Image ImageImage Image

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

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

Am2626
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,944
And1: 585
Joined: Jul 13, 2013

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

Post#201 » by Am2626 » Thu Jan 7, 2021 5:48 pm

the ultimates wrote:
Am2626 wrote:
coldfish wrote:Just to address the OP



This completely ignores the facts that:
- The original tank job functionally failed, despite the fact that they drafted the second best player of all time
- The team only came together and won because the second best player of all time was pissed off at Riley and he is from Cleveland.

This was not a successful tank job.



The Warriors were a slow build. If you read the post game thread, the tankers would have blown up the Warriors when they lost in the first round. They were a mediocre team built on an oft injured, athletically limited combo guard at that time. Tankers would have seen no future and broke the team up in hopes of doing better in the draft . . . than Steph Curry.

Monta Ellis sucked. He was extremely unpopular among the basketball purists and analytics guys.

If anything, the GS route is what I would advocate. Let the team gel and incrementally improve them over time. Don't intentionally set them up to fail.


I think the greatest tank job was what Seattle/ OKC did when they traded away Ray Allen and then drafted Durant, Westbrook, and Harden in consecutive drafts. If they were in a big market the team would have been able to keep all 3 and I think they would have been a dynasty. They got to the finals very quickly with that core. They just didn’t have the money to keep Harden.


Sea/OKC didn't tank for any of those picks though. They had Ray who was still playing at an all-star level but was 31 and coming off of 31 and 35 win seasons when they drafted Durant. Ray had made it known that he wanted to try and compete for a title and didn't want to be a part of a rebuild. So he was dealt to Boston for the 5th pick in the 07-08 draft Jeff Green.

With two top five picks in Durant and Green OKC won 20 and 23 games over the next two years. Those were the drafts they got Westbrook and then Harden.


Trading Allen was all about starting a rebuild. It would be stupid not to get anything back for someone who was a superstar at the time. By trading him they made the decision to rebuild and get worst in the short term while accumulating young Talent (Green). By being worst they were able to be in a position to draft Westbrook and Harden in the next 2 drafts. If anything their rebuild was a major success in part because they were able to draft 3 future Hall of Famers is 3 consecutive drafts. If they kept Ray Allen they would not have been bad enough to draft Westbrook and Harden. Given how great Durant was, a case could be made that OKC could have built a team around Durant and Allen but with Allen declining they made the right decision in trading him. As mentioned if Harden never gets traded that core wins multiple championships.
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#202 » by the ultimates » Thu Jan 7, 2021 6:05 pm

Am2626 wrote:
the ultimates wrote:
Am2626 wrote:
I think the greatest tank job was what Seattle/ OKC did when they traded away Ray Allen and then drafted Durant, Westbrook, and Harden in consecutive drafts. If they were in a big market the team would have been able to keep all 3 and I think they would have been a dynasty. They got to the finals very quickly with that core. They just didn’t have the money to keep Harden.


Sea/OKC didn't tank for any of those picks though. They had Ray who was still playing at an all-star level but was 31 and coming off of 31 and 35 win seasons when they drafted Durant. Ray had made it known that he wanted to try and compete for a title and didn't want to be a part of a rebuild. So he was dealt to Boston for the 5th pick in the 07-08 draft Jeff Green.

With two top five picks in Durant and Green OKC won 20 and 23 games over the next two years. Those were the drafts they got Westbrook and then Harden.


Trading Allen was all about starting a rebuild. It would be stupid not to get anything back for someone who was a superstar at the time. By trading him they made the decision to rebuild and get worst in the short term while accumulating young Talent (Green). By being worst they were able to be in a position to draft Westbrook and Harden in the next 2 drafts. If anything their rebuild was a major success in part because they were able to draft 3 future Hall of Famers is 3 consecutive drafts. If they kept Ray Allen they would not have been bad enough to draft Westbrook and Harden. Given how great Durant was, a case could be made that OKC could have built a team around Durant and Allen but with Allen declining they made the right decision in trading him. As mentioned if Harden never gets traded that core wins multiple championships.


The rebuild was a success and probably would have yielded titles if they kept Harden but it didn't happen because of 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.
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#203 » by Am2626 » Thu Jan 7, 2021 6:29 pm

the ultimates wrote:
Am2626 wrote:
the ultimates wrote:
Sea/OKC didn't tank for any of those picks though. They had Ray who was still playing at an all-star level but was 31 and coming off of 31 and 35 win seasons when they drafted Durant. Ray had made it known that he wanted to try and compete for a title and didn't want to be a part of a rebuild. So he was dealt to Boston for the 5th pick in the 07-08 draft Jeff Green.

With two top five picks in Durant and Green OKC won 20 and 23 games over the next two years. Those were the drafts they got Westbrook and then Harden.


Trading Allen was all about starting a rebuild. It would be stupid not to get anything back for someone who was a superstar at the time. By trading him they made the decision to rebuild and get worst in the short term while accumulating young Talent (Green). By being worst they were able to be in a position to draft Westbrook and Harden in the next 2 drafts. If anything their rebuild was a major success in part because they were able to draft 3 future Hall of Famers is 3 consecutive drafts. If they kept Ray Allen they would not have been bad enough to draft Westbrook and Harden. Given how great Durant was, a case could be made that OKC could have built a team around Durant and Allen but with Allen declining they made the right decision in trading him. As mentioned if Harden never gets traded that core wins multiple championships.


The rebuild was a success and probably would have yielded titles if they kept Harden but it didn't happen because of tanking.


They didn’t keep Harden because they didn’t want to pay to keep him. If this were New York or Los Angeles they never trade him.
ATRAIN53
Head Coach
Posts: 6,550
And1: 1,959
Joined: Dec 14, 2007
Location: Chicago

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

Post#204 » by ATRAIN53 » Thu Jan 7, 2021 6:54 pm

I was thinking a little more about this Tanking thing as the Bulls starting Lineup was coming out last night-

All 5 of therm ARE Lottery Picks

Zach is actually the lowest at #13

Denzel, Markkanenn and even 'ol Thad are Lottery Picks too.

So maybe we do have 8 guys that might support this tanking argument!
cjbulls
Analyst
Posts: 3,471
And1: 1,242
Joined: Jun 26, 2018

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

Post#205 » by cjbulls » Thu Jan 7, 2021 7:00 pm

Am2626 wrote:
the ultimates wrote:
Am2626 wrote:
Trading Allen was all about starting a rebuild. It would be stupid not to get anything back for someone who was a superstar at the time. By trading him they made the decision to rebuild and get worst in the short term while accumulating young Talent (Green). By being worst they were able to be in a position to draft Westbrook and Harden in the next 2 drafts. If anything their rebuild was a major success in part because they were able to draft 3 future Hall of Famers is 3 consecutive drafts. If they kept Ray Allen they would not have been bad enough to draft Westbrook and Harden. Given how great Durant was, a case could be made that OKC could have built a team around Durant and Allen but with Allen declining they made the right decision in trading him. As mentioned if Harden never gets traded that core wins multiple championships.


The rebuild was a success and probably would have yielded titles if they kept Harden but it didn't happen because of tanking.


They didn’t keep Harden because they didn’t want to pay to keep him. If this were New York or Los Angeles they never trade him.


Not exactly true as they went into the luxury tax in future years, although I agree money was the biggest factor. They had the problem all tanking teams do. They had to make a decision on a player a few years in, when they haven’t really developed yet.

So you need to absolutely nail it in the first few years or you are caught in no mans land deciding whether it’s smart to max out your very talented 6th man.
Ice Man
Forum Mod - Bulls
Forum Mod - Bulls
Posts: 21,876
And1: 10,289
Joined: Apr 19, 2011

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

Post#206 » by Ice Man » Thu Jan 7, 2021 10:31 pm

ATRAIN53 wrote:I was thinking a little more about this Tanking thing as the Bulls starting Lineup was coming out last night-

All 5 of therm ARE Lottery Picks

Zach is actually the lowest at #13

Denzel, Markkanenn and even 'ol Thad are Lottery Picks too.

So maybe we do have 8 guys that might support this tanking argument!


GaxPax were enamored with lottery picks. They grabbed Vonleh off the scrap head because he was a #9, Jabari because he was a #2, traded for Porter because he was a #4, traded for Cam Payne because he was a #13, traded for MCW because he was an #11, and of course swapped Butler for three lottery players. On the flip side, they moved non-lottery Butler, non-lottery Niko, non-lottery Snell, and non-lottery Portis. (They also moved lottery Doug.)

So yeah, it's not surprising that the team consists of lottery picks! That's how GarPax rolled.
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#207 » by Leslie Forman » Fri Jan 8, 2021 1:22 am

MrSparkle wrote:You literally have to be the worst team in the NBA to guarantee a top-5 pick, and that is a tall order. You need a horrible coach, a horrible roster on the front and back ends, tons of injuries, and essentially aggressively plan to be the worst team in the league with a series of talent dumps.

Just dump one of Porter or LaVine and that alone might be enough. Get rid of both, don't bother signing Temple, and worst record is about as close to an absolute, flat out guarantee as you can get, just like dumping Mirotic and Lopez would have been. And it's not a tank of course, it's, ahhh…"throwing our young guys in the fire" and "focusing on development" or some other BS excuse.

The fans ate it up and somehow overwhelmingly supported the dumping of a freakin' top-10 player in his prime who didn't want to leave, they'd certainly eat it up again for some far inferior players with even murkier contract situations.

MrSparkle wrote:There is no evidence that 6-10 picks generate more superstars than the mid round. For like the 10th year in a row, the 11-20 guys are looking better than the 6-10. I don't know why this funny coincidence is the case, but it is. IMO, the reality is that development or raw talent is simply a much bigger piece of the pie than drafting on prep/college credentials.

1. Why are you comparing a group of 5 guys to a group of 10
2. You sure about that? Because the links Chicago-Bull-E posted earlier in the thread suggest the complete opposite, even with the huge disparity in sample size volume.

Here's an image of the findings, if you don't feel like reading:

Image

I don't know why this is even still an argument. Higher pick > lower pick. This is not a discussion about Palestine and Israel or something. There is simply no rational argument to suggest otherwise. The worst case scenario, which is exactly what you should be prepared for, also obviously gets worse and worse the further down you go.

If the argument is "I just can't mentally support losing on purpose," that, I would totally understand. Were American leagues like foreign ones, with relegation and/or without a draft, I'd feel the same way too.

But this is America, there's no relegation, and our sports still have these stupid drafts to provide a handout to bad teams.

I should note that I absolutely hate wanting losses too, but unless the draft gets abolished (I know, it's never happening), well…it is what it is.
MrSparkle
RealGM
Posts: 16,791
And1: 6,187
Joined: Jul 31, 2003
Location: chicago

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

Post#208 » by MrSparkle » Fri Jan 8, 2021 2:55 am

Leslie Forman wrote:
MrSparkle wrote:You literally have to be the worst team in the NBA to guarantee a top-5 pick, and that is a tall order. You need a horrible coach, a horrible roster on the front and back ends, tons of injuries, and essentially aggressively plan to be the worst team in the league with a series of talent dumps.

Just dump one of Porter or LaVine and that alone might be enough. Get rid of both, don't bother signing Temple, and worst record is about as close to an absolute, flat out guarantee as you can get, just like dumping Mirotic and Lopez would have been. And it's not a tank of course, it's, ahhh…"throwing our young guys in the fire" and "focusing on development" or some other BS excuse.

The fans ate it up and somehow overwhelmingly supported the dumping of a freakin' top-10 player in his prime who didn't want to leave, they'd certainly eat it up again for some far inferior players with even murkier contract situations.

MrSparkle wrote:There is no evidence that 6-10 picks generate more superstars than the mid round. For like the 10th year in a row, the 11-20 guys are looking better than the 6-10. I don't know why this funny coincidence is the case, but it is. IMO, the reality is that development or raw talent is simply a much bigger piece of the pie than drafting on prep/college credentials.

1. Why are you comparing a group of 5 guys to a group of 10
2. You sure about that? Because the links Chicago-Bull-E posted earlier in the thread suggest the complete opposite, even with the huge disparity in sample size volume.

Here's an image of the findings, if you don't feel like reading:

Image

I don't know why this is even still an argument. Higher pick > lower pick. This is not a discussion about Palestine and Israel or something. There is simply no rational argument to suggest otherwise. The worst case scenario, which is exactly what you should be prepared for, also obviously gets worse and worse the further down you go.

If the argument is "I just can't mentally support losing on purpose," that, I would totally understand. Were American leagues like foreign ones, with relegation and/or without a draft, I'd feel the same way too.

But this is America, there's no relegation, and our sports still have these stupid drafts to provide a handout to bad teams.

I should note that I absolutely hate wanting losses too, but unless the draft gets abolished (I know, it's never happening), well…it is what it is.


All I'm gonna say, is the color chart statistics are true in the long-term, but they also mostly don't have a direct correlation to winning championships. Obviously a #1 pick has a much better chance of stardom than a 14th pick, but you aren't weighing in the cost of tanking. IE becoming so bad that approximately 2 players at best have any trade value on your garbage roster (or in the Bulls' cast the past few years, absolutely zero positive trade assets besides their FRP), and also becoming so bad your best FA bets are attracting a 32yo Thaddeus Young for a $15m bench role.

Portland drafted a stud at #6 in Lillard, it was gift-wrapped to them by the worst GM ever in the dumbest trade ever (Gerald Wallace). They had talent on the roster. They later added talent to the roster. At no point in Portland's span with Lillard have I seen Portland resemble anything more than a long-shot contender. I would be absolutely thrilled if we ever drafted somebody as good as Lillard who lasted more than 5 years in a Bulls uniform.

In the macro, I just think a culmination of your trades, signings AND draft picks is more important than putting all your marbles into tank drafting, where you essentially nuke your trade and FA market.

Now is the OKC route one I would've taken? Yeah, back in 2015 or 16, when we had multiple "all-stars" on expiring contracts with a team that was secretly running on Jimmy's shoulders with a little help from Aaron Brooks, Taj and a 1-legged Pau. I was screaming for Noah, Taj, Doug/Dunleavy/Pau/etc. trades before the Hoiberg effect completely wrecked the squad.

But you can't pull an OKC off-season after 3 years of bottom-barrel losing. You're resetting a reset, which is totally Minnesota and Sacramento territory.

If Otto, Lauri and Thad command FRPs , then sure, I'm listening. Up until about 2 weeks ago, I feel like their value was negative (as in, we send a 2nd rd pick for you to take their salary).
sco
RealGM
Posts: 16,007
And1: 4,330
Joined: Sep 22, 2003
Location: Virtually Everywhere!

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

Post#209 » by sco » Fri Jan 8, 2021 3:27 am

MrSparkle wrote:I had mixed thoughts on tanking before the odds were changed. But with these new odds, you have to be masochistic and a total gambler to think tanking works. If it's a natural by-product of a young team losing games, I'm 100% for it (as opposed to adding vets and trying to overachieve).

But nowadays, it's borderline impossible to "plan" for a top-5 pick superstar, let alone #1. Unless Adam Silver slipped CLE a secret magic ball, there is no way the Lebron/#1/2003 scenario conveniently happens to day, cause their odds would be dramatically lower of getting that #1.

You literally have to be the worst team in the NBA to guarantee a top-5 pick, and that is a tall order. You need a horrible coach, a horrible roster on the front and back ends, tons of injuries, and essentially aggressively plan to be the worst team in the league with a series of talent dumps.

And then you have a measly 14% chance to get that #1 pick. If you happen to be the 4th or 5th worst, you have a similar shot at that top pick, but you can also slip all the way down to #6 or 7.

There is no evidence that 6-10 picks generate more superstars than the mid round. For like the 10th year in a row, the 11-20 guys are looking better than the 6-10. I don't know why this funny coincidence is the case, but it is. IMO, the reality is that development or raw talent is simply a much bigger piece of the pie than drafting on prep/college credentials.

The point is, Artunas is going to have to draft star talent outside the top-3. Plenty of GMs (even GarPax!) have proven to be able to do this, so it's not exactly asking for a miracle. I still think GarPax set a low bar with their picks. Everyone lost their minds about what great value Taj and Noah were, when the reality was that they and Thabo, JJ, Tyrus, Kirk, etc. were all 5th-option/role-player ceiling (regardless of how their careers panned out).

Planning to draft Cade Cunningham is simply not a strategy that works. Still chuckling to myself when I debated somebody who said (and I poorly quote): "We didn't just trade Jimmy for Zach, Dunn and #7. We traded him for next year's top-3 pick." Of course GarPax blew it by not shedding Niko and Lopez, but still - my point is you can't plan to get a top-3 pick. You couldn't then, and you especially can't now. Dallas tried their best to be the worst and they still had to trade up for Luka- and that's after two terrible GMs made terrible draft evaluations with the 1-2 picks.

And given Dallas was a total tank job, giving up an unprotected future pick is a big risk that somebody like Pax would not take.

+100

Add to that the expected removing of the 1 and done rule, and the chances of nabbing a generational talent via a top pick get even lower. It's hard enough to predict NBA success against college competition, but going back to H.S. and we'll see the return of the accuracy of picking that had Kwame Brown as a #1 pick and Koby Bryant a #13 pick.
:clap:
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#210 » by Leslie Forman » Fri Jan 8, 2021 5:33 am

MrSparkle wrote:All I'm gonna say, is the color chart statistics are true in the long-term, but they also mostly don't have a direct correlation to winning championships. Obviously a #1 pick has a much better chance of stardom than a 14th pick, but you aren't weighing in the cost of tanking. IE becoming so bad that approximately 2 players at best have any trade value on your garbage roster (or in the Bulls' cast the past few years, absolutely zero positive trade assets besides their FRP), and also becoming so bad your best FA bets are attracting a 32yo Thaddeus Young for a $15m bench role.

Exactly what is this awful cost of tanking? I have yet to see anybody explain this with any sort of clarity.

I mean, which upcoming FA superstar in the next couple years that you'd even want to sign is itching to come play with career winner Zach LaVine? Are we praying for that 4-year Andre Drummond contract? Or maybe you wanna wait a year and give it to Aaron Gordon instead?

MrSparkle wrote:In the macro, I just think a culmination of your trades, signings AND draft picks is more important than putting all your marbles into tank drafting, where you essentially nuke your trade and FA market.

Who's arguing otherwise? Hell, that's part of the point - you aren't just tanking for a higher pick, you are tanking for a better trade chip, and also ensuring [John Paxson]financial flexibility[/John Paxson]. You are giving yourself more options to work with in the near future.

Hell, let's say you bottom out but have bad luck in the lottery and end up with the #5 or so pick. Didn't you still just get yourself a way better trade chip than anybody else on the team except Williams? Do you think the Sonics would have traded Ray Allen for the #10 pick instead of the #5? And isn't that the exact move that convinced KG to OK the move there even though Boston had just had a blatant tank year right after a few years of total mediocrity?

MrSparkle wrote:But you can't pull an OKC off-season after 3 years of bottom-barrel losing. You're resetting a reset, which is totally Minnesota and Sacramento territory.

Why the hell not? And it's funny you mention Sacramento, because Sacramento II is exactly what Chicago is looking like right now on this current path.

Sacramento, like the Bulls, never had the guts to really bottom out (and when they finally got some luck, completely screwed up a layup of a #2 pick…just like the old regime) and now they're saddled with a bunch of mediocre ass players making big salaries, further ensuring sustained mediocrity. Their only notable trade chips are Fox and Haliburton…except those are the only guys they have you'd want to keep.

Ultimately, I'm just saying:
Why go in hard on a roster so bad everyone wanted to fire the people who made it?

Trying to salvage their trash work is just making bad decisions worse and these sunk costs even sunkier. I'm not just advocating for a tank. I want a fresh start with a roster representing the new regime's ideals, not the old regime's, and I want them to have the best possible options at their disposal to make it happen.
DroseReturnChi
Analyst
Posts: 3,499
And1: 825
Joined: Feb 12, 2012
       

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

Post#211 » by DroseReturnChi » Fri Jan 8, 2021 6:18 am

ATRAIN53 wrote:I was thinking a little more about this Tanking thing as the Bulls starting Lineup was coming out last night-

All 5 of therm ARE Lottery Picks

Zach is actually the lowest at #13

Denzel, Markkanenn and even 'ol Thad are Lottery Picks too.

So maybe we do have 8 guys that might support this tanking argument!


You do realize tanking for number 1 pick can guarantee a superstar like Harden right?
Theres a lot of misconception you have to draft bust but thats not happening under AK either.
Draft yr matters. nobodys really want to fking tank for antman, lmao ball. but next yr that top 3 pick is a golden ticket.
My dream scenario is get a top 3 pick, trade it for Harden and get VO in FA to form a superteam if AK think the draft is overhyped.
You tank for 1 yr, and contend like 5 yrs ahead.
God told Derrick to rise, so Derrick Rose.
gobullschi
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,735
And1: 376
Joined: May 23, 2006

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

Post#212 » by gobullschi » Fri Jan 8, 2021 6:57 am

Leslie Forman wrote:
Ultimately, I'm just saying:
Why go in hard on a roster so bad everyone wanted to fire the people who made it?

Trying to salvage their trash work is just making bad decisions worse and these sunk costs even sunkier. I'm not just advocating for a tank. I want a fresh start with a roster representing the new regime's ideals, not the old regime's, and I want them to have the best possible options at their disposal to make it happen.


Why does a decision need to be made right now? Most of the Bull’s asset’s value are at an all-time low, coming off an injury filled season. They shouldn’t move them for pennies on the dollar.

Besides, the Bulls finally have a head coach putting the players in situations where a lot of us have been pounding our fists for (WCJ passing, Markkanen at center, Coby starting, LaVine scoring off ball, etc.) While the results have been mixed, I see a completely different team (for the better) than I did last season, which is promising considering they haven’t played together in months, a bunch of guys are in COVID protocol, there have been a bunch of back to backs, game routines are disrupted with all the extra safety measures, AND it’s a completely new offense and defense.

All I’m saying is that there is no ‘prize’ for saying it first. It’s OK to be cautiously optimistic right now, while Billy tries to put these guys in situations to showcase what they’ve worked on during the long offseason. Just because the new front office didn’t make every decision creating the roster, doesn’t mean that it’s not talented. It’s also about building a culture in the building, giving players the tools needed to develop, expand scouting staffs (help find those draft sleepers!), hiring the right coaches, finding the right veterans, and capitalizing on an opportunity at the right time.
gobullschi
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,735
And1: 376
Joined: May 23, 2006

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

Post#213 » by gobullschi » Fri Jan 8, 2021 4:37 pm

DroseReturnChi wrote:
ATRAIN53 wrote:I was thinking a little more about this Tanking thing as the Bulls starting Lineup was coming out last night-

All 5 of therm ARE Lottery Picks

Zach is actually the lowest at #13

Denzel, Markkanenn and even 'ol Thad are Lottery Picks too.

So maybe we do have 8 guys that might support this tanking argument!


You do realize tanking for number 1 pick can guarantee a superstar like Harden right?
Theres a lot of misconception you have to draft bust but thats not happening under AK either.
Draft yr matters. nobodys really want to fking tank for antman, lmao ball. but next yr that top 3 pick is a golden ticket.
My dream scenario is get a top 3 pick, trade it for Harden and get VO in FA to form a superteam if AK think the draft is overhyped.
You tank for 1 yr, and contend like 5 yrs ahead.


Look at the odds to get the first pick. Cleveland is a perfect example of a team that has been tanking after the new lottery rules were enacted. Did it get them a superstar?

That’s the problem with tanking now. You think your going to get a top pick, so you sell off your talent for pennies on the dollar to get a top draft pick and then another team leap frogs you in the lottery and then you just keep sucking - hoping to win the lottery.

Most of these teams are owned by multiple investors. This is a business. Teams can’t just intentionally suck for 15 years until they get lucky and get the first pick with a generational prospect. It’s not that your ideology is wrong because getting that generational player is awesome, it’s just not realistic because it’s always going to be more about money. This is why NBA front offices do their best to draft well, develop the assets they have, and wait for an opportunity in FA or trades.

That’s the beauty of the new NBA lottery odds. A team that just missed the playoffs can win the lottery and become a contender (Derrick Rose/Zion). It’s also why your starting to see the new NBA lottery odds starting to have a ripple effect into other leagues (NHL).
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#214 » by troza » Fri Jan 8, 2021 5:12 pm

gobullschi wrote:
Leslie Forman wrote:
Ultimately, I'm just saying:
Why go in hard on a roster so bad everyone wanted to fire the people who made it?

Trying to salvage their trash work is just making bad decisions worse and these sunk costs even sunkier. I'm not just advocating for a tank. I want a fresh start with a roster representing the new regime's ideals, not the old regime's, and I want them to have the best possible options at their disposal to make it happen.


Why does a decision need to be made right now? Most of the Bull’s asset’s value are at an all-time low, coming off an injury filled season. They shouldn’t move them for pennies on the dollar.

Besides, the Bulls finally have a head coach putting the players in situations where a lot of us have been pounding our fists for (WCJ passing, Markkanen at center, Coby starting, LaVine scoring off ball, etc.) While the results have been mixed, I see a completely different team (for the better) than I did last season, which is promising considering they haven’t played together in months, a bunch of guys are in COVID protocol, there have been a bunch of back to backs, game routines are disrupted with all the extra safety measures, AND it’s a completely new offense and defense.

All I’m saying is that there is no ‘prize’ for saying it first. It’s OK to be cautiously optimistic right now, while Billy tries to put these guys in situations to showcase what they’ve worked on during the long offseason. Just because the new front office didn’t make every decision creating the roster, doesn’t mean that it’s not talented. It’s also about building a culture in the building, giving players the tools needed to develop, expand scouting staffs (help find those draft sleepers!), hiring the right coaches, finding the right veterans, and capitalizing on an opportunity at the right time.


If people were in 1985, they would say what? Trade Michael Jordan to have the new regime's ideals? lol.

Look, I'm with gobullschi in somethings here. There is no tank for the seek of tanking, there is no trade for the seek of trading. There is no right strategy or wrong. We all know the odds of getting a star either by draft or trade are low.

But... we can improve them. And for those reasons we can use everything available and that includes: tanking, making a good showcase in the playoffs, developing players, drafting well... etc etc.

A fresh start with the new regime's ideals is what is being done. Maximize what you can do with what you have. You need to start somewhere and we are not on the zero. Young players, nice contracts and no pressure to win right now. Even if it is not the ideal start, it is always one year ahead of what you're saying.

Another tanking year when we have a young core doesn't seem good... But getting a good season with young players? Trade assets, a possible destination for some unhappy star elsewhere and maybe some all-stars or even top players in our team.

With all that in mind and even if tanking seems an unlikely and bad strategy right now... The value of some of our players is going up and the NBA landscape changes: some contenders might get desperate, some playoff teams might find that some of our players are what they need and we kind of have a poor record... tank! Trade them, gather assets, keep some of the good players and go for that fresh start.

Even if it is done in the start of the next season (like OKC trading Ray Allen), we might end up with more assets and in better position than just tanking.

I get that looking at the draft, if there is a really good player in there that the team wants, tanking might be wise and good to get that (even if it doesn't turn out to meet the expectations) but we need ways to trade up if needed and we didn't have that last year.

So, does tanking work? It depends on everything else. Every tank that lead to a game changing star worked (from my memory, the Rockets in 84, the Cavs in 03... idk more but can we consider tanking what the Heat did before 2010?). The odds aren't in their favor, just like getting the big free agents odds aren't good for anyone but the Lakers.
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#215 » by Am2626 » Fri Jan 8, 2021 5:45 pm

MrSparkle wrote:
Leslie Forman wrote:
MrSparkle wrote:You literally have to be the worst team in the NBA to guarantee a top-5 pick, and that is a tall order. You need a horrible coach, a horrible roster on the front and back ends, tons of injuries, and essentially aggressively plan to be the worst team in the league with a series of talent dumps.

Just dump one of Porter or LaVine and that alone might be enough. Get rid of both, don't bother signing Temple, and worst record is about as close to an absolute, flat out guarantee as you can get, just like dumping Mirotic and Lopez would have been. And it's not a tank of course, it's, ahhh…"throwing our young guys in the fire" and "focusing on development" or some other BS excuse.

The fans ate it up and somehow overwhelmingly supported the dumping of a freakin' top-10 player in his prime who didn't want to leave, they'd certainly eat it up again for some far inferior players with even murkier contract situations.

MrSparkle wrote:There is no evidence that 6-10 picks generate more superstars than the mid round. For like the 10th year in a row, the 11-20 guys are looking better than the 6-10. I don't know why this funny coincidence is the case, but it is. IMO, the reality is that development or raw talent is simply a much bigger piece of the pie than drafting on prep/college credentials.

1. Why are you comparing a group of 5 guys to a group of 10
2. You sure about that? Because the links Chicago-Bull-E posted earlier in the thread suggest the complete opposite, even with the huge disparity in sample size volume.

Here's an image of the findings, if you don't feel like reading:

Image

I don't know why this is even still an argument. Higher pick > lower pick. This is not a discussion about Palestine and Israel or something. There is simply no rational argument to suggest otherwise. The worst case scenario, which is exactly what you should be prepared for, also obviously gets worse and worse the further down you go.

If the argument is "I just can't mentally support losing on purpose," that, I would totally understand. Were American leagues like foreign ones, with relegation and/or without a draft, I'd feel the same way too.

But this is America, there's no relegation, and our sports still have these stupid drafts to provide a handout to bad teams.

I should note that I absolutely hate wanting losses too, but unless the draft gets abolished (I know, it's never happening), well…it is what it is.


All I'm gonna say, is the color chart statistics are true in the long-term, but they also mostly don't have a direct correlation to winning championships. Obviously a #1 pick has a much better chance of stardom than a 14th pick, but you aren't weighing in the cost of tanking. IE becoming so bad that approximately 2 players at best have any trade value on your garbage roster (or in the Bulls' cast the past few years, absolutely zero positive trade assets besides their FRP), and also becoming so bad your best FA bets are attracting a 32yo Thaddeus Young for a $15m bench role.

Portland drafted a stud at #6 in Lillard, it was gift-wrapped to them by the worst GM ever in the dumbest trade ever (Gerald Wallace). They had talent on the roster. They later added talent to the roster. At no point in Portland's span with Lillard have I seen Portland resemble anything more than a long-shot contender. I would be absolutely thrilled if we ever drafted somebody as good as Lillard who lasted more than 5 years in a Bulls uniform.

In the macro, I just think a culmination of your trades, signings AND draft picks is more important than putting all your marbles into tank drafting, where you essentially nuke your trade and FA market.

Now is the OKC route one I would've taken? Yeah, back in 2015 or 16, when we had multiple "all-stars" on expiring contracts with a team that was secretly running on Jimmy's shoulders with a little help from Aaron Brooks, Taj and a 1-legged Pau. I was screaming for Noah, Taj, Doug/Dunleavy/Pau/etc. trades before the Hoiberg effect completely wrecked the squad.

But you can't pull an OKC off-season after 3 years of bottom-barrel losing. You're resetting a reset, which is totally Minnesota and Sacramento territory.

If Otto, Lauri and Thad command FRPs , then sure, I'm listening. Up until about 2 weeks ago, I feel like their value was negative (as in, we send a 2nd rd pick for you to take their salary).


I think the Bulls did attempt to do this when they traded Butler but they didn’t commit to the short term tank properly. If they did they would have been in a position to draft Doncic. Re-signing Mirotic really set them back. Then they signed Killpatrick that gave them a few extra wins at the end of the year. Reminiscent of 2003 when the Bulls won a few meaningless games at the end of the year and ended but drafting Hinrich instead of Wade.
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#216 » by Leslie Forman » Sat Jan 9, 2021 1:47 am

gobullschi wrote:Why does a decision need to be made right now? Most of the Bull’s asset’s value are at an all-time low, coming off an injury filled season. They shouldn’t move them for pennies on the dollar.

And what's, say, Wendell Carter's value now? How's this really helping? The rookie contracts are only winding down even more. LaVine's contract is only winding down even more. If a team trades for someone at the deadline, they get absolutely no time to get them integrated like they would have in the offseason.

Look at what Mirotic ended up getting back even though he was playing absolutely out of his mind. Jack sh*t.

troza wrote:If people were in 1985, they would say what? Trade Michael Jordan to have the new regime's ideals? lol.

:roll:
User avatar
coldfish
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 51,593
And1: 22,055
Joined: Jun 11, 2004
Location: Right in the middle
   

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

Post#217 » by coldfish » Sat Jan 9, 2021 2:19 am

Discussing more why the tanking thing doesn't work:

I have seen two players in my life that legitimately could turn a really bad coach and team into a competitor as young players. Lebron and MJ. They just happen to be the best two players of all time.

Most of the other very good players are more like Anthony Davis. Just good enough to lift you out of the bottom by themselves but not really compete. As a tanker, your thought is "we need to tank" so you set the team up around AD to fail. After several years of this limbo where the team doesn't get a top pick but doesn't really compete, the dude says "screw it, I'm out of here" and you start all over. That's why many call it "the tank treadmill".

Regardless, the reality of the NBA is that most top players aren't really ready to compete until they have had a few playoff runs and years of experience. The tank treadmill philosophy regularly prevents teams from even getting there, hitting the reset button before the car even starts going.
gobullschi
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,735
And1: 376
Joined: May 23, 2006

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

Post#218 » by gobullschi » Sat Jan 9, 2021 2:29 am

Leslie Forman wrote:
gobullschi wrote:Why does a decision need to be made right now? Most of the Bull’s asset’s value are at an all-time low, coming off an injury filled season. They shouldn’t move them for pennies on the dollar.

And what's, say, Wendell Carter's value now? How's this really helping? The rookie contracts are only winding down even more. LaVine's contract is only winding down even more. If a team trades for someone at the deadline, they get absolutely no time to get them integrated like they would have in the offseason.

Look at what Mirotic ended up getting back even though he was playing absolutely out of his mind. Jack sh*t.

troza wrote:If people were in 1985, they would say what? Trade Michael Jordan to have the new regime's ideals? lol.

:roll:


Idk what to tell you. Their value is at an all-time low. There is only up from here, contract situation be damned.
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#219 » by Leslie Forman » Sat Jan 9, 2021 2:44 am

gobullschi wrote:Idk what to tell you. Their value is at an all-time low. There is only up from here, contract situation be damned.

Anybody who's followed the Bulls the last 20 years should know better than that lol
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#220 » by Leslie Forman » Sat Jan 9, 2021 2:57 am

coldfish wrote:Regardless, the reality of the NBA is that most top players aren't really ready to compete until they have had a few playoff runs and years of experience. The tank treadmill philosophy regularly prevents teams from even getting there, hitting the reset button before the car even starts going.

Exactly how is simply standing pat with a terrible roster like the one here now not just a "treadmill" too?

Return to Chicago Bulls