The right hand side of BSOTS is usually besotted with rosterbation posts, and with the Suns in their current struggles, this season has been no exception.
Hell, I do it all the time.
But I think there is a HUGE difference between trades to improve the team, and the current "tear down and rebuild through the draft" club.
I think the difference comes from, very basically, how the NBA is different from the MLB, or even the NFL. Lets start with the NFL.
In the NFL, "parity" is king. I, for one, think this is crap: it really means that there are a million of rotating variables in football, so the "worse" team (in quality) is able to frequently win games. Throw in the shortened season, and 2-14 teams can become 9-7 teams the next year. This is why you almost never hear the "tear down the team" chant in the NFL. You hold on to every talented player you can afford, hoping the player you need is just around the corner.
On the other hand, their is baseball. Due to the extreme repetition of events in the game (at least 54 at bats), and the extreme amount of games played, the cream usually rises to the top (or at least the playoffs). So, small market teams have to plan and plan and plan, scheduling their draft and FAs just so they can peak at the right time and make a couple playoff appearances. In basball, blowing up a team makes sense. A great player (A-Rod on the Texans), by himself, can do nothing to alter his team's suckitude. But he can yield a multi-player package, and done enough times, a team can get the quanity of quality players needed for success.
Which leads me to my point: The NBA, while in the middle of the two extremes, really has more in common with the NFL.
A few players can make a difference (how many wins would we have without Nash? 4? 3?).
Season to season turnaround are possible (see Suns, 2004)
Multiplayer packages for stars are RARE (we've seen an usually high amount of stars traded recently, so I think newer fans assume Gortat can return a 4 player package. Usually, player for player or pics is what we see).
There are NOT 20 rounds in the draft like baseball to find a player. (while I think the ability to find a GOOD player in the draft is underrated, the ability to find a star remains rare).
If you want the Suns to trade Nash and Gortat for youngsters and tank for the draft, you need to reconsider. This is my challenge. Show me where, in the past 20 years, this strategy proved ultimately successful. I'll debunk a few right away:
OKC Thunder: Yes, they "tanked" by sending away Ray-Ray for a draft pick, and are now amazing. But there's a reason it's such a big story: because this strategy has never been so lucky before! If Portland takes Durant first, we aren't talking about them. The pick they got for Ray gave them Jeff Green, who did nothing for them. They got lucky in the 08 draft as well. If you want to follow their strategy, you basically just rooting for luck. Have fun with that.
LA Clippers: You know what? They sucked for 20 years before becoming Lob City. Is that worth it? Hell no!
So, please, come up with a basketball example where tanking that hard as worked. Otherwise, quit thinking like a baseball fan, and rosterbate responsibly