A place for fans of the Phoenix Suns
https://www.phx-suns.net/
I’m hoping to acquire excellent young players who can help this team contend in the future.In2ition wrote:Idk who would be best for this team next year, but I'm hoping for half the roster rehaul.
Well not for the sake of change. It's got to make sense, and Avery doesn't make sense to me.Cap wrote:I’m hoping to acquire excellent young players who can help this team contend in the future.In2ition wrote:Idk who would be best for this team next year, but I'm hoping for half the roster rehaul.
If you ask McD to make change for the sake of change, we’re going to get Avery Bradley.
Well, to be fair, the ball in question *was* poppin'.specialsauce wrote:Not sure what the appeal of Fiz is. He did a mediocre job with a Grizzlies team. He doesn't believe in analytics in a time when it is at it's premium and has transformed the league. His halftime analysis just now was "lots of assists, that ball is poppin' and they are making shots."
I think white guys in this country have a ton of privilege they don't even see. I think billionaires are likely the most privileged group in existence. So yes, in a hypothetical world where you don't have to be incredibly wealthy and incredibly privileged to own an NBA team, and those owners more closely resembled the make up of the citizens, it would be more likely for them to put the betterment of the league above their exclusive club and profits to support your suggestion.O_Gardino wrote:I agree it's unlikely, but it's the best solution.Indy wrote:But the league is run by the owners, not the commissioner. He works for them. So I don't think you will get a majority of white billionaires to tell each other they have to leave the club. Especially because being forced to sell depresses the market, and drives down valuations for the other teams.O_Gardino wrote:I'll say it again: it starts with ownership. Owners should be accountable to win 160 games in every 5 year span, or they have to sell the team. That solves the problem of tanking, and the problem of long term bad ownership.Indy wrote:But the rules are set up in a way where it is better for your business to lose big than be mediocre. Punishing people for using the rules to their advantage is disingenuous and places blame on others instead of you taking responsibility for your system. Grow a pair, mix it up, and find a way to discourage coming in as a bottom 3-5 team. Reward teams that are middle of the pack instead of dead last, so teams are fighting to at least be average.Marty [Mori Chu] wrote:To me, trading away players and/or emphasizing young players is more like "Iron Chef." Here, chef, make something delicious (a win) with only these few ingredients (players). The chef is still trying his/her darnedest to make a great meal, they just have some constraints on them. And often, on Iron Chef and other cooking shows, they still find ways to make something good and interesting despite the constraints before them.
But actively walking in and telling the players, "We want to lose," is quite different. That's telling the chef, "I actually want you to cook a bad meal today. Can you do that?" That means the chef actually doesn't want to try to make something great, regardless of the ingredients. That is worse.
It isn't just that Cuban said out loud something you are supposed to think quietly in your head. It's that he actually told the chef he doesn't want a good meal, that he wants them to try to cook something bad.
Out of curiosity, do you feel that if the owners of the league were not white billionaires the outcome would be different?
Entitlement breads more entitlement. That's what I was driving at with race being part of the equation. And I do think most people would put profits first, but most extremely wealthy people seem to have alligator arms more frequently than others.EDC wrote:Not sure what race has to do with the convo but I think you give the general population too much credit. Most people would put their own profits first.