PG: BENCH SLOBS SHART THE COURT

[Los_29]

Didn't think you were as dense as that Los guy but here we are....

You do realize saying "Tatum, Brown were traded for, and Shai, Williams were traded for....Makes zero difference to your argument? Because at the end of the god damn day they were still high draft picks in the NBA draft and it took them high picks to get the results they wanted right?.....If Raptors have OTHER teams draft picks that are high in the draft it would take THEM players we draft to take us out of team mid we are in now...

Idc how you aquire them because its the same result at the end of the day, high draft pick=better results....Which is my whole god damn point lmao idk why that is so hard for some people like you and others to understand its really not that god damn difficult to understand when there are legit percentages posted all over the internet proving that as fact that the higher you pick in the draft theres a much higher percentage that you get better results....If you go look them graphs about draft percentages you will find it yourself....

You think them high 2026 draft picks OKC has won't make them even more unreal in the following years? It will absolutly make them a even higher level of a basketball team.....Does Bobby have the trading chops to make savy trades like Presti does? Where you can be a championship contender but still are in the top of the draft like OKC has been? Prolly not i don't think Bobby is actually that good and will have this team in team mid for many more years till the ultimate firing and new vision which will be an ultimate blow up + tank again anyways...

So have fun cheering for first and second round exits for a little bit here and then you will be forced to sit through a proper rebuild/tank again anyways in a few years because this team with Barnes as the first option will never make it that far....

Warned, personal attack.

It does make a difference. Tatum and Brown were going into situations where the team was winning. It was a healthy environment where they were allowed to develop properly and learn how to win.

Jalen Williams was not a high draft pick. He was the 12th pick. SGA was drafted 11th and played for the Clippers then with Chris Paul for a year in OKC where they made the playoffs.

OKC tanked super hard and acquired lots of picks. But many of those picks haven’t materialized. Dieng, Topic, Giddey, Poku. Make no mistake about it, OKC is lottery bound and irrelevant without that Kawhi signing. Chet, Ajay Mitchell, Cason Wallace aren’t turning that team around.

Tha Cynic is absolutely correct. If you have to bring up teams from the 1970s to help support your argument, then you’ve already lost. We need relevant evidence not evidence from the 1970s when there were like 12 teams in the league.

And your current examples are atrocious because a) SGA and Jdubs were drafted in the late lottery from the worst trade in history and b) The Celtics never tanked and got Tatum and Brown in the 2nd worst trade in history.

You’re actually indirectly proving our point.

let me end this debate once and for all...







Grok knows all....I would trust Grok over a guy named Los_29 or whoever else is trying to make the same arguments as him...Much smarter than all the team Mid....And if you try and say "Im wrong" Or "Grok" Is wrong...Go find actual data and facts to prove it...I think its a closed case though and time to stop dying on a hill you know nothing about...

I’m sorry but this is absolutely hilarious to me. What are you even arguing about? I don’t doubt you have a better chance of selecting a superstar player earlier in the draft than later in the draft. Lmao.

The point is it hasn’t helped teams who tanked win championships. In fact the players that are drafted early who end up winning championships end up winning them on other teams (AD, LeBron, Durant). For some reason, the later in the draft you go, superstar players that win championships seem to do so on their actual team that drafted them (Jokic, Kawhi, Curry, Kobe, Dirk).

You brought up two horrible examples because SGA and JDubs were drafted in the late lottery. SGA wasn’t even drafted by OKC. OKC’s championship is not a result of tanking but rather Kawhi Leonard choosing to go to LAC.

The Celtics are also a TERRIBLE example because they were already a winning team before they got Tatum and Brown. It’s a miracle they only have one championship.

Tanking sounds great, and in some situations it’s absolutely necessary (aging, expensive middling team). However, it simply has not been successful historically. This is simply not up for debate.

It’s best we end this debate and get back to talking about the Raptors. I’ll go to the General Board for Cedric Coward and Derik Queen updates.

[pingpongrac]

If you’re picking 11th/12th, that is quite literally the definition of mediocrity as it’s play-in range; the teams that have finished with the 11th and 12th worst records the past 5 seasons are the Heat and Mavs (24/25), Bulls and Rockets (23/24), Thunder and Bulls (22/23), Pelicans and Knicks (21/22) and Hornets and Spurs (20/21). 99% of people advocating for tanking over the past 5 years have been adamant that you need to bottom out to maximize your chances of picking in the top 4 because that’s where the only franchise-altering talent can be found and we had people losing their **** for us finishing with the 7th worst record in 20/21 and 24/25, but now we’re supposed to believe that the 11th and 12th picks are still high draft picks?

[Los_29]

If you’re picking 11th/12th, that is quite literally the definition of mediocrity as it’s play-in range; the teams that have finished with the 11th and 12th worst records the past 5 seasons are the Heat and Mavs (24/25), Bulls and Rockets (23/24), Thunder and Bulls (22/23), Pelicans and Knicks (21/22) and Hornets and Spurs (20/21). 99% of people advocating for tanking over the past 5 years have been adamant that you need to bottom out to maximize your chances of picking in the top 4 because that’s where the only franchise-altering talent can be found and we had people losing their **** for us finishing with the 7th worst record in 20/21 and 24/25, but now we’re supposed to believe that the 11th and 12th picks are still high draft picks?

I know he didn’t do it intentionally but he really helped prove our point. Made my rebuttal a lot easier to write.

It’s actually kind of fun to look back on the past 5 years and see the teams who constantly bottomed out. Orlando was constantly praised on here as being the gold standard for how a tank should be done. They are like 19-17, in year 5 of their rebuild. No future FRPs and a team of average-good players. No superstars, arguably no perennial all-star players either.

I think it’s good when small market teams do well so it is a bit unfortunate seeing what has happened there. They might be able to turn it around. Look at some of the late bloomers we see in the NBA right now. Jalen Johnson is a great example of that. Banchero needs to take that same path.

[Clutch0z24]

It does make a difference. Tatum and Brown were going into situations where the team was winning. It was a healthy environment where they were allowed to develop properly and learn how to win.

Jalen Williams was not a high draft pick. He was the 12th pick. SGA was drafted 11th and played for the Clippers then with Chris Paul for a year in OKC where they made the playoffs.

OKC tanked super hard and acquired lots of picks. But many of those picks haven’t materialized. Dieng, Topic, Giddey, Poku. Make no mistake about it, OKC is lottery bound and irrelevant without that Kawhi signing. Chet, Ajay Mitchell, Cason Wallace aren’t turning that team around.

Tha Cynic is absolutely correct. If you have to bring up teams from the 1970s to help support your argument, then you’ve already lost. We need relevant evidence not evidence from the 1970s when there were like 12 teams in the league.

And your current examples are atrocious because a) SGA and Jdubs were drafted in the late lottery from the worst trade in history and b) The Celtics never tanked and got Tatum and Brown in the 2nd worst trade in history.

You’re actually indirectly proving our point.

let me end this debate once and for all...







Grok knows all....I would trust Grok over a guy named Los_29 or whoever else is trying to make the same arguments as him...Much smarter than all the team Mid....And if you try and say "Im wrong" Or "Grok" Is wrong...Go find actual data and facts to prove it...I think its a closed case though and time to stop dying on a hill you know nothing about...

I’m sorry but this is absolutely hilarious to me. What are you even arguing about? I don’t doubt you have a better chance of selecting a superstar player earlier in the draft than later in the draft. Lmao.

The point is it hasn’t helped teams who tanked win championships. In fact the players that are drafted early who end up winning championships end up winning them on other teams (AD, LeBron, Durant). For some reason, the later in the draft you go, superstar players that win championships seem to do so on their actual team that drafted them (Jokic, Kawhi, Curry, Kobe, Dirk).

You brought up two horrible examples because SGA and JDubs were drafted in the late lottery. SGA wasn’t even drafted by OKC. OKC’s championship is not a result of tanking but rather Kawhi Leonard choosing to go to LAC.

The Celtics are also a TERRIBLE example because they were already a winning team before they got Tatum and Brown. It’s a miracle they only have one championship.

Tanking sounds great, and in some situations it’s absolutely necessary (aging, expensive middling team). However, it simply has not been successful historically. This is simply not up for debate.

It’s best we end this debate and get back to talking about the Raptors. I’ll go to the General Board for Cedric Coward and Derik Queen updates.

Um yep apparently i am not allowed to discuss other players on other teams on here so i will not be doing so from now on sorry to say...

And if you can read i posted you a clear as day reason why Tanking is the better option to team building than being team mid....Wasn't that what this whole argument was about from all of you posters like 5 pages back?......what you are reading there isn't about higher draft picks it is about tanking vs team mid and what strat leads to winning using data, statistics, and facts to show why that strat has been more successfull over the history of the NBA ....If you like arguing against facts, data and fact based statistics go ahead....Spoiler but Tanking has the much higher success rate which was my point this whole argument....But sorry i can not continue the discussion any longer as i will banned if doing so...

[Los_29]

let me end this debate once and for all...







Grok knows all....I would trust Grok over a guy named Los_29 or whoever else is trying to make the same arguments as him...Much smarter than all the team Mid....And if you try and say "Im wrong" Or "Grok" Is wrong...Go find actual data and facts to prove it...I think its a closed case though and time to stop dying on a hill you know nothing about...

I’m sorry but this is absolutely hilarious to me. What are you even arguing about? I don’t doubt you have a better chance of selecting a superstar player earlier in the draft than later in the draft. Lmao.

The point is it hasn’t helped teams who tanked win championships. In fact the players that are drafted early who end up winning championships end up winning them on other teams (AD, LeBron, Durant). For some reason, the later in the draft you go, superstar players that win championships seem to do so on their actual team that drafted them (Jokic, Kawhi, Curry, Kobe, Dirk).

You brought up two horrible examples because SGA and JDubs were drafted in the late lottery. SGA wasn’t even drafted by OKC. OKC’s championship is not a result of tanking but rather Kawhi Leonard choosing to go to LAC.

The Celtics are also a TERRIBLE example because they were already a winning team before they got Tatum and Brown. It’s a miracle they only have one championship.

Tanking sounds great, and in some situations it’s absolutely necessary (aging, expensive middling team). However, it simply has not been successful historically. This is simply not up for debate.

It’s best we end this debate and get back to talking about the Raptors. I’ll go to the General Board for Cedric Coward and Derik Queen updates.

Um yep apparently i am not allowed to discuss other players on other teams on here so i will not be doing so from now on sorry to say...

And if you can read i posted you a clear as day reason why Tanking is the better option to team building than being team mid....Wasn't that what this whole argument was about from all of you posters like 5 pages back?......what you are reading there isn't about higher draft picks it is about tanking vs team mid and what strat leads to winning using data, statistics, and facts to show why that strat has been more successfull ....If you like arguing against facts, data and fact based statistics go ahead....But sorry i can not continue the discussion any longer as i will banned if doing so...

I am quite shocked you’re still going. Unfortunately there is no evidence to support your claims which is the reason why you brought up examples from the 1980s and then two horrible examples from the past 10 years in which both teams didn’t even have to tank to get those players.

We aren’t a great team. But our players are young and not even in their primes aside from a couple. We have all of our picks and our conference is completely wide open. Philly, Miami and Milwaukee are done. Cleveland, Orlando, Atlanta are just incredibly underwhelming right now. Boston is retooling. Indiana lost Turner and Hali is gone the year. New York is a flawed team, much older than us and don’t have their picks.

[Clutch0z24]

I’m sorry but this is absolutely hilarious to me. What are you even arguing about? I don’t doubt you have a better chance of selecting a superstar player earlier in the draft than later in the draft. Lmao.

The point is it hasn’t helped teams who tanked win championships. In fact the players that are drafted early who end up winning championships end up winning them on other teams (AD, LeBron, Durant). For some reason, the later in the draft you go, superstar players that win championships seem to do so on their actual team that drafted them (Jokic, Kawhi, Curry, Kobe, Dirk).

You brought up two horrible examples because SGA and JDubs were drafted in the late lottery. SGA wasn’t even drafted by OKC. OKC’s championship is not a result of tanking but rather Kawhi Leonard choosing to go to LAC.

The Celtics are also a TERRIBLE example because they were already a winning team before they got Tatum and Brown. It’s a miracle they only have one championship.

Tanking sounds great, and in some situations it’s absolutely necessary (aging, expensive middling team). However, it simply has not been successful historically. This is simply not up for debate.

It’s best we end this debate and get back to talking about the Raptors. I’ll go to the General Board for Cedric Coward and Derik Queen updates.

Um yep apparently i am not allowed to discuss other players on other teams on here so i will not be doing so from now on sorry to say...

And if you can read i posted you a clear as day reason why Tanking is the better option to team building than being team mid....Wasn't that what this whole argument was about from all of you posters like 5 pages back?......what you are reading there isn't about higher draft picks it is about tanking vs team mid and what strat leads to winning using data, statistics, and facts to show why that strat has been more successfull ....If you like arguing against facts, data and fact based statistics go ahead....But sorry i can not continue the discussion any longer as i will banned if doing so...

I am quite shocked you’re still going. Unfortunately there is no evidence to support your claims which is the reason why you brought up examples from the 1980s and then two horrible examples from the past 10 years in which both teams didn’t even have to tank to get those players.

We aren’t a great team. But our players are young and not even in their primes aside from a couple. We have all of our picks and our conference is completely wide open. Philly, Miami and Milwaukee are done. Cleveland, Orlando, Atlanta are just incredibly underwhelming right now. Boston is retooling. Indiana lost Turner and Hali is gone the year. New York is a flawed team, much older than us and don’t have their picks.

Lol yep im done now because clearly you are a troll when you say there is no evidence if you actually read it there are actual real proven evidence to support it being true with percentages, winning percentages, which team building strat produced more winning teams over the history of the NBA Current and present, While also giving you clear cut reasons to why the outcome that tanking is more successfull....If you took the time to read it without dying on a hill you are wrong about you would realize there is proof ....You have yet to show me proof of successfull middling teams that have became legit title contenders yet when i have listed off many that have became title contenders by tanking....I wonder why that is? Could it be that it works more often?...Also who would have a better chance today if Giannis was on the trade market to get him via trade? The Raptors, OKC, Spurs, Or Rockets? ....Which team has the better asset base to get the deal done and why?

And yes no need to keep going or you will get me banned here since only one perspective is allowed here...

[Clutch0z24]

If you’re picking 11th/12th, that is quite literally the definition of mediocrity as it’s play-in range; the teams that have finished with the 11th and 12th worst records the past 5 seasons are the Heat and Mavs (24/25), Bulls and Rockets (23/24), Thunder and Bulls (22/23), Pelicans and Knicks (21/22) and Hornets and Spurs (20/21). 99% of people advocating for tanking over the past 5 years have been adamant that you need to bottom out to maximize your chances of picking in the top 4 because that’s where the only franchise-altering talent can be found and we had people losing their **** for us finishing with the 7th worst record in 20/21 and 24/25, but now we’re supposed to believe that the 11th and 12th picks are still high draft picks?

Btw i never once said its a "High" Pick or the best pick you aim to get.... i simply stated that franchise level players or really talented players can still be found in the 11-14 range actually....History shows that to be the case while it maybe rare and harder than picking higher....There have been players picked in that range that had great careers and some circumstances you get a Shai as well....Again is it likely no....But is it possible of course....We are talking about probabilities here....

Now would you rather be drafting 11th, 12th than in the 20s or the 2nd round? 10000 percent because history shown in the 20s and the 2nd round you most likely get a player that won't be in the league long or are end of the bench guys...Obviously if you want the best percentage to build a legit championship roster statically and probability from research would be bottoming out and building a team with high picks seems to be the forumula that has the most winning percentage and probabilties of producing championship teams.....But when you are a middle of the pack team like we are you end up drafting in the 20s of the draft more so than not....So the chances of you actually building up a viable asset base to use to upgrade for stars is not likely.....What im basically trying to say is it is a much more harder path to build a championship level team playing the middle than playing the high draft pick game...Which numbers and stats back that up...

[Tripod]

One might say....this is a Post Game thread to discuss the game.

But it was hijacked by a "must tank" poster. Why not just shut this down and Clutch can go post in the TWO thread.

Seems like a great compromise.

[Duffman100]

One might say....this is a Post Game thread to discuss the game.

But it was hijacked by a "must tank" poster. Why not just shut this down and Clutch can go post in the TWO thread.

Seems like a great compromise.

Sounds good. I like that.

Imagine it being a controversial rule to ask people to actually discuss the team in the teams forum.

[Basketball_Jones]

What the hell this thread turned into

[Wargreymon]

This bench is straight dumpster juice. Miss the good old days of Ibaka,Powell,FVV coming off the bench and sometimes out performing the starters

[Tha Cynic]

Women lie, Men lie, Data and stats do not lie....Post above for why tanking is a better result than team mid and this one ^ For why drafting higher = better results...Case closed...No need to reply any longer or you are just dying on a losing hill because of pride and can't admit you are just wrong on this subject...

I don’t even know what you’re arguing anymore. No one said having the top pick in the draft every season doesn’t give you better players. People are arguing that you can’t just tank every season and hope you get lucky every year and get the top picks that lead to championships.

All you need to do is look back over the last 20 years and see how many championships were a result of tanking.

In the last 20 years the only four teams who have won due to tanking are the Cavs, Heat, Celtics and Spurs and the Spurs did a strategic tank that was due to an injury (again something the raptors have done multiple times). Two of the other championships by the Heat were due to free agency signings.

Not only are you fighting against those percentages, you also have to be one of the many tanking teams to get that top pick that works out too.

There is nothing that shows that tanking is a great strategy for winning championships. In fact the opposite is true. Since the NBA flattened the lottery odds a different team has won the championship every year and only Boston you can say was due to tanking.
Like I’ve been saying, you’re using small percentage occurrences to “strategize” and relying on luck.

[Los_29]

Women lie, Men lie, Data and stats do not lie....Post above for why tanking is a better result than team mid and this one ^ For why drafting higher = better results...Case closed...No need to reply any longer or you are just dying on a losing hill because of pride and can't admit you are just wrong on this subject...

I don’t even know what you’re arguing anymore. No one said having the top pick in the draft every season doesn’t give you better players. People are arguing that you can’t just tank every season and hope you get lucky every year and get the top picks that lead to championships.

All you need to do is look back over the last 20 years and see how many championships were a result of tanking.

In the last 20 years the only four teams who have won due to tanking are the Cavs, Heat, Celtics and Spurs and the Spurs did a strategic tank that was due to an injury (again something the raptors have done multiple times). Two of the other championships by the Heat were due to free agency signings.

Not only are you fighting against those percentages, you also have to be one of the many tanking teams to get that top pick that works out too.

There is nothing that shows that tanking is a great strategy for winning championships. In fact the opposite is true. Since the NBA flattened the lottery odds a different team has won the championship every year and only Boston you can say was due to tanking.
Like I’ve been saying, you’re using small percentage occurrences to “strategize” and relying on luck.

Exactly, and the Cavs only won because they signed LeBron. Heat got Wade in the lottery but they were never a hopeless, tanking team. Celtics didn’t even tank. They were good. Think they had one bad year where they got Smart. Celtics won 48 and 53 games leading up to the Jaylen and Jayson drafts. Spurs were an excellent team but then lost Robinson and Elliot for the year. They got lucky and got Duncan. Imagine if they got Keith Van Horn instead?

So I’d argue there isn’t a single example of tanking winning a championship unless you include already good teams doing stealth tanks or teams signing superstar players to put them over the top. What tWo wants is a complete tear down. As a result you can’t use examples like the Spurs or Celtics as examples of successful tanking. They were already good teams. In fact I’d argue great teams.

I’m actually flabbergasted that Clutch thinks he’s making a coherent argument full of “unarguable” facts. Not only is that not the case but his posts are riddled with spelling and grammatical errors which most certainly doesn’t help his case.

[Tha Cynic]

Women lie, Men lie, Data and stats do not lie....Post above for why tanking is a better result than team mid and this one ^ For why drafting higher = better results...Case closed...No need to reply any longer or you are just dying on a losing hill because of pride and can't admit you are just wrong on this subject...

I don’t even know what you’re arguing anymore. No one said having the top pick in the draft every season doesn’t give you better players. People are arguing that you can’t just tank every season and hope you get lucky every year and get the top picks that lead to championships.

All you need to do is look back over the last 20 years and see how many championships were a result of tanking.

In the last 20 years the only four teams who have won due to tanking are the Cavs, Heat, Celtics and Spurs and the Spurs did a strategic tank that was due to an injury (again something the raptors have done multiple times). Two of the other championships by the Heat were due to free agency signings.

Not only are you fighting against those percentages, you also have to be one of the many tanking teams to get that top pick that works out too.

There is nothing that shows that tanking is a great strategy for winning championships. In fact the opposite is true. Since the NBA flattened the lottery odds a different team has won the championship every year and only Boston you can say was due to tanking.
Like I’ve been saying, you’re using small percentage occurrences to “strategize” and relying on luck.

Exactly, and the Cavs only won because they signed LeBron. Heat got Wade in the lottery but they were never a hopeless, tanking team. Celtics didn’t even tank. They were good. Think they had one bad year where they got Smart. Celtics won 48 and 53 games leading up to the Jaylen and Jayson drafts. Spurs were an excellent team but then lost Robinson and Elliot for the year. They got lucky and got Duncan. Imagine if they got Keith Van Horn instead?

So I’d argue there isn’t a single example of tanking winning a championship unless you include already good teams doing stealth tanks or teams signing superstar players to put them over the top. What tWo wants is a complete tear down. As a result you can’t use examples like the Spurs or Celtics as examples of successful tanking. They were already good teams. In fact I’d argue great teams.

I’m actually flabbergasted that Clutch thinks he’s making a coherent argument full of “unarguable” facts. Not only is that not the case but his posts are riddled with spelling and grammatical errors which most certainly doesn’t help his case.

I’m trying to be as generous as possible. Personally I don’t think Tatum and Brown are even due to a tank but sheer luck that Nets imploded. But still that was a good move as their stars were aging and they got the Nets to bite. I can give him that one. Even the Wade initial championship was because they traded for Shaq and their subsequent ones were due to signing James and Bosh, but I’ll give him that as Wade was drafted with a high pick. Heat don’t tank -They are against tanking though and they just happened to be bad that year.

There is zero argument here. You need to have a smart front office who makes great picks wherever they are, accumulates talent (sometimes though free agency), and gets lucky - being donated SGA and Williams, Anthony Davis, etc

[HumbleRen]

I don’t even know what you’re arguing anymore. No one said having the top pick in the draft every season doesn’t give you better players. People are arguing that you can’t just tank every season and hope you get lucky every year and get the top picks that lead to championships.

All you need to do is look back over the last 20 years and see how many championships were a result of tanking.

In the last 20 years the only four teams who have won due to tanking are the Cavs, Heat, Celtics and Spurs and the Spurs did a strategic tank that was due to an injury (again something the raptors have done multiple times). Two of the other championships by the Heat were due to free agency signings.

Not only are you fighting against those percentages, you also have to be one of the many tanking teams to get that top pick that works out too.

There is nothing that shows that tanking is a great strategy for winning championships. In fact the opposite is true. Since the NBA flattened the lottery odds a different team has won the championship every year and only Boston you can say was due to tanking.
Like I’ve been saying, you’re using small percentage occurrences to “strategize” and relying on luck.

Exactly, and the Cavs only won because they signed LeBron. Heat got Wade in the lottery but they were never a hopeless, tanking team. Celtics didn’t even tank. They were good. Think they had one bad year where they got Smart. Celtics won 48 and 53 games leading up to the Jaylen and Jayson drafts. Spurs were an excellent team but then lost Robinson and Elliot for the year. They got lucky and got Duncan. Imagine if they got Keith Van Horn instead?

So I’d argue there isn’t a single example of tanking winning a championship unless you include already good teams doing stealth tanks or teams signing superstar players to put them over the top. What tWo wants is a complete tear down. As a result you can’t use examples like the Spurs or Celtics as examples of successful tanking. They were already good teams. In fact I’d argue great teams.

I’m actually flabbergasted that Clutch thinks he’s making a coherent argument full of “unarguable” facts. Not only is that not the case but his posts are riddled with spelling and grammatical errors which most certainly doesn’t help his case.

I’m trying to be as generous as possible. Personally I don’t think Tatum and Brown are even due to a tank but sheer luck that Nets imploded. But still that was a good move as their stats were aging and they got the Nets to bite. I can give him that one. Even the Wade initial championship was because they traded for Shaq and their subsequent ones were due to signing James and Bosh, but I’ll give him that they got Wade was drafted with a high pick. Heat don’t tank. They are against tanking though.

There is zero argument here. You need to have a smart front office who makes great picks wherever they are, accumulates talent (sometimes though free agency), and gets lucky - being donated SGA and Williams, Anthony Davis, etc

Donated is a stretch for OKC. PG was third in mvp votes that season and they traded him despite that. Not a lot of teams would have done what OKC did. I know Masai/Bobby wouldn’t have done that trade lol.

[Tha Cynic]

Exactly, and the Cavs only won because they signed LeBron. Heat got Wade in the lottery but they were never a hopeless, tanking team. Celtics didn’t even tank. They were good. Think they had one bad year where they got Smart. Celtics won 48 and 53 games leading up to the Jaylen and Jayson drafts. Spurs were an excellent team but then lost Robinson and Elliot for the year. They got lucky and got Duncan. Imagine if they got Keith Van Horn instead?

So I’d argue there isn’t a single example of tanking winning a championship unless you include already good teams doing stealth tanks or teams signing superstar players to put them over the top. What tWo wants is a complete tear down. As a result you can’t use examples like the Spurs or Celtics as examples of successful tanking. They were already good teams. In fact I’d argue great teams.

I’m actually flabbergasted that Clutch thinks he’s making a coherent argument full of “unarguable” facts. Not only is that not the case but his posts are riddled with spelling and grammatical errors which most certainly doesn’t help his case.

I’m trying to be as generous as possible. Personally I don’t think Tatum and Brown are even due to a tank but sheer luck that Nets imploded. But still that was a good move as their stats were aging and they got the Nets to bite. I can give him that one. Even the Wade initial championship was because they traded for Shaq and their subsequent ones were due to signing James and Bosh, but I’ll give him that they got Wade was drafted with a high pick. Heat don’t tank. They are against tanking though.

There is zero argument here. You need to have a smart front office who makes great picks wherever they are, accumulates talent (sometimes though free agency), and gets lucky - being donated SGA and Williams, Anthony Davis, etc

Donated is a stretch for OKC. PG was third in mvp votes that season and they traded him despite that. Not a lot of teams would have done what OKC did. I know Masai/Bobby wouldn’t have done that trade lol.

What?

100% Masai says yes to Shai, 5 first round picks and 2 swaps for George lol. Masai identified Shai as one of his targets.

There is no GM who is saying no to that lol.

It’s kind of funny that the same people who were bitching about Masai always asking for so much for his players are the same ones who laud the trade where OKC won a championship because they asked for the moon and got it.

[Los_29]

Exactly, and the Cavs only won because they signed LeBron. Heat got Wade in the lottery but they were never a hopeless, tanking team. Celtics didn’t even tank. They were good. Think they had one bad year where they got Smart. Celtics won 48 and 53 games leading up to the Jaylen and Jayson drafts. Spurs were an excellent team but then lost Robinson and Elliot for the year. They got lucky and got Duncan. Imagine if they got Keith Van Horn instead?

So I’d argue there isn’t a single example of tanking winning a championship unless you include already good teams doing stealth tanks or teams signing superstar players to put them over the top. What tWo wants is a complete tear down. As a result you can’t use examples like the Spurs or Celtics as examples of successful tanking. They were already good teams. In fact I’d argue great teams.

I’m actually flabbergasted that Clutch thinks he’s making a coherent argument full of “unarguable” facts. Not only is that not the case but his posts are riddled with spelling and grammatical errors which most certainly doesn’t help his case.

I’m trying to be as generous as possible. Personally I don’t think Tatum and Brown are even due to a tank but sheer luck that Nets imploded. But still that was a good move as their stats were aging and they got the Nets to bite. I can give him that one. Even the Wade initial championship was because they traded for Shaq and their subsequent ones were due to signing James and Bosh, but I’ll give him that they got Wade was drafted with a high pick. Heat don’t tank. They are against tanking though.

There is zero argument here. You need to have a smart front office who makes great picks wherever they are, accumulates talent (sometimes though free agency), and gets lucky - being donated SGA and Williams, Anthony Davis, etc

Donated is a stretch for OKC. PG was third in mvp votes that season and they traded him despite that. Not a lot of teams would have done what OKC did. I know Masai/Bobby wouldn’t have done that trade lol.

You just keep going. I love it. Check the Raptors draft room during SGA’s draft. This is nonsensical stuff here, Banchero, washed Kawhi and now this.

Of course they would’ve. Every team in the league would have done that trade because they would have no other choice. George wanted to play with Kawhi in LAC. Clippers basically offered everything to Presti because they knew they were getting Kawhi as well.

It’s actually pretty fascinating when you read up about it. Presti was going to move forward with Westbrook and George despite that team getting bounced early in the playoffs every year. It was a bad team. Kawhi tries to recruit players, many say no. George says yes and Presti gets offered this franchise altering, never seen before deal without even having to negotiate. As a result, Presti trades Westbrook a couple weeks later.

It’s a deal that we might not ever see again. That’s how insane it was.

Remember, Presti traded Harden for peanuts and let KD walk for nothing. So if Presti accepted that deal, everyone else would.

[Son Goku 25]

I'm loving these heartfelt arguments tbh, the passion is still there.

I gotta admit though pro tank and anti Masai/Bobby crowd are getting bodied.

[HumbleRen]

I’m trying to be as generous as possible. Personally I don’t think Tatum and Brown are even due to a tank but sheer luck that Nets imploded. But still that was a good move as their stats were aging and they got the Nets to bite. I can give him that one. Even the Wade initial championship was because they traded for Shaq and their subsequent ones were due to signing James and Bosh, but I’ll give him that they got Wade was drafted with a high pick. Heat don’t tank. They are against tanking though.

There is zero argument here. You need to have a smart front office who makes great picks wherever they are, accumulates talent (sometimes though free agency), and gets lucky - being donated SGA and Williams, Anthony Davis, etc

Donated is a stretch for OKC. PG was third in mvp votes that season and they traded him despite that. Not a lot of teams would have done what OKC did. I know Masai/Bobby wouldn’t have done that trade lol.

What?

100% Masai says yes to Shai, 5 first round picks and 2 swaps for George lol. Masai identified Shai as one of his targets.

There is no GM who is saying no to that lol.

It’s kind of funny that the same people who were bitching about Masai always asking for so much for his players are the same ones who laud the trade where OKC won a championship because they asked for the moon and got it.

Masai is saying no to that lol.

King of holding on to his players.

[ItsDanger]

Houston has a very good team.

Top 6 rotation was acquired via draft if you include Green for KD trade. Conveniently excluded.

What about all failed contending teams that haven't tanked? Too many to list.