Recommended Posts

Listening to NBA players/coaches prattle on about race relations and "progress" is like listening to that beauty pageant winner explain why some Americans can't locate the U.S. on a world map. I enjoy the league and the sport, but enlightened my ass. These people are just indulging in identity politics and are as clueless as anyone else. I'm not going to tell them not to open their traps and to just stick to dribbling, but it doesn't mean I have to respect what they say or take it as gospel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, who do you think said:

Listening to NBA players/coaches prattle on about race relations and "progress" is like listening to that beauty pageant winner explain why some Americans can't locate the U.S. on a world map. I enjoy the league and the sport, but enlightened my ass. These people are just indulging in identity politics and are as clueless as anyone else. I'm not going to tell them not to open their traps and to just stick to dribbling, but it doesn't mean I have to respect what they say or take it as gospel.

 

When we talk, excruciatingly so, about the "enlightenment" of the NBA, who are the enlightened ones? The fans? media? players? coaches? management? marketing departments? owners? all of them all at once? My recent experience as a Bulls fan has included Derrick Rose mumbling about saving his knees for high school graduation ceremonies, the general manager literally trying to strangle the coach after a game, and terrible personnel decisions because people in the front office got into petty disagreements. I certainly haven't been wowed by these courageous progressives. Mostly they seem like dumb jocks and type-A nuts like just about everyone else in sports. What makes these basketball people think they're so special? "LeBron James is so dreamy. What if he were just like me?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pls quote in context. I said the NBA was enlightened compared to other American sports leagues. How is that wrong?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I got in trouble on this board once for saying MAGA ruined red MLB hats for me so this thread should go well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, DG_Now said:

Pls quote in context. I said the NBA was enlightened compared to other American sports leagues. How is that wrong?

 

Like you said, there's no ethical consumption under late-stage capitalism anyway. I've never thought that the league itself is conducting its business on a moral ground higher than that of the other leagues (or, for that matter, that of an alligator), they just benefit immensely from an extremely sympathetic fandom-media complex that elevates them because they themselves are right-thinking and want to project their political consensus onto their consumption to eliminate any cognitive dissonance that might come from a DeVos owning a team, or the Bucks raiding the state university's budget to build a new arena next door to their current arena next door to their old arena, or that professional athletes are still professional athletes with all the personal and ethical failings that attend that lifestyle no matter how well they're ghostwritten for online.

 

If we're not there already, we'll very soon be at a point where the NBA and NFL will be liberal and conservative cultural/political signifiers, respectively, with which their tribes bludgeon each other incessantly. There will be outliers, like the Seahawks and probably the Celtics, but liking a sport is going to say more about people than it ever has. Great, cool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really don't understand the problem. LeBron James uses his platform to say race relations are strained, and that's bad? The NBA uses an all-star game to protest odious anti-gay legislation, and that's a problem?

 

Yes, no one likes virtue signaling, but sometimes I think people are manufacturing who's signaling what. Strawmen are fun, but I'm not seeing the harm in appreciating a sports league for occasionally doing the right thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, the admiral said:

 

Like you said, there's no ethical consumption under late-stage capitalism anyway. I've never thought that the league itself is conducting its business on a moral ground higher than that of the other leagues (or, for that matter, that of an alligator), they just benefit immensely from an extremely sympathetic fandom-media complex that elevates them because they themselves are right-thinking and want to project their political consensus onto their consumption to eliminate any cognitive dissonance that might come from a DeVos owning a team, or the Bucks raiding the state university's budget to build a new arena next door to their current arena next door to their old arena, or that professional athletes are still professional athletes with all the personal and ethical failings that attend that lifestyle no matter how well they're ghostwritten for online.

 

Thanks for responding to an argument I actually made. And I mean that in all sincerity.

 

Most billionaires are terrible, so I'll take what I can get. It's all sports and sports are dumb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread wouldn't be off the rails if any of the 2nd round matchups were any good...I'm just saying

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, DG_Now said:

[words]

  • The Cavs, with Kyrie, TT, Dion Waiters, Anthony Bennett and Andrew Wiggins. They complimented their productive players with key trades (Love) and free agent signings (LeBron James)
  • The Celtics, who traded an old core for #1 picks, but got exceptional value from most of their picks (Rozier, Smart, Brown, Tatum), trades (IT, Irving), and free agent signings (Horford, Hayward maybe)
  • The Thunder, who drafted well (Westbrook, Durant, Ibaka and Harden). Ownership is terrible though, and got rid of Harden for no good reason.
  • The Rockets, who built through trades and free agency by having an actual plan and built complementary pieces around Harden
  • The Warriors, who hit home runs on draft picks (Curry, Thompson, Green) and free agent signings (Durant, Iguodola) and organizational philosophy centered around winning.
  • The Spurs, who admittedly lucked into Tim Duncan, but then used smart drafting to pick up Tony Parker, Manu, and Kawhi

[words]

 

You contradict yourself and endorse the process with every keystroke.  You've said that you need stars and that once teams get them they tend to stay good, and it's hard to get good.  You post a list of teams, of which 2 (Cavs and Spurs) were ridiculously lucky to have the GOAT growing up in their back yard (Cavs) and luck into the top pic the year that a generational player was availalbe to build a franchise around... and discover an all-time great coach out of nowhere (spurs).  GSW and Boston - sure, they're outliers that had a combo of great leadership and luck.  It would be great to be able to do that, but it's just not realistic for the 99%.  The other teams on that list are irrelevant.  I laugh at them.  Ha ha.  The Sixers weren't trying to be the Rockets or Thunder.  They want to be legit contenders every year, not just be pretty good and maybe make a Finals every few years.

 

Coangelo is a joke.  Seriously - between the two, they've been running teams for like 60 years, and won absolutely nothing.  Again - Coangelos have won absolutely nothing, but you all want to suck both their deeks.  Coangelo got sodomized and then took a money shot right to the grill from Ainge in the Fultz deal.  Gee whiz, a division rival and contender is totally cool with giving you the top pick in the draft - shouldn't that have told him something?

 

I won't disagree that Hinkie didn't have an end in sight, but I don't think that was his job (despite what he thought).  His job was to break it down and acquire assets, then when the time was right, bring in a "basketball guy" to build it back up, which is exactly what they did - except that they brought in basketball DOPES.

 

I won't dereal this much more with Hinkie talk, but I'm not trolling and legitimately do think that you unknowingly support him whether you want to lower yourself to admitting it or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hinkie traded his assets for future assets. Good GMs do that sometimes but they also remember to balance in acquiring contributors as well. That's the difference. Hinkie never tried to get a player who would improve the team.

 

EDIT: Which team did you enjoy more? 2016-17? Or 17-18? Hinkie was never going to give you the latter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BringBackTheVet said:

 

You contradict yourself and endorse the process with every keystroke.  You've said that you need stars and that once teams get them they tend to stay good, and it's hard to get good.  You post a list of teams, of which 2 (Cavs and Spurs) were ridiculously lucky to have the GOAT growing up in their back yard (Cavs) and luck into the top pic the year that a generational player was availalbe to build a franchise around... and discover an all-time great coach out of nowhere (spurs).  GSW and Boston - sure, they're outliers that had a combo of great leadership and luck.  It would be great to be able to do that, but it's just not realistic for the 99%.  The other teams on that list are irrelevant.  I laugh at them.  Ha ha.  The Sixers weren't trying to be the Rockets or Thunder.  They want to be legit contenders every year, not just be pretty good and maybe make a Finals every few years.

 

Coangelo is a joke.  Seriously - between the two, they've been running teams for like 60 years, and won absolutely nothing.  Again - Coangelos have won absolutely nothing, but you all want to suck both their deeks.  Coangelo got sodomized and then took a money shot right to the grill from Ainge in the Fultz deal.  Gee whiz, a division rival and contender is totally cool with giving you the top pick in the draft - shouldn't that have told him something?

 

I won't disagree that Hinkie didn't have an end in sight, but I don't think that was his job (despite what he thought).  His job was to break it down and acquire assets, then when the time was right, bring in a "basketball guy" to build it back up, which is exactly what they did - except that they brought in basketball DOPES.

 

I won't dereal this much more with Hinkie talk, but I'm not trolling and legitimately do think that you unknowingly support him whether you want to lower yourself to admitting it or not.

 

"they're outliers that had a combo of great leadership and luck"

 

Isn't that the very nature of pro sports, though? Is what the Sixers are doing really so special and different than what the Warriors did, e.g. draft well consistently and put yourself in position for a star FA?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To repeat, the Sixers threw away four seasons. Other teams don't do that.

 

Edit: put another way, the Sixers forfeit four seasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, DG_Now said:

To repeat, the Sixers threw away four seasons. Other teams don't do that.

 

Edit: put another way, the Sixers forfeit four seasons.

Meh, the Twolves and Kings have kinda done unintentionally for the last decade and the Warriors did it before the '07 "We Believe" season.

 

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Horford is making the Cavs look like a bunch of dorks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not saying that Toronto should look at this game right now and commit mass seppuku.  I'm just saying they should look at this game, blow it all up, and at least strongly consider collective ritual suicide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let’s be honest, we all knew it’d be a game like this. We all just thought the score would be the other way around. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cavs keep on threatening to cut it to 15, 12 before the 4th. If they could get there, they'd have a chance. But once they cut it to 18, the Celtics respond. If James weren't playing like garbage, this would be a much different game. That said, James is playing like garbage in large part because Brad Stevens is a damn genius.

 

I don't think the Cavs can win today, but I remember the Cavs being down 14 or so at the end of the third in game 1 against Toronto, and feeling like the Cavs had it in the bag.

 

Everything is going right for Boston today. Cavs are putrid from 3. The and-1 opportunities aren't falling. James is doing his favorite thing of dropping game 1. And yet, I've seen this enough to know you can't count out the Cavs until they're down 30 in the fourth.

 

EDIT: The number in my head the Cavs need was 14 at the end of the third, and that's where they ended. If Boston starts the fourth on a 7-0 run, that might be the game. But this is definitely not in the bag yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even when The Celtics had that 61-35 lead at The Half, I knew the game wasn’t safe. 

It was inevitable that Lebron was going to close The gap eventually. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now