Spinoff Thread

[Lurker]

What would you rather be....

I'm stepping out of this poll entirely...

This should be good...

[sturt]

0% chance?

I understand the current context, but when you offer a whole decade as the time period, I have problems accepting that premise at that number of wins.

[AHF]

31 minutes ago, sturt said:

0% chance?

I understand the current context, but when you offer a whole decade as the time period, I have problems accepting that premise at that number of wins.

The Memphis Grizzlies typify what I think he is talking about.  A team that has no chance of winning a title unless the true contenders all lose their stars in a tragic blimp accident but that puts up 45-50 wins in a typical season.

[Peoriabird]

Would rather be the grizzlies over the Bulls or Dallas

[AHF]

19 minutes ago, Peoriabird said:

Would rather be the grizzlies over the Bulls or Dallas

Definitely rather have the 6 rings in Chicago or the 1 ring in Dallas along with their other successful seasons and their rotten years than a bunch of first and second round exits along with the ups and downs of the Grizzlies and it isn't close.  

[Peoriabird]

2 minutes ago, AHF said:

Definitely rather have the 6 rings in Chicago or the 1 ring in Dallas along with their other successful seasons and their rotten years than a bunch of first and second round exits along with the ups and downs of the Grizzlies and it isn't close.  

I was referring to the Derrick Rose Bulls

[cam1218]

You always take any option with a championship. This just feels like a way of getting people who want to tank win a vote. No matter what we do this offseason, it isn't going to lead to a 0% chance or 100% chance that we have a championship.

[AHF]

59 minutes ago, Peoriabird said:

I was referring to the Derrick Rose Bulls

Why?  They haven't made a token appearance in the finals let alone won a ring.  Chicago has basically been us since they drafted him.  First and second round exits with one ECF appearance.  

[sturt]

Um. Like I said. Ten years is a long time.

The Grizzlies have won 45-50 games only 7 times total since moving to Memphis... only 3 of those times were consecutive.

After some going back and forth on basketball-reference, I'm thinking maybe closer to that description is Houston...

 

Okay, now who can we plot this other hypothetical team to?

 

 

 

[Guest]

Stop picking on the Grizz...they are our sister/brother of the league...and no it's not the Hornets cuz they are east..screw them.

[AHF]

1 hour ago, sturt said:

Um. Like I said. Ten years is a long time.

The Grizzlies have won 45-50 games only 7 times total since moving to Memphis... only 3 of those times were consecutive.

After some going back and forth on basketball-reference, I'm thinking maybe closer to that description is Houston...

 

Okay, now who can we plot this other hypothetical team to?

 

 

 

Houston only won 45+ games 3 times in a row too before dropping into the lottery en route to getting back to that level too.  It is hard to sustain that level of play for a long time without a superstar.

Both have a history of not getting close to a ring while being pretty good.

[sturt]

Right. But while Houston has almost never been under .500, Memphis can't say that... and so, just trying to put a team to the description, can we agree that they seem closer? Honestly, I don't see another team that fits the description better than that, but I'm open to others' ideas.

Then.

Even more difficult is finding a team that fits the other description. There are only a handful of teams who have won a single championship during this century. They are....

 

And of those, I suppose DET is the best of the very imperfect fits.

That helps me digest the question.

So, would I rather be HOU or DET?

I'd rather be HOU... knowing that if I catch an especially good break--an injury to a superstar that leaves a void and a more legit race, for instance--at least I'm more likely to be in a position to capitalize.

[benhillboy]

I just like good, entertaining ball.  I have no problem with a rebuilding squad so long as they have nice individual potential, play hard, and trust the pass.  I say that now but get back to me in January when we ain't got no AS hopefuls.  No shots for Sap means more jump hook bricks and doomed paint drives from you know whos.

Edited June 16, 2017 by benhillboy

[MaceCase]

Seems dubious but I'll try my hand at a hypothetical too.

 

Which would you prefer to watch:

 

The "We Believe" Warriors

                 Or

The "Trust The Process" Sixers

[DBac]

This poll is just a little leading.

[hazer]

Neither. Your choices don't offer the option I'd vote for. Schlenck said it took GSW 7 years, and that Hawks are ahead of that. So 3-5, more likely 5, which wasn't an option of yours. So your entire poll sux...

[Diesel]

12 hours ago, AHF said:

The Memphis Grizzlies typify what I think he is talking about.  A team that has no chance of winning a title unless the true contenders all lose their stars in a tragic blimp accident but that puts up 45-50 wins in a typical season.

I wouldn't say that the grizz has 0% chance of winning. Just like most teams in the middle, they are one star player away.

[Gray Mule]

As long as King James stays in Cleveland, they "almost" have a guarantee

of winning the east.  Not quiet a sure thing, but as close as you can get.

How many years until he begins to decline?  Will he stay in Cleveland?

Until age catches up with him or something happens to his health, he

will continue to be that great all star that tells coaches and refs what

is what and who is who. 

Do the Hawks have any chance at all of "winning it all" as long as King James

dominates the east?  You decide for yourself.

Knowing all this, do we wish to tear down what we have, haul away

the foundation, and start from the very bottom (see the 76ers) ?

Or, do we wish to be the best we can be, try our best to be #2 in the east,

waiting for The King to go away so we can be #1 ?

[macdaddy]

Quote

The team that has 6-7 years of 25-35 wins, but when they dig out of it, they have a 3-4 year stretch in which they win one NBA championship and are good the other years?

GM Chrysler are you kidding me?   Hey, does anyone remember when the hawks had 7 years of 25-35 wins and all those high draft picks.  What happened to our guaranteed championship????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

What a joke. 

[AHF]

2 hours ago, Diesel said:

I wouldn't say that the grizz has 0% chance of winning. Just like most teams in the middle, they are one star player away.

They have had a 0% chance as constituted and have never been on the cusp of a difference making trade.

Comparing the last decade of the Houston Rockets with the hey day of the Pistons who were in the 20 something win range on both sides of their peak, give me the Pistons and that ring all day.  I don't know how anyone would choose a team with a bunch of first and second round exits over a team that made 6 consecutive conference finals, made two finals and won one ring.