Everything 2018 Playoffs!

[Nilanka]

It's a gamble in that you have less than 50% chance of drafting an all star, and a much much smaller chance of drafting a franchise guy. Orlando. Phoenix. Charlotte. Lakers. These teams just keep on sucking, spinning their wheels of the tank. Look at Utah, found Mitchell in the middle of the round this year and he's the offensive mvp of his first round series.

The only thing tanking ever guarantees with certainty is losing. Lots of it.

Gotta compare apples to apples. What has better odds? Drafting a Mitchell in the top 5, or the top 20?

[KeonClark]

Gotta compare apples to apples. What has better odds? Drafting a Mitchell in the top 5, or the top 20?

Yeah but hey Utah should have tanked when Hayward left if you listen to the internet. Same with Indiana when George left. Those teams kept their pieces, kept jogging on their "treadmill" and are playing fun playoff basketball. Hope for a ring? Hell No, not this year. But a piece of 2 away from considering the finals a goal. A lot closer than Orlando and Phoenix, lining up for another crack at the latest college sophomore

[Nilanka]

Yeah but hey Utah should have tanked when Hayward left if you listen to the internet. Same with Indiana when George left. Those teams kept their pieces, kept jogging on their "treadmill" and are playing fun playoff basketball. Hope for a ring? Hell No, not this year. But a piece of 2 away from considering the finals a goal. A lot closer than Orlando and Phoenix, lining up for another crack at the latest college sophomore

What you're saying is that, in Utah's case, tanking isn't necessary to build a winning team. No denying that.

Tanking is just one option of building a winning team.

[KeonClark]

What you're saying is that, in Utah's case, tanking isn't necessary to build a winning team. No denying that.

Tanking is just one option of building a winning team.

Well in utahs case they were projected to muddle around at .500 with no superstars. That's the definition of no man's land around here, where you pull the plug. I prefer keeping my pieces and finding good value in draft and free agency and winning trades rather than go scorched earth. Actually we've got a great example here in our own backyard

[Demographic Shift]

It's a gamble in that you have less than 50% chance of drafting an all star, and a much much smaller chance of drafting a franchise guy. Orlando. Phoenix. Charlotte. Lakers. These teams just keep on sucking, spinning their wheels of the tank. Look at Utah, found Mitchell in the middle of the round this year and he's the offensive mvp of his first round series.

The only thing tanking ever guarantees with certainty is losing. Lots of it.

One can only hope for the day that tanking is pursued as the only option to improve their lot in life by 20 of the 30 teams in the Association. Fully two thirds of your business working hard to be shit in a given year. Winning is for the rubes...Losing is where its at.....Can't wait.

[Nilanka]

Well in utahs case they were projected to muddle around at .500 with no superstars. That's the definition of no man's land around here, where you pull the plug. I prefer keeping my pieces and finding good value in draft and free agency and winning trades rather than go scorched earth. Actually we've got a great example here in our own backyard

To tank or not, also depends on whether your goal is to realistically win a championship, or simply win a playoff round or two. Despite Mitchell's brilliance, Utah is in the latter group.

[octothorp]

Gotta compare apples to apples. What has better odds? Drafting a Mitchell in the top 5, or the top 20?

But that's not the only odds-based part of the equation.

Good odds of drafting a star in the top 5, but low odds of building a contending team around him, because the rest of your team is crap as part of your tank strategy.
Low odds of drafting a star around #20, but much better odds of building a contending team around him because you already have solid pieces and assets.

Having elite talent in the NBA is crucial, but that's not the only hard part of the process; actually building a team around elite talent is just as hard, especially when you're starting from the absolute bottom.

[Nilanka]

One can only hope for the day that tanking is pursued as the only option to improve their lot in life by 20 of the 30 teams in the Association. Fully two thirds of your business working hard to be shit in a given year. Winning is for the rubes...Losing is where its at.....Can't wait.

In this scenario, "elite talent" wouldn't necessarily be required to win a championship, because 2/3 of the league is garbage...making tanking pointless.

[DogeLover1234]

Bringing in DLeaguers and undrafted guys was his strategy for losing to get draft picks. If he'd maintained even the faintest charade of attempting to win games by keeping some actual NBA players, he'd still be in charge. Lucking out on TJ and Roco after the dozens of warm bodies he brought in was to be expected based on sheer numbers.

Thats the whole point. Instead of paying a washed up vet to "help young guys mature" Hinkie kept bringing guys in on 10 day contracts to eventually get someone who stuck. The point is that he gave himself as many chances as possible, not that he was a genius who knew who the good guys were; I mean the guy whiffed a lot of picks. The sign of a good GM isn't a guy who gets lucky and reacts to good fortune, but the guy who is proactive and has a vision.

[Nilanka]

But that's not the only odds-based part of the equation.

Good odds of drafting a star in the top 5, but low odds of building a contending team around him, because the rest of your team is crap as part of your tank strategy.
Low odds of drafting a star around #20, but much better odds of building a contending team around him because you already have solid pieces and assets.

Having elite talent in the NBA is crucial, but that's not the only hard part of the process; actually building a team around elite talent is just as hard, especially when you're starting from the absolute bottom.

Depends on how difficult you believe it is to obtain each component above (1. franchise talent and 2. supporting cast). Personally, I believe it's much harder to find that franchise player, so I would increase my odds of landing him, and worry about the supporting cast later.

[Demographic Shift]

In this scenario, "elite talent" wouldn't necessarily be required to win a championship, because 2/3 of the league is garbage...making tanking pointless.

And winning optional....The Larry O’Brian can be replaced by purple participant ribbons for all.

[Rudy Bargnani]

The reason Hinkie got axed was because: (a) he pissed off player's agents by treating them like commodities & (b) some incidents around Okafor and Nerlens created a negative perception about the franchise's culture, compounded by losing on purpose. Those things were irrelevant in the big picture, but highly politicized by the media and used by the Colangelati to justify throwing him under the bus.


.

Bingo. The okafor situation in particular was bad with him being on camera out downtown drunk swearing at fans. Reports were that coach k reached out to Adam silver immediately following this. If hinkie got a couple of vets to mentor the kids he drafted it may have been a different story. I remember at the time right after chuck Hayes and Landry fields left the raptors and were looking for jobs they would be good fits on a team like Philly. Won’t make them win any games but would at least be a positive influence on the young players. But as you said, he viewed them all as commodities and it didn’t appear liked he cared about the person which was his undoing.0

[slaw]

I take it you're the second management consultant who comes in. lol. But you also sound like somebody who didn't take the time to understand what Hinkie's plan actually was, before trying to sound like an expert on it, i.e., another clue that you're a management consultant. lol.

I was one of the biggest anti-tankers on this board, and still am, but I also grudgingly have to admit that Hinkie did have a plan, that baked in contingencies for a lot of failure along the way. He was playing the odds. You have to give the man his due, because he positioned the franchise to draft the consensus #1 pick, Simmons, but was axed just months away from being able to indelibly put his stamp on that.

The Process was, in Hinkie's own words.....

I never said Hinkie didn't have a plan. He did. He just did a crappy job executing it.

As for me, no, I'm no management consultant. I wish what a great gig. I'm the poor fucker who has to deal with them.....

[KeonClark]

I never said Hinkie didn't have a plan. He did. He just did a crappy job executing it.

As for me, no, I'm no management consultant. I wish what a great gig. I'm the poor fucker who has to deal with them.....

Damnit, and here this whole time I thought you were the proud owner of those sexy legs because we're all our avatar.

Also nilanka is Bart Simpson

[slaw]

Thats the whole point. Instead of paying a washed up vet to "help young guys mature" Hinkie kept bringing guys in on 10 day contracts to eventually get someone who stuck. The point is that he gave himself as many chances as possible, not that he was a genius who knew who the good guys were; I mean the guy whiffed a lot of picks. The sign of a good GM isn't a guy who gets lucky and reacts to good fortune, but the guy who is proactive and has a vision.

I would say the sign of a good GM is a guy who not only is proactive and has a vision but executes it well and consistently and is able to manage his owner(s), coaches, staff and players, and, AND, brings success (both financial and wins) to the franchise. Hinkie is a smart guy. Probably really smart. But he's good at the first thing and not so much the rest....