Timberwolves continue tank - trade Budinger to Pacers

[Moranis]

continue to tank? I don't think the T'Wolves were tanking last year. They're just not ready to win a lot of games yet, but they have a bright future with Wiggins and Towns.

So you trade your best player, a guy that led you to a respectable 40 wins in the West for the worst #1 pick in NBA history and a highly sought after prospect that never played a game in the NBA to end up with the worst record in the NBA and land the #1 pick in the draft and you aren't tanking. 

So to recap, the Wolves now have the last three #1 picks on their roster, two of which they got by trading away their anchor and by far their best player who was just entering his prime, which resulted in them landing the third.  But they aren't tanking.  Got it.

Ahh yes, because letting Love walk away for nothing and basically having a team of Rubio-Martin-Pek was clearly the better move. Hold on, wait, Rubio-Martin-Budinger-Pek. How could I forget?

Even if he didn't get Bennett, I'd say Flip got tremendous value for a guy who was going to walk in Wiggins alone. I mean, I don't know if it's just me but I would've loved it Ainge was able to pull off a Rondo for Wiggins trade, regardless if we were tanking or not. But hey, maybe that's just me.

Losing doesn't mean tanking and Budinger isn't going to lead that team to the playoffs.

Sure he might have left, but trading your best player, a guy that gets you 40 wins in the tough western conference for a rookie is pretty much the definition of a tanking trade.  The Wolves intentionally went from a mid-range team to the worst team in the league in one off season by making moves that they didn't have to make. 

You can say they got great value, you can say they felt they had to do it, but no matter how you slice it, trading Love and then numerous other veterans for future benefit is tanking.

You're grasping...

What is different about Minnesota trading Love for Bennett and Wiggins than say Seattle trading Ray Allen for Jeff Green or Philadelphia trading Holiday for Noel and a future 1st (and I mean aside from Love being better and Minnesota getting a better return as a result)?  All three of those teams then continued to make other moves where veterans were traded for future picks or young players.  All three of those teams went from a mid-range team to near the bottom (or the bottom in Minnesota's case) almost overnight as a result of those trades.

[loco_91]

Chase Budinger is extremely flattered that someone thinks trading him equates to tanking. Chase Budinger thanks you.

lol +1.

Wolves' future looks bright. They will likely have another top-3 pick this year, unless Towns and Wiggins are too dominant, in which case their future will look even brighter! Sadly they have Flip Saunders as their coach/GM, so he'll probably find a way to muck it up.

[BudweiserCeltic]

continue to tank? I don't think the T'Wolves were tanking last year. They're just not ready to win a lot of games yet, but they have a bright future with Wiggins and Towns.

So you trade your best player, a guy that led you to a respectable 40 wins in the West for the worst #1 pick in NBA history and a highly sought after prospect that never played a game in the NBA to end up with the worst record in the NBA and land the #1 pick in the draft and you aren't tanking. 

So to recap, the Wolves now have the last three #1 picks on their roster, two of which they got by trading away their anchor and by far their best player who was just entering his prime, which resulted in them landing the third.  But they aren't tanking.  Got it.

Ahh yes, because letting Love walk away for nothing and basically having a team of Rubio-Martin-Pek was clearly the better move. Hold on, wait, Rubio-Martin-Budinger-Pek. How could I forget?

Even if he didn't get Bennett, I'd say Flip got tremendous value for a guy who was going to walk in Wiggins alone. I mean, I don't know if it's just me but I would've loved it Ainge was able to pull off a Rondo for Wiggins trade, regardless if we were tanking or not. But hey, maybe that's just me.

Losing doesn't mean tanking and Budinger isn't going to lead that team to the playoffs.

Sure he might have left, but trading your best player, a guy that gets you 40 wins in the tough western conference for a rookie is pretty much the definition of a tanking trade.  The Wolves intentionally went from a mid-range team to the worst team in the league in one off season by making moves that they didn't have to make. 

You can say they got great value, you can say they felt they had to do it, but no matter how you slice it, trading Love and then numerous other veterans for future benefit is tanking.

You're grasping...

What is different about Minnesota trading Love for Bennett and Wiggins than say Seattle trading Ray Allen for Jeff Green or Philadelphia trading Holiday for Noel and a future 1st (and I mean aside from Love being better and Minnesota getting a better return as a result)?  All three of those teams then continued to make other moves where veterans were traded for future picks or young players.  All three of those teams went from a mid-range team to near the bottom (or the bottom in Minnesota's case) almost overnight as a result of those trades.

So your reasoning is, let Love walk for nothing and be left with nothing would've been the acceptable non-tanking route? Got it.

While we're at it, I wonder why Minnesota in tank mode traded a 1st round pick in order to acquire Thaddeus Young.

Whatever rationalization you want to come up with, Love needed to be traded. Sorry, but it is that plain and simple, and the value that they got from him was incredible. You might have forgotten, but they were angling to acquire Klay Thompson in a package prior to "settling" for Wiggins.

Anyways, finding value for a player who's going to leave you anyways is not a tanking move. It's a smart move. That it has a consequence of making you a worse team in the short team (since you know, your best player is leaving) doesn't equal it being a tanking move.

And none of the moves you've mentioned are tanking moves in of themselves, for your information.

[LilRip]

Hmm, now I'm curious, what's your definition of tanking?

[Moranis]

Hmm, now I'm curious, what's your definition of tanking?

As am I.  I don't see how trading your best player for a possible future gain coupled with the unloading of multiple other veteran players isn't a tank.  I mean I thought pretty much everyone considered that a tank job. 

Very few teams intentionally get over 20 games worse in the course of one off season.  Sure teams unintentionally get that much worse (like say when Lebron left Cleveland the first time), but Minnesota is one of the few teams in NBA history that intentionally lost more than 20 games more from one season to the next (and for the record Minnesota dropped 24 games going from 40 to 16).  Heck Philadelphia only dropped 15 games from 34 to 19 after the Holiday trade. 

[PhoSita]

"Our best player is going to leave us in the lurch a year from now.  We don't want to trade him, but this other team just offered us a superstar prospect for him, plus a reclamation project who might turn into a decent player.  We can't afford to pass up this opportunity."

That's not tanking, it's acknowledging that you will have to rebuild sooner rather than later, and taking an opportunity to jumpstart that process.

"Now that we've traded away our best player and gotten much younger, all of the older veterans on our team are interested in finding a new situation where they might get to win some games in the near future.  They won't be with us anymore by the time we've developed these young guys, anyway.  It's time to get whatever future value we can for them."

That's not tanking, it's intelligent asset management, not to mention scoring points with veteran players and their agents.



Any move that doesn't directly translate to wins in the present is not tanking.  This thread is silly.

[Moranis]

"Our best player is going to leave us in the lurch a year from now.  We don't want to trade him, but this other team just offered us a superstar prospect for him, plus a reclamation project who might turn into a decent player.  We can't afford to pass up this opportunity."

That's not tanking, it's acknowledging that you will have to rebuild sooner rather than later, and taking an opportunity to jumpstart that process.

"Now that we've traded away our best player and gotten much younger, all of the older veterans on our team are interested in finding a new situation where they might get to win some games in the near future.  They won't be with us anymore by the time we've developed these young guys, anyway.  It's time to get whatever future value we can for them."

That's not tanking, it's intelligent asset management, not to mention scoring points with veteran players and their agents.



Any move that doesn't directly translate to wins in the present is not tanking.  This thread is silly.

"Our best player is injured.  We know he just signed this 4 year extension but he is hurt and we can pick up the best player in college basketball (who is also hurt) and a future first round pick for him.  Our team isn't very good as we won just 34 games, so what the heck, we can't turn this opportunity down."

That's not tanking, it's acknowledging that you will have to rebuild sooner rather than later, and taking an opportunity to jumpstart that process.

"Now that we've traded away our best player and gotten much younger, all of the older veterans on our team are interested in finding a new situation where they might get to win some games in the near future.  They won't be with us anymore by the time we've developed these young guys, anyway.  It's time to get whatever future value we can for them."

That's not tanking, it's intelligent asset management, not to mention scoring points with veteran players and their agents.

[PhoSita]

"Our best player is injured.  We know he just signed this 4 year extension but he is hurt and we can pick up the best player in college basketball (who is also hurt) and a future first round pick for him.  Our team isn't very good as we won just 34 games, so what the heck, we can't turn this opportunity down."

Referring to the Jrue Holiday trade?

I don't really view that as a tanking trade, either. 

The Sixers decided that they'd rather get Noel and a future first than continue to build around Jrue Holiday.  Because, well, just think about that phrase: "Build around Jrue Holiday."


Tanking, in my view, is a systematic approach where every shred of current value is shrugged off, at a bargain basement price if necessary, for little present return.  It can also involve sitting players who would otherwise help you win, for no apparent reason other than the desire to lose more games.  The primary benefit of the moves involved is that the team gets worse and thereby leads to a higher draft pick.

If you can reasonably justify a move independent of the draft, then it's not a tanking move, in my opinion.  Because, in theory, it's a move the team would have made even if there were no draft-related benefit to being worse.

Conversely, when a move cannot be justified in any reasonable way without referencing the fact that being worse leads to higher draft picks, then it's probably a tank move.


Why is it so important to people that we use the word "tank," instead of "rebuild," anyway, especially when the two things seem to be the same in most people's minds?  Is this how we make ourselves feel better about the fact that these other teams, that appear to be very poorly managed, have much better player assets than we do?

[celticsclay]

This whole thread premise is a ridiculous segway. If you want to come out and say that you feel people treat Philly unfairly and that there are other teams tanking, just come out and say that. However, using an often injured role player as your starting point makes the conversation a loser from the start. It reminds me of someone that gets a parking ticket and is like "thanks obama. " It doesn't make sense.

[PhoSita]

This whole thread premise is a ridiculous segway. If you want to come out and say that you feel people treat Philly unfairly and that there are other teams tanking, just come out and say that. However, using an often injured role player as your starting point makes the conversation a loser from the start. It reminds me of someone that gets a parking ticket and is like "thanks obama. " It doesn't make sense.

Again, my question is: Why do people care that much about properly designating which teams are tanking and which teams are not?

The product on the floor stinks either way, and what the fans get out of it is the same, too: hope for the future via youthful potential and high draft picks.

[Endless Paradise]

This whole thread premise is a ridiculous segway.

I think it's more of a penny board. 

Again, my question is: Why do people care that much about properly designating which teams are tanking and which teams are not?

The product on the floor stinks either way, and what the fans get out of it is the same, too: hope for the future via youthful potential and high draft picks.

Because, something, something, something, "tanking" is a mockery of the game, "rebuilding" isn't. For reasons that can best be described as nebulous as best, I guess.

[PhoSita]

My biggest problem with the way things are is not teams like Philadelphia choosing to engage in a race to the bottom.

If teams want to increase their odds that way and do a full teardown, great.  That has lots of inherent risks that have been covered around here ad nauseum.

My issue is the way the current state of things punishes teams on the borderline between promising and terrible, the state of affairs that results in the feeling, "Man, winning 5 more games and making the playoffs really hurt my team."  That stinks.

[Moranis]

This whole thread premise is a ridiculous segway. If you want to come out and say that you feel people treat Philly unfairly and that there are other teams tanking, just come out and say that. However, using an often injured role player as your starting point makes the conversation a loser from the start. It reminds me of someone that gets a parking ticket and is like "thanks obama. " It doesn't make sense.

That is why the title says CONTINUE tank. 

The thing is the Wolves were a pretty good and pretty young team when they traded Love.  They weren't a bad to poor team and they weren't stuck in mediocrity.  They were very much still on the upswing (win total went up for 5 straight seasons) and had a guy you could actually build a real championship contender around.  Instead of trading Love, maybe they go the other way and try to bring in the pieces to build around him.  You know bring in some real talent and convince him to stay rather than just assume he actually turns down more money and years and leaves.  They chose to tank and did so from a pretty good position, which should cause a lot more outrage than a bad team like Philly tanking, yet as evident here most people don't even consider what Minnesota did a tank job.

[celticsclay]

My biggest problem with the way things are is not teams like Philadelphia choosing to engage in a race to the bottom.

If teams want to increase their odds that way and do a full teardown, great.  That has lots of inherent risks that have been covered around here ad nauseum.

My issue is the way the current state of things punishes teams on the borderline between promising and terrible, the state of affairs that results in the feeling, "Man, winning 5 more games and making the playoffs really hurt my team."  That stinks.

To be honest I think some of this stems from the fact the NBA is very top heavy and 7 game playoff series make the playoffs have very very few upsets. In the NFL, I think by week 12 there are probably fans of teams in half the league that think, hey if we play great in the playoffs and  get some turnovers we can get to the super bowl. In baseball, the wild card teams (sometimes one's that just win 90 games over the course of the year) routinely make the world series and win. In the NBA it seems like halfway through a season we can consider maybe 5 or 6 teams having shots at a championship. Take last year, in the east you thought MAYBE Atlanta, Chicago and Cleveland can make the finals. Everyone else kind of would made people's head's explode. In the West it was San Antonio, Dallas the Clippers and perhaps Houston (although even after they made the wcf it still seemed impossible to picture them as champions).

So in other sports, when the Celtics were hot down the second half of the season we could envision them upsetting Cleveland in the first round. Whereas in the NBA, the odds were something like 20-1 and it would have been one of the biggest upsets in sports history if they pulled it off. I don't know what the NBA can do about it (or if they view it as a real problem). However, I think with ever increasing activities for eye balls it would behoove the NBA to find a way from super teams or less superstar driven. Tom Brady makes the super bowl as much as anyone, but I think he has made it twice in the last 6 years? Lebron James has made it 5 times in a row. That is kind of boring.

[celticsclay]

This whole thread premise is a ridiculous segway. If you want to come out and say that you feel people treat Philly unfairly and that there are other teams tanking, just come out and say that. However, using an often injured role player as your starting point makes the conversation a loser from the start. It reminds me of someone that gets a parking ticket and is like "thanks obama. " It doesn't make sense.

That is why the title says CONTINUE tank. 

The thing is the Wolves were a pretty good and pretty young team when they traded Love.  They weren't a bad to poor team and they weren't stuck in mediocrity.  They were very much still on the upswing (win total went up for 5 straight seasons) and had a guy you could actually build a real championship contender around.  Instead of trading Love, maybe they go the other way and try to bring in the pieces to build around him.  You know bring in some real talent and convince him to stay rather than just assume he actually turns down more money and years and leaves.  They chose to tank and did so from a pretty good position, which should cause a lot more outrage than a bad team like Philly tanking, yet as evident here most people don't even consider what Minnesota did a tank job.

You are still not getting it, you chose a horrible example to get up on your soap box on and it makes it difficult to take you seriously. Chase Budinger is completely irrelevant in the NBA. He can't stay healthy and is an average player at best when he is. You want to say the timberwolves are tanking, just come out with a thread and make your post revisiting the Love trade and a lot more people will take you seriously. It is similar to saying "Cavs ramp up chase for championship, sign Kendrick Perkins for vet min for additional year." The comment doesn't make sense and Budinger doesn't change anything in the NBA. There are better players than him changing teams almost every day right now. Focusing on him to start the topic is stupid and he sucks.

You have an interesting perspective on the Wolves and Love that I haven't really heard before and would be down for discussing it with you. That being said, it is hard to do under a thread with a premise as ridiculous as this.