Zach Lowe article on Suns and Sixers rebuild going in different directions

[bondom34]

eh, they have no franchise player though. They're kinda like the Raptors of the west

they give me treadmill team vibes

I think Bledsoe's up there, you don't need an inherent A+ guy if you have a team of B+ guys. They're pretty much that.

[Mik317]

The demonization of "treadmill" teams annoys me as well. Witnessing your team battle it out in the playoffs is a joy, regardless of whether or not you're the favorite, or people belive your team has no shot

I agree and dissagree.

I think people place every team that is not the contenders as a treadmill which is a bit overdramatic. Lets use the Chris Paul Clippers of recent years as an example. I personally don't think they have a shot at winning the chip..however, they will win a boatload of games each year and get really really close and who knows get lucky. Now lets look at the Andre Iguodala Sixers, who averaged about 38-42 wins a year, and either got swept or won one game in the playoffs every year and had no real chance until Derrick Rose died one year.

There are levels to treadmilling. And while yeah a championship is the end goal, I personally would even settle for a team that mattered and at least compete each and every year realistically. Those iggy teams played hard and never laid down for no one but deep down we all knew we had no chance in hell. We were a treadmill team with every since of the word; A mediocre team with no chance at forward progression but also too "good" to get draft picks beyond super lucky steals. Teams like Memphis , the Clippers, and whatnot, are technically Treadmill teams too as they are also probably capped out but they are talented enough that perhaps a perfect storm could help them rise to contention and better yet attract FA of worth. Those Iggy teams, as much as I loved them...did not have that.

Whether or not we are still on that path to mediocrity or not is left to be seen of course

[predators]

we're building a NBA team here not making a cake. you can skip whatever part you like as long as you reach that goal. there is no set method, that's why we're debating it.

Exactly, the last number 1 pick to lead a team to a championship was Duncan who was drafted 18 years ago. So obviously for 17 years the tanking startegy hasn't been producing the ultimate goal for the teams who tanked the best. The number 2 picks haven't been producing championships either.

So if you're not winning championships, what's so great about tanking? A team like the 08 celtics were only contenders due to trades. The Lakers won out on the Paul gasol trade. Miami signed Shaq. Detroit won despite drafting Darko. The 3 peat Lakers signed Shaq.

The vast majority of teams to win the past decade, have been mostly done through trade.

Remember Tony Parker was the 28th pick, Manu Ginobilli was a 2nd round pick, and Kawhi Leanord was drafted by a playoff teams. So even though they got Duncan with a top pick, what's allowed them to keep competing today was player development. So rather than always going back to the draft, develop the assets you have. The Spurs developed George Hill and traded him for Kawhi.

Its simple really. Fans of 'tanking' teams talk themselves into this being a good strategy because their teams do it.

Spurs tanking for Duncan was still the most important piece of puzzle. No Duncan no championships.

08' Celtics still used the #5 pick they tanked for to acquire Ray Allen.
All of Miami's Chips involve Wade who they tanked for.
Detroit traded Grant Hill (Their #3 overall pick '94) for Ben Wallace & Chucky Atkins.
Dallas Traded their #6 Overall Pick for Dirk (#9 overall).
Golden State - Curry\Barnes

You may have a point with the Lakers, but in the current CBA they wouldn't have been able to offer Shaq more money than Orlando. so that isn't really an option for building a championship. I guess if you can draft a Marc Gasol in the 2nd round every year you can trade for Gasol type talents without giving up any current assets and win ships.

Seems to me that nearly every championship team either drafted a superstar player after a bad season or traded tanking assets to acquire a championship caliber player with one exception that isn't really possible anymore.

[Latrell]

The Spurs didn't tank for anyone. Their other Hall of Famer got injured and were just bad. They weren't trying to lose at all.

[Ponchos]

The Spurs didn't tank for anyone. Their other Hall of Famer got injured and were just bad. They weren't trying to lose at all.

Whether by bad luck or design It doesn't really matter. Being bad is what allowed them to win championships.

[Mik317]

The Spurs didn't tank for anyone. Their other Hall of Famer got injured and were just bad. They weren't trying to lose at all.

Intent should not matter if the end result is the same. I don't get how people think it's okay to be rewarded for incompetence (not the Spurs of course but still. It feels as if people would be okay if Hinkie spent the last 2 years signing over the hill vets and trying to make the playoffs and failed at that. The end result would still be the same but by golly he tried doe. If Tanking is truly bad then it should always be bad no matter if done on purpose or by mistake.

I hate mentioning names of other teams because of the can of worms it opens, so I'll preface this with no offense, but the Knicks and Wolves both could have been a lot better last year..injuries or not. Go make a move for a guy to save face. Of course they didn't do that because they realized the season was over and that would be stupid. Just because we did not go into the season expecting playoffs like those two (and honestly, I don' t think the Wolves did either after the KLove trade..I don't think they expected to be the worst team in the league bad but they have to had expected a step back of sorts), suddenly changes the whole thing?

I do not agree with all of Hinkie's moves and I do wish things were done a bit differently but the idea behind everything makes sense. Why strap yourself to players who WILL NOT be apart of your longterm future? Why give up future flexibility for momentary gain that results in a "slightly" better? If you are going to try to win, TRY to win..go all in and win now. I have watched this franchise over the last 10 or so years do everything in their power to stay afloat and it only delayed the inevitable..because they always rushed it instead of staying the course and understand **** takes time.

and on the flipside, it feels like people want us to do the very same things that people kill the Magic (no offense) for doing last year. They signed Ben Gordon and Channing Frye so they could bring veteran leadership and help the team win. That has not happened and now both of those guys are just there kinda taking up space...and the Magic are hella further ahead than we are so it would be even worse.

whether or not you agree with tanking and all that Jazz...at this point, we are on that course and should see it to its end..be it good or bad. Trying to win now is stupid...the two potential future pieces aren't ready and rushing it could stunt their growth and no one that good is walking through that door anyway. This is the plan. If it doesn't work out, I want to be because it doesn't work not because yet again we tried to speed things up.... **** takes time.

[Mk0]

The Spurs didn't tank for anyone. Their other Hall of Famer got injured and were just bad. They weren't trying to lose at all.

Whether by bad luck or design It doesn't really matter. Being bad is what allowed them to win championships.

Tanking means there was a systemic effort to lose games. The Spurs losing Robinson wasn't tanking. Tanking is when your GM trades away guys who can contribute because they are afraid they are going to win you a few "meaningless" games

And for the record I have no issue with tanking. If your team is so bad that you can only get better through the draft then I say do it.