Reply With Quote
They won too many games early that season because they had playoff hopes but after Robinson broke his foot the tank was on and there was no rush to get him back on the court.
Now can you admit the truth that the Lakers colluded with Memphis to acquire Gasol?
They won too many games early that season because they had playoff hopes but after Robinson broke his foot the tank was on and there was no rush to get him back on the court.
lol "out of the ashes of the Dalllas ABA franchise"
Wow, a whole two teams had a better chance. Play again.
Just like I said the spurs moved up the chance draft board by not bringing back Robinson towards the end of that season. Good move on their part.
The 05 Lakers?
Do you understand how percentages work?
Never stops all you idiots who bring up the Gasol trade daily now does it?
It doesn't bother me. The season was over. No sense in subjucting DRob to further injury and you better your odds at the lotto. It was a prudent move. The fact that spur fans get all defensive and act like it never happened is what I find comical.Homer spur fans are the ones who cannot accept that the spurs could even think about tanking. After all the spurs are the good guys of the NBA and never pull anything shady.
This is what I am saying. I'm not defensive about what they did. I am just saying that there was no guarantee that they would get Duncan and the rest of the draftboard was extremely unimpressive.
I agree. I like the spurs, I dislike many of the biased homers on this board.
If you dont think the upper brass got together and posed the question then you are a tad naive. As you said, their season was pretty much over and no sense in risking further injury to DRob (even though he was cleared to play). Of course they discussed it. Call it whatever you want, the Spurs made a conscious decision not to play one of their key players down the stretch wich increased their lotto odds.
Tank seems appropriate to me...
If they sat Kobe out so not to "risk" injury I'd say yes.
Whoever said they were guaranteed. They improved their chances by keeping Robinson out because it was a lost season anyways and it paid off.
did they?
Naturally...
If the front office discussed nothing of the sort, they why was the decision made to sit him out? Usually when a player is injured and he recovers, it's a no brainer that he play the next game he is healthy.
So considering the fact that he did not, then we know the Spurs brass got together and made a collective decision that they felt would be most beneficial to their franchise.
It was all very good luck. The Spurs being able to land a once in every 10 year player in Duncan, just like the Lakers getting a all star caliber big man for peanuts, from a team whose owner was supposedly cash strapped and his GM/consultant just so happening to have very strong Laker ties.
Try to keep up with the thread big guy.
Lakers have repeated "luck" multiple times over multiple generations unlike the Spurs who've managed only to get this "lucky" once.
Hence the initial question posed in the very first post of this thread.
Lol @ this thread being "dead."
Not defensive in the slightest. Smart move is to tank.
What I find comical is when morons like history2b try to use it to discredit the Spurs franchise and their championships, while being oblivious to the fact that the Lakers had two very lucky breaks in 80s, which if didn't happen, likely means that Showtime never happens.
The Spurs actually got lucky twice(87) with the Admiral. Now if we just could get Sam Presti to give Durant to us for Splitter, we be STACKEDDDDDD!!!!
Of course there was no guarantee. But the losses did improve the odds. It was a tank and a gamble and it paid off.
Not trying to discredit anything.
I am simply calling it out for what it is; an aberration.
I never said they didn't discuss it. That's not the point. There were plenty of reasons to sit Robinson out.
I guess I'm a little hung up on the perceived definition of "tanking" here. I don't think keeping your franchise player out for the last stretch of games after he missed half the season qualifies. It makes more sense that they are protecting an investment. It may have increased their lotto odds, but it's not like playing Robinson off an injury would have pulled them out of the lottery either. They might have consciously taken a gamble on their odds at Duncan, but they were nowhere close to Boston in that regard.
They got extremely lucky. End of story.
You dont win championshiops without luck.
Only two franchise have won championships over multiple generations.
And the way you worded your opening paragraph implies that the Lakers have dominated literally every decade since their inception. Compared to the Celtics, they're a relative newcomer. 80s and 00s* (Chokers and whipping boys in the 60s, the Miami Heat of the 70s, and the laughing stock of the 90s.HIV and Randy Pfund.)
So congrats on having one more decade of success than the Spurs
*
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
