OT: Anonymous GM: Best Way For Us To Grab Superstar Is Tanking

[BigGameDamian]

The ways in which NBA teams build a roster have been brought tightly into focus this season with so many teams unwilling to put a competitive team on the floor with the hopes of landing a high pick in the upcoming deep draft.

"Our team isn't good enough to win and we know it," said an anonymous general manager. "So this season we want to develop and evaluate our young players, let them learn from their mistakes -- and get us in position to grab a great player. The best way for us to do that is to lose a lot of games. This draft is loaded. There are potential All-Stars at the top, maybe even franchise changers. Sometimes my job is to understand the value of losing.

"I know that sounds crazy, but if you're an NBA general manager like me, the last place you want to be is in the middle. There are only two outcomes there: Either make the playoffs and be first-round fodder for one of the premier teams or miss the playoffs and pick somewhere around 11th to 14th in the draft. Either way, the odds are that you stay in that middle range. It's a recipe for disaster.

"You need superstars to compete in this league, and the playing field for those guys is tilted toward a few big-market teams. They are demanding trades and getting together and deciding where they want to go in free agency. It's tough for us to compete with that. So a high lottery pick is all we have."

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

[video=youtube;AIP4Qly9XBI]

 

[JfizzleBlazer]

Indiana Pacers are proof that this guy is a moron.

There is no right or wrong way in compiling a winning team.

 

[Nikolokolus]

Indiana Pacers are proof that this guy is a moron.

There is no right or wrong way in compiling a winning team.

Three is more than one way to build a team, but if we're talking strictly about probability and approach it from a game theory perspective, then this nameless GM is dead on.

 

[BLAZINGGIANTS]

I think if you are a middling team on the rise with a solid GM, that GM will find a way to move some parts to improve the squad. I think this whole "being a team in the middle of the pack is the worst thing" is an excuse by lame-ass GM's that can't figure out how to earn their paycheck. If you have a good GM, a GM not afraid to make mistakes, you can bring your team from the middle of the pack and improve them. Bob Whitsitt did that. I think they've done this in Memphis (though I believe Memphis may take a step back this season). And I think Olshey is in the process of doing this with Portland. Maybe I'm drinking the Kool-Aid, but I've seen it happen enough to know that you can get stuck at the bottom of the pack just as easily (if not more so) as you can get stuck in the middle.

 

[magnifier661]

We've been on the tanking end for 2 straight seasons and a 5 year span before that and it netted us: Aldridge, Leonard and CJ McCullum. Lillard was via trade.

So as this "tanking theory" is a concept a lot of teams use, we've done our fair share. It is time to move forward and stop thinking like a loser. We got our lotto picks and we need to take it to the next level.

 

[Nikolokolus]

We've been on the tanking end for 2 straight seasons and a 5 year span before that and it netted us: Aldridge, Leonard and CJ McCullum. Lillard was via trade.

So as this "tanking theory" is a concept a lot of teams use, we've done our fair share. It is time to move forward and stop thinking like a loser. We got our lotto picks and we need to take it to the next level.

We didn't actually "tank"

 

[blue9]

Three is more than one way to build a team, but if we're talking strictly about probability and approach it from a game theory perspective, then this nameless GM is dead on.

Agreed. What really puts us in a bind is that, outside of trades and a mid-level exception, we have no way of getting better NEXT season. Makes being "stuck in the middle" with the a great draft on the horizon and no draft pick a really bad position to be in.

 

[magnifier661]

We didn't actually "tank"

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/POR/2006.html
2005-06: Our record was 16-66. If that isn't tanking, then I don't know what you mean….

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/POR/2007.html
2006-07: Our record was 29-53. Another "tanking year"

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/POR/2012.html
2011-12: Our record was 32-34. We packed it in with 32 games left. Went 10-20 the rest of the way.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/POR/2013.html
2012-13 Season: We went 32-50. 48 games into the season, we were in the playoff hunt. Then a 7 game losing streak took us out. The last 26 games, we went 8-18.

 

[BLAZINGGIANTS]

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/POR/2006.html
2005-06: Our record was 16-66. If that isn't tanking, then I don't know what you mean….

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/POR/2007.html
2006-07: Our record was 29-53. Another "tanking year"

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/POR/2012.html
2011-12: Our record was 32-34. We packed it in with 32 games left. Went 10-20 the rest of the way.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/POR/2013.html
2012-13 Season: We went 32-50. 48 games into the season, we were in the playoff hunt. Then a 7 game losing streak took us out. The last 26 games, we went 8-18.

I'd say last year, management was essentially tanking. Olshey has implied this in reference to the bench situation. It was pretty clear he didn't expect us to be where we were after 60 games. That being said, the team itself wasn't intentionally tanking. I personally think that bodes well for this season.

 

[Mediocre Man]

This can't be correct because I was mocked mercilessly for this stance. NBA GM's have no fucking clue.

 

[BigGameDamian]

Tanking has worked out pretty well for the Spurs in the past.

 

[Mediocre Man]

Tanking has worked out pretty well for the Spurs in the past.

It's worked out for the majority of the NBA champions

Shitty teams get the opportunity to get great players in the draft. It doesn't mean they are always going to pick the right guy (cough Bowie/cough Oden)

 

[magnifier661]

Tanking has worked out pretty well for the Spurs in the past.

How many times did they tank after they got Duncan? That's right zero!!!! And the first title team and the titles after didn't have a single player, other than Duncan on the squad. So they proved that you don't need a large market and reload tank years to keep winning.

We've tanked and didn't do well, so what's your point?

 

[HailBlazers]

We didn't actually "tank"

True, but as MAGS pointed out we effectively tanked landing DLill

 

[Mediocre Man]

How many times did they tank after they got Duncan? That's right zero!!!! And the first title team and the titles after didn't have a single player, other than Duncan on the squad. So they proved that you don't need a large market and reload tank years to keep winning.

We've tanked and didn't do well, so what's your point?

Let us know when we get a player remotely as good as Duncan in his prime.

We tanked and got Aldridge, Oden and Roy. Health or Durant instead of Oden makes tanking brilliant for us.

It's not the theory that is bad, it's the decisions teams make within the theory.

 

[StumptownHoliday]

Tanking has worked out pretty well for the Spurs in the past.

They tanked ONE year, and lucked out like crazy with Tim Duncan. Parker was picked t the end of the first round and Ginibili at the end of the second. All their other cogs (Kawhi at 15, Splitter later in the first round) we're mid-round picks. They didn't have to tank forever, they picked smart in the "no-man's land" all these GM's are so hiply against.

 

[Nikolokolus]

True, but as MAGS pointed out we effectively tanked landing DLill

Effectively we got a late lottery pick based on our record. Trading GW for NJ's pick was taking advantage of their shittiness and probably only moved us up a couple of spots in our own draft order.

True and proper tanking looks more like the year before we drafted Roy and LaMarcus.

 

[Mediocre Man]

They tanked ONE year, and lucked out like crazy with Tim Duncan. Parker was picked t the end of the first round and Ginibili at the end of the second. All their other cogs (Kawhi at 15, Splitter later in the first round) we're mid-round picks. They didn't have to tank forever, they picked smart in the "no-man's land" all these GM's are so hiply against.

Picking smart in no mans land would mean as much as a 3 dollar bill if they hadn't landed Duncan though. HOFers win titles (for the most part) If you don't have one, you aren't winning with Parker, Ginobili, Splitter and Leonard

Roughly 40% of 1st overall picks make the HOF

 

[Nikolokolus]

Give it up MM. It's is a fool's errand trying to explain this.

 

[magnifier661]

Picking smart in no mans land would mean as much as a 3 dollar bill if they hadn't landed Duncan though. HOFers win titles (for the most part) If you don't have one, you aren't winning with Parker, Ginobili, Splitter and Leonard

Roughly 40% of 1st overall picks make the HOF

Yes without Duncan they wouldn't have won shit, but they got a bit of luck and picked smart from that point forward.

The Blazers got a bit of luck themselves and landed Lillard. Will he be a HofFer? Maybe… The point is, we have an opportunity to build around him and pick smart like SAS did.

 

[Mediocre Man]

Give it up MM. It's is a fool's errand trying to explain this.

I had a little pep in my step today, so I thought I'd give it, yet another, try

 

[BLAZINGGIANTS]

How many teams tank every year and are perennial lottery teams? Compare that to the list of teams that tank and are perennial contenders.

Not saying what's right or wrong here, I'd be curious to see people's lists. And I also think people forget about how many teams struggle to get out of the lottery. For every team that tanks and becomes a contender within a few years, I'd have to believe that there are more that struggle to improve their overall position.

 

[BLAZINGGIANTS]

Give it up MM. It's is a fool's errand trying to explain this.

Agreed. Because only a fool would think this is the best way.

Not saying it doesn't work, but you are over-simplifying it. There's way more that goes into it.

 

[magnifier661]

Give it up MM. It's is a fool's errand trying to explain this.

Dude, how many top 10 draft picks we got in the last 8 years? What do we have to show for it now? You can try and justify the tank = chance. We had the chance and blew it. Since 05, we've landed a #1 (Won the lotto), #2 (trade), #6 (twice), #5 (Trade), #10, #11

So talking like our team hasn't had the "tanker's" chance is completely ridiculous!

 

[BLAZINGGIANTS]

The best way to get a superstar is to tank.

The best way to win starts with a competent GM. I really don't think there are very great GM's in this league, especially when it comes to wheeling and dealing and putting together the best roster possible. And there are usually many other factors that come into play (sometimes, winning isn't the ultimate priority; injuries happen; egos happen; a team doesn't have the right coach; payroll issues; players don't reach their potential; etc.).

I don't think you have to lose to win. I think you have to not be afraid to lose if you want to win. That goes beyond the court, in terms of wins and losses. That goes for player moves - you have to take some risks. That goes for payroll (sometimes, you have to make decisions in the name of winning and lose some money). Many of Portland's best years were when we had risks on the roster, both player/personality-wise and financially.

 

[Nikolokolus]

Dude, how many top 10 draft picks we got in the last 8 years? What do we have to show for it now? You can try and justify the tank = chance. We had the chance and blew it. Since 05, we've landed a #1 (Won the lotto), #2 (trade), #6 (twice), #5 (Trade), #10, #11

So talking like our team hasn't had the "tanker's" chance is completely ridiculous!

Injuries are a motherfucker.

 

[magnifier661]

Injuries are a motherfucker.

And???? It really shouldn't matter right? I mean we "did" have the opportunity and it didn't work. Years ago, we rebuilt while still making the playoffs (1993-1998) and got to the WCF twice. The 1999 team was even a team under the salary cap.

I believe that a team needs a good GM that has the balls to get er done. That's why some of the other "small market team" still are winners.

 

[Nikolokolus]

And???? It really shouldn't matter right? I mean we "did" have the opportunity and it didn't work. Years ago, we rebuilt while still making the playoffs (1993-1998) and got to the WCF twice. The 1999 team was even a team under the salary cap.

I believe that a team needs a good GM that has the balls to get er done. That's why some of the other "small market team" still are winners.

All I'm saying is that the strategy of tanking to get Roy and LaMarcus was sound. Oden was the icing on top the following year and if his knees hadn't exploded or we'd chosen Durant all anybody around here would be talking about is how smart it was for KP to have driven us into the ditch to get where we needed to be.

 

[BLAZINGGIANTS]

And???? It really shouldn't matter right? I mean we "did" have the opportunity and it didn't work. Years ago, we rebuilt while still making the playoffs (1993-1998) and got to the WCF twice. The 1999 team was even a team under the salary cap.

I believe that a team needs a good GM that has the balls to get er done. That's why some of the other "small market team" still are winners.

Look at the Clips. How many crap players did they have? People blame Donald being tight, but they didn't draft well for so many years - why would he open up his wallet? The Kings were awful for my entire childhood and struggled to improve, made a few good moves, were solid for a long while, and are back in the crapper and struggling to get out of it. There are probably a lot more teams like this than there are teams that tanked and became contenders.