Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Question for people against tanking

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

  • #76
    magoon wrote: View Post
    The Pistons clearly don't intend to tank - they're making a serious play for Andre Iguodala, which is the opposite of a tank move. The Bucks are openly shopping for a quality SG to replace Monta Ellis and have all but declared they're going to offer Brandon Jennings a max deal; it doesn't look like they're tanking either, because if they were they'd just start Giannis Alphabethands at SG and give him burn. And Atlanta is too soon to call; they have a ton of cap space and the opportunity to buy free agents, So we're down to seven, and the Magic probably aren't going to tank purposefully - they're in the later stages of a rebuild and it doesn't make sense for them.
    Pistons- Roster is comparable to ours, if not worse (Iggy is not happening)
    Bucks- Jennings doesn't wanna play for them, even with Jennings Bucks are worse than us
    Hawks- can go either way
    Magic- will suck next year. Ain't it makes sense for them considering next year's draft
    SO you've got 6 teams who will almost definitely suck, along with 4 more maybe's. Not the best of odds.


    magoon wrote: View Post
    You're forgetting the other option, which is "remove other teams' problems." See Dallas openly offering their #13 last week to anybody who was willing to take Shawn Marion's contract off their hands. There's going to be more of that, as contending teams do their best to strip out the parts they don't need or can't use.

    We are not in a position to take on more salary. We're right up there with the luxury tax.

    Comment


    • #77
      I've already said my piece on the topic but I want to throw a few random thoughts out there...

      First off, the whole "2 championships in 28 years for #1 picks with the team that drafted them" was a quirky stat thrown around on the draft broadcast that some of you are running way too far with, mostly out of context. Do not get it confused - the best players in the NBA have always been drafted in the top end of the lottery. That's the way it has always been, that's the way it is currently and that's the way it will be in the future.

      Secondly, Unless you're one of the handful of lucky franchises (LA, NY, Miami, et al) in the league who can afford to build their rosters in unconventional ways, the best way for the other 23-24 teams in the league to become a contender is through the lottery, and more specifically, the top end of the lottery.

      Beyond all that, this shouldn't be a hypothetical debate about what the best way to build a contender is. This isn't a hypothetical team that we are dealing with after all - we know what the current Raptors roster looks like and we know how much all of those said players currently make. We know how those players have performed during their careers leading up to now, and we have an educated view on what type of trade assets they have available to improve their team. Even the more optimistic supporters of this team seem to admit that they're a 7-10 seed next season... that shouldn't the type of team that you have reservations about breaking up.

      Anyone who says we're a "Spencer Hawes away" from being a contender in the East is crazy.

      Anyone who thinks that grabbing the 7-8 seed two years in a row and losing 4-1 in the first round to an actual contender is building a "winning culture" that will attract a franchise level player (which almost everyone seems to agree that we need to become a real threat) is also crazy. Furthermore, how do we sign that max level player if the existing core is still here?

      And finally, for the last time... Rebuilding is more than just giving away your attractive players and gunning for the #1 pick. You want to give yourself the best chance to draft high, that's true, but you also are harvesting cap flexibility and future prospects in the process.
      Last edited by Fully; Sun Jun 30, 2013, 02:07 PM.

      Comment


      • #78
        Actually one more: Dallas landed Nowitzki has a direct result of their "tank". They drafted Traylor high in the lottery, thanks to being terrible the previous season, and then moved him on draft night for Nowitzki. No tank means no Traylor, which means no Nowitzki. Just because it was technically a "trade" doesn't mean it wasn't a result of their tank the season before... These types of options open up when you are drafting high.

        Also, anyone arguing that the Divac-for-Bryant trade is an example why tanking doesn't work is also misguided. The Lakers did exactly what a lot of the rebuild fans are advocating - they moved a known commodity in the now (Divac) for a chance of something much greater in the future (Bryant). This is actually an endorsement for rebuilding and raising our future ceiling, not vice versa.

        Comment


        • #79
          Just one question for the people who are against tanking and rebuilding: if building through free agency and trading is as effective or as preferential as you think, then why do the bulk of GMs in mid and small market cities prefer tobuild their teams through the draft?

          Could it be that you armchair GMs have no idea how difficult it is to build a team that way and completely ignore the fact that just as much luck is required as through the draft?

          Naw, you guys probably know better than the people being paid to run nba franchises.

          Comment


          • #80
            Fully wrote: View Post
            Actually one more: Dallas landed Nowitzki has a direct result of their "tank". They drafted Traylor high in the lottery, thanks to being terrible the previous season, and then moved him on draft night for Nowitzki. No tank means no Traylor, which means no Nowitzki. Just because it was technically a "trade" doesn't mean it wasn't a result of their tank the season before... These types of options open up when you are drafting high.

            Also, anyone arguing that the Divac-for-Bryant trade is an example why tanking doesn't work is also misguided. The Lakers did exactly what a lot of the rebuild fans are advocating - they moved a known commodity in the now (Divac) for a chance of something much greater in the future (Bryant). This is actually an endorsement for rebuilding and raising our future ceiling, not vice versa.
            What!? Do you read what you type down? IF a team trades back in the draft, how, if they were successful could they have not just picked up that asset? People were not clamoring for some random German kid. My point with that one was that Dallas didn't dive to get the kid, they played their buts off, but sucked. Trading Divac, just like trading Jrue, just like trading Jermaine O'Neal are trading assets that have been built up through a level of success. THE OPPOSITE OF DIVING. IT'S WHAT I'M ADVOCATING!....In other words use the players the Raps have now, try to win, and surprisingly all the players the Raps have will increase in value making it possible to trade into the lottery.

            When teams dive it has to be a multi year plan. By the time your core of young guys develop you need to be able to surround them with the right kind of veteran players, otherwise, they leave OR your team sucks. This is why the Kings suck, but a team that started rebuilding around the same time like the Cavs is on the up. Cavs have Andy a vet who is pure effort, they drafted for Triston who's another effort player, etc., they planned everything down to even the personality type they were looking for. Meanwhile the Kings are a DC blowup away from being what the Clippers used to be: all high draft picks, no results.

            Furthermore, you have to plan a dive well in advance: What type of team do you want? What are the best future drafts for those kinds of players? How many years will it take for my team's centerpiece to develop? When and how do I surround that player with the right vets at the right time?

            You need vets like Sam Mitchell who are player/coaches first, then you need vets who know how to win when the pieces you got are ready to win. I'm not saying diving is impossible, I'm saying it's not some simple process, and there are much easier ways to succeed. The easiest is to create assets internally and sell high. That works in Soccer, and baseball (minor league talent) as well -- there's a reason for that.

            So why trade into the draft? Because all those vets are already on the team. You're team is literally years ahead of a team that dives. What's best is you don't even have to make it to the playoffs, Sixers didn't. Make a run, highlight your best young players and see what their value is before the draft. That takes a lot less effort than the years it takes to properly build a team through tanking.

            Comment


            • #81
              Lark Benson wrote: View Post
              Just one question for the people who are against tanking and rebuilding: if building through free agency and trading is as effective or as preferential as you think, then why do the bulk of GMs in mid and small market cities prefer tobuild their teams through the draft?

              Could it be that you armchair GMs have no idea how difficult it is to build a team that way and completely ignore the fact that just as much luck is required as through the draft?

              Naw, you guys probably know better than the people being paid to run nba franchises.
              How many have succeeded in this "easier" approach that you say the bulk of mid/small market GMs advocate? Who? Keep in mind, nobody is saying you don't find superstars high in the draft. What people question is the wisdom of "tanking" to achieve getting those picks, and there's several reasons and examples that it's not working. But please amuse us tank detractors and tell us who has succeeded following this route.

              Comment


              • #82
                blackjitsu wrote: View Post
                Wow. Now you're deciding what is a trade and what is not a trade? That's ridiculous.
                LeBron was traded. 1 team had no choice if they wanted assets, but it's still a trade-- both teams received something in a transaction: That's the definition of a trade.
                I'm not making anything up, in a sign and trade you are trading the bird rights, this why you dont get equal value. You can not sign the player and send him to a different team, the signing gets cancelled. If you cant understand that, then you're being stubborn to try to prove a point.

                Worse, to say that draft day trades are not trades when they ARE the type of trade that crushes your theory is incredibly convenient. Draft day trades are the perfect trade to bring up because in most cases the better team, a team that did not dive/become a bottom feeder gets a highly sought asset. The Lakers were on the cusps of being a consistent playoff team again when they traded their starting Center for a teenager just coming out of high school. Dallas, another team that did not dive to get a high draft pick selected Tractor Traylor...I'll say that again...Mr. I had eating issues when I was at Michigan and some fool just stocked my fridge for the rest of my life Traylor for a little known German kid that Charles Barkley recommended that they look at.
                Never said they weren't trades, the players were not the ones traded, the draft pick was the one traded, and they decided what was done with it. It's what moving up and moving down in the draft looks like on paper, because trades can not become official until the new season. On paper No draft day trade is official, It brings back to the point that you have to stock pile draft picks, and that you have to get your franchise player in the lottery.

                Lets pretend you are right on anything anyways, you're talking about isolated cases who dont change the numbers in your favor at All, over a 45 year history or a 30 year history if you want to stick to the stern era. The numbers still say the same thing.

                Isn't the argument that you think diving is the only way to get a franchise player? Draft day trades disprove that theory. Even this past year, Sixers didn't dive, they fought like heck trying to make the playoffs. And on draft night they moved up to get the guy they think will change their future by trading away their all-star. You're saying that if it works out, they didn't give up Jrue to get better? Those trades don't count? Tell that to Vlade who was happy in LA, to Jrue whose life is about to dramatically change, Bryan Colangelo who can tie all his failures to that Jermaine O'Neal trade that didn't workout...Please.
                1-Nope, my argument is that drafting is the only way to get a franchise player, because once identified as a franchise player, the will never, ever get traded period.

                2-82% of Championship Teams drafted their Finals MVP, 96% of Finals MVPs were drafted in the lottery.

                3-You dont build a championship team, without drafting a Back bone to your team, that will define how you build your team. You can buy and trade a really good team, but you need that player no one would ever trade to be the best team in the league.

                4-I've left it open to debate if you think we have that guy in JV, than you dont tank, but you trade for players who make him better, not players that look good individually, or you dont think JV is that guy and you stay in the lottery and collect assests.

                5-As presently constructed only our best players, and in combination can net us lottery picks, which is gutting the team and comes back to the same thing.

                6-This was essentially a rebuttal to the argument that only 2 #1 won championship with their team originally


                Its seems pretty clear, No ?

                Comment


                • #83
                  I had a really long post here, but I just deleted it. They I wrote another really long post and deleted it too. To tank or not to tank is a really complex issue and not nearly as black or white as a lot of people here make it out to be.

                  Is tanking in general a good policy? Hard to say 100% either way.

                  Is tanking a good policy for the Raps right now? As crazy as it sounds, we've got enough decent players that are hard to move, that it may not even be POSSIBLE to tank.

                  For me, the success of NBA franchises rests on the ability of the GM/Owners more so now, then in the past due to the new CBA.

                  Believe it or not, getting your franchise player is less than HALF the battle. You've still got to put a team around that player (and probably 2 of those other players need to be all-star or near all-star level). That is just as difficult. It's not about tanking it's about good having a good GM.

                  A good GM will find value at WHATEVER draft pick they have. By having young talent, players on valuable contracts, you'll put yourself in the best position to be successful. Maybe you draft that elite talent, or you've got enough valuable contracts that when a veteran starter is feed up with his team, you can trade for them. (See Garnett to Boston, or Melo to NK).

                  If your GM is an idiot, high draft picks won't stop him from making poor selections, and even if he (or she) drafts the Lebron there so many other places where they can screw it up, giving big contracts to the wrong players.

                  I don't care what happened in the nba 3 years ago or 30 years ago. The difference in the NBA moving forward between the haves and the have nots is going to be the front office.

                  Hopefully, Ujiri demonstrates an ability to NOT over pay and to value draft picks (cheap labour!!!) and get us in good financial position. Unfortunately, that's a really hard thing to do with this roster, and may take some time to weed out all of the bad contracts.

                  BUT my opinion is that the whole "to tank or not to tank" is a red herring. Drafting the next Michael Jordan won't guarantee that franchise any banners.

                  However, draft picks are suddenly more valuable than they used to be. There's a reason for that. If you can get draft picks you take them.

                  As much as I hate Boston, they got TWO first round picks in something like 4 or the next 5 drafts... that's crazy. Crazy like a fox. They also traded their coach for a draft pick. That's fucking sneaky! Sneaky like a fox.4

                  Personally I don't think we can tank well enough to make it worth it (at least for this season) but Ujiri has to start moving out low value contracts (Gay, Fields, Derozan) and moving in good value contracts. The era of overpaying for players is over. If you over pay, you won't win. Whether you've got lebron or not.
                  "They're going to have to rename the whole conference after us: Toronto Raptors 2014-2015 Northern Conference Champions" ~ ezzbee Dec. 2014

                  "I guess I got a little carried away there" ~ ezzbee Apr. 2015

                  "We only have one rule on this team. What is that rule? E.L.E. That's right's, E.L.E, and what does E.L.E. stand for? EVERYBODY LOVE EVERYBODY. Right there up on the wall, because this isn't just a basketball team, this is a lifestyle. ~ Jackie Moon

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    In a nutshell, this is my new position.

                    In the long run talent is still the difference maker. In the short term the best strategy is value contracts. Maybe that means "tank" maybe it doesn't. The most important thing I'm looking for from Ujiri is how much does he sign or extend his first Raptor for.

                    If it's low years and/or low money, then I'm not worried. If he give out a "generous" contract. I'm out as a fan. The days of buying an NBA Championship are (just about over). Dallas broke up a championship team in order to stay financially flexible. OKC traded Harden (a year earlier than they had to, for some strange reason) fro the same reason. Miami is still riding the team they put together before the new CBA. Brooklyn remains the ONLY team with no limit on how it wants to spend money (which is going to cost them something like 80 million in taxes), whether this results in a championship or not, time will tell, but I'm certain that it is a policy they won't be able to maintain for more than the next couple of seasons.

                    Say it with me now. Asset (Asset) Management (Management). Very good.
                    "They're going to have to rename the whole conference after us: Toronto Raptors 2014-2015 Northern Conference Champions" ~ ezzbee Dec. 2014

                    "I guess I got a little carried away there" ~ ezzbee Apr. 2015

                    "We only have one rule on this team. What is that rule? E.L.E. That's right's, E.L.E, and what does E.L.E. stand for? EVERYBODY LOVE EVERYBODY. Right there up on the wall, because this isn't just a basketball team, this is a lifestyle. ~ Jackie Moon

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      dpww wrote: View Post
                      Who did Vince attract? Hakeem..? lol. Bosh didn't bring in anyone either. Although I agree that it is a valid point to create a winning culture, for our organization I disagree with the method, in the short run.
                      You are forgetting that at the time the Vince Carter was a superstar, noted as one of the very top players in the league. Where did that get the Raptors?

                      You need to get a lot more right than getting a superstar and there are more way to get one than trying to lose as many games as possible. Let me ask you, why do you feel there is only one way to win? Also, can you please provide multiple examples of where this strategy has worked? Can you provide even ONE? And when I say provide examples, I mean examples where they did exactly what you suggest.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Apollo wrote: View Post
                        You are forgetting that at the time the Vince Carter was a superstar, noted as one of the very top players in the league. Where did that get the Raptors?

                        You need to get a lot more right than getting a superstar and there are more way to get one than trying to lose as many games as possible. Let me ask you, why do you feel there is only one way to win? Also, can you please provide multiple examples of where this strategy has worked? Can you provide even ONE? And when I say provide examples, I mean examples where they did exactly what you suggest.
                        Well let us both agree on what I'm arguing:
                        1. Tanking for a top 5 pick next year.
                        2. The goal is to be competitive for championships, providing examples of teams that ONLY won championships is very naive
                        3. A LOT of teams have followed what I'm suggesting and are RELEVANT IN CHAMPIONSHIP TALKS
                        4. Once you are a CONTENDER for a CHAMPIONSHIP, a lot of luck comes into play, but being a CONTENDER is my goal

                        Most Recently? OKC.

                        2007: Trading Ray Allen (got them Jeff Green), leaded to the following season with a FRANCHISE WORST: 20-62
                        2008 (2nd worst record nba): With the 4th overall pick drafted Russell Westbrook, Serge Ibaka #24
                        2009 (4th worst record nba): Drafted James Harden 3rd overall
                        2010: Finished 8th
                        2011: Finished 4th
                        etc.

                        Unless you want examples of teams that won championships, but that's not what I'm arguing. I'm arguing that we need to be competitive for championships, not the next Atlanta or Milwaukee, but a REAL threat.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Dino4life wrote: View Post
                          I'm not making anything up, in a sign and trade you are trading the bird rights, this why you dont get equal value. You can not sign the player and send him to a different team, the signing gets cancelled. If you cant understand that, then you're being stubborn to try to prove a point.



                          Never said they weren't trades, the players were not the ones traded, the draft pick was the one traded, and they decided what was done with it. It's what moving up and moving down in the draft looks like on paper, because trades can not become official until the new season. On paper No draft day trade is official, It brings back to the point that you have to stock pile draft picks, and that you have to get your franchise player in the lottery.

                          Lets pretend you are right on anything anyways, you're talking about isolated cases who dont change the numbers in your favor at All, over a 45 year history or a 30 year history if you want to stick to the stern era. The numbers still say the same thing.



                          1-Nope, my argument is that drafting is the only way to get a franchise player, because once identified as a franchise player, the will never, ever get traded period.

                          2-82% of Championship Teams drafted their Finals MVP, 96% of Finals MVPs were drafted in the lottery.

                          3-You dont build a championship team, without drafting a Back bone to your team, that will define how you build your team. You can buy and trade a really good team, but you need that player no one would ever trade to be the best team in the league.

                          4-I've left it open to debate if you think we have that guy in JV, than you dont tank, but you trade for players who make him better, not players that look good individually, or you dont think JV is that guy and you stay in the lottery and collect assests.

                          5-As presently constructed only our best players, and in combination can net us lottery picks, which is gutting the team and comes back to the same thing.

                          6-This was essentially a rebuttal to the argument that only 2 #1 won championship with their team originally


                          Its seems pretty clear, No ?
                          We can't even agree what is a draft pick and what is a trade...how can you believe anything you're saying is clear? You're changing the definition of terms to suit your argument.

                          1. A trade is an exchange of assets. You are not a GOD you do not get decide what is and what is not.

                          2. The current CBA structure has only existed from the late 80's -- 20-30 years in a league that started in the 40's.

                          Looking at the current trend that takes the CBA into consideration drafting from a team's earned position is less valuable than trading for a draft pick, or wooing high-end talent.

                          3. In every league in the world, in every sport, adding talent to a veteran team with players that already have defined roles is a faster route to success than stripping a team bare and then building around an asset.

                          Kobe was a TRADE, Lebron was a TRADE, Dirk-- TRADE -- you're numbers are fiction.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            dpww wrote: View Post
                            Well let us both agree on what I'm arguing:
                            1. Tanking for a top 5 pick next year.
                            2. The goal is to be competitive for championships, providing examples of teams that ONLY won championships is very naive
                            3. A LOT of teams have followed what I'm suggesting and are RELEVANT IN CHAMPIONSHIP TALKS
                            4. Once you are a CONTENDER for a CHAMPIONSHIP, a lot of luck comes into play, but being a CONTENDER is my goal

                            Most Recently? OKC.

                            2007: Trading Ray Allen (got them Jeff Green), leaded to the following season with a FRANCHISE WORST: 20-62
                            2008 (2nd worst record nba): With the 4th overall pick drafted Russell Westbrook, Serge Ibaka #24
                            2009 (4th worst record nba): Drafted James Harden 3rd overall
                            2010: Finished 8th
                            2011: Finished 4th
                            etc.

                            Unless you want examples of teams that won championships, but that's not what I'm arguing. I'm arguing that we need to be competitive for championships, not the next Atlanta or Milwaukee, but a REAL threat.
                            Alright, so you deem being successful being a contender. I can name you a lot more teams who are contenders and who have actually won it who don't use the method you prescribe. You can't name me one team who has won it with your method so how can you recommend it?

                            You can name me the Bucks and Hawks as teams who tried to get there without a superstar but I can name you the Wiz and Bobcats are examples of your method. Also are you assuming that the only way to get a superstar is to tank? Are you assuming that those who don't want to tank are adverse to the idea of a superstar playing for the Raptors?

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Apollo wrote: View Post
                              Alright, so you deem being successful being a contender. I can name you a lot more teams who are contenders and who have actually won it who don't use the method you prescribe. You can't name me one team who has won it with your method so how can you recommend it?

                              You can name me the Bucks and Hawks as teams who tried to get there without a superstar but I can name you the Wiz and Bobcats are examples of your method. Also are you assuming that the only way to get a superstar is to tank? Are you assuming that those who don't want to tank are adverse to the idea of a superstar playing for the Raptors?
                              Like I said, being a contender is enough, when you are a real contender, there is a lot more than just talent that gets you the actual title, but your chance to compete is real. Luck plays a huge factor as well.

                              Washington is still young, and looks promising. Charlotte just *** at the team, Rich Cho isn't a great GM (I hope he proves me wrong with Zeller though).

                              And no, I don't think that you are against a superstar playing for the Raptors, but unless you seriously believe that a superstar free agent will come to Toronto then it's not really possible. Our contracts won't allow us to trade, unless we trade with someone who absolutely loves Toronto, because let's face it, if the superstar won't resign with us, what's the point of the rental (Dwight is the only exception that I can think of, and it was with a storied LAL)?

                              If MU wanted to trade all our good contracts/developing players for Lebron with 1 year left on his contract you'd want his head (In short: MU is unlikely to pull off a Denver-NYK blockbuster).

                              As much as I want Toronto to be an attractive market, it really isn't. Winning and creating a culture won't make it one either, or I'd see many FA signing offer sheets to Milwaukee, Atlanta, Utah,

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                enlightenment wrote: View Post
                                Fallacy of Bifurcation (false dichotomy) -> "two alternative statements are held to be the only possible options, when in reality there are more."

                                Obviously there are many other ways to win a championship, you have not regarded the original argument which asks, "which teams have one championships through tanking"

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X