Tanking, what it is and what it isn't

[SlyPokerDog]

"We should tank!"

There seems to be a giant misconception of what exactly tanking is and I see it portrayed (everywhere, not just here) as some sort of magical switch that can be turned off and on.

Tanking is not telling players to lose games. I will repeat, tanking is not telling players to lose games. A coach or GM doesn't just suddenly call players into the office and tell to not try or to intentionally throw games. That's not how it works. If a player ever agreed to lose or not play hard that would be the first player you would get rid of. That player is a cancer, that player is a loser.

Tanking is not telling a coach to intentionally lose games. Any coach that would intentionally throw games is not someone you want around your players. I know some of you are going to say Pops has thrown games because he rests players but no, he rests players but he's still coaching to win. He's still demanding maximum effort from his players on the court. He's not intentionally trying to lose.

Tanking is up to the GM. Tanking is done by constructing a team that is not as competitive as the majority of the rest of the teams. This is done by only playing and developing young players and not filling holes in the team's roster. But it is never the GM telling the players and coach to intentionally lose games.

Let's be honest about some things.

Last year's team was assembled by Olshey to tank. It was designed to develop our young players and use our lottery protected pick we traded to Denver to draft more talent. And that absolutely was the correct decision.

Last year's team was not constructed to make the playoffs. If that was the goal we would have kept Matthews, Batum and Lopez. Even without LMA that team was good enough last season to make the playoffs but that team was never going to be good enough to win a championship.

So what happened? The players played to win and the coach coached to win. They did their jobs and the team overachieved.

Now this brings us to this season and the obsession with what we paid players in the offseason.

Who...fucking...cares.

Seriously, it's not our money. We don't have to pay it. People spend way too much time complaining about it.

Let's instead look at it this way: Are the players we have worth more than what we used to draft them or trade for them?

Lillard - Yes. No team would be complaining if they had used the 1st or 2nd pick in the draft to get him.
CJ - Yes.
Aminu - Cheap contract, worth more in trade than what we are paying him.
Harkless - Hell yes.
Crabbe - Hell yes.
Plumlee - Yes.
Ed Davis - Maybe, cheap contract for roleplayer.
Meyers - No but worth risk to extend.
Vonleh - No, this was a gamble that has not paid off but honestly Batum needed to go.
Turner - Seriously, who cares about his contract. What is important is he is an upgrade in talent in the team. Olshey used available cap space to improve the talent on the team.

The rest of the players are roster filler. Doesn't help or hurt the long term success of the team.

Do we have the cap space to sign a big name free agent? No, but is that something we keep trying and failing at? Or do we keep as much talent as possible and wait for the opportunity to make a similar trade to the one that got us Pippen?

Back to tanking and this season. The overachievement of last season raised expectations. That's a fact. But this team is still not constructed for playoff success. I would argue that Olshey still has us in tank mode but has kept the available assets needed to improve the team in years to come.

We're tanking but the players and coaching staff are fighting it and that's actually a good thing.

 

[riverman]

Well put

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Why do we care what players are paid? Because the contracts owed to the players on the roster has a significant impact on the GM's ability to:

a) convert those assets into other pieces that can contribute to a contender,
b) obtain via alternative means other pieces that can contribute to a contender, and
c) retain some of the existing pieces that might conceivably contribute to a contender.​

It is completely reasonable for a fan to care about the amount players on the team are overpaid. No, it's not our money, but the money owed to these players impacts the likelihood of the team we support reaching the level of success we desire.

 

[riverman]

Why do we care what players are paid? Because the contracts owed to the players on the roster has a significant impact on the GM's ability to:

a) convert those assets into other pieces that can contribute to a contender,
b) obtain via alternative means other pieces that can contribute to a contender, and
c) retain some of the existing pieces that might conceivably contribute to a contender.​

It is completely reasonable for a fan to care about the amount players on the team are overpaid. No, it's not our money, but the money owed to these players impacts the likelihood of the team we support reaching the level of success we desire.

I disagree with this....contenders aren't shy about paying luxury tax....Golden State would not have 4 allstars on the team if they did. As constructed we don't have one player getting double doubles game in game out. If we want to contend, we have to spend.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Why do we care what players are paid? Because the contracts owed to the players on the roster has a significant impact on the GM's ability to:

a) convert those assets into other pieces that can contribute to a contender,
b) obtain via alternative means other pieces that can contribute to a contender, and
c) retain some of the existing pieces that might conceivably contribute to a contender.​

It is completely reasonable for a fan to care about the amount players on the team are overpaid. No, it's not our money, but the money owed to these players impacts the likelihood of the team we support reaching the level of success we desire.

I agree with that but I'm saying that there is too much focus put on what players are paid. Last offseason we paid what it took to keep the assets that can be used to improve the team.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

I disagree with this....contenders aren't shy about paying luxury tax....Golden State would not have 4 allstars on the team if they did. As constructed we don't have one player getting double doubles game in game out. If we want to contend, we have to spend.

Golden State is lucky because of Curry only making $12 mill a year.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

I disagree with this....contenders aren't shy about paying luxury tax....Golden State would not have 4 allstars on the team if they did. As constructed we don't have one player getting double doubles game in game out. If we want to contend, we have to spend.

Contenders aren't shy about it, that's true. But we're not at that level. We're still in tank/build mode, and that's not the time to be in the luxury tax, for the reasons I specified.

 

[oldfisherman]

Why does this thread sound so much like a political thread?

Liberals believing the way to get ahead is to self destruct, and overspending is not a problem.

Conservatives trying to win by acquiring more expensive weapons, paid for by the blue collar workers.

 

[riverman]

Golden State is lucky because of Curry only making $12 mill a year.

That's going to change this offseason....will they pay? Sure....which is one way to build...Cleveland, Houston....all keep taking the risk of signing guys...Cleveland signed Love for reasons of contending, not saving or building through the draft..we can and will use the draft to improve, but we don't have enough draft picks to fix the roster as it stands....at some point we need to pay for talent or find a hidden gem like Dallas did with Yogi from the D league...as you said....probably off season we'll see the changes.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

I agree with that but I'm saying that there is too much focus put on what players are paid. Last offseason we paid what it took to keep the assets that can be used to improve the team.

IMO, it depends on the reason for the consternation. If the issue is, "X is being paid so much, he should be contributing more!", then I agree with you. If the issue is, "X is being paid so much, the team did not benefit by giving him that contract", then the focus is justified. Obviously, frustration over overpayment can't change the reality of the current situation, but if fans want to criticize management for unnecessarily hamstringing the franchise by "paying what it took to keep" certain players, believing that the team as a whole would be better off having not done so, then it's understandable and defensible.

There is an important qualifier at the end of your post--"can be used to improve the team". Many have argued that some of our assets (Meyers, Crabbe, perhaps even Turner) can't be used to improve the team, because their new contracts give them negative trade value. You or I may not agree with this position, but it's certainly a valid concern, and a reason to care about how much they're paid.

 

[riverman]

Why does this thread sound so much like a political thread?

Liberals believing the way to get ahead is to self destruct, and overspending is not a problem.

Conservatives trying to win by acquire more expensive weapons, paid for by the blue collar workers.

Fun post but I don't fit the model, that's for sure

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Contenders aren't shy about it, that's true. But we're not at that level. We're still in tank/build mode, and that's not the time to be in the luxury tax, for the reasons I specified.

So what moves should we not have made last season to keep the ability to sign a max FA this offseason? That would have been quite a few assets to give up for a huge maybe.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

So what moves should we not have made last season to keep the ability to sign a max FA this offseason? That would have been quite a few assets to give up for a huge maybe.

Nobody said anything about the ability to sign a max FA. It would be more about having an eye toward future flexibility.

For instance, had we not matched Crabbe, not overpaid Turner (recall he was in shock over the amount of his offer), not re-signed Leonard, and not extended CJ, we would be in a completely different financial situation, both now and going into the summer.

 

[riverman]

The obvious trade chips we have now are CJ and Mason...replacing Mason with a double double scoring threat big would completely change the team...he's the guy who has increased his value the most ...after reading everything people post...I'm convinced we'd be better off trading Mason for an upgrade there

 

[Pinwheel1]

Excellent post Sly.

Not to hijack your main point......but there is one other option for slightly tanking this year. In most years when you tank you should keep your wins under 20. This year by the all star break there will be maybe 2 teams that are not already at or over 20 wins. My point is that right now the Blazers can keep winning and still be close enough to a decent lottery pick.. This goes for many other teams as well. The last 10-15 games of the season will be very interesting to see which teams rest their players. The fact that we have a huge homestand at the end does not bode well for us. (in terms of losing) But you never know, Dame and CJ may be "worn down" too much to play.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

IMO, it depends on the reason for the consternation. If the issue is, "X is being paid so much, he should be contributing more!", then I agree with you. If the issue is, "X is being paid so much, the team did not benefit by giving him that contract", then the focus is justified. Obviously, frustration over overpayment can't change the reality of the current situation, but if fans want to criticize management for unnecessarily hamstringing the franchise by "paying what it took to keep" certain players, believing that the team as a whole would be better off having not done so, then it's understandable and defensible.

There is an important qualifier at the end of your post--"can be used to improve the team". Many have argued that some of our assets (Meyers, Crabbe, perhaps even Turner) can't be used to improve the team, because their new contracts give them negative trade value. You or I may not agree with this position, but it's certainly a valid concern, and a reason to care about how much they're paid.

Great post and you bring up some great points and that is what totally needs to happen. I've just seen too many posts lately with an oversimplification of tanking and player salaries. "Crabbe makes $18mill! Olshey is an idiot, we're screwed!" And while that is a legitimate complaint it doesn't provide a complete and accurate picture. We got Crabbe for a throwaway 2nd round draft pick. Even if we only get a $10mill player in trade for him that is still a huge return on the original investment. Making a profit on trades is not the goal with our owner. We could have let Crabbe walk for nothing, no benefit to the team, or arguably overpay him to keep an asset with good value either as a player or a trade chip?

 

[SlyPokerDog]

For instance, had we not matched Crabbe, not overpaid Turner (recall he was in shock over the amount of his offer), not re-signed Leonard, and not extended CJ, we would be in a completely different financial situation, both now and going into the summer.

If we had done that we would be a much worse team. It's an interesting thought, is giving up Crabbe, Turner, Meyers and not extending CJ worth a top 4 pick in the upcoming draft? (Yes, I think we would be one worst 3 teams in the league if we had done that. Worst 3 teams are guaranteed to finish with no lower than the #4 pick.)

 

[e_blazer]

Dang, when did the dog get to be so loquacious? Did someone spike his water bowl with espresso?

 

[PtldPlatypus]

If we had done that we would be a much worse team. It's an interesting thought, is giving up Crabbe, Turner, Meyers and not extending CJ worth a top 4 pick in the upcoming draft? (Yes, I think we would be one worst 3 teams in the league if we had done that. Worst 3 teams are guaranteed to finish with no lower than the #4 pick.)

Except that I didn't say we were giving all those players up. We'd give up Crabbe and Meyers, we'd still have Turner, just at a more reasonable cost (say, $50M/4years), and we'd still have CJ, just on the last year of his rookie contract going into RFA, with no PPP, and a cap hold this summer that's much lower than the 24M cap figure he'll consume as of 7/1.

You honestly think that taking Crabbe/Leonard off this roster makes it a bottom 4 team? I respectfully disagree.

 

[Pinwheel1]

If we had done that we would be a much worse team. It's an interesting thought, is giving up Crabbe, Turner, Meyers and not extending CJ worth a top 4 pick in the upcoming draft? (Yes, I think we would be one worst 3 teams in the league if we had done that. Worst 3 teams are guaranteed to finish with no lower than the #4 pick.)

Yes we would be a worse team and the top two picks this year are good but would not be difference makers until 2020 at the earliest. Yes I suppose we could trade the pick.......

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Except that I didn't say we were giving all those players up. We'd give up Crabbe and Meyers, we'd still have Turner, just at a more reasonable cost (say, $50M/4years), and we'd still have CJ, just on the last year of his rookie contract going into RFA, with no PPP, and a cap hold this summer that's much lower than the 24M cap figure he'll consume as of 7/1.

You honestly think that taking Crabbe/Leonard off this roster makes it a bottom 4 team? I respectfully disagree.

I thought Turner would also be off the team. I think Crabbe/Leonard/Turner gone would make us a bottom 3 team.

 

[riverman]

I always think that teams tank by faking injuries to the best player....he has a nagging sore toe...will rest a few games...then they develop the bench mob and see who sticks or who needs to go. We're not doing that as far as I can tell

 

[PtldPlatypus]

I thought Turner would also be off the team. I think Crabbe/Leonard/Turner gone would make us a bottom 3 team.

Ah, I see where I was unclear. My apologies.

 

[Pinwheel1]

I always think that teams tank by faking injuries to the best player....he has a nagging sore toe...will rest a few games...then they develop the bench mob and see who sticks or who needs to go. We're not doing that as far as I can tell

Usually older vets and not this early. Or players who actually are hurt and they just shut them down.

But on the other hand we only have 30 games left so in another 10-15 games, no doubt some teams will.

 

[Blazinaway]

I agree with that but I'm saying that there is too much focus put on what players are paid. Last offseason we paid what it took to keep the assets that can be used to improve the team.

The problem as I see it is that the we overpaid for LOUSY/mediocre players and our GM took our payroll right to the Lux tax limit, this IMO significantly restricts our ability to get better via trades and perhaps even to re-sign a guy like Plumlee because I doubt PA is willing to pay the tax for such a shitty team. I

 

[tester551]

I don't agree with the premise of any of your comments.

Great post and you bring up some great points and that is what totally needs to happen. I've just seen too many posts lately with an oversimplification of tanking and player salaries. "Crabbe makes $18mill! Olshey is an idiot, we're screwed!" And while that is a legitimate complaint it doesn't provide a complete and accurate picture. We got Crabbe for a throwaway 2nd round draft pick. Even if we only get a $10mill player in trade for him that is still a huge return on the original investment. Making a profit on trades is not the goal with our owner. We could have let Crabbe walk for nothing, no benefit to the team, or arguably overpay him to keep an asset with good value either as a player or a trade chip?

Crabbe cost Portland 2nd round picks. I wouldn't call that throwaway. I'd also argue that Crabbe on his current contract is anything but "good value". He is generally considered as having one of the worst 10 contracts in the league.

If we had done that we would be a much worse team. It's an interesting thought, is giving up Crabbe, Turner, Meyers and not extending CJ worth a top 4 pick in the upcoming draft? (Yes, I think we would be one worst 3 teams in the league if we had done that. Worst 3 teams are guaranteed to finish with no lower than the #4 pick.)

The CJ extension would have no impact on Portland's record. The question then becomes does Crabbe, Turner, & Meyer's contribute more than any other replacement players (on cheaper contracts) would have? I would argue no. None of the 3 are difference makers. You can use pretty much any metric that you want, and it will show that all three are below average (or significantly below) players. And before you start spewing crap about that there's no-one else left in FA to sign - here are some legitimate options that I would rather have had:

Meyers :-> Tarik Black ($6M), Jordan Hill ($4M), Dewayne Deadmon ($3M), Justin Hamilton ($3M)
Turner :-> Trevor Booker ($9M), James Ennis ($3M), Jared Dudley ($10M)
Crabbe :-> James Ennis ($3M), Gerald Henderson ($9M), Courtney Lee ($10M), Garrett Temple ($8M),

Granted, none of those players are world-beaters... but at least they are being paid appropriately for their production levels (and are equal or better than the three Blazers).

 

[Chris Craig]

Why does this thread sound so much like a political thread?

Liberals believing the way to get ahead is to self destruct, and overspending is not a problem.

Conservatives trying to win by acquiring more expensive weapons, paid for by the blue collar workers.

Wait, I'm a conservative?

 

[Pinwheel1]

Meyers :-> Tarik Black ($6M), Jordan Hill ($4M), Dewayne Deadmon ($3M), Justin Hamilton ($3M)
Turner :-> Trevor Booker ($9M), James Ennis ($3M), Jared Dudley ($10M)
Crabbe :-> James Ennis ($3M), Gerald Henderson ($9M), Courtney Lee ($10M), Garrett Temple ($8M),

Granted, none of those players are world-beaters... but at least they are being paid appropriately for their production levels (and are equal or better than the three Blazers).

I am not a Meyers fan, but for the Blazers i think one could argue Terry likes bigs who can shoot. And None of those can shoot better than Meyers. Turner has by far more value than the examples you gave as does Crabbe. But if saving money is the goal then yes you are correct.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

I don't agree with the premise of any of your comments.

What about tanking. You actually think you can tell players to lose?

 

[blue9]

You honestly think that taking Crabbe/Leonard off this roster makes it a bottom 4 team? I respectfully disagree.

We're not too far from being Bottom 4 with them. Had we not beat CLE, BOS, MEM we'd be a hell of a lot closer. And if those LAL games had gotten away from us, so much the better!