Are we treadmilling?

[JimiCliff]

If tanking is a successful strategy that teams should pursue, then we should see numerous instances where it has worked in practice.

The NBA hasn't existed long enough to be able to make a decent judgement here.

[Apollo]

The NBA hasn't existed long enough to be able to make a decent judgement here.

1985. That's the year the league draft lottery was enacted. That's 30 years of history. In your opinion what is sufficient time? That's at least two different eras.

For me it's long enough. Hell, a bunch of people in here lay judgement on a player's career and future with a year or two of pro game film but for the lotto we need some sort of vast archive of data?

[mcHAPPY]

I am tired of the tanking debate but this is absurd. One way that we analyze strategies in any industry is to look at case studies where a strategy has been implemented to determine whether it has succeeded or failed. If we see a similar strategic plan fail (or succeed) over and over again then we can draw certain conclusions from those failures and successes about the strategy itself. If tanking is a successful strategy that teams should pursue, then we should see numerous instances where it has worked in practice. Now, tactical considerations aren't irrelevant but, if the overall strategy is as sound as many on here believe, tactical missteps should be easier to correct and, in the aggregate, there should be far more successes than failures. Is that true?

As for your contentions that (i) tanking requires more impeccable GM'ing and (ii) carries a higher ceiling than other models, I have never seen any evidence that either of those positions is true. In fact, I would argue the opposite is the case. Tanking is akin to the curse of the "Superstar CEO" - the search for the white knight, great whale, etc. - who is going to come and save everyone the organization. The psychology of it is easy to understand and it makes life so simple and easy for everyone: all we have to do is wait around for our savior and our problems are solved! It's far more difficult to look at all the reasons your organization has failed and take the often slow, painful steps to correct them.

It's why I have so much time for what Leiweke and Ujiri have done with the Raps. They've taken steps (the practice facility, DLeague team) that won't pay immediate dividends but address long standing organizational issues. They've aggressively pursued Tier 1 free agents, positioning themselves as future players to consider for free agents. They've accumulated future assets while positioning themselves to have success on the court in search of long term, consistent results. All that stuff doesn't appease the fans because it's messy and the light at the end of the tunnel isn't always easy to see, but it adds far more to an organization than some guy like Sam Hinkie sitting in an office praying to get lucky cause he has no idea what else to do.

It is interesting the credit you give TL and MU.

If things had not worked out as they had after the Gay trade, the tank was on.

If NY had been willing to include a 2018 pick, we'd of been awful as Lowry would have been gone.

Luckily no one questions you need superstar talent. The question is how to get it.


There are many ways to build. End of story.

[JimiCliff]

1985. That's the year the league draft lottery was enacted. That's 30 years of history. In your opinion what is sufficient time? That's at least two different eras.

For me it's long enough. Hell, a bunch of people in here lay judgement on a player's career and future with a year or two of pro game film but for the lotto we need some sort of vast archive of data?

Lol if you want to really understand what's happening, yes.

How much time is sufficient? I don't know, but I know 30 years isn't enough. There's just too many variables involved in being successful in the NBA.

[Nilanka]

1985. That's the year the league draft lottery was enacted. That's 30 years of history. In your opinion what is sufficient time? That's at least two different eras.

For me it's long enough. Hell, a bunch of people in here lay judgement on a player's career and future with a year or two of pro game film but for the lotto we need some sort of vast archive of data?

The idea of openly moving pieces to field a worse team is a relatively new strategy, isn't it? I don't even think the word "tanking" was part of the NBA vernacular during the 80s/90s.

[slaw]

The idea of openly moving pieces to field a worse team is a relatively new strategy, isn't it? I don't even think the word "tanking" was part of the NBA vernacular during the 80s/90s.

You can go back to at least 1984 when the Rockets tanked for Olajuwon, which was the most immediate driver behind the lottery in the first place. There were probably previous incidents but that was the most visible up to that point because the Rockets had a decent team with Sampson and purposefully gave up after the all-star break that year to get in on the coin flip.

[golden]

It is interesting the credit you give TL and MU.

If things had not worked out as they had after the Gay trade, the tank was on.

If NY had been willing to include a 2018 pick, we'd of been awful as Lowry would have been gone.

Luckily no one questions you need superstar talent. The question is how to get it.


There are many ways to build. End of story.

Draft + Internal player development + Trading up for other team's picks would be my preferred strategy. The development and flipping of George Hill for a Kawhi Leonard, who was developed into an all-star is a textbook example of internal player development increasing asset value far above the initially perceived potential, without tanking.

The core competency of winning franchises has to be player development, which is sustainable. If you don't have that, you can even screw up the potential of even star quality talent. Problem is that it's a silent killer that nobody could ever prove or dis-prove. The main driver of player development is typically the coach and staff, and to a lesser degree, the GM. Great article on RR front page today on Carroll.

Money shot....

http://www.raptorsrepublic.com/2015/...k-kyle-korver/

The biggest reason why I was able to play my best basketball in Atlanta is because of the organization’s player development. All of the coaches worked hard to make every guy on this roster better, and they deserve a lot of credit for our team’s improvement this year.

[mcHAPPY]

Draft + Internal player development + Trading up for other team's picks would be my preferred strategy. The development and flipping of George Hill for a Kawhi Leonard, who was developed into an all-star is a textbook example of internal player development increasing asset value far above the initially perceived potential, without tanking.

The core competency of winning franchises has to be player development, which is sustainable. If you don't have that, you can even screw up the potential of even star quality talent. Problem is that it's a silent killer that nobody could ever prove or dis-prove. The main driver of player development is typically the coach and staff, and to a lesser degree, the GM. Great article on RR front page today on Carroll.

Money shot....

http://www.raptorsrepublic.com/2015/...k-kyle-korver/

Nice post.

But hard work is only going to get you so far against focused and determined talent (which is most conference finals teams).

[golden]

Nice post.

But hard work is only going to get you so far against focused and determined talent (which is most conference finals teams).

I would also say that we just witnessed GSW as another prime example of player development, system and role definition allowing the "talent" to far exceed the consensus projected talent ceiling on draft day. All developed during the natural cycle of winning and losing, while fielding a competitive team. And the Rockets are an example of development + trading for picks & flipping those into stars - again without tanking.

[raptors999]

I would also say that we just witnessed GSW as another prime example of player development, system and role definition allowing the "talent" to far exceed the consensus projected talent ceiling on draft day. All developed during the natural cycle of winning and losing, while fielding a competitive team. And the Rockets are an example of development + trading for picks & flipping those into stars - again without tanking.

Flipping good for great is a better strategy than just tanking and hoping for the best. if NOP goes nowhere having two or three good young players under rookie deals would probably get AD. likewise Utah and Favors. sometime players dont fit playoff windows

[psrs1]

Draft + Internal player development + Trading up for other team's picks would be my preferred strategy. The development and flipping of George Hill for a Kawhi Leonard, who was developed into an all-star is a textbook example of internal player development increasing asset value far above the initially perceived potential, without tanking.

The core competency of winning franchises has to be player development, which is sustainable. If you don't have that, you can even screw up the potential of even star quality talent. Problem is that it's a silent killer that nobody could ever prove or dis-prove. The main driver of player development is typically the coach and staff, and to a lesser degree, the GM. Great article on RR front page today on Carroll.

Money shot....

http://www.raptorsrepublic.com/2015/...k-kyle-korver/

I love that phrase 'internal player development'. Does any regular poster really think we get that from DC?

[MixxAOR]

I love that phrase 'internal player development'. Does any regular poster really think we get that from DC?

Head Coaches are rarely in charge of player development. It's usually assistant coaches that work with players.

[OldSkoolCool]

Head Coaches are rarely in charge of player development. It's usually assistant coaches that work with players.

I would argue against that with Casey.

Bayno quit a high-paying NBA job because Casey couldn't see what was right in front of his nose

[raptors999]

Head Coaches are rarely in charge of player development. It's usually assistant coaches that work with players.

guys learned to play in the Hawks, GSW and Spurs system from the HC not the assistants. development is more than dribbling and shooting.

[MixxAOR]

guys learned to play in the Hawks, GSW and Spurs system from the HC not the assistants. development is more than dribbling and shooting.

that's 3 teams so yeah rarely