Tank World Order 3.0

[Raps in 4]

I'm not in love with the top of this class tbh.
Is Paolo able to defend/switch up and down positions? Is he a 4 strictly? Or can he guard 5s?

Chet. So many question marks.

Jabari Smith - Probably my early number 1-2, but inconsistent scorer.

Jalen Duren - jump shot improvements are key to ceiling.

Hardy - decision/play making and shot consistency.

PBJ - Playing lackluster competition, looked outmatched against Florida

Griffin - Two years with no real basketball due to injury

Caleb Houstan - Consistency and overall feel seem to be lacking

Jalen Ivey - is he a pg or sg? Can he get consistency on shooting and play making.

That said I think all have skills or reasons to believe they should be okay, or be able to translate at the next level.

Super Early if I'm picking top 3, I'm going Paolo or Jabari. I'm I'm picking 4-9 I'm looking at Ivey/PBJ and Duren.

I'm sure Masai and Co. will be able to find/develop a star.

[Raps in 4]

And no tanking has not proven time and time again to be the most successful method of team building because the players drafted in the top 5 who win a championship don't do it for the team that drafted them. It's really that simple.

And once again you're associating good teams who were only bad because of injuries. Spurs got Duncan because Robinson got hurt. Heat got Wade because of injuries to Eddie Jones and Mourning missing the year. Wade walked onto a team with Jones, Butler, Haslem and Odom and went to the playoffs in his rookie year. And no, Cleveland is not an example of a successful tank. They lost Lebron and drafted Kyrie but with Kyrie and the other lottery picks they NEVER made the playoffs. They SIGNED Lebron. You don't get credit for a successful tank when you lose a player for four years and then sign him back because he just so happens to be from your city. The reality is that the Cavaliers drafted a top 3 player of all-time and couldn't win the championship with him.

I believe Curry was drafted 7th overall. Golden State was the definition of a treadmill team that only got that pick because of injuries. Maggette, Ellis, Stephen Jackson, Beidrins, Crawford were on that team that year. Dallas was a brutal team but Dirk was drafted 9th overall, right in that treadmill territory. Kobe was drafted 13th. Kawhi was drafted 15th. Giannis was drafted 15th.

The rest of your examples are from the 70's and 80's when there were half as many teams as there are now.

Basically, being in the lottery is excellent for teams that are already average to great but not for teams that are really, really bad.

KD didn't sign with Golden State because it was in California. He signed there because he wanted to win a ring. Who was Golden State recruiting before they became a dynasty? You think people are chomping at the bit to play in Oakland? How many players has Sacramento recruited? And I'm sure being in Miami helped Butler's decision but if you believe in what he said about why he signed there, then it had nothing to do with playing in south Florida but had everything to do with the organization. And it also needs to be said that the previous two teams that he wanted out from were teams that spent years tanking and that lacked winning culture.

Boston traded Gerald Green, Al Jefferson, Theo Ratliff, Ryan Gomes and two FRP's for KG. Green was an 18th pick, Jefferson was the T15th pick. So I don't get what you mean when you say they tanked to get Allen and KG. Yes, they traded Jeff Green for Ray Allen but the KG deal involved no lottery picks, only assets drafted outside of the lottery. You don't need to tank for assets. We are living proof of that. Spurs would've much rather had OG and Pascal than Poeltl and Demar.

With enough ju jitsu you can associate anything witha tank really.

Lottery picks as players that will lead

Lottery picks as players who are trade assets for a superstar

Lottery picks as bait to attract free agents

Deliberately losing has so many such effects and collateral damage on culture, player development and attractiveness to other players.

Yeah exactly, I laugh when some people think were shifting the goal posts. All of a sudden Andrea Bargnani was a good asset for NYK because he was the first overall pick? He was traded to NYK when he was 28 years old after averaging 12ppg on a TS% of .48.

The fact that he was a former first overall pick is what allowed that trade to happen.

[Danny1616]

Bargs had a higher perceived value vs actual value primarily because he was a lottery pick/#1 overall. If he was drafted 30th, that deal with NY doesn't happen.

A side benefit of tanking is that your drafted assets retain their perceived value much longer than the norm.

Lol what?

He was traded 7 years after he was drafted. It would make more sense if it was still in the first 2-3 years, but 7 years is quite a long time. It was more of Masai taking advantage of Dolan's incompetence and the Knicks being in win now mode after giving Melo an absurd max contract. Most experts at the time even said it was a bad trade for the Knicks.

https://www.sbnation.com/nba/2013/7/1/4484510/andrea-bargnani-trade-knicks-raptors-nba-free-agency-2013

Andrea Bargnani trade a confusing one for Knicks, no-brainer for Raptors

http://insider.espn.com/nba/insider/story/_/page/TradeGrades-130701-2/nba-grading-summer-trades

Raptors: A
Masai Ujiri was quiet on draft night, when the Raptors were the only team not to make a pick. The new general manager’s effort to clean up the Toronto roster begins in earnest with this move. After a frustrating 2012-13 season, Bargnani had to go. The only question was how bad the return would be for the Raptors. This move saves them $7.6 million in salary in 2014-15, provided they waive Camby (whose contract is guaranteed for about a million), and possibly even more if Camby simply decides to retire rather than reporting.

For Toronto to accomplish that kind of savings and also get three draft picks out of the deal is almost unthinkable. There’s plenty more work ahead for Ujiri in undoing Bryan Colangelo’s mistakes, but this is an ideal start.

Now you are stretching it to include "perceived value."

Are you trying to tell me that Bargnani's perceived value in 2013 was higher than Pascal, Fred or OG's actual value right now?

No, I'm saying if Bargs was drafted 30th, that trade doesn't happen. His draft position of 1st artificially inflated his perceived value in the marketplace (the validity is irrelevant) providing Masai opportunity.

If a 30th pick was a 7 footer and averaged around 20ppg for several seasons, you don't think the trade value would be any different?

The perceived value was not him being a former #1 pick, it was that in 2011 he averaged 21ppg on decent efficiency.

However, must experts were stunned by the trade because Bargnani's defensive and effort flaws were obvious and his efficiency was going down.

[ItsDanger]

Lol what?

He was traded 7 years after he was drafted. It would make more sense if it was still in the first 2-3 years, but 7 years is quite a long time. It was more of Masai taking advantage of Dolan's incompetence and the Knicks being in win now mode after giving Melo an absurd max contract. Most experts at the time even said it was a bad trade for the Knicks.

https://www.sbnation.com/nba/2013/7/1/4484510/andrea-bargnani-trade-knicks-raptors-nba-free-agency-2013



http://insider.espn.com/nba/insider/story/_/page/TradeGrades-130701-2/nba-grading-summer-trades



Now you are stretching it to include "perceived value."

Are you trying to tell me that Bargnani's perceived value in 2013 was higher than Pascal, Fred or OG's actual value right now?

No, I'm saying if Bargs was drafted 30th, that trade doesn't happen. His draft position of 1st artificially inflated his perceived value in the marketplace (the validity is irrelevant) providing Masai opportunity.

If a 30th pick was a 7 footer and averaged around 20ppg for several seasons, you don't think the trade value would be any different?

Of course. I'm just saying top end picks retain their trade value longer than lower picks.

[Raps in 4]

Lol what?

He was traded 7 years after he was drafted. It would make more sense if it was still in the first 2-3 years, but 7 years is quite a long time. It was more of Masai taking advantage of Dolan's incompetence and the Knicks being in win now mode after giving Melo an absurd max contract. Most experts at the time even said it was a bad trade for the Knicks.

https://www.sbnation.com/nba/2013/7/1/4484510/andrea-bargnani-trade-knicks-raptors-nba-free-agency-2013



http://insider.espn.com/nba/insider/story/_/page/TradeGrades-130701-2/nba-grading-summer-trades



Now you are stretching it to include "perceived value."

Are you trying to tell me that Bargnani's perceived value in 2013 was higher than Pascal, Fred or OG's actual value right now?

No, I'm saying if Bargs was drafted 30th, that trade doesn't happen. His draft position of 1st artificially inflated his perceived value in the marketplace (the validity is irrelevant) providing Masai opportunity.

If a 30th pick was a 7 footer and averaged around 20ppg for several seasons, you don't think the trade value would be any different?

With a former top pick, there is always hope that the new coaching staff can still "unlock" something that the previous one couldn't. There will be GMs who think they'll be able to teach Simmons to shoot too.

[Danny1616]

No, I'm saying if Bargs was drafted 30th, that trade doesn't happen. His draft position of 1st artificially inflated his perceived value in the marketplace (the validity is irrelevant) providing Masai opportunity.

If a 30th pick was a 7 footer and averaged around 20ppg for several seasons, you don't think the trade value would be any different?

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.

[Danny1616]

With enough ju jitsu you can associate anything witha tank really.

Lottery picks as players that will lead

Lottery picks as players who are trade assets for a superstar

Lottery picks as bait to attract free agents

Deliberately losing has so many such effects and collateral damage on culture, player development and attractiveness to other players.

Yeah exactly, I laugh when some people think were shifting the goal posts. All of a sudden Andrea Bargnani was a good asset for NYK because he was the first overall pick? He was traded to NYK when he was 28 years old after averaging 12ppg on a TS% of .48.

The fact that he was a former first overall pick is what allowed that trade to happen.

The mental gymnastics here is unbelievable.

Now it's about perceived value for you guys.

Anything is stretched to be labelled a "tank" by you guys. A team wins 35 games, is a de facto treadmill team and finds a gem with the 11th pick, it's all of a sudden a tank if they draft somebody good (like Klay Thompson with the 11th pick in 2011 after the Warriors won 35 games and actually finished 6-4 to end the season). Or the Warriors in 2009 are all of a sudden a team that tanked when their best player, Monta Ellis, missed 57 games due to injury, Maggette missed 31 games to injury, and Stephen Jackson missed 20 games to injury.

The Bucks are all of sudden a team that tanked when they won 44 games in 2012 and traded scraps for the 39th pick in Middleton and won 38 games in 2013 and drafted Giannis at 15.

[ItsDanger]

If a 30th pick was a 7 footer and averaged around 20ppg for several seasons, you don't think the trade value would be any different?

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.

[Danny1616]

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.

[Los_29]

With enough ju jitsu you can associate anything witha tank really.

Lottery picks as players that will lead

Lottery picks as players who are trade assets for a superstar

Lottery picks as bait to attract free agents

Deliberately losing has so many such effects and collateral damage on culture, player development and attractiveness to other players.

Yeah exactly, I laugh when some people think were shifting the goal posts. All of a sudden Andrea Bargnani was a good asset for NYK because he was the first overall pick? He was traded to NYK when he was 28 years old after averaging 12ppg on a TS% of .48.

The fact that he was a former first overall pick is what allowed that trade to happen.

Absolutely not. You don't actually believe that do you?

[brownbobcat]

No, I'm saying if Bargs was drafted 30th, that trade doesn't happen. His draft position of 1st artificially inflated his perceived value in the marketplace (the validity is irrelevant) providing Masai opportunity.

If a 30th pick was a 7 footer and averaged around 20ppg for several seasons, you don't think the trade value would be any different?

Of course. I'm just saying top end picks retain their trade value longer than lower picks.

There's zero evidence to support that in the Bargnani trade. What was Brandon Roy's trade value in 2013? How about Tyrus Thomas, Adam Morrison, or Shelden Williams? Why did 24th pick Lowry also get traded for a lotto pick a year earlier?

[Los_29]

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.

This is the biggest problem here. I think we'd all be in agreement that if the team is relatively healthy and they find themselves out of the playoff picture with 20 games to go then it makes perfect sense to pull back and start resting guys like they did last year. But unfortunately that's not what some of you want. Some of you wanted to tank even before the season started which if you look at history has QUITE CLEARLY never worked with the exception of the Cavs with Lebron and even they didn't win a championship.

I can't believe they are now advocating for being a treadmill team.

[Raps in 4]

Yeah exactly, I laugh when some people think were shifting the goal posts. All of a sudden Andrea Bargnani was a good asset for NYK because he was the first overall pick? He was traded to NYK when he was 28 years old after averaging 12ppg on a TS% of .48.

The fact that he was a former first overall pick is what allowed that trade to happen.

The mental gymnastics here is unbelievable.

Now it's about perceived value for you guys.

Anything is stretched to be labelled a "tank" by you guys. A team wins 35 games, is a de facto treadmill team and finds a gem with the 11th pick, it's all of a sudden a tank if they draft somebody good (like Klay Thompson with the 11th pick in 2011 after the Warriors won 35 games and actually finished 6-4 to end the season). Or the Warriors in 2009 are all of a sudden a team that tanked when their best player, Monta Ellis, missed 57 games due to injury, Maggette missed 31 games to injury, and Stephen Jackson missed 20 games to injury.

The Bucks are all of sudden a team that tanked when they won 44 games in 2012 and traded scraps for the 39th pick in Middleton and won 38 games in 2013 and drafted Giannis at 15.

Where did anyone call those tank moves? You're creating a strawman argument.

There is an irrefutable history of teams finding elite talent in the top-10. It's really that simple. That's not to say you can't find elite talent outside the top-10, but the odds are much lower.

And even when teams don't hit a home run, players taken in that range tend to hold their value better than those taken outside of it.

[Raps in 4]

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.

This is the biggest problem here. I think we'd all be in agreement that if the team is relatively healthy and they find themselves out of the playoff picture with 20 games to go then it makes perfect sense to pull back and start resting guys like they did last year. But unfortunately that's not what some of you want. Some of you wanted to tank even before the season started which if you look at history has QUITE CLEARLY never worked with the exception of the Cavs with Lebron and even they didn't win a championship.

I can't believe they are now advocating for being a treadmill team.

Tanking is just being bad. The team is tanking this year.

Tanking isn't throwing games. Tanking is designing a roster that isn't competitive, allowing young players to develop and earning the team another top-10 pick.

[Raps in 4]

Yeah exactly, I laugh when some people think were shifting the goal posts. All of a sudden Andrea Bargnani was a good asset for NYK because he was the first overall pick? He was traded to NYK when he was 28 years old after averaging 12ppg on a TS% of .48.

The fact that he was a former first overall pick is what allowed that trade to happen.

Absolutely not. You don't actually believe that do you?

It's absolutely true.

[Danny1616]

The fact that he was a former first overall pick is what allowed that trade to happen.

The mental gymnastics here is unbelievable.

Now it's about perceived value for you guys.

Anything is stretched to be labelled a "tank" by you guys. A team wins 35 games, is a de facto treadmill team and finds a gem with the 11th pick, it's all of a sudden a tank if they draft somebody good (like Klay Thompson with the 11th pick in 2011 after the Warriors won 35 games and actually finished 6-4 to end the season). Or the Warriors in 2009 are all of a sudden a team that tanked when their best player, Monta Ellis, missed 57 games due to injury, Maggette missed 31 games to injury, and Stephen Jackson missed 20 games to injury.

The Bucks are all of sudden a team that tanked when they won 44 games in 2012 and traded scraps for the 39th pick in Middleton and won 38 games in 2013 and drafted Giannis at 15.

Where did anyone call those tank moves? You're creating a strawman argument.

There is an irrefutable history of teams finding elite talent in the top-10. It's really that simple. That's not to say you can't find elite talent outside the top-10, but the odds are much lower.

And even when teams don't hit a home run, players taken in that range tend to hold their value better than those taken outside of it.

Several people have called those successful tanks and many have noted that lottery picks are not just top 5 picks but also range from 6-14. I mean when you get to that range you are moving more into the "treadmill team" territory. People were arguing that the Warriors tanked, but they got Curry with the 7th pick after suffering major injuries to their best players that season. That's more of landing into that pick due to extraneous factors such as injuries to major pieces on your team. They got the 11th pick in 2011 and drafted Klay after finishing with 35 wins and actually finishing the season strong instead of intentionally tanking. Then they found Draymond with the 35th pick in the 2nd round.

Now you guys are going with the argument that higher lottery picks hold their value better or that trading future draft picks equates to tanking. So what you are trying to argue now is that you can get a high lottery pick, draft a mediocore player or a bust but still benefit from their "perceived value" years later, lol.

[brownbobcat]

Tanking is just being bad. The team is tanking this year.

Tanking isn't throwing games. It's designing a roster that isn't competitive.

Tanking is being bad on purpose at the executive level, e.g trading established players for prospects/picks. Raptors have yet to fully tank.

[Raps in 4]

The mental gymnastics here is unbelievable.

Now it's about perceived value for you guys.

Anything is stretched to be labelled a "tank" by you guys. A team wins 35 games, is a de facto treadmill team and finds a gem with the 11th pick, it's all of a sudden a tank if they draft somebody good (like Klay Thompson with the 11th pick in 2011 after the Warriors won 35 games and actually finished 6-4 to end the season). Or the Warriors in 2009 are all of a sudden a team that tanked when their best player, Monta Ellis, missed 57 games due to injury, Maggette missed 31 games to injury, and Stephen Jackson missed 20 games to injury.

The Bucks are all of sudden a team that tanked when they won 44 games in 2012 and traded scraps for the 39th pick in Middleton and won 38 games in 2013 and drafted Giannis at 15.

Where did anyone call those tank moves? You're creating a strawman argument.

There is an irrefutable history of teams finding elite talent in the top-10. It's really that simple. That's not to say you can't find elite talent outside the top-10, but the odds are much lower.

And even when teams don't hit a home run, players taken in that range tend to hold their value better than those taken outside of it.

Several people have called those successful tanks and many have noted that lottery picks are not just top 5 picks but also range from 6-14. I mean when you get to that range you are moving more into the "treadmill team" territory. People were arguing that the Warriors tanked, but they got Curry with the 7th pick after suffering major injuries to their best players that season. That's more of landing into that pick due to extraneous factors such as injuries to major pieces on your team. They got the 11th pick in 2011 and drafted Klay after finishing with 35 wins and actually finishing the season strong instead of intentionally tanking. Then they found Draymond with the 35th pick in the 2nd round.

Now you guys are going with the argument that higher lottery picks hold their value better or that trading future draft picks equates to tanking. So what you are trying to argue now is that you can get a high lottery pick, draft a mediocore player or a bust but still benefit from their "perceived value" years later, lol.

Tanking is all about asset accumulation. You either draft and develop a star or you flip the assets for a star. That has always been the argument.

[Danny1616]

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.

This is the biggest problem here. I think we'd all be in agreement that if the team is relatively healthy and they find themselves out of the playoff picture with 20 games to go then it makes perfect sense to pull back and start resting guys like they did last year. But unfortunately that's not what some of you want. Some of you wanted to tank even before the season started which if you look at history has QUITE CLEARLY never worked with the exception of the Cavs with Lebron and even they didn't win a championship.

I can't believe they are now advocating for being a treadmill team.

Tanking is just being bad. The team is tanking this year.

Tanking isn't throwing games. Tanking is designing a roster that isn't competitive, allowing young players to develop and earning the team another top-10 pick.

So your definition of a team that tanks is being 8-10 and on pace to win 35-40 games? Wouldn't that actually be the definition of a treadmill team?

These definitions are getting really weird.

I was under the impression tanking was deliberately gutting your team or intentionally losing games to get the best draft position possible.

[Raps in 4]

Tanking is just being bad. The team is tanking this year.

Tanking isn't throwing games. It's designing a roster that isn't competitive.

Tanking is being bad on purpose at the executive level, e.g trading established players for prospects/picks. Raptors have yet to fully tank.

We let Lowry walk (technically traded him for a prospect). We let Gasol and Serge walk. We aren't trying to win. We are tanking.