Yahoo Sports is Saying Stephen Jackson is Gone...

and it's really important to keep in mind that charlotte is NOT replicating okc, they're replicating the seattle super sonics. there's a major difference.

 

Charlotte doesn't have the off the court issues that Seattle had, so there's really no comparasion there.

 

which is why if you want to win one, you've got to make moves that are designed for long term success instead of mortgaging the future to squeak into the playoffs and get swept out every year.

I can tell you from first hand witnessing it that until the playoffs actually start, there's no more interest in the team here in Feb-May than there is in September. The Bobcats have what they have support-wise, and what they don't have doesn't get excited about losing first round playoff games. You're right though that a commitment to winning will help, which again is why you sacrifice the short term mediocrity for long term success.

Free agents aren't banging down very many doors these days, playoff appearances or not. That's why people are talking more about whether or not OKC can keep Durant and/or Westbrook than who they might attract to play with them.

I personally doubt that playing for Michael Jordan is the draw that people think it is. But if your whole premise is that players are attracted to winning, I would think that wanting to compete for championships would be more attractive to a player than a guaranteed early exit from the playoffs for the next couple of years and then a rebuilding project.

 

what off the court issues are you referring to?

 

i don't think there's really any formula like that. boston certainly isn't built for long term success. they were brought in to win right away and they did. they gave up you talent to get them.

are you lumping the hornets into this? cuz the bobcats have only made the playoffs once. noting a lack of interest by the fans while continually missing the playoffs is kinda making my point. bob johnson gave up and he's worth way more than jordan.

i think it's foolhardy to shoot for the moon. the chances of winning it all are very slim. the penalty for failing is a franchise that ceases to exist.

i think they gotta make the playoffs however they can. if they get bumped out early, fine. but doing so gives people a taste of success. the team learns from it. it's how rivalries are born and rivalries excite people.

if the front office is basically saying they'll put together a compelling product in 2015, then nobody is going to bother paying attention till 2015.

durant just re-signed with them so he's not going anywhere.

so i wonder, the thunder got bounced in the wcf. is that a successful season or no?

the problem is that you won't rate as a team vying for a championship unless your team has had success in the playoffs. it's pretty rare that a free agent would sign on to a rebuilding process knowing that they're built to suck for a few years...


edit: but this debate goes on all time. some people want to blow things up and some people want to tinker. i think blowing things up makes sense at times, but for a team that needs fans and an identity as a winning organization, i don't see how they can continually put off success to another year. teams like chicago or philly or new york or los angeles... those teams can get away with it cuz they have established fans who will stick with them.

 

What did they really blow up? They had a team that was probably not going to make the playoffs last year with or without Wallace. From the playoff team they lost Felton and Chandler. DJ was playing better than Felton and Chandler was hurt all year so a healthy Kwame Brown was an upgrade. The biggest reason they were not in contention last year is that the east got better. Chicago, New York and Miami all got a lot better. If they had kept the players they have let go I think they would have had a hard time making the playoffs.

 

they could have easily made the playoffs this year. there was a shakeup in the east, but while miami got better, cleveland tanked. the 6-8 seeds were easily attainable with a solid push. in fact, before they traded wallace, i thought they were actually still in 8th place, no?

 

I hate agreeing with Thelt, but he's right. It sucks to lose Wallace because he's so fun to watch, and SJack was everything that could be expected, but the roster needed a blow up in part because of all the ways they screwed up in the past with draft picks bombing and taking on a bunch of crap salaries. Contrary to what Thelt said earlier (he seems to contradict himself, in fact), the team was not one player or two players away from being a solid playoff team. They should have gotten more for Chandler, and maybe they should have re-signed Felton, but there's just not much on the roster to build with. Augustin is a nice backup PG and Henderson should be a 6th/7th man, then what?

And holy shit the Bobcats have been awful at drafting. Just look at this: http://www.databasebasketball.com/draft/draftteam.htm?tm=CHR&lg=N

 

here's a more complete list:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/CHA/draft.html

granted it's a different team running things, but then of course, kwame brown was a jordan pick as well. talk about a wasted #1 overall.

i guess i'm just not much of a fan of blowing up teams to try for draft picks.

 

Me either, and I hope that's not what they're doing. Instead what I think is happening is that they're going to give young players a chance to play as much as possible in order to find out what they actually have. Tanking for picks isn't a great idea, if only because the front office has shown such talent for fucking up the draft. But playing young guys even if it means losing is something else.