What's up with this tanking thing?

Moderators: Domejandro, infinite11285, Harry Garris, ken6199, Dirk, bisme37, KingDavid, bwgood77, zimpy27, cupcakesnake

The Rebel
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 25,186
And1: 11,338
Joined: Mar 05, 2005
 

Re: What's up with this tanking thing? 

Post#21 » by The Rebel » Tue Aug 26, 2014 3:34 am

HartfordWhalers wrote:
The Rebel wrote:
HartfordWhalers wrote:
And another high 2nd in 2015 (Orl) and a 2017 1st. Both of which haven't played yet so also probably don't matter?


Why would it matter today when judging a trade? Fact is the only way to tell if a team really won a trade they have to actually get all their players and see where they come out, I know some love the whole idea of draft picks, but reality is at this point neither team has won that trade as the results are yet to be determined, I would love to hear your argument otherwise.


Just the obvious commonsense ones. Clearly those are assets. Discounting them to 0 is just idiotic imo. Would you really say Denver didn't lose a trade if they traded 3 future firsts for a back of the bench player cause the firsts might turn out worse in time? No., thats just plain idiotic.

If in 3 years a new GM picks a terrible player with a pick doesn't make this trade worse, it just makes that decision then worse. Assets are assets. Some lead to wins now. Some lead to wins later. Some get squandered along the way, and some turn into more along te way. However the only sensible way to judge a trade is to actually look at the assets, not ignore the ones that aren't leading to wins right then.


Oh so you only want to include future considerations such as trading the 10th pick for other picks, as long as it adds to the way the 76ers come out of the trade, but feel we should ignore the results on the returns on the deal.

As for your hypothetical, of course I would not be happy about trading 3 future 1sts for an end of the bench player, the odds are you will get better than that out of the 3 picks, of course I could not say the same thing as the deal we are talking about.

There are numerous studies, and you can look at the results yourself, the odds of getting a young player that makes the all star team out of any of the 4 picks is very low, meaning the 76ers traded a young all star for 2 mid lotto picks which combined will likely not give you a player as good as Holiday, so no I would not say that the 76ers clearly won the trade, I would say they did okay considering their goals, but that does not mean they clearly won the deal by a lot, which is what the post I originally quoted said.
gonzo
Junior
Posts: 385
And1: 10
Joined: Oct 22, 2006

Re: What's up with this tanking thing? 

Post#22 » by gonzo » Tue Aug 26, 2014 3:55 am

The league needs to contract, not expand. The super-team concept will kill most small markets anyway...SAS being the exception. A real minor league would keep the big markets at least competitive.
Racer X wrote:We are not out of this mother yet.
HartfordWhalers
Senior Mod - 76ers and NBA TnT Forum
Senior Mod - 76ers and NBA TnT Forum
Posts: 46,930
And1: 20,472
Joined: Apr 07, 2010
 

Re: What's up with this tanking thing? 

Post#23 » by HartfordWhalers » Tue Aug 26, 2014 4:18 am

The Rebel wrote:
HartfordWhalers wrote:
The Rebel wrote:
Why would it matter today when judging a trade? Fact is the only way to tell if a team really won a trade they have to actually get all their players and see where they come out, I know some love the whole idea of draft picks, but reality is at this point neither team has won that trade as the results are yet to be determined, I would love to hear your argument otherwise.


Just the obvious commonsense ones. Clearly those are assets. Discounting them to 0 is just idiotic imo. Would you really say Denver didn't lose a trade if they traded 3 future firsts for a back of the bench player cause the firsts might turn out worse in time? No., thats just plain idiotic.

If in 3 years a new GM picks a terrible player with a pick doesn't make this trade worse, it just makes that decision then worse. Assets are assets. Some lead to wins now. Some lead to wins later. Some get squandered along the way, and some turn into more along te way. However the only sensible way to judge a trade is to actually look at the assets, not ignore the ones that aren't leading to wins right then.


Oh so you only want to include future considerations such as trading the 10th pick for other picks, as long as it adds to the way the 76ers come out of the trade, but feel we should ignore the results on the returns on the deal.

As for your hypothetical, of course I would not be happy about trading 3 future 1sts for an end of the bench player, the odds are you will get better than that out of the 3 picks, of course I could not say the same thing as the deal we are talking about.

There are numerous studies, and you can look at the results yourself, the odds of getting a young player that makes the all star team out of any of the 4 picks is very low, meaning the 76ers traded a young all star for 2 mid lotto picks which combined will likely not give you a player as good as Holiday, so no I would not say that the 76ers clearly won the trade, I would say they did okay considering their goals, but that does not mean they clearly won the deal by a lot, which is what the post I originally quoted said.


I agree we should look at it as the 10th pick. However since you felt the need to decide that instead suddenly the lower draft pick should count {and ignore what the Sixers got for moving down}, and furthermore to try and claim that it is thus a bad trade as the guy eventually picked might not play for a few years so therefor the Holiday trade was bad because Saric might not even play, which is why your comment isn't seeming either serious or honest. It is definitely in no way logically consistent, even by bad logic.

If you want to trot out an 82 games study that is outdated, truncates the entire top range of production, and uses a scale all of us would mock if anyone on here proposed it, by all means feel to again, I know you like to. I don't understand the choice, and even by that there is a 55% and 60% chance of getting a player in Holidays tier with each pick, making it look like a good trade especially when you factor in contracts and time under team control... but thats another thing.

In terms of the expected production, DX for instance has the picks the Sixers got smoothed out to an expected 55 win shares (51 unsmoothed). Taking Holidays best season and over his remaining years would be under 23 win shares in contrast and his last one before the trade would yield 13 win shares.

Which makes it look like a massive slam dunk.

Combined, the picks add up to a 43% chance of an all star (lazily ignoring the cross product and the chance of two all stars), which is probably above the odds most would give Holiday of repeating in the West.
shangrila
RealGM
Posts: 12,958
And1: 6,039
Joined: Dec 21, 2009
Location: Land of Aus
 

Re: What's up with this tanking thing? 

Post#24 » by shangrila » Tue Aug 26, 2014 4:38 am

Well, I still have yet to see this tanking method work. A number of teams that were purposefully bad to get high draft picks in recent years, such as Sacramento, Charlotte or Minnesota, didn't show much improvement until they abandoned that idea. That's for various reasons obviously, but still.

Hell, even OKC, the poster child for bottoming out to create a contender, still has yet to win a championship.
BJGOAT3
Rookie
Posts: 1,052
And1: 362
Joined: Mar 30, 2011
   

Re: What's up with this tanking thing? 

Post#25 » by BJGOAT3 » Tue Aug 26, 2014 8:41 am

yitur wrote:I get bored reading every bad team is tanking in NBA. Can't anyone be bad without tanking purposely??

There aren't 5 Lebrons or 5 Durants to sign for every team. Everybody hates teams when they sign Landrys or Goodens for long and heavy contractsi but if they don't sign thoose types then they are tanking because they didn't go after players who won't help them at all?? Please explain to me how is Timberwolves tanking, who can they get that will help them be a contender instantly, or Milwaukee or Sixers.


The thing is you don't need Lebron or Durant to be championship caliber teams. Its just easier with a superstar, tanking seems like the easiest way out. A team might be horrible for a year or two but even if you strike out on your draft picks there are other ways to improve your team other than staying horrible. You will be putting your top prospects into a horrible situation by tanking year after year anyways. Tanking every year outruns the benefits you get from the lottery, putting together 5-6 good prospects into a pile and waiting for them to gel is not the way to build a winner unless you get a generational talent that will break out whatever you put around him.

By the way out of the teams you mentioned, only Philly is going to tank blatantly. Milwaukee is set on all positions maybe except for PG, they should look to improve that spot via trade of FA with some of the young assets they have except for Parker-Giannis-Sanders. Minny added Thad Young along with the prospects they got from the Love trade, they are now set at all positions as well, will be looking for the development of their wing prospects and Dieng. If they don't pan out, of course they won't achieve a playoff spot and stay in lottery therefore get other prospects. Sixers on the other hand are purposely staying in lottery, picking players that will play the next year and not filling up the roster around their young core of MCW-Noel. I don't understand their purpose in it, as any other high lottery pick prospect possibly at SG position will create problems for the team when they will need to give extensions to keep the young core in Philly. After having 3 great prospects, they should have been done with tanking and started looking for complimentary pieces that are affordable. However they postponed this a year, which may create problems with development and minutes of their prospects as well as extensions.
baubo
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,517
And1: 1,274
Joined: Aug 08, 2013
     

Re: What's up with this tanking thing? 

Post#26 » by baubo » Tue Aug 26, 2014 8:57 am

shangrila wrote:Well, I still have yet to see this tanking method work. A number of teams that were purposefully bad to get high draft picks in recent years, such as Sacramento, Charlotte or Minnesota, didn't show much improvement until they abandoned that idea. That's for various reasons obviously, but still.

Hell, even OKC, the poster child for bottoming out to create a contender, still has yet to win a championship.


Watch the NBA finals
User avatar
Mich3006
Head Coach
Posts: 6,490
And1: 3,682
Joined: Jul 04, 2009
Location: Lower Bavaria, Germany
     

Re: What's up with this tanking thing? 

Post#27 » by Mich3006 » Tue Aug 26, 2014 9:04 am

Ask Sam Hinkie...
shangrila
RealGM
Posts: 12,958
And1: 6,039
Joined: Dec 21, 2009
Location: Land of Aus
 

Re: What's up with this tanking thing? 

Post#28 » by shangrila » Tue Aug 26, 2014 9:20 am

baubo wrote:
shangrila wrote:Well, I still have yet to see this tanking method work. A number of teams that were purposefully bad to get high draft picks in recent years, such as Sacramento, Charlotte or Minnesota, didn't show much improvement until they abandoned that idea. That's for various reasons obviously, but still.

Hell, even OKC, the poster child for bottoming out to create a contender, still has yet to win a championship.


Watch the NBA finals

What?

Return to The General Board