Franchise408

Except you pointed out the exception on why Kyrie doesn't fit your narrative - he was paired with Hall of Fame LeBron James. I.E. the opposite of tanking. What did Kyrie do before LeBron? What has Kyrie done since LeBron? Tanking for Kyrie didn't bring Cleveland a championship. Signing arguably the greatest player of all time LeBron James did. And the fact that you even pointed out that picks 1, 2, and 3 don't win championships with their original teams is exactly the point. Tanking to get a top 3 pick just makes you a feeder team to the actual championship teams. It doesn't actually improve your franchise.

The Spurs didn't tank. Their Hall of Fame center was injured. Prior to the year he was injured, the Spurs were a playoff team. They had a bad year due to injuries, and were able to pair a future Hall of Famer #1 overall pick with another future Hall of Famer already on the roster. We have a Hall of Famer? Also, Cleveland didn't win a thing with LeBron until he came back as *checks notes* A free agent... After he left Cleveland the first time and won his first championship with another franchise. As far as the Sixers go, as I said earlier, outside of one year with Jimmy Butler, they have topped out as a 2nd round team. None of these are valid examples.

Isaac has been a starter, Fultz was a starter once he was healthy. Fultz was only DJ's reserve because he was just coming off of a long injury and wasn't physically ready to be thrust into a starting load.

There are 0 examples to support tanking. I just laid out, in detail, with facts from over 40 years worth of NBA history, how tanking doesn't work and never has. Also, you have to be "building" to be able to use the term "rebuilding". Tanking is the opposite of building, it is literally throwing everything away to be intentionally as bad as possible. Tanking is sabotage. There is a difference between "rebuilding", which is the natural ups and downs of professional sports, and "tanking", which is intentional sabotage of your team to be as bad as possible, with the desired goal and outcome of losing. So many of the examples of teams who have bounced back through the draft are inaccurate examples of "tanking" because it wasn't done with intent - it was part of the natural course of sports (i.e. when the Magic got Shaq or Dwight)

You are over simplifying it, not sure if intentional or not. My point is that purposefully sabotaging your team to purposefully be worse does not make a team better in the long run. I am saying that the logic of trading Vuc because we had "topped out" is flawed logic. If we had reached the peak of what we could be with Vuc on the roster, then that is saying that youth cannot grow and develop. Our team was not built around Vuc, it is built on the 4 lottery caliber players we have on the roster all under the age of 23, all 4 of which were injured either A. for the entire season or B. for large chunks of the season. As constructed, the offense would not have run through Vucevic, because when the team was healthy, it wasn't. It was running through Markelle. Vuc was an all star caliber complimentary piece to Markelle and the youth. The only reason this season was a loss was due to those injuries. Not for any weaknesses in our current roster makeup. Next year, we will start the season healthy, with the exception that I don't believe Fultz or Isaac are projected to return at the start of the season, but will be back at some point within the season. The roster with Vuc was already a playoff roster. Our youth core would continue to develop, and have an all-star alongside them. It's not about building around Vuc, it's about having talent around our youth. We would have had a lottery pick regardless of trading Vuc or not. We still would have had the #5 pick this year. We would be missing out on pick #8, but have an all-star center. Now, we still have those young players on our roster, but now there is no all-star to compliment them. Now we have dice rolls on a #8 pick, and whatever we use with the cap space freed up from Otto Porter's contract. My argument is that it was needless. The team had already made the post-season for 2 consecutive years after the longest drought in franchise history, only missed this season due to injuries, and when we were healthy at the beginning of the season, we had the best record in the conference. So we shook things up needlessly just for the sake of shaking things up, and we went into intentional tank mode, with fans cheering on losses and boo'ing wins every step of the way. And for what? Because we had an injury plagued season during a year that saw the entire NBA hit with an increased level of injuries? To me, that's not a reason to blow up the roster. The roster had not topped out at a #7 seed, and the roster had a lot in front of them. Now it's blown up and we have taken several steps backwards all in the name of shaking things up because the NBA had a lot of injuries this year.

You are simply looking at the players, but you are not looking at the contexts of the teams and their success (or lack thereof) If a team's goal is to just get a superstar, then I guess the McGrady years were our peak years as a franchise, right? Getting a superstar is not the goal. Winning a championship is. There are more teams that have won championships with 0 superstars than there are teams that tanked for a superstar and won a championship. Allen Iverson - 0 championships with Philly Anthony Davis - 0 championships (or even any post-season success) in New Orleans. NO is in no different a boat now with Zion. Shaq - 0 championships in Orlando, and his one shot he had he was swept. That also isn't an example of tanking, as the team was an expansion team that was slowly building and acquiring talent through the draft, via Nick Anderson and Dennis Scott. Shaq also didn't get to the Finals with Orlando until they got a fluke 2nd #1 overall pick and turned that into Penny Hardaway. What kind of team was Orlando the year before they started making playoffs? A "medicore" middle of the pack team that had the best record of all non-playoff teams. The team wasn't tanking. They were building. Magic - The #1 pick was traded for, so Magic was placed alongside an already winning team. Worthy - Same as Magic Ayton - Ayton is not the centerpiece of Phoenix's success. In fact, he was considered to be a potential bust until this year. Booker (#13 overall pick) and Chris Paul are the centerpiece of their success. Phoenix's success came from the opposite of tanking. Embiid - The 76ers tops out at an ECF appearance the year they had Jimmy Butler. If the goal is getting knocked out of the 2nd round, then yes, Philly succeeded by tanking. But I don't think getting knocked out of the 2nd round is the goal. Literally all of those other guys except McHale and Jordan have a combined 0 championships with the team that drafted them. And like Magic, Boston had acquired another team's top pick to get McHale. They didn't obtain it by tanking. There are no examples of a team tanking, and using that philosophy to turn around and turn into a champion via that philosophy. Tanking does *not* work. It is a 0% success philosophy. It might bring you a superstar, sure, but you have completely depleted your team of any semblance of talent that there is nothing around that superstar to work with, and they have left to greener pastures by the time you are able to build up anything around them, and then they are gone and the franchise is back at square 1, having made no ground and are right where they were to begin with.

Which young guys weren't getting playtime under Cliff? Mo. That's literally it. Isaac was a starter. Fultz was a starter. Chuma and Cole were the first players off the bench. This narrative that Cliff wasn't playing the young guys is just false.

We chose intentional tanking as a philosophy. The bar has fallen to subterranean depths.

Because I'm not typing it out twice, I will copy and paste what I wrote in the other thread: " We were a playoff team the 2 years prior. We had an all-star center that we could build around. We had young, up and coming talent in the form of not 1, not 2, not 3, but *four* lottery caliber picks all under the age of 23 (Markelle Fultz, Jonathan Isaac, Cole Anthony, Chuma Okeke) Before the injuries, we had the top record in the Eastern conference, and young players like the ones I mentioned above were either starting (Fultz), or getting *very* significant minutes off the bench (Cole, Chuma), and there was very little drop-off from our first unit to our 2nd unit. This was a team that, at full health, would have been a very competitive team in the Eastern conference. What should we have done? Kept Vucevic. Let the year play out, and come back next year re-tooled and at full strength with Fultz and Isaac coming back at some point next year. I would have said keep Fournier and let him expire, because his biggest value was letting his contract come off the books (not trading him for more mediocre talent and keeping the salary on our books), but the front office was able to deal him for draft picks and no returned salary. So I'm fine with that. I'm even fine with the trade of Gordon, because he was probably gonna get flipped eventually anyways. I liked Gordon, but he didn't seem to be surpassing the level he had reached. But trading Vucevic and going into full blown intentional tank mode was a step too far. This was a playoff team already, and we had a huge youth core that was already improving, and only going to improve even more. They would have had a legitimate all-star on the roster with them to play alongside, were already proving to be competitive, and already had playoff experience. The roster, as it was constructed, was not a roster that would "peak at a 7th seed and lose in the first round". If the roster is as good as it was ever going to get, then that means you are saying that young players can't and won't develop, and if that is the case, then there is no reason to trade away for multiple draft picks anyways, because they won't be given an opportunity to develop. But young talent does develop, and already was developing. Fultz was showcasing leadership skills. Cole and Chuma were showing good skills off the bench. We had a roster spot opening up with Fournier's eventual departure for Cole to slide into the starting spot. With Gordon leaving as well, there was even a spot open for Chuma to slide into the starting spot. We could have retooled those bench spots with our #5 pick that we would have had regardless, and paired it all around a legitimate all-star to help guide us to even loftier goals and heights. There was no reason why this roster as constructed couldn't have and wouldn't have competed for high playoff positioning in the Eastern conference. They already were, and the only reason why this season was lost in the first place was because Fultz and Isaac were lost for the year, and Gordon, Fournier, Cole, Chuma, and many others were out for significant periods of the year. We were playing with D-leaguers for good chunks of the year, but this fanbase and the front office put the blame on the roster construction. Instead, the front office went into full tank mode, traded away our best asset, and now have put the entire burden of this franchise on the shoulders of a bunch of 22 year olds, with no indication of being any good any time soon. We've set ourselves up for at least another half decade of failure by embracing the tanking route and I don't see any path out of this anytime soon."

We were a playoff team the 2 years prior. We had an all-star center that we could build around. We had young, up and coming talent in the form of not 1, not 2, not 3, but *four* lottery caliber picks all under the age of 23 (Markelle Fultz, Jonathan Isaac, Cole Anthony, Chuma Okeke) Before the injuries, we had the top record in the Eastern conference, and young players like the ones I mentioned above were either starting (Fultz), or getting *very* significant minutes off the bench (Cole, Chuma), and there was very little drop-off from our first unit to our 2nd unit. This was a team that, at full health, would have been a very competitive team in the Eastern conference. What should we have done? Kept Vucevic. Let the year play out, and come back next year re-tooled and at full strength with Fultz and Isaac coming back at some point next year. I would have said keep Fournier and let him expire, because his biggest value was letting his contract come off the books (not trading him for more mediocre talent and keeping the salary on our books), but the front office was able to deal him for draft picks and no returned salary. So I'm fine with that. I'm even fine with the trade of Gordon, because he was probably gonna get flipped eventually anyways. I liked Gordon, but he didn't seem to be surpassing the level he had reached. But trading Vucevic and going into full blown intentional tank mode was a step too far. This was a playoff team already, and we had a huge youth core that was already improving, and only going to improve even more. They would have had a legitimate all-star on the roster with them to play alongside, were already proving to be competitive, and already had playoff experience. The roster, as it was constructed, was not a roster that would "peak at a 7th seed and lose in the first round". If the roster is as good as it was ever going to get, then that means you are saying that young players can't and won't develop, and if that is the case, then there is no reason to trade away for multiple draft picks anyways, because they won't be given an opportunity to develop. But young talent does develop, and already was developing. Fultz was showcasing leadership skills. Cole and Chuma were showing good skills off the bench. We had a roster spot opening up with Fournier's eventual departure for Cole to slide into the starting spot. With Gordon leaving as well, there was even a spot open for Chuma to slide into the starting spot. We could have retooled those bench spots with our #5 pick that we would have had regardless, and paired it all around a legitimate all-star to help guide us to even loftier goals and heights. There was no reason why this roster as constructed couldn't have and wouldn't have competed for high playoff positioning in the Eastern conference. They already were, and the only reason why this season was lost in the first place was because Fultz and Isaac were lost for the year, and Gordon, Fournier, Cole, Chuma, and many others were out for significant periods of the year. We were playing with D-leaguers for good chunks of the year, but this fanbase and the front office put the blame on the roster construction. Instead, the front office went into full tank mode, traded away our best asset, and now have put the entire burden of this franchise on the shoulders of a bunch of 22 year olds, with no indication of being any good any time soon. We've set ourselves up for at least another half decade of failure by embracing the tanking route and I don't see any path out of this anytime soon.

If this franchise continues to intentionally tank, I am going to be driven away as a fan.

This is what happens when you tank.

#1 picks don't win championships. Your attempt at a point is irrelevant to mine.

Sabotaging your team for picks does not work. Even if you get the top pick, you have no support around him, and they leave off to greener pastures by the time the team is able to recover enough to be able to put any sort of help around them. Look at LeBron's original Cleveland run. Look at Anthony Davis. Look at literally any top pick over the past decades, and you see the same story. Team gets a high pick, has nothing to surround said pick with, if it's the rare generational changing player like AI or LeBron, *maybe* that player can carry the team to a grain of post-season relevance, but there isn't enough support around the player to get over the top, and they bail off where they can actually make a difference for a team that actually tried. Tanking doesn't work not because it's bad to have a high pick, but because in order to get the top pick, your team has to be completely void of any semblance of supporting talent. All tanking does it put the franchise into a Tracy McGrady style situation where it's one guy carrying the weight of an entire franchise until finally the weak foundation gives, the player leaves to a better situation, and the franchise is right back to where they started, with nothing to show for it except perhaps a fleeting window of a couple years where they were a playoff team. Championship teams are not built through tanking. Never have been, and never will be. You can make all the excuses you want for "small market" this, and "small market" that, but the fact remains, it does not work. It is a failing philosophy, and while down periods are a natural course of the ebbs and flows of professional sports, intentional sabotage of your own franchise in an attempt for a top pick is a philosophy that should never be attempted by any franchise that has any desire to ever be a competent franchise.

Oh, they won a championship by tanking?

Tanking doesn't work. If you go through over the past 40+ years, you will see that teams never win the championship with the player that they drafted at #1, 2, or 3 The only exceptions to the rule: 1. Hakeem, after 10 years 2. Duncan, who was drafted onto a team with David Robinson 3. Kyrie, who got paired up with LeBron 4. Jordan, after he got paired up with Scottie So if you can pair your pick with hall of fame talent, then sure, you can win a championship. But acquiring - or already having - Hall of Fame talent, is literally the opposite of tanking, so again, no, tanking does not work.

I'm a little late, but with Philly getting bounced out in the 2nd round again, and us getting the 5th overall pick, once again we see that tanking is a failed philosophy that should never be intentionally utilized. Tanking doesn't work.

Magic gotta get real good real quick to even think about meeting Miami in the playoffs.

It's less about DJJ and more about the franchises. Miami is a darling franchise of the league, and Orlando isn't. There's no way in hell the NBA can let Orlando shine, even for a night. You saw how angry the NBA media was when Orlando beat LeBron's Cavs in 09 to ruin the dream Kobe / LeBron matchup. The NBA and the media want no part in Orlando getting over. Make sure the darling franchise gets the rub, while the bastard step child franchise stays locked in the basement. It's literally exactly what happened with Lavine too. A darling boy of the NBA was always going to win over someone from Orlando.

Honestly, I hope other players follow suit. I hope Zion, Gordon, everyone boycotts it from here on out.

Yea, if this is what the dunk contest is gonna be, I can't watch this garbage.

Doubtful that you can. And the problem isn't spending money. Ownership is spending plenty of it. The problem is how it's being spent. The last front office gave vastly over priced contracts to woefully mediocre players. The current front office is trying to dig out of that, while at the same time having made some questionable moves as well. Ownership is spending money. The front office is navigating how that money is being spent.

I'm like legit heated. I'm a 49ers fan as well and I'm more pissed off about this than I was the Super Bowl loss. The NBA clearly wanted Miami to shine and to bury Orlando. Miami is their darling franchise. Can't have a player from Orlando in the NBA spotlight, even for a day. Like, it might "just" be the dunk contest, but if they can't even get this little thing right, how can they have integrity for the big games?

Of course not. They got what they wanted. A member of their darling franchise got the rub, and Orlando got buried. Again.

Carter-Williams is the only one from that list I want back. Everyone else can bye Felecia.