Tank World Order

[ReggieSlater]

Very questionable methodology, but I don't think anyone argues with the reasoning that...

A) Higher draft picks are more likely to be good
B) Good players are more likely to win championships

That is all the sources are saying. That is basically the entirety of the tanking mantra.

Where’s curious with regard to the methodology?

Just curious as to your thoughts.

It's basically a defense of tanking. If you looked at the correlation of drafting all-stars in the second round, and team success, specifically championships, you would find a very positive correlation. That doesn't mean you need to draft an all-star in the second round. Obviously better draft picks yield better players. And obviously better players yield better results on the court. No one is arguing this point. The incredulity that people don't understand this obvious fact by pro-tanking posters is pointless. It's a strawman. What others, including myself, are saying is there is more to winning than simply lottery picks.

If anyone cares, I'll make my own opinion known, which others may agree or disagree with, but I don't think the journey to a championship is nearly as simple as, better draft pick, better player, better team. I think there is such thing as all those terrible sports cliché's like "organic growth" and "winning mentality". If there wasn't, bad teams would get good, simply by being talented, which doesn't happen. I think proper management trumps everything else. A bad team that tanks is the Kings. Never gonna win. A good team that doesn't is the Spurs. There is a point where you have to evaluate your team, sure, and say this team isn't going anywhere. But that isn't 20 games into a season when we were a contending team the previous season, and two years away from a championship. This idea of number 1 or bust is silly. It's just not how sports are built. Thinking that The Raptors organization is built to tear it's own image down, and run it into the ground after years of success, simply because a better draft pick yields a better result is just not a constructive opinion. Furthermore, the idea of Number 1 or bust would have brought us to trade all our assets prior to the Kawhi trade, making that championship impossible, which objectively demonstrates that it is not universal.

[Pooh_Jeter]

Just reading through the past few days and TWO is all over the map.

Trading Kyle and Norm won't make the Raps a bottom 5 team. Some definitions of TWO still focus on that scenario (i.e. is that really 'tanking'?) and others focus on going scorched earth to make sure the team is legit bad for a few years.

The latter will never happen, not sure why it's even discussed.

The former, really comes down to what kind of deal you can get for Kyle. It has to be really good (eg. nice young piece and at least late lotto 1st), or it's not worth it given you're not going to dramatically increase your odds for one of those top picks.

I can't recall a single person advocating for a complete scorched earth rebuild. Do you have a link to anyone even advocating that?

In terms of a top 5 pick, it's more of a hope than a reality at this point. It's still possible, but obviously moves need to be made ASAP. Also, tanking can occur late in the season. Maybe you jump from 9th or 10th in odds down to 7th or 8th. A lot of teams have tanked for lottery positioning late in the season.

[MixxSRC]

Maybe TWO is not a monolith. People can have different opinions even if they think tank is good strategy.

[Steelo Green]

1. The bolded above is incorrect as we already proved trading for a star is possible. It may not be possible at this time, but that does not mean it won't be possible in the future.

2. We drafted Marcus Camby, Tracy McGrady and Vince Carter in 3 consecutive years with the #2, #9 and #4 picks. That is an exceptional haul via the draft. That team never reached the level of achievement that this iteration has (even if you remove Kawhi, which is a very heavy bias).

3. The draft is one way to build a contender and it should not be ruled out, but suggesting it is the only way is ignoring history.

1. None of those players were at Kawhi’s level, not sure what’s untrue about Kawhi being better than Vince but you changed what I said.

Also with regard to history I said it happened in the rarest fashion for us and isn’t really replicable. Just going by the numbers...

2. That team never reached the level because Camby said trade me, T-Mac right before he blew up said I don’t want to stay. This is changing history as though we had all of them in their primes and failed. 2 years of Camby and 3 of TMac and both out by the end of their rookie contracts isn’t really much of a discussion.

3. No one said it is the only way, we said it is historically the best way. Most titles throughout history are won through their draft pick or a player who chose their destiny. We are not a destination so the latter doesn’t apply. The way we won is the exception of the exceptions and to think it is replicable just because it happened to us (Kawhi for pennies on the dollar because he had a year off, us being the only team in on it, SA giving a FU to Kawhi and LA and sending him to Toronto for lesser assets) doesn’t make it the model you want to keep going after.

1. I didn't bold your comment (was already bolded by a previous quoter). I bolded and was referring to Tacoma's comment.

2. Camby never requested a trade. We traded him for Oakley to get a more experienced "win-now" guy. Many would say that it was a successful trade for both teams. I didn't change history, I simply pointed out that we drafted well and were not able to turn those assets into a true contender. TMac decided to leave, but so could any draft pick. This is a key point in why many teams are unable to build successfully through the draft. Many organizations are handicapped by location and that has an impact beyond free agency. This is probably the greatest argument against tanking. By the time you develop a true superstar he is often walking out the door.

3. Being the "best way" and the improbability of winning again via a trade for a star is your opinion. I prefer to look at facts.

1.Fair enough

2. Two things: You first said we had them, then you said well they left but it still didn’t work. You’re switching stances here.

We never had those three in their primes, so what is your point about Oakley? If we had them in their primes then you had a discussion but they were gone fairly early. Camby and his issues with Butch wanted him out. You can look up the defamation lawsuit.

The Raptors did just fine with their draft and hit, but with the bad coach player relationship, and then Toronto which has a history of stars leaving, though a lot better now (Kawhi was leaving no matter what).

You can’t compare those situations. We did great through the draft and a lot of bad management with the Toronto stigma broke it up.

3. Yes, the fact that historically most titles are won with the player the team drafts or a star dictating his future.

The factual numbers are in my arguments favour and by quite a substantial margin.

[MixxSRC]

Road to a championship doesn't end with tanking obviously. That's why I don't like when people say this team tanked but haven't won anything that means tanking is bad. Once you get that player who you can build around through the draft. That's it tanking's job is finished. After that you gotta have proper coaching, proper management and like with everything a little bit of luck. But you gotta do that initial first step because those other steps won't matter

[Pooh_Jeter]

It's basically a defense of tanking. If you looked at the correlation of drafting all-stars in the second round, and team success, specifically championships, you would find a very positive correlation. That doesn't mean you need to draft an all-star in the second round. Obviously better draft picks yield better players. And obviously better players yield better results on the court. No one is arguing this point. The incredulity that people don't understand this obvious fact by pro-tanking posters is pointless. It's a strawman. What others, including myself, are saying is there is more to winning than simply lottery picks.

If anyone cares, I'll make my own opinion known, which others may agree or disagree with, but I don't think the journey to a championship is nearly as simple as, better draft pick, better player, better team. I think there is such thing as all those terrible sports cliché's like "organic growth" and "winning mentality". If there wasn't, bad teams would get good, simply by being talented, which doesn't happen. I think proper management trumps everything else. A bad team that tanks is the Kings. Never gonna win. A good team that doesn't is the Spurs. There is a point where you have to evaluate your team, sure, and say this team isn't going anywhere. But that isn't 20 games into a season when we were a contending team the previous season, and two years away from a championship. This idea of number 1 or bust is silly. It's just not how sports are built. Thinking that The Raptors organization is built to tear it's own image down, and run it into the ground after years of success, simply because a better draft pick yields a better result is just not a constructive opinion. Furthermore, the idea of Number 1 or bust would have brought us to trade all our assets prior to the Kawhi trade, making that championship impossible, which objectively demonstrates that it is not universal.

As Mixx stated, tanking isn't the only methodology, much of the stuff you mentioned is inherent in order to create a successful organization.

This harkens back to your point about the Kings. It's one thing to be in a position to grab a talented player, it's another to choose the right player, develop them and have a management team that will build from that.

Since they drafted Tyreke (who flamed out of the NBA completely after a bright start) and Boogie in 2009 and 2010 these are their run of picks...

2011: Bismack Biyombo who was traded for Jimmer.
2012: Thomas Robinson
2013: Ben McLemore
2014: Nik Stauskus
2015: Willie Cauley-Stein
2016: Marquese Chriss
2017: De'Aaron Fox and Zach Collins (who they traded for Giles and Justin Jackson)
2018: Bagley over Luka and Gary Trent Jr. who they traded for two 2nd rounders.

That is one pick that has lived up to expectations. Not only have they made bad picks, their organization has been a mess. A terrible organization is going to remain a terrible organization regardless of where they draft.

[VanWest82]

If we had an incompetent front office I'd be more open to tanking. I was certainly more open to it when BC was running the show.

If we're tanking due to injury like Warriors just did then that's ok too.

From the standpoint of expected return, a top 5 pick is not worth trading away quality players at their relative low value point (i.e. directly after you've extended them). That overall loss in roster value >>> whatever you get from a top 5 pick unless it's Luka or Lebron. Multi-year tanking requires you to burn your culture to the ground which means you don't properly develop the players you do get which is why so many of these orgs struggle even though they get top 10 picks every year.

Also, good front office people don't stick around with losing orgs so picking the right players gets harder too.

[ATLTimekeeper]

There is a case of teams falling in love with their own draft picks, but it's also about scouting and development time. It doesn't make sense to trade a top 10 pick from 2019 for a top 10 pick this year unless they are a colossal failure in which case the other team obviously would have no interest.

You can pick other drafts. Only a handful each year end up being worth their range, so I just think that throws some water on accumulating those picks for asset value.

The Herro and even Maxey to a lesser degree examples could definitely bite them in the ass, but it also illustrates how valuable those pieces are. They were potential main pieces in a deal for a top 5 player in the league. It's why trading Lowry for say the 15th pick or whatever you get becomes extra valuable. I don't think anyone is advocating dealing him against his wishes, he would essentially choose where he wants to go. If he wanted to sign an extension and stay then you can do that, but there are no indications he is interested in that.

In the end, Harden went for a quasi-star, a hustle big (both flipped) and a crapload of future picks. If that's the direct comparison you're making, the Raptors could have competed.

This also ties into your thoughts on trading for a lotto pick. It's rare for a team to trade a lotto pick the year that pick is being made. When it does happen it's usually to move slightly down the draft and pick up extra assets. The 20th pick, Flynn and a future first aren't going to get you a top 5 pick. You're talking about moving Siakam, OG and/or FVV if you want to move up that high and it has to be to a team that is looking to win now. But, at that point aren't you just putting yourself in a rebuild anyways? This is what I'm talking about kicking the can down the road. Why not have your own top 5 pick then have the flexibility to add another one or just trade for players more in that timeline?

It doesn't have to be a top 5 pick, though. The Raptors were OKC falling in love with Steven Adams away from packaging a future first for Giannis, for example. And this type of move doesn't have to be made this year.

I mean, sure, but you have been talking about the probabilities of a draft pick being a bust, what is the probability of another Kawhi deal? Banking your future success on this hope seems ridiculous. Luck plays apart of anything, but you can't bank on it.

You can't bank on any of it. We're talking about threading a needle either way, so a lucky strike to me is 1) being bad in the right year and landing that LBJ-type 1A superstar 2) Being really good and then drafting a Kawhi-late, or trading for a Kawhi. If you're willing to accept that Tyler Herro can get you James Harden, then I would assume you can accept that playing for 8th and failing can get you James Harden.

[Danny1616]

If we had an incompetent front office I'd be more open to tanking. I was certainly more open to it when BC was running the show.

If we're tanking due to injury like Warriors just did then that's ok too.

From the standpoint of expected return, a top 5 pick is not worth trading away quality players at their relative low value point (i.e. directly after you've extended them). That overall loss in roster value >>> whatever you get from a top 5 pick unless it's Luka or Lebron. Multi-year tanking requires you to burn your culture to the ground which means you don't properly develop the players you do get which is why so many of these orgs struggle even though they get top 10 picks every year.

Also, good front office people don't stick around with losing orgs so picking the right players gets harder too.

Agreed.

Something the TWO can’t seem to understand and we waste time talking in circles for an entire thread.

[Danny1616]

There is a case of teams falling in love with their own draft picks, but it's also about scouting and development time. It doesn't make sense to trade a top 10 pick from 2019 for a top 10 pick this year unless they are a colossal failure in which case the other team obviously would have no interest.

You can pick other drafts. Only a handful each year end up being worth their range, so I just think that throws some water on accumulating those picks for asset value.

The Herro and even Maxey to a lesser degree examples could definitely bite them in the ass, but it also illustrates how valuable those pieces are. They were potential main pieces in a deal for a top 5 player in the league. It's why trading Lowry for say the 15th pick or whatever you get becomes extra valuable. I don't think anyone is advocating dealing him against his wishes, he would essentially choose where he wants to go. If he wanted to sign an extension and stay then you can do that, but there are no indications he is interested in that.

In the end, Harden went for a quasi-star, a hustle big (both flipped) and a crapload of future picks. If that's the direct comparison you're making, the Raptors could have competed.

This also ties into your thoughts on trading for a lotto pick. It's rare for a team to trade a lotto pick the year that pick is being made. When it does happen it's usually to move slightly down the draft and pick up extra assets. The 20th pick, Flynn and a future first aren't going to get you a top 5 pick. You're talking about moving Siakam, OG and/or FVV if you want to move up that high and it has to be to a team that is looking to win now. But, at that point aren't you just putting yourself in a rebuild anyways? This is what I'm talking about kicking the can down the road. Why not have your own top 5 pick then have the flexibility to add another one or just trade for players more in that timeline?

It doesn't have to be a top 5 pick, though. The Raptors were OKC falling in love with Steven Adams away from packaging a future first for Giannis, for example. And this type of move doesn't have to be made this year.

I mean, sure, but you have been talking about the probabilities of a draft pick being a bust, what is the probability of another Kawhi deal? Banking your future success on this hope seems ridiculous. Luck plays apart of anything, but you can't bank on it.

You can't bank on any of it. We're talking about threading a needle either way, so a lucky strike to me is 1) being bad in the right year and landing that LBJ-type 1A superstar 2) Being really good and then drafting a Kawhi-late, or trading for a Kawhi. If you're willing to accept that Tyler Herro can get you James Harden, then I would assume you can accept that playing for 8th and failing can get you James Harden.

Well said.

[Pooh_Jeter]

If we had an incompetent front office I'd be more open to tanking. I was certainly more open to it when BC was running the show.

If we're tanking due to injury like Warriors just did then that's ok too.

From the standpoint of expected return, a top 5 pick is not worth trading away quality players at their relative low value point (i.e. directly after you've extended them). That overall loss in roster value >>> whatever you get from a top 5 pick unless it's Luka or Lebron. Multi-year tanking requires you to burn your culture to the ground which means you don't properly develop the players you do get which is why so many of these orgs struggle even though they get top 10 picks every year.

Also, good front office people don't stick around with losing orgs so picking the right players gets harder too.

If you have an incompetent front office that is where you end up in a situation where you are the Kings or TWolves and are bad for 10+ years.

Tanking/rebuilding is a directive from management/ownership so they would be at forefront of that decision.

The Raptors are a winning organization and Masai looks like he is on his way out and Bobby still hasn't signed an extension.

[MixxSRC]

If we had an incompetent front office I'd be more open to tanking. I was certainly more open to it when BC was running the show.

If we're tanking due to injury like Warriors just did then that's ok too.

From the standpoint of expected return, a top 5 pick is not worth trading away quality players at their relative low value point (i.e. directly after you've extended them). That overall loss in roster value >>> whatever you get from a top 5 pick unless it's Luka or Lebron. Multi-year tanking requires you to burn your culture to the ground which means you don't properly develop the players you do get which is why so many of these orgs struggle even though they get top 10 picks every year.

Also, good front office people don't stick around with losing orgs so picking the right players gets harder too.

Again. Most people want to trade Lowry (aging point guard who is free agent next year) and Powell (inconsistent bench level player). Only few people are talking about trading guys who we just extended (OG, FVV and Siakam)

[MixxSRC]

And spare me this team is still too good to tank with Siakam, FVV and OG. For all the **** Beal gets. He's averaging elite numbers on great efficiency and opposing defences are keyed on him. Siakam is averaging 18 on EFG% of 47 and 51% TS. That aint' good. FVV is averaged 53% TS and 19 points. That's putrid. If they weren't on Raps you all would be ripping on them. Just loss of Ibaka and Gasol affected this team this much. Imagine how much loss of Lowry would.

[VanWest82]

Again. Most people want to trade Lowry (aging point guard who is free agent next year) and Powell (inconsistent bench level player). Only few people are talking about trading guys who we just extended (OG, FVV and Siakam)

I'm highly dubious that we'd get much value for Lowry or Norm even though I like both as players. You have to be realistic about their contract status. In Lowry's case specifically, I think it's much more likely he gets bought out if it comes to that. I might rather keep Norm and re-sign him on a team friendly deal over the cap if that happens.

If you're not trading OG, FVV, or PS then it isn't tanking. Bet we'd still make the playoffs even if we did lose one of Norm/Kyle.

[ATLTimekeeper]

Again. Most people want to trade Lowry (aging point guard who is free agent next year) and Powell (inconsistent bench level player). Only few people are talking about trading guys who we just extended (OG, FVV and Siakam)

I'm highly dubious that we'd get much value for Lowry or Norm even though I like both as players. You have to be realistic about their contract status. In Lowry's case specifically, I think it's much more likely he gets bought out if it comes to that. I might rather keep Norm and re-sign him on a team friendly deal over the cap if that happens.

If you're not trading OG, FVV, or PS then it isn't tanking. Bet we'd still make the playoffs even if we did lose one of Norm/Kyle.

I think it's likely a buyout so he can go to LAC or Philly, where he has connections and there's a starting role waiting for him to ring chase. He may also want to stay. Once you're a buyout guy it's hard to make money on the open market.

[ReggieSlater]

Road to a championship doesn't end with tanking obviously. That's why I don't like when people say this team tanked but haven't won anything that means tanking is bad. Once you get that player who you can build around through the draft. That's it tanking's job is finished. After that you gotta have proper coaching, proper management and like with everything a little bit of luck. But you gotta do that initial first step because those other steps won't matter

But we didn't do those initial steps and we won.

[VanWest82]

Again. Most people want to trade Lowry (aging point guard who is free agent next year) and Powell (inconsistent bench level player). Only few people are talking about trading guys who we just extended (OG, FVV and Siakam)

I'm highly dubious that we'd get much value for Lowry or Norm even though I like both as players. You have to be realistic about their contract status. In Lowry's case specifically, I think it's much more likely he gets bought out if it comes to that. I might rather keep Norm and re-sign him on a team friendly deal over the cap if that happens.

If you're not trading OG, FVV, or PS then it isn't tanking. Bet we'd still make the playoffs even if we did lose one of Norm/Kyle.

I think it's likely a buyout so he can go to LAC or Philly, where he has connections and there's a starting role waiting for him to ring chase. He may also want to stay. Once you're a buyout guy it's hard to make money on the open market.

Makes sense. Lebron would surely call him too. I still think Raps will turn it around and make the playoffs and all this will get sorted out next summer, but maybe I'm giving Siakam a little too much credit. He's pretty shook (and now injured).

[Steelo Green]

Road to a championship doesn't end with tanking obviously. That's why I don't like when people say this team tanked but haven't won anything that means tanking is bad. Once you get that player who you can build around through the draft. That's it tanking's job is finished. After that you gotta have proper coaching, proper management and like with everything a little bit of luck. But you gotta do that initial first step because those other steps won't matter

But we didn't do those initial steps and we won.

How did we win exactly?

It is pretty important to look at how we won a title in the history of the NBA and how many times it has been done like that, and which method is the most prevalent method throughout the leagues history.

[MixxSRC]

Road to a championship doesn't end with tanking obviously. That's why I don't like when people say this team tanked but haven't won anything that means tanking is bad. Once you get that player who you can build around through the draft. That's it tanking's job is finished. After that you gotta have proper coaching, proper management and like with everything a little bit of luck. But you gotta do that initial first step because those other steps won't matter

But we didn't do those initial steps and we won.

And now that core is gone and we're rebuilding again and with the way this season started and the way our core guys are performing it's better to tank now.

[MixxSRC]

Road to a championship doesn't end with tanking obviously. That's why I don't like when people say this team tanked but haven't won anything that means tanking is bad. Once you get that player who you can build around through the draft. That's it tanking's job is finished. After that you gotta have proper coaching, proper management and like with everything a little bit of luck. But you gotta do that initial first step because those other steps won't matter

But we didn't do those initial steps and we won.

How did we win exactly?

It is pretty important to look at how we won a title in the history of the NBA and how many times it has been done like that, and which method is the most prevalent method throughout the leagues history.

And let's be real. Masai build a contender that lasted what 1 year? maybe 2 years if you wanna count last year (i think it's a stretch to say they were real contender) and is that good enough? Years of building just so you can contend for a year? We want to build a lasting thing here. And when you draft a superstar you control that asset for a long time.