GatewayRedbirds.com

We're talking any sport. And life, I guess.



Brought to you by the NBA thread and the letter 3.

I'm abstaining from voting because it's too nuanced and sport roster buildng and life are too different to draw parallels.

I'll put it this way, if putting forth effort puts you further away from your ultimate goal, then you shouldn't put in the effort. That's not smart. Very few scenarios in real life reward you for failing like the NBA draft does.

If I'm in a doomed relationship and I meet a girl that I know is perfect for me, I wouldn't stay in the relationship I know is failing. If that's "tanking" then I guess I'm for it.

If I own a stock or an asset and it's value is plummeting, I'm going to sell it and invest in one who's value will rise. An NBA roster is an asset that can be changed if it's current configuration isn't championship material. For cap-strapped teams, the most effective way to rebuild is with elite draft picks.
That's why I like what the Bulls have done (that's how this discussion started). The players job is to play to the best of their abilities. The coach's job is to prepare his team to the best of his ability. The GM's job is to construct a roster that can compete for championships. In the Bulls scenario, if all of those things happen and they still suck, everyone has still done their job. The GM "tanked" the season, but got his team closer to a championship.

Remember when the Olympic Badminton teams were DQ'ed because the setup dictated that if they won, they'd face tougher competition or some [expletive] like that, so they played less than 100%. They were warned, but continued to tank anyway and then were DQ'ed dashing their hopes and dreams.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... china.html

The controversy swelled on Wednesday, when the World Badminton Federation disqualified the players, including the Chinese stars Yu Yang (who won a gold in badminton in 2008) and her teammate, Wang Xiaoli, for "not using one's best efforts to win a match.”

That's how every team that doesn't play to win should be treated. That or castrated.

I say no way. Just play the damn game. The Patriots didn't get to be a near dynasty by getting top draft pick after top draft pick.

thrill, tanking it with your gf or fiancee isn't ending the relationship, it's giving them half hearted sex or cheating and staying out all the time so that they break up with you.

lukethedrifter wrote:I say no way. Just play the damn game. The Patriots didn't get to be a near dynasty by getting top draft pick after top draft pick.

Irrelevant to the basketball discussion. Too (also, two) different sports. In one, one player can make the difference between also-ran and championship-caliber. In the other, you need the whole organization to be good.

lukethedrifter wrote:thrill, tanking it with your gf or fiancee isn't ending the relationship, it's giving them half hearted sex or cheating and staying out all the time so that they break up with you.

That's why "tanking" in sports and "tanking" in real life are too different to compare. You are rewarded for tanking in sports.

bob thrill wrote: If I own a stock or an asset and it's value is plummeting, I'm going to sell it and invest in one who's value will rise. An NBA roster is an asset that can be changed if it's current configuration isn't championship material. For cap-strapped teams, the most effective way to rebuild is with elite draft picks.

Then they ought to have an option to not play the games. Forfeit the game before it's played. Don't risk injuries. Refund tickets and not sell concessions. It's a farce to charge people to be entertained by millionaire athletes performing physical feats only a select few are capable of performing then telling those millionaire athletes to not physcially perform the feats they're capable of.

OR have an option to relegate such [expletive] teams to some B-league so they're not charging for the NFL/NBA/MLB brand while purposely not producing NFL/NBA/MLB talent.

Really, I'm just against people not giving their all.

AWvsCBsteeeerike3 wrote:

bob thrill wrote: If I own a stock or an asset and it's value is plummeting, I'm going to sell it and invest in one who's value will rise. An NBA roster is an asset that can be changed if it's current configuration isn't championship material. For cap-strapped teams, the most effective way to rebuild is with elite draft picks.

Then they ought to have an option to not play the games. Forfeit the game before it's played. Don't risk injuries. Refund tickets and not sell concessions. It's a farce to charge people to be entertained by millionaire athletes performing physical feats only a select few are capable of performing then telling those millionaire athletes to not physcially perform the feats they're capable of.

OR have an option to relegate such [expletive] teams to some B-league so they're not charging for the NFL/NBA/MLB brand while purposely not producing NFL/NBA/MLB talent.

Really, I'm just against people not giving their all.

So you agree with me.

bob thrill wrote:That's why I like what the Bulls have done (that's how this discussion started). The players job is to play to the best of their abilities. The coach's job is to prepare his team to the best of his ability. The GM's job is to construct a roster that can compete for championships. In the Bulls scenario, if all of those things happen and they still suck, everyone has still done their job. The GM "tanked" the season, but got his team closer to a championship.

Also, comparing anything to the NBA is pointless. The NBA blows. Only part of the reason is that they encourage tanking.

bob thrill wrote:

AWvsCBsteeeerike3 wrote:

bob thrill wrote: If I own a stock or an asset and it's value is plummeting, I'm going to sell it and invest in one who's value will rise. An NBA roster is an asset that can be changed if it's current configuration isn't championship material. For cap-strapped teams, the most effective way to rebuild is with elite draft picks.

Then they ought to have an option to not play the games. Forfeit the game before it's played. Don't risk injuries. Refund tickets and not sell concessions. It's a farce to charge people to be entertained by millionaire athletes performing physical feats only a select few are capable of performing then telling those millionaire athletes to not physcially perform the feats they're capable of.

OR have an option to relegate such [expletive] teams to some B-league so they're not charging for the NFL/NBA/MLB brand while purposely not producing NFL/NBA/MLB talent.

Really, I'm just against people not giving their all.

So you agree with me.

bob thrill wrote:That's why I like what the Bulls have done (that's how this discussion started). The players job is to play to the best of their abilities. The coach's job is to prepare his team to the best of his ability. The GM's job is to construct a roster that can compete for championships. In the Bulls scenario, if all of those things happen and they still suck, everyone has still done their job. The GM "tanked" the season, but got his team closer to a championship.

Right, if the GM willfully builds a team of scrubs that in no way can compete, then, yes, that's fine. If a fanbase is willing to keep purchasing season tickets knowing in 3 years the team of scrubs will be a team of allstars, then fine. My question is how to you get from a team of scrubs to a team of allstars when 1-3 good picks will make you at least league average? Will the 5th #1 pick in row suddenly take you from last place to 1st place? Sounds made up.