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

[HomoSapien]

Talking doesn’t work, especially with the new odds.

Now, if the Bulls get a Paul George or Anthony Davis level offer for Zach LaVine - sure, you probably do it.

But aside from lopsided deals, the best bet is maximizing assets - smart draft picks and smart free agent signings, and churning former picks and FAs to try to retain value - until you hit on a strong core.

Look at the current Pacers; Oladipo and Sabonis via churning Paul George; FA Malcolm Brogdon; great trade for Warren; one main draft pick in Turner, a secondary pick in Holiday.

Look at current Clipps - churned for Tobias, then into picks, had an over achieving squad with Beverly and Lou and Harrell that was able to attract Kawhi and George (enabling the overpay trade).

Houston churned players to get Harden, putting them in contention for 4-5 years.

We tried to do that with the Butler trade, but executed it pretty poorly with having to include a 1st round pick and then failing to develop Dunn and possibly Lauri into building blocks. You're right though, there's more than one way to skin a cat.

[Chicago-Bull-E]

Some interesting takes, I’ll respond in general.

The point of the OP was to note some varying types of tanking some by successful front offices. If your response is to define a successful tank as “being bad on purpose, needing to get a top 3 draft pick, and winning a final”, then I don’t think there is a discussion to be had here. But most of the NBA world defines tanking in much broader terms, so this rebuttal seems kind of silly to me.

I also preemptively addressed a lot of responses in the original post, so it seems like people read the title, and then grabbed their pitchforks. Which is fine, that’s life.

1. I believe the Bulls and the NBA are in a very unique situation this year. The Bulls have a front office that has no ties to anyone in the roster aside from Patrick Williams. I don’t think they care much about the past and who was picked where and who was signed when.

2. The NBA is also kind of playing out where the middle class looks like it will be large. Great teams are losing to bad teams night in and night out. Covid and injuries are leveling a lot of playing fields. What they could mean is more teams believe they are a roster move or two away from deep playoff runs.

3. So far, the veterans have been more impressive than the young players. OPJ looks great, Thad is shooting the ball really well, Lavine is winning us games. Coby is struggling, WCJ is struggling, Lauri is shooting the ball well but looks like a one trick pony more now than ever.

I think these circumstances could allow the Bulls to trade the vets that look good at the deadline for draft capital, essentially tanking for the rest of the season. They have a boatload of cap space to sign more vets, and this draft looks to be great at the top, not just 1 or 2, but much deeper.

[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.

Most of the good teams in the league are built through the draft.

Houston, LA, LA, Brooklyn are built through FA / Trades, Miami a combination (Butler isn't home grown but everyone else is).

Pretty much every other good team in the league is built through the draft. The best teams usually have the best players, and players (best or otherwise) don't tend to stay in one spot forever, so it makes sense that a lot of the really great teams aren't built through the draft, but at the same time, that's a difficult model to replicate because the reasons for star players choosing one or vs another are pretty bespoke and hard to model or repeat. Building well through the draft is a model that you can repeat / implement.

At the same time, you are right in that it is hard to fully tank. If you want to really tank, you need to do something like what OKC did. You need to get tons of extra picks and hit on a couple of them, but you're right in that its hard to develop stars and add enough around them quick enough. Ideally, if you can bottom out, actually nab a star, you typically also have tons of cap room, and have a few years where maybe you get 2-3 good players in the draft and can then add maybe a second star via FA and 2-3 other good players.

There really is no consistent model though. The main thing is you need to get lucky and land a star somehow.

Where I probably differ from many people is that I don't think players are set in stone when you draft them. I don't think that its superstar or bust within their first 6 weeks. I think that environment and coaching matters.

PWill is a perfect example in my opinion. I think he has the tools to be a great player but if not pushed, he could be a dime a dozen type wing.

Look at GS. In 2014 when they lost in the first round being lead by a not so athletic combo guard, a lot of the tankers would have said "tank". If they did, GS would be out 3 titles.

IMO, drafting well and then maximizing that talent goes a long ways towards building a contender. Just giving up constantly like the perpetual tank teams isn't going to get you anything.

I will say this: There is a scenario where tanking makes sense. When you have an elite player already developed . . . who gets injured. David Robinson for example. Just hurting your draft stock in a meaningless season developing players who aren't going to be there is kind of foolish. I have no issue with GS tanking last year in a similar situation.

[PlayerUp]

Literally, no current contender is there because of tanking, unless you call Philly a contender.

Lakers - FA destination
Clippers - Ditto
Boston - Suckered Billy King
Miami - Didn't tank
Denver - Didn't tank
Toronto - Didn't tank
Brooklyn - FA destination
Milwaukee - Didn't tank except for one year, for which it got Jabari Parker

Have I left any contender out? Meanwhile, several teams have tanked for years, so far with nothing to show for it.

No thanks. The evidence is clear.

Denver did semi tank, Bucks did semi tank, Toronto is not a contender, Boston didn't need to tank they were loaded with picks, Lakers tanked and it got them Davis, Brooklyn, Clippers major markets and Miami has a gifted front office. This is just a rare timing as well last year where the top teams weren't full out tankers at the top.

You also need a gifted front office. You can't win anything or get anywhere without it. They didn't need to tank because they made wise moves which is something AKME will need to do as well. Gar/Pax were absolutely awful at everything from the draft, free agency, trades and running the entire organization and tanking was their only option. With AKME, the verdict is still out. The goal here should be to strike gold once tanking and then do what he did in Denver and target high ceiling prospects after that later in the draft.

[Chicago-Bull-E]

Literally, no current contender is there because of tanking, unless you call Philly a contender.

Lakers - FA destination
Clippers - Ditto
Boston - Suckered Billy King
Miami - Didn't tank
Denver - Didn't tank
Toronto - Didn't tank
Brooklyn - FA destination
Milwaukee - Didn't tank except for one year, for which it got Jabari Parker

Have I left any contender out? Meanwhile, several teams have tanked for years, so far with nothing to show for it.

No thanks. The evidence is clear.

Denver did semi tank, Bucks did semi tank, Toronto is not a contender, Boston didn't need to tank they were loaded with picks, Lakers tanked and it got them Davis, Brooklyn, Clippers major markets and Miami has a gifted front office. This is just a rare timing as well last year where the top teams weren't full out tankers at the top.

You also need a gifted front office. You can't win anything or get anywhere without it. They didn't need to tank because they made wise moves which is something AKME will need to do as well. Gar/Pax were absolutely awful at everything from the draft, free agency, trades and running the entire organization and tanking was their only option. With AKME, the verdict is still out. The goal here should be to strike gold once tanking and then do what he did in Denver and target high ceiling prospects after that later in the draft.

On top of that , Philly is clearly a contender, especially if he wants to include Toronto. Philly has the best record in the league and they clearly have the talent to go far.

[RSP83]

I'm also not a supporter of losing intentionally AKA Tanking.

GMs pillars are:
- scouting and drafting
- salary cap management
- coaching staff
- trade and free agency

Get good at those. Tanking is not sustainable, you may land a Kareem Abdul Jabbar, but if you're incompetent in managing those pillars, your priced franchise player will leave you anyway (see Anthony Davis, Lebron). And I can't imagine how do you run a professional organization with Tanking as objective, to me that's like telling the staff to not do your job. If that's how, I can be an NBA GM, that's very easy.

Teams like us, we're not going to be too good this season anyway, so we'll naturally lose a lot of games. But the team should still play hard and try to win games. This is part of player development. While the team is playing hard try to win games, GM continue to look at all possible option to improve the team by working those pillars. To me poor moves by GM that result in prolonged losing is not Tanking, it's just bad GM-ing.

[MGB8]

Literally, no current contender is there because of tanking, unless you call Philly a contender.

Lakers - FA destination
Clippers - Ditto
Boston - Suckered Billy King
Miami - Didn't tank
Denver - Didn't tank
Toronto - Didn't tank
Brooklyn - FA destination
Milwaukee - Didn't tank except for one year, for which it got Jabari Parker

Have I left any contender out? Meanwhile, several teams have tanked for years, so far with nothing to show for it.

No thanks. The evidence is clear.

Denver did semi tank, Bucks did semi tank, Toronto is not a contender, Boston didn't need to tank they were loaded with picks, Lakers tanked and it got them Davis, Brooklyn, Clippers major markets and Miami has a gifted front office. This is just a rare timing as well last year where the top teams weren't full out tankers at the top.

You also need a gifted front office. You can't win anything or get anywhere without it. They didn't need to tank because they made wise moves which is something AKME will need to do as well. Gar/Pax were absolutely awful at everything from the draft, free agency, trades and running the entire organization and tanking was their only option. With AKME, the verdict is still out. The goal here should be to strike gold once tanking and then do what he did in Denver and target high ceiling prospects after that later in the draft.

Semi tank really isn’t a thing.

Picks in the 10-14 range are a “treadmill” team that isn’t good enough to make the playoffs that year.

Lebron got the Lakers Davis, not them sucking post Kobe. No Lebron, no Davis. No Ingram, Hart, Lonzo? Trade other players plus draft capital.

[cjbulls]

So we have 3 successful examples (some of which are a bit dubious) and 384 unsuccessful examples.

[PlayerUp]

So we have 3 successful examples (some of which are a bit dubious) and 384 unsuccessful examples.

Actually by "we" you mean the Bulls which only have 1 example and they tanked which got them Michael Jordan.

[The Force.]

I think the Bulls will tank by default.

Sure they've won a few meaningless games against inferior comp but once the schedule toughens up, I expect the losses to stack up.

Furthermore, there's a good chance AK is planning to move a major piece (or two) like LaVine at the deadline, resulting in losses galore. Right now the FO/coaches are evaluating and showcasing. If a team desperate to make the playoffs offers a good enough package, I see no reason why they wouldn't shake up the roster.



Sent from my SM-G960U using RealGM mobile app

[cjbulls]

Some interesting takes, I’ll respond in general.

The point of the OP was to note some varying types of tanking some by successful front offices. If your response is to define a successful tank as “being bad on purpose, needing to get a top 3 draft pick, and winning a final”, then I don’t think there is a discussion to be had here. But most of the NBA world defines tanking in much broader terms, so this rebuttal seems kind of silly to me.

I also preemptively addressed a lot of responses in the original post, so it seems like people read the title, and then grabbed their pitchforks. Which is fine, that’s life.

1. I believe the Bulls and the NBA are in a very unique situation this year. The Bulls have a front office that has no ties to anyone in the roster aside from Patrick Williams. I don’t think they care much about the past and who was picked where and who was signed when.

2. The NBA is also kind of playing out where the middle class looks like it will be large. Great teams are losing to bad teams night in and night out. Covid and injuries are leveling a lot of playing fields. What they could mean is more teams believe they are a roster move or two away from deep playoff runs.

3. So far, the veterans have been more impressive than the young players. OPJ looks great, Thad is shooting the ball really well, Lavine is winning us games. Coby is struggling, WCJ is struggling, Lauri is shooting the ball well but looks like a one trick pony more now than ever.

I think these circumstances could allow the Bulls to trade the vets that look good at the deadline for draft capital, essentially tanking for the rest of the season. They have a boatload of cap space to sign more vets, and this draft looks to be great at the top, not just 1 or 2, but much deeper.

Unless the Bulls are a .500 team at the deadline, I wouldn't call trading off vets near the end of their contracts as tanking. That's just good roster management. Tanking would be not playing Sato and using Dotson instead. Most fans are against tanking, but supportive of smart roster moves. They want the team to win but if it isn't likely and we will be losing players soon, let's get value for them.

[Chicago-Bull-E]

So we have 3 successful examples (some of which are a bit dubious) and 384 unsuccessful examples.

I brought up 3 examples I thought were interesting. The internet is littered with articles citing many examples.

But to your point, it’s actually the complete opposite. A small percentage of teams every year actively tank. The majority go out and try to win. And the majority of those teams fail, because there is only one champion. Many more examples of unsuccessfully trying to win a conventional route than tank.

[Chicago-Bull-E]

Some interesting takes, I’ll respond in general.

The point of the OP was to note some varying types of tanking some by successful front offices. If your response is to define a successful tank as “being bad on purpose, needing to get a top 3 draft pick, and winning a final”, then I don’t think there is a discussion to be had here. But most of the NBA world defines tanking in much broader terms, so this rebuttal seems kind of silly to me.

I also preemptively addressed a lot of responses in the original post, so it seems like people read the title, and then grabbed their pitchforks. Which is fine, that’s life.

1. I believe the Bulls and the NBA are in a very unique situation this year. The Bulls have a front office that has no ties to anyone in the roster aside from Patrick Williams. I don’t think they care much about the past and who was picked where and who was signed when.

2. The NBA is also kind of playing out where the middle class looks like it will be large. Great teams are losing to bad teams night in and night out. Covid and injuries are leveling a lot of playing fields. What they could mean is more teams believe they are a roster move or two away from deep playoff runs.

3. So far, the veterans have been more impressive than the young players. OPJ looks great, Thad is shooting the ball really well, Lavine is winning us games. Coby is struggling, WCJ is struggling, Lauri is shooting the ball well but looks like a one trick pony more now than ever.

I think these circumstances could allow the Bulls to trade the vets that look good at the deadline for draft capital, essentially tanking for the rest of the season. They have a boatload of cap space to sign more vets, and this draft looks to be great at the top, not just 1 or 2, but much deeper.

Unless the Bulls are a .500 team at the deadline, I wouldn't call trading off vets near the end of their contracts as tanking. That's just good roster management. Tanking would be not playing Sato and using Dotson instead. Most fans are against tanking, but supportive of smart roster moves. They want the team to win but if it isn't likely and we will be losing players soon, let's get value for them.

Again, as I noted in the OP, I think the majority of the world would consider tanking to be losing purposefully in the short term for a better long term outlook. If you don’t agree with that definition, then that’s fine, but many do.

[PlayerUp]

Literally, no current contender is there because of tanking, unless you call Philly a contender.

Lakers - FA destination
Clippers - Ditto
Boston - Suckered Billy King
Miami - Didn't tank
Denver - Didn't tank
Toronto - Didn't tank
Brooklyn - FA destination
Milwaukee - Didn't tank except for one year, for which it got Jabari Parker

Have I left any contender out? Meanwhile, several teams have tanked for years, so far with nothing to show for it.

No thanks. The evidence is clear.

Denver did semi tank, Bucks did semi tank, Toronto is not a contender, Boston didn't need to tank they were loaded with picks, Lakers tanked and it got them Davis, Brooklyn, Clippers major markets and Miami has a gifted front office. This is just a rare timing as well last year where the top teams weren't full out tankers at the top.

You also need a gifted front office. You can't win anything or get anywhere without it. They didn't need to tank because they made wise moves which is something AKME will need to do as well. Gar/Pax were absolutely awful at everything from the draft, free agency, trades and running the entire organization and tanking was their only option. With AKME, the verdict is still out. The goal here should be to strike gold once tanking and then do what he did in Denver and target high ceiling prospects after that later in the draft.

On top of that , Philly is clearly a contender, especially if he wants to include Toronto. Philly has the best record in the league and they clearly have the talent to go far.

Also he left off Dallas which tanked, got Doncic who is arguably the best rising star and a generational type prospect. Last years playoffs were an exception. Usually there are more tanking teams contending.

[cjbulls]

So we have 3 successful examples (some of which are a bit dubious) and 384 unsuccessful examples.

Actually by "we" you mean the Bulls which only have 1 example and they tanked which got them Michael Jordan.

How can you say there is one example, when you have the post-Jordan Bulls which have attempted multiple tank efforts. The Bulls did not tank for Jordan either. They wanted Hakeem too. I was too young to tell you whether or not they tanked. I only have read that Houston did. But considering the two years prior they were 34-48 ('82) and 28-54 ('83), their '84 record of 27-55 doesn't appear to be particuarly tankish in raw number of wins or consistency.

The next best team that was built here came in a season when the team deliberately chose not to tank.

[dougthonus]

Where I probably differ from many people is that I don't think players are set in stone when you draft them. I don't think that its superstar or bust within their first 6 weeks. I think that environment and coaching matters.

I think it matters some for sure. Someone like Kawhi may not have been destined to be a superstar as an example and his time in SA may have really helped mold him in that direction. He didn't scream superstar from the get go.

PWill is a perfect example in my opinion. I think he has the tools to be a great player but if not pushed, he could be a dime a dozen type wing.

A great player? I don't know, maybe in the sense that lots of guys have those tools. I don't see him as anything special in his combination of skills/athleticism at this point his career.

IMO, drafting well and then maximizing that talent goes a long ways towards building a contender. Just giving up constantly like the perpetual tank teams isn't going to get you anything.

This I agree with. If you look at what the Bulls attempted to do, it wasn't a bad plan out of the Bulter trade. They tried to get a lot of assets that could develop into something good, be bad for maybe 1 year, and then hope that those guys coalesced. It didn't happen, but the idea of getting Lauri, Zach, Dunn, and then being bad for a year gave you enough parts that it could have been intriguing.

I don't think you can ever commit to just being bad until you get a player, but when you get to a point where you really just don't have anything, doing a tear down and getting a bunch of extra picks like OKC (granted super unlikely anyone will get that many extras again, but just say 4 total extra 1sts spread out over the next four years and at least one of them with high potential) then being bad yourself and preserving capspace to get other assets via salary dumps potentially or to add real players as you bring in the roster makes sense to me.

I will say this: There is a scenario where tanking makes sense. When you have an elite player already developed . . . who gets injured. David Robinson for example. Just hurting your draft stock in a meaningless season developing players who aren't going to be there is kind of foolish. I have no issue with GS tanking last year in a similar situation.

Yeah, agree there too.

[cjbulls]

Some interesting takes, I’ll respond in general.

The point of the OP was to note some varying types of tanking some by successful front offices. If your response is to define a successful tank as “being bad on purpose, needing to get a top 3 draft pick, and winning a final”, then I don’t think there is a discussion to be had here. But most of the NBA world defines tanking in much broader terms, so this rebuttal seems kind of silly to me.

I also preemptively addressed a lot of responses in the original post, so it seems like people read the title, and then grabbed their pitchforks. Which is fine, that’s life.

1. I believe the Bulls and the NBA are in a very unique situation this year. The Bulls have a front office that has no ties to anyone in the roster aside from Patrick Williams. I don’t think they care much about the past and who was picked where and who was signed when.

2. The NBA is also kind of playing out where the middle class looks like it will be large. Great teams are losing to bad teams night in and night out. Covid and injuries are leveling a lot of playing fields. What they could mean is more teams believe they are a roster move or two away from deep playoff runs.

3. So far, the veterans have been more impressive than the young players. OPJ looks great, Thad is shooting the ball really well, Lavine is winning us games. Coby is struggling, WCJ is struggling, Lauri is shooting the ball well but looks like a one trick pony more now than ever.

I think these circumstances could allow the Bulls to trade the vets that look good at the deadline for draft capital, essentially tanking for the rest of the season. They have a boatload of cap space to sign more vets, and this draft looks to be great at the top, not just 1 or 2, but much deeper.

Unless the Bulls are a .500 team at the deadline, I wouldn't call trading off vets near the end of their contracts as tanking. That's just good roster management. Tanking would be not playing Sato and using Dotson instead. Most fans are against tanking, but supportive of smart roster moves. They want the team to win but if it isn't likely and we will be losing players soon, let's get value for them.

Again, as I noted in the OP, I think the majority of the world would consider tanking to be losing purposefully in the short term for a better long term outlook. If you don’t agree with that definition, then that’s fine, but many do.

Your definition is too broad. Almost every team is tanking then.

Teams don't always sacrifice wins in one particular season in favor of long-term winning and waiting for young players to improve. Easiest example, most of the teams not trading for Harden are tanking according to you. Boston, Denver etc. would all be better off with Harden now over MPJ or Brown.

You also have to keep your assets churning. Sometimes that means you take steps back. If you have Lauri who is ready to be an overpaid RFA and you trade him for some good assets before having to pay him, that isn't tanking.

And sometimes value is just too good to pass up. Was NO tanking by trading Jrue Holiday? Or were they smart to cash in on a player when his value was at its peak?

[RSP83]

So we have 3 successful examples (some of which are a bit dubious) and 384 unsuccessful examples.

Actually by "we" you mean the Bulls which only have 1 example and they tanked which got them Michael Jordan.

I haven't followed the Bulls during those times. So can't tell Rod Thorn was tanking to land Hakeem Olajuwon (who was the no. 1 player on his list). But that was pre-lottery, it was the coin flip era if I'm not wrong, I don't know how it works.

[Chicago-Bull-E]

Unless the Bulls are a .500 team at the deadline, I wouldn't call trading off vets near the end of their contracts as tanking. That's just good roster management. Tanking would be not playing Sato and using Dotson instead. Most fans are against tanking, but supportive of smart roster moves. They want the team to win but if it isn't likely and we will be losing players soon, let's get value for them.

Again, as I noted in the OP, I think the majority of the world would consider tanking to be losing purposefully in the short term for a better long term outlook. If you don’t agree with that definition, then that’s fine, but many do.

Your definition is too broad. Almost every team is tanking then.

Teams don't always sacrifice wins in one particular season in favor of long-term winning and waiting for young players to improve. Easiest example, most of the teams not trading for Harden are tanking according to you. Boston, Denver etc. would all be better off with Harden now over MPJ or Brown.

You also have to keep your assets churning. Sometimes that means you take steps back. If you have Lauri who is ready to be an overpaid RFA and you trade him for some good assets before having to pay him, that isn't tanking.

And sometimes value is just too good to pass up. Was NO tanking by trading Jrue Holiday? Or were they smart to cash in on a player when his value was at its peak?

My definition isn’t too broad. If the Bulls are a middling team led by OPJ and Lavine in a month, and trade those two players away for future draft capital, and then suck (because they will), 100% of the sports world will call it tanking.

[League Circles]

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.

X1000000

PLUS, Duncan was a 4 year college superstar, with MJ and Dream being 3 year college superstars. That is unheard of these days, and won't be happening again. So basically people are looking to replicate, idk, Moses Malone?????