I've been in several discussion about tanking. And it depends on the FO and their plan. Tanking alone doesn't work without a plan. And yes it can create a negative culture and prevent star players from joining. But tanking can work if you have a plan and stick to it. Houston should've started building around those 2 and failed at that. Back to the lottery.

blkexec wrote:

Nalod wrote:

blkexec wrote:This is a good example that the grass not always green on the other side.

I've been in several discussion about tanking. And it depends on the FO and their plan. Tanking alone doesn't work without a plan. And yes it can create a negative culture and prevent star players from joining. But tanking can work if you have a plan and stick to it. Houston should've started building around those 2 and failed at that. Back to the lottery.

That just might be the plan.
Draft Webayana, change the coach, make some trades and build a new culture.
There was no real change to happen this year and Webanyana/scoot might be worth one more seaosn.
Won’t know for 3-5 years.

I doubt Webayana was their plan 3 yrs ago (or when they started this official tank), which was my point. Looking forward, adding Webayanna or Scoot will be great. But without a plan, they will still be one of the worst teams in the league, with high valued draft picks. The Knicks are showing how important chemistry is vs just adding a bunch of high draft picks (thats not a plan or the plan I'm talking about). Adding picks is a strategy. The plan is what to do next? Who's the right coach? Does the pieces fit together? If not, who do they target in FA to help advance the development curve and synergy that we see now with the knicks. My point was, it's not as easy as saying, just tank and grab the best player. Need competent FO and the right coach.

Three years ago they had Harden and were doing well.
Im no here to debate this. Your talking tanking or feeling all warm and fuzzy about the knicks and how much better we are with our FO doing well and find a **** run team to make you feel good?
Fine. A year ago how did you feel?

WE went in a different path because our fan base can’t sustain more years of drought.
The things you mention are all good questions that get answered in hindsight.
Im happy. We have assets to make some moves. It will mean moving some favorites.
I hate that, but we’ll just have to see how it shakes out.

BigDaddyG wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:Has tanking helped any team ever?

I would say the Spurs, Cavs, Pelican, OKC, Grizz and the Sixers off the top of my head. Houston is a bad example due to 1)the clown they have in ownership and 2) the lack of roster construction. They went in the season thinking Kevin Porter could lead them at point guard. And then people wonder why they're offense (among other things) is dysfunctional.

Spurs are the only ones here that qualify, in IMO, and even then they already had Robinson. That one tank year was a very specific and unusual circumstance. Not to mention pre-lottery rule changes.

Sixers seem stuck in the same gear (it's a good gear but...) and really, Embiid in the only 'process' guy left.

Pelicans are 30-32 right now and well, we'll see...

We talking today's Thunder or the Supersonics days? And Lebron Cavs or Mobley Cavs?

I'd put the Grizz in the TBD file.

And not for nothing, you can almost certainly match that list with teams that it didn't work for, maybe a few times over.

Knixkik wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:Has tanking helped any team ever?

I would say the Spurs, Cavs, Pelican, OKC, Grizz and the Sixers off the top of my head. Houston is a bad example due to 1)the clown they have in ownership and 2) the lack of roster construction. They went in the season thinking Kevin Porter could lead them at point guard. And then people wonder why they're offense (among other things) is dysfunctional.

Spurs are the only ones here that qualify, in IMO, and even then they already had Robinson. That one tank year was a very specific and unusual circumstance. Not to mention pre-lottery rule changes.

Sixers seem stuck in the same gear (it's a good gear but...) and really, Embiid in the only 'process' guy left.

Pelicans are 30-32 right now and well, we'll see...

We talking today's Thunder or the Supersonics days? And Lebron Cavs or Mobley Cavs?

I'd put the Grizz in the TBD file.

And not for nothing, you can almost certainly match that list with teams that it didn't work for, maybe a few times over.

There’s a difference between true tanking teams and teams that were trying to win and just bad. Spurs are really the most successful tanking team. The sixers hit on Embiid but had so many misses in the process of their tank. Most teams should be able to rebuild without tanking. Indiana is such a good example. They are set up so well for the future. They have a young allstar and a ton of picks and didn’t really need to fully bottom out. Miami is another team that rebuilt without tanking. So many more teams rebuilt this way successfully over teams that did it through tanking.

That was the idea behind the process. You'll probably need multiple tries in order to get a franchise talent like Embiid. And yes, Simmons sucks, but he had enough value to allow them to pull Harden. Is tanking the only route? No, there's trades and FA. But the reality is that there only a select few franchise talents to go and some of these franchises have a snowballs chance in hell of grabbing one in FA.

BigDaddyG wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:Has tanking helped any team ever?

I would say the Spurs, Cavs, Pelican, OKC, Grizz and the Sixers off the top of my head. Houston is a bad example due to 1)the clown they have in ownership and 2) the lack of roster construction. They went in the season thinking Kevin Porter could lead them at point guard. And then people wonder why they're offense (among other things) is dysfunctional.

Spurs are the only ones here that qualify, in IMO, and even then they already had Robinson. That one tank year was a very specific and unusual circumstance. Not to mention pre-lottery rule changes.

Sixers seem stuck in the same gear (it's a good gear but...) and really, Embiid in the only 'process' guy left.

Pelicans are 30-32 right now and well, we'll see...

We talking today's Thunder or the Supersonics days? And Lebron Cavs or Mobley Cavs?

I'd put the Grizz in the TBD file.

And not for nothing, you can almost certainly match that list with teams that it didn't work for, maybe a few times over.

There’s a difference between true tanking teams and teams that were trying to win and just bad. Spurs are really the most successful tanking team. The sixers hit on Embiid but had so many misses in the process of their tank. Most teams should be able to rebuild without tanking. Indiana is such a good example. They are set up so well for the future. They have a young allstar and a ton of picks and didn’t really need to fully bottom out. Miami is another team that rebuilt without tanking. So many more teams rebuilt this way successfully over teams that did it through tanking.

That was the idea behind the process. You'll probably need multiple tries in order to get a franchise talent like Embiid.

Or you can sign a franchise talent as a FA or trade for him.

And yes, Simmons sucks, but he had enough value to allow them to pull Harden. Is tanking the only route? No, there's trades and FA. But the reality is that there only a select few franchise talents to go and some of these franchises have a snowballs chance in hell of grabbing one in FA.

THAT's a fair point.

But it doesn't describe the Knicks.

Not saying you did, just saying the tanking option doesn't seem like the optimal (meaning only) route for this franchise, despite its advocates.

Knickoftime wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:Has tanking helped any team ever?

I would say the Spurs, Cavs, Pelican, OKC, Grizz and the Sixers off the top of my head. Houston is a bad example due to 1)the clown they have in ownership and 2) the lack of roster construction. They went in the season thinking Kevin Porter could lead them at point guard. And then people wonder why they're offense (among other things) is dysfunctional.

Spurs are the only ones here that qualify, in IMO, and even then they already had Robinson. That one tank year was a very specific and unusual circumstance. Not to mention pre-lottery rule changes.

Sixers seem stuck in the same gear (it's a good gear but...) and really, Embiid in the only 'process' guy left.

Pelicans are 30-32 right now and well, we'll see...

We talking today's Thunder or the Supersonics days? And Lebron Cavs or Mobley Cavs?

I'd put the Grizz in the TBD file.

And not for nothing, you can almost certainly match that list with teams that it didn't work for, maybe a few times over.

I'm talking the KD/ Russ Thunder and the Kyrie/Lebron Cavs. Considering where the Sixers where post Iverson, I'd have to consider that a success. Their consistently in the title contender conversation now. That's the goal for all franchises.

Gotta disagree with you there. Embiid is now a supermax guy. The fact the sixers drafted him is nearly irrelevant at this point. Sixers could have been Phoenix (for one example) and have gone through some pain, but not ALL that pain.

Yeah, but how likely would the Sixers have been to sign Embiid to supermax if they hadn't drafted him the first place? Does Harden force a trade there if Philly doesn't already have Embiid in it's back pocket? Was the process overkill? I'd say no, but I can understand why some NBA fans would think so. But my take is that Embiid is one of 10 true difference makers out there and you do whatever it takes to land him.

Two NBA Star Players only 26/28 (Brunson/Randle) + 1 Trade (Josh Hart @ 27) and all 3 now leading 7 homegrown talents in RJ (22), Grimes (22), IQ (23), Obi (24), Sims (24), Mitch (24) with Deuce (22) developing from the outside looking in + Rokas Jokubaitis developing overseas etc.

Tanking?

With this core we could develop into perennial Playoff Contenders for 5+ consecutive years ala days of the 1990's.

Tanking conversations used to be intriguing for me as a Knicks fan but these days it's a stale/boring conversation for me as an NBA fan 🤷‍♂️

And no. Tanking doesn't work probably 90% of the time because losing creates losing habits for kids and just look @ the history of NBA Championship teams doesn't really lie to us...