For the anti-tankers....What else should we do? SI's mailbag on tanking

[blackjitsu]

It sounds like you think that simply being on a losing team is "poisoning" a young player. The flip side of the argument, is that it's a learning experience.

The truly elite players, get by just fine despite a little adversity to start their pro careers.

True, I guess it comes down to personal opinion and how you interpret the past growth of young players.

Only development we are seeing is Gay and DD racing to shoot as often as possible.

A 2014 top 8 pick, paired with a young wing (Ross), a young big (JV) and a host of veteran pieces (Fields, Amir, Hans, maybe even Demar) is a significantly better team than what we have today. Disgruntled players can get bought out or shipped out, there are always good mentor vets willing to take a leadership role.

I strongly disagree. We are seeing JV being punished for poor play, and Ross earning his minutes. I would love to see Casey bench Gay for some of his play, but Casey clearly does not see Rudy as part of the future of the Raptors.

Was Lebron able to develop on a team that went 17-65 the year before they got him? Melo and the 17-65 Nuggets? What about Dwight Howard on a Magic team that went 22-60 the year prior? Did the Sonics ruin Kevin Durant by going 19-63 during his rookie year?

The argument doesn't make any sense: high draft picks go to teams with bad records.

Really, you're going to use-once-in-a-lifetime players to argue your point? Maybe there are 4 of those in this draft (Wiggins, Smart, Parker, Randle --maybe Exum) The Raps are 5-7 and have a top 6 record in the East. So, how many losses will the Raptors need to get down to guarantee getting those guys? The way this season is going, they would need a starting lineup of D-Leaguers.

And what happens if the player can't thrive in an environment that wants to lose? We never talk about those guys. Look at Telfair, Gerald Green... there's a hell of a lot more talented guys who didn't make it in bad environments than those who made it.

I find it strange that you call it 'blindly get bad', while then proceed to make all sorts of unfalsifiable assumptions about potential future developments.

I'd point out that there is nothing 'blind' about what most of the pro-tankers want. Its rather consistent with the exception of a random few. There is a systematic reasoning based on historical and statistical evidence to support why pro-tankers feel its the best route.



Years of mediocrity isn't the danger here. The danger is never being able to escape that mediocrity, except by doing this very thing anyways (ie. blowing it up) at some point in the future anyways.

Good post. Being anti tanking is by far in the minority here.

If the goal is to lose, it has to be done with an exit strategy. How many years do you plan to lose? How will you become a winning team? Otherwise you become what the Clippers were for decades, what the Bobcats have been, what the Sonics became before they were sold, the Vancouver Grizzlies...those were teams that were stuck on a far worse treadmill than being mediocre.

Players can leave after their rookie contracts. If the goal is to lose and nothing else for assets, what stops the Raptors from losing the pick in 4 years a la Elton Brand etal?

Lebron is beyond special. Durant entered a team with an innovative front office that I'm confident kept him abreast of things. Howard stayed because he was an immature child -- it looks like he may have wanted to leave long ago looking at last year's mess. More and more players are moving to teams to win. If you want a player to succeed it is not an exact science, but I would rather a kid enter the NBA on a team that values wins more than losses. I would rather have a kid enter a team with a clear system, than a team that was designed to lose games. I think that gives a kid a better chance to succeed.

That means lots of scouting. Building a reputation, and a system. Most importantly it takes patience.

[Masai Ujiri]

That reasoning works both ways. If we have no idea what goes on behind the scenes in the NBA, there is no reason for us to believe that the 29 other teams wouldn't or haven't been wanting Gay either. Or that the Smoove deal only happened because Masai rejected the Gay offer.

Except I never said that. I said if YOU (meaning anyone on RR) were a GM of one of the other 29 teams would YOU trade for Gay? With the idea that it may not be as easy as people think for Masai to "blow up" the roster.

You guys are the ones assuming that Ujiri turned down the Pistons' offer.

[Craiger]

If the goal is to lose, it has to be done with an exit strategy. How many years do you plan to lose? How will you become a winning team? Otherwise you become what the Clippers were for decades, what the Bobcats have been, what the Sonics became before they were sold, the Vancouver Grizzlies...those were teams that were stuck on a far worse treadmill than being mediocre.

Players can leave after their rookie contracts. If the goal is to lose and nothing else for assets, what stops the Raptors from losing the pick in 4 years a la Elton Brand etal?

Lebron is beyond special. Durant entered a team with an innovative front office that I'm confident kept him abreast of things. Howard stayed because he was an immature child -- it looks like he may have wanted to leave long ago looking at last year's mess. More and more players are moving to teams to win. If you want a player to succeed it is not an exact science, but I would rather a kid enter the NBA on a team that values wins more than losses. I would rather have a kid enter a team with a clear system, than a team that was designed to lose games. I think that gives a kid a better chance to succeed.

That means lots of scouting. Building a reputation, and a system. Most importantly it takes patience.

Does that strategy have to exist right now? Do we plan our exit before we are done planning our entry? Can we not have patience with a tanking strategy to?

Whats the exit strategy for not tanking exactly?

There seems to be this double standard laid upon the pro-tankers, where we are expected to know what all things will be and entail. There needs to be some form of assurance that if this team tanks, it won't lose after they are done tanking. If we can't do that then its not worth doing.

Yet those opposed to tanking don't offer any assurances themselves. They offer even less information regarding alternatives and very loosely veiled thoughts of what could conceivably happen. They don't explain what happens if 'just trying to win' doesn't lead to winning - do you just keep on trying to win in perpetuity? Until one day it just magically happens?

[Masai Ujiri]

True, I guess it comes down to personal opinion and how you interpret the past growth of young players.



I strongly disagree. We are seeing JV being punished for poor play, and Ross earning his minutes. I would love to see Casey bench Gay for some of his play, but Casey clearly does not see Rudy as part of the future of the Raptors.

This argument is so backwards. So Casey doesn't bench Gay because he doesn't see him as part of the Raptors' future? No, he doesn't bench Gay because he's a veteran and Casey has a long record of showing preference for them over young players.

Really, you're going to use-once-in-a-lifetime players to argue your point? Maybe there are 4 of those in this draft (Wiggins, Smart, Parker, Randle --maybe Exum) The Raps are 5-7 and have a top 6 record in the East. So, how many losses will the Raptors need to get down to guarantee getting those guys? The way this season is going, they would need a starting lineup of D-Leaguers.

This is the argument I'm trying to make, you can't guarantee getting any of them. That being said, I'd rather have SOME chance at them than NONE. Especially when this team isn't really constructed to do much more than lose in the 1st round. Still, Ujiri could actually go a different direction and make a deal that makes us more than just a quick 1st round exit team. We'll see.

And what happens if the player can't thrive in an environment that wants to lose? We never talk about those guys. Look at Telfair, Gerald Green... there's a hell of a lot more talented guys who didn't make it in bad environments than those who made it.

If the goal is to lose, it has to be done with an exit strategy. How many years do you plan to lose? How will you become a winning team? Otherwise you become what the Clippers were for decades, what the Bobcats have been, what the Sonics became before they were sold, the Vancouver Grizzlies...those were teams that were stuck on a far worse treadmill than being mediocre.

Players can leave after their rookie contracts. If the goal is to lose and nothing else for assets, what stops the Raptors from losing the pick in 4 years a la Elton Brand etal?

Restricted Free Agency.

Lebron is beyond special. Durant entered a team with an innovative front office that I'm confident kept him abreast of things. Howard stayed because he was an immature child -- it looks like he may have wanted to leave long ago looking at last year's mess. More and more players are moving to teams to win. If you want a player to succeed it is not an exact science, but I would rather a kid enter the NBA on a team that values wins more than losses. I would rather have a kid enter a team with a clear system, than a team that was designed to lose games. I think that gives a kid a better chance to succeed.

That means lots of scouting. Building a reputation, and a system. Most importantly it takes patience.

I actually agree with this but it's very difficult to pull off. The only teams I can think of that drafted a generational talent and still had a great core around him immediately are the Bulls and Spurs. The Spurs got "lucky" with Robinson getting injured, which basically forced them to lose a ton of games and get Duncan in the draft. Then they paired Duncan with a healthy Robinson who was a HOFer in his own right. Chicago just got very lucky in the lottery, winning with <1.7% chance. On their end it was actually smart in a way to keep Deng around as he ended up being a very effective player for their team (fans had been calling for him to be traded earlier). That's something I think we could do with DD (although not in the same role).

[Craiger]

Except I never said that. I said if YOU (meaning anyone on RR) were a GM of one of the other 29 teams would YOU trade for Gay? With the idea that it may not be as easy as people think for Masai to "blow up" the roster.

You guys are the ones assuming that Ujiri turned down the Pistons' offer.

I'm not assuming anything more than you are.

[blackjitsu]

It sounds like you think that simply being on a losing team is "poisoning" a young player. The flip side of the argument, is that it's a learning experience.

The truly elite players, get by just fine despite a little adversity to start their pro careers.

Are you sure about that? We will never know because history does not look kindly at those who fail, and why they failed.

Only development we are seeing is Gay and DD racing to shoot as often as possible.

A 2014 top 8 pick, paired with a young wing (Ross), a young big (JV) and a host of veteran pieces (Fields, Amir, Hans, maybe even Demar) is a significantly better team than what we have today. Disgruntled players can get bought out or shipped out, there are always good mentor vets willing to take a leadership role.

Was Lebron able to develop on a team that went 17-65 the year before they got him? Melo and the 17-65 Nuggets? What about Dwight Howard on a Magic team that went 22-60 the year prior? Did the Sonics ruin Kevin Durant by going 19-63 during his rookie year?

The argument doesn't make any sense: high draft picks go to teams with bad records.

I already explained this. I suggest you read my answer properly. Synopsis? More high draft picks fail to become stars than actually become stars for a myriad of reasons, but one important reason is because they land on teams that do not value winning.

I find it strange that you call it 'blindly get bad', while then proceed to make all sorts of unfalsifiable assumptions about potential future developments.

I'd point out that there is nothing 'blind' about what most of the pro-tankers want. Its rather consistent with the exception of a random few. There is a systematic reasoning based on historical and statistical evidence to support why pro-tankers feel its the best route.



Years of mediocrity isn't the danger here. The danger is never being able to escape that mediocrity, except by doing this very thing anyways (ie. blowing it up) at some point in the future anyways.

Does that strategy have to exist right now? Do we plan our exit before we are done planning our entry? Can we not have patience with a tanking strategy to?

Whats the exit strategy for not tanking exactly?

There seems to be this double standard laid upon the pro-tankers, where we are expected to know what all things will be and entail. There needs to be some form of assurance that if this team tanks, it won't lose after they are done tanking. If we can't do that then its not worth doing.

Yet those opposed to tanking don't offer any assurances themselves. They offer even less information regarding alternatives and very loosely veiled thoughts of what could conceivably happen. They don't explain what happens if 'just trying to win' doesn't lead to winning - do you just keep on trying to win in perpetuity? Until one day it just magically happens?

There are no assurances. What there is is history. Only so many teams have actually won titles in the modern era of the NBA. We can go back and look at how those teams were built. We can then ask which methods are the most realistic to follow. The only teams that tanked and won titles were the Celtics and the Spurs. The Celtics accumulated over a couple seasons and traded them for vets. The other was the Spurs who had a number of mysterious injuries and then got lucky in the draft.

That's it. Mavs took forever. Heat were essentially a mediocre team that pundits thought missed out on stars because they were not bad enough and Wade fell to them. Lots of stories about collusion, weird Shaq trades, the no salary cap bulls...The two others and I'd argue Mavs (to a certain extent) fit in the most feasible category that being what the Pistons and the Rockets represent.

These teams had star players but were essentially collaborative efforts led by multiple vets who wanted to win. Teams like that take a lot longer to build (unless you're the Celtics and have multiple drat picks to move). You have to build a culture that attracts the type of players you want. Players have to sacrifice financially. It is a slow process that starts from the top down...

This argument is so backwards. So Casey doesn't bench Gay because he doesn't see him as part of the Raptors' future? No, he doesn't bench Gay because he's a veteran and Casey has a long record of showing preference for them over young players.

I'm not arguing this point I'm just extrapolating from what I'm seeing. Personally, if some schmuck made me a coach? I wouldn't blink benching Gay. His shot selection makes me cringe.

[Masai Ujiri]

Pro-Tank/Anti-Tank it doesn't really matter

The formula for winning a championship has 2 ingredients that trump all the others, at the end of the day, they're what matter.

Smart Decision Making
Luck

End of story.

[wallz]

I'll add a third just to be a troll

3. 2014 draft

[Shrub]

Ugh.

This isn't basketball.
We're not talking about basketball.

I agree.

Tanking talk is so boring.
Silly debate with no sense of perspective on either side.

[Craiger]

Ugh.

This isn't basketball.
We're not talking about basketball.

I agree.

Tanking talk is so boring.
Silly debate with no sense of perspective on either side.

My opinion on it is all due to perspective.