Tankers Rejoice

[indeedproceed]

The idea that a team could or should be dismantled to qualify for a high pick to lead it toward championships is absurd.

Nobody's arguing that. Or at least the tiniest of minorities are arguing that. There's nuance involved here. Believing that its in the teams best interest to move Green, Rondo, or whoever now in a trade brining back valuable assets and advocating wholesale dismantling just to get a little worse are different things. By stating your position like that, you're just giving us a strawman for you to call absurd. 

The Cavs drafted #1, got the Flopping Crybaby for the prize and were still awful before just being mediocre because the rest of the roster couldn't play up to the requisite level.

Were still awful? From LeBron's rookie year to the time he left Cleveland, CLE had the 6th best record in the NBA, with 349 wins. That made them better than 3/4 of the league in that time. If you just look at the Cavs from the time LeBron came into his own as a player (say 05/06-2010), Cleveland had the 3rd best total record in the NBA.

This all with a supporting cast that while tailored to LeBron's skillset, was probably among the lowest in overall talent within the entire NBA. CLE, while they didn't get to keep him, did pretty well by LeBron.

Parenthetically, the Cavs other #1 picks since then haven't brought much either.

Kyrie Irving has been pretty good, an All-Star at age 21, rookie of the year, NBD.

Anthony Bennett looks like a whiff.   

Teams generally win championships, not single players, as we all know, and I believe that DA wants to retain a solid core upon which to build.  If the Celtics finish as the last team into the playoffs, they'll still have a relatively high pick (single number - 9) that can be packaged with other picks and a player/players to trade up.  That scenario will not likely play out, but there may be a GM willing to stock up with sterling silver players rather than go for a gold(en boy) in the hope that his best players and the picks/players received in return can get them over the top.

There are a few points here.

The first one, if the difference is still so thin that team A, a half game ahead of team B, gets to get spanked by Indiana or Miami in the first round while team B gets the 9th overall pick, it might behoove us to no have a high chance of being team A. Team A (the one that squeaks in the playoffs) gets to be embarrassed on a national stage and then get a pick in the lottery that typically yields a role player. Team B gets the chance to get a higher caliber prospect by a considerable margin, AND they get at least their foot in the door of the lottery, so they also have a chance of winning the whole thing.

Trading up from 9th, or anywhere really, and into the top 7 or higher also seems like it has a very poor probability of happening. Not that it couldn't..but really, someone is gonna whiff on a pick in the top-8 for some reason. If we're picking 9th, you're better off just weathering the top 8 picks and taking BPA, because with the trove of picks we still have remaining, there is little to no payoff in the long-run for over-paying (which I'm implying would be a necessity to move up) to move up 3-4 spots when the prize at the 9th pick could be Noah Vonleh, Willie Caulie-Stien, or Dario Saric. Yeah, they're not Parker/WIggins/Randle, but neither is Aaron Gordon or Dante Exum.

[BballTim]

The idea that a team could or should be dismantled to qualify for a high pick to lead it toward championships is absurd.

Nobody's arguing that. Or at least the tiniest of minorities are arguing that. There's nuance involved here. Believing that its in the teams best interest to move Green, Rondo, or whoever now in a trade brining back valuable assets and advocating wholesale dismantling just to get a little worse are different things. By stating your position like that, you're just giving us a strawman for you to call absurd. 

  I think that we've seen a fair amount of trades that didn't help the team improve in either the short term or the long term and were justified by the superstar we were going to draft. That's probably what they mean. If you go back to the pre and early season trade proposals you'll be able to find trades that result in a fairly bad team aside from having Wiggins or Randle or Parker inserted into the lineup.

[indeedproceed]

The idea that a team could or should be dismantled to qualify for a high pick to lead it toward championships is absurd.

Nobody's arguing that. Or at least the tiniest of minorities are arguing that. There's nuance involved here. Believing that its in the teams best interest to move Green, Rondo, or whoever now in a trade brining back valuable assets and advocating wholesale dismantling just to get a little worse are different things. By stating your position like that, you're just giving us a strawman for you to call absurd. 

  I think that we've seen a fair amount of trades that didn't help the team improve in either the short term or the long term and were justified by the superstar we were going to draft. That's probably what they mean. If you go back to the pre and early season trade proposals you'll be able to find trades that result in a fairly bad team aside from having Wiggins or Randle or Parker inserted into the lineup.

I don't doubt that's the case, but isn't that true with some part of all genres of trade proposals?

If someone advocates moving Green, Bass, and Humphries for Carmelo Anthony, and 1 out of every 5 trades is that ridiculous, is it fair to label all 'win now' trades as fancifully unrealistic and absurd?

Because effectively when people say, "To the tankers who just want to trade the team away to move up a few precious spots in the lottery..", they're effectively talking to a near non-existent group of people. Even Rondo's most persistent critics (I imagine you probably know of one or two) wouldn't advocate just giving him away for no future gain.

Whether the gain is salary relief, picks, players, poppers, uppers, downers, screamers, laughers, whatever...we'd get something back in most non-trolling scenarios.

[BballTim]

The idea that a team could or should be dismantled to qualify for a high pick to lead it toward championships is absurd.

Nobody's arguing that. Or at least the tiniest of minorities are arguing that. There's nuance involved here. Believing that its in the teams best interest to move Green, Rondo, or whoever now in a trade brining back valuable assets and advocating wholesale dismantling just to get a little worse are different things. By stating your position like that, you're just giving us a strawman for you to call absurd. 

  I think that we've seen a fair amount of trades that didn't help the team improve in either the short term or the long term and were justified by the superstar we were going to draft. That's probably what they mean. If you go back to the pre and early season trade proposals you'll be able to find trades that result in a fairly bad team aside from having Wiggins or Randle or Parker inserted into the lineup.

I don't doubt that's the case, but isn't that true with some part of all genres of trade proposals?

  I'm confused. You said only the tiniest of minorities want to dismantle the team to get a high pick, I said that a fair amount of trades fit that description and you agree with me. Is that your idea of what happened?

If someone advocates moving Green, Bass, and Humphries for Carmelo Anthony, and 1 out of every 5 trades is that ridiculous, is it fair to label all 'win now' trades as fancifully unrealistic and absurd?

  I didn't say "all".

Because effectively when people say, "To the tankers who just want to trade the team away to move up a few precious spots in the lottery..", they're effectively talking to a near non-existent group of people. Even Rondo's most persistent critics (I imagine you probably know of one or two) wouldn't advocate just giving him away for no future gain.

Whether the gain is salary relief, picks, players, poppers, uppers, downers, screamers, laughers, whatever...we'd get something back in most non-trolling scenarios.

  Sure, they don't advocate cutting Rondo, they get something back. But again, if someone proposes a trade where the trade itself doesn't help us in the long term or the short term and justify it by claiming we'll get better draft picks if we make the trade they're talking about dismantling the team to get a high draft picks. It's not a tiny minority that feel that way.

[indeedproceed]

The idea that a team could or should be dismantled to qualify for a high pick to lead it toward championships is absurd.

Nobody's arguing that. Or at least the tiniest of minorities are arguing that. There's nuance involved here. Believing that its in the teams best interest to move Green, Rondo, or whoever now in a trade brining back valuable assets and advocating wholesale dismantling just to get a little worse are different things. By stating your position like that, you're just giving us a strawman for you to call absurd. 

  I think that we've seen a fair amount of trades that didn't help the team improve in either the short term or the long term and were justified by the superstar we were going to draft. That's probably what they mean. If you go back to the pre and early season trade proposals you'll be able to find trades that result in a fairly bad team aside from having Wiggins or Randle or Parker inserted into the lineup.

I don't doubt that's the case, but isn't that true with some part of all genres of trade proposals?

  I'm confused. You said only the tiniest of minorities want to dismantle the team to get a high pick, I said that a fair amount of trades fit that description and you agree with me. Is that your idea of what happened?

Well it depends what a 'fair amount' means then. I thought you meant like..a handful of trades. A smidgen, a pinch, a bit, a morsel, to wit, a fraction. Now how big a fraction appears to be where you and I part ways. I am assuming that a fair amount can also be a small fraction made by a small minority of a larger group of people who probably don't really make trade proposals by and large.

I'm also saying using the anecdotal trade proposals to represent a viewpoint probably isn't accurate.

If someone advocates moving Green, Bass, and Humphries for Carmelo Anthony, and 1 out of every 5 trades is that ridiculous, is it fair to label all 'win now' trades as fancifully unrealistic and absurd?

  I didn't say "all".

I didn't say you said anything.

Because effectively when people say, "To the tankers who just want to trade the team away to move up a few precious spots in the lottery..", they're effectively talking to a near non-existent group of people. Even Rondo's most persistent critics (I imagine you probably know of one or two) wouldn't advocate just giving him away for no future gain.

Whether the gain is salary relief, picks, players, poppers, uppers, downers, screamers, laughers, whatever...we'd get something back in most non-trolling scenarios.

  Sure, they don't advocate cutting Rondo, they get something back. But again, if someone proposes a trade where the trade itself doesn't help us in the long term or the short term and justify it by claiming we'll get better draft picks if we make the trade they're talking about dismantling the team to get a high draft picks. It's not a tiny minority that feel that way.

It is. It is a tiny minority. I'll prove it to you.

EDIT: And by 'tiny minority', so we can talk actual turkey, I'm talking less than 10%.

[LooseCannon]

  Sure, they don't advocate cutting Rondo, they get something back.

I seem to recall at least one poster saying yes when I asked whether they would be willing to trade Rondo for absolutely nothing in return to ensure a tank job.

[Mr October]

According to hollinger's rankings, the celtics have played the 4th easiest strength of schedule so far.
The hawks have played the 2nd easiest.

http://espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/powerrankings/_/page/2/sort/sos

This bodes well for the draft positions in June. Tankers rejoice.

[Mr October]

  Sure, they don't advocate cutting Rondo, they get something back.

I seem to recall at least one poster saying yes when I asked whether they would be willing to trade Rondo for absolutely nothing in return to ensure a tank job.

Yeah i recall hearing a number of trade ideas involving selling rondo or green for nothing, for the sake of getting worse. I would only trade rondo for another star, or a great pick in a great draft. It is hard to get all star players onto your team. Once you have them you cant just give them away for the sake of forming a 25 years old and younger roster, bound for multiple trips to the lottery.

[BballTim]

According to hollinger's rankings, the celtics have played the 4th easiest strength of schedule so far.
The hawks have played the 2nd easiest.

http://espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/powerrankings/_/page/2/sort/sos

This bodes well for the draft positions in June. Tankers rejoice.

  With our conference/division, we're likely going to end up with one of the easier schedules for the year. I don't think this will even out over time.

[TheBig3]

Looks like Ryan Anderson may be out for the year, the Pelicans record isn't very good without him and the fans over there are hoping to join the tanking wagon, so add them and the bulls (potentially) and this should get interesting. The sad part is the teams that don't get say get into the top 5 will be in build mode for a long time.

[Mr October]

According to hollinger's rankings, the celtics have played the 4th easiest strength of schedule so far.
The hawks have played the 2nd easiest.

http://espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/powerrankings/_/page/2/sort/sos

This bodes well for the draft positions in June. Tankers rejoice.

  With our conference/division, we're likely going to end up with one of the easier schedules for the year. I don't think this will even out over time.

True. But the east will even a bit wth each other. Everyone in the east only plays 2 good  east teams 6-8 times. And then Miami and Indiana will have the easiest of schedules as the only good team that they will play in the east are each other 4 times.

[vjcsmoke]

1.  The Celtics are not tanking
2.  Trading away Lee is a cap saving maneuver for the future, it's not about trying to unload talent for nothing.
3.  We freed up some playing time for our guard logjam but Pressey might be on the outside looking in now that Bayless is a Celtic.
4.  We still have a logjam at power forward, so Ainge is far from done.

I don't mean to gloat, but it feels good to see this basketball team losing some games. It is a necessary evil in this league if you want to have a better shot at building a winner.

Cheers to other tankers today. We will likely lose all 5 of these games of this West Coast swing.