POLL: Championship or Mavericks?

by Michael Levin on Jul 24, 2010 6:28 AM PDT in Read and React

Simple question. What's more important? If you could choose to contend every year, get to the Finals once or twice, but ultimately flame out over the course of 6-7 seasons, would you? Or is one championship ring buried in a decade of 8th seed mediocrity and back-end lotto picks all it takes? The obvious answer is "Championship, dawg" but give it some actual thought to whether you'd want to be the Dallas Mavericks for all of Dirk's career or the '03 Marlins.

Or we could just continue being the Sixers and not contend nor win a championship. Good times.

Exercise those brain muscles, puppets, it's the weekend!

Poll

Vote with caution; whatever you pick, the opposite is guaranteed to happen.

One Championship

151 votes

Years of Contending

128 votes

279 votes | Poll has closed

Tweet Comment 20 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

i gotta go with contending

Because with contending you have the chance of making the finals and having the chance of winning it every year while winning a ring is great for one year but then your stuck in mediocrity. Also as contender with the right moves u can win that ring, something the eagles should have been able to do if it not were for andy reidiculous or mcchoke

by sd3 on Jul 24, 2010 7:03 AM PDT reply actions

The first part of your post is spot on but you disavowed it by criticizing the Eagles and i’m not a Eagles fan. They’re doing what the Steelers and Cowboys(under Landry) have done for forty years being stable and consistent, start wining your division getting to the playoffs then perhaps the Super Bowl

by hasmat on Jul 24, 2010 7:53 AM PDT reply actions

Pretty sure you meant that as a reply to sd3 and not to me since I didn’t mention the Eagles. Hit the reply button.

Liberty Ballers / Ridiculous Upside / @TAFKAMikeBourn

The Artist Formerly Known As The Artist Formerly Known As Michael Bourn

by Michael Levin on Jul 24, 2010 12:05 PM PDT up reply actions

Went with the Mavs, because you have the chance to obtain a championship each year even if it doesn’t happen, It’s more enjoyable to me as a fan then winning a championship one year and having to wait another X amount of years to be in the playoffs.

by prideoux on Jul 24, 2010 8:01 AM PDT reply actions

Agreed. Its just more fun if theyre in it every year. Simple as that.

by philiafan14364 on Jul 24, 2010 10:43 AM PDT up reply actions

Yup, that’s where my head is too.

But also: I think basketball is the sport where the playoffs are the least crapshoot-y and most favoring of the best teams. Which means it’s pretty darn hard to do something like the ‘03 Marlins, where you bump up from bad to decent for a year and get lucky in the playoffs — in basketball, to win a championship you have to be a legitimately top-tier team, and it’s hard to jump up from bad to elite and back to bad in a year.

by Eric T. on Jul 24, 2010 7:01 PM PDT up reply actions

I loved the ‘89 team. give me a compelling superstar, and interesting supporting cast and a few rounds of playoffs (with hope) and I’m happy.

I don’t want a declining team who makes the playoffs. I don’t want a team without superstars who is locked in with a 35-45 win roster for another 3+ years.

by tk76 on Jul 24, 2010 8:30 AM PDT reply actions

You think they’re that good? I think it’s more of a 20-30 win roster for the next three years, as is. I suppose we have to assume something of some sort will be done (hitting in a big way on a draft pick, Ed or whoever replaces him after this year gets his head out of his ass and makes a good trade, something), but with this exact roster, there is no way they win more than 30 games. Let’s not make Doug Collins into Phil Jackson or Red Auerbach or something.

by dweebowitz on Jul 24, 2010 12:35 PM PDT up reply actions

I’m a big eagles fan, and I’ve found that there is nothing worse than a championship-caliber team that underachieves.

by jgreen76 on Jul 24, 2010 8:44 PM PDT reply actions

Couldn’t have said it better myself.

by CPaulin on Jul 25, 2010 1:33 AM PDT up reply actions

Anybody besides me watch any of the Team USA scrimmage tonight?

by Saul on Jul 24, 2010 8:53 PM PDT reply actions

Well give us a recap in the fan posts section please.

by briztoon on Jul 25, 2010 4:46 AM PDT up reply actions

I’d rather win it all once, and be pretty poor for a period, than constantly contend but fall at the last hurdle every year.

by briztoon on Jul 25, 2010 4:48 AM PDT reply actions

It’s a garbage hypothetical question bucko! It is very rare for a team to suck for seasons and then all of a sudden build up to a championship. It can happen, but it takes a desperate team or two willing to trade their best players. Ala LA or Boston.

Most teams build towards a championship adding pieces until they finally get to the top, like the Sixers did in their run to the ’83 championship. We also saw the same process when Brown got the Sixers to the finals.

I would rather see a team built from the ground up than to get lucky and pick up a bunch of free agents. This way you can see the team develop and learn how to win, which is almost as exciting for a fan as winning. When you see the team getting closer and closer, you think, wow, these guys have their act together.

The big thing is that if you’re not moving forward, your moving backwards. All teams decay over time as a result of injuries and age. The Celtics lost this season, because the pieces on that team are getting old and can’t perform consistently at the same level. Watch how fast Boston falls off the radar as Garnett, Wallace and Allen retire. Even worse would be a slow death as they try to ramp up for one more championship only to find they just can’t do it.

I don’t want a flash in the pan, one championship then suck for 10 seasons franchise. I want a team that makes me want to be a fan.

by RickoT on Jul 25, 2010 8:58 AM PDT reply actions

I agree, that NBA Champions are rarely just a flash in the pan. I can only think of the Ewing led Knicks- and I believe that was a strike year. And I guess the Wade/Shaq heat as well, because they got Shaq at the back end of his dominant stretch. Otherwise contenders tend to be that way for a while (at least the ones with the superstars good enough to win it all.)

by tk76 on Jul 25, 2010 1:14 PM PDT up reply actions

the 2001 team had zero players from 3 years earlier. They were not built up- they were a rapid re-make around AI. Zero of the players on the roster when AI was drafted were on the team 2 years later.

This is a common pattern. You have bad season, draft (or trade for) a star and remake the entire team around that star. Most 40-45 win teams are not on their way up to a title. Most are good for a few years and then drop back. Only if you have a top superstar is the 40-45 win a launching point towards contention.

As for 1983- put in in context… In ’73 they were the worst ever. Bt it was not a slow ride up. They were in the Finals 3 years later. They remained contenders for an 8 year run, and it was a trade for a superstar (Moses) that put them over the top, not a slow steady progression.

by tk76 on Jul 25, 2010 1:11 PM PDT reply actions

Ah, but three years is a long time, long enough to re-engineer a roster. Besides what about McKie and Snow, weren’t they already there when AI was drafted?

As far as the 83 team, they went through many permutations and very few from the ’76 team was on the ’83 roster. You might say they were building and rebuilding that entire time, with the final crowning piece in Mr. Malone, who succeeded where Darryl Dawkins had failed.

Usually a team keeps building until they are close and then one final trade puts them over the top, like when the Pistons brought in Rasheed Wallace.

But reconsider the question, which would you rather have. The Sixers from 76-83 were a great team to watch, and it killed us each year they failed, after getting so close. In the end the ’83 championship was so great because of the context. We all remembered the times they got close, so close only to fail. Nothing was sweeter than wiping the floor with LA!

That was a great time to be a fan, as was the era leading up to the 2001 finals. Brown remoulded that team, drove everyone nuts in the process, but continued to produce results. When the team had Ratliff as their center, they were so good, that they would naturally get a lead just by playing normal basketball. I’m not sure if they would have beaten LA, but Ratliff was a perfect fit, and with Mutumbo the team wasn’t as good.

I want the team to be entertaining all the time, last season was the worst I’d ever been through as a fan, (mostly because of the idiot head coach!) If it wasn’t for him, the season might have been quite a bit different, too bad Ed didn’t hire Collins last season!

by RickoT on Jul 25, 2010 7:48 PM PDT up reply actions

I’m not a huge fan of Larry Brown, but his remaking of the Sixers roster was incredible.

This was the team the year the Sixers were awarded the #1 pick and drafted AI. 2 years later everyone, including coaches/GM/players was gone…

GM: Brad Greenberg
Coach: Johnny Davis

Roster:
Jerry Stackhouse
Clarence Weatherspoon
Vernon Maxwell
Trevor Ruffin
Derrick Coleman
Sharone Wright
Tony Massenburg
Shawn Bradley
Sean Higgins
Greg Graham
Greg Sutton
Scott Skiles
Jeff Malone
Richard Dumas
Derrick Alston
Ed Pinckney
Rex Walters
Greg Grant
Trevor Wilson
Scott Williams
Mike Brown
Tim Perry
Lasalle Thompson
Elmer Bennett