Why are you fighting against something that was super common knowledge at the time Les was owner so hard? It comes across really weird, you can't gaslight everybody in existence, we all witnessed it. It's not made up.
Here’s the thing. There are those who are saying Les controlled all the moves and did not allow this team to rebuild through the draft although they did rebuild with Francis, Kenny Thomas, and Eddie Griffin. Then they drafted Yao to go with Francis for couple years and blew it up. So not sure what this narrative is about. And if there was some order or mandate then how can we ever fault Morey if all his moves and actions were governed and influenced by Les?
No. I ask for evidence. What was written. What was reported. Often times writers sneak in their opinions or create narratives. None of these pieces substantiate the belief that Les controlled everything or did not want this team to “tank” or rebuild through the draft. So the question is this all perception or actual facts that he or Morey said these things to the public. 2 very different things. Or were there other league sources? What is known is Morey said his philosophy is to acquire players to build a core. And all his moves reflect this. If Les mandated anything then we should not hold Morey accountable if he was just following orders. What fans and writers think don’t seem to add up.
And all you have is your opinion. Against a mound of evidence to the contrary of your opinion. As someone already said….its just weird behavior what you are doing, but not surprising to me based on your posting pattern. Like I said, you are never wrong, so of course you are going to stick to your guns and quadruple down despite the overwhelming evidence. No one is saying Morey can’t be blamed for anything he did as a GM and that everything is on Les. There are just facts as to how things went during that time. Morey was tasked with building a contender without the ability to tank and with an owner who didn’t want to go into the luxury tax ever. Im sure Morey would say himself that’s no excuse for not winning a title but anyone with an ounce of objectivity can see that building a contender with those constraints is a tall task.
That’s fine and I find it odd you unnecessarily mocked and insulted me holding on to some old petty grudge when I simply expressed my views then went on a mission to counter my view sending me 3 responses. I made an assessment based on what actually transpired in that era and what Morey said. You have your opinions and beliefs and I question where this narrative came from without any substantiating information. Difference between fact and belief. No need to go further with this.
Do you think that if Morey went to Les and said that i want to do a full tear down and tank for 3 years, Les would have said ok? Morey (and all math people) have always said the worst way to build is through the middle. Why would he deliberately do that?
Why would they deliberately stay mediocre or not rebuild? In my assessment it’s a matter of timing and chance. They found some great opportunities and seized them. You can say they were aggressive and proactive in their approach but I don’t think they completely ruled out rebuilding. Because they did rebuild under Dawson. Unless there was a change of approach in the Morey years. As I mentioned they had the 22nd pick in 99. They saw an opportunity to get Francis and went for it. They drafted Kenny Thomas. The next couple years they added Collier and Eddie Griffin. This was their young core. Then came Yao. After the glorious Yao years they had holdovers like Scola, Lowry, Battier. They likely thought they could still compete. Added Martin and tried to add Gasol. Then they added Harden. So I think they were just an aggressive team that took opportunities given and risks and were in some awkward stages in their rebuild.
There's a lot of teams who refuse to tank. Jordan never let his teams tank, the kings for 20 years refused to tank, it's very common in the nba. Not every owner is willing to have their team be horrendous for several years, even if it's what's best for the long term. I don't remember the rockets trying to win 20 games during the Dawson era but that's so far back i don't really remember so you could be right.
The Rockets teams of that Dawson era are why we have a lottery in the league today, they intentionally tanked two straight years for the #1 pick in 83 and 84 with the lottery instituted in 1985 with the specific intent to prevent tanking. (it hasn't worked).
The lottery has been a total failure as far as effectiveness is concerned. It has been a huge success as another source of revenue for the NBA. I would love for it to go away. At the very least, we wouldn’t have any doubt about the fix being in. As you said, it hasn’t stopped tanking anyway so what is it’s use other than the PR build-up around it.
The way I look at the lottery is that it hasn't prevented tanking, but as teams are more willing to tank than ever, it has at least spread the tanking out somewhat. There's no way the Jazz would have gotten close to 17 wins last year if the lottery hadn't been there. On the other hand, teams like San Antonio, which were hurt, tank more than they would to increase their lottery odds. The biggest plus with the lottery, in my opinion, is that the worst team isn't guaranteed the top pick. So while it doesn't prevent tanking, at least it mitigates some of the reward for losing the most.
Nah, if there were no lottery, you'd be seeing teams trying to win single digit games during drafts like Wemby and LeBron. People think the lottery is to prevent tanking. But it's real use is to prevent or at least mitigate blatant, throw out a starting lineup of Nix, Garuba, Mathews, Christopher, and ask Jabari to take 30 shots a game type of tanking.
The point is that team’s are tanking anyway. So what, if the team’s are blatant or not. Whether the tanking team gets beat by 30 or 3 it is still tanking. At least, team’s like Dallas and SA would have to pay a price for tanking instead of getting the advantages of being competitive and still be awarded guys like Flagg and Harper over teams like Washington and Utah that obviously need an injection of big time talent. Also wouldn’t be a question of whether the NBA is rigging it.
You would see INSANE stuff though. You would have a team go 4-78 to get wemby, just trading EVERYONE and being a g league team basically.
This basically. Right now, it keeps the teams from truly going to the mattresses to finish dead last as there isn't a benefit of being last versus 2nd or 3rd worst. The only drawbacks, in my opinion, are that it gives conspiracy theorists something to complain about, and that teams, once their playoff hopes get killed, begin to tank later in the year to increase lottery odds. I don't buy the conspiracy theories on the lottery as no reason for all 30 teams and media observers to allow the lottery to be rigged.
Yeah that's not how it works I'm afraid. This will blow your mind, when I was a child there wasn't even websites recording stuff at all so you can't look up any of it. Does that mean it didn't happen? Nope. It genuinely comes across like you're just trying to lawyer out of reality with "pics or it didn't happen" and sorry but we don't need the pics, we were all there, it happened.
Nope. Nothing I’m saying is novel. I am simply exercising critical thinking and questioning whether this is fan and media perception or straight from sources or Les’ mouth. Nothing else. The media did exist in the 90s. Again there’s a difference between reporters creating a narrative out of what seems like substantiated information and information backed by sources and direct quotes.
Critical thinking should suggest that the OWNER of the team chooses the direction of the team or that perhaps if several different writers are positing their opinion on the matter which lines up together then maybe they know something.
Nope there isn’t one way to critically think. And there’s a difference between critical thinking and assumption.
