Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

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

  • p00ka wrote: View Post
    With that question, you totally change the topic. so I won't even respond to it specifically.
    Reminder: My point that you responded to was "yet none of it resembles tanking for lottery luck."

    The "lottery related" results of that JJ trade:
    1. A lottery protected (no shooting for lottery luck there) 1st round pick that ended being the 18th pick in a very weak draft, subsequently used to trade all the way up to #16 in the same weak draft. Nothing lottery related at all.
    2. The hawks went on to finish 6th in the East last year, taking them way out of the lottery. Maybe it's just me, but that doesn't seem to come close to resembling "tanking for lottery luck".
    3. Most don't project them in the lottery this year either. If they are, they certainly won't be high in the lottery. As you pointed out, they went out and got Milsap, hardly a tanking for the lottery move.

    Once again, your Atlanta example of "Sounds exactly like what many of us are advocating" doesn't at all resemble tanking for lottery luck, as it resulted in no lottery implications at all.
    This is why you are wrong. Tanking is really the proper term for what 90% of the "pro-tankers" are even advocating. Roster rebuild with a complete overhaul has nothing to do with lottery. Better fitting pieces, cap flexibility, and future picks. No where does it say, trade everything for a chance to win the lotto. So no, the Joe Johnson trade doesn't change the topic, since this thread is about how far are you willing to go in a roster overhaul. That trade is likely the barometer for any Rudy Gay trade, since Gay has more in common with Johnson than Melo.
    Heir, Prince of Cambridge

    If you see KeonClark in the wasteland, please share your food and water with him.

    Comment


    • special1 wrote: View Post
      In my opinion (please correct me if i'm wrong) Pro-Tankers believe that we should lose games in order to get a higher draft pick. Please excuse me if i somehow have this confused. Isn't that the true meaning of tanking??

      I "hear" what your saying. It seems your definition of pro-tanking includes my views? To be honest, I've never felt so distant from the "pro-tanking" movement. Yet, you make it seem that i may be a "pro-tanker" as well. Interesting.....

      I believe that this team should improve itself at any opportunity. Gay has the option of opting out of his contract. Lowry could walk at the end of the year. Would we not have flexibility then? Technically, we don't have to tank for this flexibiliity in the coming year or two.

      FYI - I think re-tool, re-work, reconstruct is not the same as tanking. I think that this roster will be different next year. However, I'm not sure the core will be much different.

      This thread is indeed an eye opener for me. I think there are divisions within the "pro-tanking" movement. I think you guys should put up a poll to see exactly what it is that you do stand for. For example, you may believe that i am in the tanking movement, yet i am not. I do think this roster still needs to show improvement, but i'm NOT advocating tanking.
      I think the semantics has been the big issue. In one of the first 'to tank, or not to tank' threads, which had a poll to choose 'tanker' or 'tweaker', I never selected because I viewed myself more as a 're-tooler'...

      As I understand this thread, 'tanking' (which has 2 votes only) is all about making roster moves with 2 things in mind this season: acquiring draft picks and maximizing draft position (ie: just lose baby!). What we're seeing though, is that many people who labeled themselves as 'tankers' want something more in line with retooling than outright tanking... if that makes any sense. of course if the Raps get off to another awful start in the standings this season, then I think the outright full-on tanking bandwagon will fill up in a hurry!

      Comment


      • An element that seems to confuse matters is the idea of losing on purpose. We need to distinguish between players losing on purpose, versus management losing on purpose.

        It needs to be pointed out that nobody is expecting players to start missing shots, throwing the ball out of bounds, or generally lowering their compete level.

        Comment


        • Nilanka wrote: View Post
          An element that seems to confuse matters is the idea of losing on purpose. We need to distinguish between players losing on purpose, versus management losing on purpose.

          It needs to be pointed out that nobody is expecting players to start missing shots, throwing the ball out of bounds, or generally lowering their compete level.
          We already had Vince, and Bargnani for that
          Heir, Prince of Cambridge

          If you see KeonClark in the wasteland, please share your food and water with him.

          Comment


          • Nilanka wrote: View Post
            An element that seems to confuse matters is the idea of losing on purpose. We need to distinguish between players losing on purpose, versus management losing on purpose.

            It needs to be pointed out that nobody is expecting players to start missing shots, throwing the ball out of bounds, or generally lowering their compete level.
            WHOOOOOO! (Ric Flair is here!)

            Players/coaches go from game to game trying to win.

            Management looks many seasons out. Draft picks, free agency targets, their own player evaluation and development.

            This team is not going to win a championship as currently constructed therefore why wouldn't management, especially since management has made clear championships is the ultimate goal and EXPECTATION, make moves down for 2-5 seasons down the road when the team COULD field a championship contender?

            Comment


            • Axel wrote: View Post
              We already had Vince, and Bargnani for that
              lol, touché. They helped us tank when we weren't trying to tank....

              Comment


              • Matt52 wrote: View Post
                WHOOOOOO! (Ric Flair is here!)

                Players/coaches go from game to game trying to win.

                Management looks many seasons out. Draft picks, free agency targets, their own player evaluation and development.

                This team is not going to win a championship as currently constructed therefore why wouldn't management, especially since management has made clear championships is the ultimate goal and EXPECTATION, make moves down for 2-5 seasons down the road when the team COULD field a championship contender?
                I have a question, and im not being sarcastic here, but what would be the reason to tank? If the reason to tank is to get a potential franchise player from the draft (which i really think is the end all be all of tanking), dont we already have that player in Jonas Valanciunas?

                Comment


                • Axel wrote: View Post
                  This is why you are wrong. Tanking is really the proper term for what 90% of the "pro-tankers" are even advocating. Roster rebuild with a complete overhaul has nothing to do with lottery. Better fitting pieces, cap flexibility, and future picks. No where does it say, trade everything for a chance to win the lotto. So no, the Joe Johnson trade doesn't change the topic, since this thread is about how far are you willing to go in a roster overhaul. That trade is likely the barometer for any Rudy Gay trade, since Gay has more in common with Johnson than Melo.
                  Dude, you keep changing the topic of the discussion between you and I, so of course I'm "wrong".

                  Hey, however you wish to describe the nature of the thread, I responded to your post about Atlanta's example with a simple "Yet none of it resembles tanking for lottery luck.". I mentioned that because MANY pro-tanking posts, especially from the OP of this thread, constantly speak to losing as many games as possible (that's called tanking) because the upcoming lottery is loaded with talent.

                  You responded with "Joe Johnson Trade was ". I provided facts that spell out that there was zero lottery implications in that example. Now you come back telling me I'm "wrong" because it "has nothing to do with lottery". Man, if you're going to keep changing the path of this convo (somewhat common among pro-tankers apparently), yup I'm wrong about something.

                  Comment


                  • Matt52 wrote: View Post
                    WHOOOOOO! (Ric Flair is here!)

                    Players/coaches go from game to game trying to win.

                    Management looks many seasons out. Draft picks, free agency targets, their own player evaluation and development.

                    This team is not going to win a championship as currently constructed therefore why wouldn't management, especially since management has made clear championships is the ultimate goal and EXPECTATION, make moves down for 2-5 seasons down the road when the team COULD field a championship contender?
                    What this thread has helped me realize is that the perception of pro-tankers is that they are willing to absolutely sacrifice the present, in the hope of building a better future (solid management and sound strategy are catalysts for this hope - not just a wish & a prayer). However, many pro-tankers are giving preferential treatment to the longer-term, but would prefer an approach that maintains competitive in the present as well (ie: Gay/DeRozan/Lowry should ideally be traded in a 'Melo type trade that returns talent and draft picks, not in a "we surrender" trade along the lines of the Detroit-Gay rumor).

                    If we can get on the same page about what rebuilding, retooling, tanking, pro-tanking, anti-tanking, roster evaluation and wait-and-see means before the season starts - partly as a result of this thread - then all our summer frustrations won't all be for naught! lol

                    Comment


                    • p00ka wrote: View Post
                      Dude, you keep changing the topic of the discussion between you and I, so of course I'm "wrong".

                      Hey, however you wish to describe the nature of the thread, I responded to your post about Atlanta's example with a simple "Yet none of it resembles tanking for lottery luck.". I mentioned that because MANY pro-tanking posts, especially from the OP of this thread, constantly speak to losing as many games as possible (that's called tanking) because the upcoming lottery is loaded with talent.

                      You responded with "Joe Johnson Trade was ". I provided facts that spell out that there was zero lottery implications in that example. Now you come back telling me I'm "wrong" because it "has nothing to do with lottery". Man, if you're going to keep changing the path of this convo (somewhat common among pro-tankers apparently), yup I'm wrong about something.
                      Oh man. We aren't going to agree but for insanity's sake I'll try again.

                      Special1 asked about how Atlanta was a rebuild? I presented how Atlanta went from a treadmill team, circa 2009 to their present state. Each of the moves they made are similar to what many of the rebuild movement want; moving the albatross contract, creating cap flexibility, acquiring extra picks as assets. The whole idea that everyone who is not satisfied with this roster wants us to acquire lottery picks in trades isn't true, that's your perception of our desires, not reality.

                      I honestly don't care if we get a single draft pick in our rebuild. I honestly don't care if we have 0 lottery picks this year. We need to overhaul the roster with moveable and valuable assets that either fit together or can be flipped again. The Joe Johnson trade is a perfect example. Removing a Gay like contract, adding players with moveable contracts and adding an extra pick (that was used on Shane Larkin then traded again). I would be thrilled if that was the first step in our rebuild.

                      Lottery luck is not a term that I have said, nor do I recall seeing Matt mention it during the OP. In fact, here is something Matt did say: "A lot of people who are against tanking use the argument or protest against it saying assets such as Lowry, DD, or Gay would be traded for expiring contracts - and that is it. The classic example is Stuckey/CV for Gay that was floated over the summer. Personally, I'm all for blowing it up but not if it means trading assets for nothing. Established NBA talent, picks, and cap space in any combination is a minimum. Valuable assets need to be returned. As bad as Gay's contract may be, it is still over in 2014-15. We're not talking Joe Johnson here."

                      Matt even mentions Joe Johnson in the OP.
                      Last edited by Axel; Thu Oct 24, 2013, 06:45 PM.
                      Heir, Prince of Cambridge

                      If you see KeonClark in the wasteland, please share your food and water with him.

                      Comment


                      • Heaven's. And he shouts insanity. You're right, I'm wrong, I'm sorry.

                        Comment


                        • TheGloveinRapsUniform wrote: View Post
                          I have a question, and im not being sarcastic here, but what would be the reason to tank? If the reason to tank is to get a potential franchise player from the draft (which i really think is the end all be all of tanking), dont we already have that player in Jonas Valanciunas?
                          Who says we can't have two?
                          Twitter - @thekid_it

                          Comment


                          • isaacthompson wrote: View Post
                            Who says we can't have two?
                            Gotta have at least two.
                            "Stop eating your sushi."
                            "I do actually have a pair of Uggs."
                            "I've had three cups of green tea tonight. I'm wired. I'm absolutely wired."
                            - Jack Armstrong

                            Comment


                            • JimiCliff wrote: View Post
                              Gotta have at least two.
                              Exactly. That's the ol' saying nowadays.. gotta have two superstars to win it all.
                              Twitter - @thekid_it

                              Comment


                              • I do find it funny that I was able to change Matt's stance on this topic. At the start of the summer he was consistently emphasizing how Gay, DD, Lowry etc needed to go at all costs. But now he only wants to move them if we get good value in return.

                                Interesting.

                                Ditto for Axel and CalgaryRapsFan. I'm sure they'll all vehemently deny it now
                                Last edited by Xixak; Thu Oct 24, 2013, 11:02 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X