Should we go full rebuild?

[stitches]

Sure you need a top 5 player. Landing that guy comes down to luck either way. Either mid to late draft luck by picking the right guy, or lottery ball luck.

But you need a good team around him as well. Thats where more fails happen each year, as usually there arent 2 top 5 guys in the same team (KD-Steph Warriors excluded). So usually at least 4 of the top 5 fail to win every year.

Again, when you did all that research and formed your opinion I'm sure you also found at least 1 deep tank championship team.... right?

I don't think a lot of teams in the history of the league have done the legit planned deep tank. I think most of what people consider tanking are teams just being BAD at what they are trying to do and then ending up with a tank-like outcome or half-tank(kinda like what we are doing now). The 3 deep tank teams I can think of are the Hinkie Sixers, and now twice the Presti Seattle/OKC. You can argue SAS did a planned tank for Duncan once Robinson got injured.... you can also argue they did it again for Wemby. The jury is still out on the OKC in the 2020s and the Wemby Spurs(both looking really good bets for the next 10 years BTW), but all the previous examples largely achieved what the tank intended - acquiring MVP level talent. Past that nothing is guaranteed. Duncan was the foundation of a dynasty. The early OKC team was super close to championship too and if their owner allowed them to keep their team who knows what could have happened. The Hinkie Sixers got Embiid out of their tank... and they got a lot of drama from the rest of their top picks... and you can argue it was still worth it and they have been legit contenders a few times in the last decade with tons of different supporting casts... with one thing in common - the MVP level talent.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

Spurs are the example, but even that was not some egregious Presti level tank. They made a smart pivot after an injury and got incredibly lucky.

And then they sucked during a year with a generational prospect available and got really ****ing lucky again.

Neither of those are a full Presti though, which is what Thee seems to be in favor of.

Also I'd argue the Cavs don't win a title unless they land Kyrie (that was actually a pick they traded for) and the Wiggins pick that then could be used for Love. Did they tank or just suck? That's always the anti-tanker argument.

I don't know what the best path forward is right now. I'd want to know what trade opportunities with have with Lauri. I wouldn't move him just for the opportunity to suck. I'd need a great yield. If we have other opportunities I'd love to know what those are.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

I don't think a lot of teams in the history of the league have done the legit planned deep tank. I think most of what people consider tanking are teams just being BAD at what they are trying to do and then ending up with a tank-like outcome or half-tank(kinda like what we are doing now). The 3 deep tank teams I can think of are the Hinkie Sixers, and now twice the Presti Seattle/OKC. You can argue SAS did a planned tank for Duncan once Robinson got injured.... you can also argue they did it again for Wemby. The jury is still out on the OKC in the 2020s and the Wemby Spurs(both looking really good bets for the next 10 years BTW), but all the previous examples largely achieved what the tank intended - acquiring MVP level talent. Past that nothing is guaranteed. Duncan was the foundation of a dynasty. The early OKC team was super close to championship too and if their owner allowed them to keep their team who knows what could have happened. The Hinkie Sixers got Embiid out of their tank... and they got a lot of drama from the rest of their top picks... and you can argue it was still worth it and they have been legit contenders a few times in the last decade.

And there are a lot of middle ground teams like Memphis. They definitely tore it down but had injury plagued years that got them JJJ and then jumped to #2 to get Ja. Obviously no title there yet.

GS benefitted from intentional losing but it was not process type tanking. It looked more like what we are doing now.

 

[Bawse Dawg]

Also I'd argue the Cavs don't win a title unless they land Kyrie (that was actually a pick they traded for) and the Wiggins pick that then could be used for Love. Did they tank or just suck? That's always the anti-tanker argument.

I don't know what the best path forward is right now. I'd want to know what trade opportunities with have with Lauri. I wouldn't move him just for the opportunity to suck. I'd need a great yield. If we have other opportunities I'd love to know what those are.

Well Cavs also needed the greatest player of all time to come back to the team, which helped. But yes, Kyrie was pivotal.

I'm not sure why Thee doesn't come and argue that Presti deserved to see his experiment through to the end. Or bring up modern OKC as an example (even if it doesn't quite work and they haven't won anything yet) and a few others. But I stand by saying that the plan he is suggesting has never actually worked, even if I understand the logic. And he should really reach across the aisle and admit that.

 

[stitches]

And there are a lot of middle ground teams like Memphis. They definitely tore it down but had injury plagued years that got them JJJ and then jumped to #2 to get Ja. Obviously no title there yet.

GS benefitted from intentional losing but it was not process type tanking. It looked more like what we are doing now.

Yeah... GS definitely did intentional losing, but IMO this was not a pre-planned thing. It's pretty much EXACTLY what we are doing now.

I think the Memphis thing was more a product of circumstance and luck than a planned tank... but yeah...

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

Yeah... GS definitely did intentional losing, but IMO this was not a pre-planned thing. It's pretty much EXACTLY what we are doing now.

I think the Memphis thing was more a product of circumstance and luck than a planned tank... but yeah...

And I think there are very few examples of teams doing the process for a bunch of reasons. I also think teams losing intentionally are less brazen about it because they understand the PR is bad for everyone. It should give us pause though in moving to that "easy button" too fast. The business and competitive side of this is generally too much for most teams to stomach. Only the most confident GMs really end up trying this.

 

[stitches]

And I think there are very few examples of teams doing the process for a bunch of reasons. I also think teams losing intentionally are less brazen about it because they understand the PR is bad for everyone. It should give us pause though in moving to that "easy button" too fast. The business and competitive side of this is generally too much for most teams to stomach. Only the most confident GMs really end up trying this.

I mean look at what happened with Hinkie after the brazen and well planned tank. The league changed the rules for lottery because of him and then pushed ownership to oust him from the team. They didn't change them because they thought "the process" doesn't work. On the contrary - what they were worried about was that it will work too well and they will have epidemic of teams trying to do the same.

And that's part of the reason such an elaborate long-term tank hasn't happened much in the league. The league just doesn't have the stomach for it.

What people colloquially call a tanking nowadays is mostly teams being bad not by design, but by incompetence.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

I mean look at what happened with Hinkie after the brazen and well planned tank. The league changed the rules for lottery because of him and then pushed ownership to oust him from the team. They didn't change them because they thought "the process" doesn't work. On the contrary - what they were worried about was that it will work too well and they will have epidemic of teams trying to do the same.

And that's part of the reason such an elaborate long-term tank hasn't happened much in the league. The league just doesn't have the stomach for it.

He needed to take a few PR courses and be a little more personable and do the thing all GMs do... lie.

Part of the reason I wanted him to see it out is I am curious how he finishes it off or how he operates in phase 2-3. Maybe he sucks or makes the wrong value play. I just want to see if/when he would have turned the corner. I don't know that he would have traded for Jimmy for example.

 

[sip]

I see a lot of people talking about the outcome of other teams tanks and how it little success some teams have had but if we go full tank we will be in a position that no other team in nba history will have been. The vast majority of teams that have gone full tank have primarily had their own picks and maybe a few other future picks from other teams. If we make a full commitment and lets say we move Lauri and Sexton to the nets who are most definitely in win now mode for the unprotected suns picks and the 29 mavs pick they have. We also take back Ben Simmons and whatever other contracts they need to be able to renegotiate and extend Lauri. All of a sudden we have the greatest future pick asset base in nba history. Yeah it is possible we could still screw it up but I really want to give it a shot. We would pretty much guarantee us getting 2 top 5 picks in the next 2 drafts from our own picks and then the other teams picks really start to roll in for drafting and trade purposes.

 

[Ferguson_Mellochill]

I think the Jazz wanted to finish in the top 6 of the draft order last year, but missed it by 2 unexpected wins. Washington and Indiana both finished with just one more loss than the Jazz. Orlando finished with 2 more losses.

 

[Bawse Dawg]

I see a lot of people talking about the outcome of other teams tanks and how it little success some teams have had but if we go full tank we will be in a position that no other team in nba history will have been. The vast majority of teams that have gone full tank have primarily had their own picks and maybe a few other future picks from other teams. If we make a full commitment and lets say we move Lauri and Sexton to the nets who are most definitely in win now mode for the unprotected suns picks and the 29 mavs pick they have. We also take back Ben Simmons and whatever other contracts they need to be able to renegotiate and extend Lauri. All of a sudden we have the greatest future pick asset base in nba history. Yeah it is possible we could still screw it up but I really want to give it a shot. We would pretty much guarantee us getting 2 top 5 picks in the next 2 drafts from our own picks and then the other teams picks really start to roll in for drafting and trade purposes.

Thunder fit that definition perfectly, no?

 

[stitches]

He needed to take a few PR courses and be a little more personable and do the thing all GMs do... lie.

Part of the reason I wanted him to see it out is I am curious how he finishes it off or how he operates in phase 2-3. Maybe he sucks or makes the wrong value play. I just want to see if/when he would have turned the corner. I don't know that he would have traded for Jimmy for example.

Yeah, I want to point something out here. The immediate goal of the tank is to acquire top tier talent, not to win a championship. There is entirely different stage of the roster construction that is responsible for building a championship team once you have the guy or few guys you've decided to build around. And this is a step you cannot skip. Getting the top tier talent is a necessary but not sufficient part of the whole ordeal. You still need to juggle supporting pieces from FA/draft/trades within salary cap constraints. You still need to add pieces that fit your team, etc.. And sometimes you need some luck too...

 

[HermanG]

I don't think a lot of teams in the history of the league have done the legit planned deep tank. I think most of what people consider tanking are teams just being BAD at what they are trying to do and then ending up with a tank-like outcome or half-tank(kinda like what we are doing now). The 3 deep tank teams I can think of are the Hinkie Sixers, and now twice the Presti Seattle/OKC. You can argue SAS did a planned tank for Duncan once Robinson got injured.... you can also argue they did it again for Wemby. The jury is still out on the OKC in the 2020s and the Wemby Spurs(both looking really good bets for the next 10 years BTW), but all the previous examples largely achieved what the tank intended - acquiring MVP level talent. Past that nothing is guaranteed. Duncan was the foundation of a dynasty. The early OKC team was super close to championship too and if their owner allowed them to keep their team who knows what could have happened. The Hinkie Sixers got Embiid out of their tank... and they got a lot of drama from the rest of their top picks... and you can argue it was still worth it and they have been legit contenders a few times in the last decade with tons of different supporting casts... with one thing in common - the MVP level talent.

I mean I dont know how you rationalize that being bad and being bad by design somehow lead to different results? What is the secret sauce in a planned tank that enables you to turn it around and assemble a championship winning team all of a sudden?

There have been countless teams that have plowed through the bottom for decades trying to find that guy, only to find that guy and end up then creating a team like the Sixers who are good but not good enough. Suggesting that none of them except the few you mentioned planned on finding that guy at the top of the draft (e.g. planned to tank) is preposterous.

Helll just for Duncan, the Celtics were damn impressive in their effort to get him. Also the Spurs tank for Duncan doesnt really count as their starting point was having a roster than got #2 seed in the West, after which they just got ravaged by injury and executed an opportunistic tank. Opportunistic tanks does sound familiar though..... but that is something you obviously strictly oppose here.

Orlando Magic have actually had 2 MVP level guys in Shaq and Howard (add prime Hardaway to that even) and never won the chip with any of them... Knicks with Ewing, Wolves with Garnett, Nuggets (and Knicks) with Carmelo few that come to mind who always fell short after getting that guy. The list goes on and on the more you think about it.

 

[sip]

Thunder fit that definition perfectly, no?

That is why I said the vast majority of teams have not had a big future pick asset base. The thunder are definitely in the minority with us but I think with what we could pull for Lauri and Sexton it would take us to another level. I also don't think it would be that painful for us as a fan base over the next 2 years compared with some teams when they tear down to the point where they are really starting with nothing. Even though we would be really bad next year I would still be invested in watching Key, Hendricks, Bryce, Walker and our picks develop. What is painful is when you don't have any of those possible future pieces so you don't have anyone to look forward to.

 

[stitches]

I mean I dont know how you rationalize that being bad and being bad by design somehow lead to different results? What is the secret sauce in a planned tank that enables you to turn it around and assemble a championship winning team all of a sudden?

There have been countless teams that have plowed through the bottom for decades trying to find that guy, only to find that guy and end up then creating a team like the Sixers who are good but not good enough. Suggesting that none of them except the few you mentioned planned on finding that guy at the top of the draft (e.g. planned to tank) is preposterous.

Helll just for Duncan, the Celtics were damn impressive in their effort to get him. Also the Spurs tank for Duncan doesnt really count as their starting point was having a roster than got #2 seed in the West, after which they just got ravaged by injury and executed an opportunistic tank. Opportunistic tanks does sound familiar though..... but that is something you obviously strictly oppose here.

Orlando Magic have actually had 2 MVP level guys in Shaq and Howard (add prime Hardaway to that even) and never won the chip with any of them... Knicks with Ewing, Wolves with Garnett, Nuggets (and Knicks) with Carmelo few that come to mind who always fell short after getting that guy. The list goes on and on the more you think about it.

There is a very big difference between being bad while trying to be good(what I think most teams that get called tankers do) and being bad by design(what I think very few have actually tried in the league). The difference is that the team trying to be good but failing is obviously making sub-optimal decisions. When you know that a team is trying to do something but failing you already know something about that team... you know somehting about the decision-makers and evaluators of that team, maybe even the coaches. You know they are not particularly good in making decisions and evaluating what they have on their roster, what the rest of the league has and MOST IMPORTANTLY - they are more likely to not be good at evaluating and projecting future talent... and if that team is failing on the court and performing under expectations, you might have some conclusions about their coaching too. That team is also hindered in another way - they are wasting resources trying to compete now, instead of focusing them on the future when their supposed difference maker will come.

With the team that's being bad by design... you don't really know much about that team to be honest(that was part of the reason that Hinkie Sixers team was so hard to evaluate in the beginning). You can have a good evaluator or a bad one. You can have a good coach or bad one, what you are hoping is that by rigging the odds you will come out ahead by simply having - better picks... and more picks. This is the other thing with the bad by design teams - they do NOT waste any resources on the present when there is zero chance you are contender. Everything is focused for the future when you will actually have a chance to compete. The players who have value in the present but likely won't be part of the next contending team(vets... or young players that don't fit well with the keystone piece you've drafted) - they get traded for more picks... more bites at the apple... rinse and repeat. Until you are sure you have your guy or guys... and you are ready to start surrounding him with players that fit. Maybe you even change the coach if it turns out he's not maximizing the talent.

Edit: BTW I'm not opposed to opportunistic tanks. I don't mind what we are doing now... I mind that we are doing it NOW and we didn't know better before the start of the season and before we gave up assets for 75M of salary to John Collins.

 

[Bawse Dawg]

That is why I said the vast majority of teams have not had a big future pick asset base. The thunder are definitely in the minority with us but I think with what we could pull for Lauri and Sexton it would take us to another level. I also don't think it would be that painful for us as a fan base over the next 2 years compared with some teams when they tear down to the point where they are really starting with nothing. Even though we would be really bad next year I would still be invested in watching Key, Hendricks, Bryce, Walker and our picks develop. What is painful is when you don't have any of those possible future pieces so you don't have anyone to look forward to.

It just sucks because two years ago I think the majority of the fan base would be all in. But we just did two terrible years. Now you are asking for two more, we literally just did this and the FO didn't go all in enough with it.

Selling people on "Well that sucked, but we weren't serious enough about it, give us another two years and we'll get it right this time." is just tough.

 

[stitches]

It just sucks because two years ago I think the majority of the fan base would be all in. But we just did two terrible years. Now you are asking for two more, we literally just did this and the FO didn't go all in enough with it.

Selling people on "Well that sucked, but we weren't serious enough about it, give us another two years and we'll get it right this time." is just tough.

How do you see the opposite way? What would it look like? Lets say we keep Lauri and we really try to go for it. What are some example moves we can do and where do they land us? Do they make us better than 8th seed Suns? Or 9th seed Lakers? Or 10th seed Warriors?

 

[sip]

I mean I dont know how you rationalize that being bad and being bad by design somehow lead to different results? What is the secret sauce in a planned tank that enables you to turn it around and assemble a championship winning team all of a sudden?

There have been countless teams that have plowed through the bottom for decades trying to find that guy, only to find that guy and end up then creating a team like the Sixers who are good but not good enough. Suggesting that none of them except the few you mentioned planned on finding that guy at the top of the draft (e.g. planned to tank) is preposterous.

Helll just for Duncan, the Celtics were damn impressive in their effort to get him. Also the Spurs tank for Duncan doesnt really count as their starting point was having a roster than got #2 seed in the West, after which they just got ravaged by injury and executed an opportunistic tank. Opportunistic tanks does sound familiar though..... but that is something you obviously strictly oppose here.

Orlando Magic have actually had 2 MVP level guys in Shaq and Howard (add prime Hardaway to that even) and never won the chip with any of them... Knicks with Ewing, Wolves with Garnett, Nuggets (and Knicks) with Carmelo few that come to mind who always fell short after getting that guy. The list goes on and on the more you think about it.

The knicks and magic definitely built some championship caliber teams but ran into better championship caliber teams. We all know how difficult it is to win a championship but the goal should be to build a team that is firmly in the conversation. Those knicks teams and magic teams were firmly in the conversation but they ran into Jordan and Hakeem.

 

[stitches]

The knicks and magic definitely built some championship caliber teams but ran into better championship caliber teams. We all know how difficult it is to win a championship but the goal should be to build a team that is firmly in the conversation. Those knicks teams and magic teams were firmly in the conversation but they ran into Jordan and Hakeem.

Yeah... I think building a championship contender is the real and realistic goal. For winning an actual championship you need things to go your way in addition to doing a lot of things right.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

How do you see the opposite way? What would it look like? Lets say we keep Lauri and we really try to go for it. What are some example moves we can do and where do they land us? Do they make us better than 8th seed Suns? Or 9th seed Lakers? Or 10th seed Warriors?

That's the challenge but also its not necessarily about one year or the next couple years. The depth of the West also might mean we could keep Lauri, get rid of some of the more vet pieces potentially... and still end up bottom 5-6.

DA will go where the best value opportunities lead him is my best guess.