Playoff or no playoff?

I like your idea. A singular playoff to determine which of these three teams (NO, Memphis, Houston) really deserves to be in the playoffs. Since Rockets are 3 games back, they should lose and it all works out in the end the way it should. However, if the Rockets win, then we deserve to be in even if we cannot get closer to three games back in the race.

Then, going forward, each 8 seed has to have a singular playoff game with the 9 seed to see who really is worthy. Screw how it is working now and this 8 seed playoff race. Give the 9 seed a chance for crying out loud.

 

How are we still talking about tanking weeks after the trade deadline has passed? Tanking is 100% a management decision. It can only occur through the team trading away good current players for potentially good future players. Anything beyond that is pure fantasy. Coaches do not "throw games." Their job is to win.

 

That's a good point, and with the way Les has spent in previous years, and this year, I say he deserves to have guys that try to earn him some of that money back.

 

I understand about what you mean about where they are now, but if they performed how they have been in the past couple weeks in the playoffs with success... then they would essentially be the stars they would want to attract.

That is on a success level, which would be winning about 5 to 10 more games next season. Something I think can be done with some supporting help and better defense.

The difference is them doing what they are doing currently but doing it in the playoffs on the big stage.

You have to ask yourself what you really are wanting out of a "star." I think that word is used far to often to equate success in the NBA. Do you really want a player that can be win you games in the playoffs or do you just want the Hype of a star player?

These guys we have now might not be the Hyped up Lebron/Wade types of stars but more Tony Parker/Tim Duncan types of stars. Either you have Hype or you dont, but not having Hype does not mean you cant win and have success and become a star because of it.

 

*ahem*
Obligatory:

Spoiler

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/WRxm0oGbnRI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I disagree with those wanting to start tanking in December, but at least then it has a chance of working so it's justified from some point of view. Playing to lose now would be pointless; playing to make the playoffs (if it were to succeed) earns us some extra cash to keep Les happy, some playoff excitement, seasoning for our young core, and a small chance of a lightning in a bottle playoff run.

 

We have to put away Kings early. I have a feeling our luck turns and we lose to the Kings and Landry and Ariza stomp us the next night at N.O. Patterson has got to give it to Landry from the get go..

 

5 more games. Just sweep it and hope for a miracle.

 

Agreed, thats why I want us to make the playoffs

 

Given our players and how they played the last 20 or so games:

1. Most likely they would have a higher seed next year no matter what next year, playing like this for a full 82 game season.

2. Our team's modis operandi is to always play as hard as possible and outwork teams. Do you think they are not playing hard enough this year tha they need more motivation to step up to another gear?

Not true in trades. I continually ask people to give examples of players "whose TRADE value increased directly because of playoff experience" and not because of how they have always have played before. Player have improved their FA value, true; but not trade value.

Are you really worried about losing any of the players on this team? Every player getting decent minutes is on this team for 2 more seasons except for Goran Dragic. You that worried about losing Dragic.

Also, it has been proven that players almost always will try to maximize their salaries. If the players wants the money he will go to another team, even if he really likes the team and situation he is in.

Please Name 1 example of a Tier 1 superstar/Supreme player that joined a team not named the Celtics or Lakers that currently has NO superstar willingly and due to his own choice.

The Celtics lost a lot of games in the 90's. Is that franchise a loser?
The Bulls lost a lot of games in the 2000's. Is that franchise a loser?
The Heat lost a lot of games in the early 2000's. Is that franchise a loser?

Majority does not mean all. Missing the playoffs a few times does not make a team or franchise a loser, especially when 3 of the 4 times a franchise has missed the playoffs they have had one of the 10-15 best non-playoff clinching records in the history of the NBA.

Please keep going, but your point you have not yet made.