Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A new take on tanking - opponents of this need not click this thread

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • golden wrote: View Post
    Duncan and KD, I'll give you, but Westbrook was drafted AFTER Beasley and Mayo - why aren't they superstars too? By this logic, adding Beasley to Wade should have been automatic contender, right? And we all know how low Parker was drafted. You have to give OKC and Spurs credit for talent identification there. But again, nobody's commenting on the Pacers, Pistons type way of building a contender. No superstar in sight. No top 5 pick (unless you count Darko, lol).
    The Pacers have obviously done a good job at identifying talent. They've had great management over the years in Walsh, Bird, Morey, back to Walsh and Bird with a dash of Pritchard in recent years.

    One other area the Pacers get bonus points is their cap management and making the most of it (namely David West as he put them over the hump).

    Comment


    • Brandon wrote:
      None of that would matter much had they not won the Robinson/Duncan lotteries. They were +35 in wins in Robinson's first year, and they were accused of keeping him out and tanking the year they won the Duncan lottery. It did the Raps no good at all to win the 2006 lottery, as last year at one point they had the 1 and 8 picks from that draft on the same team and still lost 2 for every 1 they won. It isn't just a matter of getting lucky in winning a lottery, you have to win a good lottery.
      You one of those still trying to say/imply that the Spurs tanked to get Duncan? Sheeeesh, not in any way, shape, or form.

      A team with back-to-back division titles doesn't tank. In fact, the Spurs felt they were so close to a championship back then, they acquired Dominique Wilkins in that off-season to help get over the hump. Tank move? But, David Robinson & Sean Elliott end up getting injured & the team stunk without them. The coach(Bob Hill) got fired after a 3-15 start to the year. If they were tanking, losses were expected. So why fire the coach that just lead your team to consecutive division titles when you've got a good draft pick coming & your two best players will be back healthy the next year? How anyone can translate that to tanking is beyond me, but you think Robinson and Elliot, after 2 division titles, sat out the year in hopes of lottery luck?

      Comment


      • Matt52 wrote: View Post
        The Pacers have obviously done a good job at identifying talent. They've had great management over the years in Walsh, Bird, Morey, back to Walsh and Bird with a dash of Pritchard in recent years.

        One other area the Pacers get bonus points is their cap management and making the most of it (namely David West as he put them over the hump).
        But it's not just the Pacers. Even the Laker's recent dynasties were built through free agency (Shaq) and shrewd trades (Kobe). And then more shrewd trades (e.g. Gasol). No tanking there.

        The Celtics also made some shrewd trades (Garnett, Allen) and low-draft picks (Rondo) and wisely hung onto Paul Pierce, who they could have easily dealt for a high pick to build their recent championship contender. That all came together in basically 2 off-seasons. They had one high pick (Jeff Green), which wasn't the result of a tank job - they simply sucked that year.

        So there are lots of examples of franchises building a consistent contender without tanking for top 5 picks.

        Comment


        • golden wrote: View Post
          But it's not just the Pacers. Even the Laker's recent dynasties were built through free agency (Shaq) and shrewd trades (Kobe). And then more shrewd trades (e.g. Gasol). No tanking there.

          The Celtics also made some shrewd trades (Garnett, Allen) and low-draft picks (Rondo) and wisely hung onto Paul Pierce, who they could have easily dealt for a high pick to build their recent championship contender. That all came together in basically 2 off-seasons. They had one high pick (Jeff Green), which wasn't the result of a tank job - they simply sucked that year.

          So there are lots of examples of franchises building a consistent contender without tanking for top 5 picks.
          1) location

          2) location

          3) location

          Market place matters. It matters ALOT.

          LA is the, or the 2nd, most powerful market in the NBA. Teams such as the Raptors don't have that privilege. Watching how a market like LA, Dallas, Miami, Houston, and NY do things is like watching a hockey game and applying what happens to basketball.

          As for Boston they tanked and used the assets from that tank job to trade for superstars. I don't think too many 'pro-tankers' would be opposed to the Raptors moving a high lottery pick(s) for an established superstar (or two). Problem is that it rarely happens.

          Comment


          • golden wrote: View Post
            But it's not just the Pacers. Even the Laker's recent dynasties were built through free agency (Shaq) and shrewd trades (Kobe). And then more shrewd trades (e.g. Gasol). No tanking there.

            The Celtics also made some shrewd trades (Garnett, Allen) and low-draft picks (Rondo) and wisely hung onto Paul Pierce, who they could have easily dealt for a high pick to build their recent championship contender. That all came together in basically 2 off-seasons. They had one high pick (Jeff Green), which wasn't the result of a tank job - they simply sucked that year.

            So there are lots of examples of franchises building a consistent contender without tanking for top 5 picks.
            Another good point!

            In fact, I would like the "pro tankers" to show me recent teams (within the last 20 years) that adopted this "tanking" strategy to win a NBA championship. Please don't speculate...I want to see obvious tank jobs that resulted in a championship. Isn't that the said goal?

            Conversely, the Mavs, Heat, Lakers, Celtics and Spurs all won NBA Championships while focusing on winning and acquiring talent through trades and free agency.

            Comment


            • special1 wrote: View Post
              Another good point!

              In fact, I would like the "pro tankers" to show me recent teams (within the last 20 years) that adopted this "tanking" strategy to win a NBA championship. Please don't speculate...I want to see obvious tank jobs that resulted in a championship. Isn't that the said goal?

              Conversely, the Mavs, Heat, Lakers, Celtics and Spurs all won NBA Championships while focusing on winning and acquiring talent through trades and free agency.
              Boston. San Antonio. Miami.

              Comment


              • If everyone wants to see a smart tank in comparison to the obvious and "hope-for-luck" tanks in Boston and Philadelphia, look at the recent trade Phoenix made.

                They'll take back a HUGE expiring contract in Okafor, and have the opportunity at 4 1st round picks in this coming draft - obviously known as one of the strongest drafts in years.

                THAT, is one example of this "trade them for valuable assets in return", because it helps both the near/far future.

                Trade DeMar, Rudy, Lowry for pieces of shit like Villanueva, Stuckey, or whatever are all poor assets, and nothing but trouble for the young players on this roster, especially because this team would be relying on luck in the draft.
                Twitter: @ReubenJRD • NBA, Raptors writer for Daily Hive Vancouver, Toronto.

                Comment


                • Craiger wrote: View Post
                  1) location

                  2) location

                  3) location

                  Market place matters. It matters ALOT.

                  LA is the, or the 2nd, most powerful market in the NBA. Teams such as the Raptors don't have that privilege. Watching how a market like LA, Dallas, Miami, Houston, and NY do things is like watching a hockey game and applying what happens to basketball.

                  As for Boston they tanked and used the assets from that tank job to trade for superstars. I don't think too many 'pro-tankers' would be opposed to the Raptors moving a high lottery pick(s) for an established superstar (or two). Problem is that it rarely happens.
                  Not to Dwight Howard, or even Lebron & Bosh who could have gone to NY or Chicago. Or even KD, or Paul George who re-upped in small markets. Location is part of the equation, but not the only thing.

                  Comment


                  • golden wrote: View Post
                    Not to Dwight Howard, or even Lebron & Bosh who could have gone to NY or Chicago. Or even KD, or Paul George who re-upped in small markets. Location is part of the equation, but not the only thing.
                    Dwight went to LA then to Houston.

                    LeBron and Bosh went to Miami.

                    KD and Paul George re-upped as RFA.


                    Who said Location is the 'only thing'?

                    Comment


                    • Craiger wrote: View Post
                      1) location

                      2) location

                      3) location

                      Market place matters. It matters ALOT.

                      LA is the, or the 2nd, most powerful market in the NBA. Teams such as the Raptors don't have that privilege. Watching how a market like LA, Dallas, Miami, Houston, and NY do things is like watching a hockey game and applying what happens to basketball.

                      As for Boston they tanked and used the assets from that tank job to trade for superstars. I don't think too many 'pro-tankers' would be opposed to the Raptors moving a high lottery pick(s) for an established superstar (or two). Problem is that it rarely happens.
                      I only recall 1 recent high draft pick (Jeff green #5) being used to get Ray Allen. Delonte west (picked #24) and Wally Szczerbiak (was acquired in a trade with Minnesota) was also sent to Seattle in that trade for Glen Davis and Ray Allen. Jefferson was a 15th pick used to acquire KG (Gerald Green an 18th pick from a few years prior was included) along with a few other players. I think its a stretch to consider that a tank job resulted in the selection of any of those players.

                      It seems "pro tankers" give too much credit to tanking. This may be why there is such an unrealistic preference for tanking from some posters on RR.

                      http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007%...Celtics_season

                      Comment


                      • special1 wrote: View Post
                        I only recall 1 recent high draft pick (Jeff green #5) being used to get Ray Allen. Delonte west (picked #24) and Wally Szczerbiak (was acquired in a trade with Minnesota) was also sent to Seattle in that trade for Glen Davis and Ray Allen. Jefferson was a 15th pick used to acquire KG (Gerald Green an 18th pick from a few years prior was included) along with a few other players. I think its a stretch to consider that a tank job resulted in the selection of any of those players.

                        It seems "pro tankers" give too much credit to tanking. This may be why there is such an unrealistic preference for tanking from some posters on RR.

                        http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007%...Celtics_season
                        tanking requires more than 1 high pick? Now who is 'speculating'?

                        Comment


                        • p00ka wrote: View Post
                          You one of those still trying to say/imply that the Spurs tanked to get Duncan? Sheeeesh, not in any way, shape, or form.

                          A team with back-to-back division titles doesn't tank. In fact, the Spurs felt they were so close to a championship back then, they acquired Dominique Wilkins in that off-season to help get over the hump. Tank move? But, David Robinson & Sean Elliott end up getting injured & the team stunk without them. The coach(Bob Hill) got fired after a 3-15 start to the year. If they were tanking, losses were expected. So why fire the coach that just lead your team to consecutive division titles when you've got a good draft pick coming & your two best players will be back healthy the next year? How anyone can translate that to tanking is beyond me, but you think Robinson and Elliot, after 2 division titles, sat out the year in hopes of lottery luck?
                          There is tanking from day 1, and then there is a forced tank because the team had problems and started losing. The end goal for the Spurs was that they got a high pick and drafted Duncan.

                          No team has won the championship by trying to tank right off the bat... but the concept is actually fairly new. GM's are younger and are trying to think differently then the old-school GM's. Teams in the past never would have considered failing on purpose (ie, putting together a bad team on purpose) so that they can get good again via the draft.. but it's happening more often and will continue to happen until the CBA is changed again.

                          Philly or Phoenix could end up winning it all with their strategies. It may fail but I give them credit for thinking outside the box. If the NBA didn't have a CBA or markets that are popular destinations for athletes, then the concept of tanking wouldn't even be talked about. But unfortunately the system is not perfect and so teams (especially smaller market teams) have to consider other options.

                          The Spurs were extremely successful after a very bad season. Teams are trying to emulate that 'success'. We'll see if it works or not.. but some tankers believe that there is merit in it because it kind of worked for the Spurs even though that was not their intent back in the day. San Antonio is a small market team that has had 2 decades of success. Who wouldn't want to emulate what they did? But it all started with Robinson and then Duncan.. both #1 picks in the draft. You either hope your players get injured (which has bad karma attached to it - sorry Lark but it's true) or you ship out your 'best' players so that you have a better chance of loosing then winning. If you don't want to emulate San Antonio's success then you try other ways. Indiana is trying Detroit's way. Brooklyn is trying it a completely different way. No one system is perfect but San Antonio's has been the most successful the longest.. and they were a small market team.

                          Who knows what MU is thinking at this point.. but I'm sure he's looking at different models of success and trying to find one that makes the most sense for his club. He has TL to help him with free agents but history has been cruel to Toronto in that regards. If he's relying on free agency to get good again it will be difficult.

                          Tanking is a disgusting concept for a professional club but it's within the rules. Just like it is for players to be able to talk anytime they want, and decide to all go to the same team in free agency, or for a player to quit on his team and ask to be traded. It hurts the game, but its a part of it for better or for worse.

                          Personally I am on the tank side.. and that's only because I don't think this team can get good unless its blown up. But I'm patient enough to wait for 2015 as opposed to 2014 to do it regardless of how good the 2014 draft is supposed to be.

                          Comment


                          • Craiger wrote: View Post
                            Boston. San Antonio. Miami.
                            Re-writing history I see... Where do you see "obvious" tank job? Also, the Raps picked Bosh before Miami picked Wade. Was Toronto tanking that year? How did it work out for us?

                            Comment


                            • special1 wrote: View Post
                              Re-writing history I see... Where do you see "obvious" tank job? Also, the Raps picked Bosh before Miami picked Wade. Was Toronto tanking that year? How did it work out for us?
                              Who decides whats an 'obvious tank job' or not? You?

                              What does the Raptors picking Bosh before Wade, or how well it worked out for Toronto, have anything to do with your initial question?

                              Comment


                              • special1 wrote: View Post
                                Re-writing history I see... Where do you see "obvious" tank job? Also, the Raps picked Bosh before Miami picked Wade. Was Toronto tanking that year? How did it work out for us?
                                Toronto was tanking.. look at the transactions they made in 2002-2003:
                                http://www.basketball-reference.com/...nsactions.html

                                They had the third worst record in the league.

                                Tanking could have worked if they didn't select Hoffa the following year. Just because the GM is bad doesn't mean the strategy couldn't work.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X