The Tank Debate Thread

[DatBoiCapspace]

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.

Talk about disregarding everything I said .

I asked you a straight forward question. Which draft picks did Charlotte and Sacramento screw up so terribly on that would have made them a future contender by now? You wont answer because you know it destroys your argument, lotto picks do not turn around teams as quickly or as easily as you think.

Now you claim we at the very least need to tank for another top 5 pick to pair with Jonas to contend. Can you please name which contenders have two top 5 picks of theirs on their roster? Not San Antonio, not Chicago, not Miami, not Indiana, not Memphis, not Denver, not NYK, not HOU, not GS, not LAC. OKC is the only one I can think of with Westbrook and Durant. So maybe you should rethink your so matter of factly statement there bud.

[Scase]

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.

With the cap space that we will be having in about 2 years and the strength of the draft this year I have no idea how anyone could think now is not the perfect time to do a quick 2 year tank.

[StMikes31]

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.

Talk about disregarding everything I said .

I asked you a straight forward question. Which draft picks did Charlotte and Sacramento screw up so terribly on that would have made them a future contender by now? You wont answer because you know it destroys your argument, lotto picks do not turn around teams as quickly or as easily as you think.

Now you claim we at the very least need to tank for another top 5 pick to pair with Jonas to contend. Can you please name which contenders have two top 5 picks of theirs on their roster? Not San Antonio, not Chicago, not Miami, not Indiana, not Memphis, not Denver, not NYK, not HOU, not GS, not LAC. OKC is the only one I can think of with Westbrook and Durant. So maybe you should rethink your so matter of factly statement there bud.

I disregarded it because you continue not to read anything that I have been saying. Charlotte and Sacramento are two of the worst ran teams in the league for the past few years which is why they have been at the bottom. You and the rest of your anti-tank crew think think tanking doesn't work because these teams can never get out of the bottom (even though Charlotte hasn't been there that long).

Here's an example of what Sacramento did and what could have happend.

2011 -Sacramento receives: 10th pick (Jimmer Fredette) in 2011 draft, John Salmons........ Top prospects like Klay Thompson and Kawhi Leonard were on the board and were rated highly. So that's a missed oppurtunity.

2012- Draft Thomas Robinson who isn't on the team anymore. Could have drafted a much needed PG in Lillard or a swingman in Barnes to put next to Demarcus.

They did a great job drafting Demarcus but failed miserably the next two years and wasted 2 years of tanking. They could of had a core of Demarcus, Klay Thompson, and Lillard. 3 up and coming players in this league at their positions.

If you think a core like that wouldn't have future success, then I don't know what to tell you.

Now you claim we at the very least need to tank for another top 5 pick to pair with Jonas to contend. Can you please name which contenders have two top 5 picks of theirs on their roster? Not San Antonio, not Chicago, not Miami, not Indiana, not Memphis, not Denver, not NYK, not HOU, not GS, not LAC. OKC is the only one I can think of with Westbrook and Durant. So maybe you should rethink your so matter of factly statement there bud

LOL is this a joke? All those teams have superstars, nevermind All-stars. THIS TEAM HAS ZERO ALL-STARS.

It'd be nice if Jonas was dominant like Dwight Howard but he isn't and we shouldn't bank that he could be that. We need guys with upside or who who are already established in this league. Since FA isn't happening for us, the draft is the best possible way to pair him with a great star.

Maybe you should re-think the status of our current team and realize we are absolute garbage instead of trying to compare us to teams with superstars.

And since you keep avoiding the question like every other anti tanker-please tell me how you expect to make this current team into a contender in 2 years? And please do not mention organic growth. If you can give me a realistic and thought out answer, I won't argue with you. But I know you won't, because you can't and that isn't your fault it's because this team was so badly managed and BC screwed us hard.

[Tofubeque]

I asked you a straight forward question. Which draft picks did Charlotte and Sacramento screw up so terribly on that would have made them a future contender by now? You wont answer because you know it destroys your argument, lotto picks do not turn around teams as quickly or as easily as you think.

Are you really going there? Charlotte picked Adam Morrison over Roy and Gay, Brandan Wright over Joakim Noah, DJ Augustin over Brook Lopez and Roy Hibbert, Gerald Henderson over Jrue Holiday and Ty Lawson, Kemba Walker over Klay Thompson, MKG over Beal and Lillard and Barnes, and Cody Zeller over Len and Noel and McLemore. They also dealt their pick in 2010 and missed out on Wall, Cousins, Monroe and Paul George. You can make lists like this for a lot of teams, but no one tops how mediocre all of the Bobcats' dumb selections were. They're the worst drafting team in the NBA. You don't think there's a contending team among all those players that were available to them?

Sacramento used their top 5 picks on knuckleheady guys who didn't fit together, then traded them low for no reason (Robinson) or held on to them long after they stopped improving (Evans). They also brought in short-sighted FAs every other season to keep them from bottoming out and lowering the franchise value for the Maloofs. They hired a string of useless coaches and, if you need any more proof of their futility, traded down in a draft to grab Jimmer Fredette. None of their decisions have been defensible.

Now you claim we at the very least need to tank for another top 5 pick to pair with Jonas to contend. Can you please name which contenders have two top 5 picks of theirs on their roster? Not San Antonio, not Chicago, not Miami, not Indiana, not Memphis, not Denver, not NYK, not HOU, not GS, not LAC. OKC is the only one I can think of with Westbrook and Durant. So maybe you should rethink your so matter of factly statement there bud.

Miami has 3 top 5 picks on their roster, New York has 3, Houston has 2, LAC has 2. The Bulls have 3 top 10 picks. Half those teams can hardly be called contenders. But more to the point, they all have multiple all-stars, except Denver who might not even be a playoff team next year. The goal isn't getting a nominal top-5 pick to pair with Val, it's getting an all-star talent. Where in the draft do you think the highest concentration of all-stars are picked?

[FlyLo]

I get why this 'debate' needs to be had, but tanking is not any kind of strategy, it's just reliance on dumb luck, and when paired with an organization that has no vision, it's a recipe for a very twisted tale of failure.

The most obvious example; Cleveland Cavaliers. They tanked their pants off and got the franchise player, look where it got them? Why were they not able to harness the man's talent into the ultimate success? Because at the very core of their organization, they had no vision about how to build a team. They just took cringe-worthy stabs in the dark until that talent skipped on out of town, a small-scale version of it happened right here.

You orient your talent to cultivate the most amount of success possible, and if circumstances deem you lottery worthy, maybe you'll get bailed out of jail. This team as presently constructed is not built to be lottery-worthy unless there is a major injury or someone severely under-performs. If that happens, then I'd gladly advocate staying course instead of trading for help, and reap what the circumstances sowed for you.

Tanking is like believing you don't need to get a college degree to have success because like Bill Gates and Kanye West did so! You just gotta have that "specialness".

We should really be having a debate about how to build a team. And on that front, Masai hasn't done anything yet to give the impression that he doesn't know what he's doing.

[Abba Zabba]

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.

About 5 posts before yours:

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

This is the "tank until we get good" idea. A lot of people share it.

It is the tankers fall back that if at first it doesn't work, that's only because of bad drafting or a weak draft or bad luck in the lottery and we have to stay in the tank until we end up with 2 young studs who will hit their prime within a few years of each other. This is not flexible thinking and long term, IMO, bad for the franchise.

[nodeal]

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.

About 5 posts before yours:

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

This is the "tank until we get good" idea. A lot of people share it.

It is the tankers fall back that if at first it doesn't work, that's only because of bad drafting or a weak draft or bad luck in the lottery and we have to stay in the tank until we end up with 2 young studs who will hit their prime within a few years of each other. This is not flexible thinking and long term, IMO, bad for the franchise.

So what do you suggest if we screw up 2 yrs of a rebuild?

Ideally we want as quick a rebuild as possible, a smart GM should be able to take a team with jonas and build a nice foundation in 1-2 yrs, but if jonas doesnt pan out like we expect and we draft a bargnani and hoffa. Should we trade away what prospects and picks we have to try and win 38 games?
Should we just sign vets and go for 32 wins?

saying after 2 yrs we try to win is not flexible, not the other way around.

This is worst case scenario, this is why anti-tankers dont want to tank, this is a reality. Just like trying to build on this team without taking a step back and missing the playoffs for 5 straight years is a reality. Just because a rebuild or retool goes bad after 2 yrs doesnt mean you have to do a 180 and make a bunch of terrible moves in the process.

"Tank until we win" is incorrect "You tank until you have a solid foundation" is correct.
"You tank a set number of years" is incorrect.

A solid foundation could be a 25 win team. If the GM thinks that 25 win team plus some free agency adds/trades can grow to a 50 win team, then you exit the rebuild.

[Abba Zabba]

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.

About 5 posts before yours:

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

This is the "tank until we get good" idea. A lot of people share it.

It is the tankers fall back that if at first it doesn't work, that's only because of bad drafting or a weak draft or bad luck in the lottery and we have to stay in the tank until we end up with 2 young studs who will hit their prime within a few years of each other. This is not flexible thinking and long term, IMO, bad for the franchise.

So what do you suggest if we screw up 2 yrs of a rebuild?

Ideally we want as quick a rebuild as possible, a smart GM should be able to take a team with jonas and build a nice foundation in 1-2 yrs, but if jonas doesnt pan out like we expect and we draft a bargnani and hoffa. Should we trade away what prospects and picks we have to try and win 38 games?
Should we just sign vets and go for 32 wins?

saying after 2 yrs we try to win is not flexible, not the other way around.

This is worst case scenario, this is why anti-tankers dont want to tank, this is a reality. Just like trying to build on this team without taking a step back and missing the playoffs for 5 straight years is a reality. Just because a rebuild or retool goes bad after 2 yrs doesnt mean you have to do a 180 and make a bunch of terrible moves in the process.

"Tank until we win" is incorrect "You tank until you have a solid foundation" is correct.
"You tank a set number of years" is incorrect.

A solid foundation could be a 25 win team. If the GM thinks that 25 win team plus some free agency adds/trades can grow to a 50 win team, then you exit the rebuild.

Good points and good questions. I don't have answers to what we should do in 2 years other than be flexible, always look for value in trades and signings and the draft. But that's what I think should always be paramount. One answer is you don't tie yourself to developing mediocre players but trade them for a good return while their value is still high due to "potential".

The way I see it tanking is a high risk, high reward maneuver, a gamble you undertake trying to hit it big. Once the casino's taken your money (after a year or 2) you definitely don't start putting up your house as collateral. No need to do a 180 but you've got to stop doubling down on being a bad team or you'll find you really are one.

[nodeal]

Good points and good questions. I don't have answers to what we should do in 2 years other than be flexible, always look for value in trades and signings and the draft. But that's what I think should always be paramount. One answer is you don't tie yourself to developing mediocre players but trade them for a good return while their value is still high due to "potential".

The way I see it tanking is a high risk, high reward maneuver, a gamble you undertake trying to hit it big. Once the casino's taken your money (after a year or 2) you definitely don't start putting up your house as collateral. No need to do a 180 but you've got to stop doubling down on being a bad team or you'll find you really are one.

High risk, High reward and increased variance is how ive been describing this strategy for years. That is exactly what it is. If you mess up the early years of a rebuild, you could be rebuilding for awhile. If you mess up the early years than try to accelerate the rebuild you only make things worse. People keep saying you dont need a good GM if youre just going to tank, that couldnt be further from the truth. If youre going with tanking you better have an incredible GM.

Im pro rebuild. Its not because im negative, like losing, or wiggins. Im pro rebuild because I feel taking a step back is smarter than trying to build a contender without taking a step back given our current situation. We are roughly 40% to make the playoffs and roughly .12% to win the title. I dont see that improving too much over the years if we just retool. meanwhile 2014 is an incredible draft class.

[ramesses]

http://www.draftexpress.com/nba-draft-l ... y/winners/

[jvuc]

So what do you suggest if we screw up 2 yrs of a rebuild?

Ideally we want as quick a rebuild as possible, a smart GM should be able to take a team with jonas and build a nice foundation in 1-2 yrs, but if jonas doesnt pan out like we expect and we draft a bargnani and hoffa. Should we trade away what prospects and picks we have to try and win 38 games?
Should we just sign vets and go for 32 wins?

saying after 2 yrs we try to win is not flexible, not the other way around.

This is worst case scenario, this is why anti-tankers dont want to tank, this is a reality. Just like trying to build on this team without taking a step back and missing the playoffs for 5 straight years is a reality. Just because a rebuild or retool goes bad after 2 yrs doesnt mean you have to do a 180 and make a bunch of terrible moves in the process.

"Tank until we win" is incorrect "You tank until you have a solid foundation" is correct.
"You tank a set number of years" is incorrect.

A solid foundation could be a 25 win team. If the GM thinks that 25 win team plus some free agency adds/trades can grow to a 50 win team, then you exit the rebuild.

What is a solid foundation? For example Bargnani+Bosh? You don't know how Bargs will evolve (Dirk Nowitski type or role player) till later.

And the data shows, that the most likely outcome of a tank is to lead to more a slightly better but still a treadmilling medicore team. I don't see evidence that tanking or retooling lead to better success. The tradeoff is sucking really bad in a tank to get marginally better in the future and a hope and dream that Wiggins or a high pick turn out to be LBJ 2.0 or just treadmilling and drafting, trading and signing to become a better treadmill team and a hope and dream that Masai can retool this team into a contending team.

[Salted Meat]

I don't get how some people, even when they have it pointed out to them clearly, still don't understand that for the vast majority of people who fall into the pro-tanker crowd, they don't actually want the team to trade their assets for nothing and field a D-League team for the entirety of the season, just so we can lose the most games..

There is league-wide consensus amongst professional talent scouts, that this upcoming draft has a very good chance to be one of the strongest draft years in history.

Yes, of course, things can always happen. Some players you thought would be top-5 picks drop out of the lottery. Some players also decide to stay in school another year in hopes of raising their stock in a less stacked draft class.

Conversely, there are also players who come out of the fretwork and have a huge year, or make a leap in their development that wasn't thought possible, or have a great run in March and elevate their status.

So, in this year... this specific year... those who want us to tank, want to do so, specifically, so we can have access to this larger-than-normal incoming talent pool. Especially when not only is there is a bit of an arms race at the top of the league, but also since we're not a very good team to begin with. This isn't an overall theme to how to run a club. it's a specific tactic that we're hoping to use in order to greatly increase the level of talent on this team. Remember, we're not exactly the hottest free agent destination. We overpay for a reason.

Our best chance at raising the level of talent on this team to a point where it does become competitive is through the draft. And what better year to use the draft than a year when many have gone on record as saying the top 5-6 guys coming in next year could have gone #1 this past draft?

There is less chance of us winning a first-round series then there is of us landing a valuable pick in the 2014 draft. What good is making the playoffs if you really don't have a chance to compete for a championship, or even really a chance to get out the first round? Everyone knows you're pretenders. Everyone expects you to lose. No one will care when you do, and you'll end up losing players in free agency who are just as tired of making first-round exits as they are of missing the playoffs entirely.

Miami. Chicago. Brooklyn. Indiana. New York.
Does anyone see us beating any of those teams? Because that's pretty much your top 5 seeds right there.

One of the main reasons the draft doesn't always work out, is because there isn't a terribly large room for error. Winning a few extra games (and we've seen it happen) can mean the difference of 3-4 draft places. In a year where there are maybe only 2-3 guys with top-level talent, that's a huge deal. Tanking in those situations is a massive gamble, because if you miss out on the top 2-3 picks, you've basically missed your chance to turn your team around.

However, this year, where there is an over-abundance of top-level talent available in the lottery, significantly increases your margin of error, and significantly increases your chances to grab a quality player, and pull yourself out of lottery purgatory.

That's at least why I want us to tank. And by "tank", I mean trade guys like DeRozan, Lowry and Gay for whatever picks and expirings we can get for them. Play JV heavy minutes at the 5, Ross heavy minutes at the 2, and lose many games while developing your young players. Put yourself in a position to be able to absorb contracts whenever possible in order to acquire more picks, and then either consolidate those picks to move up further in the draft, or use them as assets in trades.

That at least sounds like a plan. More so that hoping for the playoffs and praying not to get swept in the first round.

[RealRapsFan]

So what do you suggest if we screw up 2 yrs of a rebuild?

Ideally we want as quick a rebuild as possible, a smart GM should be able to take a team with jonas and build a nice foundation in 1-2 yrs, but if jonas doesnt pan out like we expect and we draft a bargnani and hoffa. Should we trade away what prospects and picks we have to try and win 38 games?
Should we just sign vets and go for 32 wins?

saying after 2 yrs we try to win is not flexible, not the other way around.

This is worst case scenario, this is why anti-tankers dont want to tank, this is a reality. Just like trying to build on this team without taking a step back and missing the playoffs for 5 straight years is a reality. Just because a rebuild or retool goes bad after 2 yrs doesnt mean you have to do a 180 and make a bunch of terrible moves in the process.

"Tank until we win" is incorrect "You tank until you have a solid foundation" is correct.
"You tank a set number of years" is incorrect.

A solid foundation could be a 25 win team. If the GM thinks that 25 win team plus some free agency adds/trades can grow to a 50 win team, then you exit the rebuild.

What is a solid foundation? For example Bargnani+Bosh? You don't know how Bargs will evolve (Dirk Nowitski type or role player) till later.

And the data shows, that the most likely outcome of a tank is to lead to more a slightly better but still a treadmilling medicore team. I don't see evidence that tanking or retooling lead to better success. The tradeoff is sucking really bad in a tank to get marginally better in the future and a hope and dream that Wiggins or a high pick turn out to be LBJ 2.0 or just treadmilling and drafting, trading and signing to become a better treadmill team and a hope and dream that Masai can retool this team into a contending team.

or, given the number of people who accurately claimed for years that he was never going to become Dirk that your statement should read "most fans don't know what a solid foundation is." Clearly some people DID know.

And all the data shows that any decision is most likely to result in a 'treadmill' (or less). But thats rather obvious because 'treadmill' or less consumes the majority of the possible results.

However, tanking means you are MORE LIKELY to not be a treadmill team than if you don't tank

Given the Raptors current position as a team and vs the league, and the draft crop coming up - why not play the odds that are available right now?

[jvuc]

or, given the number of people who accurately claimed for years that he was never going to become Dirk that your statement should read "most fans don't know what a solid foundation is." Clearly some people DID know.

And all the data shows that any decision is most likely to result in a 'treadmill' (or less). But thats rather obvious because 'treadmill' or less consumes the majority of the possible results.

However, tanking means you are MORE LIKELY to not be a treadmill team than if you don't tank

Given the Raptors current position as a team and vs the league, and the draft crop coming up - why not play the odds that are available right now?

Sure in hindsight everyone knew that Bargs was a bust.

That's the point. It is really hard to not be mediocre treadmill team. You do have a better shot but the most likely outcome of any strategy is being mediocre treadmiller.

But the Pacers have not tanked in over 25 years and are a "contender". They are beating the mediocrity treadmill odds and are doing some things well (drafting, retaining players and signing UFA talent) that many tankers through the years have not accomplished.

[fredericklove]

I get why this 'debate' needs to be had, but tanking is not any kind of strategy, it's just reliance on dumb luck, and when paired with an organization that has no vision, it's a recipe for a very twisted tale of failure.

The most obvious example; Cleveland Cavaliers. They tanked their pants off and got the franchise player, look where it got them? Why were they not able to harness the man's talent into the ultimate success? Because at the very core of their organization, they had no vision about how to build a team. They just took cringe-worthy stabs in the dark until that talent skipped on out of town, a small-scale version of it happened right here.

You orient your talent to cultivate the most amount of success possible, and if circumstances deem you lottery worthy, maybe you'll get bailed out of jail. This team as presently constructed is not built to be lottery-worthy unless there is a major injury or someone severely under-performs. If that happens, then I'd gladly advocate staying course instead of trading for help, and reap what the circumstances sowed for you.

Tanking is like believing you don't need to get a college degree to have success because like Bill Gates and Kanye West did so! You just gotta have that "specialness".

We should really be having a debate about how to build a team. And on that front, Masai hasn't done anything yet to give the impression that he doesn't know what he's doing.

I don't think luck plays an entire part of tanking. There comes a point where if you don't have the luck, you'd at least have to pick wisely with whatever pick you have. Like what Masai did with Faried, that's his example of wise drafting. Even with luck that grands you ultimately with high draft pick, you'd still have to know how to pick the right guy.

Your Cavs model on the other hand, I would say otherwise, is an example of pure luck with bad drafting. They've had the golden opportunity where they could've hit jackpot on Jonas and Barnes. Yet they couldn't do it properly because of bad GM scouting. We all hated BC for some of his picks but if BC was the one picking 1st and 4th in that same draft, he'd guarantee picking Irving-Jonas combo. He'll end up with one borderline superstar and one star potential guy. That's a good direction going forward with two guys that you can build around with. And if that luck continues where they had privilege to pick 4th in last year's draft, knowing BC; he'd pick Barnes because he's high on him. Now Irving/Val/Barnes would be a recipe of good drafting strategy, plus good core moving forward. See how wise drafting plays a key role on top of that tanking luck?

Also your way of saying that team has no vision because of nonstop tanking, if they actually had a smart GM with a plan, he'd know when to tank right, when to end the tank and when to acquire good pieces thru trades. So bad scouting and bad GM-ing were the issue with Cavs. Essentially, good GM makes a difference. If Masai was the Cavs GM, giving him the draft luck, draft skills and trading ability, he'd turn that Cavs team around by now.

[DatBoiCapspace]

See page 62

See page 62

Thank you both for proving my point.

Even after 3 years of best case scenario drafting you still could end up with a rebuilding team. So enough of this you only need 2-3 years to tank if you "do it right" BS, and the only reason it doesnt work out for some teams is because they "didnt draft right" excuse. As you can see by your own examples, even with perfect drafting (which rarely ever happens) you still can be stuck in the lotto 4 years later.

Lillard + Thompson + Cousins in Sac doesnt even make the playoffs in the west.

Lillard + Thompson + Alex Len(Not sure why you write off Zeller so fast btw) in Charlotte is even worse.

Plus, if both those teams took Lillard and/or Barnes + Thompson, where would Portland and GS be right now? Stuck in the lottery. As you can see in most draft years there is only a finite amount of talent to go around, and it requires a great deal of draft luck to even have a shot at them.

Contrast that to OKC, who had to pick between Durant and Horford, Green and Noah, Westbrook and Love and Harden and Curry and you can see how much draft position + draft year (In other words huge amounts of LUCK) play a role in the tank strategy.

Also, lol at San Antonio, Indiana and Memphis not being contenders. And I clearly stated that OKC was the only contending team that has two top 5 picks of theirs (aka tanked for two top 5 picks). So we can throw that BS "if we dont tank for a top 5 pick next to Val we have no shot of becoming a contender" argument out the window.

[RealRapsFan]

or, given the number of people who accurately claimed for years that he was never going to become Dirk that your statement should read "most fans don't know what a solid foundation is." Clearly some people DID know.

And all the data shows that any decision is most likely to result in a 'treadmill' (or less). But thats rather obvious because 'treadmill' or less consumes the majority of the possible results.

However, tanking means you are MORE LIKELY to not be a treadmill team than if you don't tank

Given the Raptors current position as a team and vs the league, and the draft crop coming up - why not play the odds that are available right now?

Sure in hindsight everyone knew that Bargs was a bust.

That's the point. It is really hard to not be mediocre treadmill team. You do have a better shot but the most likely outcome of any strategy is being mediocre treadmiller.

But the Pacers have not tanked in over 25 years and are a "contender". They are beating the mediocrity treadmill odds and are doing some things well (drafting, retaining players and signing UFA talent) that many tankers through the years have not accomplished.

First of, there were plenty of people advocating not to draft him and/or someone else should have been drafted. There were also plenty of people who saw within a very short time scale that he was bust. So making the concept about "everyone" is just a strawman. There were people who claimed Bargnani was bust, so to claim 'we don't know' what a good core is is not true. SOME have shown that they do know.

Yes its really hard not to be a mediocre team and the Pacers (while I don't agree they didn't tank, they traded away their entire roster and were a losing team for years rebuilding, but for arguments sake I'll agree with you as they didn't do it with a high pick) are a rarity.

The entire premise of the pro-tankers argument is - given the odds building one way vs others, the timing of Raps current situation, the barrier of the Raps market place, the need for certain calibre players, where those calibre players come from, and the calibre players that are available this coming draft year. Tanking at this point in time makes sense.

Its is the opportunity with the best odds to get an equal return. People who argue 'don't tank try to be like the Pacers' are making an argument compareable to prefering to risk $10 for a $20 return on guessing a dice roll, rather than the same bet for the same return on a flip of a coin. It doesn't matter if a guy just won the dice roll game, the coin flip game is a much more profitable game to play.

[FlyLo]

I get why this 'debate' needs to be had, but tanking is not any kind of strategy, it's just reliance on dumb luck, and when paired with an organization that has no vision, it's a recipe for a very twisted tale of failure.

The most obvious example; Cleveland Cavaliers. They tanked their pants off and got the franchise player, look where it got them? Why were they not able to harness the man's talent into the ultimate success? Because at the very core of their organization, they had no vision about how to build a team. They just took cringe-worthy stabs in the dark until that talent skipped on out of town, a small-scale version of it happened right here.

You orient your talent to cultivate the most amount of success possible, and if circumstances deem you lottery worthy, maybe you'll get bailed out of jail. This team as presently constructed is not built to be lottery-worthy unless there is a major injury or someone severely under-performs. If that happens, then I'd gladly advocate staying course instead of trading for help, and reap what the circumstances sowed for you.

Tanking is like believing you don't need to get a college degree to have success because like Bill Gates and Kanye West did so! You just gotta have that "specialness".

We should really be having a debate about how to build a team. And on that front, Masai hasn't done anything yet to give the impression that he doesn't know what he's doing.

I don't think luck plays an entire part of tanking. There comes a point where if you don't have the luck, you'd at least have to pick wisely with whatever pick you have. Like what Masai did with Faried, that's his example of wise drafting. Even with luck that grands you ultimately with high draft pick, you'd still have to know how to pick the right guy.

Your Cavs model on the other hand, I would say otherwise, is an example of pure luck with bad drafting. They've had the golden opportunity where they could've hit jackpot on Jonas and Barnes. Yet they couldn't do it properly because of bad GM scouting. We all hated BC for some of his picks but if BC was the one picking 1st and 4th in that same draft, he'd guarantee picking Irving-Jonas combo. He'll end up with one borderline superstar and one star potential guy. That's a good direction going forward with two guys that you can build around with. And if that luck continues where they had privilege to pick 4th in last year's draft, knowing BC; he'd pick Barnes because he's high on him. Now Irving/Val/Barnes would be a recipe of good drafting strategy, plus good core moving forward. See how wise drafting plays a key role on top of that tanking luck?

Also your way of saying that team has no vision because of nonstop tanking, if they actually had a smart GM with a plan, he'd know when to tank right, when to end the tank and when to acquire good pieces thru trades. So bad scouting and bad GM-ing were the issue with Cavs. Essentially, good GM makes a difference. If Masai was the Cavs GM, giving him the draft luck, draft skills and trading ability, he'd turn that Cavs team around by now.

Some good thoughts, and from what I can tell we're pretty much on the same page. In a related thread I gave a more fleshed out post regarding my thoughts on tanking. It's relevant so I will quote it here:

The way I see it, a GM builds a team employing three different strategies for how to acquire the best players. When you're building you always have to think about the future, about next year, and so the progress markers of these strategies typically manifest from the trade deadline to the free agency period. Good GM's do not implement these strategies leading up to or in the first half of a season.

Strategy #1: Asset Management - strict obedience to the rules of value appreciation. Stockpile assets, put them in an environment where their value can increase, wait for the moment where you can buy low and sell high. Rinse and repeat until you work yourself up to star players.

Strategy #2: Opportunism - assessing your current situation and choosing the path that yields the most value for the least amount of risk. If you're one or two pieces and have the $$$/assets, go for it. If you're looking at long odds for a playoff spot/contention with an unhealthy roster, shut the player(s) down for the sake of long term career and team outlook, maybe get a nice pick out of it.

Strategy #3: Dumb Luck - pretty straightforward, through no effort of your own wait for something to work itself out (draft/trade/free agency) where a star can fall into your lap. It goes without saying this is not an effective or respectable strategy, unfortunately this doesn't stop GM's from using it. Although, most of the time, dumb luck just happens.

You can debate the merits of #3 all you want, however, it's still a strategy that leads to success time and time again. What makes the temptation all the more obvious is when there is an actual once-in-a-generation type talent heading your way. It biases our perspective into thinking that those teams 'tanked' in order to get those players, when really, intentionally employing the dumb luck strategy is rarely ever done by the most successful teams. Just take a look at the cases.

---

The Spurs
This was classic opportunism; they clearly planned the year to make a run into the playoffs with D. Robinson and the signing of Dom. Wilkins, but instead were given a set of disastrous circumstances in which they started the season unhealthy, and so Robinson was essentially shut down. At the end of the year with the 3rd worst record they won the lottery and the rest is history. Key point - they did not start the year with the intention to tank despite knowing that there's a once-in-a-lifetime type player coming along and pairing him alongside Robinson would make them contenders for years to come, likely even beyond Robinson's retirement.

The Bulls
Dumb Luck. They landed the first pick with pretty much the least amount of odds ever to get a 1st tier talent. They drafted well even before that draft however in getting a 2nd tier talent. But we wouldn't be talking about the Bulls if they got to draft Michael Beasley.

The Thunder
Dumb Luck. Had the choice basically made for them in that '07 draft, and they drafted well the following year to get a 2nd tier talent. But we wouldn't be talking about the Thunder had they got to draft Greg Oden.

The Celtics
Dumb Luck. Yes, they tried the dumb luck with 'tanking' but it failed as it often does. They were able to use Asset Management to get Garnett, however, the way it happened is an offence to the strategy from a pure sense. From the beginning it was obvious McHale only wanted to trade Garnett to the Celtics, and so the situation worked itself out to where they could get what they wanted. This is not the same as when the Lakers got Gasol however, that's a case of Dumb GM.

The Heat
A rare combination of Opportunism and Negative Asset Management. You can make the case for Dumb Luck with the Pistons and Raptors passing on Wade, but this was all about stripping everything bare and maximizing the opportunity.

The Rockets
One of the best modern examples of asset management. And they were doing this from the start because they almost landed Gasol, and yet were undeterred when handed a disastrous circumstance with the trade being vetoed. Almost a combination with Opportunism, but the governing strategy is clearly about managing assets.

---

Colangelo was a wannabe asset manager that tried to be opportunistic, but was ultimately relying on dumb luck in the span of his 7 years here, despite some misfortune. He had no vision, and big wigs like Leiweke can smell it a mile away, hence him being fired even though it would have been easy to give him another 2 years.

Masai has been handed a set of circumstances and is in the midst of executing #1 and #2. It's going to be slow and painful, but the man clearly has a vision, and his hand will not be forced by anything other than the laws of asset management and opportunism. No Andrew Wiggins mixtape is going to make him salivate enough to throw a season, a season in which player's value could increase, other stars could become available, or as farfetched as it may seem, a star could develop on our own team (and we all know the most likely candidate). So no, if Masai's hand is forced by this, I sincerely hope someone slaps him out of the daydream.

I get it, probabilistically we're better off getting a lotto pick in next years draft and adding a star to the core that way than with free agency/trading/internal development. The road to getting there however, is where I disagree with the notion of tanking; pre-emptively throwing a season and leaving your fate in the hands of ping pong balls is indicative of lack of vision.

[jvuc]

or, given the number of people who accurately claimed for years that he was never going to become Dirk that your statement should read "most fans don't know what a solid foundation is." Clearly some people DID know.

And all the data shows that any decision is most likely to result in a 'treadmill' (or less). But thats rather obvious because 'treadmill' or less consumes the majority of the possible results.

However, tanking means you are MORE LIKELY to not be a treadmill team than if you don't tank

Given the Raptors current position as a team and vs the league, and the draft crop coming up - why not play the odds that are available right now?

Sure in hindsight everyone knew that Bargs was a bust.

That's the point. It is really hard to not be mediocre treadmill team. You do have a better shot but the most likely outcome of any strategy is being mediocre treadmiller.

But the Pacers have not tanked in over 25 years and are a "contender". They are beating the mediocrity treadmill odds and are doing some things well (drafting, retaining players and signing UFA talent) that many tankers through the years have not accomplished.

First of, there were plenty of people advocating not to draft him and/or someone else should have been drafted. There were also plenty of people who saw within a very short time scale that he was bust. So making the concept about "everyone" is just a strawman. There were people who claimed Bargnani was bust, so to claim 'we don't know' what a good core is is not true. SOME have shown that they do know.

Yes its really hard not to be a mediocre team and the Pacers (while I don't agree they didn't tank, they traded away their entire roster and were a losing team for years rebuilding, but for arguments sake I'll agree with you as they didn't do it with a high pick) are a rarity.

The entire premise of the pro-tankers argument is - given the odds building one way vs others, the timing of Raps current situation, the barrier of the Raps market place, the need for certain calibre players, where those calibre players come from, and the calibre players that are available this coming draft year. Tanking at this point in time makes sense.

Its is the opportunity with the best odds to get an equal return. People who argue 'don't tank try to be like the Pacers' are making an argument compareable to prefering to risk $10 for a $20 return on guessing a dice roll, rather than the same bet for the same return on a flip of a coin. It doesn't matter if a guy just won the dice roll game, the coin flip game is a much more profitable game to play.

I don't look at it in that way and don't see the secret is tank or retool or do what pacers or spurs or heat or lakers have done. I see those successful franchises share some similar traits that are more then "tanking"

[RealRapsFan]

Sure in hindsight everyone knew that Bargs was a bust.

That's the point. It is really hard to not be mediocre treadmill team. You do have a better shot but the most likely outcome of any strategy is being mediocre treadmiller.

But the Pacers have not tanked in over 25 years and are a "contender". They are beating the mediocrity treadmill odds and are doing some things well (drafting, retaining players and signing UFA talent) that many tankers through the years have not accomplished.

First of, there were plenty of people advocating not to draft him and/or someone else should have been drafted. There were also plenty of people who saw within a very short time scale that he was bust. So making the concept about "everyone" is just a strawman. There were people who claimed Bargnani was bust, so to claim 'we don't know' what a good core is is not true. SOME have shown that they do know.

Yes its really hard not to be a mediocre team and the Pacers (while I don't agree they didn't tank, they traded away their entire roster and were a losing team for years rebuilding, but for arguments sake I'll agree with you as they didn't do it with a high pick) are a rarity.

The entire premise of the pro-tankers argument is - given the odds building one way vs others, the timing of Raps current situation, the barrier of the Raps market place, the need for certain calibre players, where those calibre players come from, and the calibre players that are available this coming draft year. Tanking at this point in time makes sense.

Its is the opportunity with the best odds to get an equal return. People who argue 'don't tank try to be like the Pacers' are making an argument compareable to prefering to risk $10 for a $20 return on guessing a dice roll, rather than the same bet for the same return on a flip of a coin. It doesn't matter if a guy just won the dice roll game, the coin flip game is a much more profitable game to play.

I don't look at it in that way and don't see the secret is tank or retool or do what pacers or spurs or heat or lakers have done. I see those successful franchises share some similar traits that are more then "tanking"

yet no one is saying the 'secret' is just tanking. Clearly there is more to be done than just the act of losing itself.

Tanking is a single chapter, not the entire story.