Question for people against tanking

[chris]

When looking at trades that have led to titles we can look at Rodman, the Celtic trio, Chandler to the Mavs, etc. What do these all have in common? They're vets with known skill sets.

notice that the dude who orchestrated that celtic trio has decided that, in the absence of the incredibly fortunate set of circumstance that allows for the acquisition of two hall of famers at the tail ends of their primes, the best course of action is to bottom the fuck out.

[blackjitsu]

notice that the dude who orchestrated that celtic trio has decided that, in the absence of the incredibly fortunate set of circumstance that allows for the acquisition of two hall of famers at the tail ends of their primes, the best course of action is to bottom the fuck out.

Right. So Toronto can get away with what Boston, the city of champions does. Toronto is a destination spot so they can amass picks and then expect superstars to waive no trade clauses. I forgot that was possible >sigh<. Anything else? You didn't throw that softball out there and expect a strike did you? You don't honestly think all those picks they grabbed are going to play in Boston, do you? Boston is literally repeating what they did to create the opportunity that brought in those guys. That's not a realistic option for the Raptors, unless something changes in Toronto.

As I said earlier tanking is possible, but it takes years of planning to pull off. Do you honestly think that this wasn't pre-planned by the Celtic front office? Dudes are playing 3D chess and your arguments are not even checkers-- maybe snakes and ladders.

It is far easier to turn Toronto into a playoff team, generate interest in players from a respectable (ish) team and trade players for picks OR woo quality free agents who desperately want to experience the playoffs (because they've been on a team that failed after trying to rebuild via tanking). Even the current GM stated that making the playoffs is relatively easy. It might take longer than diving (and hoping everything times out perfectly) but it is way more feasible.

[chris]

Right. So Toronto can get away with what Boston, the city of champions does. Toronto is a destination spot so they can amass picks and then expect superstars to waive no trade clauses. I forgot that was possible >sigh<. Anything else?

uh you sure put a lot of words in my mouth and made a lot of assumptions about what i think in this post.

You didn't throw that softball out there and expect a strike did you?

i don’t know what sport we’re playing or even that i was involved in a competition.

You don't honestly think all those picks they grabbed are going to play in Boston, do you?

i don't know what they will do with all those picks. whatever ainge deems best for the franchise, i would guess. those picks are a while from now and will be late lottery so it is exceedingly possible they will package them or move them for other players or assets, yes.

i do think they will be real bad next year though and have a great chance for a high pick and potential future franchise player. i think all the evidence we have points to that right now, despite all your bluster.

Boston is literally repeating what they did to create the opportunity that brought in those guys.

you sound pretty certain about this. what do you know about how 2008 went down? i think you'd have to call that blind luck. because what actually happened is that boston tanked egregiously for oden or durant (doesn't always work!), to the point that it was a real issue for the league and they were openly questioned about trying to lose in the media and simmons was blatantly cheering for them to lose in his columns, and has talked about this often. disappointed with the 5th pick, KG fell into their laps because the wolves GM was a celtic homer, and they were able to flip the 5th to seattle/oklahoma for ray allen, who were tanking/rebuilding around #2 and #5 (it’s worked out well for them by the way).

Do you honestly think that this wasn't pre-planned by the Celtic front office?

ainge knew a rebuild was coming at some point but not this offseason and no, this was not planned. the skinny about how all that went down is here and here.

Dudes are playing 3D chess and your arguments are not even checkers-- maybe snakes and ladders.

i dunno what this means? we changed games again? i think it is supposed to show other posters that i am stupid and you are pwning me, but you’ll have to ask other posters if it’s working.

It is far easier to turn Toronto into a playoff team, generate interest in players from a respectable (ish) team and trade players for picks OR woo quality free agents who desperately want to experience the playoffs (because they've been on a team that failed after trying to rebuild via tanking). Even the current GM stated that making the playoffs is relatively easy. It might take longer than diving (and hoping everything times out perfectly) but it is way more feasible.

i just fundamentally disagree with all of this.

[blackjitsu]

uh you sure put a lot of words in my mouth and made a lot of assumptions about what i think in this post.



i don’t know what sport we’re playing or even that i was involved in a competition.



i don't know what they will do with all those picks. whatever ainge deems best for the franchise, i would guess. those picks are a while from now and will be late lottery so it is exceedingly possible they will package them or move them for other players or assets, yes.

i do think they will be real bad next year though and have a great chance for a high pick and potential future franchise player. i think all the evidence we have points to that right now, despite all your bluster.




you sound pretty certain about this. what do you know about how 2008 went down? i think you'd have to call that blind luck. because what actually happened is that boston tanked egregiously for oden or durant (doesn't always work!), to the point that it was a real issue for the league and they were openly questioned about trying to lose in the media and simmons was blatantly cheering for them to lose in his columns, and has talked about this often. disappointed with the 5th pick, KG fell into their laps because the wolves GM was a celtic homer, and they were able to flip the 5th to seattle/oklahoma for ray allen, who were tanking/rebuilding around #2 and #5 (it’s worked out well for them by the way).



ainge knew a rebuild was coming at some point but not this offseason and no, this was not planned. the skinny about how all that went down is here and here.



i dunno what this means? we changed games again? i think it is supposed to show other posters that i am stupid and you are pwning me, but you’ll have to ask other posters if it’s working.



i just fundamentally disagree with all of this.

Why do you think I think you are stupid? I just think your argument is weak. It's a HUGE leap from bad argument to stupidity. Have some confidence. Have you not seen how this forum reacts to stupid people? You are far from stupid, but I shouldn't have to tell you. You should already know that. For the record, I don't waste my time on stupid people.

I'm mixing my metaphors intentionally, because I'm bored-- sorry for not being as enthusiastic as you.

>sigh< The Boston trade scenario was multi-pronged. You forget that they made a similar offer for Garnett earlier in the season, but he vetoed it.

Yes Ainge didn't know when, but he has shown in his time of being a GM that he has always had a strategic mind. He's not someone who makes change for change sake. He's no BC.

Didn't Doc Rivers call that guy an idiot last week? He loses all his objectivity when it comes to the Celts.

None of your arguments explain why your method (tanking) is more sensible than my suggestion (create talent, trade talent).

Just lay it all out there, but this time consider the modern CBA.

If I'm wrong, I'm wrong but you trying to poke holes in my argument (that is at least relatively clear) doesn't make your argument more correct.

By the way, when I say it's far easier I'm not saying it's easy. But it is easier (comparatively) to take the current nucleus and back into the playoffs (or get close)first and then turn players into trade pieces than it is to strip the team down and rebuild. Neither method is 100% successful, or even 30%.

Toronto media is amazingly poor at transcribing interviews (something that has always bugged me). I'll back off of that one simply because I don't feel like hunting that statement down.

[ezz_bee]

Update...

The definition of "tanking". What is it? I don't know. If it is clearly out current assets for draft picks, then "tanking" is pretty much a given cycle for almost every team.

I'm not going to comment either way any more about what is or what isn't tanking, and whether the raptors should or shouldn't do it.

Here's what they should do, and I'm pretty sure everyone here is on board with it. And the one's who aren't, well then I think there's the possibility of MEANINGFUL discussion.

The raptors need to try to get players on better contacts. I can't see Gay ever be referred to as a "value" contact. Derozan, I'm not so sure about him either. (My feeling on Derozan is that the player we get this season, is the player he's going to be, although he has be one of the LEAST injured players in the league, which might count for something, so his contract might be higher than someone else, but because he can play more games and minutes he actually has a lower per/minute rate).

I'm not saying you HAVE to trade one, either, both, or neither. I'm saying you have to entertain calls from other GM's about those players.

You can't involve Amir in any trade unless you are moving out a bad contract with it (fields or Kleiza) AND you are get a clearly BETTER player who is also on a value contract. And probably no GM is going to make a trade under those scenario's (although crazier things have happened).

The same logic applies for JV but the talent level coming back (ON a VALUE CONTACT) will necessarily have to be higher.

Lowry is also on a value contract for this year and has a team option for 6 mil next year (also value). You pick up that option. He's probably going to get a raise at the end of next season, IF teams want to pay extra to sign him in free agency, YOU LET THEM. If you think there's a good chance of that happening, he should be able to get something of decent value in return, either on his own or as part of a package.

IF you can have the opportunity to get rid of Derozan, Gay, Lowry, for value players (draft picks, young players) do it. Personally I don't see this happening as I think it'll be to hard to move these guys for picks and young players who have talent. However, Ujiri could surprise us.

I think the Barg's trade is a good example of this line of thinking. Hoopshype was floating a rumour that Golden State was offering David Lee for Bargnani. Lee is certainly more talented than either Camby or Novak. I wouldn't have been surprised if Coangelo would have swung that trade (especially if we threw in Kleiza). I think Ujiri made the right call.

Would I be happy if we got rid of Derozan, Gay, Fields, and Kleiza, all for young players, draft picks, and old shitty players on expiring contracts, YES?

Would I be happy if Ujiri didn't get rid of any of these guys? Not super happy, but if it was because the only way to move them was for bad value contracts and no high first round draft picks, then yes, I'm okay with that.

We may have to let some of our non-value contracts run their course. This is only a good strategy if the free agents you sign with the newly acquire cap space are on good value contracts.

So far, it looks like Ujiri thinks the same way. So until I see otherwise, I'm happy for tanking or rebuilding, so long as he adhere's to the mantra of asset management. Arguing to "tank" or not "to tank" ignores the roll of asset management in the building of a championship team, and although that roll used to be compensated by over spending, that compensation now appears to less viable.

[Craiger]

Update...

The definition of "tanking". What is it?

That is ofcourse the first question that no one can really answer, because everyone's definition of it, and expectations of it, is different. I personally view tanking as rather general - accepting losing seasons in exchange for attempting to collect valuable assets with the goal of building a contender. I definetely don't see it as losing to get one specific player in the draft. 'Expecting to lose on purpose' (atleast at the management level) is probably the only universally accepted part of the definition.

I personally think the examples of tanking successfully abound in the NBA. SAS, OKC, Memphis, Indiana, Miami, Boston, Orlando, Denver. Teams either netted a superstar player in the draft , or numerous high quality players in the draft, + the means to add other quality players

I'm expecting many will disagree with me that some (or maybe all) of the above teams 'tanked'

Arguing to "tank" or not "to tank" ignores the roll of asset management in the building of a championship team

I don't think it does. I think its implicit in the arguement. I think the debate is much more about assets under management and risk management. Are the assets the team currently have, and will the team's reasonably expected future assets be, 'good enough' to achieve a set goal. I think the need for good management, regardless of direction, is (or atleast should be) a given.

When its all said and done, I think the core difference for most (although not all), comes down to one variable - the draft. Some don't see the draft as reliable, reliable enough or plain old luck. Now I can't speak for anyone aside from myself but I see the draft as the single most valuable 'future asset' available to a team like Toronto. As a stand alone asset, its free (no capital costs) so it offers a reward for zero risk. However the more risk you are willing to take (ie. lose more games and therefore receive a higher pick) the higher the potential reward (up to, and including, the single most prized asset known to the NBA. A superstar.) Should you fail to capitalize on the reward (don't draft a stud, don't draft the quality of player expected or bust out on a pick) you are still left with differing scales of value - but still value none the less. I don't see the draft as luck at all, or atleast not anymore luck than is offered when trying to chase a free agent, or making a trade. The potential unknowns are different, but they still exist in any decision. The potential influence of other teams are different, but exist in any decision. But the draft offers a built in fail safe and additional reward of rookie scale contracts.

On top of that, tanking (assuming done correctly) offers an additional benifit of future cap space, which is itself a benifit. Not only a necessity for resigning your players and other available players, but also as a potential means of collecting other valuable assets (eg. take on a bad contract + pick etc).

Doesn't mean one can tank forever. Doesn't mean one should only draft (although I do think Toronto should try and maintain a 1st round draft pick every single year). Doesn't mean there isn't a time and place for attempting to make signficant moves of any sort.

At the same time, a team can't try and win forever and reasonably expect it will work. Sometimes the fiscal situation, or situation with the assets under management, become too messy or aren't achieving the desired goal.

Given the potential in the coming draft, the standing low odds of Toronto making it out of the first round this year (and the playoffs are hardly a lock at that) and over the next few years, the fiscal situation Colangelo left, plus the time scale of Jonas improving - tanking makes sense. In fact I think its made sene for the last 4 years.

But I do agree that whether Toronto can even tank is very much in question. Gay is a good player but may be tough to move, Amir is a good player I'd rather not see moved if possible, Jonas shouldn't be touched but could still add wins. That alone may be enough to make tanking impossible in whats shaping up to be, yet again, a pathetic conference below the top 4 or 5 teams. But that doesn't mean it still isn't the best route to take. As Slaw has said many times (not in the context of tanking):

The best time to plant an oak tree is 35 years ago. The second best time is now

I'd rather have good management attempt to (re)build with best assets available to them

[ezz_bee]

I don't think it does. I think its implicit in the argument. I think the debate is much more about assets under management and risk management. Are the assets the team currently have, and will the team's reasonably expected future assets be, 'good enough' to achieve a set goal. I think the need for good management, regardless of direction, is (or at least should be) a given.

To clarify my point. When someone argues, "We should tank, because tanking will allow us to get more draft picks, which are good value contracts, which can give us good talent a good value, or be combined with other assets to get better talent at good value." then their thinking is no different than mine (and I think your position fits that description). However, when someone argues, "We need to tank, because tanking gives us the best opportunity to draft the next (insert NBA legends name here) who will change our franchise and get us into the (conference or nba) finals. Then they are missing the point I'm trying to make.

Yes you need elite talent to get into the finals, and 1 great superstar can get you to conference finals pretty much on their own (think KG with the T'Wolves), but you need more than elite talent win it all. How many teams had elite talent and didn't even make it to the conference finals? OKC has arguably the best player on the planet not named Lebron, yet without Westbrooke, OKC loses in the 2nd round. Lakers, had Dwight, Pau, & Nash, and couldn't get out of the first round. If you consider Nowitzki elite, the mavs didn't make the playoffs (although he had an injury i think? still even if the make the playoffs they don't get out of the 2nd round), is Melo elite? NY seems like fool's gold to me.

You don't tank for talent. You tank for VALUE.

It may sound counter-intuitive but less talent at better value is more likely to going to lead to winning than better talent at worse value.

A player with god-like talent is going to change this franchise. What's going to change this franchise is a GM who knows how to evaluate talent and sign and trade for contracts of good value. That way when you finally luck into legitimate franchise talent, (which isn't really all that lucky because you been acquire the assets to trade for such a player, or you've hoarding draft picks so eventually your bound to hit on that upside player) you can actually put a roster AROUND that talent to make some actual noise in the playoffs.

You can't win without elite talent (although the pacers and grizz might be exceptions worth noting) but you also can't win with only 1 elite player, and probably not even with only two.

It is always going to come back to having good contacts. Draft picks won't be enough because you'll have to sign those players to extension before you get to the finals. How you handle those extensions are as important as how you draft.

As to the second bold, I think there's still debate about what good management is. Most teams are making the shift to from good management is acquiring talent, to good management is acquire good value.

But it's still far from a given. Even a GM who's only after "good value contracts" still has to determine what that good value ceiling is.