Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Bryan Coangelo's Performance Review

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

  • #31
    Nilanka wrote: View Post
    The reason there's this much debate is because there isn't a single agreed upon definition of "tanking". We're all describing the exact same scenario, yet calling it something different
    When I read articles discussing tanking in every case I can recall they're referring to intentionally losing games.

    Comment


    • #32
      Yes, that appears to be the textbook definition of tanking, but it's also the definition that not a single member of the NBA circle would ever admit to doing, yet we know it happens every season. Therefore, "intent" can only be guestimated based on wins vs. losses, player transactions and whether or not a high pick is awarded.

      Comment


      • #33
        If you look at what the Raptors did, didn't do, what they said they are and planning to do and the result while taking into consideration injuries to their best player I don't see how you can come to the conclusion that the Raptors tried to lose this season.

        Comment


        • #34
          I'm not saying they tried to lose. I'm saying they (read: Colangelo) didn't necessarily try to win.

          Colangelo didn't push his team off the plank, but he didn't exactly do anything to rescue them from drowning either.

          Comment


          • #35
            Nice take from BP.

            http://www.basketballprospectus.com/...articleid=2183

            Here's the key point for me.

            The takeaway from this particular story is that a binary choice--tanking or not tanking--is insufficient to describe the decision-making of NBA teams, all of whom are at dramatically different points in the success cycle. In every choice they make, teams must balance success in the immediate future with their long-term goals. This is true in every sport, of course, but especially so in one with a restrictive salary cap. Spending money and other resources on players who help win games now means paying the alternative cost of sacrificing the development of other, younger players who could be more effective in the long run.
            I find something more rewarding about watching young players lose games than seeing veterans clearly heading nowhere. These rookies and prospects, no matter how promising they really are, represent some kind of hope for the future. As I've often borrowed from USC coach Kevin O'Neill and repeated in this space, NBA teams are either selling wins or they're selling hope. Taking that hope, in the form of lottery picks, from losing teams would be crushing to their ability to keep fans engaged.

            From that standpoint, I find aggressive rebuilding to be a victimless crime and a crucial part of managing a team. Tanking is more sinister, in that it robs the rest of the league of the level playing field we expect and demand, especially during a playoff race. I just don't think it's that common in the NBA outside of seasons, like 2006-07, when the top of the draft is considered exceptionally strong.
            Toronto was "aggressively rebuilding"....

            Comment


            • #36
              Based on this, one could argue that every team in the lottery was aggressively rebuilding. Charlotte was giving Walker and Biyombo heavy minutes. Does anyone think they weren't tanking?
              Last edited by Nilanka; Tue May 29, 2012, 04:23 PM.

              Comment


              • #37
                Nilanka wrote: View Post
                Based on this, one could argue that every team in the lottery was aggressively rebuilding. Charlotte was giving Walker and Biyombo heavy minutes. Does anyone think they weren't tanking?
                I don't. I think they were a bad team with very little talent and a lot of young, inexperienced players, some of which they are honestly hoping develop into significant parts of their core going forward. They have been a lottery team for a couple years and were quite obviously on a downward trajectory. They were definitely "sellers" that were looking beyond this year into the future. I think their players put forth a strong effort every game, certainly up to the point they were eliminated from the playoffs at least. They were just a bad team and it was no secret that they weren't playing with this season in mind. Looking at their roster from the past couple years, I see very little that they could have done, realistically speaking, to make them into a serious contender this season (certainly not without taking on some bad contracts via trade/signing). So, as Cho suggested to the team's brass in his interview, they took a step backward in order to take two step forwards. If I was a fan of Charlotte, I would be happy about this. It's much better than constantly taking one step forward and one step back from year to year, without doing anything that successfully improves the team for the current season or for seasons beyond. Again, I call it effective franchise management and a bad team losing games they had very little hope of winning.

                You seem to want to blame the GM for "tanking", when he aggressively looks to the future instead of the present. I ask you this: how many GMs have been fired for allowing their "good" teams to languish in the middle of the pack, either consistently losing in the first round of the playoffs or barely missing the playoffs, year after year. GMs don't survive with mediocrity and fans quickly get sick of watching their teams in the middle of the pack, never getting better and never doing a true rebuild (just ask post-lockout Leaf fans!). That is what BC was doing during the Bosh years, because he was too afraid of upsetting Bosh and the fans, after doing such a great sales pitch that Bosh was a franchise player... if they had admitted Bosh was just another piece of the puzzle and continued to rebuild in the post-Carter era, this may be a very different looking, much better Raptor team today. Or would that be tanking too?

                Comment


                • #38
                  I don't blame the GM at all for tanking. I am 100% in favour of tanking. Everything you explained above, I agree with.

                  I just think some folks are in denial by not referring to this process as "tanking". Sacrificing the present in order to preserve the future, is tanking. Putting emphasis on future wins instead of current wins, is tanking. Relying on lottery picks to help build your team, is tanking. Signing minimum salary, 1-year deals in order to preserve cap flexibility, is tanking. Playing inexperienced players heavy minutes (who haven't necessarily earned it), is tanking.

                  And I'm all for it.

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X