More ResslerMania

[Lurker]

And if your definition of good is "playoff team", than you continue to be completely delusional about the differences between the NBA and MLB/NFL and further my reasoning for the 5th-8th slots to be DROPPED...

In MLB/NFL you can be merely decent and have a shot at it all. That is far from the case from the NBA.

[KB21]

6 minutes ago, Lurker said:

Give me your definition of good. For me, that's not 38-45 wins. That's 53+ wins. Anything below that is mediocre. And no, mediocre can sometimes be worse than bad.

I was miserable watching 2015 Georgia in college football. That was a 9-3 team but there was just nothing fun about that team. You can't measure in wins and losses all the time....2014 Georgia beats the *explicit* out of that sorry, miserable team and that team was 9-3 also.

How that relates to this, I'm sorry man but you have to add one more category. There's legitimately good. There's mediocre, and then there's bad.

Whatever you want to dictate that fits your narrative, go ahead.

[Lurker]

6 minutes ago, KB21 said:

Whatever you want to dictate that fits your narrative, go ahead.

Again, if your definition of being a good team in the NBA world is a playoff team, than I sincerely believe you have zilch idea of what the heck you are talking about in sports and need to go back to the drawing board there.

Its not. History proves that you are 100% false in the NBA. Not even talking about the draft and mostly not stars here either. If you're not a 50 plus win team with a good-great point differential or a team that had a star player injured, you're playing for pride in the playoffs. And this is not college football, where pride and wins mean a lot.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

Correct me if I'm wrong about any of this, but here it goes, Strictly focusing on the NBA AJ ( After Jordan )

 

San Antonio ( late 1990s ) - Dominique was actually brought to that team to help them in bench scoring, to help David Robinson and Sean Elliott.  But when Robinson goes out for essentially the entire season, and Elliott misses 1/2 the season, the Spurs went from a top 8 team, to a bottom 5 team.   They were fortunate to have that happen when a top 10 big man of all time was in the draft ( Tim Duncan ).  This means that they got to retain their entire core that won 50+ games a season, and add a future Hall of Famer to the mix.

The Sacramento Kings ( late 1990s - early 2000s ) run started with them trading their longtime superstar Mitch Richmond, for Chris Webber.   The Kings were a perennial sub-30 win team in the late 80s - early 90s.  Plenty of lottery picks that didn't pan out.

LA Lakers ( late 1990s & late 2000s ) - They didn't tank to get Kobe.  And they only missed the playoffs 1 year during the 90s.  But at that time, they were a free agent destination, and obtained Shaq.  So they acquired the Hall of Famer through free agency, and Kobe developed into one alongside Shaq.   Even in the years after Shaq left, and the Lakers were floundering, it was another trade that brought them another future Hall of Famer ( Pau Gasol )  to play alongside Kobe, that saw them win 2 more titles.

Philadelphia 76ers ( mid 1990s - early 2000s ) didn't tank to get Iverson.  They were just a horrible team.  Barkley left, they got high draft picks, but none of them turned out to be anything.  But ironically, it was the Hawks ( in their reset ) that gave them the defensive center that Iverson needed, when we traded Dikembe for Theo Ratliff.

New Jersey Nets ( early 2000s ) - that team accumulated top lottery picks ( Kerry Kittles, Kenyon Martin, and Keith Van Horn ) to pair with another top 4 pick ( Stephon Marbury ).  But it wasn't until they traded Marbury for the pass first Jason Kidd, that the Nets really took off.  Nets were just bad, and not tanking, before acquiring Kidd.

Detroit ( early - mid 2000s ) - Grant Hill injuries, trading for Jerry Stackhouse, then trading for Rip Hamilton. They made the playoffs 6 out of 8 years, before they finally broke through and won a title.  The hiring of Larry Brown was just as big of a reason for them rising to that next level, than anything.

Atlanta Hawks ( early 2000s ) - Yes, I know they don't belong in this discussion.  Of course, most of you know that after the failed "Playoff Guarantee" squad of JT, Shareef, and Glen "Big Dog" Robinson failed to make the playoffs, the Hawks decided to blow everything up.  It took us 5 years to get back to borderline playoff level, after failing to draft Chris Paul.  And while people still criticize the move, that process may have been longer, had we not traded for Joe Johnson, who actually wanted to come to us.

Cleveland ( early 2000s ) - While they definitely tanked to get Lebron, it's not like they had to try hard to tank.  They had been horrible for a full 5 years before Lebron's arrival.

Miami ( mid 2000s ) - I think you can say that they did a "reset".  Hardaway was traded for a 2nd round pick, and was in his mid 30s.  Mourning was getting old as well, and was dealing with his sickness.  He ends up going to New Jersey as a free agent.  They ended up drafting Wade, who was good enough to get them to the playoffs.  Then Riley uses his past Laker ties to pull off a trade for Shaq.

Seattle / OKC ( mid - late 2000s ) - This is the tanking "Gold Standard".  Sell off your Hall of Fame shooter and the 2nd best player on the team.  Field a team barely worth anything.  Get EXTREMELY LUCKY and have the team in front of you take the big man talent, insead of the wing Hall of Fame talent.  Draft 2 more Hall of Famers consecutively.  And be good enough to become a free agent destination once some of those stars have moved on.

Boston ( mid - late 2000s ) - A direct result of the Seattle tanking, Boston used this to not only get Ray Allen, but to also get Kevin Garnett.  With them keeping their superstar in Paul Pierce, and the development of their mid 1st round pick ( Rajon Rondo  . . via Phoenix , . via the Hawks ), they were able to win a title.  Before then, Paul Pierce was talking about leaving Boston.

Miami ( 2010 ) - "I'm taking my talents to South Beach". Riley knew Lebron was coming to MIA. And he knew he was either getting Joe Johnson or Chris Bosh to play alongside Lebron and Wade. No tanking needed. Just needed to let those contracts expire.

Dallas ( early 2010s ) - Missed the playoffs for 9 straight years in the 1990s. Keep swapping out players around your superstar shooter until you find the right chemistry to win a title.  No tanking in Dallas.  Just caught lightning in a bottle in 2011.

Golden State ( early 2010s ) - After Golden State pulled off the upset of all time vs Dallas in 2007, they missed the playoffs in 2008 despite winning 48 games.  But it was the sudden departure of Baron Davis that sent them back to the depths.  They missed the playoffs in 2009, and saw Curry fall in their laps that summer.    They tried to make the Curry - Monta small guard duo work for 2 years, but they couldn't stop anybody.  Curry's injury in 2011 made it real easy to go ahead and get rid of Monta, to get the defensive center they needed in Bogut . .  and supposedly tank the season ( according the Schlenk ).  What it really did, was enable them to start Klay Thompson as the big guard.

Cleveland ( mid 2010s ) - So where is Cleveland today had Lebron not come back home?  Kyrie Irving and Andrew Wiggins would be teammates. There would be no Lebron or Kevin Love in Cleveland.  Anthony Bennett was a bust.  Andrew Bynum didn't work out.  Would Dion Waiters still be there?  Who knows?  Maybe Kyrie and Andrew are the 3rd best backcourt in the league behind Steph and Klay  . . and Wall and Beal.  But we all know that when Lebron came back, and he was able to get Kevin Love to Cleveland, that was the building block for a quick ascent to the top.

***************************

People may scoff at everything that is above, and say that "it doesn't matter how they got there, as long as they got there".  Or "they all had to be bad, before they became good".

But as you can see, most of these teams didn't become PURPOSELY horrible, and purge their teams of their best players, before the championship level of play happened.  And if they did, most of them did it in a trade that brought back a significant player in return.

  

[KB21]

3 minutes ago, Lurker said:

Again, if your definition of being a good team in the NBA world is a playoff team, than I sincerely believe you have zilch idea of what the heck you are talking about in sports and need to go back to the drawing board there.

Its not. History proves that you are 100% false in the NBA. Not even talking about the draft and mostly not stars here either. If you're not a 50 plus win team with a good-great point differential or a team that had a star player injured, you're playing for pride in the playoffs. And this is not college football, where pride and wins mean a lot.

It does?

Data taken from 1978-2011 shows that no team that won less than 20 games in the starting year won 55 or more games within 4 years of the starting season.

Let's look at teams who won 40-44 games in the starting season of the data.  Within 4 years, 15% of those teams won 55 or more games.

[Lurker]

Dallas is really the only team that didn't do anything and just went for the right players and chemistry. So it's one in about 1000 that you'd win something playing the right way.

[Lurker]

Just now, KB21 said:

It does?

Data taken from 1978-2011 shows that no team that won less than 20 games in the starting year won 55 or more games within 4 years of the starting season.

Let's look at teams who won 40-44 games in the starting season of the data.  Within 4 years, 15% of those teams won 55 or more games.

List me those teams. All of them and I'll research it when I have time and debunk all of it. 

[TheNorthCydeRises]

1 hour ago, hazer said:

You’re just being obtuse...

 

2001 Nets: 26 wins, missed playoffs 

2002 Nets: 52 wins, NBA Finals

 

2004 Suns: 29 wins

2005 Suns: 62 wins

 

1989 Spurs: 21 wins

1990 Spurs: 55 wins

 

1997 Spurs: 20 wins

1998 Spurs: 56 wins

 

2007 Celtics: 24 wins, missed playoffs

2008 Celtics: 66 wins, NBA Championship

 

These are just the top 5 turnarounds, there are a dozen more that aren’t so dramatic but still make the point. Point being, it will NOT take the Hawks 5+ years to return to the playoffs. Now THERE’s some “truth” for ya, not opinion.

 

Damn . . that's who I forgot.  I forgot Phoenix.

 

Phoenix ( early - mid 2000s ) - Made the playoffs all throughout the 1990s, and had a 13 season streak of making the playoffs until the 2000 - 01 season when the team was ran by Stephan Marbury instead of Jason Kidd.  That playoff miss would see them grab Amar'e Stoudamire, who would end up being one of the culture changing players in a few years.  The rise of Joe Johnson after the Marbury trade will be a key building block to add with Marion and rapidly improving Stoudamire.  Once Nash came to the team, D'Antoni's run and gun culture change could finally take shape.

[High5]

46 minutes ago, Lurker said:

Dallas is really the only team that didn't do anything and just went for the right players and chemistry. So it's one in about 1000 that you'd win something playing the right way.

They had a Hall of Famer dominate the playoffs en route to that championship. We have to get that player first before we can worry about making those championship moves. And even if Collins turns out to be amazing, one star player isn't enough anymore. 

Edited October 31, 2017 by High5

[Wurider05]

2 hours ago, KB21 said:

But let's continue on with this myth that we are going to tank for one year, get a superstar, and be a championship contender because of that one star.

BINGO. That is what these guys are thinking. NBA superstars are not worth what they used to be that is why you need 2 or 3 of them.  The greatest thing we can do is develop what we have to go along with a good pick/free agent signings. A bird in the hand is worth more than one in the bush. Basing you entire future around some kid you don't even have yet is stupid.

[Lurker]

And to finish up that Dallas thought, the only way the Hawks would have pulled off the "NO TANK AT ALL" philosophy and done it similarly to Dallas was if Al Horford was resigned.

You really can't put this on Travis Schlenk. At all. You lost your chance to not have to tank once Tony Ressler decided to meddle and said "I want a flashy guy like Dwight Howard that is still viewed as a star player by a lot of people!" instead of Al Horford simply being resigned. Once Al Horford was gone, the playing the "right way" thing was over. Done. Finished. It was not coming back.

And even with Dallas, all good things must come to an end in life whether we like it or not. They are the prime example of what I mean in "You can probably count on one finger of the teams that have the perfect world of talented players that play the **right way** rolling into just as talented young players after the young players spend 2-3 years ***learning and growing up to play the right way themselves*** underneath them". Most teams do not plan for their star players to be declining (with those young players), and when they do they become a mediocre, then bad team. Father Time has been affecting Dirk in the last 1+ season, and thus Dallas is bad. Mark Cuban is against tanking, but even he said that he was tanking in the last half of last season.

[hazer]

6 hours ago, Wurider05 said:

BINGO. That is what these guys are thinking. 

No, not what I’m thinking at all. You snag 1 or hopefully 2 of them, if you’re lucky, in the draft from the half dozen first round picks in our pocket. Collins may already be 1 of the homeruns. Doncic or Porter or Bagley might be the 2nd one next draft. Then you have to be very savvy trading and/or attracting a FA star for the 3rd one. It’s 3 years until back to playoffs (2019), 5 years until contention (ECFs, 2021).

Not “bingo”, not what I’m thinking... 

Edited October 31, 2017 by hazer

[AHF]

@TheNorthCydeRises - I see intent as irrelevant and so won't debate whether your examples above qualify as "tanking" or not because I think that is unimportant semantics.  What is important is these teams sucked hard, grabbed their superstar and then built their way from there to a championship - sometimes over a shorter period of time and sometimes over a longer period of time.  I don't care if the idea is "resetting", "not trying hard to suck", "getting rid of 30-something vets", etc. as long as it results in low wins and the top pick which becomes the MVP talent foundation of future contending teams.

The Spurs are an exception to almost anything but the rest of the teams all fit that basic mold to me in a variety of different flavors.

How hard did the Hawks have to try this offseason to get a roster that sucks?  Their team last year barely won 50% of their games.  They let go of a couple of vets who were going to be significantly overpaid and/or nearing the end of their prime.  They ditched one guy the coach benched more and more often as the season progressed because he was good at what he did but his limitations compromised other things Bud wanted to do.  Is that resetting as somehow different from tanking?  Or is that tanking with aspects of resetting?  Who cares.

To me, the labels don't matter so much as the path these teams take.  None of the championship teams set themselves up by stringing together a bunch of first and second round exits on a team without an MVP talent and then coalesce into the best team in the league.

[cam1218]

I think what seems to be forgotten is exactly what Ressler said, we won 43 games last year. We are obviously tanking, but if the alternative was to keep Sap/Howard and see what happens then we made the right choice. I don't think Millsap was worth the money he got (not to be the #1 option for us) and obviously there were some issues with Howard. The Bazemore contract took away a lot of our flexibility as well, we don't have much financial flexibility when we are paying him so much for crappy play. It wasn't as if we were getting rid of a potentially great team to tank, they just decided it was best to move on from that previous bunch and this is the aftermath of it all. Who knows what will come out of this, but I don't think it's going to be quite as bad as some of you are making it out to be. I'll roll the dice with a high draft pick or two/cap space instead of another Millsap/Howard team that gets blown out half the season and winds up winning 43 games.

[hazer]

2 hours ago, AHF said:

@TheNorthCydeRises - I see intent as irrelevant and so won't debate whether your examples above qualify as "tanking" or not because I think that is unimportant semantics.  What is important is these teams sucked hard, grabbed their superstar and then built their way from there to a championship - sometimes over a shorter period of time and sometimes over a longer period of time.  I don't care if the idea is "resetting", "not trying hard to suck", "getting rid of 30-something vets", etc. as long as it results in low wins and the top pick which becomes the MVP talent foundation of future contending teams.

The Spurs are an exception to almost anything but the rest of the teams all fit that basic mold to me in a variety of different flavors.

How hard did the Hawks have to try this offseason to get a roster that sucks?  Their team last year barely won 50% of their games.  They let go of a couple of vets who were going to be significantly overpaid and/or nearing the end of their prime.  They ditched one guy the coach benched more and more often as the season progressed because he was good at what he did but his limitations compromised other things Bud wanted to do.  Is that resetting as somehow different from tanking?  Or is that tanking with aspects of resetting?  Who cares.

To me, the labels don't matter so much as the path these teams take.  None of the championship teams set themselves up by stringing together a bunch of first and second round exits on a team without an MVP talent and then coalesce into the best team in the league.

 

24 minutes ago, cam1218 said:

I think what seems to be forgotten is exactly what Ressler said, we won 43 games last year. We are obviously tanking, but if the alternative was to keep Sap/Howard and see what happens then we made the right choice. I don't think Millsap was worth the money he got (not to be the #1 option for us) and obviously there were some issues with Howard. The Bazemore contract took away a lot of our flexibility as well, we don't have much financial flexibility when we are paying him so much for crappy play. It wasn't as if we were getting rid of a potentially great team to tank, they just decided it was best to move on from that previous bunch and this is the aftermath of it all. Who knows what will come out of this, but I don't think it's going to be quite as bad as some of you are making it out to be. I'll roll the dice with a high draft pick or two/cap space instead of another Millsap/Howard team that gets blown out half the season and winds up winning 43 games.

These are the “BINGO”s...

[NBASupes]

I hate this f***ing site. I lost all of my content I was writing in response to North. Damnit! I spent 20 mins on that. 

[NBASupes]

North, you're wrong on most of your post. Especially Philly and Det. 

[KB21]

3 hours ago, cam1218 said:

I think what seems to be forgotten is exactly what Ressler said, we won 43 games last year. We are obviously tanking, but if the alternative was to keep Sap/Howard and see what happens then we made the right choice. I don't think Millsap was worth the money he got (not to be the #1 option for us) and obviously there were some issues with Howard. The Bazemore contract took away a lot of our flexibility as well, we don't have much financial flexibility when we are paying him so much for crappy play. It wasn't as if we were getting rid of a potentially great team to tank, they just decided it was best to move on from that previous bunch and this is the aftermath of it all. Who knows what will come out of this, but I don't think it's going to be quite as bad as some of you are making it out to be. I'll roll the dice with a high draft pick or two/cap space instead of another Millsap/Howard team that gets blown out half the season and winds up winning 43 games.

So, committing to a process that is going to cost you at least the next 5 years is the right way to go?

[MaceCase]

As opposed to the alternative of investing in an aging core that had already peaked and was sliding in the standings annually?

 Yea, I guess in 2-3 years when that core is “naturally” in the lottery and looking for an infusion of young talent (that’s if lord forbid they don’t sell off picks to extend their relevance by 2 wins) you’ll pump your chest and say they didn’t “tank” but instead just “sucked”....while facing a far worse than 5 year rebuild because they didn’t receive high enough picks and/or sold them off to extend the relevance of their vets if not get rid of their contracts altogether.

[KB21]

You know what cracks me up?  This idea that you can't find good players later in the draft....that you absolutely have to have high lottery picks to be good.............yet the pro tankers are touting all the draft picks the team has over the next 2-3 years as a reason the tank won't take as long.......a majority of those 1st round picks are later in the draft.  

Had Atlanta resigned Paul Millsap and just stood pat on the Howard contract, by the time those contracts are up, John Collins would be ready to assume the one of those roles on the team.  Taurean Prince and DeAndre Bembry would have 2-3 more years of proper development on their games.  Then you add your pick and the Minnesota pick plus your pick and Cleveland's pick in 2019........now that's a team that would more likely be a playoff team than anything that is going to come out of this tank job.  When you take into account that Atlanta has the best developmental staff in basketball, we could also flip some of these picks for some of these failed lottery picks you all want and actually develop them up at a cheaper price in a winning environment.