Why are some NBA teams so consistently pathetic?? Vol Timberwolves and Warriors

[doyung9]

I think it starts at the top of the front office and spirals down.

I've always said, with the game changing and evolving, a guy who was scouting players in the 80s might not be able to find the best talent for his teams now, the same way the European game is different than the NBA, the NBA now is different than the NBA 10-20 years ago.

This is the first year that I somewhat don't mind how high a few of these European kids went, just because their styles of play seem to transfer over better than in the past.

Think about the Chicago Bulls front office. Aside from getting DERRICK FRIGGIN ROSE, (and the unfortunate accident to Jay Williams) look at the post-Jordan moves these guys made. San Antonio has one of the best front office's in basketball. They tanked one time that I can remember, got themselves Tim Duncan, and have been a legit contender every year since.

I still to this day don't understand Orlando trading for a past his prime Hedo Turkoglu, an un-interested Gilbert Arenas they had no plan on starting, and Jason Richardson.

EDIT: Matter of fact, the Bulls didn't start doing things that made sense until after Jerry Krause retired. You all remember Jerry Krause, the man who had no problem watching Michael Jordan, Scottie Pippen and Phil Jackson ride into the sunset after a 3 peat.

 

[doyung9]

I think it starts at the top of the front office and spirals down.

I've always said, with the game changing and evolving, a guy who was scouting players in the 80s might not be able to find the best talent for his teams now, the same way the European game is different than the NBA, the NBA now is different than the NBA 10-20 years ago.

This is the first year that I somewhat don't mind how high a few of these European kids went, just because their styles of play seem to transfer over better than in the past.

Think about the Chicago Bulls front office. Aside from getting DERRICK FRIGGIN ROSE, (and the unfortunate accident to Jay Williams) look at the post-Jordan moves these guys made. San Antonio has one of the best front office's in basketball. They tanked one time that I can remember, got themselves Tim Duncan, and have been a legit contender every year since.

I still to this day don't understand Orlando trading for a past his prime Hedo Turkoglu, an un-interested Gilbert Arenas they had no plan on starting, and Jason Richardson.

EDIT: Matter of fact, the Bulls didn't start doing things that made sense until after Jerry Krause retired. You all remember Jerry Krause, the man who had no problem watching Michael Jordan, Scottie Pippen and Phil Jackson ride into the sunset after a 3 peat.

 

[rudemiester]

Originally Posted by dland24

Originally Posted by Rudemiester

Originally Posted by dland24

The hell?  No actually I didnt....it was just off the top of my head.  Doesnt make my statement any less valid.

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.

Are you serious right now?  Loses validity?

1- The Pirates resurgence? 

.  I guess the Pirates being 5 games over .500 a little more than half way through the season somehow negates the fact that they havent had a winning record in 19 years. 

2- The Royals PENDING resurgence?

I guess the fact that the Royals have a ton of prospects negates the fact that they havent made the playoffs in 26 years.  Let me repeat that.  TWENTY SIX YEARS. 

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."

This thread is about teams that are consistently pathetic and making bonehead moves like the Warriors and T'Wolves. You mentioned teams that have had decades of  losing but have been getting their stuff together by doing things the right way in recent years. The teams you mentioned are no longer in the same league as the Warriors and Timberwolves. Deal with it, Warriors fan. 

 

[rudemiester]

Originally Posted by dland24

Originally Posted by Rudemiester

Originally Posted by dland24

The hell?  No actually I didnt....it was just off the top of my head.  Doesnt make my statement any less valid.

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.

Are you serious right now?  Loses validity?

1- The Pirates resurgence? 

.  I guess the Pirates being 5 games over .500 a little more than half way through the season somehow negates the fact that they havent had a winning record in 19 years. 

2- The Royals PENDING resurgence?

I guess the fact that the Royals have a ton of prospects negates the fact that they havent made the playoffs in 26 years.  Let me repeat that.  TWENTY SIX YEARS. 

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."

This thread is about teams that are consistently pathetic and making bonehead moves like the Warriors and T'Wolves. You mentioned teams that have had decades of  losing but have been getting their stuff together by doing things the right way in recent years. The teams you mentioned are no longer in the same league as the Warriors and Timberwolves. Deal with it, Warriors fan. 

 

[rudemiester]

Originally Posted by MR J 858

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.

Bro, the Mets and Dodgers haven't won a championship in over 20 years. The Angels play in a weak division and the Yankees and Red Sox payrolls are inflated only because they have to compete with each other. The Marlins alone haven't even been around for 20 years but have 2 chips in the last 15 years. Your hometown Padres almost won the West last year and have had more success than my hometown, big market Mets in recent history and they lost a WS to the Yankees in the late 90's. And the Pirates and Royals are on their way back like I've said already. I think the steroid era had a lot to do with the disparity and tough times that a lot of teams faced in the 90's and early 00's. Now that things seem to have calmed down I think a lot of teams are capable of using scouting and drafting to advance further than these high payroll teams. AL West and Central is a toss up which is great for baseball. AL East, who knows what happens but as you can see it's not impossible for a team from that division to have a lower payroll and compete with the Red Sox and Yankees. (Tampa Bay) San Fran last year put everybody to bed with their top notch pitching. People tend to overlook it but they crushed this years Philly rotation last October and they had a much lower payroll than these guys do. 

 

[rudemiester]

Originally Posted by MR J 858

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.

Bro, the Mets and Dodgers haven't won a championship in over 20 years. The Angels play in a weak division and the Yankees and Red Sox payrolls are inflated only because they have to compete with each other. The Marlins alone haven't even been around for 20 years but have 2 chips in the last 15 years. Your hometown Padres almost won the West last year and have had more success than my hometown, big market Mets in recent history and they lost a WS to the Yankees in the late 90's. And the Pirates and Royals are on their way back like I've said already. I think the steroid era had a lot to do with the disparity and tough times that a lot of teams faced in the 90's and early 00's. Now that things seem to have calmed down I think a lot of teams are capable of using scouting and drafting to advance further than these high payroll teams. AL West and Central is a toss up which is great for baseball. AL East, who knows what happens but as you can see it's not impossible for a team from that division to have a lower payroll and compete with the Red Sox and Yankees. (Tampa Bay) San Fran last year put everybody to bed with their top notch pitching. People tend to overlook it but they crushed this years Philly rotation last October and they had a much lower payroll than these guys do. 

 

[lazyj10]

Originally Posted by Rudemiester

Originally Posted by dland24

Originally Posted by Rudemiester

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.

Are you serious right now?  Loses validity?

1- The Pirates resurgence? 

.  I guess the Pirates being 5 games over .500 a little more than half way through the season somehow negates the fact that they havent had a winning record in 19 years. 

2- The Royals PENDING resurgence?

I guess the fact that the Royals have a ton of prospects negates the fact that they havent made the playoffs in 26 years.  Let me repeat that.  TWENTY SIX YEARS. 

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."

This thread is about teams that are consistently pathetic and making bonehead moves like the Warriors and T'Wolves. You mentioned teams that have had decades of  losing but have been getting their stuff together by doing things the right way in recent years. The teams you mentioned are no longer in the same league as the Warriors and Timberwolves. Deal with it, Warriors fan. 

Your argument lacks validity since the Warriors made the playoffs in 2007 and upset the #1 seed...then, barely missed the playoffs in a DEEP western conference while winning more games than 2007.  By the basis of your argument, that would automatically discount the Warriors from being "consistently" bad. 
Since the Pirates, who haven't completed the year and, HAPPEN to be competing for first that makes them all of a sudden consistently good? No, it doesn't.  If anything, its an anomaly. 

Pending resurgence for the Royals? Oh, so you're basing your argument on something that you're assuming is going to happen because of future events and the lack of a market (current trend) of big name free agents?  So that makes them exempt from the argument?  

The point is, the Warriors did something, more recently, then both the Pirates and Royals.  Look, you want to pile on the Warriors for no other reason then some of their fans on here are annoying...that's fine, but realize your argument is absurd and lacks substance. 

 

[lazyj10]

Originally Posted by Rudemiester

Originally Posted by dland24

Originally Posted by Rudemiester

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.

Are you serious right now?  Loses validity?

1- The Pirates resurgence? 

.  I guess the Pirates being 5 games over .500 a little more than half way through the season somehow negates the fact that they havent had a winning record in 19 years. 

2- The Royals PENDING resurgence?

I guess the fact that the Royals have a ton of prospects negates the fact that they havent made the playoffs in 26 years.  Let me repeat that.  TWENTY SIX YEARS. 

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."

This thread is about teams that are consistently pathetic and making bonehead moves like the Warriors and T'Wolves. You mentioned teams that have had decades of  losing but have been getting their stuff together by doing things the right way in recent years. The teams you mentioned are no longer in the same league as the Warriors and Timberwolves. Deal with it, Warriors fan. 

Your argument lacks validity since the Warriors made the playoffs in 2007 and upset the #1 seed...then, barely missed the playoffs in a DEEP western conference while winning more games than 2007.  By the basis of your argument, that would automatically discount the Warriors from being "consistently" bad. 
Since the Pirates, who haven't completed the year and, HAPPEN to be competing for first that makes them all of a sudden consistently good? No, it doesn't.  If anything, its an anomaly. 

Pending resurgence for the Royals? Oh, so you're basing your argument on something that you're assuming is going to happen because of future events and the lack of a market (current trend) of big name free agents?  So that makes them exempt from the argument?  

The point is, the Warriors did something, more recently, then both the Pirates and Royals.  Look, you want to pile on the Warriors for no other reason then some of their fans on here are annoying...that's fine, but realize your argument is absurd and lacks substance. 

 

[chris82790]

The fact that the argument is based on these teams "getting their stuff together" is laughable. If these teams were getting their stuff together we would've already seen some improvement on the field, and by improvement I mean winning and getting the job done. These teams can show all the "potential" they want but until they start putting up wins on a consistent basis they are still under the consistently pathetic category. A couple years of showing potential DOES NOT override decades of losing.

 

[chris82790]

The fact that the argument is based on these teams "getting their stuff together" is laughable. If these teams were getting their stuff together we would've already seen some improvement on the field, and by improvement I mean winning and getting the job done. These teams can show all the "potential" they want but until they start putting up wins on a consistent basis they are still under the consistently pathetic category. A couple years of showing potential DOES NOT override decades of losing.

 

[rudemiester]

Originally Posted by LazyJ10

Originally Posted by Rudemiester

Originally Posted by dland24

Your argument lacks validity since the Warriors made the playoffs in 2007 and upset the #1 seed...then, barely missed the playoffs in a DEEP western conference while winning more games than 2007.  By the basis of your argument, that would automatically discount the Warriors from being "consistently" bad. 
Since the Pirates, who haven't completed the year and, HAPPEN to be competing for first that makes them all of a sudden consistently good? No, it doesn't.  If anything, its an anomaly. 

Pending resurgence for the Royals? Oh, so you're basing your argument on something that you're assuming is going to happen because of future events and the lack of a market (current trend) of big name free agents?  So that makes them exempt from the argument?  

The point is, the Warriors did something, more recently, then both the Pirates and Royals.  Look, you want to pile on the Warriors for no other reason then some of their fans on here are annoying...that's fine, but realize your argument is absurd and lacks substance. 

I'm not piling on the Warriors, I only mentioned them because dland mentioned those other teams who I feel are on their way back. Simple as that. Every team has their ups and downs but I feel like some fail more than others because ownership refuses to step in and make the move to get rid of inept GM's who can't decide which direction they'd like to send their franchises in. I feel like a bunch of MLB teams have recently made those decisions to get better GM's to help send once historic franchises back to prominence where they once were. The Warriors have done something more recently than the Royals and the Pirates but I don't feel like the NBA and MLB should be compared.
I see you Warriors fans complaining all the time about that team from '07 and what would've happened if they would've stayed together...you tell me, what happened to them?

 

[rudemiester]

Originally Posted by LazyJ10

Originally Posted by Rudemiester

Originally Posted by dland24

Your argument lacks validity since the Warriors made the playoffs in 2007 and upset the #1 seed...then, barely missed the playoffs in a DEEP western conference while winning more games than 2007.  By the basis of your argument, that would automatically discount the Warriors from being "consistently" bad. 
Since the Pirates, who haven't completed the year and, HAPPEN to be competing for first that makes them all of a sudden consistently good? No, it doesn't.  If anything, its an anomaly. 

Pending resurgence for the Royals? Oh, so you're basing your argument on something that you're assuming is going to happen because of future events and the lack of a market (current trend) of big name free agents?  So that makes them exempt from the argument?  

The point is, the Warriors did something, more recently, then both the Pirates and Royals.  Look, you want to pile on the Warriors for no other reason then some of their fans on here are annoying...that's fine, but realize your argument is absurd and lacks substance. 

I'm not piling on the Warriors, I only mentioned them because dland mentioned those other teams who I feel are on their way back. Simple as that. Every team has their ups and downs but I feel like some fail more than others because ownership refuses to step in and make the move to get rid of inept GM's who can't decide which direction they'd like to send their franchises in. I feel like a bunch of MLB teams have recently made those decisions to get better GM's to help send once historic franchises back to prominence where they once were. The Warriors have done something more recently than the Royals and the Pirates but I don't feel like the NBA and MLB should be compared.
I see you Warriors fans complaining all the time about that team from '07 and what would've happened if they would've stayed together...you tell me, what happened to them?

 

[dland24]

Originally Posted by Rudemiester

Originally Posted by LazyJ10

Originally Posted by Rudemiester

Your argument lacks validity since the Warriors made the playoffs in 2007 and upset the #1 seed...then, barely missed the playoffs in a DEEP western conference while winning more games than 2007.  By the basis of your argument, that would automatically discount the Warriors from being "consistently" bad. 
Since the Pirates, who haven't completed the year and, HAPPEN to be competing for first that makes them all of a sudden consistently good? No, it doesn't.  If anything, its an anomaly. 

Pending resurgence for the Royals? Oh, so you're basing your argument on something that you're assuming is going to happen because of future events and the lack of a market (current trend) of big name free agents?  So that makes them exempt from the argument?  

The point is, the Warriors did something, more recently, then both the Pirates and Royals.  Look, you want to pile on the Warriors for no other reason then some of their fans on here are annoying...that's fine, but realize your argument is absurd and lacks substance. 

I'm not piling on the Warriors, I only mentioned them because dland mentioned those other teams who I feel are on their way back. Simple as that. Every team has their ups and downs but I feel like some fail more than others because ownership refuses to step in and make the move to get rid of inept GM's who can't decide which direction they'd like to send their franchises in. I feel like a bunch of MLB teams have recently made those decisions to get better GM's to help send once historic franchises back to prominence where they once were. The Warriors have done something more recently than the Royals and the Pirates but I don't feel like the NBA and MLB should be compared.
I see you Warriors fans complaining all the time about that team from '07 and what would've happened if they would've stayed together...you tell me, what happened to them?

THAT is your reason that the Pirates and Royals arent pathetic?  Because they are possibly on their way back from garbage to mediocrity?  You really have no idea how stupid that sounds do you?

If you honestly think that the Warriors are more "consistently pathetic" than the Pirates or Royals, then this is where the conversation ends.  You clearly have some agenda and will not listen to reason.  Look, I know the Warriors are horrible and have been for a long stretch of time.  But to make the ridiculous claims like the Royals arent pathetic because they MIGHT be good one day is absolutely comical. 

As far as your last paragraph and the question in it goes, that has absolutely zero to do with the point of this thread.

 

[dland24]

Originally Posted by Rudemiester

Originally Posted by LazyJ10

Originally Posted by Rudemiester

Your argument lacks validity since the Warriors made the playoffs in 2007 and upset the #1 seed...then, barely missed the playoffs in a DEEP western conference while winning more games than 2007.  By the basis of your argument, that would automatically discount the Warriors from being "consistently" bad. 
Since the Pirates, who haven't completed the year and, HAPPEN to be competing for first that makes them all of a sudden consistently good? No, it doesn't.  If anything, its an anomaly. 

Pending resurgence for the Royals? Oh, so you're basing your argument on something that you're assuming is going to happen because of future events and the lack of a market (current trend) of big name free agents?  So that makes them exempt from the argument?  

The point is, the Warriors did something, more recently, then both the Pirates and Royals.  Look, you want to pile on the Warriors for no other reason then some of their fans on here are annoying...that's fine, but realize your argument is absurd and lacks substance. 

I'm not piling on the Warriors, I only mentioned them because dland mentioned those other teams who I feel are on their way back. Simple as that. Every team has their ups and downs but I feel like some fail more than others because ownership refuses to step in and make the move to get rid of inept GM's who can't decide which direction they'd like to send their franchises in. I feel like a bunch of MLB teams have recently made those decisions to get better GM's to help send once historic franchises back to prominence where they once were. The Warriors have done something more recently than the Royals and the Pirates but I don't feel like the NBA and MLB should be compared.
I see you Warriors fans complaining all the time about that team from '07 and what would've happened if they would've stayed together...you tell me, what happened to them?

THAT is your reason that the Pirates and Royals arent pathetic?  Because they are possibly on their way back from garbage to mediocrity?  You really have no idea how stupid that sounds do you?

If you honestly think that the Warriors are more "consistently pathetic" than the Pirates or Royals, then this is where the conversation ends.  You clearly have some agenda and will not listen to reason.  Look, I know the Warriors are horrible and have been for a long stretch of time.  But to make the ridiculous claims like the Royals arent pathetic because they MIGHT be good one day is absolutely comical. 

As far as your last paragraph and the question in it goes, that has absolutely zero to do with the point of this thread.

 

[HIM]

Rudemeister's argument is one of the worst i've ever read on here lol. Royals "royals pending resurgence" just proves how bad they've on the consistent Basis.

I'm a clipper fan and I know we're at the top of the list when it comes to pathetic franchises. Does all that history change becuase we have blake griffen and a bright future? No, untill we make the playoffs consistently we are still gonna be in that list of conistently pathetic teams.

The royals and pirates havent made the playoffs since some NTers were born. How can you argue them being consistently pathetic?


To answer the original question; bad luck, bad gms and bad scouting. We've missed out on players like granger, pierce, dirk, etc and drafted bums instead. Basketball lacks the pariry of other sports tho; if you have a kobe or lebron you will make the playoffs every year cuz they have such an impact. So if you get stuck in the 5-15 draft pick range you're gonna get a good 2nd option type player which makes it harder to take the next step cuz most likely free agents dont wanna go to a historically bad team.

 

[HIM]

Rudemeister's argument is one of the worst i've ever read on here lol. Royals "royals pending resurgence" just proves how bad they've on the consistent Basis.

I'm a clipper fan and I know we're at the top of the list when it comes to pathetic franchises. Does all that history change becuase we have blake griffen and a bright future? No, untill we make the playoffs consistently we are still gonna be in that list of conistently pathetic teams.

The royals and pirates havent made the playoffs since some NTers were born. How can you argue them being consistently pathetic?


To answer the original question; bad luck, bad gms and bad scouting. We've missed out on players like granger, pierce, dirk, etc and drafted bums instead. Basketball lacks the pariry of other sports tho; if you have a kobe or lebron you will make the playoffs every year cuz they have such an impact. So if you get stuck in the 5-15 draft pick range you're gonna get a good 2nd option type player which makes it harder to take the next step cuz most likely free agents dont wanna go to a historically bad team.

 

[scwoogie]

crazy to see the pirates doing good... my boy from high school and college is their catcher right now...

 

[scwoogie]

crazy to see the pirates doing good... my boy from high school and college is their catcher right now...

 

[franchise 55]

And the Pirates aren't even really winning. Their six games above .500. SIX. People talking like they're 15 above and are running away with the Central.
They're just winning relative to the last couple decades.

 

[franchise 55]

And the Pirates aren't even really winning. Their six games above .500. SIX. People talking like they're 15 above and are running away with the Central.
They're just winning relative to the last couple decades.

 

[rudemiester]

THAT is your reason that the Pirates and Royals arent pathetic?  Because they are possibly on their way back from garbage to mediocrity?  You really have no idea how stupid that sounds do you?

No need to get upset chief. Some NBA teams have no hope because the really talented players are so few and far apart whereas in MLB every team has skilled players, it's just a matter of putting the pieces together in the correct manner. And you need great GM's and managers to do that. The Royals are "pathetic" but I don't believe teams who are drafting and scouting well, while making whatever additions they can on a shoe string budget can be compared to NBA teams that can't even figure out who they want to coach or what players to keep or dump.

If you honestly think that the Warriors are more "consistently pathetic" than the Pirates or Royals, then this is where the conversation ends. 

Where did I say that? I think that they can't be compared because those baseball teams are/were on their way in the right direction. While in the NBA, some teams are still fumbling and bumbling, don't know who to hire and who to fire, don't know who to trade and who to keep...They're on two totally different paths. That's why the op didn't put Pirates or Royals in the title..

You clearly have some agenda and will not listen to reason.  Look, I know the Warriors are horrible and have been for a long stretch of time.  But to make the ridiculous claims like the Royals arent pathetic because they MIGHT be good one day is absolutely comical.  
At least we've finally eliminated three of the four teams you brought into the argument for comparison. Good job. And no there is no agenda, I don't care about the Warriors or the Royals or the Pirates or any of the other teams mentioned. 

As far as your last paragraph and the question in it goes, that has absolutely zero to do with the point of this thread.
[h3]

Why are some NBA teams so consistently pathetic?? Vol Timberwolves and Warriors

[/h3]

I see you Warriors fans complaining all the time about that team from '07 and what would've happened if they would've stayed together...you tell me, what happened to them?

Umm, were the Warriors not a victim of the same symptoms that everyone in this thread has agreed makes teams consistently pathetic? Oh.

 

[rudemiester]

THAT is your reason that the Pirates and Royals arent pathetic?  Because they are possibly on their way back from garbage to mediocrity?  You really have no idea how stupid that sounds do you?

No need to get upset chief. Some NBA teams have no hope because the really talented players are so few and far apart whereas in MLB every team has skilled players, it's just a matter of putting the pieces together in the correct manner. And you need great GM's and managers to do that. The Royals are "pathetic" but I don't believe teams who are drafting and scouting well, while making whatever additions they can on a shoe string budget can be compared to NBA teams that can't even figure out who they want to coach or what players to keep or dump.

If you honestly think that the Warriors are more "consistently pathetic" than the Pirates or Royals, then this is where the conversation ends. 

Where did I say that? I think that they can't be compared because those baseball teams are/were on their way in the right direction. While in the NBA, some teams are still fumbling and bumbling, don't know who to hire and who to fire, don't know who to trade and who to keep...They're on two totally different paths. That's why the op didn't put Pirates or Royals in the title..

You clearly have some agenda and will not listen to reason.  Look, I know the Warriors are horrible and have been for a long stretch of time.  But to make the ridiculous claims like the Royals arent pathetic because they MIGHT be good one day is absolutely comical.  
At least we've finally eliminated three of the four teams you brought into the argument for comparison. Good job. And no there is no agenda, I don't care about the Warriors or the Royals or the Pirates or any of the other teams mentioned. 

As far as your last paragraph and the question in it goes, that has absolutely zero to do with the point of this thread.
[h3]

Why are some NBA teams so consistently pathetic?? Vol Timberwolves and Warriors

[/h3]

I see you Warriors fans complaining all the time about that team from '07 and what would've happened if they would've stayed together...you tell me, what happened to them?

Umm, were the Warriors not a victim of the same symptoms that everyone in this thread has agreed makes teams consistently pathetic? Oh.

 

[mzd650]

Rudemiester's opinion on sports will no longer be taken seriously after reading this thread.

 

[mzd650]

Rudemiester's opinion on sports will no longer be taken seriously after reading this thread.

 

[rudemiester]

Originally Posted by MzD650

Rudemiester's opinion on sports will no longer be taken seriously after reading this thread.

 I'm not hating. You guys just don't understand how I feel about baseball.