Pistons!? They shit tons too.

[nhwbrooklyn]

Yes you can. Just remember Pat Riley runs the show down there.

[Tony G]

Nike designer mocks Derrick Rose


Updated: April 29, 2012, 6:47 PM ET
ESPN.com news services

• 1K
• 480
• 5K+
• Email
• Print

Moving On Without Rose

The NBA Tonight crew discusses the Bulls chances in the playoffs without Derrick Rose.Tags: Chicago Bulls, Philadelphia 76ers

NEXT VIDEO

• Dr. Kaplan on Derrick Rose ACL Injury

A Nike shoe designer mocked Derrick Rose's season-ending ACL injury on Twitter on Sunday, igniting a firestorm of criticism on the social media website.
Jason Petrie, who designed LeBron James' signature sneakers, tweeted that Rose should have signed with Nike after the Chicago Bulls superstar tore his ACL in the final minutes of Game 1 of Chicago's Eastern Conference quarterfinals series against the Philadelphia 76ers.

“ You got one guy only getting stronger, and one guy breaking down before our very eyes. You chose poorly Pooh... #shouldasignedwithNIKE #GWS
” -- Tweet from Nike designer Jason Petrie
on Derrick Rose's torn ACL Saturday

"You got one guy only getting stronger, and one guy breaking down before our very eyes. You chose poorly Pooh... #shouldasignedwithNIKE #GWS," Petrie wrote, referring also to James and Heat's 33-point Game 1 victory over the New York Knicks.
Rose signed long-term deal with rival shoemaker adidas in February.
Petrie's comments drew enough outrage that Petrie tried to assuage his followers, tweeting: "Y'all take sh#t too serious! Never want to see anyone get hurt- I hope DRose comes back stronger than ever, he's too good..."
FoxSports.com reported Sunday that Petrie then went back on the offensive Saturday, writing, "Just to set the record straight- if you ain't with me you against me, and if that's the case I don't give a F about you!"
On Sunday morning, Petrie apologized for his comments.
"Wow! Twitterverse I do apologize. It was really just tongue n cheek! Never meant any harm or disrespect!," he tweeted.

Eastern Conference Playoffs

Get all the news and commentary on the Bulls-76ers matchup on ESPN.com's matchup page.
• Predictions: Simulator | SportsNation
• More: TrueHoop | Schedule | Bracket
• Bulls Report | ESPN Chicago


"As a brand that is passionate about sport, we recognize the intense level of play that every athlete has engaged in during this basketball season and respect the dedication it takes to compete," Nike said in a statement Sunday. "One of our basketball footwear designers posted comments online that we feel are inappropriate, and he has since apologized. We wish anyone who is injured a speedy recovery.

[jaadam4]

Originally Posted by ghandi

After the Jordan years, I dont think I can ever root for the Bulls to beat anyone.

Yeah man I agree. I can't root for Chicago in anything sports related.

[*JD*]

Tony G- I would bet that Nike jackass was a little more classy when Ricky Rubio blew out his knee while wearing the douche swoosh on his feet.

[chemiclord]

So... Da' Bulls.

[chemiclord]

Yep. Rose wasn't all that necessary.

Not at all.

The Bulls did just fine without him this season. You don't need a superstar to win the NBA.

Not at all.

Ya gotta believe me.

[froot loops]

What are you trying argue? I guarantee you if the 2004 Pistons lost Chauncey Billups, they don't win. In fact you would be hard pressed to take out the #1 of any team and win the title. I'm trying to think of one NBA champion that has won the title without their best player. In the NBA, you cannot lose a main starter and expect to win, you are done. Thats the way it is, thats the way it will always be, no matter who the commisioner or what league you are playing in.

[*JD*]

The Knicks in '99 are the only team I can think of that came close. They made it to the Finals without Ewing.

[nhwbrooklyn]

Pretty good example but Ewing did play through injury most games of those playoffs up until that final series if I remember right.

[chemiclord]

Originally Posted by froot loops

What are you trying argue? I guarantee you if the 2004 Pistons lost Chauncey Billups, they don't win. In fact you would be hard pressed to take out the #1 of any team and win the title. I'm trying to think of one NBA champion that has won the title without their best player. In the NBA, you cannot lose a main starter and expect to win, you are done. Thats the way it is, thats the way it will always be, no matter who the commisioner or what league you are playing in.

Hey, you're the one saying that you don't need a superstar. Well, here ya go. Your "balanced" defensive team with no superstar, given home court advantage and spotted a game to a #8 seed.

And they've gone 0-3 since.

You NEED a superstar now. That's how Stern has made the game. Without one, you have less than zero chance.

[froot loops]

If you have an injury to your top player any team is going to lose. Again, if the Pistons lost Chauncey Billups in 2004, they don't get anywhere. It just doesn't happen. There is nothing David Stern did after the 2004 Pistons that changed. You've never shown. When someone brings up some valid argument, you backpeddle into some other argument. The 2004 Pistons were extremely rare. But surely Stern hasn't changed the league defensively, there is no appreciable difference, defense still dominates the playoffs.

Lets get a reset, what are you arguing?

pANDs

When you lose a starter, you can't say the team is balanced, its utterly out of balance.

[froot loops]

Hey, you're the one saying that you don't need a superstar.

Actually I don't think I said that. I detailed that since the Bird and Magic era, the teams that have won had true superstars. Its the way the league is setup and thats the way that basketball is setup. But that doesn't mean you do what Joe Dumars did and abandon defense and sign no defense player passengers like Ben Gordon and Charlie Villunueva. The Pistons best move to asssemble a good defensive team and hope you find some guy who can qualify as a superstar.

[chemiclord]

Originally Posted by froot loops

Hey, you're the one saying that you don't need a superstar.

Actually I don't think I said that. I detailed that since the Bird and Magic era, the teams that have won had true superstars. Its the way the league is setup and thats the way that basketball is setup. But that doesn't mean you do what Joe Dumars did and abandon defense and sign no defense player passengers like Ben Gordon and Charlie Villunueva. The Pistons best move to asssemble a good defensive team and hope you find some guy who can qualify as a superstar.

You're right, and you're also right that Dumars has seemingly lost his mind, building a team with a bunch of tweeners, questionable defense, and sporadic offense. I actually think we're in agreement on that score.

Now here's the problem. There's only a handful of ways you can get such a "superstar" player. Free Agency, a trade, or through the draft.

For the Pistons, they have no chance in hell of getting one through Free Agency. They can't outbid thanks to max contracts, and why would an elite player go to Detroit when they can make just as much money in LA, New York, or Miami? There's roughly 20 other preferred destinations than Detroit.

The trade route is a possibility, but generally a team only puts an elite player on the trading block for a reason, and they are rarely good. Rasheed Wallace is the sort of player you can hope for in a trade... a player with some serious issues that you can hope will stay in line long enough to push a team over the top. Can it work? Sure, and it has. But I wouldn't call it ideal.

Which leaves the Pistons with the best option; the draft. But with at best 3 or 4 impact players any given draft, constantly drafting 7-9 makes the long odds of finding that impact player even longer.

Which brings us back to what started this whole argument. The Pistons winning meaningless games and ruining their draft position. The Pistons pretty much have to completely tank a season or two, or they are going to be stuck in NBA purgatory for a very long time.

[froot loops]

There's less of a guarantee that tanking gets you this superstar, the problem with your argument it supposes that having a a few bad seasons sets you up with a chance at this superstar. In fact look at a lot of the superstars, some are drafted in the top three, but not all of them. And there are very few that surefire players that are worth tanking for. It could be a lot worse than NBA purgatory, you tank for two seasons and there is nobody there that is going to turn around your franchise. Then you turn into what the Clippers were and what the Warriors are.

And say you do find that superstar player after tanking. Your team sucks and the countdown has begun for that player to leave. Cleveland got Lebron, but they couldn't build a team. Orlando has been the luckiest team getting these superstars and they have no rings and can't keep these players.

The best option for the Pistons is to build a good defensive team and hope a trade falls into their laps. It nevers involves saying the league has changed so you need to buy Charlie V and Ben Gordon because the league is now revolving around offense.

[chemiclord]

Originally Posted by froot loops

There's less of a guarantee that tanking gets you this superstar, the problem with your argument it supposes that having a a few bad seasons sets you up with a chance at this superstar. In fact look at a lot of the superstars, some are drafted in the top three, but not all of them. And there are very few that surefire players that are worth tanking for. It could be a lot worse than NBA purgatory, you tank for two seasons and there is nobody there that is going to turn around your franchise. Then you turn into what the Clippers were and what the Warriors are.

And say you do find that superstar player after tanking. Your team sucks and the countdown has begun for that player to leave. Cleveland got Lebron, but they couldn't build a team. Orlando has been the luckiest team getting these superstars and they have no rings and can't keep these players.

The best option for the Pistons is to build a good defensive team and hope a trade falls into their laps. It nevers involves saying the league has changed so you need to buy Charlie V and Ben Gordon because the league is now revolving around offense.

Tanking isn't throwing games or intentionally trying to lose.

It's called not resigning Prince, and seeing what you have coming up on the roster. It's letting the young players get playing time rather than bury them behind players (like Rodney Stuckey or Ben Gordon) who likely aren't going to be here much longer.

Inevitably, these young players are going to lose a lot, but they get better for the experience. That it puts you in position to get in that "bottom three" simply improves your odds of getting that final piece to the puzzle. Nor does it preclude trading for such a player if the opportunity arises. What Dumars is doing DOES limit the Pistons options however.

Instead, Dumars is trying to win... something. I don't know what, because it sure as hell isn't going to be an NBA Championship.

[froot loops]

I'm not sure why your directing the Stuckey and Prince signings at me. I wasn't in favor of them. I suppose they can make an argument that Stuckey is a part of the future, but I don't hold my breath on that.

But tanking does mean directly trying to lose games. As long as I've been watching the NBA, that is what teams do. You hold players for vague injuries at the end of the year. Its why they instituted the lottery and the ping pong balls. It was a direct result of teams not trying to win games to further their draft position.

And these young players don't get better for the experience of losing, they generally get ground up by that team and shipped out. One need look no farther than the Baby Bulls of Curry and Chandler. Krause did advocate tanking seasons and these guys were his prize. Curry never really caught on and it took Chandler a bunch of stops before he turned into the player he is now. I think that is a nice Hollywood story, but I don't ever remember a team with young players that loses a lot and then gets better in the NBA. Generally the roster keeps on turning over until they get better players that win.

The Pistons know what they have, it looks like they have a a couple good pieces in Knight and Monroe. Monroe was a guy you didn't like, I seem to recall something about the Pistons having the eighth pick a in a 7 player draft. If anything Monroe might be the guy, he's a solid player and it looks like he is consistently improving. And he's here

[froot loops]

Instead, Dumars is trying to win... something. I don't know what, because it sure as hell isn't going to be an NBA Championship.

As bad as attendance is for the Pistons now, it would be atrocious if they took on your two to three year plan of tanking. They have to pay the bills, a lot of these teams that look to be stuck in NBA purgatory have to fill seats to make a profit. To us, making a profit is of minimal improtance but to these owners it is of importance.

[chemiclord]

Originally Posted by froot loops

The Pistons know what they have, it looks like they have a a couple good pieces in Knight and Monroe. Monroe was a guy you didn't like, I seem to recall something about the Pistons having the eighth pick a in a 7 player draft. If anything Monroe might be the guy, he's a solid player and it looks like he is consistently improving. And he's here

Yep. Monroe's a solid player. And I didn't like him because I thought his ceiling wasn't high enough to be the superstar the Pistons needed. I still don't think it is.

Unfortunately a team of solid players puts you at the upper end of the purgatory (yearly 5-8 seeds and consistent first round bouncing). You're still looking for that final piece, but now pretty much the only way it happens is by a stroke of luck much less likely than the draft lottery or a trade.

[Kstat]

Indiana had the 5th best record in the NBA this year with nothing resembling a superstar. They don't even have a Greg Monroe.

[Frank Van Dusen]

They do have Hibbert, who I think is better at this time than Monroe is. This isn't a slam on Monroe either, by the way. Grainger could be a stud if he wasn't so erratic also.