Are we treadmilling?

[Apollo]

The idea of openly moving pieces to field a worse team is a relatively new strategy, isn't it? I don't even think the word "tanking" was part of the NBA vernacular during the 80s/90s.

So they called it something else. Is there a documented first account of intentionally fielding a bad team for the sake of the lotto? No one admits to tanking. However, it doesn't take a math major to figure out that losing increases odds in the lotto and there certainly have been a lot of poor GM's out there over the years that had no prayer of building a team; hoping and praying to hit the jackpot in the lottery. I'd imagine most of those guys are no longer in the league in any capacity.

For sure what we do have is a history of bad teams in the lotto and year over year standings. So there's the answer, but someone with a lot of time on their hands would have to work for it.

Sent from my Note 3 using Tapatalk

[raptors999]

that's 3 teams so yeah rarely

SVG is devoping Drummond to be C in his offense and how to play D something he did in Orlando. The triangle in NY, thibs defrnse etc. Casry doesnt do shit except run a terrible D

[slaw]

Head Coaches are rarely in charge of player development. It's usually assistant coaches that work with players.

The responsibility for player development falls on the GM and his management team. Player development is an organizational strategy - it's not left to low level employees. The head coach has to be on board with the plan and the assistant coaches are the worker bees implementing it.

I would argue against that with Casey.

Bayno quit a high-paying NBA job because Casey couldn't see what was right in front of his nose

Absurd. First, you have no idea why Bayno wanted out. Second, I am confident Casey has forgotten more about basketball than 99% of the posters on this board have ever known in the aggregate. The fact that you don't like how Casey does things does not equate to him being an idiot.

[raptors999]

The responsibility for player development falls on the GM and his management team. Player development is an organizational strategy - it's not left to low level employees. The head coach has to be on board with the plan and the assistant coaches are the worker bees implementing it.



Absurd. First, you have no idea why Bayno wanted out. Second, I am confident Casey has forgotten more about basketball than 99% of the posters on this board have ever known in the aggregate. The fact that you don't like how Casey does things does not equate to him being an idiot.

based on McHale calling him an idiot when he fired him and the last five years on the Raptors. hes never actually been head coach anywhere with success

[MixxAOR]

that's why I'm amazed that Derozan gets praised for his "hard work". Shout outs to BC, Casey and Triano. I'm just derailing this into Derozan thread.

[mcHAPPY]

I would also say that we just witnessed GSW as another prime example of player development, system and role definition allowing the "talent" to far exceed the consensus projected talent ceiling on draft day. All developed during the natural cycle of winning and losing, while fielding a competitive team. And the Rockets are an example of development + trading for picks & flipping those into stars - again without tanking.

Good points. You are absolutely correct on player development. Many of us have been looking for a DLeague team for a long time.

Houston are phenomenal for developing talent.

Nurse came from their DLeague team. I believe Murmuys did as well, no?

[OldSkoolCool]

Absurd. First, you have no idea why Bayno wanted out. Second, I am confident Casey has forgotten more about basketball than 99% of the posters on this board have ever known in the aggregate. The fact that you don't like how Casey does things does not equate to him being an idiot.

It's not evident by what we see on TV for game time decisions.

Also I hate that whole premise. Just because a person is in that position, does not mean they are automatically better than people who aren't.

[Scraptor]

The idea of openly moving pieces to field a worse team is a relatively new strategy, isn't it? I don't even think the word "tanking" was part of the NBA vernacular during the 80s/90s.

Yes. There were teams that did it sporadically prior to the mid-'00s, strategically to target specific players, but it's only become conventional wisdom as a multi-year process in the last ten years.

There was a seminal article I read years ago, I think it was in SI or possibly even the Atlantic, which first popularized the term treadmill. I tried to find it in the SI vault, but it's like finding a needle in a haystack. I think it was in 2002 or 2003, but it might be slightly older than that.

I remember moderate tanking for the 2003 draft, but the first year which launched the modern era of tanking IMO was 2006-07 for Oden and Durant. Portland and Seattle stockpiled young talent every year, and while Portland was derailed by injuries, Seattle/OKC became the main example of the benefits of a multi-year tank/rebuild.

It's interesting because Rich Cho came out of the Portland front office and tried to lead the Hornets into a tank, but ever since they missed Davis and flubbed the MKG pick (relatively speaking, he's still pretty good), they've been unable to make it work. There are so many variables involved, like lottery balls and injuries, that there are no guarantees.

But I also think there are so many institutional and environmental pressures that make it difficult to do what OKC did, that also explain why there aren't more OKC's.

When we drafted Val, I prayed that we would continue the rebuild into the next few years. When Drummond fell into our lap it was like a gift from the basketball gods. But we decided to "accelerate the rebuild", and that was a franchise-altering moment. Instead of fully committing to developing youth, we went win-now and that focus hasn't changed since. Very few organizations have the stomach for a long-term rebuilding process.

Going forward, I think Utah and Minnesota will be the next examples of successful multi-year rebuilds. And I think it will just reconfirm that for lesser-attractive markets, tanking for talent is the best way to accumulate assets over which the team has long-term control.

[Apollo]

Lol if you want to really understand what's happening, yes.

How much time is sufficient? I don't know, but I know 30 years isn't enough. There's just too many variables involved in being successful in the NBA.

Probably best not to build a strategy around and unproven method then? There are many examples of winning by going a different path. That history goes back to 1949.

Sent from my Note 3 using Tapatalk

[JWash]

Yes. There were teams that did it sporadically prior to the mid-'00s, strategically to target specific players, but it's only become conventional wisdom as a multi-year process in the last ten years.

There was a seminal article I read years ago, I think it was in SI or possibly even the Atlantic, which first popularized the term treadmill. I tried to find it in the SI vault, but it's like finding a needle in a haystack. I think it was in 2002 or 2003, but it might be slightly older than that.

I remember moderate tanking for the 2003 draft, but the first year which launched the modern era of tanking IMO was 2006-07 for Oden and Durant. Portland and Seattle stockpiled young talent every year, and while Portland was derailed by injuries, Seattle/OKC became the main example of the benefits of a multi-year tank/rebuild.

It's interesting because Rich Cho came out of the Portland front office and tried to lead the Hornets into a tank, but ever since they missed Davis and flubbed the MKG pick (relatively speaking, he's still pretty good), they've been unable to make it work. There are so many variables involved, like lottery balls and injuries, that there are no guarantees.

But I also think there are so many institutional and environmental pressures that make it difficult to do what OKC did, that also explain why there aren't more OKC's.

When we drafted Val, I prayed that we would continue the rebuild into the next few years. When Drummond fell into our lap it was like a gift from the basketball gods. But we decided to "accelerate the rebuild", and that was a franchise-altering moment. Instead of fully committing to developing youth, we went win-now and that focus hasn't changed since. Very few organizations have the stomach for a long-term rebuilding process.

Going forward, I think Utah and Minnesota will be the next examples of successful multi-year rebuilds. And I think it will just reconfirm that for lesser-attractive markets, tanking for talent is the best way to accumulate assets over which the team has long-term control.

Tanking for talent? When has Utah tanked...?

- Utah traded for Favors as part of the Deron Williams trade.
- The drafted Gordon Hayward with the Knicks pick after a 53 win season in 2009-10 (could that be us this year?)
- Millsap and Al Jeff both walked in 2013 (or you could say Utah let them go) which made them pretty bad to draft Exum at #5.
- Gobert was drafted 27th.

So none of their 3 highest impact players (Favors, Hayward, Gobert) were acquired via tanking. This makes absolutely no sense.

[raptors999]

Tanking for talent? When has Utah tanked...?

- Utah traded for Favors as part of the Deron Williams trade.
- The drafted Gordon Hayward with the Knicks pick after a 53 win season in 2009-10 (could that be us this year?)
- Millsap and Al Jeff both walked in 2013 (or you could say Utah let them go) which made them pretty bad to draft Exum at #5.
- Gobert was drafted 27th.

So none of their 3 highest impact players (Favors, Hayward, Gobert) were acquired via tanking. This makes absolutely no sense.

they tanked for Exum, the international man of mystery. it did give them a chance to develop Heyward. raptors will need to "tank" at some point not for picks but because of the number of prospects expected to come in and already on the roster.

[golden]

Tanking for talent? When has Utah tanked...?

- Utah traded for Favors as part of the Deron Williams trade.
- The drafted Gordon Hayward with the Knicks pick after a 53 win season in 2009-10 (could that be us this year?)
- Millsap and Al Jeff both walked in 2013 (or you could say Utah let them go) which made them pretty bad to draft Exum at #5.
- Gobert was drafted 27th.

So none of their 3 highest impact players (Favors, Hayward, Gobert) were acquired via tanking. This makes absolutely no sense.

+1. Great examples of using other team's picks.

Two more, of many....

Portland drafting Lillard with the Nets pick (from the Gerald Wallace trade)
Bulls drafting Noah with the Knicks pick (from the Eddy Curry trade, I think)

It's interesting how you are perceived if you support a winning team that looks like it can't win it all, i.e., you are derided as "settling for less" than a championship team, because you won't support tanking for lottery picks. But smart franchises have shown that it's possible to accumulate other team's lottery picks. You can have your cake and eat it too.

Winning, while accumulating and developing young talent at the same time, should be the gold standard to which GMs are held to. Pro-actively tanking your team for a season, is what should really be considered "settling for less", and is a desperation move, not proven to be any more successful than other franchise building strategies.

[raptors999]

+1. Great examples of using other team's picks.

Two more, of many....

Portland drafting Lillard with the Nets pick (from the Gerald Wallace trade)
Bulls drafting Noah with the Knicks pick (from the Eddy Curry trade, I think)

It's interesting how you are perceived if you support a winning team that looks like it can't win it all, i.e., you are derided as "settling for less" than a championship team, because you won't support tanking for lottery picks. But smart franchises have shown that it's possible to accumulate other team's lottery picks. You can have your cake and eat it too.

Winning, while accumulating and developing young talent at the same time, should be the gold standard to which GMs are held to. Pro-actively tanking your team for a season, is what should really be considered "settling for less", and is a desperation move, not proven to be any more successful than other franchise building strategies.

lots of good teams should tank. Clippers are capped out and unlikely to get to the Finals, Indy is taking a big step back. CP3, Blake and PG would get lots of players and picks from teams like the Celtics and Lakers

[golden]

lots of good teams should tank. Clippers are capped out and unlikely to get to the Finals, Indy is taking a big step back. CP3, Blake and PG would get lots of players and picks from teams like the Celtics and Lakers

Trading CP3 would be a good idea, but I doubt that the Clips would have the balls to do it. For example, I'd guess that the Clips could get D'Angelo Russell + Randle + future 1st picks from the Lakers for CP3. I also am never sold on having a PG as your franchise cornerstone. The Clips wouldn't necessarily have to outright tank, but could treadmill for awhile while developing a younger core. Griffin is still young and could be built around, perhaps when Harden's contract is up with Houston, he decides to do the NBA superstar trendy thing and go home.

On the flip side, a team like the Mavs just continued putting pieces around Dirk for his entire career, and have stayed competitive in the toughest conference the whole time with 2 NBA finals appearances. You could almost consider them a high-end treadmill team that surprise people when they get past the first round. They also have an elite coach.

That's the other critical part of franchise building that's over-looked, which is, knowing when to sell your high on your stars before: (a) their value diminishes and/or (b) they leave for nothing. Wolves got lucky and were able to flip Love for Wiggins. Blazers got nothing for Aldridge, just like the Raps did for Bosh. Raps tried to trade Lowry, then gambled on keeping him and were able to retain the asset. Lowry is a good candidate for a "sell-high" trade.

[raptors999]

Trading CP3 would be a good idea, but I doubt that the Clips would have the balls to do it. For example, I'd guess that the Clips could get D'Angelo Russell + Randle + future 1st picks from the Lakers for CP3. I also am never sold on having a PG as your franchise cornerstone. The Clips wouldn't necessarily have to outright tank, but could treadmill for awhile while developing a younger core. Griffin is still young and could be built around, perhaps when Harden's contract is up with Houston, he decides to do the NBA superstar trendy thing and go home.

On the flip side, a team like the Mavs just continued putting pieces around Dirk for his entire career, and have stayed competitive in the toughest conference the whole time with 2 NBA finals appearances. You could almost consider them a high-end treadmill team that surprise people when they get past the first round. They also have an elite coach.

That's the other critical part of franchise building that's over-looked, which is, knowing when to sell your high on your stars before: (a) their value diminishes and/or (b) they leave for nothing. Wolves got lucky and were able to flip Love for Wiggins. Blazers got nothing for Aldridge, just like the Raps did for Bosh. Raps tried to trade Lowry, then gambled on keeping him and were able to retain the asset. Lowry is a good candidate for a "sell-high" trade.

huge Lowry fan but he would fetch more at the trade deadline. if Utah is sniffing a playoff spot maybe Lowry + some of the frontcourt depth for Favors + Exum + stuff.