Tank World Order

[Pooh_Jeter]

So let's go with scenario of waiting on another star...

Currently, this team is in a position where it doesn't have excess assets to deal for a star. The only deal involves trading one or more of the "core" guys and a boatload of draft picks so realistically you couldn't build a team around them.

Ok, let's wait on that trade and build up some assets! Here is the problem, Lowry and likely Norm are gone next year. The clock on FVV and Siakam begins to count down so you HAVE to get that deal for a star done within 2 years unless you plan on re-signing Siakam and FVV well into their 30s and get this new star an extension. Boucher is likely gone next off-season.

Basically, you have to rebuild your asset base in what, one off-season? Even if you want to say the Raptors could literally draft another Siakam/OG and sign another FVV, it took until their 3rd seasons with the team until they were legitimate difference makers. Also, aren't you going to be trading these guys for that supposed star anyways?

According to these same people the tank is done so it's going to be a later pick this year and if they even want to deal Norm/Lowry it's going to be for either peanuts or bad salary. The FA market is Oladipo or a max offer sheet to Collins/Allen. The chances of getting anyone of note is slim to none.

Where is the avenue to get this all done in 1 or 2 years? If it's going to be 3, 4 or 5 years why aren't you just doing a proper rebuild and having a young, controllable roster with plenty of extra assets available to build for years around a potential star? This team is mediocre as constructed, do you really think being in the play in game is building some sort of "winning culture" that will magically entice players to come here?

[ReggieSlater]

Do you see what kind of haul Harden trade got? Kawhi trade was a steal. Odds of that kind of trade happening again are indeed slim.

Free agents will not sign here is not a scare tactic. It's just reality. Many teams have that problem. Raptors are not special.

2018 Tankers: This team can't win a championship. We can't trade for a superstar. We have no path to victory.

2021 Tankers: This team can't win a championship. We can't trade for another superstar We have no path to victory.

If you say so.

Pro Treadmillers: Looking at 2018 roster and Looking at 2021 roster.

I'm only looking at the validity of the arguments, and they are all the same. Everything being said about the roster composition was being said in 2017-2018 and earlier. You say it's different now, without acknowledging you were wrong about the same argument in the past. It was said that it couldn't be done, then it was, then it was said it couldn't be done again. Ok, I suppose it's unlikely, but I don't care. Tanking can't have been more wrong and for all its well founded points would have cost us the greatest moment in franchise history, so I don't really care about how you've now moved the goalposts to make this team different with the exact same arguments that were wrong then.

[MixxSRC]

2018 Tankers: This team can't win a championship. We can't trade for a superstar. We have no path to victory.

2021 Tankers: This team can't win a championship. We can't trade for another superstar We have no path to victory.

If you say so.

Pro Treadmillers: Looking at 2018 roster and Looking at 2021 roster.

I'm only looking at the validity of the arguments, and they are all the same. Everything being said about the roster composition was being said in 2017-2018 and earlier. You say it's different now, without acknowledging you were wrong about the same argument in the past. It was said that it couldn't be done, then it was, then it was said it couldn't be done again. Ok, I suppose it's unlikely, but I don't care. Tanking can't have been more wrong and for all its well founded points would have cost us the greatest moment in franchise history, so I don't really care about how you've now moved the goalposts to make this team different with the exact same arguments that were wrong then.

Ok then man. We will just agree to disagree. I'm tired.

[Anticon]

So let's go with scenario of waiting on another star...

Currently, this team is in a position where it doesn't have excess assets to deal for a star. The only deal involves trading one or more of the "core" guys and a boatload of draft picks so realistically you couldn't build a team around them.

Ok, let's wait on that trade and build up some assets! Here is the problem, Lowry and likely Norm are gone next year. The clock on FVV and Siakam begins to count down so you HAVE to get that deal for a star done within 2 years unless you plan on re-signing Siakam and FVV well into their 30s and get this new star an extension. Boucher is likely gone next off-season.

Basically, you have to rebuild your asset base in what, one off-season? Even if you want to say the Raptors could literally draft another Siakam/OG and sign another FVV, it took until their 3rd seasons with the team until they were legitimate difference makers. Also, aren't you going to be trading these guys for that supposed star anyways?

According to these same people the tank is done so it's going to be a later pick this year and if they even want to deal Norm/Lowry it's going to be for either peanuts or bad salary. The FA market is Oladipo or a max offer sheet to Collins/Allen. The chances of getting anyone of note is slim to none.

Where is the avenue to get this all done in 1 or 2 years? If it's going to be 3, 4 or 5 years why aren't you just doing a proper rebuild and having a young, controllable roster with plenty of extra assets available to build for years around a potential star? This team is mediocre as constructed, do you really think being in the play in game is building some sort of "winning culture" that will magically entice players to come here?

I think an emerging option as all trends seem to be towards competing are to sign a less in demand player like Oladipo next offseason and see where that gets you. They may not see this team's core as capable of contention so they may be trying to simply have a good team for the next two or three years.

The only upside I can see is that injuries/growing pains may call this team this year, which could provide the chance for a top 10 pick. Right now we would be picking 7th so we're still in a decent spot for that.

A top ten pick plus Oladipo isn't going to get you back the finals but would be an ok outcome in terms of just improving the team.

[Pooh_Jeter]

In a hypothetical scenario where the Raptors tanked in 2013 how can you say it was definitively the wrong path?

There are scenarios ranging from complete disaster to the Raptors are in the midst of a dynasty.

The Kawhi trade and ensuing championship in itself wasn't exactly a common outcome, so you can't disregard every other potential scenario.

You can be happy with how things turned out even though Kawhi left after one season, but it doesn't magically mean it was the only scenario possible where the Raptors won anything or were successful. That is asinine and you simply can't definitively say what would have actually happened.

The championship is great, but it's not even the best case scenario either so you can't be lazy and tell me "We won a championship so nothing else matters."

[Pooh_Jeter]

I think an emerging option as all trends seem to be towards competing are to sign a less in demand player like Oladipo next offseason and see where that gets you. They may not see this team's core as capable of contention so they may be trying to simply have a good team for the next two or three years.

The only upside I can see is that injuries/growing pains may call this team this year, which could provide the chance for a top 10 pick. Right now we would be picking 7th so we're still in a decent spot for that.

A top ten pick plus Oladipo isn't going to get you back the finals but would be an ok outcome in terms of just improving the team.

The problem is that Oladipo isn't a less in demand player though. He will be the #1 target in FA for any team looking to make a splash.

I think it's possible the Raptors end up with a top 10 pick, but unless there are a couple moves made it looks more likely that picks lands somewhere between 15-20 than top 10.

Oladipo and a top 10 pick would be a solid start though, but then you still have to hit on a trade for a star (probably including that pick) and you're banking on a guy with a chronic injury who is probably a tier 3 star at his best.

[ReggieSlater]

A lot of assertions I never made, but I generalized too so I'll over look them and clarify.

I never said it was the only possible scenario, and I freely acknowledge it was very unlikely, but tWo was adamant it was not possible. Incremental gains do happen. Mediocre teams become very good teams (that happened to us leading up to 2017 season). And very good teams can become great teams (that happened to us in 2018 with Kawhi). What I staunchly object to is when posters cheer losses and more so, deride people from gaining pleasure in the teams success, simply because they think they've resolved an intellectual equation for the teams success. All I'm saying is, it can't be certain, because a scenario occurred that contradicted it. There's a time and place to rebuild, retool, tank, sure, but to say the only way this team can go forward is to tear it down? I disagree, and I happen to be supported by a situation in our very recent history, however unlikely it might have been.

[KrazyP]

"Teams that tanked less San Antonio" who drafted Tim Duncan in 90s and Mavs who drafted Dirk. But again you guys cut off 90s because they stayed in college longer. But let's ignore that McGrady was highschooler and Garnett as well. And using Mavs as example of team who tank less? Their current success is because of tanking for Luka and Cuban admitted to tanking before.

That post has many problems
Badly run franchises are bad for long time. Idea that their problem is tanking is hilarious. I'm pretty if they tried to treadmill they wouldn't find much success.

If you can't recognize there is a major difference in the makeup of 90s drafts vs drafts today - you have major critical thinking issues.

Also, if you look at the big picture rather than fixating on individual cases you would realize over the course of the last 20years, tanking has been more likely to result in more tanking/treadmill than championships.

I feel like I need to re-iterate for emphasis. The average player selected in the top from 2000-2018 roughly = Norman Powell. The average player selected in the top 5 roughly = Fred VanVleet.

Tanksters constantly reference Duncan, Doncics and Garnetts of the world but fail to recognize these players are rare....maybe an average of only 1 in every 2 drafts. In order to land such a player you have to:

#1 completely gut your team to be bad enough to land a top pick
#2 ensure that your draft features such a player (no guarantees here)
#3 ensure that your scouting department knows which player is the right guy to pick (not easy when your drafting 19-20 yr olds)
#4 ensure that the teams that draft in front of you dont draft the player in question.

The probability of all 4 things above working out is probably <5% regardless of how hard you try or how amazing your management team is.

Ujiri/Webster/Nurse are all critical thinkers. Theres a good possibility Lowry gets traded for a younger asset. There is a good possibility that the team rests certain players towards the end of the season if the Raps are completely out of the playoff picture. It is highly unlikely that Ujiri/Webster/Nurse start a flat out tank job to purposely lose as much games as possible for the highest pick possible. Critical thinkers wouldn't employ such strategies given the Raps current situation. The management team will be comfortable building incremently regardless of where their pick ends up. Thats what strong management teams do.

[Pooh_Jeter]

A lot of assertions I never made, but I generalized too so I'll over look them and clarify.

I never said it was the only possible scenario, and I freely acknowledge it was very unlikely, but tWo was adamant it was not possible. Incremental gains do happen. Mediocre teams become very good teams (that happened to us leading up to 2017 season). And very good teams can become great teams (that happened to us in 2018 with Kawhi). What I staunchly object to is when posters cheer losses and more so, deride people from gaining pleasure in the teams success, simply because they think they've resolved an intellectual equation for the teams success. All I'm saying is, it can't be certain, because a scenario occurred that contradicted it. There's a time and place to rebuild, retool, tank, sure, but to say the only way this team can go forward is to tear it down? I disagree, and I happen to be supported by a situation in our very recent history, however unlikely it might have been.

I don't think anyone is saying a tank is the ONLY option that leads to sustained success. What we are saying is that is it the best option.

No scenario is guaranteed. Relying on an extremely unlikely event to happen twice in the span of 5 years seems implausible at best.

The main issue here is really that some peoples pride doesn't allow them to cheer for losses and they outright get offended if other users do. I get it, you want your team to win, but for TWO it's a long term outlook. Short term pain, for long term gain. If you aren't down for that, cool. Just don't come into this thread espousing all these theories and ideas when the reality is that you just don't like people cheering for losses and you want to personally cheer for a winning team. Be honest.

[MixxSRC]

"Teams that tanked less San Antonio" who drafted Tim Duncan in 90s and Mavs who drafted Dirk. But again you guys cut off 90s because they stayed in college longer. But let's ignore that McGrady was highschooler and Garnett as well. And using Mavs as example of team who tank less? Their current success is because of tanking for Luka and Cuban admitted to tanking before.

That post has many problems
Badly run franchises are bad for long time. Idea that their problem is tanking is hilarious. I'm pretty if they tried to treadmill they wouldn't find much success.

If you can't recognize there is a major difference in the makeup of 90s drafts vs drafts today - you have major critical thinking issues.

I feel like I need to re-iterate for emphasis. The average player selected in the top from 2000-2018 roughly = Norman Powell. The average player selected in the top 5 roughly = Fred VanVleet.

Tanksters constantly reference Duncan, Doncics and Garnetts of the world but fail to recognize these players are rare....maybe an average of only 1 in every 2 drafts. In order to land such a player you have to:

#1 completely gut your team to be bad enough to land a top pick
#2 ensure that your draft features such a player (no guarantees here)
#3 ensure that your scouting department knows which player is the right guy to pick (not easy when your drafting 19-20 yr olds)
#4 ensure that the teams that draft in front of you dont draft the player in question.

The probability of all 4 things above working out is probably <5% regardless of how hard you try or how amazing your management team is.

We are all aware of odds. The fact is those odds get WORSE in every other situation. Deeper you go into the draft the worse the odds. So if it's hard to get Duncan level player in lottery it's nearly impossible to get it later in the draft.

You said that teams that tanked less in 2000-2018 had better run. Compeletely ignoring that San Antonio had Duncan. That's why I was saying you can't ignore the 90s. Whatever you think of make up of drafts. So you saying San Antonio didn't tank from 2000 to 2018 is the reason why they were successful is hiding a big part of that picture.

Also, if you look at the big picture rather than fixating on individual cases you would realize over the course of the last 20years, tanking has been more likely to result in more tanking/treadmill than championships.

Goal of tanking is to grab an impact player. A player who can be potentially a star. After draft is over a whole different set of processes start on a road to build a championships. So if you get a star player in draft tank was successful. After that it has nothing to do with tank.
KD left OKC not because Supersonics tanked in 2007. Lebron didn't leave Cavs first time because Cavs tanked to get him. Same with AD. They left because they failed to build around him.

[ATLTimekeeper]

Do you see what kind of haul Harden trade got? Kawhi trade was a steal. Odds of that kind of trade happening again are indeed slim.

Free agents will not sign here is not a scare tactic. It's just reality. Many teams have that problem. Raptors are not special.

Harden was traded for picks. Houston didn't want their players at all. Anyone can offer future picks.

Many teams also don't draft an MVP when they tank. This is also a reality. It's not a scare tactic. Teams that build this way tend not to win titles, either. So, you can either root for Ls and ping pong balls, or you can root for Ws and some other lucky breaks. I know which of more fun. At worst, I'm disappointed and then I can root for ping pong balls.

You see...all that argument and all you had to say that you just want "more fun"

Nothing to do with strategy or how most effectively build a team. You guys want your short term fun and I want vision for the future.

Nope. The long term strategy is the same as yours, get an MVP player. We just fundamentally disagree on the best way for a franchise to go about doing that that will lead to a title contender. My way is more fun and uncertain to work, your way is less fun and also uncertain to work. My way's back-up plan is your way, but it has just as good odds of working out as your plan. Your plan's back-up is either nothing or my plan. I've accepted my low odds, you haven't accepted yours.

[ReggieSlater]

I guess you're right. It's my damn pride that won't let me admit I was wrong in 2017 when I was advocating a path that would prevent this team from winning.

[Steelo Green]

"Teams that tanked less San Antonio" who drafted Tim Duncan in 90s and Mavs who drafted Dirk. But again you guys cut off 90s because they stayed in college longer. But let's ignore that McGrady was highschooler and Garnett as well. And using Mavs as example of team who tank less? Their current success is because of tanking for Luka and Cuban admitted to tanking before.

That post has many problems
Badly run franchises are bad for long time. Idea that their problem is tanking is hilarious. I'm pretty if they tried to treadmill they wouldn't find much success.

If you can't recognize there is a major difference in the makeup of 90s drafts vs drafts today - you have major critical thinking issues.

Also, if you look at the big picture rather than fixating on individual cases you would realize over the course of the last 20years, tanking has been more likely to result in more tanking/treadmill than championships.

I feel like I need to re-iterate for emphasis. The average player selected in the top from 2000-2018 roughly = Norman Powell. The average player selected in the top 5 roughly = Fred VanVleet.

Tanksters constantly reference Duncan, Doncics and Garnetts of the world but fail to recognize these players are rare....maybe an average of only 1 in every 2 drafts. In order to land such a player you have to:

#1 completely gut your team to be bad enough to land a top pick
#2 ensure that your draft features such a player (no guarantees here)
#3 ensure that your scouting department knows which player is the right guy to pick (not easy when your drafting 19-20 yr olds)
#4 ensure that the teams that draft in front of you dont draft the player in question.

The probability of all 4 things above working out is probably <5% regardless of how hard you try or how amazing your management team is.

Ujiri/Webster/Nurse are all critical thinkers. Theres a good possibility Lowry gets traded for a younger asset. There is a good possibility that the team rests certain players towards the end of the season if the Raps are completely out of the playoff picture. It is highly unlikely that Ujiri/Webster/Nurse start a flat out tank job to purposely lose as much games as possible for the highest pick possible. Critical thinkers don't employ such strategies. The Raps will be comfortable building incremently regardless of where there pick ends up.

Few things - that poster was responding to this consistent lack of truth being told about first overall picks and not winning titles.

Mostly the people arguing the other side keep bringing up this untrue statement about the titles won in the 90s because all of the titles won in the 90s were won by players drafted in the 80s. This is a response to the people on the other end saying falsehoods and just clarifying.

I’m sorry but Fred is not a top 5 player in a draft.

He’s not even a top 5 pick in his own draft, he’s arguably around 10 and even then it’s a bad way to look at it because even if he was 5, who are the other 4 guys in the average draft? Superstars and consistent all-stars.

I think when people put the percentages of this or that happening and then somehow think what we did in acquiring Kawhi is somehow a high level change is confusing. A trade like Kawhi’s, I don’t need to take a guess, will never happen again for that level of value and under those extremely specific and rare circumstances.

Incrementally building is overrated. The Hawks made the playoffs ten seasons through that strategy and it got them no where.

The reality is, had a Kawhi not come along and broke what was just a mediocre run of no true contender, we would just have been the Hawks.

It’s the sad realty no one wants to accept.

And now this team post Kawhi and an aging Kyle looks worse than pre Kawhi and the record is starting to show it.

[ATLTimekeeper]

A lot of assertions I never made, but I generalized too so I'll over look them and clarify.

I never said it was the only possible scenario, and I freely acknowledge it was very unlikely, but tWo was adamant it was not possible. Incremental gains do happen. Mediocre teams become very good teams (that happened to us leading up to 2017 season). And very good teams can become great teams (that happened to us in 2018 with Kawhi). What I staunchly object to is when posters cheer losses and more so, deride people from gaining pleasure in the teams success, simply because they think they've resolved an intellectual equation for the teams success. All I'm saying is, it can't be certain, because a scenario occurred that contradicted it. There's a time and place to rebuild, retool, tank, sure, but to say the only way this team can go forward is to tear it down? I disagree, and I happen to be supported by a situation in our very recent history, however unlikely it might have been.

I don't think anyone is saying a tank is the ONLY option that leads to sustained success. What we are saying is that is it the best option.

No scenario is guaranteed. Relying on an extremely unlikely event to happen twice in the span of 5 years seems implausible at best.

The main issue here is really that some peoples pride doesn't allow them to cheer for losses and they outright get offended if other users do. I get it, you want your team to win, but for TWO it's a long term outlook. Short term pain, for long term gain. If you aren't down for that, cool. Just don't come into this thread espousing all these theories and ideas when the reality is that you just don't like people cheering for losses and you want to personally cheer for a winning team. Be honest.

So if no scenario is guaranteed why is pain short term? This is already a critically flawed attack.

[Pooh_Jeter]

A lot of assertions I never made, but I generalized too so I'll over look them and clarify.

I never said it was the only possible scenario, and I freely acknowledge it was very unlikely, but tWo was adamant it was not possible. Incremental gains do happen. Mediocre teams become very good teams (that happened to us leading up to 2017 season). And very good teams can become great teams (that happened to us in 2018 with Kawhi). What I staunchly object to is when posters cheer losses and more so, deride people from gaining pleasure in the teams success, simply because they think they've resolved an intellectual equation for the teams success. All I'm saying is, it can't be certain, because a scenario occurred that contradicted it. There's a time and place to rebuild, retool, tank, sure, but to say the only way this team can go forward is to tear it down? I disagree, and I happen to be supported by a situation in our very recent history, however unlikely it might have been.

I don't think anyone is saying a tank is the ONLY option that leads to sustained success. What we are saying is that is it the best option.

No scenario is guaranteed. Relying on an extremely unlikely event to happen twice in the span of 5 years seems implausible at best.

The main issue here is really that some peoples pride doesn't allow them to cheer for losses and they outright get offended if other users do. I get it, you want your team to win, but for TWO it's a long term outlook. Short term pain, for long term gain. If you aren't down for that, cool. Just don't come into this thread espousing all these theories and ideas when the reality is that you just don't like people cheering for losses and you want to personally cheer for a winning team. Be honest.

So if no scenario is guaranteed why is pain short term? This is already a critically flawed attack.

???

Because I'm not clairvoyant or a psychic and neither is any NBA GM or poster on here.

It's all about probabilities. TWO believes building through the draft is the most probable way to get a star. You believe another Kawhi trade happening is the most probable way.

I think it's pretty clear which scenario is more likely, but you don't. Therein lies the problem.

[ReggieSlater]

I don't think anyone is saying a tank is the ONLY option that leads to sustained success. What we are saying is that is it the best option.

No scenario is guaranteed. Relying on an extremely unlikely event to happen twice in the span of 5 years seems implausible at best.

The main issue here is really that some peoples pride doesn't allow them to cheer for losses and they outright get offended if other users do. I get it, you want your team to win, but for TWO it's a long term outlook. Short term pain, for long term gain. If you aren't down for that, cool. Just don't come into this thread espousing all these theories and ideas when the reality is that you just don't like people cheering for losses and you want to personally cheer for a winning team. Be honest.

So if no scenario is guaranteed why is pain short term? This is already a critically flawed attack.

???

Because I'm not clairvoyant or a psychic and neither is any NBA GM or poster on here.

It's all about probabilities. TWO believes building through the draft is the most probable way to get a star. You believe another Kawhi trade happening is the most probable way.

I think it's pretty clear which scenario is more likely, but you don't. Therein lies the problem.

If that is how you see it, I think the problem is indeed pretty clear,. You have a very simple model for team success. One where winning is only implied through talent, and where competing theories are fundamentally misunderstood.

[ATLTimekeeper]

I don't think anyone is saying a tank is the ONLY option that leads to sustained success. What we are saying is that is it the best option.

No scenario is guaranteed. Relying on an extremely unlikely event to happen twice in the span of 5 years seems implausible at best.

The main issue here is really that some peoples pride doesn't allow them to cheer for losses and they outright get offended if other users do. I get it, you want your team to win, but for TWO it's a long term outlook. Short term pain, for long term gain. If you aren't down for that, cool. Just don't come into this thread espousing all these theories and ideas when the reality is that you just don't like people cheering for losses and you want to personally cheer for a winning team. Be honest.

So if no scenario is guaranteed why is pain short term? This is already a critically flawed attack.

???

Because I'm not clairvoyant or a psychic and neither is any NBA GM or poster on here.

It's all about probabilities. TWO believes building through the draft is the most probable way to get a star. You believe another Kawhi trade happening is the most probable way.

I think it's pretty clear which scenario is more likely, but you don't. Therein lies the problem.

You can't argue that someone's unwilling to accept short-term pain, because those aren't the terms. It's short term pain for crappy odds at another Kawhi. That's the problem. I'm fine with most of the insulting accusations, direct or indirect, but I think it's misleading to characterize it as short-term thinking or prideful.

[ReggieSlater]

You can't argue that someone's unwilling to accept short-term pain, because those aren't the terms. It's short term pain for crappy odds at another Kawhi. That's the problem. I'm fine with most of the insulting accusations, direct or indirect, but I think it's misleading to characterize it as short-term thinking or prideful.

Well said, and to the point I've made a few times, those being prideful and unwilling to accept "short-term pain" for the good of the team, were actually the ones that supported a model that succeeded in a Championship. Here we are again, and the same accusations are being made.

[MixxSRC]

You can't argue that someone's unwilling to accept short-term pain, because those aren't the terms. It's short term pain for crappy odds at another Kawhi. That's the problem. I'm fine with most of the insulting accusations, direct or indirect, but I think it's misleading to characterize it as short-term thinking or prideful.

Well said, and to the point I've made a few times, those being prideful and unwilling to accept "short-term pain" for the good of the team, were actually the ones that supported a model that succeeded in a Championship. Here we are again, and the same accusations are being made.

You know that we had a bunch of assets that we got in draft too right? Derozan was drafted 9th, Ross was 8th and JV was 5th. All those assets were used to acquire talent.

[KrazyP]

We are all aware of odds. The fact is those odds get WORSE in every other situation. Deeper you go into the draft the worse the odds. So if it's hard to get Duncan level player in lottery it's nearly impossible to get it later in the draft.

You said that teams that tanked less in 2000-2018 had better run. Compeletely ignoring that San Antonio had Duncan. That's why I was saying you can't ignore the 90s. Whatever you think of make up of drafts. So you saying San Antonio didn't tank from 2000 to 2018 is the reason why they were successful is hiding a big part of that picture.

Goal of tanking is to grab an impact player. A player who can be potentially a star. After draft is over a whole different set of processes start on a road to build a championships. So if you get a star player in draft tank was successful. After that it has nothing to do with tank.
KD left OKC not because Supersonics tanked in 2007. Lebron didn't leave Cavs first time because Cavs tanked to get him. Same with AD. They left because they failed to build around him.

Again you keep fixating on individual cases like Duncan, Lebron, Durant while completely ignoring the big picture and actual probabilities. If your goal is to get a franchise changing player like this.....you could easily tank for 3 years and not land such a player regardless of how good your scouting is. Its all a wild gamble....your line of reasoning is why so many tankster teams end up in a continous cycle of tanking.