To Tank or not to Tank, that is the question

[ArchieBunker7]

You sound ridiculous, but keep it up. Here's a quote and a link to get you started. Who am I to claim this did or didnt happen? I'm really not making this shit up as I go, but whatever.

A vicious tug of war between the Portland Trail Blazers and the Minnesota Timberwolves this summer for the services of Nicolas Batum ultimately kept the fifth year forward from France in the Rose City. Batum expressed interest in playing for the Timberwolves but the Blazers matched his four year, $48 million dollar offer sheet.

Though Batum got the contract he desired, it may not have been the largest offer. The Cleveland Cavaliers reportedly offered Batum $52 million to join their squad. The Timberwovles, Cavaliers, New Orleans Hornets and Toronto Raptors were the most aggressive suitors for Batum during his free agency.

http://cleveland.sbnation.com/2012/1...ree-agency-nba

Ill wait while you list the big time stars the Cavs are going to sign in FA or acquire in trades. Be sure to list past home runs we've hit with those two approaches. So far you've listed whiffing on Nic Batum as a mistake, and you evidently have him pegged as the next Scottie Pippen. Forgive me if I'm dubious.

I'm on the record, repeatedly, that the best way for the CAVS to build a winner is the draft, and you only get high picks by flipping assets and tanking. Not sure what's difficult to understand. Unless you're "smokn" too much.

You must have difficulty in reading comprehension as this article was just brought up a week or two ago and refuted by numerous sources thereafter as garbage. Do you really believe Batum, as a RFA, and his agent would have turned down that offer after POR came right out and said they would match any offer for him? Gimme a break. This reminds me of that commercial about people believing shit just because they saw it on the internet. "Then it must be true!!" Don't be so naive.

Again, your comprehension seems to be falling just a bit short. When did I say big time stars, in any way, shape, or form? Don't waste your time looking, cuz I didn't. I never believed we would get Bynum and going back to the LBJ years, I never got my hopes up for Joe Johnson. Hence...now follow along....there has to be some risk taking involved on players who have not yet peaked and still fit the mold of young, but experienced talent. Like my original point, Nic Batum being just one example.

There's nothing at all difficult about understanding your regurgitated views on team building in CLE. The nice article about the fallacies in trading Andy just posted in another thread detail the flaws in all of this pretty nicely, so I won't bother repeating it. All drafts are a crap shoot, and weak ones like the one approaching make the large majority of picks a near waste, and certainly not in line with Andy's value. Nerlens Noel??? LMAO. Kid ain't Anthony Davis. And when you trade for someone's lottery pick(most likely protected), how do you know where you are landing in said draft? TOR's pick, for example, is 1-3 protected. So, in a weak draft, the very best you can do is 4. Awesome.

[Tornicade]

Please quote where I said players are useless after 30. I said players usually start declining after 32. That doesn't mean that they're useless after 32, but they're surely not as good as when they're in their upper 20s unless they're Steve Nash or Dennis Rodman.



Kyrie Irving was practically handed to us because the Clippers undervalued their lottery pick. Now imagine where we would be if we didn't make that trade. We'd be sitting here with only Tristan Thompson. What a utterly insufferable existence in which we would exist.

There was never any question about trading mo williams for the approiate value. most people objected to just trade williams for the sake of trading him which is what many people advocated.

Grant also never asked for an all star calber player for Mo wiliams. which he certainly is for Andy.

[Baseline Runner]

First off, the Cavaliers dont have 4 talented players. They have one stud in Irving. A guy that's looks like he can be good but not great in Waiters. A rich man's Spencer Hawes or an approximation of early 30s Z and Tristan Thompson, who many people now are just hoping he becomes Tyrone Hill. Basically, there's 2 guys in Irving and Waiters.

The Pistons made the playoffs Dumars rookie year and went to the ECFs in his 2nd, Finals in year 3 and champion in year 4. Everyone would love to be that mediocre. Olajuwon went to the Finals his 2nd year and he was absolute monster from day 1 in the league. It took the Rockets a long time to recover from Ralph Sampson's knees turning to jello. The Bulls won 50 games Scottie Pippen's rookie year and went to the 2nd round. Year 2 the ECFs, Year 3 the ECFs, and year 4 champion.

So bad examples.

I guess its more of a disagreement of semantics. I would consider any playoff team that is not a true contender to be "mediocre". There are the utterly bad teams, there are contenders, and the rest are mediocre.

As for my specific examples, I wasn't talking about Olajuwon's rookie and sophomore years. Those teams were more about Sampson anyways. Olajuwon had a long stretch going into the early nineties where his teams truly were mediocre any way you look at it, i.e. playing .500 ball despite having a center putting up insane stats. Then that team went from mediocre to winning titles, in large part because Olajuwon smoothed out the rough edges in his game and elevated to a GOAT level of play.

I know the Bulls were decent in the late eighties but no one considered them true contenders with the likes of the Celtics, Pistons and Lakers out there. They didn't emerge into contender status until Pippen became a legit second star which happened by the time of his fourth year. I remember their first finals series versus the Lakers and no was giving the Bulls much of a chance, even though the Lakers were over the hill. The Bulls were viewed as upstarts sort of like how are Cavs were perceived (and accurately) when we went to the Finals against the Spurs. No one knew that first year that they were seeing the start of a dynasty, even though Jordan was already perceived as perhaps the greatest player ever.

Maybe the Pistons were a bad example but now that is getting into before my time territory. But in both the Bulls and Rockets case, they got better not by loading up draft picks but by their stars getting better and developing chemistry with each other, as well as adding key role players (guys like Mario Elie were key in those Rocket's championship runs). Thus if you believe that we already have our stars in Kyrie, Dion (yes I think he will be a Joe Dumars, Scottie Pippen like star) and Varejao, it is more a matter of those guys developing together over the next few years, and surrounding them with the right players. It is not about hogging draft picks trying to find more stars, and it certainly isn't about trading the stars you have for unproven commodities. If anything I think we should look to trade the draft picks we have.

[Tornicade]

I guess its more of a disagreement of semantics. I would consider any playoff team that is not a true contender to be "mediocre". There are the utterly bad teams, there are contenders, and the rest are mediocre.

As for my specific examples, I wasn't talking about Olajuwon's rookie and sophomore years. Those teams were more about Sampson anyways. Olajuwon had a long stretch going into the early nineties where his teams truly were mediocre any way you look at it, i.e. playing .500 ball despite having a center putting up insane stats. Then that team went from mediocre to winning titles, in large part because Olajuwon smoothed out the rough edges in his game and elevated to a GOAT level of play.

I know the Bulls were decent in the late eighties but no one considered them true contenders with the likes of the Celtics, Pistons and Lakers out there. They didn't emerge into contender status until Pippen became a legit second star which happened by the time of his fourth year. I remember their first finals series versus the Lakers and no was giving the Bulls much of a chance, even though the Lakers were over the hill. The Bulls were viewed as upstarts sort of like how are Cavs were perceived (and accurately) when we went to the Finals against the Spurs. No one knew that first year that they were seeing the start of a dynasty, even though Jordan was already perceived as perhaps the greatest player ever.

Maybe the Pistons were a bad example but now that is getting into before my time territory. But in both the Bulls and Rockets case, they got better not by loading up draft picks but by their stars getting better and developing chemistry with each other, as well as adding key role players (guys like Mario Elie were key in those Rocket's championship runs). Thus if you believe that we already have our stars in Kyrie, Dion (yes I think he will be a Joe Dumars, Scottie Pippen like star) and Varejao, it is more a matter of those guys developing together over the next few years, and surrounding them with the right players. It is not about hogging draft picks trying to find more stars, and it certainly isn't about trading the stars you have for unproven commodities. If anything I think we should look to trade the draft picks we have.

1992-93	NBA	Chicago Bulls*	57	25	.695	1	6.19	112.9	106.1	Won Finals	P. Jackson (57-25)
1991-92	NBA	Chicago Bulls*	67	15	.817	1	10.07	115.5	104.5	Won Finals	P. Jackson (67-15)
1990-91	NBA	Chicago Bulls*	61	21	.744	1	8.57	114.6	105.2	Won Finals	P. Jackson (61-21)
1989-90	NBA	Chicago Bulls*	55	27	.671	2	2.74	112.3	109.0	Lost Eastern Conference Finals	P. Jackson (55-27)
1988-89	NBA	Chicago Bulls*	47	35	.573	5	2.13	109.1	107.7	Lost Eastern Conference Finals	D. Collins (47-35)
1987-88	NBA	Chicago Bulls*	50	32	.610	2	3.76	109.0	105.5	Lost Eastern Conference Semifinals	D. Collins (50-32)
1986-87	NBA	Chicago Bulls*	40	42	.488	5	1.27	108.6	107.6	Lost Eastern Conference First Round	D. Collins (40-42)
1985-86	NBA	Chicago Bulls*	30	52	.366	4	-3.12	108.6	112.4	Lost Eastern Conference First Round	S. Albeck (30-52)
1984-85	NBA	Chicago Bulls*	38	44	.463	3	-0.50	108.7	109.6	Lost Eastern Conference First Round

Record: 50-32, Finished 2nd in NBA Central Division (Schedule and Results)
Coach: Doug Collins (50-32)
PTS/G: 105.0 (19th of 23) ▪ Opp PTS/G: 101.6 (1st of 23)
SRS: 3.76 (5th of 23) ▪ Pace: 95.5 (23rd of 23)
Off Rtg: 109.0 (9th of 23) ▪ Def Rtg: 105.5 (3rd of 23)
Expected W-L: 50-32 (9th of 23)


Chicago was the third seed in the ecf. im not sure how thats not a contender.

Detroiit made a bunch of rules aimed to slow down jordan.

the Jazz were a 5th seed that year and took the lakers to 7 games.


Olajuwan averaged 20 points a game and took 15 shots a game. I say Sampson and hakeem were pretty much equals in that regards

42-40 rockets advanced in the playoffs. After Sampson got hurt.

out of their 4 first round exits. only one of them was in around the 50% range. Key for the rockets. adding robert horry, Sam cassell and Rudy tomjavanich defense.

[Baseline Runner]

Thanks for the post, that kind of proves my point. I said the Bulls made a gradual progression from bad too good. They didn't go from bad to contenders overnight like OKC did. It took them 7 years from the time Jordan was drafted until they won 60 games and a title. The Pistons and Rockets gradually got better and better too after they had their key pieces (Isiah and Olajuwon post Sampson).

If we have our key pieces in Irving/Dion/Varejao/Zeller/TT, then lets gradually get better like those teams did.

[MYoung23]

The Rockets teams were not about Sampson. No way.

Nice try though.

[PATRICK EWING]

Thanks for the post, that kind of proves my point. I said the Bulls made a gradual progression from bad too good. They didn't go from bad to contenders overnight like OKC did. It took them 7 years from the time Jordan was drafted until they won 60 games and a title. The Pistons and Rockets gradually got better and better too after they had their key pieces (Isiah and Olajuwon post Sampson).

If we have our key pieces in Irving/Dion/Varejao/Zeller/TT, then lets gradually get better like those teams did.

I like Kyrie and all, but wouldn't even think of him in the same class as an Isiah Thomas...

I don't think Zeller and TT are key pieces... Maybe Zeller could be down the road and has potential to be a nice piece in a rotation, but nothing great.. I guess he could be our Olajuwon's Otis Thorpe (but then again, he's gonna have to make an all star team like Otis )

TT is not an NBA player

[Birdy89]

Key for the rockets. adding robert horry, Sam cassell and Rudy tomjavanich defense.

You left out the biggest key.

Michael Jordan retired. Otherwise the Bulls would have won 8 straight titles.

[ICEman116]

Kurt Helin from probasketball reports:

It’s been a rough go for the Cleveland Cavaliers since Kyrie Irving broke his finger — they are 2-6 with him out of the lineup. In the last five games they have an offensive rating of 96 (points per 100 possessions), which would be second worst in the NBA this season, ahead of only the Washington Wizards (who also are missing a point guard).

And it may be a little longer before the Cavaliers get Irving back from the hairline fracture in his left index finger.

That’s the update from coach Byron Scott, speaking to the News Herald.

Irving is probably a couple weeks away from returning to the practice floor in contact drills. He’s been practicing lately, but when they have contact, he sits out.

“I know he’s anxious,” Scott said. “We’re not going to take any chances. We’ll leave it up to the doctors. He has to get at least one practice in. The chance of him coming back early, I don’t know.”

The 4-15 Cavaliers are not going anywhere, they should not rush Irving back. There is no reason, they need to think long term.

But man, I do miss watching him play. Hopefully he gets back soon

Seems like Byron and company have jumped on the tank. Keep it rolling FO

[Tank God]

Kurt Helin from probasketball reports:

Seems like Byron and company have jumped on the tank. Keep it rolling FO

Scott's generally been on the tank the whole time. He seemingly pulls players for "developmental lessons" at times, but I think he understands that we need to draft high if we are to get great players like Kyrie. If we get screwed out of a high draft pick, Scott has no one to blame but himself.

[Mdog1]

You left out the biggest key.

Michael Jordan retired. Otherwise the Bulls would have won 8 straight titles.

Tell me because I forget, what happened the year that Jordan came back? I can't quite remember who won the title that year...

Thanks for the post, that kind of proves my point. I said the Bulls made a gradual progression from bad too good. They didn't go from bad to contenders overnight like OKC did. It took them 7 years from the time Jordan was drafted until they won 60 games and a title. The Pistons and Rockets gradually got better and better too after they had their key pieces (Isiah and Olajuwon post Sampson).

If we have our key pieces in Irving/Dion/Varejao/Zeller/TT, then lets gradually get better like those teams did.

If you think Andy is going to be a key piece at 36 then you've got a rude awakening coming when he turns 33...

[narbar32]

Looks to be the third "down year" in a row for the draft, only this time there doesn't even appear to be an "except for the top prospect" caveat.

Thank Odin's Raven we got one of the "except for" guys in the past two drafts, but holy hell what an unfortunate time to be rebuilding through the draft.

Luckily, the 2014 draft, likely after our young guys are finally able to a season of mediocrity, will probably have a guy at the top who's being called by some the best prospect of this decade in Andrew Wiggins, a SF, along with the prior "next big thing" out of the high school kids, Jabari Parker, another SF.

My Cleveland sports fan senses are tingling. Can't even win for losing.

P.S. I'm only being half-serious here, as HS phenoms come and go (ahem, Mayo, Barnes, Rivers, etc...) and you just never know how each draft may actually pan out, but damn doesn't it just beat all the way things look from this vantage point? The fact that I can't even really hate the Tristan at #4 pick only because of the shit picked after him just furthers this idea in my head.

[ArchieBunker7]

I don't think this past draft was a down year. I think this past draft will end up yielding some really nice players. There may not be a true superstar, though, so in that sense I guess you could say it wasn't a great draft.

[ICEman116]

Scott's generally been on the tank the whole time. He seemingly pulls players for "developmental lessons" at times, but I think he understands that we need to draft high if we are to get great players like Kyrie. If we get screwed out of a high draft pick, Scott has no one to blame but himself.

yea Byron's been riding the tank pretty successfully, it is his players he has to coach after all

[shoes22]

Wiggins looks the most LeBron-esque player coming out of high school since LeBron, so there's understandable hype for him. But he's only coming in the 2014 draft, along with a couple other projected studs. Unfortunately by that time, if our front office is doing even a remotely competent job, we will be far away from the lottery and hopefully playoff bound.

So let's look towards the 2013 draft. Most of you seem dead set on tanking, but I'm not sure where that will get you. In this year's draft you have the other Zeller brother, Shabazz, Nerlens Noel, a couple other centers and average players after that. Even with the top 3 I just mentioned, none scream "superstar potential", and there is no consensus #1 like virtually every other draft year. This is a bad thing.

For most teams, the reason you tank is to get superstars. Virtually all superstars (if any) are drafted between #1-3 in the draft. Sometimes #4 or #5 in an especially deep draft year. The lottery is in place so that any of the bottom 14 teams have a shot at #1-3. If you draft at #6 or higher, the odds you have a future all-star are fairly low. So if we're not getting an all-star in the draft, at that point aren't you just better off in free agency or making trades with your other assets? The Cavs are lucky in that they already HAVE their superstar and a seemingly competent second option in Waiters.

At the very worst, whomever we draft in 2013 should be decent enough to start on next year's squad, but after that we really shouldn't be looking for any MAJOR pieces through the draft, making tanking unnecessary.