I Think I Am Aboard The Tank Train Now

[Moranis]

Anyone who doesn't think adding a lottery level  talent to our team in the long run would not help us in the big picture is being disingenuous or dishonest.   Granted drafting is hit or miss but the old teams always added young to the old and a mix of both is handy.  That being said, you can expect no Adam Silver help for the Celtics.

I agree.  This potential pick has a lot of value.  It is also valuable as a trade asset.

No question that there is great potential value in a lottery pick.  The downside with an unintended tank (meaning just sucking) is that team culture and cohesion suffers and that takes time to restore.  A 25 or 30 win season can lead to dysfunction including frustration among players and frustration with coaches and management. But the ideal being Joe plays young players, they develop, JB and DW take plenty of time recovering from occasional injuries, and JT decides to wait out the year.   

Of course the other ideal would be miraculous development from Minott, Hugo, Baylor, Queta. And Brad swings a deal for a starting C at the deadline and JT is back 100% for April and playoffs.

People say this all of the time, but I think there is very little evidence it is true.  I mean look at the defending champions. They went from a team that went to the playoffs for 5 straight years never winning less than 44 games, to immediately winning 22, then 24 games.  They then won 40 games, 57 games, and last year 68 while winning the title. 

Even the 1 year tanks have had great success, none more obvious than the Spurs that had gone to the playoffs 7 straight seasons, tanked for Duncan by winning just 20 games, and then never won less than 50 games for the 20 years Duncan was on the team and won the title in Duncan's 2nd year, just 2 seasons removed from that 20 win season.  Did their culture suffer because of that 20 win season?

Teams win or lose because of talent.  Teams have chemistry or they don't.  Teams have bad cultures because they have players that are bad culture players not because they don't win.

I?ll defer on this. Not a battle worth fighting. I know the examples of Bird, Duncan (with Robinson) and others can turn a franchise around overnight.  Winning solves culture issues, usually.  So I?ll agree that the risk of culture demolition due to sucking isn?t huge.  But we?ll see.

I just think people don't understand culture and how it is formed.  We see teams with talented players that have had success elsewhere come together and have a terrible culture.  We've seen bad teams have great culture and chemistry.  Winning or losing does very little for culture.  It is the players and how they fit that really dictates a culture.  It is why you can see teams turn it around very quickly when the talent gets better or go to the crapper if they add 1 wrong person.  Look at how bad the Cavs were, then Lebron comes back, and they are in the Finals (and they had a rookie head coach that no one liked). 

Heck even the process Sixers went from very bad to 52 wins basically overnight when the talent got better and then they collapsed because their culture turned bad while they were a winning franchise.

[slightly biased bias fan]

Anyone who doesn't think adding a lottery level  talent to our team in the long run would not help us in the big picture is being disingenuous or dishonest.   Granted drafting is hit or miss but the old teams always added young to the old and a mix of both is handy.  That being said, you can expect no Adam Silver help for the Celtics.

I agree.  This potential pick has a lot of value.  It is also valuable as a trade asset.

No question that there is great potential value in a lottery pick.  The downside with an unintended tank (meaning just sucking) is that team culture and cohesion suffers and that takes time to restore.  A 25 or 30 win season can lead to dysfunction including frustration among players and frustration with coaches and management. But the ideal being Joe plays young players, they develop, JB and DW take plenty of time recovering from occasional injuries, and JT decides to wait out the year.   

Of course the other ideal would be miraculous development from Minott, Hugo, Baylor, Queta. And Brad swings a deal for a starting C at the deadline and JT is back 100% for April and playoffs.

People say this all of the time, but I think there is very little evidence it is true.  I mean look at the defending champions. They went from a team that went to the playoffs for 5 straight years never winning less than 44 games, to immediately winning 22, then 24 games.  They then won 40 games, 57 games, and last year 68 while winning the title. 

Even the 1 year tanks have had great success, none more obvious than the Spurs that had gone to the playoffs 7 straight seasons, tanked for Duncan by winning just 20 games, and then never won less than 50 games for the 20 years Duncan was on the team and won the title in Duncan's 2nd year, just 2 seasons removed from that 20 win season.  Did their culture suffer because of that 20 win season?

Teams win or lose because of talent.  Teams have chemistry or they don't.  Teams have bad cultures because they have players that are bad culture players not because they don't win.

I?ll defer on this. Not a battle worth fighting. I know the examples of Bird, Duncan (with Robinson) and others can turn a franchise around overnight.  Winning solves culture issues, usually.  So I?ll agree that the risk of culture demolition due to sucking isn?t huge.  But we?ll see.

I just think people don't understand culture and how it is formed.  We see teams with talented players that have had success elsewhere come together and have a terrible culture.  We've seen bad teams have great culture and chemistry.  Winning or losing does very little for culture.  It is the players and how they fit that really dictates a culture.  It is why you can see teams turn it around very quickly when the talent gets better or go to the crapper if they add 1 wrong person.  Look at how bad the Cavs were, then Lebron comes back, and they are in the Finals (and they had a rookie head coach that no one liked). 

Heck even the process Sixers went from very bad to 52 wins basically overnight when the talent got better and then they collapsed because their culture turned bad while they were a winning franchise.

Sorry but you are wrong about the 76ers.

The Process Sixers caused so many problems that they are still dealing with to this day.

Because Embiid was developed during that period, his injury issues were exacerbated by being lazy, having a poor diet and never being held accountable. Ben Simmons ego & stubbornness were never dealt with, and we all know how his career unfolded.

Jahlil Okafor early development was hampered by behavioural issues, lack of mentoring and roster construction around his strengths & weaknesses, same goes for Nerlens Noel.

Just last season the players had a go at Embiid for his lack of leadership & arriving late to everything.

[Moranis]

Anyone who doesn't think adding a lottery level  talent to our team in the long run would not help us in the big picture is being disingenuous or dishonest.   Granted drafting is hit or miss but the old teams always added young to the old and a mix of both is handy.  That being said, you can expect no Adam Silver help for the Celtics.

I agree.  This potential pick has a lot of value.  It is also valuable as a trade asset.

No question that there is great potential value in a lottery pick.  The downside with an unintended tank (meaning just sucking) is that team culture and cohesion suffers and that takes time to restore.  A 25 or 30 win season can lead to dysfunction including frustration among players and frustration with coaches and management. But the ideal being Joe plays young players, they develop, JB and DW take plenty of time recovering from occasional injuries, and JT decides to wait out the year.   

Of course the other ideal would be miraculous development from Minott, Hugo, Baylor, Queta. And Brad swings a deal for a starting C at the deadline and JT is back 100% for April and playoffs.

People say this all of the time, but I think there is very little evidence it is true.  I mean look at the defending champions. They went from a team that went to the playoffs for 5 straight years never winning less than 44 games, to immediately winning 22, then 24 games.  They then won 40 games, 57 games, and last year 68 while winning the title. 

Even the 1 year tanks have had great success, none more obvious than the Spurs that had gone to the playoffs 7 straight seasons, tanked for Duncan by winning just 20 games, and then never won less than 50 games for the 20 years Duncan was on the team and won the title in Duncan's 2nd year, just 2 seasons removed from that 20 win season.  Did their culture suffer because of that 20 win season?

Teams win or lose because of talent.  Teams have chemistry or they don't.  Teams have bad cultures because they have players that are bad culture players not because they don't win.

I?ll defer on this. Not a battle worth fighting. I know the examples of Bird, Duncan (with Robinson) and others can turn a franchise around overnight.  Winning solves culture issues, usually.  So I?ll agree that the risk of culture demolition due to sucking isn?t huge.  But we?ll see.

I just think people don't understand culture and how it is formed.  We see teams with talented players that have had success elsewhere come together and have a terrible culture.  We've seen bad teams have great culture and chemistry.  Winning or losing does very little for culture.  It is the players and how they fit that really dictates a culture.  It is why you can see teams turn it around very quickly when the talent gets better or go to the crapper if they add 1 wrong person.  Look at how bad the Cavs were, then Lebron comes back, and they are in the Finals (and they had a rookie head coach that no one liked). 

Heck even the process Sixers went from very bad to 52 wins basically overnight when the talent got better and then they collapsed because their culture turned bad while they were a winning franchise.

Sorry but you are wrong about the 76ers.

The Process Sixers caused so many problems that they are still dealing with to this day.

Because Embiid was developed during that period, his injury issues were exacerbated by being lazy, having a poor diet and never being held accountable. Ben Simmons ego & stubbornness were never dealt with, and we all know how his career unfolded.

Jahlil Okafor early development was hampered by behavioural issues, lack of mentoring and roster construction around his strengths & weaknesses, same goes for Nerlens Noel.

Just last season the players had a go at Embiid for his lack of leadership & arriving late to everything.

and you think that is different on a different organization because I don't. I mean recently there was an article on espn about him and he called himself an ****.  He has trauma and basically doesn't answer texts or phone calls.  He entered the league hurt and has never been healthy.  Embiid could have gone to the defending champions and he'd still be who he is.  Steoh Curry had 3 different coaches in his first 3 season and Kerr became the 4th in season 5.   The Warriors were losing and changing systems every year.  Curry became a top 15 player all time who is beloved. It is almost all on the player. Good culture players create good culture regardless of how good the team is. 

[Kernewek]

Anyone who doesn't think adding a lottery level  talent to our team in the long run would not help us in the big picture is being disingenuous or dishonest.   Granted drafting is hit or miss but the old teams always added young to the old and a mix of both is handy.  That being said, you can expect no Adam Silver help for the Celtics.

I agree.  This potential pick has a lot of value.  It is also valuable as a trade asset.

No question that there is great potential value in a lottery pick.  The downside with an unintended tank (meaning just sucking) is that team culture and cohesion suffers and that takes time to restore.  A 25 or 30 win season can lead to dysfunction including frustration among players and frustration with coaches and management. But the ideal being Joe plays young players, they develop, JB and DW take plenty of time recovering from occasional injuries, and JT decides to wait out the year.   

Of course the other ideal would be miraculous development from Minott, Hugo, Baylor, Queta. And Brad swings a deal for a starting C at the deadline and JT is back 100% for April and playoffs.

People say this all of the time, but I think there is very little evidence it is true.  I mean look at the defending champions. They went from a team that went to the playoffs for 5 straight years never winning less than 44 games, to immediately winning 22, then 24 games.  They then won 40 games, 57 games, and last year 68 while winning the title. 

Even the 1 year tanks have had great success, none more obvious than the Spurs that had gone to the playoffs 7 straight seasons, tanked for Duncan by winning just 20 games, and then never won less than 50 games for the 20 years Duncan was on the team and won the title in Duncan's 2nd year, just 2 seasons removed from that 20 win season.  Did their culture suffer because of that 20 win season?

Teams win or lose because of talent.  Teams have chemistry or they don't.  Teams have bad cultures because they have players that are bad culture players not because they don't win.

I?ll defer on this. Not a battle worth fighting. I know the examples of Bird, Duncan (with Robinson) and others can turn a franchise around overnight.  Winning solves culture issues, usually.  So I?ll agree that the risk of culture demolition due to sucking isn?t huge.  But we?ll see.

I just think people don't understand culture and how it is formed.  We see teams with talented players that have had success elsewhere come together and have a terrible culture.  We've seen bad teams have great culture and chemistry.  Winning or losing does very little for culture.  It is the players and how they fit that really dictates a culture.  It is why you can see teams turn it around very quickly when the talent gets better or go to the crapper if they add 1 wrong person.  Look at how bad the Cavs were, then Lebron comes back, and they are in the Finals (and they had a rookie head coach that no one liked). 

Heck even the process Sixers went from very bad to 52 wins basically overnight when the talent got better and then they collapsed because their culture turned bad while they were a winning franchise.

Sorry but you are wrong about the 76ers.

The Process Sixers caused so many problems that they are still dealing with to this day.

Because Embiid was developed during that period, his injury issues were exacerbated by being lazy, having a poor diet and never being held accountable. Ben Simmons ego & stubbornness were never dealt with, and we all know how his career unfolded.

Jahlil Okafor early development was hampered by behavioural issues, lack of mentoring and roster construction around his strengths & weaknesses, same goes for Nerlens Noel.

Just last season the players had a go at Embiid for his lack of leadership & arriving late to everything.

and you think that is different on a different organization because I don't. I mean recently there was an article on espn about him and he called himself an ****.  He has trauma and basically doesn't answer texts or phone calls.  He entered the league hurt and has never been healthy.  Embiid could have gone to the defending champions and he'd still be who he is.  Steoh Curry had 3 different coaches in his first 3 season and Kerr became the 4th in season 5.   The Warriors were losing and changing systems every year.  Curry became a top 15 player all time who is beloved. It is almost all on the player. Good culture players create good culture regardless of how good the team is.

This is verging on tautology - because a team's win/loss column is more or less what defines the perception of 'good' and 'bad' culture. And how else do you define it; waiting for behind-the-scenes-info after the fact? Imagine the early-to-mid '00 (from Arenas to Young/McGee) Wizards had played 50-win basketball for those few seasons, would it have changed your opinion on the culture?

[Vermont Green]

I don't see how you can claim that the process worked for PHI.  It clearly didn't work.  For all the tanking and drafting, the only thing they have to show for it is a broken down Embiid on what has been a mediocre team all through it.  This is case in point for how there is no guarantee that drafting will get you to the promised land.

SGA went to OKC in 2019 and it took 4 season before they had a winning season.  They got a title in the 6th season.  You could look at that as say this is case in point FOR tanking (remember, OKC refused to play Al Horford in 2020-21 to lose more games and/or develop their younger players).  I don't even know how many draft picks that OKC ended up with over that period.  But really, the only reason that they won a title is because SGA exceeded all expectations.  He became a MVP.  They got lucky.

[Moranis]

I don't see how you can claim that the process worked for PHI.  It clearly didn't work.  For all the tanking and drafting, the only thing they have to show for it is a broken down Embiid on what has been a mediocre team all through it.  This is case in point for how there is no guarantee that drafting will get you to the promised land.

SGA went to OKC in 2019 and it took 4 season before they had a winning season.  They got a title in the 6th season.  You could look at that as say this is case in point FOR tanking (remember, OKC refused to play Al Horford in 2020-21 to lose more games and/or develop their younger players).  I don't even know how many draft picks that OKC ended up with over that period.  But really, the only reason that they won a title is because SGA exceeded all expectations.  He became a MVP.  They got lucky.

Sixers blew the process by trading a bunch of assets for Butler midseason and then just let Butler walk at the end of that year.  Had they either kept Butler or used those assets differently they would have had far more actual success.  The losing though didn't create a bad culture, Embiid and Simmons just aren't good culture players not matter what team they are on.

Going back to Curry, when Jackson became his 3rd coach in 3 seasons, the Warriors actually started to win, but Jackson lasted only 2 seasons because he created a toxic culture in the organization.  He was a good coach that really helped them turn the corner on the court, but he had to go.  They brought in Kerr who changed the culture overnight and they went on to win the title.  Curry's first five years were a mess, but it didn't matter. That is similar with David Blatt in Cleveland.  He had one of the greatest starts to a career ever by win/loss record but no one liked him and he created a very negative atmosphere.  He got fired midway through his 2nd year on a team that was leading the conference and had been in the finals the year before.  Ty Lue took over and the culture changed and the Cavs went on to win the title.  Two teams that were winning, but had a poor culture and made a change and took the winning even further.  Of course those teams had Curry and James who win on every team they are on regardless of other factors.   Winning players win.  Good culture players create good culture even on losing teams.  We see that in every sport i.e. the team that plays hard for the coach even if they don't have the talent and the inverse also where a winning team seems to be a trainwreck (look at a guy like AJ Brown on the Eagles - he constantly complains about everything and it is never good enough for him even as the team wins a SB).

Wins and losses have very little to do with culture.  I have absolutely no concern that if the Celtics tanked this year it would somehow create a negative culture that would impact fure seasons. No concern at all.

[slamtheking]

I don't see how you can claim that the process worked for PHI.  It clearly didn't work.  For all the tanking and drafting, the only thing they have to show for it is a broken down Embiid on what has been a mediocre team all through it.  This is case in point for how there is no guarantee that drafting will get you to the promised land.

SGA went to OKC in 2019 and it took 4 season before they had a winning season.  They got a title in the 6th season.  You could look at that as say this is case in point FOR tanking (remember, OKC refused to play Al Horford in 2020-21 to lose more games and/or develop their younger players).  I don't even know how many draft picks that OKC ended up with over that period.  But really, the only reason that they won a title is because SGA exceeded all expectations.  He became a MVP.  They got lucky.

Sixers blew the process by trading a bunch of assets for Butler midseason and then just let Butler walk at the end of that year.  Had they either kept Butler or used those assets differently they would have had far more actual success.  The losing though didn't create a bad culture, Embiid and Simmons just aren't good culture players not matter what team they are on.

Going back to Curry, when Jackson became his 3rd coach in 3 seasons, the Warriors actually started to win, but Jackson lasted only 2 seasons because he created a toxic culture in the organization.  He was a good coach that really helped them turn the corner on the court, but he had to go.  They brought in Kerr who changed the culture overnight and they went on to win the title.  Curry's first five years were a mess, but it didn't matter. That is similar with David Blatt in Cleveland.  He had one of the greatest starts to a career ever by win/loss record but no one liked him and he created a very negative atmosphere.  He got fired midway through his 2nd year on a team that was leading the conference and had been in the finals the year before.  Ty Lue took over and the culture changed and the Cavs went on to win the title.  Two teams that were winning, but had a poor culture and made a change and took the winning even further.  Of course those teams had Curry and James who win on every team they are on regardless of other factors.   Winning players win.  Good culture players create good culture even on losing teams.  We see that in every sport i.e. the team that plays hard for the coach even if they don't have the talent and the inverse also where a winning team seems to be a trainwreck (look at a guy like AJ Brown on the Eagles - he constantly complains about everything and it is never good enough for him even as the team wins a SB).

Wins and losses have very little to do with culture.  I have absolutely no concern that if the Celtics tanked this year it would somehow create a negative culture that would impact future seasons. No concern at all.

I rarely agree with you but I do agree on this point. 

How the team goes about tanking, if it ever does so, can have an impact on players if it results in them being treated poorly by the coach/organization. 

[Vermont Green]

I don't see how you can claim that the process worked for PHI.  It clearly didn't work.  For all the tanking and drafting, the only thing they have to show for it is a broken down Embiid on what has been a mediocre team all through it.  This is case in point for how there is no guarantee that drafting will get you to the promised land.

SGA went to OKC in 2019 and it took 4 season before they had a winning season.  They got a title in the 6th season.  You could look at that as say this is case in point FOR tanking (remember, OKC refused to play Al Horford in 2020-21 to lose more games and/or develop their younger players).  I don't even know how many draft picks that OKC ended up with over that period.  But really, the only reason that they won a title is because SGA exceeded all expectations.  He became a MVP.  They got lucky.

Sixers blew the process by trading a bunch of assets for Butler midseason and then just let Butler walk at the end of that year.  Had they either kept Butler or used those assets differently they would have had far more actual success.  The losing though didn't create a bad culture, Embiid and Simmons just aren't good culture players not matter what team they are on.

Going back to Curry, when Jackson became his 3rd coach in 3 seasons, the Warriors actually started to win, but Jackson lasted only 2 seasons because he created a toxic culture in the organization.  He was a good coach that really helped them turn the corner on the court, but he had to go.  They brought in Kerr who changed the culture overnight and they went on to win the title.  Curry's first five years were a mess, but it didn't matter. That is similar with David Blatt in Cleveland.  He had one of the greatest starts to a career ever by win/loss record but no one liked him and he created a very negative atmosphere.  He got fired midway through his 2nd year on a team that was leading the conference and had been in the finals the year before.  Ty Lue took over and the culture changed and the Cavs went on to win the title.  Two teams that were winning, but had a poor culture and made a change and took the winning even further.  Of course those teams had Curry and James who win on every team they are on regardless of other factors.   Winning players win.  Good culture players create good culture even on losing teams.  We see that in every sport i.e. the team that plays hard for the coach even if they don't have the talent and the inverse also where a winning team seems to be a trainwreck (look at a guy like AJ Brown on the Eagles - he constantly complains about everything and it is never good enough for him even as the team wins a SB).

Wins and losses have very little to do with culture.  I have absolutely no concern that if the Celtics tanked this year it would somehow create a negative culture that would impact future seasons. No concern at all.

I rarely agree with you but I do agree on this point. 

How the team goes about tanking, if it ever does so, can have an impact on players if it results in them being treated poorly by the coach/organization.

Two completely different things.  Tanking does have an impact on culture, but nothing that one good season can't fix.  I am not worried about culture.  As a fan, I don't really want to see my team tanking, but I will get over it as soon as they start winning.

My concern is that there is no guarantee that you are going to come out of the tanking and have a championship team.  At best, it goes like it did for OKC.  They made good picks, good trades (SGA in particular) and it still took them 6 seasons.  But can you count on making a trade where you are going to get back a promising young player who turns into a future MVP player like OKC did with SGA?  How often does that happen?  That is the plan?  Trade Brown and one of the players you get back becomes an MVP 6 years later?

As to drafting your way to a championship roster, it can happen.  It is how BOS got Tatum and Brown.  It is how MIL got Giannis, how DEN got Jokic, how GSW got Curry (but not how OKC got Shai).  There is so much chance in drafting, starting with the lottery itself.  Then picking players, you need some luck there too.  You cannot bank on drafting a championship roster.  For me, now is not the time to blow this up (meaning trade Brown for draft picks).  There may be a time for that, we'll see.

[SHAQATTACK]

Are the new owners really interested in sports or just an investment .  I?m waiting to see , eyes wide open

[Kernewek]

I don't see how you can claim that the process worked for PHI.  It clearly didn't work.  For all the tanking and drafting, the only thing they have to show for it is a broken down Embiid on what has been a mediocre team all through it.  This is case in point for how there is no guarantee that drafting will get you to the promised land.

SGA went to OKC in 2019 and it took 4 season before they had a winning season.  They got a title in the 6th season.  You could look at that as say this is case in point FOR tanking (remember, OKC refused to play Al Horford in 2020-21 to lose more games and/or develop their younger players).  I don't even know how many draft picks that OKC ended up with over that period.  But really, the only reason that they won a title is because SGA exceeded all expectations.  He became a MVP.  They got lucky.

Sixers blew the process by trading a bunch of assets for Butler midseason and then just let Butler walk at the end of that year.  Had they either kept Butler or used those assets differently they would have had far more actual success.  The losing though didn't create a bad culture, Embiid and Simmons just aren't good culture players not matter what team they are on.

Going back to Curry, when Jackson became his 3rd coach in 3 seasons, the Warriors actually started to win, but Jackson lasted only 2 seasons because he created a toxic culture in the organization.  He was a good coach that really helped them turn the corner on the court, but he had to go.  They brought in Kerr who changed the culture overnight and they went on to win the title.  Curry's first five years were a mess, but it didn't matter. That is similar with David Blatt in Cleveland.  He had one of the greatest starts to a career ever by win/loss record but no one liked him and he created a very negative atmosphere.  He got fired midway through his 2nd year on a team that was leading the conference and had been in the finals the year before.  Ty Lue took over and the culture changed and the Cavs went on to win the title.  Two teams that were winning, but had a poor culture and made a change and took the winning even further.  Of course those teams had Curry and James who win on every team they are on regardless of other factors.   Winning players win.  Good culture players create good culture even on losing teams.  We see that in every sport i.e. the team that plays hard for the coach even if they don't have the talent and the inverse also where a winning team seems to be a trainwreck (look at a guy like AJ Brown on the Eagles - he constantly complains about everything and it is never good enough for him even as the team wins a SB).

Wins and losses have very little to do with culture.  I have absolutely no concern that if the Celtics tanked this year it would somehow create a negative culture that would impact fure seasons. No concern at all.

My point is that an outside observer, cannot measure the culture from anything on the court beyond wins and losses. Citing two improvements in the coaching staff (Mark Jackson was - culture or not - not a good coach, but Steve Kerr was clearly a better one) as an example of culture is peculiar. Also weird to say Embiid wouldn't have been a good culture player on any other team, having played for precisely one NBA franchise across his entire career. These sorts of things are impossible to state as certainties.