SI article mentioning the spurs and tanking in 97

[wontstartdumbthreads]

Great, the NBA forum downstairs will give you all the attention you need to relieve your boredom.



Na, attention telling me I'm right means nothing to me.

I just checked out the NBA forum and it looked like just a bunch of off topic stuff so I didn't stick around.

Do you know any funny/interesting websites?

[duncan228]

Everyone thought TD was going to Boston.

Yup.

[Spurminator]

It would have been stupid to bring David Robinson back to play the final few games of a lost season. Call it tanking if you want, but I would have been pissed as a fan that we were jeopardizing DRob's future for a few meaningless wins.

We got lucky in the Lottery, but someone has to win it. Given the amount of great work that has gone into not only KEEPING Duncan in San Antonio but surrounding him with talent and remaining elite all of these years, to say all of the Spurs' success is based on their tank job in 1997 is pretty narrow minded.

[Blake]

That they would get Tim Duncan. I just can't state it any more simply. Sorry.

so it was not a gamble to sit Robinson but they gambled that they would get Duncan.

sorry you don't understand what it means to gamble.

[rascal]

That they would get Tim Duncan. I just can't state it any more simply. Sorry.

Thats not at all a gamble. It was more of a gamble to play Robinson and increase the odds of getting more wins to decrease the odds to land Duncan.

[ohmwrecker]

so it was not a gamble to sit Robinson but they gambled that they would get Duncan.

sorry you don't understand what it means to gamble.

Gambling the future of the franchise on a 21% chance that a bunch of ping pong balls bounce your way? If you can honestly tell me that the Spurs would've been just as successful with KVH as their #1 draft pick, or that their decision to leave Robinson out wasn't at least partially based on the small chance of getting Duncan in the draft, and that after making that decision they did not try to intentionally lose games to increase their chances, then you, sir, just cannot be reasoned with.

[wontstartdumbthreads]

Thats not at all a gamble. It was more of a gamble to play Robinson and increase the odds of getting more wins to decrease the odds to land Duncan.

LOL. What? It fits the classic definition of a gamble.

[rascal]

I'm not arguing this point. I don't see what is so difficult to understand here.



Exactly what I said . . . again, you are arguing a moot point.



Apparently so . . . the "gamble' they took was on the future of the franchise. Tim Duncan was the only franchise player in the draft. If they wanted to hedge their bets, they could have lost more games. They played out the season with their best hand (not risking Robinson) and let the ping pong balls fall were they may.

They did not play the season with their best hand as Robinson was cleared to play but held out.

[rascal]

LOL. What? It fits the classic definition of a gamble.

So it was more of a gamble to sit Robinson instead of playing Robinson to decrease the odds of getting Duncan in a lost season?
Now that doesn't make any sense.

[rascal]

LOL. What? It fits the classic definition of a gamble.

There was nothing to lose since the spurs were not going to make the playoffs anyways by sitting Robinson. It was more of a gamble to play Robinson and mess up their odds to get Duncan.

[HarlemHeat37]

Hey rascal, sorry about the Lakers' loss to the Cavs last night, uh, must have hit hard..

[wontstartdumbthreads]

There was nothing to lose since the spurs were not going to make the playoffs anyways by sitting Robinson. It was more of a gamble to play Robinson and mess up their odds to get Duncan.

I agree. There was no real wager the Spurs made. Nothing risked.

[ohmwrecker]

Thats not at all a gamble. It was more of a gamble to play Robinson and increase the odds of getting more wins to decrease the odds to land Duncan.

We've been over that already. The Spurs made a decision to keep Robinson out for the last 20 games (approx.). This decision was at least partially based on the fact that ONE legit franchise player was available at the #1 pick in the draft. Knowing that it would only increase their chances at the #1 pick to "lose out" the remainder of the season, The Spurs, to the best of my knowledge, played out the remainder of the season in a compe ive manner with the limited roster that they had. Therefore, "risking" crucial % points in the lottery.

[Blake]

Thats not at all a gamble. It was more of a gamble to play Robinson and increase the odds of getting more wins to decrease the odds to land Duncan.

^ he gets it.

Gambling the future of the franchise on a 21% chance that a bunch of ping pong balls bounce your way? If you can honestly tell me that the Spurs would've been just as successful with KVH as their #1 draft pick, or that their decision to leave Robinson out wasn't at least partially based on the small chance of getting Duncan in the draft, and that after making that decision they did not try to intentionally lose games to increase their chances, then you, sir, just cannot be reasoned with.

You aren't going to reason with me regarding the definition of "gamble".

The gamble would have been if they would have played Robinson as they might have won more games and risked injury.

The safe play was to let him sit, rest up and increase the odds of getting Duncan. There was no risk and no loss in doing that.

You simply had it backwards. No worries.

[ohmwrecker]

You simply had it backwards. No worries.

My position is not pro or con the decision to rest Robinson for the remainder of the season. You keep trying to make that my argument, but it's not and it never was. What I am saying is that once that decision is made the Spurs are obviously saying, "We are going after Duncan in the draft." My idea of "tanking" at that point, would be to try to lose as many games as possible to increase your odds at the #1 pick. Which, it seems, they did not do. And that . . . was the gamble.

[Blake]

My position is not pro or con the decision to rest Robinson for the remainder of the season. You keep trying to make that my argument, but it's not and it never was. What I am saying is that once that decision is made the Spurs are obviously saying, "We are going after Duncan in the draft." My idea of "tanking" at that point, would be to try to lose as many games as possible to increase your odds at the #1 pick. Which, it seems, they did not do. And that . . . was the gamble.

so you think starting Cory Alexander, Carl Herrera, Cadillac Anderson, Vinny Del Negro and an old Dominique Wilkins was a big gamble in that those guys might have won too many games.

thanks for finally clarifying.

[ohmwrecker]

so you think starting Cory Alexander, Carl Herrera, Cadillac Anderson, Vinny Del Negro and an old Dominique Wilkins was a big gamble in that those guys might have won too many games.

thanks for finally clarifying.

The underwhelming nature of a Spurs roster minus David Robinson and Sean Elliott is not under debate. Did they purposefully lose games?

[Blake]

Did they purposefully lose games?

I don't think they did.

I don't think forfeiting the games is an option.

Therefore there is no gamble involved.

[MannyIsGod]

Anyone who says the Spurs tanked in 97 simply doesn't know what the word tank actually means.

[coyotes_geek]

Anyone who says the Spurs tanked in 97 simply doesn't know what the word tank actually means.

So, what does the word "tank" actually mean?

Different people have different definitions of what qualifies and what doesn't.

[Blake]

Anyone who says the Spurs tanked in 97 simply doesn't know what the word tank actually means.

I think they tanked as much as they thought they could without breaking any rules.

[rascal]

so you think starting Cory Alexander, Carl Herrera, Cadillac Anderson, Vinny Del Negro and an old Dominique Wilkins was a big gamble in that those guys might have won too many games.

thanks for finally clarifying.

Maybe he expected the spurs to field a team full of 10 day contracts.

[rascal]

Hey rascal, sorry about the Lakers' loss to the Cavs last night, uh, must have hit hard..

Never liked the Lakers.

[rascal]

The underwhelming nature of a Spurs roster minus David Robinson and Sean Elliott is not under debate. Did they purposefully lose games?

The players tried to win, management did not try to field the best team by sitting Robinson. Why is that so hard for you to figure out?

[rascal]

Anyone who says the Spurs tanked in 97 simply doesn't know what the word tank actually means.

OK big shot what does the word tank mean to you?
This guy thinks he is the biggest know it all on this site.

Manny is God. Don't tell me your name is Manny.