# new york knicks what a bunch douchebags...



## bootstrenf (May 24, 2006)

leading in the 4th quarter against the celtics....then they sit their starters....another blatant tank job....what a bunch of douchebags....may another 10 years of futility befall them...i hope karma gives them what they deserve come draft time...


----------



## afobisme (Apr 29, 2006)

didn't the clippers tank a few games in the 05-06 season to get in position for denveR? not sure how that's different than this.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/200604160LAC.html
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/boxscore?gameId=260418029

don't get me wrong.. im not judging/criticizing the clippers like you are doing the knicks.. im just saying that it looks like a tank job when the clippers best player plays under 30 minutes. sam and chris didn't play at all yet they're ready and fresh for denver. i could be wrong, but i just remember the clippers getting a little criticism during that time.

here's a link of april 22nd, their first game against the nuggets http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/boxscore?gameId=260422012


----------



## MicCheck12 (Aug 12, 2005)

Who cares ESPN Mock Draft had the clippers go number 1.....Your Welcome


----------



## afobisme (Apr 29, 2006)

what's funny to me is that the knicks gave all 20k of their fans free food... only to tank the end of the game. pretty ironic to me.


----------



## ElMarroAfamado (Nov 1, 2005)

who cares about a pick jesus christ
im sure the clippers will find a way to **** it up


----------



## PAIDNFULL23 (Jul 9, 2005)

I don't even care anymore. Whatever happens, happens and that's it. The Clippers better just work with whatever pick they get and make the best of it.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

bootstrenf said:


> leading in the 4th quarter against the celtics....then they sit their starters....another blatant tank job....what a bunch of douchebags....may another 10 years of futility befall them...i hope karma gives them what they deserve come draft time...


kevin garnett, ray allen, and paul pierce didn't play. you don't really have anything to complain about.


----------



## bootstrenf (May 24, 2006)

rocketeer said:


> kevin garnett, ray allen, and paul pierce didn't play. you don't really have anything to complain about.


no **** they didn't play...that's why the knicks were actually winning....they were leading and then they put in their bench players....


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

bootstrenf said:


> no **** they didn't play...that's why the knicks were actually winning....they were leading and then they put in their bench players....


so? playoff teams can rest their starters for their advantage but lottery teams can't do that same?


----------



## bootstrenf (May 24, 2006)

afobisme said:


> didn't the clippers tank a few games in the 05-06 season to get in position for denveR? not sure how that's different than this.
> 
> http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/200604160LAC.html
> http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/boxscore?gameId=260418029
> ...



what the clippers did was playoff positioning...putting themselves in the best position to get further in the playoffs....and it worked...they got into the second round and eventually lost in 7 games to the suns....


the knicks, deliberately lost a game with no other purpose than to get the worst record possible....the grizzlies, knicks, and especially the heat do not deserve a top two pick....


i hope the clippers and minnesota get the first two picks....neither team has tanked and have tried to do their best regardless of how hopeless this season has been....


----------



## bootstrenf (May 24, 2006)

rocketeer said:


> so? playoff teams can rest their starters for their advantage but lottery teams can't do that same?


like i said, they are two different things....


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

bootstrenf said:


> like i said, they are two different things....


they aren't two different things at all. both are intentionally resting players to gain an advantage over other teams. and no they didn't intentionally lose the game, they just put in their backups.


----------



## bootstrenf (May 24, 2006)

rocketeer said:


> they aren't two different things at all. both are intentionally resting players to gain an advantage over other teams. and no they didn't intentionally lose the game, they just put in their backups.


not intentionally losing the game??? you freaking serious???? going into the 4th with a lead then they pull their starters??? that's not intentional???? okay, whatever you say....


----------



## PAIDNFULL23 (Jul 9, 2005)

Minnesota are worse in my eyes than the Knicks, the Heat or the Grizzles in regards to tanking. Last year they pulled the most obvious tank job in history with Mark Madsen taking 7 threes in one game and not making any of them. They also sat KG in the last couple of weeks, which directly affected the Clippers last season b/c they wanted to prevent finishing outside of the bottom 10, thus not having to give their pick to the Clips. So to me they don't deserve a top pick. 

The only lottery team that truly deserve a top pick is the Warriors, a team that would have made the playoffs in any other year. I would have also said the Blazers deserve a top pick, but them luck son of a *****es don't need anymore help after winning the lottery last year.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

bootstrenf said:


> not intentionally losing the game??? you freaking serious???? going into the 4th with a lead then they pull their starters??? that's not intentional???? okay, whatever you say....


they put in worse players who are still trying to win the game. and how exactly is there any difference in "purposely losing games" to get a worse playoff seed to help the team any different than "porposely losing games" to have a worse record to get better odds at a draft pick? there is no difference. if you're against one, you should be against the other.


----------



## bootstrenf (May 24, 2006)

rocketeer said:


> they put in worse players who are still trying to win the game. and how exactly is there any difference in "purposely losing games" to get a worse playoff seed to help the team any different than "porposely losing games" to have a worse record to get better odds at a draft pick? there is no difference. if you're against one, you should be against the other.



are you reading my posts??? i clearly define the difference.....in one case, you are trying to actually get further in the playoffs....trying to get to the championship in the best manner possible....


when you tank for a lottery position, what are you accomplishing??? not a damn thing...look at what happened to memphis and the grizzlies last year....they didn't gain any type of so-called "advantage"...


do you still not understand the difference???? if you think that i am wrong, then that is your opinion, and i really don't care....we can agree to disagree....


and you claim that the knicks were still trying to win???that's laughable when their best players weren't even on the court....


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

bootstrenf said:


> are you reading my posts??? i clearly define the difference.....in one case, you are trying to actually get further in the playoffs....trying to get to the championship in the best manner possible....
> 
> 
> when you tank for a lottery position, what are you accomplishing??? not a damn thing...look at what happened to memphis and the grizzlies last year....they didn't gain any type of so-called "advantage"...
> ...


in one, you are purposely losing to get better position in the playoffs.
in the other, you are purposely losing to get better percentages to get better position in the draft.

better position in the playoffs helps the team. better percentages to get a higher draft pick helps the team. if you can't see that, i can't help you.

and yes, the players on the court for the knicks were trying to win the game. the players on the court are always trying to win the games.

and yes memphis last year did gain an advantage. they had better chances to get a better pick.


----------



## bootstrenf (May 24, 2006)

rocketeer said:


> in one, you are purposely losing to get better position in the playoffs.
> in the other, you are purposely losing to get better percentages to get better position in the draft.
> 
> better position in the playoffs helps the team. better percentages to get a higher draft pick helps the team. if you can't see that, i can't help you.
> ...


and you keep repeating yourself with the same nonsense....


does anyone here have a relevant opinion??? feel free to chime in....i'm done with this guy....


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

bootstrenf said:


> and you keep repeating yourself with the same nonsense....


you don't think have a better chance at getting a top two pick is an advantage?


----------



## bootstrenf (May 24, 2006)

rocketeer said:


> you don't think have a better chance at getting a top two pick is an advantage?


the clippers benefited from their actions...they almost swept the nuggets and got into the second round....


what pick did the grizzlies get last year again??? 4th??? thanks for clearing that up...


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

bootstrenf said:


> the clippers benefited from their actions...they almost swept the nuggets and got into the second round....
> 
> what pick did the grizzlies get last year again??? 4th??? thanks for clearing that up...


in this case, the actual outcome doesn't matter. at the time, getting the highest probability to get a top two pick was best for memphis. yeah, it worked out well for the clippers. how'd it work out with dallas last year when they rested players so they'd get to play golden state? dallas benefited by getting what they wanted which ended up being the worst thing for them. just because the lottery didn't go memphis's way doesn't mean that having a better chance to get a top pick was a bad thing.

it's like playing poker. you can have an 80% chance to win a hand and still lose the hand. it doesn't mean you made the wrong move.


----------



## bootstrenf (May 24, 2006)

rocketeer said:


> in this case, the actual outcome doesn't matter. at the time, getting the highest probability to get a top two pick was best for memphis. yeah, it worked out well for the clippers. how'd it work out with dallas last year when they rested players so they'd get to play golden state? dallas benefited by getting what they wanted which ended up being the worst thing for them. just because the lottery didn't go memphis's way doesn't mean that having a better chance to get a top pick was a bad thing.
> 
> it's like playing poker. you can have an 80% chance to win a hand and still lose the hand. it doesn't mean you made the wrong move.


okay, whatever, i made my point...you made yours, whatever it may be...we disagree...stop beating a dead horse....


agree to disagree....


----------



## qross1fan (Dec 28, 2004)

They aren't "douchebags" at all. They did the right thing in their opinions to help the franchise. Plus, you're one of the people who said the Clippers should tank, so you have no room to complain about another team doing the same thing, no matter if they make it obvious or not. 

And talking about a few years ago, we didn't tank for playoff positining, we just rested our starters so they would be fresh for the playoffs, and that is different from a lottery team resting starters because what are those starters resting for? Nothing, while playoff teams need to have them ready to go for more games after the season has been completed.


----------



## Futurama_Fanatic (Jul 21, 2005)

the knicks started tanking when they hired isiah as head coach


----------



## afobisme (Apr 29, 2006)

qross1fan said:


> They aren't "douchebags" at all. They did the right thing in their opinions to help the franchise. Plus, you're one of the people who said the Clippers should tank, so you have no room to complain about another team doing the same thing, no matter if they make it obvious or not.
> 
> And talking about a few years ago, we didn't tank for playoff positining, we just rested our starters so they would be fresh for the playoffs, and that is different from a lottery team resting starters because what are those starters resting for? Nothing, while playoff teams need to have them ready to go for more games after the season has been completed.


i think clippers pretty much tanked. isn't "resting your starters" the same thing as tanking? especially considering that your team's playoff positioning is still up for grabs? they could have climbed the rankings and gotten a higher seed, but it was obvious that playing denver would be more beneficial to them. either way, can't blame them for doing that.. but also can't commend them.

and bootstrenf's reasoning is really out of whack "they did it to win a championship" um... wtf? maybe the knicks are doing so they can get a better pick, which would help them win the championship huh? if the knicks pulled a tank job, then they are screwing somebody else over (because there's something to be gained from tanking, which is a better chance for a higher pick)... and if the clippers tanked, they screwed somebody else over too (there was soemthing to be gained, such as a matchup with the nuggets).


----------



## qross1fan (Dec 28, 2004)

afobisme said:


> i think clippers pretty much tanked. isn't "resting your starters" the same thing as tanking? especially considering that your team's playoff positioning is still up for grabs? they could have climbed the rankings and gotten a higher seed, but it was obvious that playing denver would be more beneficial to them. either way, can't blame them for doing that.. but also can't commend them.


You can look at it that way, but it was pretty clear that we were just content with making the playoffs that Dunleavy said "F it, let's not risk injury". And that game against Memphis, if I recall correctly, Mobley had the flu and Kaman hurt his hammy a few days before. Sammy was old so we needed his rest. Like I said, many playoff teams rest starters near the last few games of the season and they aren't "tanking".


----------



## bootstrenf (May 24, 2006)

qross1fan said:


> They aren't "douchebags" at all. They did the right thing in their opinions to help the franchise. Plus, you're one of the people who said the Clippers should tank, so you have no room to complain about another team doing the same thing, no matter if they make it obvious or not.


well, i wanted them to, you're right....but they have refused to tank....look at the recent wins against the grizzlies and the sonics....also, why in the world is elton brand playing???? yes i did want to tank, but they didn't and they have legitimately "earned" their crappy record....that's the difference between the clippers and teams like mia, my, mem.... 



> And talking about a few years ago, we didn't tank for playoff positining, we just rested our starters so they would be fresh for the playoffs, and that is different from a lottery team resting starters because what are those starters resting for? Nothing, while playoff teams need to have them ready to go for more games after the season has been completed.


good point...


----------



## bootstrenf (May 24, 2006)

> and bootstrenf's reasoning is really out of whack "they did it to win a championship" um... wtf? maybe the knicks are doing so they can get a better pick, which would help them win the championship huh?


out of whack??? explain that....the clippers played the nuggets in the first round and beat them in 5 games....then they got to the second round....if they had played a team on the road, or against a team that didn't match up as favorably in the first round, they might not have made it into the second round...so yes, positioning themselves to play the nuggets did indeed help them to get further in the playoffs....

as for an example of tanking, the grizzlies tanked last year and got the second overall record....the celtics tanked got the worst record....neither picked number 1....


the "tanking" by the clippers let them achieve something tangible...a second round trip in the playoffs....


tanking might, or might not help the knicks.....there's a difference...



> if the knicks pulled a tank job, then they are screwing somebody else over (because there's something to be gained from tanking, which is a better chance for a higher pick)... and if the clippers tanked, they screwed somebody else over too (there was soemthing to be gained, such as a matchup with the nuggets).


wtf???? afobisme's reasoning is really whacked.....explain who the clippers "screwed over" by playing the nuggets....


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

bootstrenf said:


> as for an example of tanking, the grizzlies tanked last year and got the second overall record....the celtics tanked got the worst record....neither picked number 1....
> 
> tanking might, or might not help the knicks.....there's a difference...


memphis had the worst record. that guaranteed them a top 4 pick and gave them an almost 50% chance at getting oden or durant.

boston had the 2nd worst record. that guaranteed them a top 5 pick and gave them the 2nd best chance to get oden or durant.

neither team got a top two pick like they wanted, but both still benefited.

it's not a might help or might not situation. it absolutely helps them by giving them better odds at receiving a higher pick and guaranteeing that they can only drop 3 draft spots below whichever position they are in.


----------



## bootstrenf (May 24, 2006)

rocketeer said:


> memphis had the worst record. that guaranteed them a top 4 pick and gave them an almost 50% chance at getting oden or durant.
> 
> boston had the 2nd worst record. that guaranteed them a top 5 pick and gave them the 2nd best chance to get oden or durant.
> 
> ...


yes, but at the end of the day, they *didn't* get durant or oden...so they tanked for the sake of losing and got nothing in return....


as for the clips, they got a tangible return for theit actions....they made it into the second.....not they *might've* gotten in to the second round.....they got into second round and took the suns to 7 games...


knicks are losing for the sake of losing....not sure if it will work....

clippers "tanked" last year to get better playoffs positioning.....it worked......


there is a huge difference....


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

bootstrenf said:


> yes, but at the end of the day, they *didn't* get durant or oden...so they tanked for the sake of losing and got nothing in return....


but they did get something in return. memphis got the 4th pick. if they had say the 5th worst record and 3 teams jumped them, they would have gotten the 8th pick instead of the 4th.


----------



## bootstrenf (May 24, 2006)

rocketeer said:


> but they did get something in return. memphis got the 4th pick. if they had say the 5th worst record and 3 teams jumped them, they would have gotten the 8th pick instead of the 4th.


and what a player they got in conley!!!

he's so good that they traded for another pg when they already had conley!!!


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

bootstrenf said:


> and what a player they got in conley!!!
> 
> he's so good that they traded for another pg when they already had conley!!!


because it's never a good idea to have two players that can play the same position. and that trade was more about dumping gasol's salary than anything else.


----------



## bootstrenf (May 24, 2006)

rocketeer said:


> because it's never a good idea to have two players that can play the same position. and that trade was more about dumping gasol's salary than anything else.


acually, three....lowry was the grizz's first round pick from the year before conley....then you also have navarro.....so yeah, they picked lowry, then conley, then traded gasol for another first round pg....tanking has really helped them out a lot!!!


----------



## carlos710 (Jun 13, 2002)

bootstrenf said:


> tanking has really helped them out a lot!!!


The clippers have been tanking since they joined the league... now i see why they are the most successful franchise ever :lol:


----------



## sertorius (Sep 24, 2005)

rocketeer said:


> because it's never a good idea to have two players that can play the same position. *and that trade was more about dumping gasol's salary than anything else*.


Really? I thought that trade was more about Jerry West wanting to make the lakers a contender again.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

sertorius said:


> Really? I thought that trade was more about Jerry West wanting to make the lakers a contender again.


but jerry west didn't make that trade.


----------



## sertorius (Sep 24, 2005)

rocketeer said:


> but jerry west didn't make that trade.


Oh right... I keep forgetting, it was all Kupchak... suddenly the greatest GM in the league... dealing with his former mentor's old team... managing to get an all-star for nothing... I'm sure the deal was on the "up and up"...


----------

