Tanking / Building a Championship Discussion

[AHF]

For me tanking is any combination of manipulating the roster, playing time, rotations, etc. to intentionally lose games to get higher draft picks and can be as limited as just deliberating not choosing to field a contending roster where you aren't impacting the approach to any single game or as game focused as holding out players when they are healthy enough to play to get that sweet lottery pick. 

It can be a single season tank like when the Spurs held healthy players out (like Sean Elliot and others who could have returned but were held out because it was clearly a lost season and so they strategically leaned into it) and changed their rotation to feature a cooked Nique to maximize their lottery odds and then got lucky with Duncan or like when Dallas held out Luka Doncic in order to lose games, miss the playoffs, and keep their pick to take Derek Lively.  It can be a multiple season tank like when the Spurs traded away all their best players without trying to get back current talent to keep competing and went with a youth movement to maximize their lottery odds and then got lucky with Wemby.  DJM could have been traded for a replacement player to keep them competitive.  They chose to take draft picks years down the line so they could lose games in the meantime by playing their hardest and not having enough talent. 

Having good coaches and systems or bad coaches and systems is a thing that applies to teams that tank and those that don't.  Detroit has been a good example of an intentional tank without good coaching and systems.  San Antonio obviously has maintained good coaches and systems under Pops even when they deliberately shed talent with an intention to lose games from a roster construction perspective.  The fact that Pops kept them competing in games with a deliberately bad roster doesn't make it not tanking by my definition.

Obviously, plenty of championships in other sports with the most blatant of multi-year tanking efforts like the Houston Astros.  Their tanking is so obvious and legendary that it hardly warrants discussion.

This isn't a true defense of tanking.  In fact, I'm here to tell you that tanking can fail horribly and frankly it usually fails.  Why?  Because there are a limited number of franchise changing talents and you are relying on luck to get them at the end of the day.  Often tanking involves deliberately constructing a non-competitive roster and that type of team takes a lot of work to become a contender and often is unmotivated with players exhibiting and reinforcing bad habits (like chucking or not playing good defense).   But being bad in order to get more talent doesn't always fail and plenty of championship teams came out of getting Michael Jordan or LeBron, etc. after sucking it up hard and deliberately. 

The most common form of tanking is a team that did not try to field the most competitive rosters with the expectation that they would not make the playoffs that season and would add young talent but it can also be teams manipulating a roster like holding out people longer for real or fictitious injuries.  Mileage varies depending on luck and management.

[NekiEcko]

3 minutes ago, Mikey said:

You problem is you think all drafts and front offices are equal. 

Indeed, all front offices are completely different. For instance, the front offices of Boston, Denver, and OKC (yuck) are leagues ahead of the rest. Do you know why? It's because they take chances and risks, regardless of their fans' opinions, since at the end of the day, their goal is to become champions.

[Afro]

8 minutes ago, KB21 said:

Ask Detroit how helpful that is.  

Ask Boston how helpful it was to get the good picks in the Tatum and Brown drafts

[KB21]

Just now, Afro said:

Ask Boston how helpful it was to get the good picks in the Tatum and Brown drafts

They didn't tank to get those picks.

[AHF]

16 minutes ago, Spud2nique said:

Wait you started a thread by quoting somebody? That might be a first

Just to be clear on the mechanics, I started the thread and then started moving tanking discussion into it.  Because the tanking discussion started before the thread did, those posts now appear at the top of the thread.

[Afro]

1 minute ago, KB21 said:

They didn't tank to get those picks.

But someone did....You think if the picks they traded for ended up in the bottom of the lottery they would be where they are right now? 

[JeffS17]

Just now, Afro said:

Ask Boston how helpful it was to get the good picks in the Tatum and Brown drafts

 

lmao great example, they kept a winning culture and used other teams picks by making good front office moves to continue building.  They did not tank

[Afro]

2 minutes ago, JeffS17 said:

 

lmao great example, they kept a winning culture and used other teams picks by making good front office moves to continue building.  They did not tank

The teams they got the picks from did....Thats how they got top picks. Who tanked isnt really relevant. The fact they were high is whats relevant. 

But its also ironic since we want to trade for the Spurs 4 and 8. Y'all think its *better* if those picks were 13th and 54th? 

Edited May 15 by Afro

[KB21]

3 minutes ago, JeffS17 said:

 

lmao great example, they kept a winning culture and used other teams picks by making good front office moves to continue building.  They did not tank

Imagine going to Jalen Johnson and asking him to play poorly for a year before he becomes a RFA so the team can be bad enough to get a top pick.  

[Afro]

The Hawks are trading for picks. Isn't that kind of you guys entire argument? The fact they're our picks only means we get to control how good they are. 

 

Which is why actively making them worse picks is so weird. 

[BangHolman]

2 minutes ago, Afro said:

The teams they got the picks from did....Thats how they got top picks. Who tanked isnt really relevant. The fact they were high is whats relevant. 

But its also ironic since we want to trade for the Spurs 4 and 8. Y'all think its *better* if those picks were 13th and 54th? 

This would be us tanking for the Spurs

[Afro]

1 minute ago, BangHolman said:

This would be us tanking for the Spurs

Sort of, except this whole discussion started because we're getting our picks back....but hoping those picks fall out of the lottery. 

Edited May 15 by Afro

[Hawkish]

6 minutes ago, Afro said:

But someone did....You think if the picks they traded for ended up in the bottom of the lottery they would be where they are right now? 

So we should trade for the unprotected 2025 LA pick that NO owns?

[KB21]

2 minutes ago, Afro said:

The teams they got the picks from did....Thats how they got top picks. Who tanked isnt really relevant. The fact they were high is whats relevant. 

But its also ironic since we want to trade for the Spurs 4 and 8. Y'all think its *better* if those picks were 13th and 54th? 

The position of the picks isn't important.  Having the picks is important.  Would you rather have Markelle Fultz/Lonzo Ball, or would you rather have Donovan Mitchell/Bam Adebayo?  Fultz and Ball were #1 and #2 in 2017.  Mitchell and Bam were 13 and 14.  

[Afro]

2 minutes ago, KB21 said:

Imagine going to Jalen Johnson and asking him to play poorly for a year before he becomes a RFA so the team can be bad enough to get a top pick.  

Imagine going to JJ and telling him were trading Trae just so we can hopefully get some guys in the 20s. 

[BangHolman]

3 minutes ago, Afro said:

Sort of, except this whole discussion started because we're getting our picks back....but hoping those picks fall out of the lottery. 

This is a IF Trae asks out scenario question of trading him for our picks back, but staying competitive, instead of moving DJ and entering full flop mode too.

The argument is continuing to push for the play-offs with DJ/JJ/Bogi/Sarr/Hunter/OO/4/8 etc

[KB21]

3 minutes ago, Afro said:

The Hawks are trading for picks. Isn't that kind of you guys entire argument? The fact they're our picks only means we get to control how good they are. 

 

Which is why actively making them worse picks is so weird. 

So, you obviously think spending multiple years in the lottery is the way to win a championship.

[Afro]

1 minute ago, Hawkish said:

So we should trade for the unprotected 2025 LA pick that NO owns?

If your goal after trading Trae is to remain competitive, yes. 

But not just that pick. Any pick but our own. 

Trading for our picks, but remaining good, just means we are actively trying to make the package we got for Trae worse. To me, that doesnt make any sense. 

[KB21]

1 minute ago, Afro said:

Imagine going to JJ and telling him were trading Trae just so we can hopefully get some guys in the 20s. 

Players don't care where the draft pick will fall.  They only care about winning, as they should.  That's why asking them to tank a season or multiple seasons is atrocious.  

[Afro]

1 minute ago, KB21 said:

So, you obviously think spending multiple years in the lottery is the way to win a championship.

Its far better than the opposite. You're arguing against actual proven data man.