OT: Anonymous GM: Best Way For Us To Grab Superstar Is Tanking

The ways in which NBA teams build a roster have been brought tightly into focus this season with so many teams unwilling to put a competitive team on the floor with the hopes of landing a high pick in the upcoming deep draft.

"Our team isn't good enough to win and we know it," said an anonymous general manager. "So this season we want to develop and evaluate our young players, let them learn from their mistakes -- and get us in position to grab a great player. The best way for us to do that is to lose a lot of games. This draft is loaded. There are potential All-Stars at the top, maybe even franchise changers. Sometimes my job is to understand the value of losing.

"I know that sounds crazy, but if you're an NBA general manager like me, the last place you want to be is in the middle. There are only two outcomes there: Either make the playoffs and be first-round fodder for one of the premier teams or miss the playoffs and pick somewhere around 11th to 14th in the draft. Either way, the odds are that you stay in that middle range. It's a recipe for disaster.

"You need superstars to compete in this league, and the playing field for those guys is tilted toward a few big-market teams. They are demanding trades and getting together and deciding where they want to go in free agency. It's tough for us to compete with that. So a high lottery pick is all we have."

 

[video=youtube;AIP4Qly9XBI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIP4Qly9XBI[/video]

 

Indiana Pacers are proof that this guy is a moron.

There is no right or wrong way in compiling a winning team.

 

Three is more than one way to build a team, but if we're talking strictly about probability and approach it from a game theory perspective, then this nameless GM is dead on.

 

I think if you are a middling team on the rise with a solid GM, that GM will find a way to move some parts to improve the squad. I think this whole "being a team in the middle of the pack is the worst thing" is an excuse by lame-ass GM's that can't figure out how to earn their paycheck. If you have a good GM, a GM not afraid to make mistakes, you can bring your team from the middle of the pack and improve them. Bob Whitsitt did that. I think they've done this in Memphis (though I believe Memphis may take a step back this season). And I think Olshey is in the process of doing this with Portland. Maybe I'm drinking the Kool-Aid, but I've seen it happen enough to know that you can get stuck at the bottom of the pack just as easily (if not more so) as you can get stuck in the middle.

 

We've been on the tanking end for 2 straight seasons and a 5 year span before that and it netted us: Aldridge, Leonard and CJ McCullum. Lillard was via trade.

So as this "tanking theory" is a concept a lot of teams use, we've done our fair share. It is time to move forward and stop thinking like a loser. We got our lotto picks and we need to take it to the next level.

 

We didn't actually "tank"

 

Agreed. What really puts us in a bind is that, outside of trades and a mid-level exception, we have no way of getting better NEXT season. Makes being "stuck in the middle" with the a great draft on the horizon and no draft pick a really bad position to be in.

 

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/POR/2006.html
2005-06: Our record was 16-66. If that isn't tanking, then I don't know what you mean….

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/POR/2007.html
2006-07: Our record was 29-53. Another "tanking year"

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/POR/2012.html
2011-12: Our record was 32-34. We packed it in with 32 games left. Went 10-20 the rest of the way.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/POR/2013.html
2012-13 Season: We went 32-50. 48 games into the season, we were in the playoff hunt. Then a 7 game losing streak took us out. The last 26 games, we went 8-18.

 

I'd say last year, management was essentially tanking. Olshey has implied this in reference to the bench situation. It was pretty clear he didn't expect us to be where we were after 60 games. That being said, the team itself wasn't intentionally tanking. I personally think that bodes well for this season.

 

This can't be correct because I was mocked mercilessly for this stance. NBA GM's have no fucking clue.

 

Tanking has worked out pretty well for the Spurs in the past.

 

It's worked out for the majority of the NBA champions

Shitty teams get the opportunity to get great players in the draft. It doesn't mean they are always going to pick the right guy (cough Bowie/cough Oden)

 

How many times did they tank after they got Duncan? That's right zero!!!! And the first title team and the titles after didn't have a single player, other than Duncan on the squad. So they proved that you don't need a large market and reload tank years to keep winning.

We've tanked and didn't do well, so what's your point?

 

True, but as MAGS pointed out we effectively tanked landing DLill

 

Let us know when we get a player remotely as good as Duncan in his prime.

We tanked and got Aldridge, Oden and Roy. Health or Durant instead of Oden makes tanking brilliant for us.

It's not the theory that is bad, it's the decisions teams make within the theory.

 

They tanked ONE year, and lucked out like crazy with Tim Duncan. Parker was picked t the end of the first round and Ginibili at the end of the second. All their other cogs (Kawhi at 15, Splitter later in the first round) we're mid-round picks. They didn't have to tank forever, they picked smart in the "no-man's land" all these GM's are so hiply against.

 

Effectively we got a late lottery pick based on our record. Trading GW for NJ's pick was taking advantage of their shittiness and probably only moved us up a couple of spots in our own draft order.

True and proper tanking looks more like the year before we drafted Roy and LaMarcus.

 

Picking smart in no mans land would mean as much as a 3 dollar bill if they hadn't landed Duncan though. HOFers win titles (for the most part) If you don't have one, you aren't winning with Parker, Ginobili, Splitter and Leonard

Roughly 40% of 1st overall picks make the HOF

 

Give it up MM. It's is a fool's errand trying to explain this.