The Tank Thread

[sturt]

1 hour ago, KB21 said:

The answer to your question is that NONE of those teams tanked to get the players in question

Meaningless. Irrelevant. How/why they got in that position, that is. Regardless of how or why, they had to get there. And did. And reaped the benefit. Again. Regardless of how or why. It would not make Kobe (et al) any less of a player. The results would have been the same.

1 hour ago, KB21 said:

all of those players were drafted before the one and done rules were put into place and we had an influx of young, underdeveloped talent come into the league.

1. Soooooooo.... in KB's world, you envision an NBA where those selecting outside of the lottery are in as-good-or-better a position to pick up future ASG-ers (proxy for the population of players who are capable of leading a team to a championship).

Who knows. I suppose there's at least some chance you're right. Which is better than you've been doing in this exchange so far, imo.

2. LeBron was how old when he came into the league? Kobe was how old when he came into the league?

[KB21]

1 minute ago, sturt said:

Meaningless. Irrelevant. How/why they got in that position, that is. Regardless of how or why, they had to get there. And did. And reaped the benefit. Again. Regardless of how or why. It would not make Kobe (et al) any less of a player. The results would have been the same.

1. Soooooooo.... in KB's world, you envision an NBA where those selecting outside of the lottery are in as-good-or-better a position to pick up future ASG-ers (proxy for the population of players who are capable of leading a team to a championship).

Who knows. I suppose there's at least some chance you're right. Which is better than you've been doing in this exchange so far, imo.

2. LeBron was how old when he came into the league? Kobe was how old when he came into the league?

.....and Andrew Wiggins was how old?  Jahlil Okafor was how old?  Anthony Bennett was how old?  D'Angelo Russell was how old?  These at the players the pro tankers would have loved to drafted back in their respective years.  

[sturt]

31 minutes ago, KB21 said:

I'm also still waiting on that championship winner that was built through tanking.

You continue to (purposefully?) ignore

1) GSW was a lottery team twice and reaped the benefit of that... call it "tanking" or not... the results are the results.

2) Again again, the current FA era is pretty young. Google statistics, small numbers and validity.

[KB21]

2 minutes ago, sturt said:

You continue to (purposefully?) ignore

1) GSW was a lottery team twice and reaped the benefit of that... call it "tanking" or not... the results are the results.

2) Again again, the current FA era is pretty young. Google statistics, small numbers and validity.

Golden State was a lottery team for 18 out of 20 years.

[sturt]

1 minute ago, KB21 said:

.....and Andrew Wiggins was how old?  Jahlil Okafor was how old?  Anthony Bennett was how old?  D'Angelo Russell was how old?  These at the players the pro tankers would have loved to drafted back in their respective years.  

My friend, there have been 1st round busts long before any of those.

It's not hard to point out whiffs no matter the draft slot.

Quit insulting all of our intelligence as-if we don't all know that YOU know that.

Mathematically, the point remains that you continue to ignore.... drafting in the top 3 gives you a 33% shot at getting top tier talent... if you just make it to somewhere within the lottery, it's 17.5%... and anything beyond the lottery is 1.6%, only slightly higher than the 1.3% found in all of the second round.

[Peoriabird]

I think that all treads should be renamed Tank vs Non tank since all road lead to that topic

[KB21]

Just now, sturt said:

Again.... "tanking" is just a construct... a label... used to define an overall philosophy that prompts picking in the lottery repetitively.

Philosophy is irrelevant. Your labels are irrelevant. GSW would not be who they are today without having opportunity to select Curry and Thompson in the lottery.

Oh, and again. Astros.

And. Again... small numbers... statistics... validity...

 

The Astros are irrelevant to the discussion.  Baseball is a completely different sport that actually has a developmental system in place.

And based on your statistics comments, you think we can ignore the history of the league that shows that not team who intentionally loses has ever won a championship.

Just now, sturt said:

We can agree.... if you don't have a GM at the top who has some history of proven exceptional talent evaluation, you very well could be mining fool's gold.

We do have one, though.

Because he helped build GSW.

Wrong.  We have a GM who has proven to be a terrible negotiator, and he also chose the path he has currently put the Hawks on.

[JayBirdHawk]

9 minutes ago, Peoriabird said:

I think that all treads should be renamed Tank vs Non tank since all road lead to that topic

I concur.  It's just white noise now.

[KB21]

3 minutes ago, JayBirdHawk said:

I concur.  It's just white noise now.

It's not my fault that you guys refuse to discuss the truth behind the situation the Hawks have willingly put themselves into.  

[sturt]

1 minute ago, KB21 said:

The Astros are irrelevant to the discussion.  Baseball is a completely different sport that actually has a developmental system in place.

I'll agree it's a very different sport.

But that they have a developmental system in place actually just strengthens the point.... they shouldn't have seen the ultimate success that they did so soon.

And the larger point is that there is at least one example that explicit tanking can work, at least under certain conditions. It's not as-if it can't work. We are able to take that much from their experience, even if it's not the same ecology as the NBA's.

4 minutes ago, KB21 said:

And based on your statistics comments, you think we can ignore the history of the league that shows that not team who intentionally loses has ever won a championship.

Not only has the modern FA era only been with us for about 20 years, the idea of explicit tanking has been with us for less than that.

Small numbers... statistics... validity.

5 minutes ago, KB21 said:

We have a GM who has proven to be a terrible negotiator, and he also chose the path he has currently put the Hawks on.

I call dodge.

You aren't good at that diversion thing, so please stop.

To benefit from high draft slots, one has no need to be a skilled negotiator.

And again again, we DO have reason to believe that Schlenk is a superior talent evaluator.

[sturt]

2 minutes ago, KB21 said:

It's not my fault that you guys refuse to discuss the truth behind the situation the Hawks have willingly put themselves into.  

hehe... right.

[KB21]

3 minutes ago, sturt said:

I'll agree it's a very different sport.

But that they have a developmental system in place actually just strengthens the point.... they shouldn't have seen the ultimate success that they did so soon.

And the larger point is that there is at least one example that explicit tanking can work, at least under certain conditions. It's not as-if it can't work. We are able to take that much from their experience, even if it's not the same ecology as the NBA's.

Not only has the modern FA era only been with us for about 20 years, the idea of explicit tanking has been with us for less than that.

Small numbers... statistics... validity.

I call dodge.

You aren't good at that diversion thing, so please stop.

To benefit from high draft slots, one has no need to be a skilled negotiator.

And again again, we DO have reason to believe that Schlenk is a superior talent evaluator.

To be able to keep from picking in those high draft slots on a yearly basis, one does have to be a good negotiator, because to get off that lottery treadmill you guys want to be on so badly, it's going to take actually making deals for........wait for it.......established veteran players that know how to win in the NBA........What a f***ing novel idea!!

[JayBirdHawk]

4 minutes ago, KB21 said:

It's not my fault that you guys refuse to discuss the truth behind the situation the Hawks have willingly put themselves into.  

And the beating of that dead horse does exactly what?  Change the course of where we are? Nope.

Repeating the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over....won't change squat and won't change anyone's mind.

[sturt]

 

Quote

 

See my sig...

">..Good luck with your tanking. If you get bad, you will get a high pick and you may even get a good player. But by far the most likely thing is that you'll be tanking again long before you make it to the promised land, or even the conference finals." -- Henry Abbott

 

 

That's right. It is true that it is unlikely you will "make it to the promised land or even the conference finals."

But that's not the point.

Hear me please.

THAT MISSES THE POINT.

That it is "unlikely that you will make it to the promised land or even the conference finals" IS THE STATE OF PLAY FOR EVERY TEAM W/O ENOUGH TOP TIER PLAYERS... REGARDLESS (!).

Rather, what we're talking about here is WHAT PUTS YOU IN THE BEST POSITION TO STOP BEING ONE OF THOSE TEAMS W/O ENOUGH TOP TIER PLAYERS.

It's a comparative thing.

And we know... KNOW... a team with lottery-level draft slot assets is in a better position than those who are not.

Know.

 

 

 

 

[sturt]

7 minutes ago, KB21 said:

To be able to keep from picking in those high draft slots on a yearly basis, one does have to be a good negotiator, because to get off that lottery treadmill you guys want to be on so badly, it's going to take actually making deals for........wait for it.......established veteran players that know how to win in the NBA........What a f***ing novel idea!!

Bob Myers called. He said bull shite.

 

Moreover, if you draft these guys while you have cap space, you actually have opportunity to have the room to add the players you want in FA.

 

Moreover... even if we accept for the sake of argument that Schlenk is a bad negotiator... (and I disagree that we know anything but that he's average...)  but let's play along...

 

Once Schlenk acquires good talent from the draft, you don't have to keep him... toss him aside and go get yourself a well-regarded negotiator to be your GM.

 

And again. You're really bad at this diversion thing. There's a reason you don't want to talk about Schlenk's ability to evaluate talent.

[KB21]

1 minute ago, sturt said:

Bob Myers called. He said bull shite.

 

Moreover, if you draft these guys while you have cap space, you actually have opportunity to have the room to add the players you want in FA.

 

Moreover... even if we accept for the sake of argument that Schlenk is a bad negotiator... (and I disagree that we know anything but that he's average...)  but let's play along...

 

Once Schlenk acquires good talent from the draft, you don't have to keep him... toss him aside and go get yourself a well-regarded negotiator to be your GM.

 

And again. You're really bad at this diversion thing. There's a reason you don't want to talk about Schlenk's ability to evaluate talent.

It's because his ability to evaluate talent is irrelevant because of his decision to tank.  That decision alone off sets any advantages he may give due to his ability to evaluate talent, and I've said he's a good evaluator many times.  When you put good players into losing situations, they become losing players.

[sturt]

10 minutes ago, JayBirdHawk said:

And the beating of that dead horse does exactly what?  Change the course of where we are? Nope.

Repeating the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over....won't change squat and won't change anyone's mind.

I don't mind that he feels strongly about it.

I mind that he feels so strongly about it that he has this much ego invested in it. And thus, plays rhetorical whack-a-mole rather than actually engage and reshape his opinion, respecting that there is at least a little if not a whole lot of good reason that runs counter to his conclusion.

Not that he's unique in that. Most of us... and I do say "us," as-in me, too... tend to do that when confronted.

But just because everyone does it doesn't mean it's right. We (including me) should try to do better. And to look for those ways that the other person is saying something we can agree with, first, demonstrating that we're not closing our ears/eyes to the points or counterpoints made. And only after that, illuminating where we still differ.

[sturt]

5 minutes ago, KB21 said:

It's because his ability to evaluate talent is irrelevant because of his decision to tank.  That decision alone off sets any advantages he may give due to his ability to evaluate talent, and I've said he's a good evaluator many times.  When you put good players into losing situations, they become losing players.

That's utter nonsense, and you know it.

Many, many high talent players started their careers in losing situations and eventually evolved into winning situations.

And the philosophy underlying the decision to draft Kobe or Steph or to draft whoever is irrelevant. At the end of the day, they still are who they are no matter who the GM is.

 

[DrReality]

198 pages.  What’s the longest thread?  

[sturt]

13 hours ago, Peoriabird said:

I think that all treads should be renamed Tank vs Non tank since all road lead to that topic

I think I knew, or at least had a good inkling, that when I opened a thread titled "Nobody believed" posted by Dies, it was going to involve the topic.

Folks, it's just the state of being for our team at this point, and frames everything going on...

You wanna talk about complaining for no evident reason? Oh the irony. What, as-if we can talk about much of anything without the current overriding philosophy of the team being relevant? Not much. No use in complaining. It's natural... just as @Peoriabird said... all roads (or at least many) lead to this topic.