The Tank Thread

[Wretch]

Maybe I'm just confused...is the debate JUST about what people call "tanking"?  

Otherwise, I'm having a hard time wrapping my mind around the pushback.  It seems that in recent years, coinciding with Philadelphia's blatant losing efforts, this word has taken on a whole new ideology.  Today when you say "tank" it means lose as many games as possible and aim for a top 3 pick for a better chance to "win" the lottery and do this year after year in hopes of securing a generational/franchise saving talent.  In years past, this was only a thing when there was a consensus generational talent available at the top (LeBron, Duncan, Shaq), and it was usually just those teams that happened to BE bad trying to up their odds of securing said talent.  

Outside of that, a team's competitive health has ALWAYS been cyclical.  With exceptions being the mini-rebuild, or a retool here and there, or the age-defying dynasties...teams transitioned from winning, to declining, to rebuilding/retooling, and then slowly returned to winning.  This transition used to be a business as usual thing and never carried such a negative connotation as it does today. 

The rebuild phase...is this now what we're calling tanking?  If so, when did it become NOT ok to rebuild your team? Or are you guys saying that was never a thing?

Follow up questions...  

Wwhere are all these teams (not named San Antonio Spurs) that have not gone through this complete cycle?  
Which teams have built and maintained a competitive core without drafting in the top 14 spots, without trading their top 14 pick, and purely through free agency and trades...?

I'd like to see a breakdown of these teams without using sematics like Dallas/Milwaukee swapped picks or the Heat re-signed Dwyane Wade as a free agent.  If someone could establish this model as the norm, and not the exception, and show where it has repeatedly led to a CONTENDER (not even asking for championship teams) that'd end the whole discussion.

Unless I'm mistaken and we're not equating the rebuild cycle to "tanking" and you guys are debating the merits of tearing your team down to nothing in order to secure a top three pick?  One of these things, I suppose has substance for meaningful debate.  The other, IMO, is just business as usual in the NBA and is what the Hawks have historically avoided, but are now embracing.

[Lurker]

21 minutes ago, Wretch said:

Which teams have built and maintained a competitive core without drafting in the top 14 spots, without trading their top 14 pick, and purely through free agency and trades...?

This is really what we need to see. We need a list of these teams. And if you can list those teams, that don't have catches that make them exceptions to the rule, then I will crack.

[MaceCase]

2 hours ago, Watchman said:

If KB's post had only been about Schröder's streak of bad games you might have a point.  However the post was about more than that, and the overriding theme was discussing a losing team culture.  I didn't question your truthfulness, I questioned your memory, because obviously the Schröder comment didn't even register with me, as it was not the main focus of his post.  I "engaged" you, after you launched a bitter, sarcastic and insulting reply to a post that was not directed to you at all.  However, problem solved for the future.  Ignore button engaged. You are an angry egomaniac, and I don't have to put up with your personal insults.

Hmm.

Likes a post discussing Schröder's play being a direct result and prime example of the affect of "losing culture".  Despite said post being debunked as a false attribution.

Quotes a reply by me in a string of replies between me and someone else that had nothing to do with you and respond with a similar false attribution to the one a week prior using Prince's comment now as a direct result and prime example of "losing culture".  Gets retorts and debunked by numerous posters.

Lets off a string of attacks.  Claims won't stand for insults.  Runs away.

 

Gotta say, you are doing this very well.

[MaceCase]

1 hour ago, Wretch said:

Outside of that, a team's competitive health has ALWAYS been cyclical.  With exceptions being the mini-rebuild, or a retool here and there, or the age-defying dynasties...teams transitioned from winning, to declining, to rebuilding/retooling, and then slowly returned to winning.  This transition used to be a business as usual thing and never carried such a negative connotation as it does today. 

The rebuild phase...is this now what we're calling tanking?  If so, when did it become NOT ok to rebuild your team? Or are you guys saying that was never a thing?

 

 

The push back seems to be that teams should never have the right to see the writing on the wall and intentionally push the reset button thus "tank".  If a team does it "organically" like the Mavs where they try to hand out 9 figure deals like candy yet still bottom out or the Nets who mortgaged their whole future trading for win now vets then that's a "true" rebuild.  It's apparently better to go out like Apollo Creed because theoretically he was one lucky punch away than do something disgraceful like throwing in the damn towel.

 

[KB21]

2 hours ago, Wretch said:

Maybe I'm just confused...is the debate JUST about what people call "tanking"?  

Otherwise, I'm having a hard time wrapping my mind around the pushback.  It seems that in recent years, coinciding with Philadelphia's blatant losing efforts, this word has taken on a whole new ideology.  Today when you say "tank" it means lose as many games as possible and aim for a top 3 pick for a better chance to "win" the lottery and do this year after year in hopes of securing a generational/franchise saving talent.  In years past, this was only a thing when there was a consensus generational talent available at the top (LeBron, Duncan, Shaq), and it was usually just those teams that happened to BE bad trying to up their odds of securing said talent.  

Outside of that, a team's competitive health has ALWAYS been cyclical.  With exceptions being the mini-rebuild, or a retool here and there, or the age-defying dynasties...teams transitioned from winning, to declining, to rebuilding/retooling, and then slowly returned to winning.  This transition used to be a business as usual thing and never carried such a negative connotation as it does today. 

The rebuild phase...is this now what we're calling tanking?  If so, when did it become NOT ok to rebuild your team? Or are you guys saying that was never a thing?

Follow up questions...  

Wwhere are all these teams (not named San Antonio Spurs) that have not gone through this complete cycle?  
Which teams have built and maintained a competitive core without drafting in the top 14 spots, without trading their top 14 pick, and purely through free agency and trades...?

I'd like to see a breakdown of these teams without using sematics like Dallas/Milwaukee swapped picks or the Heat re-signed Dwyane Wade as a free agent.  If someone could establish this model as the norm, and not the exception, and show where it has repeatedly led to a CONTENDER (not even asking for championship teams) that'd end the whole discussion.

Unless I'm mistaken and we're not equating the rebuild cycle to "tanking" and you guys are debating the merits of tearing your team down to nothing in order to secure a top three pick?  One of these things, I suppose has substance for meaningful debate.  The other, IMO, is just business as usual in the NBA and is what the Hawks have historically avoided, but are now embracing.

What the Hawks are doing is intentional losing, which is what tanking is.  It is no different than what Philadelphia did.  Some of the optics are different, because the Hawks don't want to come out and say they are tanking.  Philly had no issue saying they were tanking.  That's the only difference.  Travis Schlenk intentionally structured this roster to lose games.  That's not a rebuild.  That's a tank.  

A rebuild is what Danny Ferry did, and he did it without dropping to the bottom of the NBA for several years.  

 

[Lurker]

I suppose the biggest thing that is being completely and totally ignored is how terrible the Hawks were without Paul Millsap last year.

And Paul Millsap is now injured. I don't like the hypothetical and transitive property game but he's old, and the wear and tear was getting to him last year, so it would have likely happened regardless of who's team he was on.

Paul Millsap was the only thing that was keeping the Hawks from being a 25 win team last year. So let's say this happens on the Hawks and this happens. Does the narrative change from what it is if Paul Millsap is still on the Hawks, but gets injured and that bad season happens?

[TheNorthCydeRises]

4 hours ago, AHF said:

If you think they systemically got rid of their playoff core by accident and ditched vets that didn't fit their longterm plan by happenstance and that they really tried their best to make the playoffs every year, I won't disabuse you of that dream.

I don't know man.  KB may be right when it comes to the Warriors.  There was a domino effect that happened to that team, starting with the Baron Davis fiasco in 2008.  I would say that the Warriors absolutely looked to make the playoffs from 2008 - until January 2012.  This was not a planned tank move in which they tore the team completely down.  It was losing by circumstance.

When they lost Davis, they traded Al Harrington early in the season, for Jamal Crawford, to try to replicate the high scoring backcourt they had with Davis, Monta Ellis, and Stephen Jackson.  The even picked up Corey Maggette, the guy who opted out in LA, that made it possible for the Clippers to sign Baron Davis.  That experiment failed miserably for the Warriors, seeing them go from 48 wins to 29 wins.  With Crawford not willing to opt out of his contract ( 2 more yrs at 20 million ), the Warriors decided to make a deal.

http://www.espn.com/nba/news/story?id=4284512

Despite the article expecting the Warriors to draft Jordan Hill, the Warriors had other ideas . . 

2009 draft

Just think of that.  Had the Warriors gone with what they needed in Hill, instead of the best player available in Curry, there are no championships in the Bay Area.  ( Hawks organization . . . remember this on draft night.  Don't you DARE draft for need on that night.  You get the best player available, even if you are strong at that position )

( cont... )

[TheNorthCydeRises]

9 minutes ago, Lurker said:

I suppose the biggest thing that is being completely and totally ignored is how terrible the Hawks were without Paul Millsap last year.

And Paul Millsap is now injured. I don't like the hypothetical and transitive property game but he's old, and the wear and tear was getting to him last year, so it would have likely happened regardless of who's team he was on.

Paul Millsap was the only thing that was keeping the Hawks from being a 25 win team last year. So let's say this happens on the Hawks and this happens. Does the narrative change from what it is if Paul Millsap is still on the Hawks, but gets injured and that bad season happens?

Probably.  Because even with an injured Millsap, you still have the potential to still get something for him, even if the season goes south without him.  I think the losing can be tolerated a lot more in that circumstance, than doing it on purpose.  As I'm currently outlining with Golden State right now.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

2009 - 10 season

It's interesting to go back in time, and see the back story for some of the moves that are made.  Take for instance the Warriors trading Stephen Jackson 9 games into the season.

http://www.espn.com/nba/news/story?id=4659552

Turns out this is one of those "domino effects" that was happening to the Warriors.  Stack 5 was unhappy and wanted out.  Kelenna Azubuike had tore his ACL and was out for the year.  In case people forgot, Azubuike was a guy who definitely had a bright future.  This was him a few days before tearing his ACL.

 

 

Jackson . . gone.  Azubuike . . gone.  Turiaf and the "great" Andres Biendrins ( remember the hard-on some Hawks fans had for him? ) . . were often injured.  They only win 26 games that season.  And they have the 6th pick in the draft.

 

Draft night 2010

See . . this is what happens when you draft for need.  Warriors needed a big man on the defensive end, due to the oft injured Biendrins.  They already had scoring, but needed to be better defensively.  So they took Ekpe.

Colossal Bust.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

2010 - 11

Still trying to build a team that could at least get back to the playoffs, they traded for David Lee, a nice scoring PF, but not the defensive front line presence they needed.  Lee did help to balance the team out though, and they won 36 games.  They were a nice team to watch . .  the type of "competitive" team that a fan base may pay to watch, even if they didn't make the playoffs.  They were 26 - 15 at home. 

By now though, it was becoming very obvious to anyone who watched basketball, that the Curry - Ellis lineup isn't going to work defensively.  Ellis especially was scoring at a high rate at the 2, but getting killed on the defensive end.

Warriors finish with the 11th worst record in the league, and that would be their draft position.

2011 draft

( cont... )

[TheNorthCydeRises]

2011 - 12

This is the strike shortened season that didn't begin until Christmas Day.  By early January, Curry had a sprained ankle that knocked him out for about 2 weeks.  Then he sprained it again in Mid March.  

Don't let Travis Schlenk fool any of you, thinking that Golden State had this master "tank plan".  No . . . that tank plan didn't go into effect until Curry got hurt.  The Warriors were hovering around .500 at the time of the injury and both Curry and Ellis were logging major minutes, trying to make the playoffs. 

But as soon as Curry got hurt, they decided to do a complete makeover, and trade Monta Ellis ( who was a fan favorite ).  In hindsight, it turned out to be one of the best moves in franchise history, because it completely unleashed the beast shooter/scorer that was inside Curry.  But it wasn't some master plan by the Warriors.

Here's an interview with Mark Jackson on the day that Ellis got traded, after destroying the Kings without both Ellis and Curry.  Pay attention to what Mark Jackson says at 2:00

Stephen Curry's take

And last but not least . . . Monta himself

 

This wasn't some "master plan" taking place.

Basically Schlenk was protecting is 1st round pick, which they were going to lose if they weren't in the bottom 7 of the league standings.  With Curry down, they felt that they had no shot at the playoffs.  And with teams already having interest in Ellis, the Warriors pulled the trigger on a trade for Andrew Bogut.  If they could finish in the bottom 7 of the league, the pick would be protected.   Mission accomplished.

2012 Draft

 

So the narrative is that Golden State "tanked" for these two guys?  Nah.  Here are the mock drafts for that year

http://www.nbadraft.net/2012mock_draft

http://www.draftexpress.com/nba-mock-draft/2012/

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1233721-nba-mock-draft-2012-pick-by-pick-predictions-for-rounds-1-2

https://www.foxsports.com/nba/story/2012-nba-mock-draft-anthony-davis-bradley-beal-michael-kidd-gilchrist-thomas-robinson-062712

https://www.cbssports.com/nba/news/goodmans-2012-nba-mock-draft-blazers-take-rising-lillard/

https://athlonsports.com/college-basketball/2012-nba-mock-draft-first-round-tiers

 

We all know that Draymond Green fell like a rock out of the 1st round, due to him being supposedly undersized.  So Golden State acquiring him was a combination of pure luck and pure incompetence by the other NBA GMs ( Danny Ferry included . . . we took John Jenkins that year ).   But with Barnes, almost every mock, except FOXSports, had him in the top 5.  If anything, Golden State may have had their eyes on Andre Drummond.  It just so happened that Harrison Barnes fell to them, with Dion Waiters rising into the top 5.

 

[Diesel]

21 hours ago, AHF said:

Golden State took this path.  There are more people who failed but a lot of champions took the path of losing 20 some games repeatedly and then taking years to build around the core of talent they drafted in the lottery during those 20 or so win seasons.  Nobody win rings churning a core like we had last year.

Golden State is one of the luckiest stories in history.  So now, because GS was able to accomplish cold fusion, you want to go out and get your tritium and pd electodes. 

 

[Diesel]

14 hours ago, AHF said:

If you think they systemically got rid of their playoff core by accident and ditched vets that didn't fit their longterm plan by happenstance and that they really tried their best to make the playoffs every year, I won't disabuse you of that dream.

They did all that after they had Klay and Steph..  Actually to make room for Klay and Steph. 

Cold Fusion. 

[TheNorthCydeRises]

2012 - 13 . . . ( by the way Tankers, for perspective, this is year 4 since Golden State won 48 games in 2008 - 2009 )

The once youngest team in the league now has an influx of vets to play with the kids.  Jarrett Jack becomes the PG off the bench that would enable Curry to play off of the ball at times, and become the lethal scorer. An unsung but decent player like Carl Landry was a solid front line player to bring off the bench.  And when healthy, Andrew Bogut was the type of defensive presence that they always needed in the middle and on the defensive boards.

Most important, Curry and Thompson were learning to play with, and off of, each other.  47 wins.  A 1st round playoff victory over Denver. And they pushed the Spurs to 6 games.

LOL . . I wish I would've found this video earlier.  It's pretty much a recap of everything I've typed previously, starting with the 2007 upset of the Warriors over the Mavericks.

 

2013 draft

No picks in either round.

[Diesel]

5 hours ago, Wretch said:

Maybe I'm just confused...is the debate JUST about what people call "tanking"?  

Otherwise, I'm having a hard time wrapping my mind around the pushback.  It seems that in recent years, coinciding with Philadelphia's blatant losing efforts, this word has taken on a whole new ideology.  Today when you say "tank" it means lose as many games as possible and aim for a top 3 pick for a better chance to "win" the lottery and do this year after year in hopes of securing a generational/franchise saving talent.  In years past, this was only a thing when there was a consensus generational talent available at the top (LeBron, Duncan, Shaq), and it was usually just those teams that happened to BE bad trying to up their odds of securing said talent.  

Outside of that, a team's competitive health has ALWAYS been cyclical.  With exceptions being the mini-rebuild, or a retool here and there, or the age-defying dynasties...teams transitioned from winning, to declining, to rebuilding/retooling, and then slowly returned to winning.  This transition used to be a business as usual thing and never carried such a negative connotation as it does today. 

The rebuild phase...is this now what we're calling tanking?  If so, when did it become NOT ok to rebuild your team? Or are you guys saying that was never a thing?

Follow up questions...  

Wwhere are all these teams (not named San Antonio Spurs) that have not gone through this complete cycle?  
Which teams have built and maintained a competitive core without drafting in the top 14 spots, without trading their top 14 pick, and purely through free agency and trades...?

I'd like to see a breakdown of these teams without using sematics like Dallas/Milwaukee swapped picks or the Heat re-signed Dwyane Wade as a free agent.  If someone could establish this model as the norm, and not the exception, and show where it has repeatedly led to a CONTENDER (not even asking for championship teams) that'd end the whole discussion.

Unless I'm mistaken and we're not equating the rebuild cycle to "tanking" and you guys are debating the merits of tearing your team down to nothing in order to secure a top three pick?  One of these things, I suppose has substance for meaningful debate.  The other, IMO, is just business as usual in the NBA and is what the Hawks have historically avoided, but are now embracing.

I believe what you say is true.. we do have to define the goal.  I agree with your definition of tanking... going for a top three pick.   To do has been shown to not work.  Over the past 16 years only Kyrie Irving has been a top 3 pick that has won a championship.   Actually in the past 16 years, he has been the only top 4 pick to have won a championship... So if tanking is the goal... it doesn't work.

Secondly, if this is a rebuild, we can argue the merits of how we rebuilt.  Without rhyme or reason.  Just a firesale of assets.  Moreover, how do you rebuild and not get rid of Baze and Dennis?

To answer your original question, it was your GM Schlenk that suggested that GS tanked for Harrison Barnes and he has spoke about what they did as if it were the way to the promised land. 

Finally, when you talk of winning a finals with a top 14 pick... it's a syllogistic fallacy.   It's damn near impossible to have a team without a top 14 pick.   I mean if we were to comeback and win the championship this year, Prince and Dedmon would be our top 14 picks.  At the end of the day, you asking for the team that won the championship with only players from the bottom half of the draft is about as impossible as finding a team with players from only the bottom half of the draft. 

 

[Diesel]

1 hour ago, TheNorthCydeRises said:

I don't know man.  KB may be right when it comes to the Warriors.  There was a domino effect that happened to that team, starting with the Baron Davis fiasco in 2008.  I would say that the Warriors absolutely looked to make the playoffs from 2008 - until January 2012.  This was not a planned tank move in which they tore the team completely down.  It was losing by circumstance.

When they lost Davis, they traded Al Harrington early in the season, for Jamal Crawford, to try to replicate the high scoring backcourt they had with Davis, Monta Ellis, and Stephen Jackson.  The even picked up Corey Maggette, the guy who opted out in LA, that made it possible for the Clippers to sign Baron Davis.  That experiment failed miserably for the Warriors, seeing them go from 48 wins to 29 wins.  With Crawford not willing to opt out of his contract ( 2 more yrs at 20 million ), the Warriors decided to make a deal.

http://www.espn.com/nba/news/story?id=4284512

Despite the article expecting the Warriors to draft Jordan Hill, the Warriors had other ideas . . 

2009 draft

Just think of that.  Had the Warriors gone with what they needed in Hill, instead of the best player available in Curry, there are no championships in the Bay Area.  ( Hawks organization . . . remember this on draft night.  Don't you DARE draft for need on that night.  You get the best player available, even if you are strong at that position )

( cont... )

Not to mention that they traded Monta because of his sexual harrassment case. 

But hey... let's act like this was all a calculated plan...

[TheNorthCydeRises]

2013 - 14

Now they're playoff tested, and ready to add veteran pieces to the squad.  The biggest piece was finding a way to add Andre Iguodala to the team.

I just saw Diesel's post.  This is some of the "luck" he is talking about.

https://www.sbnation.com/nba/2013/7/12/4518576/nba-free-agency-2013-andre-iguodala-golden-state-warriors

With Curry rising as an offensive superstar, they needed defense in the backcourt, to preserve Curry on defense.  Iggy would be the perfect guy to do this.  Plus Iggy can act as a secondary facilitator, freeing up Curry at times to be a catch and shoot assassin.  They would win 51 games that season, the most in over 20 years.

This was one of the big turning points in their season . . and probably illustrated the importance of Klay Thompson and Draymond Green to their future.

Unfortunately, they had to play the Clippers, and lost in 7 games.  That also marked the end of the Mark Jackson era in Golden State.

 

2014 draft

No draft picks

Edited November 24, 2017 by TheNorthCydeRises

[TheNorthCydeRises]

2014 - 15 . . . CHAMPIONSHIP

• Steve Kerr takes over as coach . . which means that the original coach in 2008 ( Don Nelson ), and the coach that developed the kids ( Mark Jackson ), doesn't get credit for molding the title team.  Kerr does.
• #1 in both offense and defense
• 67 regular season wins, and a 16 - 5 record in the playoffs.
• Curry establishes himself as a top 5 player, and the most feared shooter in the NBA
• Draymond becomes a dominant defensive player, and a high impact offensive player without having to score a ton of points
• Klay demonstrates to take over games like Curry, and also play elite level defense at times
• And the bench of Iguodala, Livingston, Lee, Barbosa and Speights were more than good enough to extend leads.

 

7 year span . . 3 coaches . . 2 potential Hall of Famers drafted WITHOUT being in the top 6 of the draft . . a much needed trade of a star, to improve defensively . . and an unlikely acquisition of a former all-star, that was one of the final pieces to a championship.

 

Edited November 24, 2017 by TheNorthCydeRises

[KB21]

7 hours ago, Lurker said:

I suppose the biggest thing that is being completely and totally ignored is how terrible the Hawks were without Paul Millsap last year.

And Paul Millsap is now injured. I don't like the hypothetical and transitive property game but he's old, and the wear and tear was getting to him last year, so it would have likely happened regardless of who's team he was on.

Paul Millsap was the only thing that was keeping the Hawks from being a 25 win team last year. So let's say this happens on the Hawks and this happens. Does the narrative change from what it is if Paul Millsap is still on the Hawks, but gets injured and that bad season happens?

Yes, because it is a good team that has a down year because of an injury.  When you add that lottery pick potential, you are adding him to a team that has Paul Millsap on it.  

[Peoriabird]

3 hours ago, KB21 said:

Yes, because it is a good team that has a down year because of an injury.  When you add that lottery pick potential, you are adding him to a team that has Paul Millsap on it.  

It still amazes me that people still think that Millsap is worth $31 mil per year at 15/6 and injured!