Tanking, what it is and what it isn't

"We should tank!"

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

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

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

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

Let's be honest about some things.

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

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

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

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

Who...fucking...cares.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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