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

[Andi Obst]

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

I don't have a strong opinion on the tanking vs. competing now debate, but that Cavs tank is not a fail even if LeBron never comes back after leaving in 2010. They had him for 7 years, made the playoffs in all but one of those years, went to the ECF, to the Finals, LeBron won MVP twice...they had a 7-year-run many teams will most likely never have. They made a lot of mistakes after drafting LeBron and did eventually not win a championship during that first run, but calling the process that lead to getting an all-time great player who completely turned that franchise around a failure is weird IMO.

[dougthonus]

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

I don't have a strong opinion on the tanking vs. competing now debate, but that Cavs tank is not a fail even if LeBron never comes back after leaving in 2010. They had him for 7 years, made the playoffs in all but one of those years, went to the ECF, to the Finals, LeBron won MVP twice...they had a 7-year-run many teams will most likely never have. They made a lot of mistakes after drafting LeBron and did eventually not win a championship during that first run, but calling the process that lead to getting an all-time great player who completely turned that franchise around a failure is weird IMO.

Was probably referring to the 2nd round of tanking post first LeBron era.

[MGB8]

Yes, when Lebron, a contender for GOAT, is in the draft - if you tank and happen to hit on the #1 - rather than the #2 or #3 - then your tank works pretty well... but still not good enough to get a ring absent the top 5 player of alltime being born in the same area as the team that is drafting him and therefor feeling the pressure to "go home" after he bails because the tank-structured team isn't actually built to win.

Or you tank and draft Greg Oden instead of Kevin Durant.

[Onibuh]

You need luck, that's it. Tanking is not a strategy or something a team should look at.
If you don't have enough talent, you need to add talent. It may take years to finally get it done. Keep your picks and draft good. Make the trades when they open up. Sign FAs when they are willing to join you. It's a combination of it all.

Tanking does not work. If the example is GS, they didn't tank for a Top pick and their core guys weren't Top 5 picks- before the lottery has changed.

Add talent, build and coach it up and become a good franchise will make your team a contender.

[Andi Obst]

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

I don't have a strong opinion on the tanking vs. competing now debate, but that Cavs tank is not a fail even if LeBron never comes back after leaving in 2010. They had him for 7 years, made the playoffs in all but one of those years, went to the ECF, to the Finals, LeBron won MVP twice...they had a 7-year-run many teams will most likely never have. They made a lot of mistakes after drafting LeBron and did eventually not win a championship during that first run, but calling the process that lead to getting an all-time great player who completely turned that franchise around a failure is weird IMO.

Was probably referring to the 2nd round of tanking post first LeBron era.

Oh yeah, that makes more sense then. The 2011 to 2014 Cavs really are a nice example of a super "successful" tanking team (4 straight top 4 picks, 2 of them first overall) that got really poor results out of it, even though they had the Clippers pick which turned into Kyrie on top to start their rebuild. With ideal drafting, that should give you a nice core to work with for the foreseeable future. If you randomly select Anthony Bennett first...well...only LeBron can save you.

[DuckIII]

I believe in “tanking.” But I probably don’t define it the way it’s used by many people. I would not advocate what Philly did, just dumping anyone and everyone you don’t consider elite to be an NBDL team for years and years to accumulate draft picks. Especially not now with the change in lottery odds.

But if I knew my team lacked elite talent and had a low ceiling would I still make moves with an eye for enhancing the value of my draft picks and to obtain more picks? Hell yes. Might even be the right thing for the Bulls this very season.

Would I trade Otto and Thad even if they are helping us win some games, if it’s clear they are not in the long term plans and I’d rather get draft assets and a worse record in return? Absolutely. If I evaluated Lauri and at the deadline was confident that his value to the team’s long term hopes would not equal his market value, would I trade him for draft assets knowing it would mean the Bulls would win less games? Definitely. Similar scenarios could apply to other players on this team.

Would I pass on solid veteran free agents because they might inflate the win total of a young team that still needed more foundational pieces? Knowing I would intentionally be making the team worse to get a better pick (to either use or trade)? Yes, I would.

These are examples of moves that are made knowing they make the team worse resulting in a better potential lottery pick. That’s “tanking.” But if you don’t do it, you aren’t doing your job.

Teams need to maximize opportunities to add elite players. Depending on a wide variety of circumstances, sometimes the wise way to do that is by focusing on the draft.

[fleet]

You need luck, that's it. Tanking is not a strategy or something a team should look at.
If you don't have enough talent, you need to add talent. It may take years to finally get it done. Keep your picks and draft good. Make the trades when they open up. Sign FAs when they are willing to join you. It's a combination of it all.

Tanking does not work. If the example is GS, they didn't tank for a Top pick and their core guys weren't Top 5 picks- before the lottery has changed.

People love to say that tanking doesn't work. As if there was an alternative that does work. Besides, depends on your definition of "work", and your goals.

"Add talent, build and coach it up and become a good franchise will make your team a contender"

If it was that easy, everyone would do it. And if it "works", you aren't winning anything if you didn't draft your stud horse already that will win in the finals. Hell, even just get you to the finals. (Or if you are the Lakers and they beat down your door to walk over. That would be great)

[coldfish]

The following players have lead their team to 15 of the last 30 titles: Lebron James, Michael Jordan, Tim Duncan.

I think part of the allure of tanking is that all time great players (like top 10) have won most of the titles. Having one is pretty much the best way to build a contender. I get it.

Look at the odds though. Just how long do you have to tank in order to get one of these guys? I wouldn't be surprised if you would have to tank for 100 years on average to land one of these people because even if you have the worst record in a year when one of them is coming out, you only have a 14% chance of getting him. That's not a plan. As others have said, its pure luck.

If you want an actual plan, the goal would be to build up a quality organization with the ability to sign or trade for a second tier superstar (Kawhi, Butler, Davis, etc.) when they come available.

Just as a general note: The new lottery odds have effectively discouraged tanking but the result is that they have made success more random. NOP is a fantastic example. They got Zion with the 7th worst record I believe. The Bulls got Rose with the 9th worst. This type of thing is going to happen a lot going forward where a not-so-bad team adds an elite player.

[fleet]

I believe in “tanking.” But I probably don’t define it the way it’s used by many people. I would not advocate what Philly did, just dumping anyone and everyone you don’t consider elite to be an NBDL team for years and years to accumulate draft picks. Especially not now with the change in lottery odds.

But if I knew my team lacked elite talent and had a low ceiling would I still make moves with an eye for enhancing the value of my draft picks and to obtain more picks? Hell yes. Might even be the right thing for the Bulls this very season.

Would I trade Otto and Thad even if they are helping us win some games, if it’s clear they are not in the long term plans and I’d rather get draft assets and a worse record in return? Absolutely. If I evaluated Lauri and at the deadline was confident that his value to the team’s long term hopes would not equal his market value, would I trade him for draft assets knowing it would mean the Bulls would win less games? Definitely. Similar scenarios could apply to other players on this team.

Would I pass on solid veteran free agents because they might inflate the win total of a you g team that still needed more foundational pieces? Knowing I would intentionally be making the team worse to get a better pick (to either use or trade)? Yes, I would.

These are examples of moves that are made knowing they make the team worse resulting in a better potential lottery pick. That’s “tanking.” But if you don’t do it, you aren’t doing your job.

Teams need to maximize opportunities to add elite players. Depending on a wide variety of circumstances, sometimes the wise way to do that is by focusing on the draft.

your best shot is to stock picks like a few teams are doing and have done and hope to get lucky. Hopefully from bad teams. It doesn't have to be called tanking. Just call it adding future build assets while you dont gaf about winning games in the meantime. You can try to win, but that isn't the priority.

[fleet]

The following players have lead their team to 15 of the last 30 titles: Lebron James, Michael Jordan, Tim Duncan.

I think part of the allure of tanking is that all time great players (like top 10) have won most of the titles. Having one is pretty much the best way to build a contender. I get it.

Look at the odds though. Just how long do you have to tank in order to get one of these guys? I wouldn't be surprised if you would have to tank for 100 years on average to land one of these people because even if you have the worst record in a year when one of them is coming out, you only have a 14% chance of getting him. That's not a plan. As others have said, its pure luck.

If you want an actual plan, the goal would be to build up a quality organization with the ability to sign or trade for a second tier superstar (Kawhi, Butler, Davis, etc.) when they come available.

Just as a general note: The new lottery odds have effectively discouraged tanking but the result is that they have made success more random. NOP is a fantastic example. They got Zion with the 7th worst record I believe. The Bulls got Rose with the 9th worst. This type of thing is going to happen a lot going forward where a not-so-bad team adds an elite player.

You'll need to move the team to LA or Miami, that's where those guys are. Maybe San Francisco. The Knicks or Nets has a chance. What ends up happening is that everyone else overpays for lesser stars to use their space. Miami got lucky, but I think the least likely path is to aquire a true title winner in a trade. GMs tend to know what they have unless they are GarPax.

[coldfish]

The following players have lead their team to 15 of the last 30 titles: Lebron James, Michael Jordan, Tim Duncan.

I think part of the allure of tanking is that all time great players (like top 10) have won most of the titles. Having one is pretty much the best way to build a contender. I get it.

Look at the odds though. Just how long do you have to tank in order to get one of these guys? I wouldn't be surprised if you would have to tank for 100 years on average to land one of these people because even if you have the worst record in a year when one of them is coming out, you only have a 14% chance of getting him. That's not a plan. As others have said, its pure luck.

If you want an actual plan, the goal would be to build up a quality organization with the ability to sign or trade for a second tier superstar (Kawhi, Butler, Davis, etc.) when they come available.

Just as a general note: The new lottery odds have effectively discouraged tanking but the result is that they have made success more random. NOP is a fantastic example. They got Zion with the 7th worst record I believe. The Bulls got Rose with the 9th worst. This type of thing is going to happen a lot going forward where a not-so-bad team adds an elite player.

You'll need to move the team to LA or Miami, that's where those guys are. Maybe San Francisco. The Knicks or Nets has a chance. What ends up happening is that everyone else overpays for lesser stars to use their space. Miami got lucky, but I think the least likely path is to aquire a true title winner in a trade. GMs tend to know what they have unless they are GarPax.

How about Toronto, could we move the team to Toronto? Maybe Brooklyn?

I still think that Bulls fans suffer from PTSD. For basically decades now, the team has had a bad image due to the GM's. First JK and then GarPax. Fans have convinced themselves that trades aren't possible and free agents won't come as some type of odd Stockholm Syndrome and the only way forward is neverending flexible tanking.

[fleet]

The following players have lead their team to 15 of the last 30 titles: Lebron James, Michael Jordan, Tim Duncan.

I think part of the allure of tanking is that all time great players (like top 10) have won most of the titles. Having one is pretty much the best way to build a contender. I get it.

Look at the odds though. Just how long do you have to tank in order to get one of these guys? I wouldn't be surprised if you would have to tank for 100 years on average to land one of these people because even if you have the worst record in a year when one of them is coming out, you only have a 14% chance of getting him. That's not a plan. As others have said, its pure luck.

If you want an actual plan, the goal would be to build up a quality organization with the ability to sign or trade for a second tier superstar (Kawhi, Butler, Davis, etc.) when they come available.

Just as a general note: The new lottery odds have effectively discouraged tanking but the result is that they have made success more random. NOP is a fantastic example. They got Zion with the 7th worst record I believe. The Bulls got Rose with the 9th worst. This type of thing is going to happen a lot going forward where a not-so-bad team adds an elite player.

You'll need to move the team to LA or Miami, that's where those guys are. Maybe San Francisco. The Knicks or Nets has a chance. What ends up happening is that everyone else overpays for lesser stars to use their space. Miami got lucky, but I think the least likely path is to aquire a true title winner in a trade. GMs tend to know what they have unless they are GarPax.

How about Toronto, could we move the team to Toronto? Maybe Brooklyn?

I still think that Bulls fans suffer from PTSD. For basically decades now, the team has had a bad image due to the GM's. First JK and then GarPax. Fans have convinced themselves that trades aren't possible and free agents won't come as some type of odd Stockholm Syndrome and the only way forward is neverending flexible tanking.

Kawhi is another outlier. Kind of a weird guy, and SA didn't do well at all. That is like lightning hitting your team if you can trade for a Kawhi for a year. And that was that. Off to LA.

[DuckIII]

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.

First, great thread. Really good way to approach tanking as a topic. Second, I basically agree with you. In fact, depending on how one defines tanking, there is no logical argument against it. Anyone who says a FO should just do what it can to maximize wins every year and things will just work out, I suspect is really at heart just an impatient fan who is more concerned about how entertained they are during the act of watching individual games than they are about the long term big picture. And that’s fine. Nothing wrong with having different priorities and ways of valuing your fan experience. But don’t pee on my leg and tell me it’s raining.

But where I might disagree with you is that “losing purposefully” is a wide spectrum. If the entire spectrum is “tanking” then the conversation becomes a lot more complicated because there are extremes that I do consider counterproductive and unwise. There are also also timing and context considerations.

But, as a general matter, yes making your team worse on purpose is still one of the smart, logical paths to team building. The notion that it is now obsolete is nonsense in my opinion.

[fleet]

^^^ I don't see how one can argue that trading one or 2 vets off the Bulls, aquiring an extra pick, and at least getting into the lottery, preferabby one of the better odd slots doesn't have a chance to work. As opposed to say, making the low rung of the playoffs and signing some or one of the meh free agents on the market.

[DroseReturnChi]

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

Totally revisionist history. if cavs never drafted lebron, cavs never won a chip. he even came back bc of cavs tanking for kyrie and tanked another for mj 2.0 wiggins which became love.
It would be stupid not to tank for Lebron when everyone knew he was goat 2.0.

[DuckIII]

You'll need to move the team to LA or Miami, that's where those guys are. Maybe San Francisco. The Knicks or Nets has a chance. What ends up happening is that everyone else overpays for lesser stars to use their space. Miami got lucky, but I think the least likely path is to aquire a true title winner in a trade. GMs tend to know what they have unless they are GarPax.

How about Toronto, could we move the team to Toronto? Maybe Brooklyn?

I still think that Bulls fans suffer from PTSD. For basically decades now, the team has had a bad image due to the GM's. First JK and then GarPax. Fans have convinced themselves that trades aren't possible and free agents won't come as some type of odd Stockholm Syndrome and the only way forward is neverending flexible tanking.

Kawhi is another outlier. Kind of a weird guy, and SA didn't do well at all. That is like lightning hitting your team if you can trade for a Kawhi for a year. And that was that. Off to LA.

And Brooklyn is a “destination” franchise now. The move to Brooklyn, the assets put into it, the location, the toxic alternative NY franchise.

Trades and free agents are possible for other franchises of course. But the equalizer for “non-destination” franchises (because there really are only about 4 of them), is to have a talent foundation to convince a free agent to sign or to convince a guy to leverage a trade. And if you don’t have that, the way to get it remains the draft.

[Bulls69]

I believe in “tanking.” But I probably don’t define it the way it’s used by many people. I would not advocate what Philly did, just dumping anyone and everyone you don’t consider elite to be an NBDL team for years and years to accumulate draft picks. Especially not now with the change in lottery odds.

But if I knew my team lacked elite talent and had a low ceiling would I still make moves with an eye for enhancing the value of my draft picks and to obtain more picks? Hell yes. Might even be the right thing for the Bulls this very season.

Would I trade Otto and Thad even if they are helping us win some games, if it’s clear they are not in the long term plans and I’d rather get draft assets and a worse record in return? Absolutely. If I evaluated Lauri and at the deadline was confident that his value to the team’s long term hopes would not equal his market value, would I trade him for draft assets knowing it would mean the Bulls would win less games? Definitely. Similar scenarios could apply to other players on this team.

Would I pass on solid veteran free agents because they might inflate the win total of a young team that still needed more foundational pieces? Knowing I would intentionally be making the team worse to get a better pick (to either use or trade)? Yes, I would.

These are examples of moves that are made knowing they make the team worse resulting in a better potential lottery pick. That’s “tanking.” But if you don’t do it, you aren’t doing your job.

Teams need to maximize opportunities to add elite players. Depending on a wide variety of circumstances, sometimes the wise way to do that is by focusing on the draft.

You nailed it

[coldfish]

^^^ I don't see how one can argue that trading one or 2 vets off the Bulls, aquiring an extra pick, and at least getting into the lottery, preferabby one of the better odd slots doesn't have a chance to work. As opposed to say, making the low rung of the playoffs and signing some or one of the meh free agents on the market.

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

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

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

[coldfish]

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

Totally revisionist history. if cavs never drafted lebron, cavs never won a chip. he even came back bc of cavs tanking for kyrie and tanked another for mj 2.0 wiggins which became love.
It would be stupid not to tank for Lebron when everyone knew he was goat 2.0.

You know he is from Cleveland, right? He went back there due to his personal roots, not because he was drafted there initially.

[DuckIII]

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

Totally revisionist history. if cavs never drafted lebron, cavs never won a chip. he even came back bc of cavs tanking for kyrie and tanked another for mj 2.0 wiggins which became love.
It would be stupid not to tank for Lebron when everyone knew he was goat 2.0.

You know he is from Cleveland, right? He went back there due to his personal roots, not because he was drafted there initially.

But he also would never have gone back there had Cleveland not been awful and capable of using that awfulness to draft Kyrie and trade for Love. No tank, no LeBron. Both times. Which is why it’s important to remember that tanking gets draft “assets” not simply rookies. Those picks can be traded.