The Tank Debate Thread

[Tofubeque]

You should actually read the studies before you write conclusions like that. The studies prove the exact opposite, tanking makes it harder to become a contender, not easier. But of course it depends on what your definition of tanking is, and if your definition of tanking includes winning 33 games like the 08 Bulls then the Raptors have been tanking for 90% of their seasons. Even this upcoming year, its entirely possible the Raptors win between 25-34 games again without throwing anyone to the trash, so why the should we dump our good players to get worse when we are already bad enough to "tank"? Why not keep our talent, or atleast trade them for value, AND get a lotto pick this year? No anti-tanker would be against that. To qoute Masai, thats the definition of a win-win.

Also, in your analysis of the Pacers ages you forgot to include 27 year old Danny Granger, 30 year old Mike Dunleavy Jr, 25 year old Brandon Rush and 25 year old Tyler Hansborough. Not to mention their bench with 34 year olds James Posey and Jeff Foster and 30 year old Dahntey Jones. Nobody considered them anything more then a "treadmill" team, who I'm sure would have received much praise in the blogosphere if they had blown it up.

What those absurdly limited studies show is the only way to become a contender is to already be a contender. That's useless information. What I have argued is that all those contenders were bad once, and in fact there are NO contenders (outside of LA and Detroit) that WEREN'T once bad and didn't acquire their cornerstone piece by drafting.

The Bulls mark of 33 wins might not have been explicit tanking, but the point is they still missed the playoffs. Then they got crazy lucky jumping from ninth to first. If it's important to be in the lottery, it stands to reason that it's important to be further in the lottery while keeping your young talent, and the Bulls could have done that by dumping guys like Hinrich, Ben Gordon, and Drew Gooden earlier, and the team would still look the same (or better) today. But instead of doing that, anti-tankers want to keep our Ben Gordons in hopes that they somehow become good, instead of tanking for a star to put next to our Joakim Noah.

Similarly with Indiana, it's not like those vets were in their long term plans. I don't include Dunleavy, Jones and Foster in Indiana's core for the same reason I don't include Novak, Augustin and Gray in ours: they're bit players on short or expiring contracts. The question is, what is the team's base of young talent? And unless you think Ross is the next Paul George, ours is obviously sub par.

[nodeal]

You're doing it again. If you can just "trade and draft intelligently" then the strategy doesn't matter because you'll be fine.

That's my point. This board needs to spend more time looking at the quality of the team's moves and less on whether the team is moving inline with their favourite strategy.

Yes just trade and draft smart, and youll be a successful franchise. So simple.

Now what is a smart trade? is trading rudy for expiring contracts and a 1st a smart trade? To make smart trades you need to understand the bigger picture. You need to know the smart trades are going to lean in certain directions depending on the team. It might come to a point where trading something for nothing is a smart trade.

So you can say just be smart and there is no point in debating anything. Or you can try to figure out what is smart, which gives us something to debate.

[jvuc]

You're doing it again. If you can just "trade and draft intelligently" then the strategy doesn't matter because you'll be fine.

That's my point. This board needs to spend more time looking at the quality of the team's moves and less on whether the team is moving inline with their favourite strategy.

Yes just trade and draft smart, and youll be a successful franchise. So simple.

Now what is a smart trade? is trading rudy for expiring contracts and a 1st a smart trade? To make smart trades you need to understand the bigger picture. You need to know the smart trades are going to lean in certain directions depending on the team. It might come to a point where trading something for nothing is a smart trade.

So you can say just be smart and there is no point in debating anything. Or you can try to figure out what is smart, which gives us something to debate.

It is as simple as tanking and drafting best player available. You might draft Drako Milcic or Beasley.

Here is the secret. A Better GM will draft, trade and sign/retain players. A worse GM (or ownership) will rush to win now and sacrifice the future for today. No GM is perfect, just like no NBA player has 100% shooting percentage, but the better players/GM are right more so then his peers.

[Rapsfan07]

I can't believe people are still debating tanking. It's been proven time and time again that tanking along with smart trades, drafts and free agent signing are the only way to build a contender. Anything else is a lie.

[DatBoiCapspace]

You should actually read the studies before you write conclusions like that. The studies prove the exact opposite, tanking makes it harder to become a contender, not easier. But of course it depends on what your definition of tanking is, and if your definition of tanking includes winning 33 games like the 08 Bulls then the Raptors have been tanking for 90% of their seasons. Even this upcoming year, its entirely possible the Raptors win between 25-34 games again without throwing anyone to the trash, so why the should we dump our good players to get worse when we are already bad enough to "tank"? Why not keep our talent, or atleast trade them for value, AND get a lotto pick this year? No anti-tanker would be against that. To qoute Masai, thats the definition of a win-win.

Also, in your analysis of the Pacers ages you forgot to include 27 year old Danny Granger, 30 year old Mike Dunleavy Jr, 25 year old Brandon Rush and 25 year old Tyler Hansborough. Not to mention their bench with 34 year olds James Posey and Jeff Foster and 30 year old Dahntey Jones. Nobody considered them anything more then a "treadmill" team, who I'm sure would have received much praise in the blogosphere if they had blown it up.

What those absurdly limited studies show is the only way to become a contender is to already be a contender. That's useless information. What I have argued is that all those contenders were bad once, and in fact there are NO contenders (outside of LA and Detroit) that WEREN'T once bad and didn't acquire their cornerstone piece by drafting.

The Bulls mark of 33 wins might not have been explicit tanking, but the point is they still missed the playoffs. Then they got crazy lucky jumping from ninth to first. If it's important to be in the lottery, it stands to reason that it's important to be further in the lottery while keeping your young talent, and the Bulls could have done that by dumping guys like Hinrich, Ben Gordon, and Drew Gooden earlier, and the team would still look the same (or better) today. But instead of doing that, anti-tankers want to keep our Ben Gordons in hopes that they somehow become good, instead of tanking for a star to put next to our Joakim Noah.

Similarly with Indiana, it's not like those vets were in their long term plans. I don't include Dunleavy, Jones and Foster in Indiana's core for the same reason I don't include Novak, Augustin and Gray in ours: they're bit players on short or expiring contracts. The question is, what is the team's base of young talent? And unless you think Ross is the next Paul George, ours is obviously sub par.

Cmon man, theres no point in discussing this with you if youre just going to write lies like that. The studies are in no way shape or form limited lol, theyre the exact opposite and include the past 25 years of wins/losses and improvements for every team. They dont say at all that the only way to be a contender is to already be one, they just correctly point out that thats the most likely way. The second most likely way is to be a good team, the third most likely way is to be an ok team, the fourth most likely way is to be a bad/terrible team.

And any way you slice it, bench players, rotation or starting lineup, the Pacers were not any younger then the Raptors, so we can throw that argument out the window. http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/IND/2011.html Paul George was not considered a future superstar by any stretch and The Pacers were considered a middling treadmill team until they made moves for David West (32) and George Hill (27). If the Pacers had listened to the tank birds and blew up that team instead of build on it then they would not have had the success they did. And Terrence Ross has little to do with it, add David West and George Hill to our team and if Jonas reaches his potential like George did, then we can absolutely be as successful at Indiana.

And of course Chicago got lucky, every team that wins the lottery gets lucky. If you think their win total was so high, then how about you state which win total you would be happy with? Indianas at 32? The Sonics at 31? Miami at 25? The Celtics at 33 and 25? Orlandos at 21? San Antonios at 20? Take a look at their rosters, which of those teams dumped all their vets to tank? None of them did. No team that dumps their talent and purposely becomes so crappy that they end up with a guaranteed high pick has ever won a title. Even if their lucky and draft a superstar, they usually end up like the Cavs (17 wins they year they got Lebron) and New Orleans, (18 wins the year they got Paul) back in the lottery after a few good years.

So how you can so matter of factly claim that dumping our vets for crap value will somehow help us win a title, when thats literallly never happened and there isnt even a shred of evidence to support that being the most likely way for a team to become a contender, is beyond me. I'm not against moving any one of our players, but the goal should be to acquire equal value assets back, not to lose the most amount of games or any other nonsense. Sure it would be great if we can draft Wiggins or some other superstar next year, but it would be a big blow to our odds of ever contending if we put ourselves into a corner where we end up relying on drafting the next Lebron to contend. Thats what the pro-tankers here are missing.

[nodeal]

It is as simple as tanking and drafting best player available. You might draft Drako Milcic or Beasley.

Here is the secret. A Better GM will draft, trade and sign/retain players. A worse GM (or ownership) will rush to win now and sacrifice the future for today. No GM is perfect, just like no NBA player has 100% shooting percentage, but the better players/GM are right more so then his peers.

Yes the better GMs will make better decisions. No one is going to argue with you about that. It would be fun getting poker lessons from you.

me: My tight strategy doesnt seem to be working against these opponents, I seem to be stuck in mediocrity. Should I loosen up? or should I just keep on keepin on?
you: Here's the secret to poker, be better than your opponents.
me: thanks

[jvuc]

It is as simple as tanking and drafting best player available. You might draft Drako Milcic or Beasley.

Here is the secret. A Better GM will draft, trade and sign/retain players. A worse GM (or ownership) will rush to win now and sacrifice the future for today. No GM is perfect, just like no NBA player has 100% shooting percentage, but the better players/GM are right more so then his peers.

Yes the better GMs will make better decisions. No one is going to argue with you about that. It would be fun getting poker lessons from you.

me: My tight strategy doesnt seem to be working against these opponents, I seem to be stuck in mediocre profits. Should I loosen up? or should I just keep on keepin on?
you: Here's the secret to poker, be better than your opponents.
me: thanks

In bold above. A better GM avoids sacrificing the future to win now. That is, they avoid high risk low reward trades or signings.

- For example, they avoid trading picks and young players (Marion) for old Hakeem or Turkeyglu. And even the Lakers trading for Nash and a couple more good years is questionable move in my books. These could and have worked but more often fail. In the Turkeyglue example, Miami was smart in that they freed up space and then used that to acquire young, efficient players like Bosh, James and Wade. To me a a better trade is acqiring young efficient player in his prime or one with high potential (i.e. James Harden).

- A good GM, treasures cap space and won't overpay for talent and will let talent walk or risk missing out (Kleiza, Yogi Stewart are example of bad UFA signings. For example, DD should have been extended for a more competitive salary). And yes even at that risk of losing DD. This is what the spurs do who won't overpay for "average" talent.

- A good GM drafts and develop talent better. I can't give you an answer on how to do this. It is a bit of "art" and needs some luck, but the spurs are one of the best team at turning second round picks and mid 20s picks into good players. The development is more quantifiable as it involves acquiring the best development coaches, best practice facilities and having a winning culture that encourages winning and growth and skill and development.

[dacrusha]

I can't believe people are still debating tanking. It's been proven time and time again that tanking along with smart trades, drafts and free agent signing are the only way to build a contender. Anything else is a lie.

Except that it's been proven that tanking is the least likely way to get to a championship and about 90% likely to lead to treadmill status or worse.

[nodeal]

It is as simple as tanking and drafting best player available. You might draft Drako Milcic or Beasley.

Here is the secret. A Better GM will draft, trade and sign/retain players. A worse GM (or ownership) will rush to win now and sacrifice the future for today. No GM is perfect, just like no NBA player has 100% shooting percentage, but the better players/GM are right more so then his peers.

Yes the better GMs will make better decisions. No one is going to argue with you about that. It would be fun getting poker lessons from you.

me: My tight strategy doesnt seem to be working against these opponents, I seem to be stuck in mediocre profits. Should I loosen up? or should I just keep on keepin on?
you: Here's the secret to poker, be better than your opponents.
me: thanks

In bold above. A better GM avoids sacrificing the future to win now. That is, they avoid high risk low reward trades or signings.

- For example, they avoid trading picks and young players (Marion) for old Hakeem or Turkeyglu. And even the Lakers trading for Nash and a couple more good years is questionable move in my books. These could and have worked but more often fail. In the Turkeyglue example, Miami was smart in that they freed up space and then used that to acquire young, efficient players like Bosh, James and Wade. To me a a better trade is acqiring young efficient player in his prime or one with high potential (i.e. James Harden).

- A good GM, treasures cap space and won't overpay for talent and will let talent walk or risk missing out (Kleiza, Yogi Stewart are example of bad UFA signings. For example, DD should have been extended for a more competitive salary). And yes even at that risk of losing DD. This is what the spurs do who won't overpay for "average" talent.

- A good GM drafts and develop talent better. I can't give you an answer on how to do this. It is a bit of "art" and needs some luck, but the spurs are one of the best team at turning second round picks and mid 20s picks into good players. The development is more quantifiable as it involves acquiring the best development coaches, best practice facilities and having a winning culture that encourages winning and growth and skill and development.

Reading this is like reading one of my early posts.

Now if we are offered stucky+CV+2018 1st unprotected for gay. What do we do? What does the nodeal handbook for GMs say?

[RealRapsFan]

I can't believe people are still debating tanking. It's been proven time and time again that tanking along with smart trades, drafts and free agent signing are the only way to build a contender. Anything else is a lie.

Except that it's been proven that tanking is the least likely way to get to a championship and about 90% likely to lead to treadmill status or worse.

lol its been proven. This is the blinders the anti-tankers are wearing.

[jvuc]

In bold above. A better GM avoids sacrificing the future to win now. That is, they avoid high risk low reward trades or signings.

- For example, they avoid trading picks and young players (Marion) for old Hakeem or Turkeyglu. And even the Lakers trading for Nash and a couple more good years is questionable move in my books. These could and have worked but more often fail. In the Turkeyglue example, Miami was smart in that they freed up space and then used that to acquire young, efficient players like Bosh, James and Wade. To me a a better trade is acqiring young efficient player in his prime or one with high potential (i.e. James Harden).

- A good GM, treasures cap space and won't overpay for talent and will let talent walk or risk missing out (Kleiza, Yogi Stewart are example of bad UFA signings. For example, DD should have been extended for a more competitive salary). And yes even at that risk of losing DD. This is what the spurs do who won't overpay for "average" talent.

- A good GM drafts and develop talent better. I can't give you an answer on how to do this. It is a bit of "art" and needs some luck, but the spurs are one of the best team at turning second round picks and mid 20s picks into good players. The development is more quantifiable as it involves acquiring the best development coaches, best practice facilities and having a winning culture that encourages winning and growth and skill and development.

Reading this is like reading one of my early posts.

Now if we are offered stucky+CV+2018 1st unprotected for gay. What do we do? What does the nodeal handbook for GMs say?

Maybe I read it originally from you and it stuck with me. But your example is a tough one.

The team acquires cap space next year. At this stage, we don't need if as if have to clean out other contracts as we shouldn't be locking in UFA talent until we bottomed. This space can be used as a dumping ground for other teams bad contracts + picks (GSW this year) or for good players of teams looking to offer a max salary deal in the LBJ and UFA wars (Houston who dumped Thomas Robinson). The 2018 draft pick is very low value as it does nothing for the team in short term so I would want to add to that.

Assuming Drummond and Monroe are out of the question in a trade, then I'd look to add some other assets. For example have them swap Singler for Qrich (which helps the SF position with Gay gone). And look at swapping TRoss and Pope. Or acquring peyton siva for DJ (I'm not sure how much Siva impressed at summer league but they have Jennings now). Or Jerboko for Novak and add their 2nd round in 2014/15 to help the rebuild. The goal in my mind should be to improve/maintain the team now (Singler, Jerboko, swap Pope for Ross) and in the future (2018 picks, 2nd round picks, Siva). The outcome depends on what is negotiated.

[nodeal]

Maybe I read it originally from you and it stuck with me. But your example is a tough one.

The team acquires cap space next year. At this stage, we don't need if as if have to clean out other contracts as we shouldn't be locking in UFA talent until we bottomed. This space can be used as a dumping ground for other teams bad contracts + picks (GSW this year) or for good players of teams looking to offer a max salary deal in the LBJ and UFA wars (Houston who dumped Thomas Robinson). The 2018 draft pick is very low value as it does nothing for the team in short term so I would want to add to that.

Assuming Drummond and Monroe are out of the question in a trade, then I'd look to add some other assets. For example have them swap Singler for Qrich (which helps the SF position with Gay gone). And look at swapping TRoss and Pope. Or acquring peyton siva for DJ (I'm not sure how much Siva impressed at summer league but they have Jennings now). Or Jerboko for Novak and add their 2nd round in 2014/15 to help the rebuild. The goal in my mind should be to improve/maintain the team now (Singler, Jerboko, swap Pope for Ross) and in the future (2018 picks, 2nd round picks, Siva). The outcome depends on what is negotiated.

What are we gaining?
2018 unprotected 1st = asset regardless how far away.
cap room = can be used to absorb 1 yr contracts like you said, or maybe a good FA will like our future and we can quickly exit the rebuild.
2014 pick = will be a few spots better

What do we lose?
we lose our about 40% chance at making the playoffs

What if we wait?
We will never get more than a decent 1st for gay unless we're taking back some bad contracts.

You take this deal and run. All smart trades in our current situation will lean towards rebuild.

Now ask yourself if you were detroit would you do it? you already stated dont make short sighted win now moves. As a raptor fan you want them to add Pope, if you were a detroit fan youd want to make the pick top 10 protected. We'd probably have to make the pick top 5 protected for 2 yrs to get detroit to bite. Even then you take this deal and run. We will not get anywhere if we pass up on a pick for gay.

Lowry would be next and should be very easy to move.

[jvuc]

What are we gaining?
2018 unprotected 1st = asset regardless how far away.
cap room = can be used to absorb 1 yr contracts like you said, or maybe a good FA will like our future and we can quickly exit the rebuild.
2014 pick = will be a few spots better

What do we lose?
we lose our about 40% chance at making the playoffs

What if we wait?
We will never get more than a decent 1st for gay.

You take this deal and run. All smart trades in our current situation will lean towards rebuild.

Now ask yourself if you were detroit would you do it? you already stated dont make short sighted win now moves. As a raptor fan you want them to add Pope, if you were a detroit fan youd want to make the pick top 10 protected. We'd probably have to make the pick top 5 protected for 2 yrs to get detroit to bite. Even then you take this deal and run. We will not get anywhere if we pass up on a pick for gay.

Lowry would be next and should be very easy to move.

I'd be a bit more patient for a better deal with them or another team. I have to the trade deadline and I may lose out on a better draft spot but I'm confident I get even more back by waiting for a better offer from Piston or from another team making a playoff push.

[nodeal]

What are we gaining?
2018 unprotected 1st = asset regardless how far away.
cap room = can be used to absorb 1 yr contracts like you said, or maybe a good FA will like our future and we can quickly exit the rebuild.
2014 pick = will be a few spots better

What do we lose?
we lose our about 40% chance at making the playoffs

What if we wait?
We will never get more than a decent 1st for gay.

You take this deal and run. All smart trades in our current situation will lean towards rebuild.

Now ask yourself if you were detroit would you do it? you already stated dont make short sighted win now moves. As a raptor fan you want them to add Pope, if you were a detroit fan youd want to make the pick top 10 protected. We'd probably have to make the pick top 5 protected for 2 yrs to get detroit to bite. Even then you take this deal and run. We will not get anywhere if we pass up on a pick for gay.

Lowry would be next and should be very easy to move.

I'd be a bit more patient for a better deal with them or another team. I have to the trade deadline and I may lose out on a better draft spot but I'm confident I get even more back by waiting for a better offer from Piston or from another team making a playoff push.

you wrote this
they avoid high risk low reward

waiting when you have a pick and expirings on the table is very high risk low reward. What do you think we could bring in for gay? we paid calderon and davis If we pass 10 games we are not trading our core unless they are really struggling and if they are really struggling do you think someone will take them from us? We will probably end up 10th the season will be wasted and lowry will walk.

Patience is good, but too much patience will kill us. a 6th pick and some extra assets is better than a 4th pick alone, but no amount of realistic extra assets will make up the difference between a 12th pick and a 4th pick.

It is my belief masai worked the phones hard, but couldnt get anything done. He is now just hoping someone gets back to him. Meanwhile he and TL are going to say everything season ticket holders and the media want to hear(win-win patience wait and see) but if a decent offer comes he'll bite on it and then sell it as a necessary step to a championship.

[Reg00]

A very very very real threat to "trade tanking" is that the Raps are left with the 6th pick (sure I could name 5+ teams that have a great chance of being just awful next season), lots of money with few takers because they suck, and no assets because they've all been either traded away or devalued because of a horrible season. A terrible losing season also likely means JV has regressed.

Then it's Sacramento Kings land. Something to be worried about.

[jvuc]

What are we gaining?
2018 unprotected 1st = asset regardless how far away.
cap room = can be used to absorb 1 yr contracts like you said, or maybe a good FA will like our future and we can quickly exit the rebuild.
2014 pick = will be a few spots better

What do we lose?
we lose our about 40% chance at making the playoffs

What if we wait?
We will never get more than a decent 1st for gay.

You take this deal and run. All smart trades in our current situation will lean towards rebuild.

Now ask yourself if you were detroit would you do it? you already stated dont make short sighted win now moves. As a raptor fan you want them to add Pope, if you were a detroit fan youd want to make the pick top 10 protected. We'd probably have to make the pick top 5 protected for 2 yrs to get detroit to bite. Even then you take this deal and run. We will not get anywhere if we pass up on a pick for gay.

Lowry would be next and should be very easy to move.

I'd be a bit more patient for a better deal with them or another team. I have to the trade deadline and I may lose out on a better draft spot but I'm confident I get even more back by waiting for a better offer from Piston or from another team making a playoff push.

you wrote this
they avoid high risk low reward

waiting when you have a pick and expirings on the table is very high risk low reward. What do you think we could bring in for gay? we paid calderon and davis If we pass 10 games we are not trading our core unless they are really struggling and if they are really struggling do you think someone will take them from us? We will probably end up 10th the season will be wasted and lowry will walk.

Patience is good, but too much patience will kill us. a 6th pick and some extra assets is better than a 4th pick alone, but no amount of realistic extra assets will make up the difference between a 12th pick and a 4th pick.

It is my belief masai worked the phones hard, but couldnt get anything done. He is now just hoping someone gets back to him. Meanwhile he and TL are going to say everything season ticket holders and the media want to hear(win-win patience wait and see) but if a decent offer comes he'll bite on it and then sell it as a necessary step to a championship.

We all have opinions. There is risk any strategy he chooses.
If he gives his players away for expiring and gets a lotto pick he may draft a bust.
Similarly, like you say if he wait, some players walk away with nothing and the raptors get a worse pick.
He has to use his judgement and yes I do think he can get more (look at the Bargs trade). That said, he may miss out by being too greedy.

[Rapsfan07]

I can't believe people are still debating tanking. It's been proven time and time again that tanking along with smart trades, drafts and free agent signing are the only way to build a contender. Anything else is a lie.

Except that it's been proven that tanking is the least likely way to get to a championship and about 90% likely to lead to treadmill status or worse.

lol its been proven. This is the blinders the anti-tankers are wearing.

lol its so funny. Anti tankers are always so quick to bash tanking but never ever have a way of constructing a championship caliber team. Please show me this proof that tanking isn't the way to go. Because last I checked, you need a superstar to win in this league and unless you:

a) Sign one. IF big market where NBA superstars actually WANT to go (i.e L.A, Miami, NYK etc). We are not
b) Trade for one. This means there's a disgruntled start willing to sign a long term deal here. Usually also means we have to gut the team to acquire him. Stars are already rare, disgruntled stars are even rarer.

So if it's not one of those, the ONLY was is draft. And you have a better chance at finding a star in the Top 5 of the draft than anywhere else. Seems like common sense what we have to do if we're serious about contention.

[Abba Zabba]

I can't believe people are still debating tanking. It's been proven time and time again that tanking along with smart trades, drafts and free agent signing are the only way to build a contender. Anything else is a lie.

Except that it's been proven that tanking is the least likely way to get to a championship and about 90% likely to lead to treadmill status or worse.

We should draw a sharp line between the idea of the quick tank and the notion of multi-year tanking.

There are plenty of examples of good teams making a one or 2 year plunge and then returning to winning ways, with some treadmill (30 to 49 wins) seasons thrown in around it.

What the studies seem to indicate is that the long tank (3 plus years under 30 wins) is disastrous for franchises. At that point your team becomes too bad, and too unattractive to players and front office personnel (as well as likely under increasingly short sighted pressure from ownership) to be rescued by a crap shoot in the draft each year. At best these teams get lucky and stumble into a generational talent like Lebron and even that doesn't stop them from dropping right back down to the bottom after a few successful seasons. The only exception so far is OKC and I discussed the uniqueness of their scenario a page ago.

So tank if the the time is right, but never plan on long term tanking.

Edit: This begs the question, to design a short tank, what is the ideal situation for the Raptors?

We'd need cap space opening up within a couple years of making the move and, ideally a quality component or 2 already on the team long term that somehow doesn't sabotage the tank (injury, early in the learning curve) and a savvy GM. Is now the right time for the quick tank? If so how would you ensure we can bounce back up and avoid being caught in the worst treadmill of all: the one at the bottom of the league?

[CoachJReturns]

I can't believe people are still debating tanking. It's been proven time and time again that tanking along with smart trades, drafts and free agent signing are the only way to build a contender. Anything else is a lie.

Except that it's been proven that tanking is the least likely way to get to a championship and about 90% likely to lead to treadmill status or worse.

We should draw a sharp line between the idea of the quick tank and the notion of multi-year tanking.

There are plenty of examples of good teams making a one or 2 year plunge and then returning to winning ways, with some treadmill (30 to 49 wins) seasons thrown in around it.

What the studies seem to indicate is that the long tank (3 plus years under 30 wins) is disastrous for franchises. At that point your team becomes too bad, and too unattractive to players and front office personnel (as well as likely under increasingly short sighted pressure from ownership) to be rescued by a crap shoot in the draft each year. At best these teams get lucky and stumble into a generational talent like Lebron and even that doesn't stop them from dropping right back down to the bottom after a few successful seasons. The only exception so far is OKC and I discussed the uniqueness of their scenario a page ago.

So tank if the the time is right, but never plan on long term tanking.

Edit: This begs the question, to design a short tank, what is the ideal situation for the Raptors?

We'd need cap space opening up within a couple years of making the move and, ideally a quality component or 2 already on the team long term that somehow doesn't sabotage the tank (injury, early in the learning curve) and a savvy GM. Is now the right time for the quick tank? If so how would you ensure we can bounce back up and avoid being caught in the worst treadmill of all: the one at the bottom of the league?

Now seems as good a time as any for a quick tank. We have a potential top 5 center who is a two way player and will compliment almost any star we can draft. Our preimeter players are all inefficient, so they are not really worth keeping if trying to be a top 5 team and a contender is the goal in the future. Lowry is in a contract year and will demand a bigger contract next year, so it's best to get what we can for him and move on. Rudy is a borderline star, but how many more good years will he have when Val hits his prime? Jonas is the only guy who makes sense in the long term. He needs a star to play with otherwise he will have no reason to stay past his rookie contract. We all know this is the ideal draft to look for a star in. Of course if we draft well and given Masai's track record I think he could do great things for us with a high lotto pick, we could put ourselves in position to go after a big free agent in the next couple years. We could have 2-3 all-stars or borderline all-stars in the same starting lineup. That would be the best team we've ever had. I don't think there's any question now is the time for a quick 1-2 year tank job.

[Abba Zabba]

We should draw a sharp line between the idea of the quick tank and the notion of multi-year tanking.

There are plenty of examples of good teams making a one or 2 year plunge and then returning to winning ways, with some treadmill (30 to 49 wins) seasons thrown in around it.

What the studies seem to indicate is that the long tank (3 plus years under 30 wins) is disastrous for franchises. At that point your team becomes too bad, and too unattractive to players and front office personnel (as well as likely under increasingly short sighted pressure from ownership) to be rescued by a crap shoot in the draft each year. At best these teams get lucky and stumble into a generational talent like Lebron and even that doesn't stop them from dropping right back down to the bottom after a few successful seasons. The only exception so far is OKC and I discussed the uniqueness of their scenario a page ago.

So tank if the the time is right, but never plan on long term tanking.

Edit: This begs the question, to design a short tank, what is the ideal situation for the Raptors?

We'd need cap space opening up within a couple years of making the move and, ideally a quality component or 2 already on the team long term that somehow doesn't sabotage the tank (injury, early in the learning curve) and a savvy GM. Is now the right time for the quick tank? If so how would you ensure we can bounce back up and avoid being caught in the worst treadmill of all: the one at the bottom of the league?

Now seems as good a time as any for a quick tank. We have a potential top 5 center who is a two way player and will compliment almost any star we can draft. Our preimeter players are all inefficient, so they are not really worth keeping if trying to be a top 5 team and a contender is the goal in the future. Lowry is in a contract year and will demand a bigger contract next year, so it's best to get what we can for him and move on. Rudy is a borderline star, but how many more good years will he have when Val hits his prime? Jonas is the only guy who makes sense in the long term. He needs a star to play with otherwise he will have no reason to stay past his rookie contract. We all know this is the ideal draft to look for a star in. Of course if we draft well and given Masai's track record I think he could do great things for us with a high lotto pick, we could put ourselves in position to go after a big free agent in the next couple years. We could have 2-3 all-stars or borderline all-stars in the same starting lineup. That would be the best team we've ever had. I don't think there's any question now is the time for a quick 1-2 year tank job.

I agree. It's weird: I started off this discussion with a prejudice against tanking in general but an interest in what the studies were showing about teams' inertia in their rankings, but now find myself on the other side of the fence, at least with respect to a quick tank, which history shows works as long as teams don't get stuck in the mud at the bottom of the league. And if we are to pull off a quick tank at any point in the next 5 years, this would seem to be the year: before Jonas is too good and while we still have him locked up for years, while we still have a useful piece on any team in Amir, with a large amount of cap space opening up in 2 years, with a new, respected, and savvy GM able to sell the vision as temporary not endemic to the franchise's losing ways, and in a year with a stacked draft.

I still think Masai will play the waiting game, but the odds seem higher to me that he will (or should) blow it up by the trade deadline than they did yesterday.