The Definitions of Tanking

[Pointgod]

To me tanking means prioritizing draft picks and players in rookie contracts instead of win players or young vets. Tanking does not mean being bad or putting a bad product on the floor.

Tanking has three core tenets: put yourself in the best draft position to get a top pick, make sure you have multiple first round picks in successive drafts to take multiple bites of the Apple so to speak and prioritize player development over trying to be competitive.

The Wizards are often brought up as an example of tanking gone wrong but prior to 2024, they had the 8th pick, 10th pick, 15th pick, 9th pick. They held onto Beal too long instead of trading him at his peak, they made win now trades for Westbrook and Porzingis and they kept players like Kuzma and Poole on the roster way too long. Wizards are just an example of idiotic management that drafted poorly and made trades to make the bottom of the playoffs but hurt their draft position. They’ve never truly bottomed out and rebuilt focused on youth.

OKC could have easily traded Paul George for Tobias Harris, Lou Williams or other win now pieces and draft picks but they chose to just focus on youth and additional draft compensation. And then they traded guys like Chris Paul and Schroeder after a 44 win season. This is why I say their current success is a result of tanking.

Other teams that I would consider tanking successes are the Rockets who had the 2nd, 3rd and 4th picks in successive drafts and are now top 6 in the West, the Cavs who drafted 5th,5th,3rd, traded for a superstar and are now the best team in the league.

Tanking shouldn’t be seen as the end goal but rather the means to accumulate allstar talent efficiently

[sidsid]

I like the idea here. Take them one reply at a time. I think it'll be easier to start with what is not tanking.

Retool tanking - Acquire assets and be fine losing, land somewhere in the mid lottery or 'get lucky'

Here's my description:

Failed Retooling - Acquire talent at the expense of assets and end up in the lottery

Retooling necessitates some form of use of an asset in exchange for talent. You are shaking things up in one way or another. Maybe some of your old core is aging out/expiring contract and you use the cap space asset to replace them. The other standard option is trading future pick assets for that talent, which is what we've been doing almost every year.

It's not that talent can't become an asset, it's a tradeoff costing assets in the explicit goal of avoiding tanking.

Sometimes, when your retool fails you can opportunistically tank. But retooling costs assets and you may not have that asset when you need it. See the Jak trade outcome. I'd say you could put this year's Sixers here too, but that's 90% bad coaching (God I love making this joke. What a gift they've been to my enjoyment of basketball this year)

That's why retooling isn't tanking.

On to the next one

[sidsid]

Next up, another one that is barely tanking and just circumstances getting in the way

Strategic / Accidental tanking - 1 year of as bad as you can get to add to your core

I'm not going to really change anything here in the description as the only use cases I'd tag this too is teams who are solidly playoff teams who run into injury issues to their core.

That's the Warriors dip into the lottery a few times. The David Robinson Spurs. Memphis last year. Stuff like that.

This year's Raptors are not a proven product that you could lock-in to that spot. They clock as more of a bad-ish young team that can decide to lean into a better lottery spot or veer into no-mans-land.

A lot of teams can't really dictate on whether they can be bad or good.

[Scase]

Only one I take issue with is the retool. IMO retooling and tanking are 2 different ideologies, retooling is the antithesis of tanking, the other 3 I think are pretty accurate.

I'd be curious to see some kind of poll on the general board to see how people feel about retooling being defined a little more and whether or not the general public would consider it tanking.

My personal opinion is tanking requires you to actively try and be worse, be it through sitting players, trading players, or playing a bunch of bad/young players with the intent of being bad. Retooling sounds more like a "if we're good/bad, we're good/bad".

[sidsid]

Now for some tanking.

Gentle tanking - 1-2 years of being the worst team in the league

I'm going to switch this up. Like the last one, you often don't get to choose what you are going to be.

Expedited Tanking - a plan to expend assets for talent in the near future, regardless of your tanking outcomes

We'll get to The Process later, but planned "short" tanks are usually bypassing the accumulation of assets phase in order to get back into the playoff picture sooner rather than later.

That means using assets to acquire talent regardless of hitting on a blue chipper or not. Signing some role players with your cap space instead of using it to take on garbage for future assets, for example. This is a "dual track" of banking on solely your assets in the short term and spending your future assets to move you out of the tanking category sooner.

The BI trade fits here. And the Raptors are here this year after being in the Failed Retool category last year (the retool started after the Giannis offseason).

You would think that OKC would kind of fit here, but they don't. CP3 is mostly responsible for ruining their tank position even though they were just cycling him, and The Process yielded results.

I didn't put a timeline here, and I won't for The Process either. These two tanking categories are goal driven, not time based. Either one may have a plan in mind, but as I mentioned earlier, most teams don't get to choose what they are.

Now for the true tank heads

[LoveMyRaps]

I prefer a balanced approach - one where you still prioritize the development of your best young players (i.e. with in-game reps) but also make it difficult for them to will their team to victory because they're forced to play with G-league players + guys on 10 day contracts.

Raps FO are taking this approach. Sure, we can rest Scottie and IQ, and throw games in order secure top 5 lotto odds. But then those guys are gonna come back next season as the same players and will hardly improve. You need to play in actual games in order get better. Playing time = development.

Right now we're slated to have the 5th best lotto odds (10.5% chance at the first overall pick), if we drop to #7 - we'll have a 7.5% chance at the first pick. A difference of 3%.

That begs the question... is that 3% worth sitting out a guy like Scottie and hindering his growth?

[sidsid]

Bottom out / The Process tanking - 3-5 seasons of being the worst team in the league

Again, I'll make a change here and remove timelines.

The Process - trade your talent/cap space to accumulate future assets and tank until you get a/multiple blue chip prospects

As mentioned before, all of these approaches are goal based. The outcomes will dictate timelines.

This approach is purely focused on asset acquisition. Trading your talent to get picks and prospects. Using your cap space to absorb contracts for more assets. Focusing on being bad to make your pick as desirable as possible.

At any point, you can switch gears to selling mode, but every year you spend in this process leads to a surplus of future assets. The goal is to hit on that top talent. That can naturally get you out of the hole quickly after. The Spurs tank could have been longer, but they hit gold and now a series of events is leading them to the goal.

And this approach can lead to other teams tanking for you thanks to the focus on asset accumulation. That's how the Celtics got their chip. The Sixers could be tanking for OKC right now. They got their MVP by trading their superstar talent for that undeveloped prospect and the Clippers future as part of The Process.

Sacrificing the present to setup these options doesn't stop you from changing gears. Danny Ainge has setup the Jazz like he did the Celtics, to have yet another crack at having multiple teams tank for him in the future whenever he decides to build an actual team.

But you still can't decide what you'll be. Just how far you'll go for the goal.

[Scase]

For those who are struggling with this thread. It isn't about whether or not you think the team is tanking properly or not, nor is it about what is the smartest choice for the team. It is simply about defining the different "types" of tanking.

[sidsid]

.

[mihaic]

See I'd put us in the "Retool tank".

We got off to a very bad start due to key injuries and by the time they started to get healthy it was too late and management correctly pivoted to one year strategic tank. Here we are. Next year it's full speed ahead. Playoffs.

Dammit, are we in a Gentle, Retool or Strategic Tank!?

We are tanking gently to strategically retool the team.

[ChillPill]

I can see how tanking makes logical sense. It's theoretically, hypothetically, sensible. But it completely ignores the building aspect of team building. The flesh and blood aspect, the human aspect. Which is still more important, in my view, than the on-paper strategy. Building a winning team isn't a board game or computer game.

[TRik]

I mean…. I think it’s pretty simple for me. I like the odds more of getting a generational talent player to build a contender around, by seriously sucking for a few seasons and getting seriously high draft picks to try, as opposed to praying you get another Kawhi chance. And like let’s be honest…for us he stayed for one season and my guess true generational talent players continue to not want to be traded here. I love Scottie, IQ, and even the thought of a healthy Ingram….but without a true first option that team is probably pretty mid.

So where are you betting that generational player comes from?

To me…that is the tank.

[ChillPill]

If you're waiting to be able to draft a Wembanyama level talent to start building something, you'll be waiting an awfully long time, unless you get very very lucky.

Otherwise, you have to play the cards you're dealt and just hope for opportunity. Opportunity, like Ainge exploiting the Nets or PG demanding a trade and Presti holding the Clippers over a barrel. Or the Kawhi trade, for that matter.

[Jcity08]

Tanking is simple, its about a team putting themselves in the best position to get a strong lottery pick in a given year in order to acquire a true difference maker for a team at a fixed price through their rookie contract. Can be 1 season, can be multiple seasons, sometimes teams tank because they don't want to lose their pick due to weak protections, sometimes its because of injuries, sometimes a new GM has a vision that requires tanking, however they get their, the philosphy is always to get a high draft pick in a given year. May or may not include blowing it up, sitting players..ect... or you only have back gleaguers that are left healthy on your roster.

[sidsid]

If you're waiting to be able to draft a Wembanyama level talent to start building something, you'll be waiting an awfully long time, unless you get very very lucky.

Otherwise, you have to play the cards you're dealt and just hope for opportunity. Opportunity, like Ainge exploiting the Nets or PG demanding a trade and Presti holding the Clippers over a barrel. Or the Kawhi trade, for that matter.

The Danny Ainge playbook is a tanking one in both his Celtics tenure and his Jazz one. Tatum and Brown were top 5 picks. Presti being handed a Sixers lotto pick this year would, too.

The key is that you're not limited to waiting on hitting for a Wemby. If Ainge gets a solid star potential guy this year he'll probably shift gears by the next season. Then the Jazz can look to add those other stars through other teams potential lotto picks (future Suns, Minny, Cavs, etc.), and include the same approaches Masai is looking at: Consolidation trades of talent or FA. It broadens your options.

Trading your core talent for futures that could land in the lottery is part of The Process. Unlike Masai's approach of trading core for talent, or immediate returns.

[Indeed]

This year: 18-42 (bottom 5)
Last year: 25-57 (bottom 6)

Different type of tanking, but tanking?

[Pointgod]

Only one I take issue with is the retool. IMO retooling and tanking are 2 different ideologies, retooling is the antithesis of tanking, the other 3 I think are pretty accurate.

I'd be curious to see some kind of poll on the general board to see how people feel about retooling being defined a little more and whether or not the general public would consider it tanking.

My personal opinion is tanking requires you to actively try and be worse, be it through sitting players, trading players, or playing a bunch of bad/young players with the intent of being bad. Retooling sounds more like a "if we're good/bad, we're good/bad".

A good example of retooling is the trade that Sacramento made to move Deaaron Fox. They got Zach Lavine, a fake first round pick from the Hornets and 2 other firsts from the Spurs and Mavs/Wolves. They didn’t prioritize getting one of the Kings young players on a rookie contract or a massive pick package (the Spurs had like 16 first round picks over the next 7 years) and they made a move that will keep them from consistently being bad enough to get a bottom 5 pick. They still have Derozan and Sabonis who will keep them a decent team and will firmly be in the middle of the draft.

Perfect example of a retool and building from the middle vs prioritizing picks and youth.

[ChillPill]

It's funny, during the season the definition of tanking is so strict that any deviation from that plan causes posters to melt down like toddlers.

Then suddenly, the actual definition of tanking is so malleable, it pretty much fits any successful team. I guess that's why the OP created this thread, so hats off to him.

I have to say the only thing I'm really against is Process style tanking.

[Pointgod]

I mean…. I think it’s pretty simple for me. I like the odds more of getting a generational talent player to build a contender around, by seriously sucking for a few seasons and getting seriously high draft picks to try, as opposed to praying you get another Kawhi chance. And like let’s be honest…for us he stayed for one season and my guess true generational talent players continue to not want to be traded here. I love Scottie, IQ, and even the thought of a healthy Ingram….but without a true first option that team is probably pretty mid.

So where are you betting that generational player comes from?

To me…that is the tank.

I’d go even beyond that to say that even non generational but top 10 players are better acquired through tanking strategy. Jayson Tatum is one below the level of a Giannis and Jokic but he’s also the type of player that it’s rare to trade for in his prime. So not only are generational players in short supply, top tier talent is also in short supply outside of drafting them. I think that’s where tanking becomes a much more viable strategy compared to the alternatives otherwise everything just depends on luck.

[ATLTimekeeper]

A guy better than Tatum was just traded in his prime for another guy who is as good as Tatum that was previously traded in his prime v. tanking for Tatum (who, like no one was 'tanking' for). Ainge was deciding between Tatum and Josh Jackson, ffs.