The Art of Tanking

[Secretly Space Jesus 670]

To answer DOM's question, there are of course other potential rebuilding models aside from becoming the worst team in the league. The Boston Celtics added some great players in 2007 and went from nowhere to NBA champion. And the 1999-2000 Magic were in a rebuilding mode and yet were able to field the "heart and hustle" team who were competitive and entertaining to watch. Of course, the current Magic situation is not exactly the same as either of those two examples. Otis did leave a big mess. And no two situations are ever going to be exactly the same. But there is usually more than one approach.

 

I didn't ask you if other options existed. A team could trade all their players for garbage and start the Magic dancers as players if they wanted. That's technically a rebuilding strategy. It's also irrelevant.

 

What I asked you is to tell me what YOU would do, since you keep criticizing Hennigan's plan by obliquely mentioning there being other options. I'm asking you to pick one, and explain why it would be better.

 

But thank you for pointing out that there were other historical examples of people doing other things, and then completely undercutting your own point by pointing out that no two situations are the same. It saved me the trouble.

[JJZFL 626]

I didn't ask you if other options existed. A team could trade all their players for garbage and start the Magic dancers as players if they wanted. That's technically a rebuilding strategy. It's also irrelevant.

 

What I asked you is to tell me what YOU would do, since you keep criticizing Hennigan's plan by obliquely mentioning there being other options. I'm asking you to pick one, and explain why it would be better.

 

But thank you for pointing out that there were other historical examples of people doing other things, and then completely undercutting your own point by pointing out that no two situations are the same. It saved me the trouble.

 

As I said in my post, discussing this issue is pointless, since it's rehashing stuff that's already done. Keep firing away if you like, but it will be a one person discussion.

 

Again, my main point is that creating a bad team is not the objective. It's supposed to be the means by which the team becomes good or great in a finite period of time. Success should and will be measured by how successfully that goal is achieved, or not achieved.

[Secretly Space Jesus 670]

As I said in my post, discussing this issue is pointless, since it's rehashing stuff that's already done. Keep firing away if you like, but it will be a one person discussion.

 

"I tried to make an argument that had holes big enough to drive a Mack truck through. When this was pointed out by multiple people, rather than attempt to defend my position OR acknowledge that I was mistaken, I will instead act supercilious towards the entire idea of having the discussion at all. On a discussion board.

 

Also, please ignore the fact that I'm the one who started the discussion of this topic in the first place."

 

Again, my main point is that creating a bad team is not the objective.

 

No one, literally no one on the Earth, has said or implied this was the objective. You're creating a massive straw-man here. Don't do that.

 

It's supposed to be the means by which the team becomes good or great in a finite period of time.

 

It's not supposed to be the means by which the team does anything. It's the result of years of poor management of assets. You're deliberately conflating "the bad situation we're now in" as being a necessary step in "how do we get out of the bad situation we're now in", which is almost too stupid to contemplate. If you were asked, "how do I get out of my bankruptcy situation?", you wouldn't ever answer with: "Well step one is to go bankrupt," because, and this is important: that's completely insane.

 

Success should and will be measured by how successfully that goal is achieved, or not achieved.

 

Success for ANYTHING is determined by how well goals were achieved, but again: "being bad" isn't the goal; it's the result of years of mismanagement. "Acquiring young assets with upside, CAP flexibility and draft picks" is the goal, and with those goals, judging last season as anything OTHER than a fairly massive success requires you to be militantly ignorant, hilariously stupid, or both.

 

You may have a really nostalgic view of the so-called heart and hustle team, which you're welcome to have. However, history says that team finished with a .500 record and missed the playoffs, and that the Magic wouldn't make it out of the first round until 8 years after that team.

[JJZFL 626]

"I tried to make an argument that had holes big enough to drive a Mack truck through. When this was pointed out by multiple people, rather than attempt to defend my position OR acknowledge that I was mistaken, I will instead act supercilious towards the entire idea of having the discussion at all. On a discussion board.

 

Also, please ignore the fact that I'm the one who started the discussion of this topic in the first place."

 

 

 

No one, literally no one on the Earth, has said or implied this was the objective. You're creating a massive straw-man here. Don't do that.

 

 

 

It's not supposed to be the means by which the team does anything. It's the result of years of poor management of assets. You're deliberately conflating "the bad situation we're now in" as being a necessary step in "how do we get out of the bad situation we're now in", which is almost too stupid to contemplate. If you were asked, "how do I get out of my bankruptcy situation?", you wouldn't ever answer with: "Well step one is to go bankrupt," because, and this is important: that's completely insane.

 

 

Success for ANYTHING is determined by how well goals were achieved, but again: "being bad" isn't the goal; it's the result of years of mismanagement. "Acquiring young assets with upside, CAP flexibility and draft picks" is the goal, and with those goals, judging last season as anything OTHER than a fairly massive success requires you to be militantly ignorant, hilariously stupid, or both.

 

You may have a really nostalgic view of the so-called heart and hustle team, which you're welcome to have. However, history says that team finished with a .500 record and missed the playoffs, and that the Magic wouldn't make it out of the first round until 8 years after that team.

As usual, distorting what I said in order to take some cheap shots. Why can't you have a civil discussion?

 

At any rate, my first post in this thread was mainly in response to someone who called Hennigan a "genius". My main point all along has been that it's premature to call anyone a "genius" or to designate anything as a success. Despite what you said, acquiring young players, draft picks and CAP flexibility are only means to an end, and not ends in themselves. If they don't lead to a good team in a finite period of time, then the GM and coach haven't been successful, no matter how many young players they've acquired.

 

The heart and hustle team was competitive, fun to watch, and against all expectations nearly made the playoffs. Last year's team wasn't too much fun to watch. Too early to say about this year's.

[Secretly Space Jesus 670]

As usual, distorting what I said in order to take some cheap shots. Why can't you have a civil discussion?

 

I have always liked that the idea of a "civil discussion" for some people is "everyone agrees and is super nice about everything."

 

You've repeated the same 5 or 6 things on this board for months now, and every single time you've been challenged to back up your arguments, by me or by anyone else, you've dodged the issue and talked down to everyone. Do I have to beg? Is that what you want? Will that soothe your ego enough that you'll answer a single freaking question put to you?

 

You can complain all you want about how much of a big meanie head I am, but at least when someone here challenges an argument I've made, I either admit I was wrong or explain in detail why I wasn't, rather than what you're doing which seems to mostly just be side-stepping the questions and then repeating the same claims.

 

At any rate, my first post in this thread was mainly in response to someone who called Hennigan a "genius". My main point all along has been that it's premature to call anyone a "genius" or to designate anything as a success.

 

I guess it's possible you weren't aware of this, but it's actually quite easy to go back and look up the things that you've written in the past. So when you say that your main point was that it's premature to call someone a genius, I can say: "You're lying, because this discussion originally started in July with this post." And if you read that post, you'll see that you at no point questioned whether or not someone was a genius.

 

Actually, what you did do multiple times in that thread, and something you've done repeatedly in this one, is make weightless claims about needing something to happen "within a finite amount of time" or "after a certain number of years of bad play", which is super clever of you, because if the team doesn't improve in 8 years, the coaching staff and GM would have failed, and if the team has bad attendance until 2030, they'll almost assuredly leave. So by never actually committing your points to an actual, defined timeline, you never have to back up any of your points. And I might almost let you get away with that, no matter how ridiculous and bankrupt an idea that is.

 

You know: if I was like, really really stupid.

 

Despite what you said, acquiring young players, draft picks and CAP flexibility are only means to an end, and not ends in themselves. If they don't lead to a good team in a finite period of time, then the GM and coach haven't been successful, no matter how many young players they've acquired.

 

I'm not going to waste my time here explaining to you the difference between short-term goals and long-term goals. Read a book.

 

The heart and hustle team was competitive, fun to watch, and against all expectations nearly made the playoffs. Last year's team wasn't too much fun to watch. Too early to say about this year's.

 

So wait a minute: is your argument that a team doesn't have to be good to be successful? As long as you enjoy watching them, they're a success even if they're bad?

 

Unrelated note, should I be giving my own posts +1s? Is that a thing we're doing now?

[Ibn Battuta 127]

As usual, distorting what I said in order to take some cheap shots. Why can't you have a civil discussion?

 

At any rate, my first post in this thread was mainly in response to someone who called Hennigan a "genius". My main point all along has been that it's premature to call anyone a "genius" or to designate anything as a success. Despite what you said, acquiring young players, draft picks and CAP flexibility are only means to an end, and not ends in themselves. If they don't lead to a good team in a finite period of time, then the GM and coach haven't been successful, no matter how many young players they've acquired.

 

The heart and hustle team was competitive, fun to watch, and against all expectations nearly made the playoffs. Last year's team wasn't too much fun to watch. Too early to say about this year's.

 

just explain to us what rebuilding plan you think is better, and how you'd accomplish it. Because now it seems like you're going back on that and taking a wait and see approach (thus appearing ambivalent).

[30Assists 342]

I'd say making a team that is purely bad just to be bad is the wrong way to go, but that's not what the Magic are doing. We have at least what looks like a lot of talent, but wrapped up in young players and future potential (in the next draft). I think our arc will be similar to the Sonics [i refuse to call them their current name because Clay Effing Bennett stole the damn team and should die of super herpes while on fire].

[Ibn Battuta 127]

TBH i'm really not a fan all of this tanking. Dave Berri did a piece on this and although his numbers are sketchy, I think his underlying point is true. However, the biggest thing separating us from the warriors, clippers, bobcats etc from the past decade is that we appear to have good, perhaps excellent management (tobias harris trade).

[Fultz4thewin 2,464]

TBH i'm really not a fan all of this tanking. Dave Berri did a piece on this and although his numbers are sketchy, I think his underlying point is true. However, the biggest thing separating us from the warriors, clippers, bobcats etc from the past decade is that we appear to have good, perhaps excellent management (tobias harris trade).

 

 

Right. In looking at all of the hennigan moves, both player personnel and management hires, we don't have any misses yet. Every move has at least been positive compared to alternatives.

[Secretly Space Jesus 670]

TBH i'm really not a fan all of this tanking. Dave Berri did a piece on this and although his numbers are sketchy, I think his underlying point is true. However, the biggest thing separating us from the warriors, clippers, bobcats etc from the past decade is that we appear to have good, perhaps excellent management (tobias harris trade).

 

The two big problems with Berri's article were small sample size and deliberately setting goal posts where his arguments sounded the best, even if he was going to then set the goal posts in an entirely different location for a later point. It's why he can claim Yao Ming was a failed draft pick in one part of his article because he never won a title, while ignoring that the Rockets improved by 15 wins after drafting him. Because they weren't a "contender", which he chooses to define at 54 wins, that's still a failed draft pick.

 

And then there is the whole part about confusing a part of a rebuilding strategy with the entire strategy, which is actually pretty ridiculous and I....wait, are we sure Dave Berri isn't JJZFL?

[Fultz4thewin 2,464]

The two big problems with Berri's article were small sample size and deliberately setting goal posts where his arguments sounded the best, even if he was going to then set the goal posts in an entirely different location for a later point. It's why he can claim Yao Ming was a failed draft pick in one part of his article because he never won a title, while ignoring that the Rockets improved by 15 wins after drafting him. Because they weren't a "contender", which he chooses to define at 54 wins, that's still a failed draft pick.

 

And then there is the whole part about confusing a part of a rebuilding strategy with the entire strategy, which is actually pretty ridiculous and I....wait, are we sure Dave Berri isn't JJZFL?

 

Somebody actually considers Yao Ming a failed draft pick?

[TrustInHenny 14]

I was really hoping JJZFL would have a legit answer to the question posed to him. I admit, Im a little disappointed. I would, however, like to hear his opinion of this "crappy" team after two blow out wins over good teams.

 

Everyone is so quick to jump to far extremes after a game. Nicholson is an all-star. Afflalo is the leagues worst shooting guard. Am I right??

 

Id be surprised if JJZFL wasn't an advocate for a Bynum to Orlando trade. After-all, Hennigan is doing an awful job.