Success rate for hitting the Reset button.

[ShootersShoot]

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.

Tanking is not just being dead set on developing a young core. It also allows to trade any of the young players and other assets to turn them into players like AD, KG, Ray Allen, Harden.. It helps to entice potential free agents to sign. There are a lot of good arguments for tanking. Even if teams don't win championships, they have perennial playoff teams with blue chip players (such as embiid and harden, and to an extent maxey)

A team like the cavs can build around garland and mobley. Even if it doesnt result in a championship, fans will get excited and the team will be relevant with legit talent to build around.

[Harry Garris]

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.

Actually teams that rebuilt through deliberate tanking are outliers. Maybe the Sixers and Memphis?
You can no doubt improve your chances by tanking, but it doesn't appear that tanking changes the calculus significantly. You got to get lucky in the draft or have Lebron or Kawhi sign with you.

Well the success rate for building a team that's not currently a championship contender into a team that eventually wins a title is extremely low - no matter what method you choose to rebuild. Tanking typically doesn't work, but neither does saving cap space for free agency or trying to field a decent team and then trading for a star that takes you over the top. It's really hard to win a title and there's no one right way to guarantee success.

[dc]

Well the success rate for building a team that's not currently a championship contender into a team that eventually wins a title is extremely low - no matter what method you choose to rebuild. Tanking typically doesn't work, but neither does saving cap space for free agency or trying to field a decent team and then trading for a star that takes you over the top. It's really hard to win a title and there's no one right way to guarantee success.

Yeah, exactly. It's a strawman argument to simply say tankers haven't won the championship and then never talk about all the non-tankers who haven't won.

-Since Philly last won in 1983, they've had far more non-Hinkie seasons than Hinkie seasons and have zero championships to show for it.

-The Jazz up to now have never had a multi-year tank period. They've done it "the right way" and have zero championships to show for it

-The Pacers have never tanked. In fact, they've only picked in the Top 5 TWO TIMES in their entire existence (well 3 times if you count Jonathan Bender at #5, but they traded Antonio Davis for the pick. They didn't tank for it). They don't have a championship to show for it.

There is no guaranteed, set way or formula to win a title. Tanking is certainly one element of team building and the reasoning can't be discounted.

[76ersForLife]

Utah still needs to blow it up. They actually still have enough pieces that will prevent them from tanking.

Sexton
Clarkson
Bojan
Conley
Beasley
Vanderbilt
Markkanen

I would love Vanderbilt on the 76ers. I thought he was underrated with the Wolves.

[dc]

Utah still needs to blow it up. They actually still have enough pieces that will prevent them from tanking.

Sexton
Clarkson
Bojan
Conley
Beasley
Vanderbilt
Markkanen

I would love Vanderbilt on the 76ers. I thought he was underrated with the Wolves.

I have no doubt Ainge is going to further enrage RealGMers by selling off many of those parts and building an even bigger warchest.

[ILOVEIT]

Hard to comment on every potential rebuild, but in the case of the Jazz I think it was the right move.

However now comes the hard part - how to actually maximize all that draft capital to build another contender.

Why reset when you traded the limiting player to begin with?

Why not trade Rudy for a better option for the modern NBA game? I agree they had to do something....but not trade the entire roster and suck for the next 5 years.

[tamaraw08]

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.

Tanking is not just being dead set on developing a young core. It also allows to trade any of the young players and other assets to turn them into players like AD, KG, Ray Allen, Harden.. It helps to entice potential free agents to sign. There are a lot of good arguments for tanking. Even if teams don't win championships, they have perennial playoff teams with blue chip players (such as embiid and harden, and to an extent maxey)

A team like the cavs can build around garland and mobley. Even if it doesnt result in a championship, fans will get excited and the team will be relevant with legit talent to build around.

I really think we need to separate the issue of tanking and hitting the reset button. Lakers didn’t trade aging Kobe and neither the Mavs with Dirk so in essence, the low point was organic after they retired. They then sucked and allowed them to draft good players. Lakers flipped them for AD. Cleveland didnt trade Lebron, he left, they then sucked which allowed them to pick Kyrie. Sixers had a decent team before then Hinkie decided to trade a every asset so they could collect great talent from the draft for like 5 straight years. OKC has been trying to do it too and there’s still uncertainty if it will work. Miami on the other hand didn’t go that route of prolonged misery esp for the fans. It’s an expensive and tedious approach but I have more respect for them, trying to put a good product on the floor without abusing the NBA version of the welfare system.

[Godymas]

it's crazy how Milwaukee has a contender and big 3 and one of the best teams in the league last year and the average draft selection for their whole team is 25 and that is without even trying to add the number of undrafted guys they have in that calculation.

i mean yes it's very rare to get a guy like Giannis with 15, but Jrue and Khris were late 1st and 2nd round respectively

The highest drafted guys on their roster are DeMarcus Cousins and Greg Monroe.

Of course before this the league was being ran by guys who were blue chip lottery picks. LeBron, KD, even Steph was a pretty high lottery pick. Tim Duncan of course also comes to mind as a blue chip player that completely carried a franchise. Hell Dirk was the 9th overall pick which is still pretty high.

It's more common for a top 10 guy to become the franchise and eventually face of the league. This is certainly a rare situation and yet high lottery picks are very much a majority of the top 5 players in the league still. Luka, Embiid, KD all being top 3.

[cupcakesnake]

I often wonder what it's like to be a fan of the Pacers or Blazers (or the Jazz until this summer).

- The Pacers haven't won less than 30 games since 1989. They've won more than 40 in 20 of the past 30 seasons. They've built 3 different East contenders (Reggie, JO/Artest, Paul George) in that span. They're almost never stacked but they're rarely bad.
- Portland has similar sustained success. Watched the Sheed era become the Jailblazers, salvaged the Oden/Roy tragedies with plenty of 50-win Aldridge seasons, went straight into the Dame era. Even when the team falls apart, they're usually back on track within 2-3 seasons.

It's probably more fun than going through 5-year rebuilds (especially if it doesn't work the first time and you do another one).

[jasonxxx102]

Utah still needs to blow it up. They actually still have enough pieces that will prevent them from tanking.

Sexton
Clarkson
Bojan
Conley
Beasley
Vanderbilt
Markkanen

I would love Vanderbilt on the 76ers. I thought he was underrated with the Wolves.

Sorry but none of these guys will prevent them from tanking lol. This is a 30 win team... maybe

[Pointgod]

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.

Tanking is not just being dead set on developing a young core. It also allows to trade any of the young players and other assets to turn them into players like AD, KG, Ray Allen, Harden.. It helps to entice potential free agents to sign. There are a lot of good arguments for tanking. Even if teams don't win championships, they have perennial playoff teams with blue chip players (such as embiid and harden, and to an extent maxey)

A team like the cavs can build around garland and mobley. Even if it doesnt result in a championship, fans will get excited and the team will be relevant with legit talent to build around.

I really think we need to separate the issue of tanking and hitting the reset button. Lakers didn’t trade aging Kobe and neither the Mavs with Dirk so in essence, the low point was organic after they retired. They then sucked and allowed them to draft good players. Lakers flipped them for AD. Cleveland didnt trade Lebron, he left, they then sucked which allowed them to pick Kyrie. Sixers had a decent team before then Hinkie decided to trade a every asset so they could collect great talent from the draft for like 5 straight years. OKC has been trying to do it too and there’s still uncertainty if it will work. Miami on the other hand didn’t go that route of prolonged misery esp for the fans. It’s an expensive and tedious approach but I have more respect for them, trying to put a good product on the floor without abusing the NBA version of the welfare system.

Ironically the Kyrie pick originally belonged to the Clippers. The Cav’s own pick that year was Tristan Thompson. Post Kyrie, the Cavs picks were Dion Waiters, Anthony Bennett, Andrew Wiggins. Just think of how NBA history unfolds if the Cavs don’t get extremely lucky with the Clippers pick landing at #1. It also shows the limitations of the tank to a championship mentality considering the Cavs had 5 top 5 picks over 4 years and 3 number 1 overall picks and not a single one of their picks turned into more than a fringe allstar.

[hyper316]

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.

Jrue Holiday

[jazzfan1971]

Relax friend. The Jazz are going to establish the model.

[tamaraw08]

I often wonder what it's like to be a fan of the Pacers or Blazers (or the Jazz until this summer).

- The Pacers haven't won less than 30 games since 1989. They've won more than 40 in 20 of the past 30 seasons. They've built 3 different East contenders (Reggie, JO/Artest, Paul George) in that span. They're almost never stacked but they're rarely bad.
- Portland has similar sustained success. Watched the Sheed era become the Jailblazers, salvaged the Oden/Roy tragedies with plenty of 50-win Aldridge seasons, went straight into the Dame era. Even when the team falls apart, they're usually back on track within 2-3 seasons.

It's probably more fun than going through 5-year rebuilds (especially if it doesn't work the first time and you do another one).

I guess it depends on the person/fan. I actually watch games, I liked watching Indiana and esp Portland play because they have been competing for almost every game for so long, as in they put a good product on the floor.
I'm not sure I can have fun watching teams on a "rebuild", playing very young guys committing a ton of mistakes, owners/GM's wanting them to lose, Houston sending Wall home and trading assets just like OKC and LOSING BY A ROUT for like 60 games every year. I mean, where is the fun in that, watching great college players and imagining they'll wear your team's uniform in the future?

[tamaraw08]

Tanking is not just being dead set on developing a young core. It also allows to trade any of the young players and other assets to turn them into players like AD, KG, Ray Allen, Harden.. It helps to entice potential free agents to sign. There are a lot of good arguments for tanking. Even if teams don't win championships, they have perennial playoff teams with blue chip players (such as embiid and harden, and to an extent maxey)

A team like the cavs can build around garland and mobley. Even if it doesnt result in a championship, fans will get excited and the team will be relevant with legit talent to build around.

I really think we need to separate the issue of tanking and hitting the reset button. Lakers didn’t trade aging Kobe and neither the Mavs with Dirk so in essence, the low point was organic after they retired. They then sucked and allowed them to draft good players. Lakers flipped them for AD. Cleveland didnt trade Lebron, he left, they then sucked which allowed them to pick Kyrie. Sixers had a decent team before then Hinkie decided to trade a every asset so they could collect great talent from the draft for like 5 straight years. OKC has been trying to do it too and there’s still uncertainty if it will work. Miami on the other hand didn’t go that route of prolonged misery esp for the fans. It’s an expensive and tedious approach but I have more respect for them, trying to put a good product on the floor without abusing the NBA version of the welfare system.

Ironically the Kyrie pick originally belonged to the Clippers. The Cav’s own pick that year was Tristan Thompson. Post Kyrie, the Cavs picks were Dion Waiters, Anthony Bennett, Andrew Wiggins. Just think of how NBA history unfolds if the Cavs don’t get extremely lucky with the Clippers pick landing at #1. It also shows the limitations of the tank to a championship mentality considering the Cavs had 5 top 5 picks over 4 years and 3 number 1 overall picks and not a single one of their picks turned into more than a fringe allstar.

thanks for the info, but my point remains the same, Cavs did not trade Lebron and other assets to get multiple picks, at least during that time. With regards to luck, yes, it's not a lock even you tank purposely. I remember Boston losing so many games to get the best chance of landing Duncan and poof, The Spurs got the first pick. Boston acquired Billups then let him go just like that. The irony for me is that I wanted to the Sixers to win. Wanted them to best Toronto a few years back, wanted them to beat Atlanta etc, but bad things just kept on happening, then I remember how they abused the NBA welfare system for going bad 4+ straight years just to get the best lottery picks... Then I realize, this must be karma.

[Ryoga Hibiki]

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 are different phases in building a title team.
sometimes teams fail in the last steps, rounding up the team, but that doesn't change if the initial part was successful or not.
the point of a process style rebuilding is too cumulate assets, find young high level talent (so perennial all nba/mvp level, not just borderline all star) and get to the point when you start winning behind your youth and with extra assets and flexibility to complete the team.
to me the reset is successful once you get to that point, what happens next is another chapter in my view.
following these principles, I consider both OKC and Philly big successes.

[CallMeKahn]

Utah still needs to blow it up. They actually still have enough pieces that will prevent them from tanking.

Sexton
Clarkson
Bojan
Conley
Beasley
Vanderbilt
Markkanen

I would love Vanderbilt on the 76ers. I thought he was underrated with the Wolves.

Sorry but none of these guys will prevent them from tanking lol. This is a 30 win team... maybe

30 wins is losing the Wemstakes. Utah needs to suck harder.

[God Squad]

I often wonder what it's like to be a fan of the Pacers or Blazers (or the Jazz until this summer).

- The Pacers haven't won less than 30 games since 1989. They've won more than 40 in 20 of the past 30 seasons. They've built 3 different East contenders (Reggie, JO/Artest, Paul George) in that span. They're almost never stacked but they're rarely bad.
- Portland has similar sustained success. Watched the Sheed era become the Jailblazers, salvaged the Oden/Roy tragedies with plenty of 50-win Aldridge seasons, went straight into the Dame era. Even when the team falls apart, they're usually back on track within 2-3 seasons.

It's probably more fun than going through 5-year rebuilds (especially if it doesn't work the first time and you do another one).

is it though? Both those teams have seen the second round of the playoffs and have given their fans multiple iterations to cheer for. I'd think being a Wolves fan would be worse personally. But obviously now with Towns/Edwards emergence there's a nice buzz around the team.

Being a Raptors fan in the 2000's was brutal. Being the butt of a jokes, euro stigma, team underperforming and frankly missing with more picks than they hit. Regardless if we had a fairly big lead, as soon as the 4th quarter began a collapse was soon to follow. The good organizations stay relevant because they manage to draft well enough to be competitive.

[Jadoogar]

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.

Denver is another example people use of a team that didn't do a traditional tank job. However, their model of drafting a 2 time MVP with the 41st pick is not exactly a repeatable process.

The best way to win a title is to have a top 5 player in the league. There are different ways to accomplish this. Some teams are in desirable locations and attract via free agency (Lakers, Warriors with Durant, Miami), trade (toronto) or draft (Bucks, warriors with Curry, Mavericks). Top 5 players are rarely available for trade so the Toronto situation doesn't occur very often. Most teams are also not located in LA, NY or Miami so free agency is often not a great option either. Therefore the draft is generally the best way for most teams to acquire a MVP caliber players. If you look at the top 10-15 players in the league right now:
Giannis (#15)
Luka (#3)
Jokic (#41)
Curry (#7)
Durant (#2)
Lebron (#1)
Embiid (#3)
Tatum (#3)
Kawhi (#15)
Harden (#3)
Anthony Davis (#1)
Booker (#13)

A majority of the best players in the league were drafted in the top 10, often top 5
Even if you look at the best young players, a majority were selected in teh top 5 of the draft.
Morant (#2)
Trae Young (#5)
Zion (#1)
SGA (#13)
Anthony Edwards (#1)
Lamelo (#3)

In summary, you need an MVP candidate to win a title. The best for most teams to get an MVP candidate is through the draft. The best way to draft an MVP candidate is get a top 10 pick (top 5 is better). Therefore a restart is often the best way to eventually contend for a title.

[gmoney411]

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’?

The 1994-95 Rockets 100% won a title because of tanking. Their tanking was so bad the league created the lottery.

The Bulls got Jordan by being terrible and picking 3rd.

The Spurs won by being terrible (winning 20 games) and picking Duncan first.

The Celtics were terrible the year before the Big 3 were formed and used the 5th pick to get Ray Allen.

The Heatles only existed because the Heat were bad enough to pick Wade at 5.

Teams are usually torn down to find a way to land a superstar player. You can find guys like Dirk, Curry, and Giannis in mid to late lottery era but the best way to find stars is at the top of the draft. The goal isn't to be bad forever with tear downs. The goal is to find Hakeem, Jordan, Duncan, Lebron etc. and build around them.