Success rate for hitting the Reset button.

[Lalouie]

How does one consider a successful season? Is it just winning it all, or is it also winning 48+ games for like 4+ years or so?
Not a few are saying Utah was right to just blow it up but how many teams really have risen from the ashes after getting rid of all their assets?
I remember the Bulls deliberately letting MJ, Phil, Pippen go... created cap space and Tim Duncan didn't even bother to visit them.
Sixers with what 5 straight lottery picks?
OKC? Clippers with the Lob City? I can think of just Boston who went to the recent finals, then....?
Then I think of the Spurs, Mavs, Heat, even the Lakers holding on to Kobe...
Was Golden State consider a rebuild? from Ellis? seriously? Is there Karma involved when you cheat and abuse the system?
Building teams naturally like the Bucks, Toronto then the mentioned teams who let their aging stars retire. Of course there is only one team who will win it all every season.

there's no hard number goal. like literally - there's no hard number
the only teams that "reset" are treadmill teams, ie teams having decided the path they had chosen is not working as they are in the same treadmill they were in before. that is,,,,nothing's changed.

or teams with no future wanting to trade what's left of their assets

in both cases, they see their immediate future as listless and repetitive of an ongoing bad situation. in other words they just want to bail

there is no END goal. they just want out of their current state

[Flash Falcon X]

The Warriors never cheated or abused the system--they simply got incredibly lucky on multiple occasions.

1) Curry is injured and signs a below-market contract due to injury concerns.

2) Steve Kerr instills a beautiful motion offense which maximizes Curry/Klay/Green/Iguodala.

3) The NBA Cap spikes and instead of smoothing the NBA [for whatever reason] simply let's all the teams spend it in one off-season, giving the Warriors the ability to sign Kevin Durant.

Yup. Also, Warriors had to naturally build themselves into an attractive FA destination before they could even dream of signing guys like Iggy and KD.

Back then, the best free agents GSW could sign were Derek Fisher and Corey Maggette, both of whom had to get overpaid to even consider going to the Warriors which was a horrible franchise before.

Steph, Klay and Draymond all get drafted by GSW and become All-Stars, making Golden State an attractive team for KD to join. Otherwise even with cap space, KD would never consider the Warriors if they were the 2016 equivalent of Monta Ellis, Stephen Jackson, Al Harrington and Andris Biedrins.

Golden State's 2009-2016 had the combination of drafting correctly, developing the young guys, building a winning culture, trusting in an unproven coach, making the right FO moves to build around the core, and the luck that follows.

[Roger Murdock]

The only team to abuse tanking and win a title was the Cleveland Cavaliers

What does this mean?

What other teams won a title via tanking?

2022/2018/2017/2015 Warriors - built off smart draft picks in mid first - second round and internal development

2021 Bucks - built off mid first round and later draft picks

2020 Lakers - built off free agency. I suppose this is a second option as they kinda tanked and traded all their youth for a star

2019 Raptors - zero players acquired from lotto on their team

2016 Cavs - built entirely through traditional tanking

2014 Spurs - built through later round picks and internal development

2012/2013 Heat - built through FA

2012 Mavs - built through a lengthy sequence off value based acquisitions

2009/2010 Lakers - built through trades primarily

2008 Celtics - built through trades and home grown mid /late first picks

2007/2005/2003/2009 Spurs - built through home grown talent and development + getting lucky winning lotto the year they were gunning for a title prior to injuries

2004 Pistons - built through trades / FA

2000-2002 Lakers - built through trades

91-93, 96-98 Bulls - built through trades and internal development

1994-1995 Rockets - same as Bulls




When has a team strategically torn down everything for an extended losing stretch and gone on to win except for the 2016 Cavs, who clearly executed it. With exception of 2020 Lakers I don’t see any arguments for it. So the key rule is ‘sign LeBron’?

[oldncreaky]

Success means different things to different fanbases and NBA ownerships.

But for teams that have a goal for competing for a championship, tearing it all down and starting over is often the only option.

Teams like the Miami Heat that rebuilt without ever being completely terrible are outliers. It's unrealistic to expect every franchise to be able to do that, and in fact it's impossible for more than one or two teams to rebuild that way because there are a limited amount of stars even available to sign or trade for.

I pretty much agree here that if you're going for a title you can't win without tearing it down. You have to draft a superstar and develop a team around him to contend for a title. The more 1sts you have the better honestly.

Seems like basically every title team had a drafted super star on their roster, with a few exceptions obviously.

Notable exceptions were: 19 Raptors, 20 Lakers going back to the 80s.

There are more exceptions in addition to 2019 and 2020

2016 Cavs: LeBron came back as a free agent
2008 Celtics: Pierce was never 1st-team all NBA, one year 2nd-team, it's a stretch to call him a drafted superstar
2004 Pistons: Tayshaun Prince was the best player on that team drafted by the Pistons
1989-1990: Isiah Thomas's last all-NBA honor was in 1987, he was a superstar in the early 80s but not when they contended
1983: Sixers: Neither Malone and Dr. J were drafted by the SIxers

Also, the Lakers got Shaq as a FA and traded for Kobe. Kobe was traded for Vlade DIvac on draft day, so I can agree it's a technicality, but still, they didn't draft him.

So that's at least 8, and maybe 13, champions in 40 years who did it without building around a superstar that they drafted.

[Rainwater]

How does one consider a successful season? Is it just winning it all, or is it also winning 48+ games for like 4+ years or so?
Not a few are saying Utah was right to just blow it up but how many teams really have risen from the ashes after getting rid of all their assets?
I remember the Bulls deliberately letting MJ, Phil, Pippen go... created cap space and Tim Duncan didn't even bother to visit them.
Sixers with what 5 straight lottery picks?
OKC? Clippers with the Lob City? I can think of just Boston who went to the recent finals, then....?
Then I think of the Spurs, Mavs, Heat, even the Lakers holding on to Kobe...
Was Golden State consider a rebuild? from Ellis? seriously? Is there Karma involved when you cheat and abuse the system?
Building teams naturally like the Bucks, Toronto then the mentioned teams who let their aging stars retire. Of course there is only one team who will win it all every season.

I think every time has to rebuild at some point, it's inevitable. Maybe one action is more forceful than the other but I really don't see the difference between a rebuild and a tank because effectively its all the same thing. You have to be bad before you get good again. The bucks were really bad as well when they had Hanson, Jabari, Giannis, Khris, and Brandon Knight youth movement. And the coming yes I feel like Tor might rebuild as well.

[Jamaaliver]

It depends on what you consider success is.

If a franchise goes from being an expensive, older, mediocre team with rising salaries and diminishing returns -- to being a slightly above average squad with younger, cheaper players that keep the franchise relevant for a few more years and ushers in a new generation of players and fans: Is that success?

Most execs would say yes.

Most fans would say no.

The truth is, very few teams actually contend for titles. And even fewer actually win it all. So there has to be some other metric of success than simply winning championships.

I'd say less than half of rebuilds turn out as well or better than anticipated. The best I've seen in years belong to Boston and Memphis...and both of those are largely due to luck.

[Hoop Heavy]

The "champs or tank" culture is just foolish. Of course you can be successful and not win it all.


Don't forget that most of the profitability for teams doesn't happen on the court. So, if you engage your fan base ... if you inspire them with gritty playoff performances ... if you gain their trust with your loyalty to same group of guys who work hard and smile ... and hang their heads when they lose in the playoffs and commit to get better in the off-season and try harder again next year ... then your merch sales will make your team profitable and your players richer.

Who buys merch from teams who are tanking? Next to nobody that's who. I don't know anything for sure ... but I bet Presti and Ainge will lead the league in having the most pathetic merch sales this year.

[cpower]

if you lucky by getting Giannis or Curry sure but in most cases you are stuck forever.

[Hoop Hunter]

The Pacers have never tanked. At least on purpose until this last season. Will probably be tanking again this season. With the massive amount of injuries the last 5 seasons they had practically no choice, but to hit the reset button and start over.

Rebuilding on the fly has always worked for them while staying competitive. I know, no championships. One finals appearance. They have had 3 or 4 different team makeups be contenders while most East teams have done nothing. Only the Heat have been more successful in the East as for as eastern conference appearances.

The tanking teams have not really gone anywhere. Philly has yet to even make the conference finals after the ultimate tank job.

Eastern Conference finals appearances since 1994.
Heat 8
Pacers 8
Pistons 6
Cavs 6
Celtics 6
Magic 4
Knicks 3
Bulls 3
Bucks 3
Raptors 2
Nets 2
Hawks 2
Sixers 1

I've not really seen a tanking team really pay off yet, that I can remember. Out West the ultimate tank job is OKC. They're 2 years way for being 2 years away. Will the tank ever pay off? I'm hoping the Pacers recent tank reset works out in a few years.

[tamaraw08]

https://grantland.com/features/how-annoy-fan-base-60-easy-steps/

Warriors had 30 straight years of making horrible decisions, yet when they finally get lucky with Steph it's called "cheating and abusing" the system...

And before you talk about luck... every single successful team, coach, player, etc. has had to have some luck on their side to gain some success. Happens outside of sports, too. You have to work hard and it is necessary to have the work ethic, but you need some luck on your side as well (e.g. Spurs getting Duncan, Phil Jackson getting to coach MJ, Shaq, Kobe, etc.)

wait who said the Warriors were cheating and abusing the system? Did they traded away great assets for multiple picks, deliberately lose many games to eventually land generational talent? I don't think so.
Not a fan of just purposely giving away your good players just to have future picks and ESPECIALLY tanking for 2-5 straight years like what the Sixers did, all that miserable years and not even sniffing the finals unlike Miami Heat.

[Billl]

My bar for success is that you compete for a championship. A successful rebuild should end with you having a legit shot at winning it all. Lots of stuff has to go right for you to actually do it, but you are in the conversation as legit title contenders. Winning 48+ games and getting bounced repeatedly in the first round isn't at that level.

As to how you get there, I think the only constant is top level talent. It's just about impossible to be a true contender without a top level star. The odds of getting that star via draft, trade, or FA change with each CBA. I mean, we didn't even have rookie scale/length deals until the 1990's. Same for "bird rights" and widespread unrestricted free agency. If you are smaller market team, you are probably going to have to go through the draft to find that guy, but really, the last #1 pick to win MVP besides lebron was Duncan in 2003. This whole 1-and-done college era has made a lot of GM's look bad.

[ropjhk]

There is an expected progression for every rising team that culminates into a championship. A successful season is one that demonstrates meaningful advancement in that progression.

So the first time a young team makes the playoffs is a successful milestone. Advancing further in the playoffs. Making the finals. Winning a championship.

[realball]

My bar for success is that you compete for a championship. A successful rebuild should end with you having a legit shot at winning it all. Lots of stuff has to go right for you to actually do it, but you are in the conversation as legit title contenders. Winning 48+ games and getting bounced repeatedly in the first round isn't at that level.

As to how you get there, I think the only constant is top level talent. It's just about impossible to be a true contender without a top level star. The odds of getting that star via draft, trade, or FA change with each CBA. I mean, we didn't even have rookie scale/length deals until the 1990's. Same for "bird rights" and widespread unrestricted free agency. If you are smaller market team, you are probably going to have to go through the draft to find that guy, but really, the last #1 pick to win MVP besides lebron was Duncan in 2003. This whole 1-and-done college era has made a lot of GM's look bad.

I agree, if you have built a contender, you have done your job as a GM. Not every team is going to win a championship, that bar is way too high. I think if you are able to draft a star or start your rebuild with a young star, and surround him with a competitive team, that's the mark of success.

The Sixers are a strange case because they look like contenders most years but have consistently failed to live up to expectations. I'd say their rebuild is leaning towards failure, all things considered.

[jonbob17]

I'd say a few years in the top 4-ish seeds of one of the conferences is an overwhelming success.

[Fencer reregistered]

Off the top of my head I can't think of an example of a team trading its stars for draft picks and those draft picks leading directly to their acquiring the start that wins them the championship.

The 1980s Celtics were somewhat near that scenario. They got Parish and McHale because Auerbach deliberately shipped out Bob McAdoo for pick compensation.

That said, Auerbach never wanted McAdoo in the first place, so this wasn't necessarily driven by a tear-down agenda.

[tamaraw08]

The only team to abuse tanking and win a title was the Cleveland Cavaliers

What does this mean?

What other teams won a title via tanking?

2022/2018/2017/2015 Warriors - built off smart draft picks in mid first - second round and internal development

2021 Bucks - built off mid first round and later draft picks

2020 Lakers - built off free agency. I suppose this is a second option as they kinda tanked and traded all their youth for a star

2019 Raptors - zero players acquired from lotto on their team

2016 Cavs - built entirely through traditional tanking

2014 Spurs - built through later round picks and internal development

2012/2013 Heat - built through FA

2012 Mavs - built through a lengthy sequence off value based acquisitions

2009/2010 Lakers - built through trades primarily

2008 Celtics - built through trades and home grown mid /late first picks

2007/2005/2003/2009 Spurs - built through home grown talent and development + getting lucky winning lotto the year they were gunning for a title prior to injuries

2004 Pistons - built through trades / FA

2000-2002 Lakers - built through trades

91-93, 96-98 Bulls - built through trades and internal development

1994-1995 Rockets - same as Bulls




When has a team strategically torn down everything for an extended losing stretch and gone on to win except for the 2016 Cavs, who clearly executed it. With exception of 2020 Lakers I don’t see any arguments for it. So the key rule is ‘sign LeBron’?

Except for the '20 Lakers, that team relied heavily on Kobe Bryant. Yes, technically, they traded their center Vlade to get the rights to Bean. Mavs relied heavily on their draftee Dirk. Heat still had the pretty good Wade to team up with major FA's. None of these champs have won it all. Cavs landed Kyrie when Lebron chose to leave them, it's not like they traded James and many good assets to get Kyrie.

[tamaraw08]

The Pacers have never tanked. At least on purpose until this last season. Will probably be tanking again this season. With the massive amount of injuries the last 5 seasons they had practically no choice, but to hit the reset button and start over.

Rebuilding on the fly has always worked for them while staying competitive. I know, no championships. One finals appearance. They have had 3 or 4 different team makeups be contenders while most East teams have done nothing. Only the Heat have been more successful in the East as for as eastern conference appearances.

The tanking teams have not really gone anywhere. Philly has yet to even make the conference finals after the ultimate tank job.

Eastern Conference finals appearances since 1994.
Heat 8
Pacers 8
Pistons 6
Cavs 6
Celtics 6
Magic 4
Knicks 3
Bulls 3
Bucks 3
Raptors 2
Nets 2
Hawks 2
Sixers 1

I've not really seen a tanking team really pay off yet, that I can remember. Out West the ultimate tank job is OKC. They're 2 years way for being 2 years away. Will the tank ever pay off? I'm hoping the Pacers recent tank reset works out in a few years.

I hated the Sixers for that 4-5 years of deliberate tanking.
but I think Celtics finding a desperate owner like Prokhorov, willing to take their aging Vets for multiple picks had found some success esp after getting super lucky to draft Tatum for their lottery pick. Imagine if Jason wasn't available for that 3rd overall pick?

[tamaraw08]

What does this mean?

When has a team strategically torn down everything for an extended losing stretch and gone on to win except for the 2016 Cavs, who clearly executed it. With exception of 2020 Lakers I don’t see any arguments for it. So the key rule is ‘sign LeBron’?

Except for the '20 Lakers, that team relied heavily on Kobe Bryant. Yes, technically, they traded their center Vlade to get the rights to Bean. Mavs relied heavily on their draftee Dirk. Heat still had the pretty good Wade to team up with major FA's. None of these champs have won it all. Cavs landed Kyrie when Lebron chose to leave them, it's not like they traded James and many good assets to get Kyrie.

What I mean was none of these Champs have won it all because they hit the reset button, deliberately traded their best assets for picks so they can win eventually win a ring.

[BK_2020]

The Pacers have never tanked. At least on purpose until this last season. Will probably be tanking again this season. With the massive amount of injuries the last 5 seasons they had practically no choice, but to hit the reset button and start over.

Rebuilding on the fly has always worked for them while staying competitive. I know, no championships. One finals appearance. They have had 3 or 4 different team makeups be contenders while most East teams have done nothing. Only the Heat have been more successful in the East as for as eastern conference appearances.

The tanking teams have not really gone anywhere. Philly has yet to even make the conference finals after the ultimate tank job.

Eastern Conference finals appearances since 1994.
Heat 8
Pacers 8
Pistons 6
Cavs 6
Celtics 6
Magic 4
Knicks 3
Bulls 3
Bucks 3
Raptors 2
Nets 2
Hawks 2
Sixers 1

I've not really seen a tanking team really pay off yet, that I can remember. Out West the ultimate tank job is OKC. They're 2 years way for being 2 years away. Will the tank ever pay off? I'm hoping the Pacers recent tank reset works out in a few years.

I hated the Sixers for that 4-5 years of deliberate tanking.
but I think Celtics finding a desperate owner like Prokhorov, willing to take their aging Vets for multiple picks had found some success esp after getting super lucky to draft Tatum for their lottery pick. Imagine if Jason wasn't available for that 3rd overall pick?

Then they would've picked him with the 1st overall. You think the Celtics trade down if there's any doubt their guy would not be available at 3rd?

[ShootersShoot]

My bar for success is that you compete for a championship. A successful rebuild should end with you having a legit shot at winning it all. Lots of stuff has to go right for you to actually do it, but you are in the conversation as legit title contenders. Winning 48+ games and getting bounced repeatedly in the first round isn't at that level.

As to how you get there, I think the only constant is top level talent. It's just about impossible to be a true contender without a top level star. The odds of getting that star via draft, trade, or FA change with each CBA. I mean, we didn't even have rookie scale/length deals until the 1990's. Same for "bird rights" and widespread unrestricted free agency. If you are smaller market team, you are probably going to have to go through the draft to find that guy, but really, the last #1 pick to win MVP besides lebron was Duncan in 2003. This whole 1-and-done college era has made a lot of GM's look bad.

I agree, if you have built a contender, you have done your job as a GM. Not every team is going to win a championship, that bar is way too high. I think if you are able to draft a star or start your rebuild with a young star, and surround him with a competitive team, that's the mark of success.

The Sixers are a strange case because they look like contenders most years but have consistently failed to live up to expectations. I'd say their rebuild is leaning towards failure, all things considered.

I'd say its closer to a failure than a success, however it was mainly due to mismanagement of assets rather than tanking not working in a vacuum. And even then, they have an mvp player in his prime, and a pretty solid supporting cast. They got harden by trading ben simmons, who was an all star for them. They had assets to trade for Jimmy butler. Tanking helped them get a perennial mvp candidate along with perennial all stars on the team. If you told me I could tank for a few years and end up with embiid and harden on the same team with an up and coming player in maxey, I would roll the dice and say let's tank.

So terrible management of assets and they still have a perennial playoff team, a mvp level player, an all star SG, and a quality young core piece with all star potential. They also have a solid fourth option in harris who they couldve very well spent that money more wisely. Imagine if they did not make so many terrible decisions.