To Tank or not to Tank, that is the question

[Huber.]

in the past year these players have been traded

Chris Paul
Dwight Howard
Andrew Bynum
Andre Iguodala
James Harden
Tyson Chandler

All players at or above Danny Granger's level. The new luxury tax rules make teams more likely to trade high salary players. The new trade rules makes it harder to find trading partners. We have been patient and put ourselves in prime position to take advantage of the next wave of teams moving proven top tier talent. We have two all star caliber players on the roster. We aren't missing all that much to be very, very good. We are on the verge of winning quite a few more games with the roster as it stands today.

That's debatable. The only big tradable pieces is our 1st round pick (which we aren't trading) and Andy and if we got rid of him that would defeat the purpose of trading to get better. We would still be giving heavy minutes to 2 sophomores, 2 rookies and a guy that should be on the bench.

 

[Cavatt]

Missing the point on the Granger as a specific player. There will be quality, but overpaid personnel available to a cap friendly team like the Cavs. That's how I hope we use some of these picks.

 

[KI4MVP]

That's debatable. The only big tradable pieces is our 1st round pick (which we aren't trading) and Andy and if we got rid of him that would defeat the purpose of trading to get better. We would still be giving heavy minutes to 2 sophomores, 2 rookies and a guy that should be on the bench.

our biggest tradable piece is cap space. Luxury tax teams can dump salary to us without taking any salary back. In some cases instead of sending them a pick, we can have them send us a pick for helping them out. This season we can take $15 million in salary without sending anyone back. This offseason we could take the two highest paid players in the league without sending anyone else back.

 

[Mdog1]

in the past year these players have been traded

Chris Paul
Dwight Howard
Andrew Bynum
Andre Iguodala
James Harden
Tyson Chandler

All players at or above Danny Granger's level. The new luxury tax rules make teams more likely to trade high salary players. The new trade rules makes it harder to find trading partners. We have been patient and put ourselves in prime position to take advantage of the next wave of teams moving proven top tier talent. We have two all star caliber players on the roster. We aren't missing all that much to be very, very good. We are on the verge of winning quite a few more games with the roster as it stands today.

I'm not sure that you proved anything, other than defeating your own point with the players you listed...

Chris Paul traded for the #10 pick, Eric Gordon, and Aminu. On paper (without health concerns) that is a potential 20ppg SG, a lottery pick.

Dwight/Bynum/Iggy were trade for eachother. Meaning it would take a player of similar value to get a player of similar value, which we do not have.

Harden was traded for Lamb the 12th pick, and a legitimate 15+ppg scorer, and a likely lottery pick.

Chandler was a free agent...

In order for us to make similar trades to the ones you are suggesting we would have to give up Dion, and our pick + Andy, which puts us far further from contention than we have ever been.

 

[Mdog1]

our biggest tradable piece is cap space. Luxury tax teams can dump salary to us without taking any salary back. In some cases instead of sending them a pick, we can have them send us a pick for helping them out. This season we can take $15 million in salary without sending anyone back. This offseason we could take the two highest paid players in the league without sending anyone else back.

Kobe Bryant's over 30 million dollars, and Dirk's near 23 million dollars would be about 53 million give or take... I think you may have miscalculated slightly there haha.

Although I do agree cap space is a very valuable asset to a team like us.

 

[Huber.]

our biggest tradable piece is cap space. Luxury tax teams can dump salary to us without taking any salary back. In some cases instead of sending them a pick, we can have them send us a pick for helping them out. This season we can take $15 million in salary without sending anyone back. This offseason we could take the two highest paid players in the league without sending anyone else back.

How does taking on bad contracts make us a better team instantly? We would need to get draft picks in return and we all know how much you hate having to get better through the draft.

 

[KI4MVP]

I'm not sure that you proved anything, other than defeating your own point with the players you listed...

Chris Paul traded for the #10 pick, Eric Gordon, and Aminu. On paper (without health concerns) that is a potential 20ppg SG, a lottery pick.

Dwight/Bynum/Iggy were trade for eachother. Meaning it would take a player of similar value to get a player of similar value, which we do not have.

Harden was traded for Lamb the 12th pick, and a legitimate 15+ppg scorer, and a likely lottery pick.

Chandler was a free agent...

In order for us to make similar trades to the ones you are suggesting we would have to give up Dion, and our pick + Andy, which puts us far further from contention than we have ever been.

chandler was a sign and trade that I don't believe would be legal now. A player like that who wants to leave for more money will have limited options under the new CBA.

denver got Iggy for Afflalo, a washed up Al Harrington and a pick

Orlando sent out howard for a bunch of junk and picks

For the CP3 trade, there were quite clearly health concerns with Gordon. And he tried to leave at the end of the season.

We have the picks, we have the cap space.

 

[Mdog1]

chandler was a sign and trade that I don't believe would be legal now. A player like that who wants to leave for more money will have limited options under the new CBA.

denver got Iggy for Afflalo, a washed up Al Harrington and a pick

Orlando sent out howard for a bunch of junk and picks

For the CP3 trade, there were quite clearly health concerns with Gordon. And he tried to leave at the end of the season.

We have the picks, we have the cap space.

Yes but in the NBA there are only two modes that a successful GM follows. The first one is asset collection, and the second is asset packaging.

We are obviously in the first category at this point, and if we moved into the second category we would be a mediocre at best team. No point in being mediocre because at the end of the year you don't win a title, and you don't get a stud pick.

 

[The Process God]

getting a good draft pick by moving Andy is at best a lateral move. We have a ton of cap space and a ton of draft pick assets. And there are teams that will become desperate to clear cap space because of the new luxury tax rules.

At best a lateral move? What if Andy falls to injury, which isn't all that crazy, considering his history? What if he's an 8 and 8 guy at best by the time we're contending and what we could have drafted had we traded Andy for something like the Toronto pick is at an all-star level by that time as well and will be able to contribute for the next 10 years after that because he's only 24ish? What if our own draft pick for the 2013 draft also improved by several slots from trading Varejao? What if we win the lottery because of better odds from losing more?

There are many things that could happen that would make it a much better move to trade Varejao than to keep him. At best, we trade for a draft pick that ends up being an all-star or better, and we also get a young prospect or two out of it that could also end up being good players. Not only this, these players could be contributors for the next 15 years. In 5 years, Varejao could be washed up or retired. Our own draft pick could improve from trading Varejao as well. Moving from the 4th or 5th worst record to the 2nd or even the worst overall record would have its benefits as well even if we are worse in the short-term. After all, it's not our record this season that matters, but if we can put it all together better than any other team all in one season. Varejao's production is not going to be winning us any championships in the next 3 seasons at the absolute minimum because we simply don't have the talent, experience, and cohesion for it yet, and we really could be looking at 5+ years down the road.

Oppositely, Varejao could be very productive late into his 30s, make a bunch of all-star appearances, and the Toronto pick is used to draft a bust as are Lamb and PJIII (if we were to do that trade). Sure, that could happen. But I'd rather put my money on netting some young prospects/high picks for Varejao while we can because I believe that the potential rewards outweigh the risks. Some may disagree with that, but that's how I see it. I think that, when we're deep into the playoffs 5 years from now and especially beyond, whatever we could trade Andy for is more likely to be more productive than Andy himself.

I'm fine with taking on players with our cap space though for more picks. That's not a big deal to me, but I was just pointing out that we could use it to sign players. If using our cap space in trades means more picks, then I'm all for it. We are not yet in a situation where we can have too many picks, so I'm all for taking on salary for more picks and/or trading Varejao for picks.

 

[Tornicade]

or Andy's bad luck with major injuries is past him.
Thats pure speculation at best. Andy hasnt had an injury that couldnt happen to any other player on the team at any time.

You cannot make decisions for the long term success of the franchise based on fear.

 

[Kizzle]

At best a lateral move? What if Andy falls to injury, which isn't all that crazy, considering his history? What if he's an 8 and 8 guy at best by the time we're contending and what we could have drafted had we traded Andy for something like the Toronto pick is at an all-star level by that time as well and will be able to contribute for the next 10 years after that because he's only 24ish? What if our own draft pick for the 2013 draft also improved by several slots from trading Varejao? What if we win the lottery because of better odds from losing more?

There are many things that could happen that would make it a much better move to trade Varejao than to keep him. At best, we trade for a draft pick that ends up being an all-star or better, and we also get a young prospect or two out of it that could also end up being good players. Not only this, these players could be contributors for the next 15 years. In 5 years, Varejao could be washed up or retired. Our own draft pick could improve from trading Varejao as well. Moving from the 4th or 5th worst record to the 2nd or even the worst overall record would have its benefits as well even if we are worse in the short-term. After all, it's not our record this season that matters, but if we can put it all together better than any other team all in one season. Varejao's production is not going to be winning us any championships in the next 3 seasons at the absolute minimum because we simply don't have the talent, experience, and cohesion for it yet, and we really could be looking at 5+ years down the road.

Oppositely, Varejao could be very productive late into his 30s, make a bunch of all-star appearances, and the Toronto pick is used to draft a bust as are Lamb and PJIII (if we were to do that trade). Sure, that could happen. But I'd rather put my money on netting some young prospects/high picks for Varejao while we can because I believe that the potential rewards outweigh the risks. Some may disagree with that, but that's how I see it. I think that, when we're deep into the playoffs 5 years from now and especially beyond, whatever we could trade Andy for is more likely to be more productive than Andy himself.

I'm fine with taking on players with our cap space though for more picks. That's not a big deal to me, but I was just pointing out that we could use it to sign players. If using our cap space in trades means more picks, then I'm all for it. We are not yet in a situation where we can have too many picks, so I'm all for taking on salary for more picks and/or trading Varejao for picks.

I just cant ignore how biased this was to one side of the argument. I just cant. Thats my biggest pet peeve in this debate. Ppl act like its black and white. You put that ONE sentence in there, but this whole post was just one sided to trading AV, like nothing bad would happen if we traded him.

I just gotta....at best you said we trade AV draft a all star, and sign some FAs.....

ok.....
Why not talk about worst case because i honestly feel ppl are trying to straight IGNORE the bad.

WORST CASE, we trade AV, we lose any chance to get wins for these young guys, Kyrie now is playing wth NO big men who understand offense at all, and now him and Dion look like total trash because of our non existent post game. We have worst record and STILL only get the 3rd pick about. We draft a guy who takes 5 years for us to realize that hes just a role player, and AV is sitting here 5 years from now still getting 10 and 10, but on a like 2 mil a year contract. We either sped up our rebuild, or delayed it by about 5 years and now all our players we drafted around now are tired of losing a leave...boom, now were at square 1 and have to find another Kyrie or Lebron.

 

[jlegg21]

I just cant ignore how biased this was to one side of the argument. I just cant. Thats my biggest pet peeve in this debate. Ppl act like its black and white. You put that ONE sentence in there, but this whole post was just one sided to trading AV, like nothing bad would happen if we traded him.

I just gotta....at best you said we trade AV draft a all star, and sign some FAs.....

ok.....
Why not talk about worst case because i honestly feel ppl are trying to straight IGNORE the bad.

WORST CASE, we trade AV, we lose any chance to get wins for these young guys, Kyrie now is playing wth NO big men who understand offense at all, and now him and Dion look like total trash because of our non existent post game. We have worst record and STILL only get the 3rd pick about. We draft a guy who takes 5 years for us to realize that hes just a role player, and AV is sitting here 5 years from now still getting 10 and 10, but on a like 2 mil a year contract. We either sped up our rebuild, or delayed it by about 5 years and now all our players we drafted around now are tired of losing a leave...boom, now were at square 1 and have to find another Kyrie or Lebron.

I'm just gonna hone in on the part I can understand. What in blue hell makes you think Andy re-signs in two years for pennies? Blind, fan-boy loyalty?

When that contract is up, and let's say best-case scenario he stays completely healthy and puts up back to back all-star caliber seasons, he's going to command a MONSTER deal or walk. We'll either be paying MAJOR money for a 33 yr old big man coming off the best production of his career or very big money for a 33 yr old big with obviously declining skills.

No, the "Trade Andy" camp is not ignoring the bad. We're staring the bad right in the face, and that would be hanging on to this guy for two more years on a lottery team and watching him leave for absolutely no return. That would indeed be bad.

 

[KI4MVP]

To followup on Kizzle's post

Andy has emerged as one of the best centers in the league and is only 30. There's really no good reason he can't be a highly productive player for 5+ years. Trade him, get a 2013 pick, use that pick to get a new center, how lucky do you have to be to get a guy who ends up as good as andy? If he does pan out, how many years does it take for him to get there. And just when do you know if he is going to be that good or not? Where does the veteran leadership come from? What do we do with Kyrie in the mean time? The clock is ticking on his rookie contract.

Do things right and Andy can be the veteran leader of our rising team and when his career winds down the wave of players we have now will be the veterans for the next group of young talent.

The cycle of tank carries major risks. You pretty much always look like you need to tank another season because you were bad the prior season and you again start out slow with a new batch of players. So you throw away players. Either proven players who are holding back the tank, or young players you give up on too soon to bring in the next wave.

The bulls got stuck in that cycle after they broke up their championship team. They threw away the defending champions to collect assets. It took them 7 years to even make the playoffs again, 9 years to win a playoff series, and 13 years to actually have a contender. This was a team that set out from day one to methodically collect assets for a fast rebuilt by a two time NBA executive of the year winner.

The vast majority of championship teams are built with a collection of players drafted and players acquired through other means. THere's a very good reason for this - unless you have great timing and hit the lottery, the draft is hit or miss. We already hit our home run for this rebuild. It took the bulls 11 years to get their home run pick, they mad the playoffs the next season and won 62 games and made the conference finals 2 years later. How did they do it? They didn't sit around and wait to hit on more draft picks, they went out and got their superstar help.

edit: there is no way Andy is on a $2 million/year contract in a few years. Ideally if we don't trade him, we give him an extension next year that adds 3 more seasons at a reasonably affordable price.

 

[Baseline Runner]

Yes but in the NBA there are only two modes that a successful GM follows. The first one is asset collection, and the second is asset packaging.

This is a good point but I would argue that we starting to shift out of the asset collection mode. With 4 talented young players in Kyrie, Dion, Zeller and TT, lots of upcoming draft picks including a likely lottery pick next year, plus plenty of cap space, the foundation for the future has already been laid. Now it is about trying to build as good of a team as possible and start competing. Being mediocre for a couple of seasons is not such a bad thing while our young talent develops. The Bulls were mediocre when Scottie Pippen was still developing, the Pistons were mediocre when Joe Dumars and Rodman were developing, the same for Houston with Olajuwon (he was not as good of a player in the eighties as he became in the nineties even though the stats were not much different). Most teams go from bad to medicore to good, few jump straight from bad to good like OKC managed to do (really that team is way overused as a model on here, there are a lot of other teams in the past we can learn from).

 

[MYoung23]

This is a good point but I would argue that we starting to shift out of the asset collection mode. With 4 talented young players in Kyrie, Dion, Zeller and TT, lots of upcoming draft picks including a likely lottery pick next year, plus plenty of cap space, the foundation for the future has already been laid. Now it is about trying to build as good of a team as possible and start competing. Being mediocre for a couple of seasons is not such a bad thing while our young talent develops. The Bulls were mediocre when Scottie Pippen was still developing, the Pistons were mediocre when Joe Dumars and Rodman were developing, the same for Houston with Olajuwon (he was not as good of a player in the eighties as he became in the nineties even though the stats were not much different). Most teams go from bad to medicore to good, few jump straight from bad to good like OKC managed to do (really that team is way overused as a model on here, there are a lot of other teams in the past we can learn from).

So much wrong with this post.