The Value of Tanking

[Morris_Shatford]

I hate tying names to theoretical discussions because the players is either unavailable or old or otherwise, but lets say in theory.

Does Okafor at the five mask our wing defense? does he do a more effective job doing "center things" then our current center? Does he provide a body in the paint when Jack/Jose's man blows by them?

Does an Andre Iguodala at the three improve the defense we are seeing out of the wing rotation? Does he constitute a defender or two on him during offense?

Bargnani can be a points and blocks guy, he may never become that rebounder or defensive help monster, however you can add a guy who does that at the five and if Bargnani tosses up 22/5/2 next to a guy who does "center things" and gives us even 10/10 and steps in front of the odd man charging to the hoop I am less incline to be throwing whiskey bottles at the TV.

The correct parts around the parts we have, in conjunction with a respectable pick in the draft may very well facilitate a good team.

The problem is that if the answer is "no" to any of those questions (and there's a very good chance that it will be), we are utterly screwed. That's why I don't like the Knicks' style of randomly throwing name players on big deals together and seeing what happens...every time you're wrong, you set the franchise back two years, as now you have a Jack/DeRozan/Iggy/Bargs/Okafor lineup that wins 35 games a year, is in cap hell through '12/'13, and is missing whatever young guy you sent the other way to get the deal done.

Come on now;
You can't argue against adding established talent because if it doesn't work out you are screwed, and then peg the future of this franchise on drafting players assuming they will work out.

Its as much as a roll of the dice as the other;
The difference however is that I may have some more cap space to great more bad contracts if I draft a bunch of talent.

Lets go with your Jack/DeRozan/Iggy/Bargs/Okafor line-up
If it doesn't work out, we have 50m in expiring contracts in walking into the summer before the 2013/14 season, and you have enjoyed feeding at the trough of picks in the 8 - 14 range for two seasons and we have at least made some degree of effort to entertain the people who buy the tickets.

If we stink for two seasons, draft two guys, give them two seasons each to realize that we drafted them to be a 10/10 center and a 19/5 SG realize they are not, we walk into the 2013/14 season hoping we draft that proverbial LeBron James or Dwight Howard who will turn it all around much like we are right now, we will be able to move the Raps to Ricoh with the sort of attendance we will be seeing, and I have to questions how much management will be willing to spend on a team that draws among the worst in the league. We are already 20th this season, is it going to get much better next year if we walk out with anything but the stud of the draft?

Its a risk either way;

I think back to the debate two offseasons ago when we had the 8th pick and we all wanted DeRozan and the question was raised if we would move him or the pick to add a guy like Andre Iguodala who was an 18/6/5 guy at the time, we were overwhelmingly against it because we assumed that DeMar would be a better player. In hindsight, I would make that deal all day long.

I want a guy who I know can do the job well;
The draft puts us in a position where we hope we can get a guy to do the job well.

[Dr Positivity]

can we scout the spurs' scouting staff and draft whoever they're looking at?

...seriously

The spurs have been successful because of the type of the team they have built with the foundation of Tim Duncan. They look like geniuses on every obscure draft pick or FA pickup because they know exactly what kind of players will fit into their system. Same thing with the Jazz.

Exactly. And it gets down to exactly the difference between Portland and Memphis/LAC. Portland builds like San Antonio and Utah. Smart players who fit their system, size and defense, fit and team players over individual stat stuffers. That's what the Raptors need to do, this isn't about tanking harder. Our lack of success with Bosh was cause we ignored defense and rebounding

[Morris_Shatford]

Smith is a great player;
But a great player being paid a lot of money to be a 14/9 guy on a team with a lot of options.

The idea of "throwing" in their starting small forward seems to be more a product of Atlanta trying to get out from under that deal, or at least I reach that conclusion based on what I have read, perhaps its incorrect.

However that is neither here nor there.
Without using the Pau Gasol example, talented players have been moved for financial reasons rather then talent reasons, and the Hawks are a team that have 60m in cap space tied to five players in 2012/13, and will be paying 40m for two in 2015/16.

I don't see them parlaying Smith into another long term commitment.

Smith is also one of the best defensive players in the league, and an integral part of their 53-win season last year. Yes, Williams is overpaid, but they aren't going to gut a top-4 team in the conference to save a little cash, especially as they aren't in danger of hitting the luxury tax in the next couple years.

They may very well hold him;
But then what?

Re-sign Crawford the 3/30 he is looking for? Add a starting PG for the full MLE when Bibby expires?
You still have a huge issue at the five, and your bench becomes thinner with every passing offseason.

You can die slowly like the Bulls did, and Portland will, or you can shuffle assets like the Spurs and Mavs and try and keep most of your team together.

Its not like players of Smith's degree of talent don't become available,

[Schad]

Come on now;
You can't argue against adding established talent because if it doesn't work out you are screwed, and then peg the future of this franchise on drafting players assuming they will work out.

The difference is the amount of money they're making, which limits your options. The first overall pick this year is only guaranteed $10m over two years, scaling to $23m over four years with the options. Iguodala, on the other hand, is owed $56m over four years.

Lets go with your Jack/DeRozan/Iggy/Bargs/Okafor line-up
If it doesn't work out, we have 50m in expiring contracts in walking into the summer before the 2013/14 season,

Yes...the 2013/2014 season. And those expiring contracts could be turned into more Iggies and Okafors! Huzzah!

and you have enjoyed feeding at the trough of picks in the 8 - 14 range for two seasons and we have at least made some degree of effort to entertain the people who buy the tickets.

Might they have preferred that we actually try to build a team that would compete eventually, rather than trotting out fool's gold every year?

If we stink for two seasons, draft two guys, give them two seasons each to realize that we drafted them to be a 10/10 center and a 19/5 SG realize they are not,

If you're expecting 8-14th picks to turn into 10/10 centers and 19/5 SGs, you're going to be disappointed nine times out of ten. Players like that do slip...just not very often.

we walk into the 2013/14 season hoping we draft that proverbial LeBron James or Dwight Howard who will turn it all around much like we are right now,

...three more years wasted chasing an impossible dream.

we will be able to move the Raps to Ricoh with the sort of attendance we will be seeing, and I have to questions how much management will be willing to spend on a team that draws among the worst in the league. We are already 20th this season, is it going to get much better next year if we walk out with anything but the stud of the draft?

Here's the thing, though...if MLSE operates solely on the basis of pumping up the next game's attendance, we will always be bad. Because we will never act with any foresight, and thus will be doomed to do stupid, panicky things that make any long-term vision impossible.

I think back to the debate two offseasons ago when we had the 8th pick and we all wanted DeRozan and the question was raised if we would move him or the pick to add a guy like Andre Iguodala who was an 18/6/5 guy at the time, we were overwhelmingly against it because we assumed that DeMar would be a better player. In hindsight, I would make that deal all day long.

I don't think that anyone assumed that DeRozan would be better than 18/6/5...anyone who thought that was a given is/was a very silly person. I certainly didn't (hell, I said that he was more than 50% likely to bust), and I wanted him picked. But the ninth pick wasn't going to get Iggy anyway, because ninth picks simply aren't worth that much.

[Ponchos]

Its not like players of Smith's degree of talent don't become available,

They never become available for nothing though. And nothing is all we have to offer.

[Rhettmatic]

They may very well hold him;
But then what?

Re-sign Crawford the 3/30 he is looking for? Add a starting PG for the full MLE when Bibby expires?
You still have a huge issue at the five, and your bench becomes thinner with every passing offseason.

You can die slowly like the Bulls did, and Portland will, or you can shuffle assets like the Spurs and Mavs and try and keep most of your team together.

Its not like players of Smith's degree of talent don't become available,

You don't get rid of a player of Josh Smith's calibre because you're worried about re-signing Jamal Crawford and replacing Mike Bibby. I think you're severely underrating Josh Smith here.

[Morris_Shatford]

I don't know cosmo, basing your anti-tanking argument on the likes of Josh Smith and Kevin Love just doesn't seem very realistic.

Aside from a throwaway comment from Chad Ford and some vague rumblings about Kevin Love's mood, we've seen nothing to indicate those guys are actually going to be traded -- and certainly not for the pu pu platter we'd be offering.

My argument against tanking is not based on the off chance that we land all of Love, Smith, and Iggy in one foul swoop while retaining Bargnani, DeRozan, and Whomeever.

My argument against tanking is that it seldom works.

The alternative to tanking is actually adding NBA talent rather then hoping that we end up with the means to draft Harrison Barnes and he ends up being an elite talent and not a good talent that we hand the reigns to for a few years.

Andre Iguodala? Gilbert Arenas? Elton Brand? Emeka Okafor? Yeah, we might be able to get guys like that. But as Schad pointed out, moves like that likely won't even lead to a playoff berth, let alone a consistent 50-plus-win team. And again, we'd be capped-out, old and without the necessary pieces to make further improvements.

If another GM loses his mind and offers an ultra-talented young player for our garbage then, yeah, you take it. But relying on that strategy, to me, seems much more ridiculous/risky/unlikely to pan out than trying to build through the draft.

There are as many maybes in Okafors/Iguodala's ability to make this team better as their are to potentially getting two back to back 3rd overall picks and hoping they become better players then Okafors/Iguodala.

[Morris_Shatford]

They may very well hold him;
But then what?

Re-sign Crawford the 3/30 he is looking for? Add a starting PG for the full MLE when Bibby expires?
You still have a huge issue at the five, and your bench becomes thinner with every passing offseason.

You can die slowly like the Bulls did, and Portland will, or you can shuffle assets like the Spurs and Mavs and try and keep most of your team together.

Its not like players of Smith's degree of talent don't become available,

You don't get rid of a player of Josh Smith's calibre because you're worried about re-signing Jamal Crawford and replacing Mike Bibby. I think you're severely underrating Josh Smith here.

Are the Hawks good enough to win it all?
If not, what are they missing?
How do they get it?

Next season they are at 70m in committed salary for eight players, not including their second leading scorer in Jamal Crawford.

They may very well keep it all together, and commit 80m in salary to nine players next season. Who knows? The point which Smith just happened to be the current example of is that there are teams who are in a bad fiscal situation who will value salary relief, it happens every season.

It may not be Smith, but it will be someone.

[Dr Positivity]

Cashing in for Iggy, Smith, Okafor is a bad move. That team still needs a #1 guy and leader and those guys are not what you want mentally anyways. And again - WE CAN'T GET JOSH SMITH!

[Reignman]

Even if we could get Josh Smith with our assets then what?

We couldn't build a playoff team with Chris Bosh so I have no hope that a guy like Smith would take a BC-built team anywhere except 35 wins and another middling pick.

Josh Smith, Iquodala and Love aren't talented enough to do anything for us unfortunately. If we land Barnes or Irving, then it might make some sense but you still need to get Barnes/Irving FIRST.

Tanking is essentially our only way to really improve. If you want a perpetual 35-45 win team then we there are much more options but then you lose your right to cry about us being perennial first round fodder.

[Schad]

Next season they are at 70m in committed salary for eight players, not including their second leading scorer in Jamal Crawford.

No they aren't. They aren't even close to that. If they give Horford a deal starting at $10m, they'll have $56m committed to eight players, not including Crawford. They could give Crawford $7m a year, have their entire rotation under lock and key, and not even come close to the luxury tax.

[Morris_Shatford]

Next season they are at 70m in committed salary for eight players, not including their second leading scorer in Jamal Crawford.

No they aren't. They aren't even close to that. If they give Horford a deal starting at $10m, they'll have $56m committed to eight players, not including Crawford. They could give Crawford $7m a year, have their entire rotation under lock and key, and not even come close to the luxury tax.

I may be incorrect in my figures;
However I have been using this:

http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key= ... 3SXc&gid=3

Which has them at $65,245,421 next season without Crawford.
Now I was of the impression that Crawford was asking for 3/30, but even at 3/21 they would be over 70?

Like I said, I am relying on the above and could be wrong.

[Dr Positivity]

Our team will get draft talent, that's clearly the objective

The important part is not that we're draft building, it's how we do it. We need to build the right KIND of team with winning players. What we don't want is a team full of talented selfish enigmas who play the same position and want to bolt. We don't want Detroit or Philly

I also think we should just keep drafting athletes because it seems the faster your players rotate and close out in today's NBA, the better your defense is. Which is why Miami is so good at d this year despite no interior. They rotate like a ****. Same with OKC.

I'd be willing to take the less talented player in a draft if it means we build around defense, hard work, and team play. And I think we might need a new GM for this.

[Morris_Shatford]

Even if we could get Josh Smith with our assets then what?

We couldn't build a playoff team with Chris Bosh so I have no hope that a guy like Smith would take a BC-built team anywhere except 35 wins and another middling pick.

Josh Smith, Iquodala and Love aren't talented enough to do anything for us unfortunately. If we land Barnes or Irving, then it might make some sense but you still need to get Barnes/Irving FIRST.

Tanking is essentially our only way to really improve. If you want a perpetual 35-45 win team then we there are much more options but then you lose your right to cry about us being perennial first round fodder.

I understand the logic behind the Tank;
However I just don't like the odds behind the tank.

Would I rather be a middling 35 - 50 win team that may surprise and get to the second round, and be somewhat entertaining doing so by adding guy who I know can play at an NBA level,

Or do I stink and watch terrible basketball for three seasons and hope that Barnes, Rivers, and Joe Bagadoughnuts don't end up like Drew Gooden, Tyrus Thomas, and Shaun Livingston who were in theory the "right" picks.

I am still looking for this successful rebuilding via the draft model?
OKC? I think maybe Sam Presti owes Kevin Prichard a Coke, You flip that draft order and they aren't even a playoff team.

I would argue that the rebuilding teams like the Bulls before and the Blazers now end up on the same sort of treadmill we claim to be trying to avoid,

[Schad]

I may be incorrect in my figures;
However I have been using this:

http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key= ... 3SXc&gid=3

Which has them at $65,245,421 next season without Crawford.
Now I was of the impression that Crawford was asking for 3/30, but even at 3/21 they would be over 70?

Like I said, I am relying on the above and could be wrong.

I'm very curious where they got the $12m starting figure from, because that would be an incredibly odd deal given the remainder of their salary structure...it looks like the author just guessed. $10m starting is probably a more accurate guess (that'd reach $60m/5 with 10% annual raises), though you're right: I managed to skip Bibby's salary when adding them up, so they're at $63m.

But even still, if someone has to go after this year, they'll just let Crawford walk. If they trade Smith and Williams, they're going to have to rebuild from the ground floor, and that makes no sense with Johnson in the fold.

Would I rather be a middling 35 - 50 win team that may surprise and get to the second round, and be somewhat entertaining doing so by adding guy who I know can play at an NBA level,

There's a big difference between the two ends of that scale, though...35 wins using this base and several vet additions is feasible, 50 wins simply isn't. If you win 50 games, you're one of the top-10 teams in the league and a potential contender, and we're more than a little tinkering (or a lot of tinkering) away from that threshold.

[timdunkit]

Cosmo ... are you against tanking this season ... or tanking for consecutive seasons ... cuz if its the former, then your clearly wrong ... if its the former, I'm with you ...

[Ponchos]

I would argue that the rebuilding teams like the Bulls before and the Blazers now end up on the same sort of treadmill we claim to be trying to avoid,

You think that the Bulls and Blazers are treadmill teams? They will probably both win around or over 50 games. If that is your definition of treadmill, sign me up.

Edit* Not to mention the incredible upside the Bulls have going forward with Rose/Noah.

[Morris_Shatford]

Cosmo ... are you against tanking this season ... or tanking for consecutive seasons ... cuz if its the former, then your clearly wrong ... if its the former, I'm with you ...

We are not making the playoffs this season;
On January 15th we could add Josh Smith and Freddie Mercury to the roster and it wouldn't change that fact.

This season, is a write off.
However it doesn't mean I am opposed to adding legit scoring options or legit center this season using the TPE or the expirings on hand.

Even if we draft Irving and he becomes the next Chris Paul,
We will still have a need for the above two positions I would like to see additions made to address, and I would sooner bite on Okafor's deal then create a bad six year contract via free agency for a similar player.

[Shaazzam]

I understand the logic behind the Tank;
However I just don't like the odds behind the tank.

Would I rather be a middling 35 - 50 win team that may surprise and get to the second round, and be somewhat entertaining doing so by adding guy who I know can play at an NBA level,

Or do I stink and watch terrible basketball for three seasons and hope that Barnes, Rivers, and Joe Bagadoughnuts don't end up like Drew Gooden, Tyrus Thomas, and Shaun Livingston who were in theory the "right" picks.

I am still looking for this successful rebuilding via the draft model?
OKC? I think maybe Sam Presti owes Kevin Prichard a Coke, You flip that draft order and they aren't even a playoff team.

I would argue that the rebuilding teams like the Bulls before and the Blazers now end up on the same sort of treadmill we claim to be trying to avoid,

We've been watching terrible basketball for about 2 years already. I had hopes when we had our good season that we'd be able to build off of that. Well, we couldn't. And now the cupboard is bare. We need to really suck.

We need to draft multiple blue chippers. Because we don't have one right now. And one doesn't cut it. Now if we could trade for a blue chipper, like somehow steal Rubio from Minny, than we might not need to draft as many.

But the best way to draft a blue chipper is with the top pick in the draft.

[timdunkit]

Cosmo ... are you against tanking this season ... or tanking for consecutive seasons ... cuz if its the former, then your clearly wrong ... if its the former, I'm with you ...

We are not making the playoffs this season;
On January 15th we could add Josh Smith and Freddie Mercury to the roster and it wouldn't change that fact.

This season, is a write off.
However it doesn't mean I am opposed to adding legit scoring options or legit center this season using the TPE or the expirings on hand.

Even if we draft Irving and he becomes the next Chris Paul,
We will still have a need for the above two positions I would like to see additions made to address, and I would sooner bite on Okafor's deal then create a bad six year contract via free agency for a similar player.

Then we are on the same page ... I think your anti-tanking stance is making it seem like you want to compromise this year (which you don't want to).

I'm on the same boat .. if we add talented young player who has an impact, I think we are going to be 30 win team atleast next season. Thats why I'd use the TPE and expirings this year at the deadline to add the pieces like you suggested and push for the playoffs. If there is a full year lockout, take the high pick again and you've also added talented pieces.

Add players who can win now and win later after this tanking season ...