The Value of Tanking

[Morris_Shatford]

The stats may say that those above guys are players who made substantial impacts on their teams, but how many of them would you stake your franchises future on?

This is a brief aside, but cosmo, aren't you the one arguing that we should stake our future on one guy? Most of us who advocate tanking believe we need to do this for at least two years. So asking if any one player is worth a franchise's future is sort of misleading IMO.

We can tank for four seasons,
The outcome is ultimately the same.

I am of the understanding we cannot secure the first overall pick twice in a row? (someone correct me if I am wrong) and even if we could when I look at the above list of first overall picks from 98 - 07 I see maybe two names that would be cornerstones, and the rest would make us better enough to perhaps secure a 5th/6th/7th overall pick the following season based on the Win Share thingy.

Building via the draft makes you incrementally better, (in theory) so this tank is going to have to be the EPIC tank because in theory whoever we add after this season should make us better moving forward, so we are really staking a lot on this one dude because this draft should be our best statistical chance at getting that guy.

[Schad]

lets start in 1998 (as the last two drafts are a little early to tell one way or another)
How many of these guys (assuming Harrison Barnes or whoever goes first overall in 2011 has an equivalent career) make us substantially better

Well, there are five guys who are or were franchise players (Brand, Yao, James, Howard, and Bogut), two of whom developed injury troubles, one top-notch second banana (Martin), one question mark (Oden), one...something (Bargnani), and two outright busts. Two of the ten, and possibly three, are heading to the Hall of Fame as generation-defining players, and are carrying or have carried Finals teams on their backs.

So yeah, I love those odds over any other possible route of acquiring top-end talent, because there isn't anything else in the game that even comes close to that level of success.

I am of the understanding we cannot secure the first overall pick twice in a row? (someone correct me if I am wrong)

That rule actually got changed a few years ago.

[timdunkit]

The stats may say that those above guys are players who made substantial impacts on their teams, but how many of them would you stake your franchises future on?

This is a brief aside, but cosmo, aren't you the one arguing that we should stake our future on one guy? Most of us who advocate tanking believe we need to do this for at least two years. So asking if any one player is worth a franchise's future is sort of misleading IMO.

:p not all of us, I still think you can only justifyable tank for one season ... the second has to come on whether there is a full year lockout, or you suck even with a upgraded roster ...

[Morris_Shatford]

lets start in 1998 (as the last two drafts are a little early to tell one way or another)
How many of these guys (assuming Harrison Barnes or whoever goes first overall in 2011 has an equivalent career) make us substantially better

Well, there are five guys who are or were franchise players (Brand, Yao, James, Howard, and Bogut), two of whom developed injury troubles, one top-notch second banana (Martin), one question mark (Oden), one...something (Bargnani), and two outright busts. Two of the ten, and possibly three, are heading to the Hall of Fame as generation-defining players, and are carrying or have carried Finals teams on their backs.

How many rings among the ten?

That aside;
I question Bogut as a franchise altering player, however that is neither here nor there.

Your basically looking at 50/50 (using your five guys) to add the sort of talent we would need to get to a point where we can start to add more external talent.

[Schad]

How many rings among the ten?

So now we've shifted the goalposts from "we're going to be at 15 wins forever!" to only a championship sufficing? C'mon now Cosmo, that's absurd.

Re: Bogut. He's probably a top-five defender in the league...he's very much a franchise-changing player.

[Morris_Shatford]

How many rings among the ten?

So now we've shifted the goalposts from "we're going to be at 15 wins forever!" to only a championship sufficing? C'mon now Cosmo, that's absurd.

Sorry I clicked submit by accident, and there was more to the post.

But whats the long term goal if this plan? it is to win.
We talk about franchise altering talent, but what are we altering it to?

I could make the playoffs (in theory) with my ragtag bunch of Okafors and Iggys which we don't want, the draft method is suppose to give us something different, something better is it not?

[Schad]

Your basically looking at 50/50 (using your five guys) to add the sort of talent we would need to get to a point where we can start to add more external talent.

Yes, but there is not another avenue in the game where you have a 50/50 shot, or anything close to that threshold, at getting a franchise-changing player. I recognize that it is not a sure thing, but it is the single most probable, and from the standpoint of a team trying to determine a path, plausible way to turn a franchise around.

I could make the playoffs (in theory) with my ragtag bunch of Okafors and Iggys which we don't want, the draft method is suppose to give us something different, something better is it not?

Yes, it provides a viable long-term base on which you can build more than a 41 win team. All of the best teams in the league have a massive star or stars at the center, and once you have that player it's a hell of a lot easier to build something really good around them. Not guaranteed, of course, but nothing is guaranteed. But again, it's the best way to drastically increase your odds of doing so, as no amount of castoff Okafors and Iggys are ever going to be more than forgettable also-rans.

[Morris_Shatford]

Okay guys,

You have convinced me,
Tank Good, Cosmo Bad.

I appreciate the discussion, I really have enjoyed it, and I am sure I will take a stab at it tomorrow, but Mrs Cosmo is ringing the dinner bell.

[ATLTimekeeper]

There have been a lot of posts poking holes in the "high draft pick to win" theory, however there has been absolutely no viable alternative presented to building a contender.

Just look through history. That's all anyone has to go by. You can be the Lakers, Celtics, draft Duncan or Jordan, and for everyone else it's the standard way of building teams: drafting, free agency, trades, coaching.

[Morris_Shatford]

Your basically looking at 50/50 (using your five guys) to add the sort of talent we would need to get to a point where we can start to add more external talent.

Yes, but there is not another avenue in the game where you have a 50/50 shot, or anything close to that threshold, at getting a franchise-changing player. I recognize that it is not a sure thing, but it is the single most probable, and from the standpoint of a team trying to determine a path, plausible way to turn a franchise around.

You can build a legit contender around LeBron, I would say the same for Dwight.
However in the case of Yao, Brand, and Bogut you need a lot of pieces to make it work, and of the five teams that have had these three guys none have been able to figure it out,

I mean in Yao's case they needed a TMac to create a team that was a perennial first round loser.

To add the sort of talent I think we need given our refusal to add additional talent and the question marks surrounding the existing players on the roster, anything outside of LeBron or Dwight makes is better, but it doesn't make us that much better (IE second round playoff team)

[goinrogue]

I have a bad feeling BC is going to do one of two things:

1. Pull off a trade at the deadline that will make the Raptors good enough to miss out on a top five draft pick, but bad enough to continue to just barely miss the playoffs, or make the playoffs and be an early first-round exit.

2. Get a top five pick, but pass on Irving and use it instead to draft Andrea Bargnani version 2.0.

[Ponchos]

Look at this and tell me you have a high chance of getting a great player with a top pick: http://www.mynbadraft.com/nba-draft-pic ... all/20509/

I don't disagree with you the draft is the way to go right now, but let's not act like it's anything but a misery inducing crapshoot

From that list

Hall of Famers:

Kidd
Payton
Thomas
Durant

Multiple All-Stars:

Alonzo Mourning
Terry Cummings
Steve Francis

Single All-Stars:

Rik Smits
Antonio McDyess
Kenny Anderson

Very good players:

LaMarcus Aldridge
Marcus Camby
Darrell Griffith
Wayman Tisdale
Armen Gilliam
Mike Bibby
Emeka Okafor

Serviceable:

Keith Van Horn
Sam Bowie
Stipanovich
Danny Ferry
Shawn Bradley
Tyson Chandler
Marvin Williams

Useless:

Darko
Stromile Swift

Jury is out:

Thabeet
Supercool Beas
Turner

Would have been a hall of famer:

Len Bias

Would have been very good:

Jay Williams

Looks like a damn good list of players to me.

[Ponchos]

There have been a lot of posts poking holes in the "high draft pick to win" theory, however there has been absolutely no viable alternative presented to building a contender.

Just look through history. That's all anyone has to go by. You can be the Lakers, Celtics, draft Duncan or Jordan, and for everyone else it's the standard way of building teams: drafting, free agency, trades, coaching.

Right but you're just listing the tools, not the plan.

Plans for a bad team:

Plan 1 = Have patience to suck, collect high draft picks. Use cap space to facilitate other teams trades or take on garbage to acquire more draft picks.

Plan 2 = Quick fix moves, guarantee mediocrity.

Plan 3 = ?

[Ponchos]

Another tidbit since I'm bored.

I took a look at the players inducted into the hall of fame in the last 20 years who were drafted 1-14.

34 players total,

24 were drafted 1-5

10 were drafted 6-14

Breaking it down further, of the 24 drafted 1-5, only 4 were drafted 4th or 5th. The remaining 20 hall of famers were all picked 1st 2nd or 3rd.

[simple_jack]

Has anyone heard Harrison Barnes speak? He sounds very intelligent unlike Derozans "you know".

I'm sold on this kid. Lets tank away

[RapsVC15]

I get giddy of the thought of either Irving or Barnes being on this team

tank away!

[pass first]

There have been a lot of posts poking holes in the "high draft pick to win" theory, however there has been absolutely no viable alternative presented to building a contender.

I don't think that's the case. What some people have been saying though that tanking in itself is overrated, and the degree to which some people put their faith in it is over the top.

There's a lot more to "building a contender" than simply drafting high. Drafting well is a lot more important. Getting lucky (#7 Curry), think about it, that team seems totally turned around (but not just because of the draft also because of a big trade), the Grizzlies have #2 Thabeet. And that Warriors team hasn't even been playing their latest lottery rookie yet. Just like us, with Davis, #13. Some people consider him the most valuable trade asset on the roster. That's #13. Maybe we got lucky, maybe he's overrated, but maybe he will prove to be really a valuable contributor for years to come.

The most important thing about building this team right now imo is focusing on youth, and I think 99,9% will agree (including BC). A game changing star point guard is definitely welcome or a beast of a center, and the higher the pick the bigger the chance at that, sure. But there's talent to be found everywhere. Who wouldn't love to have Brandon Jennings (10th) or Rajon Rondo (21st) or Goran Dragic (45th) as our point guard right now? We're not doomed if we don't win the lottery. The Kings just drafted 4th and 5th and got away with arguably two franchise cornerstones. A superrookie will make a bigger impact and that will subsequently hurt the next draft pick. John Wall is hurting the Wiz pick, while Wesley Johnson or Evan Turner are nice additions to add to the mix but they don't lift their teams out of the lotto. As far as building a core of young guys, both of those paths can still be succesfull. The latter just takes longer maybe.

Imo the biggest thing for becoming a better team is growth from within. Players becoming better, coaching & gameplan, management, everything. We need more talent, for sure, but I'm not worried if we miss out on player X, Y or Z. It's just imperative imo that the guys we have improve (including Triano) and that we draft well regardless of draft position.

[Paperclip]

Tanking is good when you have no other choice. Unless if someone can think of better ways of getting a franchise changing talent in our current situation....tanking is the best and only way to go. Obviously not guaranteed. Getting a few more meaningless wins in a meaningless season to get a 7-14th pick is not worth it and would require a lot more luck in a draft.

Good post Schad.

[C Court]

There have been a lot of posts poking holes in the "high draft pick to win" theory, however there has been absolutely no viable alternative presented to building a contender.

Just look through history. That's all anyone has to go by. You can be the Lakers, Celtics, draft Duncan or Jordan, and for everyone else it's the standard way of building teams: drafting, free agency, trades, coaching.

I've posted this before. The various championship models over the past two decades have been haphazard at best as far as they way they were built:

1. The Lakers Model - Draft a high school phenom named Kobe (who made it clear that he would only play for LA) and pair him with the most dominant center of the decade – Shaq. Later, pair the best player in the game with Pau Gasol who was acquired in a lopsided trade that included his younger brother. Then attract lots of good role players because (1) you are the Lakers and (2) the weather is great and (3) it's Hollywood .

2. The Spurs Model – First you need to luck into drafting two great overall #1 picks named Robinson and Duncan as the centrepieces of the franchise. To acquire two Hall-of-Famers, you need the lotto balls to go your way and you must have the good fortune to hit in a year when there is a game changing super star at the top of the draft.

3. The Pistons Model - No high picks needed here. Just have your franchise player leave in free agency and get an unheralded Ben Wallace in return. Then acquire a cast-off free agent in Chauncey Billups. Trade Jerry Stackhouse for Rip Hamilton. Draft Tayshawn Prince late in the draft and then steal Rasheed for next to nothing to round out the roster.

4. The Bulls Model - Hope that Michael Jordan, the greatest player of all-time, drops to #3 and then pick him. Next step is to spend seven years putting winning pieces around him.

5. The Celtics Model - The latest Boston Championship team was built around an unusual confluence of events that landed Kevin Garnett and Ray Allen in the same off-season - when the C’s real strategy was to tank and then draft Greg Oden or Kevin Durant. Eventually Ainge threw enough crap at the wall and it stuck.

6. The Heat Model – That was based on having Dwayne Wade drop to the fifth spot in the 2003 draft and then have Shaq want out of LA with the intention of only moving to a small group of teams which included Miami.

7. The Rockets Model – The first step required Houston to get the top pick in the strongest draft class in NBA history and select Hakeem Olajuwon. The second step was for Michael Jordan to retire for two seasons while he pursued a career with the Chicago White Sox.

If these are the models to follow, I don't have a clue where you start. I can't say there appears to be any right way to win a ring.

[J-Roc]

So proper tanking is...

Andrea/Alabi
Amir/Ed Davis
Linas/Wright
DeMar/Sonny (Barbosa goes for surgery)
Jose/Banks (Jack on the bench)

- we give minutes to Alabi
- no need to play Reggie or Andersen
- Dorsey gets in if we need a tough guy (ahead of Reggie)
- Jose at least can get the ball to the kids so they learn their offensive game. Jack needs to look for his own shot to be good.