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#221 » by Am2626 » Sat Jan 9, 2021 5:46 am

coldfish wrote: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.


There is another player coming up that is being considered a once in a generation player. His name is Emoni Bates. The fortunes of whatever team gets to draft him will change in an instant. If there is ever a time to get the number 1 pick it’s the 2023 draft.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/adamzagoria/2021/01/06/michigan-state-commit-emoni-bates-could-reclassify-after-this-season/amp/
RagingBull316
Senior
Posts: 514
And1: 378
Joined: Jun 07, 2007
Contact:

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

Post#222 » by RagingBull316 » Sat Jan 9, 2021 6:13 am

There is always the next big player coming out. That doesn't mean he's going to pan out. Most of them don't.

In the past 20 years the only #1 picks to win a championship are Greg Oden, Dwight Howard, Kyrie Irving, Anthony Davis and Lebron James. And all those players only won the championship on a Lebron James team.

Giving up your best player and tanking is not the answer. Retaining your best young talent and mixing them with a big free agent and veteran free agents is how you win championship in the NBA.


*(Edit: Andrew Bogut also won a title with the Warriors)

Sent from my SM-G981U using RealGM mobile app
WindyCityBorn
RealGM
Posts: 13,632
And1: 6,764
Joined: Jun 26, 2014
     

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

Post#223 » by WindyCityBorn » Sat Jan 9, 2021 6:19 am

Well we losing close games now because we are shorthanded. I guess this is the great for the pro-tankers but I hate it.
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#224 » by DroseReturnChi » Sat Jan 9, 2021 6:50 am

RagingBull316 wrote:There is always the next big player coming out. That doesn't mean he's going to pan out. Most of them don't.

In the past 20 years the only #1 picks to win a championship are Greg Oden, Dwight Howard, Kyrie Irving, Anthony Davis and Lebron James. And all those players only won the championship on a Lebron James team.

Giving up your best player and tanking is not the answer. Retaining your best young talent and mixing them with a big free agent and veteran free agents is how you win championship in the NBA.

Sent from my SM-G981U using RealGM mobile app


so whose this fa thats going to join this team when no one joined in the past 30 yrs? you cannot get superstars without trading for them and the best way is tanking whether draft or trade.
God told Derrick to rise, so Derrick Rose.
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#225 » by coldfish » Sat Jan 9, 2021 2:47 pm

DroseReturnChi wrote:
RagingBull316 wrote:There is always the next big player coming out. That doesn't mean he's going to pan out. Most of them don't.

In the past 20 years the only #1 picks to win a championship are Greg Oden, Dwight Howard, Kyrie Irving, Anthony Davis and Lebron James. And all those players only won the championship on a Lebron James team.

Giving up your best player and tanking is not the answer. Retaining your best young talent and mixing them with a big free agent and veteran free agents is how you win championship in the NBA.

Sent from my SM-G981U using RealGM mobile app


so whose this fa thats going to join this team when no one joined in the past 30 yrs? you cannot get superstars without trading for them and the best way is tanking whether draft or trade.


Steph Curry, Kevin Durant, Lebron James x3, James Harden, Antonio Davis, Kawhi Leonard, Giannis, etc., etc.

There are two ways the vast, vast majority to top level teams get their superstars:
- They draft some guy with flaws in the middle of the first round and then develop him. There is an odd phenomenon about this in that you are more likely to get a good first extension for him and he is likely to stick around than top players who generally leave after their first extension. Steph, Giannis, etc.
- The more likely route is to create a good situation and then jump when a very good player demands out. Most of the superstar acquisitions fit this mold.

Virtually no team drafts a guy at the top of the draft and then goes on to be even a contender with him. You have to gut yourself too much. But this is why tanking doesn't work and is a terrible strategy:

Tanking rules out the more likely avenues for getting a superstar


First off, you would never draft and develop. A tanker doesn't have the patience for that. Guys like Steph Curry would have been dumped before they were Steph freaking Curry. Beyond that, no superstar is going to go to a terrible team. That's what Krause really never understood.

The one thing here that the GarPax regime didn't get but Krause did is that you need to take high upside guys, particularly in the middle of the draft. You can't draft McDermott or Valentine. You have to take the project and then give him a good situation and time. Obviously, tankers are against that.
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#226 » by coldfish » Sat Jan 9, 2021 2:56 pm

As a general side note, I have been bashing tanking religiously in this thread but I think this is a rather unique season. First off, the draft is high quality. Beyond that, virtually everyone is trying and there are lots of teams around 0.500.

IMO, the new draft lottery odds have made it so that the difference in a few slots at the top of the lottery are largely meaningless. That said, at the end of the season I suspect that about 8 wins are going to be the difference between selecting 8th and 20th.

The Bulls currently have the 6th worst SRS. They are still on the bottom side of the hump on the bell curve. I would advocate trying everything to win for most of the season but at the trade deadline, they seriously might want to do a mini tank to make sure they end up with that 8th pick instead of the 20th.

Lastly, I would not trade Lavine for anything less than a superstar haul right now. He is really getting it and I would have no issue with a max for him. Replacing him through the draft would take YEARS.
Ice Man
Forum Mod - Bulls
Forum Mod - Bulls
Posts: 21,877
And1: 10,289
Joined: Apr 19, 2011

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

Post#227 » by Ice Man » Sat Jan 9, 2021 4:29 pm

coldfish wrote:Lastly, I would not trade Lavine for anything less than a superstar haul right now. He is really getting it and I would have no issue with a max for him. Replacing him through the draft would take YEARS.


Yep. LaVine has improved to where he can now be a Top Three option on a championship team. When you have one out of three, you don't dump the one so that you go back to zero. Instead, you try to find the other two.
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#228 » by coldfish » Sat Jan 9, 2021 4:47 pm

Ice Man wrote:
coldfish wrote:Lastly, I would not trade Lavine for anything less than a superstar haul right now. He is really getting it and I would have no issue with a max for him. Replacing him through the draft would take YEARS.


Yep. LaVine has improved to where he can now be a Top Three option on a championship team. When you have one out of three, you don't dump the one so that you go back to zero. Instead, you try to find the other two.


I have been super harsh on Lauri at times in the past. The way he has played this year though has addressed a lot of my concerns. Its a super small sample size but IMO, the Bulls could have some legitimate pieces here.

I don't think anyone is to the point where they are untouchable but a bunch of these guys have played well enough that they shouldn't be just dumped. The Bulls have a narrow window coming up where they have the salary flexibility to go after a top player should they come available. Its worth thinking about.
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#229 » by Am2626 » Sat Jan 9, 2021 5:35 pm

coldfish wrote:
DroseReturnChi wrote:
RagingBull316 wrote:There is always the next big player coming out. That doesn't mean he's going to pan out. Most of them don't.

In the past 20 years the only #1 picks to win a championship are Greg Oden, Dwight Howard, Kyrie Irving, Anthony Davis and Lebron James. And all those players only won the championship on a Lebron James team.

Giving up your best player and tanking is not the answer. Retaining your best young talent and mixing them with a big free agent and veteran free agents is how you win championship in the NBA.

Sent from my SM-G981U using RealGM mobile app


so whose this fa thats going to join this team when no one joined in the past 30 yrs? you cannot get superstars without trading for them and the best way is tanking whether draft or trade.


Steph Curry, Kevin Durant, Lebron James x3, James Harden, Antonio Davis, Kawhi Leonard, Giannis, etc., etc.

There are two ways the vast, vast majority to top level teams get their superstars:
- They draft some guy with flaws in the middle of the first round and then develop him. There is an odd phenomenon about this in that you are more likely to get a good first extension for him and he is likely to stick around than top players who generally leave after their first extension. Steph, Giannis, etc.
- The more likely route is to create a good situation and then jump when a very good player demands out. Most of the superstar acquisitions fit this mold.

Virtually no team drafts a guy at the top of the draft and then goes on to be even a contender with him. You have to gut yourself too much. But this is why tanking doesn't work and is a terrible strategy

Tanking rules out the more likely avenues for getting a superstar


First off, you would never draft and develop. A tanker doesn't have the patience for that. Guys like Steph Curry would have been dumped before they were Steph freaking Curry. Beyond that, no superstar is going to go to a terrible team. That's what Krause really never understood.

The one thing here that the GarPax regime didn't get but Krause did is that you need to take high upside guys, particularly in the middle of the draft. You can't draft McDermott or Valentine. You have to take the project and then give him a good situation and time. Obviously, tankers are against that.


That is not exactly true. Cleveland drafted LeBron and he put them on the map and made them a contender. He stayed 7 years and didn’t leave the team the first time he could. Later on they drafted Kyrie and he ended up being a key piece to a team that won a championship.

OKC did the same with Durant and he took his team to a finals in 5 years. He also didn’t leave the first time he could have left. Now I’m not a proponent of tanking today. That is primarily because of the new lottery odds. You just need to have a bottom 10 record in order to have a shot at a top 4 pick. This allows a team like the Bulls to not have to gut their roster and focus on developing their core and determining which players to keep.

Regarding Krause his plan would have worked if he could have signed TMac. The reasons why stars didn’t want to play for the Bulls wasn’t because of their record. It was because of the perception of how badly the organization treated Jordan and dismantled a dynasty.
Kukoc-Lauri
Junior
Posts: 476
And1: 186
Joined: Oct 20, 2020
 

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

Post#230 » by Kukoc-Lauri » Sat Jan 9, 2021 5:43 pm

Learning from past most likley you need two top five picks to be stars from two or three years drafting in top ten. We wasted most likley 4 years. Mitchell,Adebayo,Reddish would be nice core. We missed. 21 Cade/Suggs/Green/Mobley/Kumminga have franchise potential. 22/23 Emoni Bates/Viktor Waynamba have superstar written all over them. Prestie is not stupid dude. He rebuild value in 20 season with average but deep draft and put all of his chips on 2021-2023 because Suggs is easily on Westbrook level and Bates on Durant's. Waynamba is Porzingis on offence and Gobert on defense. If you are not smart enough just copy cat from Prestie.
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#231 » by coldfish » Sat Jan 9, 2021 6:07 pm

Am2626 wrote:
That is not exactly true. Cleveland drafted LeBron and he put them on the map and made them a contender. He stayed 7 years and didn’t leave the team the first time he could. Later on they drafted Kyrie and he ended up being a key piece to a team that won a championship.

OKC did the same with Durant and he took his team to a finals in 5 years. He also didn’t leave the first time he could have left. Now I’m not a proponent of tanking today. That is primarily because of the new lottery odds. You just need to have a bottom 10 record in order to have a shot at a top 4 pick. This allows a team like the Bulls to not have to gut their roster and focus on developing their core and determining which players to keep.

Regarding Krause his plan would have worked if he could have signed TMac. The reasons why stars didn’t want to play for the Bulls wasn’t because of their record. It was because of the perception of how badly the organization treated Jordan and dismantled a dynasty.


If you look previously, I noted that MJ and Lebron are the exceptions. They are the only players I have ever seen that could take an otherwise crappy team, coach and organization and make them truly competitive. If that is the tanking strategy, that's not going to work. Those type of players come along very, very rarely. You could tank for decades and not get one.

OKC is kind of an interesting example. On one hand, they are a tank team that almost worked. OTOH, they are a pretty clear example of what happens when you draft a bunch of young guys high in the lottery together. Invariably, they all come due for an extension at the same time and you have to break the team up before they have a long consistent run.
Chi town
RealGM
Posts: 19,201
And1: 4,401
Joined: Aug 10, 2004

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

Post#232 » by Chi town » Sat Jan 9, 2021 6:30 pm

coldfish wrote:
Ice Man wrote:
coldfish wrote:Lastly, I would not trade Lavine for anything less than a superstar haul right now. He is really getting it and I would have no issue with a max for him. Replacing him through the draft would take YEARS.


Yep. LaVine has improved to where he can now be a Top Three option on a championship team. When you have one out of three, you don't dump the one so that you go back to zero. Instead, you try to find the other two.


I have been super harsh on Lauri at times in the past. The way he has played this year though has addressed a lot of my concerns. Its a super small sample size but IMO, the Bulls could have some legitimate pieces here.

I don't think anyone is to the point where they are untouchable but a bunch of these guys have played well enough that they shouldn't be just dumped. The Bulls have a narrow window coming up where they have the salary flexibility to go after a top player should they come available. Its worth thinking about.


If Zach continues on his current trend he’s a legit 1st option. Lauri was flashing good 3rd option material. Coby has a long way to go but he is obviously explosive as a scorer and could be a 2nd option. PW will take years to develop but he has shown 3 level scoring and has flashed handles and size that make you believe he can create his own offense and potentially be able to get lots of FTs.

Ideally our starters continually develop and we trade our vets at the deadline. In the summer we sign a vet PG and a playmaking 3D wing.
User avatar
Southpaw
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,796
And1: 682
Joined: Jul 23, 2011
 

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

Post#233 » by Southpaw » Sat Jan 9, 2021 6:34 pm

The OKC tank was a financial failure and not a tank failure. They easily could've kept Harden. Everyone knew they had something special brewing in OKC and they blew it when they decided not to pay Harden. IIRC, there was only about $4-5m difference between OKC's offer and Harden's max at the time and they could've amnestied Perkins.

I agree that tanking doesn't always work but so does signing or trading for big name FAs, if championships is the only measuring stick. There are plenty of failed blockbuster trades and FA signings to point to.

I think we're looking at it the wrong way if we view tanking as a way to building a contender. To me it's the best way to getting your star player and getting a star player is your way to build a contender.

We should tank, but tank smart. The next couple of drafts apparently has a high number of superstar-type talents.
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#234 » by coldfish » Sat Jan 9, 2021 6:57 pm

Southpaw wrote:The OKC tank was a financial failure and not a tank failure. They easily could've kept Harden. Everyone knew they had something special brewing in OKC and they blew it when they decided not to pay Harden. IIRC, there was only about $4-5m difference between OKC's offer and Harden's max at the time and they could've amnestied Perkins.

I agree that tanking doesn't always work but so does signing or trading for big name FAs, if championships is the only measuring stick. There are plenty of failed blockbuster trades and FA signings to point to.

I think we're looking at it the wrong way if we view tanking as a way to building a contender. To me it's the best way to getting your star player and getting a star player is your way to build a contender.

We should tank, but tank smart. The next couple of drafts apparently has a high number of superstar-type talents.


OK, ignore championships. Let's look at the top 8 teams from last year and how they got their best player:
Bucks - Giannis (mid round pick developed)
Raptors - Lowry (FA?)
Lakers - Lebron (FA)
Clippers - Kawhi (FA)
Celtics - Tatum (draft trade)
Nuggets - Jokic (2nd round pick developed)
Pacers - Brogdon? (FA), They are basically a hodgepodge of players from other teams.
Rockets - Harden (trade)

So again, a grand total of zero contenders last year got their best player by tanking for a high draft pick. Its a theory but it fails in practice so often that its not a legitimate strategy.

I'll again say that the Bulls fanbase has PTSD due to 17 years of GarPax. It IS possible to trade for a top player or sign one. Its also possible to draft a top player later in the draft. Hell, the Bulls did it with Butler but didn't have the patience or intelligence to do something with it.
Kukoc-Lauri
Junior
Posts: 476
And1: 186
Joined: Oct 20, 2020
 

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

Post#235 » by Kukoc-Lauri » Sat Jan 9, 2021 6:58 pm

Chi town wrote:
coldfish wrote:
Ice Man wrote:
Yep. LaVine has improved to where he can now be a Top Three option on a championship team. When you have one out of three, you don't dump the one so that you go back to zero. Instead, you try to find the other two.


I have been super harsh on Lauri at times in the past. The way he has played this year though has addressed a lot of my concerns. Its a super small sample size but IMO, the Bulls could have some legitimate pieces here.

I don't think anyone is to the point where they are untouchable but a bunch of these guys have played well enough that they shouldn't be just dumped. The Bulls have a narrow window coming up where they have the salary flexibility to go after a top player should they come available. Its worth thinking about.


If Zach continues on his current trend he’s a legit 1st option. Lauri was flashing good 3rd option material. Coby has a long way to go but he is obviously explosive as a scorer and could be a 2nd option. PW will take years to develop but he has shown 3 level scoring and has flashed handles and size that make you believe he can create his own offense and potentially be able to get lots of FTs.

Ideally our starters continually develop and we trade our vets at the deadline. In the summer we sign a vet PG and a playmaking 3D wing.
Zach is third option on playoff team and 6 man on super team. He is pretending to be first option and led team to 20 wins per season last 3 years. Lavine gives you at best 6 points. Know why, scored 36 someone would say brutal game, but Wes Matthews,FurkanKorkmaz,Alex Burcs,Damion Lee,Kevin Huerter, Haliburton,G.Robinson all of these fringe starters almost always have career or season high while guarded by Lavine. Is that just coincendence, dont think so.
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#236 » by Am2626 » Sat Jan 9, 2021 7:00 pm

Chi town wrote:
coldfish wrote:
Ice Man wrote:
Yep. LaVine has improved to where he can now be a Top Three option on a championship team. When you have one out of three, you don't dump the one so that you go back to zero. Instead, you try to find the other two.


I have been super harsh on Lauri at times in the past. The way he has played this year though has addressed a lot of my concerns. Its a super small sample size but IMO, the Bulls could have some legitimate pieces here.

I don't think anyone is to the point where they are untouchable but a bunch of these guys have played well enough that they shouldn't be just dumped. The Bulls have a narrow window coming up where they have the salary flexibility to go after a top player should they come available. Its worth thinking about.


If Zach continues on his current trend he’s a legit 1st option.Lauri was flashing good 3rd option material. Coby has a long way to go but he is obviously explosive as a scorer and could be a 2nd option. PW will take years to develop but he has shown 3 level scoring and has flashed handles and size that make you believe he can create his own offense and potentially be able to get lots of FTs.

Ideally our starters continually develop and we trade our vets at the deadline. In the summer we sign a vet PG and a playmaking 3D wing.


Expecting Zach to be a solid number 1 option on a contender is asking too much. I can see him as a solid 2 maybe 1B. This team needs 1 more talent from the draft. I think if they can add one of Cade, Green, Kuminga, Mobley, or Suggs they will be in a good place with their core. They can always consolidate and make a trade for a star as well next year or include someone if needed from their young talent to move up in the draft. The top 5-7 picks in this draft is very strong.
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#237 » by coldfish » Sat Jan 9, 2021 7:38 pm

Kukoc-Lauri wrote:
Chi town wrote:
coldfish wrote:
I have been super harsh on Lauri at times in the past. The way he has played this year though has addressed a lot of my concerns. Its a super small sample size but IMO, the Bulls could have some legitimate pieces here.

I don't think anyone is to the point where they are untouchable but a bunch of these guys have played well enough that they shouldn't be just dumped. The Bulls have a narrow window coming up where they have the salary flexibility to go after a top player should they come available. Its worth thinking about.


If Zach continues on his current trend he’s a legit 1st option. Lauri was flashing good 3rd option material. Coby has a long way to go but he is obviously explosive as a scorer and could be a 2nd option. PW will take years to develop but he has shown 3 level scoring and has flashed handles and size that make you believe he can create his own offense and potentially be able to get lots of FTs.

Ideally our starters continually develop and we trade our vets at the deadline. In the summer we sign a vet PG and a playmaking 3D wing.
Zach is third option on playoff team and 6 man on super team. He is pretending to be first option and led team to 20 wins per season last 3 years. Lavine gives you at best 6 points. Know why, scored 36 someone would say brutal game, but Wes Matthews,FurkanKorkmaz,Alex Burcs,Damion Lee,Kevin Huerter, Haliburton,G.Robinson all of these fringe starters almost always have career or season high while guarded by Lavine. Is that just coincendence, dont think so.


When Zach first came to Chicago, I hated him. Stupid, lazy defense. Bad shot selection, dumb passes. He has noticeably improved in a lot of ways and seems to be continuing to improve. I wouldn't hold his past performance against him. I'm a big fan of his right now because of his improvement.
Kukoc-Lauri
Junior
Posts: 476
And1: 186
Joined: Oct 20, 2020
 

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

Post#238 » by Kukoc-Lauri » Sat Jan 9, 2021 8:06 pm

His dumb mistakes and lazy defence literally costed us 3 wins in last 10 days. So i just named few players who made buzz arround league when guarded by Lavine. Man is shooting 5 seconds early, settling for jump shot heavily contested, not closing on Matthews as yesterday. For Bulls sake trade before dead line is only right move.
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#239 » by Am2626 » Sat Jan 9, 2021 9:06 pm

coldfish wrote:
Southpaw wrote:The OKC tank was a financial failure and not a tank failure. They easily could've kept Harden. Everyone knew they had something special brewing in OKC and they blew it when they decided not to pay Harden. IIRC, there was only about $4-5m difference between OKC's offer and Harden's max at the time and they could've amnestied Perkins.

I agree that tanking doesn't always work but so does signing or trading for big name FAs, if championships is the only measuring stick. There are plenty of failed blockbuster trades and FA signings to point to.

I think we're looking at it the wrong way if we view tanking as a way to building a contender. To me it's the best way to getting your star player and getting a star player is your way to build a contender.

We should tank, but tank smart. The next couple of drafts apparently has a high number of superstar-type talents.


OK, ignore championships. Let's look at the top 8 teams from last year and how they got their best player:
Bucks - Giannis (mid round pick developed)
Raptors - Lowry (FA?)
Lakers - Lebron (FA)
Clippers - Kawhi (FA)
Celtics - Tatum (draft trade)
Nuggets - Jokic (2nd round pick developed)

Pacers - Brogdon? (FA), They are basically a hodgepodge of players from other teams.
Rockets - Harden (trade)

So again, a grand total of zero contenders last year got their best player by tanking for a high draft pick. Its a theory but it fails in practice so often that its not a legitimate strategy.

I'll again say that the Bulls fanbase has PTSD due to 17 years of GarPax. It IS possible to trade for a top player or sign one. Its also possible to draft a top player later in the draft. Hell, the Bulls did it with Butler but didn't have the patience or intelligence to do something with it.


A few things...

1). The Celtics used their draft position to trade down and draft Tatum. They needed a lottery pick to be in a position to take Tatum.

2). Jamal Murray is Denver’s best player not Jokic. Denver took Murray number 7. (Lottery pick).

3). I feel like last year was an anomaly with a lot of free agent movement. I don’t see that happening again.

The reality is that a good front office will use all avenues to better their team. Ex: Draft, Free Agency, and trades. In the GarPax regime they always refused to use trades to make their team better because they consistently overvalued their players. That alone always put them at a competitive disadvantage. Adding to that the bad reputation they had league wide really only made the draft a realistic option to improve their team. Finally now with the overhaul of the FO the Bulls can be in a position to be competitive in all avenues.
User avatar
Southpaw
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,796
And1: 682
Joined: Jul 23, 2011
 

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

Post#240 » by Southpaw » Sun Jan 10, 2021 4:07 am

coldfish wrote:
Southpaw wrote:The OKC tank was a financial failure and not a tank failure. They easily could've kept Harden. Everyone knew they had something special brewing in OKC and they blew it when they decided not to pay Harden. IIRC, there was only about $4-5m difference between OKC's offer and Harden's max at the time and they could've amnestied Perkins.

I agree that tanking doesn't always work but so does signing or trading for big name FAs, if championships is the only measuring stick. There are plenty of failed blockbuster trades and FA signings to point to.

I think we're looking at it the wrong way if we view tanking as a way to building a contender. To me it's the best way to getting your star player and getting a star player is your way to build a contender.

We should tank, but tank smart. The next couple of drafts apparently has a high number of superstar-type talents.


OK, ignore championships. Let's look at the top 8 teams from last year and how they got their best player:
Bucks - Giannis (mid round pick developed)
Raptors - Lowry (FA?)
Lakers - Lebron (FA)
Clippers - Kawhi (FA)
Celtics - Tatum (draft trade)
Nuggets - Jokic (2nd round pick developed)
Pacers - Brogdon? (FA), They are basically a hodgepodge of players from other teams.
Rockets - Harden (trade)

So again, a grand total of zero contenders last year got their best player by tanking for a high draft pick. Its a theory but it fails in practice so often that its not a legitimate strategy.

I'll again say that the Bulls fanbase has PTSD due to 17 years of GarPax. It IS possible to trade for a top player or sign one. Its also possible to draft a top player later in the draft. Hell, the Bulls did it with Butler but didn't have the patience or intelligence to do something with it.

Some of the top teams in the league right now have been built through the draft:
PHI - Embiid and Simmons, #1 team in the east
PHO - Booker and Paul(Trde), #1 in the west
BOS - Brown and Tatum(Trade), #2 in the east
Also, some of the up and coming teams got their best player through the draft in DAL, MEM, NOP, MIA etc. The key is knowing how to build your team once you get your star though the draft and that's the hard part.

Return to Chicago Bulls