The Tank Debate Thread

[JustaKnickFan]

Let's look at every team from last years Eastern Conference Playoffs and see how they got their franchise player.

1) Heat - Signed LeBron via Free Agency
2) New York - Traded for Melo, signed Chandler
3) Indiana - Drafted all their core players. No picks higher than Paul George at 10.
4) Brooklyn - Traded for Deron Williams using a player drafted at 3, and next year's 3rd overall pick. Shows the value of draft picks, but they still had to trade to acquire a star, and those 2 picks haven't turned into stars yet.
5) Chicago - Didn't tank for Rose, Noah or Deng...
6) Atlanta - Didn't tank for Smith. They just sucked when they drafted Horford, they weren't intentionally selling off assets to lose. Have tried getting better every year and stayed a playoff team when they could have tanked.
7) Celtics (drafted Rondo and Peirce, did not tank to get them, traded for Garnett mainly using Jefferson and Green, two other players who weren't tanked for)
8) Milwaukee - Anti tank, but probably the worst team at trading in the entire league.

Basically tanking doesn't get you anywhere. Sure Oklahoma lucked out, but you can't let that skew your perception into thinking losing lots somehow transforms your team into a winner magically overnight.

It's easy to look at it from your point of view to prove your argument, but each contender had great luck in the draft.

1. Miami - Got a very high pick in a STACKED draft (what the Raptors should do) to get a franchise player in order to lure Lebron there
2. NY- Build through the draft and acquired assets, then cashed in on Melo (tough for Raps to do since they're not NY)
3. IND - Sucked for years to get those players though, and had a good GM doing the drafting
4. Brooklyn Acquired very good assets through the draft and cashed in
5. CHI-They got lucky by getting Rose and taking advantage of Isaiah's stupidity

The rest aren't mentioning, but the point is, all those teams had a lot of luck and took advantage of the draft, specifically, in the lottery. The Raptors need to do this with Urji in order to get talent that can be turned into a franchise player, or just tank all together so they have role players AND a franchise player.

See this is the problem. You think New York and Indiana sucked and built through the draft by tanking? They didn't! The Knicks trade half their picks and the guys they dealt outside of Gallo weren't even top 10 picks. The Pacers never sucked, they tried every year to make the playoffs. They are an anti-tank franchise clearly. Anybody can get lucky in the draft. Just look at the teams who win the Lottery. Orlando is the only one who was actually the worst team in the league. Read the article I posted a page back, it's literally percentages showing how tanking actually makes it more likely your team continues to suck for another 10 years. I don't know how many more facts pro tankers need. The best teams will draft good players regardless of where they're picking.

When NY realized they were too bad to even make the playoffs when going "win-now" Walsh traded away their "good players" in order to gain cap space and signed a bunch of guys for cheap. If going into a season like that isn't tanking, I don know what is.

For Indianna, tanking or not they were consistently in the lottery, which allowed them to gather talent. In other words, they continually sucked, and had a good GM to take advantage of those later picks. This is just another example of how the Raptors are better off missing the playoffs and getting a lottery pick, rather than going for the 8th seed.

As for your article, the table shows how teams in the Raptors position (under 40wins) are just as good as lottery teams, and that isn't even taking into account the horribly run lottery teams that skew the results of that survey (Bobcats, Kings, Clippers, etc)

[Reignman]

Really tiring of reading all the casual insults being included in certain members' posts. So tired of it that warnings, suspensions and bans will be handed out from now on. Whether you're insulting a specific poster or a wide swath of posters, you will be disciplined all the same.

You might as well ban me and get it over with, I'm tired of the insults the other way in every thread and since my view point is in the minority I'll be outnumbered in every thread so I'm going to start giving it back.

It's your decision and I'm cool with it. I've been insulted for making positive threads so I won't feel bad if I get banned, it's this boards loss and the circle jerk can continue with one less person to oppose it.

Ce La Vie.

[StMikes31]

Reign/Decrusha:

The 30 games is speculation from myself and the rest of the tankers since he's saying he is going to feel it out and see what comes. If the team struggles, what do you think he's going to do? Sit on his A**? There's no question we have to re-build from that point on, he isn't going to waste more time until the deadline for risk of injuries.

You guys gotta start reading between the lines a bit because we can't keep spoon feeding you guys the reality just because you want this mediocre team to stay intact. It's pretty pathetic.

[Rhettmatic]

Really tiring of reading all the casual insults being included in certain members' posts. So tired of it that warnings, suspensions and bans will be handed out from now on. Whether you're insulting a specific poster or a wide swath of posters, you will be disciplined all the same.

You might as well ban me and get it over with, I'm tired of the insults the other way in every thread and since my view point is in the minority I'll be outnumbered in every thread so I'm going to start giving it back.

It's your decision and I'm cool with it. I've been insulted for making positive threads so I won't feel bad if I get banned, it's this boards loss and the circle jerk can continue with one less person to oppose it.

Ce La Vie.

The alternative would be to report the posts in which you're being insulted, rather than replying in kind and ensuring a ban. I certainly don't think I'm alone in not wanting to see you banned.

The feces-throwing on both sides is basically ruining this board, though. And politely asking everyone to act like civil grown-ups obviously isn't working.

[barrist]

http://thebeatofsports.com/why-tanking-doesnt-work-in-the-nba/

I'm going to let experts explain it to you guys since plain English doesn't seem to work. The reality is if you're winning 25 games or less you still have less than a 10 percent chance of becoming a contender within the next decade. Teams that improve from within and by adding free agents are your teams who win.

Here's what the expert author of this article thought of us trading for Rudy Gay, the most expensive player on our team.


[tweet]https://twitter.com/nbageek/status/296740552580427777[/tweet]
[tweet]https://twitter.com/nbageek/status/296772458751606785[/tweet]

So maybe tanking isn't a magic formula, but keeping highly overpaid overrated players on your team likely won't help either. As far as I know, Demar's career doesn't resonate positively with these WagesofWins guys either.

[Patman]

Really tiring of reading all the casual insults being included in certain members' posts. So tired of it that warnings, suspensions and bans will be handed out from now on. Whether you're insulting a specific poster or a wide swath of posters, you will be disciplined all the same.

You might as well ban me and get it over with, I'm tired of the insults the other way in every thread and since my view point is in the minority I'll be outnumbered in every thread so I'm going to start giving it back.

It's your decision and I'm cool with it. I've been insulted for making positive threads so I won't feel bad if I get banned, it's this boards loss and the circle jerk can continue with one less person to oppose it.

Ce La Vie.

Oh please. You'll be back in here with a new account.

[Reignman]

Really tiring of reading all the casual insults being included in certain members' posts. So tired of it that warnings, suspensions and bans will be handed out from now on. Whether you're insulting a specific poster or a wide swath of posters, you will be disciplined all the same.

You might as well ban me and get it over with, I'm tired of the insults the other way in every thread and since my view point is in the minority I'll be outnumbered in every thread so I'm going to start giving it back.

It's your decision and I'm cool with it. I've been insulted for making positive threads so I won't feel bad if I get banned, it's this boards loss and the circle jerk can continue with one less person to oppose it.

Ce La Vie.

Oh please. You'll be back in here with a new account.

Trust me, I'm not like you, I wouldn't. I've been on this board for almost a decade and I'm cool with many people like Rhett. But the main reason I come here is to talk ball and if I'm getting to the point where I'm going to be banned because I'm throwing insults more than I'm talking ball then it's probably best for me to move on.

And considering this tanking nonsense is going to go on for the forseeable future, I don't see much talk about actual basketball happening.

I mean, how many threads do we have where we're actually talking about our offensive/defensive system? How many about the ways this team can improve to win more games than last year? How many threads about the teams composition where we discuss moves to not tank but for better fits? How many threads to talk about the landscape of the East and where we could finish or how we match up with other teams?

Everything is about us sucking and when/how we'll tank. There's no discussion on this board. Everyone thinks that tanking is inevitable and considering Masai's 2 year window comment that means for the next 2 years it's going to be all about tanking (unless this team does the unlikely and starts playing .700 ball right out of the gate). Sad thing is I'm actually OK with tanking if the circumstances dictate we need to tank (like coming out of the gates like last season) but in the meantime I think there are many positives to look forward to but I can't even talk about them without someone telling me I'm wrong because this team will never win a ring.

Well, fact is, this team will probably not win a ring in our life time. Only 8 teams have won it in the last 33 years (including a one-time winner in Dallas who won't get another one). OKC is coming up as a place that might join that pack while Detroit is probably a team that's no longer in that exclusive group. To break into that exclusive group of 7 requires outstanding luck and unfortunately we'll never have the geographical location or history that they have.

Just think about, Masai has pretty much poo poo'd the idea that he's going to make any tanking moves this summer. I would've hoped that we would now be talking about the team we have. Instead the discussion has now moved to us sucking out of the gate and then a tank job happening in 30 games. Next it'll be the deadline, then next summer and on and on..........

[jvuc]

Can you tankers put together a glossary of terms. For example,
1a. Tanking = Dumping good players for bad contracts and playing bad players to improve the draft position
1b. Multi-year tank where the team is bad for a few years accumulating picks and high draft positions
1c. A single year tank often brought upon by injury or poor start of the season where management tries to improve their drafting position and sheds expensive non-core players for picks/young players
2. Rebuilding = Trading veteran players for bad contracts and picks but still trying to instill a winning culture and develop young players
3. Retooling = Trading away inefficient players, UFA and veterans for low cost or young productive players and picks while still keeping the team competitive

There are more definitions as well. But I find this thread is jumbled because most don't even agree what "tank" means and are using it in a way that differs from another person view of tank. Heck, I don't even know if my definition are accurate.

[J-Roc]

Why are people arguing about tanking? What's more important now is we have a new GM who ought to have a better idea of how to build a basketball team than the fraud who just left. I think we need to trust that our GM knows what he's doing. If you don't think he knows what he's doing, then tanking or going for it will fail either way.

If we have a GM who knows what he's doing, he'll make the right determination at the right time on what to do. And most importantly, he won't be fooled by a team that plays hard and looks like it could have a ceiling as a 6th seed.

The only other side of things is eastcoast's theory that Masai et al are just more recycled MLSE puppets and their only option is to sell, sell, sell (ie. we always need a "franchise" guy, don't trade a big dunker, etc.).

[akakalakin]

Can you tankers put together a glossary of terms. For example,
1a. Tanking = Dumping good players for bad contracts and playing bad players to improve the draft position
1b. Multi-year tank where the team is bad for a few years accumulating picks and high draft positions
1c. A single year tank often brought upon by injury or poor start of the season where management tries to improve their drafting position and sheds expensive non-core players for picks/young players
2. Rebuilding = Trading veteran players for bad contracts and picks but still trying to instill a winning culture and develop young players
3. Retooling = Trading away inefficient players, UFA and veterans for low cost or young productive players and picks while still keeping the team competitive

There are more definitions as well. But I find this thread is jumbled because most don't even agree what "tank" means and are using it in a way that differs from another person view of tank. Heck, I don't even know if my definition are accurate.

great post in the end they just love losing, forget about building anything whatsoever, they always bail when the tough gets going, quitters to the end

[Patman]

You might as well ban me and get it over with, I'm tired of the insults the other way in every thread and since my view point is in the minority I'll be outnumbered in every thread so I'm going to start giving it back.

It's your decision and I'm cool with it. I've been insulted for making positive threads so I won't feel bad if I get banned, it's this boards loss and the circle jerk can continue with one less person to oppose it.

Ce La Vie.

Oh please. You'll be back in here with a new account.

Trust me, I'm not like you, I wouldn't. I've been on this board for almost a decade and I'm cool with many people like Rhett. But the main reason I come here is to talk ball and if I'm getting to the point where I'm going to be banned because I'm throwing insults more than I'm talking ball then it's probably best for me to move on.

And considering this tanking nonsense is going to go on for the forseeable future, I don't see much talk about actual basketball happening.

I mean, how many threads do we have where we're actually talking about our offensive/defensive system? How many about the ways this team can improve to win more games than last year? How many threads about the teams composition where we discuss moves to not tank but for better fits? How many threads to talk about the landscape of the East and where we could finish or how we match up with other teams?

Everything is about us sucking and when/how we'll tank. There's no discussion on this board. Everyone thinks that tanking is inevitable and considering Masai's 2 year window comment that means for the next 2 years it's going to be all about tanking (unless this team does the unlikely and starts playing .700 ball right out of the gate). Sad thing is I'm actually OK with tanking if the circumstances dictate we need to tank (like coming out of the gates like last season) but in the meantime I think there are many positives to look forward to but I can't even talk about them without someone telling me I'm wrong because this team will never win a ring.

Well, fact is, this team will probably not win a ring in our life time. Only 8 teams have won it in the last 33 years (including a one-time winner in Dallas who won't get another one). OKC is coming up as a place that might join that pack while Detroit is probably a team that's no longer in that exclusive group. To break into that exclusive group of 7 requires outstanding luck and unfortunately we'll never have the geographical location or history that they have.

Just think about, Masai has pretty much poo poo'd the idea that he's going to make any tanking moves this summer. I would've hoped that we would now be talking about the team we have. Instead the discussion has now moved to us sucking out of the gate and then a tank job happening in 30 games. Next it'll be the deadline, then next summer and on and on..........

I don't do anything on this board that warrants a ban.

It's not about how many friends you make on this board. It's about how you deal with people that aren't your friends, and you do a very poor job of that.

You have tunnel vision when it comes to the topics on this board. Why do you keep hovering and commenting on the tanking issues? Why don't you make threads that aren't about tanking then? Where's your analysis?

You're lambasting people for having a defeatist mentality, yet here you are saying we will never win a ring in our lifetime. Why don't we give it an honest try? Whether that's through tanking or not, our team has never been built with the focus of winning a championship. Yes, I will concede that we'll never be a Miami where the best player in the game and two other all stars will decide to play here on their own free will. We're not a market that will build a contender in one year. It will take consecutive years of right decisions. If you say OKC can do it, why can't we? Aside from simply being an American city, I don't see OKC having any other inherent advantage over Toronto. They don't have history, they're trying to MAKE ONE. You have to start from somewhere.

[J-Roc]

Can you tankers put together a glossary of terms. For example,
1a. Tanking = Dumping good players for bad contracts and playing bad players to improve the draft position
1b. Multi-year tank where the team is bad for a few years accumulating picks and high draft positions
1c. A single year tank often brought upon by injury or poor start of the season where management tries to improve their drafting position and sheds expensive non-core players for picks/young players
2. Rebuilding = Trading veteran players for bad contracts and picks but still trying to instill a winning culture and develop young players
3. Retooling = Trading away inefficient players, UFA and veterans for low cost or young productive players and picks while still keeping the team competitive

There are more definitions as well. But I find this thread is jumbled because most don't even agree what "tank" means and are using it in a way that differs from another person view of tank. Heck, I don't even know if my definition are accurate.

Tank = aim to lose but cover it by giving young players a chance to play no matter if the losses pile up. Players and coaches don't tank, so it must come from the GM that certain young players must get minutes. And if the coach really has trouble with it, you just trade away a piece the coach is overplaying.

[beanbag]

Why are people arguing about tanking? What's more important now is we have a new GM who ought to have a better idea of how to build a basketball team than the fraud who just left. I think we need to trust that our GM knows what he's doing. If you don't think he knows what he's doing, then tanking or going for it will fail either way.

If we have a GM who knows what he's doing, he'll make the right determination at the right time on what to do. And most importantly, he won't be fooled by a team that plays hard and looks like it could have a ceiling as a 6th seed.

The only other side of things is eastcoast's theory that Masai et al are just more recycled MLSE puppets and their only option is to sell, sell, sell (ie. we always need a "franchise" guy, don't trade a big dunker, etc.).

BC was a good GM in Phoenix. His plan didnt work here. Masai was a good GM in Denver, doesnt mean what he wants to do here will work.

Otherwise smart people can still be wrong at any moment in time.

[Raps in 4]

No, no, no, you really don't get how laughable that Clippers franchise has been for the past 2 decades.

I do, and I don't care because they are contenders NOW. All is forgotten when you put together a winning team. And for the record, our franchise winning percentage isn't much better than theirs.

[J-Roc]

Why are people arguing about tanking? What's more important now is we have a new GM who ought to have a better idea of how to build a basketball team than the fraud who just left. I think we need to trust that our GM knows what he's doing. If you don't think he knows what he's doing, then tanking or going for it will fail either way.

If we have a GM who knows what he's doing, he'll make the right determination at the right time on what to do. And most importantly, he won't be fooled by a team that plays hard and looks like it could have a ceiling as a 6th seed.

The only other side of things is eastcoast's theory that Masai et al are just more recycled MLSE puppets and their only option is to sell, sell, sell (ie. we always need a "franchise" guy, don't trade a big dunker, etc.).

BC was a good GM in Phoenix. His plan didnt work here. Masai was a good GM in Denver, doesnt mean what he wants to do here will work.

Otherwise smart people can still be wrong at any moment in time.

But you have to have some sort of faith when they start. We had faith in BC, and rightfully so. Gotta trust Masai now, too. And again, we gotta trust him even if we were tanking.

[Patman]

Can you tankers put together a glossary of terms. For example,
1a. Tanking = Dumping good players for bad contracts and playing bad players to improve the draft position
1b. Multi-year tank where the team is bad for a few years accumulating picks and high draft positions
1c. A single year tank often brought upon by injury or poor start of the season where management tries to improve their drafting position and sheds expensive non-core players for picks/young players
2. Rebuilding = Trading veteran players for bad contracts and picks but still trying to instill a winning culture and develop young players
3. Retooling = Trading away inefficient players, UFA and veterans for low cost or young productive players and picks while still keeping the team competitive

There are more definitions as well. But I find this thread is jumbled because most don't even agree what "tank" means and are using it in a way that differs from another person view of tank. Heck, I don't even know if my definition are accurate.

Going anywhere near bad contracts is not a good tank IMO. For a GM, tanking should involve:

- hoarding draft picks
- clearing the books: dumping overpaid players and players signed long-term
- acquiring younger players

From here, you can either do a blatant tank, or a a developmental tank.

- blatant tank: play bad players, limit playing your better players, even the young ones (ie. Cavs w/ Kyrie)
- developmental tank: play your young players, and try to win with them, but don't get mad if they lose or play bad

[Reignman]

Oh please. You'll be back in here with a new account.

Trust me, I'm not like you, I wouldn't. I've been on this board for almost a decade and I'm cool with many people like Rhett. But the main reason I come here is to talk ball and if I'm getting to the point where I'm going to be banned because I'm throwing insults more than I'm talking ball then it's probably best for me to move on.

And considering this tanking nonsense is going to go on for the forseeable future, I don't see much talk about actual basketball happening.

I mean, how many threads do we have where we're actually talking about our offensive/defensive system? How many about the ways this team can improve to win more games than last year? How many threads about the teams composition where we discuss moves to not tank but for better fits? How many threads to talk about the landscape of the East and where we could finish or how we match up with other teams?

Everything is about us sucking and when/how we'll tank. There's no discussion on this board. Everyone thinks that tanking is inevitable and considering Masai's 2 year window comment that means for the next 2 years it's going to be all about tanking (unless this team does the unlikely and starts playing .700 ball right out of the gate). Sad thing is I'm actually OK with tanking if the circumstances dictate we need to tank (like coming out of the gates like last season) but in the meantime I think there are many positives to look forward to but I can't even talk about them without someone telling me I'm wrong because this team will never win a ring.

Well, fact is, this team will probably not win a ring in our life time. Only 8 teams have won it in the last 33 years (including a one-time winner in Dallas who won't get another one). OKC is coming up as a place that might join that pack while Detroit is probably a team that's no longer in that exclusive group. To break into that exclusive group of 7 requires outstanding luck and unfortunately we'll never have the geographical location or history that they have.

Just think about, Masai has pretty much poo poo'd the idea that he's going to make any tanking moves this summer. I would've hoped that we would now be talking about the team we have. Instead the discussion has now moved to us sucking out of the gate and then a tank job happening in 30 games. Next it'll be the deadline, then next summer and on and on..........

I don't do anything on this board that warrants a ban.

It's not about how many friends you make on this board. It's about how you deal with people that aren't your friends, and you do a very poor job of that.

You have tunnel vision when it comes to the topics on this board. Why do you keep hovering and commenting on the tanking issues? Why don't you make threads that aren't about tanking then? Where's your analysis?

You're lambasting people for having a defeatist mentality, yet here you are saying we will never win a ring in our lifetime. Why don't we give it an honest try? Whether that's through tanking or not, our team has never been built with the focus of winning a championship. Yes, I will concede that we'll never be a Miami where the best player in the game and two other all stars will decide to play here on their own free will. We're not a market that will build a contender in one year. It will take consecutive years of right decisions. If you say OKC can do it, why can't we? Aside from simply being an American city, I don't see OKC having any other inherent advantage over Toronto. They don't have history, they're trying to MAKE ONE. You have to start from somewhere.

Again, it's not tunnel vision, it's a fact that winning a ring in the NBA is as unlikely as it gets in any pro-sport. I can't think of another sport outside of the EPL where only a handful of teams compete year over year.

To look at an anomaly like OKC and try to mirror it is just wishful thinking that comes at the expense of years and years of futility. After 5 years of no playoff ball it would be heartbreaking to go through another long drought of no playoffs.

Fact is, the vast majority of sports fans enjoy playoff ball even if their team has NO shot at winning a ring. Most of us were ecstatic when the VC raps went to the 2nd round and we all knew that wasn't a championship team. Most of us were ecstatic when the Bosh Raps got to the playoffs in 06 even though we all knew that wasn't a championship team. Hell, we had a chance to play the injury-decimated Wiz that year to practically guarantee the 2nd round but many wanted the challenge of beating the VC Nets. That's how hysteric fans get when their team makes the playoffs. Look at the Leafs fans this year, they were like maniacs downtown for a team that was first round fodder but as is the beauty with prosports, these guys actually got within a few mins of a collosal upset of the eventual runner up.

It's strange that everyone is all about championships now and have forgotten all the good memories we've had along the way. Now I'd agree that if we got to the playoffs and kept getting bounced in the 1st round like the Bucks the novelty would eventually wear off and we might need to look at a tank to get us to the next level (still no guarantee of a contender) but we really don't know if we're the Bucks or if we're the Pacers (with Masai crafting this team) until we see the finished product and IMO, I don't think we're close to being a finished product yet.

That's pretty much it. If Masai tanks I'll get on board but he hasn't yet and I wish we'd have a bit more discussion on our team as constructed rather than just hoping for a tank.

[Patman]

Again, it's not tunnel vision, it's a fact that winning a ring in the NBA is as unlikely as it gets in any pro-sport. I can't think of another sport outside of the EPL where only a handful of teams compete year over year.

To look at an anomaly like OKC and try to mirror it is just wishful thinking that comes at the expense of years and years of futility. After 5 years of no playoff ball it would be heartbreaking to go through another long drought of no playoffs.

Fact is, the vast majority of sports fans enjoy playoff ball even if their team has NO shot at winning a ring. Most of us were ecstatic when the VC raps went to the 2nd round and we all knew that wasn't a championship team. Most of us were ecstatic when the Bosh Raps got to the playoffs in 06 even though we all knew that wasn't a championship team. Hell, we had a chance to play the injury-decimated Wiz that year to practically guarantee the 2nd round but many wanted the challenge of beating the VC Nets. That's how hysteric fans get when their team makes the playoffs. Look at the Leafs fans this year, they were like maniacs downtown for a team that was first round fodder but as is the beauty with prosports, these guys actually got within a few mins of a collosal upset of the eventual runner up.

It's strange that everyone is all about championships now and have forgotten all the good memories we've had along the way. Now I'd agree that if we got to the playoffs and kept getting bounced in the 1st round like the Bucks the novelty would eventually wear off and we might need to look at a tank to get us to the next level (still no guarantee of a contender) but we really don't know if we're the Bucks or if we're the Pacers (with Masai crafting this team) until we see the finished product and IMO, I don't think we're close to being a finished product yet.

That's pretty much it. If Masai tanks I'll get on board but he hasn't yet and I wish we'd have a bit more discussion on our team as constructed rather than just hoping for a tank.

If you root for a team that routinely fails to make the playoffs, of course you're going to be ecstatic when they finally do make it. I loved it when the Raps were in the playoffs. But you can't sustain that with rash win-now all-in moves. That's what we've always done any time we've had a semi-good team. You still have to make moves as if you were building for a team 5 years down the line. That's what the Spurs do. Most contending teams would toss away draft picks like yesterday's newspaper, but the Spurs prefer to keep theirs, and they've made excellent use of them. They could've filled their roster with overpaid vets, but they've always had the patience to develop players.

No, they don't win 4 titles without Tim Duncan, but they'd still be a sustainably good team year after year.

[beanbag]

Why are people arguing about tanking? What's more important now is we have a new GM who ought to have a better idea of how to build a basketball team than the fraud who just left. I think we need to trust that our GM knows what he's doing. If you don't think he knows what he's doing, then tanking or going for it will fail either way.

If we have a GM who knows what he's doing, he'll make the right determination at the right time on what to do. And most importantly, he won't be fooled by a team that plays hard and looks like it could have a ceiling as a 6th seed.

The only other side of things is eastcoast's theory that Masai et al are just more recycled MLSE puppets and their only option is to sell, sell, sell (ie. we always need a "franchise" guy, don't trade a big dunker, etc.).

BC was a good GM in Phoenix. His plan didnt work here. Masai was a good GM in Denver, doesnt mean what he wants to do here will work.

Otherwise smart people can still be wrong at any moment in time.

But you have to have some sort of faith when they start. We had faith in BC, and rightfully so. Gotta trust Masai now, too. And again, we gotta trust him even if we were tanking.

I think you have faith in the sense that you allow that the GM has a better understanding of what is going on than we do.
At the same time, it seems like most people fall into the same pattern with GM's whereby they have their grace period where we are all supposed to trust them. Then at some point we turn on them and are completely negative on every move they make. It seems like it isnt about the move as much as who is making the move. People become fanboys or haters of the GM instead of grading a given move.

[J-Roc]

BC was a good GM in Phoenix. His plan didnt work here. Masai was a good GM in Denver, doesnt mean what he wants to do here will work.

Otherwise smart people can still be wrong at any moment in time.

But you have to have some sort of faith when they start. We had faith in BC, and rightfully so. Gotta trust Masai now, too. And again, we gotta trust him even if we were tanking.

I think you have faith in the sense that you allow that the GM has a better understanding of what is going on than we do.
At the same time, it seems like most people fall into the same pattern with GM's whereby they have their grace period where we are all supposed to trust them. Then at some point we turn on them and are completely negative on every move they make. It seems like it isnt about the move as much as who is making the move. People become fanboys or haters of the GM instead of grading a given move.

Well stick to grading victories and you'll be fine. We'll be able to tell when we have a team Masai believes in. And if that team does well, we trust him more. If a team the GM believes in actually sucks (the last many years of BC), we have a problem.