The argument for Tanking: Why it works, and you just don't remember

[VolumePoster]

Last nights win is a good anti tanking message. It was more important for all these young guys to learn how to play a close game, better yet to win. It builds confidence and distills what skills and traits will make each of the young guys better players to help a team win.

Its way better developmentally than throwing out some garbage roster and telling Coby and Pat to just have a free-for-all while we wait for the real stars to show up.

I agree with that.

There is an issue here though. Part of the Bulls fans' PTSD from GarPax was that the minute anything went well, the entire team became untouchable in trade. If the Bulls can sustain themselves at 0.500, it will be a painful thought but the trade value of all of the players will go up tremendously. This is the advantage and gain from actually trying.

I hope that the Bulls keep an open mind on the trading front. They may not hit a homerun but I think its entirely possible to improve the team incrementally and get them to the point where they are legitimately a good team. Once you get there, then you can swing for the fences.

GarPax was completely incapable of that process but it doesn't mean it isn't possible. Its actually the route that is far more successful than tanking over the past decade or two.

I was just having the same thought. As these vets play well, opj and Thad particularly, we increase the likelihood of trading them. It’s certainly bittersweet but the goal remains to compete at the highest level. Likewise with some of our young “core”. Only AkME and BD know what that means.

Trading Lauri in the midst of Februlauri would’ve hurt like hell. But trading high never feels good at the time.

[coldfish]

Just to address the OP

Tank Example 1: 2003 Cleveland Cavaliers

Let's get the easiest out of the way. Lebron was a junior high school superstar already, and Cleveland tanked to get him. What did they do? Oh, just traded their best player the year before and signed a bunch of nobodies to that 2002 team. Andre Miller, Wesley Person, and Lamond Murray were the top 3 VORP leaders of that team in 2001, and all were gone the next year. The tank led to 5 years of great playoff runs in the 2000s, with the king returning for 4 more years of deep playoff runs and a championship in the 2010s.

This completely ignores the facts that:
- The original tank job functionally failed, despite the fact that they drafted the second best player of all time
- The team only came together and won because the second best player of all time was pissed off at Riley and he is from Cleveland.

This was not a successful tank job.

Tank Example 2: 2012 Golden State Warriors

That's right, the dynasty of the 2010s was a tank effort. Golden State traded their best player at the time, Ellis, for an oft injured center in Bogut. Don't think that was a tank move? The fanbase hated it so much they booed Joe Lacob at a jersey retirement ceremony (oh how times have changed) But that wasn't even the big part of the tank. The Warriors owed their pick to the Jazz if it fell out of the top 7. So hey, lets lose some more games to keep that pick. It worked, and the team drafted Harrison Barnes with that pick, who was an integral part of that 1st championship team. A beautiful tank job, more below:

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/1122335-why-the-warriors-made-the-right-move-in-monta-ellis-trade

Yes, it might seem inherently idiotic to trade arguably the team’s best player in Ellis for a defunct star with a history of injuries that will likely not suit up this season. However, keep in mind that the Warriors' first-round pick goes to the Utah Jazz should they finish better than the league’s seven worst teams.

So while the move might hurt the team in the short run, losing now might be the best play for the team’s future.

The Warriors were a slow build. If you read the post game thread, the tankers would have blown up the Warriors when they lost in the first round. They were a mediocre team built on an oft injured, athletically limited combo guard at that time. Tankers would have seen no future and broke the team up in hopes of doing better in the draft . . . than Steph Curry.

Monta Ellis sucked. He was extremely unpopular among the basketball purists and analytics guys.

If anything, the GS route is what I would advocate. Let the team gel and incrementally improve them over time. Don't intentionally set them up to fail.

[coldfish]

Last nights win is a good anti tanking message. It was more important for all these young guys to learn how to play a close game, better yet to win. It builds confidence and distills what skills and traits will make each of the young guys better players to help a team win.

Its way better developmentally than throwing out some garbage roster and telling Coby and Pat to just have a free-for-all while we wait for the real stars to show up.

I agree with that.

There is an issue here though. Part of the Bulls fans' PTSD from GarPax was that the minute anything went well, the entire team became untouchable in trade. If the Bulls can sustain themselves at 0.500, it will be a painful thought but the trade value of all of the players will go up tremendously. This is the advantage and gain from actually trying.

I hope that the Bulls keep an open mind on the trading front. They may not hit a homerun but I think its entirely possible to improve the team incrementally and get them to the point where they are legitimately a good team. Once you get there, then you can swing for the fences.

GarPax was completely incapable of that process but it doesn't mean it isn't possible. Its actually the route that is far more successful than tanking over the past decade or two.

I was just having the same thought. As these vets play well, opj and Thad particularly, we increase the likelihood of trading them. It’s certainly bittersweet but the goal remains to compete at the highest level. Likewise with some of our young “core”. Only AkME and BD know what that means.

Trading Lauri in the midst of Februlauri would’ve hurt like hell. But trading high never feels good at the time.

+ 1 billion.

That's the mentality the organization and fanbase is going to have to embrace. Sell high, even when it hurts. The trade value difference can't be understated between a young player contributing to an up and coming team versus a chucker on one of the worst teams in the league.

[ArtMorte]

The 76ers tanked as well as you could hope for (Embiid followed by back-to-back 1st overall picks). Now they have the 3rd highest payroll in the league and so far haven't even got in the conference finals. If they make the NBA finals in the next couple of years, I'm then willing to accept that tanking can work. But right now my opinion is that tanking isn't worth the years and years of miserable basketball that it requires.

[Chicago-Bull-E]

I agree with that.

There is an issue here though. Part of the Bulls fans' PTSD from GarPax was that the minute anything went well, the entire team became untouchable in trade. If the Bulls can sustain themselves at 0.500, it will be a painful thought but the trade value of all of the players will go up tremendously. This is the advantage and gain from actually trying.

I hope that the Bulls keep an open mind on the trading front. They may not hit a homerun but I think its entirely possible to improve the team incrementally and get them to the point where they are legitimately a good team. Once you get there, then you can swing for the fences.

GarPax was completely incapable of that process but it doesn't mean it isn't possible. Its actually the route that is far more successful than tanking over the past decade or two.

I was just having the same thought. As these vets play well, opj and Thad particularly, we increase the likelihood of trading them. It’s certainly bittersweet but the goal remains to compete at the highest level. Likewise with some of our young “core”. Only AkME and BD know what that means.

Trading Lauri in the midst of Februlauri would’ve hurt like hell. But trading high never feels good at the time.

+ 1 billion.

That's the mentality the organization and fanbase is going to have to embrace. Sell high, even when it hurts. The trade value difference can't be understated between a young player contributing to an up and coming team versus a chucker on one of the worst teams in the league.

This is what I said on page 2

3. So far, the veterans have been more impressive than the young players. OPJ looks great, Thad is shooting the ball really well, Lavine is winning us games. Coby is struggling, WCJ is struggling, Lauri is shooting the ball well but looks like a one trick pony more now than ever.

I think these circumstances could allow the Bulls to trade the vets that look good at the deadline for draft capital, essentially tanking for the rest of the season. They have a boatload of cap space to sign more vets, and this draft looks to be great at the top, not just 1 or 2, but much deeper.

Seems like the same thought process, but we don’t agree on what terminology to use.

FWIW, if this team is .500 at the deadline, a better record than they’ve had in a long time and trade vets, everyone will be referring to it as a tank. And a lot will be angry about it.

[cjbulls]

Last nights win is a good anti tanking message. It was more important for all these young guys to learn how to play a close game, better yet to win. It builds confidence and distills what skills and traits will make each of the young guys better players to help a team win.

Its way better developmentally than throwing out some garbage roster and telling Coby and Pat to just have a free-for-all while we wait for the real stars to show up.

I agree with that.

There is an issue here though. Part of the Bulls fans' PTSD from GarPax was that the minute anything went well, the entire team became untouchable in trade. If the Bulls can sustain themselves at 0.500, it will be a painful thought but the trade value of all of the players will go up tremendously. This is the advantage and gain from actually trying.

I hope that the Bulls keep an open mind on the trading front. They may not hit a homerun but I think its entirely possible to improve the team incrementally and get them to the point where they are legitimately a good team. Once you get there, then you can swing for the fences.

GarPax was completely incapable of that process but it doesn't mean it isn't possible. Its actually the route that is far more successful than tanking over the past decade or two.

Yes, this isn’t the time to get conservative. That’s why it helps to have fresh eyes with AK and BD to evaluate who should stay and go as they re-make the roster. There are still several areas where the fit probably isn’t right.

[troza]

Just to address the OP

Tank Example 1: 2003 Cleveland Cavaliers

Let's get the easiest out of the way. Lebron was a junior high school superstar already, and Cleveland tanked to get him. What did they do? Oh, just traded their best player the year before and signed a bunch of nobodies to that 2002 team. Andre Miller, Wesley Person, and Lamond Murray were the top 3 VORP leaders of that team in 2001, and all were gone the next year. The tank led to 5 years of great playoff runs in the 2000s, with the king returning for 4 more years of deep playoff runs and a championship in the 2010s.

This completely ignores the facts that:
- The original tank job functionally failed, despite the fact that they drafted the second best player of all time
- The team only came together and won because the second best player of all time was pissed off at Riley and he is from Cleveland.

This was not a successful tank job.

I will not defend or attack the tanking without context. But drafting Lebron James, getting regulary into the playoffs, getting to the finals and even reach 60 wins... how is this tanking not working?

Yes, no championship but they were relevant and title contenders for a while, had a multiple MVP guy in their team...

How is this a failure?

More, I would say that the tanking worked, but the aftermath of that didn't work as well (and, in my opinion, when they started to go for veterans that made little sense).

Tank Example 2: 2012 Golden State Warriors

That's right, the dynasty of the 2010s was a tank effort. Golden State traded their best player at the time, Ellis, for an oft injured center in Bogut. Don't think that was a tank move? The fanbase hated it so much they booed Joe Lacob at a jersey retirement ceremony (oh how times have changed) But that wasn't even the big part of the tank. The Warriors owed their pick to the Jazz if it fell out of the top 7. So hey, lets lose some more games to keep that pick. It worked, and the team drafted Harrison Barnes with that pick, who was an integral part of that 1st championship team. A beautiful tank job, more below:

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/1122335-why-the-warriors-made-the-right-move-in-monta-ellis-trade

Yes, it might seem inherently idiotic to trade arguably the team’s best player in Ellis for a defunct star with a history of injuries that will likely not suit up this season. However, keep in mind that the Warriors' first-round pick goes to the Utah Jazz should they finish better than the league’s seven worst teams.

So while the move might hurt the team in the short run, losing now might be the best play for the team’s future.

The Warriors were a slow build. If you read the post game thread, the tankers would have blown up the Warriors when they lost in the first round. They were a mediocre team built on an oft injured, athletically limited combo guard at that time. Tankers would have seen no future and broke the team up in hopes of doing better in the draft . . . than Steph Curry.

Monta Ellis sucked. He was extremely unpopular among the basketball purists and analytics guys.

If anything, the GS route is what I would advocate. Let the team gel and incrementally improve them over time. Don't intentionally set them up to fail.

I agree with this. This is what I'm trying to explain: tank is an option, a way to get something but the goal isn't the tank itself and should not be superstar or bust anytime.

Even so... the slow build of GSW is somehow the exception in all the NBA. Somehow because teams have done that and traded all away when there was a chance to get a special player (Clippers for example) and even the Cavs when Lebron returned (traded the #1 pick right away).

That's the mentality the organization and fanbase is going to have to embrace. Sell high, even when it hurts. The trade value difference can't be understated between a young player contributing to an up and coming team versus a chucker on one of the worst teams in the league.

I agree and disagree. This is what you have to do if you see that's just an hot streak and everything you know about the player is saying that it is unlikely he will sustain that level and/or improve.

Than you take a gamble: with these indicators you will know if you're likely trading high or if you're still trading low. This evaluation will be crucial. There is no 100% guaranteed solution.

But looking at this team, we will face that question soon... we have good contracts and good players. Any decision will not be easy because it is not certain but if we had to make that decision today, I would agree with trading high for a nice offer.

[gobullschi]

Does trading away your veterans count as tanking? I think if Chicago was able to move OPJ and Thad Young at the deadline, it would greatly impact the amount of games the Bulls win the remainder of the season. If OPJ and Young continue to play well, the Bulls will likely have some buyers at the deadline.

Is moving them the right thing to do? From an asset acquisition point of view, if they don’t project to be on the roster next season, getting value for them is definitely the ‘right’ thing to do. However, is moving the veterans detrimental to the development of the ‘core’ and the culture AK is trying to build?

[cjbulls]

Does trading away your veterans count as tanking? I think if Chicago was able to move OPJ and Thad Young at the deadline, it would greatly impact the amount of games the Bulls win the remainder of the season. If OPJ and Young continue to play well, the Bulls will likely have some buyers at the deadline.

Is moving them the right thing to do? From an asset acquisition point of view, if they don’t project to be on the roster next season, getting value for them is definitely the ‘right’ thing to do. However, is moving the veterans detrimental to the development of the ‘core’ and the culture AK is trying to build?

By some weird definitions posted here, that is tanking. But in reality it’s just good roster management. If Otto doesn’t want to stay here next year, then you should get value for him unless you are a legitimate contender for a playoff spot (and even then, depends on the offer). I think Thad is one of the most valuable pieces that contending teams could add at their deadline, so I would expect the Bulls get a pretty good offer for him. That’s just maximizing his value.

It’s still contextual so we should see how the team develops and the necessity for these guys long-term. I can’t see a scenario where they shouldn’t trade at least one for a good offer. They don’t even have enough minutes for all these guys right now.

[MGB8]

Does trading away your veterans count as tanking? I think if Chicago was able to move OPJ and Thad Young at the deadline, it would greatly impact the amount of games the Bulls win the remainder of the season. If OPJ and Young continue to play well, the Bulls will likely have some buyers at the deadline.

Is moving them the right thing to do? From an asset acquisition point of view, if they don’t project to be on the roster next season, getting value for them is definitely the ‘right’ thing to do. However, is moving the veterans detrimental to the development of the ‘core’ and the culture AK is trying to build?

Almost anyone is available for a good enough offer, obviously. I really like Zach, but some bad team offers me 2 unprotected first round picks that are likely to be in the lotto - one this coming year and in 3 or 4 years, plus a not terrible contract for him... (Now, a good team offering me 2 unprotected picks likely to end up in the 20s would not appeal to me one bit).

But for the "role player" vets that you mentioned, it depends on the return and the Bulls likelihood of keeping them (including factoring in at the rate that they are likely to command). So, for example, with Otto - chances of keeping him next season on a reasonable contract, assuming he plays very well, are somewhat slim - various teams with a lot of money under the cap. And then there is the injury risk - which some team is likely to overlook, but IMO the Bulls shouldn't.

In comparison, Thad Young is still under contract for a reasonable amount next season - so not an asset that needs to be moved or likely allowed to "leave for nothing" in return. Whether you have to make that decision in the offseason or at some point the following season would be a different call. But, still, for the right price...

[gobullschi]

Does trading away your veterans count as tanking? I think if Chicago was able to move OPJ and Thad Young at the deadline, it would greatly impact the amount of games the Bulls win the remainder of the season. If OPJ and Young continue to play well, the Bulls will likely have some buyers at the deadline.

Is moving them the right thing to do? From an asset acquisition point of view, if they don’t project to be on the roster next season, getting value for them is definitely the ‘right’ thing to do. However, is moving the veterans detrimental to the development of the ‘core’ and the culture AK is trying to build?

By some weird definitions posted here, that is tanking. But in reality it’s just good roster management. If Otto doesn’t want to stay here next year, then you should get value for him unless you are a legitimate contender for a playoff spot (and even then, depends on the offer). I think Thad is one of the most valuable pieces that contending teams could add at their deadline, so I would expect the Bulls get a pretty good offer for him. That’s just maximizing his value.

It’s still contextual so we should see how the team develops and the necessity for these guys long-term. I can’t see a scenario where they shouldn’t trade at least one for a good offer. They don’t even have enough minutes for all these guys right now.

I think most people on here would be willing to move OPJ and Young for expiring contracts to not impact free agency and draft picks (preferably a 1st rounder). I agree - moving them is the right thing to do from an asset acquisition standpoint.

I’m not sure that helps develop a ‘winning culture’. Do these vets have a large role in player development? Is a late first rounder worth losing that? Personally, I’d rather have the draft asset but I can see why AK would be hesitant to break up something that’s trending in the right direction. (Assuming the Bulls continue to win)

[Bankshot]

Does trading away your veterans count as tanking? I think if Chicago was able to move OPJ and Thad Young at the deadline, it would greatly impact the amount of games the Bulls win the remainder of the season. If OPJ and Young continue to play well, the Bulls will likely have some buyers at the deadline.

Is moving them the right thing to do? From an asset acquisition point of view, if they don’t project to be on the roster next season, getting value for them is definitely the ‘right’ thing to do. However, is moving the veterans detrimental to the development of the ‘core’ and the culture AK is trying to build?

By some weird definitions posted here, that is tanking. But in reality it’s just good roster management. If Otto doesn’t want to stay here next year, then you should get value for him unless you are a legitimate contender for a playoff spot (and even then, depends on the offer). I think Thad is one of the most valuable pieces that contending teams could add at their deadline, so I would expect the Bulls get a pretty good offer for him. That’s just maximizing his value.

It’s still contextual so we should see how the team develops and the necessity for these guys long-term. I can’t see a scenario where they shouldn’t trade at least one for a good offer. They don’t even have enough minutes for all these guys right now.

I think most people on here would be willing to move OPJ and Young for expiring contracts to not impact free agency and draft picks (preferably a 1st rounder). I agree - moving them is the right thing to do from an asset acquisition standpoint.

I’m not sure that helps develop a ‘winning culture’. Do these vets have a large role in player development? Is a late first rounder worth losing that? Personally, I’d rather have the draft asset but I can see why AK would be hesitant to break up something that’s trending in the right direction. (Assuming the Bulls continue to win)

Why would you trade OPJ or TY for anything but a first rounder? If I can only get a second round pick it's not happening...

[Am2626]

Just to address the OP

Tank Example 1: 2003 Cleveland Cavaliers

Let's get the easiest out of the way. Lebron was a junior high school superstar already, and Cleveland tanked to get him. What did they do? Oh, just traded their best player the year before and signed a bunch of nobodies to that 2002 team. Andre Miller, Wesley Person, and Lamond Murray were the top 3 VORP leaders of that team in 2001, and all were gone the next year. The tank led to 5 years of great playoff runs in the 2000s, with the king returning for 4 more years of deep playoff runs and a championship in the 2010s.

This completely ignores the facts that:
- The original tank job functionally failed, despite the fact that they drafted the second best player of all time
- The team only came together and won because the second best player of all time was pissed off at Riley and he is from Cleveland.

This was not a successful tank job.

Tank Example 2: 2012 Golden State Warriors

That's right, the dynasty of the 2010s was a tank effort. Golden State traded their best player at the time, Ellis, for an oft injured center in Bogut. Don't think that was a tank move? The fanbase hated it so much they booed Joe Lacob at a jersey retirement ceremony (oh how times have changed) But that wasn't even the big part of the tank. The Warriors owed their pick to the Jazz if it fell out of the top 7. So hey, lets lose some more games to keep that pick. It worked, and the team drafted Harrison Barnes with that pick, who was an integral part of that 1st championship team. A beautiful tank job, more below:

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/1122335-why-the-warriors-made-the-right-move-in-monta-ellis-trade

Yes, it might seem inherently idiotic to trade arguably the team’s best player in Ellis for a defunct star with a history of injuries that will likely not suit up this season. However, keep in mind that the Warriors' first-round pick goes to the Utah Jazz should they finish better than the league’s seven worst teams.

So while the move might hurt the team in the short run, losing now might be the best play for the team’s future.

The Warriors were a slow build. If you read the post game thread, the tankers would have blown up the Warriors when they lost in the first round. They were a mediocre team built on an oft injured, athletically limited combo guard at that time. Tankers would have seen no future and broke the team up in hopes of doing better in the draft . . . than Steph Curry.

Monta Ellis sucked. He was extremely unpopular among the basketball purists and analytics guys.

If anything, the GS route is what I would advocate. Let the team gel and incrementally improve them over time. Don't intentionally set them up to fail.

I think the greatest tank job was what Seattle/ OKC did when they traded away Ray Allen and then drafted Durant, Westbrook, and Harden in consecutive drafts. If they were in a big market the team would have been able to keep all 3 and I think they would have been a dynasty. They got to the finals very quickly with that core. They just didn’t have the money to keep Harden.

[gobullschi]

By some weird definitions posted here, that is tanking. But in reality it’s just good roster management. If Otto doesn’t want to stay here next year, then you should get value for him unless you are a legitimate contender for a playoff spot (and even then, depends on the offer). I think Thad is one of the most valuable pieces that contending teams could add at their deadline, so I would expect the Bulls get a pretty good offer for him. That’s just maximizing his value.

It’s still contextual so we should see how the team develops and the necessity for these guys long-term. I can’t see a scenario where they shouldn’t trade at least one for a good offer. They don’t even have enough minutes for all these guys right now.

I think most people on here would be willing to move OPJ and Young for expiring contracts to not impact free agency and draft picks (preferably a 1st rounder). I agree - moving them is the right thing to do from an asset acquisition standpoint.

I’m not sure that helps develop a ‘winning culture’. Do these vets have a large role in player development? Is a late first rounder worth losing that? Personally, I’d rather have the draft asset but I can see why AK would be hesitant to break up something that’s trending in the right direction. (Assuming the Bulls continue to win)

Why would you trade OPJ or TY for anything but a first rounder? If I can only get a second round pick it's not happening...

I think you could make the argument that getting a couple second round picks (especially if at least one of them is an early second rounder) would be worth it because it would also lead to the Bulls increasing their lottery odds.

I think things will become clearer by the deadline.

[Bankshot]

I think most people on here would be willing to move OPJ and Young for expiring contracts to not impact free agency and draft picks (preferably a 1st rounder). I agree - moving them is the right thing to do from an asset acquisition standpoint.

I’m not sure that helps develop a ‘winning culture’. Do these vets have a large role in player development? Is a late first rounder worth losing that? Personally, I’d rather have the draft asset but I can see why AK would be hesitant to break up something that’s trending in the right direction. (Assuming the Bulls continue to win)

Why would you trade OPJ or TY for anything but a first rounder? If I can only get a second round pick it's not happening...

I think you could make the argument that getting a couple second round picks (especially if at least one of them is an early second rounder) would be worth it because it would also lead to the Bulls increasing their lottery odds.

I think things will become clearer by the deadline.

So trade Zach for a second rounder then...it's just a bad idea...tanking is a bad idea all together

[the ultimates]

Just to address the OP

Tank Example 1: 2003 Cleveland Cavaliers

Let's get the easiest out of the way. Lebron was a junior high school superstar already, and Cleveland tanked to get him. What did they do? Oh, just traded their best player the year before and signed a bunch of nobodies to that 2002 team. Andre Miller, Wesley Person, and Lamond Murray were the top 3 VORP leaders of that team in 2001, and all were gone the next year. The tank led to 5 years of great playoff runs in the 2000s, with the king returning for 4 more years of deep playoff runs and a championship in the 2010s.

This completely ignores the facts that:
- The original tank job functionally failed, despite the fact that they drafted the second best player of all time
- The team only came together and won because the second best player of all time was pissed off at Riley and he is from Cleveland.

This was not a successful tank job.

Tank Example 2: 2012 Golden State Warriors

That's right, the dynasty of the 2010s was a tank effort. Golden State traded their best player at the time, Ellis, for an oft injured center in Bogut. Don't think that was a tank move? The fanbase hated it so much they booed Joe Lacob at a jersey retirement ceremony (oh how times have changed) But that wasn't even the big part of the tank. The Warriors owed their pick to the Jazz if it fell out of the top 7. So hey, lets lose some more games to keep that pick. It worked, and the team drafted Harrison Barnes with that pick, who was an integral part of that 1st championship team. A beautiful tank job, more below:

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/1122335-why-the-warriors-made-the-right-move-in-monta-ellis-trade

The Warriors were a slow build. If you read the post game thread, the tankers would have blown up the Warriors when they lost in the first round. They were a mediocre team built on an oft injured, athletically limited combo guard at that time. Tankers would have seen no future and broke the team up in hopes of doing better in the draft . . . than Steph Curry.

Monta Ellis sucked. He was extremely unpopular among the basketball purists and analytics guys.

If anything, the GS route is what I would advocate. Let the team gel and incrementally improve them over time. Don't intentionally set them up to fail.

I think the greatest tank job was what Seattle/ OKC did when they traded away Ray Allen and then drafted Durant, Westbrook, and Harden in consecutive drafts. If they were in a big market the team would have been able to keep all 3 and I think they would have been a dynasty. They got to the finals very quickly with that core. They just didn’t have the money to keep Harden.

Sea/OKC didn't tank for any of those picks though. They had Ray who was still playing at an all-star level but was 31 and coming off of 31 and 35 win seasons when they drafted Durant. Ray had made it known that he wanted to try and compete for a title and didn't want to be a part of a rebuild. So he was dealt to Boston for the 5th pick in the 07-08 draft Jeff Green.

With two top five picks in Durant and Green OKC won 20 and 23 games over the next two years. Those were the drafts they got Westbrook and then Harden.

[gobullschi]

Why would you trade OPJ or TY for anything but a first rounder? If I can only get a second round pick it's not happening...

I think you could make the argument that getting a couple second round picks (especially if at least one of them is an early second rounder) would be worth it because it would also lead to the Bulls increasing their lottery odds.

I think things will become clearer by the deadline.

So trade Zach for a second rounder then...it's just a bad idea...tanking is a bad idea all together

You’re missing the point. It’s trading ‘assets’ that will not be on the roster next season. The reason you move the vets is because you can add a small asset(s) AND increase your odds in the lottery for 2021, but I’m not suggesting this is what the Bulls should do. IF OPJ and Young could be moved for a first round pick, I would definitely consider it.

I’m just trying to get a feel for what the opportunity cost would be because winning and establishing a good culture has its own unique value.

[MrSparkle]

I had mixed thoughts on tanking before the odds were changed. But with these new odds, you have to be masochistic and a total gambler to think tanking works. If it's a natural by-product of a young team losing games, I'm 100% for it (as opposed to adding vets and trying to overachieve).

But nowadays, it's borderline impossible to "plan" for a top-5 pick superstar, let alone #1. Unless Adam Silver slipped CLE a secret magic ball, there is no way the Lebron/#1/2003 scenario conveniently happens to day, cause their odds would be dramatically lower of getting that #1.

You literally have to be the worst team in the NBA to guarantee a top-5 pick, and that is a tall order. You need a horrible coach, a horrible roster on the front and back ends, tons of injuries, and essentially aggressively plan to be the worst team in the league with a series of talent dumps.

And then you have a measly 14% chance to get that #1 pick. If you happen to be the 4th or 5th worst, you have a similar shot at that top pick, but you can also slip all the way down to #6 or 7.

There is no evidence that 6-10 picks generate more superstars than the mid round. For like the 10th year in a row, the 11-20 guys are looking better than the 6-10. I don't know why this funny coincidence is the case, but it is. IMO, the reality is that development or raw talent is simply a much bigger piece of the pie than drafting on prep/college credentials.

The point is, Artunas is going to have to draft star talent outside the top-3. Plenty of GMs (even GarPax!) have proven to be able to do this, so it's not exactly asking for a miracle. I still think GarPax set a low bar with their picks. Everyone lost their minds about what great value Taj and Noah were, when the reality was that they and Thabo, JJ, Tyrus, Kirk, etc. were all 5th-option/role-player ceiling (regardless of how their careers panned out).

Planning to draft Cade Cunningham is simply not a strategy that works. Still chuckling to myself when I debated somebody who said (and I poorly quote): "We didn't just trade Jimmy for Zach, Dunn and #7. We traded him for next year's top-3 pick." Of course GarPax blew it by not shedding Niko and Lopez, but still - my point is you can't plan to get a top-3 pick. You couldn't then, and you especially can't now. Dallas tried their best to be the worst and they still had to trade up for Luka- and that's after two terrible GMs made terrible draft evaluations with the 1-2 picks.

And given Dallas was a total tank job, giving up an unprotected future pick is a big risk that somebody like Pax would not take.

[nomorezorro]

Does trading away your veterans count as tanking? I think if Chicago was able to move OPJ and Thad Young at the deadline, it would greatly impact the amount of games the Bulls win the remainder of the season. If OPJ and Young continue to play well, the Bulls will likely have some buyers at the deadline.

Is moving them the right thing to do? From an asset acquisition point of view, if they don’t project to be on the roster next season, getting value for them is definitely the ‘right’ thing to do. However, is moving the veterans detrimental to the development of the ‘core’ and the culture AK is trying to build?

i think the Tanking Purist would have had us dump whatever veterans we could before the season even started.

ultimately, you make a trade if you assess that the value a player brings back exceeds the value he's likely to add to the team. that means taking into consideration the team contention window and contracts. i think it's pretty easy to forecast a scenario where opj and thad carry more value to a contending team than they do to us, and i wouldn't consider it tanking if we shipped them out. (improving our lottery odds are just a pleasant byproduct.)

if we're in playoff contention around the trade deadline and still sell off, that'd probably sting for some people, but you gotta be decisive as an executive. i'm nominally "anti-tank," but i'd be happy with any trade that feels like fair value and makes sense for the future of the roster, even if it means sacrificing wins this season.

[RoseTheFuture22]

No it really doesn't work and there are so many more examples of it failing than succeeding:

Minnesota has picked #1 overall twice in the last 5 years and has had 6 other top 10 picks the last decade and they look set to miss the playoffs for the 15th time in 16 years.

Sacramento has had ten top 10 picks the last 12 years(including 5 in the top 5) and will probably miss the playoffs for the 15th straight year

Phoenix has had 6 top 10 picks in the last 8 years(including the number 1 overall and 3 other top 5 picks) and were probably headed for an even longer playoff drought if they didn't get Chris Paul.

But my favorite and probably the most blatant tank job of the last decade: Cleveland picks 1 & 4 in 2011 (Kyrie & Thompson), 4 in 2012 (Waiters), 1 in 2013(Bennett) and 1 in 2014(Wiggins). If LeBron doesn't bail that team out that core goes absolutely nowhere and you are probably looking at a 10 year + playoff drought or more because Kyrie probably still leaves.

The draft is way more of a crapshoot than people think aside from a few years where there is a generational player that goes 1. You have to nail the pick regardless of where you are. The vast majority of the core players on the contenders were either strong FA additions(Lakers, Clippers, Nets, even the Celtics w/ Kemba) or teams that drafted well outside the top 5 and made other smart moves (Raptors last 2 years, Heat, Bucks, Rockets, Nuggets, Pacers, Jaxx)