Signs Of Tanking?

[magoon]

Unlikely, how many teams need a starting PG?

A lot of teams are experimenting with an uncertain PG situation this year: Phoenix is probably trading Goran Dragic to see if Eric Bledsoe works out, Philly and Utah are giving rookies the ball, Orlando will need a new PG (and will likely be looking towards a playoff run in 2014-15), so will Milwaukee, the Lakers may well stretch provision Steve Nash, and Miami may well be looking to reinvent itself if some or all of the Big Three don't re-sign. And maybe somebody gets their PG injured or a career ends prematurely. And frankly, 2014 will be a really good year for Kyle since he's probably the best available PG next year - this was the year for PGs, whereas next year is mostly quality backups like Nate Robinson and Luke Ridnour, plus a couple of decent RFAs (Bledsoe and Greivis Vasquez) who if they sign elsewhere will leave a team needing a quality PG.

If Kyle has the killer contract year we all expect him to have, he's going to get very good money.

How do you plan to make this team worse than Utah, Phoenix, Orlando, Charlotte, Sacramento, etc?

The point isn't to be worse than them - after all, as so many people have pointed out, even the worst team in the league has only a 25% shot at the #1 pick. The point is to end up reasonably bad so that we're in the hot part of the lottery at least (say bottom eight) and accumulate multiple first-round picks in 2014 and maybe 2015 (which is looking to be not bad either: Dante Exum seems to be a likely 2015er and Jabari Parker recently suggested he might stay an extra year in college).

As you've noted, Masai is a pretty good drafter: if we can get one player with superstar potential and 1-2 solid starters out of the 2014 draft (one top ten pick and 1-2 mid-level first rounders), which seems eminently doable. Then you start rebuilding immediately.

[Xixak]

Literally impossible.

No it isn't... If you renounce the players bird rights or don't give them a qualifying offer, they no longer have a cap hold against you..

[Xixak]

A lot of teams are experimenting with an uncertain PG situation this year: Phoenix is probably trading Goran Dragic to see if Eric Bledsoe works out, Philly and Utah are giving rookies the ball, Orlando will need a new PG (and will likely be looking towards a playoff run in 2014-15), so will Milwaukee, the Lakers may well stretch provision Steve Nash, and Miami may well be looking to reinvent itself if some or all of the Big Three don't re-sign. And maybe somebody gets their PG injured or a career ends prematurely. And frankly, 2014 will be a really good year for Kyle since he's probably the best available PG next year - this was the year for PGs, whereas next year is mostly quality backups like Nate Robinson and Luke Ridnour, plus a couple of decent RFAs (Bledsoe and Greivis Vasquez) who if they sign elsewhere will leave a team needing a quality PG.

If Kyle has the killer contract year we all expect him to have, he's going to get very good money.



The point isn't to be worse than them - after all, as so many people have pointed out, even the worst team in the league has only a 25% shot at the #1 pick. The point is to end up reasonably bad so that we're in the hot part of the lottery at least (say bottom eight) and accumulate multiple first-round picks in 2014 and maybe 2015 (which is looking to be not bad either: Dante Exum seems to be a likely 2015er and Jabari Parker recently suggested he might stay an extra year in college).

As you've noted, Masai is a pretty good drafter: if we can get one player with superstar potential and 1-2 solid starters out of the 2014 draft (one top ten pick and 1-2 mid-level first rounders), which seems eminently doable. Then you start rebuilding immediately.

Ok I don't get it man. If Gay is so overpaid and Lowry is an expiring who can easily walk, why would a team give up a 2014 1st round pick for them?

You say our players are overpaid and overrated, but then suggest that they can be easily flipped for great value. I just don't get the logic in that.

[LBF]

Ok I don't get it man. If Gay is so overpaid and Lowry is an expiring who can easily walk, why would a team give up a 2014 1st round pick for them?

You say our players are overpaid and overrated, but then suggest that they can be easily flipped for great value. I just don't get the logic in that.

Its called contradicting logic

[Xixak]

I think there is a compromise to be had here though.

We might not actually need to trade Gay to get in the top 10. Maybe this is why Ujiri brought in Augustin and Buycks. Having those two as our only PGs would probably result in a pretty disastrous offense as neither guy is much of a floor general (and neither guy looks to be good defensively either).

If we could flip Lowry for a mid-late pick if things are looking bleak early on, that might actually be the best move going forward. This could leave us with a lot more financial flexibility, because we'd only really have to worry about extending (or not extending depending on how he plays) Gay during or after the season is over.

[LBF]

I didn't know "Xixak" and "compromise" go together..

[DanH]

No it isn't... If you renounce the players bird rights or don't give them a qualifying offer, they no longer have a cap hold against you..

Sigh. Of course. Yes. Very fundamental.

However, a team must carry 12 players. If the team is below that number, then a minimum salary cap hold is applied to each empty roster slot to prevent the team from using all its cap space to sign a single player, then fill out the rest of the roster using exceptions to go above the cap. As such, having 6 empty slots means a little more than $3M of your cap space really isn't there. There's no renouncing of those cap holds.

[mcHAPPY]

He wont pick up the option unless he gets injured or plays awfully (like way worse than last year). Players always go for guaranteed years over guaranteed money in one year (look at Iguodala, Kirilenko, etc)

Things work until they don't. There was a time when players did not leave money on the table - Bosh, Wade, and LBJ blew that 'truth'. Players do not always go for guaranteed years over guaranteed money in one year. Didn't Chris Paul waive his opt out and risk 4 years of security to find out if the Clippers were a good fit? And for those players who do opt out do they always find more money? Monta Ellis had a rude awakening after turning down a 3 year, $36M extension, same with Jennings (although he was restricted FA), and AK-47 definitely had a surprise especially after he said he was looking for a final pay day.

There is also the age factor with AK-47 and AI relative to Gay. Gay will be 28 turning 29 in 2 off seasons. AI would have been closer to 31 than 30 and turning 32 in the 2014-15 season. That makes a big difference when talking a 4 year contract. Would anyone want to be paying AI $12M at 34/35? AK is 32 and will be 33 next summer. Big differences in circumstances.

Just to show I am in fact open to the possibility my opinion is wrong, there is going to be a sh!tload of money available next summer. Gay might look at this as an opportunity to cash in on a possible bidding war especially if he returns to 2 season ago form this up coming year.

Unlikely, how many teams need a starting PG?

Bad seasons, injuries, coaching changes, management changes can certainly change the landscape. Who'd of thought PHX would trade for Bledsoe with Dragic signed last year and Marshall drafted. Things don't always go according to 'plan'.

Yes he's gone but he could be re-signed depending on how the rest of free agency works out.

And how do you resign Amir while also signing free agents? Amir will have a $10.5M cap hold. Oh yes, sure, renounce him. But does he resign for MLE or less? I don't think so. So to replace Amir you just spent your imaginary cap space.

Dealt with that in the 2nd post. Would have 2 1st round picks. We would also be able to have 9 rotation players, which is very solid.

You are going to count on not ONE rookie but TWO rookies!! to be part of the rotation for a supposed contender? Wow. Did JV and Ross teach you nothing this year?

Players don't fall off a cliff athletically at 29. And by that time we would be looking at having a contender based on what I posted.

Based on what you posted, eh? The Gospel according to Xixak? You are right players don't fall off a cliff at 29. But players who rely on athleticism (such as Gay) do tend to decline than those who are more fundamentally sound. It isn't about paying Gay $14M at 29, it is paying him $14M or more with raises at 33 combined with is this team going to actually compete for championship.

Umm isn't that what Jonas is supposed to be?

Jonas = Hibbert (and more likely much better I think).

Where are the Raptors going to get their George? Please don't say Gay or DeRozan because credibility is already on shaken ground.

That's great bro. You're also trying to project getting a star playing next to Jonas, when there is like a 5% chance of that actually happening (I did some probability calculations in another thread, can't remember where)

You should look at the calculation of HOW teams actually get their all-stars. I'll even provide the link:
http://hoopshype.com/articles/sierra...to-their-teams

Maybe you do, that is if he's being useful. Not sure how this matters.

It matters because your argument lacks consistency and vision/knowledge of realities of the CBA.

How do you plan to make this team worse than Utah, Phoenix, Orlando, Charlotte, Sacramento, etc?

You don't have to be worse than them. 6th gives you a 20% chance to get in top 3 and only 4.1% chance of picking less than 7th. I am not convinced Charlotte will be as terrible as many think and what happens if Charlotte (you players, expiring picks, multiple draft picks, desire to make playoffs) is the team that you make the deal with?

Lol

Not sure what is funny. Neither JV or Drummond can play PF in the NBA. So if you have both JV and Drummond on the roster you are going to have a C controversy and limited minutes for one or both. Packaging one of them to meet an area of need is the only way.

Yes I was talking about the Pacers, but where did I compare them to the Raptors? I was just giving an example of a team that successfully built a contender without tanking. In fact they don't even have any top 5 picks on their roster.

I'm sorry for drawing that conclusion. Is this not a Raptors forum? Aren't you talking about building in a manner similar to the Pacers by giving the example of the Pacers when talking about the rationale for the Raptors not blowing it up? Flip-flop on. Any comparison to the Pacers is not based in reality because the circumstances surrounding the Pacers during their build is much different than the circumstances currently facing the Raptors.

[magoon]

Ok I don't get it man. If Gay is so overpaid and Lowry is an expiring who can easily walk, why would a team give up a 2014 1st round pick for them?

You say our players are overpaid and overrated, but then suggest that they can be easily flipped for great value. I just don't get the logic in that.

I've never said Lowry is overpaid or overrated (he isn't). Rudy is overpaid, but I think he's a talented player - solid defender, knows how to create his own shot, unselfish - and if he plays well the contract is no longer a problem after this year anyway. I've been pretty consistent in saying the issue is that Lowry and Rudy (and also DeMar) are all players who traditionally need a lot of touches to excel and starting all of them is problematic. They're all good players; they're not just well-fitted together here. One of the reasons I've been advocating for an early trade is that I'm concerned that a season of them playing together might hurt their trade value!

And yes, I think they can all be flipped for good value, because other teams in win-now mode who need a PG who basically does everything well, or a SF who works as a primary option in the frontcourt, will be able to give value for them. If Luis freaking Scola merits a first-rounder to go sit on a bench, then certainly Rudy and Kyle and DeMar can all net us at least one first-rounder or more. And I'm not advocating we trade all of them, either. (I am actually inclined to keep DeMar - he still has upside, he's a great locker room presence, and I think if he learns true defensive chops under Casey - which seems very possible - his shot or lack thereof will become irrelevant to him justifying his contract.)

[Nilanka]

I'd like to see someone name 1 championship team that was built by trading your best players away for whatever you can get and deliberately tanking.

Just one example in the modern era is all I ask for.

I do agree that we should've tanked in 2011-2012 when our team was really had next to no talent on it, but that's not the case now. That ship has sailed.

The Sonics traded Ray Allen and Rashard Lewis (although, I realize they haven't won a championship....yet).

[Craiger]

Things work until they don't. There was a time when players did not leave money on the table - Bosh, Wade, and LBJ blew that 'truth'. Players do not always go for guaranteed years over guaranteed money in one year. Didn't Chris Paul waive his opt out and risk 4 years of security to find out if the Clippers were a good fit? And for those players who do opt out do they always find more money? Monta Ellis had a rude awakening after turning down a 3 year, $36M extension, same with Jennings (although he was restricted FA), and AK-47 definitely had a surprise especially after he said he was looking for a final pay day.

There is also the age factor with AK-47 and AI relative to Gay. Gay will be 28 turning 29 in 2 off seasons. AI would have been closer to 31 than 30 and turning 32 in the 2014-15 season. That makes a big difference when talking a 4 year contract. Would anyone want to be paying AI $12M at 34/35? AK is 32 and will be 33 next summer. Big differences in circumstances.

Just to show I am in fact open to the possibility my opinion is wrong, there is going to be a sh!tload of money available next summer. Gay might look at this as an opportunity to cash in on a possible bidding war especially if he returns to 2 season ago form this up coming year.



Bad seasons, injuries, coaching changes, management changes can certainly change the landscape. Who'd of thought PHX would trade for Bledsoe with Dragic signed last year and Marshall drafted. Things don't always go according to 'plan'.




And how do you resign Amir while also signing free agents? Amir will have a $10.5M cap hold. Oh yes, sure, renounce him. But does he resign for MLE or less? I don't think so. So to replace Amir you just spent your imaginary cap space.



You are going to count on not ONE rookie but TWO rookies!! to be part of the rotation for a supposed contender? Wow. Did JV and Ross teach you nothing this year?



Based on what you posted, eh? The Gospel according to Xixak? You are right players don't fall off a cliff at 29. But players who rely on athleticism (such as Gay) do tend to decline than those who are more fundamentally sound. It isn't about paying Gay $14M at 29, it is paying him $14M or more with raises at 33 combined with is this team going to actually compete for championship.



Jonas = Hibbert (and more likely much better I think).

Where are the Raptors going to get their George? Please don't say Gay or DeRozan because credibility is already on shaken ground.



You should look at the calculation of HOW teams actually get their all-stars. I'll even provide the link:
http://hoopshype.com/articles/sierra...to-their-teams



It matters because your argument lacks consistency and vision/knowledge of realities of the CBA.




I'm sorry for drawing that conclusion. Is this not a Raptors forum? Aren't you talking about building in a manner similar to the Pacers by giving the example of the Pacers when talking about the rationale for the Raptors not blowing it up? Flip-flop on. Any comparison to the Pacers is not based in reality because the circumstances surrounding the Pacers during their build is much different than the circumstances currently facing the Raptors.

and this is exactly what bothers me when people (not talking about yourself here) talk about tanking as 'luck' or 'there are no guarantees'.

There are not guarantees in anything, and everything involves luck/chance/unforeseeable events.

The question shouldn't be what plan will work. Its what plan gives us the most realistic opportunity to work, specifically at the lowest possible cost.

Not only is having a plan of keeping the core the same + hoping to have a large amount of cap space 2 years from now not very plausible (if not impossible), what is the team going to be able to do with that unlikely cap space? Whats the opportunity cost of sacrificing 2 seasons of what would essentially be treadmilling to get to that point in time? Does it even create more upside potential than tanking?

"Tanking is building a team based on luck" - but a rarity in Indiana (who have also not met the 'championship' standard) with a team thats in an entirely different financial and talent situation is somehow a possible alternative.

I'm just not sure how I'll ever wrap my head around the logic

[mcHAPPY]

and this is exactly what bothers me when people (not talking about yourself here) talk about tanking as 'luck' or 'there are no guarantees'.

There are not guarantees in anything, and everything involves luck/chance/unforeseeable events.

The question shouldn't be what plan will work. Its what plan gives us the most realistic opportunity to work, specifically at the lowest possible cost.

Not only is having a plan of keeping the core the same + hoping to have a large amount of cap space 2 years from now not very plausible (if not impossible), what is the team going to be able to do with that unlikely cap space? Whats the opportunity cost of sacrificing 2 seasons of what would essentially be treadmilling to get to that point in time? Does it even create more upside potential than tanking?

"Tanking is building a team based on luck" - but a rarity in Indiana (who have also not met the 'championship' standard) with a team thats in an entirely different financial and talent situation is somehow a possible alternative.

I'm just not sure how I'll ever wrap my head around the logic

Very good post.

The bold is key.

[Craiger]

The Sonics traded Ray Allen and Rashard Lewis (although, I realize they haven't won a championship....yet).

The entire premise is flawed anyways. Why does the standard need to be 'trade best player AND championship'. Neither define tanking or what expectations are/should be.

What about when a team just didn't bother to replace players lost to injury or FA? Miami did absolutely nothing in 2002/03 despite having a bad team the year prior and losing Alonzo Mourning. They were a bad team, everyone knew they were a bad team and did nothing to even try to become a good team. They ended up drafting 5th (Wade) and won a championship shortly after.

Or what about a team that traded their 'best player' and made it to the conference finals? Memphis traded Pau Gasol for future first rounders, an expiring contract and the rights to a player not in the NBA. They deliberately tanked. Its since helped lead them to a WC finals.

I can just as easily ask, name one team other than Miami, Chicago, LA, Boston, Houston, SA, Dallas, Detroit and Philly that have won a championship in the last 33 years? Therefore you must not be able to win a championship if you aren't one of those teams.

[Xixak]

Things work until they don't. There was a time when players did not leave money on the table - Bosh, Wade, and LBJ blew that 'truth'. Players do not always go for guaranteed years over guaranteed money in one year. Didn't Chris Paul waive his opt out and risk 4 years of security to find out if the Clippers were a good fit? And for those players who do opt out do they always find more money? Monta Ellis had a rude awakening after turning down a 3 year, $36M extension, same with Jennings (although he was restricted FA), and AK-47 definitely had a surprise especially after he said he was looking for a final pay day.

I'm not sure what an extension has to do with this. Young players or guys in their prime might not accept extensions because they feel they can get more on the open market. When it comes to having a player option/ETO in the last year of a contract, most star/near-star players will opt out to get more guaranteed money over a longer period of time. It just makes financial sense and almost always happens (why would you take 1yr at 19M and risk getting hurt when you can secure 4yr/60M?). CP3 and Dwight were unique circumstances. CP3 wanted to give LAC another year to prove that it's worth it for him to stay, without committing to the team long-term. Dwight was trying to please fans and opted in to look good. Both players would get maxed even if they missed an entire season due to injury or had a significant decline in production (see Dwight with LAL) because they are bona-fide superstars and arguably the 3rd and 4th best players in the NBA depending on who you ask. Jennings isn't even related to this topic because he's an RFA... and Monta Ellis is just another example of a guy opting out of his last year for more guaranteed years of income... so thanks for that.

There is also the age factor with AK-47 and AI relative to Gay. Gay will be 28 turning 29 in 2 off seasons. AI would have been closer to 31 than 30 and turning 32 in the 2014-15 season. That makes a big difference when talking a 4 year contract. Would anyone want to be paying AI $12M at 34/35? AK is 32 and will be 33 next summer. Big differences in circumstances.

Monta Ellis is about the same age as Gay and also opted out of a bigger final year to take less money per year for more years. LBJ, Wade, Bosh and STAT also all opted out in 2010 around Gay's age as well. I wish there was a list somewhere of players who have opted out so I could find more examples. Can't think of them off the top of my head.

Just to show I am in fact open to the possibility my opinion is wrong, there is going to be a sh!tload of money available next summer. Gay might look at this as an opportunity to cash in on a possible bidding war especially if he returns to 2 season ago form this up coming year.

Ok.

Bad seasons, injuries, coaching changes, management changes can certainly change the landscape. Who'd of thought PHX would trade for Bledsoe with Dragic signed last year and Marshall drafted. Things don't always go according to 'plan'.

Maybe not, but let's not forget what Bledsoe got traded for (to PHX along with Butler for Redick and Dudley), and he was a hotter commodity than Lowry is going to be (barring Lowry going HAM this season like he did at the start of 11-12 and 12-13)

And how do you resign Amir while also signing free agents? Amir will have a $10.5M cap hold. Oh yes, sure, renounce him. But does he resign for MLE or less? I don't think so. So to replace Amir you just spent your imaginary cap space.

I didn't say we could get a max guy while signing Amir, that's not possible. But if we did strike out in FA or sign a cheaper player, he could always be re-signed. You only renounce his bird years if you have a deal for a top guy in place (kind of like what GSW did with Jack/Landry).


You are going to count on not ONE rookie but TWO rookies!! to be part of the rotation for a supposed contender? Wow. Did JV and Ross teach you nothing this year?

Aren't you in favor of building via the draft. I don't see how a rookie can't contribute off the bench if you actually make good picks in the mid-round especially since everyone says the 2014 class is loaded (and btw it's only 1 rookie, the 2014 pick would be a sophomore at that point). The Spurs pull this off almost every year, sometimes even without first rounders: Hill in 2008, Blair in 2009, Neal (undrafted) + Splitter in 2010, Leonard in 2011, Joseph in 2012, and just watch Jean-Charles or Thomas be solid for them off the bench in 2013. This is how the Spurs are able to field title contenders while staying under the tax threshold. Instead of wasting money on FAs to fill out the bench, they do excellent scouting and use prospects, cheap veterans and cast-offs to fill out the bench.

Based on what you posted, eh? The Gospel according to Xixak? You are right players don't fall off a cliff at 29. But players who rely on athleticism (such as Gay) do tend to decline than those who are more fundamentally sound. It isn't about paying Gay $14M at 29, it is paying him $14M or more with raises at 33 combined with is this team going to actually compete for championship.

Dude we wouldn't be paying him at age 33. If he opts out at the end of the year and we re-sign him, he'd be starting his new deal at 27/28 which means he'd be 31/32 at the end of it. So basically we'd have him for his prime...



Jonas = Hibbert (and more likely much better I think).

Where are the Raptors going to get their George? Please don't say Gay or DeRozan because credibility is already on shaken ground.

All I said is that Jonas is our 20 year old future all-star. I never said the Raptors have the same or even a similar makeup to Indiana, or should even try to copy their roster makeup. I was just pointing out an example of a team that successfully built a title contender w/o ever tanking to do so.

Btw I don't really see how Jonas is a Roy Hibbert type player. Hibbert is 7'2 280 and has one of the longest wingspans in the league, he's also a defensive player. Jonas strikes me as more of a Pau Gasol type with a combination of finesse/strength and a focus on the offensive side of the ball. Defense is something he's going to need to develop, it's not why he got drafted (like it was for Roy).


You should look at the calculation of HOW teams actually get their all-stars. I'll even provide the link:
http://hoopshype.com/articles/sierra...to-their-teams

I'm aware that most teams draft a star. But how many teams tank to draft multiple stars to their team successfully? Looking at that list only OKC managed to pull that off. Boston and San Antonio also drafted multiple All-NBAers but only really "tanked" for one of them. I don't think it's unrealistic to expect Jonas to be on that list that you posted someday.

It matters because your argument lacks consistency and vision/knowledge of realities of the CBA.

I meant it doesn't matter in the sense that a 915K contract has minimal effect on the overall cap figure. My mistake for the hyperbole.

I'm sorry for drawing that conclusion. Is this not a Raptors forum? Aren't you talking about building in a manner similar to the Pacers by giving the example of the Pacers when talking about the rationale for the Raptors not blowing it up? Flip-flop on. Any comparison to the Pacers is not based in reality because the circumstances surrounding the Pacers during their build is much different than the circumstances currently facing the Raptors.

The only similarity I'm pointing to is building without tanking. I'm not suggesting that we need to go out and get our own versions George, Granger, West and Hibbert.

.

[magoon]

Monta Ellis is about the same age as Gay and also opted out of a bigger final year to take less money per year for more years.

Monta Ellis is a terrible example because he's actually a cautionary tale for Rudy and other players in the same situation rather than an enticement: he was offered four years at $12M per year by the Bucks, turned it down and decided to become an UFA instead, and then he had to settle for three years at $8.5M in Dallas instead because it turned out nobody valued him as much as he had hoped.