Question for Tanking Advocates Who Think Rondo Is an Impediment

[LooseCannon]

but here's a question for the anti-"tankers" - exactly how do you plan on building a contender?

because in my opinion, whether you do it via draft or trade, at the end of the day, you need ASSETS. Tanking (or losing) this year doesn't mean that you are perpetually going to keep losing year on year. I don't like losing, but i recognize it as a step in a rebuilding process.

i see free agency being thrown around as one of the go-to arguments for anti-tankers but even that is FAR from such a sure thing as well. think about it. In order to sign a big free agent, you'll often need to gut your team (kinda like "tanking") to clear cap space. And then finally, when these star player(s) finally hit the FA market, you might miss out on them COMPLETELY. then what are you left with? if you perpetually live by the code of "losing is always bad", then you'll be forced by your mantra to sign expensive mid-tier stars like monta ellis, charlie villanueva, ben gordon, etc. and that's when the vicious cycle starts.

Next summer, the Celtics have the ability to add a max contract guy through trade of free agency while still having Rondo, Bradley, Green, Sullinger, and Olynyk.  My tentative Plan A is to offer restricted free agent Larry Sanders a contract so big that Milwaukee doesn't want to match.

Not interested in tanking, but also not interested in signing bad contracts.  I don't see why trying to win obligates someone to sign a bad player like Monta Ellis.

next summer Boston has no cap room.

Send out a first round pick to any team with cap space to take on Bass.  Ditto with Lee.  The Celtics will probably have room to sign a big free agent.

[LooseCannon]

assuming we even had this magical cap space next summer, Sanders is a promising young player and a RFA. what makes you think the Bucks won't sign him or match? besides, isn't it under the new CBA rules that the home teams can technically offer the most money anyway? and don't they have his bird rights so they'll be able to sign him even if it means they're over the cap?

The Bucks are cheap.  If it is possible to offer Sanders more than the Bucks think he is worth, then they may shy away from matching.  Hopefully, they'd be willing to negotiate a sign and trade. 

[Moranis]

but here's a question for the anti-"tankers" - exactly how do you plan on building a contender?

because in my opinion, whether you do it via draft or trade, at the end of the day, you need ASSETS. Tanking (or losing) this year doesn't mean that you are perpetually going to keep losing year on year. I don't like losing, but i recognize it as a step in a rebuilding process.

i see free agency being thrown around as one of the go-to arguments for anti-tankers but even that is FAR from such a sure thing as well. think about it. In order to sign a big free agent, you'll often need to gut your team (kinda like "tanking") to clear cap space. And then finally, when these star player(s) finally hit the FA market, you might miss out on them COMPLETELY. then what are you left with? if you perpetually live by the code of "losing is always bad", then you'll be forced by your mantra to sign expensive mid-tier stars like monta ellis, charlie villanueva, ben gordon, etc. and that's when the vicious cycle starts.

Next summer, the Celtics have the ability to add a max contract guy through trade of free agency while still having Rondo, Bradley, Green, Sullinger, and Olynyk.  My tentative Plan A is to offer restricted free agent Larry Sanders a contract so big that Milwaukee doesn't want to match.

Not interested in tanking, but also not interested in signing bad contracts.  I don't see why trying to win obligates someone to sign a bad player like Monta Ellis.

next summer Boston has no cap room.

Send out a first round pick to any team with cap space to take on Bass.  Ditto with Lee.  The Celtics will probably have room to sign a big free agent.

Right, but then you give up at least 2 first round picks and waste good assets just to make some room. 

Boston could trade everyone on the team and have 50+ million in cap space also.  So sure, Boston could make room, but the only way to do that is give up real assets in the process, which is silly for a team that is rebuilding.

[LooseCannon]

but here's a question for the anti-"tankers" - exactly how do you plan on building a contender?

because in my opinion, whether you do it via draft or trade, at the end of the day, you need ASSETS. Tanking (or losing) this year doesn't mean that you are perpetually going to keep losing year on year. I don't like losing, but i recognize it as a step in a rebuilding process.

i see free agency being thrown around as one of the go-to arguments for anti-tankers but even that is FAR from such a sure thing as well. think about it. In order to sign a big free agent, you'll often need to gut your team (kinda like "tanking") to clear cap space. And then finally, when these star player(s) finally hit the FA market, you might miss out on them COMPLETELY. then what are you left with? if you perpetually live by the code of "losing is always bad", then you'll be forced by your mantra to sign expensive mid-tier stars like monta ellis, charlie villanueva, ben gordon, etc. and that's when the vicious cycle starts.

Next summer, the Celtics have the ability to add a max contract guy through trade of free agency while still having Rondo, Bradley, Green, Sullinger, and Olynyk.  My tentative Plan A is to offer restricted free agent Larry Sanders a contract so big that Milwaukee doesn't want to match.

Not interested in tanking, but also not interested in signing bad contracts.  I don't see why trying to win obligates someone to sign a bad player like Monta Ellis.

next summer Boston has no cap room.

Send out a first round pick to any team with cap space to take on Bass.  Ditto with Lee.  The Celtics will probably have room to sign a big free agent.

Right, but then you give up at least 2 first round picks and waste good assets just to make some room. 

Boston could trade everyone on the team and have 50+ million in cap space also.  So sure, Boston could make room, but the only way to do that is give up real assets in the process, which is silly for a team that is rebuilding.

Would you trade Bass, Lee, and two first-round picks for someone like Larry Sanders?  Or some other player who you think is worth a huge contract?  Because that's what you would effectively be doing.  Are you saying there are no players who are worth that much?