'trane Show full post »
MikeToronto
elT wrote:


But it has not worked for anyone, ever. Show me a franchise that tanked to a championship. Show me one champion built through tanking.

And the talk about luck is completely irrelevant. Show me a franchise that won it all without getting lucky in some way.


Very few teams have won a championship period. I do believe we've been through this discussion before, but I will give you three examples:

1. Golden State.
2. Spurs during the season when Admiral went down early and they've blatantly tanked for Duncan.
3. Cleveland

Notice how all are small market teams. Cleveland, BTW, done tanking twice to get their rings, for they needed Kyrie AND LeBron to get there, not to mention another #1 pick they've used to get Love.
Quote 0 0
MikeToronto
tommysdu wrote:


Now a question for you, do you think Simmons and Embid is a good enough team to contend?

I feel if we had not been able to trade for Kawhi, I still rather go with DD and Lowry - i don't think that is enough to win the title, but I don't think they are that far away from doing so (someone had to get DD over the mental hump - I believe he had the skills but just not mentally strong enough).  

Why I wouldn't go the Sixers route.  They sucked for at least 3 seasons - completely brutal and unwatchable.  What they have in return for sucking is Simmons (great player, just can't shoot - maybe will be able to improve), Embid (Great player, a bit injury prone, still needs to improve).  IMO, they are not that much if at all better than DD and Lowry.  Also want to add Sixers got lucky with drafting these two players - imagine if they drafted more players like Flutz instead.  Tanking is too risky and brutal for the fans for too many years.  I don't know of many success stories from tanking, but I would say Raptors is a success story for staying competitive when days looked less than ideal.  Yes luck had a lot to do with Raptors success, but I don't think anyone out there can argue Raptors got to where they are now just purely on luck


They could very well be (future development will tell), but that's not my point. Super-stars are a necessary element to a championship, but not the be all and end all. So, both Embiid and Simmons have a chance to become super-stars. But the lessons of this young season so far also demonstrate how important Ilyasova and Belineli were to their success last season. So, of course, to win it all, you also need great team management, competent coaching, excellent scouts and many other things. However, and that's the hardest element to get - you must have those super-stars. And my point time and again was that for a non-marquee franchise the surest way to get them is to draft them.
Quote 0 0
Northern Neighbour
MikeToronto wrote:


Very few teams have won a championship period. I do believe we've been through this discussion before, but I will give you three examples:

1. Golden State.
2. Spurs during the season when Admiral went down early and they've blatantly tanked for Duncan.
3. Cleveland

Notice how all are small market teams. Cleveland, BTW, done tanking twice to get their rings, for they needed Kyrie AND LeBron to get there, not to mention another #1 pick they've used to get Love.


I see you're ignoring me, but I'll reply.

1. Golden State didn't tank. They went from being a playoff team to out of it after injuries struck and they went on a one-year rebuild, but then scrapped it and acquired players like Cory Maggette. As such, they just wallowed in mediocrity. They probably should have tanked, but they didn't. That's why Curry was taken with the 7th overall pick. Thompson was 11th. Green was picked in the 2nd round. They did get lucky in landing these players where they did, yet at the same time they deserve a whole lot of credit for developing them (remember Curry had several ankle injuries and people questioned whether he was worth the 4-year, $44M extension) and hiring Steve Kerr. 

2. The Spurs didn't only lose Robinson that year – they also lost Sean Elliott for more than half the season, and he was their second-best player. To say they tanked for one year is a disservice to the organization and understates the value of Robinson and Elliott (Robinson consistently ranked in the top-five in win shares, value added, etc. He was a franchise player). Those two carried the Spurs for seven seasons. The supporting cast, meanwhile, wasn't that good, so it's a not surprise the Spurs lost a lot of games starting Will Perdue and a 37-year old Dominique Wilkins.

3. Cleveland is a bit of yes and no. Yes, they tanked to get a shot at Lebron. No in that they didn't win anything until James came back for a second run.

Again, there are so many variables and a whole lot of LUCK when it comes to tanking. If it always led to success, then more teams would do it. Teams like Minnesota – with back-to-back #1 picks –would be perennial contenders. Of course, basketball doesn't work that way nor so easily.
Quote 3 0
elT
MikeToronto wrote:


Very few teams have won a championship period. I do believe we've been through this discussion before, but I will give you three examples:

1. Golden State.
2. Spurs during the season when Admiral went down early and they've blatantly tanked for Duncan.
3. Cleveland

Notice how all are small market teams. Cleveland, BTW, done tanking twice to get their rings, for they needed Kyrie AND LeBron to get there, not to mention another #1 pick they've used to get Love.


Well, it seems like you are not sure what tanking is.
GSW didn't tank. Steph was drafted 7th, Klay 11th, Green 35th. Got Iggy via FA market. Barnes was 7th pick. You don't tank over multiple years to pick mid lottery at highest.

And San Francisco/Oakland/Bay Area is not a small market.

Admiral went down, the team wasn't good without him, that was not tanking. If that was tanking than so is NASA going to the Moon.

Cleveland tanked for LeBron and failed. Miserably. So he left. They then tanked again and were even worse. And then LeBron decided to return to hometown for reasons bigger than basketball (his words, see his community projects, I promise school etc..). So they dropped all those 'tanked for assets' (Waiters, Bennet, Wiggins) except Irving and Tristan(role player at best), added Love + role players(Smith, Shumpert, Frye etc..). What got them the championship was free agency and few solid trades, not tanking. Yeah, some of those assets were turned into Kevin Love and they had Irving but those two hardly make playoffs together without LeBron, who decided to return to help his community more than to just win shit. They'd still be tanking if LeBron wasn't born in Akron, Ohio.... and wasn't such a good guy loyal to his community.


Quote 3 0
MikeToronto
It's a circle..... circle of likes. 😉
Quote 0 0
elT
MikeToronto wrote:
It's a circle..... circle of likes. 😉


Better than 9th circle of hell that is tanking. [wink]

I'll just repeat adapted anti-war slogan - Tanking for championship is like fucking for virginity. [wink]

edit: Here's a helping hand - The best multi year tanking job was done by OKC when they got Durant, Westbrook and Harden. All three have won MVP award. All three are legitimate franchise players. They got as far as game five of NBA finals. Scott Perry is a drafting genius. But still they got no ring and the team broke up. Another danger in tanking, getting guys that are really good but are too young to want/be in position to sacrifice status and money.
Quote 0 0
Northern Neighbour
MikeToronto wrote:
It's a circle..... circle of likes. 😉


We can all agree that whatever course a team takes, there's a lot of luck involved. The Raptors no doubt were lucky that the Knicks didn't accept the Lowry trade and the teams fortunes quickly changed after the Gay trade.

At the same time, there's a lot of skill and hard work. Ujiri and his staff made shrewd moves, scouted well, and created a great environment for young players to develop their skills. Players, meanwhile, worked hard and dedicated themselves to get better. DD and Lowry, in particular, continued to grow and improve, and they became All-Stars.

Given this discussion, it's easy to understand why San Antonio wanted proven players in return and not draft picks. There are so many risks and unknowns (such as where will the draft pick land, the depth and talent of a draft class, etc.) that SA could have received two late first-round picks. I think we'll probably see more of these kinds of trades, where teams go after proven commodities – and we already have with the Paul George trade.
Quote 1 0
MikeToronto
https://airalamo.com/2016/04/05/how-the-spurs-both-encourage-and-discourage-tanking/

For the inquiring minds. I am done for now.
Quote 0 0
LX


Quote:
The Spurs may be the golden example of how tanking can be successful, but Duncan’s selection doesn’t give enough credit to how the Spurs have constructed a talented supporting cast through shrewd scouting and brilliant player development.


kinda proved my point, as does the whole idea of the Spurs, who had long long longterm success as their main ingredient. Acquiring Duncan really heped to gel a culture that was already there, and then the team became truly great with late draft selections that turned into gold and constant development.
 Before and after Duncan they were supremely good at mak8ng the most of what they had.
Quote 1 0
Pzabby_2nd
I think it all just boils down to having two necessary conditions (as well as a third in sheer luck..) as opposed to any one (I.e tanking, vs mediocre treadmill running without any aim at developing or acquiring assets) sufficient condition. Tanking is insufficient. A good program without somehow finding and retaining excellent talent isn't sufficient. Luck isn't sufficient. All three.. can be.
Quote 3 0
moremilk
Ball Don't Lie wrote:
Honestly, as much as I want to see the Kawhi Lebron matchup, if we want to win both games and rest Kawhi in one, we should sit him at the Lakers and play him at UTA. We can score enough points against a struggling Lakers team to beat them without Kawhi, but I don't think we'd have a chance in Utah without him. 


no, sorry - a win against Utah is not even close to watching kawhi battle LeBron 😉
Quote 0 0
LeBronIsYourDaddy
LX wrote:


You got a point to make besides trolling for a big fuck you too? Please make it.


 the point is thinking OG will be top 10 is absurd. You got a crop of young players like Mitchell, Simmons, Embiid, LaVine, Brown, Tatum, Adams, Porzingus, Beal, Jokic, Towns, Giannis who are all under 25 and already showing much more than OG already. That is just players under 25. If i go players 26-30 who will still be around in 5 years the list i enormous. OG would have to make an incredible leap to make top 10 in the NBA.

 You just insanely overrated OG. That is my point. Dude has no offensive game to speak of at all. Top 10 player potential?? really? That is homerism at its highest level. Literally no exec in the league would tell you OG has that kind of potential.

 Siakam, who i always said has a higher ceiling than OG,  is also highly unlikely to be a top 10 player. I dont think its as long a shot as OG tho. He has way more gifts with his vision and versatility on offense. Still he is a huge underdog to ever being that level. Top 10 in the NBA is All NBA 2nd team at worst every year. That is the elite of the elite.


Quote 2 0
LX
So you give Siakam a shot. The guy that had so little offensive game two years ago that he couldn’t stay on the court. While OG has never had such issues and just went through his first full camp.

Shit is possible. Particularly within a winning culture surrounded by excellence. But feel free to to shit on whatever tickles your fancy and make out like i said anything different than you just did with Pascal. Yeah it’s a longshot. Doesn’t mean it’s impossible or particularly absurd. Both Lowry and DeMar are in the top ten of the MVP standings right now. That comes quite late into their careers through steady development. So saying the same is possible for two young guys with a lot of potential and good character is not fucking homerism at it’s highest level now is it? It’s simply a fucking possibility. That’s what fucking sports is - and what makes it wonderful in spite of the bullshit thrown around by guys like you that are all about making their own thoughts and opinions some kind of fucking gospel of self-important pomposity declaring what is and what will ever be.
Quote 1 0
LeBronIsYourDaddy
sure, every team has fans saying young role players can be top 10 talents. sure, its "possible" but any scout or exec in the league would tell you that you lost your damn mind thinking its anything but a lotto type shot of happening.

 i guess you are the Kevin Garnett "anything is possible" type. that really isnt a strong argument. and no i wasnt acting like Siakam has a good chance, he just has a better chance than OG who i would rate as no chance. Siakam has that snowball in hell type chance.


 Lowry and DeMar are MVP candidates a handful of games into the season. Well that proves it. Perhaps year 10 OG will be, too. Science.
Quote 0 0
moremilk
For what it's worth, I actually think OG has a better shot than siakam to ever be that top 10 guy.

Siakam is far more advanced, but OG is 5 years younger. Defensively, they're pretty even, of is a far better spot up shooter and siakam has the edge in agility and quickness.


I've seen glimpses in OG's game this season that promise a far better season offensively, compared to last year's. May not truly show until later in the year though.

But I agree that neither has much of a chance to be a transformational player. They will both almost certainly reach near to all star status though, if they stay healthy. Hopefully kawhi stays, in which case our future is as bright as any other team's.

If he leaves, we'll be good, but I fear not good enough.
Quote 0 0