What's new
By:
Filters

Its Time to Tank

hgb said:
I'm not saying they didn't tank for Barnes (although just a few games, but enough), but I don't think their other losing seasons really count as tanking. They had a lot of injuries.
Click to expand...

Trading Monta Ellis for an already injured Andrew Bogut is the most tank move ever.
 
Handlogten's Heros said:
I think the issue is not whether it “worked”… it’s the fact that some are like “good orgs don’t tank… look at GS”. GS tanked twice.

Also it very much did contribute to their dynasty. Barnes started for like 3 years for them. Bogut was absolutely part of the tank as he was acquired for a functional player when he was out for the year. That doesn’t happen if they are doing the “honorable thing” and competing to the best of their abilities.

And a minor benefit is that it improves their second round pick by a handful of spots. That year there was a guy that projected to go late first round that they ended up selecting at 35… so they landed Draymond Green which may or may not have happened.

So it’s really tough to say the tank didn’t work or that they would have won titles without it.
Click to expand...

View: https://youtu.be/X6cKCVF9Mzo?t=11
 
Saint Cy of JFC said:
The Bulls dont really need PG play though. They have good backup PG's and they have two very good playmaking wings. The Bulls making their last shot Mike Conley just doesnt make any sense. Maybe you can get just Lonzo, but you arent getting a pick for taking on the better player.
Click to expand...
Twitter: [Poe] Lonzo Ball is no closer to returning to the court for the Chicago Bulls: ‘He still has pain’
Click to expand...

Lot of fear on the Bulls board that the injury is bordering on career-ending. He still has two more seasons after this one on his contract making $20M/year

I don't know if the Jazz would be interested given the injury and contract, but I do think taking a flyer on an injured 25-year old with high ability is probably the best value we can hope for in return for a Conley trade. He'd be able to sit out the whole season with no pressure to hurry back. But it's not like this was a freak injury, he has averaged 50 games a season so far in his career I (though Lauri was a bit famous for injuries before getting here, but he is only 24 games into the season and may well not have bucked that trend).

Love this team, but I do think a 44-38 season where we get bounced in the play-in is the worst case scenario. And Conley has proven he is a huge factor in our success and at 35 there is just no way he fits the timeline of even a quick rebuild.
 
Handlogten's Heros said:
The Green part is… the rest isn’t. Bogut was crucial… Barnes was super helpful.
Click to expand...
They didn't acquire Bogut via tanking. They won 3 championships without Barnes and honestly probably would have beaten Cleveland in 2016 if Barnes simply didn't play in the Finals - he was that bad.
 
Last edited:
kcgar said:
What the hell are you talking about? If you took one second to look at my post history, you would see that Cy does not like me, as I constantly downvote him. Now days, I tend to disagree with him more often than not, especially if he is acting like his opinion is fact. Why do you think I am him? I am very confused. Are you just really insecure? Maybe 13 years old? Help me out here.
Click to expand...
maybe Cy is your left nut
 
MT Steve said:
They didn't acquire Bogut via tanking. They won 3 championships without Barnes and honestly probably would have beaten Cleveland in 2016 if Barnes simply didn't play in the Finals - he was that bad.
Click to expand...
Part of the process of tanking was trading a healthy Monta Ellis for an injured Andrew Bogut. That deal doesn’t happen if they decide to be competitive. If we trade Mike Conley for Lonzo knowing he won’t play this year it’s a tank move… Lonzo being a better player in the future is part of the yield of tanking. They benefited from tanking in a couple ways.
 
Handlogten's Heros said:
Part of the process of tanking was trading a healthy Monta Ellis for an injured Andrew Bogut. That deal doesn’t happen if they decide to be competitive. If we trade Mike Conley for Lonzo knowing he won’t play this year it’s a tank move… Lonzo being a better player in the future is part of the yield of tanking. They benefited from tanking in a couple ways.
Click to expand...
I think this just comes down to different definitions of tanking. Getting a better player in the future out of a trade can be and is often done without tanking.

Like, even if the Warriors didn't have their own draft pick in the year they traded for Bogut, I'd still consider that a good trade for them.

I was thinking more strictly moves that are PRIMARILY for the purpose of improving this year's draft pick.
 
MT Steve said:
I think this just comes down to different definitions of tanking. Getting a better player in the future out of a trade can be and is often done without tanking.

Like, even if the Warriors didn't have their own draft pick in the year they traded for Bogut, I'd still consider that a good trade for them.

I was thinking more strictly moves that are PRIMARILY for the purpose of improving this year's draft pick.
Click to expand...
If you are being “honorable” and trying to maximize wins you don’t trade a healthy player for a player that will be injured all year. I honestly can’t think of many trades where a team moved a healthy player for a guy that was going to be out all year… so yeah getting a better future player happens but I’d love to hear some examples where a team moved a healthy player for an injured player. If they aren’t tanking they don’t make that trade… it counts as part of the benefit of tanking imo.
 
Handlogten's Heros said:
If you are being “honorable” and trying to maximize wins you don’t trade a healthy player for a player that will be injured all year. I honestly can’t think of many trades where a team moved a healthy player for a guy that was going to be out all year… so yeah getting a better future player happens but I’d love to hear some examples where a team moved a healthy player for an injured player. If they aren’t tanking they don’t make that trade… it counts as part of the benefit of tanking imo.
Click to expand...
I don't think there's anything "dishonorable" about trading a healthy player for a guy who's injured all year if you think that it will help you out in the long-term regardless of whether or not you own your own draft pick.

I mean the only reason we're even talking about Bogut to begin with is because he ended up being an extremely crucial player for them, so clearly it was a fantastic trade even without the tanking benefit.
 
MT Steve said:
I don't think there's anything "dishonorable" about trading a healthy player for a guy who's injured all year if you think that it will help you out in the long-term regardless of whether or not you own your own draft pick.

I mean the only reason we're even talking about Bogut to begin with is because he ended up being an extremely crucial player for them, so clearly it was a fantastic trade even without the tanking benefit.
Click to expand...
There is dishonor in tanking for some… trading a healthy player for an injured one is very much a tank move… the Bogut trade absolutely happened because of the decision to tank. Once Steph got hurt they decided the season was over and traded Bogut 24 hours later. The Bogut deal was a direct result/benefit of the decision to tank.
 
Jaanipoeg said:
Lot of fear on the Bulls board that the injury is bordering on career-ending. He still has two more seasons after this one on his contract making $20M/year

I don't know if the Jazz would be interested given the injury and contract, but I do think taking a flyer on an injured 25-year old with high ability is probably the best value we can hope for in return for a Conley trade. He'd be able to sit out the whole season with no pressure to hurry back. But it's not like this was a freak injury, he has averaged 50 games a season so far in his career I (though Lauri was a bit famous for injuries before getting here, but he is only 24 games into the season and may well not have bucked that trend).

Love this team, but I do think a 44-38 season where we get bounced in the play-in is the worst case scenario. And Conley has proven he is a huge factor in our success and at 35 there is just no way he fits the timeline of even a quick rebuild.
Click to expand...

I disagree for Mike. He is a real athlete and take care of his health. I won;t be surprised if he can play at this level until 37/38, which will be good for a quick rebuild. But what contract is he expected for the future , that's the quetion. As it will be stupid to pay him too much money.
 
Handlogten's Heros said:
There is dishonor in tanking for some… trading a healthy player for an injured one is very much a tank move… the Bogut trade absolutely happened because of the decision to tank. Once Steph got hurt they decided the season was over and traded Bogut 24 hours later. The Bogut deal was a direct result/benefit of the decision to tank.
Click to expand...
We'll have to agree to disagree on their intent then, but regardless, if the Jazz traded somebody like, say, Conley or Clarkson, for an injured or young player that they felt would make the team better in the future regardless of how this year's pick turns out, I wouldn't complain.
 
Handlogten's Heros said:
https://www.sportingnews.com/au/amp...olden-state-dynasty/oaf522ier52o10o3137xz355n

Steph goes down with his 3rd ankle injury… 24 hours later they trade for an injured Bogut because they had decided to shut down Curry for the year and tank. The acquisition is related to the tank and proved to be very important.
Click to expand...
This is what I’ve been saying, the year Curry went down they just went into tank mode. Klay was a rookie and instead of playing him heavy minutes they sat him down the stretch. That’s a tank no 2 ways about it.
 
Trading for a piece that is more likely to make an impact next year in a lost season is just standard roster building 101. That move is still based more on "win in the immediate future" than "build for the distant future". They didn't trade "to tank", they traded so that next year when Steph comes back they got a better team to compete with. Tanking was a byproduct of the Steph injury more than anything.

Acting like it was their masterplan to get to the top is insane, when it was 100% based on a serious injury to their biggest star. Also the impact of that "lost season" to their success can be questioned. Maybe they still draft Draymond and get there even without Barnes and Bogut? Or maybe they trade for Bogut in the offseason anyway?
 
HermanG said:
Trading for a piece that is more likely to make an impact next year in a lost season is just standard roster building 101. That move is still based more on "win in the immediate future" than "build for the distant future". They didn't trade "to tank", they traded so that next year when Steph comes back they got a better team to compete with. Tanking was a byproduct of the Steph injury more than anything.

Acting like it was their masterplan to get to the top is insane, when it was 100% based on a serious injury to their biggest star. Also the impact of that "lost season" to their success can be questioned. Maybe they still draft Draymond and get there even without Barnes and Bogut? Or maybe they trade for Bogut in the offseason anyway?
Click to expand...
Uhh, tanking is about getting better for the future man. You can spin it however you want, it's a tanking move.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top