- Joined
- Aug 29, 2011
- Messages
- 4,322
- Reaction Score
- 7,373
Today I'd rather be a Sixers fan that Nets or Sacto - but you are comparing yourself favorably only to the very worst run franchise's in all of basketball. Again, congrats!! As a general fan of the NBA and Celtics fan I'd much rather see Kings or Nets over the past few years because they made an attempt to be competitive. They were brutally failed attempts & horrible GM decisions, but they tried.No it didn't go over my head, I guess I should have expressly mentioned that if/when the Sixers are competitive again, especially if they become quite good, people will be fine with the tanking years. How much more entertained are you by winning 21 games instead of 10? You're willing to pay real money for 3 points of point differential per game as opposed to no money? Come on.
Sixers fans weren't forced to go to the games when they were tanking. But those same fans are going to be quite happy if/when they're competing, and it will be considered worth it. I know this, because it always is.
Having a logical plan to improve is so much better than supporting a team who mortgaged it's own future. Sixers were cupboard bare after making a decent move to try and get Andrew Bynum, whose health and desire imploded, a move made by Hinkie's predecessor.
A fan that is willing to pay money to go see a 30-52 for 5 years with no plan to improve, vs. not going for 3 years and then competing? Poll any fanbase, see which one they want.
Yes - totally tossing 3 years in the crapper is a viable strategy to get good 5 years later (and a better strategy than what the worst GM in the league Billy Hunter did, again congratulations not in order) , but I think its not the only or best strategy and I think it comes at a large unconscionably selfish detriment to the rest of the league.