To Tank or not to Tank, that is the question

[caf]

Why could nobody admit this 2 years ago?

Because vanity is human nature.

 

[Mdog1]

We dont have much of a choice whether we tank or not. The good news is that the top prospects in this upcoming draft happen to fit the exact weak spots of our team.

This is the last year of the tank and then next year we go all out. We'll still have extra draft picks in the next few drafts to move up and target late lotto guys if we really like them anyways.

Lets get that last stud piece this year and then enjoy the ride.

I completely agree with you on this. 4 top 5 picks is enough imho to at least start making moves towards the playoffs, unless we drafted busts, or we suffer injuries. We have the cap space to make some big moves this offseason if someone is interested (Bynum...).

Not really--we were close and I still think could've made something work if he stayed (even if it may have taken later than the 2011-2012 season to win a ring.)

I still think Durant's and Westbrook's committment to OKC are the exceptions; for most small markets, you have to build up winner in a short window and just hope.

You can say San Antonio is another "small market success story," but their market ranking per ESPN Future Rankings was something like 12th or 13th. Their situation cannot be compared to ours (we rank 20th,) let alone Detroit, Toronto, Milwaukee, Minn, etc. You can say Kevin Love signed an extension, but it's more likely than not he has one foot out the door as soon as it's up.

The thing that frustrates me is that long-term rebuilds are basically necessary in all but a few markets. The Lakers have only had 5 playoff misses in history, and having that few simply can't be attributed entirely to smart decision making by their front office.

Durant signed his contract to maximize his earnings under the old CBA, and likely had very little to do with OKC's sitution at the time... If OKC hasn't won a ring when his contact is up and you can bet your ass he'll be gone if there is a situation worth it.

 

[Triumph36]

Not really--we were close and I still think could've made something work if he stayed (even if it may have taken later than the 2011-2012 season to win a ring.)

I still think Durant's and Westbrook's committment to OKC are the exceptions; for most small markets, you have to build up winner in a short window and just hope.

You can say San Antonio is another "small market success story," but their market ranking per ESPN Future Rankings was something like 12th or 13th. Their situation cannot be compared to ours (we rank 20th,) let alone Detroit, Toronto, Milwaukee, Minn, etc. You can say Kevin Love signed an extension, but it's more likely than not he has one foot out the door as soon as it's up.

The thing that frustrates me is that long-term rebuilds are basically necessary in all but a few markets. The Lakers have only had 5 playoff misses in history, and having that few simply can't be attributed entirely to smart decision making by their front office.

But OKC is the exception because they put the right talent there. Same can be said for San Antonio (tho a different market size).

Most teams who have lost their stars in the past few years didn't do that. Cavs sure didn't. Nuggets didn't. Hornets didn't. Raptors had a decent piece in Bargs and a young not-good DeRozan but obv that loses out to Wade/LBJ.

I don't really care about markets. I care about putting a good, young team around the star(s)....in Cleveland, LA, Milwaukee, wherever. That will keep them in Cleveland.....sneaking into the playoffs with limited upside probably won't.

 

[Stark]

When was LeBron's first year in the playoffs, out of curiosity?

 

[bigfoot5415]

When was LeBron's first year in the playoffs, out of curiosity?

2006.

We bombed in 04 and were prob 1 or 2 games out.
In 05 we were 1.5 gb the NJN. One game in the lose column but bc of a buzzer beater alley oop to Richard Jefferson, without Jason Kidd and a newly acquired Vince Carter, they owned the tie breaker.
In 2006 we won 50 games and began a heated rivalry with the Wizards.

 

[bigfoot5415]

2006.

We bombed in 04 and were prob 4 games out.
In 05 we were 1.5 gb the NJN. One game in the lose column but bc of a buzzer beater alley oop to Richard Jefferson, without Jason Kidd and a newly acquired Vince Carter, they owned the tie breaker.
In 2006 we won 50 games and began a heated rivalry with the Wizards.

So his third year. We actually got the 4 seed.

 

[6.19.2016]

[MP3][/MP3]

When was LeBron's first year in the playoffs, out of curiosity?

3rd season, but he only missed by 1 game his first year and by a tiebreaker the second year.

(In other words, the "it took him 3 years to make the playoffs so be patient" comments are somewhat misleading because it's not like he was 20-62 his first two years.)

 

[Tornicade]

Has ANYONE actually expressed this thought? That the players or coaching staff are intentionally tanking games?

Or did you just assume some people think this.

If people gonna say the cavs are tanking then they should know what it means and yes people have specifically said this by calling it tanking.

Match fixing, more specifically when a competitor deliberately loses without gambling being involved


people have referred to players as tank driving. complimented scott on holding out player or pointed to specific lineups causing losses. this implies they could of won even with the roster given them.. perhaps you should know what terms mean before you use them

match fixing is what tanking means theres no assumption to be made.

 

[6.19.2016]

but again, if he is the real deal, would he not be capable of seeing the young talent around him and bright future ahead of the team?

Going back to a debate I had earlier, I can't help but wonder if the truly "real deals," i.e. Bron/Bosh/Wade, want to assemble their bright futures via superteam, whereas the merely "very good" players, i.e. Love/Rose/Durant, are the ones willing to commit to this young talent, be "the guy", and hope this young talent helps them suceed.

I had a debate on here in which I insisted that the first set was better than the second set; for one, Love has frequently presided over last-place teams while Bosh was able to lead very bad teams to or near the playoffs (and the difference was large enough to not be explained by east vs. west.)

 

[Fuggles]

 

[Jack Brickman]

Going back to a debate I had earlier, I can't help but wonder if the truly "real deals," i.e. Bron/Bosh/Wade, want to assemble their bright futures via superteam, whereas the merely "very good" players, i.e. Love/Rose/Durant, are the ones willing to commit to this young talent, be "the guy", and hope this young talent helps them suceed.

I had a debate on here in which I insisted that the first set was better than the second set; for one, Love has frequently presided over last-place teams while Bosh was able to lead very bad teams to or near the playoffs (and the difference was large enough to not be explained by east vs. west.)

How is Durant merely a "very good" player? He's the second-best player in the entire NBA. I don't follow your logic about the Thunder at all. They're one of the best teams in the entire league, and they have two top-ten players on their roster. If they had kept Harden, they'd be favorites to make it back to the Finals and they'd have a damn good chance of winning.

I also don't follow your logic on super teams. The trio in Miami is really the only example I can remember where three star players all decided to sign in the same place in free agency. Every other so-called super team was assembled through trades (Boston, Los Angeles) or the draft (Oklahoma City). The odds are very much against Kyrie finding two other guys to collude with in an effort to form another super team, and even if he did, there's at least a good chance he'd do it in Cleveland. After all, we're the team with mountains of cap space and tons of trade assets.

Another factor that's rarely considered is that players coming off their rookie contracts almost always take the biggest offer because, obviously, there's no guarantee they'll ever get that kind of money again. If the Cavs offer Kyrie a five-year max deal, there's a 99% chance he's going to take it. It's why Kevin Love stuck with a Timberwolves team that has questionable management at the best of times. It's why Derrick Rose re-signed with a Bulls team where he's the only superstar. It's why Durant stayed in Oklahoma City despite it being one of the smallest markets in the NBA. When it comes to your first big contract, you always take the most money on the table.

Think of it this way: when's the last time a high-profile rookie took the qualifying offer? Has it ever happened? Further, aside from LeBron, Wade, and Bosh (who obviously colluded), when's the last time a guy coming off his rookie deal that was worth a max deal signed a shorter deal? You could say Kevin Love, but that was his team's stupidity. He was totally willing to sign for the full five years and Kahn only wanted to give him four.

In general, I really think people need to stop worrying about Kyrie leaving. The odds are highly in favor of him signing a max five-year deal when he's up for his extension. Whether or not we keep him beyond that time frame is the real question.

 

[6.19.2016]

How is Durant merely a "very good" player? He's the second-best player in the entire NBA..

...

In general, I really think people need to stop worrying about Kyrie leaving. The odds are highly in favor of him signing a max five-year deal when he's up for his extension. Whether or not we keep him beyond that time frame is the real question.

Well in that discussion metalman and I were comparing LeBron to Durant (i.e. merely very good by comparison,) Wade to Rose (Wade was a better clutch playoff performer in the past and I suspect will be about equal for another ~2 years or so, since Rose will also have diminished ability) and Bosh to Love. Metalman's question was "You don't think Rose/Love/Durant could win a title if they teamed up?"

On your last paragraph, this topic, and the issue of potential attendance losses, were as I mentioned completely taboo and laughed off just last season, but looking through this thread are acknowledged and considered a potential concern by more than just myself.

 

[Jack Brickman]

Well in that discussion metalman and I were comparing LeBron to Durant (i.e. merely very good by comparison,) Wade to Rose (Wade was a better clutch playoff performer in the past and I suspect will be about equal for another ~2 years or so, since Rose will also have diminished ability) and Bosh to Love. Metalman's question was "You don't think Rose/Love/Durant could win a title if they teamed up?"

On your last paragraph, this topic, and the issue of potential attendance losses, were as I mentioned completely taboo and laughed off just last season, but looking through this thread are acknowledged and considered a potential concern by more than just myself.

The thing is, Durant has another superstar on his team already in Russell Westbrook who is as good or better than Rose (seeing as we have no idea if Rose will come back the game guy). Prior to this year he also had James Harden, one of the best young two-guards in the NBA. He also has Ibaka, an exciting young defensive player who protects the rim and can hit a mid-range jumper with consistency. The Thunder is an absolutely loaded team that came within three wins of winning the title. And really, it's unfair to compare anyone to LeBron because everyone will be "merely very good by comparison." Durant is still the second-best player in the entire league and third place isn't particularly close. He's also not even in his prime yet.

As for attendance losses, well, they're always going to be an issue when your team goes through several losing seasons. The thing about Cleveland fans is, as soon as the team starts winning again, the fans will come back in force. Bad teams don't draw crowds. That's not exactly a stunning revelation. I don't really see that factoring into Kyrie leaving at all unless he gets to the end of his extension and the team still sucks, which seems incredibly unlikely given the path the team is currently following.

The deck is stacked heavily in our favor in regards to keeping Kyrie for at least nine years should we be so inclined. We can offer him more years and more money than anyone else. His only out is to take the qualifying offer and, as I mentioned, that literally never happens with guys about to make the max, even when they want to leave. Look at Eric Gordon, for example. He wanted out of New Orleans and he knew they were going to match any offer sheet he signed in restricted free agency. His best out was to take the qualifying offer, play out the year, and then go where he wanted as an unrestricted free agent that summer. Did he do it? Nope. He took the money on the table.

 

[Randolphkeys]

I really want someone to photoshop Luke Walton faces on posters for "The Six Million Dollar Man."

Old school rep for good ones.

 

[Tornicade]

Cavs have 4 guys with 5+ years experience. only one of them starts,
Meanwhile they are starting 2 second year players and 1 rooki alongside a 3rd year player.
They have 2 players over 26 and that is AV and Luke Walton. Walton is 10th in minutes played
That leaves Samardo , Casspi and luerer with less minute after 3 games

so only one guy over 30 is averaging more than 7 minutes a game.

meanwhile Pargo and Harangody are the only guys who havent played any minutes.

Pargo would only get minutes at the expense of Donald Sloan who is younger.

casspi is younger than both Gee and Miles so you could reduce their minutes.

Samardo and leuer could take minutes from alton but that most likely would improve the team.

Im sorry which Vets besides AV would the cavs play to get the most wins possible?

I mean seriously Walton has played 24 minutes out 144 minutes

The concept that it does not help players develop by being on the court with veterans besides their opponent is a very poor one and really insults the basketball intelligence of this forum.