Hawks Interested In Trading For Steven Adams

[mhi]

Is it possible to "play cautious" and play at this level? I would argue that it is not.

What am saying, is given his age he should shut it down.

[Dr Huge Pecs]

would be pretty dumb for okc to trade him at this point.

dont be a joke team. you're at .500 and in the playoffs over 1/3 into the season. go for it.

Go for what exactly? The 8th seed so they can be swept and miss out on a lottery pick? A lottery pick where you have much better odds of jumping up than previous years.

Tanking can start a vicious cycle far worse than the dreaded 'mediocrity treadmill'. High draft picks are never even close to guaranteed to be good, let alone franchise type players. Losing can cast a pall over a team, and usually it isn't worth the slightly better odds of picking a better player, especially since the lottery odds have been adjusted. Look at teams like Boston and Dallas. Neither purposefully tanked, yet they came up with serious playoff contenders anyway, and without alienating fans. Every player on a winning team tends to have more trade value than if those same players are on a loser. Is tanking the trade value of the players on a team's roster worth the higher draft pick? Probably not. Also, young players get accustomed to losing and can develop less effectively because of it. If it appears that the franchise is embarking on a multi-year tank-job, players will be much less motivated to produce, stunting their development. Those players who do improve will be more likely to leave during free agency, or ask for more than market value contracts, or demand a trade. A player who had to deal with a multi-year tank is far less likely to tolerate a future injury-related down year for the team. And other team's free agents may be less motivated to join such a team. Fan pressure can force a sudden switch from a long-term tank process to a win-now process that then would likely lead to a series of bad decisions. Such bad decisions will usually create a situation that could create a multi-decade streak of bad basketball that can leave fans disgusted and anyone with any talent, from execs, to coaches, to players, with big reasons to avoid such a team, no matter how much money is offered. Generally, the downward spiral of tanking just isn't worth it.

There is a good chance the team could trade Adams and Gallo and still stay in the playoff hunt, and there is little reason not to do so. Specifically for OKC, making the playoffs would likely make CP3 more tradeable, since other teams would see that he can still be a leader of a winner. And SGA could benefit greatly from more playoff experience, especially as the team's star.

Great post.

I would even point to Philly who is seen as a tank success. Quite the opposite. They crapped the bed for 6 seasons....6....and they're still just a middle of the pack team...in the East. Over hyped yes.... But will never get out of round 2. They bled draft picks who got sick of log jams at their positions, hated losing, got hurt or just were not that good.

Despite having the same coach the player consistency is not there outside of two guys...very immature ones at that

Tanking is just counterproductive, even if you land a big but flawed star like embiid. Simmons is a one trick pony and gets exposed by good teams.

Great post 100% correct

[eureca20]

Go for what exactly? The 8th seed so they can be swept and miss out on a lottery pick? A lottery pick where you have much better odds of jumping up than previous years.

Tanking can start a vicious cycle far worse than the dreaded 'mediocrity treadmill'. High draft picks are never even close to guaranteed to be good, let alone franchise type players. Losing can cast a pall over a team, and usually it isn't worth the slightly better odds of picking a better player, especially since the lottery odds have been adjusted. Look at teams like Boston and Dallas. Neither purposefully tanked, yet they came up with serious playoff contenders anyway, and without alienating fans. Every player on a winning team tends to have more trade value than if those same players are on a loser. Is tanking the trade value of the players on a team's roster worth the higher draft pick? Probably not. Also, young players get accustomed to losing and can develop less effectively because of it. If it appears that the franchise is embarking on a multi-year tank-job, players will be much less motivated to produce, stunting their development. Those players who do improve will be more likely to leave during free agency, or ask for more than market value contracts, or demand a trade. A player who had to deal with a multi-year tank is far less likely to tolerate a future injury-related down year for the team. And other team's free agents may be less motivated to join such a team. Fan pressure can force a sudden switch from a long-term tank process to a win-now process that then would likely lead to a series of bad decisions. Such bad decisions will usually create a situation that could create a multi-decade streak of bad basketball that can leave fans disgusted and anyone with any talent, from execs, to coaches, to players, with big reasons to avoid such a team, no matter how much money is offered. Generally, the downward spiral of tanking just isn't worth it.

There is a good chance the team could trade Adams and Gallo and still stay in the playoff hunt, and there is little reason not to do so. Specifically for OKC, making the playoffs would likely make CP3 more tradeable, since other teams would see that he can still be a leader of a winner. And SGA could benefit greatly from more playoff experience, especially as the team's star.

Great post.

I would even point to Philly who is seen as a tank success. Quite the opposite. They crapped the bed for 6 seasons....6....and they're still just a middle of the pack team...in the East. Over hyped yes.... But will never get out of round 2. They bled draft picks who got sick of log jams at their positions, hated losing, got hurt or just were not that good.

Despite having the same coach the player consistency is not there outside of two guys...very immature ones at that

Tanking is just counterproductive, even if you land a big but flawed star like embiid. Simmons is a one trick pony and gets exposed by good teams.

Great post 100% correct

Sixers is not a good example imo. They missed the playoffs for 5 seasons. The first season they weren't tanking they traded for Andrew Bynum in a trade they thought would make them better, but obviously was a failure and they barely missed the playoffs. They tanked for 4 seasons. Tanking clearly helped them become a contender. I think most people consider them a contender and not a middle of the pack team. And that is with their 2 stars best years ahead of them. And they even screwed up multiple things. Like trading Tatum and a pick for Fultz. And then trading Fultz for scraps. Trading for Jimmy and not re-signing him.

I do get the overall point though. You can get stuck in that tanking loop as lottery picks are not a guaranteed hit. I would argue though that you want to give Sam Presti the man who drafted Durant, Westbrook and Harden with 3 straight lottery picks as many opportunities to hit as you can.

[Pickled Prunes]

Is it possible to "play cautious" and play at this level? I would argue that it is not.

What am saying, is given his age he should shut it down.

What? He's 26... that's prime for a 7 footer!