Knicks · Tanking not helping Houston (so far) (page 2)

BigDaddyG wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:Has tanking helped any team ever?

I would say the Spurs, Cavs, Pelican, OKC, Grizz and the Sixers off the top of my head. Houston is a bad example due to 1)the clown they have in ownership and 2) the lack of roster construction. They went in the season thinking Kevin Porter could lead them at point guard. And then people wonder why they're offense (among other things) is dysfunctional.

Tanking can be effective but you have to be careful who you are tanking for. 4 years ago Zion was supposed to be this generational Shaquille O’Neal type of disrupter and it turned out the generational talent was the guy drafted one spot after him Ja

Nalod wrote:

blkexec wrote:This is a good example that the grass not always green on the other side.

I've been in several discussion about tanking. And it depends on the FO and their plan. Tanking alone doesn't work without a plan. And yes it can create a negative culture and prevent star players from joining. But tanking can work if you have a plan and stick to it. Houston should've started building around those 2 and failed at that. Back to the lottery.

That just might be the plan.
Draft Webayana, change the coach, make some trades and build a new culture.
There was no real change to happen this year and Webanyana/scoot might be worth one more seaosn.
Won’t know for 3-5 years.

Maybe.
And what happens if they draft 3rd?

Panos wrote:

Nalod wrote:

blkexec wrote:This is a good example that the grass not always green on the other side.

I've been in several discussion about tanking. And it depends on the FO and their plan. Tanking alone doesn't work without a plan. And yes it can create a negative culture and prevent star players from joining. But tanking can work if you have a plan and stick to it. Houston should've started building around those 2 and failed at that. Back to the lottery.

That just might be the plan.
Draft Webayana, change the coach, make some trades and build a new culture.
There was no real change to happen this year and Webanyana/scoot might be worth one more seaosn.
Won’t know for 3-5 years.

Maybe.
And what happens if they draft 3rd?

Right. If they have the worst record it’s still only a 14% chance for the first pick.

Knickoftime wrote:Has tanking helped any team ever?

Check this out:

https://www.wolfgangsport.com/most-succe...

BigDaddyG wrote:<snip>

I'm talking the KD/ Russ Thunder and the Kyrie/Lebron Cavs. Considering where the Sixers where post Iverson, I'd have to consider that a success. Their consistently in the title contender conversation now. That's the goal for all franchises.

Sixers... the thing is they didn't technically tank unless you count knowingly drafting a player with broken feet, who wouldn't play for at least a season (he missed his first 2 seasons), tanking.

Here's what they got following Embiid:
* Okafor
* Ben Simmons (missed his 1st year with a busted foot)
* Fultz (thoracic outlet problem)
* Mikal Bridges (traded for... who knows what to the Phoenix Suns?)

I'm not sure if what Phoenix did worked.

Now, here's the thing, they got a quality NBA championship coach. Now I can't really say how great any coach is based on championship count... but we do know that Rivers is capable of getting teams of no-names to .500 records. He has had to a lot of that with the Sixers because the players on that team are sooo fragile.

The tank definitely worked with Cleveland, if only to get Lebron there.

technomaster wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:<snip>

I'm talking the KD/ Russ Thunder and the Kyrie/Lebron Cavs. Considering where the Sixers where post Iverson, I'd have to consider that a success. Their consistently in the title contender conversation now. That's the goal for all franchises.

Sixers... the thing is they didn't technically tank unless you count knowingly drafting a player with broken feet, who wouldn't play for at least a season (he missed his first 2 seasons), tanking.

Here's what they got following Embiid:
* Okafor
* Ben Simmons (missed his 1st year with a busted foot)
* Fultz (thoracic outlet problem)
* Mikal Bridges (traded for... who knows what to the Phoenix Suns?)

I'm not sure if what Phoenix did worked.

Now, here's the thing, they got a quality NBA championship coach. Now I can't really say how great any coach is based on championship count... but we do know that Rivers is capable of getting teams of no-names to .500 records. He has had to a lot of that with the Sixers because the players on that team are sooo fragile.

The tank definitely worked with Cleveland, if only to get Lebron there.

But it took him coming back as a FA to get the ring.

Panos wrote:

Nalod wrote:

blkexec wrote:This is a good example that the grass not always green on the other side.

I've been in several discussion about tanking. And it depends on the FO and their plan. Tanking alone doesn't work without a plan. And yes it can create a negative culture and prevent star players from joining. But tanking can work if you have a plan and stick to it. Houston should've started building around those 2 and failed at that. Back to the lottery.

That just might be the plan.
Draft Webayana, change the coach, make some trades and build a new culture.
There was no real change to happen this year and Webanyana/scoot might be worth one more seaosn.
Won’t know for 3-5 years.

Maybe.
And what happens if they draft 3rd?

I agree in principle with you BTW. The newer rules with a 14.5 chance to land the one spot makes tanking not worth it.
Nola did not tank, they moved up if I recall.
I think you have to ask UltimateRocket.com if they think its a tank or they just suck.

If you don’t draft high character guys you can end up at best with a high talent team like the “JailBlazers”. Grizz seem to have talent and arrogance but at some point you either mature out of it or fall back.

I can’t answer if Rockets are tanking or just suck.

Rockets were a good team with Yao and Tmac. Ever since then they have had their "flash in the pan" moment with and Harden. Now they suck again for the foreseeable future. Tanking in the current day and age just doesn't have the same effectiveness anymore. Philly was the last team to take advantage of tanking on purpose with results to show for it.

ramtour420 wrote:Rockets were a good team with Yao and Tmac. Ever since then they have had their "flash in the pan" moment with and Harden. Now they suck again for the foreseeable future. Tanking in the current day and age just doesn't have the same effectiveness anymore. Philly was the last team to take advantage of tanking on purpose with results to show for it.

There are situations where tanking is the obvious call. 2003 with a draft with Lebron, Melo, Bosh and Wade was a year we clearly should have been tanking yet Allan Houston made sure we missed out on all of them getting us to 37 wins so we could miss the playoffs and not draft a lock future hall of famer

Knickoftime wrote:

technomaster wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:<snip>

I'm talking the KD/ Russ Thunder and the Kyrie/Lebron Cavs. Considering where the Sixers where post Iverson, I'd have to consider that a success. Their consistently in the title contender conversation now. That's the goal for all franchises.

Sixers... the thing is they didn't technically tank unless you count knowingly drafting a player with broken feet, who wouldn't play for at least a season (he missed his first 2 seasons), tanking.

Here's what they got following Embiid:
* Okafor
* Ben Simmons (missed his 1st year with a busted foot)
* Fultz (thoracic outlet problem)
* Mikal Bridges (traded for... who knows what to the Phoenix Suns?)

I'm not sure if what Phoenix did worked.

Now, here's the thing, they got a quality NBA championship coach. Now I can't really say how great any coach is based on championship count... but we do know that Rivers is capable of getting teams of no-names to .500 records. He has had to a lot of that with the Sixers because the players on that team are sooo fragile.

The tank definitely worked with Cleveland, if only to get Lebron there.

But it took him coming back as a FA to get the ring.

The Cavs were nba Siberia before 2003.

The season the Knicks tanked for what would be the 3rd pick. It became very clear to the FO early in the season, that the team wasnt going anywhere. They would likely miss the playoffs, the question was only by how much.

So they went for the tank. We didnt have the young talent we have on the roster now. At least not this caliber. Tanking made sense, also helped the Knicks get a grip on cap mgmt.

What bothered me about the recent calls for tanking, was the fact that we already have a team stocked with young talent. And some wanted to put their development on the back burner to play the lotto. In the hopes of landing another promising player.

Our young players are going to get valuable playoff experience, maybe more than they thought they would this season. I will take that over a season of losing for a shot at a shot, at a top pick.

With Tanking in general, I believe its about the current state of said franchise, not a one size fits all approach

Tanking is just a 14% chance at getting your guy and who knows what are the odds that prospect reaches his potential. History tells me tanking doesn't work when guys like Giannis and Joker were drafted 15th and in the second round.

But tanking sometimes works out - Duncan. If Houston goes on to win the lottery and ends up with Wembanyama who goes on to be a HOFer and wins a few rings, the plan worked.

At the end of the day, it's ALL LUCK.

Houston is a shit show from top to bottom. Roster construction, culture, coaching, its all shite.

ramtour420 wrote:Rockets were a good team with Yao and Tmac. Ever since then they have had their "flash in the pan" moment with and Harden. Now they suck again for the foreseeable future. Tanking in the current day and age just doesn't have the same effectiveness anymore. Philly was the last team to take advantage of tanking on purpose with results to show for it.

Might want to revisit those Harden years. They could not make finals but in his 8 years there they played 85 playoff games. Three of the 8 were first round bounces. Five years won 50 or more games. Peaked with 65 win season!
No doubt disappointments but its was more than a flash, it was a solid era.
Personally those playoff disappointments was due to over achieving in regular season.

Philc1 wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

technomaster wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:<snip>

I'm talking the KD/ Russ Thunder and the Kyrie/Lebron Cavs. Considering where the Sixers where post Iverson, I'd have to consider that a success. Their consistently in the title contender conversation now. That's the goal for all franchises.

Sixers... the thing is they didn't technically tank unless you count knowingly drafting a player with broken feet, who wouldn't play for at least a season (he missed his first 2 seasons), tanking.

Here's what they got following Embiid:
* Okafor
* Ben Simmons (missed his 1st year with a busted foot)
* Fultz (thoracic outlet problem)
* Mikal Bridges (traded for... who knows what to the Phoenix Suns?)

I'm not sure if what Phoenix did worked.

Now, here's the thing, they got a quality NBA championship coach. Now I can't really say how great any coach is based on championship count... but we do know that Rivers is capable of getting teams of no-names to .500 records. He has had to a lot of that with the Sixers because the players on that team are sooo fragile.

The tank definitely worked with Cleveland, if only to get Lebron there.

But it took him coming back as a FA to get the ring.

The Cavs were nba Siberia before 2003.

Not sure you how mean this. They were still NBA siberia in terms of getting free agents to come to cleveland even with Lebron, which is why he left.

In terms of just success, they were actually a (very) decent NBA franchise from the late 80s to the early 90s.

10 better-than-.500 records between '88 and '98, including a 54 win season and TWO 57 win seasons.

Like the Knicks, those seasons just happened to coincide with Jordan ... is their own division.

Knickoftime wrote:

Philc1 wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

technomaster wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:<snip>

I'm talking the KD/ Russ Thunder and the Kyrie/Lebron Cavs. Considering where the Sixers where post Iverson, I'd have to consider that a success. Their consistently in the title contender conversation now. That's the goal for all franchises.

Sixers... the thing is they didn't technically tank unless you count knowingly drafting a player with broken feet, who wouldn't play for at least a season (he missed his first 2 seasons), tanking.

Here's what they got following Embiid:
* Okafor
* Ben Simmons (missed his 1st year with a busted foot)
* Fultz (thoracic outlet problem)
* Mikal Bridges (traded for... who knows what to the Phoenix Suns?)

I'm not sure if what Phoenix did worked.

Now, here's the thing, they got a quality NBA championship coach. Now I can't really say how great any coach is based on championship count... but we do know that Rivers is capable of getting teams of no-names to .500 records. He has had to a lot of that with the Sixers because the players on that team are sooo fragile.

The tank definitely worked with Cleveland, if only to get Lebron there.

But it took him coming back as a FA to get the ring.

The Cavs were nba Siberia before 2003.

Not sure you how mean this. They were still NBA siberia in terms of getting free agents to come to cleveland even with Lebron, which is why he left.

In terms of just success, they were actually a (very) decent NBA franchise from the late 80s to the early 90s.

10 better-than-.500 records between '88 and '98, including a 54 win season and TWO 57 win seasons.

Like the Knicks, those seasons just happened to coincide with Jordan ... is their own division.

PhilC keeps things simple. Facts are inconvenient.

Nalod wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

Philc1 wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

technomaster wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:<snip>

I'm talking the KD/ Russ Thunder and the Kyrie/Lebron Cavs. Considering where the Sixers where post Iverson, I'd have to consider that a success. Their consistently in the title contender conversation now. That's the goal for all franchises.

Sixers... the thing is they didn't technically tank unless you count knowingly drafting a player with broken feet, who wouldn't play for at least a season (he missed his first 2 seasons), tanking.

Here's what they got following Embiid:
* Okafor
* Ben Simmons (missed his 1st year with a busted foot)
* Fultz (thoracic outlet problem)
* Mikal Bridges (traded for... who knows what to the Phoenix Suns?)

I'm not sure if what Phoenix did worked.

Now, here's the thing, they got a quality NBA championship coach. Now I can't really say how great any coach is based on championship count... but we do know that Rivers is capable of getting teams of no-names to .500 records. He has had to a lot of that with the Sixers because the players on that team are sooo fragile.

The tank definitely worked with Cleveland, if only to get Lebron there.

But it took him coming back as a FA to get the ring.

The Cavs were nba Siberia before 2003.

Not sure you how mean this. They were still NBA siberia in terms of getting free agents to come to cleveland even with Lebron, which is why he left.

In terms of just success, they were actually a (very) decent NBA franchise from the late 80s to the early 90s.

10 better-than-.500 records between '88 and '98, including a 54 win season and TWO 57 win seasons.

Like the Knicks, those seasons just happened to coincide with Jordan ... is their own division.

PhilC keeps things simple. Facts are inconvenient.

What’s the color of the sky in your world?

Knickoftime wrote:

Philc1 wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

technomaster wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:<snip>

I'm talking the KD/ Russ Thunder and the Kyrie/Lebron Cavs. Considering where the Sixers where post Iverson, I'd have to consider that a success. Their consistently in the title contender conversation now. That's the goal for all franchises.

Sixers... the thing is they didn't technically tank unless you count knowingly drafting a player with broken feet, who wouldn't play for at least a season (he missed his first 2 seasons), tanking.

Here's what they got following Embiid:
* Okafor
* Ben Simmons (missed his 1st year with a busted foot)
* Fultz (thoracic outlet problem)
* Mikal Bridges (traded for... who knows what to the Phoenix Suns?)

I'm not sure if what Phoenix did worked.

Now, here's the thing, they got a quality NBA championship coach. Now I can't really say how great any coach is based on championship count... but we do know that Rivers is capable of getting teams of no-names to .500 records. He has had to a lot of that with the Sixers because the players on that team are sooo fragile.

The tank definitely worked with Cleveland, if only to get Lebron there.

But it took him coming back as a FA to get the ring.

The Cavs were nba Siberia before 2003.

Not sure you how mean this. They were still NBA siberia in terms of getting free agents to come to cleveland even with Lebron, which is why he left.

In terms of just success, they were actually a (very) decent NBA franchise from the late 80s to the early 90s.

10 better-than-.500 records between '88 and '98, including a 54 win season and TWO 57 win seasons.

Like the Knicks, those seasons just happened to coincide with Jordan ... is their own division.

They were not good in the years leading up to the 2002-2003 tank job for Lebron. They were a small market team that got little attention even when they were good like the 1996 Year they were coached by fratello and won 48 games only to get swept by us in round 1. In the years with Lebron they have had constant national media attention to go along with multiple nba finals appearances and a championship

The Philly timeline and Hinkies "Process" is a fascinating study. Fact is his reign was just under 3 years. Thats it.
Many moves are attributed tho him but his time was April of 2013 thru may of 2016.
If Kawhai shot does not bounce in advancing Toronto and Philly instead advances to finals, and if similar injury to Klay and Durant occurs philly likely wins that series.
A lot of ifs for sure. But Philly gets the chip and Hinkie perhaps gets vindication?
But, Philly's tank was so deep and dark it drew the ire of fans at home and was affecting road attendances and ticket values when they traveled to other cities.
My take is Brock Aller and Leon are running a very modified version of this but never intended to go that deep. The finesse of draft picks and how were are applying our cap to free agents is producing some interesting results.
Have to add Scott Perry to this as he was part of the Randle signing. That Mavs got Brunson so wrong and we so right is part of the our "Process".
Same for Quick.
Same for Grimes.
Add in Obi and RJ.

Now, At 22 RJ is signed prior to this season has to be taken in context at the time. Now, to be fair, 3/4ths of this season he is not a bust, but he is not thriving is fair.
The knicks are. I know we all look at each piece but the he is not a detriment.
Obi too is not a detriment to the team. What becomes an issue is his contract, value to others and not wanting an asset to die if need be.

To be fair, Philly over the last 10 years made some major blunders. Letting Butler walk, some stupid trades, drafting Michael Carter-williams (ROY), trading up for fultz instead of Tatum , Ben Simmons (ROY!!!) Okafor, Etc. Only Carter williams is on Hinkie! Yet with all the mistakes, here they are still top NBA team and doing well.

I point this out because as fans we lose sight that not everything works or has to work to succeed and the timeline often changes. Embiid took years to get relevant. The talent was their but injuries and motivation (Maturity) issues questioned it all. He has not put together a body of work that is quite impressive!

Nalod wrote:

ramtour420 wrote:Rockets were a good team with Yao and Tmac. Ever since then they have had their "flash in the pan" moment with and Harden. Now they suck again for the foreseeable future. Tanking in the current day and age just doesn't have the same effectiveness anymore. Philly was the last team to take advantage of tanking on purpose with results to show for it.

Might want to revisit those Harden years. They could not make finals but in his 8 years there they played 85 playoff games. Three of the 8 were first round bounces. Five years won 50 or more games. Peaked with 65 win season!
No doubt disappointments but its was more than a flash, it was a solid era.
Personally those playoff disappointments was due to over achieving in regular season.

You are right. 8 years is a good stretch. I guess because if them being a great regular season team and a crappy playoff team( if you compare the two) just felt like that team is on borrowed time. You need defense in the playoffs and in-series adjustments which they had none.

Philc1 wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

Philc1 wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

technomaster wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:<snip>

I'm talking the KD/ Russ Thunder and the Kyrie/Lebron Cavs. Considering where the Sixers where post Iverson, I'd have to consider that a success. Their consistently in the title contender conversation now. That's the goal for all franchises.

Sixers... the thing is they didn't technically tank unless you count knowingly drafting a player with broken feet, who wouldn't play for at least a season (he missed his first 2 seasons), tanking.

Here's what they got following Embiid:
* Okafor
* Ben Simmons (missed his 1st year with a busted foot)
* Fultz (thoracic outlet problem)
* Mikal Bridges (traded for... who knows what to the Phoenix Suns?)

I'm not sure if what Phoenix did worked.

Now, here's the thing, they got a quality NBA championship coach. Now I can't really say how great any coach is based on championship count... but we do know that Rivers is capable of getting teams of no-names to .500 records. He has had to a lot of that with the Sixers because the players on that team are sooo fragile.

The tank definitely worked with Cleveland, if only to get Lebron there.

But it took him coming back as a FA to get the ring.

The Cavs were nba Siberia before 2003.

Not sure you how mean this. They were still NBA siberia in terms of getting free agents to come to cleveland even with Lebron, which is why he left.

In terms of just success, they were actually a (very) decent NBA franchise from the late 80s to the early 90s.

10 better-than-.500 records between '88 and '98, including a 54 win season and TWO 57 win seasons.

Like the Knicks, those seasons just happened to coincide with Jordan ... is their own division.

They were not good in the years leading up to the 2002-2003 tank job for Lebron.

No argument. But "Siberia" has a particular context. They were NOT a franchise unable to be competitive without drastic measures.

And honestly, I'd have to do some research to familiarize myself with how much - if any - the fact Lebron was from Akron played into their decision to full tank.

They were a small market team that got little attention even when they were good like the 1996 Year they were coached by fratello and won 48 games only to get swept by us in round 1. In the years with Lebron they have had constant national media attention to go along with multiple nba finals appearances and a championship

Still doesn't address what's actually being discussed. And not for nothing, they're a pretty good team with a likely pretty good future, and they're still located in Cleveland. I don't know their current roster owes anything do the increased media attention Lebron brought them.