PDA

View Full Version : Tanking - teams decide it's a good decision



joedaheights
05-26-2016, 01:25 PM
That's why at any given time, you see a lot of teams doing it.

So, why? I have my reason but what are yours?

Hawkeye15
05-26-2016, 01:32 PM
They tank because being mediocre is the kiss of death, and there is no penalty for tanking. Revenue sharing is there for any team that might lose a lot of fanbase money, and as long as they don't do it under the line long, they probably don't risk being dumped.

In reality, you either want to be a contender, or really suck, so you can try and land high picks that can help turn you around..

PhillyFaninLA
05-26-2016, 01:40 PM
That's why at any given time, you see a lot of teams doing it.

So, why? I have my reason but what are yours?

If you are a team that goes between 6 - 8 seed to missing the playoffs every year they have to ask, do they have the talent that can develop into something on that next level, if not you are pretty much stuck. You can either stay there indefinitely or take a chance and go for the star.

In the NBA you have the guy and build around him or you don't. Truth is, not many teams can do what the Warriors have done. They got lucky, when they got rid of Monta and Curry was not the better player at that time and built a strong and deep team around him and once Curry developed and blossomed they Warriors become the exception.

I'd rather see a team honestly tank then try and hover around a place of hopelessness.

IndyRealist
05-26-2016, 02:28 PM
Very few teams really tank. Some are just bad, or have poor management making bad decisions.

The "treadmill of mediocrity", coined by Kevin Pritchard while in Portland, is a completely unproven notion. In the lottery era top 3 picks, which are the goal of tanking, don't lead the team that drafts them to a championship unless you're the Spurs. I looked at the history when Lebron went back to Cleveland. The list was like David Robinson, Sean Elliott and Tim Duncan (and Darko, but he didn't have much of an impact) since 1985. It seems far more useful to draft well than to draft high, and bring in trades and free agents.

(If I missed a player, I'm writing this from memory).

Tony_Starks
05-26-2016, 02:55 PM
Very few teams really tank. Some are just bad, or have poor management making bad decisions.

The "treadmill of mediocrity", coined by Kevin Pritchard while in Portland, is a completely unproven notion. In the lottery era top 3 picks, which are the goal of tanking, don't lead the team that drafts them to a championship unless you're the Spurs. I looked at the history when Lebron went back to Cleveland. The list was like David Robinson, Sean Elliott and Tim Duncan (and Darko, but he didn't have much of an impact) since 1985. It seems far more useful to draft well than to draft high, and bring in trades and free agents.

(If I missed a player, I'm writing this from memory).

This.

In a nutshell it's the laziest way to try to build a winner that has yet to build a winner.

STRIKERC
05-26-2016, 03:00 PM
As a Sixers fan I got tired of being entertained to mediocrity. I got to the point where I want my team to either have a legit chance of winning the whole damn thing or blow it up and start from scratch, and do it for as long as it takes to get the right pieces together.

The problem with most teams is that they get a guy and build around him. At some point they realize the guy they're building around is at best a second option on a good team but they continue deluding themselves that dude can lead them to a chip. Bottom line is if you don't have one a transcendent player you're most likely never going to win a championship. It's just the nature of the NBA.

Now, those guys don't come around every year but personally I'm willing to wait for one rather than be mediocre for eternity.

da ThRONe
05-26-2016, 03:08 PM
Two words "rookie contracts". It's the only contract that aways greatly favor the team.

FreshestTakes
05-26-2016, 03:10 PM
It makes zero sense to be mediocre.

Would you rather be the sixers right now or the Wizards/ Pacers???

STRIKERC
05-26-2016, 03:12 PM
Very few teams really tank. Some are just bad, or have poor management making bad decisions.

The "treadmill of mediocrity", coined by Kevin Pritchard while in Portland, is a completely unproven notion. In the lottery era top 3 picks, which are the goal of tanking, don't lead the team that drafts them to a championship unless you're the Spurs. I looked at the history when Lebron went back to Cleveland. The list was like David Robinson, Sean Elliott and Tim Duncan (and Darko, but he didn't have much of an impact) since 1985. It seems far more useful to draft well than to draft high, and bring in trades and free agents.

(If I missed a player, I'm writing this from memory).

Drafting top 3 does not automatically mean you're getting a once in a generation player. However, your chances of getting one is higher at the top of the draft than it is at the bottom. Drafting well is no doubt an essential part of the whole process but drafting well in the top 3 will always trump drafting well in the bottom half of the draft.

FOXHOUND
05-26-2016, 03:35 PM
It makes zero sense to be mediocre.

Would you rather be the sixers right now or the Wizards/ Pacers???

How about Boston? How about Houston before they traded for Harden, which then led to Howard? Sure, Houston mismanaged the personal side of the game but it still led to a WCF. Right now the 76ers are a team with no direction and a mismatch roster loaded with C's. It's going to take years for them just to be mediocre and by then all of these young guys will no longer be on their rookie contracts which limits their value.

I think the term "tanking" gets thrown around too liberally. The 76ers tanked, pretty openly, for the last three years. Other than that, I don't see anything but teams rebuilding. Rebuilding is a perfectly sensible thing to do. Tanking has yet to prove to be a successful method. Unless you count David Robinson getting hurt as some sort of plan to draft Tim Duncan, I guess.

IndyRealist
05-26-2016, 03:37 PM
Drafting top 3 does not automatically mean you're getting a once in a generation player. However, your chances of getting one is higher at the top of the draft than it is at the bottom. Drafting well is no doubt an essential part of the whole process but drafting well in the top 3 will always trump drafting well in the bottom half of the draft.

And then that top 3 draft pick takes his talents to South Beach. Or LA. Top picks do not win rings for the team that drafts them unless you're the Spurs. Not for 30 years now, though either Lebron or KD are likely to chage that at this point.

Say you land a one in a generation player. Then you have 5-7 years to get rid of your lottery team and put a contending roster around them or they bolt, and do it in a salary capped league with guaranteed contracts. That's a lot easier to do if you were already a fringe playoff team with tradeable assets.

ewing
05-26-2016, 03:41 PM
It makes zero sense to be mediocre.

Would you rather be the sixers right now or the Wizards/ Pacers???

Is this a real question?

IndyRealist
05-26-2016, 03:41 PM
It makes zero sense to be mediocre.

Would you rather be the sixers right now or the Wizards/ Pacers???

The Pacers were a contender just a couple of years ago, and were favorites to win it all until Lance Stephenson had a meltdown about getting snubbed for the all-star game. I'd rather be the Pacers.

MTL_123
05-26-2016, 03:45 PM
I never understood this especially when a team tanks for like 5-6 years and still suck like you might have a starting line up with every single player being top 5 draft pick yet the team still sucks lol

How bad do you draft. Its like these teams just put a name in a hat and pick one and thats the guy their going to draft

ewing
05-26-2016, 03:46 PM
The Pacers were a contender just a couple of years ago, and were favorites to win it all until Lance Stephenson had a meltdown about getting snubbed for the all-star game. I'd rather be the Pacers.

Who would you rather be rosie o'donnell or kate hudson?

FOXHOUND
05-26-2016, 03:48 PM
The Pacers were a contender just a couple of years ago, and were favorites to win it all until Lance Stephenson had a meltdown about getting snubbed for the all-star game. I'd rather be the Pacers.

Absolutely. The Pacers have Paul George, who the 76ers would kill for one of their top picks to turn out as good as, and Myles Turner who looks promising himself. Much easier to build around a proven commodity over a bunch of question marks.

FOXHOUND
05-26-2016, 03:49 PM
Who would you rather be rosie o'donnell or kate hudson?

:laugh2:

Tony_Starks
05-26-2016, 04:10 PM
It makes zero sense to be mediocre.

Would you rather be the sixers right now or the Wizards/ Pacers???

The Wizards/ Pacers for 400 Alex!

dhopisthename
05-26-2016, 04:26 PM
wizards a great example of picks not always turning out. in a 4 year span they picked 4 times in the top six(#1, #6, #3, #3) and have John Wall, Jan Vesely, Otto Porter, and Bradley Beal to show for it. wall is a stud, vessely was a complete bust, porter is an ok starter this past year, and beal has had major injury issues.

Cramerica
05-26-2016, 04:31 PM
wizards a great example of picks not always turning out. in a 4 year span they picked 4 times in the top six(#1, #6, #3, #3) and have John Wall, Jan Vesely, Otto Porter, and Bradley Beal to show for it. wall is a stud, vessely was a complete bust, porter is an ok starter this past year, and beal has had major injury issues.

Truth

Tony_Starks
05-26-2016, 04:39 PM
wizards a great example of picks not always turning out. in a 4 year span they picked 4 times in the top six(#1, #6, #3, #3) and have John Wall, Jan Vesely, Otto Porter, and Bradley Beal to show for it. wall is a stud, vessely was a complete bust, porter is an ok starter this past year, and beal has had major injury issues.

True enough. At least they have a star, potentially a great backcourt, and some playoff experience to show for it.

I'll take that over years of being laughingstock and a bunch of questionable players any day.

warfelg
05-26-2016, 05:07 PM
Absolutely. The Pacers have Paul George, who the 76ers would kill for one of their top picks to turn out as good as, and Myles Turner who looks promising himself. Much easier to build around a proven commodity over a bunch of question marks.

But I guess the flip would be (taking overall situation into account):
With the money paid to PG, lack of supporting talent, money to Hill/Ellis, and the way Vogel was fired would a FA be really enticed by that?

On top of that, unless they strike gold like they did with PG, the likelihood of getting another star via the draft seems like a long shot.


I get when people say merely drafting high doesn't guarantee a championship but look at every NBA champ since 2000:
Almost every team has had at least one guy drafted in the top 10. Even if they aren't with their original team, it's an indication that there is a high correlation between selection slot and championships.

The list of teams to bottom out and find long term success is far far longer than teams that got out of the middle and found success.

IndyRealist
05-26-2016, 05:38 PM
But I guess the flip would be (taking overall situation into account):
With the money paid to PG, lack of supporting talent, money to Hill/Ellis, and the way Vogel was fired would a FA be really enticed by that?

On top of that, unless they strike gold like they did with PG, the likelihood of getting another star via the draft seems like a long shot.


I get when people say merely drafting high doesn't guarantee a championship but look at every NBA champ since 2000:
Almost every team has had at least one guy drafted in the top 10. Even if they aren't with their original team, it's an indication that there is a high correlation between selection slot and championships.

The list of teams to bottom out and find long term success is far far longer than teams that got out of the middle and found success.

Higher picked players do tend to have better careers and championships. But not with the team that drafts them. So do you want to be the team that has to suck really badly to draft them, or do you want to be the team that they join to win a championship?

The Pacers rarely pursue top free agents. They trade for or draft their core, then find free agents who fit in the system. They drafted Paul George #10, Roy Hibbert #17, and Lance Stephenson in the 2nd round. They traded for George Hill, and at that point were a pretty nice destination to lure David West.

beasted86
05-26-2016, 06:32 PM
Fans commonly use the excuse its better to be terrible than to be 6-9 consistently. Well look around the NBA... what team exactly are you describing who is consistently 6-9 in their conference? The Mavs and Memphis maybe? These teams people like to talk about just don't exist.

Memphis was a consistent loser for many years. I think their fans are happy to watch them scrape into the playoffs. The Mavericks fans have enjoyed one of the most consistent franchises over the last 13 years. I'd like to see a group of fans that believe Mark Cuban and their GM have been doing the wrong thing the last couple years.

The main one agreeing with tanking are the ones who's teams ALREADY ARE tanking. It's just something people like to say to justify the process and make themselves feel better that the team is working towards something rather than stagnating. Nobody ever wants to believe things are miserable and will stay miserable. It's something built into our survival instincts.

FOXHOUND
05-26-2016, 06:49 PM
But I guess the flip would be (taking overall situation into account):
With the money paid to PG, lack of supporting talent, money to Hill/Ellis, and the way Vogel was fired would a FA be really enticed by that?

On top of that, unless they strike gold like they did with PG, the likelihood of getting another star via the draft seems like a long shot.


I get when people say merely drafting high doesn't guarantee a championship but look at every NBA champ since 2000:
Almost every team has had at least one guy drafted in the top 10. Even if they aren't with their original team, it's an indication that there is a high correlation between selection slot and championships.

The list of teams to bottom out and find long term success is far far longer than teams that got out of the middle and found success.

They took the Raptors to game 7 in the first round, so I would think that some players would find them enticing still. It's unlikely that they draft another star but Myles Turner had a good rookie year and is talented enough to become one in a few years.

They'll have close to $30M in cap space this summer to get FA's and currently only have $52M on the books for the following offseason when the cap will be $109M or so. Once you get that star in a Paul George it's much easier to attract a proven star in FA to play with them. That hasn't really been their style, but you can say the same for SA before they signed Aldridge. With George and Turner they have a good duo to build around and they already have some solid role players around them.

Drafting high is great but as anything you have to draft right. For me, the big problem Philly made was that they tanked too hard. They dug themselves into too deep a hole by completely ignoring the team building aspect and just blindly drafting BPA with the idea that you can trade them later. You can't do that in the NBA where rosters are so small and it's very hard to equal value back in a trade. The talk now is possibly a trade of Okafor to Boston for #3. Okafor was drafted #3 last year in a very strong draft and this is a weak draft. That's already a loss in value.

This year they finally got the 1st pick but it's in a weak draft. That's an issue in itself, sometimes drafts are just weak. Anthony Bennett was a 1st overall pick and that draft in general is very weak. With the draft you're at the mercy of the draw to an extent.

But back to that team building, you have to build and add to your team every year. OKC went the complete rebuild route and it's worked incredibly well. They also drafted amazing and drafted talent with a team purpose in mind. Durant was the easy choice but then from there it's Westbrook to play with Durant, Harden and Ibaka to play off both and so on. After their three years they had 4/5 of the starting five settled. The 76ers have 3 center's and a PF to show for their three years when they could have built a very good young team.

2013 draft
6th - Nerlens Noel
11th - Michael Carter-Williams

OK so in 2013 they decided to build around Nerlens Noel and Michael Carter-Williams. They traded MCW but for that Lakers pick, that's a good value and as mentioned that was a weak draft.

2014 draft
3rd - Embiid
10th - Payton (traded down to 12)
12th - Saric

This was the beginning of the end, for me. Embiid was very talented but the injury red flag was very well known. Two years later and he has yet to play a game. To make it worse he fails the #1 question - does he fit with Nerlens Noel? Now at this time Noel had yet to play an NBA game, which would make you think they would be weary about another injury prone big. Let's look at the next pick - Aaron Gordon. Gordon was very young, he's still 20-years old right now, but he answers that first question well. He's raw offensively but immensely talented. With Noel and Gordon you know you have two super athletes at PF and C and immense defensive potential. Combined with MCW, who is athletic, big and long at PG, you have some serious defensive potential as a team. You also know you have the 10th pick still to draft someone else, who at that point could be more offensively focused to go with that trio.

10th pick - drafted Payton and traded down. The trade down value was nice and while I like Payton they had MCW so he was not needed.

12th pick - Dario Saric. Hmm, ok. So you have Noel and Embiid but you still draft a PF? To make matters worse he's a draft and stash player so you're not sure when you're going to get him or if he will pull a Mirotic and wait out the rookie scale years to sign as a FA. Let's look at the next pick - Zach LaVine. Wow, talk about perfect. Even with Noel, Embiid and MCW you're talking about a super gifted SG with some PG skills and shooting potential while having the tools to become a very good defender. Also works great with the mock Gordon pick.

2015 draft
3rd - Jahlil Okafor

OK, guess who got fired 6 months after making this selection? You have Noel, who has now played and showed some good promise. You have Embiid, who hasn't played but if he does you expect big things. You have Saric, who isn't over but is clearly a PF. Why the hell are you taking a C? If you were going to take another big at least it should have been Porzingis, who had potential at PF next to Noel to form a tall and long athletic pairing. Again, would have great defensive potential. Could he have not traded down a few spots to get a player that fit better? A SF like Hezonja? A PG like Mudiay? Since we're playing the hindsight game anyways, and NBA front offices aren't oblivious to HS recruiting classes, let's say they take Mudiay instead.

2016 draft
1st selection - Ingram or Simmons? Both SFs

Mudiay
Lavine
Ingram/Simmons
Gordon
Noel

That's what this team could look like right now. Much different, no? Foresight is what separates the good GM's from the bad and Hinkie dug himself into a 7 foot center sized hole.

warfelg
05-26-2016, 07:06 PM
Yet someone else trying to turn this into a Sixers conversation when I have 0 interest in that.

I wouldn't mind discussing how high draft picks turn into stars more often, therefor getting one high gives his team a better chance at being in competition for a championship.

FOXHOUND
05-26-2016, 07:22 PM
Yet someone else trying to turn this into a Sixers conversation when I have 0 interest in that.

I wouldn't mind discussing how high draft picks turn into stars more often, therefor getting one high gives his team a better chance at being in competition for a championship.

lol, I went on a tangent there but they are the prime example of why it guarantees nothing. More to the threads topic, they are the only team that has clearly tanked as a long term idea. OKC is a team that was built on three straight high picking drafts. GS is a team that has no one drafted higher than 7th and their 2nd best player is a 2nd round pick. Cleveland has one #1 overall pick, traded back to back #1's in Bennett and Wiggins for Love and signed LeBron back in FA. Toronto drafted DeRozan 9th and built the rest through FA. San Antonio constantly reshuffles through mid and late 1sts and signed LMA in FA.

There is no one answer to the process. The only answer is to keep building each year with smart management. That's a vague answer but it's because there have been so many avenues that have worked.

Vinylman
05-26-2016, 07:30 PM
Very few teams really tank. Some are just bad, or have poor management making bad decisions.

The "treadmill of mediocrity", coined by Kevin Pritchard while in Portland, is a completely unproven notion. In the lottery era top 3 picks, which are the goal of tanking, don't lead the team that drafts them to a championship unless you're the Spurs. I looked at the history when Lebron went back to Cleveland. The list was like David Robinson, Sean Elliott and Tim Duncan (and Darko, but he didn't have much of an impact) since 1985. It seems far more useful to draft well than to draft high, and bring in trades and free agents.

(If I missed a player, I'm writing this from memory).

under the old CBA you might have a point but under the new CBA you are missing the boat... cost controlled rookie deals, lack of Superstar FA movement today, and the impact revenue sharing has had on trades is why teams tank...

warfelg
05-26-2016, 07:42 PM
lol, I went on a tangent there but they are the prime example of why it guarantees nothing. More to the threads topic, they are the only team that has clearly tanked as a long term idea. OKC is a team that was built on three straight high picking drafts. GS is a team that has no one drafted higher than 7th and their 2nd best player is a 2nd round pick. Cleveland has one #1 overall pick, traded back to back #1's in Bennett and Wiggins for Love and signed LeBron back in FA. Toronto drafted DeRozan 9th and built the rest through FA. San Antonio constantly reshuffles through mid and late 1sts and signed LMA in FA.

There is no one answer to the process. The only answer is to keep building each year with smart management. That's a vague answer but it's because there have been so many avenues that have worked.

Your last paragraph is spot on. There is no one answer.

The only answer that can be given is the way to win in the NBA is to have stars. And typically stars are drafted high. And stars want to play together.

People always point to LeBron in this argument, but forget that Wade staying with the Heat and having 3 titles with them (one pre LeBron) completely unhinges that argument.

And I'm glad you brought up the Warriors. Sure they themselves didn't draft many players high. But quite a number of their guys were top 10 picks with Curry, Barnes, Iggy, Bogut.

I guess I would surmise by saying:
Stars are most often drafted top 10. Stars are the best way to win big. Teams that drafted high are most likely to end up winning big.

What it takes is a GM being smart about building around a star player. I think too often we see a star get drafted and the team tried to be competitive too fast. I look at guys like AD, Bosh (Tor), Wall, Cousins, Monroe, Love (Minny), Lopez, LMA (Port), Roy, Williams (Jazz), CP3 (NO) as victims of this type of building.

Not saying they should have sucked longer, but their teams went out and signed a bunch of guys to max contracts, and traded away various assets for players, and then it failed to make a huge impact. Those teams ended up stuck because they didn't have the ability to shake up the roster when it didn't work.

warfelg
05-26-2016, 07:48 PM
Now I'm not saying every team should flat out tank if they don't make the playoffs, so I don't want anyone twisting it that way.

A team like Indiana should try to keep PG and Turner, while seeing what they can get for Hill and Monta. Clear the books of them, try to lure another fringe all star quality player, and keep cap flexibility.

NO had a down year, but they should hit on this pick (Jaylon Brown makes sense for them), let Reke and Gordon go, and use the cap smartly to add to what they have. Originally when they drafted AD, they went out and got Reke and Gordon, then added Ryno, Asik, and Jrue quickly and guy stuck with that for 3 years. After one year when it didn't work, they were destined to never make noise with that core. They should have made one or two signings after the draft, and had a 8-12 pick to add to AD.

More-Than-Most
05-26-2016, 07:55 PM
Is this a real question?

Yea its not a smart question.. Both of those teams will get much better and have young talented players that will get better... a better question would be like the sixers or the hawks... The hawks are very good but they are what they are and will never be able to get to the finals with that constructed team.

More-Than-Most
05-26-2016, 07:57 PM
People **** on the sixers but the sixers did everything in their power for years to stay relevent... Huge contracts/big time trades and it constantly failed and they constantly stayed a 1 and done team before they went the route of gutting it and starting over and tanking....

Teams like the warriors/thunder and so on down the list tanked just like anyone else and lucked into superstar players from the draft.... Tanking has always been and will continue to be and is the only real shot of sustaining long term success without the likes of a lebron/durant/westy/curry falling into their laps.

Vinylman
05-26-2016, 08:02 PM
People **** on the sixers but the sixers did everything in their power for years to stay relevent... Huge contracts/big time trades and it constantly failed and they constantly stayed a 1 and done team before they went the route of gutting it and starting over and tanking....

Teams like the warriors/thunder and so on down the list tanked just like anyone else and lucked into superstar players from the draft.... Tanking has always been and will continue to be and is the only real shot of sustaining long term success without the likes of a lebron/durant/westy/curry falling into their laps.

That last guy that lead the Sixers to the finals was a second round draft pick wasn't he :rolleyes:

warfelg
05-26-2016, 08:05 PM
That last guy that lead the Sixers to the finals was a second round draft pick wasn't he :rolleyes:

Maybe picked in the 20's. In no way was that 6' 175 man a first overall pick ;)

More-Than-Most
05-26-2016, 08:06 PM
That last guy that lead the Sixers to the finals was a second round draft pick wasn't he :rolleyes:

I dont have a clue what this even means... The sixers got the first pick and lucked into iverson being great but the sixers were never actual threats of beating the lakers that year or any year after.. Again what point are you trying to make?

I stated unless you already have one of the best players in basketball you cant be a real threat without a good bid of young talent or lucking into a AD in the draft... Much like the sixers when they grabbed iverson

warfelg
05-26-2016, 08:11 PM
I dont have a clue what this even means... The sixers got the first pick and lucked into iverson being great but the sixers were never actual threats of beating the lakers that year or any year after.. Again what point are you trying to make?

I stated unless you already have one of the best players in basketball you cant be a real threat without a good bid of young talent or lucking into a AD in the draft... Much like the sixers when they grabbed iverson

I'm pretty sure he's poking fun at the people who say you don't need a high pick to make a run at the title.

More-Than-Most
05-26-2016, 08:12 PM
Maybe picked in the 20's. In no way was that 6' 175 man a first overall pick ;)

Again what am I missing? It fits the point... Sixers tanked/Got iverson and he turned into one of the better basketball players in the entire league and they became a great team..... That is my point :shrug:

More-Than-Most
05-26-2016, 08:13 PM
I'm pretty sure he's poking fun at the people who say you don't need a high pick to make a run at the title.

Oh ok lol... I thought I said something moronic or something. xD

More-Than-Most
05-26-2016, 08:16 PM
Tanking is not the main issues.. In the Jordan days players didnt want to play with each other to a point... Players wanted to destroy each other.. Now a guy either wants to stay with his own team or wants to go to a team with a ton of talent... Lebron didn't start this but he did help push it even further but with players only wanting to play with other stars teams that dont have said star need to tank and try and luck into a superstar or they will be stuck in mediocrity for year like the sixers once were and like it or not you have a much much much better shot of getting said superstar with a lottery pick then the stupid notion that a Jordan can be had with a 2nd rounder or late first rounder... It can happen but its very unlikely.

Vinylman
05-26-2016, 08:24 PM
Maybe picked in the 20's. In no way was that 6' 175 man a first overall pick ;)

Lebron's current success has nothing to do with Cleveland getting the number 1 pick three times ... Am I right? :rolleyes:

warfelg
05-26-2016, 08:26 PM
Lebron's current success has nothing to do with Cleveland getting the number 1 pick three times ... Am I right? :rolleyes:

None at all. Has nothing to do with 4 top 5 picks being on the same team. :P

Vinylman
05-26-2016, 08:31 PM
None at all. Has nothing to do with 4 top 5 picks being on the same team. :P

didn't the cavs trade a late second rounder for JR/Shump/and a 1st ... am i right :rolleyes:

IndyRealist
05-26-2016, 08:43 PM
I'm pretty sure he's poking fun at the people who say you don't need a high pick to make a run at the title.

No one's saying you don't need a high drafted players to make a run, they're saying you don't need to tank to get those guys. You let other teams suck and then steal those guys away.

STRIKERC
05-26-2016, 09:39 PM
No one's saying you don't need a high drafted players to make a run, they're saying you don't need to tank to get those guys. You let other teams suck and then steal those guys away.

lol...good luck trying to trade fro a superstar player in today's NBA.
I don't know which NBA some of you are watching.
Superstar players aren't going anywhere unless there's joining one or two.

ewing
05-26-2016, 09:43 PM
Guys todays NBA is all about LOYALTY! If you are terrible you draft and star and he stays with you through thick and thin.

ewing
05-26-2016, 09:50 PM
Tanking is not the main issues.. In the Jordan days players didnt want to play with each other to a point... Players wanted to destroy each other.. Now a guy either wants to stay with his own team or wants to go to a team with a ton of talent... Lebron didn't start this but he did help push it even further but with players only wanting to play with other stars teams that dont have said star need to tank and try and luck into a superstar or they will be stuck in mediocrity for year like the sixers once were and like it or not you have a much much much better shot of getting said superstar with a lottery pick then the stupid notion that a Jordan can be had with a 2nd rounder or late first rounder... It can happen but its very unlikely.

I thought Bynum and AI were good gambles. Its doesn't always work- it often doesn't. Its not a science and you need some luck. . Bynum had MVP talent IMO. I'm sorry he couldn't stay healthy and had a bum attitude and Igyy had every physical tool and looked like he could develop the offensive game. It takes some luck. The Sixers franchise had bad luck and then acted like a child and tried to game the system.

More-Than-Most
05-26-2016, 10:16 PM
Guys todays NBA is all about LOYALTY! If you are terrible you draft and star and he stays with you through thick and thin.

LMA/WADE/BOSH/Lebron/David Lee/Love/JJ Reddick/Howard... I am missing alot as well.... This is all from like 2011 on.

Aust
05-26-2016, 11:52 PM
People **** on the sixers but the sixers did everything in their power for years to stay relevent... Huge contracts/big time trades and it constantly failed and they constantly stayed a 1 and done team before they went the route of gutting it and starting over and tanking....

Teams like the warriors/thunder and so on down the list tanked just like anyone else and lucked into superstar players from the draft.... Tanking has always been and will continue to be and is the only real shot of sustaining long term success without the likes of a lebron/durant/westy/curry falling into their laps.

Was it luck or was it good drafting?

More-Than-Most
05-27-2016, 12:58 AM
Was it luck or was it good drafting?

Both but def more luck than good drafting... Its take a bit of both but even his year as insanely talented as Simmons/Ingram is both could easily end up busting

Chronz
05-27-2016, 11:11 AM
Guys todays NBA is all about LOYALTY! If you are terrible you draft and star and he stays with you through thick and thin.

Said no gm or player ever. Hell even Dirk has made it public that he would leave if Cuban fkd up

ccugrad1
05-27-2016, 11:48 AM
Drafting top 3 does not automatically mean you're getting a once in a generation player. However, your chances of getting one is higher at the top of the draft than it is at the bottom. Drafting well is no doubt an essential part of the whole process but drafting well in the top 3 will always trump drafting well in the bottom half of the draft.

Especially when most of the guys drafted are "freshman" and most are nowhere near ready to be "the guy" their first year. And let's be honest, the NBA IMO is the easiest of the 4 professional sports to turn it around in 1 season. Just get 2 really good players, fill the rest of the roster with a couple solid guys and people who know what role they are supposed to play, and you can be a playoff team in 1 year.

I have always said with the Sixers this year, if they had the opportunity to get an All-Star caliber player in a trade involving #1 overall, they should do. The Sixers don't need another lottery pick.

Vinylman
05-27-2016, 11:51 AM
props to ewing for keeping the sarcasm going

unfortunately it is lost on some

IndyRealist
05-27-2016, 12:08 PM
lol...good luck trying to trade fro a superstar player in today's NBA.
I don't know which NBA some of you are watching.
Superstar players aren't going anywhere unless there's joining one or two.

Well the Pacers put together 3 different contenders in 15 years in a small market without tanking. They've built around guys picked 10, 17, and 13. They traded for guys who were or became all-stars. I think they're ok without tanking.

Jason Giovanni
05-27-2016, 12:12 PM
There are too many teams in the NBA.

Vinylman
05-27-2016, 12:32 PM
Well the Pacers put together 3 different contenders in 15 years in a small market without tanking. They've built around guys picked 10, 17, and 13. They traded for guys who were or became all-stars. I think they're ok without tanking.

contenders? are you calling the current team a contender? :speechless:

Anyway... you again are ignoring the impact of the new CBA which kills player (stars) movement.

hugepatsfan
05-27-2016, 12:48 PM
Max contracts and the lottery. Because of the max contracts players get the same money whether they go to a major market as the second star or sign with a bad team. There's no ability for bad/mediocre teams to lure stars away from just going to the already great teams. The lottery is supposed to discourage teams from just tanking for the #1 pick, but it also incentives the middle lottery to tank. Get rid of the lottery and there's really no incentive to tank from the 7th worst team to 4th, but with the lottery there is huge incentive. All the lottery does is increase the number of teams that have incentive to tank.

If you get rid of the lottery and max contracts, you'd see the stars spread out more because of financial incentive and teams would want to get good to make themselves a more attractive destination rather than tank. You'd have the absolute worst of the worst still tanking but you'd get mostly rid of it elsewhere.

The NBA won't go for that though because concentration of stars makes for more marketable teams and that's a bigger concern for them than tanking.

IndyRealist
05-27-2016, 01:37 PM
contenders? are you calling the current team a contender? :speechless:

Anyway... you again are ignoring the impact of the new CBA which kills player (stars) movement.
Really? 2000, 2003, and 2013. Why would you think I was talking about this year? That's such a mind boggling assumption to make.

You can trade for stars, and you can trade for players who will become stars, just not this year because of the jump in salary cap. It's silly to believe that what happened the last couple of years is indicative of what the future will be like. There is ONE big jump, then salaries will normalize over the next few years.

FOXHOUND
05-27-2016, 01:51 PM
The fact that there is a large group of teams perennially drafting in the top 10 proves that it means little. There are plenty drafts where the best player wasn't picked top 3 or top 5. Hell, some of them weren't picked top 10. Kawhi Leonard (15th) and Giannis Antetokounmpo (15th) say hi.

STRIKERC
05-27-2016, 03:37 PM
The fact that there is a large group of teams perennially drafting in the top 10 proves that it means little. There are plenty drafts where the best player wasn't picked top 3 or top 5. Hell, some of them weren't picked top 10. Kawhi Leonard (15th) and Giannis Antetokounmpo (15th) say hi.

It still doesn't change the fact that there are more blue chip players drafted in the top 3 than 10th, 15th and 15th.
As far as that large group of teams that seemingly live in the middle of the pack, duh, that's the point some of us are making. I can guarantee you some of those teams will continue to stay in mediocrity when the Sixers become contenders.
Those teams do not have the guts to tear it down.

STRIKERC
05-27-2016, 03:41 PM
Maybe Sixers, Lakers and Celtics should reject the top three picks and opt for 10-15th picks since some of you nitwits actually believe that's where star players are drafted.

ewing
05-28-2016, 07:54 AM
Well the Pacers put together 3 different contenders in 15 years in a small market without tanking. They've built around guys picked 10, 17, and 13. They traded for guys who were or became all-stars. I think they're ok without tanking.

not to mention you had horrible luck with the Malice in the Palace and 2 elite wings having bigtime injuries. Imagine the Pacers got to build around George and Granger playing the Hedo/Rashaad Lewis roles.

Vinylman
05-28-2016, 10:32 AM
Really? 2000, 2003, and 2013. Why would you think I was talking about this year? That's such a mind boggling assumption to make.

You can trade for stars, and you can trade for players who will become stars, just not this year because of the jump in salary cap. It's silly to believe that what happened the last couple of years is indicative of what the future will be like. There is ONE big jump, then salaries will normalize over the next few years.

The bolded has nothing to do with why player movement has changed under the new CBA...

2003 really? a contender? that team made it to the conference finals once (2004).... and had early exits... i guess that is the idea of a contender in the east... kinda like people thinking Toronto was a contender this year

IndyRealist
05-28-2016, 12:06 PM
The bolded has nothing to do with why player movement has changed under the new CBA...

2003 really? a contender? that team made it to the conference finals once (2004).... and had early exits... i guess that is the idea of a contender in the east... kinda like people thinking Toronto was a contender this year

WTF are you talking about man? THE MALICE AT THE PALACE. That Pacers team was destroying everyone by a wide margin, and dominated the defending champions when the Malice happened.

You keep saying "new CBA" but you're not backing up anything you're saying. There's nothing to indicate that star player movement doesn't happen under the new CBA. It's not like Kevin Love got traded or anything. Or Steve Nash. Kyle Lowry. Dwight Howard. Kevin Garnett and Paul Pierce. All under the current CBA. Did I miss something?

Scoots
05-28-2016, 01:59 PM
Very few teams really tank. Some are just bad, or have poor management making bad decisions.

The "treadmill of mediocrity", coined by Kevin Pritchard while in Portland, is a completely unproven notion. In the lottery era top 3 picks, which are the goal of tanking, don't lead the team that drafts them to a championship unless you're the Spurs. I looked at the history when Lebron went back to Cleveland. The list was like David Robinson, Sean Elliott and Tim Duncan (and Darko, but he didn't have much of an impact) since 1985. It seems far more useful to draft well than to draft high, and bring in trades and free agents.

(If I missed a player, I'm writing this from memory).

What makes you think every tanking team is aiming for a top 3 pick?

warfelg
05-28-2016, 02:22 PM
What makes you think every tanking team is aiming for a top 3 pick?

There's a variety of tanking. Just being bad is one. To me the "worse" offense is a team that's sitting at the 7 seed with 4 weeks left and the star player starts missing time, questionable rotations happen, and next thing you know a team doing ok ends up at the 10 spot to get into the lotto.

5ass
05-28-2016, 02:42 PM
some people still dont know the difference between tanking and rebuilding through the draft.

Scoots
05-28-2016, 02:47 PM
There's a variety of tanking. Just being bad is one. To me the "worse" offense is a team that's sitting at the 7 seed with 4 weeks left and the star player starts missing time, questionable rotations happen, and next thing you know a team doing ok ends up at the 10 spot to get into the lotto.

I don't think one is worse than the other ... losing games to improve the fortunes of the team is just a tactic and not to be criticized as long as it's legal. Every year teams close to the threshold of losing or keeping their protected pick start losing games to keep the pick.

warfelg
05-28-2016, 02:56 PM
I don't think one is worse than the other ... losing games to improve the fortunes of the team is just a tactic and not to be criticized as long as it's legal. Every year teams close to the threshold of losing or keeping their protected pick start losing games to keep the pick.

The reason why I say "worse" (note the quotes) is your taking a fan base with hope for a playoff birth and taking it away for a less than 1% shot at moving up in the draft. It's very very rare for teams outside the top 10 to jump into the top 3 (which is what the lottery is).

And bad team tanking is just bad.