Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Stop that tankin sh*t mentality

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

  • #31
    without getting into namecalling as i'm wont to do on this subject....

    my big issue with tanking is the philosophy behind it.

    I don't personally want to believe a team I support would wantingly attempt to improve be devaluing themselves.

    improvement is a forward progression. tanking is regression.

    it'd be like always having rub one out minutes before throwing your girlfriend the d.. just to make the sex better instead of actually trying to improve long term... instead of consistently trying to improve your own performance, you're willing to take a personal shame hit just to reach your happy place even if you have to take a ride on the second round softie express to get there..

    to each their own... everybody is going to have their opinion on the topic, and i'm not about to get on my high horse about it as I have in the past..

    I personally can't fathom wanting a team I support to regress in order to improve. "addition by subtraction" is just a catch phrase... it's actually really fucking illogical.

    Comment


    • #32
      heinz57 wrote: View Post
      without getting into namecalling as i'm wont to do on this subject....

      my big issue with tanking is the philosophy behind it.

      I don't personally want to believe a team I support would wantingly attempt to improve be devaluing themselves.

      improvement is a forward progression. tanking is regression.

      it'd be like always having rub one out minutes before throwing your girlfriend the d.. just to make the sex better instead of actually trying to improve long term... instead of consistently trying to improve your own performance, you're willing to take a personal shame hit just to reach your happy place even if you have to take a ride on the second round softie express to get there..

      to each their own... everybody is going to have their opinion on the topic, and i'm not about to get on my high horse about it as I have in the past..

      I personally can't fathom wanting a team I support to regress in order to improve. "addition by subtraction" is just a catch phrase... it's actually really fucking illogical.
      As usual you shed new light on the subject - lol.

      As you said to each their own. Personally I can't fathom just hoping for a playoff team in 3-4 years. Teams today are rarely going to trade a pick without protections. Trades such as the Lakers landing Magic and Worthy or the Cavs landing Irving are rarer than finding a superstar in the daft.

      Comment


      • #33
        magoon wrote: View Post
        The Wiz had a bad start and most of their losses have been competitive with the exception of their drubbing by the Heat (see yesterday's one-point loss to the Thunder). The Cavs have had a terrible start because Bynum isn't the answer they hoped for at C and Bennett has had a god-awful start and hasn't helped their giant hole at SF, but the Cavs have so many draft picks to trade that they will be able to rectify their issues quickly: if we don't trade them Rudy, then Boston will trade them Jeff Green or Utah will trade them Gordon Hayward, because Cleveland is ready to start chasing playoffs and they have the means to do it. Detroit is problematic but less problematic than we are. Atlanta is playing like a .500 team right now.

        Bluntly: the Raps are playing very, very badly indeed. With the exception of the Utah game, every Raps game, win or loss, has featured ugly, inefficient, inelegant, ineffective basketball; our wins have only come about when we play truly awful teams. This isn't a recipe for playoffs as a rule, and if we manage to luck into it by other teams sucking even worse than we do, we'll get a first-round exit pretty much guaranteed - and a first-round exit isn't going to do shit for us in terms of developing a team, because nobody respects the eighth seed.
        Yes we've played bad basketball but we're 3-4. The thing is things cab only get better from here. With each game Jonas is getting more minutes and touches. The ball movement is getting better with each game too. The defense will get better as well. Teams and coaches improve through the season.
        @Chr1st1anL

        Comment


        • #34
          heinz57 wrote: View Post
          improvement is a forward progression. tanking is regression.
          Hardly. I know addition-by-subtraction is counterintuitive, but take the case of Andrea Bargnani. Bargnani actively made this team worse: by virtue of his disinterested play, by virtue of his bloated, cap-space-hogging contract. That Masai got anything of value for Bargnani is the reason we've all given Masai so much trust to operate as he sees fit, because the general consensus on Bargs was that if we wanted to get rid of him our best case scenario was getting nothing in return.

          Turning to Rudy Gay: does he actively make the team worse? There is a reasonable argument that the answer to that is yes. Rudy's a good player in isolation, but he isn't really a player who makes his teammates better: he's a scorer who covers his own position, plain and simple. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but if Rudy isn't making the team better you need players who do - and Rudy's ginormous contract makes getting those players much, much more difficult. Which means there is a reasonable argument that the totality of Rudy Gay is that he makes it harder for the Raptors to compete, and the Raps need to move him as soon as possible. Is Detroit's offer of $20M worth of expirings worth Rudy Gay? We all said no three months ago when Detroit offered it and Masai agreed; clearly Masai thinks Rudy is worth at least one positive asset rather than simply resorting to a scrapyard sale and getting nothing in return. This falls in line with Masai's general operating theory of "always come out ahead on a deal."

          But what is that positive asset going to be? Is it a future draft pick? A young player who needs burn to develop and who will be - at least initially - problematic on the floor? Because if that's what you're getting back for Rudy then in the short term the team will appear "worse" (because you're losing Rudy's scoring, generally decent defense, and clutch shooting) and you will talk about regression. But if that asset is better in the long term, then it's not regression at all. It's just recognizing that, if X is Rudy Gay and Y is the assets you can get for Rudy Gay, if Y < X this year but next year and thereafter Y > X, then you probably make that deal because it's a better return.

          Comment


          • #35
            Chr1s1anL wrote: View Post
            Yes we've played bad basketball but we're 3-4. The thing is things cab only get better from here. With each game Jonas is getting more minutes and touches. The ball movement is getting better with each game too. The defense will get better as well. Teams and coaches improve through the season.
            1. Our wins are not good wins. Who did we beat? Boston (lousy), Utah (the worst team in the league) and Milwaukee (problematic at best). Who did we lose to? Anybody even remotely competitive, which included the Charlotte Bobcats.

            2. Teams and coaches improve through the season as they learn to play with one another, but this applies to other teams too! Not just us!

            (yeesh, I predicted that people would start getting unrealistic expectations based on the Utah game, I just didn't think it would happen this fast)

            Comment


            • #36
              psrs1 wrote: View Post
              Sometimes I see things this way too but more realistically we have some decent pieces. These pieces do lack cohesion and direction
              I agree with the cohesion part but even that, but even from the beginning of the season I just didn't see DeMar and Rudy combo ever really fitting with the lack of shooting and spacing. And plus, Lowry cannot run a offense, he seems like a shoot first kind of PG. Its the reason why by the deadline, I expect Ujiri to move Rudy to tank and build for the future.

              Comment


              • #37
                Agree with the poster, and one of Ujiri's best quotes is, "You can't teach winning by losing." Whether you like him or not, you have to see the value in this attitude. The Raptors have tried (post-Bosh) winning by losing and you see what the end result is -- A middle of the pack team or worse. Other recent examples include the Kings, Bobcats, Clippers of the 80s, 90s, 2000s; Bulls post-MJ (until Rose they failed with Chandler, Curry, Brand, Hinrich other high lotto picks)

                I just keep looking at the Pacers and how they were built -- they continued to compete through the lean years (post-Reggie, JO etc), and then proceeded to draft, sign and trade their way to the team they have today. The Pacers are a similar market to Toronto but do not have a top-10 draft pick on their team. They haven't gone to the finals either, but appear to have the makings of a sustainable winning team.

                Basically, drafting well is the biggest key -- the best teams seem to always draft well, no matter where they pick. The best teams (the teams that have seemed to be able to sustain winning cultures) build a culture out of competing no matter what their payroll or skill level is. It might not be as easy or as quick as tanking, but it is still the prevailing system to build a sustainable winner. This type of management takes skill...something the Raptors have in their front office.

                A number one overall pick is great, but there is a lot of luck involved. Would you rather leave it up to luck or skill?
                Last edited by IROR; Mon Nov 11, 2013, 04:08 PM. Reason: fixed italics

                Comment


                • #38
                  magoon wrote: View Post
                  Hardly. I know addition-by-subtraction is counterintuitive, but take the case of Andrea Bargnani. Bargnani actively made this team worse: by virtue of his disinterested play, by virtue of his bloated, cap-space-hogging contract. That Masai got anything of value for Bargnani is the reason we've all given Masai so much trust to operate as he sees fit, because the general consensus on Bargs was that if we wanted to get rid of him our best case scenario was getting nothing in return.
                  your post was too long, and I have the attention span of a gnat... so i'm just going to focus on this portion...

                  If Bargnani did in fact make the team worse when he was here, I would argue that keeping him on the team was in fact a form of subtraction. His presence was inherently a deficit. The removal of a deficit isn't subtraction. The act of moving him, in itself, was addition.

                  but that's a semantics thing... and will get quite silly if we keep the debate up.... if I haven't made it silly already

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    IROR wrote: View Post
                    Agree with the poster, and one of Ujiri's best quotes is, "You can't teach winning by losing." Whether you like him or not, you have to see the value in this attitude. The Raptors have tried (post-Bosh) winning by losing and you see what the end result is -- A middle of the pack team or worse. Other recent examples include the Kings, Bobcats, Clippers of the 80s, 90s, 2000s; Bulls post-MJ (until Rose they failed with Chandler, Curry, Brand, Hinrich other high lotto picks)

                    I just keep looking at the Pacers and how they were built -- they continued to compete through the lean years (post-Reggie, JO etc), and then proceeded to draft, sign and trade their way to the team they have today. The Pacers are a similar market to Toronto but do not have a top-10 draft pick on their team. They haven't gone to the finals either, but appear to have the makings of a sustainable winning team.

                    Basically, drafting well is the biggest key -- the best teams seem to always draft well, no matter where they pick. The best teams (the teams that have seemed to be able to sustain winning cultures) build a culture out of competing no matter what their payroll or skill level is. It might not be as [I]easy[I] or as quick as tanking, but it is still the prevailing system to build a sustainable winner. This type of management takes skill...something the Raptors have in their front office.

                    A number one overall pick is great, but there is a lot of luck involved. Would you rather leave it up to luck or skill?
                    There is luck no matter what you do. Ujiri has said this, as well.

                    Regarding those teams, bad bad bad management except the Bulls who just made bad choices and had bad luck with Jay Williams.

                    Kings, Bobcats, and Clippers are the worse of the worst when it came to drafting, trading, and free agency. If you think Ujiri is totally incompetent then this is a concern. But even the Clippers showed a little luck can right even a totally lost ship.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Matt52 wrote: View Post

                      But even the Clippers showed a little luck can right even a totally lost ship.
                      Yes, but it took them decades to find that luck with Blake Griffin coming from the Cavs pick. Seems to me there are more losers than winners when it comes to a "tank-off." And even the winners of past tank-offs have not proven you can win it all.
                      Last edited by IROR; Mon Nov 11, 2013, 04:18 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        heinz57 wrote: View Post
                        without getting into namecalling as i'm wont to do on this subject....

                        my big issue with tanking is the philosophy behind it.

                        I don't personally want to believe a team I support would wantingly attempt to improve be devaluing themselves.

                        improvement is a forward progression. tanking is regression.

                        it'd be like always having rub one out minutes before throwing your girlfriend the d.. just to make the sex better instead of actually trying to improve long term... instead of consistently trying to improve your own performance, you're willing to take a personal shame hit just to reach your happy place even if you have to take a ride on the second round softie express to get there..

                        to each their own... everybody is going to have their opinion on the topic, and i'm not about to get on my high horse about it as I have in the past..

                        I personally can't fathom wanting a team I support to regress in order to improve. "addition by subtraction" is just a catch phrase... it's actually really fucking illogical.
                        A couple of points if I may:

                        1) Your analogy maybe somewhat misplaced and dare I say less complicated than dealing with the myriad qualities/personalities of a basketball team in the NBA with a cap and cba. You could proverbially slap the girlfriend around and she may cook you a consistent dinner every night and roll your eyeballs in bed but try getting your stars on the team to be eg. consistently efficient.

                        2) Most of us looking for change believe the team requires shock therapy involving an infusion of new players thru trades, draft picks and f/as. Going this route may result in regression but more likely to result in a phoenix (got carried away) quicker than taking the approach of betting the current crew up against the luxury tax will turn into the team most wish it to be....a contender. Many believe it just isnt going to happen without drastic change.


                        Cannot wait till MU lets us know either way the path chosen. This debate is getting tiresome.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          IROR wrote: View Post
                          Yes, but it took them decades to find that luck with Blake Griffin coming from the Cavs pick. Seems to me there are more losers than winners when it comes to a "tank-off." And even the winners of past tank-offs have not proven you can win it all.
                          No doubt.

                          But you've totally ignored their inept and incompetent management/ownership.

                          Are the Ujiri/Weltman/Webster front office team incompetent? I don't think so.
                          Are Bell/Rogers cheap? After hiring TL and MU, I think the old OTPP ownership days are over.


                          This team has everything in place to be a playoff team in 2 years and a championship team for a decade after that. Staying the course right now is not going to get the Raptors there.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            IROR wrote: View Post
                            And even the winners of past tank-offs have not proven you can win it all.
                            Practically nobody has proven you can win it all. Only eight teams in the league have won the championship since 1980: the Lakers (eight times, on Magic's teams and Kobe's teams), the Bulls (six times, all MJ/Pippen), the Spurs (four times under Duncan), the Celtics (three times with Bird, once with KG/Pierce), the Pistons (twice with Isiah, once with the 2004 no-star Pistons), the Rockets (twice under Hakeem), the Heat (once just with Wade, twice more with Wade/LeBron/Bosh), and the Mavericks (once with Nowitzki).

                            The one constant: other than the 2004 Pistons and maybe the 2011 Mavericks, every team that has won the championship has had more than one superstar-level player. Current number of such players the Raptors have: zero.

                            The only place we are likely to find them is through the draft: superstar trades happen very rarely and superstar free agent moves are also pretty rare, the last few years notwithstanding. I quite agree with you that good teams can find superstar players with lower draft picks if they have management who knows how to draft. Right now we have Masai (drafted Kenneth Faried at #22, Evan Fourniet at #20) and Jeff Weltman (drafted Luc Mbah a Moute at #37, Brandon Jennings at #10, Larry Sanders at #15, John Henson at #14 and Giannis Antetokounmpo at #16) who appear to have above average draft acumen. It therefore behooves the Raptors to make sure we have as many draft picks as possible.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              magoon wrote: View Post
                              Practically nobody has proven you can win it all. Only eight teams in the league have won the championship since 1980: the Lakers (eight times, on Magic's teams and Kobe's teams), the Bulls (six times, all MJ/Pippen), the Spurs (four times under Duncan), the Celtics (three times with Bird, once with KG/Pierce), the Pistons (twice with Isiah, once with the 2004 no-star Pistons), the Rockets (twice under Hakeem), the Heat (once just with Wade, twice more with Wade/LeBron/Bosh), and the Mavericks (once with Nowitzki).

                              The one constant: other than the 2004 Pistons and maybe the 2011 Mavericks, every team that has won the championship has had more than one superstar-level player. Current number of such players the Raptors have: zero.

                              The only place we are likely to find them is through the draft: superstar trades happen very rarely and superstar free agent moves are also pretty rare, the last few years notwithstanding. I quite agree with you that good teams can find superstar players with lower draft picks if they have management who knows how to draft. Right now we have Masai (drafted Kenneth Faried at #22, Evan Fourniet at #20) and Jeff Weltman (drafted Luc Mbah a Moute at #37, Brandon Jennings at #10, Larry Sanders at #15, John Henson at #14 and Giannis Antetokounmpo at #16) who appear to have above average draft acumen. It therefore behooves the Raptors to make sure we have as many draft picks as possible.
                              To add on this:

                              The ability to find starter or rotational players later in the draft is crucial to keep your contending team relevant over many years - look at the Spurs. However, rarely are you going to find superstar talent outside the lottery. The ability to find starters and rotational players outside the lottery is not going to make your team a contender - unless you package them in a trade for a star.

                              So, I'm with you. For the Raptors to get in the championship discussion down the road they need to get some high draft picks in the next 3 drafts to maximize their opportunity.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                It's also worth noting that the reason the Spurs have been able to find so many stars and superstars outside of the lottery is because they were doing extensive international scouting years before anybody else did, and have consistently expanded their scouting range beyond where other teams were scouting. When the rest of the league started scouting Europe, the Spurs were already scouting South America. Right now the only team paying serious attention to African basketball other than the Spurs is, well, us (thanks, Masai).

                                That's a big part of how the Spurs got Manu at 57, Tony Parker at 28, Luis Scola at 55, Beno Udrih at 28, Tiago Splitter at 28 and Goran Dragic at 45. They were looking where nobody else was looking.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X