TANK vs ANTI TANK - SUPER THREAD - The Because I Can't Keep Track Edition

[special1]

But isn't it obvious those guys are gonna say that stuff. You don't take over a franchise at the management level and say we will try and make the playoffs, but it's not important to win it all. And most of the anti-tankers weren't disillusioned with the potential of the roster. No one wanted Bargs, and few if any wanted Gay. But we did see the potential to build around the core after the Rudy trade and believed that a great team could come of that, even if it meant making more moves down the line to make it to contention. This team has outperformed most of the anti-tankers expectations I would imagine, but we did see value in watching and supporting a competitive roster and we did believe you could build a contender around the core group. The idea of championship or bust is foolish when you consider that only, what 7 or 8 teams in the past 25 years have won the chip. You can't hang out in the lottery for 5-10 years waiting for Shaq or LBJ to fall in your lap. We have a great core group and the assets to bring in a piece that can potentially get us over the hump. That's what anti-tankers really believed in. And not to kick the hornets nest, but we were proven right.

This right here.

Someone's trying to move goal posts it seems.....We made the East Finals and we're looking at a top 2 team in the EAST for the second year in a row with the 3rd youngest roster in the NBA..... With all the doom and gloom that the pro-tankers were spewing.....Yet somehow, we're not right......I guess it's still up for debate for some (one).

[special1]

There is like 3 years of tanking/anti-tanking noise... I remember a lot of it being more than just a debate on what the best route to an NBA championship is. I think it's fair to say that certain definitive statements made during that time can be confirmed as 'wrong' even though the ultimate goal of winning a championship has not yet been reached. I.e: DeRozan is not a cancer to this team or a selfish idiot with a below average intelligence who we should have traded for Noah Vonleh or whoever else... I think we can comfortably call statements like that as incorrect or misguided even with the absence of a Larry O'Brien trophy in Toronto.

I wish i could like this 3 times over. The posters who've been around for a long time know the truth.

[CalgaryRapsFan]

I'm not sure how either side of the tank debate can really prove anything.

Does the Casey/DeRozan/Lowry core look like a legit championship contender? I'd say no. 2 of the last 3 playoffs have resulted in epic failures. However, it's a fantastic time to be a Raptors fan and last season's playoff run was pure joy to watch.

On the other hand, nobody knows what the results of a 'tank' would have been. Had the Lowry trade to NY gone through, as well as a DeRozan trade (rumors that he would have demanded a trade on the heels of a Lowry trade), the team would have had a great pick that draft, but also would have loaded up on assets (ie: more 1st round picks and blue-chip young players/prospects). The next couple (last few) years could have gone the Philly way, or the team could have assembled a young, cheap, star-studded roster, with tons of cap space to chase key veterans.

The majority of 'pro-tankers' were really more about a methodical rebuild, and it was never about a single pick (ie: riggin-for-Wiggans), as many 'anti-tankers' tried to frame the argument. Without a time machine and the ability to run parallel universe scenarios, we'll never know. It certainly isn't as black-and-white as some people try to make it, on both sides.

I also think it's possible to enjoy the ride and enjoy the sustainable success (something we've waited 20 years for), yet still be critical of a core we don't fully believe in, at least in terms of being a genuine championship contender.

[JawsGT]

You're fully entitled to aim low and enjoy the show but you can't tell people not to have higher expectations and goals. That's foolish.

Every sport has franchises that are perennial contenders. If you can build a team that is able to be one of those, then you get to take your shot at a title. If you fail, it's still failing, regardless of how nice the aesthetics are. Champion is the goal. I'm not demanding that we win every year, but to win a title is not an unrealistic goal. If you think so then I'm not sure what to tell you.

Your whole "hang in the lotto and wait for Shaw" comment is pointless. We aren't going to fully delve into what the different "tank" models supported said but none were to do as you just said. Many, myself included, were of the mind that shifting our timeframe to a post-LeBron era, with a collection of young top end talent is the best chance to win a ring. That doesn't mean you just suck until you get lucky. Your oversimplification of the concepts doesn't really strengthen your argument.

How were you proven right? The debate was what is the best way to win a title, we haven't won one with this core nor to we seem poised to knock LeBron off or defeat the Warriors or several other western powers. So what was proven? That we can make the playoffs and be a good team. Yeah, so what? Good isn't the goal and was never the discussion.

wow, you must have been bored axel to bring up this nonsense again. But how exactly are you aiming any higher than me by thinking that tanking is the best route to a championship? And when did I say that winning a championship is an unrealistic goal, or what did I say to make you think I think that. You seem to twist my words and ideas well.

Also, the debate has context, and that context was as it pertained to the Toronto Raptors and the roster and staff we had 2-3 years ago. This debate did not occur in the "Lets NBA" section. It was about whether or not the raptors should tank because what we had wasn't good enough to win or wasn't good enough as assets to produce a winner. And oddly, we had 3 top ten picks on our team, one of which was top 5 and our best player wasn't/isn't even a lottery pick. You can actually try and tank and end up in the same situation. We, actually, at present, have a collection of young talent and future picks that is as good at or better than some of the teams that have been in the lottery for the past 2-3 seasons. That was the crux of the argument for many of us, that you could achieve that while winning and getting better without having to play for ping pong balls.

And if the argument that the best route to a championship is through the lottery, then there must be lots of examples of teams that built through the draft, and won...but oddly, there are more examples of teams that built through the lottery and didn't win. Weird considering there are 30 teams, 14 that hit the lottery but only one winner. And like I said, we had 3 lottery picks on the anyways, so ultimately, it was about whether or not they were good enough to win.

[rocwell]

There is like 3 years of tanking/anti-tanking noise... I remember a lot of it being more than just a debate on what the best route to an NBA championship is. I think it's fair to say that certain definitive statements made during that time can be confirmed as 'wrong' even though the ultimate goal of winning a championship has not yet been reached. I.e: DeRozan is not a cancer to this team or a selfish idiot with a below average intelligence who we should have traded for Noah Vonleh or whoever else... I think we can comfortably call statements like that as incorrect or misguided even with the absence of a Larry O'Brien trophy in Toronto.

It was more than a debate mate...

Proof:

[DanH]

Okay guys, I love a good old semantic nobody-can-be-proven-right debate as much as anyone, including one over whether anyone from a previous debate has or has not been proven right.

But this thread is getting to be a real buzzkill. And my completionist tendencies prevent me from not reading it.

[lewro]

Okay guys, I love a good old semantic nobody-can-be-proven-right debate as much as anyone, including one over whether anyone from a previous debate has or has not been proven right.

But this thread is getting to be a real buzzkill. And my completionist tendencies prevent me from not reading it.

Felt the same way about the consensus argument and made the same plea and it didn't stop.

Axel, you have strong feelings on the subject but the fact that the league and the owners changed the draft rules in recognition that a contender could be built over night proves that it's possible build a champion through the draft, even if it hasn't happened, it's only a matter of time and circumstance. They're gambling with billions of dollars. Masai would have tanked if not for luck. The Hawks would tank if not for there attendance. It's not just Philly, they're just the most extreme version. Teams concede games regularly at the end of the season to add ping pong balls. That's tanking.
Basketball is highly individualistic sport and often you have to acquire talent through the draft (some markets can use FA). One player can be the difference between winning and losing. Eventually a team will win a championship through tanking. It's a matter of time, circumstance and probability.

[golden]

Okay guys, I love a good old semantic nobody-can-be-proven-right debate as much as anyone, including one over whether anyone from a previous debate has or has not been proven right.

But this thread is getting to be a real buzzkill. And my completionist tendencies prevent me from not reading it.

Yep. Time to lock this shit up.





Anti-tankers clearly won. (.......oops. lol.)

[3inthekeon]

Both BPI and 538 have us with a greater than 10% chance of winning the title this year.

It can easily be argued that those systems are not accurate, but it can't be argued those systems are opinionated or biased in any way..

[DanH]

Felt the same way about the consensus argument and made the same plea and it didn't stop.

It was the off-season, man. We're in full swing here.

[Mess]

Okay guys, I love a good old semantic nobody-can-be-proven-right debate as much as anyone, including one over whether anyone from a previous debate has or has not been proven right.

But this thread is getting to be a real buzzkill. And my completionist tendencies prevent me from not reading it.

Agreed.

Plus I don't give a shit what I posted 3 years ago, let alone any of you

[themasao]

How were you proven right? The debate was what is the best way to win a title, we haven't won one with this core nor to we seem poised to knock LeBron off or defeat the Warriors or several other western powers. So what was proven? That we can make the playoffs and be a good team. Yeah, so what? Good isn't the goal and was never the discussion.

So it's been a few years since I posted on here. And it's kind of funny that this debate is the first thread I see -- some things never change I guess.

That said, I much prefer this debate in its retrospective form.

Here's the thing: Tank vs. Anti-Tank was always a managerial debate. So the question is, how do you construct a roster to give it the best chance at winning a championship.

And the metric of success can only be set in terms of chances of winning a championship vs. the alternative. Counter-intuitive though it may sound, actually winning a championship isn't relevant.

In this case, it seems pretty clear that the lottery talent of the past 5 or so years, even if you put it all on the same team, wouldn't stand a chance at winning a title, and that's even assuming you pick the right guys -- look at Philly.

So I think it's fair to say that in the circumstances, deciding not to sell your top talent for lottery picks was the better decision in terms of maximizing your odds at a championship. And, importantly, you can make that determination without actually winning a championship.

GS might not win the championship this year, despite signing KD. That doesn't mean signing KD wasn't the best move to improve their odds at winning a championship, and it certainly doesn't prove that they never should have signed him.

[lewro]

It was the off-season, man. We're in full swing here.

It was draft which is #1 for me. Plus it was purely semantics, this is partial

[Axel]

Ftr I've been team anti tank since day 1, hated tanking and argued against it vehemently on here. But it's not like I was "right". I never saw kyle becoming a top 10 player, demar top 30, and minor tweaks like a Cory Joseph or a biyombo taking us to heights like this.

Sometimes in discussion forums one group ends up being the correct side..but relentlessly rubbing others noses in it does nothing productive, maybe pisses people off until they don't like you, if that's your angle all power to you

Which is funny because of your avatar.

[Axel]

But how exactly are you aiming any higher than me by thinking that tanking is the best route to a championship?

Your comment about "championship or bust" being foolish seemed to indicate that we shouldn't be aiming for a title and just be happy to be where we are. If that isn't the case, then I'm sorry, but that is what I took from that comment.