how long are you willing to put up with being bad?

[For the love of the game 56]

Rashard Lewis was a key contributor to our 2009 Finals run, that without him, we don't get that far.

 

That to me makes him worth it.

 

I'd rather have success while over paying someone, than to be cheap, not get the player, and not have the success.

 

Was Rashard a max level player? No. Do we make the Finals without Rashard? No.

 

This is what got the Magic in trouble in the first place. Overpay Lewis, overpay Turk when he came back, trading for then overpaying Arenas and the list goes on.

 

I'd rathar have success while making smart moves and overpaying no one...

 

Oh, and no I am not siding with Shrute.

[Captain Hi-Top 791]

This is what got the Magic in trouble in the first place. Overpay Lewis, overpay Turk when he came back, trading for then overpaying Arenas and the list goes on.

 

I'd rathar have success while making smart moves and overpaying no one...

 

Oh, and no I am not siding with Shrute.

 

Overpaying 'Shard was forgivable based on how important he was in our Finals run. Bringing Turk back in any way, and trading for Arenas are both completely indefensible and were horrible moves both at the time and in hindsight.

 

Sure, ideally you'd like to have your cake and eat it too, you'd like everyone to be on a great contract and have a successful team, no one would really argue against that would they? However, one is certainly more important than the other. You can forgive a bad contract that results in winning much easier than you can forgive losing on good contracts.

[Dwight Shrute 10]

Oh, and no I am not siding with Shrute.

 

Well, fine then!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Berto 338]

This question honestly makes me feel really uneasy. Unless this franchise was being run by the current version of Jeffrey Loria, why would I walk away? Am I not a fan? Bad drafts, trades, etc. happen all the time in sports. I'm not going to disown the team I'm a fan of just because they're not contenders. Even if we were perpetual bottom feeders, I wouldn't walk away unless the problems stemmed from something other than mistakes, such as an unwillingness to pay players or some kind of cronyism that kept incompetent people in charge indefinitely.

 

Even then, I'd probably stick around.

[Dwight Shrute 10]

Overpaying 'Shard was forgivable based on how important he was in our Finals run. Bringing Turk back in any way, and trading for Arenas are both completely indefensible and were horrible moves both at the time and in hindsight.

 

Sure, ideally you'd like to have your cake and eat it too, you'd like everyone to be on a great contract and have a successful team, no one would really argue against that would they? However, one is certainly more important than the other. You can forgive a bad contract that results in winning much easier than you can forgive losing on good contracts.

 

 

My point all along is Shard was never worth max money. NEVER!!!!

 

His defense has always been below average. Dude had one good season (like his seasons in Seattle) left......MAYBE two. That was obvious then and it played out just as so many forecasted.

 

Pretty much, the guy was a 3-point specialist by that time in his career.

 

He was good but not great. And, you don't pay good players max contracts.

 

And, until now, I never mentioned his steroid usage.

[Franchise408 116]

This is what got the Magic in trouble in the first place. Overpay Lewis, overpay Turk when he came back, trading for then overpaying Arenas and the list goes on.

 

I'd rathar have success while making smart moves and overpaying no one...

 

Oh, and no I am not siding with Shrute.

 

 

Overpaying 'Shard was forgivable based on how important he was in our Finals run. Bringing Turk back in any way, and trading for Arenas are both completely indefensible and were horrible moves both at the time and in hindsight.

 

Sure, ideally you'd like to have your cake and eat it too, you'd like everyone to be on a great contract and have a successful team, no one would really argue against that would they? However, one is certainly more important than the other. You can forgive a bad contract that results in winning much easier than you can forgive losing on good contracts.

 

Captain Hi-Top pretty much summed up my response.

 

OF COURSE everyone would rather have everyone getting paid a completely appropriate contract that allows us to be competitors for years to come. I would have rather had Dwight Howard not become a whiny baby and stick around, or have Shaq stick around with Penny for years to come. But life doesn't come wrapped up in a nice neat package.

 

I'm not denying that Shard was overpaid. What I'm saying is that it was worth overpaying him when we had the most successful season in franchise history in large part because of him.

 

I'd rather overpay for a good player that is going to make us better, than to lose out on good players because we're afraid of spending money.

 

In that mentality, I'd rather have an Otis Smith who is going to at least take a shot, even if it's the wrong move, than someone who is going to sit on their hands and let opportunity pass them by.

 

Now, Otis' later moves warranted his dismissal, and by no means am I suggesting that he should have been kept. But I can never be as down on him as most when he assembled the most successful squad in the franchise's 25 year history.

 

If my choices are overpaying for Shard, having a 2 season window of being legitimate contenders, and then having a few years of cap hell and rebuilding, versus not getting Shard, not having cap hell, but never being a legitimate contender, I'll take that 2 seasons of legitimacy over the alternative.

[For the love of the game 56]

Overpaying 'Shard was forgivable based on how important he was in our Finals run. Bringing Turk back in any way, and trading for Arenas are both completely indefensible and were horrible moves both at the time and in hindsight.

 

Sure, ideally you'd like to have your cake and eat it too, you'd like everyone to be on a great contract and have a successful team, no one would really argue against that would they? However, one is certainly more important than the other. You can forgive a bad contract that results in winning much easier than you can forgive losing on good contracts.

 

I know, just want to see this team managed well for once, which i feel is happening.

[Dwight Shrute 10]

It could be just me, but finishing dead last in the NBA is a hell of a lot easier to swallow than losing in the Finals.

 

Face it, our 2009 run was very fluky......we got hot in the playoffs and knocked off the 2 powerhouses in succession (BOS and CLE). Yet, in the Finals we fell flat on our faces to a team that both BOS and CLE would have been favored to beat.

 

I take that 2009 run with a huge grain of salt.

[Dwight Shrute 10]

2009 Finals - Shard's stats

 

Game 1 - 8 pts - 20%

Game 2 - 34 pts - 57%

Game 3 - 21 pts - 57%

Game 4 - 6 pts - 20%

Game 5 - 18 pts - 32%

 

 

When we needed Shard the most.........this is what we got. Two games that he earned his check, but three where he completely **** the bed.

 

 

Max contract-wise.......HORRIBLE signing.

[barnettej 263]

How long..... Well since im a Detroit Lions fan.... I have been conditioned to wait a long, long, long time... shoot im still waiting.

 

However its the Lions, one of the oldest football teams in the league. Which means the likely hood of that team moving to a different city is pretty small. Orlando once had a football team (besides the Pred's).... the Thunder. That was fun for the short time they were around.

 

Honestly... I dont like "Tanking". Its cheap, sells you short, and only mucks up the waters when trying to figure what you really have. Plus it sets a bad tone for young players who want to win. I dont support teams who tank, I think its a sucker move... and only hope for complete disaster for teams who do.

 

Yes, If the Magic intentionally tank... I hope it backfires. And that even goes for my Lions.... unfortunately they never had to "Tank", not even during the 0-16 season did they try to tank..... They played hard, but failed horribly because they lack talent everywhere. They went into the next draft to address that issue, talent at main positions. That led to the drafting of Stafford. Results are still pending, but look good.

 

The Orlando Magic has many #1 picks, many HOF players who has passed through the city and no championships to show since its inception. Orlando is currently on building #2.... and that in itself was a battle to approve from the city perspective because some people lost their love for the team. If this wasnt approved.... we would of been in some real bad shape and possibly lose our team.

 

With the current deal inplace... we have some time before we need to go through that again. But when that happens, we better showed something. I dont want this team to move.

 

I am going to give this team another year.... thats it..... "1 YR".

 

I want this team to play hard for that 1 yr and whatever happens happens. Im cool with playing your hardest and still falling short, builds character, provides motivation and gives a balance perspective. No Tanking.

[jec 427]

It could be just me, but finishing dead last in the NBA is a hell of a lot easier to swallow than losing in the Finals.

 

Face it, our 2009 run was very fluky......we got hot in the playoffs and knocked off the 2 powerhouses in succession (BOS and CLE). Yet, in the Finals we fell flat on our faces to a team that both BOS and CLE would have been favored to beat.

 

I take that 2009 run with a huge grain of salt.

 

Why take it with a grain of salt? That 2009 Magic team was really good. The Lakers happened to be better.

[ML6 520]

The '09 Finals are probably remembered amongst most NBA fans as rather one-sided, but let's not forget that games 2 & 4 were classics (both went to OT). With a couple bounces of the ball it could've been the Magic up 3-1 and on the brink of a title.

 

Calling the 2009 run a fluke is pretty strong, in my opinion. That team played together, shared the ball, and had a great defensive scheme.