- 2,303
- 11
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2011
Originally Posted by LoveOfTheGame916
This has been the Warriors problem for years. They've always had the talent....
Now the Kings on the other hand
Why are some NBA teams so consistently pathetic?? Vol Timberwolves and Warriors
- Thread in 'Sports & Training' Thread starter Started by cedric ceballos 1995 lakers,
- Start date
xtapolapacetl
Banned
- 6,841
- 126
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2006
Originally Posted by JD214
The owners are just about the money. >
Said this for years now, The NBA needs to get rid of these teams
They need to have that system that soccer has, If the team sucks make them go from the NBA to D-league or Second Division and have them work their way up again.
Trust me, It's the only way.
It wouldn't make much of a difference. Assuming that two or even three teams would get kicked out of the NBA to the D-league every year, then teams such as this still wouldn't be fighting to win a championship, but just not to have the third worst record in the league, which is a big difference.
xtapolapacetl
Banned
- 6,841
- 126
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2006
Originally Posted by JD214
The owners are just about the money. >
Said this for years now, The NBA needs to get rid of these teams
They need to have that system that soccer has, If the team sucks make them go from the NBA to D-league or Second Division and have them work their way up again.
Trust me, It's the only way.
It wouldn't make much of a difference. Assuming that two or even three teams would get kicked out of the NBA to the D-league every year, then teams such as this still wouldn't be fighting to win a championship, but just not to have the third worst record in the league, which is a big difference.
- 11,773
- 70
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2006
Whenever I think of NBA ineptitude, I think of the Wolves. Just bad all around. They have drafted horribly outside of the K. Love swap.
- 11,773
- 70
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2006
Whenever I think of NBA ineptitude, I think of the Wolves. Just bad all around. They have drafted horribly outside of the K. Love swap.
- 18,297
- 1,007
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2009
I've been wondering this myself. Don't see too many GS games but the games I have seen they are pretty good, def a playoff team.
I guess defense is their main problem
- 18,297
- 1,007
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2009
I've been wondering this myself. Don't see too many GS games but the games I have seen they are pretty good, def a playoff team.
I guess defense is their main problem
- 8,978
- 84
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2008
- 8,978
- 84
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2008
- 7,800
- 4,744
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2003
Good thread.
Most points have already been made but it is pretty sad how "bad" certain organizations are for long periods of time.
For the T-Wolves (my hometown team) they have been in existence since 1989. And what they have to show for that is they basically have drafted Kevin Garnett.....and that's it.
Check out the Wolves franchise records:
1989-90 - 22-60
1990-91 - 29-53
1991-92 - 15-67
1992-93 - 19-63
1993-94 - 20-62
1994-95 - 21-61
1995-2007 - Garnett years
2007-08 - 22-60
2008-09 - 24-58
2009-10 - 15-67
2010-11 - 17-65
Bad management has played a part, bad luck has played a major part, and lastly the other factor has been the revolving door of coaches. This day and age coaches don't get a real chance, teams like the Wolves are averaging a new coach every 1-2 years non stop.
Most points have already been made but it is pretty sad how "bad" certain organizations are for long periods of time.
For the T-Wolves (my hometown team) they have been in existence since 1989. And what they have to show for that is they basically have drafted Kevin Garnett.....and that's it.
Check out the Wolves franchise records:
1989-90 - 22-60
1990-91 - 29-53
1991-92 - 15-67
1992-93 - 19-63
1993-94 - 20-62
1994-95 - 21-61
1995-2007 - Garnett years
2007-08 - 22-60
2008-09 - 24-58
2009-10 - 15-67
2010-11 - 17-65
Bad management has played a part, bad luck has played a major part, and lastly the other factor has been the revolving door of coaches. This day and age coaches don't get a real chance, teams like the Wolves are averaging a new coach every 1-2 years non stop.
- 7,800
- 4,744
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2003
Good thread.
Most points have already been made but it is pretty sad how "bad" certain organizations are for long periods of time.
For the T-Wolves (my hometown team) they have been in existence since 1989. And what they have to show for that is they basically have drafted Kevin Garnett.....and that's it.
Check out the Wolves franchise records:
1989-90 - 22-60
1990-91 - 29-53
1991-92 - 15-67
1992-93 - 19-63
1993-94 - 20-62
1994-95 - 21-61
1995-2007 - Garnett years
2007-08 - 22-60
2008-09 - 24-58
2009-10 - 15-67
2010-11 - 17-65
Bad management has played a part, bad luck has played a major part, and lastly the other factor has been the revolving door of coaches. This day and age coaches don't get a real chance, teams like the Wolves are averaging a new coach every 1-2 years non stop.
Most points have already been made but it is pretty sad how "bad" certain organizations are for long periods of time.
For the T-Wolves (my hometown team) they have been in existence since 1989. And what they have to show for that is they basically have drafted Kevin Garnett.....and that's it.
Check out the Wolves franchise records:
1989-90 - 22-60
1990-91 - 29-53
1991-92 - 15-67
1992-93 - 19-63
1993-94 - 20-62
1994-95 - 21-61
1995-2007 - Garnett years
2007-08 - 22-60
2008-09 - 24-58
2009-10 - 15-67
2010-11 - 17-65
Bad management has played a part, bad luck has played a major part, and lastly the other factor has been the revolving door of coaches. This day and age coaches don't get a real chance, teams like the Wolves are averaging a new coach every 1-2 years non stop.
- 170
- 10
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2000
averaging a new coach that often is bad management.... the two teams in the nfl that i know keep coaches in place the longest are the pats and the steelers.. both seem to be pretty good every year
- 170
- 10
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2000
averaging a new coach that often is bad management.... the two teams in the nfl that i know keep coaches in place the longest are the pats and the steelers.. both seem to be pretty good every year
- 27,987
- 9,082
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2007
The hell? No actually I didnt....it was just off the top of my head. Doesnt make my statement any less valid.
- 27,987
- 9,082
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2007
The hell? No actually I didnt....it was just off the top of my head. Doesnt make my statement any less valid.
- 2,654
- 57
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2007
It loses validity when you factor in the resurgence of the Pirates this year. (In and out of first place in the recent week for the first time in over a decade.)
The pending resurgence of the Royals. Highest ranked farm in baseball at a time where most of the league is reverting to drafting and scouting to win instead of big money free agents.
The Lions might be putting together one of the best defensive front lines we've ever seen with a threatening offense that just needs to keep their QB healthy.
The Cardinals who might be a good QB away (McNabb/Cobb) from returning to the offensive dominance that took them to a Super Bowl a few years back...
These teams used to be pathetic. But drastic changes in management have equaled potential for a brighter future. I understand OP's point. When you have players and coaches on a carousel year in and year out it's usually due to an inept GM who just can't seem to figure out what's best for a team. At that point the responsibility to right that ship falls squarely on the owner who must remove and replace that GM. It boggles my mind how some teams can hit the jackpot repeatedly and just never be able to put it together in order to win a championship. And then these are usually the same owners who cry and ball over lowering salary caps and all the other issues that force lockout situations like what we are seeing now in the NBA.
- 2,654
- 57
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2007
It loses validity when you factor in the resurgence of the Pirates this year. (In and out of first place in the recent week for the first time in over a decade.)
The pending resurgence of the Royals. Highest ranked farm in baseball at a time where most of the league is reverting to drafting and scouting to win instead of big money free agents.
The Lions might be putting together one of the best defensive front lines we've ever seen with a threatening offense that just needs to keep their QB healthy.
The Cardinals who might be a good QB away (McNabb/Cobb) from returning to the offensive dominance that took them to a Super Bowl a few years back...
These teams used to be pathetic. But drastic changes in management have equaled potential for a brighter future. I understand OP's point. When you have players and coaches on a carousel year in and year out it's usually due to an inept GM who just can't seem to figure out what's best for a team. At that point the responsibility to right that ship falls squarely on the owner who must remove and replace that GM. It boggles my mind how some teams can hit the jackpot repeatedly and just never be able to put it together in order to win a championship. And then these are usually the same owners who cry and ball over lowering salary caps and all the other issues that force lockout situations like what we are seeing now in the NBA.
- 26,898
- 383
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2005
Yea, most times talent isn't the problem. It starts up top with ownership & works its way down to coaching...
- 26,898
- 383
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2005
Yea, most times talent isn't the problem. It starts up top with ownership & works its way down to coaching...
- 18,677
- 10,074
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2011
Ced this would be a better thread topic for MLB.
Look at how the disparity between big market teams like the Yankees, Redsox, Mets, Dodgers, and Angels. Then you look at small market teams like my hometown Padres, Marlins, Pirates, and Royals.
None of those teams have a shot at winning a championship in the next 20 years.
Look at how the disparity between big market teams like the Yankees, Redsox, Mets, Dodgers, and Angels. Then you look at small market teams like my hometown Padres, Marlins, Pirates, and Royals.
None of those teams have a shot at winning a championship in the next 20 years.
- 18,677
- 10,074
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2011
Ced this would be a better thread topic for MLB.
Look at how the disparity between big market teams like the Yankees, Redsox, Mets, Dodgers, and Angels. Then you look at small market teams like my hometown Padres, Marlins, Pirates, and Royals.
None of those teams have a shot at winning a championship in the next 20 years.
Look at how the disparity between big market teams like the Yankees, Redsox, Mets, Dodgers, and Angels. Then you look at small market teams like my hometown Padres, Marlins, Pirates, and Royals.
None of those teams have a shot at winning a championship in the next 20 years.
- 27,987
- 9,082
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2007
Are you serious right now? Loses validity?
1- The Pirates resurgence?
2- The Royals PENDING resurgence?
3- The Lions MIGHT be putting together one of the best D Lines we have ever seen? Ok and your point is? This team has missed the playoffs for 12 years and counting. This team has won a total of 18 games in 5 years.
4- The Cardinals are a team that has some talent, yes. But again, your hypothetical analysis means a lot less than historical analysis does. Yes they made the Superbowl in 2008. But this team has made the playoffs 3 times in the last 30 years.
I dont understand how you can sit there and tell me my post "loses validity," then you go and list a bunch of speculative nonsense as to why it did. You used a farm system to argue why a team that hasnt made the playoffs in almost 3 decades isnt pathetic. Do you realize how idiotic that is?
The four examples I gave are the epitome of consistently pathetic. I dont understand how you, the original smart %*# dude who quoted me, or anyone else can sit there and tell me that the Lions, Cardinals, Pirates and Royals arent "consistently pathetic."
- 27,987
- 9,082
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2007
Are you serious right now? Loses validity?
1- The Pirates resurgence?
2- The Royals PENDING resurgence?
3- The Lions MIGHT be putting together one of the best D Lines we have ever seen? Ok and your point is? This team has missed the playoffs for 12 years and counting. This team has won a total of 18 games in 5 years.
4- The Cardinals are a team that has some talent, yes. But again, your hypothetical analysis means a lot less than historical analysis does. Yes they made the Superbowl in 2008. But this team has made the playoffs 3 times in the last 30 years.
I dont understand how you can sit there and tell me my post "loses validity," then you go and list a bunch of speculative nonsense as to why it did. You used a farm system to argue why a team that hasnt made the playoffs in almost 3 decades isnt pathetic. Do you realize how idiotic that is?
The four examples I gave are the epitome of consistently pathetic. I dont understand how you, the original smart %*# dude who quoted me, or anyone else can sit there and tell me that the Lions, Cardinals, Pirates and Royals arent "consistently pathetic."
If the Pirates argument holds any weight (and by that I mean those of you discounting Dland's original point), then you can take the Warriors out of the original thread title since they made the 2007 Playoffs and advanced a round plus won more games in 2008....
So yeah, pretty sure DLand's point was valid since the Pirates leaked financials showed a ownership group who cared more about profits than talent.
So yeah, pretty sure DLand's point was valid since the Pirates leaked financials showed a ownership group who cared more about profits than talent.
If the Pirates argument holds any weight (and by that I mean those of you discounting Dland's original point), then you can take the Warriors out of the original thread title since they made the 2007 Playoffs and advanced a round plus won more games in 2008....
So yeah, pretty sure DLand's point was valid since the Pirates leaked financials showed a ownership group who cared more about profits than talent.
So yeah, pretty sure DLand's point was valid since the Pirates leaked financials showed a ownership group who cared more about profits than talent.