But there are few problems, first is that it is real hard to tank for a franchise player. First of all, you have to be a real loser, like top 3 bad team, then this draft class has to have one (not every class has them), then you have to locate them correctly (there are a lot of busts, like Bargnani, or Bennett), at last you still have to pray because you probably only have about 25-50% to land one.

There are too many factors which have to be right. It was like who can say buying lotto tickets must be a bad idea? there are always someone who won it. But it really needs too much luck to be a valid strategy.

Not drafting one is not the end of the world, either. Magic almost got TD, and Heat actually got LBJ too. It may not look fancy, but acting like a normal NBA team still can succeed.

Indeed, a lot of franchise players were drafted in "dead zone" or later. Greek Freak was 15th pick, Jokic was 41, and Isaiah Thomas was 60. I mean I get it, higher pick is always better, but the cost is too large. Losing is a poison. It devalues players' trade value, and make other players refuse to come. I didn't even mention in a losing team, players start to be selfish, they have to. When a team is bad, then the only way you can save yourself and give yourself a good contract is your stats. You have to inflate your individual stats to get away from this "hell".

In short, I just want to say a team should not rely on tanking to be good again. Sometimes, we have no choice as the team is real bad, like Nets. But a good management should never tank. It is like you walk into a casino and won some money (got KP and Willy), and should we gamble the money we won on it again? (risk devaluing KP and Willy and make them selfish players) I think a man should walk away and call it a day. He should invest the money he won wisely. And then this is sustainable.

Vmart wrote:

mlby1215 wrote:Currently I cannot even sure the lottery system is broken.

Boston has done pretty well, but it does not tank. it is just that its GM is a master trader.

We always look at Spur and TD, CAV and LBJ, or even OKC and its top five NBA players. It is true, it is all true, but only Spur won a champ because it was not a lottery team. CAV didn't win after it drafted LBJ, it won later because it signed him as a FA. OKC did not win either.

Looking back, tanking is actually very exciting at the end of the season. But it is not really that useful. It can be useful to give you first great player when you have nothing. But tanking and tanking again until we have starting 5.....well, IMO it is a bad idea.

I think what you over look is that the draft creates a perpetual winner. Spurs are an example of it. Robinson, Elliot, Duncan is what started the continuous winning. As for OKC they made it to the finals and were always in the thick of it to win. Boston is a good example but is this a team that will sustain winning over a course of 4-5 years. If you want sustainable winning then the draft is you best bet. Have to get the core and once that is accomplished it needs time to develop and then winning takes place.

But was Hinkie and his methods disliked by everyone? I don't think so. He wanted to tank every year. I mean, other players and coach must have loved him because it was an easy win. Players could rest and coaches could try something new.

Fans of 76ers liked him too, because he brought them some very talented young players. He gave them hopes.

But NBA and other owners probably hated him, but not for the reason of basketballs. They hated him because he hurt their business.

Look at this way. This year, we are very disappointed. Knicks becomes lolknicks again. We are bad, but we have the pick. So, we tanked.

It is so good, but how many of us watched them tank? Really? We probably checked the score and say something like "Willy has 12pts 9Reb and 3ast, is he good today? the number looks pretty good." Yes, we care. Yes, we check W/L. Yes, we watched a lot of highlight from Ball, Monk or Fox or someone.

But we didn't watch the game, at least we didn't watch it as much as we still had a chance to be a playoff team.

Fans of 76ers loved Hinkie's team, but they didn't watch too. When people doesn't watch, tv rating is low and NBA must not be happy.

Then again assume you are a fan of Raptors. You really want the 2 seed as no team wants to face LBJ and his posse until it has to. Then 76ers comes, would you want to buy a ticket and see them? Probably not. You would think, "Yeah, automatic win. Thanks Hinkie, we really need it now."

The owners didn't want it because it hurts the ticket sales.

I mean, it is what NBA teams didn't like. If they wanted to play against a D-league team, they can play against their own D-league team.

It is true Hinkie got pushed away, and it is true he was not treated fairly. I agree with that. But he has to show his process. (no pun intended) What is process? Greek Freak is process. Jokic is process. Actually, Embiid is process too but he is one year too late and Hinkie has already lost his job.

In short, I don't disagree that Hinkie is much smarter than I can. I am sure about that. Maybe his end game is different from what I think it is (tanking until have starting 5) I don't know.

I am a gamer so when I look at that, I feel like Hinkie playing a video game in a wrong way. He was like a survivor in a zombie apocalypse. He kept collecting foods and ammo but pushed another survivors away because they would eat his food and they would waste his ammo since, you know, common dudes are not good at shooting. He was still waiting some soldiers, some SWAT team dudes to come and use his resources in a max/min way. But before they appeared, zombies came first and killed him. Yes, his house has a lot of food/ammo, but is that the purpose of everything is survival? Picks and caps are good but is that the purpose of them is winning too? I mean, I think he was really smart but he has done it wrong.

TripleThreat wrote:

y2zipper wrote: I think where Hinkie failed was that he didn't bring in vets to develop his young talent but Embiid and Simmons isn't a bad haul at all.

I don't think Hinkie failed at all.

In interviews, he was extremely HONEST about what he was doing and why, almost too honest for the leagues tastes.

What Hinkie did and it drove the league administration crazy, is his decision making pointed out the systematic flaws in the current NBA marketplace and system. He knew, like most know, the draft is essentially rigged. There are not enough impact players to go around for every franchise to be competitive and guaranteed contracts are franchise killers for half a decade in the worst case scenario.

Hinkie pointed out three things that his biggest critics would have a hard time refuting objectively

1) When the alternatives are a very very very low chance or ZERO CHANCE, the right decision, sadly, is the very very very low chance. He never promised the 76ers would contend, he simply said he chose the path designed to get them off the treadmill and into the BEST OPPORTUNITY to contend. In that regard, he did his job. Every season, every team in the league except one is a FAILURE. In relative terms, I think he was very successful. Billy Beane has not won a World Series as a GM. However does that mean he wasn't trying to do what was right for his franchise, without regard for his critics? ( He was not always hailed as a genius)

2) You can do all the RIGHT THINGS ( i.e. where Houston was when he was an assistant GM there under Morey and pre Howard and Harden) and still be stuck. You can make good trades with regard to marketplace values, you can amass assets in place, you can make good decision with your cap and cap flexibility, and still, the system works against you if you try to offer a competitive team that ends up on that slow death treadmill. Boston right now is in a position where they did all the things you are supposed to do, but still might not get over the hump, there is no methodology for teams to move from the middle to push over the top.

3) NBA front office decision makers literally have no margin for error. No other sport operates this punitively and with such top end talent scarcity. There are no more untapped markets, there are no market inefficiencies, and the new CBA has essentially created a financial "franchise player" situation where a team is essentially gutted from any chance to win by locking in their "franchise player" for a disproportional amount of cap to keep selling tickets.

Hinkie was very honest. He said he'd take another road if there was another road, but there was NOT ANOTHER ROAD TO TAKE.

If not tanking, what is the alternative? Golden State did it the "right way" and look like the league jobbed them. Because Nike wanted a large return on their investment with LBJ, the last Finals was a joke. They should have just given LBJ a baseball bat. And the league desperately tried to gift LBJ a ring the previous series, if not for Igoudala have the Olympic rep and pedigree to actually hammer back at LBJ, Nike would have gifted Cleveland a 2nd ring for free. The league even changed the cap projection to try to force Durant out of GS, because God forbid a guy wants to play team ball and reward a non large market team for operating efficiently and drafting well and playing true fundamental basketball.

The NBA has clear systematic dysfunction in the entire process. On top of that, clearly the league administration has an agenda to see who can sell the most shoes or dunk over a car and push that "narrative" no matter what the cost, even if the refs are literally giving games away. God forbid Sacto could beat the Heat on their own, why not send Wade to the free throw line 60 times a game.

And this again, is why what the Knicks are doing is so idiotic at times. There are NO ALTERNATIVES HERE. The few teams that skirted around this issue did so because of marketplace ANOMALIES, not things that can be relied on consistently. LBJ to the Heat and back to the Cavs, Shaq to the Lakers, Howard and Harden to the Rockets, these are unique and complex situations that cannot be replicated by simply making good market decisions. A rebuild script in the NBA literally writes itself and the Knicks under Jackson keep violating it.

Tanking? What other choice is there? There isn't one, not to even begin to actual factor in how the NBA marketplace actually works.

Sam Hinkie cared less about saving his job over simply doing his job. That's brave. That's just standing up and going against the tide because just riding convention wasn't something he could sleep with at night. The media tore into him because the NBA administration set the media wolves after him. It wasn't that he bucked their reality, he simply highlighted there was no other reality than the one he was showing.

Tanking is a situation ripe for losing and conflict and suffering, OF COURSE IT IS. There is no virtue in it, but sometimes that's all there is, something with no virtue in it.

TripleThreat wrote:

mlby1215 wrote:In short, I just want to say a team should not rely on tanking to be good again. Sometimes, we have no choice as the team is real bad, like Nets.

Let's recap here.

1) Tanking to get the highest lottery pick possible is a complete and total crapshoot. No one here is going to argue that. The rate of return, even with a high pick, is actually pretty low. Given what are close to being as openly rigged drafts as possible ( Rose to Chicago, LBJ to Cleveland the first time, Irving to Cleveland, Davis to New Orleans), most teams are left to work with the picks the league administration is not manipulating.

It's a very very very very low chance of success

2) As stated, free agency, no real franchise level talents are moving. You can name a handful in the modern era. Shaq to LA, LBJ to Miami then back to Cleveland, Nash to Phoenix. Durant went from a pretty good team to a contender level team. That's it. The relative odds of getting a prime level franchise core talent is close to none in the modern era. With the new CBA, with the ability to just unload a truck of money at a "franchise" homegrown player, it's even more impossible.

It's a close to none situation.

3) As stated, in trades, no team is moving franchise level talent for a mass of assets. It just doesn't happen in the NBA, this is not the NFL and MLB, where volume of talent is required to contend and compete. The relative odds of getting a prime level franchise core talent via trade is close to none in the modern era.

It's a close to none situation.

And that's it

You have very very very low, close to none and close to none.

Pick your poison. Tanking is NOT IDEAL. There are many negative things associated with it. But again, WHAT OTHER CHOICE IS THERE?

If the goal is the make the playoffs, get an early exit, until you eventually erode with age and decline and squeezed by the cap, then you don't need to tank. You are on the league treadmill of death.

If the goal is TO WIN A CHAMPIONSHIP, then yes, tanking is almost a requirement at some level for teams doing a full roster rebuild.

The NE Patriots and Baltimore Ravens are two of the most successful modern NFL franchises. One thing they have in common is they both know how to manipulate and maximize the compensation pick system ( depending on FAs lost and how much they play or their contract size, they become future comp picks for the team that lost them. ) ANY NFL TEAM CAN REPLICATE THIS by simply knowing when to sign short term FAs and when to let certain players go instead of keeping them in FA. The critical issue is ANY TEAM CAN DO THIS. The tools and mechanisms are in place for any team to maximize this resource. The Rams finding a former bag boy from a grocery store, Kurt Warner, and being an Arena Football reject and becoming MVP and leading his team to the Super Bowl, that CANNOT BE REPLICATED. That's an anomaly in the marketplace environment.

The only things you seem to be able to cite as functional examples, are no offense, anomalies to the system in place. LBJ going to Miami is not something any team can replicate. That move took YEARS before it happened to be preplotted and planned out by multiple players and the Heat franchise itself.

Tanking is a bad idea, but Hinkie gave his franchise hope and sometimes teams like the Nets have no choice?

No offense, I think you have to come to terms with the consistent base contradictions in your position here.

ESOMKnicks wrote:

Vmart wrote:

ESOMKnicks wrote:

nixluva wrote:The Spurs are the only team that has been managed so well that they have survived past a Great Player's Era and stayed relevant.

The Spurs invented tanking when they threw in an entire season from the get go after Robinson broke his foot to secure a first draft pick and get Duncan.

Isn't tanking also tampering and, thus, some sort of a criminal offense, akin to points shaving?

I always felt that too. But the league does nothing so it's a strategy as far as I'm concerned. You want to stop tanking throw all the teams into the lottery with equal
Odds. Even if you throw the non playoff teams give them equal
Odds go back to the envelope draw.

Even easier. The lottery can be set up in a way that a team with the worst record would also have, let's say, a 20% chance of losing a draft pick entirely. That way tanking will not be a surefire strategy, and some teams will fight not to finish last. Or have, say, the worst four teams at risk of not getting a pick at all.

The lottery was created to restore balance and give all teams a chance. Teams gaming the system to get a high pick is ok, because a high pick does not always result in success. So there's already a level of risk built into the system.

Well, It was my mistake I didn't say clearly when a team should tank. When I said sometime a team has no choice, this is an example of it.

Again I try to use that ABC framework.

When should a team go to tank mode?

A. Well, it has a first pick this year. ()

B. The trade value of the players are low collectively. It may be due to that the players are overpaid, too old, or injured.

C. The team cannot sign any good FA. Perhaps it was very bad before, or it was in the cap hell.

In this way, when the team goes to tank, Part A raises but it does not damage Part B, as it is already low to none. Furthermore, FA does not / cannot come so don't bother.

This is the best time to tank.

Using an example of real one. 2014-15 Knicks was the perfect time to tank.

A. Thanks god. That year we finally had a pick.

B. Well, That year we had Amar'e, Bargnani, JR Smith, Shump, and something. Other than Melo, it looked terrible, but I think I don't need to tell you that. Everyone knows that they were overpaid, too old, or too injured.

C. In 14-15, we were still in cap hell.

That year, we tanked as we were supposed to, and we got KP. KP or not, this is when I said "there is no choice but tank". Looking back, maybe Phil should have traded everyone earlier when JR smith and Shump still had some values. But we cannot go back so just forget it.

In short, I do not say tanking is 100% wrong. Sometimes we should use it. However, I did say we should never tank. But the meaning is that we should never put ourselves in the situation that tanking is the only choice. We should keep our picks (A). We should trade someone who are not overpaid, too old or injure-prone (B). At last, we should manage our caps well (C).

I can understand your view points. Franchise players would not change team every year. If we just sit and wait for something happen, it may be stupid. I get it. I agree with it that a GM should actively try to make something happen. However, we can try to look at that how many great players are actually available.

Every year, there are 14 teams cannot to go to playoff, and 8 teams lose in the first round. There are a lot of top players in 22 teams they want to go elsewhere, or their team try to unload them in order to rebuild.

WS/48 is not a perfect way to tell if a player is good or not, but let's just use it to determine who is the top 20. (I take away everyone playing less than 2000 mins)

Kawhi Leonard/Mike Conley
James Harden/Russell Westbrook
Chris Paul&DeAndre Jordan/Rudy Gobert&Gordon Hayward
Jimmy Butler/Isaiah Thomas
Nikola Jokic
Kyle Lowry&Jonas Valanciunas/Giannis Antetokounmpo
Karl-Anthony Towns
Anthony Davis
Damian Lillard

There are 10 or 11 players not going to second round, and I think they are not happy about that.

Look, I didn't say they would jump away from their teams. Some of them are too loyal, and some of them are too old/overpaid to be built around. I get that. But this is why a NBA gm got paid a lot. They have to find a way to make things happen. Morey (I think you like him) made it happen, twice. It is not market anomaly, because Morey did not do something unthinkable, he is just a smart GM.

If Morey said he'd rather tank than having this contending team, I would not argue. I just found it pretty funny. I mean, if he went to Hinkie mode, Harden must not have been there, right? But who would he draft to replace Harden? From 2010-2017, I don't think anyone is better than him. AD is outstanding, but he can't bring the team to playoff like Harden can. Greek Freak still have a lot to prove and actually you don't need to tank to have him. He was 15th pick. You just have to be smart to realize he is a real gem. Maybe Morey really wanted to tank, but I don't think it would turn out better for him.

I don't really want to get to the human side, because it would lose the focus. But players hate tanking. They hate it because they don't want to lose, and because it hurts their earning. KP would not like it, Willy would not like it. I mean, who can blame a player who doesn't look for the long term benefit of his team? (I assume tanking is good, which IMO is not) Their time is short, their life is short. You and I are probably still a Knicks fan 15 years later, but KP probably might not be a Knicks player. Maybe he would retire, or maybe he would play for other teams.

In short, I would rather have Morey, than Hinkie. Morey didn't rely on Part A. He traded something for players, He Signed FA. I think He is good, like Ainge.

At the end, I have nothing against Hinkie. I like someone who tries a new way to do things. I mean, he suggested tanking because maths, while I am against tanking because, again, maths. I think he is smart, I respect him.

I just think he has got his maths wrong.

TripleThreat wrote:

mlby1215 wrote:Yes, it is true that draft high can give teams a very good player, a cornerstone which help building a great team for a very long time. Sometimes, some players are just that good, like TD or LBJ. I agree with that. There is no way we can have a young franchise player like Town or KP not via draft. Teams just refuse to trade them for anything. I get that. It is true.

You are, at this point, contradicting yourself.

Don't get me wrong, you are trying to engage and you are being civil, which is 4000 times more than Briggs or Nixluva or fishmike have ever tried to do with me here. I appreciate that you are trying to rationalize alternative ways for the Knicks to get better. And if you believe what you believe, then more power to you.

Again, you are essentially relying on a market deviation, a market anomaly for a team to rebuild and get better, and frankly, it just is not a practical plan for a team in the Knicks situation to rebuild.

Yes, you are technically correct, anything is possible in the NBA marketplace. But IS IT LIKELY? IS IT SOMETHING THAT BE REPLICATED? IS IT SOMETHING CONSISTENTLY OPEN FOR ANY TEAM TO APPLY GIVEN THE CURRENT MARKETPLACE?

Tanking, as you say, is not cost free. But again, what other choice is there?

Let me rephrase that, as to be diplomatic here -

OUTSIDE OF MARKET ANOMALIES AND DEVIATIONS, WHICH CANNOT BE REPLICATED AND CANNOT BE RELIED ON, WHICH NBA MODERN FREE AGENCY AND TRADE HISTORY HAVE SHOWN TO BE EXCEEDINGLY RARE, what other choice is there?

The Houston Rockets, where Sam Hinkie was trained as an executive, never tanked. They got Harden and Howard and made a run at LBJ and Melo in FA without tanking. But even Daryl Morey says openly that he was under marching orders from his owner NOT TO TANK, but if he had another choice, he would have done it, for the greater long term good of the franchise. That they got Harden and, for a while, Howard, were some pretty extreme circumstances. Morey goes on to say many times that what happened was something he could not predict, expect or ever to happen again, for the Rockets or any other team.

CrushAlot wrote:

TripleThreat wrote:

mlby1215 wrote:In short, I just want to say a team should not rely on tanking to be good again. Sometimes, we have no choice as the team is real bad, like Nets.

Let's recap here.

1) Tanking to get the highest lottery pick possible is a complete and total crapshoot. No one here is going to argue that. The rate of return, even with a high pick, is actually pretty low. Given what are close to being as openly rigged drafts as possible ( Rose to Chicago, LBJ to Cleveland the first time, Irving to Cleveland, Davis to New Orleans), most teams are left to work with the picks the league administration is not manipulating.

It's a very very very very low chance of success

2) As stated, free agency, no real franchise level talents are moving. You can name a handful in the modern era. Shaq to LA, LBJ to Miami then back to Cleveland, Nash to Phoenix. Durant went from a pretty good team to a contender level team. That's it. The relative odds of getting a prime level franchise core talent is close to none in the modern era. With the new CBA, with the ability to just unload a truck of money at a "franchise" homegrown player, it's even more impossible.

It's a close to none situation.

3) As stated, in trades, no team is moving franchise level talent for a mass of assets. It just doesn't happen in the NBA, this is not the NFL and MLB, where volume of talent is required to contend and compete. The relative odds of getting a prime level franchise core talent via trade is close to none in the modern era.

It's a close to none situation.

And that's it

You have very very very low, close to none and close to none.

Pick your poison. Tanking is NOT IDEAL. There are many negative things associated with it. But again, WHAT OTHER CHOICE IS THERE?

If the goal is the make the playoffs, get an early exit, until you eventually erode with age and decline and squeezed by the cap, then you don't need to tank. You are on the league treadmill of death.

If the goal is TO WIN A CHAMPIONSHIP, then yes, tanking is almost a requirement at some level for teams doing a full roster rebuild.

The NE Patriots and Baltimore Ravens are two of the most successful modern NFL franchises. One thing they have in common is they both know how to manipulate and maximize the compensation pick system ( depending on FAs lost and how much they play or their contract size, they become future comp picks for the team that lost them. ) ANY NFL TEAM CAN REPLICATE THIS by simply knowing when to sign short term FAs and when to let certain players go instead of keeping them in FA. The critical issue is ANY TEAM CAN DO THIS. The tools and mechanisms are in place for any team to maximize this resource. The Rams finding a former bag boy from a grocery store, Kurt Warner, and being an Arena Football reject and becoming MVP and leading his team to the Super Bowl, that CANNOT BE REPLICATED. That's an anomaly in the marketplace environment.

The only things you seem to be able to cite as functional examples, are no offense, anomalies to the system in place. LBJ going to Miami is not something any team can replicate. That move took YEARS before it happened to be preplotted and planned out by multiple players and the Heat franchise itself.

Tanking is a bad idea, but Hinkie gave his franchise hope and sometimes teams like the Nets have no choice?

No offense, I think you have to come to terms with the consistent base contradictions in your position here.

I think it is important not to ignore the accidental tank. The Knicks were trying to win this year and ended up with the 7th pick. If the right gm is in place big name players can be brought in while the results still end up with a lottery pick. I am hoping that if the Knicks trade Melo they go for a traditional rebuild. But I am confident that the Knicks can fall back on the accidental tank strategy with their current management team if Rose is resigned or if they trade for Blake.

Uptown wrote:I think it is important not to ignore the accidental tank. The Knicks were trying to win this year and ended up with the 7th pick. If the right gm is in place big name players can be brought in while the results still end up with a lottery pick. I am hoping that if the Knicks trade Melo they go for a traditional rebuild. But I am confident that the Knicks can fall back on the accidental tank strategy with their current management team if Rose is resigned or if they trade for Blake.

Accidental tanking! That's the key! Suck, without really trying to look like you're sucking on purpose!
Sounds like porn film director's school.