Treadmilling Is Better Than Tanking

[kg01]

the bottom line is that most teams at the bottom of the standings are there due to bad management.

and bad management won't win no matter how many top picks they get.

This is true.

I've never been pro-tank but I get why it's done. Basically to give a team more bites at the proverbial apple (elite talent acquisition).

However, as you suggest, there are reasons certain teams are at the bottom in the first place and they generally center around poor management. So, even given great pick assets, they typically screw it up anyway.

As a Hawks fan, my hope is that we at least have good management in place to take advantage of the assets we're acquiring. I'm honestly not sure what direction we'll take considering we apparently have a sneaky meddlesome owner situation brewing. They're a step up from our prior regime but .... there are questions still.

remember the biggest reason why teams embrace a "tank", though.....most often, it's usually just a way for incompetent management to sell their fans on HOPE, instead of results.

there aren't many players on a basketball team - it is very, very hard for good management to put a bad basketball team on the court, even for just one year.

I agree wholeheartedly with your first statement. I'd also add that tanking is a primo way for poor GM's to keep job security by selling ownership on that HOPE (which they then sell to the fans). A bad GM can stay employed for 6-7 years based on tank-hope.

And, by your second statement, are you basically saying good management wouldn't try to put a bad team on the court? I tend to agree. Caveat being ownership directives.

[Yeezus_]

There are pros and cons to both. The biggest factor to a successful team is a strong management team and owners who don't meddle.

[MrPerfect1]

This is true.

I've never been pro-tank but I get why it's done. Basically to give a team more bites at the proverbial apple (elite talent acquisition).

However, as you suggest, there are reasons certain teams are at the bottom in the first place and they generally center around poor management. So, even given great pick assets, they typically screw it up anyway.

As a Hawks fan, my hope is that we at least have good management in place to take advantage of the assets we're acquiring. I'm honestly not sure what direction we'll take considering we apparently have a sneaky meddlesome owner situation brewing. They're a step up from our prior regime but .... there are questions still.

remember the biggest reason why teams embrace a "tank", though.....most often, it's usually just a way for incompetent management to sell their fans on HOPE, instead of results.

there aren't many players on a basketball team - it is very, very hard for good management to put a bad basketball team on the court, even for just one year.

I agree wholeheartedly with your first statement. I'd also add that tanking is a primo way for poor GM's to keep job security by selling ownership on that HOPE (which they then sell to the fans). A bad GM can stay employed for 6-7 years based on tank-hope.

And, by your second statement, are you basically saying good management wouldn't try to put a bad team on the court? I tend to agree. Caveat being ownership directives.

I disagree. Teams primarily tank because for most markets it is by far the most likely way to get a superstar.

For roughly 2/3 of the NBA (I am being generous, it is probably closer to like 25/30), it is impossible to get a Superstar through Free Agency or even to get 1 through trade and get him to stay. 1 big reason why only LAL and BOS are linked to a Davis trade is because 90% of the NBA knows it has 0 chance to re-sign him.

So if your only plausible way to get a Superstar is through the Draft and the odds of getting a Superstar are highest with the #1 (or a super high pick), then teams have a great reason to tank.

[kg01]

remember the biggest reason why teams embrace a "tank", though.....most often, it's usually just a way for incompetent management to sell their fans on HOPE, instead of results.

there aren't many players on a basketball team - it is very, very hard for good management to put a bad basketball team on the court, even for just one year.

I agree wholeheartedly with your first statement. I'd also add that tanking is a primo way for poor GM's to keep job security by selling ownership on that HOPE (which they then sell to the fans). A bad GM can stay employed for 6-7 years based on tank-hope.

And, by your second statement, are you basically saying good management wouldn't try to put a bad team on the court? I tend to agree. Caveat being ownership directives.

I disagree. Teams primarily tank because for most markets it is by far the most likely way to get a superstar.

For roughly 2/3 of the NBA (I am being generous, it is probably closer to like 25/30), it is impossible to get a Superstar through Free Agency or even to get 1 through trade and get him to stay. 1 big reason why only LAL and BOS are linked to a Davis trade is because 90% of the NBA knows it has 0 chance to re-sign him.

So if your only plausible way to get a Superstar is through the Draft and the odds of getting a Superstar are highest with the #1 (or a super high pick), then teams have a great reason to tank.

Well, yeah. I figured we all recognized that piece. Those are the exact reasons we're tanking right now. To either draft a guy they expect to be a superstar or the garner assets enticing enough to trade for one. Because, as you mention, we are not a market to which a true star will come via free agency.

All true.

I think the main problem is there are no Lebrons aka sure things in the pipeline. I mean, we all knew (to the extent that you can 'know') Lebron was Lebron when he was in the 9th/10th grade. There aren't any guys like that right now.

So, if you're gonna tank, you gotta have a strong plan which includes actually developing your talent not simply waiting for a savior. It's ok to go young. It's not ok to tear it down to the studs and just sit back waiting for a messiah that's not coming.

[NCHeels2008]

I'd also add tanking only really works for 2-3 teams a year mathematically even though basketball intelligentsia feels over half the league should tank within a given season

[Vampirate]

Itidnt because at least tanking gives ESPN you hope for the high end pick.

Regardless you need a competant gm and ownership to get out of either tanking or tradmilling otherwise you'll just be routinely treadmill tanking ie teams with a .300 win % in the east whose sucked for what seems like forever.

[DutchManDanFan]

You have to be lucky at least once.
- NOP got AD as no 1.
- Treadmill team MIL got Giannis (no 15), then tanked to get Jabari. That didn't work as planned but with 2 good trades (Khris, Bledsoe), a great 2nd round pick (Brogdon), a good signing (BroLo) and a good coach (Bud), they became a top 5 team (for now). All because Giannis became a superstar.
- Philly got Embiid because he was injured. They tanked on until they got Simmons and now they have Butler (but no depth). Future is interesting.
- Minny traded KLove for Wiggins, tanked on to get KAT (no 1) and traded for Butler. Looked great on paper but we know better now. With a better coach and no contract for Wiggins (look at Bucks!) they would be better now.
- Kings finally tanked after Boogie trade and have good young players now. But a future superstar? If only they had Luka now...

So you have to be lucky at least once, have a good coach and don't screw the rest.
It's more likely to be lucky with a no 1 pick though. There's always a chance to get a Giannis, Jokic or Kawhi, but it's better to have the 1st choise with someone like LeBron, Dwight, KD, AD, Embiid, KAT, Simmons, Luka or Zion on the board. In some years you get Bogut, Wall or Blake and sometimes you get a complete bust. But you can always try again next year. It's a lottery after all.

[HotelVitale]

So you have to be lucky at least once, have a good coach and don't screw the rest.
It's more likely to be lucky with a no 1 pick though. There's always a chance to get a Giannis, Jokic or Kawhi, but it's better to have the 1st choise with someone like LeBron, Dwight, KD, AD, Embiid, KAT, Simmons, Luka or Zion on the board. In some years you get Bogut, Wall or Blake and sometimes you get a complete bust. But you can always try again next year. It's a lottery after all.

Yeah, but the Sixers' Process gave a blueprint for how to play the odds rather than banking on blind luck (the sort of luck that gets you Giannis in the mid-teens). What you're talking about is a team tanking for one year or something and, yeah, that's always going to be a huge gamble. But if you're getting 5-6 top picks, plus another handful of 1st rounders and a slew of 2nds etc, odds are you're going to hit on some of them and find that 'luck.'

[DutchManDanFan]

So you have to be lucky at least once, have a good coach and don't screw the rest.
It's more likely to be lucky with a no 1 pick though. There's always a chance to get a Giannis, Jokic or Kawhi, but it's better to have the 1st choise with someone like LeBron, Dwight, KD, AD, Embiid, KAT, Simmons, Luka or Zion on the board. In some years you get Bogut, Wall or Blake and sometimes you get a complete bust. But you can always try again next year. It's a lottery after all.

Yeah, but the Sixers' Process gave a blueprint for how to play the odds rather than banking on blind luck (the sort of luck that gets you Giannis in the mid-teens). What you're talking about is a team tanking for one year or something and, yeah, that's always going to be a huge gamble. But if you're getting 5-6 top picks, plus another handful of 1st rounders and a slew of 2nds etc, odds are you're going to hit on some of them and find that 'luck.'

Nope, Sixers without Embiid are still nowhere. If he wasn’t injured before the draft the Cavs pick him and possible keep him. The Sixers needed this luck. It helped to get Simmons too.

[jbk1234]

Both approaches carry risk. If you come out of a rebuild too soon, the core you're building around isn't good enough. As soon as those guys come off of their rookie contacts, your capped out, and hoping to find real talent outside of the lottery in order to take the next step. It's why so many teams get stuck on the treadmill.

Conversely, if you stay in the rebuild too long, you run into a losing begets losing scenario. You're not a desirable destination in terms of F.A.

You have to time it out right.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J327A using RealGM mobile app

[Johnny Bball]

Well considering the thinking from the pro-tank crowd is now pretty much defined as if your not the clear favorite to wnning a championship, you should tank, I just don’t see the point of any real discussion. I mean we have a few guys that think they should tank the raptors now. At the end of the day, it’s usually people that have zero risk tolerance.

But no, there’s rarely a point this should happen intentionally since tanking guarantees very little and bad management now will still be bad mangement in the future.

[HotelVitale]

So you have to be lucky at least once, have a good coach and don't screw the rest. It's more likely to be lucky with a no 1 pick though. There's always a chance to get a Giannis, Jokic or Kawhi, but it's better to have the 1st choise with someone like LeBron, Dwight, KD, AD, Embiid, KAT, Simmons, Luka or Zion on the board. In some years you get Bogut, Wall or Blake and sometimes you get a complete bust. But you can always try again next year. It's a lottery after all.

Yeah, but the Sixers' Process gave a blueprint for how to play the odds rather than banking on blind luck (the sort of luck that gets you Giannis in the mid-teens). What you're talking about is a team tanking for one year or something and, yeah, that's always going to be a huge gamble. But if you're getting 5-6 top picks, plus another handful of 1st rounders and a slew of 2nds etc, odds are you're going to hit on some of them and find that 'luck.'

Nope, Sixers without Embiid are still nowhere. If he wasn’t injured before the draft the Cavs pick him and possible keep him. The Sixers needed this luck. It helped to get Simmons too.

You missed my point completely. Yes, you obviously need to connect on picks to be successful, no one is going to bother arguing about that; but when you give yourself 6+ chances at a super-elite top prospect, then it's not 'luck' but just the odds that you'll end up with a franchise cornerstone. The Sixers had a top-3 prospect in 5 straight drafts (Noel, Okafor, Embiid, Simmons, Fultz) plus another pick that should've been top-5 (LAL) and two other top-ten picks (Saric and this year's #10).

It's not exactly 'luck' to succeed since it's statistically probable that you'll end up with 2 hits in 7-8 chances, and it's definitely a totally different kind of luck than randomly getting a Jokic or Giannis outside of the lottery. The odds of the latter are like 2%, while the odds of what the Sixers did are probably more like 70% (these aren't scientific but you get the point). In other words, yes they were lucky that Embiid dropped to them, but they had that luck coming to them since they struck out horribly on Noel, Okafor, and Fultz, plus losing the LAL pick, etc.