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

[magnifier661]

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.

And I think you have a good point. The only reason why I am getting bent is this should definitely not be a "tanking year"; especially if we may lose Aldridge in process.

 

[magnifier661]

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.

For every San Antonio, there are 10 Kings.

 

[Nikolokolus]

And I think you have a good point. The only reason why I am getting bent is this should definitely not be a "tanking year"; especially if we may lose Aldridge in process.

Well where did anybody say that this year should be a tanking year for the Blazers? That ship has sailed.

 

[magnifier661]

Well where did anybody say that this year should be a tanking year for the Blazers? That ship has sailed.

Thank God for that!

 

[Mediocre Man]

I will be available to the Blazers as a mascot. Mediocrity seems to fit perfectly with their plan.

 

[BLAZINGGIANTS]

Well where did anybody say that this year should be a tanking year for the Blazers? That ship has sailed.

Well, if you agree with this anonymous GM, and you think Portland is going to win 42 games and miss the playoffs...... it seems kind for the same person to believe the GM is right AND believe we're in the middle of the pack, but you don't think we should tank? Seems like a bit of a contradiction. I mean, I guess I'd be curious to know what you think this current team's true potential is.

 

[Nikolokolus]

Well, if you agree with this anonymous GM, and you think Portland is going to win 42 games and miss the playoffs...... it seems kind for the same person to believe the GM is right AND believe we're in the middle of the pack, but you don't think we should tank? Seems like a bit of a contradiction. I mean, I guess I'd be curious to know what you think this current team's true potential is.

I'm saying that we've made our bed and now we get to lie in it ... at least for this year. If the team doesn't do much more than an 9th or 8th seed and seems to be "stuck" then I imagine there will be a reevaluation of strategy between Allen and Olshey.

EDIT:
One more point. Once you've decided on a strategy you have to let it run its course. So even if I think the one that Allen likely demanded is sub-optimal, radically shifting to tank-mode without seeing the first strategy through until it can be judged would be worse.

 

[Charcoal Filtered]

I will be available to the Blazers as a mascot. Mediocrity seems to fit perfectly with their plan.

Would it be easier to tank enough to get enough lotto chances to land Wiggins or to add another key piece with the expiring contracts we have accumulated?

 

[Mediocre Man]

Would it be easier to tank enough to get enough lotto chances to land Wiggins or to add another key piece with the expiring contracts we have accumulated?

Easier to add with expirings.

Not better though.

Matthews, Batum, Mo Williams are all key pieces. I'd rather have a shot at a superstar than all of them put together. Because all of them put together with no superstar equals shit.

It's certainly safer to add a starter next to Lillard and Aldridge, but most likely you won't be landing a difference maker with expirings

 

[Draco]

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.

Not true. The more teams trying to tank the less effective tanking is.

 

[BrianFromWA]

One thing that the people who are bringing up the Kings, Clips etc. are missing is the opportunity. I'm sure that 29 teams in 2007 wanted Oden, and given the 2nd pick with Oden off the board, 28 wanted Durant. Doesn't matter if ATL's GM just knew that Durant would blow up and be a super-stud and be better than Horford. He didn't have the chance. He had to roll with less-sure/lower-ceiling options.

Joe Dumars messed up in taking Darko over Wade/Melo/Bosh. But he had that chance. DEN got lucky and took Melo. Doesn't matter if TOR knew that Bosh wasn't going to be as prolific as Melo, they didn't have the chance to get him.

You can go down the list. People keep bringing up Webster and CP3 and will until the end of time. But we had the opportunity. the Jazz had the opportunity to trade with us because they had a good pick as well. The L*kers, for instance, couldn't say "Man, we really want CP3/Deron next to K*be--let's get him!" They didn't have the opportunity with their pick or assets enough to trade for him.

As the draft progresses, it becomes more of a crapshoot. Lots of us wanted Drummond or Barnes with our pick in the 2012 draft. But we didn't have the opportunity. Would you rather have Drummond and 3 more losses in 2011-12, or Leonard? And there's much less of a chance that Drummond becomes a HoF than, say, Davis. The Knicks really wanted Steph Curry with the 8th pick, but they didn't have the chance because GSW won one fewer game than they did, and were stuck with Jordan Hill.

There are myriad permutations and ways to get good, but one of them is that you need superstars. It's significantly harder (due in large part to opportunity) to get a superstar the later you draft. Not impossible, as has been shown by multiple teams. But bringing up Kings/Clippers/Nash's drafting to state why winning an extra couple games a year doesn't matter isn't really making the same argument.

 

[magnifier661]

One thing that the people who are bringing up the Kings, Clips etc. are missing is the opportunity. I'm sure that 29 teams in 2007 wanted Oden, and given the 2nd pick with Oden off the board, 28 wanted Durant. Doesn't matter if ATL's GM just knew that Durant would blow up and be a super-stud and be better than Horford. He didn't have the chance. He had to roll with less-sure/lower-ceiling options.

Joe Dumars messed up in taking Darko over Wade/Melo/Bosh. But he had that chance. DEN got lucky and took Melo. Doesn't matter if TOR knew that Bosh wasn't going to be as prolific as Melo, they didn't have the chance to get him.

You can go down the list. People keep bringing up Webster and CP3 and will until the end of time. But we had the opportunity. the Jazz had the opportunity to trade with us because they had a good pick as well. The L*kers, for instance, couldn't say "Man, we really want CP3/Deron next to K*be--let's get him!" They didn't have the opportunity with their pick or assets enough to trade for him.

As the draft progresses, it becomes more of a crapshoot. Lots of us wanted Drummond or Barnes with our pick in the 2012 draft. But we didn't have the opportunity. Would you rather have Drummond and 3 more losses in 2011-12, or Leonard? And there's much less of a chance that Drummond becomes a HoF than, say, Davis. The Knicks really wanted Steph Curry with the 8th pick, but they didn't have the chance because GSW won one fewer game than they did, and were stuck with Jordan Hill.

There are myriad permutations and ways to get good, but one of them is that you need superstars. It's significantly harder (due in large part to opportunity) to get a superstar the later you draft. Not impossible, as has been shown by multiple teams. But bringing up Kings/Clippers/Nash's drafting to state why winning an extra couple games a year doesn't matter isn't really making the same argument.

The point I'm making is even with the best picks a superstar is as much of a crap shoot. Who would have thought CP3 was better than the first 5 players picked before him? It seemed those teams GMs did…

And think of the year we actually won the #1 pick… We had a 1.5% chance. The time we did tank, we dropped all the way to 4th, when we had the best shot at #1.

Then as I've mentioned so many times before, our very own team was playoff bound each and every year for 5 straight years before we built a team to reach the WCF, and the 1999 team wasn't "The Best Team Money Can Buy".

Yes, you have greater odds to pick up a better player, but I say that teams have contended for years, being a small market and not being in the lotto.

 

[Mediocre Man]

Not true. The more teams trying to tank the less effective tanking is.

That means the more teams trying to compete for a title the less effective competing is too....right?

 

[BrianFromWA]

The point I'm making is even with the best picks a superstar is as much of a crap shoot. Who would have thought CP3 was better than the first 5 players picked before him? It seemed those teams GMs did…

Yes, I think that MIL wanted a big, and ATL wanted "upside" with pedigree. UTH liked Deron's skillset more than a smaller guy who just punched someone in the nuts. But the 26 other teams in the league didn't even have a chance at that crapshoot. Their crapshoot was "Joey Graham or Danny Granger"? And since TOR was dumb/unlucky, IND picked up a very good player. The Spurs' crapshoot that year was "Ian Mahinmi or Wayne Simien?" Counted much less towards their future championships than if they'd had the opportunity that TOR had.

And think of the year we actually won the #1 pick… We had a 1.5% chance. The time we did tank, we dropped all the way to 4th, when we had the best shot at #1.

Well, actually it was 5.3%, but whatever.

Then as I've mentioned so many times before, our very own team was playoff bound each and every year for 5 straight years before we built a team to reach the WCF, and the 1999 team wasn't "The Best Team Money Can Buy".

Yes, you have greater odds to pick up a better player, but I say that teams have contended for years, being a small market and not being in the lotto.

Which one of our 1993-1999 teams would you say was a "contender", and would that have changed if, say, in 1996 you'd decided to lose 3 more games and have the opportunity to pick K*be, Peja or Nash instead of the crapshoot of Jermaine?

 

[Draco]

All I'm saying is that the strategy of tanking to get Roy and LaMarcus was sound.

I agree, at that time it was a fine strategy. The only talent we had on the team was a selfish Zach Randolph. We didn’t have a player of Aldridge’s talent. We didn’t have a young promising player of Lillards abilities. We didn’t have a borderline all-star of Batum’s level.

I don’t agree tanking is right for building a team all the time nor is it always the wrong strategy. Optimal strategy is somewhere in the middle, it is fluid, and it is ever changing. Optimal strategies depend on what talents are on the roster. It depends on what other teams in the league are doing. When others are zigging its better to zag. If multiple teams start to tank there is less of a benefit for the next team to duplicate that strategy.

 

[BigGameDamian]

And I think you have a good point. The only reason why I am getting bent is this should definitely not be a "tanking year"; especially if we may lose Aldridge in process.

If we lose Aldridge it better be for the #1 pick in the draft or like a young promising proven stud like Durant.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

If Blazers become the next Charlotte Bobcats of the NBA . .. . that is just about what it would take to cancel my tickets and find another NBA team to adopt.

Tanking may get a superstar, but it's bad business in my book.

 

[KingSpeed]

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.

Everything you've posted is wrong. 2005-06, we won more than twenty games. 21, I believe. 2006-07, we won 32 games. 2011-12, we won only 28 games. Last season, we won 33.

 

[KingSpeed]

As for tanking, we should all be rooting for the Lakers to get 8th seed this season. I don't want them getting a great player in the draft to go with all their caproom for signing free agents. Could turn Lakers into a monster again.

 

[magnifier661]

Everything you've posted is wrong. 2005-06, we won more than twenty games. 21, I believe. 2006-07, we won 32 games. 2011-12, we won only 28 games. Last season, we won 33.

Oh so the basketball reference links are wrong?

 

[KingSpeed]

Oh so the basketball reference links are wrong?

You misread them. Look again.

 

[magnifier661]

You misread them. Look again.

Well the point remains the same. 21 or 16 wins, it still sucks. The other years did too.

 

[BigGameDamian]

Aldridge for Durant swap would be interesting. Not saying it would happen but it would be interesting.

 

[magnifier661]

Aldridge for Durant swap would be interesting. Not saying it would happen but it would be interesting.

Wtf?!?! First of all, you posted the OG, so you know what the topic should be. Then you throw out something that has zero chance of happening in mid thread. Dude wtf man?!?!

There is no point talking about this swap because it will never ever ever happen this season.

 

[HailBlazers]

Wtf?!?! First of all, you posted the OG, so you know what the topic should be. Then you throw out something that has zero chance of happening in mid thread. Dude wtf man?!?!

There is no point talking about this swap because it will never ever ever happen this season.

MAGS. You just called out Brian for getting trolled by Kingspeed. Take your own advice brotha!

 

[Denny Crane]

Play to win. You never know until the actual games are played. The rest is speculation.

Bulls grabbed the pick used on Deng from Phoenix. They sold it to save cap space the year they signed Nash.

Noah was a middling pick. Taj Gibson and Jimmy Butler in the upper 20s. They had physical attributes that fit the team's system; they weren't heralded can't miss guys. Played in big time winning programs.

Draft smart, no matter the position you finish. Think two or three years ahead with your contract positions.

Winners win. Those are the guys you want. So win.

 

[magnifier661]

MAGS. You just called out Brian for getting trolled by Kingspeed. Take your own advice brotha!

BGD isn't a troll. He is actually serious. Kingspeed is fucking around

 

[KingSpeed]

Westbrook/Batum/Aldridge combo might be a better combo than what they currently have. We trade Batum and Aldridge for Durant/Lamb and whatever.

Blazers with Lillard/Lamb/Durant/Robinson/Lopez would meet Thunder (Westbrook/Sefalosha/Batum/Aldridge/Thabeet) in WCF.

 

[Draco]

That means the more teams trying to compete for a title the less effective competing is too....right?

Yes! Especially in the west, there are fewer elite teams competing for a title than I ever remember. Many years at this time in October there will not yet be any teams tanking. The NBA has never had this much competition for tanking, so it appears to be very poor timing to duplicate that strategy.

 

[BigGameDamian]

Westbrook/Batum/Aldridge combo might be a better combo than what they currently have. We trade Batum and Aldridge for Durant/Lamb and whatever.

Blazers with Lillard/Lamb/Durant/Robinson/Lopez would meet Thunder (Westbrook/Sefalosha/Batum/Aldridge/Thabeet) in WCF.

We might be like the Atlanta Hawks of the 80's.