Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Rebuild or Re-tool? (thread merge in post #358)

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

  • p00ka wrote: View Post
    Can I borrow your crystal ball for next week's lottery?
    It's basic statistical probability. He has missed games in each of the past 3 seasons (the seasons where he was considered the starter). Do the math, and based on his career to date, Lowry should play in 67 of 82 games this year. 15 games missed is fairly high, but that is the statistical likelihood of the high risk player that he is.

    You support the use of stats and yet here I used simple stats that cannot be skewed in any way (GP and games on the schedule are firm numbers) and you want to dispute them? lol
    Heir, Prince of Cambridge

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

    Comment


    • Apollo wrote: View Post
      The fundamental principle here is intent. If the intent is to lose for the lotto then that's tanking. If not then it's something else, pick a label but don't call it tanking.
      Speaking for the "call it a tank or a rebuild, whatever" brigade: the intent is to build a true contending team, predicated on the belief that right now we don't have one and/or we are not even necessarily likely to make playoffs this year. (Many people disagree with that belief, of course.)

      That means acquiring assets to get us to true contention, and since free agency is at best a method for us to get complementary pieces (as opposed to superstars), that leaves us with trading and the draft to get them. Since we have only one or two players who are absolutely vital to keep in the long term (Jonas and maybe Amir), everybody else is potentially worth trading in order to get better value in the form of additional first-round draft picks and young players with a lot of upside. That doesn't mean simply trading for expiring junk contracts (although that probably ends up being part of any deal simply because so many of our players are overpaid).

      Of course, even if we get those prospects, the simple truth is that this rebuild plan does involve us sucking this year as we begin the rebuild process. But any true rebuild involves a team sucking at some point (as opposed to Toronto, who has never truly rebuilt but simply tinkered around the edges for years now, which just meant plenty of sucking). If we're going to suck at some point, then get it over with and do it when sucking is most rewarded, which is right now.

      Comment


      • Axel wrote: View Post
        It's basic statistical probability. He has missed games in each of the past 3 seasons (the seasons where he was considered the starter). Do the math, and based on his career to date, Lowry should play in 67 of 82 games this year. 15 games missed is fairly high, but that is the statistical likelihood of the high risk player that he is.

        You support the use of stats and yet here I used simple stats that cannot be skewed in any way (GP and games on the schedule are firm numbers) and you want to dispute them? lol
        I don't, but carry on.

        Comment


        • magoon wrote: View Post
          Of course, even if we get those prospects, the simple truth is that this rebuild plan does involve us sucking this year as we begin the rebuild process. But any true rebuild involves a team sucking at some point (as opposed to Toronto, who has never truly rebuilt but simply tinkered around the edges for years now, which just meant plenty of sucking). If we're going to suck at some point, then get it over with and do it when sucking is most rewarded, which is right now.
          Well based on how things are going so far you're going to be greatly disappointed because I don't think you're going to get the stinker you really wish to see.

          And the Raptors have rebuilt. It happened immediately after Carter left and again when Colangelo came in. If you disagree then go compare the rosters and then try to tell me otherwise.

          Babcock made a bunch of changes and failed; he used a bunch of lotto picks. Drastic changes didn't occur right away due to bad contracts but from his start to his finish, that roster turned over a lot.

          Colangelo made a bunch of changes and failed; he used a bunch of lotto picks and trades.

          Comment


          • Apollo wrote: View Post
            Well, this is too bad but good to point out.

            The fundamental principle here is intent. If the intent is to lose for the lotto then that's tanking. If not then it's something else, pick a label but don't call it tanking.

            I would reset that poll and start over if I could remember how I did it once in the past. No time right now to tinker with it.
            If the intent is to win a championship, then is it tanking? My intent is for the team to win the NBA title, but to do that you sometimes have to take a step back before you can move forward. Based on our cap hit and roster, we have almost no room to move forward. By your argument, everything other than organic growth is tanking.
            Heir, Prince of Cambridge

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

            Comment


            • magoon wrote: View Post
              Speaking for the "call it a tank or a rebuild, whatever" brigade: the intent is to build a true contending team, predicated on the belief that right now we don't have one and/or we are not even necessarily likely to make playoffs this year. (Many people disagree with that belief, of course.)

              That means acquiring assets to get us to true contention, and since free agency is at best a method for us to get complementary pieces (as opposed to superstars), that leaves us with trading and the draft to get them. Since we have only one or two players who are absolutely vital to keep in the long term (Jonas and maybe Amir), everybody else is potentially worth trading in order to get better value in the form of additional first-round draft picks and young players with a lot of upside. That doesn't mean simply trading for expiring junk contracts (although that probably ends up being part of any deal simply because so many of our players are overpaid).

              Of course, even if we get those prospects, the simple truth is that this rebuild plan does involve us sucking this year as we begin the rebuild process. But any true rebuild involves a team sucking at some point (as opposed to Toronto, who has never truly rebuilt but simply tinkered around the edges for years now, which just meant plenty of sucking). If we're going to suck at some point, then get it over with and do it when sucking is most rewarded, which is right now.
              Based on our past discussion, I think the one important part of your preference that needs to be stated, is that you don't intend to rely solely on the Raptors sucking to improve their own draft pick. You want to add young players with talent and potential, as well as other 1st round draft picks, to further enhance the Raptors' ability to rebuild.

              Tanking / Retooling / Rebuilding, according to your definition, is something like this:
              - keep good, young pieces (ie: Valanciunas)
              - dump older, expensive, known quantities that either likely won't improve further and/or aren't worth their contract (ie: Gay, DeRozan)
              - dump deadweight (should always be done as part of good roster management)
              - collect draft picks
              - collect good young players (assets to develop or trade)
              - increase cap space flexibility
              - use a combination of organic growth (develop young players), draft, trades (any assets - picks and/or players - could be flipped opportunistically, like Houston did for Harden) and free agency (from resultant cap space flexibility) to build team with a higher ceiling than the current core projects to be capable of achieving (ie: 7-11 seed in the East)
              - the revamped team might suck immediately, or could suprise and be half decent, but it doesn't really matter since the long-term is not completely dependent on the team's own 1st round pick in the upcoming draft


              Does that sound right?

              I still think that sounds more like retooling than traditional 'tanking'. However, since this method involves trading away the team's current best players, I can understand how it can be viewed as 'tanking', at least to some degree.
              Last edited by CalgaryRapsFan; Mon Jul 15, 2013, 02:39 PM.

              Comment


              • Axel wrote: View Post
                If the intent is to win a championship, then is it tanking? My intent is for the team to win the NBA title, but to do that you sometimes have to take a step back before you can move forward. Based on our cap hit and roster, we have almost no room to move forward. By your argument, everything other than organic growth is tanking.
                Short term intent is to lose a bunch of games in order to get a high lotto pick. That's tanking. You can dress it up nice, smear on makeup but it's not going to make it any more pretty.

                And I get that teams take steps backwards. Believe me, I've been watching this sport long enough to know that. The distinction is between it being a natural step back or an intentional step back. Natural being due to moves made with the long term in mind versus moves made with short term losing in mind in a hope to improve the long term. One involves trying to lose, one does not. Got it? Tanking is when you try to lose.

                Comment


                • Apollo wrote: View Post
                  Short term intent is to lose a bunch of games in order to get a high lotto pick. That's tanking. You can dress it up nice, smear on makeup but it's not going to make it any more pretty.
                  hahaha oh man. You got your sights set and aren't wavering. Maybe we should suit you up to play the "Power 3" role instead of Acy.

                  Intent is intent. If every plan has to fulfill both short term and long term winning, then I'm afraid you aren't going to find many successful plans. Not many teams can string together successful rosters era after era. How is that any different from the MU statement you posted earlier "The moves Ujiri makes may lead to the team taking a step back but they may improve too. The point is he's making decisions with long term improvement in mind and not short term losing." Taking a step back to move forward, when I said it you call it 'tanking' when MU said it you use it against me. Double-standard?
                  Heir, Prince of Cambridge

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

                  Comment


                  • CalgaryRapsFan wrote: View Post
                    Based on our past discussion, I think the one important part of your preference that needs to be stated, is that you don't intend to rely solely on the Raptors sucking to improve their own draft pick. You want to add young players with talent and potential, as well as other 1st round draft picks, to further enhance the Raptors' ability to rebuild.

                    Tanking / Retooling / Rebuilding, according to your definition, is something like this:
                    - keep good, young pieces (ie: Valanciunas)
                    - dump older, expensive, known quantities that either likely won't improve further and/or aren't worth their contract (ie: Gay, DeRozan)
                    - dump deadweight (should always be done as part of good roster management)
                    - collect draft picks
                    - collect good young players (assets to develop or trade)
                    - increase cap space flexibility
                    - use a combination of organic growth (develop young players), draft, trades (any assets - picks and/or players - could be flipped opportunistically, like Houston did for Harden) and free agency (from resultant cap space flexibility) to build team with a higher ceiling than the current core projects to be capable of achieving (ie: 7-11 seed in the East).


                    Does that sound right?

                    I still think that sounds more like retooling than traditional 'tanking'. However, since this method involves trading away the team's current best players, I can understand how it can be viewed as 'tanking', at least to some degree.
                    I think that is a wonderful summary, especially considering you yourself aren't necessarily on board with a roster over-haul.
                    Heir, Prince of Cambridge

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

                    Comment


                    • Axel wrote: View Post
                      Intent is intent. If every plan has to fulfill both short term and long term winning, then I'm afraid you aren't going to find many successful plans.
                      I'm not saying they need to win in the short term. I'm saying they shouldn't intentionally try to lose games; tanking is intentionally trying to lose games after all.

                      Axel wrote: View Post
                      Not many teams can string together successful rosters era after era. How is that any different from the MU statement you posted earlier "The moves Ujiri makes may lead to the team taking a step back but they may improve too. The point is he's making decisions with long term improvement in mind and not short term losing." Taking a step back to move forward, when I said it you call it 'tanking' when MU said it you use it against me. Double-standard?
                      Tanking is intentionally trying to lose games. Ujiri is not intentionally trying to lose game.

                      Guys, name me one team that's won the title due to them starting out by intentionally trying to lose games.

                      Comment


                      • I'm not trying to lose games either, I'm trying to clean up the mess BC left the team with and build a championship contender. But everything I say seems to mean 'tank' to you. So I guess it's #championshiporbust time for Apollo?
                        Heir, Prince of Cambridge

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

                        Comment


                        • Axel wrote: View Post
                          I'm not trying to lose games either, I'm trying to clean up the mess BC left the team with and build a championship contender. But everything I say seems to mean 'tank' to you. So I guess it's #championshiporbust time for Apollo?
                          Umm what? You're not the GM of a team, you're just a fan.

                          Comment


                          • Apollo wrote: View Post
                            Come on, it's even in the thread title. There is a poll at the top of the page. Nine people voted for it so far. I'm not going to pick through the behemoth to find you posts but they're in here; people talking about tanking for the 2014 draft; shedding cap so that the team can use flexibility to overpay new players.
                            I think you have a cognitive distortion or tunnel vision going on with the topic of tanking.

                            I've thrown out more proposals than likely anyone because it is something I enjoy doing. I don't think I've thrown out anything that was serious that did not have financial flexibility coming back IN ADDITION to proven young talent and draft pick(s).

                            I voted for tanking but my idea of tanking always has financial flexibility, proven young talent (aka rookie deals), prospects, and picks coming back. The Stuckey/CV thing is/was garbage and I don't remember anyone taking it seriously. I know any notion of doing it from my end had Monroe and KCP coming back.


                            Tanking for the 2014 draft (i.e. increasing odds of higher pick) is one strategy. Acquiring other picks is another - easier said than done, I know.

                            Using flexibility to overpay new players is definitely NOT on the agenda either. That is the situation the Raptors currently find themselves in (Kleiza, Fields, Gay, DD and previously Calderon, Kapono). Why get in to that situation again? Flexibility can be used for more than free agency. Trades are another possibility. Taking advantage of other teams financial difficulties (like Cleveland did with Memphis) is another option.



                            A lot of this discussion came from the SVG article I posted and the follow up Craiger had. One thing I would point out with regards to Houston is they ALWAYS kept financial flexibility over the last couple of years in addition to stockpiling cheap assets. That is one aspect many over look. They had cap space each summer to attack free agency and made 'unbalanced' trades that were driven primarily by finances because they had the required flexibility to help other franchises and cheap assets to send back. Given Toronto's state, they don't have that financial flexibility or cheap assets to take such an approach. Even Indiana, who so many look at as a possible blueprint for Toronto, had serious financial flexibility prior to acquiring Hill and giving Hibbert his extension. Right now Raptors have few cheap assets worth parting with (Ross and picks are essentially it) and no flexibility.



                            I'm not questioning your opinion or your principles as you mentioned in earlier post. To each his/her own. But in saying tanking goes against your principles that would certainly be a year by year outlook. However what if the outlook is 2-3 seasons? If management comes to the conclusion, as they have, that a team is not a championship contender, is likely to struggle to make the playoffs year in and year out, and does not have the required financial flexibility or assets to change the fate, wouldn't it be in the teams and fans best interests to attempt to look at what might be 2-3 years down the road versus the very near term?



                            To give an example of what I mean by tanking - because I did vote for it - lets say it is January and the Raptors find themselves in 7-11 land along with a team like Charlotte. This is the type of trade I envision happening:

                            Charlotte: Gay, Lowry
                            Toronto: Gordon, Kemba, Biyombo, Portland/Detroit 2014 pick (top 8/top12) protected.

                            Raptors end the season losing much more than they win getting their own pick in the top 7 and hopefully having two more picks in the 9-15 range. Those two 9-15 pick range picks might be able to get the Raptors another top 7 pick - who knows? Then of course there is this: http://hoopshype.com/articles/sierra...to-their-teams

                            I am saying the above is likely but just to give you an idea of what I would expect in return to start the rebuilding/tanking process. I am definitely not down for trading Gay for CV/Stuckey and letting everything ride on the Raptors pick alone. Forget that.


                            The Raptors are in a unique situation where they have the hardest piece to acquire in basketball (starting C) locked up on a rookie deal for 3 years and locked up for up to 8. They really are in a terrific situation to rebuild/tank. Most teams rebuilding/tanking are looking to find a piece like JV. Rarely do teams start a rebuild/tank with a piece like JV already on the roster.

                            Comment


                            • Apollo wrote: View Post
                              Your definition of tanking is different from a lot of people in here and all of the media in that case. Tanking is operating under the intention of losing to enhance the odds in the lotto.

                              The moves Ujiri makes may lead to the team taking a step back but they may improve too. The point is he's making decisions with long term improvement in mind and not short term losing. He's not making plays for the lotto. He said that already.



                              Tanking means intentionally losing so if you're not for that then you must be for tinkering. Tinkering means making changes but does not imply making changes with short term losing being a primary short term objective.
                              He kind of has to say that, doesn't he?

                              He'd get the wrath of Stern/Silver otherwise and alienate many fans and corporate sponsor with any loser talk. Everyone knows what Philly is doing but you do not hear anything coming from them saying they are trying to lose.

                              Comment


                              • Axel wrote: View Post
                                I'm not trying to lose games either, I'm trying to clean up the mess BC left the team with and build a championship contender. But everything I say seems to mean 'tank' to you. So I guess it's #championshiporbust time for Apollo?
                                No, I'm just trying to get the point across as to the definition of "tank" because some people sound confused.

                                I want people to understand that tanking means trying to lose. The intent is the key factor here. I don't mind them stepping back or forward this year. I'm putting faith in MJ's system but what I do not respect is intentional losing. I think it's a big "F you" to the fans that's presented on a fancy doily and some people eat it all up. I've seen enough of that to know that when a team comes out with the indirect tanking language red flags should be going up. Those teams who are tanking can't get it done like the good teams, that's why they're doing that. They're trying to luck into an edge because they can't produce their own. When they do hit the jackpot more times than not it's short lived because they don't have the game to follow it up (Cavs are a prime example. Orlando is another example).

                                I think MJ has game. He's going to do the right thing and if that leads to the lotto then he'll make the best of that and if it doesn't he'll make the best of that.

                                Matt52 wrote: View Post
                                He kind of has to say that, doesn't he?

                                He'd get the wrath of Stern/Silver otherwise and alienate many fans and corporate sponsor with any loser talk. Everyone knows what Philly is doing but you do not hear anything coming from them saying they are trying to lose.
                                If he was making plays for the lotto he wouldn't be signing guys who fit Casey's system perfectly and fill a big need. That signing was counter to tanking but makes a lot of sense to a team looking to improve over time and see that his coach has the pieces he needs for his system to run.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X