Every summer, every team’s front office decides how much they want to lose. Few if any front offices ever say, “let’s do everything we can to maximize our wins this season,” so that means every team is intentionally losing to some degree from the front office perspective. So if you’re anti-tanking, are what is your cutoff point?

Every “competent” management assesses the talent on their team both as individuals and overall and knows approximately where they fit in the pecking order. They know if they are a serious contender, playoff contender, likely lottery candidate, likely early lottery candidate. Their strategy will vary depending on where they expect to finish and how far into their development they are. But they also think about the financial aspects of running the business, keeping players and agents happy (especially veterans), making their franchise attractive to free agents and potential trade candidates, being patient when it comes to trades so that they get good value if they move an attractive player or pick, and building positive culture where people are working hard, trying to get better, and learning to win.

There may be some purposeful losing at the end of season disguised as injuries. The vets will “get it” and sit out a few games to help some kids that don’t deserve the minutes. But during the year teams are trying to win to the best of their ability even if that ability is limited. It’s part of the development of young players that are learning from vets that have been through it and part of making your franchise more valuable and attractive.

This is not fantasy sports.

This is a real business with real people looking out for jobs, careers, and subject to the same ups and downs depending on the environment they work in.

No one is saying we can’t make some moves to get younger that could cost us a few games this year. They just better ADD LONG TERM VALUE!

Bulls, Mavs, Suns and Nets all won. The stealth tank is more of a thing every day.

The Bulls are just fascinating, aren’t they? They just seem to be doing it with smoke and mirrors. Well, Mirotic, smoke and mirrors, at least.

Tonight, though, Markkanen and Grant also had it going on. A double-double for Jerian Grant!

Kris Dunn didn’t even play!

Bruno Almeida: My argument is that there’s nothing inherently “cancerous” or destructive about losing; what’s destructive and cancerous is bad management, bad players, bad ownership, bad drafting, bad signings.

Anyone who is anti -tank is either naive or feigning ignorance. Every summer, every team’s front office decides how much they want to lose. Few if any front offices ever say, “let’s do everything we can to maximize our wins this season,” so that means every team is intentionally losing to some degree from the front office perspective. So if you’re anti-tanking, are what is your cutoff point? Isn’t it arbitrary?

My take is when you aren’t a good team, you fill your roster with players who have the potential to help you fit more talent under the cap than other teams. Sometimes that’s with draft picks. Sometimes free agency with young undrafted players or former 2nd rounders whose teams didn’t have space for them. Over time, your team will begin to win organically, and if you continue to use the tools available to you to add sustainable talent at a discount price, you will be able to stay good for the long term. Like the Spurs since the Duncan tank season, you won’t have to tank.

But to do otherwise whether it’s by keeping veterans around who only have short term value or by signing or trading for them is to artificially inflate your win total… You win 35 games instead of 28. This increase in wins has no bearing on your long term outlook, and if it becomes a pattern, it will prevent you from ever escaping from mediocrity no matter how lucky you are in the draft. This isn’t just a matter of worsening your pick. It’s a matter of missing out on the opportunity to find players like Kawhi Leonard or Danny Green or Manu or Parker. You trade those seemingly token young pieces or second rounders or waste that end of bench roster spot, and you have one less chance of hitting it big, and if it’s habitual, you miss too many chances for even great luck to save you.

I mean just look at teams like the Pelicans who lucked into Davis or the Kings with Cousins. Both found more than they had any right to expect from draft picks and yet still haven’t escaped mediocrity. The Pelicans actually did it twice, the first time with Chris Paul.

I would trade Lee for a 3rd round pick just so Dotson could play more and for the cap savings. I don’t care what we get back for him as long it doesn’t hurt the cap.

Dotson may eventually be a good player, but he has done nothing yet to indicate he deserves minutes. There is also ZERO evidence we could fill cap space with a more attractive asset than Lee given management overpaid for Baker and Hardaway when Rose’s contract expired.

Why don’t we just buy out everyone over 25, go to Ruckers Park, and sign a bunch of 20-22 years old guys and play them?

The older players are assets that can return more talent than that.

We have to resist being short sighted enough to make trades just for the sake of making trades. We don’t even know if anyone in NY has tried to trade guys like Lee, O’Quin, and Kanter yet. From today’s reports it sounds like they have made no effort at all to even trade O’Quinn and he’s the most obvious player to move to free up Willy. They are waiting to see what happens between now and the trade deadline. That’s a very rational approach if true. We will know more about our own players and our status. Other teams will know more about their own team needs and may be more willing to make moves. So maybe we can get a deal that makes sense instead of junking everyone over 25.

By the way, other teams can just sign Trey Burke if they feel like. The Wolves just lost Jeff Teague for a bit. Why not just bring the guy up?