Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Question for people against tanking

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

  • #31
    C-Low wrote: View Post
    Everyone's basically said it though.. why tank when there is absolutely no guarantee and there are clearly teams out there who will and are doing it better.
    The problem is you anti-tankers keep ignoring the response, which is:

    1. You need franchise-level talent to succeed in the NBA. Everybody agrees on this.
    2. Right now we don't really have any. MAYBE Jonas pans out to become that, but that's iffy.
    3. So we need to get a franchise guy.
    4. But we can't really get one through free agency, both because Toronto isn't that desirable a market for free agents and because we're capped out with shitty contracts.
    5. And we don't have any decent assets that will let us trade for a franchise guy either.
    6. Accordingly, the only way to get a franchise guy is through the draft, and that means maximizing our chances within the draft.

    Now respond to that, instead of the "lol draft so random" stuff, and then we can talk. Because right now, anti-tanker seem desperate to believe we only need a few incremental tweaks, and we need so, so much more than that.

    Comment


    • #32
      magoon wrote: View Post
      The problem is you anti-tankers keep ignoring the response, which is:

      1. You need franchise-level talent to succeed in the NBA. Everybody agrees on this.
      No argument
      2. Right now we don't really have any. MAYBE Jonas pans out to become that, but that's iffy.
      No argument...maybe some near all stars, but that's it.
      3. So we need to get a franchise guy.
      No argument
      4. But we can't really get one through free agency, both because Toronto isn't that desirable a market for free agents and because we're capped out with shitty contracts.
      Free agents go where the money is. Most NBA guys love the city of Toronto. They don't like playing on crap teams. So making the playoffs for the next couple of years helps a great free agent think that maybe they will help to put the raps over the hump. And the maxed out contracts are all gone in a couple of years. so why not have a couple of winning years, develop the young guys, draft smart for two years and then be in a position to offer good contracts to free agents?
      5. And we don't have any decent assets that will let us trade for a franchise guy either.
      Right, so draft smart over the next 2-3 years and then you have trade chips at the same time as you gain financial flexibility
      6. Accordingly, the only way to get a franchise guy is through the draft, and that means maximizing our chances within the draft.
      You can sign franchise players through free agency in a couple of years, when you have financial flexibility, if you have been developing talent, making a few smart trades and winning games.

      Now respond to that, instead of the "lol draft so random" stuff, and then we can talk. Because right now, anti-tanker seem desperate to believe we only need a few incremental tweaks, and we need so, so much more than that.
      No, anti-tanker believes that franchise players can be acquired through free agency if you establish the right kind of culture, hold your players accountable, have a long term plan, and draft smart instead of trading away all your picks with goofy swing for the fences trades to provide short term relief
      See!

      Comment


      • #33
        Puffer wrote: View Post
        See!
        Free agents go where the money is: True
        Franchise players go where the money is: True - to an extent

        Franchise players will always get offered max money by multiple teams. All this bs talk about "oh yeah gonna make a winning culture etc etc" is what EVERY organization says. Take Atlanta as an example: They have been a non-homecourt playoff team for the recent past seasons. They have a "winning" culture, AND the ability to sign BOTH CP3 and Howard, YET they will most likely NOT sign there... According to most of you, it should be OBVIOUS to sign there:

        Do they have the money? YES
        Do they have a borderline allstar (aka their rudy gay)? YES (Horford)
        Will they have championship potential? YES
        Will they create a Big 3 (More than we can offer)? YES
        Will they sign? NO

        Not only will ATL try to sign the two biggest names (arguably the best players at their position) in this years free agency, but they CAN AFFORD TO AS WELL! Yet the sad truth is that they won't.

        We are not as attractive as the LA's, NY's, even MIA's/HOU's/BOS' etc.

        You guys honestly think franchise talent will come here from the next 3-4 years of first round exits?

        in fact: WE HAVE 1/15 CHANCE IN THE DRAFT (Increasing based on our place at the end of the season)

        Signing Lebron/Melo/FRANCHISE talent etc: 29 OTHER OFFER SHEETS

        Comment


        • #34
          FRANCHISE PLAYERS DONT GET TRADED, THEY GET DRAFTED, THAT'S WHY YOU CALL THEM FRANCHISE PLAYERS.[/QUOTE]

          I like that quote too but history proves you wrong. As was often mentioned around the draft this year, unless you were a Spur, since 1985 no #1 overall pick has won a championship with the team that drafted him. Maybe the #2, maybe the #3...not sure. But you're tanking for #1.

          Comment


          • #35
            My biggest complaint against tanking next season isn't so much about the validity of tanking as a legitmate strategy for long-term team building, but moreso about the amount of 'competition' in the tanking challenge.

            1. With so many teams blatantly tanking (and several others just being naturally pathetic), there's no guarantee that a tanking Raptors team will even finish in the bottom-5 of the standings (especially with so many bad teams in the East).

            2. Even if the Raptors do finish in the bottom-3 of the standings, there's no guarantee that they'd wind up getting a top-3 draft pick after the draft lottery.

            3. Even if the Raptors did wind up with a top-3 draft pick, there's no guarantee that the guy they draft will become the franchise player he's projected to become, or that he can make the Raptors team any better than they currently are (or could become via retooling VS rebuilding/tanking).

            4. Even if the Raptors did wind up with the #1 overall draft pick, there's no guarantee that they'd ever become a championship contending team with that player leading them. Since 1986, only 2 #1 overal picks have ever won the NBA championship with the team that drafted them - David Robinson & Tim Duncan; the stats don't support tanking.


            Tanking COULD be a highly successful strategy, but there are so many variables that are more dependent on luck (even if the Raptors were the only team tanking, which they won't be), to even consider it a 'strategy'. It's more of a 'hail mary', which is far more likely to blow-up in your face than yield successful results, be it short and/or long term.

            Comment


            • #36
              magoon wrote: View Post
              The San Antonio Spurs tanked like mad for Tim Duncan. They knew the 1996 season was gone the moment David Robinson went down and rather than try to salvage it, they smartly over-rested their other injured players to give themselves the best chance at the lottery. It worked.
              16 years ago. It hash't been done since. The odds are slim to say the least.
              You come at the King, you best not miss.

              Comment


              • #37
                And as other just mention, they didn't even tank that season. They just got insanely lucky.
                You come at the King, you best not miss.

                Comment


                • #38
                  CalgaryRapsFan wrote: View Post
                  My biggest complaint against tanking next season isn't so much about the validity of tanking as a legitmate strategy for long-term team building, but moreso about the amount of 'competition' in the tanking challenge.

                  1. With so many teams blatantly tanking (and several others just being naturally pathetic), there's no guarantee that a tanking Raptors team will even finish in the bottom-5 of the standings (especially with so many bad teams in the East).

                  2. Even if the Raptors do finish in the bottom-3 of the standings, there's no guarantee that they'd wind up getting a top-3 draft pick after the draft lottery.

                  3. Even if the Raptors did wind up with a top-3 draft pick, there's no guarantee that the guy they draft will become the franchise player he's projected to become, or that he can make the Raptors team any better than they currently are (or could become via retooling VS rebuilding/tanking).
                  I understand these concerns, and my response is:

                  1. Given the depth of 2014, we're not necessarily looking for top three (although of course we want as high a pick as possible). We're looking for top six, maybe even top eight. There is that much talent in the 2014 draft. If we choose to pursue a dedicated, single-season tank, we should be able to get a good enough pick to justify the tank. The point of the tank is not to "get a shot at Wiggins" - that's a bonus. The point of the tank is to get into a premium spot in a very, very deep and rich draft (and, if we can manage multiple picks later on in that draft, all the better).

                  2. There are never any guarantees, this much is true. That having been said, the "incremental build" strategy is much, much less likely to succeed in the long term: the Raptors, as built, are simply not a good team and in fact are the worst type of not very good team in that we are poised to be stuck in the mediocre middle, the bottom end of the lottery or first-round playoff exits. The incremental build strategy is predicated on the idea that we are one or two pieces away from serious contention, when in fact it's more like three to five pieces.

                  3. Don't get tunnelvision re: the championship, because as said, the championship is part skill and part luck. We nearly had the Spurs win this year and then a few crazy shots turned it into the Heat winning. Tanking teams in fact have a very strong track record: the Spurs with Duncan, the Cavaliers with LeBron, the Magic with Dwight, et cetera. All of those teams had pretty strong playoff track records, and the Cavs in particular would have been better if their front office hadn't been really stupid. And now we're seeing the Cavs, after a prolonged tank, rise back into contention and they are going to be contending for the foreseeable future.

                  The point of a tank is not "win a championship" because that is dumb: you can't guarantee a championship with ANYTHING. Brooklyn is spending eleventy jillion dollars this year on star power and they aren't guaranteed a damn thing (and probably won't even beat Miami!). The point of a tank is to get the assets you need to go forward in the most cost-effective manner possible, and when you can't acquire those assets by other means, tanking is what's left.

                  I would LOVE it if the Raptors could simply rejigger one or two pieces and hey presto we're capable of going deep into the playoffs. But they can't and we aren't. I know everybody's tired of rebuilding, but the problem is that Toronto never did a proper rebuild in the first place: we've spent the best part of a decade with incremental rebuilds and GMs promising us that long-term contending was just around the corner and we only needed one or two key pieces, and it was never true and it's not true now. We're closer than we have been in the past - I mean, at least we don't have Turkoglu, that's something - but we're not nearly so close as some believe.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Mr.Z wrote: View Post
                    And as other just mention, they didn't even tank that season. They just got insanely lucky.
                    Again: San Antonio tanked like motherfuckers. They tanked in response to the David Robinson injury, true, rather than entering the season planning to tank. But they tanked, and anybody who says otherwise wasn't watching them play in 1996.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Maybe tanking doesn't always work, but if there's a year to tank It's next year. There's a good five, maybe more guys in next year's draft who'd have gone number one this year. Draft with the best odds in years to get a franchise player. That's where I think the Raptors should go. Blow up the roster and leave JV and a few other pieces, and tank. Get picks. There's just two problems with that. One, that's what more and more teams are doing. Boston, Philly, Charlotte, the Pistons, Bucks, Magic, Hawks, Suns, maybe the Kings all look like they will be incredibly crappy next year. That's nine already, with the Raptors, it's ten. Not so appealing anymore is it. The second problem is that when you tank, you trade your players for assets. Almost none of our players, aside for Lowry, who won't fetch much, and JV, who is basically untouchable, are valued. Why? Because they all suck, or they are overpaid, or both. Colangelo really screwed Ujiri over.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        magoon wrote: View Post
                        You can't get win a championship just by tanking. Tanking gives you your core, and you build from there. Good teams build on their core and turn it into victories; great teams win the Championship. ............
                        ..........And even then, luck plays a factor (look how close the Spurs just came in this past finals; that series literally came down to a handful of very difficult shots). .......................
                        ........Let's go through some of the list you just dismissed because they didn't win the Championship:

                        Dwight: three times to the first round of the playoffs, once to the second round of the playoffs, one Conference finals, one NBA Finals appearance
                        LeBron: three times to the second round, one Conference finals, one NBA Finals
                        Pau: Not exactly a "franchise guy" - Pau's a great second banana - but still, four playoff runs
                        KG: seven straight first-rounders and one Conference finals (Minnesota is a great example of a team that got talent and didn't know what to do with it)

                        Let's compare those to Toronto's two All-Star draftees. Vince got us to two first-round appearances and a second-round appearance before he bailed on us; Bosh got us two first-round appearances after Carter left. Now, neither Vince nor Bosh is really a Franchise Guy on the level of Kobe or LeBron, but they're respectable. The problem there was a combination of player unhappiness and a front office that was completely and utterly hapless (quite comparable to Minnesota's reign with KG).
                        1st bold: you seem to be long on cliches, but a tad short on logic/reason. So get you one a dem franchise guys and build around him like the smart championship guys do, hey. As was pointed out by everyone's favourite reporter. Doug Smith, and repeated often here, only 2,,,,,,,,, yes, only 2 #1 picks over the last 28 years have won a chip with the team that drafted them, both with 1 team, the Spurs. To extrapolate a little from that, only 4 championships over 28 years were won by teams that retained their #1 pick.

                        2nd bold: No idea what your point is in regard to the conversation.

                        3rd bold: I didn't dismiss anybody. You missed the point the point? I was responding to what I quoted from a post, which had been CAPITALIZED BOLDED TO ME: ...."FRANCHISE PLAYERS DONT GET TRADED, THEY GET DRAFTED, THAT'S WHY YOU CALL THEM FRANCHISE PLAYERS."
                        As forceful the attempt was to make that point, my examples weren't about dismissing players, but pointing out that MANY, if not MOST of what people would call "franchise players", do in fact get traded,,,,,,,,, or in today's world, leave via free agency instead, and many of them win championships,, but NOT with the team that "tanked" to draft them. Cliches may be fun to throw around to sound smart, but perhaps one should evaluate their validity when inventing ones

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          p00ka wrote: View Post
                          "FRANCHISE PLAYERS DONT GET TRADED, THEY GET DRAFTED, THAT'S WHY YOU CALL THEM FRANCHISE PLAYERS."

                          Thanks for the inaccurate cliche, but in over 50 years of the NBA, how many teams won through tanking?

                          That aside, I don't know what criteria you use for "franchise player" (can you tell me?), but for some examples:

                          Kobe- drafted 13th by one team, obtained through trade
                          Dwight- drafted 1st, won nothing in 8 years, traded
                          Lebron- drafted 1st, won nothing in 7 years, then left drafting team through free agency
                          Pau Gasol, drafted 3rd, won nothing in 6 years, traded
                          KG- drafted 5th, won nothing in 12 years, traded
                          Dirk- drafted 9th, traded to team he became "franchise player" for
                          Chris Paul- drafted 4th, after 6 years of winning nothing, traded
                          James Harden- traded
                          Shaq- drafted 1st, won nothing in 3 years, traded to LA, then traded to Miami

                          going back further:
                          Kareem- drafted 1st, after 6 years of winning nothing, traded
                          Wilt- drafted 1st, traded 3 times
                          Oscar Robertson- drafted 1st, after 10 years of winning nothing, traded and won a championship
                          i dont understand what your trying to say ? 60 players a year get drafted, 1 title is won a year. So you're gonna start naming all the players who didn't win a title ?......

                          2nd I still dont get what your saying, i've already listed the past title winners and pointed out that the best player on almost all of the teams were drafted by that same team, i'll go even further they were drafted in the lottery there's more than the #1 pick, and no one is saying tank for wiggins, we're saying stay in the lottery. Kobe was drafted by charlotte under instructions by the Lakers, the pick was traded the day before the draft.
                          Last edited by Dino4life; Sun Jun 30, 2013, 02:07 AM.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            CalgaryRapsFan wrote: View Post
                            My biggest complaint against tanking next season isn't so much about the validity of tanking as a legitmate strategy for long-term team building, but moreso about the amount of 'competition' in the tanking challenge.

                            1. With so many teams blatantly tanking (and several others just being naturally pathetic), there's no guarantee that a tanking Raptors team will even finish in the bottom-5 of the standings (especially with so many bad teams in the East).

                            2. Even if the Raptors do finish in the bottom-3 of the standings, there's no guarantee that they'd wind up getting a top-3 draft pick after the draft lottery.

                            3. Even if the Raptors did wind up with a top-3 draft pick, there's no guarantee that the guy they draft will become the franchise player he's projected to become, or that he can make the Raptors team any better than they currently are (or could become via retooling VS rebuilding/tanking).

                            4. Even if the Raptors did wind up with the #1 overall draft pick, there's no guarantee that they'd ever become a championship contending team with that player leading them. Since 1986, only 2 #1 overal picks have ever won the NBA championship with the team that drafted them - David Robinson & Tim Duncan; the stats don't support tanking.


                            Tanking COULD be a highly successful strategy, but there are so many variables that are more dependent on luck (even if the Raptors were the only team tanking, which they won't be), to even consider it a 'strategy'. It's more of a 'hail mary', which is far more likely to blow-up in your face than yield successful results, be it short and/or long term.
                            Its not talking about getting #1, its about getting talent, and i already said, 2014 sweepstake is gone already we missed out, we should amass draft picks for future drafts, great basketball players are not going extinct after next draft.

                            Getting that Franchise guy gives your team a direction, a vision. instead of the randomly assembled talent we've been doing now for a while. And the explanation is clear. We went from Chris Bosh, To Andrea Bargnani to Demar Derozan to Rudy Gay to Jonas Valanciunas, we cant succeed because we change our back bone every single chance we got, we have no clue where we should had clay and where we should chizzle it.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              The amount of talent we'd have to shed, to get bad enough to have a top 5 pick (hopefully) seems greater than the value of a top 5, or 10 pick to me. I would think that young players to develop, would come at a high price if they had any real upside, or teams wouldn't be willing to part with them. Loading a team with young, but average players, and 2-3 of our core guys gets us, say, the #3 pick. Now we have 2-3 of our existing players, a rookie of unknown upside and a pile of pointless fillers, whose only purpose is/was to fill out a tanking roster. This is better than what we have now...how? And we get to watch a full year of getting our asses whupped....a full year.....Competing for last place like it's for the championship, with a bunch of other teams who have exactly the same plan in mind? Why would I watch that?

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                p00ka wrote: View Post
                                Name one team that has won a championship through "tanking".
                                hey man name one championship team built with late lottery picks and terrible contracts

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X