if you want to delineate the bridges nets vs the current group, but it's basically an asset accumulation and development stage just like the Atkinson years. Just with more assets thanks to being able to cash in the big 3.

if you like basketball all of the stages have pros/cons. i have found enjoyment out of all of them, mainly because sean marks hits a lot more shots than he misses and the trajectory of his groups is always upward within whatever their respective phases. the only thing that derailed the big 3 phase was injuries/insanity. we all know they would have beaten giannis without the injuries.

Out of curiosity when you said too much gets made of this stuff, what exactly do you mean?

I mean here is what we know:

-Tsai and Marks value culture and hard working guys not necessarily players with the ceiling of superstars and the most talented players. That was apparent from the kind of players he picked in the draft and if you look deeper from the fallout and drama of the big 3 stars expected in a way.

- The Nets are 8th in value despite being a loser for the last 2 years

- Barclays center was filled during the suns game this year and the general impression was that fans still attended games this past year despite the team losing. Really no fans booing the team on tv when the Nets were losing

So the question is if Tsai observes this about fans and already knows he is still 8th in value despite losing for the last 2 years, what really is the incentive to be great? Why ever spend more time than you have to on this team when fans are still showing up regardless of the product? Until fans stop showing up and buying the tickets there is no incentive and nothing gives any indication that fans are not going to show up.

[Netaman]

id take whatever team wins more.

i think too much gets made of stuff like this when in reality we all just want to watch the best team we can, and one that has a direction.

in the first phase of marks tenure here with atkinson there was progress finding better and better players every year. there was player development and good drafting. there was no world where that group got to the level of big 3, which was the 2nd phase and a shot you take 100/100 times on an all time great player (KD). you do whatever you have to do to get him signed on the dotted line like they did.

we can count the current situation as phase 3 or phase 4, doesn't really matter if you want to delineate the bridges nets vs the current group, but it's basically an asset accumulation and development stage just like the Atkinson years. Just with more assets thanks to being able to cash in the big 3.

if you like basketball all of the stages have pros/cons. i have found enjoyment out of all of them, mainly because sean marks hits a lot more shots than he misses and the trajectory of his groups is always upward within whatever their respective phases. the only thing that derailed the big 3 phase was injuries/insanity. we all know they would have beaten giannis without the injuries.

Out of curiosity when you said too much gets made of this stuff, what exactly do you mean?

i meant the 2 scenarios presented which are essentially homegrown/organic team vs mercenary team (less connection, but more wins).

i dont think miami fans enjoyed their championships any less with lebron because he came in as a merc. or LAL fans with Shaq. and even if they did who cares? they were still enjoying championships.

it's obviously better to draft guys like Kobe and Wade and get their entire careers and get to have a more organic connection with them, but i think ultimately the goal is winning and however you can get it done is fine. i had 0 reluctance to embrace KD as a net other than wishing he were younger and was a better judge of his "friends".

[JKiddy]

Will #1 also have deep playoffs runs which result in more love and connection to them?