Diesel Posted September 9, 2009 Report Share Posted September 9, 2009 I'm going to go with either the Grizzlies or the Timberwolves. They always seem to make retarded decisions and both of them routinely blow dong year after year. The Clippers are in this discussion as well, but I don't think their AS bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Universe Posted September 9, 2009 Report Share Posted September 9, 2009 Grizzlies easily. Anyone who trades Pau Gasol for nothing but then goes and trades for Zach Randy and then thinks him and Allen Iverson are a great duo for the youth is stuuuuuuupid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La Bomba Posted September 9, 2009 Report Share Posted September 9, 2009 Chris Wallace isn't that bad. He's better than he's given credit for, but Micheal Hiesley is an absolute idiot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Force Posted September 9, 2009 Report Share Posted September 9, 2009 Milwaukee's is up there as well..just letting go all of their good players to save money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dash Posted September 10, 2009 Report Share Posted September 10, 2009 I'm going to go with either the Grizzlies or the Timberwolves. They always seem to make retarded decisions and both of them routinely blow dong year after year. The Clippers are in this discussion as well, but I don't think their AS bad. They were under McHale. I'd say Milwaukee, Clippers (Sterling, enough said) and Warriors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lone Wolf Posted September 10, 2009 Report Share Posted September 10, 2009 (edited) I'm going to go with either the Grizzlies or the Timberwolves. They always seem to make retarded decisions and both of them routinely blow dong year after year. The Clippers are in this discussion as well, but I don't think their AS bad. How long have you been looking at this for the Wolves? 4 years? 10 years? I wouldn't even consider the Wolves the worst FO... Edited September 10, 2009 by Lone Wolf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diesel Posted September 10, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 10, 2009 How long have you been looking at this for the Wolves? 4 years? 10 years? I wouldn't even consider the Wolves the worst FO... The Wolves suck. Other than KG there is nothing to that franchise and they failed year after year to put a championship team around a hall of fame bigman in his prime. Boston accomplished the feat in one year. They trade Foye for Roy, Love for Mayo, and even Rubio doesn't want to play for a loser franchise. Other than the Grizzlies their probably the worst. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legacy Posted September 10, 2009 Report Share Posted September 10, 2009 Warriors are top three at least... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest lyc70 Posted September 10, 2009 Report Share Posted September 10, 2009 Tip: click inside this box to load the editor Is there any superstars in Wolver? I am unfamiliar it.http://www.snagpic.com/users/img/4676/n09x0302vnsn/clear.gif Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dash Posted September 10, 2009 Report Share Posted September 10, 2009 The Wolves suck. Other than KG there is nothing to that franchise and they failed year after year to put a championship team around a hall of fame bigman in his prime. Boston accomplished the feat in one year. They trade Foye for Roy, Love for Mayo, and even Rubio doesn't want to play for a loser franchise. Other than the Grizzlies their probably the worst. Wow looks like someone already forgot the 2003-04 season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diesel Posted September 10, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 10, 2009 Wow looks like someone already forgot the 2003-04 season. Sorry didn't know Minnesota won a championship that season or at least got to the Finals. One trip past the first round with 10+ years of a HOF bigman is pathetic nonetheless. A 12 year old could do a better job running that team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Owner Real Deal Posted September 10, 2009 Owner Report Share Posted September 10, 2009 It was the Clippers until the last two drafts (Eric Gordon and Blake Griffin). I don't think the Gasol trade was as bad as advertised. It gave them the other Gasol, who is a better defensive player than his brother, younger, cheaper, and can still give you 12/8 or so (don't wanna go check his stats right now). If Rubio comes to the Wolves, then sticks with the franchise, that'll make up for the Love/Mayo trade, which I really don't fault them for, because Love isn't that bad of a player at all. Trading Garnett was a Celtic faithful move. McHale did Minnesota dirty. If the Bucks don't match for Sessions, they will have dumped their franchise into the toilet even further...so I'm going with the Bucks, who will probably be relocated very soon, anyways. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celtics3420 Posted September 10, 2009 Report Share Posted September 10, 2009 It was the Clippers until the last two drafts (Eric Gordon and Blake Griffin). I don't think the Gasol trade was as bad as advertised. It gave them the other Gasol, who is a better defensive player than his brother, younger, cheaper, and can still give you 12/8 or so (don't wanna go check his stats right now). If Rubio comes to the Wolves, then sticks with the franchise, that'll make up for the Love/Mayo trade, which I really don't fault them for, because Love isn't that bad of a player at all. Trading Garnett was a Celtic faithful move. McHale did Minnesota dirty. If the Bucks don't match for Sessions, they will have dumped their franchise into the toilet even further...so I'm going with the Bucks, who will probably be relocated very soon, anyways. I wouldn't say that. The deal was closer to being even than people think. AL jefferson is an All Star caliber big when healthy, and at his age already has one of the best, if not the best low post games in the NBA granted his D isnt good. We also gave them Gomes(solid role player), and telfair(not good, but not bad either, solid back up IMO), and the picks we got from them(they were trading KG, which was a rebuild move. Best bet to get your picks back). Overall, we(the Celtics) got the better end, but i wouldnt go as far as saying it was a "Celtic Faithful" type of move. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Owner Real Deal Posted September 10, 2009 Owner Report Share Posted September 10, 2009 I wouldn't say that. The deal was closer to being even than people think. AL jefferson is an All Star caliber big when healthy, and at his age already has one of the best, if not the best low post games in the NBA granted his D isnt good. We also gave them Gomes(solid role player), and telfair(not good, but not bad either, solid back up IMO), and the picks we got from them(they were trading KG, which was a rebuild move. Best bet to get your picks back). Overall, we(the Celtics) got the better end, but i wouldnt go as far as saying it was a "Celtic Faithful" type of move.Two Al Jeffersons don't even equal what Garnett was contributing to the Wolves. They could've done much better in a trade. Hell, they could've just traded him for a top five draft pick in 2008, end up crashing and burning, picking Derrick Rose with their pick (for being the worst team) and using the pick they received from Garnett to bring in Brook Lopez. There were plenty of teams wanting Garnett. I would say 80% of the teams in the league were interested and really wanted to push for a trade. Al Jefferson is an all-star, but he's also a backup all-star, and that's probably all he'll ever be. I actually like him, but the truth is, Minnesota is going to have to pray that Ricky Rubio becomes their franchise player, because Jefferson isn't going to replace what Garnett once was, and while Rubio won't either, he'll complete the duo (or trio) that can. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bravenewworld Posted September 10, 2009 Report Share Posted September 10, 2009 I cannot see the TWolves at the top of this list. Granted they did not make the most of KG when they had him, their trading him was not bad at all. And they are actually in a good position with Rubio and Flynn. While Flynn will not be as good of a player as Rubio (at least that is with everyones assumption that Rubio is the next coming of Jesus or should i say... heɪˈsus)there is a good chance that he could become a very solid leader/starter PG in the NBA. Which if this is the case then the Wolves are open to the idea of trading the rights to Rubio for a star player. Top 3 in no specific order... ClippersBucksGoldenStateWith the Raptors as runners up. Yea.. the Raptors. The reason i picked the Raptors is because every time they are close to actually becoming a really good team, the front office some how [expletive]s it up with no real reason behind their moves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lone Wolf Posted September 11, 2009 Report Share Posted September 11, 2009 (edited) I like reading other people's comments about why the Wolves aren't the worse FO. Makes my life easier. Edited September 11, 2009 by Lone Wolf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sky Posted September 11, 2009 Report Share Posted September 11, 2009 (edited) I think it's necessary to split up ownership and GM. Memphis and Milwaukee have the worst ownership, which has a heavy influence on the GM. Heisley was trying to sell the Grizzlies (Gasol trade) and sell tickets (Iverson signing), Wallace had little to do with either move. Milwaukee is all about Sen. Kohl and his family, again not the GM's fault. No GM with resources would just let Sessions walk. Golden State is a good choce for idiocy, problem there is no hierarchy due to Cohan's lack of leadership. The team president (Rowell) forces Mullin out in a power play and to assert his authority gives Steven Jackson a foolish extension. Then Nelson wants Monta out and ownership wanted to look like they spent money so they give an insane contract to Maggette where they are bidding against themselves. At one point last year there were three mutually incompatible agendas on personnel going on at the same time (Mullin, Nelson and Rowell). To me that puts them first in the parade of fools. Edited September 11, 2009 by Sky Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.