I wasn't talking to you, stupid ass.
You've been ridiculed from every angle, penetrated in every hole.
Bah come on that was 27 years ago, these teams are doing it for pleasure.
It's everywhere, all of your parroting of the same tired lines, citing "6" over and over to deflect the storm from that joke of a franchise you support, playing the "TOSB" game when your guy has already written his own epitaph in the form of a poem while mine is mounting another run for the playoffs with the 2nd best record in the league and is older than yours.
I'd have a harder time citing something that's not you hiding behind rhetoric.
The Spurs invented tanking.
Close but actually the 80's rockets invented tanking when they lost on purpose to get Sampson and Olajuwon in '83 and'84.
I agree that you don't ever want to become historically awful, especially over an extended period. It creates a cancerous environment, not only to develop young players, but also in terms of the perception of the organization league wide.
That said, despite all those who have failed, almost without fail, you with championships with hall of fame players and the best chance of getting them is by picking in the top few of the draft for a while and hoping you get lucky. Nothing can be done to the system to change that reality.
Right. The only tanking GSW did was to keep its top 8 pick which turned into Barnes. Had Minny had half a brain, they would have grabbed Curry to pair with Rubio instead of Flynn (or had OKC been better, may have ended up with a Curry/Westbrook backcourt instead of Harden). GSW got lucky there.The highest pick they got was 6, and they drafted Ekpe UdohThe next highest picks were two 7s, which they used to draft Curry and Harrison Barnes, the latter of which isn't even all that important. After Curry, Draymond was their most important draft pick and he went number 35. Even Klay was only an 11th overall pick. The Spurs were longshots to win the lottery that year. Even so, the Spurs only have one ring if not for the Manu, Parker, and Leonard draft picks, which weren't gotten through tanking. OKC is really the only outlier.
Multiyear tanking rarely works because it stunts the development of your youth (by putting them in bad situations, bad systems, alongside washed up vets in paycheck mode, and under bad coaches) and typically prevents any kind of chemistry and team iden y from developing since assets are continually moved and coaches continually fired and hired.
I like DPGs point
Ok, if you hated my earlier plan you'll hate this even more.
Keep the lottery but change the way the ping pong balls are used.
Currently odds are determined by win loss record. I'd reduce that to a third of the odds making.
Next, at mid season have a young people's tournament and force all lottery teams to field a team of players with three years of exp or less..add dleague players to any team that can't field a full young persons team. Run a single elimination tournament and give the winners better draft odds.
The idea is that tanking teams are rewarded for coaching young talent rather than signing tosb like Kobe. We'd reduce the regular season my a few games to compensate.
Fwiw the people who complained about my multi pick plan mostly cared about playoff teams getting new players. I don't think the world ends if good teams have to sign FA, dleague, overseas, or trade to improve.
Second the exclusionary rule will eventually move three picks up to lower ranked playoff teams. Depending on how you craft the exclusionary rule (prevents teams from reaching the same draft tier in consecutive years) you could decide the system so that even the spurs would get draft picks, but less often than a bad team.
A sample strong exclusionary rule would be one high level lottery (where you get 3 picks) appearance every 5 years. One lower level (2 picks)every three years. So a theoretical tank Philly style yields:
Year one, 3 picks. Year 2 picks. Then nothing in year the. Year 4 nothing. Year 5 if they still suck they get 2 players. In year 6 they get the three player level.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote