A new take on tanking - opponents of this need not click this thread

[golden]

haha, you lose all credibility when you list Scalabrine as a "good piece"

LOL. You are right. I actually thought twice about including "The White Mamba", but then I remembered a few quotes by Thibodeau and Doc Rivers - they totally love the guy, so I figured he must be doing something right.

Brian Scalabrine's a gold mind.
http://www.suntimes.com/sports/22440...rs-signed.html

Oh, and here's a classic White Mamba poster....

[CalgaryRapsFan]

Not 1 of those teams sold off their best players to tank for draft picks. Which one of them do you propose the Raps could emulate?

I would argue that Miami did a form of tanking. They essentially sacrificed a season (or two) in order to clear cap space for James and Bosh (including giving away Beasley, a #2 pick). Not traditional tanking, in the form of acquiring draft picks, but absolutely a tank job.

[special1]

I would argue that Miami did a form of tanking. They essentially sacrificed a season (or two) in order to clear cap space for James and Bosh (including giving away Beasley, a #2 pick). Not traditional tanking, in the form of acquiring draft picks, but absolutely a tank job.

ANOTHER reach from a "pro-tanker"....this is getting embarrassing now. Did you know that Miami finished 5th in the East in both of the 2 seasons before they acquired James and Bosh??? Absolutely a tank job?? I think NOT! You guys just can't keep making up history!

What is tanking you guys?? I'm seriously confused and I think you are too. Clearing cap space by trading crappy players (such as Beasley) while WINNING, IS NOT Tanking. Please stop this nonsense immediately!

[Axel]

ANOTHER reach from a "pro-tanker"....this is getting embarrassing now. Did you know that Miami finished 5th in the East in both of the 2 seasons before they acquired James and Bosh??? Absolutely a tank job?? I think NOT! You guys just can't keep making up history!

What is tanking you guys?? I'm seriously confused and I think you are too. Clearing cap space by trading crappy players (such as Beasley) while WINNING, IS NOT Tanking. Please stop this nonsense immediately!

Super-human efforts by Wade kept that team alive. Having an All-NBA talent can do that. But other than Wade, they basically cleared out everything else that would hinder their cap space.

[special1]

Super-human efforts by Wade kept that team alive. Having an All-NBA talent can do that. But other than Wade, they basically cleared out everything else that would hinder their cap space.

Was it an "absolute tank job" as CalgaryRapsFan claims?? Please don't dodge the issue here. You respond to my post, yet you have nothing to say to a poster who claims a 5th seed in BACK to BACK seasons an obvious tank job??? LOL

[Craiger]

ANOTHER reach from a "pro-tanker"....this is getting embarrassing now. Did you know that Miami finished 5th in the East in both of the 2 seasons before they acquired James and Bosh??? Absolutely a tank job?? I think NOT! You guys just can't keep making up history!

What is tanking you guys?? I'm seriously confused and I think you are too. Clearing cap space by trading crappy players (such as Beasley) while WINNING, IS NOT Tanking. Please stop this nonsense immediately!

But isn't that the question that some seem unwilling to define?

I can't speak for everyone but 'tanking' to me is intentionally losing in order to benifit your team in some fashion (ie. collect assets, although teams use it for playoff positioning aswell at times). Its not what you do with the assets after you collect them, its not where you draft or who you sign. Thats all part of independant event - rebuilding.

Given that the game is zero sum, what is 'not trying to win' in order to free up future cap space, other than intentionally losing? Is there even another logical alternative?

How about you tell us - what is 'tanking'? And what happens if your definition of it doesn't match with some elses....?

Its been my experience that anti-tankers want tanking to be defined as one thing, while pro-tankers define it completely differently.

This is why people don't believe that the Boston Celtics tanked in 2006/07. Or that the Spurs didn't tank leading up to the Duncan draft.

[Axel]

Was it an "absolute tank job" as CalgaryRapsFan claims?? Please don't dodge the issue here. You respond to my post, yet you have nothing to say to a poster who claims a 5th seed in BACK to BACK seasons an obvious tank job??? LOL

It was a tank job attempt, they sold off every conceivable asset except for their All-NBA SG. If Wade had been merely an all-star talent, as opposed to all-NBA, the Heat would never had finished where they did. You can't confuse results from intent. The Heat intended to move everything that would hinder their attempt to sign James and Bosh. Their "tank" was different because they knew (I'm sure Riley was aware of Wade's convos with LeBron and Bosh at the Olympics) that their best bet was to use Free Agency rather than the draft. Toronto cannot emulate this for a multitude of reasons, not the least of which is we don't have a Wade level, All-NBA, talent to build around yet.

[CalgaryRapsFan]

ANOTHER reach from a "pro-tanker"....this is getting embarrassing now. Did you know that Miami finished 5th in the East in both of the 2 seasons before they acquired James and Bosh??? Absolutely a tank job?? I think NOT! You guys just can't keep making up history!

What is tanking you guys?? I'm seriously confused and I think you are too. Clearing cap space by trading crappy players (such as Beasley) while WINNING, IS NOT Tanking. Please stop this nonsense immediately!

I think that highlights the difference in opinion about what tanking is. They clearly weren't trying to win that year and their top priority was clearing cap space, as you mentioned. Deliberately not trying to win (whether they do or not is irrelevant) and focusing on future seasons, is tanking in my book.

That brings up another issue with tanking that I have, regardless whether you are pro or anti tanking for the Raptors this season. At the trade deadline, teams are often congratulated for dumping old/high-priced players for good package of prospects and/or picks, even if they aren't technically eliminated from playoff contention. As a GM, what is the difference between making a similar assessment of your team prior to the trade deadline?

Why is it considered tanking when a forward-looking strategy is implemented in the offseason before the season starts or during the first half of the season, but considered good asset management and future planning when the same strategy is implemented at the trade deadline? I'm not trying to be a jerk, I'm honestly curious to hear thoughts on this from people on both sides of the tanking debate.

[Nilanka]

Yeah, this whole discussion is just an exercise in semantics. The truth is, there is no textbook precise definition of "tanking". It really just boils down to:

1. Stink now, and potentially contend later?

2. Mediocre now, and potentially mediocre later?

Bonus Option 3. Win now, and potentially contend later (the best of both worlds! Although I'm sure most will agree this outcome is highly unlikely).

[special1]

It was a tank job attempt, they sold off every conceivable asset except for their All-NBA SG. If Wade had been merely an all-star talent, as opposed to all-NBA, the Heat would never had finished where they did. You can't confuse results from intent. The Heat intended to move everything that would hinder their attempt to sign James and Bosh. Their "tank" was different because they knew (I'm sure Riley was aware of Wade's convos with LeBron and Bosh at the Olympics) that their best bet was to use Free Agency rather than the draft. Toronto cannot emulate this for a multitude of reasons, not the least of which is we don't have a Wade level, All-NBA, talent to build around yet.

LOL - You just won't quit it huh? Please list the "every conceivable asset" that they sold off..... If i remember correctly, they traded for Jermaine O'neal and James Jones in the years before signing bosh and james. This enabled them to remain relevant in the east and grabbed the 5th seed in both years leading up to the 2010 free agency period.

Also, please read below.

http://espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=3905146

"The Heat, according to NBA front-office sources, made numerous attempts to acquire Dallas swingman Josh Howard with Marion's expiring $17.8 million salary, and more recently tried to use Marion's cap-friendly contract to get into the bidding for Stoudemire.

Sources say that the Suns, though, had made it clear to the Heat in recent days they were not interested in reacquiring Marion -- in spite of the financial benefits -- for the rest of the season.

So Miami proceeded with the deal for O'Neal, which gives Heat president Pat Riley the traditional center he likes but, more importantly, enables Riley to preserve maximum salary-cap flexibility for the summer of 2010.

"It gives us some power down low, which since Shaq left we've been missing," Wade said. "We really need that to compete in the Eastern Conference. Our main thing is we need to get it together fast. Making a trade at this time sometimes makes it tough on teams to get everybody on the same page. Hopefully, we can."


Does this sound like a tank move to you?? How is this an obvious tank job attempt?? Are you confusing smart deals to clear future cap space with tanking?? You "pro tankers" are taking tanking to a whole new level. Basically, MANY things can be seen as tanking according to many "pro tankers"on here. Even if there is no actual proof.


So far, here's what *some* "pro tankers" define as tanking:

- clearing future cap space WHILE WINNING = tanking to some pro tankers
- injuries (by accident) = obvious tanking to some pro tankers
- aquiring talent for more $$ and for an additional year than the expiring contract you sent out = tanking to some pro tankers

Did you want to add anything else that could be considered tanking? As an "anti-tanker" i'd like to know exactly what you guys mean when you say your a "pro-tanker". It makes for better discussion if we know where you stand.

I think the issue is that we misunderstand you guys because there's no clear definition.

[Axel]

How is this an obvious tank job attempt??

#1 factor to consider. All of the trades that Miami made were motivated to cultivate cap space for a specific year. The moves weren't necessarily to make the on-court talent better, or to improve their team record.

Examples:
Traded Daequan Cook (who averaged 24MPG the season before) and a 2010 first round pick (that ended up being Eric Bledsoe FWIW) to OKC for a 2nd round pick. Would you consider trading away a rotational player and a first for a 2nd to be anything resembling making their team better?

Traded Beasley for cash and two 2nd round picks (salary dump). Beasley averaged 15 PPG and 6.4 RPG, while logging 29.8 MPG the season before.

Traded Chris Quinn (role player) for a conditional 2nd round pick that never materialized. Literally they gave him away for nothing except cap space.

Those are just the blatant "give away" trades.

Everything they did, was under the premise of 2010 Cap space. The fact that Wade was able to avg 30 PPG, 7.5 APG, 5 RPG, 2 SPG while shooting .491 FG% in 2009 and lead them to 43 wins is more a testament to D-Wade than anything the front office was trying to accomplish.

[special1]

I'm pretty sure even you must admit that Daequan Cook, Michael Beasley and Chris Quinn had no major impact on the team as far as wins and losses. Actually, you could argue that getting rid of Beasley was addition by subtraction.

I still don't see "tank" in any of those trades. I see transactions to free up cap space. Why pick up Jermaine O'neal? Why keep Udonis Haslem? Why keep Dorrell Wright? They also had Mario Chalmers, Jamaal Magloire and Joel Anthony. I think its a stretch to say "they sold off every conceiveable asset."

I will agree that Miami wanted to have cap space for the 2010 free agency of Lebron and Bosh. However, I don't think creating cap space and still winning is the same as tanking. I think the goal of tanking is to lose. If the goal is not to lose, I think posters should stop calling it tanking and call it something else. That is just my opinion. It gets too confusing when posters refer to sooo many different strategies as "tanking."

check out these two articles

http://www.sbnation.com/nba/2013/7/3...ilding-tanking

&

http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2013/0...#ixzz2Y5Fxr4mI


I think the quote below sums up my opinion on "tanking" and why i just can't jump onto this bandwagon.

"Tanking is such an ugly word. How in professional sports, can a team purposefully lose games? That goes against the fiber of competition, which is the driving force of men and women talented enough to practice their craft at this level.

Tanking is when players don’t try, or management doesn’t play healthy players."

I would also say that if management deliberately tries to lose by dumping productive players, its truly a disgusting slap in the face of sport itself. This is where i believe karma will come into play.

I'm okay with rebuilding, but tanking should have no place in our lives. Therefore, i think posters should be ashamed to use the words pro-tanking or "pro tanker".... Just words from a Raptor fan.

[Nilanka]

This is a debate that is difficult to settle because we're trying to deduce management's intent by their transactions. It's not always clear that a certain move is intended to sacrifice wins.

Besides, it seems like the only "proof" that would convince special1, would be a direct quote from a championship GM saying "we tanked 3 years ago to enter the lottery".

[golden]

#1 factor to consider. All of the trades that Miami made were motivated to cultivate cap space for a specific year. The moves weren't necessarily to make the on-court talent better, or to improve their team record.

Examples:
Traded Daequan Cook (who averaged 24MPG the season before) and a 2010 first round pick (that ended up being Eric Bledsoe FWIW) to OKC for a 2nd round pick. Would you consider trading away a rotational player and a first for a 2nd to be anything resembling making their team better?

Traded Beasley for cash and two 2nd round picks (salary dump). Beasley averaged 15 PPG and 6.4 RPG, while logging 29.8 MPG the season before.

Traded Chris Quinn (role player) for a conditional 2nd round pick that never materialized. Literally they gave him away for nothing except cap space.

Those are just the blatant "give away" trades.

Everything they did, was under the premise of 2010 Cap space. The fact that Wade was able to avg 30 PPG, 7.5 APG, 5 RPG, 2 SPG while shooting .491 FG% in 2009 and lead them to 43 wins is more a testament to D-Wade than anything the front office was trying to accomplish.

Chris Quinn, an asset? ROFLMAO. Ax - that easily tops my calling Brian Scalabrine 'a piece'.

Ok, there's really no end to this debate, so I'll just bow out of this thread gracefully after stirring the pot.

My bottom line is this: there are many ways to acquire talent, be it: (1) draft picks, (2) free agency, (3) trades or (4) internal player development. All strategies have been proven to be risky and unsuccessful, since you can only have 1 winner out of 30, or even 4 finalists out of 30 team.

In the end, IMO, it mostly comes down to smart management - you can make great moves in one area, that can be completely undone by a bad move e.g. like Minny accumulating 4 first round picks in the Stephen Curry draft and still ending up with Jonny Flynn. Or you can be Memphis and make a great pick, like Kevin Love, and then trade him away immediately, but have a seemingly bad trade turn out to be your all-stars, Randolph/Gasol. Many have also argued that OKC actually got lucky by 'backing into' drafting Durant, because Portland came out of nowhere to win the lottery. Otherwise, it's a tale of 2 teams. Luck also plays a part. And internal player development & coaching, IMO, is a vastly underrated factor.

BTW - speaking of Memphis. That's another team (small-market, no less) that acquired all-stars (Gasol/Randolph) via trade or free agency, not draft.

[Axel]

I'm pretty sure even you must admit that Daequan Cook, Michael Beasley and Chris Quinn had no major impact on the team as far as wins and losses. Actually, you could argue that getting rid of Beasley was addition by subtraction.

I still don't see "tank" in any of those trades. I see transactions to free up cap space. Why pick up Jermaine O'neal? Why keep Udonis Haslem? Why keep Dorrell Wright? They also had Mario Chalmers, Jamaal Magloire and Joel Anthony. I think its a stretch to say "they sold off every conceiveable asset."

I will agree that Miami wanted to have cap space for the 2010 free agency of Lebron and Bosh. However, I don't think creating cap space and still winning is the same as tanking. I think the goal of tanking is to lose. If the goal is not to lose, I think posters should stop calling it tanking and call it something else. That is just my opinion. It gets too confusing when posters refer to sooo many different strategies as "tanking."

I would also say that if management deliberately tries to lose by dumping productive players, its truly a disgusting slap in the face of sport itself. This is where i believe karma will come into play.

I'm okay with rebuilding, but tanking should have no place in our lives. Therefore, i think posters should be ashamed to use the words pro-tanking or "pro tanker".... Just words from a Raptor fan.

Beasley was a 2nd year 21 yr old PF who started 78 games, avg 15.8PPG, 6.4 RPG, while logging 29.8 MPG and a Win Shares of 4.6. That WS put him in the company of James Harden (4.5), Taj Gibson (4.7), Steph Currey (4.7). It wasn't until later in his career that he became completely useless. Perhaps Miami had such foresight to know that, but I don't think it made a difference to them, they had already decided their course of action.

Cook was a rotational player in his 2nd year and Quinn was a role player. Neither were stars, but both had roles on the team (similar to guys like Alan Anderson and Ed Davis from the Raps last year in terms of minutes).

You're right, the Heat didn't sell off every conceivable asset. They only sold off every asset that would hinder their ability to sign Bosh and James. Haslem was a UFA at the same time, so he didn't impact their cap room, and ended up signing after they landed LeBron and Bosh. Jermaine O'Neal was acquired because his deal was set to expire at the right time, he was an asset to get them cap space, little else. Dorell Wright was on the last year of his rookie deal (rookie scale deals are one of the assets many of us are trying to acquire). Wright was allowed to walk the next year. Chalmers was a 2nd round rookie scale deal, so even better than Wright. Anthony was an undrafted free agent on the books for $825k. Magloire was a cheap $1.1M deal.

The Heat obviously needed to fill out their roster, and they did so with expiring deals, rookie deals, or cheap vets, all surrounding D-Wade.

As for the name "tanking" "tankers" etc., a large part of that is from people on this forum who wanted to let this team play as-is and believe that the playoffs are attainable. That group of people, now known as "anti-tankers" lumped all rebuild/overhaul/tank supporters into one single group. We all became tankers despite different views on what that actually would entail. As this thread, and several others have shown, not all people who are labelled "tankers" believe the same thing. I have long been one of the biggest supporters of a massive overhaul of this roster, but then again, I was one of the few who wasn't particularly thrilled about the Rudy Gay acquisition in the first place. It is a broad spectrum of opinions that fall into what is now known as the "tankers" movement here on RR.