The Tank Debate Thread

[StMikes31]

People need to start to understand that tanking is APART of building a contender and a big one at that. Cities that can't attract top name FA's need to re-build through the draft for a few years and to try and get the highest draft pick possible so they have a best chance of drafting an all-star player.

IMO, you get 2 top 5 picks as your foundation and then you add to that through trades and FA. That is how you be a contender and use tanking as a big building block to do it.

If you take Cleveland for example, they had the right strategy and are a team on the rise, but they could have even been better had they executed better on the choices of their draft picks.

They could of had Irving, Valanciunas and Barnes. That core would be tops in the East for a long time. From here, you grow and develop while keeping your cap flexbility and then you start trading for some nice complimentary pieces along the way and possibly sign a few FA's that would help put you as a playoff contender. This is a team that would have a high ceiling and would be in the playoffs for many years to come. Unlike the Raptors, where we are capped out and hoping that internal growth brings us a championship - it really shows how tanking is a smart step to build a team.

Once you have the core in place and a system/culture, you'll be laughing because you can interchange the pieces around the core. Just like how San Antonio is doing now (and no taking a chance to draft someone in the 2nd round that are all-stars isn't the best option imo since it's a 5-10% chance to find one).

Again, it's a big piece (not the only piece) into building a contender.

The Raptors right now tanked once during BC's 3 year re-building plan and it netted them Valanciunas. Casey screwed up the tank his first year and instead of following the plan, he wanted to get meaningless wins by playing D-league guys which ultimately costed BC is job (would have drafted Lillard or Barnes which means no Lowry or Gay).

Unless Masai can somehow trade Gay and Lowry for a premier player in this league, the draft is the only way pair Valanciunas up with an All-Star.

[Abba Zabba]

People need to start to understand that tanking is APART of building a contender and a big one at that. Cities that can't attract top name FA's need to re-build through the draft for a few years and to try and get the highest draft pick possible so they have a best chance of drafting an all-star player.

You get 2 top 5 picks as your foundation and then you add to that through trades and FA. That is how you be a contender and using tanking as a big building block to do it.

If you take Cleveland for example, they had the right strategy and are a team on the rise, but they could have even been better had they executed better on the choices of their draft picks.

They could of had Irving, Valanciunas and Barnes. That core would be tops in the East for a long time. From here, you grow and develop while keeping your cap flexbility and then you start trading for some nice complimentary pieces along the way and possibly signing a few FA's that would help put you as a playoff contender.

Once you have the core in place and a system/culture, you'll be laughing and that's what tanking gives you.

Again, it's a big piece (not the only piece) into building a contender.

I'd argue that being at the bottom "for a few years" (3, 4, 5?) is what leads to poor decisions in the drafts, fewer options on the free agent markets and worse trades being made. Especially if you are not a marquee destination you will experience a talent drain throughout the organization fromthe GM's office right through to players. Quality people don't want to be associated with losing for long. You can buy second rate people off and end up with bad contracts on the court and cushy positions in the front office if you want, but you'll only end up in worse shape. That's how you build the Charlotte Bobcats.

Let's hold off before we declare the Cavs and unmitigated success yet.

[StMikes31]

People need to start to understand that tanking is APART of building a contender and a big one at that. Cities that can't attract top name FA's need to re-build through the draft for a few years and to try and get the highest draft pick possible so they have a best chance of drafting an all-star player.

You get 2 top 5 picks as your foundation and then you add to that through trades and FA. That is how you be a contender and using tanking as a big building block to do it.

If you take Cleveland for example, they had the right strategy and are a team on the rise, but they could have even been better had they executed better on the choices of their draft picks.

They could of had Irving, Valanciunas and Barnes. That core would be tops in the East for a long time. From here, you grow and develop while keeping your cap flexbility and then you start trading for some nice complimentary pieces along the way and possibly signing a few FA's that would help put you as a playoff contender.

Once you have the core in place and a system/culture, you'll be laughing and that's what tanking gives you.

Again, it's a big piece (not the only piece) into building a contender.

I'd argue that being at the bottom "for a few years" (3, 4, 5?) is what leads to poor decisions in the drafts, fewer options on the free agent markets and worse trades being made. Especially if you are not a marquee destination you will experience a talent drain throughout the organization fromthe GM's office right through to players. Quality people don't want to be associated with losing for long. You can buy second rate people off and end up with bad contracts on the court and cushy positions in the front office if you want, but you'll only end up in worse shape. That's how you build the Charlotte Bobcats.

Let's hold off before we declare the Cavs and unmitigated success yet.

Why would it lead to poor decisions on the draft? Just because Charlotte and Sacramento had no clue what scouting and smart decision making was doesn't mean the process should take a hit. It works. I'm willing to put confidence in Masai and his team to get the right guy drafting in the top 5, heck, the guy is finding gems in the 20's. You have to stick to the plan and not rush the process like BC went to go do. Draft well, develop the young guys and then start improving through trades and FA.

I haven't said the Cavs are a success yet but they are certainly in a better position than us. I was just pointing out how they could have even been better had they executed better and they would have been tops in the East for many years with that core.

[nodeal]

People need to start to understand that tanking is APART of building a contender and a big one at that. Cities that can't attract top name FA's need to re-build through the draft for a few years and to try and get the highest draft pick possible so they have a best chance of drafting an all-star player.

You get 2 top 5 picks as your foundation and then you add to that through trades and FA. That is how you be a contender and using tanking as a big building block to do it.

If you take Cleveland for example, they had the right strategy and are a team on the rise, but they could have even been better had they executed better on the choices of their draft picks.

They could of had Irving, Valanciunas and Barnes. That core would be tops in the East for a long time. From here, you grow and develop while keeping your cap flexbility and then you start trading for some nice complimentary pieces along the way and possibly signing a few FA's that would help put you as a playoff contender.

Once you have the core in place and a system/culture, you'll be laughing and that's what tanking gives you.

Again, it's a big piece (not the only piece) into building a contender.

I'd argue that being at the bottom "for a few years" (3, 4, 5?) is what leads to poor decisions in the drafts, fewer options on the free agent markets and worse trades being made. Especially if you are not a marquee destination you will experience a talent drain throughout the organization fromthe GM's office right through to players. Quality people don't want to be associated with losing for long. You can buy second rate people off and end up with bad contracts on the court and cushy positions in the front office if you want, but you'll only end up in worse shape. That's how you build the Charlotte Bobcats.

Let's hold off before we declare the Cavs and unmitigated success yet.

Who are these bad teams you speak of?

Sacramento missed the playoffs for 7 straight years. They have not picked top 3 in over 20 years

Toronto missed the playoffs for 5 straight years. They picked top 3 twice in their history.

Minnesota missed the playoffs for 9 straight years. They picked top 3 twice in the past 20 years.

Washington missed the playoffs for 5 straight years. They picked top 3 three times in the past 20 years.

Its being mediocre that will ruin a franchise.

[CoachJReturns]

All those studies show is that most teams that are good were also good four years prior. No ****. When you land actual talent in the NBA, you tend to have sustained success.

It doesn't ask any useful questions, like when those teams first made the playoffs, what the age and make-up of their roster was at that point, etc. For instance, when the Pacers first made the playoffs under Vogel, Paul George and Lance Stephenson were both only 20 years old. Roy Hibbert was a 24 year old center in his third year. Darren Collison was their 23 year old starting PG. They were obviously going to get better. When the Thunder first made the playoffs in 2010, Durant was 21, Westbrook was 21, Harden was 20, and Ibaka was 20. In comparison, the Raptors have a 27 year old PG, and starting wings who will be 27 and 24 in a few weeks. They're all in their prime and either signed to or due for fat contracts, and we still might not even make the playoffs.

Also, no one is saying you can't build a 50 win team without tanking. But do the 50 win teams built that way compete for championships? Do they have the flexibility to move into contention? There are only a few teams every year that are truly contenders, and only 6 teams that have won since 1999, and when you focus on those you see a pretty obvious pattern. The Spurs were 20-62 when they drafted Duncan. The Mavericks were 20-62 when they drafted Dirk. The Heat were 25-57 when they drafted Wade. The Celtics tanked two straight years collecting assets for the Garnett and Allen trades. The Cavs were 17-65 when they drafted LeBron. The Magic were 21-61 when they drafted Howard. The Bulls were 33-49 when they drafted Rose. The Sonics were 31-51 when they drafted Durant, and then tanked harder for Westbrook and Harden. The Pacers, the anti-tank darlings, were 32-50 when they drafted George. None of these were playoff teams. The only exceptions are when Kobe forced himself to the Lakers, and the Pistons landed a 4-time DPOY as an undrafted trade throw-in.

Obviously most teams that tank don't quickly win 55 games. Most teams that DON'T tank don't win 55 games. Most teams in the lottery are there from bad management and not design, and just keep making bad decisions. But when you look at teams that actually accomplish something, they ALL had to be bad to become good.

Excellent post.

[OAKLEY_2]

Look at OKC. They fluked into Durant and were wise on Westbrook but they failed to retain Harden or even Kevin Martin. We are not that far from a Memphis or Indiana despite all the negativity that is RGM chronic. Who is to say we would not be better packaging the 2014 with Lowry or Gay or Demar for something of significance? Something that isn't a question mark. Who is to say we can't move up in the 2014 draft with the right package? Tanking like we tried to do in the Ross draft did damage but only cause we passed on Drummond. It is a bad strategy to build a brand if we try too hard to suck. Sucking by default or injury issues is another matter.

[RealRapsFan]

People need to start to understand that tanking is APART of building a contender and a big one at that. Cities that can't attract top name FA's need to re-build through the draft for a few years and to try and get the highest draft pick possible so they have a best chance of drafting an all-star player.

You get 2 top 5 picks as your foundation and then you add to that through trades and FA. That is how you be a contender and using tanking as a big building block to do it.

If you take Cleveland for example, they had the right strategy and are a team on the rise, but they could have even been better had they executed better on the choices of their draft picks.

They could of had Irving, Valanciunas and Barnes. That core would be tops in the East for a long time. From here, you grow and develop while keeping your cap flexbility and then you start trading for some nice complimentary pieces along the way and possibly signing a few FA's that would help put you as a playoff contender.

Once you have the core in place and a system/culture, you'll be laughing and that's what tanking gives you.

Again, it's a big piece (not the only piece) into building a contender.

I'd argue that being at the bottom "for a few years" (3, 4, 5?) is what leads to poor decisions in the drafts, fewer options on the free agent markets and worse trades being made. Especially if you are not a marquee destination you will experience a talent drain throughout the organization fromthe GM's office right through to players. Quality people don't want to be associated with losing for long. You can buy second rate people off and end up with bad contracts on the court and cushy positions in the front office if you want, but you'll only end up in worse shape. That's how you build the Charlotte Bobcats.

Let's hold off before we declare the Cavs and unmitigated success yet.

I'd question whether being at the bottom for a significant period of time is whats leading to bad decisions, or evidence of bad decision makers.

And just like the Cavs can't be declared an unmitigated success yet, I don't think the Bobcats can be called a failure either. Lets remember last year was only their 2nd year in tank mode. From 2006 to 2011 they were in that treadmill range. 32 to 44 wins. It was after the 2010/11 season with the hiring of Cho is when their tank began.

[CoachJReturns]

We should draw a sharp line between the idea of the quick tank and the notion of multi-year tanking.

There are plenty of examples of good teams making a one or 2 year plunge and then returning to winning ways, with some treadmill (30 to 49 wins) seasons thrown in around it.

What the studies seem to indicate is that the long tank (3 plus years under 30 wins) is disastrous for franchises. At that point your team becomes too bad, and too unattractive to players and front office personnel (as well as likely under increasingly short sighted pressure from ownership) to be rescued by a crap shoot in the draft each year. At best these teams get lucky and stumble into a generational talent like Lebron and even that doesn't stop them from dropping right back down to the bottom after a few successful seasons. The only exception so far is OKC and I discussed the uniqueness of their scenario a page ago.

So tank if the the time is right, but never plan on long term tanking.

Edit: This begs the question, to design a short tank, what is the ideal situation for the Raptors?

We'd need cap space opening up within a couple years of making the move and, ideally a quality component or 2 already on the team long term that somehow doesn't sabotage the tank (injury, early in the learning curve) and a savvy GM. Is now the right time for the quick tank? If so how would you ensure we can bounce back up and avoid being caught in the worst treadmill of all: the one at the bottom of the league?

Now seems as good a time as any for a quick tank. We have a potential top 5 center who is a two way player and will compliment almost any star we can draft. Our preimeter players are all inefficient, so they are not really worth keeping if trying to be a top 5 team and a contender is the goal in the future. Lowry is in a contract year and will demand a bigger contract next year, so it's best to get what we can for him and move on. Rudy is a borderline star, but how many more good years will he have when Val hits his prime? Jonas is the only guy who makes sense in the long term. He needs a star to play with otherwise he will have no reason to stay past his rookie contract. We all know this is the ideal draft to look for a star in. Of course if we draft well and given Masai's track record I think he could do great things for us with a high lotto pick, we could put ourselves in position to go after a big free agent in the next couple years. We could have 2-3 all-stars or borderline all-stars in the same starting lineup. That would be the best team we've ever had. I don't think there's any question now is the time for a quick 1-2 year tank job.

I agree. It's weird: I started off this discussion with a prejudice against tanking in general but an interest in what the studies were showing about teams' inertia in their rankings, but now find myself on the other side of the fence, at least with respect to a quick tank, which history shows works as long as teams don't get stuck in the mud at the bottom of the league. And if we are to pull off a quick tank at any point in the next 5 years, this would seem to be the year: before Jonas is too good and while we still have him locked up for years, while we still have a useful piece on any team in Amir, with a large amount of cap space opening up in 2 years, with a new, respected, and savvy GM able to sell the vision as temporary not endemic to the franchise's losing ways, and in a year with a stacked draft.

I still think Masai will play the waiting game, but the odds seem higher to me that he will (or should) blow it up by the trade deadline than they did yesterday.

I think the people who are dogmatically anti-tank have some idea that it becomes a permanent state. Unless management is incompetent, it should not last any longer than 2 years. Considering Jonas is making seemingly fast progress, I fully expect that in the summer of 2015 he will make us an attractive free agent destination. There just aren't many quality centers available. Add in someone like Wiggins, Parker, or Randle and I think we'd start attracting the all-stars everyone wants to trade for to make a playoff run. I really don't see us becoming a cellar dwellar with Masai at the helm. He's too good a judge of talent and too shrewd in his transactions to f things up that badly.

[Abba Zabba]

Why would it lead to poor decisions on the draft? Just because Charlotte and Sacramento had no clue what scouting and smart decision making was doesn't mean the process should take a hit. It works. I'm willing to put confidence in Masai and his team to get the right guy drafting in the top 5, heck, the guy is finding gems in the 20's. You have to stick to the plan and not rush the process like BC went to go do. Draft well, develop the young guys and then start improving through trades and FA.

I haven't said the Cavs are a success yet but they are certainly in a better position than us. I was just pointing out how they could have even been better had they executed better and they would have been tops in the East for many years with that core.

To be clear I wasn't arguing against tanking, I was arguing against sustained tanking over multiple years. After reading the studies I referenced a page or 2 ago the conclusion I drew was that teams have inertia. According to their numbers being really bad for 4 years in a row is the worst/least likely way of becoming a consistent contender. The rest is just rationalization of why on my part (is it because the team has too many holes by then, the management talent has eroded, no free agents want to sign, owner interference, all of the above?). Management talent erosion leads to poor draft choices. My assumption was that losing leads to management talent erosion.

On the other hand discussions in this thread and a review of how many teams that have turned single or a couple years of tanking into the kick starting of a decade of success have convinced that tanking at the right time is a great strategy, but don't get caught there for too long or the team ranking inertia effect will catch up with you and you'll have a hard time ever being more than below average. I think of it like diving into polluted lake hunting for treasure. You better plan well and chose your moment, because if you are down there too long you are likely to end up staying down.

The NBA is made up of treadmills at each tier and the worst one to get stuck on is the horrible team to below average team treadmill.

[Abba Zabba]

I think the people who are dogmatically anti-tank have some idea that it becomes a permanent state. Unless management is incompetent, it should not last any longer than 2 years. Considering Jonas is making seemingly fast progress, I fully expect that in the summer of 2015 he will make us an attractive free agent destination. There just aren't many quality centers available. Add in someone like Wiggins, Parker, or Randle and I think we'd start attracting the all-stars everyone wants to trade for to make a playoff run. I really don't see us becoming a cellar dwellar with Masai at the helm. He's too good a judge of talent and too shrewd in his transactions to f things up that badly.

I think some people that are dogmatically pro-tank think of it as a semi-permanent state to enter: "Tank until we win!" It ignores the disfunction returning to that trough too many times seems bring to organizations. I am fine with 1 or even 2 years but anything more means that your team just sucks and is probably springing more leaks than a single high draft pick (if you get lucky, the lottery doesn't screw you, and your pick turns out to be really good) can fix.

All that said, this looks like a great year to tank! Although it looks like we have our very own Mackenzie King in Masai following a "tank if necessary but not necessarily tank" policy for now.

[StMikes31]

Why would it lead to poor decisions on the draft? Just because Charlotte and Sacramento had no clue what scouting and smart decision making was doesn't mean the process should take a hit. It works. I'm willing to put confidence in Masai and his team to get the right guy drafting in the top 5, heck, the guy is finding gems in the 20's. You have to stick to the plan and not rush the process like BC went to go do. Draft well, develop the young guys and then start improving through trades and FA.

I haven't said the Cavs are a success yet but they are certainly in a better position than us. I was just pointing out how they could have even been better had they executed better and they would have been tops in the East for many years with that core.

To be clear I wasn't arguing against tanking, I was arguing against sustained tanking over multiple years. After reading the studies I referenced a page or 2 ago the conclusion I drew was that teams have inertia. According to their numbers being really bad for 4 years in a row is the worst/least likely way of becoming a consistent contender. The rest is just rationalization of why on my part (is it because the team has too many holes by then, the management talent has eroded, no free agents want to sign, owner interference, all of the above?). Management talent erosion leads to poor draft choices. My assumption was that losing leads to management talent erosion.

On the other hand discussions in this thread and a review of how many teams that have turned single or a couple years of tanking into the kick starting of a decade of success have convinced that tanking at the right time is a great strategy, but don't get caught there for too long or the team ranking inertia effect will catch up with you and you'll have a hard time ever being more than below average. I think of it like diving into polluted lake hunting for treasure. You better plan well and chose your moment, because if you are down there too long you are likely to end up staying down.

The NBA is made up of treadmills at each tier and the worst one to get stuck on is the horrible team to below average team treadmill.

I don't agree at all that bottoming out leads to poor draft choices. I think you've been clouded by Sacramento and Charlotte's moves of late because they clearly have no clue what they are doing when it comes to scouting, more so Sac. And it's not just drafting either, it's putting a whole team together. They have failed to do that properly which is why you see them at the bottom most of the time.

Tanking right now is the perfect time for the Raptors since the team is mediocre, doesn't have a high ceiling and we have a two year window of great drafts, ownership only absorbing one loosing season so far, and the re-branding/all-star game in 2016. The CEO has the back of the GM who was also rewarded with a 5 year deal. There are no outside factors interfering with this (at least there shouldn't be) and it is a much different scenario than BC and TPF.

Your last sentence said it best. That's where this team has been the last 5 seasons. Masai has 2 years of bottoming out, while cleaning up the cap. Once 2016 rolls around, we make some moves and push for the playoffs with a young core built on studs not stiffs.

[Abba Zabba]

Your last sentence said it best. That's where this team has been the last 5 seasons. Masai has 2 years of bottoming out, while cleaning up the cap. Once 2016 rolls around, we make some moves and push for the playoffs with a young core built on studs not stiffs.

I can get behind that. I'd even be behind 1 year with the right return. Anything more than 2 years is bad for the franchise IMO.

[DatBoiCapspace]

Why would it lead to poor decisions on the draft? Just because Charlotte and Sacramento had no clue what scouting and smart decision making was doesn't mean the process should take a hit. It works. I'm willing to put confidence in Masai and his team to get the right guy drafting in the top 5, heck, the guy is finding gems in the 20's. You have to stick to the plan and not rush the process like BC went to go do. Draft well, develop the young guys and then start improving through trades and FA.

I haven't said the Cavs are a success yet but they are certainly in a better position than us. I was just pointing out how they could have even been better had they executed better and they would have been tops in the East for many years with that core.

To be clear I wasn't arguing against tanking, I was arguing against sustained tanking over multiple years. After reading the studies I referenced a page or 2 ago the conclusion I drew was that teams have inertia. According to their numbers being really bad for 4 years in a row is the worst/least likely way of becoming a consistent contender. The rest is just rationalization of why on my part (is it because the team has too many holes by then, the management talent has eroded, no free agents want to sign, owner interference, all of the above?). Management talent erosion leads to poor draft choices. My assumption was that losing leads to management talent erosion.

On the other hand discussions in this thread and a review of how many teams that have turned single or a couple years of tanking into the kick starting of a decade of success have convinced that tanking at the right time is a great strategy, but don't get caught there for too long or the team ranking inertia effect will catch up with you and you'll have a hard time ever being more than below average. I think of it like diving into polluted lake hunting for treasure. You better plan well and chose your moment, because if you are down there too long you are likely to end up staying down.

The NBA is made up of treadmills at each tier and the worst one to get stuck on is the horrible team to below average team treadmill.

I don't agree at all that bottoming out leads to poor draft choices. I think you've been clouded by Sacramento and Charlotte's moves of late because they clearly have no clue what they are doing when it comes to scouting, more so Sac.

Tanking right now is the perfect time for the Raptors since the team is mediocre, doesn't have a high ceiling and we have a two year window of great drafts, ownership only absorbing one loosing season so far, and the re-branding/all-star game in 2016. The CEO has the back of the GM who was also rewarded with a 5 year deal. There are no outside factors interfering with this (at least there shouldn't be) and it is a much different scenario than BC and TPF.

Your last sentence said it best. That's where this team has been the last 5 seasons. Masai has 2 years of bottoming out, while cleaning up the cap. Once 2016 rolls around, we make some moves and push for the playoffs with a young core built on studs not stiffs.

Whats been wrong with Charlottes draft picks? Sacramento missed on Robinson (who literally every scout online had in the top5) but also drafted Cousins, Evans and Mclemore. Could it just be that there simply isnt enough high end talent in the draft to go around, that most teams who rely on drafting a superstar as salvation end up being stuck on the lottery treadmill? Seriously stop making excuses for every team that tanks and fails and just think about that for a second before you respond. Think about teams like OKC, the tankers wet dream, even they missed out on Joakim Noah and Kevin Love with their draft choices, they just happened to get high picks (luck) in years where superstars were available (way more luck). There are way to many factors in the draft that are out of your control to rely on it or to expect perfection.

Thats why the facts show that building through tanking requires more luck then any other method, and thats why it has never won a team a championship and has historically been the least likely way to build a contender. When Masai says he has a couple year window with this team, he isnt talking about competing for two years and then tanking, he is talking about using those couple years to evaluate the talent and find transactions that bring good value, whether future or present, back to the Raptors. This way we may still end up drafting a superstar, but we wont have to rely on drafting one to get us out of the basement this decade.

As for FA? Unless our draft pick and Jonas show all-star caliber play, they arent going to be attracted to come to Toronto to join them. Players care about the present, not the future, or else Vince would have stayed and teamed up with Bosh, or T-Mac would have stayed in Orlando and teamed up with Howard. They do however care about money, and if we have a lot of it to spend in FA we might end up attracting some great talent to compete, but that can be done through trades or if our current squad plays well right now, so it is best to be patient and wait and see which path opens up for us then to put ourselves in a corner this summer.

[nodeal]

Your last sentence said it best. That's where this team has been the last 5 seasons. Masai has 2 years of bottoming out, while cleaning up the cap. Once 2016 rolls around, we make some moves and push for the playoffs with a young core built on studs not stiffs.

I can get behind that. I'd even be behind 1 year with the right return. Anything more than 2 years is bad for the franchise IMO.

teams that rebuild for 3+ yrs are teams that screwed up along the way. If you screw up you have to rebuild longer.

If we tank, draft a great player, sign a great player we can come out in 1 yr.
If we tank, draft 2 great players, sign a good player we can come out in 2 yrs.
If we tank, draft 2 average players, we are better off continuing the rebuild than coming out just because history shows the best teams have short tanks. History also shows the best teams come out of their rebuild when they are ready to come out. You come out of a rebuild when you are ready not after a set amount of years.

The smarter the GM the less yrs on average it will take to be ready. Masai is a smart GM so like you and most others I would expect a 1-2 yr rebuild, but wouldnt want masai to try and come out early if he fails. This is bad news not only do we have a bad GM but we have a bad GM trying to accelerate a rebuild.

[saddorisio]

.

[StMikes31]

To be clear I wasn't arguing against tanking, I was arguing against sustained tanking over multiple years. After reading the studies I referenced a page or 2 ago the conclusion I drew was that teams have inertia. According to their numbers being really bad for 4 years in a row is the worst/least likely way of becoming a consistent contender. The rest is just rationalization of why on my part (is it because the team has too many holes by then, the management talent has eroded, no free agents want to sign, owner interference, all of the above?). Management talent erosion leads to poor draft choices. My assumption was that losing leads to management talent erosion.

On the other hand discussions in this thread and a review of how many teams that have turned single or a couple years of tanking into the kick starting of a decade of success have convinced that tanking at the right time is a great strategy, but don't get caught there for too long or the team ranking inertia effect will catch up with you and you'll have a hard time ever being more than below average. I think of it like diving into polluted lake hunting for treasure. You better plan well and chose your moment, because if you are down there too long you are likely to end up staying down.

The NBA is made up of treadmills at each tier and the worst one to get stuck on is the horrible team to below average team treadmill.

I don't agree at all that bottoming out leads to poor draft choices. I think you've been clouded by Sacramento and Charlotte's moves of late because they clearly have no clue what they are doing when it comes to scouting, more so Sac.

Tanking right now is the perfect time for the Raptors since the team is mediocre, doesn't have a high ceiling and we have a two year window of great drafts, ownership only absorbing one loosing season so far, and the re-branding/all-star game in 2016. The CEO has the back of the GM who was also rewarded with a 5 year deal. There are no outside factors interfering with this (at least there shouldn't be) and it is a much different scenario than BC and TPF.

Your last sentence said it best. That's where this team has been the last 5 seasons. Masai has 2 years of bottoming out, while cleaning up the cap. Once 2016 rolls around, we make some moves and push for the playoffs with a young core built on studs not stiffs.

Whats been wrong with Charlottes draft picks? Sacramento missed on Robinson (who literally every scout online had in the top5) but also drafted Cousins, Evans and Mclemore. Could it just be that there simply isnt enough high end talent in the draft to go around, that most teams who rely on drafting a superstar as salvation end up being stuck on the lottery treadmill? Seriously stop making excuses for every team that tanks and fails and just think about that for a second before you respond. Think about teams like OKC, the tankers wet dream, even they missed out on Joakim Noah and Kevin Love with their draft choices, they just happened to get high picks (luck) in years where superstars were available (way more luck). There are way to many factors in the draft that are out of your control to rely on it or to expect perfection.

Thats why the facts show that building through tanking requires more luck then any other method, and thats why it has never won a team a championship and has historically been the least likely way to build a contender. When Masai says he has a couple year window with this team, he isnt talking about competing for two years and then tanking, he is talking about using those couple years to evaluate the talent and find transactions that bring good value, whether future or present, back to the Raptors. This way we may still end up drafting a superstar, but we wont have to rely on drafting one to get us out of the basement this decade.

As for FA? Unless our draft pick and Jonas show all-star caliber play, they arent going to be attracted to come to Toronto to join them. Players care about the present, not the future, or else Vince would have stayed and teamed up with Bosh, or T-Mac would have stayed in Orlando and teamed up with Howard. They do however care about money, and if we have a lot of it to spend in FA we might end up attracting some great talent to compete, but that can be done through trades or if our current squad plays well right now, so it is best to be patient and wait and see which path opens up for us then to put ourselves in a corner this summer.

I don't even bother reading your posts since you continue to disregard everything I've said in the past. We've had this argument way too many times.

I'm going to say this one more time since you don't seem to comprehend it - Tanking has proven over and over again to be a significant step into building a contender. Whether you draft someone in the top 5 or trade the pick, it has added to a team's foundation where they become contenders down the road. I've listed all the teams before so you can go back in this thread to look for them.

I've never once said that tanking is the primary source into building a team and that every player should be brought in through that way. Right now the Raptors have a star in the making in Jonas who was brought in through tanking. We need to AT THE VERY LEAST tank for another top 5 pick to pair next to him. Our core stinks minus him. After that depending on how things go, you make some trades to bring in another guy, sign a guy, or tank another year to add to it and maybe possibly trade that pick for a rising star in the league.

That is how you build a core when you are not a so called 'NBA FA Destination'.

I'll say it again so you can remember - Tanking is a significant step into building a contender.

[StMikes31]

Your last sentence said it best. That's where this team has been the last 5 seasons. Masai has 2 years of bottoming out, while cleaning up the cap. Once 2016 rolls around, we make some moves and push for the playoffs with a young core built on studs not stiffs.

I can get behind that. I'd even be behind 1 year with the right return. Anything more than 2 years is bad for the franchise IMO.

I'm confident that they could turn the team around in 2 years especially since they already have a young stud in JV. Masai is on a 5 year deal, he's not going to be sitting at the bottom for a majority of his tenure, that wouldn't be the smartest thing. 2 years to get assets and build around JV should bring a nice core. Then he can start getting creative with FA and trades and push in his 3, 4, 5 year.

I don't know, that would make the most sense to me.

[nodeal]

I don't even bother reading your posts since you continue to disregard everything I've said in the past. We've had this argument way too many times.

I'm going to say this one more time since you don't seem to comprehend it - Tanking has proven over and over again to be a significant step into building a contender. Whether you draft someone in the top 5 or trade the pick, it has added to a team's foundation where they become contenders down the road. I've listed all the teams before so you can go back in this thread to look for them.

I've never once said that tanking is the primary source into building a team and that every player should be brought in through that way. Right now the Raptors have a star in the making in Jonas who was brought in through tanking. We need to AT THE VERY LEAST tank for another top 5 pick to pair next to him. Our core stinks minus him. After that depending on how things go, you make some trades to bring in another guy, sign a guy, or tank another year to add to it and maybe possibly trade that pick for a rising star in the league.

That is how you build a core when you are not a so called 'NBA FA Destination'.

I'll say it again so you can remember - Tanking is a significant step into building a contender.

Datboi will never understand that tanking is part of a successful strategy not the successful strategy.

He looks at memphis and thinks tanking had nothing to do with their success because they drafted thabeet, mayo, gay.

He doesnt realize trading a bloated contract for picks/prospects is part of the strategy. Pau > Marc
He doesnt realize using flexibility to bring in players is part of the strategy. Flexibility > randolph
He doesnt realize tanking teams dont go from 22 wins to 55 wins instantly they gradually work their way up. They can do this because they built a solid foundation that has room to grow, either by trade, organic growth, or flexibility.

[CoachJReturns]

I think the people who are dogmatically anti-tank have some idea that it becomes a permanent state. Unless management is incompetent, it should not last any longer than 2 years. Considering Jonas is making seemingly fast progress, I fully expect that in the summer of 2015 he will make us an attractive free agent destination. There just aren't many quality centers available. Add in someone like Wiggins, Parker, or Randle and I think we'd start attracting the all-stars everyone wants to trade for to make a playoff run. I really don't see us becoming a cellar dwellar with Masai at the helm. He's too good a judge of talent and too shrewd in his transactions to f things up that badly.

I think some people that are dogmatically pro-tank think of it as a semi-permanent state to enter: "Tank until we win!" It ignores the disfunction returning to that trough too many times seems bring to organizations. I am fine with 1 or even 2 years but anything more means that your team just sucks and is probably springing more leaks than a single high draft pick (if you get lucky, the lottery doesn't screw you, and your pick turns out to be really good) can fix.

All that said, this looks like a great year to tank! Although it looks like we have our very own Mackenzie King in Masai following a "tank if necessary but not necessarily tank" policy for now.

To be honest, I have never read a single poster say "Tank until we win". I think the vast majority of tankers want 2 years max. 3 is pushing it. Regarding luck in the lottery, it's certainly a factor, but at the very least, lottery picks always make for a good asset.

[DatBoiCapspace]

I don't even bother reading your posts since you continue to disregard everything I've said in the past. We've had this argument way too many times.

I'm going to say this one more time since you don't seem to comprehend it - Tanking has proven over and over again to be a significant step into building a contender. Whether you draft someone in the top 5 or trade the pick, it has added to a team's foundation where they become contenders down the road. I've listed all the teams before so you can go back in this thread to look for them.

I've never once said that tanking is the primary source into building a team and that every player should be brought in through that way. Right now the Raptors have a star in the making in Jonas who was brought in through tanking. We need to AT THE VERY LEAST tank for another top 5 pick to pair next to him. Our core stinks minus him. After that depending on how things go, you make some trades to bring in another guy, sign a guy, or tank another year to add to it and maybe possibly trade that pick for a rising star in the league.

That is how you build a core when you are not a so called 'NBA FA Destination'.

I'll say it again so you can remember - Tanking is a significant step into building a contender.

Datboi will never understand that tanking is part of a successful strategy not the successful strategy.

He looks at memphis and thinks tanking had nothing to do with their success because they drafted thabeet, mayo, gay.

He doesnt realize trading a bloated contract for picks/prospects is part of the strategy. Pau > Marc
He doesnt realize using flexibility to bring in players is part of the strategy. Flexibility > randolph
He doesnt realize tanking teams dont go from 22 wins to 55 wins instantly they gradually work their way up. They can do this because they built a solid foundation that has room to grow, either by trade, organic growth, or flexibility.

Cmon man, be real. In what universe did Memphis become a contender by tanking? Seriously stop that nonsense, you know its not true and it just shows what your argument has been reduced to.

And you can keep making up excuses or posting flat out lies to try to discredit the past 25 years of data, but the facts are clear. Most teams dont gradually work their way up from 22 wins to 55. Most teams dont even get out of the first round 4 years after drafting a top 3 pick, hell a third of them dont even make the playoffs in that time.

If you actually want to make a claim to support tanking thats based on fact, the only ground you have to stand on is the drafting of a superstar, a legit top 5-7 player in the league. The problem is some drafts dont even have that type of player, and half the ones that do you need the #1 pick to select them. So if you want to make an argument thats actually backed up by stats, you should be talking about how this '14 draft is different, and how theres 10 HOF players in the top ten or some ****. Instead, you choose to keep bringing up the Memphis Grizzlies as some sort of tank success story even though the only player they drafted on their team is Mike **** Conley