Where the REAL tankers at?

[NoPropsneeded]

I have a question for you guys. What if, and this is a BIG IF, the raptors ended up winning over 45 games and made a strong playoff run. Lets say uhh losing in 6 or 7 games in first or second round?

[CalgaryRapsFan]

I have a question for you guys. What if, and this is a BIG IF, the raptors ended up winning over 45 games and made a strong playoff run. Lets say uhh losing in 6 or 7 games in first or second round?

There are 2 questions that I think MU needs answered this season, which will effectively determine which approach he takes, that's above and beyond the question of whether or not to tank.

#1 - Is Lowry the PG of the future for this team?

#2 - Is Gay going to opt-in, opt-out or be extended after this season?


For me, if the answer to #1 is no, then Lowry should be traded by the trade deadline. I hate letting assets go without turning them into something useful, and I think Lowry would be a very valuable asset come the trade deadline (ie: as a veteran backup PG for a playoff team or as a starter on a playoff team that lost their starting PG to injury, on a relatively cheap expiring contract), likely returning at least a late 1st round pick (even if Toronto had to add a future 2nd round pick or something as sweetener).

For me, if Rudy is non-committal about his future, or if he says he's going to opt-out, or if Toronto just doesn't want to be on the hook for his $19.3M if he does opt-in, then he too should be traded by the trade deadline. At that point, having that knowledge that we currently don't have, even trading him for expiring contracts and 1 valuable piece (ie: lottery-protected 1st round pick and/or good young/cheap prospect) would be good asset management in my books.


Obviously if both players wind up being traded, or even Lowry, then the tank is on whether you like it or not. Once the tank is on, tough questions about DeRozan, Johnson and Hansborough need to be asked and trade value of each needs to be assessed. I say this under the assumption that Valanciunas & Ross are the closest things to not-available on the roster, given their age, talent and favourable contracts.

I think Novak is on the table as deadline trade bait regardless, and I'm sure Fields' contract would gladly be moved at the first hint of a decent offer.


At the end of the day, the "to tank, or not to tank" question may never have to be directly answered. As other questions get answered, the tanking issue could very well resolve itself.

[jimmie]

I have a question for you guys. What if, and this is a BIG IF, the raptors ended up winning over 45 games and made a strong playoff run. Lets say uhh losing in 6 or 7 games in first or second round?

My question back to you would be: what does exiting in the 1st round mean? What does it prove about this team and its ceiling?

Most long-suffering fans want a real, legit chance to win a championship -- not annual trips to the 1st round, followed by mid/late-round draft picks as the only way to further improve. Which is what you resign yourself to, if you stick with this roster because, "hey, they made it to the playoffs -- surely they can go further next year." Only the 1st half of that statement is true. We just spent the whole offseason debating whether Demar had really improved heading into this season, and I think we've seen that he hasn't; in other words, improvement over time is nowhere near inevitable. At some point, you have to 'know what you have' and be realistic about where that can take you.

If this current team somehow makes the playoffs and exits in the 1st round, what next? Do you re-sign Kyle? Rudy? If you do that -- and you might have to, because IF this team makes the playoffs, they'll be a big part of why, so letting them go would put you right back at square 1 -- then you're stuck, financially, and can only get better with trades or through the draft, not through FA. And as for trades, count that out as a means of getting much better, because again, you'll need to trade something to get something. Which then leaves us with the draft, and with a 1st-round exit, you're drafting 15-25 somewhere, so your GM better be a goddam whiz at finding hidden gems, even in the 2014 draft.

[wallz]

The idea behind the non-tankers, is that the Raptors can play at a decent level until they have the ability to make a major splash (through free agency or trade) tthat will make them possible contenders. It seems pretty unlikely with this core but it isn't impossible

EDIT: of course, that is only possible if the current core stays together and settles for less money than elsewhere

[Mediumcore]

50 wins team? A team that can win 50 games several years in a row in my eyes is a contender. There's a difference between a Miami level contender and the Grizzlies but nonetheless, 50 wins is what I hope to get if the tank is successful.

Sure, the Bobcats fans would want 50 wins, and I would want that for the Raptors, but it wasn't going to happen for them, so they blew it up. Similarly, it's not likely to happen for the Raptors the way they are constructed, so I favor a tank.
So why should we discuss winning 50 games vs. tanking? It's easy to say 'win 50 games', hard to do.

As for "guarantees"? Well, sports in general is a risk. There are no guarantees in anything sports. You can have Brandon Roy, Lamarcus Aldridge, Batum and Oden, and then the 2 most talented players in that group vanish because of injuries. I'm not supporting a tank because it's a "sure" way to succeed. I'm supporting that type of rebuild because I think it's a better bet. If it fails, it fails, anything can fail. Ever played poker? You can have pocket aces, call all-in pre-flop and lose. Regardless, it's generally a smart move to call.

You're getting a bit caught up in the numbers and missing the point.

[Mediumcore]

I don't see it being a long haul.

I see a two year bottom feeding followed by an emergence in 2015-16.

But maybe I am just a hopeless romantic stuck in a deadened relationship with the toronto raptors.

Let's hope if a tank happens it's not for the long haul, but I get this impression that a lot of the tank supporters think it's going to be all roses.

[LBF]

I'm as committed as however long it takes for them to be legitimate threats in the NBA.

I'd look at a team like San Antonio or (to a lesser extent) Dallas. They aren't like a Miami where you expect them to make it to the finals or at least to game 7 or 6 of the conference finals.

But, you know that are always a threat to make a legitimate run at that championship and that they are always going to be up for the challenge.

[mcHAPPY]

I have a question for you guys. What if, and this is a BIG IF, the raptors ended up winning over 45 games and made a strong playoff run. Lets say uhh losing in 6 or 7 games in first or second round?

Then they are at the mercy of Gay and Lowry.

We've seen this movie before: Flight of the Boshtrich. The first one sucked and I'm sure the sequel would be awful as well.

They leave and the Raptors start next season in year one of a rebuild with JV getting his extension in just the 2nd of the rebuild AND they wasted the opportunity (opportunity is not a given!) to get a franchise talent in 2014 AND they risk letting two players walk for absolutely nothing.

They stay and the Raptors are likely to plateau: Helloooooo Atlanta!


Lose-Lose either way. Be the master of your destiny Masai!

[mcHAPPY]

Let's hope if a tank happens it's not for the long haul, but I get this impression that a lot of the tank supporters think it's going to be all roses.

Fair enough but I get the impression a lot of the stay the course supporters think this team is good which means that there are not flawed players, there is good head coaching, and the team is only going to improve. That line of thinking has been wrong for the better part of 18 years - and the last 7 for sure.

I think a change will do us all good. A clean slate. A fresh start. Dig up the weed and plant some roses already!

[psrs1]

I don't see it being a long haul.

I see a two year bottom feeding followed by an emergence in 2015-16.

But maybe I am just a hopeless romantic stuck in a deadened relationship with the toronto raptors.

What happens when your high draft pick does not pan out? You are worse off with both on court product
and continued erosion of fan base.....Blake Murphy's article today is on point.

[octothorp]

Let's hope if a tank happens it's not for the long haul, but I get this impression that a lot of the tank supporters think it's going to be all roses.

Yeah, I think people need to appreciate that even if you're tanking, the odds of it turning into a championship someday are ridiculously low. Here's all the things you need to go right to develop a championship-contending team:

1. Your attempt to gut the team needs to result in the team earning significantly more losses than their current pace. (Reasonably easy to ensure they'll drop to bottom 8 or so, but bottom 5 or better may be much tougher.)
2. You need to get lucky in the draft. (The only part of the process where you actually know the odds, and they are rarely in your favour. Only a bottom two slot is going to guarantee you a top 5 pick. Odds of getting a top 5 player while finishing out of the top 5 are remote, around 20% at 6 and dropping rapidly).
3. You need to actually draft a superstar-calibre player with that high draft pick. (Lots of arguments can be made here, but I think we can all agree that right now this draft appears reasonably deep with exceptional top-end talent. On the other hand, even the best drafts usually have at least one bust and a lot of average players near the top.)
4. You need to develop him well, so that he reaches his potential relatively quickly, giving you a decent window of winning with him before he hits free agency.
5. You must surround him with complementary young pieces and veterans. (Some of which the Raptors already have, but there's still going to be a long and difficult process of finding the right complementary pieces. This is a very market-specific thing when it comes to veterans, with some teams much more successful at attracting useful veterans than others.)
6. You need to keep this core together long enough to allow them all to have multiple shots at winning a championship. (Every year around your superstar's peak increases your odds of a championship, but each year you fail to win a championship increases the odds that he's going to leave. You need to be prepared to contend at the close end of his prime rather than the tail-end.)

(It's difficult to separate these and say, in retrospect, whether teams drafted poorly or mismanaged development when a high pick doesn't work out. Sometimes there are obvious draft busts, but often a bad draft choice and a poorly-developed player end up looking the same.)

You apply this to the incredibly strong draft in 2003: All of the first steps went right for Cleveland: they tanked correctly, they won the lottery, they drafted a superstar calibre player, their superstar reached his potentially relatively early in his career, yet they failed at surrounding him with the right personnel, ultimately didn't give him a large enough window to win a championship, and he left relatively early. Detroit drafted a bust. Denver and Toronto both drafted well (although with talents arguably a notch below superstar), developed well, and but failed utterly to surround their stars with enough talent and coaching to contend in the playoffs for more than a season. In the end, both players left before their teams had a significant window to compete. Miami drafted well, developed well, signed an additional superstar through free agency, won a championship early in Wade's career, which basically ensured his loyalty and gave them additional shots at winning a championship. After Wade, there were no franchise-altering talents in the draft. The Clippers' perpetual draft ineptitude and bad luck might have come to and end were in not for Detroit getting lucky on 1/5 odds. Clippers entered the lottery with an 80% chance of a top 4 pick, potentially Wade or better. They ended up with Kaman.

So, I'm all for tanking. It might very well be the best odds the Raptors have at winning a championship. But even so, all it does is move their odds from remote to slightly-better-than-remote.

You can see why teams who have that luxury prefer the 'building through free agency' route. You reduce yourself to only a couple variables: you're already getting superstar or near superstar talents; your window to win starts immediately, or after a brief gelling period; you don't need to worry about draft odds, development, and all these other low probability variables are removed from the equation.

[mcHAPPY]

What happens when your high draft pick does not pan out? You are worse off with both on court product
and continued erosion of fan base.....Blake Murphy's article today is on point.

What happens when your 2free agents/2 starters/2 best players leave?

What happens when we keep waiting for potential to emerge and growth from guys who have been in the league 5-6-7-8 years that never happens?


I read Blake's article. He makes good points. If you're content to hope for an average team, go for it. If you're content to be forced in to a rebuild in another 3-4 years as JV is entering his prime, go right ahead, stay the course. He can riddle off all his warnings and each one can equally be countered. It comes down to are you sick of hoping to be one of the teams that might make the playoffs? I am. I deserve more as a fan. I want more. I want the opportunity to be great. I put too much time in to following this team to be happy to be a speed bump for the truly elite. Toronto has a corner stone (JV) already in place... not even OKC started their rebuild with that.


As for worse on court product and continued erosion of the fan base.... ARE YOU KIDDING ME? The Toronto fan base continues to be one of the best in the league as one of the top 5 worst teams of the last 18 years. Can an already bad on court product get worse - yes - but we're talking a borderline playoff team at best here anyways.

[ceez]

Flight of the bostrich made me laugh

[mcHAPPY]

Yeah, I think people need to appreciate that even if you're tanking, the odds of it turning into a championship someday are ridiculously low. Here's all the things you need to go right to develop a championship-contending team:

1. Your attempt to gut the team needs to result in the team earning significantly more losses than their current pace. (Reasonably easy to ensure they'll drop to bottom 8 or so, but bottom 5 or better may be much tougher.)
2. You need to get lucky in the draft. (The only part of the process where you actually know the odds, and they are rarely in your favour. Only a bottom two slot is going to guarantee you a top 5 pick. Odds of getting a top 5 player while finishing out of the top 5 are remote, around 20% at 6 and dropping rapidly).
3. You need to actually draft a superstar-calibre player with that high draft pick. (Lots of arguments can be made here, but I think we can all agree that right now this draft appears reasonably deep with exceptional top-end talent. On the other hand, even the best drafts usually have at least one bust and a lot of average players near the top.)
4. You need to develop him well, so that he reaches his potential relatively quickly, giving you a decent window of winning with him before he hits free agency.
5. You must surround him with complementary young pieces and veterans. (Some of which the Raptors already have, but there's still going to be a long and difficult process of finding the right complementary pieces. This is a very market-specific thing when it comes to veterans, with some teams much more successful at attracting useful veterans than others.)
6. You need to keep this core together long enough to allow them all to have multiple shots at winning a championship. (Every year around your superstar's peak increases your odds of a championship, but each year you fail to win a championship increases the odds that he's going to leave. You need to be prepared to contend at the close end of his prime rather than the tail-end.)

(It's difficult to separate these and say, in retrospect, whether teams drafted poorly or mismanaged development when a high pick doesn't work out. Sometimes there are obvious draft busts, but often a bad draft choice and a poorly-developed player end up looking the same.)

You apply this to the incredibly strong draft in 2003: All of the first steps went right for Cleveland: they tanked correctly, they won the lottery, they drafted a superstar calibre player, their superstar reached his potentially relatively early in his career, yet they failed at surrounding him with the right personnel, ultimately didn't give him a large enough window to win a championship, and he left relatively early. Detroit drafted a bust. Denver and Toronto both drafted well (although with talents arguably a notch below superstar), developed well, and but failed utterly to surround their stars with enough talent and coaching to contend in the playoffs for more than a season. In the end, both players left before their teams had a significant window to compete. Miami drafted well, developed well, signed an additional superstar through free agency, won a championship early in Wade's career, which basically ensured his loyalty and gave them additional shots at winning a championship. After Wade, there were no franchise-altering talents in the draft. The Clippers' perpetual draft ineptitude and bad luck might have come to and end were in not for Detroit getting lucky on 1/5 odds. Clippers entered the lottery with an 80% chance of a top 4 pick, potentially Wade or better. They ended up with Kaman.

So, I'm all for tanking. It might very well be the best odds the Raptors have at winning a championship. But even so, all it does is move their odds from remote to slightly-better-than-remote.

You can see why teams who have that luxury prefer the 'building through free agency' route. You reduce yourself to only a couple variables: you're already getting superstar or near superstar talents; your window to win starts immediately, or after a brief gelling period; you don't need to worry about draft odds, development, and all these other low probability variables are removed from the equation.

The bold is why you get whatever you can for Lowry/DD/Gay now and use restricted free agency to your advantage over the next 8-9 years. The strength of this front office lies in drafting. I'd rather build on the teams strengths.

[octothorp]

The bold is why you get whatever you can for Lowry/DD/Gay now and use restricted free agency to your advantage over the next 8-9 years. The strength of this front office lies in drafting. I'd rather build on the teams strengths.

Sure, but even that doesn't move the needle beyond slightly-better-than-remote. This is all a game of which extremely long-odds strategy is better than the other extremely long-odds strategies.