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

the ultimates
Analyst
Posts: 3,364
And1: 1,401
Joined: Jul 06, 2012

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

Post#281 » by the ultimates » Thu Jan 14, 2021 1:28 pm

troza wrote:
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.


Seatlle brought in people to play the grizzled veteran/mentor role. If Ray Allen didn't want to stay there during a rebuild why would a decent vet go to Seattle unless they got vastly overpaid. Why do that and take away shots, touches, minutes, and development from Durant and Green. For coaching, they canned Carlesimo after one and half seasons and Scott Brooks took over and they were still bad.
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.
User avatar
Leslie Forman
General Manager
Posts: 9,299
And1: 4,928
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#282 » by Leslie Forman » Thu Jan 14, 2021 2:17 pm

the ultimates wrote: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.

That is EXACLY what "tanking" is.

I don't want to tank, I just, uhhh, want to really see what Pat Williams, Coby White, and Wendell Carter can do. Yup. That's all. Not tanking. No sir. We don't do that here.

the ultimates wrote:Seatlle brought in people to play the grizzled veteran/mentor role. If Ray Allen didn't want to stay there during a rebuild why would a decent vet go to Seattle unless they got vastly overpaid. Why do that and take away shots, touches, minutes, and development from Durant and Green. For coaching, they canned Carlesimo after one and half seasons and Scott Brooks took over and they were still bad.

They signed a bunch of Garrett Temples, not Otto Porters, Tomas Satoranskys, and Thad Youngs.
User avatar
coldfish
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 51,587
And1: 22,044
Joined: Jun 11, 2004
Location: Right in the middle
   

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

Post#283 » by coldfish » Thu Jan 14, 2021 2:31 pm

Onibuh wrote:
Am2626 wrote:
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.


I have made the list multiple times. Virtually every year, more than one top 15 or so player changes teams. Its so consistent that there is no serious point in debating who it will be. Would anyone have predicted Harden to the Nets 24 months ago? If not, how the hell can we know who will move 24 months from now?

Several things:
- Chicago can't fall in love with its players
- Chicago has to be willing to sacrifice a lot of draft picks

Many people won't be happy with this. The tank treadmill people in particular are always going to complain because the bar is set so high for them that its never going to be met. If you had a 21 year old Lebron or young MJ, these guys would have found reasons to tear down the team.
troza
Junior
Posts: 337
And1: 93
Joined: Aug 19, 2011
   

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

Post#284 » by troza » Thu Jan 14, 2021 2:48 pm

coldfish wrote:Several things:
- Chicago can't fall in love with its players
- Chicago has to be willing to sacrifice a lot of draft picks


Let's just add to be ready when the chance is there and change strategy as time goes by to try to be in the best possible position at that time.

And not spend on free agency on a lame plan B. (we kind of did it with success with Boozer - we needed him anyway - but still... I don't know if it was that successfull)


coldfish wrote:Many people won't be happy with this. The tank treadmill people in particular are always going to complain because the bar is set so high for them that its never going to be met. If you had a 21 year old Lebron or young MJ, these guys would have found reasons to tear down the team.


One justification I've read here is new management, new team... that's what happened in 1985... having a good scorer that everyone believed could go nowhere... that's pretty much where we are, except Lavine is obviously not Jordan and is a bit older than he was in 1985.

We need these players to look good, see where we are to know if we tank or not (not all in the worst record but tank to improve the odds when playoffs are too far away or injury strikes or something like that is better than give up with less than one month this season when we have players starting to get some value.
the ultimates
Analyst
Posts: 3,364
And1: 1,401
Joined: Jul 06, 2012

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

Post#285 » by the ultimates » Thu Jan 14, 2021 5:24 pm

Leslie Forman wrote:
the ultimates wrote: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.

That is EXACLY what "tanking" is.

I don't want to tank, I just, uhhh, want to really see what Pat Williams, Coby White, and Wendell Carter can do. Yup. That's all. Not tanking. No sir. We don't do that here.

the ultimates wrote:Seatlle brought in people to play the grizzled veteran/mentor role. If Ray Allen didn't want to stay there during a rebuild why would a decent vet go to Seattle unless they got vastly overpaid. Why do that and take away shots, touches, minutes, and development from Durant and Green. For coaching, they canned Carlesimo after one and half seasons and Scott Brooks took over and they were still bad.

They signed a bunch of Garrett Temples, not Otto Porters, Tomas Satoranskys, and Thad Youngs.


No that's not what tanking is. The Bulls when healthy start a lineup with the oldest player being 25 years old and with 4 top ten picks they drafted. Teams that are bad continuously are in the lottery that means they usually have a lot of young draft picks on the roster. You don't find who to keep, move, or who to build around without playing them substantial minutes. You don't bring in high-paid or above-average vets who could take touches, shots, and minutes from the guys you are trying to develop.

I have no idea how you of all people make that argument when every game thread whether the Bulls win, lose or are competitive you never give the young players credit. Lavine who you irrationally hate, White, WCJ, Williams doesn't matter its the same spiel of we wouldn't have been in this game because of the vets, we won this game because of the vets. Move out some of the young guys and Young, OPJ, Temple, and Satonransky you know that's actually called TANKING.
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.
User avatar
Leslie Forman
General Manager
Posts: 9,299
And1: 4,928
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#286 » by Leslie Forman » Thu Jan 14, 2021 5:52 pm

coldfish wrote:Several things:
- Chicago can't fall in love with its players

There are people here seriously advocating for giving Zach LaVine $200million. Come on man.

the ultimates wrote:No that's not what tanking is.

Yes, we know, literally nothing any team has ever done that results in a ton of really high draft picks meets your grain of sand sized definition for what constitutes "tanking."

the ultimates wrote:I have no idea how you of all people make that argument when every game thread whether the Bulls win, lose or are competitive you never give the young players credit. Lavine who you irrationally hate, White, WCJ, Williams doesn't matter its the same spiel of we wouldn't have been in this game because of the vets, we won this game because of the vets. Move out some of the young guys and Young, OPJ, Temple, and Satonransky you know that's actually called TANKING.

I hardly hate LaVine. The guy is an amazing shot maker. I predicted he would be better than Wiggins when they were both back in Minnesota. The board however, is going absolutely insane for a guy who constantly puts up negative on/off numbers, mediocre box score-based metrics, and has yet to ever have a winning season in his career. This is not a max contract type of player. And he is hindering Coby's development, as he is clearly not a PG but shows potential as an SG, which he'll never actually get a shot at with LaVine here.

And I have raved about Pat and think he is the young guy that needs to be built around, not the guys that were brought in, again, by the people everybody wanted fired.

But sure, I guess I'm just a hater for thinking this roster that has an SRS in the 20s for the fourth straight year is maybe not working out.
gobullschi
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,733
And1: 376
Joined: May 23, 2006

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

Post#287 » by gobullschi » Thu Jan 14, 2021 7:52 pm

Leslie Forman wrote:
coldfish wrote:Several things:
- Chicago can't fall in love with its players

There are people here seriously advocating for giving Zach LaVine $200million. Come on man.

the ultimates wrote:No that's not what tanking is.

Yes, we know, literally nothing any team has ever done that results in a ton of really high draft picks meets your grain of sand sized definition for what constitutes "tanking."

the ultimates wrote:I have no idea how you of all people make that argument when every game thread whether the Bulls win, lose or are competitive you never give the young players credit. Lavine who you irrationally hate, White, WCJ, Williams doesn't matter its the same spiel of we wouldn't have been in this game because of the vets, we won this game because of the vets. Move out some of the young guys and Young, OPJ, Temple, and Satonransky you know that's actually called TANKING.

I hardly hate LaVine. The guy is an amazing shot maker. I predicted he would be better than Wiggins when they were both back in Minnesota. The board however, is going absolutely insane for a guy who constantly puts up negative on/off numbers, mediocre box score-based metrics, and has yet to ever have a winning season in his career. This is not a max contract type of player. And he is hindering Coby's development, as he is clearly not a PG but shows potential as an SG, which he'll never actually get a shot at with LaVine here.

And I have raved about Pat and think he is the young guy that needs to be built around, not the guys that were brought in, again, by the people everybody wanted fired.

But sure, I guess I'm just a hater for thinking this roster that has an SRS in the 20s for the fourth straight year is maybe not working out.


I’ve seen tremendous growth from Coby White as a playmaker - which has far exceeded my expectations this early in his career. IMO, Coby doesn’t has a future as a full-time SG because he’s horribly inefficient. He can play some minutes there to spread the floor as an outside shooter, but if his three point shot isn’t falling, he disappears. That’s not what you want from a SG.

LaVine is not ‘hurting’ Coby White - he’s helping him because he require so much attention. The blame falls on the rest of the roster - not LaVine. WCJ and Markkanen need to start pulling their weight.
User avatar
Leslie Forman
General Manager
Posts: 9,299
And1: 4,928
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#288 » by Leslie Forman » Thu Jan 14, 2021 8:31 pm

gobullschi wrote:I’ve seen tremendous growth from Coby White as a playmaker - which has far exceeded my expectations this early in his career. IMO, Coby doesn’t has a future as a full-time SG because he’s horribly inefficient. He can play some minutes there to spread the floor as an outside shooter, but if his three point shot isn’t falling, he disappears. That’s not what you want from a SG.

LaVine is not ‘hurting’ Coby White - he’s helping him because he require so much attention. The blame falls on the rest of the roster - not LaVine. WCJ and Markkanen need to start pulling their weight.

I think it's the other way around. His NetRtg with LaVine was absolutely awful last year, and it's still awful this year. Having to put so much focus on running the point is taking away from being able to just focus on scoring, which he has shown way more potential at. Being a shooting guard who can be a secondary handler looks a lot more feasible than turning into a full-time point. Just look at Cleveland and Sexton - they gave up on turning him into a PG, let him just focus on scoring, and now he's blowing up.

If he still doesn't improve his efficiency much, well…guess what, he shouldn't be starting at all, he should be glued to the bench. He's obviously not a defender, so if he's not able to score efficiently for you at any position, it doesn't matter. It's not like he's Jason Kidd out there or something.
the ultimates
Analyst
Posts: 3,364
And1: 1,401
Joined: Jul 06, 2012

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

Post#289 » by the ultimates » Thu Jan 14, 2021 8:35 pm

Leslie Forman wrote:
coldfish wrote:Several things:
- Chicago can't fall in love with its players

There are people here seriously advocating for giving Zach LaVine $200million. Come on man.

the ultimates wrote:No that's not what tanking is.

Yes, we know, literally nothing any team has ever done that results in a ton of really high draft picks meets your grain of sand sized definition for what constitutes "tanking."

the ultimates wrote:I have no idea how you of all people make that argument when every game thread whether the Bulls win, lose or are competitive you never give the young players credit. Lavine who you irrationally hate, White, WCJ, Williams doesn't matter its the same spiel of we wouldn't have been in this game because of the vets, we won this game because of the vets. Move out some of the young guys and Young, OPJ, Temple, and Satonransky you know that's actually called TANKING.

I hardly hate LaVine. The guy is an amazing shot maker. I predicted he would be better than Wiggins when they were both back in Minnesota. The board however, is going absolutely insane for a guy who constantly puts up negative on/off numbers, mediocre box score-based metrics, and has yet to ever have a winning season in his career. This is not a max contract type of player. And he is hindering Coby's development, as he is clearly not a PG but shows potential as an SG, which he'll never actually get a shot at with LaVine here.

And I have raved about Pat and think he is the young guy that needs to be built around, not the guys that were brought in, again, by the people everybody wanted fired.

But sure, I guess I'm just a hater for thinking this roster that has an SRS in the 20s for the fourth straight year is maybe not working out.



I have never ever heard anybody say a team that's playing a bunch of young players to try and develop them particularly those that are high draft picks is tanking.
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.
gobullschi
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,733
And1: 376
Joined: May 23, 2006

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

Post#290 » by gobullschi » Thu Jan 14, 2021 8:58 pm

Leslie Forman wrote:
gobullschi wrote:I’ve seen tremendous growth from Coby White as a playmaker - which has far exceeded my expectations this early in his career. IMO, Coby doesn’t has a future as a full-time SG because he’s horribly inefficient. He can play some minutes there to spread the floor as an outside shooter, but if his three point shot isn’t falling, he disappears. That’s not what you want from a SG.

LaVine is not ‘hurting’ Coby White - he’s helping him because he require so much attention. The blame falls on the rest of the roster - not LaVine. WCJ and Markkanen need to start pulling their weight.

I think it's the other way around. His NetRtg with LaVine was absolutely awful last year, and it's still awful this year. Having to put so much focus on running the point is taking away from being able to just focus on scoring, which he has shown way more potential at. Being a shooting guard who can be a secondary handler looks a lot more feasible than turning into a full-time point. Just look at Cleveland and Sexton - they gave up on turning him into a PG, let him just focus on scoring, and now he's blowing up.

If he still doesn't improve his efficiency much, well…guess what, he shouldn't be starting at all, he should be glued to the bench. He's obviously not a defender, so if he's not able to score efficiently for you at any position, it doesn't matter. It's not like he's Jason Kidd out there or something.


I think it’s too early in Cobys development to over analyze statistics. He’s only 20 years old and converting to a new position. Maybe by the end of this year we will have a clearer picture, but with all the guys that have been out - it’s too early.

LaVine makes it easier for everyone on offense because of the attention he draws. The Bulls just don’t have enough players that can create their own shot.
User avatar
Leslie Forman
General Manager
Posts: 9,299
And1: 4,928
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#291 » by Leslie Forman » Thu Jan 14, 2021 9:07 pm

the ultimates wrote:I have never ever heard anybody say a team that's playing a bunch of young players to try and develop them particularly those that are high draft picks is tanking.

Direct from the horse's mouth at 2:00
User avatar
Jcool0
General Manager
Posts: 9,264
And1: 5,548
Joined: Jul 12, 2014
Location: Illinois
         

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

Post#292 » by Jcool0 » Thu Jan 14, 2021 9:23 pm

Leslie Forman wrote:
the ultimates wrote:I have never ever heard anybody say a team that's playing a bunch of young players to try and develop them particularly those that are high draft picks is tanking.

Direct from the horse's mouth at 2:00


Average age of Dallas starters in 2017-18 was 27. So they would not be a young team.
cjbulls
Analyst
Posts: 3,470
And1: 1,239
Joined: Jun 26, 2018

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

Post#293 » by cjbulls » Fri Jan 15, 2021 4:29 pm

Since the draft lottery began in ‘85, of the #1 overall picks, 6 guys have won an nba title (out of 35 obviously) as a key contributor

David Robinson (second banana to Duncan)
Tim Duncan
Shaq
LeBron
Kyrie (second banana to LeBron)
Anthony Davis (second banana to LeBron)

So 6/35, and even then there are only 3 that did it as the a true 1 or 1a player (interesting that all of the second banana guys relied on their other alpha #1 picks to get it for them). No one seriously thinks the three second banana guys could win a title on their own.

AND the three alpha #1’s were three of the highest touted prospects in nba history. That is not the case this year with Cade, who is a great prospect, but not on the level of Shaq/LeBron/Duncan as a prospect
dice
RealGM
Posts: 37,525
And1: 10,191
Joined: Jun 30, 2003
Location: chicago

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

Post#294 » by dice » Sat Jan 16, 2021 1:07 am

the ultimates wrote:
Leslie Forman wrote:
coldfish wrote:Several things:
- Chicago can't fall in love with its players

There are people here seriously advocating for giving Zach LaVine $200million. Come on man.

the ultimates wrote:No that's not what tanking is.

Yes, we know, literally nothing any team has ever done that results in a ton of really high draft picks meets your grain of sand sized definition for what constitutes "tanking."

the ultimates wrote:I have no idea how you of all people make that argument when every game thread whether the Bulls win, lose or are competitive you never give the young players credit. Lavine who you irrationally hate, White, WCJ, Williams doesn't matter its the same spiel of we wouldn't have been in this game because of the vets, we won this game because of the vets. Move out some of the young guys and Young, OPJ, Temple, and Satonransky you know that's actually called TANKING.

I hardly hate LaVine. The guy is an amazing shot maker. I predicted he would be better than Wiggins when they were both back in Minnesota. The board however, is going absolutely insane for a guy who constantly puts up negative on/off numbers, mediocre box score-based metrics, and has yet to ever have a winning season in his career. This is not a max contract type of player. And he is hindering Coby's development, as he is clearly not a PG but shows potential as an SG, which he'll never actually get a shot at with LaVine here.

And I have raved about Pat and think he is the young guy that needs to be built around, not the guys that were brought in, again, by the people everybody wanted fired.

But sure, I guess I'm just a hater for thinking this roster that has an SRS in the 20s for the fourth straight year is maybe not working out.



I have never ever heard anybody say a team that's playing a bunch of young players to try and develop them particularly those that are high draft picks is tanking.

yet that's exactly what the most notorious tanking team of all time was doing. the difference is that their young talent simply didn't pan out at first and they barely played anyone over age 25. they dumped their 3rd tier vets, sat any high draft pick with any sort of injury, and sifted for gold nuggets. which resulted in the development of robert covington

first year of tank:

2718 minutes for 25 year old #12 pick thad young
2414 minutes for 22 year old #11 pick MCW (won rookie of the year)
2309 minutes for 24 year old #20 pick james anderson
1886 minutes for 25 year old #2 pick evan turner
1765 minutes for 20 year old #25 pick tony wroten
1742 minutes for 22 year old undrafted hollis thompson
1666 minutes for 25 year old #10 pick spencer hawes

second year of tank:

-2311 minutes for 20 year old #6 pick nerlens noel
-1956 minutes for 24 year old undrafted robert covington
-1916 minutes for 28 year old vet luc mbah a moute (1 year deal)
-1776 minutes for thompson
-1399 minutes for 24 year old undrafted henry sims
-1377 minutes for 20 year old #39 pick jerami grant
-embiid sits entire year, MCW traded mid-season (no improvement) to the suns for what became an unprotected 2018 1st rounder

third year of tank:

-2154 minutes for thompson
-2066 minutes for grant
-1966 minutes for 24 year old #34 pick isaiah canann
-1965 minutes for noel
-1903 minutes for covington
-1809 minutes for 22 year old #8 pick nik stauskas
-1622 minutes for 27 year old vet ish smith
-1591 minutes for 20 year old #3 pick jahlil okafor (tears meniscus 2/3 of the way through season, sits remainder)
-embiid again sits entire season

saric and embiid joined the team the following year, grant traded for vet ilyasova, vet gerald henderson signed, and the tank was over
please be upstanding for the mayor of simpleton
dice
RealGM
Posts: 37,525
And1: 10,191
Joined: Jun 30, 2003
Location: chicago

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

Post#295 » by dice » Sat Jan 16, 2021 1:13 am

cjbulls wrote:Since the draft lottery began in ‘85, of the #1 overall picks, 6 guys have won an nba title (out of 35 obviously) as a key contributor

David Robinson (second banana to Duncan)
Tim Duncan
Shaq
LeBron
Kyrie (second banana to LeBron)
Anthony Davis (second banana to LeBron)

So 6/35, and even then there are only 3 that did it as the a true 1 or 1a player (interesting that all of the second banana guys relied on their other alpha #1 picks to get it for them). No one seriously thinks the three second banana guys could win a title on their own.

AND the three alpha #1’s were three of the highest touted prospects in nba history. That is not the case this year with Cade, who is a great prospect, but not on the level of Shaq/LeBron/Duncan as a prospect

good post overall, but david robinson's spurs won 55+ games 5 times before duncan got there...with sean elliott as his best teammate. as a rookie he took a pretty junky supporting cast to within a hair's breadth of the WCF. he most certainly could have won multiple titles w/ a good enough supporting cast. same is probably true of AD
please be upstanding for the mayor of simpleton
cjbulls
Analyst
Posts: 3,470
And1: 1,239
Joined: Jun 26, 2018

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

Post#296 » by cjbulls » Sat Jan 16, 2021 2:58 am

dice wrote:
cjbulls wrote:Since the draft lottery began in ‘85, of the #1 overall picks, 6 guys have won an nba title (out of 35 obviously) as a key contributor

David Robinson (second banana to Duncan)
Tim Duncan
Shaq
LeBron
Kyrie (second banana to LeBron)
Anthony Davis (second banana to LeBron)

So 6/35, and even then there are only 3 that did it as the a true 1 or 1a player (interesting that all of the second banana guys relied on their other alpha #1 picks to get it for them). No one seriously thinks the three second banana guys could win a title on their own.

AND the three alpha #1’s were three of the highest touted prospects in nba history. That is not the case this year with Cade, who is a great prospect, but not on the level of Shaq/LeBron/Duncan as a prospect

good post overall, but david robinson's spurs won 55+ games 5 times before duncan got there...with sean elliott as his best teammate. as a rookie he took a pretty junky supporting cast to within a hair's breadth of the WCF. he most certainly could have won multiple titles w/ a good enough supporting cast. same is probably true of AD


The tankers say one of the worst things you can be is the Utah Jazz, a perennial 50 win team like Robinson made the Spurs. Tankers are essentially dynasty or bust.

My only point was to say he’s not a championship as the leading guy, guy. I’d be very happy with an Admiral-like talent and winning team, even if they never win a title.
dice
RealGM
Posts: 37,525
And1: 10,191
Joined: Jun 30, 2003
Location: chicago

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

Post#297 » by dice » Sat Jan 16, 2021 3:32 am

cjbulls wrote:
dice wrote:
cjbulls wrote:Since the draft lottery began in ‘85, of the #1 overall picks, 6 guys have won an nba title (out of 35 obviously) as a key contributor

David Robinson (second banana to Duncan)
Tim Duncan
Shaq
LeBron
Kyrie (second banana to LeBron)
Anthony Davis (second banana to LeBron)

So 6/35, and even then there are only 3 that did it as the a true 1 or 1a player (interesting that all of the second banana guys relied on their other alpha #1 picks to get it for them). No one seriously thinks the three second banana guys could win a title on their own.

AND the three alpha #1’s were three of the highest touted prospects in nba history. That is not the case this year with Cade, who is a great prospect, but not on the level of Shaq/LeBron/Duncan as a prospect

good post overall, but david robinson's spurs won 55+ games 5 times before duncan got there...with sean elliott as his best teammate. as a rookie he took a pretty junky supporting cast to within a hair's breadth of the WCF. he most certainly could have won multiple titles w/ a good enough supporting cast. same is probably true of AD


The tankers say one of the worst things you can be is the Utah Jazz, a perennial 50 win team like Robinson made the Spurs. Tankers are essentially dynasty or bust.

My only point was to say he’s not a championship as the leading guy, guy. I’d be very happy with an Admiral-like talent and winning team, even if they never win a title.

sure. this is about entertainment value, not hardware. does anybody here think they wasted their time following the bulls when thibs was here?
please be upstanding for the mayor of simpleton
Butler4thewin
Bench Warmer
Posts: 1,378
And1: 440
Joined: Jan 07, 2017
   

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

Post#298 » by Butler4thewin » Sat Jan 16, 2021 3:46 am

**** this trade everyone except pwill and start over im done with this crap
d boy gentleman
Starter
Posts: 2,377
And1: 650
Joined: Jun 02, 2009
     

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

Post#299 » by d boy gentleman » Sat Jan 16, 2021 4:22 am

Butler4thewin wrote:**** this trade everyone except pwill and start over im done with this crap


And then you're 3 years away from being 3 years away...
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.
Am2626
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,944
And1: 585
Joined: Jul 13, 2013

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

Post#300 » by Am2626 » Sat Jan 16, 2021 5:27 am

cjbulls wrote:Since the draft lottery began in ‘85, of the #1 overall picks, 6 guys have won an nba title (out of 35 obviously) as a key contributor

David Robinson (second banana to Duncan)
Tim Duncan
Shaq
LeBron
Kyrie (second banana to LeBron)
Anthony Davis (second banana to LeBron)

So 6/35, and even then there are only 3 that did it as the a true 1 or 1a player (interesting that all of the second banana guys relied on their other alpha #1 picks to get it for them). No one seriously thinks the three second banana guys could win a title on their own.

AND the three alpha #1’s were three of the highest touted prospects in nba history. That is not the case this year with Cade, who is a great prospect, but not on the level of Shaq/LeBron/Duncan as a prospect


It’s not having to get the number 1 pick or bust. In a good draft like the one coming up a top 5 pick can get you a franchise player.

Return to Chicago Bulls