What's new

Paul George Rumors

Also I am still impressed by the 3+ times we managed to flip Schroeder last spring. I would tell Zanick to work his magic to flip the #18 and or #21 and other assets we pick up moving from 5 to 6/7/8 into more assets. Specifically targeting 2026 draft assets. Thats me.
 
What's the likelihood of positive ROI under this scenario, assuming we define a minimum positive ROI as an equal or greater number of consecutive playoff years post-tank as consecutive losing years or, alternatively, an equal or greater number of total playoff years post-tank as losing years, not even accounting for how deep those playoff runs are?
Yeaaaaaaa no idea WTH you just said. Anyone want to translate this?
 
Yeaaaaaaa no idea WTH you just said. Anyone want to translate this?
Return on Investment (ROI) is a metric used to evaluate the efficiency or profitability of an investment. It measures the amount of return (gain or loss) relative to the cost of the investment.

Tanking is akin to a financial investment. However, rather than paying with money in exchange for an expectation of future financial returns, NBA franchises pay with losses in exchange for an expectation of future wins. In any financial investment, a minimum acceptable return is to break even, i.e., earn at least as much back as was invested, although few investors go into it hoping to break even, and most would consider this an unacceptable return.

Applying this straightforward concept to NBA tanking, and if we define the ROI as the number of consecutive postseason appearances relative to the number of non-postseason appearances, the minimum expected return on the tanking investment would be a postseason run lasting at least as many consecutive years as the number of consecutive losing years during the tank.

By this standard, IF the Jazz tank (i.e., number of years missing the postseason) stretches to 6 years (which strikes me as a plausible outcome given that most here seem to prefer continuing speculating in the draft rather than pivoting toward contention anytime soon), a minimum expected ROI is 6 years of consecutive playoff appearances. But, this is just the minimum, break even return and does not factor in how deep the Jazz go in the playoffs. If the expectation is 6 consecutive years of Round 2 or better playoff runs, this imposes stricter requirements on what the tank needs to deliver to be considered a successful return on investment.

Once we've identified the expected ROI, the next step is to calculate the likelihood that we'll achieve it. Note that the longer the tank (and losing) persist, the lower the likelihood that the tank delivers a positive ROI.

Perhaps you have a different ROI, and for you, winning the title itself is sufficient ROI regardless how many playoff runs the tank produces or how deep they go. But, even then, you still need to assess the likelihood of achieving this outcome (here's a hint: very low) to determine the expected ROI.

I've yet to see anyone here discuss tanking in the context of ROI. Many are willing to make a large investment in losing but never articulate what would be either an expected or minimum acceptable return, except in the very vaguest of terms.

I sure hope that the Jazz FO isn't this lazy or careless with how it thinks about the costs and benefits of tanking. Sadly, I don't see indications that it seriously factored in ROI considerations (costs, expected outcomes, and the likelihoods of expected outcomes) in its hell-bent-for-leather betting it all on the random drawing of pingpong balls "strategy." The Ainge Jr. regime seems to portend a change in strategy that may be more systematic in considering such things. Let's hope so.
 
Return on Investment (ROI) is a metric used to evaluate the efficiency or profitability of an investment. It measures the amount of return (gain or loss) relative to the cost of the investment.

Tanking is akin to a financial investment. However, rather than paying with money in exchange for an expectation of future financial returns, NBA franchises pay with losses in exchange for an expectation of future wins. In any financial investment, a minimum acceptable return is to break even, i.e., earn at least as much back as was invested, although few investors go into it hoping to break even, and most would consider this an unacceptable return.

Applying this straightforward concept to NBA tanking, and if we define the ROI as the number of consecutive postseason appearances relative to the number of non-postseason appearances, the minimum expected return on the tanking investment would be a postseason run lasting at least as many consecutive years as the number of consecutive losing years during the tank.

By this standard, IF the Jazz tank (i.e., number of years missing the postseason) stretches to 6 years (which strikes me as a plausible outcome given that most here seem to prefer continuing speculating in the draft rather than pivoting toward contention anytime soon), a minimum expected ROI is 6 years of consecutive playoff appearances. But, this is just the minimum, break even return and does not factor in how deep the Jazz go in the playoffs. If the expectation is 6 consecutive years of Round 2 or better playoff runs, this imposes stricter requirements on what the tank needs to deliver to be considered a successful return on investment.

Once we've identified the expected ROI, the next step is to calculate the likelihood that we'll achieve it. Note that the longer the tank (and losing) persist, the lower the likelihood that the tank delivers a positive ROI.

Perhaps you have a different ROI, and for you, winning the title itself is sufficient ROI regardless how many playoff runs the tank produces or how deep they go. But, even then, you still need to assess the likelihood of achieving this outcome (here's a hint: very low) to determine the expected ROI.

I've yet to see anyone here discuss tanking in the context of ROI. Many are willing to make a large investment in losing but never articulate what would be either an expected or minimum acceptable return, except in the very vaguest of terms.

I sure hope that the Jazz FO isn't this lazy or careless with how it thinks about the costs and benefits of tanking. Sadly, I don't see indications that it seriously factored in ROI considerations (costs, expected outcomes, and the likelihoods of expected outcomes) in its hell-bent-for-leather betting it all on the random drawing of pingpong balls "strategy." The Ainge Jr. regime seems to portend a change in strategy that may be more systematic in considering such things. Let's hope so.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_8164.gif
    IMG_8164.gif
    269.5 KB · Views: 10
Return on Investment (ROI) is a metric used to evaluate the efficiency or profitability of an investment. It measures the amount of return (gain or loss) relative to the cost of the investment.

Tanking is akin to a financial investment. However, rather than paying with money in exchange for an expectation of future financial returns, NBA franchises pay with losses in exchange for an expectation of future wins. In any financial investment, a minimum acceptable return is to break even, i.e., earn at least as much back as was invested, although few investors go into it hoping to break even, and most would consider this an unacceptable return.

Applying this straightforward concept to NBA tanking, and if we define the ROI as the number of consecutive postseason appearances relative to the number of non-postseason appearances, the minimum expected return on the tanking investment would be a postseason run lasting at least as many consecutive years as the number of consecutive losing years during the tank.

By this standard, IF the Jazz tank (i.e., number of years missing the postseason) stretches to 6 years (which strikes me as a plausible outcome given that most here seem to prefer continuing speculating in the draft rather than pivoting toward contention anytime soon), a minimum expected ROI is 6 years of consecutive playoff appearances. But, this is just the minimum, break even return and does not factor in how deep the Jazz go in the playoffs. If the expectation is 6 consecutive years of Round 2 or better playoff runs, this imposes stricter requirements on what the tank needs to deliver to be considered a successful return on investment.

Once we've identified the expected ROI, the next step is to calculate the likelihood that we'll achieve it. Note that the longer the tank (and losing) persist, the lower the likelihood that the tank delivers a positive ROI.

Perhaps you have a different ROI, and for you, winning the title itself is sufficient ROI regardless how many playoff runs the tank produces or how deep they go. But, even then, you still need to assess the likelihood of achieving this outcome (here's a hint: very low) to determine the expected ROI.

I've yet to see anyone here discuss tanking in the context of ROI. Many are willing to make a large investment in losing but never articulate what would be either an expected or minimum acceptable return, except in the very vaguest of terms.

I sure hope that the Jazz FO isn't this lazy or careless with how it thinks about the costs and benefits of tanking. Sadly, I don't see indications that it seriously factored in ROI considerations (costs, expected outcomes, and the likelihoods of expected outcomes) in its hell-bent-for-leather betting it all on the random drawing of pingpong balls "strategy." The Ainge Jr. regime seems to portend a change in strategy that may be more systematic in considering such things. Let's hope so.
Who are you Albert Einstein? Let’s pretend I’m not that bright.
 
They were back in the conference semis after four losing seasons with a single top 10 pick, Dante Exum, who was not a factor in returning to the playoffs. We're now heading into the fourth losing season since we were last in the playoffs, and everyone here seems to be more interested in trading away talent and accumulating draft picks year after year with an indefinite timeline for returning to contention than they are in actually returning to contention. The losing could easily stretch to 6 years under this scenario. That requires a lot of winning post-tank to earn an acceptable ROI on the losing investment. The post Al Jefferson era is not a good model for what is going on now.

What's the plan if we don't find that one special player this draft, or the next draft, or the next draft? What's the cutoff point where we stop pining our hopes on the lottery and actually start being proactive building a winning team via other means?

Assuming we do find that one special player this year or next, how long till we return to contention when our roster is fully stocked with rookie contracts or sub-optimal talent because we traded all the good talent away while crossing our fingers to get lucky in the lottery? Even with Wemby, the Spurs are two years in without a single playoff appearance and six years of losing to show for it. (With Wemby, they were heading for the play in last year.)

What's the minimum ROI you expect for 6 years or more of losing?
I think a good mental exercise is to pretend things worked out perfectly and we got the number 1 pick this year. Okay, now ask ourselves how far out we’d be. Sure, we secured the most important piece, but you’ve still got teams like the Luka Mavs and Giannis Bucks (the Bucks won a championship but imagine the dysphoria of the fan base if we had that same franchise but sans the one championship). We would’ve had to have tanked next year as well and grabbed a top pick. Even still, as that team would grow, flaws would inevitably show that wed convince ourselves aren’t compatible with “today’s game.”

The reality is that when you are in a position to contend in any given year, it’s messy and doesn’t look like the ideal that’s fantasized about when the focus is on drafting a building from the bottom up. It’s like the Joker telling Harvey Dent that he’s like a dog chasing a car, not even knowing what he’d do if he were to catch one. There’s often a lot more thrill in the hypothetical and the possible than in the messy and having to push forward with imperfection.

How would our fan base have tolerated the fifth seed Pacers this year before the playoffs? Or the 2023-2024 mid-season Celtics?
 
3 and 5 would be incredible but also sorta funky. You dont really take VJ and Tre I dont think. So then you take the Ace risk and pick him and Tre I would think.

Or VJ and Kon.......anyway.
Bailey and Fears easy answer boy

PG - Fears
SG - Keyonte
SF - Bailey
PF - Hendricks
C - Kessler
 
Back
Top