Image ImageImage Image

The argument for Tanking: Why it works, and you just don't remember

Moderators: HomoSapien, fleet, RedBulls23, Ice Man, AshyLarrysDiaper, Tommy Udo 6 , GimmeDat, dougthonus, Payt10, DASMACKDOWN, kulaz3000

Am2626
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,929
And1: 578
Joined: Jul 13, 2013

Re: The argument for Tanking: Why it works, and you just don't remember 

Post#261 » by Am2626 » Mon Jan 11, 2021 6:07 pm

d boy gentleman wrote:
coldfish wrote:
Am2626 wrote:
How are the odds against Cade becoming a star? He was an elite high school prospect playing at a high level as a college freshman. He’s a 6’8” point guard in the mold of Magic Johnson that is a great shooter. He’s hit game winning shots this year in college. There is nothing to suggest that he won’t be a star in the NBA. He will easily be the best player on the Bulls if they draft him next year.


Go through the draft history and look at how the top draft picks actually pan out. I believe someone posted the lottery odds above but most of these players do not turn into championship level franchise cornerstones. This wasn't a commentary on Cade as much as it was about the draft in general.

Even then, you only have a 14% chance of getting him.


And then when you end up drafting 5th-7th and don't get your franchise savior, you tank again... :nonono:


This draft has 7 quality players. I’m not saying tank for a draft pick. I’m saying avoid making the playoffs and have a bottom 10 record while developing and seeing growth from this core. That is the best case scenario. Having losses to the 2 L.A. teams is actually a blessing in disguise. The core is developing and getting better and record wise the Bulls are keeping themselves in the lottery.
Am2626
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,929
And1: 578
Joined: Jul 13, 2013

Re: The argument for Tanking: Why it works, and you just don't remember 

Post#262 » by Am2626 » Mon Jan 11, 2021 6:14 pm

Leslie Forman wrote:
coldfish wrote:That's why getting someone else's superstar is so much more effective. The people that most people expected not to be a superstar (Kawhi, Butler, Giannis) that someone else developed are in play.

So what's the plan to do this, seeing how the Bulls have also tried to do this many, many times, and are batting a perfect .000 on this idea?


Giannis is off the market as he signed the extension with Milwaukee. Butler isn’t leaving Miami. The leaves Kawhi who the Bulls would have to compete with 10 other teams to get. Those are not good odds. I don’t see any superstar the Bulls are in the drivers seat to get. They absolutely should try and get this player but the odds are heavily stacked against them.
User avatar
coldfish
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 51,471
And1: 21,890
Joined: Jun 11, 2004
Location: Right in the middle
   

Re: The argument for Tanking: Why it works, and you just don't remember 

Post#263 » by coldfish » Mon Jan 11, 2021 7:40 pm

Leslie Forman wrote:
coldfish wrote:That's why getting someone else's superstar is so much more effective. The people that most people expected not to be a superstar (Kawhi, Butler, Giannis) that someone else developed are in play.

So what's the plan to do this, seeing how the Bulls have also tried to do this many, many times, and are batting a perfect .000 on this idea?


Build up a good team
Trade players in a consolidation trade or dump them for capspace to sign a player who has agreed to come

The Bulls were unable to do this for a multitude of reasons:
- They fell in love with their own players when they should not have
- They gave out bad contracts making players a negative trade value
- They tanked for capspace and when no one of value was available, they just handed the money to whomever would take it instead of selling the capspace for picks

Overall, there is no good plan in the NBA. Most teams go decades and never win a title and spend years being non contenders. That said, the build and trade system has a much better recent batting average than tanking. GarPax's complete failure with build and trade might happen again but I still like the odds better.

As I said before, I have no issues with a mini-tank. That is to say, at the deadline move players for assets like Otto. I just strongly don't think that the full teardown tank is a productive route to pursue and without a full teardown tank, this team isn't going to be competing for the worst record.
User avatar
Leslie Forman
General Manager
Posts: 9,254
And1: 4,910
Joined: Apr 21, 2006
Location: 1700 Center Dr, Ames, IA 50011

Re: The argument for Tanking: Why it works, and you just don't remember 

Post#264 » by Leslie Forman » Mon Jan 11, 2021 9:18 pm

coldfish wrote:That said, the build and trade system has a much better recent batting average than tanking.

In a way that's relevant to Chicago's current situation? Does it?

What kinds of teams were those? What stage were they at in their timelines? Which ones didn't already actually have their #1 superstar? And which of those weren't just using the results of a tank (LA for AD, Boston for Allen) to make it happen?

Gasol to the Lakers? He was just the sidekick to Kobe, who was already there. Shaq to Miami? Same but with Wade. Detroit? Let's be real…that's never happening again. So what does that leave as an actual, real blueprint for a team that has a poor roster, isn't a free agency hot spot, and has no superstar talent already on it? (hopefully it's Pat…but yeah let's hold our horses there)

Toronto is pretty much it. That is the closest analog. They were basically where the Bulls are now in, like, 2012. They had to go through years of development, and then fake contendership, just for one year of Kawhi. If they don't win the title that year (easily could have lost to Philly, would have lost to a healthy GSW), that's a disaster of a trade - they lose a franchise legend for one year of a mercenary who never wanted to be there.

But hey, let's say that's the plan. When do the Bulls get to the Toronto 2018 point? How many years of development and hitting on middling draft picks do they have to go through just to get all the young guys enough experience to:
1. Have enough trade value to make it happen, but are unconvincing enough that you still want to trade them
2. Still be a title-worthy supporting cast after the trade

This will take years with this roster, no matter what your plan is. Why wouldn't you just use these years to, as they say in baseball, restock the farm? Why not try to gather up more high picks as either players/trade chips while you've still got your one truly high end prospect still developing on his rookie deal?

And what even is the trade? Is everyone just sitting around with their thumbs up their asses waiting for a Luka Doncic or Jayson Tatum trade demand? Is that really a plan? If a GM candidate came to you and said that was their plan, would you really hire them?

I just don't understand how this is the most proven way to go for a franchise that won six titles on the backs of a #3 and #5 pick, and has gone 0-for-infinity on free agency/trades.
d boy gentleman
Starter
Posts: 2,366
And1: 641
Joined: Jun 02, 2009
     

Re: The argument for Tanking: Why it works, and you just don't remember 

Post#265 » by d boy gentleman » Tue Jan 12, 2021 1:21 am

coldfish wrote:
Leslie Forman wrote:
coldfish wrote:That's why getting someone else's superstar is so much more effective. The people that most people expected not to be a superstar (Kawhi, Butler, Giannis) that someone else developed are in play.

So what's the plan to do this, seeing how the Bulls have also tried to do this many, many times, and are batting a perfect .000 on this idea?


Build up a good team
Trade players in a consolidation trade or dump them for capspace to sign a player who has agreed to come

The Bulls were unable to do this for a multitude of reasons:
- They fell in love with their own players when they should not have
- They gave out bad contracts making players a negative trade value
- They tanked for capspace and when no one of value was available, they just handed the money to whomever would take it instead of selling the capspace for picks

Overall, there is no good plan in the NBA. Most teams go decades and never win a title and spend years being non contenders. That said, the build and trade system has a much better recent batting average than tanking. GarPax's complete failure with build and trade might happen again but I still like the odds better.

As I said before, I have no issues with a mini-tank. That is to say, at the deadline move players for assets like Otto. I just strongly don't think that the full teardown tank is a productive route to pursue and without a full teardown tank, this team isn't going to be competing for the worst record.



In other words, do something similar to what Miami has done: drafted well, remain competitive and make good trades. They didn't have the cap space to sign Jimmy, but had assets in order to acquire him.
MAQ wrote:Boozer, you're ballin, but quit **** celebrating, negro there is 3 minutes left.

slowmotion5587 wrote:Nazr Mohammed might be the most underrated dunk misser I've ever seen.
User avatar
Leslie Forman
General Manager
Posts: 9,254
And1: 4,910
Joined: Apr 21, 2006
Location: 1700 Center Dr, Ames, IA 50011

Re: The argument for Tanking: Why it works, and you just don't remember 

Post#266 » by Leslie Forman » Wed Jan 13, 2021 5:55 am

d boy gentleman wrote:In other words, do something similar to what Miami has done: drafted well, remain competitive and make good trades. They didn't have the cap space to sign Jimmy, but had assets in order to acquire him.

Because Chicago has such an awesome track record of making amazing signings/trades for star FAs?

Everyone keeps bringing up other franchises.

What about what the Chicago Bulls have actually succeeded and failed at?
Dez
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,253
And1: 5,808
Joined: Jul 23, 2011
Location: Melbourne, Australia
 

Re: The argument for Tanking: Why it works, and you just don't remember 

Post#267 » by Dez » Wed Jan 13, 2021 6:29 am

Leslie Forman wrote:
d boy gentleman wrote:In other words, do something similar to what Miami has done: drafted well, remain competitive and make good trades. They didn't have the cap space to sign Jimmy, but had assets in order to acquire him.

Because Chicago has such an awesome track record of making amazing signings/trades for star FAs?

Everyone keeps bringing up other franchises.

What about what the Chicago Bulls have actually succeeded and failed at?


Okay and what have the current FO succeeded and failed at? It doesn't have a track record as of yet, so that attempt at a point is irrelevant.
User avatar
Leslie Forman
General Manager
Posts: 9,254
And1: 4,910
Joined: Apr 21, 2006
Location: 1700 Center Dr, Ames, IA 50011

Re: The argument for Tanking: Why it works, and you just don't remember 

Post#268 » by Leslie Forman » Wed Jan 13, 2021 8:19 am

Dez wrote:Okay and what have the current FO succeeded and failed at? It doesn't have a track record as of yet, so that attempt at a point is irrelevant.

Are they going to turn Chicago into LA or Miami?

And again, what's the plan then? What amazing superstar trade/signing is on the horizon within the next couple of years? And how does the Bulls roster meet this criteria by then that I listed out before?

1. Have enough trade value to make it happen, but are unconvincing enough that you still want to trade them
2. Still be a title-worthy supporting cast after the trade

Again…are we really gonna just sit around and hope both of these things and a superstar demanding a trade happens at the exact same time? Is this really a path to a title or just a path to being Indiana/Utah/Portland? Which, by the way, the Bulls are still a loooong ways away from…

FWIW, I'm all for the get a superstar (as long as they're not old), figure out the rest later trade. But now there's no AD out there. Harden is it. That's the official "disgruntled superstar who wants out" for this year. Maybe even the next couple years, as I have a real hard time seeing Giannis, Jokic, Tatum demanding a trade. All of those guys are in way better situations than AD was. Guys on rookie deals like Luka, Ja, and Trae are years away from ever even getting to that point.

Markkanen+Carter's value has tanked. Coby probably has little value. Zach has limited value no matter what you think of him simply due to his contract situation. All the helpful vets on the team that are the ones that actually make the team look semi-competent have next to no trade value. The upcoming FA classes look poor or filled with guys who have no reason to choose Chicago over their current situation.

This is basically a bad baseball team that also has a poor farm system, but also doesn't have any of that Dodgers/Yankees kind of rep. This is Sacramento in Chicago, right now. Everyone wants to avoid the treadmill. Well guess what, unless a huge roster overhaul happens, they are on the treadmill, right now.
d boy gentleman
Starter
Posts: 2,366
And1: 641
Joined: Jun 02, 2009
     

Re: The argument for Tanking: Why it works, and you just don't remember 

Post#269 » by d boy gentleman » Wed Jan 13, 2021 8:48 pm

Leslie Forman wrote:
d boy gentleman wrote:In other words, do something similar to what Miami has done: drafted well, remain competitive and make good trades. They didn't have the cap space to sign Jimmy, but had assets in order to acquire him.

Because Chicago has such an awesome track record of making amazing signings/trades for star FAs?

Everyone keeps bringing up other franchises.

What about what the Chicago Bulls have actually succeeded and failed at?


This is not true of the current regime that has only been in charge for a mere few months with no cap space or the ability to build a team or talent, so that can not be said of the current regime. Yes, it can be said of the former.

There is no evidence whatsoever that tanking is an effective way to build a team. It simply guarantees that your team will be bad for a long time.
MAQ wrote:Boozer, you're ballin, but quit **** celebrating, negro there is 3 minutes left.

slowmotion5587 wrote:Nazr Mohammed might be the most underrated dunk misser I've ever seen.
User avatar
Leslie Forman
General Manager
Posts: 9,254
And1: 4,910
Joined: Apr 21, 2006
Location: 1700 Center Dr, Ames, IA 50011

Re: The argument for Tanking: Why it works, and you just don't remember 

Post#270 » by Leslie Forman » Wed Jan 13, 2021 10:46 pm

d boy gentleman wrote:There is no evidence whatsoever that tanking is an effective way to build a team. It simply guarantees that your team will be bad for a long time.

I don't understand how people keep saying this when there is so clearly plenty of evidence that says otherwise, plenty of which has been brought up in this thread. Nobody is calling for some 10-year long tank here.

The Bulls have been doing the Charlotte/Sacramento strategy. That is what guarantees being bad for a long time.
d boy gentleman
Starter
Posts: 2,366
And1: 641
Joined: Jun 02, 2009
     

Re: The argument for Tanking: Why it works, and you just don't remember 

Post#271 » by d boy gentleman » Thu Jan 14, 2021 4:53 am

Leslie Forman wrote:
d boy gentleman wrote:There is no evidence whatsoever that tanking is an effective way to build a team. It simply guarantees that your team will be bad for a long time.

I don't understand how people keep saying this when there is so clearly plenty of evidence that says otherwise, plenty of which has been brought up in this thread. Nobody is calling for some 10-year long tank here.

The Bulls have been doing the Charlotte/Sacramento strategy. That is what guarantees being bad for a long time.


What evidence? Over the past 5 years, there has been no evidence tat a team that tanked has won the championship as a result. The poster child of tanking, Philadelphia have Embiid and Simmons but also whiffed on Noel and Okafor and haven't made it pas the 2nd round. Cleveland had an unprecedented 3 #1 picks and whiffed badly on Bennett and traded away Wiggins.

The Bulls have been in rebuild for what 3 years after they traded Butler and proceeded to tear it down, something many fans were clamoring for. Previous to that, they were in the playoffs which resulted in 1st and 2nd round exits. So no, they haven't exactly been going the Hornets/Kings route that have been in perpetual rebuild mode for years.

So called effective tanking is predicated on lottery luck and hitting on picks. If you don't, you set yourself back another 2-3 years trying to get it right.
MAQ wrote:Boozer, you're ballin, but quit **** celebrating, negro there is 3 minutes left.

slowmotion5587 wrote:Nazr Mohammed might be the most underrated dunk misser I've ever seen.
troza
Junior
Posts: 335
And1: 89
Joined: Aug 19, 2011
   

Re: The argument for Tanking: Why it works, and you just don't remember 

Post#272 » by troza » Thu Jan 14, 2021 8:13 am

d boy gentleman wrote:
Leslie Forman wrote:
d boy gentleman wrote:There is no evidence whatsoever that tanking is an effective way to build a team. It simply guarantees that your team will be bad for a long time.

I don't understand how people keep saying this when there is so clearly plenty of evidence that says otherwise, plenty of which has been brought up in this thread. Nobody is calling for some 10-year long tank here.

The Bulls have been doing the Charlotte/Sacramento strategy. That is what guarantees being bad for a long time.


What evidence? Over the past 5 years, there has been no evidence tat a team that tanked has won the championship as a result. The poster child of tanking, Philadelphia have Embiid and Simmons but also whiffed on Noel and Okafor and haven't made it pas the 2nd round. Cleveland had an unprecedented 3 #1 picks and whiffed badly on Bennett and traded away Wiggins.

The Bulls have been in rebuild for what 3 years after they traded Butler and proceeded to tear it down, something many fans were clamoring for. Previous to that, they were in the playoffs which resulted in 1st and 2nd round exits. So no, they haven't exactly been going the Hornets/Kings route that have been in perpetual rebuild mode for years.

So called effective tanking is predicated on lottery luck and hitting on picks. If you don't, you set yourself back another 2-3 years trying to get it right.


I'm not in favor or against tanking as it will depend on what we get.

But is winning a title the only thing that works? If that's so... sorry but no strategy is good enough to have a good % of success.

And saying that the Cavs didn't win because of the tank... they had Lebron before and won nothing... they got Irving and flipped another #1 for Kevin Love. They didn't won because of who they drafter alone but the tanking was essencial.

The same can be said about the Lakers.

So... at least 2 our of 5?
d boy gentleman
Starter
Posts: 2,366
And1: 641
Joined: Jun 02, 2009
     

Re: The argument for Tanking: Why it works, and you just don't remember 

Post#273 » by d boy gentleman » Thu Jan 14, 2021 9:47 am

troza wrote:
d boy gentleman wrote:
Leslie Forman wrote:I don't understand how people keep saying this when there is so clearly plenty of evidence that says otherwise, plenty of which has been brought up in this thread. Nobody is calling for some 10-year long tank here.

The Bulls have been doing the Charlotte/Sacramento strategy. That is what guarantees being bad for a long time.


What evidence? Over the past 5 years, there has been no evidence tat a team that tanked has won the championship as a result. The poster child of tanking, Philadelphia have Embiid and Simmons but also whiffed on Noel and Okafor and haven't made it pas the 2nd round. Cleveland had an unprecedented 3 #1 picks and whiffed badly on Bennett and traded away Wiggins.

The Bulls have been in rebuild for what 3 years after they traded Butler and proceeded to tear it down, something many fans were clamoring for. Previous to that, they were in the playoffs which resulted in 1st and 2nd round exits. So no, they haven't exactly been going the Hornets/Kings route that have been in perpetual rebuild mode for years.

So called effective tanking is predicated on lottery luck and hitting on picks. If you don't, you set yourself back another 2-3 years trying to get it right.


I'm not in favor or against tanking as it will depend on what we get.

But is winning a title the only thing that works? If that's so... sorry but no strategy is good enough to have a good % of success.

And saying that the Cavs didn't win because of the tank... they had Lebron before and won nothing... they got Irving and flipped another #1 for Kevin Love. They didn't won because of who they drafter alone but the tanking was essencial.

The same can be said about the Lakers.

So... at least 2 our of 5?


The Cavs won because LeBron decided to go back to Cleveland and didn't want to play with Wiggins. Love wanted out of Minnesota and the Cavs had the #1 pick that LeBron didn't want to play with; match made in heaven. Prior to that, they drafted Irving #1 and didn't win anything and drafted a bust in Bennett at 1. They won because of LeBron, not because they tanked.

The Lakers didn't tank; they were just bad, lucked into that 4th pick and traded it(along with Ingram and Ball) for Davis.
MAQ wrote:Boozer, you're ballin, but quit **** celebrating, negro there is 3 minutes left.

slowmotion5587 wrote:Nazr Mohammed might be the most underrated dunk misser I've ever seen.
User avatar
Leslie Forman
General Manager
Posts: 9,254
And1: 4,910
Joined: Apr 21, 2006
Location: 1700 Center Dr, Ames, IA 50011

Re: The argument for Tanking: Why it works, and you just don't remember 

Post#274 » by Leslie Forman » Thu Jan 14, 2021 10:26 am

d boy gentleman wrote:The Cavs won because LeBron decided to go back to Cleveland and didn't want to play with Wiggins. Love wanted out of Minnesota and the Cavs had the #1 pick that LeBron didn't want to play with; match made in heaven. Prior to that, they drafted Irving #1 and didn't win anything and drafted a bust in Bennett at 1. They won because of LeBron, not because they tanked.

The Lakers didn't tank; they were just bad, lucked into that 4th pick and traded it(along with Ingram and Ball) for Davis.

No TRUE Scotsman tanks!

If building a team with the players/assets derived from no fewer than 4 #1 picks doesn't count, then yes, I suppose absolutely nothing will suffice as evidence.

All the "LeBron just went back because he's from there" talk is BS IMO, if he had been drafted by some other franchise that did a better job of building around him, and he never spends his first 7 years with them, he never goes to Cleveland. That was a combination of unfinished business and a treasure trove of assets (all from, you know, tanking) he knew he could build a contender with.

And of course there's Tim Duncan, or the absolute monster of a dynasty SEATTLE :nonono: should have had, assuming they don't have a trash ass cheapskate owner.

If Philly doesn't find a new slant they are probably a monster of a team right now too.

Tanking isn't about guaranteeing success, it is simply about generating the biggest chest of assets a front office can work with in many different ways.
the ultimates
Analyst
Posts: 3,359
And1: 1,397
Joined: Jul 06, 2012

Re: The argument for Tanking: Why it works, and you just don't remember 

Post#275 » by the ultimates » Thu Jan 14, 2021 10:42 am

If you say you can't judge a tank by winning a title because winning a championship no matter what is tough I agree. Then the question becomes how do you judge what a successful tank is? Is it record before and after the tank? Playoff appearances, finals or conference finals appearances? You can't say tanking is good or smart when the tankers never want to give you any tangible metric to judge it by.
Losing to get high draft picks and hoping they turn into franchise players is not some next level, genius move. That's what teams want to happen in any rebuild/tank or whatever you want to market it as.
Onibuh
Senior
Posts: 627
And1: 188
Joined: Jun 23, 2017
       

Re: The argument for Tanking: Why it works, and you just don't remember 

Post#276 » by Onibuh » Thu Jan 14, 2021 11:01 am

Am2626 wrote:
Leslie Forman wrote:
coldfish wrote:That's why getting someone else's superstar is so much more effective. The people that most people expected not to be a superstar (Kawhi, Butler, Giannis) that someone else developed are in play.

So what's the plan to do this, seeing how the Bulls have also tried to do this many, many times, and are batting a perfect .000 on this idea?


Giannis is off the market as he signed the extension with Milwaukee. Butler isn’t leaving Miami. The leaves Kawhi who the Bulls would have to compete with 10 other teams to get. Those are not good odds. I don’t see any superstar the Bulls are in the drivers seat to get. They absolutely should try and get this player but the odds are heavily stacked against them.

The Nets weren't the frontrunners for Kyrie and Durant, yet they got both.
Kawhi to Toronto.

There will always be players on the move, there will always be chances to open up.
troza
Junior
Posts: 335
And1: 89
Joined: Aug 19, 2011
   

Re: The argument for Tanking: Why it works, and you just don't remember 

Post#277 » by troza » Thu Jan 14, 2021 11:37 am

the ultimates wrote:If you say you can't judge a tank by winning a title because winning a championship no matter what is tough I agree. Then the question becomes how do you judge what a successful tank is? Is it record before and after the tank? Playoff appearances, finals or conference finals appearances? You can't say tanking is good or smart when the tankers never want to give you any tangible metric to judge it by.


Is there any metric to this?

Look, if you get a guy that stays here for 7 to 10 years and you are a contender for the last 5 years he's here going to 1 conference final, two conference semi-finals while the guy is all-star, all-nba and MVP isn't that good but that means that tanking was successful?

Because this is a team game. One guy might not win alone. And tanking is just a part of the whole strategy... you still need to know what to do with the talent you get. Just tell me... the tanking by the Sonics/Thunder that got them Ibaka, Durant, Westbrook and Harden was not a success? The problem was that they traded Harden away too soon. But the tank was a major success.

And I'm not saying we should tank right now just for the sake of tanking (I just defended that on the season after Rose's injury... although we missed two tanks on potential drafts because we were bad and started to win... and none of those were impacted by wins in the first month of the season) but you can't just look at what happened and change the reality as you like.

There are tanks that have worked pretty well even without titles. Some of them because of the talent that was drafted, others - and maybe the majority of them - because they were ready to pull the trigger and take a chance with some great (even if a bit too old) players.

And some of them are connected to championship besides bad decisions (like the Cavs getting Bennet or whatever at #1) while others didn't get that title (just to stick to the Cavs, their tank in 2003) even if the decision was the correct one. But those two tanks were super successful.
the ultimates
Analyst
Posts: 3,359
And1: 1,397
Joined: Jul 06, 2012

Re: The argument for Tanking: Why it works, and you just don't remember 

Post#278 » by the ultimates » Thu Jan 14, 2021 11:52 am

troza wrote:
the ultimates wrote:If you say you can't judge a tank by winning a title because winning a championship no matter what is tough I agree. Then the question becomes how do you judge what a successful tank is? Is it record before and after the tank? Playoff appearances, finals or conference finals appearances? You can't say tanking is good or smart when the tankers never want to give you any tangible metric to judge it by.


Is there any metric to this?

Look, if you get a guy that stays here for 7 to 10 years and you are a contender for the last 5 years he's here going to 1 conference final, two conference semi-finals while the guy is all-star, all-nba and MVP isn't that good but that means that tanking was successful?

Because this is a team game. One guy might not win alone. And tanking is just a part of the whole strategy... you still need to know what to do with the talent you get. Just tell me... the tanking by the Sonics/Thunder that got them Ibaka, Durant, Westbrook and Harden was not a success? The problem was that they traded Harden away too soon. But the tank was a major success.

And I'm not saying we should tank right now just for the sake of tanking (I just defended that on the season after Rose's injury... although we missed two tanks on potential drafts because we were bad and started to win... and none of those were impacted by wins in the first month of the season) but you can't just look at what happened and change the reality as you like.

There are tanks that have worked pretty well even without titles. Some of them because of the talent that was drafted, others - and maybe the majority of them - because they were ready to pull the trigger and take a chance with some great (even if a bit too old) players.

And some of them are connected to championship besides bad decisions (like the Cavs getting Bennet or whatever at #1) while others didn't get that title (just to stick to the Cavs, their tank in 2003) even if the decision was the correct one. But those two tanks were super successful.


You can get all of those things from the first paragraph without tanking.

Seattle/OKC didn't tank. The pick that became Durant happened after their second straight 30 win season with Ray Allen who was 31 and didn't want to be part of a rebuild. So he was traded to Boston for the 5th pick that became Jeff Green. For the next two seasons and let their young top draft picks develop. That's not tanking that's what you do when you have high draft picks. The next losing season got them Westbrook they still lost games and the draft after that got Harden. None of that is tanking. That's we have a number of high draft picks that we need to see play.
Losing to get high draft picks and hoping they turn into franchise players is not some next level, genius move. That's what teams want to happen in any rebuild/tank or whatever you want to market it as.
DroseReturnChi
Analyst
Posts: 3,348
And1: 775
Joined: Feb 12, 2012
       

Re: The argument for Tanking: Why it works, and you just don't remember 

Post#279 » by DroseReturnChi » Thu Jan 14, 2021 12:52 pm

the ultimates wrote:If you say you can't judge a tank by winning a title because winning a championship no matter what is tough I agree. Then the question becomes how do you judge what a successful tank is? Is it record before and after the tank? Playoff appearances, finals or conference finals appearances? You can't say tanking is good or smart when the tankers never want to give you any tangible metric to judge it by.


a good tank is at worst top 5 that cannot win more than 25. mirotic job was treason and so is Lavine.
Nothings guaranteed but tanking is far more likely to produce superstars in a franchise only known for drafting well and one of the worst trades/fa destinations. AK himself admitted he is terrible and no FA is coming to windy city to greet a cheap owner.

Your patience seems to be running out but thats bc we never tanked properly under garpax after rose was gone.
For nearly a decade, theres has been abundant talent comparable as the mvp and yet the Bulls dont have a single one.
The current core is rotten as it gets bc all of their rookie contracts have run out and not even close playoffs. Mavs, Hawks were rather successful and thats tanking less than 3 yrs. Fans opposing tank are either casuals (lavine fans) or dont care abt championships and share gar pax vision.
God told Derrick to rise, so Derrick Rose.
troza
Junior
Posts: 335
And1: 89
Joined: Aug 19, 2011
   

Re: The argument for Tanking: Why it works, and you just don't remember 

Post#280 » by troza » Thu Jan 14, 2021 1:11 pm

the ultimates wrote:
You can get all of those things from the first paragraph without tanking.

Seattle/OKC didn't tank. The pick that became Durant happened after their second straight 30 win season with Ray Allen who was 31 and didn't want to be part of a rebuild. So he was traded to Boston for the 5th pick that became Jeff Green. For the next two seasons and let their young top draft picks develop. That's not tanking that's what you do when you have high draft picks. The next losing season got them Westbrook they still lost games and the draft after that got Harden. None of that is tanking. That's we have a number of high draft picks that we need to see play.


About my first paragraph... I'm pretty sure the Bulls had a run like that at the start of the past decade. Sure, Rose wasn't healthy for a long period of time but we didn't tank for him.

Even Jordan got here not because of a tank... If that goes a long shot, let's see... Lakers with Shaq was not a tank. Spurs with Duncan was not a tank (injury plagued season right on their best player for one year should not count as a tank). Rockets with Harden was not a tank. I don't remember some other cases that well... So, even if there aren't that many... there are probably more examples.

And even more of teams that tanked and got nothing...

About the Sonics/Thunder: having a young team and not pushing hard enough to win is not tanking... why not hire some veterans, why not hire a better coach? Why not trade Allen for someone with already some value instead of picks? Try to win and go to the playoffs even with a young Kevin Durant was possible... just saying. So they were bad kind on purpose. But ok, I can see this as a rebuild instead of a tank even though to me it is both simultaneously.

Return to Chicago Bulls