The Tank Thread

[CBAreject]

18 minutes ago, KB21 said:

Which is why the strategy doesn't work.  Losing for multiple years is not acceptable to me, and it never will be.  

Ok, but we’re just back to a difference of opinions, which is what I keep saying to you.  You’re welcome to enjoy one 43-win season after another—you had 25 good years of that to enjoy.  Now we’re trying something that I’ve been wanting for decades—to get a bona fide superstar in the draft and maybe be a championship contender.  Different goals for the team, see?

[MaceCase]

1 hour ago, Watchman said:

We've not had a superstar in decades, and even then it was iffy, so we've not been in a position to do so.    (Nique was extremely talented but he was no Jordan or Bird.) 

 

Maybe I'm wrong, but you have just as good a chance of being wrong as I do.  I'm just going off Ressler's public statements about his "priority one" and then totally reneging on it when it came down to money.  He could have spent the difference to retain Al Horford.  Why didn't he?  Bottom line is he has avoided going into the luxury tax thus far.

The Hawks paid the luxury tax as recently as 2012, remind me what star was on that team?  

This is an interesting take with the whole “I might be wrong but so could you” point because I’m not seeing any lack of certainty in the statements being thrown around by you or KB.  

The difference between Horford remaining a Hawk was amount over years not annually, at the time the Hawks already went above and beyond what any other team could pay and in hindsight, looking at how Al has become a glorified 14 and 7 player and the cap has snapped back, it was smart business sense not committing 5 years to him by bidding against themselves.  Secondly, I guess we could avoid all common sense and say in a void that Ressler was reluctant to pay the luxury tax and not anything having to do with retaining the same much more expensive aging core that had already underperformed all of his expectations.

[CBAreject]

Another way of saying this, @KB21, is if losing for multiple seasons is “not acceptable” to you, then maybe you’re not in a position to objectively evaluate whether or not tanking “works”, since it requires exactly that—losing for multiple seasons.  This actually makes a lot more sense out of why you were being so obtuse.  It’s an emotional issue for you, and people don’t tend to be the most rational when they’re emotional.  

[KB21]

7 minutes ago, CBAreject said:

Ok, but we’re just back to a difference of opinions, which is what I keep saying to you.  You’re welcome to enjoy one 43-win season after another—you had 25 good years of that to enjoy.  Now we’re trying something that I’ve been wanting for decades—to get a bona fide superstar in the draft and maybe be a championship contender.  Different goals for the team, see?

Did you miss 1999-2007?  Because I suffered through that, and I never want to go there again.

[davis171]

2 minutes ago, KB21 said:

Did you miss 1999-2007?  Because I suffered through that, and I never want to go there again.

So yes it is a sore subject. No one saw a path to success after losing Al except restart.

[KB21]

4 minutes ago, CBAreject said:

Another way of saying this, @KB21, is if losing for multiple seasons is “not acceptable” to you, then maybe you’re not in a position to objectively evaluate whether or not tanking “works”, since it requires exactly that—losing for multiple seasons.  This actually makes a lot more sense out of why you were being so obtuse.  It’s an emotional issue for you, and people don’t tend to be the most rational when they’re emotional.  

Actually, my stance makes perfect sense and is devoid of the emotional aspect.  I'm clearly not a championship or bust person, which is clearly based on emotions.  I enjoy watching quality basketball play.

But here's the thing.  At some point, you are going to have to pay this top pick, whether he is actually good or not (see Andrew Wiggins and his contract....most overpaid player for his production in the NBA).  If tanking works, then you should be a championship contender when it comes time to pay the piper.  Why should you give the young player a max deal if he hasn't made you into a contender on that first contract, and if he hasn't done so, then why did you draft him?

[CBAreject]

1 minute ago, KB21 said:

Did you miss 1999-2007?  Because I suffered through that, and I never want to go there again.

I’m sure we have very different interpretations of that era.  Babcock never tanked—he should’ve been your favorite GM.  What Babcock did was try to stay relevant by trading an aging core of boring players that got annihilated by the 8th seed for risky young problem players.  That made us bad, but not bad enough to draft very high.  He compounded the problem by trading all of the high picks we did get for veterans because losing for multiple seasons was “not acceptable”.  Well, acceptable or not, we did lose for multiple seasons, only we didn’t have a franchise player to show for it.  By the time Billy Knight took over, we had no real assets and he did his best to rid our roster of liabilities.  At that point, we actually did tank for one season, but then we had Billy knight drafting for “length” instead of ceiling.  He also made our situation worse by attempting to win now and trading for JJ.  

[KB21]

5 minutes ago, davis171 said:

So yes it is a sore subject. No one saw a path to success after losing Al except restart.

Oh, there was a path to success, but it required an effort to do it instead of taking the easy way out and bottoming the team to the bottom of the NBA where we will probably just draft the next Andrew Wiggins thinking he is a superstar when he's really just a terrible player.

[CBAreject]

3 minutes ago, KB21 said:

But here's the thing.  At some point, you are going to have to pay this top pick, whether he is actually good or not (see Andrew Wiggins and his contract....most overpaid player for his production in the NBA).  If tanking works, then you should be a championship contender when it comes time to pay the piper.  Why should you give the young player a max deal if he hasn't made you into a contender on that first contract, and if he hasn't done so, then why did you draft him?

One example is not instructive of anything.  If middle builds work out so well, why Pete Babcock? Why Isaiah Rider?  Obviously, that one case tells you nothing except “every middle build doesn’t succeed”.  Wiggins tells you that “not every #1 Pick is a superstar”.  That was never in dispute 

[davis171]

3 minutes ago, KB21 said:

Oh, there was a path to success, but it required an effort to do it instead of taking the easy way out and bottoming the team to the bottom of the NBA where we will probably just draft the next Andrew Wiggins thinking he is a superstar when he's really just a terrible player.

Explain it then!

 

 

[KB21]

Excuse me.  I have to go chew some ass in my lab because they are taking too long to get lab results back to me.

[AHF]

1 hour ago, KB21 said:

Not in an acceptable time frame.  Who has bottomed out and won a championship within a 4-5 year frame of time that didn't end up signing LeBron James as a free agent?  Who has done it based solely off who they drafted?

4-5 years is a crazy unrealistic time frame.  Most teams take much longer to go from drafting the engine that will drive their championship to getting a ring.

The GOAT Michael freaking Jordan getting paired with HOFer Scottie Pippen and their 6 rings failed to get it done in 4-5 years.  Heck, Jordan was in his 4th season before he even broke .500!

 

And you still have yet to name any team in NBA history over any number of years to go from mediocre playoff team without a superstar to champion (without getting bad in between).  Glad I said I'd wait instead of saying I'd hold my breath!

[KB21]

18 minutes ago, AHF said:

4-5 years is a crazy unrealistic time frame.  Most teams take much longer to go from drafting the engine that will drive their championship to getting a ring.

The GOAT Michael freaking Jordan getting paired with HOFer Scottie Pippen and their 6 rings failed to get it done in 4-5 years.  Heck, Jordan was in his 4th season before he even broke .500!

 

And you still have yet to name any team in NBA history over any number of years to go from mediocre playoff team without a superstar to champion (without getting bad in between).  Glad I said I'd wait instead of saying I'd hold my breath!

Every team that has ever won a championship had to be a 40 something win team at some point.

[AHF]

1 hour ago, Watchman said:

Good thinking.  However, I think they'd have to eliminate all the "exceptions" like "Bird rights" or you still end up with stacked teams.  Maybe a hard cap would help.

Hard to say.  Luxury tax penalties are all baseball has and they have ended up working pretty close to a cap.  If you had to pay Durant $50M and had to pay 2x that because of the tax, I am thinking a lot of owners would have to think really hard before stacking up a superteam.  You are right that you'd have to think through all the different parameters of the cap, though.

[KB21]

So, what is an appropriate time frame?  10 years?  15 years?  Sometime this century?  

[AHF]

Just now, KB21 said:

Every team that has ever won a championship had to be a 40 something win team at some point.

I am just blown over by this non-statement.  Every team in NBA history has been a 40 win team at some point.  Who f#$*ing cares about being a 40 win team?  It says nothing about whether a team is on a path to greater things.

Are you trying to act like being a 40 something win team means something in and of itself?  Is there some type of similarity in path to a ring for a team like the 1986-87 40 win Bulls and the 2016-17 43 win Hawks?  The fact that one had the GOAT and another All-NBA talent and the other team had aging, non-superstars is irrelevant because both are ~40 win teams and therefore in the mix for greatness?

I thought the whole point of this discussion was you arguing that teams didn't have to stink it up and fall near the bottom of the league in win total to collect the necessary talent to form a the nucleus that a team could transform into a championship.  If you are going to full back on a statement like the above that means literally nothing then what are we even talking about?

[KB21]

Just now, AHF said:

I am just blown over by this non-statement.  Every team in NBA history has been a 40 win team at some point.  Who f#$*ing cares about being a 40 win team?  It says nothing about whether a team is on a path to greater things.

Are you trying to act like being a 40 something win team means something in and of itself?  Is there some type of similarity in path to a ring for a team like the 1986-87 40 win Bulls and the 2016-17 43 win Hawks?  The fact that one had the GOAT and another All-NBA talent and the other team had aging, non-superstars is irrelevant because both are ~40 win teams and therefore in the mix for greatness?

I thought the whole point of this discussion was you arguing that teams didn't have to stink it up and fall near the bottom of the league in win total to collect the necessary talent to form a the nucleus that a team could transform into a championship.  If you are going to full back on a statement like the above that means literally nothing then what are we even talking about?

If you are going to continue to try and say that tanking works, then exactly.  What are we even talking about?  It's been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that tanking, in fact, does not work.  

[davis171]

2 minutes ago, KB21 said:

If you are going to continue to try and say that tanking works, then exactly.  What are we even talking about?  It's been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that tanking, in fact, does not work.  

Yes it does just not in the time frame that makes you happy.

[AHF]

Just now, KB21 said:

So, what is an appropriate time frame?  10 years?  15 years?  Sometime this century?  

It can take a decade from drafting your superstar to get a ring.  I'd happily take see our team climb a path like the Rockets.  

Starting Point:  Worst in the NBA by 6 games with 14 wins

Year 2:  3rd Worst Record in the NBA and win the coin flip to get the #1 pick again

Years 11: NBA Champions

[AHF]

4 minutes ago, KB21 said:

If you are going to continue to try and say that tanking works, then exactly.  What are we even talking about?  It's been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that tanking, in fact, does not work.  

The last 3 championships were all won by teams that tanked.  The Rockets won 14 freaking games when they rebuilt.  Can you imagine how fan KB21 of the Rockets would have reacted to a 14 win team?