Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Signs Of Tanking?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • p00ka wrote: View Post
    So tell us again, how did they tank? They obtained "Nique, hardly a tank move, and except for missing a couple of weeks due to injury, played him big minutes for very decent production. They also lost their 2nd best player in recent years (Sam Elliot,), due to injury, half way through the season, who they had been riding pretty hard. What steps do you say they took to "tank hard"?
    I view that SA situation as similar to how I viewed the Raptors situation during the lockout-shortened season - due to the circumstances, playing to win in the current season was no longer the best option for the team. Some call it tanking, others call it good management based on unique circumstances.

    The Spurs didn't go out of their way to replace those veterans, which they could have, by getting active in trades and mortgaging their future to remain as competitive as possible that year. Instead, they took a realistic view at their chances, in light of the injuries, weighed their options and considered the external factors (ie: upcoming draft pool). By not doing everything in their power to try and win that season, some people claim that it's tanking (the same people who claimed BC signing the likes Rasual Butler was semi-tanking).

    I am not a pro-tanker. However, I was at one point referred to as the 'tank commander' during the 2011 offseason. The Raptors were only a year removed from losing Bosh, had a young roster (ie: Bargnani, DeRozan, Amir, Davis) had just drafted Valanciunas (who was known to be spending another season in Europe), had just hired a new coach, had no training camp and were projected to be a bubble team at best (most experts didn't consider them a playoff team), while the 2012 draft class was expected to be fairly decent. So, given all those factors, I thought it made perfect sense to give the young players lots of playing time for both individual development and team chemistry, while giving the new coach a chance to evaluate his roster (you know, assuming a GM and coach would work together, on the same page). The team would fast-track its organic growth, while simultaneously maximizing their draft position, enabling them to add 2 top rookies to an improved young team for the 2012-2013 season. The lockout season was a write-off anyway, with the championship all but conceded to the Heat. I considered that approach to be strategic long-term team building, as opposed to outright tanking. Of course, BC decided to fast-track the rebuilding into building (despite his best new building block playing in Europe) and useless players that weren't part of the team's future lead the ragtag group to a few too many victories over truly tanking teams, resulting in the Raptors adding Ross instead of Beal/Lillard (my personal top 2 targets).

    Situational management might have a tanking aspect to it, but I think it's a far cry from all-out, deliberate, blatant tanking (which includes proactively gutting the roster).
    Last edited by CalgaryRapsFan; Wed Aug 14, 2013, 05:26 PM.

    Comment


    • Xixak wrote: View Post
      No it isn't.

      You explained how having Jonas makes it easier to get two all-star talents since we already have one (only need to get one more).

      But that does not explain how getting Jonas increases the odds of getting another all-star talent.
      Like Nilanka said, stars like playing with stars. Don't need stats to explain that

      Comment


      • Xixak wrote: View Post
        No it isn't.

        You explained how having Jonas makes it easier to get two all-star talents since we already have one (only need to get one more).

        But that does not explain how getting Jonas increases the odds of getting another all-star talent.
        Xixak wrote: View Post
        Matt let me give you an analogy to help illustrate how incorrect what you said is.

        In the part I bolded you said



        That is like flipping a coin and getting heads, and then saying my chance of getting another heads has increased. No it hasn't. Your chance of getting TWO heads has gone up because you only had 1, but your chance of getting a heads on the next toss is exactly the same.
        BobLoblaw wrote: View Post
        What he meant is that having Jonas increases odds of a successful rebuilding project, i.e. ending up with two foundational players.
        Xixak wrote: View Post
        I think we can both agree that's not even close to the same thing as:
        BobLoblaw wrote: View Post
        But it's clearly what he meant, nonetheless. I guess underline the word "another". You can't get "another" without getting the first one.
        I'm glad BobLoblaw understood the point.

        If the context was getting just one all-star, Xixak, you have a point.

        Unfortunately the entire context was about getting 2 all-star talents. The Raptors already have an all-star talent (whether he maximizes that talent/potential is another story). So back to the topic of getting 2 all-star talents because as previous posts have shown having just 1 ensures low ceiling and a rebuild just around the corner if you lack financial flexibility which current and Bosh-era Raptors did not.

        As I said previously, 40% chance to get star talent in top 5 and attempting to get 2 all-star talents in consecutive drafts means 40% x 40% = 16% probability of success. What I said and if I did not say it what I meant (which clearly at least one other person understood) is that the Raptors already have 1 all star talent therefore they are going in to 2014 draft (assuming they had a top 5 pick) with a 40% chance of acquiring ANOTHER 2nd all-star talent BECAUSE THEY ALREADY HAVE ONE.


        If I made a mistake, so be it. Happened before and will happen again. Unfortunately I think you're spending too much time trying to trip me on each individual sentence rather than looking at the context of the entire post. But whatever floats your boat bro.

        Comment


        • CalgaryRapsFan wrote: View Post
          I view that SA situation as similar to how I viewed the Raptors situation during the lockout-shortened season - due to the circumstances, playing to win in the current season was no longer the best option for the team. Some call it tanking, others call it good management based on unique circumstances.

          The Spurs didn't go out of their way to replace those veterans, which they could have, by getting active in trades and mortgaging their future to remain as competitive as possible that year. Instead, they took a realistic view at their chances, in light of the injuries, weighed their options and considered the external factors (ie: upcoming draft pool). By not doing everything in their power to try and win that season, some people claim that it's tanking (the same people who claimed BC signing the likes Rasual Butler was semi-tanking).
          This is just simply not true. First of all the Spurs were capped out. Their payroll was $30,785,500, and the salary cap was about 24.363M (Sources: http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/SAS/1997.html & http://www.insidehoops.com/nba-salary-cap.shtml).

          Additionally, young players had less value in trades back then (teams relied on veterans more to win), and even if they didn't all the young assets the Spurs had were late 1st round picks (like Cory Alexander), 2nd round picks (like Jaime Feick) or undrafted players (like Devin Gray). They had nothing to barter with.

          I am not a pro-tanker. However, I was at one point referred to as the 'tank commander' during the 2011 offseason. The Raptors were only a year removed from losing Bosh, had a young roster (ie: Bargnani, DeRozan, Amir, Davis) had just drafted Valanciunas (who was known to be spending another season in Europe), had just hired a new coach, had no training camp and were projected to be a bubble team at best (most experts didn't consider them a playoff team), while the 2012 draft class was expected to be fairly decent. So, given all those factors, I thought it made perfect sense to give the young players lots of playing time for both individual development and team chemistry, while giving the new coach a chance to evaluate his roster (you know, assuming a GM and coach would work together, on the same page). The team would fast-track its organic growth, while simultaneously maximizing their draft position, enabling them to add 2 top rookies to an improved young team in the 2012-2013 season. The lockout season was a write-off anyway, with the championship all but conceded to the Heat. I considered that approach to be strategic long-term team building, as opposed to outright tanking. Of course, BC decided to fast-track the rebuilding into building (despite his best new building block playing in Europe) and useless players that weren't part of the team's future lead the ragtag group to a few too many victories over truly tanking teams, resulting in the Raptors adding Ross instead of Beals/Lillard (my personal top 2 targets).
          I 100% agree with you on this. In 2011-2012 we hardly had any talent on the roster, especially since Jonas wasn't with us yet. This was a perfectly good and reasonable time to tank as hard as possible. Calderon should've been shipped out (possibly Bargs as well). I'm not sure why the hell Barbosa, AA and Kleiza were taking minutes away from our young guys. The smart move would've been to ship all the vets out for 2nd round picks and start:

          Bayless
          DD
          Forbes/JJ
          Ed
          Amir

          And just watch the losses pile-up while also figuring out just how good our young guys were. Like you said this SCREWED us in the draft and cost us a chance at Beal, MKG, Lillard or even Barnes.

          Situational management might have a tanking aspect to it, but I think it's a far cry from all-out, deliberate, blatant tanking (which includes proactively gutting the roster).
          Last edited by Xixak; Wed Aug 14, 2013, 05:33 PM.

          Comment


          • Matt52 wrote: View Post
            I'm glad BobLoblaw understood the point.

            If the context was getting just one all-star, Xixak, you have a point.

            Unfortunately the entire context was about getting 2 all-star talents. The Raptors already have an all-star talent (whether he maximizes that talent/potential is another story). So back to the topic of getting 2 all-star talents because as previous posts have shown having just 1 ensures low ceiling and a rebuild just around the corner if you lack financial flexibility which current and Bosh-era Raptors did not.

            As I said previously, 40% chance to get star talent in top 5 and attempting to get 2 all-star talents in consecutive drafts means 40% x 40% = 16% probability of success. What I said and if I did not say it what I meant (which clearly at least one other person understood) is that the Raptors already have 1 all star talent therefore they are going in to 2014 draft (assuming they had a top 5 pick) with a 40% chance of acquiring ANOTHER 2nd all-star talent BECAUSE THEY ALREADY HAVE ONE.


            If I made a mistake, so be it. Happened before and will happen again. Unfortunately I think you're spending too much time trying to trip me on each individual sentence rather than looking at the context of the entire post. But whatever floats your boat bro.
            That's fine, blame me for your mistake.

            Comment


            • Xixak wrote: View Post
              That's fine, blame me for your mistake.
              You're the only one that thinks he made a mistake in the first place, as far as I can tell.

              The way I read his post, it goes back to your series of posts that points out the futility of several teams attempting to build through the draft, despite consecutive trips to the lottery. A big part of their failure to become competitive was their inability to land a couple franchise-altering (at least all-star or near all-star caliber) players with their lottery picks. All Matt52 was pointing out was that Toronto was in a favorable position compared to most of those other teams, because they're starting a new rebuilding phase under MU with one such star (JV) already in place. Therefore, the Raptors don't need to strike oil twice via the draft to acquire a pair of stars, since they already have one.

              Your own posts pointed out how much uncertainty there was in building through the drafts, especially to acquire star players. Matt52 was essentially agreeing with your assessment, while pointing out the silver lining, which is the fact that the Raptors already have a young, cheap stud in JV. The Raptors are already halfway towards achieving the goal of building around 2 young star players, which means the probability/chances/liklihood of them ultimately ending up with 2 young stars to build around via the draft are much higher than a team starting from scratch (since the Raps are starting out half done already).

              Maybe it was his inclusion of math that clouded an otherwise straightforward point.

              Comment


              • Xixak wrote: View Post
                That's fine, blame me for your mistake.
                Exactly.

                And blame me for not understanding the meani g of the word "another" in the context of a discussion about obtaining 2 all-star talents when the Raptors already have 1.

                Comment


                • The Raptors already have him which significantly increases odds of getting another all-star talent.

                  If he had said, "The Raptors already have Jonas which significantly increases the odds of having two all-star talents" it would have made sense.

                  But he said "The Raptors already have him which significantly increases odds of getting another all-star talent.", which is worded in a way that would mean having Jonas increases our chances of getting an all-star in the draft. Which simply is not true.

                  I want to study law so maybe I'm examining the wording too thoroughly, but like I said before an analogy would be this:

                  What Matt said: Since I already got heads on my first toss, I have a better chance of getting heads on my next toss. This is not true, because they are independent events, the odds of getting heads on toss #2 are still 50%.

                  What Matt apparently meant to say: Since I already got heads on my first toss, I now have a better chance of obtaining two heads. This is true, because you only need one more heads (50%) chance as opposed to 2 more (50%*50% = 25% chance) to obtain 2 in total.

                  Comment


                  • Xixak wrote: View Post
                    The Raptors already have him which significantly increases odds of getting another all-star talent.

                    If he had said, "The Raptors already have Jonas which significantly increases the odds of having two all-star talents" it would have made sense.

                    But he said "The Raptors already have him which significantly increases odds of getting another all-star talent.", which is worded in a way that would mean having Jonas increases our chances of getting an all-star in the draft. Which simply is not true.

                    I want to study law so maybe I'm examining the wording too thoroughly, but like I said before an analogy would be this:

                    What Matt said: Since I already got heads on my first toss, I have a better chance of getting heads on my next toss. This is not true, because they are independent events, the odds of getting heads on toss #2 are still 50%.

                    What Matt apparently meant to say: Since I already got heads on my first toss, I now have a better chance of obtaining two heads. This is true, because you only need one more heads (50%) chance as opposed to 2 more (50%*50% = 25% chance) to obtain 2 in total.
                    So basically you understood what he meant, but were nitpicking that he typed "another" instead of "a second"?

                    I think you're just a little too eager for a pissing match with Matt52.

                    It was pretty simple, as it was all in response to a series of messages you had posted. We want 2. We got 1. Our chances of ending up with 2 are better than teams that don't have 1 yet.


                    I'd suggest - and not just to you - that we all give our fellow posters the benefit of the doubt and read what they typed and take a moment to think about what they really meant, rather than use every little opportunity to show them up.
                    Last edited by CalgaryRapsFan; Wed Aug 14, 2013, 05:59 PM.

                    Comment


                    • Xixak wrote: View Post
                      The Raptors already have him which significantly increases odds of getting another all-star talent.

                      If he had said, "The Raptors already have Jonas which significantly increases the odds of having two all-star talents" it would have made sense.

                      But he said "The Raptors already have him which significantly increases odds of getting another all-star talent.", which is worded in a way that would mean having Jonas increases our chances of getting an all-star in the draft. Which simply is not true.

                      I want to study law so maybe I'm examining the wording too thoroughly, but like I said before an analogy would be this:

                      What Matt said: Since I already got heads on my first toss, I have a better chance of getting heads on my next toss. This is not true, because they are independent events, the odds of getting heads on toss #2 are still 50%.

                      What Matt apparently meant to say: Since I already got heads on my first toss, I now have a better chance of obtaining two heads. This is true, because you only need one more heads (50%) chance as opposed to 2 more (50%*50% = 25% chance) to obtain 2 in total.
                      Yeah, you still don't get it.

                      The Raptors haven't tossed a coin yet.
                      Get it?
                      They obtained JV in the last rebuild.
                      Get it now?
                      That rebuild or session of coin flips is OVER.
                      Becoming clearer?
                      Trading for Lowry, signing Fields, trading for Gay, extending DD all killed that coin flipping session.
                      Crystal yet?
                      The team is built to compete for the playoffs - but that is it - and not even a given.
                      Understand?


                      The argument is to start a new rebuild now while JV is still an all-star talent on a rookie deal.
                      It has worked out in Toronto's favour that he spent one year overseas.
                      Otherwise he'd be going in to year 3 of his rookie deal with one less draft and one less free agency period before his extension kicks in.


                      All your coin flipping chatter is irrelevant because the first coin is not going to be flipped until June 2014.... assuming the Raptors jump in to the tank.


                      As a poster pointed out yesterday it is clear you have an axe to grind. Keep sharpening.

                      Comment


                      • Xixak wrote: View Post
                        Lmao I still think it's hilarious that people say the Spurs tanked for Duncan.

                        No they did not, this is not up for debate and there's no room for discussion.

                        They were 59-23 the year before: http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/SAS/1996.html and finished FIRST in the Western Conference

                        With a starting 5 of:
                        Avery Johnson (13ppg, 10apg)
                        Vinny Del negro (14.5ppg)
                        Sean Elliot (20ppg, 5rpg)
                        Charles Smith (10ppg, 6rpg)
                        David Robinson (25ppg, 12rpg)

                        That offseason (the offseason before the 96-97 season at the end of which they drafted TD), they tried to bolster their core even more. They brought back all 5 starters, while adding Vernon Maxwell (solid scorer off the bench at 13ppg) and Dominique Wilkins who despite being 37 had averaged 18ppg in 94-95 before missing 95-96 due to injury. They were set to try and make a deeper playoff run after losing to Utah, but The Admiral got injured in the preseason, and Sean Elliot missed over half the season due to injury. So basically their top two players were out.

                        Despite this, they did not trade A SINGLE key player, like you would expect a tanking team to do. Del Negro, Nique and Avery all played the entire season.

                        Their lack of depth and go-to scoring as a result of losing their two best players (this would be equivalent to the Thunder losing Durant and Westbrook last year and asking KMart and Ibaka to carry the load), resulted in them winning just 20 games and firing their coach Bob Hill after 18 games (why would they do this if they were tanking) to hire Pop.
                        Xixak wrote: View Post
                        This is just simply not true. First of all the Spurs were capped out. Their payroll was $30,785,500, and the salary cap was about 24.363M (Sources: http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/SAS/1997.html & http://www.insidehoops.com/nba-salary-cap.shtml).

                        Additionally, young players had less value in trades back then (teams relied on veterans more to win), and even if they didn't all the young assets the Spurs had were late 1st round picks (like Cory Alexander), 2nd round picks (like Jaime Feick) or undrafted players (like Devin Gray). They had nothing to barter with.
                        Bravo! You put in more effort than I ever did to debunk that ever-lasting myth. It boggles the mind that someone spouts stuff like "the Spurs tanked to get Duncan" and it becomes fact for so many. The ironic thing is, the team that truly did tank to chase Duncan, the Celtics, lost the lottery, picked Billups 3rd, who collided with then coach Pitino. They traded him half way through his 1st year to the Raps, and despite getting Pierce the next year, went on to:
                        - 4 losing seasons, out of the playoffs
                        - followed by 4 seasons of 1st round fodder
                        - followed by 2 more losing seasons out of the playoffs before getting KG and Allen to revive the franchise.
                        One might say that tank cost the franchise 10 years of bouncing between hapless to mediocre

                        Comment


                        • p00ka wrote: View Post
                          Bravo! You put in more effort than I ever did to debunk that ever-lasting myth. It boggles the mind that someone spouts stuff like "the Spurs tanked to get Duncan" and it becomes fact for so many. The ironic thing is, the team that truly did tank to chase Duncan, the Celtics, lost the lottery, picked Billups 3rd, who collided with then coach Pitino. They traded him half way through his 1st year to the Raps, and despite getting Pierce the next year, went on to:
                          - 4 losing seasons, out of the playoffs
                          - followed by 4 seasons of 1st round fodder
                          - followed by 2 more losing seasons out of the playoffs before getting KG and Allen to revive the franchise.
                          One might say that tank cost the franchise 10 years of bouncing between hapless to mediocre
                          It is definitely a risk.

                          Comment


                          • I'd also like to point out that Cleveland did the tank job in the way that most people want it to be done.

                            In 2011 they acquired a pick from the Clippers which luckily ended up being the #1 pick in the draft, a future potential superstar in Kyrie Irving. Since then they haven't really done anything right in the draft, mainly because they keep trying to outsmart other teams and then just end up outsmarting themselves.

                            They have gotten Tristan Thompson with the 4th pick in 2011, Waiters 4th in 2012 and now Bennett 1st in 2013. None of these players appear to have anything close to star potential. If Bynum can't stay healthy next season (which is very likely considering his track record), Cleveland will still be a cellar-dwellar despite having done the tank "perfectly" in the sense that every year they tried to be as bad as possible.

                            It just doesn't always work out the way you want it to. In fact most of the time it doesn't.

                            Comment


                            • Man Cleveland was so dumb to pass on Val..
                              The Baltic Beast is unstoppable!

                              Comment


                              • Xixak wrote:
                                They have gotten Tristan Thompson with the 4th pick in 2011, Waiters 4th in 2012 and now Bennett 1st in 2013. None of these players appear to have anything close to star potential.
                                Thompson is a very strong young power forward who still has upside for development, probably maxing out at the "borderline All Star" level. Bennett clearly has star potential (whether or not he lives up to it is a judgement call). Waiters is the question mark and probably the worst pick of the three, and he's still not a bad pick per se; Harrison Barnes or Andre Drummond just would have been better for Cleveland, and a lot of teams were worried about Barnes' confidence and maturity at the time, ditto Drummond (which is why they both slid). You're selling Cleveland's picks short, frankly.
                                Last edited by magoon; Wed Aug 14, 2013, 08:57 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X