Spurs needs to tank hard and target Wembanyama un 2023

[wildbill2u]

I don't keep up with so-called 'tanks" from the past, but can anyone cite a couple of teams that tanked and actually got the number one draft pick? It seems to me that with the lottery balls bouncing in unpredictable ways that the very theory of tanking is suspect. Sure you can wind up in the lottery by purposely losing games, but with no guarantee of the number one pick aren't you setting your team up for a bad let down if the ploy doesn't work. I'm sure someone has the odds figured out, but those balls look more and more like a Pa o parlor to me--totally oblivious to odds as they bounce around.

[wildbill2u]

From what I remember, a lot of this can be blamed on the square-cube law. For example making someone 10% bigger in every dimension increases their mass by 33.1% but the surface area of their bones (which must support that mass) by only 21%. That means extremely tall people that do a lot of high-impact activities on a hard surface, like running and jumping in a basketball game, should be more prone to injuries like foot fractures than more normal-sized people.

Aha! I knew that one of our knowledgeable folks would come up with a scientific reason for BB players being more injury prone. It seems obvious doesn't it that a very tall tennis player like Arhur Ashe would be less prone to injuries than a BB player of a similar height. By the way, I only put some of the tallest players in my list above. But we have to remember that even the "shorter players" like guards are much taller than the average human and many of them like Brandon Roy, Allan Houston, Penny Hardaway, and Pete Maravich have also had some careers that were injury plagued. It goes with the territory.

[DAF86]

Folks actually trying to rationalize passing on this guy, or trying not to tank after trading Murray.

Maxing Ayton as one of the reasons.

[Stump]

I don't keep up with so-called 'tanks" from the past, but can anyone cite a couple of teams that tanked and actually got the number one draft pick? It seems to me that with the lottery balls bouncing in unpredictable ways that the very theory of tanking is suspect. Sure you can wind up in the lottery by purposely losing games, but with no guarantee of the number one pick aren't you setting your team up for a bad let down if the ploy doesn't work. I'm sure someone has the odds figured out, but those balls look more and more like a Pa o parlor to me--totally oblivious to odds as they bounce around.

One of the more noteworthy examples would be when the Seattle Supersonics / OKC Thunder decided to tank for a few years. In three years, they ended up with four top-5 picks (they traded Ray Allen for the #5 the first year). Those picks were Kevin Durant, Jeff Green, Russell Westbrook, and James Harden. They also used their extra cap space to absorb bad contracts in exchange for more first round picks. One of those ended up becoming Serge Ibaka.

Did it work? They ended up with some huge talent, but never won a championship. Furthermore, you have to factor in that their cir stances are very different from most teams'.
1. They were in the middle of switching cities. OKC was thrilled to have a team and buy tickets, regardless of how terrible they were.
2. Landing three MVP-caliber guys with four top-5 picks is crazy lucky. In most cases, you would be ecstatic to land one in those cir stances.
3. Cap space is still valuable, but not nearly as much as it was back then. OKC could get more value with that strategy than we could now.

[RC_Drunkford]

I don't keep up with so-called 'tanks" from the past, but can anyone cite a couple of teams that tanked and actually got the number one draft pick? It seems to me that with the lottery balls bouncing in unpredictable ways that the very theory of tanking is suspect. Sure you can wind up in the lottery by purposely losing games, but with no guarantee of the number one pick aren't you setting your team up for a bad let down if the ploy doesn't work. I'm sure someone has the odds figured out, but those balls look more and more like a Pa o parlor to me--totally oblivious to odds as they bounce around.

Orlando Magic

[illusioNtEk]

is this guy the next james white? or giest on ST? Focus on Today and not Tommorow

[offset formation]

When you're now publicly rebuilding, the whole point is about tomorrow, not today. Our current roster, even if these guys all max our their abilities probably only gets you to a 4-8 seed AT BEST. You need at least 1 superstar to even think about reaching the finals nowadays. Sometimes 2 isn't even enough. Put a Wembanyama on a team with a bunch of sub all-stars though and you've got a team that might challenge for LOBs for multiple years. Aside from him, you're probably looking at mediocrity as your ceiling.

[lefty20]

Primo gonna make sure we get the best possible odds to land this mf.

[dbestpro]

The Spurs are not going to be bad. They are going to be historically bad. I predict the lowest record ever for a Spurs team. .

[rjv]

^^ yes, they are going to have a very poor record. that's why i don't get all these trade jakob and keldon posts. the spurs don't need to do anything intentional any more. they will have a bad record regardless. and even if they had kept DJ, they'd have been only marginally better than last year. the problem is that there are too many other teams that will have improved more than the spurs would have. as it is, i expect the spurs to have one of the worst records-at least bottom five.

[DAF86]

^^ yes, they are going to have a very poor record. that's why i don't get all these trade jakob and keldon posts. the spurs don't need to do anything intentional any more. they will have a bad record regardless. and even if they had kept DJ, they'd have been only marginally better than last year. the problem is that there are too many other teams that will have improved more than the spurs would have. as it is, i expect the spurs to have one of the worst records-at least bottom five.

Bottom 5 isn't enough, we need to be bottom 3. With Poeltl, Richardson and the other vets we aren't going to be that bad, that's why we need to trade them. Also, to get more first round picks.

[rjv]

Bottom 5 isn't enough, we need to be bottom 3. With Poeltl, Richardson and the other vets we aren't going to be that bad, that's why we need to trade them. Also, to get more first round picks.

no one can guarantee a bottom three which is why i say bottom five. will there be a team that pulls its roster like portland and detroit did last season (a gambit that didn't work as far as getting the top pick goes)? will there be a team that legitimately suffers significant injuries to key players? you don't just make trades to deplete your roster for a 14% shot at the top pick. and you certainly don't rush a trade.

[DAF86]

no one can guarantee a bottom three which is why i say bottom five.

Can't guarantee a bottom 3 finish but you can guarantee a bottom 5? What kind of logic is that?

Nobody can guarantee anything, but you are way closer to getting a bottom 3 record if you trade your most productive players for future assets. That's why you do it if you are in rebuilding mode.

will there be a team that pulls its roster like portland and detroit did last season (a gambit that didn't work as far as getting the top pick goes)? will there be a team that legitimately suffers significant injuries to key players?

All the more reason to tank early and often. No reason to start the season with guys like Poeltl, Richardson, McDermott, etc. and getting meaningless wins that will hurt you in the lottery later on.

you don't just make trades to deplete your roster for a 14% shot at the top pick. and you certainly don't rush a trade.

After trading your 26 year old all-star on the raise, you better. Going all-in on the tank is the only reasonable explanation for a trade like that.

I don't understand Spurs fans stuck on this middle of the road . This offseasn had two ways to go, and two ways only. The first one (and the one that would have been my favourite choice), trying to make moves to compete now. Unfortunately, the Murray trade changes this. After trading your best player for future assets, the only path to follow now is going hard for that tank. None of these half assed measures many of you guys are trying to rationalize.

"We can't deplete the roster"
"We still need a competent PG to run the team"
"We should go after Ayton"

all of that. We need none of that . The Spurs need to trade all the vets, get future assets, and give the youngsters all the minutes.

Next season, after hopefully getting a franchise level prospect with a top 3 pick, we can start talking about constructing the best roster possible again.

[rjv]

Can't guarantee a bottom 3 finish but you can guarantee a bottom 5? What kind of logic is that?

it's not logic; it's an opinion. this isn't a symposium on the logic and set theory of Quine. technically, i guess anyone can guarantee anything but it doesn't make it any less likely.

Nobody can guarantee anything, but you are way closer to getting a bottom 3 record if you trade your most productive players for future assets. That's why you do it if you are in rebuilding mode.



All the more reason to tank early and often. No reason to start the season with guys like Poeltl, Richardson, McDermott, etc. and getting meaningless wins that will hurt you in the lottery later on.



After trading your 26 year old all-star on the raise, you better. Going all-in on the tank is the only reasonable explanation for a trade like that.

I don't understand Spurs fans stuck on this middle of the road . This offseasn had two ways to go, and two ways only. The first one (and the one that would have been my favourite choice), trying to make moves to compete now. Unfortunately, the Murray trade changes this. After trading your best player for future assets, the only path to follow now is going hard for that tank. None of these half assed measures many of you guys are trying to rationalize.

"We can't deplete the roster"
"We still need a competent PG to run the team"
"We should go after Ayton"

all of that. We need none of that . The Spurs need to trade all the vets, get future assets, and give the youngsters all the minutes.

Next season, after hopefully getting a franchise level prospect with a top 3 pick, we can start talking about constructing the best roster possible again.[/QUOTE]


you missed my point entirely. the spurs are not a middle of the road team now. they are bad. we shouldn't deplete the roster just to do it. if the spurs can find a competent PG in this current roster, you don't trade him. you develop him. you do the same for KJ and vassell. the only tradeable pieces would be josh and mcdermott. you don't trade poeltl unless you know you can't retain him on the cheap again past this summer. what happens if your all in tank strategy fails and the spurs don't wind up with a top three pick but still traded away most of their core?

[rjv]

Can't guarantee a bottom 3 finish but you can guarantee a bottom 5? What kind of logic is that?

it's not logic; it's an opinion. this isn't a symposium on the logic and set theory of Quine. technically, i guess anyone can guarantee anything but it doesn't make it any less likely.

All the more reason to tank early and often. No reason to start the season with guys like Poeltl, Richardson, McDermott, etc. and getting meaningless wins that will hurt you in the lottery later on.



After trading your 26 year old all-star on the raise, you better. Going all-in on the tank is the only reasonable explanation for a trade like that.

I don't understand Spurs fans stuck on this middle of the road . This offseasn had two ways to go, and two ways only. The first one (and the one that would have been my favourite choice), trying to make moves to compete now. Unfortunately, the Murray trade changes this. After trading your best player for future assets, the only path to follow now is going hard for that tank. None of these half assed measures many of you guys are trying to rationalize.

"We can't deplete the roster"
"We still need a competent PG to run the team"
"We should go after Ayton"

all of that. We need none of that . The Spurs need to trade all the vets, get future assets, and give the youngsters all the minutes.

Next season, after hopefully getting a franchise level prospect with a top 3 pick, we can start talking about constructing the best roster possible again.

you missed my point entirely. the spurs are not a middle of the road team now. they are bad. we shouldn't deplete the roster just to do it. if the spurs can find a competent PG in this current roster, you don't trade him. you develop him. you do the same for KJ and vassell. the only tradeable pieces would be josh and mcdermott. you don't trade poeltl unless you know you can't retain him on the cheap again past this summer. what happens if your all in tank strategy fails and the spurs don't wind up with a top three pick but still traded away most of their core? [/QUOTE]

what happens if your all in tank strategy fails and the spurs don't wind up with a top three pick but still traded away a good chunk of their core? i would only trade richardson and mcdermott. poeltl, i would hold onto unless the signs pointed to his unwillingness to sign with the spurs again next summer or he is asking for too much.

[DAF86]

it's not logic; it's an opinion. this isn't a symposium on the logic and set theory of Quine. technically, i guess anyone can guarantee anything but it doesn't make it any less likely.

Nobody can guarantee anything, but you are way closer to getting a bottom 3 record if you trade your most productive players for future assets. That's why you do it if you are in rebuilding mode.



All the more reason to tank early and often. No reason to start the season with guys like Poeltl, Richardson, McDermott, etc. and getting meaningless wins that will hurt you in the lottery later on.



After trading your 26 year old all-star on the raise, you better. Going all-in on the tank is the only reasonable explanation for a trade like that.

I don't understand Spurs fans stuck on this middle of the road . This offseasn had two ways to go, and two ways only. The first one (and the one that would have been my favourite choice), trying to make moves to compete now. Unfortunately, the Murray trade changes this. After trading your best player for future assets, the only path to follow now is going hard for that tank. None of these half assed measures many of you guys are trying to rationalize.

"We can't deplete the roster"
"We still need a competent PG to run the team"
"We should go after Ayton"

all of that. We need none of that . The Spurs need to trade all the vets, get future assets, and give the youngsters all the minutes.

Next season, after hopefully getting a franchise level prospect with a top 3 pick, we can start talking about constructing the best roster possible again.

you missed my point entirely. the spurs are not a middle of the road team now. they are bad. we shouldn't deplete the roster just to do it.

We wouldn't be "depleting the roster", we would simply be trading away players that don't fit the timeline for future assets that will. You know, like all tanking teams do.

if the spurs can find a competent PG in this current roster, you don't trade him. you develop him.

Sure, and where did I say different? My PG comment was referring to guys that wanted to sign a veteran PG to run point. You don't sign a journeyman to take minutes away from Primo, Wesley or Jones. You play your youngesters and see what you got going forward.

you don't trade poeltl unless you know you can't retain him on the cheap again past this summer.

What's the point of retaining a good, but nothing more than that, center that doesn't fit the timeline?

what happens if your all in tank strategy fails and the spurs don't wind up with a top three pick but still traded away most of their core?

What happens? You at least got future first round picks from those players you traded. Also, you wouldn't be trading away any core, just Poeltl and a couple of bench players.

Now let me rephrase the question to you: What happens if you don't trade away those players? What do you gain? Do you expect to make the playoffs with those players you don't trade?

[rjv]

Now let me rephrase the question to you: What happens if you don't trade away those players? What do you gain? Do you expect to make the playoffs with those players you don't trade?

if you remove players from the roster for assets, that is technically depleting. (deplete: to reduce in amount)

i already implied what would happen. you get a 14% chance of the top pick.

how can i expect to make the playoffs if i said the spurs were a bottom five team at best (with the current roster)?

[DAF86]

if you remove players from the roster for assets, that is technically depleting. (deplete: to reduce in amount)

i already implied what would happen. you get a 14% chance of the top pick.

how can i expect to make the playoffs if i said the spurs were a bottom five team at best (with the current roster)?

Then what would we gain by not trading those players?

[baseline bum]

^^ yes, they are going to have a very poor record. that's why i don't get all these trade jakob and keldon posts. the spurs don't need to do anything intentional any more. they will have a bad record regardless. and even if they had kept DJ, they'd have been only marginally better than last year. the problem is that there are too many other teams that will have improved more than the spurs would have. as it is, i expect the spurs to have one of the worst records-at least bottom five.

They just traded 25 year all star Murray because they didn't want to pay him in two years. Why keep the 26 year old big they also won't want to pay in two years? Convert that into picks instead of losing him for nothing on a team now too young to consider him an important piece.

[rjv]

Then what would we gain by not trading those players?

i have no problem with trading away richardson or mcdermott but see no point in trading away any of the younger players because i still think they are developing. i also prefer to hold on to poeltl for now. if you think the absence of poeltl somehow lands the spurs a top pick, well then great. i don't see it that way. (obviously)

[rjv]

They just traded 25 year all star Murray because they didn't want to pay him in two years. Why keep the 26 year old big they also won't want to pay in two years? Convert that into picks instead of losing him for nothing on a team now too young to consider him an important piece.

you tell me what team would swoop in for poeltl right now and offer us a butt load of picks.

[Ariel]

^^ yes, they are going to have a very poor record. that's why i don't get all these trade jakob and keldon posts. the spurs don't need to do anything intentional any more. they will have a bad record regardless. and even if they had kept DJ, they'd have been only marginally better than last year. the problem is that there are too many other teams that will have improved more than the spurs would have. as it is, i expect the spurs to have one of the worst records-at least bottom five.

That is true, but it will be compensated by the fact that Pop will genuinely try to win games (even if he can't), when those other teams will intentionally tank even if they have more talent. And it doesn't take a lot of effort to do so, you just have to look at the matchup between teams at the bottom, and I suspect the Spurs will have BY FAR the best head to head record against those teams... not because we're better... but because we're trying to WIN, when they're trying to LOSE.

[baseline bum]

you tell me what team would swoop in for poeltl right now and offer us a butt load of picks.

Probably only get one.

[DAF86]

i have no problem with trading away richardson or mcdermott but see no point in trading away any of the younger players because i still think they are developing. i also prefer to hold on to poeltl for now. if you think the absence of poeltl somehow lands the spurs a top pick, well then great. i don't see it that way. (obviously)

What do you want to hold Poeltl for? The Spurs are some long years away from competing again. By that time Poeltl would be on the wrong side of 30. Also, good luck convincing him to waste his prime years and resign with a rebuilding team. Poeltl is gone, the best thing we can do is trade him for some assets that come in handy in the future.

[DAF86]

you tell me what team would swoop in for poeltl right now and offer us a butt load of picks.

We don't need a butt load of picks, just one FRP would be better than letting him walk for nothing. Not to mention that it also helps our goal of winning the least amount of games possible.