Alternatives to tanking. Please be civil

[Nilanka]

An alternative to tanking?

Colangelo.

[JawsGT]

are you sure about that? who exactly is going to back up vasquez if hes going to start with lowry gone? buycks? stone?

No I am not sure. I am not the Saviour sir. And yes, I would imagine either Buycks or Stone would back up Vasquez if Lowry were traded. I cannot envision Tyler at the 1, but maybe we could start Fields at the point, give him something to do anyways...

[special1]

If tanking means "purposefully lose (at least at the GM level) to improve own draft positioning", then I've never been in favor of tanking.
As much as I believe this team could compete for the playoffs in an historically bad EC this season (memories of 2006-07), I don't believe the core is good enough to be truly competitive in any sustainable way.

I would much prefer MU to rebuild/retool this team. Players that don't factor into the team's long-term plans should be cashed-in (ie: Bargnani & Gay), while assets (ie: prospects, draft picks & cap space) should be acquired.
I completely agree that the Bargnani trade (a fresh start was needed for both parties), the Gay trade (huge contract, uncertainty and black-hole made it addition by subtraction) and even the rumored Lowry trade (expiring contract and addition of Vasquez made him expendable), did not necessarily signal the true direction MU plans to take this team. They all seem to favor the long-term to the short-term, but hardly in the 'waving the white flag on this season' way.

I still expect (hope) the following players to be shopped heavily up to the deadline and/or at the draft, in the name of a proper rebuild/retool/team-building:
- Lowry (expiring)
- Novak (old)
- Hansborough (more valuable as an asset on a value contract with a team option and only $1M guaranteed)
- Salmons (only $1M guaranteed for next season is best thing about him)
- Hayes (old and bad contract; fairly unlikely unless salary is needed)

If moving these players improves the team and they are competitive for the playoffs, so be it.

If moving these players results in a "tank" for the rest of the season, so be it.

The bottom line is that I want MU to [re]build the Raptors the right way, much more efficiently and effectively than his predecessor (BC). I want this team to be built to become perennial contenders, for the long-term. I'm not overly concerned what happens in the short-term (either way), since the whole point of my preferred approach is to not be dependent on any single transaction (ie: Raptors' own 2014 1st round pick) and to stick to the strategy and see the plan through.

With each passing day... I notice that OUR views are A LOT closer than i initially thought. This post by what i considered a "tanker" -- actually bears a HUGE resemblance to my own views and i consider myself an "anti-tanker." Maybe its time we put this "tanker and anti-tanker" debate to bed. NO ONE knows which way MU will take this team and I hate terms that divide us when we're clearly all wanting the same things - we just slightly disagree on how we get there.

I want all the things that tankers want. I want flexibility. I want long term sucess. I want MU to improve this team by keeping good young players and getting rid of those who are overpaid and don't fit (he's done that with Bargnani and Gay).

I want a common sense approach.....not just throwing shit against the wall to see if it fits (the BC way). I want MU to target players who are currently undervalued on other teams *that fit what we're trying to do* and increase their value by placing them in a situation where they can thrive. We can then look to move some of these assets as a way to improve the team as well.

Likewise - If we get a high lottery pick and keep our young players (Demar, JV, Ross, and even Amir) then so be it. If we make the playoffs and provide playoff experience for our young players then even better. Developing a winning culture is never a bad thing imo.

[CalgaryRapsFan]

With each passing day... I notice that OUR views are A LOT closer than i initially thought. This post by what i considered a "tanker" -- actually bears a HUGE resemblance to my own views and i consider myself an "anti-tanker." Maybe its time we put this "tanker and anti-tanker" debate to bed. NO ONE knows which way MU will take this team and I hate terms that divide us when we're clearly all wanting the same things - we just slightly disagree on how we get there.

I want all the things that tankers want. I want flexibility. I want long term sucess. I want MU to improve this team by keeping good young players and getting rid of those who are overpaid and don't fit (he's done that with Bargnani and Gay).

I want a common sense approach.....not just throwing shit against the wall to see if it fits (the BC way). I want MU to target players who are currently undervalued on other teams *that fit what we're trying to do* and increase their value by placing them in a situation where they can thrive. We can then look to move some of these assets as a way to improve the team as well.

Likewise - If we get a high lottery pick and keep our young players (Demar, JV, Ross, and even Amir) then so be it. If we make the playoffs and provide playoff experience for our young players then even better. Developing a winning culture is never a bad thing imo.

We had a great back-and-forth a month or so ago and came to a similar conclusion, only to drift apart once more...

Being a vocal "pro tanker" and also from watching many other arguments from the sideline, it seems that the real point of contention between the two sides is the willingness/eagerness to include DeRozan and Johnson in the list of assets to trade.

Whenever somebody has laid out any sort of team-building plan without DeRozan/Johnson, as I did in the post you replied to, most posters tend to agree with the strategy to some point. However, any plan that also recommends the cashing-in of DeRozan & Johnson (following the same strategy of only doing so if an acceptable offer comes along), has often been called "tanking" and/or "hating", to the point of the poster even having their "fan-ness" questioned.

I think the rationale is that trading anybody else (ie: Lowry, Novak, Hansborough, etc...) doesn't necessarily mean the team will start losing more, as witnessed so far in the aftermath of the Gay trade. I think the general assumption is that trading DeRozan and/or Johnson is far more likely to result in a quick plummet to the bottom of the standings, which brings about the negative connotation of "tanking".

[magoon]

Being a vocal "pro tanker" and also from watching many other arguments from the sideline, it seems that the real point of contention between the two sides is the willingness/eagerness to include DeRozan and Johnson in the list of assets to trade.

I think this is accurate and I think a bit of expounding here from a rebuild advocate is worthwhile:

I don't think anybody particularly wants to trade Amir or DeMar; they're both good young players with strong work ethics and unselfish attitudes. But at the end of the day, you always have to ask yourself: can you get more for trading them right now than they are worth? If the answer is "yes" then you have to seriously consider trading them, because asset accumulation is a value-neutral prospect when it comes to whether you like Amir or DeMar. The same goes even for Jonas; when rebuild advocates are unwilling to trade him, it's not out of sentimentality but because we think it is unlikely that we can get better value by trading Jonas. (If Phoenix was willing to trade all four of its 2014 picks and, say, Miles Plumlee for Jonas - which they aren't, because that's a pretty lopsided trade in our favour - then of course you have to consider trading Jonas.)

DeMar is suggested more often as a trade target than Amir is because Amir is the better player of the two - easily - and because Amir's contract is honestly not likely to become that more expensive. Amir does a lot of great things that are not easily quantifiable, and "great things that are not easily quantifiable" still hurts contract value when players look to sign new deals; if we resign Amir for less than $10M it's still a good deal. So it's hard to get better value than Amir gives us, unless you're really, really worried about his ankles.

DeMar, on the other hand - he has certainly improved this year, but it's only the weakness of SGs throughout the league that makes him a solid option at the position and several teams are experimenting successfully with simply running two point guards instead so who knows. His trade value is probably at an all-time high and I think it is quite possible to get better value for him than he currently provides us, because what he provides, really, is scoring. He's never going to be a "second point guard" even if his floor sense has improved, he's an okay defender at best; what he gives you is points, and the simple truth is somebody is generally going to score points for you anyway. So there's an argument for trading him, so long as you get an improvement on value, and I think it's possible to do.

[special1]

We had a great back-and-forth a month or so ago and came to a similar conclusion, only to drift apart once more...

Being a vocal "pro tanker" and also from watching many other arguments from the sideline, it seems that the real point of contention between the two sides is the willingness/eagerness to include DeRozan and Johnson in the list of assets to trade.

Whenever somebody has laid out any sort of team-building plan without DeRozan/Johnson, as I did in the post you replied to, most posters tend to agree with the strategy to some point. However, any plan that also recommends the cashing-in of DeRozan & Johnson (following the same strategy of only doing so if an acceptable offer comes along), has often been called "tanking" and/or "hating", to the point of the poster even having their "fan-ness" questioned.

I think the rationale is that trading anybody else (ie: Lowry, Novak, Hansborough, etc...) doesn't necessarily mean the team will start losing more, as witnessed so far in the aftermath of the Gay trade. I think the general assumption is that trading DeRozan and/or Johnson is far more likely to result in a quick plummet to the bottom of the standings, which brings about the negative connotation of "tanking".

the bold - BINGO!

I just don't think we dump those two players UNLESS we get offers we can't refuse. BOTH DD and Amir are exactly the type of pieces you want (if the goal is to be a contending team in a few years). Do you really think it will be easy to replace these two guys? They are the heart and soul of this team.

I wouldn't even think about trading anyone of those two without a top 10 pick from EACH coming our way.

Do you see how much I value Demar and Amir? If you disagree, thats fine. I personally think many posters undervalue our assets...mainly because BC never gave them teammates who actually fit. You put either DD or Amir on good teams and you'll see their true value. Playing with scrubs for years tend to make everyone look bad. I'm happy that they finally have a GM who knows what he's doing.

[psrs1]

With each passing day... I notice that OUR views are A LOT closer than i initially thought. This post by what i considered a "tanker" -- actually bears a HUGE resemblance to my own views and i consider myself an "anti-tanker." Maybe its time we put this "tanker and anti-tanker" debate to bed. NO ONE knows which way MU will take this team and I hate terms that divide us when we're clearly all wanting the same things - we just slightly disagree on how we get there.

I want all the things that tankers want. I want flexibility. I want long term sucess. I want MU to improve this team by keeping good young players and getting rid of those who are overpaid and don't fit (he's done that with Bargnani and Gay).

I want a common sense approach.....not just throwing shit against the wall to see if it fits (the BC way). I want MU to target players who are currently undervalued on other teams *that fit what we're trying to do* and increase their value by placing them in a situation where they can thrive. We can then look to move some of these assets as a way to improve the team as well.

Likewise - If we get a high lottery pick and keep our young players (Demar, JV, Ross, and even Amir) then so be it. If we make the playoffs and provide playoff experience for our young players then even better. Developing a winning culture is never a bad thing imo.

I agree. I think if you remove the labels most posters are closer than if use phrases like pro and anti.

[CalgaryRapsFan]

the bold - BINGO!

I just don't think we dump those two players UNLESS we get offers we can't refuse. BOTH DD and Amir are exactly the type of pieces you want (if the goal is to be a contending team in a few years). Do you really think it will be easy to replace these two guys? They are the heart and soul of this team.

I wouldn't even think about trading anyone of those two without a top 10 pick from EACH coming our way.

Do you see how much I value Demar and Amir? If you disagree, thats fine. I personally think many posters undervalue our assets...mainly because BC never gave them teammates who actually fit. You put either DD or Amir on good teams and you'll see their true value. Playing with scrubs for years tend to make everyone look bad. I'm happy that they finally have a GM who knows what he's doing.

I've never seen anybody post an idea to simply dump DeRozan or Johnson, so I'm not sure why that ever gets discussed.

My expectations are that DeRozan would likely return a pick in the 10-20 range this year, while Johnson would be lucky to return a 25-35 range pick.

I'm not saying I completely agree, but that is just my assumption based on what I've read/heard as to what value GMs are placing on draft picks.

[S.R.]

An alternative to tanking?

Colangelo.

Ah, we were all so unified in the latter days of Colangelo! What a time it was!

[Masai Ujiri]

Life begins and ends with the tank. Give us tank or give us death.

[mcHAPPY]

Ppl have no idea what "tanking" is. GMs tank the roster it's not players and coaching "throwing games" That's completely different

— Mike Gentile (@mikeGentileTSN) December 19, 2013

[thead]

I for one would prefer we just call it something else. Cliff Jumping? Cosmetic Surgery?...help me out people

[stooley]

The alternative to tanking seems to be to just lose every close game possible.

[S.R.]

I for one would prefer we just call it something else. Cliff Jumping? Cosmetic Surgery?...help me out people

Tanking happens at the end of the season when starters start sitting out games with sprained eyebrows etc. and coaches roll out D-League lineups.

A GM overhauling a losing roster and angling for draft picks isn't tanking. It's just rebuilding through the draft. The draft is the very mechanism designed to help bad teams become good teams. That's what it's there for.

[CalgaryRapsFan]

I for one would prefer we just call it something else. Cliff Jumping? Cosmetic Surgery?...help me out people

Rebuilding? A proper team-building strategy that the GM actually sticks to?