CubsFanBudMan Posted April 26, 2014 Share Posted April 26, 2014 The Cavs are not storied enough to pull it off here... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbadefense1990 Posted April 26, 2014 Share Posted April 26, 2014 I find it so hard to believe that the Bucks once had Oscar and Kareem at the same time. The Bucks are the definition of mediocre, star-less basketball, yet they had 2 of the best players ever on their roster for a few years.It's also hard to believe how people forget how great they were in the 1980s. People often forget how good Sidney Moncrief, Jack Sikma, Terry Cummings and Ricky Pierce were together. People often forget that the Bucks won a string of division titles with this core together. But sadly, they get scrapped aside because of their competition in the East in that decade (Hawks, Pistons, 76ers, Celtics). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KDubK414 Posted April 26, 2014 Share Posted April 26, 2014 Those were the words I was looking for. Plus the ineptitude of management in the 90's. The bucks have as much of a storied franchise as any other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BBTV Posted April 27, 2014 Share Posted April 27, 2014 Those were the words I was looking for. Plus the ineptitude of management in the 90's. The bucks have as much of a storied franchise as any other.The second and third sentences kinda contradict each other here. The third one is delusional. "The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lights Out Posted April 27, 2014 Share Posted April 27, 2014 The wrong team got sold. POTD: 2/4/12 3/4/12 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Admiral Posted April 27, 2014 Share Posted April 27, 2014 While certainly not a virulent perverted racist, Herb Kohl was a meddling doofus who held back his team, so a right team got sold after all. ♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigers6884 Posted April 27, 2014 Share Posted April 27, 2014 Honestly, I've been an NBA fan my entire life, and I've never looked at the Knicks the same way as franchises like the Dallas Cowboys, LA Lakers, NY Yankees, Boston Celtics, etc. The Knicks always seemed like wannabe blowhards to me, out of the Giants, Yankees, and Rangers, they're the clear "little brother." I remember being stunned (and rather annoyed) to discover that despite the hype they get sometimes, that they've only won two NBA titles. I feel that if you take "New York" out of the equation, you get a franchise that's no doubt lumped in with teams like the Sixers, Bulls, Pistons, Spurs, and Heat, who are all big deals, but not really BIG deals, y'know?If there's one thing we can all agree on though, it's that Milwaukee doesn't matter. This thread's about them, and they've been cast aside in favor of a more interesting topic. LOL... I had to double check the title of the thread to even remember what it was about. I've just been clicking and replying blindly for the past couple of pages.Threads like this are just begging for a good old-fashioned Clevejacking!Clevejacking? Please explain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wonderbread Posted April 27, 2014 Share Posted April 27, 2014 Honestly, I've been an NBA fan my entire life, and I've never looked at the Knicks the same way as franchises like the Dallas Cowboys, LA Lakers, NY Yankees, Boston Celtics, etc. The Knicks always seemed like wannabe blowhards to me, out of the Giants, Yankees, and Rangers, they're the clear "little brother." I remember being stunned (and rather annoyed) to discover that despite the hype they get sometimes, that they've only won two NBA titles. I feel that if you take "New York" out of the equation, you get a franchise that's no doubt lumped in with teams like the Sixers, Bulls, Pistons, Spurs, and Heat, who are all big deals, but not really BIG deals, y'know?If there's one thing we can all agree on though, it's that Milwaukee doesn't matter. This thread's about them, and they've been cast aside in favor of a more interesting topic. LOL... I had to double check the title of the thread to even remember what it was about. I've just been clicking and replying blindly for the past couple of pages.Threads like this are just begging for a good old-fashioned Clevejacking!Clevejacking? Please explain.The Cleveland teams seem to get mentioned in threads they have no purpose being in thus hijacking the thread Cleveland+hijack=clevejacked Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 The Knicks always seemed like wannabe blowhards to me, out of the Giants, Yankees, and Rangers, they're the clear "little brother."The Rangers?No, I don't think that's clear. At all. The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Admiral Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 Yeah, if anything, the Rangers are the team that has tried in vain to be its league's designated Big Swingin' Dick New York Team, but can't be because it's simply not the nature of the NHL nor of hockey to just go out and sign a bunch of big names. I mean, honestly, what big names? ♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FiddySicks Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 Yeah, I simply can't put the Lakers in a tier all to themselves when Boston still has more championships than them. They're definitely on the same level as one another, but the Lakers aren't on their own level IMO. On 11/19/2012 at 7:23 PM, oldschoolvikings said: She’s still half convinced “Chris Creamer” is a porn site.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rams80 Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 Yeah, I simply can't put the Lakers in a tier all to themselves when Boston still has more championships than them. They're definitely on the same level as one another, but the Lakers aren't on their own level IMO.The league hasn't manipulated itself to benefit the Celtics nearly as much as it has to benefit the Lakers. If it did, Tim Duncan would be a Boston legend. On 8/1/2010 at 4:01 PM, winters in buffalo said: You manage to balance agitation with just enough salient points to keep things interesting. Kind of a low-rent DG_Now. On 1/2/2011 at 9:07 PM, Sodboy13 said: Today, we are all otaku. "The city of Peoria was once the site of the largest distillery in the world and later became the site for mass production of penicillin. So it is safe to assume that present-day Peorians are descended from syphilitic boozehounds."-Stephen Colbert POTD: February 15, 2010, June 20, 2010 The Glorious Bloom State Penguins (NCFAF) 2014: 2-9, 2015: 7-5 (L Pineapple Bowl), 2016: 1-0 (NCFAB) 2014-15: 10-8, 2015-16: 14-5 (SMC Champs, L 1st Round February Frenzy) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigers6884 Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 Honestly, I've been an NBA fan my entire life, and I've never looked at the Knicks the same way as franchises like the Dallas Cowboys, LA Lakers, NY Yankees, Boston Celtics, etc. The Knicks always seemed like wannabe blowhards to me, out of the Giants, Yankees, and Rangers, they're the clear "little brother." I remember being stunned (and rather annoyed) to discover that despite the hype they get sometimes, that they've only won two NBA titles. I feel that if you take "New York" out of the equation, you get a franchise that's no doubt lumped in with teams like the Sixers, Bulls, Pistons, Spurs, and Heat, who are all big deals, but not really BIG deals, y'know?If there's one thing we can all agree on though, it's that Milwaukee doesn't matter. This thread's about them, and they've been cast aside in favor of a more interesting topic. LOL... I had to double check the title of the thread to even remember what it was about. I've just been clicking and replying blindly for the past couple of pages.Threads like this are just begging for a good old-fashioned Clevejacking!Clevejacking? Please explain.The Cleveland teams seem to get mentioned in threads they have no purpose being in thus hijacking the thread Cleveland+hijack=clevejackedOh, that makes sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xist2inspire Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 The Knicks always seemed like wannabe blowhards to me, out of the Giants, Yankees, and Rangers, they're the clear "little brother."The Rangers?No, I don't think that's clear. At all.They're older (O6 franchise), have won more Stanley Cups (4) than the Knicks have won NBA Finals (2), and have been to the Stanley Cup Finals (9) more than the Knicks have been to the NBA Finals (7). At the very least, they're neck-and-neck. (I guess I should've removed the "clear" part of my statement, then...)I just never understood how anyone could possibly think that the Knicks deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as the Lakers & Celtics, two teams that actually have the success, as well as the history, to back up their hype. Again, take away the New York media factor, and the Knicks are a Sixers, Spurs, Bulls-level team. Which, in the NBA, is nothing to be ashamed about really.Anyway, back to Milwaukee ()..... Tradition is the foundation of innovation, and not the enemy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viper Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 Yeah, arenas are irrelevant in this discussion lol. I would group the Knicks, 76ers, Pistons and now the Spurs together as 2nd tier franchise. The NBA`s flagships are definitely: Boston LA Lakers Chicago 2nd Tier New York Philadelphia Detroit San Antonio Miami 3rd Tier Dallas Houston Phoenix Portland Indiana Meh Utah Toronto Washington Orlando Brooklyn Atlanta Cleveland Denver OKC Bottom of the Barrel Charlotte New Orleans Minnesota Clippers Golden State Milwaukee Memphis SacramentoConsidering (1) how heavily the NBA relies on star power for marketing, (2) what big brands its biggest stars have developed in their own right, (3) how easily those biggest stars can choose not only where they want to play but with whom, and (4) how much an NBA team's competitive fortunes at the mercy of its emerging stars' decisions to either stick around or bolt for greener pastures, it seems to me that a franchise's "storied history" is just one of several factors that determine a franchise's place on the NBA pyramid. Market size (the bigger, the better for a star player to build his own brand) and quality-of-life considerations (nightlife, tolerable winters etc.) are also factors. Taking all of the above into account, here's how I would stack 'em: Tier I (Storied history and/or recent titles? Check. Top 10 media market? Check. City worthy of a superstar athlete? Check.) Bulls, Lakers, Celtics Tier II (Two out of three ain't bad.) Clippers, Heat, Knicks, Mavericks, Nets, Rockets, Spurs, Warriors Tier III (Meh.) Grizzlies, Hawks, Bobcats/Hornets, Kings, Magic, Nuggets, Pelicans, Raptors, Sixers, Suns, Thunder, Wizards Tier IV (Might as well be in Siberia; OK place for a budding star to develop but forget about keeping him around for his prime years) Blazers, Bucks, Cavaliers, Jazz, Pacers, Pistons, Timberwolves (Note that I didn't include "being a title condenter now" as a factor, as that can change from year to year, but tends to favor the Tier I and II teams anyway.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tigerslionspistonshabs Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 A lot of the teams you list though seem to change from year to year; or every 5-10 years. For example, in Tier II, the Clippers and Warriors, up until about 5-6 years ago, were complete and total jokes of the league. In 10 years, who knows. The others (Mavs, Rockets, Spurs, Knicks, Heat) have had consistently good or great teams for long enough whether now or in the past and/or have won enough titles to solidify their spot. I would also include the Pistons and Sixers in here. IMO, that's the most important factor. The Nets I would agree with just based on the other factors you listed plus they've been fairly good for the better part of the past 15 years as well. The Pacers are teetering between Tier II and III, but at this point I would put them on the outside looking in. If this team they have now can turn into an east powerhouse for the next few years, I think they move up. Bobcats/Hornets in Tier III? They're owned by the best player of all time, and are still a complete afterthought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhantomDreamer Posted May 2, 2014 Share Posted May 2, 2014 The Mavs have not been consistently good or great. The Mavericks cannot be considered a "storied" NBA franchise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.