The Tank Thread

[KB21]

8 minutes ago, AHF said:

You mean something different than everyone else does by your unclear and moving target definition of "tanking."  To compound the issue in communication, you look at a team like the Astros that traded off every vet and fielded a $22M payroll team (median team's payroll was $90M) where the highest paid player was 4.59 ERA, 1.483 WHIP Erik Bedard earning $1.15M and somehow conclude they didn't lose on purpose which means you are not only working off of a different definition of tanking but a different set of facts.

It is no small wonder you reach a different conclusion.

Again: https://www.crawfishboxes.com/2016/2/3/10904106/the-astros-werent-tanking

Quote

The Astros were already tanked

There is still a point to be made that there is a slight advantage to being able to pick first, in that you have a better chance at landing an eventually-great player.  Not that it worked for the Astros for three years, besides Carlos Correa, but that's a different topic.

As I said before, I reject the notion that the Astros were tanking when the Jim Crane / Jeff Luhnow / George Postolos regime inherited the club at the end of 2011.  At the time, the Astros had:

 

1. Not finished higher than third place in five seasons
2. Had one of the oldest rosters in the league
3. Albatross contracts that depressed those players' trade values (Carlos Lee, Wandy Rodriguez).
4. A bottom-five ranking of minor league talent in the farm system
5. Only two players ranked on Baseball America's Top 100 prospects (Lyles #42 and Villar #94)
6. No contract with a television carrier to bolster revenues so they could buy their way into competetiveness.
7. A move to a more competetive league, requiring a DH that they didn't have
8. Big ol' loans from both the purchase of the team and also on the stadium note.
9. A disinterested fan base
10. A previous GM that didn't exactly make the most of his tradeable assets in every case.

In short, the Astros were in as bad a position in terms of performance, pipeline, and payroll as any team of the last fifty or sixty years.

Quote

They didn't tank for draft picks anyway

They didn't have the financial wherewithal to go after the highest-paid Free Agents, and a couple of those free agents would not have helped them reach the playoffs over the Angels, A's, and Rangers anyway.  They also didn't have any big-time prospects who would provide maximum value for their performance.

So what the Astros actually did was try to address the things that they could address, given the circumstances.  They traded away everything that wasn't nailed down in an attempt to address issues numbered two, three, four, five, and seven from the list above.

The end result of trying to rebuild the organization in this manner, plus there not being any point in signing free agents that would not help the team reach the playoffs anyway, resulted in the worst win-loss records in franchise history.  If one wants to look at it from a half-positive angle, the silver lining was receiving higher draft picks and Rule 5 and Waiver claim priority.

But the draft pick wasn't the end-game.  The #process wasn't about tanking for that draft pick.  It was about rebuilding the system as completely and as quickly as possible to build a team in contention, not just one that could hover around .500 for a decade.  The key to that process was adding a large volume of good young players in hopes that enough of them would develop into very good players that it would make future spending worthwhile for free agents that would supplement a cost-controlled core.  And that could be achieved through trades and smart drafting in lower rounds, not by the acquisition of one single guy at the top of the draft.

At no point in time did they go into a season with the goal of losing as many games as possible to improve their drafting position, because that would be even an even more foolish strategy to take in baseball than it is in basketball.  

[turnermx]

If you have to think about it, the Braves of recent seasons actually deserve a picture placed right beside “rebuild/reshape while trying to stay respectable and not have awful seasons that make it look like we’re not trying”.

I gotta be honest, they completely succeeded with that hope outside 1 putrid stretch from after ASB in 2015-the ASB in 2016. But their tap dancing in between let’s rebuild our team and let’s try to look like a team that is trying to be “okay” could have very easily blown up horribly in their faces. A lot of the reason why the rebuild and tap dance between okay and terrible by the Braves looks like it’s going to end up working out is it looks like nobody position player prospect wise is going to just be a complete washout, even if they fail to live up to whatever their hype was, outside Albies who is breaking all expectations and honestly if he wasn’t, where would the Braves offense be in 2018?

None of us are saying that you build a team purely through your drafting or in baseball…your young international free agents with the drafting. In some of my musings while I was being a weenie and trying to 98% hold away from coming on here completely, I thought that I’d like for the Hawks to acquire some more veterans after 18/19 to help the young players. Heck…Jeremy Lin coming in might down the road actually be a guy to try to be an example for Trae Young, since he’s a guy that really needs to improve his mid-range (not necessarily jump shot but floaters) and inside game (as it was a little rough from what I could tell even when he was playing well in college).

Exactly Lurker actually the Braves are ahead of expectations due to breakout of Albies that kid is special. If he were struggling as Dansby is offensively the Braves offense wouldn’t score enough to win. Sorry this topic probably belongs in another thread.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[AHF]

7 minutes ago, KB21 said:

Again: https://www.crawfishboxes.com/2016/2/3/10904106/the-astros-werent-tanking

At no point in time did they go into a season with the goal of losing as many games as possible to improve their drafting position, because that would be even an even more foolish strategy to take in baseball than it is in basketball.  

The article is correct that draft picks weren't the only goal but is 100% wrong when they claim that the team didn't care about drafting guys like Alex Bregman.  Those top picks were exactly like the talent they traded for - young, cost controlled, high upside players.

They absolutely punted on winning for multiple years and intentionally lost as many games as possible during that time.  The article acknowledges that they didn't spend on FAs.  Why do you think that is?  They could have spent on free agents and not impacted anything other than increasing their win totals - their dumpster dive roster led to them being super profitable so they had money to burn and could easily have spent even well below the league average payroll -- say $70M instead of $22M.  Why didn't they?  The answer is obvious - they wanted to lose to add elite draft picks to the players for whom they traded.

They jettisoned every player to lose for a few years with the goal of winning more in the long-term.  Same philosophy as the 76ers.

The 76ers even have your Markakis in JJ Redick.

[KB21]

3 minutes ago, AHF said:

The article is correct that draft picks weren't the only goal but is 100% wrong when they claim that the team didn't care about drafting guys like Alex Bregman.  Those top picks were exactly like the talent they traded for - young, cost controlled, high upside players.

They absolutely punted on winning for multiple years and intentionally lost as many games as possible during that time.  The article acknowledges that they didn't spend on FAs.  Why do you think that is?  They could have spent on free agents and not impacted anything other than increasing their win totals - their dumpster dive roster led to them being super profitable so they had money to burn and could easily have spent even well below the league average payroll -- say $70M instead of $22M.  Why didn't they?  The answer is obvious - they wanted to lose to add elite draft picks to the players for whom they traded.

They jettisoned every player to lose for a few years with the goal of winning more in the long-term.  Same philosophy as the 76ers.

The 76ers even have your Markakis in JJ Redick.

No, it isn't.  The article states they didn't go into free agency because they did not have the finances to do so.  They didn't have a TV deal to generate revenue.  They were in the middle of an ownership change when the new owners had to borrow money to cover the costs of buying the team.  The end result of what they did was losing, but losing was not their goal.  Their goal was to replenish their system with young talent. 

[JayBirdHawk]

2 hours ago, KB21 said:

The Braves did not tank.

Keep telling yourself that.

[kg01]

Just now, JayBirdHawk said:

Keep telling yourself that.

He's gotta tell himself that.

#AgendaSquawk

[KB21]

So, it is beyond obvious that most of you have been influenced by the media's glorification of tanking and believe that rebuilding = tanking,

[nathan2331]

So, it is beyond obvious that most of you have been influenced by the media's glorification of tanking and believe that rebuilding = tanking,

Would you stop bringing up the media everytime someone disagrees with you? You're not the only one, but it's annoying to see. You're on a site of dedicated Hawks fans, who are all intelligent and knowledgeable enough about the Hawks to have an opinion independent of whatever the media is saying.

[Gray Mule]

Braves = 25 players.  Usually about 10 or 12 pitchers. 8 regular  players = the bench.

Hawks 15 players, usually about 10 to 12 seeing action.

Biggest difference.  The farm system.  Hawks have their own G league team right now.  They can have two players with 2 way contracts.  This means they have 2 extra players.

Braves have AAA team, AA team, 2 - A teams plus a rookie league team.  How many minor league players do they have control of?  Over 100!

Hawks do have a few drafted players, stashed overseas. 

When the Braves went into rebuild mode, they changed their minor league system.  In one year they went from being not very good to one of the very best.  Now, that is paying dividends.  And, all because of their farm system being so very good.

Hawks went for draft picks.  They didn't have a minor league team that they could build up.  G league is not set up that way.  Pity.  It should be.  Hopefully, in time …..

[REHawksFan]

1 hour ago, KB21 said:

  The end result of what they did was losing, but losing was not their goal.  Their goal was to replenish their system with young talent. 

So losing was just a by-product of their re-build? Losing was just the unhappy accident that came along with trading away vets for young talent and or picks?  Now see, THIS is an opinion that I can buy into.  That makes total sense.  Their goal was never to intentionally lose but to simply restock their system with young talent.  Got it. 

Wait...that sounds awfully similar to something else I've read about......like trading away older vets for assets and picks in order to replenish a system with young talent.  Hm. Where have I read that before?  

[AHF]

1 hour ago, KB21 said:

No, it isn't.  The article states they didn't go into free agency because they did not have the finances to do so.  They didn't have a TV deal to generate revenue.  They were in the middle of an ownership change when the new owners had to borrow money to cover the costs of buying the team.  The end result of what they did was losing, but losing was not their goal.  Their goal was to replenish their system with young talent. 

They didn't have the resources to go into?  Mmmkay.

Quote

 

2013 Houston Astros: Baseball's Worst Team Is The Most Profitable In History

https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2013/08/26/2013-houston-astros-baseballs-worst-team-is-most-profitable-in-history/#4af4d9aa34c0

They could have paid for FAs just with their operating income.  

[KB21]

19 minutes ago, REHawksFan said:

So losing was just a by-product of their re-build? Losing was just the unhappy accident that came along with trading away vets for young talent and or picks?  Now see, THIS is an opinion that I can buy into.  That makes total sense.  Their goal was never to intentionally lose but to simply restock their system with young talent.  Got it. 

Wait...that sounds awfully similar to something else I've read about......like trading away older vets for assets and picks in order to replenish a system with young talent.  Hm. Where have I read that before?  

You heard that from Boston.  You haven't heard that from Atlanta though.  What older veteran did Travis Schlenk get any value for in a trade for assets?

[EazyRoc]

3 hours ago, KB21 said:

They absolutely are trying to purposely bottom out the roster.  They are actively trying to trade Dennis, and they tried to include Kent Bazemore in two separate trades to move down without getting an asset in return.  They basically told Dallas that if they took Kent Bazemore's contract, they would move down from 3 to 5 without anything else added other than Matthews's expiring deal, which they would have bought out.  

This is very clearly a 76ers style tank, right down to hiring an unqualified head coach (Philly actually hired a qualified coach).  

We will have to see how the chips fall, but I see your point. I’ve heard the rumors about Baze and the only reason Dennis is still here is because his legal situation. However, Philly really bottomed out their roster in probably the most shameless fashion in NBA history. I don’t think we are there yet and it’s notably different because we actually have a few good young players (Prince and Collins).

I think you should wait until you watch these guys play before you throw Pierce under the bus. Not like you’re going to get a good veteran coach to fall on his sword and coach this non-playoff roster. He has the qualifications of a solid rookie coach.

[KB21]

1 minute ago, EazyRoc said:

We will have to see how the chips fall, but I see your point. I’ve heard the rumors about Baze and the only reason Dennis is still here is because his legal situation. However, Philly really bottomed out their roster in probably the most shameless fashion in NBA history. I don’t think we are there yet and it’s notably different because we actually have a few good young players (Prince and Collins).

I think you should wait until you watch these guys play before you throw Pierce under the bus. Not like you’re going to get a good veteran coach to fall on his sword and coach this non-playoff roster. He has the qualifications of a solid rookie coach.

The guy has been a bench assistant for around 3 years with all of his previous experience coming as a behind the bench/player development guy.  

[EazyRoc]

3 hours ago, JayBirdHawk said:

Unfortunately it's too soon to tell since Dennis and Baze are still being shopped in trades.  It depends on the return we get - is it for assets or just salary dumps? That will tell the tale.

Right. At this point, I’d honestly be disappointed if we even trade them for any picks this coming draft year. We have 2 (likely) picks in the lottery. Let’s start trying to get unprotected picks next year.

[EazyRoc]

2 minutes ago, KB21 said:

The guy has been a bench assistant for around 3 years with all of his previous experience coming as a behind the bench/player development guy.  

I don’t get it. 3 years as an assistant is not enough time to be a head coach ? Especially on a roster you’re going to have to not only coach, but develop.

[KB21]

Just now, EazyRoc said:

I don’t get it. 3 years as an assistant is not enough time to be a head coach ? Especially on a roster you’re going to have to not only coach, but develop.

The only reason he was hired is because he is willing to go along with the tank and not try to force wins.  He's not established enough in the NBA to reject the offer.  That, and basically no coach of any significance would have taken this job.

[EazyRoc]

Just now, KB21 said:

The only reason he was hired is because he is willing to go along with the tank and not try to force wins.  He's not established enough in the NBA to reject the offer.  That, and basically no coach of any significance would have taken this job.

Well that’s your assumption. I’m not going to argue against that. Why wouldn’t 3 years as assistant coach qualify someone for a head coaching position ? Especially this one, which we both agree isn’t exactly desirable.

[KB21]

1 minute ago, EazyRoc said:

Well that’s your assumption. I’m not going to argue against that. Why wouldn’t 3 years as assistant coach qualify someone for a head coaching position ? Especially this one, which we both agree isn’t exactly desirable.

Because, IMO, three years isn't enough time to pay your dues as an assistant coach.  

[JayBirdHawk]

 

2 minutes ago, KB21 said:

Because, IMO, three years isn't enough time to pay your dues as an assistant coach.  

Only in your mind....

Luke Walton, 2 years 

Quinn Snyder - 3 years as NBA assistant

Jason Kidd, Doc River - straight from the court to head coach.