Cavaliers at Thunder: Open Thread
December 13, 2009LeBron James’ 44 Points Propels Cavs over Thunder
December 14, 2009While We’re Waiting serves as the early morning gathering of WFNY-esque information for your viewing pleasure. Have something you think we should see? Send it to our tips email at tips@waitingfornextyear.com.
You play, to win, the game: “I had a few quick thoughts and I was hoping someone might try to impress into the minds of other readers regarding how victories from here on out do “nothing but hurt draft position.” I just think this is entirely false.
This mode of logic suggests that the next best thing to winning the Super Bowl would be going 0-16, as if that immediately grants a team the best opportunity to rebuild and reach/win the Big Game in the following season. The objective of any team should never be to be “worse than everyone/anyone else” so as to insure a No. 1 overall pick, firstly because football should ALWAYS be about winning.” [No Logo Needed]
—
Eleven Warriors breaks out their all-decade awards for the offensive side of the ball. [Eleven Warriors]
—
In case you didn’t get to check it out in this weekend’s WWW… “Everyone has that one guy. Sometimes it’s a Kosar or a Daugherty or a Webster Slaughter, but oftentimes it’s not. It’s just some guy that we find a strange way of identifying with. Everyone has a [Duane] Kuiper.” [Vinny Hiatus/’64 and Counting]
—
Two words for you: King of the Jungle… “I understand that everyone is high on Oklahoma City. And even more people are high on Kevin Durant. He’s the hot new girl in school that everyone wants to be the first to kiss. But we’re forgetting this buxom fellow in Cleveland who likes to put on his little black dress every once in a while to remind us all that he still has the goods.” [Hardwood Paroxysm]
—
Rejoice, Tribe fans: “”The Indians did tender a contract to pitcher Rafael Perez, who is eligible for arbitration (and to the other 28 players on the 40-man roster who are not yet eligible). The non-non-tender to Perez was non-unexpected, despite a disastrous season in which he was the fourth-worst reliever in the majors (min. 30 IP) per WXRL, which estimates a reliever’s actual impact on the chance of his team winning or losing games. (That’s “Win Expectation above Replacement, Lineup-adjusted,” if you must know. BP rates Perez as merely the 10th-worst reliever at preventing runs from scoring, but because he blew more runs than his peers in high-leverage game situations, his negative impact on wins and losses was more substantial.) [Lets Go Tribe]
—
Joshua Gunter/ The Plain Dealer
16 Comments
I agree, always go for the win. Higher draft picks are consolation for losing.
I wouldn’t complain one bit if we finished this year 5-11 compared to 2-14.
We beat the freaking Steelers and people still are not happy. I agree with EZ about high draft picks. You also never know what you might get. 5-11 is very possible given the teams left on the schedule.
Being competitive is the first choice, but if you’re losing 10+ games I’d rather go 0-16 then 6-10, depending on the draft. When the draft is very top heavy (with non QB/WR players) moving up from #6 to #1 could be huge. In a flatter draft I would rather the lower pick for $$ reasons.
If Suh is an all-star in a couple years I would gladly give up this one mediocre win (seriously, this was 2 crippled teams) for years of better football. I would probably be more optimistic about his chances if not for Courtney Brown and Gerard Warren.
/didn’t RTFA
I’m always for winning; you want a higher draft pick in order to grab a guy who will help you win. If you manage to win already, well then that takes care of the goal of getting a higher pick, right? (I realize this is a bit simplistic, but the point is valid).
I would love to have Suh on the team for years to come. But if we win a couple games and miss on drafting him, I won’t be too upset about it; we’ll just grab another top-shelf guy with a lower cap number and keep plugging away.
My favorite line from the LGT article:
“Expect the cleveland.com crowd to clamor for Garko’s return…”
inb4 Suh is a bust
Suh will never be an all star mark my words …
… now pro bowler on the other hand
Anybody see Bernie on the ESPN segment “30 for 30” called “The U”?
I dont know whats wrong with him, but he didnt seem right. Slurred speech, sweating like crazy, I dont think I want this guy as my “Czar”.
Bernie’s addressed the slurred speech before. Result of excessive concussions. Think punch-drunk boxer…
@9
If you believe that, I have some pristine land for sale in Florida you may be interested in…
Concussions…does anyone remember Bernie having a concussion…ever? He’s a drunk…and people are buying his drunk stories…
“does anyone remember Bernie having a concussion…ever?”
I was never a trainer or doctor for the Browns–were you?
I do know that until very recently, concussions were ignored and/or minimized by both the players and clubs. Players just “got their bell rung” and were expected to suck it up and keep playing.
If you believe that any NFL quarterback in the 80’s *didn’t* get concussions, you better get on that land deal, pronto.
If you have evidence he’s a drunk, please share. Unfounded conjecture from an anonymous commenter doesn’t hold much sway.
Well, either punch-drunk or just drunk, I dont think hes a Czar.
Troy Aikman had a ton of acknowledged concussions and he doesn’t sound anything like Bernie. I dunno if it’s booze or the blows to the head, but Bernie sure SOUNDS drunk whenever he talks. The 30 for 30 had spots of him talking back in the 80s and then now – wow.
The image of Lebron in a little black dress…is disturbing and hysterical.
“Troy Aikman had a ton of acknowledged concussions and he doesn’t sound anything like Bernie. I dunno if it’s booze or the blows to the head, but Bernie sure SOUNDS drunk whenever he talks.”
Well to be fair, concussions are still very much an unknown quantity, and are consistent only in that they affect everyone differently–symptoms are rarely the same from person to person. So it seems to me a perfectly plausible explanation.
To put it plainly, I’m just not about to assume the worst of the guy, and can’t see labeling someone a drunk when there are other reasonable explanations at hand. Perhaps he is–but right now, I’m not aware of any evidence that indicates as much, and it’s not a fair conclusion to jump to, imo.
“Well, either punch-drunk or just drunk, I dont think hes a Czar.”
Just for the record, I’m not advocating for him as czar–just don’t want to unfairly label someone an alcoholic.
As for the czar thing, anyone short of Bill Parcells is going to have to prove himself, imo. With Lerner’s bumbling leadership and atrocious record in making hires, I can’t see being on board with anyone until they earn our trust and prove themselves. All of this, of course, assumes we ever get a “czar”… count me among those that aren’t convinced Lerner wasn’t just making an attempt to pander to the press/fans when announcing the opening, what, 6+ weeks ago?