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

[Chicago-Bull-E]

The logical argument against tanking can be found in the Lauri Markkanen thread. Lauri was a highly regarded lottery prospect. He was surrounded with a bunch of young guys who didn't know how to play and a coach who didn't know how to teach. The end result is that we really don't know what we have in Lauri and are either going to have to wildly overpay him based on potential, trade him for peanuts or just let him walk.

That’s not a logical argument against tanking being a legitimate team building strategy based on real world circumstances. It’s simply an example of it not working. Everyone already agrees that it’s unlikely to work. Just like every other team building strategy intended to build a contender.

We can all make lists of hundreds of examples of types of strategies failing. Doesn’t mean the strategy itself should be universally discarded.

I wish I could give multiple And 1s. I mentioned this initially, that the data of other strategies failing spectacularly is much greater than a formal tank. But no one seems to care, no one shouts at the rooftops "Building a title contender through free agency doesn't work, here are 200+ examples over the last decade"

[Bulls69]

All your choices are nonsense.

Teams that tank badly lose in the end. Lebron came back. If he did not they fail.


Ellis was more about him and Klay.

Build a winning culture. You can tank for a decade. It is a lazy man's approach.

I agreed The Bulls had numerous lottery picks over the last several years and they are stuck in the mud. Garr/Pax failed the Bulls with poor picks I have more confidence with AK guiding the Ship.

I know GarPax sucks and all, but I was just thinking they actually remained a good drafting team in the sense that none of their picks busted. I suppose WCJ may be heading in that direction but I doubt it. And you could count Dunn as a bust if trades count. But all of their picks are nba caliber guys with long careers relative to their draft slot. In other words, if you did a redraft every year, the Bulls player would be slotted around, if not better than, where they were actually picked.

They just were bad at ever hitting on a great player. That’s still fireable, but interesting to me because they didn’t actually fail on any one pick. The lesson should be high ceiling I suppose, because a bunch of average picks can’t overcome any one great pick.

Drafts are a crap shoot AK is more of risk taker we just witness that with the PWill pick our previous picks is the reason why the Bulls are still in the lottery. The main reason the Bulls can't attract any major F/A's is because the Bulls looks like they are always rebuilding mode we have the third biggest market yet they can't sign a decent F/A's.

[coldfish]

Since the Bulls last title there have been 9 different teams to win the title. Only 1 (San Antonio), did so driven by a top 3 pick they they drafted and stayed on the team. Most teams win titles with superstars picked in the middle of the draft or was acquired through free agency or trade.

Just as a reminder, Duncan was selected in 1996. Basically, it has been 25 years since a team got a top 3 pick and won a title with him. The Bulls and Houston got their guy in 1984 so you can probably move the goalposts back further and say "since 1984, only 3 teams used a top 3 pick to win a title."

There is a reason for this. When you tank, you rip the guts out of your organization. It bleeds into the team in a way that is hard to shed. You can get a great player (Antonio Davis, Shaq, Durant, Lebron, Durant, Kawhi) but not have enough time to build around him before he bolts.

The reality is that you are far more likely to win by building a quality organization and then adding a top level player THAT SOMEONE ELSE TANKED TO DRAFT AND DEVELOP than to tank and develop one on your own.

You are forgetting LeBron with Cleveland. While he came back as a free agent I don’t see him ever signing with Cleveland if they never draft him.

He only went back because he was from Cleveland. He would have signed there had he not been drafted there first. He was pretty up front about it and behind the scenes, his crew was pushing hard for it due to their ties.

[Ice Man]

Wouldn't surprise me if at the deadline you could move one of Thad, Sato, or Otto for late 1sts to contending teams depending on the situation.

Probably, but it's pretty low odds that a late first would move our needle. Even if we traded all three of them for three late firsts, the result would be very unlikely to be meaningful. Here, I will take a draft at random. 2015. The best three guys taken in the #21 to #30 slots are actually worse than those three guys. Hell, Bobby Portis might be among the top 3.

OK we will do 2014. The best three are Capela, Atlanta's Bogdanovic, and I guess Kyle Anderson. That ain't getting us anywhere either.

OK we will do 2013. Rudy Gobert, Tim Hardaway Jr., and I dunno Solomon Hill. Well Rudy is an actual asset.

OK we will do 2012. Oh Lord, I don't think any of those guys are still in the league.

OK we will do 2016. There's Siakam, then pray.

I mean sure, I am not against those trades, but even if we hit relative gold we would just get a pretty good player that we could acquire through other means. We would have to strike platinum to get a special asset. That is 50 players I went through, and only Rudy and Siakam were ever guys who couldn't easily be acquired.

[Am2626]

Since the Bulls last title there have been 9 different teams to win the title. Only 1 (San Antonio), did so driven by a top 3 pick they they drafted and stayed on the team. Most teams win titles with superstars picked in the middle of the draft or was acquired through free agency or trade.

Just as a reminder, Duncan was selected in 1996. Basically, it has been 25 years since a team got a top 3 pick and won a title with him. The Bulls and Houston got their guy in 1984 so you can probably move the goalposts back further and say "since 1984, only 3 teams used a top 3 pick to win a title."

There is a reason for this. When you tank, you rip the guts out of your organization. It bleeds into the team in a way that is hard to shed. You can get a great player (Antonio Davis, Shaq, Durant, Lebron, Durant, Kawhi) but not have enough time to build around him before he bolts.

The reality is that you are far more likely to win by building a quality organization and then adding a top level player THAT SOMEONE ELSE TANKED TO DRAFT AND DEVELOP than to tank and develop one on your own.

You are forgetting LeBron with Cleveland. While he came back as a free agent I don’t see him ever signing with Cleveland if they never draft him.

He only went back because he was from Cleveland. He would have signed there had he not been drafted there first. He was pretty up front about it and behind the scenes, his crew was pushing hard for it due to their ties.

If he doesn’t play for Cleveland in the first place I don’t see him ever playing there. When he was a teen he was a Bulls fan not a Cleveland fan. His ties are to Akron not Cleveland. Let’s say the Bulls get to draft him instead of Cleveland. You really think he would consider playing for Cleveland at some point in his career? That relationship was formed during his tenure playing for the Cavs and he needed to come back for PR purposes after the way he left.

[DuckIII]

Since the Bulls last title there have been 9 different teams to win the title. Only 1 (San Antonio), did so driven by a top 3 pick they they drafted and stayed on the team. Most teams win titles with superstars picked in the middle of the draft or was acquired through free agency or trade.

Just as a reminder, Duncan was selected in 1996. Basically, it has been 25 years since a team got a top 3 pick and won a title with him. The Bulls and Houston got their guy in 1984 so you can probably move the goalposts back further and say "since 1984, only 3 teams used a top 3 pick to win a title."

There is a reason for this. When you tank, you rip the guts out of your organization. It bleeds into the team in a way that is hard to shed. You can get a great player (Antonio Davis, Shaq, Durant, Lebron, Durant, Kawhi) but not have enough time to build around him before he bolts.

The reality is that you are far more likely to win by building a quality organization and then adding a top level player THAT SOMEONE ELSE TANKED TO DRAFT AND DEVELOP than to tank and develop one on your own.

You are forgetting LeBron with Cleveland. While he came back as a free agent I don’t see him ever signing with Cleveland if they never draft him.

He only went back because he was from Cleveland. He would have signed there had he not been drafted there first. He was pretty up front about it and behind the scenes, his crew was pushing hard for it due to their ties.

He only went back there because he’s from Akron AND because by being terrible they had accumulated the necessary assets to convince him they could immediately contend.

No tank, no LeBron in Cleveland. Either time.

[fleet]

It feels good but when its put into practice, it becomes a treadmill.

Step 1: Draft a player at #4
Step 2: Set up the team to lose
Step 3: Watch the team lose and then when the player is up for an extension, don't do it because the guy has never won and then either watch him leave for nothing or pennies on the dollar
Step 4: Draft another player at #4

Just as a general note, a team can only really develop 3 or 4 guys at once. When you put 6 or 7 guys on their rookie deals together, they start screwing with each other's development. Basic fundamental things fall apart and there is no one to keep things functioning well enough to learn. Massive numbers of picks and young players is a videogame philosophy that doesn't work in the real world.

Could happen. Probably will happen. But Giannis just proved one thing, the new max rules give teams in non-destination cities a fighting chanceto keep drafted franchise talent. And Chicago isn't as bad as Milwakee. And, whoever you traded for is leaving under the same duress in the alternative. You also don't have to sit around with all young kids if you don't want to if you were lucky enough to draft well on a bellcow. My overall thesis is, nothing works as much as anything else. There are no solid plans. But the draft is a possible wellspring for unusual success, as Duck said about which I agree to. It's fine to point out flaws in one plan, but everyone should remember that there are no better ideas than other ideas in terms of becoming finals teams. Detroit model? That's as rare as anything.

"Tanking" as most people define it is being purposefully bad enough to have a reasonable shot at a superstar in the draft - meaning a top 3 or top 4 pick - repeatedly. The issue is exactly what was discussed above - that the scenario Cold layed out "probably will happen."

Most really bad teams - bad enough to pick top 3/top 4 repeatedly, don't actually become contenders. The recent exceptions have been the Cavs, the Thunder (for about 3 years), and the Sixers. Of those three, only the Cavs having won (one) ring (because Lebron and Akron, not really because of Anthony Bennett and Tristan Thompson, though Wiggins netted Love). Only one of those teams remains a (possible) contender - the Sixers. And that tanking happened before the lotto odds were made worse.

Meanwhile, outside of drafting the rare "Lebron's" of the world, most teams get to contention level by smart drafting/trades or big signings, not tanking.

* Toronto (FA-or-trade for Lowry, swap Ross for Ibaka, late pick gold in Siakam, late pick silver in FVV, then the big trade for Leonard and Danny Green plus other trade for Gasol).
* Last year's Miami team (trade for Jimmy, gold mid-round-draft pick in Bam, FA Dragic, gold-UFA Dunn and Robinson, silver mid-round-draft-pick in Herro, FA Olynyk, trade for Crowder).
* Detroit's grime years (drafting Wallace and Prince, bringing in Sheed, Rip and not-yet-blossomed Billups).
* Dallas brining in Kidd, Chandler and older-Marion to surround Dirk. Boston's big 3.
* Building Golden State with a #7 (Curry), a #11 (Klay), a #7 (Barnes), a #35 (Draymond), FA Livingston and I think a trade for Iggy. The Warriors weren't purposefully bad to maximize lotto odds.
* Lakers with mid-round-pick Kobe and then FA in Shaq and trade for Pau.
* The Bucks with gold-mid-round-pick Giannis, FA or trade 2nd round gem Kris Middleton, FA Brook Lopez, etc.
* Houston getting Harden for Kevin Martin, Jeremy Lamb, and a couple of future picks...

Of course you can also just be a destination location for big FAs, a la Miami with Lebron or the Lakers with Lebron...

But remember that Brooklyn only attracted Kyrie and Durant (as a package) because Brooklyn started winning enough to make them a non-laughingstock.

Kawhi is gone to LA, and if the Bulls can trade for players like that or Jimmy, or Harden, be my guest. And do it at any time.
Detroit, that happened once in history, and once as a template.
Dirk was drafted first. I'm not sure this doesn't prove my point
Golden State drafted well. Hint: drafted. Give me more picks to draft and I will be exited.
Lakers are Los Angeles, nuff said. Shaq walked over, he isn't walking to Chicago ever. Nobody is.
Bucks drafted Giannis. See Dallas.

Don't get hung up on the term tank. just quit worrying about winning meaningless games for a minute and smartly gather some draft assets. The Bulls should have strategically tanked in 2018 for a better shot at a better player,and they should do it in 2021. It can work. All I'm saying. It depends on circulmstances. This current team likely isn't building out into anything worth worrying about sacrificing. If we're all wrong, they catch fire, great. If they don't, pull the plug at the deadline and try and get another pick. Whats wrong with it? The Celtics did well stockpiling picks.

[Chicago-Bull-E]

We just saw the Eagles do it it Sunday night in a prime time NFL game and people are killing the Jets for winning last week. It was ugly and will start the dialogue on NFL taking and they will probably reform the lottery like the NBA to stop teams from doing it.

I mean, doesn't that just show the hypocrisy of fans and the media, and why front offices shouldn't care at all what they say?

On one side, Jets fans were FURIOUS their team WON a game. That is protank.

This week, the media and fans were FURIOUS the Eagles lost a game. That is antitank.

These are two weeks apart from each other.

The NFL isn't going to do anything because it actually adds intrigue, ratings, and eyeballs to games that don't matter at all. They love the idea of the Jets taking up TV time when they are awful.

If you want to talk other sports, the Cubs had a large and well documented tank job that won them a world series. If that franchise didn't tank, they are still waiting 100+ years for a title.

[Am2626]

You are forgetting LeBron with Cleveland. While he came back as a free agent I don’t see him ever signing with Cleveland if they never draft him.

He only went back because he was from Cleveland. He would have signed there had he not been drafted there first. He was pretty up front about it and behind the scenes, his crew was pushing hard for it due to their ties.

He only went back there because he’s from Akron AND because by being terrible they had accumulated the necessary assets to convince him they could immediately contend.

No tank, no LeBron in Cleveland. Either time.

A lot of what LeBron did was also dictated by failing to win a championship (Cleveland) and then being embarrassed in the Finals (Miami). Had he gone to a team and won consecutive championships like Jordan did it is possible that he never leaves that team.

[coldfish]

The logical argument against tanking can be found in the Lauri Markkanen thread. Lauri was a highly regarded lottery prospect. He was surrounded with a bunch of young guys who didn't know how to play and a coach who didn't know how to teach. The end result is that we really don't know what we have in Lauri and are either going to have to wildly overpay him based on potential, trade him for peanuts or just let him walk.

That’s not a logical argument against tanking being a legitimate team building strategy based on real world circumstances. It’s simply an example of it not working. Everyone already agrees that it’s unlikely to work. Just like every other team building strategy intended to build a contender.

We can all make lists of hundreds of examples of types of strategies failing. Doesn’t mean the strategy itself should be universally discarded.

True.

Look at it more statistically. From last year, how many teams in the top of the NBA were built around a player they drafted high in the draft? From my perspective, only Boston. Even then, it wasn't their pick (Tatum). Everyone else built their team on mid round picks, free agency or by trade. Houston, Miami, LAL, LAC, Tor, Denver, etc.

As I noted before, virtually no team gets super bad, drafts a great player and goes on to become a title winner. That's tanking and it doesn't work. Like, since 1997 it has worked zero times. The other paths obviously aren't guaranteed success but they don't have a 23 year 0% success rate.

If your argument is that during the path of building up a team you should take a step back from time to time to step forward later, I can't disagree but that's a different discussion and not really tanking. Miami has done that to get Butler for example. They preserved capspace. That said, they didn't run their team into the ground to do it.

[MGB8]

The logical argument against tanking can be found in the Lauri Markkanen thread. Lauri was a highly regarded lottery prospect. He was surrounded with a bunch of young guys who didn't know how to play and a coach who didn't know how to teach. The end result is that we really don't know what we have in Lauri and are either going to have to wildly overpay him based on potential, trade him for peanuts or just let him walk.

That’s not a logical argument against tanking being a legitimate team building strategy based on real world circumstances. It’s simply an example of it not working. Everyone already agrees that it’s unlikely to work. Just like every other team building strategy intended to build a contender.

We can all make lists of hundreds of examples of types of strategies failing. Doesn’t mean the strategy itself should be universally discarded.

I wish I could give multiple And 1s. I mentioned this initially, that the data of other strategies failing spectacularly is much greater than a formal tank. But no one seems to care, no one shouts at the rooftops "Building a title contender through free agency doesn't work, here are 200+ examples over the last decade"

The majority of contenders this season were not built through tanking to get high picks. They were built through smart drafting - hitting gold in the mid-to-late draft, combined with smart FAs and/or trades. There is *one* tank team that is a contender this season - the Sixers. All the rest are not.

The Mavs are the next closest thing, but the team that ended up getting them in a position to trade up for Luka wasn't a tank team - Harrison Barnes, Wes Matthews, old man Dirk, old men Barea and Devin Harris, young (ultimately a bust) in Dennis Smith Jr., grimey-players Ferrell, Finney-Smith, and even Powell/Kleiber, and fliers on Nerlens Noel and Doug McDermott. That team was just hurt a lot and bad "by accident." (Similarly, the Blazers got Lillard on one bad year after 3 years in the playoffs, then only had one bad year with Dame before being back in the playoffs in the west).

If the Hawks become contenders - a pretty big if - then you'd have a 2nd "tank worked" team (where they dumped Millsap, Horford, Schroeder and sucked for a very long time).

Meanwhile, you still fail to factor in the reduced lotto odds - making being bad less attractive in terms of your chances of drafting high and getting a shot at a generational player.

[Ice Man]

He only went back there because he’s from Akron AND because by being terrible they had accumulated the necessary assets to convince him they could immediately contend.

Cleveland could also have accumulated those assets by not being terrible. Not Kyrie, specifically, but a .500 squad that could win the East by adding LeBron and some ring chasers. Tanking proved to be an effective path for Cleveland but not the only path that it could have taken.

I do not deny that tanking can get the job done, when the job is to accumulate assets that can accompany a generational superstar. But again, it is not the only path, nor is it the important part of the job. Getting the superstar is what really matters.

[MGB8]

The logical argument against tanking can be found in the Lauri Markkanen thread. Lauri was a highly regarded lottery prospect. He was surrounded with a bunch of young guys who didn't know how to play and a coach who didn't know how to teach. The end result is that we really don't know what we have in Lauri and are either going to have to wildly overpay him based on potential, trade him for peanuts or just let him walk.

That’s not a logical argument against tanking being a legitimate team building strategy based on real world circumstances. It’s simply an example of it not working. Everyone already agrees that it’s unlikely to work. Just like every other team building strategy intended to build a contender.

We can all make lists of hundreds of examples of types of strategies failing. Doesn’t mean the strategy itself should be universally discarded.

True.

Look at it more statistically. From last year, how many teams in the top of the NBA were built around a player they drafted high in the draft? From my perspective, only Boston. Even then, it wasn't their pick (Tatum). Everyone else built their team on mid round picks, free agency or by trade. Houston, Miami, LAL, LAC, Tor, Denver, etc.

As I noted before, virtually no team gets super bad, drafts a great player and goes on to become a title winner. That's tanking and it doesn't work. Like, since 1997 it has worked zero times. The other paths obviously aren't guaranteed success but they don't have a 23 year 0% success rate.

If your argument is that during the path of building up a team you should take a step back from time to time to step forward later, I can't disagree but that's a different discussion and not really tanking. Miami has done that to get Butler for example. They preserved capspace. That said, they didn't run their team into the ground to do it.

What we need to do is plant Billy Kings' and Scott Layden's around the league and fleece them!

[cjbulls]

The logical argument against tanking can be found in the Lauri Markkanen thread. Lauri was a highly regarded lottery prospect. He was surrounded with a bunch of young guys who didn't know how to play and a coach who didn't know how to teach. The end result is that we really don't know what we have in Lauri and are either going to have to wildly overpay him based on potential, trade him for peanuts or just let him walk.

That’s not a logical argument against tanking being a legitimate team building strategy based on real world circumstances. It’s simply an example of it not working. Everyone already agrees that it’s unlikely to work. Just like every other team building strategy intended to build a contender.

We can all make lists of hundreds of examples of types of strategies failing. Doesn’t mean the strategy itself should be universally discarded.

I wish I could give multiple And 1s. I mentioned this initially, that the data of other strategies failing spectacularly is much greater than a formal tank. But no one seems to care, no one shouts at the rooftops "Building a title contender through free agency doesn't work, here are 200+ examples over the last decade"

But the data of the other strategies doesn’t result in perennial 20-win teams that are borderline unbearable to watch as fans.

If tanking didn’t require you to be terrible and uninteresting, more people would be on board. Or if you only had to do it for a year or two. But that hasn’t been the case. Bulls fans are already tired after the last three bad years to sign up for 3-5 more, and even then have a marginal chance at even a conference finals contender.

[Chicago-Bull-E]

That’s not a logical argument against tanking being a legitimate team building strategy based on real world circumstances. It’s simply an example of it not working. Everyone already agrees that it’s unlikely to work. Just like every other team building strategy intended to build a contender.

We can all make lists of hundreds of examples of types of strategies failing. Doesn’t mean the strategy itself should be universally discarded.

I wish I could give multiple And 1s. I mentioned this initially, that the data of other strategies failing spectacularly is much greater than a formal tank. But no one seems to care, no one shouts at the rooftops "Building a title contender through free agency doesn't work, here are 200+ examples over the last decade"

But the data of the other strategies doesn’t result in perennial 20-win teams that are borderline unbearable to watch as fans.

If tanking didn’t require you to be terrible and uninteresting, more people would be on board. Or if you only had to do it for a year or two. But that hasn’t been the case. Bulls fans are already tired after the last three bad years to sign up for 3-5 more, and even then have a marginal chance at even a conference finals contender.

Of course they do.

Maybe not 20 win teams, but Chicago, Sacramento, Orlando are all teams that haven't actually tanked, and have even signed veteran free agents or tried to build with cap space. And it hasn't worked out, they're in a different kind of hell where they consistently draft at the end of the lottery and no one considers as real contenders (Orlando is off to a good start but I have doubts).

Building through the draft and "have the chips fall where they may" so to speak and signing support veterans fails all the time. It's probably the most common form of failure.

[Am2626]

He only went back there because he’s from Akron AND because by being terrible they had accumulated the necessary assets to convince him they could immediately contend.

Cleveland could also have accumulated those assets by not being terrible. Not Kyrie, specifically, but a .500 squad that could win the East by adding LeBron and some ring chasers. Tanking proved to be an effective path for Cleveland but not the only path that it could have taken.

I do not deny that tanking can get the job done, when the job is to accumulate assets that can accompany a generational superstar. But again, it is not the only path, nor is it the important part of the job. Getting the superstar is what really matters.

With today’s lottery odds outright tanking isn’t going to work. The last few drafts have shown that any lottery team with a bottom 10 record has a legitimate chance to get a top 4 pick. Trading away assets to purposely become worse is a recipe for disaster. If those trades yield future draft picks with the opportunity to be top 10 picks then that can work but it just can’t be made to make the team worst like what the Bulls did when they dismantled the Bulls Dynasty.

[MGB8]

That’s not a logical argument against tanking being a legitimate team building strategy based on real world circumstances. It’s simply an example of it not working. Everyone already agrees that it’s unlikely to work. Just like every other team building strategy intended to build a contender.

We can all make lists of hundreds of examples of types of strategies failing. Doesn’t mean the strategy itself should be universally discarded.

I wish I could give multiple And 1s. I mentioned this initially, that the data of other strategies failing spectacularly is much greater than a formal tank. But no one seems to care, no one shouts at the rooftops "Building a title contender through free agency doesn't work, here are 200+ examples over the last decade"

But the data of the other strategies doesn’t result in perennial 20-win teams that are borderline unbearable to watch as fans.

If tanking didn’t require you to be terrible and uninteresting, more people would be on board. Or if you only had to do it for a year or two. But that hasn’t been the case. Bulls fans are already tired after the last three bad years to sign up for 3-5 more, and even then have a marginal chance at even a conference finals contender.

This. Not to mention that your odds of jumping to contention from being a "treadmill team" aren't really any worse than your odds of jumping into contention from being a tanker. A "treadmill" team, a la Toronto (who was on the higher end of it) or Miami (despite lacking talent) is in a position to being a nice landing spot for a big FA or trade, and can also "strike gold" in the middle of the draft (or, if they just fail to make the playoffs, but still are a treadmill team, strike gold in the back half of the lotto or even get a 1.7% style bump, but with better odds).

[DuckIII]

Again, tanking is to acquire assets to help build. It does not mean only keeping and developing rookies. The Lakers are not the champs without LeBron OR tanking. They needed those high lottery prospects to acquire AD.

It’s a more nuanced issue than its being distilled to here. I also reject “championship teams” as the sample size. It should be any well built team capable of contending for its conference championship. And if we go back over the years we will find a strong percentage of such teams built through heavy reliance on their draft assets.

[coldfish]

I wish I could give multiple And 1s. I mentioned this initially, that the data of other strategies failing spectacularly is much greater than a formal tank. But no one seems to care, no one shouts at the rooftops "Building a title contender through free agency doesn't work, here are 200+ examples over the last decade"

But the data of the other strategies doesn’t result in perennial 20-win teams that are borderline unbearable to watch as fans.

If tanking didn’t require you to be terrible and uninteresting, more people would be on board. Or if you only had to do it for a year or two. But that hasn’t been the case. Bulls fans are already tired after the last three bad years to sign up for 3-5 more, and even then have a marginal chance at even a conference finals contender.

Of course they do.

Maybe not 20 win teams, but Chicago, Sacramento, Orlando are all teams that haven't actually tanked, and have even signed veteran free agents or tried to build with cap space. And it hasn't worked out, they're in a different kind of hell where they consistently draft at the end of the lottery and no one considers as real contenders (Orlando is off to a good start but I have doubts).

Building through the draft and "have the chips fall where they may" so to speak and signing support veterans fails all the time. It's probably the most common form of failure.

Out of the last 69 players taken in the top 3 of the draft, a grand total of zero of them have stayed on their team and lead them to a title.

Trying to build a team up slowly is unlikely to work but it doesn't have the 0% success rate that tanking does. As I have noted, there are legitimate reasons for this. You only have a guy under contract for so long. Once you have ripped the spine out of your team, its not easy to build it back in time to convince the great guy you drafted to stay. No one has been able to do it for a long, long time. Its never been done on anything that looks like our current free agency rules.

[TheSuzerain]

He only went back there because he’s from Akron AND because by being terrible they had accumulated the necessary assets to convince him they could immediately contend.

Cleveland could also have accumulated those assets by not being terrible. Not Kyrie, specifically, but a .500 squad that could win the East by adding LeBron and some ring chasers. Tanking proved to be an effective path for Cleveland but not the only path that it could have taken.

I do not deny that tanking can get the job done, when the job is to accumulate assets that can accompany a generational superstar. But again, it is not the only path, nor is it the important part of the job. Getting the superstar is what really matters.

lol what assets did they have other than Kyrie and the #1 overall pick that was traded for Love?

The anti-tankers arguing against Cleveland just look disingenuous.