The Tank Thread

[JayBirdHawk]

1 hour ago, EazyRoc said:

I don’t even know if this is a REAL tank. We aren’t dumping guys like Dennis and Baze for pennies to bottom out the roster. We wouldn’t have added a solid vet like Dedmon AND kept him. We aren’t trying to win a lot of games, but we definitely aren’t purposely bottoming out the roster to be the worst team in the league.

Unfortunately it's too soon to tell since Dennis and Baze are still being shopped in trades.  It depends on the return we get - is it for assets or just salary dumps? That will tell the tale.

[KB21]

1 hour ago, JayBirdHawk said:

It's early, but POTD.

The Braves did not tank.

[turnermx]

I don’t even know if this is a REAL tank. We aren’t dumping guys like Dennis and Baze for pennies to bottom out the roster. We wouldn’t have added a solid vet like Dedmon AND kept him. We aren’t trying to win a lot of games, but we definitely aren’t purposely bottoming out the roster to be the worst team in the league.

Amen! Getting sick of the posturing because that’s what it has to be by certain posters by this point ..

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[AHF]

9 hours ago, thecampster said:

OMFG...I give you their record over 42 years and you still want to say "but they tanked".  They always sucked...dude you love to ignore facts to suit your agenda.  Only 4 seasons of 90+ wins in 42 years.  They started tanking when the Vietnam War ended.

only 4 good seasons in 42 years is exactly what KB21 is talking about.  They fixed it by committing to spending the money and traded away youth for good vets.

That you are even trying to justify tanking in the NBA for high draft picks to trading away vets in MLB to rebuild your farm system just shows how weak your argument is. You had to go "outside the NBA" to make your point.

 

Let me simplify this argument.  You cannot draft your way to a championship. You can trade away your vets and this will lead to losing but it only works if you are doing so to acquire assets that you can turn into other good vets.  Rookies and 2nd year players don't win championships.  The articles I've already posted show that players don't reach their prime until their mid 20's.  Players under 25 cannot be your core or base. You need stars between the ages of 25-35 to be a contender.  This is what KB is saying.  The only way to get those players through the draft is to keep them for 5 years +.  Math doesn't lie.

LOSING IS NOT THE SAME AS TANKING.  Everyone who tanks loses but not everyone who loses tanks.  Trying to win and sucking is not tanking.  Simply limping along as mediocre is not tanking.  The Cubs have tried to win enough to make some bank and call it a day for most of their existence.  I don't ignore that at all.  To the contrary, the difference between that and tanking is essential.  

They absolutely did not tank when the Vietnam War ended.  You really think they deliberately lost in an effort to improve their draft position in the 1970s, 1980s, etc.?  

If you think merely being bad is tanking it is not wonder we aren't seeing eye to eye.

 

Tanking is deliberately losing to improve your draft status.  You garner a nucleus of young, cheap talent and then you layer on vets with all the money that is now available.  

 

Your Lester example typifies this.  You cite the signign of him as evidence they didn't tank not acknowledging that they were done tanking.  Signing free agents when  you are done tanking is part of the strategy.  They deliberately lost as part of a designed plan during the tank.  They wanted to lose.  It wasn't the sad sack Cubs of Andre Dawson just hoping to win enough games to make the playoffs once every few years -- it was systemic, designed losing with the goal of building up young talent.  They traded "win now major league talent" for Rizzo and Russell.  They tank drafted Bryant, Schwarber, Baez, and others.  Then they loaded up on a heaping of free agent talent and trading from their farm to add MLB ready pieces once they turned the corner to try to win.  

 

The Braves have done the same thing recently.  I suppose you will deny they lost on purpose and collected young assets in the draft and through trades but it is reality.  They tanked.  They collected young talent.  Now they will continue adding MLB players who are ready to help the team win *now* because they are done with the intentional losing phase of their process.

 

Only on the Squawk would we get people arguing that the Astros and Cubs didn't deliberately lose and trade away MLB veteran talent to spend several years at or near the top of the draft in an orchestrated plan to lose and collect young talent.

[KB21]

1 minute ago, AHF said:

LOSING IS NOT TANKING.  Trying to win and sucking is not tanking.  The Cubs have tried to win enough to make some bank and call it a day for most of their existence.  I don't ignore that at all.  To the contrary, the difference between that and tanking is essential.  

They absolutely did not tank when the Vietnam War ended.  You really think they deliberately lost in an effort to improve their draft position in the 1970s, 1980s, etc.?  

If you think merely being bad is tanking it is not wonder we aren't seeing eye to eye.

 

Tanking is deliberately losing to improve your draft status.  You garner a nucleus of young, cheap talent and then you layer on vets with all the money that is now available.  

 

Your Lester example typifies this.  You cite the signign of him as evidence they didn't tank not acknowledging that they were done tanking.  Signing free agents when  you are done tanking is part of the strategy.  They deliberately lost as part of a designed plan during the tank.  They wanted to lose.  It wasn't the sad sack Cubs of Andre Dawson just hoping to win enough games to make the playoffs once every few years -- it was systemic, designed losing with the goal of building up young talent.  They traded "win now major league talent" for Rizzo and Russell.  They tank drafted Bryant, Schwarber, Baez, and others.  Then they loaded up on a heaping of free agent talent and trading from their farm to add MLB ready pieces once they turned the corner to try to win.  

 

The Braves have done the same thing recently.  I suppose you will deny they lost on purpose and collected young assets in the draft and through trades but it is reality.  They tanked.  They collected young talent.  Now they will continue adding MLB players who are ready to help the team win *now* because they are done with the intentional losing phase of their process.

 

Only on the Squawk would we get people arguing that the Astros and Cubs didn't deliberately lose and trade away MLB veteran talent to spend several years at or near the top of the draft in an orchestrated plan to lose and collect young talent.

No.  Only on Hawksquawk would you argue that they did intentionally lose in an effort to prop up the weak argument that tanking is a viable team building strategy.

[AHF]

Just now, KB21 said:

No.  Only on Hawksquawk would you argue that they did intentionally lose in an effort to prop up the weak argument that tanking is a viable team building strategy.

You are really saying Houston and Chicago didn't deliberately lose games over a multiple year period?

[turnermx]

The Braves did not tank.

 

Here is a fan website article admitting that the Braves tanked and giving other examples of how the Cubs and Astros also tanked. It’s very common.

 

https://tomahawktake.com/2018/05/13/atlanta-braves-are-finally-escaping-a-bad-trend-in-baseball/

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[KB21]

7 hours ago, thecampster said:

Baseball rebuild - Trade aging expensive stars for young prospects for your farm team after your team is already out of the playoff race. Let those players stay in the minors for 2-3 years and develop. Call them up to the big club. You still own their rights for an extended period of time. Sign veterans to go with them.  This is what the Astros did. They weren't trying to "Get a high draft pick", they were restocking their farm system with already drafted players on other minor league rosters via trade. But every year, the Astros signed new players to take those spots on the big club roster. They recycled and traded vets for prospects.

 

Basketball tanking - Trade aging expensive stars for players on bad contracts with little value in exchange for draft picks.  Draft those young players who must play on your roster if signed. You own their rights for 4 years. Wait for the bad contracts to become expirings and try to trade those at the deadline to other teams trying to rebuild or if those players redeem themselves, to contenders for low first round picks. Wait 4 years for 4 years of high drafting. Before your rookies get max deals and if they've developed into star level talent, try to sign free agent stars to pair with them. If they don't develop, you won't be able to sign stars to play with them, restart the treadmill.

 

It is very different in that a Baseball rebuild usually centers on restocking a farm system and can be broken out of at any time by taking on salary at the trade deadline from failed teams. The acquired players are draft picks, but players already drafted and who are stashed in the minors. You don't even have to lose big to do this. Because a major league roster is comprised of 8 starters, 5 starting pitchers and 1 closer (14 impact players), it isn't worth it to tank for an entire year to get 1 higher 1st round draft choice. The pool of players is much larger to pick from and scouting becomes better than draft position. The variance between 1st and 30th picks are much closer than in the NBA.

In Basketball, you have 5 impact players and a much bigger variance between the skill level between the 1st and 30th pick. Also, age is a factor because basketball players come out all through the 4 year college window. The higher the draft, typically the younger you draft. So high level players are less likely to contribute right away but have higher potential. A top 5 pick is very attractive, but player movement in the NBA is such that most high level picks explore free agency after their rookie contract expires and before they reach their prime.

Let's use Lebron as the example. Lebron was drafted by Cleveland and spent his first 7 years there. But then he got frustrated and went title shopping. He went to Miami as a free agent to get his ring.  If Lebron hadn't had OHIO ties, he wouldn't have gone back to Cleveland and they wouldn't have gotten their ring...12 years after they drafted him.  Remember, Lebron's Cleveland championship wasn't due to their tank or to him being drafted by them, it was due to Lebron negotiating some level of control in personnel decisions to sign as a free agent and Cleveland spending the money to bring in a butt load of free agents and going into the Luxury Tax. Cleveland bought a championship, they didn't draft one.

Yes GS drafted Curry, Thompson and Green (not a lottery pick) but in the 2 years before winning the championship, they also traded for or signed Iquodala, Murphy, Crawford, Brooks, Blake, Livingston, Rush, Barbosa.  They traded/signed their way to a championship....which they wouldn't have been able to do except for the dumb luck that Curry was injury prone his first 3 years and was resigned on the cheap.

The same is true for the Astros and Cubs. They made savvy trades to build their farm system and but they weren't able to finish their teams without going out and spending money on free agents and trading away some of those farm systems.  Tanking doesn't win. In the end, every team figures out that you have to spend money to make money. You have to sign Jon Lester, acquire Iggy/Durant, Bosh/Lebron. You realize getting a Lebron isn't enough and you have to add a JR.Smith on the cheap, trade for a Kevin Love. Tanking doesn't win....stepping up your player acquisition game does.

Let me add to this.  In basketball, when you draft that 19 year old prospect with a high draft pick, you spend the next 4 years trying to develop that player into one that contributes to winning, but more often than not (I would venture to guess about 80% of the time), you are significantly overpaying that player on his second contract based on what you think he will become when he is 25 years of age and not based on what he is at the age of 22 or 23.  This is how a team like Minnesota gets saddled with a terrible Andrew Wiggins contract, and this is how Orlando gets saddled with a bad Aaron Gordon contract.  So, what happens when that event takes place?  You keep yourself on that lottery treadmill.  There is a very good chance that Minnesota does not make the playoffs in 2018-2019, and there is an even better chance that Jimmy Butler walks after this season.  When that happens, Minnesota will be right back onto the lottery treadmill.

And here's the thing.  Minnesota didn't tank.  They were just a team that was bad for an extended period of time that still hasn't really become a good team yet.  They are a perfect example of how hard it is to become good when you are very bad, and this is another example of how foolish it is to make yourself a very bad team in the name of getting a high draft pick.

So, while the Hawks ownership and management is foaming at the mouth over getting a top 3 pick in the 2019 NBA draft, the Toronto Raptors are making a trade for Kawhi Leonard, basically making the top of the East a three team race between the Celtics, Raptors, and Bucks.

5 minutes ago, AHF said:

You are really saying Houston and Chicago didn't deliberately lose games over a multiple year period?

I've already said that.  Houston and Chicago did not tank.  They were simply bad for several years before they got it right.

[KB21]

3 minutes ago, turnermx said:

 

Here is a fan website article admitting that the Braves tanked and giving other examples of how the Cubs and Astros also tanked. It’s very common.

 

https://tomahawktake.com/2018/05/13/atlanta-braves-are-finally-escaping-a-bad-trend-in-baseball/

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

The Braves did not tank.  You don't sign Nick Markakis to a $40 million contract if you are tanking.  The Braves rebuilt.

[Wurider05]

23 minutes ago, KB21 said:

They absolutely are trying to purposely bottom out the roster.  They are actively trying to trade Dennis, and they tried to include Kent Bazemore in two separate trades to move down without getting an asset in return.  They basically told Dallas that if they took Kent Bazemore's contract, they would move down from 3 to 5 without anything else added other than Matthews's expiring deal, which they would have bought out.  

This is very clearly a 76ers style tank, right down to hiring an unqualified head coach (Philly actually hired a qualified coach).  

KB21, you understand with regards to the tanking. These guys on here wondering who we are going to sign in free agency. They do not have any aspirations to add anyone who will make this team better and/or get us out . You really think that we were going to offer Zach Lavine a contract? You didn't here us linked to anyone even when we had the money. This is a 76ers style tank but for all that trust the process BS people forget about all of their draft misses. The only hope is that our young guys (Prince, Collins, Kuerter, Trae, Spelman) are better then we are expecting. This building through the lottery is a crap shoot.  Hell Trae/Kuerter/Prince/Collins/Spelman maybe our starting lineup sooner rather than later.

[turnermx]

The Braves did not tank.  You don't sign Nick Markakis to a $40 million contract if you are tanking.  The Braves rebuilt.

The Braves did tank, as an example giving up on Justin Upton for young unproven prospect Dansby, etc,

 

The Dbacks also were in a tanking process when they traded Upton to the Braves for young prospects when they were trying to win something.

 

The Marlins went into a tank after they won a World Series twice and it paid off for them to win the 2nd one. This process helps small market teams especially such as Royals.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[AHF]

It is amazing that acknowledging that tanking has worked in the past is so hard to admit that we are now seeing posters who ostensibly value teams doing their best to win every year embrace teams that deliberately lost a ton of games for multiple years as some form of good faith rebuilding.  The cognitive dissonance is too much.

[KB21]

2 minutes ago, turnermx said:

The Braves did tank, as an example giving up on Justin Upton for young unproven prospect Dansby, etc,

 

The Dbacks also were in a tanking process when they traded Upton to the Braves for young prospects when they were trying to win something.

 

The Marlins went into a tank after they won a World Series twice and it paid off for them to win the 2nd one. This process helps small market teams especially such as Royals.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

No.

The Braves rebuilt.  They traded players they were going to lose for nothing in free agency and got young assets in return.  They traded for Mike Foltynewicz, Sean Newcomb, and Dansby Swanson.  They already had Ozzie Albies and Ronald Acuna in the system at the start of the rebuild.  They traded for Max Fried and Luis Gohara.  They traded for Aroydis Vizcaino.  They signed Nick Markakis, Tyler Flowers, and Kurt Suzuki.  They traded for Ender Inciarte.  The only regular that is currently making an impact on the team who was drafted by the Braves during their rebuilding years is AJ Minter.  The draft contributed some to restocking the farm system, but the international scouting is what has tipped the scales for the Braves even if that is what Coppy got the Braves into trouble with.

[KB21]

3 minutes ago, AHF said:

It is amazing that acknowledging that tanking has worked in the past is so hard to admit that we are now seeing posters who ostensibly value teams doing their best to win every year embrace teams that deliberately lost a ton of games for multiple years as some form of good faith rebuilding.  The cognitive dissonance is too much.

It's amazing that acknowledging that tanking has never worked is so difficult to admit that we have some posters on here who are labeling teams who did not tank with the tanking label just to try to prop up a weak argument that this is a viable strategy.  

TANKING HAS NEVER WORKED!

[AHF]

Fielding a roster with only one player making $1M is truly trying to win.  I'm convinced.

[kg01]

19 minutes ago, KB21 said:

It's amazing that acknowledging that tanking has never worked is so difficult to admit that we have some posters on here who are labeling teams who did not tank with the tanking label just to try to prop up a weak argument that this is a viable strategy.  

TANKING HAS NEVER WORKED!

Everyone sees what you're doing.

You've been given multiple examples of tanks that worked but you are moving the goal posts to support your agenda.  It's not even interesting conversation anymore.

Why don't you just accept that you have your viewpoint and move on to more interesting topics?  You're not convincing anyone and no one is convincing you.

And, for the sake of all that's good and holy, can you stop trying to force every other thread into a tank discussion?

[Lurker]

If you have to think about it, the Braves of recent seasons actually deserve a picture placed right beside “rebuild/reshape while trying to stay respectable and not have awful seasons that make it look like we’re not trying”.

I gotta be honest, they completely succeeded with that hope outside 1 putrid stretch from after ASB in 2015-the ASB in 2016. But their tap dancing in between let’s rebuild our team and let’s try to look like a team that is trying to be “okay” could have very easily blown up horribly in their faces. A lot of the reason why the rebuild and tap dance between okay and terrible by the Braves looks like it’s going to end up working out is it looks like nobody position player prospect wise is going to just be a complete washout, even if they fail to live up to whatever their hype was, outside Albies who is breaking all expectations and honestly if he wasn’t, where would the Braves offense be in 2018?

None of us are saying that you build a team purely through your drafting or in baseball…your young international free agents with the drafting. In some of my musings while I was being a weenie and trying to 98% hold away from coming on here completely, I thought that I’d like for the Hawks to acquire some more veterans after 18/19 to help the young players. Heck…Jeremy Lin coming in might down the road actually be a guy to try to be an example for Trae Young, since he’s a guy that really needs to improve his mid-range (not necessarily jump shot but floaters) and inside game (as it was a little rough from what I could tell even when he was playing well in college).

[KB21]

4 minutes ago, kg01 said:

Everyone sees what you're doing.

You've been given multiple examples of tanks that worked but you are moving the goal posts to support your agenda.  It's not even interesting conversation anymore.

Why don't you just accept that you have your viewpoint and move on to more interesting topics?  You're not convincing anyone and no one is convincing you.

And, for the sake of all that's good and holy, can you stop trying to force every other thread into a tank discussion?

Not a single example of "tanks that worked" were actually tanks.  As long as the opinion that tanking works and is necessary is being posted hire, I'll continue to crush that opinion into dust.  So, if you want me to stop, then either admit that I'm correct in my stance or stop talking about how great tanking and how great losing on purpose is.

[kg01]

7 minutes ago, KB21 said:

Not a single example of "tanks that worked" were actually tanks.  As long as the opinion that tanking works and is necessary is being posted hire, I'll continue to crush that opinion into dust.  So, if you want me to stop, then either admit that I'm correct in my stance or stop talking about how great tanking and how great losing on purpose is.

LOL

I'm not even sure there's anyone here who's actually saying this.

That's just what you're choosing to hear so you can keep up your ridiculous arguments.

[AHF]

2 minutes ago, KB21 said:

Not a single example of "tanks that worked" were actually tanks.  As long as the opinion that tanking works and is necessary is being posted hire, I'll continue to crush that opinion into dust.  So, if you want me to stop, then either admit that I'm correct in my stance or stop talking about how great tanking and how great losing on purpose is.

You mean something different than everyone else does by your unclear and moving target definition of "tanking."  To compound the issue in communication, you look at a team like the Astros that traded off every vet and fielded a $22M payroll team (median team's payroll was $90M) where the highest paid player was 4.59 ERA, 1.483 WHIP Erik Bedard earning $1.15M and somehow conclude they didn't lose on purpose which means you are not only working off of a different definition of tanking but a different set of facts.

It is no small wonder you reach a different conclusion.