I thought this was an interesting (and somewhat relevant) topic. It's a study done on teams since 1985 that have employed "tanking" as a strategy vs trying to build a contender through mediocrity. http://freakonomics.com/2013/10/29/losing-is-not-a-winning-strategy-in-the-nba/ Very good read, there's also some quotes from our beloved KP.
That tells me that mediocre teams also do not become elite teams (top 20%) very often, they just win more games than the bottom feeders. So apparently, the best way to be an elite team is to be an elite team. Great. Let's do that.
Preposterous. Tanking is the only way. !!!!!!!!! Indiana is one of the top 3 teams in the league and they sure did tank
The spurs got lucky because David Robinson got hurt. If he hadn't gotten hurt they never would have been close to getting Timmy d. How bout them bobcats and kings? Clippers? Twolves? I can go on and on and on
Tanking only works if your GM isn't a complete moron. Would we feel the same way about tanking if we had taken Durant instead of Oden?
Tanking and related trades netted us Oden, LaMarcus, Roy, and Batum. In the alternate universe where Roy and Oden are healthy, that's a championship core. It's tempting to try it again, but as currently constructed the Blazers aren't in tank mode and can't out tank about a quarter of the league who are serious tankers. So, we are going a different direction. That's the way it is, and I'm OK with that. Let the games begin!
Miami is THE top team in the league and they DID tank. So did the Bulls, Clippers, Spurs, OKC The other top teams in the league
Batum, arguably, is not related to tanking. We bought the #27 and traded it, along with #33, for Batum. Sure, we received the #33 as our draft pick for sucking (though I'd hardly say we were in tank mode at that point). If we can buy the #27 for cash, there's a good chance we could have purchased #33, or made a different move to obtain the necessary asset to send with #27 for Batum. But now we're just talking semantics.
No, my point was that people would feel differently about tanking in Portland if we had picked Durant. We just had really bad luck with Oden. Tanking doesn't work for Charlotte because they just make horrible decisions.
They had a couple decent teams, but they weren't a contender up until the moment they they got the number one pick in the 2008 draft after having a 1.7% chance to do so. As someone else mentioned, becoming a contender is almost flukish, regardless of what tact a GM takes.
And the Bulls are a perfect example of tanking being ineffective with stupid management. They made some absolutely horrific trades. Elton Brand for Tyson Chandler. If they would have just taken Chandler instead of Curry, and kept Brand, they would have had a damn fine frontcourt.
Miami did not tank to get where they are today. How has Michael Beasley worked for them? The clippers tanked for over a decade before becoming anything and failed miserably multiple times. The bulls took a decade after Jordan and had many Crappy moves before landing rose. The spurs had no choice but to tank once drob broke his foot in December of that year. They had no plans to tank as they rehabbed drobs back, then dude comes back and breaks his foot. Okc did tank and they did a good job. But they aren't as good as Indiana who hasn't tanked. What did tanking get Boston? They missed out on oden who they wanted and traded everything away except pierce for great pieces.
Spurs didn't tank the typical way, per se - they lost Robinson for the season. The Clips tanked for how many years before they finally got lucky and made the right draft selection (which there was no luck, as there was no other option)? I don't really consider that Miami tanked. Wade wasn't doing enough to lead them. He was battling injuries (and was even playing through some despite the team wanting him to sit). OKC and Bulls...... they had no option but to tank. For the most part, they had nothing on their rosters but scraps and aging vets, and yet STILL SUCKED. I guess it depends on your view of tanking. At least with Seattle, I don't really consider that they tanked. They lost players, players were getting older, they made moves that backfired, and they still sucked. Both ended up with superstar players to take them to the next level, and I assume that's what Portland is hoping they got in Lillard (without diving all the way to the abyss). I guess my big question for those that advocate tanking, what is tanking? Is it an intentional action?
What is a "horrible decision"? Picking a superstar from a top 5 (sans 1) pick involves just as much luck as winning the lottery itself.
