PDA

View Full Version : NBA GM Strategy: To Tank or not to Tank?



tommy
07-16-2013, 11:37 PM
Dahntay was with the Hawks from the middle until the end of last season but he is currently a free agent, I think, and is not the property of the Hawks. I am not sure if they will re-sign him or not.

I would love to see the Hawks become Duke-South, so long as we found a way to get Deng and Kyrie ;)

-Jason "I actually worry that Ferry is going to make the Hawks too good next season-- I want to be the in Wiggins/Parker/Randle sweepstakes" Evans

Couple things. One, I think this is probably the first time I've ever heard of a Hawks fan fearing that his team was going to be too good in the coming year. ;)

Seriously, though, and I know this is kind of a different topic, but I really think the notion that the 2014 draft is going to be so absolutely incredibly amazing, that it will be altering the courses of multiple franchises (for the better) for years to come, and similar types of ideas, and that because that draft is going to be so unbelievable that it's worth tanking a season, it's worth blowing up a team, it's worth sacrificing all sorts of assets, is folly.

Let's look at this. Andrew Wiggins is by all accounts going to be a game-changer. So is Jabari Parker. OK that's two. Marcus Smart is expected to be an excellent NBA point. Is he going to be immediately better than Kyrie Irving, Chris Paul, Derrick Rose, Rajon Rondo, or Russell Westbrook? I don't think so. Who else? Julius Randle? The Harrisons? James Young? Randle seems like he'll be a good prospect, but a franchise changer? Not nearly certain enough to be taking the kind of drastic actions that some teams are taking, or considering taking, to merely get the opportunity to get a good ping pong ball and maybe draft him. The Harrisons, Young, and the rest? Even less worth the risk.

It seems to me that 2014 is likely to be a draft that is unusually deep in potential very good-to-star players, but has the usual two or so that are expected to be potential franchise changers. (2013 was a year that had none in this latter category.) Is all of this activity these teams are engaged in -- which involves making your team really, really bad -- worth it in comparison to the likelihood that you're going to get either the #1 or #2 overall pick, the pick will in fact pan out, and you're then able to parlay that selection into a championship level team? I'd like to see a rational, business case made for that before I buy off on it.

Thoughts?

BD80
07-17-2013, 08:54 AM
Couple things. One, I think this is probably the first time I've ever heard of a Hawks fan fearing that his team was going to be too good in the coming year. ;)

Seriously, though, and I know this is kind of a different topic, but I really think the notion that the 2014 draft is going to be so absolutely incredibly amazing, that it will be altering the courses of multiple franchises (for the better) for years to come, and similar types of ideas, and that because that draft is going to be so unbelievable that it's worth tanking a season, it's worth blowing up a team, it's worth sacrificing all sorts of assets, is folly.

Let's look at this. Andrew Wiggins is by all accounts going to be a game-changer. So is Jabari Parker. OK that's two. Marcus Smart is expected to be an excellent NBA point. Is he going to be immediately better than Kyrie Irving, Chris Paul, Derrick Rose, Rajon Rondo, or Russell Westbrook? I don't think so. Who else? Julius Randle? The Harrisons? James Young? Randle seems like he'll be a good prospect, but a franchise changer? Not nearly certain enough to be taking the kind of drastic actions that some teams are taking, or considering taking, to merely get the opportunity to get a good ping pong ball and maybe draft him. The Harrisons, Young, and the rest? Even less worth the risk.

It seems to me that 2014 is likely to be a draft that is unusually deep in potential very good-to-star players, but has the usual two or so that are expected to be potential franchise changers. (2013 was a year that had none in this latter category.) Is all of this activity these teams are engaged in -- which involves making your team really, really bad -- worth it in comparison to the likelihood that you're going to get either the #1 or #2 overall pick, the pick will in fact pan out, and you're then able to parlay that selection into a championship level team? I'd like to see a rational, business case made for that before I buy off on it.

Thoughts?

Here's a decent analysis: http://www.cbssports.com/nba/blog/eye-on-basketball/22784921/the-inbounds-six-thoughts-on-the-great-tank-war-of-2014

In addition to the 7 prospects you named, add Dante Exum, Aaron Gordon, Mario Henzonia (from Barcelona, age 18) and Glenn Robinson Jr. That's at least 10 solid prospects worthy of lottery consideration. The point is that it isn't an all-or-nothing proposition, if you tank, there will be at least some reward.

TexHawk
07-17-2013, 10:43 AM
Couple things. One, I think this is probably the first time I've ever heard of a Hawks fan fearing that his team was going to be too good in the coming year. ;)

Seriously, though, and I know this is kind of a different topic, but I really think the notion that the 2014 draft is going to be so absolutely incredibly amazing, that it will be altering the courses of multiple franchises (for the better) for years to come, and similar types of ideas, and that because that draft is going to be so unbelievable that it's worth tanking a season, it's worth blowing up a team, it's worth sacrificing all sorts of assets, is folly.

Let's look at this. Andrew Wiggins is by all accounts going to be a game-changer. So is Jabari Parker. OK that's two. Marcus Smart is expected to be an excellent NBA point. Is he going to be immediately better than Kyrie Irving, Chris Paul, Derrick Rose, Rajon Rondo, or Russell Westbrook? I don't think so. Who else? Julius Randle? The Harrisons? James Young? Randle seems like he'll be a good prospect, but a franchise changer? Not nearly certain enough to be taking the kind of drastic actions that some teams are taking, or considering taking, to merely get the opportunity to get a good ping pong ball and maybe draft him. The Harrisons, Young, and the rest? Even less worth the risk.

It seems to me that 2014 is likely to be a draft that is unusually deep in potential very good-to-star players, but has the usual two or so that are expected to be potential franchise changers. (2013 was a year that had none in this latter category.) Is all of this activity these teams are engaged in -- which involves making your team really, really bad -- worth it in comparison to the likelihood that you're going to get either the #1 or #2 overall pick, the pick will in fact pan out, and you're then able to parlay that selection into a championship level team? I'd like to see a rational, business case made for that before I buy off on it.

Thoughts?
I am not sure that "folly" is the right word. It has been proven multiple times over that you need all-pro type players to win NBA championships (NFL too, in regards to all-pro franchise QBs). You get those guys via free agency, trades, or the draft. More and more these days, the Lebrons/Carmelos/Kobes of the world will only consider LA, NYC, Miami, Chicago, and maybe Dallas/Houston in free agency. The rest of the teams are forced to stockpile assets to trade for those guys, or look toward the draft. And while there are some franchise players that can be found outside of the Top 5, that's a crapshoot too. For every Paul George, there are ten DJ Augustins. The higher you can pick, those chances increase... so they bottom-out or tank.

Every once in a while, teams will rise up without a franchise player, but those are the exceptions, and they rarely get over the hump. The Pacers and Grizzlies are examples this year, but both of those teams needed outstanding coaching and player development, plus some luck (Rose and Westbrook out with injuries). The no-mans land of being just good enough to sneak into the playoffs every once in a while, and never being all-out terrible is almost more frustrating than rooting for a perennial loser. (Trust me, I am a KC Chiefs fan.)


To echo BD's comment, Chad Ford recently said there are at least 8 multiple all-star type talents in the 2014 draft. Wiggins, Parker, Randle, Smart, Gordon, Harrison, Exum, and Saric (Croatia). So a team like the Hawks could semi-tank and still end up with a franchise player. Of course, some of those guys will bust. Everyone is trying to compare this draft to 2003 with Lebron/Wade/Carmelo/Bosh, but outside of those guys, it was fairly pedestrian. The rest of the top 10 was Darko, Kaman, Hinrich, Sweetney, TJ Ford, and Jarvis Hayes.

JasonEvans
07-17-2013, 01:06 PM
The no-mans land of being just good enough to sneak into the playoffs every once in a while, and never being all-out terrible is almost more frustrating than rooting for a perennial loser. (Trust me, I am a KC Chiefs fan.)

You just described the Atlanta Hawks for most of their existence. They have rarely been one of the worst teams in the league (and when they have, ity has been in years when the draft was not deep or where they just plain picked the wrong player) but they never challenge for the league's upper echelon. They are cursed with winning 40 games a year. In the NBA, 40 games is a deadly number -- good enough to be near the bottom of the playoff heap (which means little chance of going far in the playoffs) but not nearly bad enough to get a stud in the draft.

2014 is somewhat unique in that it appears to hold several guys who can be "franchise-changing" players. I am pretty sure there was no one in the 2012 or 2013 drafts who had that potential. The fact that there are multiple guys like that (some say as many as 6 or 7) means that sucking next year is much more of a sure thing than most seasons when you are hoping to maybe get a guy like that out of the #1 pick in the draft.

Will some of the 2014 franchise players turn out to be busts? I am sure of it. Heck, a few years ago everyone thought Harrison Barnes was a lock to be a future franchise changer. When the Hawks took Marvin Williams over Chris Paul, most folks thought they were drafting a future franchise-player. It is a guessing game, at best. I am clear on that.

But, if you look at the Hawks roster and their history of signing free agents, I think others will agree that there is at least some logic to rolling the dice on sucking for Wiggins/Parker/Randle/whoever versus being mediocre again and hoping you will luck into a difference-making free agent or something like that.

-Jason "as much as I lament the Hawks fate, imagine how Portland fans feel about Greg Oden versus KD. It made sense at the time" Evans

CDu
07-17-2013, 01:18 PM
Jason "as much as I lament the Hawks fate, imagine how Portland fans feel about Greg Oden versus KD. It made sense at the time" Evans

The Oden thing is just so depressing. In the NCAA championship against UF, Oden was dominant. And this wasn't in a "man-amongst-boys" situation. UF had three veteran bigs that would go on to play PF/C in the NBA - two of them at an All-Star level. And despite being on an island (OSU typically played smaller at PF), Oden outplayed those guys. He pretty much matched the combined production of Noah and Horford (Oden went for 25, 12, and 4 blocks in 38 minutes; Noah/Horford combined for 26, 15, and 2 with 7 fouls in 55 minutes).

There was no reason to assume that Oden would not succeed in the NBA. I mean, look how good Noah and Horford are, and Oden was even better and younger.

But, alas, the injuries have struck Oden down. Just a shame, really.

Wander
07-17-2013, 01:29 PM
-Jason "I actually worry that Ferry is going to make the Hawks too good next season-- I want to be the in Wiggins/Parker/Randle sweepstakes" Evans

It's obnoxious enough to watch NFL teams rest their starters for the playoffs or soccer teams play for ties in the World Cup. But tanking an ENTIRE SEASON is beyond pathetic, and it's one of the reasons why I find the college game superior to the NBA. I agree with tommy that it's not as strategically wise as some would think either.

I'm not blaming you for supporting wanting your Hawks to tank, because the system is set up to incentivize it. I just wish losing on purpose would never be a benefit.

TexHawk
07-17-2013, 04:56 PM
I agree with tommy that it's not as strategically wise as some would think either.

Ok, you are the GM of the Atlanta Hawks. Your goal is to win an NBA championship. How do *you* do it? If you stay mediocre like this season, you will get the #16 pick again, which is in the McGary-McAdoo-CJ Fair neighborhood. Not a bad neighborhood, but will a guy like that win you a title?

There is risk in all of these avenues, and it might actually make sense to put your hopes on the ping pong balls, especially in the 2014 draft. Your other options are crossing your fingers that a franchise free agent will like Atlanta more than LA, or that there is a stupid GM counterpart willing to trade you assets for nothing.

COYS
07-17-2013, 05:08 PM
It's obnoxious enough to watch NFL teams rest their starters for the playoffs or soccer teams play for ties in the World Cup. But tanking an ENTIRE SEASON is beyond pathetic, and it's one of the reasons why I find the college game superior to the NBA. I agree with tommy that it's not as strategically wise as some would think either.

I'm not blaming you for supporting wanting your Hawks to tank, because the system is set up to incentivize it. I just wish losing on purpose would never be a benefit.

Soccer fan and Hawks fan, here, who has no problem with ties in the the World Cup group stage or with playoff NFL teams resting their players (why would you play them in a sport that is so incredibly brutal?). However, I agree with you 100% about tanking a whole season. It really sucks to do that. The thing is, what else are the Hawks going to do? The NBA is dominated by a few stars. There is virtually no such thing as a team that wins a title without at least one of the big stars. Perhaps the closest thing to that in recent memory was the 2011 Maverick team. Yet that team had Dirk Nowitzki, who will go down in history as an All Time great. People also sometimes put the 2004 Pistons in the same category, but again, Rasheed Wallace, Rip Hamilton, and Chauncy Billups were all in their primes at the time. Danny Ferry has done an amazing job giving the Hawks hope by somehow offloading Joe Johnson. However, the Hawks won't really have much hope unless they somehow get one of the franchise changing players.

What I will say, however, is that if Ferry can somehow convince a star to sign as a free agent or the Hawks get lucky in the draft, that star will be surrounded by a strong team. It was too much to hope that Dwight Howard would return to his hometown to play alongside Horford (who plays really well as a center but is probably even better suited to be a power forward). Too often the small markets get a great player but don't know how to build around him and they bolt in free agency or demand a trade. With the addition of a bonafide star, the Hawks will be ready to win right away.

Des Esseintes
07-19-2013, 07:55 PM
Couple things. One, I think this is probably the first time I've ever heard of a Hawks fan fearing that his team was going to be too good in the coming year. ;)

Seriously, though, and I know this is kind of a different topic, but I really think the notion that the 2014 draft is going to be so absolutely incredibly amazing, that it will be altering the courses of multiple franchises (for the better) for years to come, and similar types of ideas, and that because that draft is going to be so unbelievable that it's worth tanking a season, it's worth blowing up a team, it's worth sacrificing all sorts of assets, is folly.

Let's look at this. Andrew Wiggins is by all accounts going to be a game-changer. So is Jabari Parker. OK that's two. Marcus Smart is expected to be an excellent NBA point. Is he going to be immediately better than Kyrie Irving, Chris Paul, Derrick Rose, Rajon Rondo, or Russell Westbrook? I don't think so. Who else? Julius Randle? The Harrisons? James Young? Randle seems like he'll be a good prospect, but a franchise changer? Not nearly certain enough to be taking the kind of drastic actions that some teams are taking, or considering taking, to merely get the opportunity to get a good ping pong ball and maybe draft him. The Harrisons, Young, and the rest? Even less worth the risk.

It seems to me that 2014 is likely to be a draft that is unusually deep in potential very good-to-star players, but has the usual two or so that are expected to be potential franchise changers. (2013 was a year that had none in this latter category.) Is all of this activity these teams are engaged in -- which involves making your team really, really bad -- worth it in comparison to the likelihood that you're going to get either the #1 or #2 overall pick, the pick will in fact pan out, and you're then able to parlay that selection into a championship level team? I'd like to see a rational, business case made for that before I buy off on it.

Thoughts?

2012 top 5: Anthony Davis, Michael Kidd-Gilchrist, Bradley Beal, Dion Waiters, Thomas Robinson
2011 top 5: Kyrie Irving, Derrick Williams, Enes Kanter, Tristan Thompson, Jonas Valanciunas
2010 top 5: John Wall, Evan Turner, Derrick Favors, Wesley Johnson, DeMarcus Cousins
2009 top 5: Blake Griffin, Hasheem Thabeet, James Harden, Tyreke Evans, Ricky Rubio
2008 top 5: Derrick Rose, Michael Beasley, OJ Mayo, Russell Westbook, Kevin Love

Ok, so that's 25 top 5 picks. How many of these guys could be the best player on a title team? Kyrie, definitely. Rose. Harden. Westbrook. Love, probably. After that...? Griffin is an All-Star if not all-world. Valanciunas looks like he will become one. Davis looks similar ceiling-wise, if not playing-style-wise. Rubio is a great point. Then, a bunch of good players and some absolute disasters. Over a third of these guys aren't even with the franchise that drafted them. So many of the franchises that drafted in these slots have not seen their fortunes changed for the positive in any significant way. The 2014 draft looks to be better than these drafts, but realistically, how much better could it be? There were some solid drafts in the last five years.

You need a top-10 guy to win a title, and the truth is that such players are exceptionally difficult to come by. You can find them in the draft, but your chances are not great. Houston is a fantastic example of a team that has given itself a title chance without ever sucking, and for that they have my admiration.

Which is to say, I agree with you.

jmck214
07-20-2013, 07:19 AM
As a Celtics fan I am hoping they tank although that is only possible if Rondo isn't healthy enough to play at the beginning of the season. If Rondo is healthy then they are good enough for the 8 seed which is a horrible place to be at in the nba especially when the fan base is used to watching a contender. Needless to say I will be a huge Nets fan next year. With PP, KG, and Mason. Also what a great spot for Plumlee being able to learn under KG. He can be tough on rookies (Google big baby Davis crying) but I think Plumlee can handle it

TexHawk
07-21-2013, 10:22 AM
2012 top 5: Anthony Davis, Michael Kidd-Gilchrist, Bradley Beal, Dion Waiters, Thomas Robinson
2011 top 5: Kyrie Irving, Derrick Williams, Enes Kanter, Tristan Thompson, Jonas Valanciunas
2010 top 5: John Wall, Evan Turner, Derrick Favors, Wesley Johnson, DeMarcus Cousins
2009 top 5: Blake Griffin, Hasheem Thabeet, James Harden, Tyreke Evans, Ricky Rubio
2008 top 5: Derrick Rose, Michael Beasley, OJ Mayo, Russell Westbook, Kevin Love

Ok, so that's 25 top 5 picks. How many of these guys could be the best player on a title team? Kyrie, definitely. Rose. Harden. Westbrook. Love, probably. After that...? Griffin is an All-Star if not all-world. Valanciunas looks like he will become one. Davis looks similar ceiling-wise, if not playing-style-wise. Rubio is a great point. Then, a bunch of good players and some absolute disasters. Over a third of these guys aren't even with the franchise that drafted them. So many of the franchises that drafted in these slots have not seen their fortunes changed for the positive in any significant way. The 2014 draft looks to be better than these drafts, but realistically, how much better could it be? There were some solid drafts in the last five years.

You need a top-10 guy to win a title, and the truth is that such players are exceptionally difficult to come by. You can find them in the draft, but your chances are not great. Houston is a fantastic example of a team that has given itself a title chance without ever sucking, and for that they have my admiration.

Which is to say, I agree with you.

Hindsight is always easy. The draft, of course, *IS* a crapshoot. Some years more than others. As someone who watched Michael Beasley up close several times as he eviscerated the Big12, HE was the can't miss All-Pro, not Derrick Rose. (He put up 39/11 in AFH against the best defense in the country and national champs). In hindsight the Heat could have had Russell Westbrook or Kevin Love. Nobody has said that the draft is a perfect science.

The original question was focused on an ok-but-middling NBA team that is not a prime free agency destination, Atlanta. There are a couple of handfuls of similar teams in the league right now, always drafting between 14 and 20. (Do you think the Bucks would even try to woo Lebron James next summer?) Those teams are faced with the reality of (a) finding a top 10 star in the draft, or (b) stockpiling assets to trade for one. Houston** went with (b) last fall, and took advantage of a luxury tax-weary owner to trade 3 assets for James Harden. Those situations are rare though.

So, of your 25 draft picks, 9 of those are hits or almost-hits. That's 36%. What are the odds of a non-marquee city bringing in a top 10 player in free agency? It has to be lower than that, right? What about waiting for another OKC/Harden situation, AND having the right assets to trade? That has to be even lower.


**Houston. I'm glad you brought them up. They are probably a top 10 destination for free agent targets, given the tax situation and (at the moment) Top 10 players attract other Top 10 players. But I wouldn't quibble if anyone disagreed. Everyone loves and is super impressed with Daryl Morey for what he's done. But, can we pump the brakes for a second? Morey has been in Houston for 7 seasons. They have made the playoffs three times. They have one series win (in Morey's first year), but that team prominently featured Yao Ming, Ron Artest, and Dikembe Mutombo. The addition of Howard improves them, for sure, but they are far from a lock as Top 3 seed in the West next year. OKC and San Antonio are likely still better. They are somewhere in the middle there with the Clippers, Memphis, Denver, and Golden State. Personally, I need to see it before I crown them a "favorite" in anything.

Des Esseintes
07-21-2013, 11:41 AM
Hindsight is always easy. The draft, of course, *IS* a crapshoot. Some years more than others. As someone who watched Michael Beasley up close several times as he eviscerated the Big12, HE was the can't miss All-Pro, not Derrick Rose. (He put up 39/11 in AFH against the best defense in the country and national champs). In hindsight the Heat could have had Russell Westbrook or Kevin Love. Nobody has said that the draft is a perfect science.

The original question was focused on an ok-but-middling NBA team that is not a prime free agency destination, Atlanta. There are a couple of handfuls of similar teams in the league right now, always drafting between 14 and 20. (Do you think the Bucks would even try to woo Lebron James next summer?) Those teams are faced with the reality of (a) finding a top 10 star in the draft, or (b) stockpiling assets to trade for one. Houston** went with (b) last fall, and took advantage of a luxury tax-weary owner to trade 3 assets for James Harden. Those situations are rare though.

So, of your 25 draft picks, 9 of those are hits or almost-hits. That's 36%. What are the odds of a non-marquee city bringing in a top 10 player in free agency? It has to be lower than that, right? What about waiting for another OKC/Harden situation, AND having the right assets to trade? That has to be even lower.


**Houston. I'm glad you brought them up. They are probably a top 10 destination for free agent targets, given the tax situation and (at the moment) Top 10 players attract other Top 10 players. But I wouldn't quibble if anyone disagreed. Everyone loves and is super impressed with Daryl Morey for what he's done. But, can we pump the brakes for a second? Morey has been in Houston for 7 seasons. They have made the playoffs three times. They have one series win (in Morey's first year), but that team prominently featured Yao Ming, Ron Artest, and Dikembe Mutombo. The addition of Howard improves them, for sure, but they are far from a lock as Top 3 seed in the West next year. OKC and San Antonio are likely still better. They are somewhere in the middle there with the Clippers, Memphis, Denver, and Golden State. Personally, I need to see it before I crown them a "favorite" in anything.

You make some solid points, but let's also remember that "free agent destination" is a somewhat elastic definition in the NBA. Dwight Howard just signed with Houston, so now everyone is talking up the lack of state income tax and world-beating strip clubs. But *last* year, before the Harden exchange, everyone was talking about how a franchise like Houston couldn't really rely on the charms of free agency and how if they wanted a marquee star it was going to have to happen via trade. You hear the opposite thing these days about Orlando. Back when Grant Hill and T-Mac signed there, the story was the easy Florida lifestyle and low taxes. Now it's a small market that will have to develop its talent. Hindsight works for free agency as well as the draft. Places where major free agents have recently signed are "destinations," and place where they haven't are suddenly cities where it can't happen. For yet another example, look at the Clippers. Time was, NOBODY would sign with the lesser LA franchise. Now they have CP, and they're hot.

Now. Milwaukee has a tough row to hoe. I agree that they're unlikely to get a max contract guy, since when the money's equal other factors come in. Tanking next year makes sense for them, as it does for many a team. But you know what? If the Bucks were well run and if they had a bunch of assets, players would look hard at them. I think we'd all agree that right now Oklahoma City, the definition of mediocrity when it comes to American places to live, would have plenty of players interested in signing if its team had both cap space and the willingness to open the wallet. And that brings me to Atlanta. On what planet is Atlanta not a *very* solid free agency destination? The NHL planet, that's what planet. In all the others, it's a town with plenty of cachet. I think Ferry's path of collecting assets without compromising cap flexibility down the line is a great strategy. Tommy's original point was that tanking offers diminishing returns when lots and lots of teams are trying the same play. Getting a guy of Millsap's quality at the price-point and shortness of commitment ATL did is possible in part because many other teams are trying to suck. (I would also add that the Paul Millsaps of the world do not sign team-advantageous deal with franchises in unattractive cities.) A smart front office is going to swim against the current if by doing so it can get useful players at excellent values.

JasonEvans
07-21-2013, 11:56 AM
I am glad my comments sparked an interesting conversation and think some compelling views are being expressed here.

I hearken back to a conversation many years ago on the old DBR board when Michael Jordan moved to the Wiz. At the time, no one knew how good he might be (he had been retired for 3 years and was 38 years old). Anyway, it sparked a conversation about how good he might make the woeful Wizards. They had been a dreadful 19-63 the previous season (with Jordan they improved to 37 wins, even at a rusty, old age MJ was darn good). The conversation soon morphed, as it often does, into how much better Jordan could make any team in the league. In his prime, we wondered if we could have put him on the worst team in the NBA and made them into a serious championship contender. The consensus was yes.

Flash forward to today -- I ask all of you, if we put Lebron on the Bobcats or Magic, do we think that he would make them into a contender? I do. I don't know how much of a contender they would be, but I suspect they'd be in the title conversation.

"Ok, Jason, thanks for the totally irrelevant point. Why does this matter?"

Well, if the scouting experts are to be believed, Andrew Wiggins just might be that kind of impact player. He may be the next Lebron/Kobe/Jordan/Bird/Magic. He might be that one guy who is so darn good, he can make even a bad team into a very good one. I would not be talking about tanking if the ultimate prize was Anthony Davis or Anthony Bennett. But I think Wiggins may be that special one.

And, as an added bonus, tanking this year likely gives you a shot at several other truly special players such as Parker or perhaps Randle. So, you are not tanking for #1, you could still be really helping out your team with picks #2 or #3.

I know it is a crapshoot. I won't be even a little surprised if someone quotes this post a year from now when Wiggins or one of the others has had a disappointing season and everyone sees that player as a mid-late lottery pick and talks about him coming back to school to get better prepared for the NBA (Harrison Barnes, I am looking at you!!). Predicting the future of college players in the NBA is tough enough. Here I am talking about high schoolers!! Insane.

But, the chance to get that special player just does not come along often. It changes your franchise for a decade or more (Lebron leaving the Cavs was truly unusual). I think it might be worth the risk for a team like the Hawks who are stuck in the NBA middle ground with little hope of getting out any time soon.

-Jason "sigh, Atlanta has been here for so long... I suppose it is better than sucking every year but it is disheartening after a while" Evans

sagegrouse
07-21-2013, 12:59 PM
It's obnoxious enough to watch NFL teams rest their starters for the playoffs or soccer teams play for ties in the World Cup. But tanking an ENTIRE SEASON is beyond pathetic, and it's one of the reasons why I find the college game superior to the NBA. I agree with tommy that it's not as strategically wise as some would think either.

I'm not blaming you for supporting wanting your Hawks to tank, because the system is set up to incentivize it. I just wish losing on purpose would never be a benefit.


Ok, you are the GM of the Atlanta Hawks. Your goal is to win an NBA championship. How do *you* do it? If you stay mediocre like this season, you will get the #16 pick again, which is in the McGary-McAdoo-CJ Fair neighborhood. Not a bad neighborhood, but will a guy like that win you a title?

There is risk in all of these avenues, and it might actually make sense to put your hopes on the ping pong balls, especially in the 2014 draft. Your other options are crossing your fingers that a franchise free agent will like Atlanta more than LA, or that there is a stupid GM counterpart willing to trade you assets for nothing.

Whoa, there everyone! "Tanking a season" implies that the coaches and players aren't trying to win. I personally think that every coach and every player is trying to win every game. If the shots aren't falling or the player is a little off for whatever reason, it may look like lack of effort. But I am willing to believe that pro athletes and coaches are highly competitive human beings who bring it all to the game.

I think the conversation is about the portfolio management of the players under contract. This is the province of the GM. And is a fair area of inquiry, and not really "beyond pathetic." You are the GM; you have a budget for players, set by the league, as modified by the willingness of the owner to pay a certain amount of luxury tax; you have to figure it all out. Win a little bit today vs. win a lot tomorrow is a reasonable question.

I would agree that dumping all your good players to ensure a horrible season and a high lottery pick is pretty questionnable for any team -- it makes the league look bad and it lets down the fans. But it is a fair question. As an armchair GM or owner, I wouldn't try it: it's a lottery, for heaven's sakes! It is a sure loss vs. a questionnable gain. But this is not the same as players and coaches tanking games.

sagegrouse

toooskies
07-21-2013, 03:57 PM
The question is why do you own a basketball team. If it is to make money, consistently, then you want a consistently good basketball team. If it is to compete against the teams of other billionaires, and championships are your main measuring stick, then tanking helps your championship odds.

Well, except for the fact that no team has won a championship after tanking. When you look at post-draft success, you want to trade your high picks instead of keeping them and waiting for talent to develop. Tanking is committing at least 2 years to losing, and at that point the franchise is losing money.

PackMan97
07-21-2013, 04:34 PM
The question is why do you own a basketball team. If it is to make money, consistently, then you want a consistently good basketball team. If it is to compete against the teams of other billionaires, and championships are your main measuring stick, then tanking helps your championship odds.

Well, except for the fact that no team has won a championship after tanking. When you look at post-draft success, you want to trade your high picks instead of keeping them and waiting for talent to develop. Tanking is committing at least 2 years to losing, and at that point the franchise is losing money.

My thoughts are that if you aren't getting better, you are getting worse. I can understand tossing the last two games of a losing season to move up a spot or two in the draft, but not tanking an entire season, or even month to get a better spot in the draft.

Losing can become ingrained and part of your culture if you encourage it too much.

ice-9
07-21-2013, 11:45 PM
Well, if the scouting experts are to be believed, Andrew Wiggins just might be that kind of impact player. He may be the next Lebron/Kobe/Jordan/Bird/Magic. He might be that one guy who is so darn good, he can make even a bad team into a very good one. I would not be talking about tanking if the ultimate prize was Anthony Davis or Anthony Bennett. But I think Wiggins may be that special one.

If the Michael Jordan hypothesis is true, and Andrew Wiggins is the next Michael Jordan, then Kansas should be a championship contender next season. Be in the Final Four at the very least, because the "transformative player" effect would be even more pronounced on the college level where the overall talent is lower. As a low to middling NBA team I'd keep a close eye on that. If Wiggins doesn't look like that player as the season unfolds then perhaps we're overvaluing the draft's potential.


Whoa, there everyone! "Tanking a season" implies that the coaches and players aren't trying to win. I personally think that every coach and every player is trying to win every game. If the shots aren't falling or the player is a little off for whatever reason, it may look like lack of effort. But I am willing to believe that pro athletes and coaches are highly competitive human beings who bring it all to the game.

I agree with that SG but I also think the "tanking" strategy applies to coaches as well. I.e., instead of playing your older, proven players and risk injury, you allocate more minutes to younger guys who otherwise wouldn't be getting as much exposure. Guys who would probably cost you a few games over the course of the season but in the long run will benefit from the experience. It's sub-optimal for the immediate season, but could result in a stronger team next season.

For the players that do get on the court, they should be playing as hard as they can and trying their best to win.

JasonEvans
07-22-2013, 12:19 AM
If the Michael Jordan hypothesis is true, and Andrew Wiggins is the next Michael Jordan, then Kansas should be a championship contender next season. Be in the Final Four at the very least, because the "transformative player" effect would be even more pronounced on the college level where the overall talent is lower. As a low to middling NBA team I'd keep a close eye on that. If Wiggins doesn't look like that player as the season unfolds then perhaps we're overvaluing the draft's potential.

Well, prior to him signing with Kansas, the Jayhawks were generally ranked around #10-#12 in preseason polls (IIRC). After getting him, most of the pundits have pushed the Jayhawks into the top 5. So, the consensus seems to be they went from being a Sweet 16 kinda team to be a Final 4 kinda team.

Also, a comment on the tanking thing. I certainly did not mean to imply that a team would try to lose games. I merely meant that a GM (Danny Ferry) might not think it is too bad to have a poorer than usual roster next season as it could allow him a better chance to get into the higher end of the lottery.

It is worth noting that the NBA has a check on the whole intentional tanking thing in that teams are required to spend a certain percentage of the salary cap (I think it is 90%). I suppose a team could do this and be terrible by overpaying players on one-year contracts, but that would look awful suspicious.

-Jason "I think one of Ferry's priorities is preserving his cap room for next season-- which likely means he won't be signing anyone to a big contract this off-season" Evans

Wander
07-22-2013, 12:32 AM
If the Michael Jordan hypothesis is true, and Andrew Wiggins is the next Michael Jordan, then Kansas should be a championship contender next season. Be in the Final Four at the very least, because the "transformative player" effect would be even more pronounced on the college level where the overall talent is lower. As a low to middling NBA team I'd keep a close eye on that. If Wiggins doesn't look like that player as the season unfolds then perhaps we're overvaluing the draft's potential.


In theory this sounds like it should be true, but we know from past results that it isn't. The most relevant and obvious example is Kevin Durant, who didn't even make the Sweet 16 in college, let alone the Final Four (I know, Bill Self >> Rick Barnes, but still). Tim Duncan and Kyrie Irving didn't play in a Final Four either. The Rookie of the Year last year couldn't even make an NCAA tournament in three years of college in a weak conference. I'm sure there are tons of other examples people can come up with. So I wouldn't necessarily interpret Kansas not being great next year as a sign that Wiggins is overhyped.

My objection to tanking is more philosophical than strategical.

toooskies
07-22-2013, 01:03 AM
Several points to make:
- all I've read about Wiggins says he is a terrific athlete, but otherwise behind Jabari. This is unlike, say LeBron, who clearly had advanced court vision coming into the NBA. Wiggins might be great, but he might be the next Rudy Gay if it turns out he can't shoot. Or the next OJ Mayo, if we're talking about hype out of high school.
- lack of success in a single elimination tournament has no predictive power, anyone can have a bad night.
- the penalty for NBA teams not meeting the 90% payroll is... Paying the players on the roster enough to get to that 90% minimum. Oh, and the shame.

ice-9
07-22-2013, 06:10 AM
Well, prior to him signing with Kansas, the Jayhawks were generally ranked around #10-#12 in preseason polls (IIRC). After getting him, most of the pundits have pushed the Jayhawks into the top 5. So, the consensus seems to be they went from being a Sweet 16 kinda team to be a Final 4 kinda team.

So this means Wiggins will have no excuse at Kansas. Unlike Durant at Texas, he will have a worthy supporting cast. If he is the next Jordan, he should deliver Jordan level results. Teams will know by February.


In theory this sounds like it should be true, but we know from past results that it isn't. The most relevant and obvious example is Kevin Durant, who didn't even make the Sweet 16 in college, let alone the Final Four (I know, Bill Self >> Rick Barnes, but still). Tim Duncan and Kyrie Irving didn't play in a Final Four either. The Rookie of the Year last year couldn't even make an NCAA tournament in three years of college in a weak conference. I'm sure there are tons of other examples people can come up with. So I wouldn't necessarily interpret Kansas not being great next year as a sign that Wiggins is overhyped.

The Final Four criterion is arbitrary -- the spirit of it is that if a great player can elevate an otherwise crappy team to a championship contender in the NBA, surely they can do the same in college. Perhaps Durant and Duncan aren't truly that transformative; needing coaching and a good team to excel? I don't know either, just testing the logic of the hypothesis.

Really though Wiggins will have no excuse. Kansas is a very strong team, and if he can't pitch in to make the Jayhawks a 1-seed level team by the end of the season then I don't think he deserves to be compared to Michael Jordan or LeBron James just yet.

TexHawk
07-22-2013, 08:25 AM
The Final Four criterion is arbitrary -- the spirit of it is that if a great player can elevate an otherwise crappy team to a championship contender in the NBA, surely they can do the same in college.
Well, even in the NBA, elite talents rarely elevate "crappy" teams to contender status on their own. OKC was still a bad team after one year of Durant, so they were able to draft Westbrook (and Harden the next year). MJ had Pippen. Duncan needed Manu and Parker. Lebron probably comes closest, since the Cavs followed up the Lebron draft by picking Luke Jackson, Boobie Gibson, JJ Hickson, Shannon Brown, and Christian Eyenga. He still took that team to the Finals, but only got over the hump when he had Wade and Bosh at his side. The "tanking" strategy would realistically affect 2-3 more seasons. Let the hotshot rookie learn the game, shoot a lot, get conditioned, create some local excitement, and use our next year's pick and hopefully get another Top-10 guy, or close.

It's easy to forget now, but Durant's Texas team also had #16 (rsci) Damion James and #30 DJ Augustin. Plus Dexter Pittman and AJ Abrams, who both played in the NBA. (Yay Rick Barnes!) The point is, "crappy" college teams don't get shots at Wiggins/Durant/Oden talents. They go to already established winning teams with other good players. Texas made the E8 the year before Durant arrived, for example. So it's doubtful that a Wiggins-type talent would go to TCU or Auburn, which would truly be the test of how high one of these guys could elevate a losing program on their own before the NBA.

KU's team will be extremely young, so I would expect some bumps in the beginning with a tough noncon schedule, but hopefully rounding into form by Jan/Feb. It should also be noted that the only other time Bill Self has had a super-young, insanely talented team at KU was in 2005-2006. That team started 10-6, turned it around by winning 15 of their last 17, including the conference and conference tournament... But lost to Bradley in the first round.

TexHawk
07-22-2013, 11:01 AM
You make some solid points, but let's also remember that "free agent destination" is a somewhat elastic definition in the NBA. Dwight Howard just signed with Houston, so now everyone is talking up the lack of state income tax and world-beating strip clubs. But *last* year, before the Harden exchange, everyone was talking about how a franchise like Houston couldn't really rely on the charms of free agency and how if they wanted a marquee star it was going to have to happen via trade. You hear the opposite thing these days about Orlando. Back when Grant Hill and T-Mac signed there, the story was the easy Florida lifestyle and low taxes. Now it's a small market that will have to develop its talent. Hindsight works for free agency as well as the draft. Places where major free agents have recently signed are "destinations," and place where they haven't are suddenly cities where it can't happen. For yet another example, look at the Clippers. Time was, NOBODY would sign with the lesser LA franchise. Now they have CP, and they're hot.

It absolutely IS elastic. But with a few exceptions, LA/NYC/Miami/Chicago will always be on every elite free agent's list. And I bet the Clippers will be there after CP is gone. That place was a cesspool that nobody believed could ever field a winning team. That perception is changing, and that owner won't be around forever.


Now. Milwaukee has a tough row to hoe. I agree that they're unlikely to get a max contract guy, since when the money's equal other factors come in. Tanking next year makes sense for them, as it does for many a team. But you know what? If the Bucks were well run and if they had a bunch of assets, players would look hard at them. I think we'd all agree that right now Oklahoma City, the definition of mediocrity when it comes to American places to live, would have plenty of players interested in signing if its team had both cap space and the willingness to open the wallet.

But how does Milwaukee gain those assets?

And the argument that OKC is now a free agent destination points back to the draft too. They had to have Durant and Westbrook first, and those guys came as Top 5 picks.

Houston and Indiana are some interesting outliers in today's NBA, but as I said before, they haven't won anything yet.

ice-9
07-22-2013, 12:51 PM
Well, even in the NBA, elite talents rarely elevate "crappy" teams to contender status on their own.

I was working off of the premise given; it's not my own.

Personally think this upcoming draft is a little overhyped right now. Marcus Smart is the only top pick that's already in college. Remember all the hype Shabazz, Barnes, one of our own in Rivers, etc. received? They'll probably turn out to be nice players, but if they were drafted out of high school they would have been top picks. I say let's see how these 2013 prep guys do against college competition first before tanking.

Des Esseintes
07-22-2013, 04:39 PM
It absolutely IS elastic. But with a few exceptions, LA/NYC/Miami/Chicago will always be on every elite free agent's list. And I bet the Clippers will be there after CP is gone. That place was a cesspool that nobody believed could ever field a winning team. That perception is changing, and that owner won't be around forever.

But how does Milwaukee gain those assets?

And the argument that OKC is now a free agent destination points back to the draft too. They had to have Durant and Westbrook first, and those guys came as Top 5 picks.

Houston and Indiana are some interesting outliers in today's NBA, but as I said before, they haven't won anything yet.

Forgive me if I'm forgetting someone, but premium free agents matriculated to Miami before LeBron and Bosh? Mourning was traded to Miami; Shaq was traded to Miami; Wade was drafted. South Beach looks like an eternal destination right now, but that's perception. If ownership changes to a more Loria-esque regime, it will no longer have the same draw. Sterling's run with the Clippers is ample evidence of that. Moreover, I bet some Bulls fans around here can remember the summer when no free agents would take Chicago's money, and it ended up getting spent on Ron Mercer.

How does Milwaukee gain its assets? As Brother Malcolm said, by any means necessary. The draft is one means. So is free agency, the trade market, and the D-League. I mean, let's look at everyone's favorite model franchise in San Antonio. First, a strong franchise had a bad year because David Robinson got injured. They dipped slightly into the lottery, where they hit the double home run of winning it on a miniscule chance in a year offered a generational talent at #1. The Spurs did *not* tank to get Duncan. They were a playoff team before Robinson went down, qualified as a 5-seed his rookie year, and won the title in his second season. They just got absurdly lucky. Popovich played a hearty role in all of this, too. Then they drafted Tony Parker at #28 and Ginobli in the second round to get the dynasty really going. Neither of these Hall of Fame talents were selected as a result of tanking. The Spurs were just smarter than everybody else and scouted Europe hard before it was popular. Since then, they have drafted a bunch of guys low that fit their system, picked Dancin' Danny off the scrap heap and made him a valuable cog, and traded George Hill for a lottery guy Kawhi Leonard who is fast becoming another franchise cornerstone. What part of this project is off limits to Milwaukee? Only one part, and that's Duncan. Obviously, he's the most important part, but let's try a thought experiment. Say they don't get Duncan in '97. If they still got Parker and Ginobli, that's an extremely talented team with plenty of cap room to sign a max free agent. There is an excellent chance that with the core we know about, coached by Pop, Free Agent X would have STILL delivered a title to San Antonio. Not four titles, certainly. But they very well might have gotten to the mountaintop. Milwaukee could do that.

And the Spurs, to use your parlance, are an outlier. But that's the thing: basically every team that assembles a premium collection of talent is an outlier. Do you think OKC is a better model for teams to follow? That they aren't an outlier? Do you have any idea how hard it is to get a Durant-level talent, suck enough to get high lottery again, hit on a Westbrook-level talent, and then rinse and repeat to get a Harden? The number of bingoes required to produce just the first two parts of that equation represent a miniscule probability. Should Milwaukee try that route?

Jason has written a couple of times how much he hates idling between 40 and 50 wins, and I totally agree. That's hell. But not-tanking is hardly synonymous with perennial quasi-mediocrity. The reason Atlanta couldn't get over the hump, it seems to me, is that it had unimaginative management that did things like pay Joe Johnson more than Kobe Bryant. If Ferry is as good a GM as we all hope, he won't hamstring his franchise and will retain cap flexibility until he gets a pitch down the middle.

Look, nobody is saying the draft isn't of prime importance. And nobody is saying tanking is a terrible idea. But it the rise of the Thunder has produced a conventional wisdom that the only way to contend is to build through the high lottery. Not only do I find that narrow-minded ultimately, I think it's almost impossible. There are as many routes to the mountaintop as there are contending teams. Miami is a lottery D. Wade plus two HoF signees. Boston was a long-tenured Pierce plus two massive trades plus a mid-teens-drafted Rondo. LA was a free agent Shaq plus a Vlade-for-Kobe trade. Indiana is a George Hill trade plus a mid-teens-drafted George plus free agent West plus lottery Hibbert. The most recent Magic were #1 Howard plus #20 Jameer Nelson plus free agents Rashard Lewis and Turkoglu. Of these, only the Magic tanked, and while I could include other teams that found success that did tank, I think my point is illustrated.

johnb
07-23-2013, 10:35 AM
Getting back to Duke.

Matt Jones, DeSoto HS, 33-3, 2nd in Texas, 9th in the US
Jabari Parker, Simeon, 28-3, 4 straight state championships, 6th in the US
Semi Ojeleye, Ottawa, 25-0, state champs.

Rodney Hood's hs also won the state championship, Quinn Cook's ended the year ranked 4th in the country by USA Today, Tyler Thornton's finished 34-1 and won the DC City title, Rasheed's team lost in the Houston area championship despite his 42 points, Amile Jefferson's won 4 consecutive independent school state championships, Andre's three years included a 53-0 conference record and 3 consecutive trips to the state final four,Marshall's teams won 4 straight state championships, and the other guys were all on teams with gaudy overall records...

Not that these guys didn't have teammates (though Semi did score over half his team's points), and there is obviously more of a talent gap between Semi and the average hs player in rural Kansas than there is between LeBron and the average NBA player, but one player presumably can make a big difference at any level...

Newton_14
07-23-2013, 08:10 PM
I was working off of the premise given; it's not my own.

Personally think this upcoming draft is a little overhyped right now. Marcus Smart is the only top pick that's already in college. Remember all the hype Shabazz, Barnes, one of our own in Rivers, etc. received? They'll probably turn out to be nice players, but if they were drafted out of high school they would have been top picks. I say let's see how these 2013 prep guys do against college competition first before tanking.

The bold is always my biggest beef. Hype Hype Hype (and never mind the media selling all of these kids a lie). I am always amused at reading stories indicating that recruit x projects to be a "3" or "4" in the NBA when we don't even know how well they will perform at either position in College.

I am not sold that the 2014 draft is going to be so great that 12 to 15 picks are going to be All-NBA players and thus 12-15 teams need to tank to grab one of them. For one, Jabari and Dante Exum might not even be in the draft, and Aaron Gordon could be a bust. We will have a much better idea on how good all these guys are after watching them play in College against real competition.

2014 could be a really good draft but I feel we are many months away from being able to think/believe that or not.

tommy
07-23-2013, 08:19 PM
Forgive me if I'm forgetting someone, but premium free agents matriculated to Miami before LeBron and Bosh? Mourning was traded to Miami; Shaq was traded to Miami; Wade was drafted. South Beach looks like an eternal destination right now, but that's perception. If ownership changes to a more Loria-esque regime, it will no longer have the same draw. Sterling's run with the Clippers is ample evidence of that. Moreover, I bet some Bulls fans around here can remember the summer when no free agents would take Chicago's money, and it ended up getting spent on Ron Mercer.

How does Milwaukee gain its assets? As Brother Malcolm said, by any means necessary. The draft is one means. So is free agency, the trade market, and the D-League. I mean, let's look at everyone's favorite model franchise in San Antonio. First, a strong franchise had a bad year because David Robinson got injured. They dipped slightly into the lottery, where they hit the double home run of winning it on a miniscule chance in a year offered a generational talent at #1. The Spurs did *not* tank to get Duncan. They were a playoff team before Robinson went down, qualified as a 5-seed his rookie year, and won the title in his second season. They just got absurdly lucky. Popovich played a hearty role in all of this, too. Then they drafted Tony Parker at #28 and Ginobli in the second round to get the dynasty really going. Neither of these Hall of Fame talents were selected as a result of tanking. The Spurs were just smarter than everybody else and scouted Europe hard before it was popular. Since then, they have drafted a bunch of guys low that fit their system, picked Dancin' Danny off the scrap heap and made him a valuable cog, and traded George Hill for a lottery guy Kawhi Leonard who is fast becoming another franchise cornerstone. What part of this project is off limits to Milwaukee? Only one part, and that's Duncan. Obviously, he's the most important part, but let's try a thought experiment. Say they don't get Duncan in '97. If they still got Parker and Ginobli, that's an extremely talented team with plenty of cap room to sign a max free agent. There is an excellent chance that with the core we know about, coached by Pop, Free Agent X would have STILL delivered a title to San Antonio. Not four titles, certainly. But they very well might have gotten to the mountaintop. Milwaukee could do that.

And the Spurs, to use your parlance, are an outlier. But that's the thing: basically every team that assembles a premium collection of talent is an outlier. Do you think OKC is a better model for teams to follow? That they aren't an outlier? Do you have any idea how hard it is to get a Durant-level talent, suck enough to get high lottery again, hit on a Westbrook-level talent, and then rinse and repeat to get a Harden? The number of bingoes required to produce just the first two parts of that equation represent a miniscule probability. Should Milwaukee try that route?

Jason has written a couple of times how much he hates idling between 40 and 50 wins, and I totally agree. That's hell. But not-tanking is hardly synonymous with perennial quasi-mediocrity. The reason Atlanta couldn't get over the hump, it seems to me, is that it had unimaginative management that did things like pay Joe Johnson more than Kobe Bryant. If Ferry is as good a GM as we all hope, he won't hamstring his franchise and will retain cap flexibility until he gets a pitch down the middle.

Look, nobody is saying the draft isn't of prime importance. And nobody is saying tanking is a terrible idea. But it the rise of the Thunder has produced a conventional wisdom that the only way to contend is to build through the high lottery. Not only do I find that narrow-minded ultimately, I think it's almost impossible. There are as many routes to the mountaintop as there are contending teams. Miami is a lottery D. Wade plus two HoF signees. Boston was a long-tenured Pierce plus two massive trades plus a mid-teens-drafted Rondo. LA was a free agent Shaq plus a Vlade-for-Kobe trade. Indiana is a George Hill trade plus a mid-teens-drafted George plus free agent West plus lottery Hibbert. The most recent Magic were #1 Howard plus #20 Jameer Nelson plus free agents Rashard Lewis and Turkoglu. Of these, only the Magic tanked, and while I could include other teams that found success that did tank, I think my point is illustrated.

Great post, Des. Solid review of the history.

I'd add a few things. There is just no evidence supporting the idea that tanking to try to get the #1 pick in the draft, or even a top 3 or 4 pick, as a path to a championship, is likely to work.

First, and most obviously, there is no example of it having worked in the past.

Second, in the last 15 years (since the Bulls' run ended with the 1998 championship), there has been one team -- one -- that has drafted a player #1 overall and went on to win a championship with that player. That team is of course the Spurs with Duncan, and as Des so ably pointed out, even their run was fueled by an incredible stroke of luck that landed them two overall #1 picks in three years, then supplemented by some very smart drafting of players in the late first and second rounds and outstanding player development from there.

None of the other champions of the last 15 years featured a player that team drafted any higher than #5. The Spurs won in 1999. The 2000 through 2002 Lakers featured Kobe, drafted #13 by Charlotte, and Shaq, drafted #1 by Orlando. They had some other guys on the team who had been drafted pretty high, like Ron Harper, a late-in-his-career Glen Rice, and a washed-up Mitch Richmond, but nobody else close to his prime other than Kobe and Shaq, and like I say, none was drafted high by the Lakers anyway.

The Spurs won in 2003. In 2004 it was Detroit, but the only member of the starting team they drafted was Tayshaun Prince at #23, and he was a complimentary player. Or perhaps complementary, I'm not sure. Oh, they did have Darko, whom Detroit drafted #2 overall, but I don't think he was exactly integral to the team's success, playing in only 34 games and averaging less than 5 minutes per game.

The Spurs won again in 2005. In 2006 it was Miami, featuring Wade, who the Heat drafted, albeit at #5, and Shaq, who they obviously didn't draft. Alonzo Mourning, Gary Payton, Antoine Walker, and Jason Williams, lottery picks all, were also on that team, and of course all were drafted by other teams in previous years. Mourning and Payton were both overall #2 picks, but Mourning was 35 years old in this championship season and Payton was 37.

Spurs again in 2007, and then it was Boston in 2008. Of course the key players were Paul Pierce, whom the Celtics did draft, albeit with the #10 pick ten years earlier, along with imports Kevin Garnett and Ray Allen. Rajon Rondo was the #21 pick in the 2006 draft, by Phoenix, though he was quickly traded to Boston. But again, no high lottery choices on this team.

The Lakers won it in 2009, featuirng Kobe, Pau Gasol, and Andrew Bynum. Bynum was actually a Lakers first rounder, picked #10 in 2006. And again, Kobe was picked #13 by Charlotte and Gasol was obtained via trade. They also had Lamar Odom, who was a lottery pick (#4) by the Clippers 11 years prior, and Adam Morrison, a bench guy who was a lottery pick (#3) by Charlotte in 2006. Bynum was the highest drafted home grown guy.

Same story in 2010. Lakers with essentially the same roster.

In 2011, Dallas won the title, featuring Dirk, who was drafted #9, actually by Milwaukee, and quickly traded to the Mavs for Tractor Traylor, so it's fair to consider him as if he was originally drafted by Dallas, but still, he was the #9 pick overall. The 2011 Dallas roster featured a number of other high draft picks, albeit all of them drafted by other teams, most of them having made a number of stops along the way. Jason Kidd, Caron Butler, Corey Brewer, Tyson Chandler, Shawn Marion, Jason Terry.

2012 and 2013 have been the Heat, with the "Big 3" of Wade, the homegrown #5 pick, and LeBron and Bosh obtained via free agency. No other homegrown high lottery picks on the roster either year.

So that's that. Of all the championship teams in the last 15 years, taking the Spurs and Tim Duncan out of the mix, none of them has featured a homegrown lottery pick who was drafted any higher than #5 (Dwayne Wade by the Heat). Next highest homegrown guy to lead the team that drafted him to a championship was Dirk (#9) and then Paul Pierce and Andrew Bynum, both of whom were drafted #10.


Now: looking at it from another perspective, imagine what would've/could've happened to teams had they tried to "tank" in these previous 15 years. How would they likely have fared? Were any of these drafts, in hindsight, tank-worthy? Let’s look at those drafts.

1998: The top two guys in that draft, as viewed at the time of the draft, were Michael Olowokandi and Mike Bibby. That was the question: which one of those two would you take? Of course, Olowokandi was a bust and Bibby had a solid career, but never even made an All-Star team. The best players in that draft turned out to be Vince Carter (#5) who was very good, played for several teams, and never sniffed a championship, especially with Toronto, who drafted him, and Dirk and Pierce, #’s 9 and 10, discussed above. Dallas and Boston were indeed rewarded for drafting them, although it took awhile, but tanking was not required in order to be in position to draft those players.

1999: I could have seen tanking for the chance to draft Elton Brand, as he was legitimately viewed as a game changer, the kind of guy you build a championship team around. Only if you knew you’d be getting the #1 pick, though, as none of the other top draftees would have justified tanking to get them: Steve Francis, Baron Davis –good player, but not a “drop everything to get him” guy, Lamar Odom, Jonathan Bender, etc.

2000 was a disaster of a draft. I know nobody would’ve, but even if one could’ve accurately forecast who would’ve been at the top of that draft, could you imagine tanking a season only to get the chance to draft Kenyon Martin, Stromile Swift, Darius Miles, Marcus Fizer, or Mike Miller?

2001: Similar deal. Tank, get lucky and get the #1 pick, and take . . . Kwame Brown! Or Tyson Chandler (solid player, I know), or Eddie Curry? Pau Gasol was an excellent pick at #3, but still. Hard to see how tanking to get a high selection in this draft would’ve been worth it. Other than taking Gasol, teams would’ve been much better off drafting Zach Randolph (he went #19) or Tony Parker (#28) than the rest of the guys who went high.

2002: Different deal, possibly. Maybe, maaaybe worth it to tank if you are lucky enough to get one of the first two picks, who were Yao Ming and Jason Williams. If not, forget about it: the rest of the top guys were Mike Dunleavy, Drew Gooden, Nikolas Tskitishvili (all-time bust) and DeJuan Wagner. And then look what happened to Jason. The luck. Meanwhile, Phoenix got Amare at #9, Boozer and Scola went in the second round, etc. No need to tank to get those guys, obviously.

2003: Now this one seems like a horse of a different color. Had teams known how good LeBron, Carmelo, Chris Bosh (#4) and Dwyane Wade (#5) would turn out to be, maybe you do whatever you can to get into a position to draft them. Or maybe not. Sure, LeBron is an all-time great, and he did get the Cavs to a Finals basically by himself, but he didn’t win one there. But still, he’s obviously tank-worthy with the caveat being that tanking only makes sense if you end up with the #1 pick, which is by no means guaranteed by the lottery system. As discussed above, Wade got the team that drafted him to a championship where he was the top dog, and then two more as the #2 guy. Carmelo? Hasn’t sniffed a championship with either of the teams he’s been on. Is he really a guy who can be the centerpiece of a championship team? Highly debatable. Bosh didn’t come anywhere close with Toronto and while he’s a very good player, he is not a transcendent one that would justify tanking a season in order to draft, IMO. And this was the year that Darko was picked #2. Imagine tanking a season, getting the #2 selection, and ending up with that dawg.

2004: At the time, some might have thought it worth it to tank to get a shot at Dwight Howard. He got Orlando to one Finals, but that’s all. I guess if you had a guarantee that you’d get the #1 pick, you could justify going to great lengths, even tanking, to get him, but after this last season with the Lakers, I’m much less sure about his constitution. The rest of the top of the 2004 lottery: Emeka Okafor, Ben Gordon, Shaun Livingston, Devin Harris, Josh Childress. Clearly, none have been worthy of those draft positions or would’ve been worthy of a tank job. Teams would’ve been much better off drafting Luol Deng (#7), Andre Iguodala (#9), Al Jefferson (#15), or Anderson Varajao (second round). No tanking necessary to get those guys.

2005: Teams who would’ve tanked for this draft and NOT gotten the #1 pick might have found it worth their while. Might have, that is. Andrew Bogut went #1 and Marvin Williams #2. Neither is a star. Derron Williams and Chris Paul went #3 and #4. Certainly Paul, were you guaranteed to get him, would be worth it, but of course there would be no guarantee that he’d be available to the team that decides to tank. After that it was Ray Felton, Martell Webster, and other nondescript players. As discussed earlier, Andrew Bynum was available at #10 and he was a key guy in Lakers championships but those other teams at the top of the draft would’ve been better off drafting Danny Granger (#17) or David Lee (#30) or Monta Ellis (second round) than Bogut, Williams, Webster, or other top picks.

2006: Terrible draft. Nobody would have considered tanking this year. Top picks were Andrea Bargnani, LaMarcus Aldridge (good player), Adam Morrison, Tyrus Thomas, and Shelden Willliams. Brandon Roy was in this draft (#6) too. Teams would’ve been better off with Rudy Gay (#8) or Rondo (#21) or Paul Millsap (second round) than those guys they drafted in the high lottery.

2007: Another year that teams might have considered tanking, as Greg Oden and Kevin Durant came out. If you knew you’d get one of those guys then sure, maybe, as they were both viewed as franchise changers. Turned out one for two. Durant, yes. Oden, his career destroyed by constant injuries. If you didn’t get one of those guys, you could’ve gotten Al Horford at #3 or Mike Conley Jr. at #4, both good players. After them it was Jeff Green, Yi Jianlian, Corey Brewer and Brandan Wright, before the Bulls got Joakim Noah at #9. Not much else other than Marc Gasol in the second round.

2008: Again, maybe you’d have done it this year. You’d have been seeking Derrick Rose or Michael Beasley, who went #1 and #2. Again, one for two. Rose is a star, but Beasley is just another guy. #3 was O.J. Mayo, so that’s not worth the tank. Westbrook and Kevin Love went 4-5 in this draft. So if you had evaluated Rose, Westbrook, and Love correctly, and gotten a top five pick, maybe it would’ve made sense. But then again, Derrick Rose has won nothing even with a pretty good team around him. Russell Westbrook has made a Finals but it is quite debatable whether he could be the #1 guy on a championship team. I think many observers would say that Kevin Love could be, but of course he hasn’t had any team around him in Minnesota for us to see. The teams drafting Beasley and Mayo would’ve been better off with Roy Hibbert (#17), Serge Ibaka (#24), or Nicolas Batum (#25).

2009: Blake Griffin was the surefire #1 pick, and maybe some would have thought he was tank-worthy, but I doubt it, because nobody else at the top of the draft appeared to be. Unless you thought Ricky Rubio (drafted #5) was, but in hindsight nobody would. Also in hindsight, perhaps James Harden (#3) was, but not bigtime bust Hasheem Thabeet at #2, Tyreke Evans at #4, or bigtime bust Jonny Flynn at #6. Steph Curry was drafted #7. I guess maybe if you properly evaluated Griffin, Harden, and also had Rubio in the draft, one could make a case for tanking for this draft, but then again neither Griffin nor Curry have gotten past the second round, Harden has, but his team has already traded him post-arrival of stardom, and Rubio hasn’t even made the playoffs.

2010: If anyone had been inclined to tank for this draft, it would’ve been in hopes of getting John Wall, or perhaps DeMarcus Cousins. I doubt many would make that move today. Other top picks were Evan Turner, Derrick Favors, Wes Johnson, Ekpe Udoh, Greg Monroe, and Al-Farouq Aminu. Monroe is a pretty good player but nobody would be clamoring for any of them to the degree required to tank a season. Those high drafting teams would’ve been better off with Paul George (#10) or maybe Eric Bledsoe (#18). Pretty lousy draft, really.

2011: Nobody would’ve tanked for this draft either. Kyrie was drafted #1, but I’m not sure if his brilliance was so obvious, at least to some, before he dominated in those 11 games pre-toe, by which time the NBA teams would already have had their rosters set and it would’ve been too late to tank via the method of intentionally having a weak roster. But if we’re looking at this thing with the benefit of hindsight, then I guess some teams would consider tanking to get him, but again, it would only work out if they got the #1 overall pick. Derrick Williams went #2, but he didn’t break out until the NCAA tournament and has just been so-so thus far. Other top picks were Enes Kanter, Tristan Thompson, Jonas Valanciunas, Jan Vesely, Bismarck Biyombo, and Brandon Knight. None were tank-worthy. High drafting teams would’ve been better off with Klay Thompson (#11), Kawhi Leonard (#15), Kenneth Faried (#22) or a few others. Teams could’ve actually tried, and still gotten those guys.

2012: Possibly worth a tank, if you believe(d) Anthony Davis is going to be a game changer and you believe(d) Michael Kidd-Gilchrist and Harrison Barnes would be as well. That’s three that maybe some folks would’ve thought worthy. As it turns out, there were a number of other guys picked before Barnes that weren’t thought to be better than Harry before the season – Brad Beal, Dion Waiters, Thomas Robinson, and Damian Lillard. So if you knew you had Davis, MKG, Lillard and Barnes in there, would it be worth a tank? I’d still say no, because Davis is the only one that I see as a franchise-altering player who you could build a championship team around. And the chances of getting him were of course small.

I know. Incredibly long. Don’t flame me for it. Don’t hate. I just love talking hoops. Bottom line on it, I think, is that in most of these last 15 years a tanking strategy designed to get you a top 3 or so pick would not have worked out. Sometimes if you got the #1, then yes, you had good luck and congratulations to you (even the team with the worst record, though, has only a 25% chance to win the lottery). If not, it probably wouldn’t have provided happy times.

I think the problem is that very few of these drafts had more than one transcendent player, the kind you build a championship team around, who were top 3 to 5 draftees. In my mind, only the following did: 2003, maybe 2008, and maybe 2009. That’s it. Furthermore, in the drafts that did have multiple players of the caliber I’m talking about, it didn’t require tanking in order to get those players; they were available outside the top 3 or top 5. 1998 is one example of that.

I know guys (if any can get through all this) will rip apart my methods/analysis, and that’s all good. Just trying to add to the discussion. Have at it!

sagegrouse
07-23-2013, 08:40 PM
The bold is always my biggest beef. Hype Hype Hype (and never mind the media selling all of these kids a lie). I am always amused at reading stories indicating that recruit x projects to be a "3" or "4" in the NBA when we don't even know how well they will perform at either position in College.

I am not sold that the 2014 draft is going to be so great that 12 to 15 picks are going to be All-NBA players and thus 12-15 teams need to tank to grab one of them. For one, Jabari and Dante Exum might not even be in the draft, and Aaron Gordon could be a bust. We will have a much better idea on how good all these guys are after watching them play in College against real competition.

2014 could be a really good draft but I feel we are many months away from being able to think/believe that or not.

Hype! Hype! Hype! I agree. Having perused the list of NBA MVP's since 1956, here is my short list of the guys that were justifiably thought of as future Hall of Famers coming out of high school:

Wilt Chamberlain
Lew Alcindor
LeBron James

Not Shaq. Not Bill Russell. Not Magic. Not Bill Walton. After one year of college -- sure. The only other name I might add to the list is Moses Malone, but his hype was due as much to his leap from HS to the NBA (sorry Lefty) as to his great potential.

Anyway, so much for IDing future HOFers as high school seniors.

sagegrouse
'The ability to gauge HS seniors is germane to the argument here, because GMs, when contemplating an intentionally poor year, have to judge HS seniors, who will be the dominant part of the draft one year later'

toooskies
07-24-2013, 08:18 AM
I saw an I tear view with John Hollinger of Memphis who interestingly had a different perspective on the topic... He pretty much said that when you tank, it is impossible to build any of your roster, either via free agency or otherwise. That added difficulty makes it near-impossible to build a full team. Especially if your franchise player doesn't buy into the franchise-- LeBron always had one foot going towards the door in Cleveland. So the challenge is building a full team before it falls apart.

Hitting correctly on Durant/Westbrook/harden in consecutive drafts was ridiculously lucky for OKC and it still hasn't won them a championship. If Cleveland ends up with that kind of production out of Kyrie/Thompson/waiters/Bennett, they'll be lucky. And even then, you don't get the good FAs on good contracts until you are already a contender.

sagegrouse
07-24-2013, 09:00 AM
I saw an I tear view with John Hollinger of Memphis who interestingly had a different perspective on the topic... He pretty much said that when you tank, it is impossible to build any of your roster, either via free agency or otherwise. That added difficulty makes it near-impossible to build a full team. Especially if your franchise player doesn't buy into the franchise-- LeBron always had one foot going towards the door in Cleveland. So the challenge is building a full team before it falls apart.

Hitting correctly on Durant/Westbrook/harden in consecutive drafts was ridiculously lucky for OKC and it still hasn't won them a championship. If Cleveland ends up with that kind of production out of Kyrie/Thompson/waiters/Bennett, they'll be lucky. And even then, you don't get the good FAs on good contracts until you are already a contender.

Toooskies: If "I tear view" was supposed to be "interview," then your automatic editor is just plain awesome! -- sagegrouse

Li_Duke
07-24-2013, 10:15 AM
I think a lot of this discussion about past history of #1 picks, obtaining talent through free agency, etc... is missing the point. Before now, owners (except Dolan) could pay their way into a contending team via free agency or trades. With enough opportunities, they'd eventually win a championship. Under the new NBA collective bargaining agreement, repeat offender penalties means there is an effective cap on average year spending. You can shoot over the cap one year, but you can't stay over multiple years without it becoming prohibitively expensive. So now, the most successful teams are those who can maximize the amount of talent they have given the salary cap.

Miami's strategy of getting the most bang for the buck was acquiring 3 top 20 players at bargain prices (eg. Lebron's salary is 19 mil; Kobe's is 30.5 mil. At 30 mil, Lebron would still be a bargain) and signing ring-chasing veterans at a big discount. But how many top NBA players are willing to take less for a chance to win? OKC drafted Durant, Westbrook, Harden, and Ibaka, but they tried to keep them together by signing each player at a discount. They succeeded with Durant, Westbrook, and Ibaka, but when Harden wouldn't accept less, they had to trade him away to Houston. Now their Houston acquisition, Martin (not a top 20 player, but a good scorer), also wouldn't sign at a discount, so now they are left hoping some of their young first/second year players pan out.

San Antonio's strategy of getting the most bang for the buck has been Tim Duncan, acquiring talent through later draft picks, and developing marginal NBA players into good role players. Duncan, by most measures, is the best player of his generation (his generation consisting of players whose career spanned the 2000s), and even when maxed out, was a bargain. However, not all organizations are that good at maximizing their draft picks and at developing players. (All of you who says San Antonio essentially has championships because they were lucky are right -- they were lucky to get Duncan. But they are also one of the best ran organizations in all of professional sport.)

The easiest way to get the most bang for your buck? The draft. Yes it is hit or miss, but would you rather pay Kyrie Irving 5 million or Tony Parker 12.5 million? Paul George 2.5 million or Danny Granger 13 million? Seth Curry 4 million or Monta Ellis 9 million? Even if you don't acquire a generational talent with a lottery pick, you almost surely acquire a bargain. Would you rather pay Gordon Haywood 2.7 million or Jason Richardson 5.4 million? Derrick Favors for 4.75 million or Okafor for 12.5 million?

In the future, to win, you really need to obtain both top talent and good role players at discounts. For top talent, you'd need to either 1) Sign top talent in free agency to big discounts (near impossible) or 2) Draft (and develop) a top talent (difficult, but much easier than 1). For role players, you'd need to 1) Acquire good role players at a discount (difficult unless you're the NBA champ), 2) Sign marginal NBA players and develop them into good role players (easier said than done) or 3) Draft (and develop) role players (easiest of the 3 options).

toooskies
07-25-2013, 12:20 PM
Toooskies: If "I tear view" was supposed to be "interview," then your automatic editor is just plain awesome! -- sagegrouse

It's one of the most valid auto-corrections I've been part of. I hit the space bar instead of a letter fairly often, but I usually catch it.

toooskies
07-25-2013, 01:01 PM
I think a lot of this discussion about past history of #1 picks, obtaining talent through free agency, etc... is missing the point. Before now, owners (except Dolan) could pay their way into a contending team via free agency or trades. With enough opportunities, they'd eventually win a championship. Under the new NBA collective bargaining agreement, repeat offender penalties means there is an effective cap on average year spending. You can shoot over the cap one year, but you can't stay over multiple years without it becoming prohibitively expensive. So now, the most successful teams are those who can maximize the amount of talent they have given the salary cap.

Miami's strategy of getting the most bang for the buck was acquiring 3 top 20 players at bargain prices (eg. Lebron's salary is 19 mil; Kobe's is 30.5 mil. At 30 mil, Lebron would still be a bargain) and signing ring-chasing veterans at a big discount. But how many top NBA players are willing to take less for a chance to win? OKC drafted Durant, Westbrook, Harden, and Ibaka, but they tried to keep them together by signing each player at a discount. They succeeded with Durant, Westbrook, and Ibaka, but when Harden wouldn't accept less, they had to trade him away to Houston. Now their Houston acquisition, Martin (not a top 20 player, but a good scorer), also wouldn't sign at a discount, so now they are left hoping some of their young first/second year players pan out.

San Antonio's strategy of getting the most bang for the buck has been Tim Duncan, acquiring talent through later draft picks, and developing marginal NBA players into good role players. Duncan, by most measures, is the best player of his generation (his generation consisting of players whose career spanned the 2000s), and even when maxed out, was a bargain. However, not all organizations are that good at maximizing their draft picks and at developing players. (All of you who says San Antonio essentially has championships because they were lucky are right -- they were lucky to get Duncan. But they are also one of the best ran organizations in all of professional sport.)

The easiest way to get the most bang for your buck? The draft. Yes it is hit or miss, but would you rather pay Kyrie Irving 5 million or Tony Parker 12.5 million? Paul George 2.5 million or Danny Granger 13 million? Seth Curry 4 million or Monta Ellis 9 million? Even if you don't acquire a generational talent with a lottery pick, you almost surely acquire a bargain. Would you rather pay Gordon Haywood 2.7 million or Jason Richardson 5.4 million? Derrick Favors for 4.75 million or Okafor for 12.5 million?

In the future, to win, you really need to obtain both top talent and good role players at discounts. For top talent, you'd need to either 1) Sign top talent in free agency to big discounts (near impossible) or 2) Draft (and develop) a top talent (difficult, but much easier than 1). For role players, you'd need to 1) Acquire good role players at a discount (difficult unless you're the NBA champ), 2) Sign marginal NBA players and develop them into good role players (easier said than done) or 3) Draft (and develop) role players (easiest of the 3 options).

I don't know; if you're a fan of the Kings, Timberwolves, or Raptors, you'd think it's nearly impossible to develop rookies into NBA talent. And it's not because they drafted particularly poorly. They just don't turn potential-filled players into good ones.

flyingdutchdevil
07-25-2013, 01:20 PM
I don't know; if you're a fan of the Kings, Timberwolves, or Raptors, you'd think it's nearly impossible to develop rookies into NBA talent. And it's not because they drafted particularly poorly. They just don't turn potential-filled players into good ones.

Kevin Garnett? Kevin Love? Chris Bosh? Vince Carter? These are just the most evident examples of potential-filled players that turned into good ones. I think the issue is poor drafting (especially in consecutive drafts) and especially poor long term planning.

NSDukeFan
07-25-2013, 04:13 PM
Great post, Des. Solid review of the history.

I'd add a few things. There is just no evidence supporting the idea that tanking to try to get the #1 pick in the draft, or even a top 3 or 4 pick, as a path to a championship, is likely to work.

First, and most obviously, there is no example of it having worked in the past.

Second, in the last 15 years (since the Bulls' run ended with the 1998 championship), there has been one team -- one -- that has drafted a player #1 overall and went on to win a championship with that player. That team is of course the Spurs with Duncan, and as Des so ably pointed out, even their run was fueled by an incredible stroke of luck that landed them two overall #1 picks in three years, then supplemented by some very smart drafting of players in the late first and second rounds and outstanding player development from there.

...
Nit pick, but San Antonio didn't get 2 #1 picks in 3 years, but in 10 years. I agree with your major point that tanking doesn't guarantee anything, but if anyone had known what kind of player Duncan would turn out to be (everyone knew he had the potential to be very good, but I don't expect many expected him to be the best player of his generation), it may have been worth it to tank to get him. I disagree with Des Essenties (on probably only this point) that San Antonio has been so smart that they may have been able to win a title without him. As good as Parker and Ginobli has been, and as good a coach as Pop has been, that team has been all about Duncan.


Now: looking at it from another perspective, imagine what would've/could've happened to teams had they tried to "tank" in these previous 15 years. How would they likely have fared? Were any of these drafts, in hindsight, tank-worthy? Let’s look at those drafts.

...
2003: Now this one seems like a horse of a different color. Had teams known how good LeBron, Carmelo, Chris Bosh (#4) and Dwyane Wade (#5) would turn out to be, maybe you do whatever you can to get into a position to draft them. Or maybe not. Sure, LeBron is an all-time great, and he did get the Cavs to a Finals basically by himself, but he didn’t win one there. But still, he’s obviously tank-worthy with the caveat being that tanking only makes sense if you end up with the #1 pick, which is by no means guaranteed by the lottery system. As discussed above, Wade got the team that drafted him to a championship where he was the top dog, and then two more as the #2 guy. Carmelo? Hasn’t sniffed a championship with either of the teams he’s been on. Is he really a guy who can be the centerpiece of a championship team? Highly debatable. Bosh didn’t come anywhere close with Toronto and while he’s a very good player, he is not a transcendent one that would justify tanking a season in order to draft, IMO. And this was the year that Darko was picked #2. Imagine tanking a season, getting the #2 selection, and ending up with that dawg.

...
2008: Again, maybe you’d have done it this year. You’d have been seeking Derrick Rose or Michael Beasley, who went #1 and #2. Again, one for two. Rose is a star, but Beasley is just another guy. #3 was O.J. Mayo, so that’s not worth the tank. Westbrook and Kevin Love went 4-5 in this draft. So if you had evaluated Rose, Westbrook, and Love correctly, and gotten a top five pick, maybe it would’ve made sense. But then again, Derrick Rose has won nothing even with a pretty good team around him. Russell Westbrook has made a Finals but it is quite debatable whether he could be the #1 guy on a championship team. I think many observers would say that Kevin Love could be, but of course he hasn’t had any team around him in Minnesota for us to see. The teams drafting Beasley and Mayo would’ve been better off with Roy Hibbert (#17), Serge Ibaka (#24), or Nicolas Batum (#25).

...
2012: Possibly worth a tank, if you believe(d) Anthony Davis is going to be a game changer and you believe(d) Michael Kidd-Gilchrist and Harrison Barnes would be as well. That’s three that maybe some folks would’ve thought worthy. As it turns out, there were a number of other guys picked before Barnes that weren’t thought to be better than Harry before the season – Brad Beal, Dion Waiters, Thomas Robinson, and Damian Lillard. So if you knew you had Davis, MKG, Lillard and Barnes in there, would it be worth a tank? I’d still say no, because Davis is the only one that I see as a franchise-altering player who you could build a championship team around. And the chances of getting him were of course small.

I know. Incredibly long. Don’t flame me for it. Don’t hate. I just love talking hoops. Bottom line on it, I think, is that in most of these last 15 years a tanking strategy designed to get you a top 3 or so pick would not have worked out. Sometimes if you got the #1, then yes, you had good luck and congratulations to you (even the team with the worst record, though, has only a 25% chance to win the lottery). If not, it probably wouldn’t have provided happy times.

I think the problem is that very few of these drafts had more than one transcendent player, the kind you build a championship team around, who were top 3 to 5 draftees. In my mind, only the following did: 2003, maybe 2008, and maybe 2009. That’s it. Furthermore, in the drafts that did have multiple players of the caliber I’m talking about, it didn’t require tanking in order to get those players; they were available outside the top 3 or top 5. 1998 is one example of that.

I know guys (if any can get through all this) will rip apart my methods/analysis, and that’s all good. Just trying to add to the discussion. Have at it!
I agree that it is not worth tanking most, or maybe any of the time. My only hesitation is in the difficulty, as Li_Duke and others have pointed out, of getting a top 10, or even top 20 player. To win a championship, teams historically (debatable about the Sheed-Prince-Billups-Wallace-Hamilton Pistons? but a very good starting five) have always had at least one of the top players in the league. I wonder if this year, along with 2003, 2008 and 2012 are drafts where it may have been possible to get a real top notch player from the top of the draft.

I remember Anthony Davis' draft class being considered much better than Harrison Barnes' class, with Kidd-Gilchrist and Austin Rivers, with Beal, Miller and MacAdoo being other potential solid pros. As many have pointed out, it is hard to predict from high school, but it looks like Davis, Kidd-Gilchrist and Beal all have the chance to be solid to all-star pros and I am not ready to give up on Rivers having a chance with his quick first step and offensive potential.

The 2008 draft and high school class the year before (Mayo, Love, Gordon, Beasley, Singler, Rose, Bayless) was also a very solid one and was thought of as one at the time.

I believe that, at this point, this high school class and next year's draft, potentially, may be viewed along the same lines. You might not be able to get a future all-star with the fourth pick, but you have a better chance of getting a potential all-star at the top of this year's draft than all but maybe 3 of the last 15 years. It may not be worth tanking, but this would be the draft where you may want to position yourself to get a top pick so that as a DBR GM, you might get a better chance at a top 20, or even top 10 player.

toooskies
07-25-2013, 09:51 PM
Kevin Garnett? Kevin Love? Chris Bosh? Vince Carter? These are just the most evident examples of potential-filled players that turned into good ones. I think the issue is poor drafting (especially in consecutive drafts) and especially poor long term planning.

Some players will develop regardless of the surroundings. But those teams couldn't develop anyone other than those players. Has Minny had a winning team since Garnett left? Toronto since Carter left? Sacramento since Webber left? It is a failure to develop the not-sure-things that builds winning teams. Despite years in the high lottery, all three teams have made nothing out of a significant influx of talent.