The Tank Thread

[KB21]

http://www.sportsonearth.com/article/163874706/rebuilding-tanking-whats-the-difference-colts

Quote

The line between tanking and rebuilding can be blurry

A rebuild is judicious. A tank job is egregious.

Quote

But as the Warriors and Oilers demonstrate in different ways, mere losing alone is not enough. It's what happens after the losing -- in the drafting and development of professional athletes -- that matters most. And because even the most obvious of tank jobs are subjected to the whims of the draft and, in two leagues, the bounces of a lottery ball, the benefits of intelligence far outweigh the benefits of defeat-by-design.

Long story short: Think before you tank.

What I have highlighted here is why tanking and proper player development cannot coexist.  You cannot take a young player like Trae Young who already has shot selection issues and develop him the way he needs to be developed when you are going to use his shot selection issues as a vector for your desire to lose games.  That needs to be reined in from the very beginning in his development.  What the Hawks are going to do though is let him take those bad shots now with the hope that 2-3 years from now, they can rein it in when they are ready to start trying to win.  Now, they know that his shot selection will help them lose games the way they want to lose.

And that is why this is not a rebuild, but a tank.  Their goal is not to develop these players properly.  Their goal is to lose, pure and simple.

[AHF]

50 minutes ago, KB21 said:

http://www.sportsonearth.com/article/163874706/rebuilding-tanking-whats-the-difference-colts

What I have highlighted here is why tanking and proper player development cannot coexist.  You cannot take a young player like Trae Young who already has shot selection issues and develop him the way he needs to be developed when you are going to use his shot selection issues as a vector for your desire to lose games.  That needs to be reined in from the very beginning in his development.  What the Hawks are going to do though is let him take those bad shots now with the hope that 2-3 years from now, they can rein it in when they are ready to start trying to win.  Now, they know that his shot selection will help them lose games the way they want to lose.

And that is why this is not a rebuild, but a tank.  Their goal is not to develop these players properly.  Their goal is to lose, pure and simple.

So if Trae improves his shot selection, they work to improve John Collins, they work to improve Prince, the Hawks aren't tanking even if they are intentionally losing because they are developing players.  

Gotcha.

It isn't about deliberately not trying to win.  You are 100% good with teams trying to lose as long as they keep a focus on player development like the Astros or the Cubs or Memphis or Cleveland (not sure how Cleveland fits this definition but let's roll with it).  It is about player development and Philly didn't develop players so that is your gripe with them.

[Peoriabird]

52 minutes ago, KB21 said:

 What the Hawks are going to do though is let him take those bad shots now with the hope that 2-3 years from now, they can rein it in when they are ready to start trying to win.  Now, they know that his shot selection will help them lose games the way they want to lose.

And that is why this is not a rebuild, but a tank.  Their goal is not to develop these players properly.  Their goal is to lose, pure and simple.

Man...Your azz has to be sore as H-ll with the amount sh-t you continue to pull out of it.

[KB21]

18 minutes ago, AHF said:

So if Trae improves his shot selection, they work to improve John Collins, they work to improve Prince, the Hawks aren't tanking even if they are intentionally losing because they are developing players.  

Gotcha.

It isn't about deliberately not trying to win.  You are 100% good with teams trying to lose as long as they keep a focus on player development like the Astros or the Cubs or Memphis or Cleveland (not sure how Cleveland fits this definition but let's roll with it).  It is about player development and Philly didn't develop players so that is your gripe with them.

No.  You are not trying to lose when you are trying to develop winning habits in these young players.  

[AHF]

36 minutes ago, KB21 said:

No.  You are not trying to lose when you are trying to develop winning habits in these young players.  

You can absolutely try to lose while trying develop good habits in young players.  For example, Houston and Chicago passed on signing free agents they ordinarily would have signed and instead fielded pitiful starting lineups while their youngsters developed in the minor leagues.  They could have won a ton more games but chose not to do so specifically to improve their draft position.  

As an example in the NBA, you could choose to let people like Paul Millsap walk and then field a team of all rookies for the purpose of losing games but try to get them to develop good habits so they improve as players over time.   You then keep the kids that develop positively and get top draft picks to add additional talent.  

The team would be deliberately not winning games they could easily win by focusing on maximizing win totals.

Despite trying develop young talent, that would be absolutely tanking just like shutting players down is tanking, just like deliberating avoiding signing good free agents, etc.  All those things are levers pulled with the intention of putting up more losses to improve draft position.  That is tanking - deliberate losing of games.

It is funny that you won't acknowledge this where you put such an emphasis on trying to maximize wins every year in so many other posts.

[KB21]

50 minutes ago, AHF said:

You can absolutely try to lose while trying develop good habits in young players.  For example, Houston and Chicago passed on signing free agents they ordinarily would have signed and instead fielded pitiful starting lineups while their youngsters developed in the minor leagues.  They could have won a ton more games but chose not to do so specifically to improve their draft position.  

As an example in the NBA, you could choose to let people like Paul Millsap walk and then field a team of all rookies for the purpose of losing games but try to get them to develop good habits so they improve as players over time.   You then keep the kids that develop positively and get top draft picks to add additional talent.  

The team would be deliberately not winning games they could easily win by focusing on maximizing win totals.

Despite trying develop young talent, that would be absolutely tanking just like shutting players down is tanking, just like deliberating avoiding signing good free agents, etc.  All those things are levers pulled with the intention of putting up more losses to improve draft position.  That is tanking - deliberate losing of games.

It is funny that you won't acknowledge this where you put such an emphasis on trying to maximize wins every year in so many other posts.

What you are twisting around is that those teams who you claim to have tanked were already bad.  Whether it was the Astros, Cubs, Warriors, or whoever.  They were all already bad.  The management teams did not come in and completely gut those rosters in an attempt to get high draft picks.  They did not "redshirt" young players in the name of losing games.  They did not fake injuries.  

If you cannot see that there is a clear difference in coaching players to develop winning habits when you are in a losing situation and encouraging losing habits because your goal is to tank, then that's on you.  

[KB21]

I know you want tanking to be a viable strategy, but it just isn't.  There is no getting around that fact.  Tanking is not a viable team building strategy.

[thecampster]

3 hours ago, KB21 said:

None of those situations were true tanks.

In all of those situations the "tank" was abandoned for aggressive trades and free agents. 

[KB21]

15 minutes ago, thecampster said:

In all of those situations the "tank" was abandoned for aggressive trades and free agents. 

In all of those situations, the tank never was implemented in the first place, much less abandoned.  

[AHF]

2 hours ago, KB21 said:

What you are twisting around is that those teams who you claim to have tanked were already bad.  Whether it was the Astros, Cubs, Warriors, or whoever.  They were all already bad.  The management teams did not come in and completely gut those rosters in an attempt to get high draft picks.  They did not "redshirt" young players in the name of losing games.  They did not fake injuries.  

If you cannot see that there is a clear difference in coaching players to develop winning habits when you are in a losing situation and encouraging losing habits because your goal is to tank, then that's on you.  

You are out of your ever loving mind if you don't think Chicago and Houston tanked.  Your definition is so far off base that it needs a different term for it.  It is like saying Coke and Sprite aren't liquids because liquids can't be carbonated.  

Houston went from winning 86, 74, 76 games the three seasons before their tank to winning only 50 some games for three consecutive seasons.  THOSE ARE THE WORST THREE SEASONS IN ASTROS' HISTORY.  And you think they weren't trying to lose??  You genuinely believe this was their best effort to win?  

They started by trading off their best players on both sides of the ball  - pitcher (Roy Oswalt - team leader in FIP, WHIP, H/9, BB/9, K/BB) and best hitter (Lance Berkman - team leader in OPS over the prior 5 seasons), saved $30M in payroll and didn't sign a single FA of any note. 

They then traded every valuable veteran and sizable salary on their roster:  Carlos Lee, Michael Bourn, Hunter Pence,  Chris Johnson, Brett Myers, Wandy Rodriguez, Bud Norris, J.A. Happ, Jeff Keppinger, Brandon Lyon, and the list goes on.  Of course, they didn't sign any notable FAs.

They went from having guys making $19M, $15M, $15, etc. and a team salary of $92M during that last 2010 76 win season to finishing the second season of their tank job with a high salary of $1M on their roster and paying out total salaries in the final tank season of a mere $21M.

And you think they were trying their best to win games.  OMG that is too funny.

From 2003-2010 they carried payrolls every season between $71M and $102M.  They then tanked it up and had opening day payrolls of $60M (which they traded away about $40M of salary midseason as noted above), $21M, and $45M.  Since they climbed out of the tank, they are back to running $100M+ payrolls.  But they were really spending and trying their best to win.  

This is just mind boggling.

 

They very deliberately constructed a roster with the intent to lose games.  They jettisoned every valuable vet on the team - including the entire panel of starting pitchers in their last pre-tank season.   They acquired a bunch of young talent that was years away from winning and racked up good draft picks of their own.  They have made no secret of it either.  They openly admitted the plan was to get young prospects who would take several years before they could win games, get great draft position in the meantime to build up more elite young talent and only start spending and trying to win again once they had a minor league system filled with young studs.  Then they would pursue free agents, pursue guys ready to win now, add payroll, etc.

 

 

[JayBirdHawk]

1 hour ago, AHF said:

You are out of your ever loving mind if you don't think Chicago and Houston tanked.  Your definition is so far off base that it needs a different term for it.  It is like saying Coke and Sprite aren't liquids because liquids can't be carbonated.  

Houston went from winning 86, 74, 76 games the three seasons before their tank to winning only 50 some games for three consecutive seasons.  THOSE ARE THE WORST THREE SEASONS IN ASTROS' HISTORY.  And you think they weren't trying to lose??  You genuinely believe this was their best effort to win?  

They started by trading off their best players on both sides of the ball  - pitcher (Roy Oswalt - team leader in FIP, WHIP, H/9, BB/9, K/BB) and best hitter (Lance Berkman - team leader in OPS over the prior 5 seasons), saved $30M in payroll and didn't sign a single FA of any note. 

They then traded every valuable veteran and sizable salary on their roster:  Carlos Lee, Michael Bourn, Hunter Pence,  Chris Johnson, Brett Myers, Wandy Rodriguez, Bud Norris, J.A. Happ, Jeff Keppinger, Brandon Lyon, and the list goes on.  Of course, they didn't sign any notable FAs.

They went from having guys making $19M, $15M, $15, etc. and a team salary of $92M during that last 2010 76 win season to finishing the second season of their tank job with a high salary of $1M on their roster and paying out total salaries in the final tank season of a mere $21M.

And you think they were trying their best to win games.  OMG that is too funny.

From 2003-2010 they carried payrolls every season between $71M and $102M.  They then tanked it up and had opening day payrolls of $60M (which they traded away about $40M of salary midseason as noted above), $21M, and $45M.  Since they climbed out of the tank, they are back to running $100M+ payrolls.  But they were really spending and trying their best to win.  

This is just mind boggling.

 

They very deliberately constructed a roster with the intent to lose games.  They jettisoned every valuable vet on the team - including the entire panel of starting pitchers in their last pre-tank season.   They acquired a bunch of young talent that was years away from winning and racked up good draft picks of their own.  They have made no secret of it either.  They openly admitted the plan was to get young prospects who would take several years before they could win games, get great draft position in the meantime to build up more elite young talent and only start spending and trying to win again once they had a minor league system filled with young studs.  Then they would pursue free agents, pursue guys ready to win now, add payroll, etc.

 

 

I admire your patience cuz the goal post is about to do the electtical slide.

[KB21]

1 hour ago, AHF said:

You are out of your ever loving mind if you don't think Chicago and Houston tanked.  Your definition is so far off base that it needs a different term for it.  It is like saying Coke and Sprite aren't liquids because liquids can't be carbonated.  

Houston went from winning 86, 74, 76 games the three seasons before their tank to winning only 50 some games for three consecutive seasons.  THOSE ARE THE WORST THREE SEASONS IN ASTROS' HISTORY.  And you think they weren't trying to lose??  You genuinely believe this was their best effort to win?  

They started by trading off their best players on both sides of the ball  - pitcher (Roy Oswalt - team leader in FIP, WHIP, H/9, BB/9, K/BB) and best hitter (Lance Berkman - team leader in OPS over the prior 5 seasons), saved $30M in payroll and didn't sign a single FA of any note. 

They then traded every valuable veteran and sizable salary on their roster:  Carlos Lee, Michael Bourn, Hunter Pence,  Chris Johnson, Brett Myers, Wandy Rodriguez, Bud Norris, J.A. Happ, Jeff Keppinger, Brandon Lyon, and the list goes on.  Of course, they didn't sign any notable FAs.

They went from having guys making $19M, $15M, $15, etc. and a team salary of $92M during that last 2010 76 win season to finishing the second season of their tank job with a high salary of $1M on their roster and paying out total salaries in the final tank season of a mere $21M.

And you think they were trying their best to win games.  OMG that is too funny.

From 2003-2010 they carried payrolls every season between $71M and $102M.  They then tanked it up and had opening day payrolls of $60M (which they traded away about $40M of salary midseason as noted above), $21M, and $45M.  Since they climbed out of the tank, they are back to running $100M+ payrolls.  But they were really spending and trying their best to win.  

This is just mind boggling.

 

They very deliberately constructed a roster with the intent to lose games.  They jettisoned every valuable vet on the team - including the entire panel of starting pitchers in their last pre-tank season.   They acquired a bunch of young talent that was years away from winning and racked up good draft picks of their own.  They have made no secret of it either.  They openly admitted the plan was to get young prospects who would take several years before they could win games, get great draft position in the meantime to build up more elite young talent and only start spending and trying to win again once they had a minor league system filled with young studs.  Then they would pursue free agents, pursue guys ready to win now, add payroll, etc.

 

 

I linked you two separate articles that showed you what Houston did was not a tank.  Once again, like all pro tankers, all the evidence that shows you that it was indeed not a tank gets ignored because the pro tankers want so badly for this to be a viable team building strategy.  You love losing that much that you support a completely nonviable team building strategy that only promotes a losing culture.

[KB21]

Also, Jeff Lunhow wasn't hired till December of 2011, so the Astros had already lost 106 games in a season when he got started.  He did not tank that team out.  That team is just one that got bad very quickly and rebuilt.

[kg01]

20 minutes ago, JayBirdHawk said:

I admire your patience cuz the goal post is about to do the electtical slide.

Eggsactly.   That's why I bowed out.

And, on a note that's as equally relevant as KB's antitank crisade, did you know what the Electric Slide song is actually about?

I blushed when I found out.   Just nasty.

[JayBirdHawk]

1 hour ago, kg01 said:

Eggsactly.   That's why I bowed out.

And, on a note that's as equally relevant as KB's antitank crisade, did you know what the Electric Slide song is actually about?

I blushed when I found out.   Just nasty.

Mmmmmm.....tell me more. 

[AHF]

I love it when all the facts go unaddressed and only conclusive statements get returned.  SOS.  I’m done with this again.  

[thecampster]

8 hours ago, AHF said:

So if Trae improves his shot selection, they work to improve John Collins, they work to improve Prince, the Hawks aren't tanking even if they are intentionally losing because they are developing players.  

Gotcha.

It isn't about deliberately not trying to win.  You are 100% good with teams trying to lose as long as they keep a focus on player development like the Astros or the Cubs or Memphis or Cleveland (not sure how Cleveland fits this definition but let's roll with it).  It is about player development and Philly didn't develop players so that is your gripe with them.

You do realize that other than a few oddball seasons, the Cubs were losing for most of 70 years right? That's really a bad example of tanking.  When a team has less than 5 winning seasons in 30 years, it isn't tanking, its embarrassing.

[kg01]

35 minutes ago, JayBirdHawk said:

Mmmmmm.....tell me more. 

Haha.  It's supposedly about using a vibrater.

[JayBirdHawk]

2 minutes ago, kg01 said:

Haha.  It's supposedly about using a vibrater.

[thecampster]

Between the 1973 and 2014 seasons (42 years) the Cubs finished .500 or worse 32 times.  Using a team who has only had 10 winning seasons in a span of 42 years as a team who purposely tanked really hurts your credibility (and strengthens KB21's).