ItsDanger wrote:Danny1616 wrote:ItsDanger wrote:Of course. I'm just saying top end picks retain their trade value longer than lower picks.
Maybe for the first 3-4 years, but not after 7 seasons. After 7 seasons it becomes more than apparent what product you have on the floor and Bargnani was starting to decline after the 2011 season.
True but that just underscores what a great trade that was. But also bears examination into how it happened. I suggest it's the perceived value of high lottery draft status. It's a hidden benefit of tanking. Trading your lottery picks for your contending core. We did it many times. Even with Lowry, they thought that was going to be a higher pick when that trade went down.
But you are stretching everything now to fit your narrative.
Now trading lottery picks all of a sudden equates to tanking, LOL.
Maybe some of you need to clear up the definition of "tanking" because anything can be labelled as a tank according to your logic, even trading future draft picks. And some of people here don't want us to be a treadmill team but at the same time call teams that finished with 35-40 wins and get a mid 1st round pick as a team that successfully tanked. It's beginning to be a bit ridiculous.
The point is that a "tank" is viable in certain situations such as when your team has underperformed for multiple years or has suffered major injuries in a lost season. I wouldn't even consider that tanking, it's really a tank by default as a result of extraneous circumstances when your team suffers a major injury and does poorly. However, tanking for the sake of tanking before the season even starts isn't a viable strategy historically.
It just really strikes me as an odd paradox that some of you don't want us to be a treadmill team but are now stretching the narrative to consider late lottery picks on teams that are literally the definition of a treadmill team as teams that tanked successfully if they found a great player at that range.
Finding a Booker or a Giannis or a Klay or a George or a Lavine or a Bam or a Mitchell etc (all late lottery picks) were not done by teams that
tanked. They were actually drafted by "
treadmill teams" that won around 35 games or more and were competing for a playoff spot. That's part of the irony here.
__________
So my question is how do you define tanking? Is it a team that deliberately sucks and wins 15 games? Is it a team that sucks due to major injuries and lucks into a high lottery pick? Is it a team that is competing hard, still wins 35-40 games and gets a mid 1st round pick? Is it all of the above? Many of you have different definitions so please enlighten me.