Question for people against tanking

[wallz]

I don't see the connection at all. Paul didn't have a no-trade clause. He had no say in where he went. And since arriving, Griffin's growth has hardly been impressive, and his name has been thrown around (usually as an alternative option to Jordan in any deal) in trades.

Clippers get Paul because NOH decides they can't keep him and no other team made a good offer.

He did have say in where he went. We've seen this with star players and trades so much over the last decade

[Craiger]

People are forgetting something very important when discussing 'superstar player' movement.

Superstars rarely move. This is because they are so valuable - not only as players (they help you win) but as contracts (they have great production to cost returns). So what you have is an expensive but highly valuable player. They are, simply, the most valuable commodity in the NBA.

So teams don't want to get rid of them, they want to keep them. But they can't always do that. Usually when a superstar moves its because they want to move, and very occasionally (but extremely rarely) because a team needs to move them (want to either start over or can't afford to keep them)

So where do these superstars go? Almost always to a select group of markets - LA, NY, Miami, Houston/Dallas (Texas based). (there are a handful of other markets that are probably would fit in or just below that category aswell - Phoenix, Boston, Chicago, San Fransisco (Golden State)). Why do they want to go there - they have some combination of market size (therefore greater chance of attention, and non salaried $s (ie. endorsements)), tax breaks (and therefore $s), and accomodation (weather).

When we look at all the superstar movement in the last decade or so, its almost always to those markets. Shaq - LA, Lebron - Miami, Chris Paul - LA, Dwight - LA (and now likely to either remain in LA, or Houston or Dallas), James Harden - Houston, Carmelo Anthony - NY, Deron Williams - NY, Steve Nash - LA. [We can even make a list players a tier below superstars and we'll see that they still have a tendency to end up in these markets. Not as high of a %, but a higher than average % none the less]

Now alot of this movement was due to free agency or pending free agency. Very rarely is it early or in the middle of their contract that they get moved (If I'm not mistake Kevin Garnett is one of the exceptions to the above. James Harden aswell, as he was heading into RFA). When they do move, it is almost always on their terms - and there terms are almost always a superstar market.

So why is it these markets, whether through free agency or (rarely) trade, or on a players terms or (rarely) not, get these types of players?

1) Players find these markets desireable
2) These markets can afford to pay additional dollars to get these players or multiples of these player or other top quality players aswell
3) Teams moving these players want a return for them, and these teams are able to afford to keep alot of high cost assets, so they have more to offer in return
4) Since these players come at such a high cost, the team 'buying' them wants insurance that they aren't renting them. These players will only give insurance to teams they find desireable.
5) On the rare occasion there is little or no insurance (Dwight Howard) the team was the most valuable market (or top 2, it may be the Knicks at #1) and had a high likelyhood of retaining him + the ability to spend alot and maintain a good team if they couldn't (ie. they could afford to not have insurance)

So when we talk about #1 draft picks not winning titles with their teams, or superstars not winning titles with the team that drafted them - its not because there is a free flow of elite talent in the NBA. They went to one of the elite markets. These markets completely skew how 'normal' teams in the NBA win titles or become highly competitive. There are a handful of teams that are nothing like the bottom 20 teams in the NBA.

When we want to see how an 'normal' market has become a contender or title winner its been the same - it starts in the draft. It starts with picking a star in the draft, or a very highly talented player in the draft, and these guys usually (but not always) come high in the draft. Even on the occasions when the pick(s) weren't used themselves to create a contending team - the players drafted or the draft picks became the commodity that returned a high value peice or player (Grant Hill (#3 pick) was traded for Ben Wallace, Pau Gasol (#3) for Marc Gasol, numerous picks and former high draft picks for Garnett and Allen)

So unless one believes that the Raptors can become an elite market, something it has historically shown not to be, has in fact shown to be an undesireable market (whether warranted or not) we should not expect an elite player to want to come here, atleast not at any point in the near future.

And no. Being a 'winner' or 'building a culture' has not shown to attract elite talent. At best it only attracts elite talent to winners already in elite markets vs losers in elite markets.

[white men can't jump]

Clippers never get Paul without Griffin, IMO. thats all I'm saying

I don't see the connection at all. Paul didn't have a no-trade clause. He had no say in where he went. And since arriving, Griffin's growth has hardly been impressive, and his name has been thrown around (usually as an alternative option to Jordan in any deal) in trades.

Clippers get Paul because NOH decides they can't keep him and no other team made a good offer.

[wallz]

And even Griffin's impact on Paul's decision was clearly not the biggest factor, as there was still lots of uncertainty over whether he'd commit to the Clips. By all accounts, the hiring of Doc is actually what has now put it over the top for the Clips, not Griffin's continued presence.

Clippers never get Paul without Griffin, IMO. thats all I'm saying

[Mediumcore]

Everyone knows the point of our franchise, or any franchise, is to win multiple championships. So why are you guys willing to take our team how it is currently built, add a Rondo, or add another borderline star, to forego the opportunity to draft a superstar next year (there's more than just Wiggins).

Obviously it isn't guaranteed we get a top 5 pick, but at the moment, Toronto isn't built to contend for a championship. Nor are we just a couple pieces from getting into even the ECF. Toronto isn't a hot free agent destination either, not until we prove that we aren't a team stuck in limbo (check Atlanta Hawks), or not until we get a superstar (which is kind of ironic considering none will come). We also do not have the assets to trade for a superstar.

Rudy Gay isn't the future of the franchise, he's the best player we had since Bosh, which isn't saying much. The truth is he's overpriced and takes far too many shots. I'd rather have a roster that will tank WHILE developing our rookies/younger players. Sure there are 10 other teams that are trying to tank for Wiggins, but even a top 5 pick is satisfactory enough, with Wiggins being the added bonus if we land with the #1 pick.

To all those that say that a top 5 pick isn't guaranteed, well I can guarantee that if we miss the opportunity to even get a top 5 pick, and make the playoffs this year (or worse, end up 9th/10th), we won't be able to contend for a longtime with our roster and commitments.

So why are some of you willing to just make it into the first/second round of the playoffs the next couple years, and be done after that?

I agree. Whether you like it or not, tanking is the best method to acquire an elite player and elite players are most essential to not only contend for a championship, but also for sustained success. You can point to Charlotte all you want and say they are an example of nothing being guaranteed in the draft, but I can at least say that they are putting themselves in the best possible situation to succeed. Everyone else is just spinning their wheels.

[white men can't jump]

And even Griffin's impact on Paul's decision was clearly not the biggest factor, as there was still lots of uncertainty over whether he'd commit to the Clips. By all accounts, the hiring of Doc is actually what has now put it over the top for the Clips, not Griffin's continued presence.

[white men can't jump]

But Paul wanted to go to LA, that's why the trade happened. I'm not saying the Raptors need to tank, but the Clippers suckage allowed them to draft Griffin, who was a major factor in Chris Paul's decision. It's by no means a perfect recipe, but it is a certain route which many teams are deciding to take with the 2014 draft as stacked as it is. As for the Raps, I'll trust Ujiri knows what's best for the team

But it wasn't his first choice. And he really didn't have a choice. He didn't want to go to the Clippers. He wanted to go to the Lakers or Mavs. I'm sure if the best offer NOH had gotten was from Minnesota or some such team, he would've ended up there. Griffin is just the piece that LAC had that made them think they could keep Paul through free agency. Well the Raps have JV. I'm like, 95% confident JV will be a more impactful player than Blake "I don't need to add things to my game" Griffin.

*Edit: So Griffin isn't waht attracted Paul to the Clips, it's basically the other way around, and it's what attracted the Clips to Paul, thinking they could keep him and it wouldn't be a complete waste of assets.

[wallz]

But Paul wanted to go to LA, that's why the trade happened. I'm not saying the Raptors need to tank, but the Clippers suckage allowed them to draft Griffin, who was a major factor in Chris Paul's decision. It's by no means a perfect recipe, but it is a certain route which many teams are deciding to take with the 2014 draft as stacked as it is. As for the Raps, I'll trust Ujiri knows what's best for the team

[white men can't jump]

The clippers are a good example of how tanking can work. It gave them enough good young players to lure a superstar player. But obviously, tanking isn't the only way to get star talent

Not really a good example....They've been "tanking", as in totally sucking and making frequent lottery appearances, for about....well forever. Every decade or two they make the playoffs after the young "talent" they've drafted put together a couple of strong seasons.

And now that they have a strong team, they did it by trading away good player, but none of them even close to great players, for Chris Paul. Gordon, Kaman and Aminu are hardly excellent players. The Raptors currently have comparable assets to get a deal done, so why tank? Gordon is nothing special. A volume scorer with a bad attitude, bad injury history, undersized, whiny prima donna. Kaman is even more allergic to help D than Bargnani. Aminu is a fringe rotation player who's basically just a defensive player. I would posit that we have the assets RIGHT NOW to go after a game changer if CP3 could be acquired with that motley crew and a 1st rd pick. Tanking is just going to make us bad for JV's development years, and if they screw up the drafting at all and the team stays bad, likely leads to JV's exit.

[wallz]

The clippers are a good example of how tanking can work. It gave them enough good young players to lure a superstar player. But obviously, tanking isn't the only way to get star talent

[Puffer]

...What I'm saying is timing is everything & as of right now, our situation dictates that we go for the playoffs because it is the smarter thing to do than getting less for your assets right now coming off a disappointing season.

What I have been trying to say in this and other threads, but said much better.

[Puffer]

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

But Toronto is a LOT more attractive than Atlanta

[Dino4life]

Huh? Lebron was drafted by the Cavs and was TRADED (I know it wasn't really a trade, but hear me out) to the Heat (where he won his 1st title). Kobe was TRADED to the Lakers for Vlade Divac, Chauncey was a Free agent, so was Shaq, pretty sure Dirk was a draft day trade too (His Wiki page says he was traded from the Bucks)... Those 80s players are all pre- modern CBA. Players barely had free agency, they were stuck where they were drafted. It wasn't until Stern came that there was even a lottery system...So in the 90's when players had rights, AND the pool was thinned from expansion the draft meant something but look at the 00's onwards. Trades, and free agency mean as much, if not more now.

And why race to last place when you can turn players into wanted assets by winning?

Lebron was not traded, he walked out in free agency, the sign & trade is CBA provision so teams dont get shafted when their players walk out, like Shaq Did to orlando. If the Cavs had a choice you think for 1 second they would have traded him ?

Kobe was not traded, the pick was traded, and because in the NBA you cant trade before the new season, they had to pick him for the lakers, but the lakers chose him. Dirk was a draft trade that was targeted before the draft by the mavs.
Chauncey was a free agent that's what i wrote.
So no, Trade is not an option it hasn't happened since those 80's players you discredit.

The only alternative is Free Agency and we all know how that works out in Toronto

[blackjitsu]

Huh? Lebron was drafted by the Cavs and was TRADED (I know it wasn't really a trade, but hear me out) to the Heat (where he won his 1st title). Kobe was TRADED to the Lakers for Vlade Divac, Chauncey was a Free agent, so was Shaq, pretty sure Dirk was a draft day trade too (His Wiki page says he was traded from the Bucks)... Those 80s players are all pre- modern CBA. Players barely had free agency, they were stuck where they were drafted. It wasn't until Stern came that there was even a lottery system...So in the 90's when players had rights, AND the pool was thinned from expansion the draft meant something but look at the 00's onwards. Trades, and free agency mean as much, if not more now.

And why race to last place when you can turn players into wanted assets by winning?

[Dino4life]

If people dont get it after this i'm done trying, because they will never be convinced, they are not open to be convinced.
Tanking does not mean get #1 pick, it means stay in the lottery to have a chance at a better talent. The greatest of all time was drafted 3rd; #1 is just a number.

Bill Russell NBA Finals Most Valuable Player Award

2013 : Lebron James (Free agency) 1987: Magic Johnson(Drafted 1st)
2012 :Lebron James (Free agency) 1986: Larry Bird(Drafted 6th)
2011: Dirk Nowitzky (Drafted 9th) 1985: Kareem Abdul-Jabbar(Trade)
2010:Kobe Bryant(Drafted 13th) 1984: Larry Bird (Drafted 6th)
2009:Kobe Bryant(Drafted 13th) 1983: Moses Malone(Trade)
2008: Paul Pierce (Drafted 10th) 1982: Magic Johnson((Drafted 1st)
2007: Tony Parker (Drafted 28th) 1981: Cedric Maxwell(Drafted 12th)
2006: Dwyane Wade(Drafted 5th) 1980: Magic Johnson(Drafted 1st)
2005:Tim Duncan(Drafted 1st) from 1969 to 1979 every single winner was drafted by the title
2004: Chauncey Billups (Free agency) team except Wilt in 1972(Trade), i just got tired of writing
2003: Tim Duncan(Drafted 1st)
2002: Shaquille O’Neal(Free agency)
2001: Shaquille O’Neal(Free agency)
2000: Shaquille O’Neal(Free agency)
1999: Tim Duncan(Drafted 1st)
1998: Michael Jordan(Drafted 3rd)
1997: Michael Jordan(Drafted 3rd)
1996: Michael Jordan(Drafted 3rd)
1995: Hakeem Olajuwon(Drafted 1st)
1994: Hakeem Olajuwon(Drafted 1st)
1993: Michael Jordan(Drafted 3rd)
1992:Michael Jordan(Drafted 3rd)
1991: Michael Jordan(Drafted 3rd)
1990: Isiah Thomas(Drafted 2nd)
1989: Joe Dumars(Drafted 18th)
1988: James Worthy(Drafted 1st)

Trade: 3(all before 1985)
Free Agency: 6
Drafted by the title team: 36
Drafted outside of Lottery 2, Drafted in Lottery 43

Bottom Line you start in the Draft Lottery. The only question that remains is, Do we have a player of the caliber of those above already on the team or are we still looking ?

I'll throw my cliche around again because i just backed it up. FRANCHISE PLAYERS GET DRAFTED THEY DONT GET TRADED.