Yeah, I just disagree. Especially about the extreme part. Almost everything in this world can be productive in moderation and unhealthy in extremes. To say Philly went all out and still failed reinforces your point is just wrong. I think good things can be overdone until its a bad thing. I apologize if my hypothetical was inappropriate. Just a random example of something that is healthy in small amounts and deadly in large amounts. I will make another analogy that is more applicable later on. I think when putting together a championship team, there have to be "what if's" along the way for every team. Everything is a gamble, and just like Poker or Black Jack, you make the decisions that give you the best chance of winning and live with the results. Many posters still think that if Chris Paul doesn't pull his hammy, that the Rockets could have won the championship, am I okay with that, I think it's valid. . Let me ask you about the T-Wolves last season. They were a bottom 3 team for like 90% of the season and then in the last few weeks started winning meaningless games. It took their Lottery odds of keeping their pick from 40% to 27%. 13% doesn't sound significant, until you realize that the worst team in the league only has a 14% of getting the top pick. In that context 13% is massive. Here is my question, if you are a T-Wolves fan, was it worth winning those extra 4 or 5 games to be the 6th worst team in the league, just for pride? I disagree with the move personally. Yes, of course there is no guarantee that they keep their pick by losing more, by it's a valid "what if". Basically, I'm taking your extreme argument and going the opposite direction. Can tanking for 2 weeks help your team in the long run, and in my opinion the answer is a resounding Yes. Tanking never working is false. The Spurs before they got Duncan may be the best example, heck didn't the Rockets tank for Hakeem? Steph could have come back way earlier last season but Golden State knew that this league is ring or bust and decided that tanking for one season was the best thing to do. That is basically the league's best team tanking as recently as last season. It's not a once in 30 years thing. Time will tell with OKC, they seem to be most recent example of a team that is sacrificing a little in the present for a chance to win in the future. Me saying that tanking always works would be ridiculous, I think it's a valid argument for both sides. You may be right in this discussion, but it's not as cut and dry as you make it. We both want the same thing, Rockets victories. This forum has turned into a constant debate of Mobley or Green, or trade Wood or not, or Tank or not. Everybody has to roast everybody if they don't see eye to eye. I'm not even trying to change your mind, because again, you may be right. I'm simply just stating why I think my points are valid, and not trying to win an argument that can't be won by either side. Happy New Year BTW.
Nope, Rockets got Tate back and we're almost back at full strength. Game's definitely not going to be a blow out tonight. We may win.
