Long term objectives - not tanking but depth building

[vini_vidi_vici]

I dont think its depth building so much as its asset accumulation and development.

This is how I see it. The team is always evaluating each asset on its own and and trading them based on that value. They did this when they grabbed Poeltl and it backfired when their evaluation was off (the pick ended up being higher than they had projected). I don't mind this approach but when people see the team in a very binary way, younger assets might seem more desirable then older ones, simply because of the way we look at rebuilding (youth and tanking) vs their way, just moving assets in and out to increase their value. BI was the same thing. Might have seemed like a middling move, but it was just a move to shuffle assets to increase (in their view) their value.

This is the problem. I dont mind tanking, and was one of the biggest advocates for it back in the original tWo/THG (come back TZ) days. We were talking about much different roster constructs back then.

My issue is, no matter what route you want to take, its going to take alot of luck so that excuse levied against any process to me is inane. Its also not really mitigated by any one process taken.

To your point, people identify as these processes, and much like politics dont concede or argue in good faith about it. Im not here to argue with a pro-tanker, or team negative, or _______, im arguing the merits of these things within the context (long/short term) and/or how to make this team better. Its why its so boring to me personally.

[Tacoma]

I dont think its depth building so much as its asset accumulation and development.

This is how I see it. The team is always evaluating each asset on its own and and trading them based on that value. They did this when they grabbed Poeltl and it backfired when their evaluation was off (the pick ended up being higher than they had projected). I don't mind this approach but when people see the team in a very binary way, younger assets might seem more desirable then older ones, simply because of the way we look at rebuilding (youth and tanking) vs their way, just moving assets in and out to increase their value. BI was the same thing. Might have seemed like a middling move, but it was just a move to shuffle assets to increase (in their view) their value.

This is the problem. I dont mind tanking, and was one of the biggest advocates for it back in the original tWo/THG (come back TZ) days. We were talking about much different roster constructs back then.

My issue is, no matter what route you want to take, its going to take alot of luck so that excuse levied against any process to me is inane. Its also not really mitigated by any one process taken.

To your point, people identify as these processes, and much like politics dont concede or argue in good faith about it. Im not here to argue with a pro-tanker, or team negative, or _______, im arguing the merits of these things within the context (long/short term) and/or how to make this team better. Its why its so boring to me personally.

Agree, luck plays a big part and that being so it follows that you want to increase the odds of being lucky by being higher in the draft. Add that Masai is deft at drafting, thus you want him to draw from a bigger pool higher on the draft order. Hence supporting the tanking stance over other processes.

[vini_vidi_vici]

This is how I see it. The team is always evaluating each asset on its own and and trading them based on that value. They did this when they grabbed Poeltl and it backfired when their evaluation was off (the pick ended up being higher than they had projected). I don't mind this approach but when people see the team in a very binary way, younger assets might seem more desirable then older ones, simply because of the way we look at rebuilding (youth and tanking) vs their way, just moving assets in and out to increase their value. BI was the same thing. Might have seemed like a middling move, but it was just a move to shuffle assets to increase (in their view) their value.

This is the problem. I dont mind tanking, and was one of the biggest advocates for it back in the original tWo/THG (come back TZ) days. We were talking about much different roster constructs back then.

My issue is, no matter what route you want to take, its going to take alot of luck so that excuse levied against any process to me is inane. Its also not really mitigated by any one process taken.

To your point, people identify as these processes, and much like politics dont concede or argue in good faith about it. Im not here to argue with a pro-tanker, or team negative, or _______, im arguing the merits of these things within the context (long/short term) and/or how to make this team better. Its why its so boring to me personally.

Agree, luck plays a big part and that being so it follows that you want to increase the odds of being lucky by being higher in the draft. Add that Masai is deft at drafting, thus you want him to draw from a bigger pool higher on the draft order. Hence supporting the tanking stance over other processes.

Again, that doesnt mean much.

- Tanking odds are flattened. You need luck.
- Drafting the right player, takes luck.
- Developing a player, takes luck.
- Avoiding injury takes luck.
- Building around said player, takes luck.

Being higher in the draft means stripping your asset base, to compete with the likes of WAS/CHA/etc..

- So building up an asset base is going to take luck.

Tanking isnt the panacea, post-flatten the odds/player movement era we are in, that people make it out to be. Its just another step like anything else.

[ReggieSlater]

I dont think its depth building so much as its asset accumulation and development.

This is how I see it. The team is always evaluating each asset on its own and and trading them based on that value. They did this when they grabbed Poeltl and it backfired when their evaluation was off (the pick ended up being higher than they had projected). I don't mind this approach but when people see the team in a very binary way, younger assets might seem more desirable then older ones, simply because of the way we look at rebuilding (youth and tanking) vs their way, just moving assets in and out to increase their value. BI was the same thing. Might have seemed like a middling move, but it was just a move to shuffle assets to increase (in their view) their value.

This is the problem. I dont mind tanking, and was one of the biggest advocates for it back in the original tWo/THG (come back TZ) days. We were talking about much different roster constructs back then.

My issue is, no matter what route you want to take, its going to take alot of luck so that excuse levied against any process to me is inane. Its also not really mitigated by any one process taken.

To your point, people identify as these processes, and much like politics dont concede or argue in good faith about it. Im not here to argue with a pro-tanker, or team negative, or _______, im arguing the merits of these things within the context (long/short term) and/or how to make this team better. Its why its so boring to me personally.

I'm not necessarily advocating for one process over another, but I find the ultimate logic of a strict tanker a bit flimsy in the same way I would someone who would advocate for say what the Knicks did in the 90-00, which was rebranding with a new set of aging stars at the cost of their future over and over again.

I agree, all methods involve luck, which means, all can be cherry picked and say this is the way, they did it, or this isn't, they didn't, but I'm less concerned with that specifically. I'm more pointing out what we're doing that often seems to be lost in the binary view of things. We can make short term moves and longer term moves at the same time, and it doesn't signal some grand design in either case. If we strip all assets to nothing and rebuild we could be looking at a decade of failure and that's just not something this team (and most teams) want.

Would I want, all things considered, a first overall pick this year? Of course. I don't like what's happening to the team though. It's ugly from a competitive stand point. It's hard to justify that we deserve it, which is why I don't care for the system.

If you look at all the most valuable pieces of our championship team, they were acquired by evaluating assets and making moves to get better. Kyle I think is the best example. The trade might have seemed like a middling move to tread water to someone who wanted to retool, but the trade payed off for use years later, even if it prevented us from aggressively pursuing talent in the draft. Masai seems to be doing the same thing again. Will Poeltl and BI payoff years from now in the same way? Might need some luck.

[YogurtProducer]

This is the problem. I dont mind tanking, and was one of the biggest advocates for it back in the original tWo/THG (come back TZ) days. We were talking about much different roster constructs back then.

My issue is, no matter what route you want to take, its going to take alot of luck so that excuse levied against any process to me is inane. Its also not really mitigated by any one process taken.

To your point, people identify as these processes, and much like politics dont concede or argue in good faith about it. Im not here to argue with a pro-tanker, or team negative, or _______, im arguing the merits of these things within the context (long/short term) and/or how to make this team better. Its why its so boring to me personally.

Agree, luck plays a big part and that being so it follows that you want to increase the odds of being lucky by being higher in the draft. Add that Masai is deft at drafting, thus you want him to draw from a bigger pool higher on the draft order. Hence supporting the tanking stance over other processes.

Again, that doesnt mean much.

- Tanking odds are flattened. You need luck.
- Drafting the right player, takes luck.
- Developing a player, takes luck.
- Avoiding injury takes luck.
- Building around said player, takes luck.

Being higher in the draft means stripping your asset base, to compete with the likes of WAS/CHA/etc..

- So building up an asset base is going to take luck.

Tanking isnt the panacea, post-flatten the odds/player movement era we are in, that people make it out to be. Its just another step like anything else.

Agreed - everything requires some luck, but none more than the lottery.

Developing a player is partially luck but there is also a reason why some teams constantly churn out solid players from lower picks like Toronto or Miami do. You have some control over development, which is why I think we continue to do that.