Was Danny's plan flawed?

[alewilliam789]

Guys I will be the first to say I was wrong about Danny's execution this offseason. Even though I'm not a huge fan of his draft, Ainge's real chance to grab a star will be this next season/offseason with a ridiculous amount of potential high first round picks and nice role players to shuffle over in a trade. This last offseason our first round picks didn't have too much value because they where mid first round picks and majority of our nice trade pieces where players [dang]y looked at as future building blocks. Now with the addition of Hunter and Rozier as players that could challenge Bradley on potential and perceived ceiling so it might allow Ainge to finally move on.

[D.o.s.]

But, again, like that BI article put so eloquently, losing games is a byproduct of tanking, it's not the organizational goal. That's a nuance that often gets lost -- particularly among the "erhmagerd how can you say anything even neutral about tanking it is worse than infanticide" crowd.

Please

You're banging your head into a brick wall. Most fans are driven by emotions before logic, and that same emotion prevents them from looking at both sides of an argument.

As you guys can see, labeling and a lack of nuance exist on "both sides". Neither side has the right to act holier than the other.

So let's get back to basics and the core of our conundrum here. Please correct me if you find anything wrong with my following statements.

We all agree that we need stars to compete (I feel like I've made this post several times over the last few years, but oh well.)

Broadly speaking, there are exactly three ways to acquire one of these prized assets: the draft, trades, and free agency. Ideally, we'd want to pursue all three of these methods. However, certain dynamics in these methods work against each other, which forces us (and any rebuilding team, really) to make a decision.

If you believe our best bet to acquire a star is through the draft, you want us to finish the season with a comparably bad record, ideally the worst record in the league, to give us the best chance at a top pick in the following lottery. However, to reach this level of "bad", you would have to actively work towards it. You need a roster full of d-leaguers, your coach and best players have to be in on it, you have to sit the hot hand at the end of games if he could single-handedly win you the game etc.
If you manage to succesfully execute this strategy, you will have a 25% chance at the top pick. This, of course, has to happen when a potential superstar talent declared, and then he has to develop as expected. As you can easily see, this strategy involves many qualifiers even after you've done everything in your power to maximize your chances.

All of this, however, goes more or less completely against the strategy of acquiring established Star Player X through free agency or trade. The problem is as following: in free agency, players mainly look for two things, money and a chance to win games/a championship. Now, first tier star players (the ones we're looking for) will get basically the same money wherever they go, which means, the opportunity to win championships becomes even more important.

It should be obvious that maximizing your chance at drafting #1 makes it nearly impossible to sell an established star player on immediate success. In most cases, this is not only true for the year after you've drafted your star talent (if you're lucky), but for several seasons after, as it often takes several years before the rookie fulfills his potential and develops into the kind of star player who has enough gravitas and pull to transform your franchise into a desirable location in free agency.

This is also more or less true if you want to acquire Star Player X through a trade. Contrary to popular belief, trading for an established star player is not as easy as simply offering the best package in exchange. First of all, the star player and his current franchise have to agree that going seperate ways is in the best interest of both parties. Obviously, franchises with a first tier star generally don't want to part with him. Usually, this only happens when, for whatever reason, the franchise has been unable to surround the star with an adequate supporting cast to compete for a championship, and the player is threatening to leave his current team in free agency for nothing in return.

Any trade involving a first tier star player is a completely different beast than trades consisting only of bench and rotation players. If a star player gets traded, he (and his agent) usually has some kind of pull to choose his next destination. Any franchise who trades the farm for a star player wants some kind of assurance that he will stay with them for the forseeable future. Anything else would be the equivalent of competitive suicide.
Thus, if you just spent the last season trying to game your way into a top pick, it is as unreasonable to trade for an established star as it is unlikely to sign him in free agency, especially since you probably have to part with your top pick to acquire Star Player X, leaving you with a still frustrated star player and the d-leaguers you filled your roster with to pursue the top pick.

Consequently, to maximize your chances at acquiring a star through free agency or trade, both of these strategies require a similar/synergistic approach, one that works diametrically opposed to "the draft strategy". Here, you actually have to deliver somewhat respectable results during the season to sell any star player on joining your team, and you need to have a roster full of at least servicable players on flexible contracts, so that even after you trade for Star Player X, you are still able to surround him with a good supporting cast.
If you manage to pull either of these strategies off, though, you have to deal with far less qualifiers in turning your franchise around, as the established star player immediately transforms your franchise into a desirable location for other stars and quality role players.

Now, whichever "side"of this quagmire you may fall on, I hope you understand that the FO had to make a decision on which strategy to pursue, and that, no matter which one they would ultimately choose, there would be people p---ed at them, there would be good arguments on both sides, and both approaches would need a bit of luck to ultimately succeed...but they still had to make a decision.

If we all can agree on that, then I believe there's no need for either "side" to label, taunt or belittle the other.

The problem is that you're creating a fairly massive strawman in addition to a false dichotomy:

The idea that "tanking" (which is a stupid word that inevitably inspires stupid responses) solely revolves around the draft is silly. It is just as much an argument for avoiding wasting money on David Lee and Evan Turner as it is for the prospect of landing a star player on a rookie contract, especially since the draft pick is oftentimes more valuable than any given rookie -- insert the prerequisite Fifth Pick for Ray Allen example here.

Or, as I quoted + said earlier:

Another good paragraph from the article, which I hadn't quoted earlier:

Tanking is not losing as many games as possible and praying to draft the next LeBron James.

No NBA team is doing that.

The Philadelphia 76ers aren't losing games for the sake of losing games. They're losing games because they aggressively shipped off veterans in exchange for young assets and draft picks before the 2013-14 season. It's a strategy that gives them cap flexibility, trade value, and countless roster possibilities going forward, but also makes them historically bad right now.

Which is not to say that you're not making good points, simply that the division between the paths of 'drafting a superstar' and 'trading for one/signing one in free agency' is not the binary equation that is being suggested. It is possible to position the team to perform less than successfully while still being able to put pieces together to nab a superstar, and vice versa: it's also possible to put together a .500ish team you can dismantle if the squad starts to go/appears to be go south. This is, IMO, where the C's are right now.

[PhoSita]

The draft wheel is dangerous, though, because being bad is inevitable. It's easy to rile up some righteous indignation about the Philly or OKC method but if you're actually paying attention to the league you'll realize that does nothing for a team that's perpetually struggling like, say, the Kings.

I think it was Mark Cuban that said being able to sell hope to the fanbase is a very important part of teams that are not contending for championships. The draft wheel makes that much harder, and that's even before you get into how strategic commitments to the draft pool would factor into it.

I think that proposal would change a great deal about how the league works, including how fans enjoy their teams.

Off the cuff, I don't think it would be such a bad thing for fans to feel that a lost season is just a plain lost season, not a silver lining and certainly not a goal.

Still, the draft wheel isn't my preferred solution to the draft, but it serves as an example of what a draft system disconnected from regular season record could look like.

[PhoSita]

If you believe our best bet to acquire a star is through the draft, you want us to finish the season with a comparably bad record, ideally the worst record in the league, to give us the best chance at a top pick in the following lottery. However, to reach this level of "bad", you would have to actively work towards it. You need a roster full of d-leaguers, your coach and best players have to be in on it, you have to sit the hot hand at the end of games if he could single-handedly win you the game etc.
If you manage to succesfully execute this strategy, you will have a 25% chance at the top pick. This, of course, has to happen when a potential superstar talent declared, and then he has to develop as expected. As you can easily see, this strategy involves many qualifiers even after you've done everything in your power to maximize your chances.

If you want to take the "draft" route to its logical extreme (as Philly has done), then yes, this is what it looks like.

However, I think there's a bit of a medium strength option that mitigates some of the concerns / drawbacks you highlight.

Instead of focusing on maximizing your chances at a top 3 pick (i.e. playing the lottery), you can instead set yourself up to finish in the top 10, where history tells us the vast majority of star quality players get drafted, and do that for a handful of years.

You then use that series of top 10 picks however you like.  Develop them into a competitive young core.  Trade them for established players who can form your core.

Then, when you already have a quality core group in place, while your cap situation is still flexible because you have a young team, you try to attract one or two first or second tier free agents to put your group over the top.

In this plan the biggest thing is that you must draft well and develop well, or at least make good use of those picks in other ways, because if you spend a handful of years picking in the top 10 and come away with no really quality prospects, you're hosed and have to go back to the drawing board (see: Charlotte).


Still, to my mind, top 10 picks are the essential building blocks of a rebuild.  Set yourself to collect those for a few years, then see what you can make of them.

Very frequently the 'tank' vs 'anti-tank' debate gets boiled down to the two extremes of "Hinkie-mode!" or "Put the best team on the floor that you can no matter what!" without acknowledging that there are middle options that don't require such drastic sacrifices.

there's no need for either "side" to label, taunt or belittle the other.

This I can absolutely agree with.

[chambers]

Quote from: Casperian on Today at 01:25:23 AM

'there's no need for either "side" to label, taunt or belittle the other.'

I agree, but when you're willing to listen to people's arguments with open ears,  and the 'other' side make the decision of 'absolute-ness' then it's fair to call them out on their BS.

Some of us want to have a logical argument and look at both sides. We want to understand the pros and cons of each and will listen to, and consider the majority of thoughts- as long as they aren't too crazy.

But some people want their point of view heard and if someone doesn't agree with it, they just close their eyes and go into 'LALALALA', refusing to consider that their may be some perfectly reasonable logic behind the opposing view point.

We're here to have a solid discussion, not a 'my way or the highway' screaming match.
If CB posters want to voice their opinions that's fine, but be prepared to discuss it with an open mind-or at least accept that not everyone will agree with you.
 
 Personally if someone wants to continually voice their opinion, question my or other's opinions and cover the ears, close the eyes  and 'LALALA' when they face some logic and reasoning, then I'm calling them out.

[Celtics18]

Quote from: Casperian on Today at 01:25:23 AM

'there's no need for either "side" to label, taunt or belittle the other.'

I agree, but when you're willing to listen to people's arguments with open ears,  and the 'other' side make the decision of 'absolute-ness' then it's fair to call them out on their BS.

Some of us want to have a logical argument and look at both sides. We want to understand the pros and cons of each and will listen to, and consider the majority of thoughts- as long as they aren't too crazy.

But some people want their point of view heard and if someone doesn't agree with it, they just close their eyes and go into 'LALALALA', refusing to consider that their may be some perfectly reasonable logic behind the opposing view point.

We're here to have a solid discussion, not a 'my way or the highway' screaming match.
If CB posters want to voice their opinions that's fine, but be prepared to discuss it with an open mind-or at least accept that not everyone will agree with you.
 
 Personally if someone wants to continually voice their opinion, question my or other's opinions and cover the ears, close the eyes  and 'LALALA' when they face some logic and reasoning, then I'm calling them out.

I haven't really been a part of this discussion, but I can't help jumping in here.  I scanned the thread, and as far as I could see, most posters were attempting to use reasoned, polite arguments.

This thread has not turned int a "highway screaming match."  There's been some disagreement, which is fine.

I did see a bit of belittling and taunting, though.  Casperian was right to express that there is no need for that. 

[MBunge]

The Philadelphia 76ers aren't losing games for the sake of losing games. They're losing games because they aggressively shipped off veterans in exchange for young assets and draft picks before the 2013-14 season. It's a strategy that gives them cap flexibility, trade value, and countless roster possibilities going forward, but also makes them historically bad right now.

That is a willfully tendentious mischaracterization of what has gone on.  To be clear, D.o.s. is not making that mischaracterization.  He is only quoting it approvingly.

By that standard, there is no difference between what Philly has done the last 2+ years and what Boston has done the last 2+ years, or between what Philly has done and what any team has ever done in the history of the NBA.  Anyone with a brain can see that is not true.

If it is true, then why would anyone on a Celtic board praise or defend Hinkie?  If he's just doing what Ainge or every other GM does, what's the big deal?  Why has he attracted any attention at all?

The truth is that Hinkie is doing something different and a lot of people who think they're smart got excited about it.  It's getting a little harder to defend and justify that excitement, however, now that Hinkie is in year 3 and all he has to show for it is Greg Oden, skinny DeAndre Jordan and bigger Al Jefferson, so we're getting a bunch of goalpost-moving and hand-waving about how other people are being illogical or unreasonable.

I can't speak for others, but I get a bit agitated when someone tells me up is down or black is white.

And when someone advocates a philosophy that...

A.  Makes a mockery of sportsmanship.
B.  Only works because the team following it is subsidized by the rest of the league.
C.  Doesn't inherently offer a better chance of success.

...I'm going to criticize that philosophy.

Mike

[D.o.s.]

The Philadelphia 76ers aren't losing games for the sake of losing games. They're losing games because they aggressively shipped off veterans in exchange for young assets and draft picks before the 2013-14 season. It's a strategy that gives them cap flexibility, trade value, and countless roster possibilities going forward, but also makes them historically bad right now.

That is a willfully tendentious mischaracterization of what has gone on.  To be clear, D.o.s. is not making that mischaracterization.  He is only quoting it approvingly.

By that standard, there is no difference between what Philly has done the last 2+ years and what Boston has done the last 2+ years, or between what Philly has done and what any team has ever done in the history of the NBA.  Anyone with a brain can see that is not true.

If it is true, then why would anyone on a Celtic board praise or defend Hinkie?  If he's just doing what Ainge or every other GM does, what's the big deal?  Why has he attracted any attention at all?

The truth is that Hinkie is doing something different and a lot of people who think they're smart got excited about it.  It's getting a little harder to defend and justify that excitement, however, now that Hinkie is in year 3 and all he has to show for it is Greg Oden, skinny DeAndre Jordan and bigger Al Jefferson, so we're getting a bunch of goalpost-moving and hand-waving about how other people are being illogical or unreasonable.

I can't speak for others, but I get a bit agitated when someone tells me up is down or black is white.

And when someone advocates a philosophy that...

A.  Makes a mockery of sportsmanship.
B.  Only works because the team following it is subsidized by the rest of the league.
C.  Doesn't inherently offer a better chance of success.

...I'm going to criticize that philosophy.

Mike

The bolded is exactly the contention. The same way that guitar players spent the 1980's going faster and faster -- just because you're playing the fastest doesn't mean you're inventing a new wheel, it just means you're doing something to an extreme: there's no meaningful difference in motive or execution unless you're already determined that you're going to find one going into any examination of it (which is clearly what is happening here, no offense).

The reason Hinkie is getting the spotlight is because of the media and fan attention. Because he didn't find his James Harden (even though he did, it just turned out to be Andrew Bynum). Tanking is not a new thing -- the casual fan talking about tanking is. Hinkie is the face of that to the people who don't follow the NBA as closely as some of us do. What made him worth writing about was his brashness, not his methodology.

Hence the Rockets example. Hence the Charlotte example. The only thing the 76ers haven't done that we have is waste money on Evan Turner and David Lee -- which, in the grand scheme of things, isn't different at all.

The fact that you wish to believe the 76ers are doing something uncharted does not make it so. The fact that they are doing it blatantly is true, the fact that they are being open about it is true, but it does not make them particularly unique.

Again: They're not really doing anything that Houston or Boston didn't do, they just didn't have the luxury of signing James Harden or for trading Pierce and KG for a metric ton of assets, because their swing-and-a-miss superstar turned out to never play NBA basketball for their team.

It was a few pages later than I expected, but:

Cue you saying "that's moving the goal posts!" "tanking is a very specific negative thing that I alone know the definition of!" etc.

And, again, I'm largely indifferent to Hinkie's plan -- but when I read things that are not as correct as they could be, I like to point that out.  No need to get upset. I can share your irritation at the constant discussion of the 76ers, but only because I'm of the stance that what they're doing is just the 'Blackest Ever Black' version of rebuilding with high draft picks, not because it's an affront to the game or whatever.

[D.o.s.]

Quote from: Casperian on Today at 01:25:23 AM

'there's no need for either "side" to label, taunt or belittle the other.'

I agree, but when you're willing to listen to people's arguments with open ears,  and the 'other' side make the decision of 'absolute-ness' then it's fair to call them out on their BS.

Some of us want to have a logical argument and look at both sides. We want to understand the pros and cons of each and will listen to, and consider the majority of thoughts- as long as they aren't too crazy.

But some people want their point of view heard and if someone doesn't agree with it, they just close their eyes and go into 'LALALALA', refusing to consider that their may be some perfectly reasonable logic behind the opposing view point.

We're here to have a solid discussion, not a 'my way or the highway' screaming match.
If CB posters want to voice their opinions that's fine, but be prepared to discuss it with an open mind-or at least accept that not everyone will agree with you.
 
 Personally if someone wants to continually voice their opinion, question my or other's opinions and cover the ears, close the eyes  and 'LALALA' when they face some logic and reasoning, then I'm calling them out.

I haven't really been a part of this discussion, but I can't help jumping in here.  I scanned the thread, and as far as I could see, most posters were attempting to use reasoned, polite arguments.

This thread has not turned int a "highway screaming match."  There's been some disagreement, which is fine.

I did see a bit of belittling and taunting, though.  Casperian was right to express that there is no need for that.

Also I'm very much liking the recurring rhetorical motif of jibes at people who 'think they're smart' and 'think they're more clever than they are.' it's very nice. I think more of us should adopt it, to be honest.

[Hemingway]

The topic should as "IS danny's plan flawed" not "WAS", its an ongoing thing.

As for the 76ers, I bet when its all said and done, they go down as a cautionary tail of not tanking to hard. Maybe they win titles with stars they get but I think that is less likely. Money talks and fans pay money to go to games. Owners can say they are in it for the long haul but again money talks. I predict that Philly tries this for a while, loses some of the guys they draft and then has trade some prospects off to try and make the playoffs at some point.

I agree though that what they are doing is different than other teams before them. If it works it could be scary but I don't thunk it is probable that it will work.

[D.o.s.]

I agree though that what they are doing is different than other teams before them.

How?

[Celtics18]

There may be a few teams in the past who have tanked as hard as the current Sixers, but I can't think of any. 

At some point, you've got to try to win some games.  Not just for the fans' sake, but for the health of the organization.

Maybe they'll be respectable this year.  I believe that would be more promising for their future than another season below twenty wins. 

[walker834]

The team has seen incremental improvement each season.  I don't see how it can be seen as flawed.  We have flexibility and a lot of players and picks and have been improving each year out.   We are positioned to add talent.

The Celtics are one of the best organizations in sports and DA has a  lot to do with that.  I don't see how we aren't the top team and the envy of the nba in the next 2 years.

The goal is to win games in the regular season and playoffs.  It doesn't matter.  DA is going to add talent and make smart trades.  We will be the top team.  It's not rocket science.  We don't have to tank to do that.  We have a ton of flexibility in picks and players where we don't.

[PhoSita]

By that standard, there is no difference between what Philly has done the last 2+ years and what Boston has done the last 2+ years, or between what Philly has done and what any team has ever done in the history of the NBA.  Anyone with a brain can see that is not true.

Well, I've argued that there isn't much difference, at least in the sense that both teams are offering fans a lot of hope that big moves in the future will lead to true success, and a frequently shuffled deck of less-than-remarkable players in the meantime. 

Both teams are leveraging the fans' faith in the GM and the "process" to justify the roster being a big "TBD" sign in the short term.

[ahonui06]

The topic should as "IS danny's plan flawed" not "WAS", its an ongoing thing.

As for the 76ers, I bet when its all said and done, they go down as a cautionary tail of not tanking to hard. Maybe they win titles with stars they get but I think that is less likely. Money talks and fans pay money to go to games. Owners can say they are in it for the long haul but again money talks. I predict that Philly tries this for a while, loses some of the guys they draft and then has trade some prospects off to try and make the playoffs at some point.

I agree though that what they are doing is different than other teams before them. If it works it could be scary but I don't thunk it is probable that it will work.

Not sure if Philadelphia is a unique strategy when it comes to tanking, but they definitely are putting it to an extreme.  They are seemingly disregarding the concept of winning and are strictly acquiring young assets or taking on albatross contracts with 1st round picks thrown in.

Their aggression to acquiring 1st round picks which they believe will turn into talent is the most extreme version of tanking the NBA has seen in recent memory.