PDA

View Full Version : Hawks GM says Warriors tanked



JasonJohnHorn
10-24-2017, 10:36 AM
Hawks GM says Warriors tanked (https://www.cbssports.com/nba/news/hawks-gm-says-the-warriors-tanked-the-season-before-drafting-harrison-barnes/).

I call BS. That year the team finished ahead of six team, and was tied with Raptors. Their best player (Curry) was out for like 75% of the year, they traded away key guys mid-way through the season, had a new coach and new system, and if they were tanking, they did an awful job because they didn't even secure a top-5 pick.

Haters hating. Thoughts?

warfelg
10-24-2017, 10:40 AM
He's right. They tanked. But the lottery did it's job that year.

hugepatsfan
10-24-2017, 10:53 AM
Tanking doesn't have to be for #1. Instead of trying to push for the 8 seed you can say **** it and just secure a mid lottery pick too. IDK why people think tanking only involved the top pick lol

warfelg
10-24-2017, 10:58 AM
Tanking doesn't have to be for #1. Instead of trying to push for the 8 seed you can say **** it and just secure a mid lottery pick too. IDK why people think tanking only involved the top pick lol

Because they didn't hurt the looks of the NBA.

BKLYNpigeon
10-24-2017, 10:59 AM
Sure why not? Every team does it. Lakers did it last year for Lonzo.

it only really looks bad if you're the Suns or 76ers who do it 5 years in a row.

basch152
10-24-2017, 11:07 AM
Sure why not? Every team does it. Lakers did it last year for Lonzo.

it only really looks bad if you're the Suns or 76ers who do it 5 years in a row.

pistons don't. they were a crap team but instead of tanking they fought for 30+ wins every year

Hawkeye15
10-24-2017, 11:13 AM
they probably did. So?

basch152
10-24-2017, 11:25 AM
they probably did. So?

lol, they didn't. they kept signing people like villanueva, Josh Smith, and Ben gordon yo try to up their win count.

they were desperately trying NOT to tank and it caused us to be a ~30 win team the entire last decade

tredigs
10-24-2017, 11:46 AM
lol, they didn't. they kept signing people like villanueva, Josh Smith, and Ben gordon yo try to up their win count.

they were desperately trying NOT to tank and it caused us to be a ~30 win team the entire last decade

Reading is fundamental.

Yes, the Warriors traded Monta to finally have a center + give Curry room to grow and they shut Curry down although he could have come back that season. This was not a secret, and it was smart as the pick entirely disappeared if they did not get into the top 7 (which they still had to win a coin flip to acquire). Their marquee player in that draft ended up being their 2nd round pick and not Barnes though.

basch152
10-24-2017, 11:56 AM
Reading is fundamental.


how hilariously ironic.

now how about you read my two posts and realize you need to read before responding. ya know, because it's so fundamental.

tredigs
10-24-2017, 12:06 PM
how hilariously ironic.

now how about you read my two posts and realize you need to read before responding. ya know, because it's so fundamental.

You are a special flower. You were responding to someone who was, you know, responding to the topic. Not you.

dhopisthename
10-24-2017, 12:20 PM
they unquestionably tanked. they lost their pick if it was 8th but kept it at 7. despite tanking very hard they still had to win a coin flip and not have someone jump them at the lotto.

Allphakenny1
10-24-2017, 02:13 PM
they unquestionably tanked. they lost their pick if it was 8th but kept it at 7. despite tanking very hard they still had to win a coin flip and not have someone jump them at the lotto.

I would not say they tanked very hard, every move they made was for the betterment of the team regardless of the draft pick. Trading Ellis finally got the Warriors a center, allowed Curry to lead the team, and allowed Thompson to start. Shutting down Curry had to be done. He could have came back, but he had multiple ankle injuries that season so there was nothing positive in forcing him to return. They did not shut down any healthy players that year like many teams do at the end of the year. Keeping their draft pick was obviously a part of their decision, but they should have made all those moves regardless of the draft pick. This was one of the lighter tank jobs we have seen.

5ass
10-24-2017, 02:18 PM
"tanking" for half a season is very common

Hawkeye15
10-24-2017, 02:20 PM
lol, they didn't. they kept signing people like villanueva, Josh Smith, and Ben gordon yo try to up their win count.

they were desperately trying NOT to tank and it caused us to be a ~30 win team the entire last decade

you have to fill out rosters. I am not accusing them of tanking, I am saying, even if they did, so?

they tanked, but it really doesn't matter. At all. Championships have been won off tanking before..Spurs anyone haha

MILLERHIGHLIFE
10-24-2017, 02:22 PM
Actually Bucks had the choice of healthy Ellis or injured Curry for Bogut. We wanted playoffs and look stupid now so we took Ellis. Should of took Curry and tanked. Bucks could of had the splash brothers. Since we were high on Klay that draft. But we decided to use our pick to salary dump fat Salmons onto Kings in 3 team deal and we moved down that draft for Tobias.

tredigs
10-24-2017, 02:47 PM
Actually Bucks had the choice of healthy Ellis or injured Curry for Bogut. We wanted playoffs and look stupid now so we took Ellis. Should of took Curry and tanked. Bucks could of had the splash brothers. Since we were high on Klay that draft. But we decided to use our pick to salary dump fat Salmons onto Kings in 3 team deal and we moved down that draft for Tobias.

Na, the idea that Curry was part of the deal instead of Monta is revisionist history or Twitter rumors. Definitely not the case at the time and would not have even worked salary wise (Curry obviously on his rookie contract).

lol, please
10-24-2017, 03:06 PM
I hate threads like this.

I also don't believe tanking is a thing. I will always consider it a way of fans coping with their teams not contending. Good luck convincing me, a man with a true competitive spirit, that true competitors lose on purpose, ever.


A laughable concept if i've ever heard one. Only rivaled by how laughable it is to think it's a good idea to heavily "bet" on draft picks turning out to be great players, even if you actually land them.

Hawkeye15
10-24-2017, 03:09 PM
I hate threads like this.

I also don't believe tanking is a thing. I will always consider it a way of fans coping with their teams not contending. Good luck convincing me, a man with a true competitive spirit, that true competitors lose on purpose, ever.


A laughable concept if i've ever heard one. Only rivaled by how laughable it is to think it's a good idea to heavily "bet" on draft picks turning out to be great players, even if you actually land them.

do you get how tanking works? Nobody is going "Blue Chips" and paying players to quit on their team. GM's are basically controlling player movement, how injured players are handled, etc. A coach, and players, aren't going to tank. A front office absolutely sets the deck so they deplete the talent available to win games.

lol, please
10-24-2017, 03:31 PM
do you get how tanking works? Nobody is going "Blue Chips" and paying players to quit on their team. GM's are basically controlling player movement, how injured players are handled, etc. A coach, and players, aren't going to tank. A front office absolutely sets the deck so they deplete the talent available to win games.

That's not "tanking" as fans describe it, that's something different entirely.

When fans talk about tanking they act as if the players literally go on the floor to intentionally lose. That's what i'm referring to. What you are describing I wouldn't call tanking. And I agree, the players and coach wouldn't do so. And that's my whole point.

Also equally despicable in my mind is rooting for your team to lose, can't respect someone who calls themselves a fan and openly roots for a loss, I don't care what you think the end result might be 10 months down the road. Cheer for your team to win, day in and day out, game 1, or game 100, or a fan you are not.

FlashBolt
10-24-2017, 03:31 PM
I hate threads like this.

I also don't believe tanking is a thing. I will always consider it a way of fans coping with their teams not contending. Good luck convincing me, a man with a true competitive spirit, that true competitors lose on purpose, ever.


A laughable concept if i've ever heard one. Only rivaled by how laughable it is to think it's a good idea to heavily "bet" on draft picks turning out to be great players, even if you actually land them.

Wow, you're one to talk about hating threads considering you create the most biased and nonsensical of them all. There is a concept of tanking. Players aren't trying to lose but management creates an environment that adheres to a losing mentality. They basically pay players who they know are not going to help them win competitively.

Hawkeye15
10-24-2017, 03:32 PM
That's not "tanking" as fans describe it, that's something different entirely.

When fans talk about tanking they act as if the players literally go on the floor to intentionally lose. That's what i'm referring to. What you are describing I wouldn't call tanking. And I agree, the players and coach wouldn't do so. And that's my whole point.

Also equally despicable in my mind is rooting for your team to lose, can't respect someone who calls themselves a fan and openly roots for a loss, I don't care what you think the end result might be 10 months down the road. Cheer for your team to win, day in and day out, game 1, or game 100, or a fan you are not.

nah, that's tossing a game, not tanking.

I absolutely, positively, disagree with your last paragraph. A fan is in it for the long haul. If losing a game keeps your lottery pick for example (exactly what your Warriors did), I am all for it as a fan.

If you, a Warrior fan, invested everything into winning every game, no matter the circumstance, man, that must have been a bummer of a life for some time. Shockingly, some forget the Warriors were a joke prior to this current run. Just like my Wolves :)

Scoots
10-24-2017, 03:41 PM
Yes, the Warriors tanked. Any fans denying it are either delusional or trolling. It is not worthy of debate.

lol, please
10-24-2017, 03:42 PM
I absolutely, positively, disagree with your last paragraph. A fan is in it for the long haul. If losing a game keeps your lottery pick for example (exactly what your Warriors did), I am all for it as a fan.

If you, a Warrior fan, invested everything into winning every game, no matter the circumstance, man, that must have been a bummer of a life for some time. Shockingly, some forget the Warriors were a joke prior to this current run. Just like my Wolves :)
that's what a fanatic does.


It doesn't mean i'm in it for the "short haul" just because I refuse to root for a losing result because it MIGHT result in a draft pick down the road that MIGHT work out.

It's the FO's job to take care of the bigger picture and the logistics of winning. when my team is on the floor, I only root for one outcome.

Do you understand what the word fanatic means? Because if we agree on the definition of fanatic (fan is short for fanatic) then we should also agree that rationale and objectivity are not traits of a fanatical obsession.

I'm not going to approach fandom like I would my portfolio. I'm not a "fan" of a particular company stock, asset, or currency, i'm an investor.

tredigs
10-24-2017, 03:42 PM
Yeah, this is not a player issue @lol,please. Every chance a player has on the court is an opportunity for them to help their team win, improve their own stats, and just generally drive up their influence and market value. Front offices on the other hand have far different motives. And with the Warriors season already down the drain with Curry's injuries, it made perfect sense to shut him down and trade Monta for an injured Bogut (who could help them more going forward). If they keep Monta and bring back Curry, they risk further injury and completely throw away the chance at a highly valuable draft pick (if they did not land in the top-7 it goes away completely) in a scenario where they were going to miss the playoffs regardless. It was "tanking" in the sense that they were not trying to win the most games possible that season, but without that move these Warriors don't exist.

tredigs
10-24-2017, 03:51 PM
that's what a fanatic does.


It doesn't mean i'm in it for the "short haul" just because I refuse to root for a losing result because it MIGHT result in a draft pick down the road that MIGHT work out.

It's the FO's job to take care of the bigger picture and the logistics of winning. when my team is on the floor, I only root for one outcome.

Do you understand what the word fanatic means? Because if we agree on the definition of fanatic (fan is short for fanatic) then we should also agree that rationale and objectivity are not traits of a fanatical obsession.

I'm not going to approach fandom like I would my portfolio. I'm not a "fan" of a particular company stock, asset, or currency, i'm an investor.

Were you rooting for the Warriors to win their last game of the year that season even though it would have meant nothing other than to guarantee their chance to lose a top-7 draft pick that season? If you were in fact praying that they'd lose (as you hopefully put the teams future over a meaningless game), that's just what all the other fans were doing 2 months prior as they saw the writing on the wall.

Hawkeye15
10-24-2017, 03:58 PM
that's what a fanatic does.


It doesn't mean i'm in it for the "short haul" just because I refuse to root for a losing result because it MIGHT result in a draft pick down the road that MIGHT work out.

It's the FO's job to take care of the bigger picture and the logistics of winning. when my team is on the floor, I only root for one outcome.

Do you understand what the word fanatic means? Because if we agree on the definition of fanatic (fan is short for fanatic) then we should also agree that rationale and objectivity are not traits of a fanatical obsession.

I'm not going to approach fandom like I would my portfolio. I'm not a "fan" of a particular company stock, asset, or currency, i'm an investor.

and that is fine. But I can't just turn off my rational, afterall, I am male.

Scoots
10-24-2017, 03:59 PM
Some people are just Warriors fans while they are waiting for the Lakers to start winning again.

lol, please
10-24-2017, 04:01 PM
Were you rooting for the Warriors to win their last game of the year that season even though it would have meant nothing other than to guarantee their chance to lose a top-7 draft pick that season? If you were in fact praying that they'd lose (as you hopefully put the teams future over a meaningless game), that's just what all the other fans were doing 2 months prior as they saw the writing on the wall.

I was.

Like I explained earlier, I don't think betting on a draft pick turning out is a good idea. Thankfully i'm not a GM.

As a betting man (I know we share common ground here) it doesn't make sense. It's essentially a roll of the dice. In the world of gambling craps is among the worst as far as being able to control the odds and having insight into future results.

The way some people talk about draft picks, you would think every highly touted rookie is guaranteed to be the next Jordan or Curry. For every Jordan there is a Kwame Brown.

I don't care about preseason results and understand it's about player development among other things, but games that cound in the W/L column absolutely. Those games at the end of the season that don't matter after we have secured a seeding? I want wins from each and every one of them. I don't want my team resting players. It's not that I don't see the value in having those players rested and uninjured in future series', but as a competitor, I only know one way to compete - go mode, 110% til the last whistle. Since that's what I expect of myself, that's what I expect of others even though it's unrealistic.

lol, please
10-24-2017, 04:02 PM
and that is fine. But I can't just turn off my rational, afterall, I am male.

If this was a joke or reference it went over my head lol.

For the record I am a male too, and proud to be masculine. :)

valade16
10-24-2017, 04:14 PM
I was.

Like I explained earlier, I don't think betting on a draft pick turning out is a good idea. Thankfully i'm not a GM.

As a betting man (I know we share common ground here) it doesn't make sense. It's essentially a roll of the dice. In the world of gambling craps is among the worst as far as being able to control the odds and having insight into future results.

The way some people talk about draft picks, you would think every highly touted rookie is guaranteed to be the next Jordan or Curry. For every Jordan there is a Kwame Brown.

I don't care about preseason results and understand it's about player development among other things, but games that cound in the W/L column absolutely. Those games at the end of the season that don't matter after we have secured a seeding? I want wins from each and every one of them. I don't want my team resting players. It's not that I don't see the value in having those players rested and uninjured in future series', but as a competitor, I only know one way to compete - go mode, 110% til the last whistle. Since that's what I expect of myself, that's what I expect of others even though it's unrealistic.

An odd sentiment considering the Warriors championship core came primarily from draft picks that turned out to great.

lol, please
10-24-2017, 04:25 PM
An odd sentiment considering the Warriors championship core came primarily from draft picks that turned out to great.


Why is it odd?

I don't see how that's a counter argument to my point. I never said they can't be successful. I do think throwing whole seasons because a draft pick you MIGHT get, MIGHT workout is flat out insanity.

I've never implied that drafting has no value or doesn't work for teams. I just believe in winning all games possible every season, and you fall where you fall for picks. Part of the problem in my opinion is how drafts are handled in the first place, I don't believe in "rewarding" losing teams with good pick situations, if anything the more successful teams should have better draft opportunities to encourage teams to do their best every season. Either way, that's a different topic entirely.

Unless we have overwhelming metrics proving that ending up a bottom team lands the right high pick, and that pick flourishes, and that team ends up in the finals within X amount of years of said draft at such a high percentage that it cannot be denied as an educated and appropriate risk, I will continue to consider it a crap shoot, and I said earlier, a crap shoot is a bet you don't really have control over.

One good example, even two, does not point to an infallible formula.

valade16
10-24-2017, 04:36 PM
Why is it odd?

I don't see how that's a counter argument to my point. I never said they can't be successful. I do think throwing whole seasons because a draft pick you MIGHT get, MIGHT workout is flat out insanity.

I've never implied that drafting has no value or doesn't work for teams. I just believe in winning all games possible every season, and you fall where you fall for picks. Part of the problem in my opinion is how drafts are handled in the first place, I don't believe in "rewarding" losing teams with good pick situations, if anything the more successful teams should have better draft opportunities to encourage teams to do their best every season. Either way, that's a different topic entirely.

Unless we have overwhelming metrics proving that ending up a bottom team lands the right high pick, and that pick flourishes, and that team ends up in the finals within X amount of years of said draft at such a high percentage that it cannot be denied as an educated and appropriate risk, I will continue to consider it a crap shoot, and I said earlier, a crap shoot is a bet you don't really have control over.

One good example, even two, does not point to an infallible formula.

I get the rationale for your belief but rewarding the best teams with the top picks only ensures they stay the best teams, essentially the worst teams will very rarely get better.

How many examples do you need to prove that statistically you are more likely to get a good player the higher you pick? Here are the top 10 players generally considered by people all-time (Wilt as a territorial selection was not included):

Kareem (#1)
Magic (#1)
Shaq (#1)
LeBron (#1)
Hakeem (#1)
Duncan (#1)
Russell (#2)
MJ (#3)
Bird (#6)
Kobe (#13)


6/10 of them were the 1st overall pick. 8/10 were Top 3 picks. 9/10 were Top 10 picks. Is that coincidence?

lol, please
10-24-2017, 04:39 PM
I get the rationale for your belief but rewarding the best teams with the top picks only ensures they stay the best teams, essentially the worst teams will very rarely get better.

How many examples do you need to prove that statistically you are more likely to get a good player the higher you pick? Here are the top 10 players generally considered by people all-time (Wilt as a territorial selection was not included):

Kareem (#1)
Magic (#1)
Shaq (#1)
LeBron (#1)
Hakeem (#1)
Duncan (#1)
Russell (#2)
MJ (#3)
Bird (#6)
Kobe (#13)


6/10 of them were the 1st overall pick. 8/10 were Top 3 picks. 9/10 were Top 10 picks. Is that coincidence?

These numbers are only significant when compared with all the top 1-10 picks that were busts / underachieved / ruined their career off the court.


As far as your first point, good. Maybe teams will actually try and improve by working on team basketball and individual skillsets and not simply say "**** it, maybe we can bring in better players in the draft". The right answer is both would happen, but drafting new players isn't the only way to go about improving a team, it's a slice of the pie.

jaydubb
10-24-2017, 04:50 PM
They probably did and I honestly don't care because let's be real, with the current lottery system in place there's been several teams tanking the last several years

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

Allphakenny1
10-24-2017, 04:51 PM
Why is it odd?

I don't see how that's a counter argument to my point. I never said they can't be successful. I do think throwing whole seasons because a draft pick you MIGHT get, MIGHT workout is flat out insanity.

I've never implied that drafting has no value or doesn't work for teams. I just believe in winning all games possible every season, and you fall where you fall for picks. Part of the problem in my opinion is how drafts are handled in the first place, I don't believe in "rewarding" losing teams with good pick situations, if anything the more successful teams should have better draft opportunities to encourage teams to do their best every season. Either way, that's a different topic entirely.

Unless we have overwhelming metrics proving that ending up a bottom team lands the right high pick, and that pick flourishes, and that team ends up in the finals within X amount of years of said draft at such a high percentage that it cannot be denied as an educated and appropriate risk, I will continue to consider it a crap shoot, and I said earlier, a crap shoot is a bet you don't really have control over.

One good example, even two, does not point to an infallible formula.

Nobody who is tanking is throwing away a season. These teams have no chance at a championship so the season is already thrown away. The few teams that actually have a chance at winning the championship are not going to tank.

tredigs
10-24-2017, 04:55 PM
I was.

Like I explained earlier, I don't think betting on a draft pick turning out is a good idea. Thankfully i'm not a GM.

As a betting man (I know we share common ground here) it doesn't make sense. It's essentially a roll of the dice. In the world of gambling craps is among the worst as far as being able to control the odds and having insight into future results.

The way some people talk about draft picks, you would think every highly touted rookie is guaranteed to be the next Jordan or Curry. For every Jordan there is a Kwame Brown.

I don't care about preseason results and understand it's about player development among other things, but games that cound in the W/L column absolutely. Those games at the end of the season that don't matter after we have secured a seeding? I want wins from each and every one of them. I don't want my team resting players. It's not that I don't see the value in having those players rested and uninjured in future series', but as a competitor, I only know one way to compete - go mode, 110% til the last whistle. Since that's what I expect of myself, that's what I expect of others even though it's unrealistic.
I only understand your logic in the sense that you admit it's unreasonable and that it's good you're not a GM. There's a big difference between tanking for the chance at a higher pick with a current roster, and actually making trades for the future that include the incentive to either receive a top-7 pick or no pick at all. It was a unique situation.

lol, please
10-24-2017, 05:00 PM
I only understand your logic in the sense that you admit it's unreasonable and that it's good you're not a GM. There's a big difference between tanking for the chance at a higher pick with a current roster, and actually making trades for the future that include the incentive to either receive a top-7 pick or no pick at all. It was a unique situation.
Not denying that. And the latter makes sense.

My thoughts on the tanking concept really have nothing to do with the Warriors recent history, or any other teams for that matter. What the team I root for does/does not do I have no control over. I merely shared my thoughts on the concept of tanking as I understand it, from the opinion as someone with a competitive nature.

FlashBolt
10-24-2017, 05:15 PM
Some people are just Warriors fans while they are waiting for the Lakers to start winning again.

You mean to tell me that they weren't a Warriors fan when Baron Davis or Monta Ellis were running the show?

valade16
10-24-2017, 05:19 PM
These numbers are only significant when compared with all the top 1-10 picks that were busts / underachieved / ruined their career off the court.

As far as your first point, good. Maybe teams will actually try and improve by working on team basketball and individual skillsets and not simply say "**** it, maybe we can bring in better players in the draft". The right answer is both would happen, but drafting new players isn't the only way to go about improving a team, it's a slice of the pie.

There were less unproductive players and more productive players drafted 1-5 than 5-10, and 5-10 than 10-20, and 10-20, than 20-30, etc. Essentially, the % chance of success is increased the higher you draft. That doesn't guarantee anything and the chances of success can still be low, but there is a difference between 7% chance of working out and 2% chance.

As for your second point... how? How do you improve the team without the opportunity to draft better players? How could would the Warriors be if they didn't get to draft Curry or Klay?

tredigs
10-24-2017, 05:32 PM
You mean to tell me that they weren't a Warriors fan when Baron Davis or Monta Ellis were running the show?

Yeah, talk about a fanbase with a history of not backing up their guys. Were Warriors fans even a thing in 2007? Literally can not think of a player with less home support than Baron Davis.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYpwjB0IzoU

warfelg
10-24-2017, 05:39 PM
You mean to tell me that they weren't a Warriors fan when Baron Davis or Monta Ellis were running the show?

Golden State had a team before now? Wow I didn't know that!

(just general comment now)

Every team has tanked. Doesn't always have to be a 6ers/Lakers prolonged style tank. Some teams sit at 12 and have a top 10 protected pick, so they try to get to 9. Same with other protections. Some just want to try to slide down 2-3 spots after they are out just for odds at a better pick.

Tanking these last few years has become synonymous with what the 6ers/lakers did, and it's allowed us to overlook the mid-lotto tanking which has been popular for long before we did what we did.

People who say tanking doesn't exist or their team never tanked are doing the hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil thing. They know it's going on but if they don't acknowledge it, it must not exist.

tredigs
10-24-2017, 05:45 PM
I am a bit surprised that this storyline is resurfacing as it was widely known at the time and nobody could/did fault them for it.

warfelg
10-24-2017, 05:49 PM
I am a bit surprised that this storyline is resurfacing as it was widely known at the time and nobody could/did fault them for it.

I think it's resurfacing because of people talking about how the GSW did it the right way with never taking to the #1 pick; and the Hawks GM is trying to say "Pump the brakes, they did, but they didn't land the top pick."

tredigs
10-24-2017, 06:25 PM
I think it's resurfacing because of people talking about how the GSW did it the right way with never taking to the #1 pick; and the Hawks GM is trying to say "Pump the brakes, they did, but they didn't land the top pick."

I mean I don't think they ever had illusions of scoring the #1 pick. They just knew in that the sort of throwaway strike-shortened season they had no chance at the playoffs after Curry went down again, and decided to make a play for the future. It was a tough (because Monta was popular and a borderline All Star) but straight-forward decision imo. They also probably would have brought Curry back in limited minutes to finish the season if it was not a top-7 pick or nothing. Again, a very unique situation.

TrueFan420
10-24-2017, 10:43 PM
The warriors organization tanked the season. They saw they were not going to make the playoffs. Shut down their promising rookie who picked up an injury. Moved their best player for an injured player and hoped that they'd do bad enough to keep their pick.

Difference is they tanked with a purpose. Not just get picks and hope they pan out. The move of Ellis put Klay into the starting 5. Bogut was the center we'd been missing for years. It wasn't just dropping current talent for future talent but also putting better pieces of the puzzle together. Before we became what we are we were a team that balanced perfectly. Helped hide weakness and strengthen strengths.

zn23
10-24-2017, 11:51 PM
What's the big deal? That was a very smart move.

lol, please
10-25-2017, 12:14 AM
There were less unproductive players and more productive players drafted 1-5 than 5-10, and 5-10 than 10-20, and 10-20, than 20-30, etc. Essentially, the % chance of success is increased the higher you draft. That doesn't guarantee anything and the chances of success can still be low, but there is a difference between 7% chance of working out and 2% chance.

As for your second point... how? How do you improve the team without the opportunity to draft better players? How could would the Warriors be if they didn't get to draft Curry or Klay?

I meant minor improvements lol, players can get better, systems can improve.

As far as your first point, that's what i'm saying, either way it's not high enough in my opinion to warrant throwing away a season.

Either way, it's fine, tired of holding my ground on this lol. Agree to disagree on it.

Saddletramp
10-25-2017, 12:44 AM
I hate threads like this.

I also don't believe tanking is a thing. I will always consider it a way of fans coping with their teams not contending. Good luck convincing me, a man with a true competitive spirit, that true competitors lose on purpose, ever.


A laughable concept if i've ever heard one. Only rivaled by how laughable it is to think it's a good idea to heavily "bet" on draft picks turning out to be great players, even if you actually land them.

Lol. For a guy with a "true competitive spirit" you sure dropped your Lakers for the Warriors quick when the Lakers went garbage and the Warriors got great.


Pathetic. Show some respect. :nod:

mngopher35
10-25-2017, 05:09 AM
Was this when the fans booed the owner? Right after that Ellis trade right?

Scoots
10-25-2017, 09:16 AM
I only understand your logic in the sense that you admit it's unreasonable and that it's good you're not a GM. There's a big difference between tanking for the chance at a higher pick with a current roster, and actually making trades for the future that include the incentive to either receive a top-7 pick or no pick at all. It was a unique situation.

It wasn't unique ... it's a common situation. The Lakers would have lost their pick if they finished better than the 3rd pick.

Maybe teams shouldn't be allowed to put conditions/restrictions on traded picks.

tredigs
10-25-2017, 10:33 AM
It wasn't unique ... it's a common situation. The Lakers would have lost their pick if they finished better than the 3rd pick.

Maybe teams shouldn't be allowed to put conditions/restrictions on traded picks.

Lol, by unique I am not saying it's the only time it has happened. It's just not your standard "tank for the highest possible pick" scenario.

Cal827
10-27-2017, 10:18 PM
:laugh2: Everybody tanked that season.... If I'm not mistaken, that was the year of Anthony Davis, Andre Drummond, Beal, and Liliard Draft, right? The end of the season had some hilarious starting lineups.

The finale for the Nets and Raptors had lineups that had:

Deshawn Stevenson at Power Forward
Johan Petro at Starting Center

Solomon Alabi At Starting Centre
Ben Uzoh as Starting Poing Guard

Nets played 8 guys, Raptors played 7 (Uzoh, Alan Anderson, Alabi, and Davis all got more than 40 mins)

All because they were tied record-wise going into the final game, and a loss would improve draft position.

Raptors win the game, so the Nets got the higher odds of winning the lotto, but unfortunately, they ended up being moved down, so they lost their first round pick to Portland via the Gerald Wallace Trade, giving them Liliard.

Man, the Nets must still be pissed over that draft. Not only did their 1st rounder go to Portland who drafted Liliard, they also traded their 2nd round pick...... who ended up being Draymond Green :laugh2:

One Nut Kruk
10-29-2017, 02:06 PM
Lol. For a guy with a "true competitive spirit" you sure dropped your Lakers for the Warriors quick when the Lakers went garbage and the Warriors got great.


Pathetic. Show some respect. :nod:

This guy was a Lakers fan before the Warriors?

Oh yeah, ultra competitive spirit there lmao

chipurmunki
10-30-2017, 02:50 AM
Well, in today's basketball where competitive integrity means ****, calling tankers out isn't an insult. Nothing will change until the league doesn't allow it. Tanking doesn't always work, however, as the 6ers have proven for years.

COOLbeans
10-30-2017, 07:32 PM
I mean I don't think they ever had illusions of scoring the #1 pick. They just knew in that the sort of throwaway strike-shortened season they had no chance at the playoffs after Curry went down again, and decided to make a play for the future. It was a tough (because Monta was popular and a borderline All Star) but straight-forward decision imo. They also probably would have brought Curry back in limited minutes to finish the season if it was not a top-7 pick or nothing. Again, a very unique situation.

They knew that if they tanked, then they'd have a serious shot at either Kidd-Gilchrist or Barnes. They despearatly needed a SF, and as you alluded earlier, they would not have taken a chance on Draymond in the 2nd round, if they had not gotten what they thought was a premier perimeter 3 in Barnes.

If they lost the 7th pick then they wouldv traded to move up from the 2nd round into the middle of the 1st round, and the best SF between 18 and 30 was Maurice Harkless.

The point ive been making for years to the tanking deniers is that if they did not tank, then they wouldve passed on Draymond, which means no championship and no defensive culture in GS.

likemystylez
11-03-2017, 08:30 AM
The warriors organization tanked the season. They saw they were not going to make the playoffs. Shut down their promising rookie who picked up an injury. Moved their best player for an injured player and hoped that they'd do bad enough to keep their pick.

Difference is they tanked with a purpose. Not just get picks and hope they pan out. The move of Ellis put Klay into the starting 5. Bogut was the center we'd been missing for years. It wasn't just dropping current talent for future talent but also putting better pieces of the puzzle together. Before we became what we are we were a team that balanced perfectly. Helped hide weakness and strengthen strengths.

Klay Thompson actually increased his minutes during the tanking period. They didnt shut him down.

likemystylez
11-03-2017, 08:36 AM
Yeah, this is not a player issue @lol,please. Every chance a player has on the court is an opportunity for them to help their team win, improve their own stats, and just generally drive up their influence and market value. Front offices on the other hand have far different motives. And with the Warriors season already down the drain with Curry's injuries, it made perfect sense to shut him down and trade Monta for an injured Bogut (who could help them more going forward). If they keep Monta and bring back Curry, they risk further injury and completely throw away the chance at a highly valuable draft pick (if they did not land in the top-7 it goes away completely) in a scenario where they were going to miss the playoffs regardless. It was "tanking" in the sense that they were not trying to win the most games possible that season, but without that move these Warriors don't exist.

Its funny that you mention that because Curry completely got screwed over during that tanking. it probably costed curry over 70 million dollars. First they decide to sit him even when he is able to play- LOL then they use that against him at the negotiation table. wait a minute- was he sitting because he was injured or because they wanted to lose games and secure the pick (That got kinda blurry during the negotiations)

Granted- they did curry the option to wait until the following summer (2013) to negotiate his contract, and he insisted on getting it done in 2012 even at a far lower rate than he would have gotten. So if curry himself wasnt willing to bet on his health even for one season- im not sure its fair to expect the organization to invest too much in him at that point.

Scoots
11-03-2017, 10:47 AM
by unique I am not saying it's the only time

You do know what "unique" means right? :)

When people say "very unique" or "extremely unique" it's a pet peeve of mine ... there are no degrees of uniqueness.

king4day
11-03-2017, 10:54 AM
Sure why not? Every team does it. Lakers did it last year for Lonzo.

it only really looks bad if you're the Suns or 76ers who do it 5 years in a row.

Suns didn't do it for 5 years. In fact, last year was the only year. None the less, what are your alternatives for a team who stars have no interest coming to? Be a treadmill and watch the rest of the league pass you by?

The goal is a championship. To get players interested in signing with you, you need promising talent on your team at the very least.
Occasionally, teams get lucky and land stars later in the draft. But if you can find a way to land a sure thing, you go for it.