Several people on these forums are advocating the idea of blowing up the roster and tanking for a high lottery pick to rebuild. I, for one, think this is not a smart plan. In fact, tanking for a high lottery pick in general is not that great of a plan, unless you are already unable to field a good team. This
article does a good job of breaking down why.
As he says,
(there are some nested links in this quote, which I recommend checking out... all interesting reading, especially the ones about Rondo for all you haters out there ... convincing argument as to why he was the most underrated player in the league for the 2007-08 campaign)
Understand, by the way, that I am not talking about choosing between being an 11th seed lottery team and tanking. I think clearly tanking is the smarter play if those are your choices. I'm talking about choosing between fielding a 50+ win team (ok, so 41 wins in a 66-game season) and tanking. Tanking so that you can get a decent lottery pick, maybe sign a free agent with some cap space, and then in 2-3 years.....field a ****ing 50-win team!?
This is crazy on so many levels, including but not limited to:
1) Fielding a team that goes to the playoffs, wins in round 1 every other year or so, is vastly more profitable than fielding a lottery-bound team. I don't know the NBA's new revenue sharing plan, but I find it hard to believe this has changed (unless, of course, you spend like the Knicks for a team like that)
2) Tanking does not, and will never guarantee that you'll "contend" later. Since the weighted lottery was introduced, it doesn't even guarantee you a very good shot at the overall #1 pick, which is almost always the only one that really increases your championship chances.
3) The argument that "you need a real superstar to win" is a valid one. But the chance of luckboxing into a real superstar is just about as good for 50-win team as it is for a 20-win team, either through an opportune trade (See Gasol from MEM to LAL, Garnett from MN to BOS*, Rasheed Wallace to DET in 2003, etc) or a draft (see the Sonics landing the #2 pick and luckily dodging Oden's health issues, the Spurs grabbing Parker/Ginobli very late, etc)
*Yes, I know that BOS was horrible the year before that but prior to the Garnett trade they had made a lot of moves and had a roster of Rajon Rondo (yes he was already very good, then, you just hadn't noticed yet, thank you very much), Paul Pierce, Ray Allen, Al Jefferson (before his injury, back when he was a double-double machine), Kendrick Perkins and some cap space. In the weak East. Tell me that team does not win 50, PUH-LEASE.
Anyway, I am definitely on this side. Tanking is only a viable option if you are already out of play-off contention; that is, as a desperation measure.
History has shown you are FAR more likely to put together a championship team through trades and good draft picks, as opposed to bottoming out and getting a high pick. Especially with the FA market the way it is these days, having to trade star players to contenders before they hit FA and you get nothing.
Topic: Tanking for a high lottery pick (Read 2383 times)