Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5
Results 81 to 97 of 97

Thread: Question for people against tanking

  1. #81
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    1,016
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Lark Benson wrote: View Post
    Just one question for the people who are against tanking and rebuilding: if building through free agency and trading is as effective or as preferential as you think, then why do the bulk of GMs in mid and small market cities prefer tobuild their teams through the draft?

    Could it be that you armchair GMs have no idea how difficult it is to build a team that way and completely ignore the fact that just as much luck is required as through the draft?

    Naw, you guys probably know better than the people being paid to run nba franchises.
    How many have succeeded in this "easier" approach that you say the bulk of mid/small market GMs advocate? Who? Keep in mind, nobody is saying you don't find superstars high in the draft. What people question is the wisdom of "tanking" to achieve getting those picks, and there's several reasons and examples that it's not working. But please amuse us tank detractors and tell us who has succeeded following this route.

  2. #82
    Raptors Republic Starter Dino4life's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    286
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote blackjitsu wrote: View Post
    Wow. Now you're deciding what is a trade and what is not a trade? That's ridiculous.
    LeBron was traded. 1 team had no choice if they wanted assets, but it's still a trade-- both teams received something in a transaction: That's the definition of a trade.
    I'm not making anything up, in a sign and trade you are trading the bird rights, this why you dont get equal value. You can not sign the player and send him to a different team, the signing gets cancelled. If you cant understand that, then you're being stubborn to try to prove a point.

    Worse, to say that draft day trades are not trades when they ARE the type of trade that crushes your theory is incredibly convenient. Draft day trades are the perfect trade to bring up because in most cases the better team, a team that did not dive/become a bottom feeder gets a highly sought asset. The Lakers were on the cusps of being a consistent playoff team again when they traded their starting Center for a teenager just coming out of high school. Dallas, another team that did not dive to get a high draft pick selected Tractor Traylor...I'll say that again...Mr. I had eating issues when I was at Michigan and some fool just stocked my fridge for the rest of my life Traylor for a little known German kid that Charles Barkley recommended that they look at.
    Never said they weren't trades, the players were not the ones traded, the draft pick was the one traded, and they decided what was done with it. It's what moving up and moving down in the draft looks like on paper, because trades can not become official until the new season. On paper No draft day trade is official, It brings back to the point that you have to stock pile draft picks, and that you have to get your franchise player in the lottery.

    Lets pretend you are right on anything anyways, you're talking about isolated cases who dont change the numbers in your favor at All, over a 45 year history or a 30 year history if you want to stick to the stern era. The numbers still say the same thing.

    Isn't the argument that you think diving is the only way to get a franchise player? Draft day trades disprove that theory. Even this past year, Sixers didn't dive, they fought like heck trying to make the playoffs. And on draft night they moved up to get the guy they think will change their future by trading away their all-star. You're saying that if it works out, they didn't give up Jrue to get better? Those trades don't count? Tell that to Vlade who was happy in LA, to Jrue whose life is about to dramatically change, Bryan Colangelo who can tie all his failures to that Jermaine O'Neal trade that didn't workout...Please.
    1-Nope, my argument is that drafting is the only way to get a franchise player, because once identified as a franchise player, the will never, ever get traded period.

    2-82% of Championship Teams drafted their Finals MVP, 96% of Finals MVPs were drafted in the lottery.

    3-You dont build a championship team, without drafting a Back bone to your team, that will define how you build your team. You can buy and trade a really good team, but you need that player no one would ever trade to be the best team in the league.

    4-I've left it open to debate if you think we have that guy in JV, than you dont tank, but you trade for players who make him better, not players that look good individually, or you dont think JV is that guy and you stay in the lottery and collect assests.

    5-As presently constructed only our best players, and in combination can net us lottery picks, which is gutting the team and comes back to the same thing.

    6-This was essentially a rebuttal to the argument that only 2 #1 won championship with their team originally


    Its seems pretty clear, No ?

  3. #83
    Raptors Republic All-Star ezz_bee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Kigali, Rwanda
    Posts
    1,678
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    I had a really long post here, but I just deleted it. They I wrote another really long post and deleted it too. To tank or not to tank is a really complex issue and not nearly as black or white as a lot of people here make it out to be.

    Is tanking in general a good policy? Hard to say 100% either way.

    Is tanking a good policy for the Raps right now? As crazy as it sounds, we've got enough decent players that are hard to move, that it may not even be POSSIBLE to tank.

    For me, the success of NBA franchises rests on the ability of the GM/Owners more so now, then in the past due to the new CBA.

    Believe it or not, getting your franchise player is less than HALF the battle. You've still got to put a team around that player (and probably 2 of those other players need to be all-star or near all-star level). That is just as difficult. It's not about tanking it's about good having a good GM.

    A good GM will find value at WHATEVER draft pick they have. By having young talent, players on valuable contracts, you'll put yourself in the best position to be successful. Maybe you draft that elite talent, or you've got enough valuable contracts that when a veteran starter is feed up with his team, you can trade for them. (See Garnett to Boston, or Melo to NK).

    If your GM is an idiot, high draft picks won't stop him from making poor selections, and even if he (or she) drafts the Lebron there so many other places where they can screw it up, giving big contracts to the wrong players.

    I don't care what happened in the nba 3 years ago or 30 years ago. The difference in the NBA moving forward between the haves and the have nots is going to be the front office.

    Hopefully, Ujiri demonstrates an ability to NOT over pay and to value draft picks (cheap labour!!!) and get us in good financial position. Unfortunately, that's a really hard thing to do with this roster, and may take some time to weed out all of the bad contracts.

    BUT my opinion is that the whole "to tank or not to tank" is a red herring. Drafting the next Michael Jordan won't guarantee that franchise any banners.

    However, draft picks are suddenly more valuable than they used to be. There's a reason for that. If you can get draft picks you take them.

    As much as I hate Boston, they got TWO first round picks in something like 4 or the next 5 drafts... that's crazy. Crazy like a fox. They also traded their coach for a draft pick. That's fucking sneaky! Sneaky like a fox.4

    Personally I don't think we can tank well enough to make it worth it (at least for this season) but Ujiri has to start moving out low value contracts (Gay, Fields, Derozan) and moving in good value contracts. The era of overpaying for players is over. If you over pay, you won't win. Whether you've got lebron or not.
    "We only have one rule on this team. What is that rule? E.L.E. That's right's, E.L.E, and what does E.L.E. stand for? EVERYBODY LOVE EVERYBODY. Right there up on the wall, because this isn't just a basketball team, this is a lifestyle. ~ Jackie Moon

  4. Like Puffer, p00ka liked this post
  5. #84
    Raptors Republic All-Star ezz_bee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Kigali, Rwanda
    Posts
    1,678
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    In a nutshell, this is my new position.

    In the long run talent is still the difference maker. In the short term the best strategy is value contracts. Maybe that means "tank" maybe it doesn't. The most important thing I'm looking for from Ujiri is how much does he sign or extend his first Raptor for.

    If it's low years and/or low money, then I'm not worried. If he give out a "generous" contract. I'm out as a fan. The days of buying an NBA Championship are (just about over). Dallas broke up a championship team in order to stay financially flexible. OKC traded Harden (a year earlier than they had to, for some strange reason) fro the same reason. Miami is still riding the team they put together before the new CBA. Brooklyn remains the ONLY team with no limit on how it wants to spend money (which is going to cost them something like 80 million in taxes), whether this results in a championship or not, time will tell, but I'm certain that it is a policy they won't be able to maintain for more than the next couple of seasons.

    Say it with me now. Asset (Asset) Management (Management). Very good.
    "We only have one rule on this team. What is that rule? E.L.E. That's right's, E.L.E, and what does E.L.E. stand for? EVERYBODY LOVE EVERYBODY. Right there up on the wall, because this isn't just a basketball team, this is a lifestyle. ~ Jackie Moon

  6. Like Puffer, Dino4life liked this post
  7. #85
    Administrator Apollo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    12,049
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote dpww wrote: View Post
    Who did Vince attract? Hakeem..? lol. Bosh didn't bring in anyone either. Although I agree that it is a valid point to create a winning culture, for our organization I disagree with the method, in the short run.
    You are forgetting that at the time the Vince Carter was a superstar, noted as one of the very top players in the league. Where did that get the Raptors?

    You need to get a lot more right than getting a superstar and there are more way to get one than trying to lose as many games as possible. Let me ask you, why do you feel there is only one way to win? Also, can you please provide multiple examples of where this strategy has worked? Can you provide even ONE? And when I say provide examples, I mean examples where they did exactly what you suggest.

  8. #86
    Raptors Republic Rookie
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    8
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Apollo wrote: View Post
    You are forgetting that at the time the Vince Carter was a superstar, noted as one of the very top players in the league. Where did that get the Raptors?

    You need to get a lot more right than getting a superstar and there are more way to get one than trying to lose as many games as possible. Let me ask you, why do you feel there is only one way to win? Also, can you please provide multiple examples of where this strategy has worked? Can you provide even ONE? And when I say provide examples, I mean examples where they did exactly what you suggest.
    Well let us both agree on what I'm arguing:
    1. Tanking for a top 5 pick next year.
    2. The goal is to be competitive for championships, providing examples of teams that ONLY won championships is very naive
    3. A LOT of teams have followed what I'm suggesting and are RELEVANT IN CHAMPIONSHIP TALKS
    4. Once you are a CONTENDER for a CHAMPIONSHIP, a lot of luck comes into play, but being a CONTENDER is my goal

    Most Recently? OKC.

    2007: Trading Ray Allen (got them Jeff Green), leaded to the following season with a FRANCHISE WORST: 20-62
    2008 (2nd worst record nba): With the 4th overall pick drafted Russell Westbrook, Serge Ibaka #24
    2009 (4th worst record nba): Drafted James Harden 3rd overall
    2010: Finished 8th
    2011: Finished 4th
    etc.

    Unless you want examples of teams that won championships, but that's not what I'm arguing. I'm arguing that we need to be competitive for championships, not the next Atlanta or Milwaukee, but a REAL threat.

  9. #87
    Raptors Republic All-Star
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    1,338
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Dino4life wrote: View Post
    I'm not making anything up, in a sign and trade you are trading the bird rights, this why you dont get equal value. You can not sign the player and send him to a different team, the signing gets cancelled. If you cant understand that, then you're being stubborn to try to prove a point.



    Never said they weren't trades, the players were not the ones traded, the draft pick was the one traded, and they decided what was done with it. It's what moving up and moving down in the draft looks like on paper, because trades can not become official until the new season. On paper No draft day trade is official, It brings back to the point that you have to stock pile draft picks, and that you have to get your franchise player in the lottery.

    Lets pretend you are right on anything anyways, you're talking about isolated cases who dont change the numbers in your favor at All, over a 45 year history or a 30 year history if you want to stick to the stern era. The numbers still say the same thing.



    1-Nope, my argument is that drafting is the only way to get a franchise player, because once identified as a franchise player, the will never, ever get traded period.

    2-82% of Championship Teams drafted their Finals MVP, 96% of Finals MVPs were drafted in the lottery.

    3-You dont build a championship team, without drafting a Back bone to your team, that will define how you build your team. You can buy and trade a really good team, but you need that player no one would ever trade to be the best team in the league.

    4-I've left it open to debate if you think we have that guy in JV, than you dont tank, but you trade for players who make him better, not players that look good individually, or you dont think JV is that guy and you stay in the lottery and collect assests.

    5-As presently constructed only our best players, and in combination can net us lottery picks, which is gutting the team and comes back to the same thing.

    6-This was essentially a rebuttal to the argument that only 2 #1 won championship with their team originally


    Its seems pretty clear, No ?
    We can't even agree what is a draft pick and what is a trade...how can you believe anything you're saying is clear? You're changing the definition of terms to suit your argument.

    1. A trade is an exchange of assets. You are not a GOD you do not get decide what is and what is not.

    2. The current CBA structure has only existed from the late 80's -- 20-30 years in a league that started in the 40's.

    Looking at the current trend that takes the CBA into consideration drafting from a team's earned position is less valuable than trading for a draft pick, or wooing high-end talent.

    3. In every league in the world, in every sport, adding talent to a veteran team with players that already have defined roles is a faster route to success than stripping a team bare and then building around an asset.

    Kobe was a TRADE, Lebron was a TRADE, Dirk-- TRADE -- you're numbers are fiction.

  10. #88
    Administrator Apollo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    12,049
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote dpww wrote: View Post
    Well let us both agree on what I'm arguing:
    1. Tanking for a top 5 pick next year.
    2. The goal is to be competitive for championships, providing examples of teams that ONLY won championships is very naive
    3. A LOT of teams have followed what I'm suggesting and are RELEVANT IN CHAMPIONSHIP TALKS
    4. Once you are a CONTENDER for a CHAMPIONSHIP, a lot of luck comes into play, but being a CONTENDER is my goal

    Most Recently? OKC.

    2007: Trading Ray Allen (got them Jeff Green), leaded to the following season with a FRANCHISE WORST: 20-62
    2008 (2nd worst record nba): With the 4th overall pick drafted Russell Westbrook, Serge Ibaka #24
    2009 (4th worst record nba): Drafted James Harden 3rd overall
    2010: Finished 8th
    2011: Finished 4th
    etc.

    Unless you want examples of teams that won championships, but that's not what I'm arguing. I'm arguing that we need to be competitive for championships, not the next Atlanta or Milwaukee, but a REAL threat.
    Alright, so you deem being successful being a contender. I can name you a lot more teams who are contenders and who have actually won it who don't use the method you prescribe. You can't name me one team who has won it with your method so how can you recommend it?

    You can name me the Bucks and Hawks as teams who tried to get there without a superstar but I can name you the Wiz and Bobcats are examples of your method. Also are you assuming that the only way to get a superstar is to tank? Are you assuming that those who don't want to tank are adverse to the idea of a superstar playing for the Raptors?

  11. #89
    Raptors Republic Rookie
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    8
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Apollo wrote: View Post
    Alright, so you deem being successful being a contender. I can name you a lot more teams who are contenders and who have actually won it who don't use the method you prescribe. You can't name me one team who has won it with your method so how can you recommend it?

    You can name me the Bucks and Hawks as teams who tried to get there without a superstar but I can name you the Wiz and Bobcats are examples of your method. Also are you assuming that the only way to get a superstar is to tank? Are you assuming that those who don't want to tank are adverse to the idea of a superstar playing for the Raptors?
    Like I said, being a contender is enough, when you are a real contender, there is a lot more than just talent that gets you the actual title, but your chance to compete is real. Luck plays a huge factor as well.

    Washington is still young, and looks promising. Charlotte just *** at the team, Rich Cho isn't a great GM (I hope he proves me wrong with Zeller though).

    And no, I don't think that you are against a superstar playing for the Raptors, but unless you seriously believe that a superstar free agent will come to Toronto then it's not really possible. Our contracts won't allow us to trade, unless we trade with someone who absolutely loves Toronto, because let's face it, if the superstar won't resign with us, what's the point of the rental (Dwight is the only exception that I can think of, and it was with a storied LAL)?

    If MU wanted to trade all our good contracts/developing players for Lebron with 1 year left on his contract you'd want his head (In short: MU is unlikely to pull off a Denver-NYK blockbuster).

    As much as I want Toronto to be an attractive market, it really isn't. Winning and creating a culture won't make it one either, or I'd see many FA signing offer sheets to Milwaukee, Atlanta, Utah,

  12. #90
    Raptors Republic Starter
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    219
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote enlightenment wrote: View Post
    Fallacy of Bifurcation (false dichotomy) -> "two alternative statements are held to be the only possible options, when in reality there are more."

    Obviously there are many other ways to win a championship, you have not regarded the original argument which asks, "which teams have one championships through tanking"
    congratulations on graduating from talk-like-a-dick school.

    what i said that you’ve quoted was intentionally absurd to highlight how ridiculous i think the whole “name one champion!” argument is, because it totally ignores the immense complexity of what it takes to win a championship and the innumerable amount of things that need to break right.

    however, as has been pointed out in excellent posts by craiger, fully, magoon, and many others, the best talent has always been acquired at the top of the draft, and committing to being bad for awhile is a viable way to acquire said talent because THE LEAGUE IS STRUCTURED so that bad teams have the highest chance for first crack at incoming talent!

    and as i mentioned, in the approximate time since we lost bosh the following teams have reloaded through the draft after the loss of key players and currently have much brighter outlooks than we do: cavs, wiz, warriors, timberwolves, pelicans, jazz, pistons. and i’d say the magic, philly, and celtics are well on their way.

    what’s hilarious is that i think most of them didn’t even really do a good job (ie. cavs could’ve done much better than TT, waiters, and bennett, that veseley pick for the wizards was brutal, i hate all the wolves picks except rubio and love, etc. etc.) but these teams are still well positioned in spite of bad picks because it’s almost inevitable if you pick near the top for consecutive years. (i say almost to acknowledge the existence of the kings and bobcats, though i’d argue they’re still in better position).

  13. #91
    Raptors Republic Starter
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    219
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote blackjitsu wrote: View Post

    When looking at trades that have led to titles we can look at Rodman, the Celtic trio, Chandler to the Mavs, etc. What do these all have in common? They're vets with known skill sets.
    notice that the dude who orchestrated that celtic trio has decided that, in the absence of the incredibly fortunate set of circumstance that allows for the acquisition of two hall of famers at the tail ends of their primes, the best course of action is to bottom the fuck out.

  14. #92
    Raptors Republic All-Star
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    1,338
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote chris wrote: View Post
    notice that the dude who orchestrated that celtic trio has decided that, in the absence of the incredibly fortunate set of circumstance that allows for the acquisition of two hall of famers at the tail ends of their primes, the best course of action is to bottom the fuck out.
    Right. So Toronto can get away with what Boston, the city of champions does. Toronto is a destination spot so they can amass picks and then expect superstars to waive no trade clauses. I forgot that was possible >sigh<. Anything else? You didn't throw that softball out there and expect a strike did you? You don't honestly think all those picks they grabbed are going to play in Boston, do you? Boston is literally repeating what they did to create the opportunity that brought in those guys. That's not a realistic option for the Raptors, unless something changes in Toronto.

    As I said earlier tanking is possible, but it takes years of planning to pull off. Do you honestly think that this wasn't pre-planned by the Celtic front office? Dudes are playing 3D chess and your arguments are not even checkers-- maybe snakes and ladders.

    It is far easier to turn Toronto into a playoff team, generate interest in players from a respectable (ish) team and trade players for picks OR woo quality free agents who desperately want to experience the playoffs (because they've been on a team that failed after trying to rebuild via tanking). Even the current GM stated that making the playoffs is relatively easy. It might take longer than diving (and hoping everything times out perfectly) but it is way more feasible.

  15. #93
    Raptors Republic Starter
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    219
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote blackjitsu wrote: View Post
    Right. So Toronto can get away with what Boston, the city of champions does. Toronto is a destination spot so they can amass picks and then expect superstars to waive no trade clauses. I forgot that was possible >sigh<. Anything else?
    uh you sure put a lot of words in my mouth and made a lot of assumptions about what i think in this post.

    Quote blackjitsu wrote: View Post
    You didn't throw that softball out there and expect a strike did you?
    i don’t know what sport we’re playing or even that i was involved in a competition.

    Quote blackjitsu wrote: View Post
    You don't honestly think all those picks they grabbed are going to play in Boston, do you?
    i don't know what they will do with all those picks. whatever ainge deems best for the franchise, i would guess. those picks are a while from now and will be late lottery so it is exceedingly possible they will package them or move them for other players or assets, yes.

    i do think they will be real bad next year though and have a great chance for a high pick and potential future franchise player. i think all the evidence we have points to that right now, despite all your bluster.


    Quote blackjitsu wrote: View Post
    Boston is literally repeating what they did to create the opportunity that brought in those guys.
    you sound pretty certain about this. what do you know about how 2008 went down? i think you'd have to call that blind luck. because what actually happened is that boston tanked egregiously for oden or durant (doesn't always work!), to the point that it was a real issue for the league and they were openly questioned about trying to lose in the media and simmons was blatantly cheering for them to lose in his columns, and has talked about this often. disappointed with the 5th pick, KG fell into their laps because the wolves GM was a celtic homer, and they were able to flip the 5th to seattle/oklahoma for ray allen, who were tanking/rebuilding around #2 and #5 (it’s worked out well for them by the way).

    Quote blackjitsu wrote: View Post
    Do you honestly think that this wasn't pre-planned by the Celtic front office?
    ainge knew a rebuild was coming at some point but not this offseason and no, this was not planned. the skinny about how all that went down is here and here.

    Quote blackjitsu wrote: View Post
    Dudes are playing 3D chess and your arguments are not even checkers-- maybe snakes and ladders.
    i dunno what this means? we changed games again? i think it is supposed to show other posters that i am stupid and you are pwning me, but you’ll have to ask other posters if it’s working.

    Quote blackjitsu wrote: View Post
    It is far easier to turn Toronto into a playoff team, generate interest in players from a respectable (ish) team and trade players for picks OR woo quality free agents who desperately want to experience the playoffs (because they've been on a team that failed after trying to rebuild via tanking). Even the current GM stated that making the playoffs is relatively easy. It might take longer than diving (and hoping everything times out perfectly) but it is way more feasible.
    i just fundamentally disagree with all of this.
    Last edited by chris; Mon Jul 1st, 2013 at 12:45 AM.

  16. #94
    Raptors Republic All-Star
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    1,338
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote chris wrote: View Post
    uh you sure put a lot of words in my mouth and made a lot of assumptions about what i think in this post.



    i don’t know what sport we’re playing or even that i was involved in a competition.



    i don't know what they will do with all those picks. whatever ainge deems best for the franchise, i would guess. those picks are a while from now and will be late lottery so it is exceedingly possible they will package them or move them for other players or assets, yes.

    i do think they will be real bad next year though and have a great chance for a high pick and potential future franchise player. i think all the evidence we have points to that right now, despite all your bluster.




    you sound pretty certain about this. what do you know about how 2008 went down? i think you'd have to call that blind luck. because what actually happened is that boston tanked egregiously for oden or durant (doesn't always work!), to the point that it was a real issue for the league and they were openly questioned about trying to lose in the media and simmons was blatantly cheering for them to lose in his columns, and has talked about this often. disappointed with the 5th pick, KG fell into their laps because the wolves GM was a celtic homer, and they were able to flip the 5th to seattle/oklahoma for ray allen, who were tanking/rebuilding around #2 and #5 (it’s worked out well for them by the way).



    ainge knew a rebuild was coming at some point but not this offseason and no, this was not planned. the skinny about how all that went down is here and here.



    i dunno what this means? we changed games again? i think it is supposed to show other posters that i am stupid and you are pwning me, but you’ll have to ask other posters if it’s working.



    i just fundamentally disagree with all of this.
    Why do you think I think you are stupid? I just think your argument is weak. It's a HUGE leap from bad argument to stupidity. Have some confidence. Have you not seen how this forum reacts to stupid people? You are far from stupid, but I shouldn't have to tell you. You should already know that. For the record, I don't waste my time on stupid people.

    I'm mixing my metaphors intentionally, because I'm bored-- sorry for not being as enthusiastic as you.

    >sigh< The Boston trade scenario was multi-pronged. You forget that they made a similar offer for Garnett earlier in the season, but he vetoed it.

    Yes Ainge didn't know when, but he has shown in his time of being a GM that he has always had a strategic mind. He's not someone who makes change for change sake. He's no BC.

    Didn't Doc Rivers call that guy an idiot last week? He loses all his objectivity when it comes to the Celts.

    None of your arguments explain why your method (tanking) is more sensible than my suggestion (create talent, trade talent).

    Just lay it all out there, but this time consider the modern CBA.

    If I'm wrong, I'm wrong but you trying to poke holes in my argument (that is at least relatively clear) doesn't make your argument more correct.

    By the way, when I say it's far easier I'm not saying it's easy. But it is easier (comparatively) to take the current nucleus and back into the playoffs (or get close)first and then turn players into trade pieces than it is to strip the team down and rebuild. Neither method is 100% successful, or even 30%.

    Toronto media is amazingly poor at transcribing interviews (something that has always bugged me). I'll back off of that one simply because I don't feel like hunting that statement down.

  17. #95
    Raptors Republic All-Star ezz_bee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Kigali, Rwanda
    Posts
    1,678
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Update...

    The definition of "tanking". What is it? I don't know. If it is clearly out current assets for draft picks, then "tanking" is pretty much a given cycle for almost every team.

    I'm not going to comment either way any more about what is or what isn't tanking, and whether the raptors should or shouldn't do it.

    Here's what they should do, and I'm pretty sure everyone here is on board with it. And the one's who aren't, well then I think there's the possibility of MEANINGFUL discussion.

    The raptors need to try to get players on better contacts. I can't see Gay ever be referred to as a "value" contact. Derozan, I'm not so sure about him either. (My feeling on Derozan is that the player we get this season, is the player he's going to be, although he has be one of the LEAST injured players in the league, which might count for something, so his contract might be higher than someone else, but because he can play more games and minutes he actually has a lower per/minute rate).

    I'm not saying you HAVE to trade one, either, both, or neither. I'm saying you have to entertain calls from other GM's about those players.

    You can't involve Amir in any trade unless you are moving out a bad contract with it (fields or Kleiza) AND you are get a clearly BETTER player who is also on a value contract. And probably no GM is going to make a trade under those scenario's (although crazier things have happened).

    The same logic applies for JV but the talent level coming back (ON a VALUE CONTACT) will necessarily have to be higher.

    Lowry is also on a value contract for this year and has a team option for 6 mil next year (also value). You pick up that option. He's probably going to get a raise at the end of next season, IF teams want to pay extra to sign him in free agency, YOU LET THEM. If you think there's a good chance of that happening, he should be able to get something of decent value in return, either on his own or as part of a package.

    IF you can have the opportunity to get rid of Derozan, Gay, Lowry, for value players (draft picks, young players) do it. Personally I don't see this happening as I think it'll be to hard to move these guys for picks and young players who have talent. However, Ujiri could surprise us.

    I think the Barg's trade is a good example of this line of thinking. Hoopshype was floating a rumour that Golden State was offering David Lee for Bargnani. Lee is certainly more talented than either Camby or Novak. I wouldn't have been surprised if Coangelo would have swung that trade (especially if we threw in Kleiza). I think Ujiri made the right call.

    Would I be happy if we got rid of Derozan, Gay, Fields, and Kleiza, all for young players, draft picks, and old shitty players on expiring contracts, YES?

    Would I be happy if Ujiri didn't get rid of any of these guys? Not super happy, but if it was because the only way to move them was for bad value contracts and no high first round draft picks, then yes, I'm okay with that.

    We may have to let some of our non-value contracts run their course. This is only a good strategy if the free agents you sign with the newly acquire cap space are on good value contracts.

    So far, it looks like Ujiri thinks the same way. So until I see otherwise, I'm happy for tanking or rebuilding, so long as he adhere's to the mantra of asset management. Arguing to "tank" or not "to tank" ignores the roll of asset management in the building of a championship team, and although that roll used to be compensated by over spending, that compensation now appears to less viable.
    "We only have one rule on this team. What is that rule? E.L.E. That's right's, E.L.E, and what does E.L.E. stand for? EVERYBODY LOVE EVERYBODY. Right there up on the wall, because this isn't just a basketball team, this is a lifestyle. ~ Jackie Moon

  18. Like Puffer liked this post
  19. #96
    Raptors Republic All-Star Craiger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    1,119
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote ezz_bee wrote: View Post
    Update...

    The definition of "tanking". What is it?
    That is ofcourse the first question that no one can really answer, because everyone's definition of it, and expectations of it, is different. I personally view tanking as rather general - accepting losing seasons in exchange for attempting to collect valuable assets with the goal of building a contender. I definetely don't see it as losing to get one specific player in the draft. 'Expecting to lose on purpose' (atleast at the management level) is probably the only universally accepted part of the definition.

    I personally think the examples of tanking successfully abound in the NBA. SAS, OKC, Memphis, Indiana, Miami, Boston, Orlando, Denver. Teams either netted a superstar player in the draft , or numerous high quality players in the draft, + the means to add other quality players

    I'm expecting many will disagree with me that some (or maybe all) of the above teams 'tanked'

    Arguing to "tank" or not "to tank" ignores the roll of asset management in the building of a championship team
    I don't think it does. I think its implicit in the arguement. I think the debate is much more about assets under management and risk management. Are the assets the team currently have, and will the team's reasonably expected future assets be, 'good enough' to achieve a set goal. I think the need for good management, regardless of direction, is (or atleast should be) a given.

    When its all said and done, I think the core difference for most (although not all), comes down to one variable - the draft. Some don't see the draft as reliable, reliable enough or plain old luck. Now I can't speak for anyone aside from myself but I see the draft as the single most valuable 'future asset' available to a team like Toronto. As a stand alone asset, its free (no capital costs) so it offers a reward for zero risk. However the more risk you are willing to take (ie. lose more games and therefore receive a higher pick) the higher the potential reward (up to, and including, the single most prized asset known to the NBA. A superstar.) Should you fail to capitalize on the reward (don't draft a stud, don't draft the quality of player expected or bust out on a pick) you are still left with differing scales of value - but still value none the less. I don't see the draft as luck at all, or atleast not anymore luck than is offered when trying to chase a free agent, or making a trade. The potential unknowns are different, but they still exist in any decision. The potential influence of other teams are different, but exist in any decision. But the draft offers a built in fail safe and additional reward of rookie scale contracts.

    On top of that, tanking (assuming done correctly) offers an additional benifit of future cap space, which is itself a benifit. Not only a necessity for resigning your players and other available players, but also as a potential means of collecting other valuable assets (eg. take on a bad contract + pick etc).

    Doesn't mean one can tank forever. Doesn't mean one should only draft (although I do think Toronto should try and maintain a 1st round draft pick every single year). Doesn't mean there isn't a time and place for attempting to make signficant moves of any sort.

    At the same time, a team can't try and win forever and reasonably expect it will work. Sometimes the fiscal situation, or situation with the assets under management, become too messy or aren't achieving the desired goal.

    Given the potential in the coming draft, the standing low odds of Toronto making it out of the first round this year (and the playoffs are hardly a lock at that) and over the next few years, the fiscal situation Colangelo left, plus the time scale of Jonas improving - tanking makes sense. In fact I think its made sene for the last 4 years.

    But I do agree that whether Toronto can even tank is very much in question. Gay is a good player but may be tough to move, Amir is a good player I'd rather not see moved if possible, Jonas shouldn't be touched but could still add wins. That alone may be enough to make tanking impossible in whats shaping up to be, yet again, a pathetic conference below the top 4 or 5 teams. But that doesn't mean it still isn't the best route to take. As Slaw has said many times (not in the context of tanking):

    The best time to plant an oak tree is 35 years ago. The second best time is now
    I'd rather have good management attempt to (re)build with best assets available to them
    Last edited by Craiger; Mon Jul 1st, 2013 at 09:41 AM.

  20. #97
    Raptors Republic All-Star ezz_bee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Kigali, Rwanda
    Posts
    1,678
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Craiger wrote: View Post
    I don't think it does. I think its implicit in the argument. I think the debate is much more about assets under management and risk management. Are the assets the team currently have, and will the team's reasonably expected future assets be, 'good enough' to achieve a set goal. I think the need for good management, regardless of direction, is (or at least should be) a given.
    To clarify my point. When someone argues, "We should tank, because tanking will allow us to get more draft picks, which are good value contracts, which can give us good talent a good value, or be combined with other assets to get better talent at good value." then their thinking is no different than mine (and I think your position fits that description). However, when someone argues, "We need to tank, because tanking gives us the best opportunity to draft the next (insert NBA legends name here) who will change our franchise and get us into the (conference or nba) finals. Then they are missing the point I'm trying to make.

    Yes you need elite talent to get into the finals, and 1 great superstar can get you to conference finals pretty much on their own (think KG with the T'Wolves), but you need more than elite talent win it all. How many teams had elite talent and didn't even make it to the conference finals? OKC has arguably the best player on the planet not named Lebron, yet without Westbrooke, OKC loses in the 2nd round. Lakers, had Dwight, Pau, & Nash, and couldn't get out of the first round. If you consider Nowitzki elite, the mavs didn't make the playoffs (although he had an injury i think? still even if the make the playoffs they don't get out of the 2nd round), is Melo elite? NY seems like fool's gold to me.

    You don't tank for talent. You tank for VALUE.

    It may sound counter-intuitive but less talent at better value is more likely to going to lead to winning than better talent at worse value.

    A player with god-like talent is going to change this franchise. What's going to change this franchise is a GM who knows how to evaluate talent and sign and trade for contracts of good value. That way when you finally luck into legitimate franchise talent, (which isn't really all that lucky because you been acquire the assets to trade for such a player, or you've hoarding draft picks so eventually your bound to hit on that upside player) you can actually put a roster AROUND that talent to make some actual noise in the playoffs.

    You can't win without elite talent (although the pacers and grizz might be exceptions worth noting) but you also can't win with only 1 elite player, and probably not even with only two.

    It is always going to come back to having good contacts. Draft picks won't be enough because you'll have to sign those players to extension before you get to the finals. How you handle those extensions are as important as how you draft.

    As to the second bold, I think there's still debate about what good management is. Most teams are making the shift to from good management is acquiring talent, to good management is acquire good value.

    But it's still far from a given. Even a GM who's only after "good value contracts" still has to determine what that good value ceiling is.
    Last edited by ezz_bee; Mon Jul 1st, 2013 at 03:58 PM.
    "We only have one rule on this team. What is that rule? E.L.E. That's right's, E.L.E, and what does E.L.E. stand for? EVERYBODY LOVE EVERYBODY. Right there up on the wall, because this isn't just a basketball team, this is a lifestyle. ~ Jackie Moon

  21. Like Puffer liked this post
Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •