Game Day: TOR at DAL

[golden]

How so? They have acquired critical pieces by deliberately not trying to make the playoffs.

*Tanking is perhaps not the best word as a descriptor, but it is the only one where people always understand that your intention is not to win in the short term.

**And again on Portland, they risked losing one of the best PFs in the game for a chance at a better draft pick, even though their own pick ended up at #11. Trading Gerald Wallace for crap and a draft pick is a "tank" spirited move. And doing so could've turned really bad for them if Aldridge made a trade demand as a result of having to sit through a year with no realistic chance to compete.

Wallace was a 'flip' and actually cost them two 1st rounders to the Cats (2011 & 2014). So, that was more of a 'win now' move, followed by a 'fix my mistake' Colangelo-esque recovery. Even the pick, Lillard, who was a rare 4-year college player was more a ready-to-contribute now type of pick. Portland's own pick was Meyers Leonard - so this is a perfect example to show how a smart trade (acquiring Brooklyn's pick) worked out way better than your own tanking pick (Leonard).

But the biggest stretch is Aldridge, who was drafted ages ago. If you use that definition, then just about every team who has picked top 5 since 2006 can be considered 'built by tanking', which means more failures than successes.

To say nothing of saying SAS tanked, which is way beyond a stretch. The only valid one in that list is OKC, who did so under the umbrella of an owner bound and determined to move the team to OKC, and didn't give two shits what the existing fan base thought, and whether they filled seats or not. That's an extremely unusual scenario, that I hope nobody here expects MLSE and Ujiri to duplicate. Their management isn't exactly showing great wisdom lately though. Green for Perkins???? Harden for a pile of scraps long before they had to move him???? As you said, there's a lot of luck involved in managing, and there isn't a GM in the league that gets it right all the time.

It's been well discussed that OKC got lucky by NOT getting the 1st overall pick. Would they still have picked Durant #1. Extremely unlikely, but we'll never know the truth, and Presti will never tell.

[white men can't jump]

To say nothing of saying SAS tanked, which is way beyond a stretch. The only valid one in that list is OKC, who did so under the umbrella of an owner bound and determined to move the team to OKC, and didn't give two shits what the existing fan base thought, and whether they filled seats or not. That's an extremely unusual scenario, that I hope nobody here expects MLSE and Ujiri to duplicate. Their management isn't exactly showing great wisdom lately though. Green for Perkins???? Harden for a pile of scraps long before they had to move him???? As you said, there's a lot of luck involved in managing, and there isn't a GM in the league that gets it right all the time.

SAS tank job was one by default, not over intent to start the season.

I think Miami is a fair scenario. They very very obviously tanked in the LeBron draft. And they did in the Rose draft too (they had the worst record in the league!). One time it worked out well, one not so well. The 2008 attempt was obviously to complement the free agency strategy. If they had lucked into Rose, they wouldn't have had to necessarily draw 2 all-stars like both Bosh and LeBron, or maybe could have on top of having Wade and Rose.

I still think Portland is a good example of deliberately losing, even without an all-out tank. For Aldridge's draft it was by default because the franchise was a mess. But trading Gerald Wallace, who was arguably the 2nd best player on their team, during a season where they were struggling but not awful, was a clear tank move in philosophy. They must've felt there was no point in trying to make a win-now move. Wallace was going to expire, and it was clear the roster was not worth keeping together. They maximized his value for a chance at good draft assets, both the Nets' and their own. *And yes, trading Wallace can be viewed as righting the course, but the year before with the same core they made the playoffs after getting him. They could've easily reinvested in him in the summer if they were extra stupid.

I mean, if near the deadline, Masai sees this team is not realistically heading for the playoffs, and is like 12th worst, and he traded Lowry (and/or whoever) away for another pick and the hope our pick ends up even just 2-3 spots higher is that tanking? I'd say yes in terms of the spirit of the move. He'd be acknowledging the situation as not the right foundation for sustainable success, and doing his best to improve it at the cost of some wins because those wins might not even be enough to get into the playoffs. And that would be what Portland did.

The spirit of what is called "tanking", and not always appropriately, isn't always to trade off all your assets for pennies on the dollar to suck as hard as possible. It's to believe there is no real purpose to striving for short-term success and being willing to make calculated moves that improve your team's chances to build a sustainable winner going forward, even if it means depleting talent/wins in the now.

And back on OKC. Their trade record may not be stellar....But they drafted a solid role-player in Adams this year. Lamb has developed into a decent bench player. And Reggie Jackson is turning into an excellent 6th man who plays a style that fits their team. Their draft record and scouting department continue to do well when looking for talented young pieces.

[OldSkoolCool]

To say nothing of saying SAS tanked, which is way beyond a stretch. The only valid one in that list is OKC, who did so under the umbrella of an owner bound and determined to move the team to OKC, and didn't give two shits what the existing fan base thought, and whether they filled seats or not. That's an extremely unusual scenario, that I hope nobody here expects MLSE and Ujiri to duplicate. Their management isn't exactly showing great wisdom lately though. Green for Perkins???? Harden for a pile of scraps long before they had to move him???? As you said, there's a lot of luck involved in managing, and there isn't a GM in the league that gets it right all the time.

Umm SAS is perfect example of tanking...they got hit with the injury bug and they knew a great player was coming into the draft so they lost a ton of games, got the number 1...and look at where they are now.

OKC management is really cheap

[golden]

SAS tank job was one by default, not over intent to start the season.

I think Miami is a fair scenario. They very very obviously tanked in the LeBron draft. And they did in the Rose draft too (they had the worst record in the league!). One time it worked out well, one not so well. The 2008 attempt was obviously to complement the free agency strategy. If they had lucked into Rose, they wouldn't have had to necessarily draw 2 all-stars like both Bosh and LeBron, or maybe could have on top of having Wade and Rose.

I still think Portland is a good example of deliberately losing, even without an all-out tank. For Aldridge's draft it was by default because the franchise was a mess. But trading Gerald Wallace, who was arguably the 2nd best player on their team, during a season where they were struggling but not awful, was a clear tank move in philosophy. They must've felt there was no point in trying to make a win-now move. Wallace was going to expire, and it was clear the roster was not worth keeping together. They maximized his value for a chance at good draft assets, both the Nets' and their own. *And yes, trading Wallace can be viewed as righting the course, but the year before with the same core they made the playoffs after getting him. They could've easily reinvested in him in the summer if they were extra stupid.

I mean, if near the deadline, Masai sees this team is not realistically heading for the playoffs, and is like 12th worst, and he traded Lowry (and/or whoever) away for another pick and the hope our pick ends up even just 2-3 spots higher is that tanking? I'd say yes in terms of the spirit of the move. He'd be acknowledging the situation as not the right foundation for sustainable success, and doing his best to improve it at the cost of some wins because those wins might not even be enough to get into the playoffs. And that would be what Portland did.

The spirit of what is called "tanking", and not always appropriately, isn't always to trade off all your assets for pennies on the dollar to suck as hard as possible. It's to believe there is no real purpose to striving for short-term success and being willing to make calculated moves that improve your team's chances to build a sustainable winner going forward, even if it means depleting talent/wins in the now.

And back on OKC. Their trade record may not be stellar....But they drafted a solid role-player in Adams this year. Lamb has developed into a decent bench player. And Reggie Jackson is turning into an excellent 6th man who plays a style that fits their team. Their draft record and scouting department continue to do well when looking for talented young pieces.

The Gerald Wallace trade is a really bad example - let it go. You had an aging player with lot of hard mileage on him approaching free agency and young guy (Batum) with loads of potential needing minutes to develop. Trading Wallace was a no-brainer, but the genius was getting a desperate and stupid team like the Nets to cough up a 1st round pick. Otherwise we wouldn't even be talking about them. This is really trying hard to force-fit any team experiencing success into the 'tanking is what got them there' narrative. This is why these threads end up 20 pgs long.

[white men can't jump]

The Gerald Wallace trade is a really bad example - let it go. You had an aging player with lot of hard mileage on him approaching free agency and young guy (Batum) with loads of potential needing minutes to develop. Trading Wallace was a no-brainer, but the genius was getting a desperate and stupid team like the Nets to cough up a 1st round pick. Otherwise we wouldn't even be talking about them. This is really trying hard to force-fit any team experiencing success into the 'tanking is what got them there' narrative. This is why these threads end up 20 pgs long.

I bring up the Wallace trade because it's basically the exact opposite of what Toronto did last year. So it's contrasting delusional management trying to win now/save their own ass against a more realistic approach. They could've played the season out with Wallace and let him expire if they thought it would give them a chance at the playoffs, and that they could fix things in free agency, or tried to trade his expiring contract for what they thought was a need to help them make a playoff push....so basically if they were poorly managed.

The crux of this discussion is that good managers are forward thinking and good at evaluating what's working, and that aiming for the most wins now is not always the best strategy, even when an all-out tank isn't possible. Toronto has pretty much never had this....Being willing to take a deliberate step back to move farther forward in the future.

*And a major part of my argument was the risk involved for Portland in Aldridge possibly becoming unhappy enough to demand a trade. Even though it wasn't an obvious tank strategy, it was an obvious "we're not good enough to win" strategy that is very risky when you already have a good piece or two. Think Toronto not maximizing McGrady's value when everyone thought he was going to walk, or overpaying not just for guys like Davis and Alvin, who were legit starters, but for a purely hustle player like JYD. They were so worried about maintaining playoff basketball and keeping Carter happy that they never built properly.

**Totally understandable if you don't view it as a "tank" move. But I view any move that is future thinking at the cost of present success (or hopes for success, because as they say, many organizations sell hope and not results) as tanking in spirit.

[Superjudge]

i wish the players cared as much about this crap as we do.

[psrs1]

The Gerald Wallace trade is a really bad example - let it go. You had an aging player with lot of hard mileage on him approaching free agency and young guy (Batum) with loads of potential needing minutes to develop. Trading Wallace was a no-brainer, but the genius was getting a desperate and stupid team like the Nets to cough up a 1st round pick. Otherwise we wouldn't even be talking about them. This is really trying hard to force-fit any team experiencing success into the 'tanking is what got them there' narrative. This is why these threads end up 20 pgs long.

If MU gets in a similar situation and can fleece someone he should. It depends on what the other GM will give up. Their is a lot of luck involved.

[lilmamba_]

wooow! what are these long ass essays even about

[ball4life]

wooow! what are these long ass essays even about

The battle of anti-tank vs pro-tank
I guess you are stuck in no mans land


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[lilmamba_]

The battle of anti-tank vs pro-tank
I guess you are stuck in no mans land


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm an anti-tanker I just decide to stay away from paragraphs

[Masai Ujiri]

Umm SAS is perfect example of tanking...they got hit with the injury bug and they knew a great player was coming into the draft so they lost a ton of games, got the number 1...and look at where they are now.

OKC management is really cheap

Lol, just lol.

I think you have that in reverse order. You're acting like they CHOSE to lose a lot of games. No they didn't, that's kind of what happens when your best player gets injured for the year. If they were trying to tank, then why in the hell did they sign Dominique Wilkins (who despite not being in his prime, was still a very effective scorer) in the offseason prior?

It's like if the Bulls made no trades this year and then got the #1 pick. Are you going to commend them for a brilliant tank job? Err no, they were obviously trying to win, but that's kind of hard to do when the former MVP can't play.

Do not make things up.

[The Great One]

In the last 10 years. 2003 Cavs and Nuggets really are the only 2 teams that i can think of that "tanked" in order to get a high draft pick.

Cavs and Nuggets really tried so hard to be bad that year LOL.

Cavs got LeBron. Nuggets got Melo. LeBron is now in Miami. Melo in NY. Cleveland and Denver still have 0 championships.

[wallz]

In the last 10 years. 2003 Cavs and Nuggets really are the only 2 teams that i can think of that "tanked" in order to get a high draft pick.

Cavs and Nuggets really tried so hard to be bad that year LOL.

Cavs got LeBron. Nuggets got Melo. LeBron is now in Miami. Melo in NY. Cleveland and Denver still have 0 championships.

Cavs had a very good chance of winning one. The fact that they got superstars from tanking is only hurting your side of the argument IMO. It doesn't matter that they don't have them anymore, it matters that there was a time period where their chances were actually very good to win it all (especially Cleveland)

[The Great One]

Cavs had a very good chance of winning one. The fact that they got superstars from tanking is only hurting your side of the argument IMO. It doesn't matter that they don't have them anymore, it matters that there was a time period where their chances were actually very good to win it all (especially Cleveland)

Problem is, there's no LeBron James in this draft. You know, a 'generational talent'.

Wiggins, Parker and co. are going to be good players no doubt. But they're no LeBron James.

And oh, Denver with Melo didn't come close to winning it all. In fact, i can't remember if they even win a playoff series in the Carmelo Anthony era.

[rocwell]

Problem is, there's no LeBron James in this draft. You know, a 'generational talent'.

Wiggins, Parker and co. are going to be good players no doubt. But they're no LeBron James.

Talent isn't everything. I hate when people say that LeBron was "generational talent". Don't get me wrong, he was talented up to his ears, but c'mon - you call him "generational talent" now, because he lived up to his hype.

We've seen cases when talented players finish last in nba Wiggins will enter this draft with loads of hype and if he lives up to it then he'll be known as a generational talent too.