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.
