Would you still follow the Celtics if they decided to tank?

[Roy H.]

[Edited.]  Do not criticize other posters' fanhood.  -R.H.

noted, but can I express that basing fandom solely on results rings hollow to me?

So long as you aren't labeling others / being antagonistic, and are describing your own outlook, it's generally okay.  As soon as you apply it directly to others, though, it becomes problematic.

Basically, respect others at all times, including their views on fanhood.

[Celtics18]

I think it's interesting that a majority of the replies seem to take a negative view of "tanking."  At the same time, many fans get excited about the prospect of landing a young stud in the draft and are willing to see the team do what it can to get that guy, which, obviously, means tanking. 

This makes for a fairly schizophrenic situation for a sports fan; root for a team to try really hard to win, but to ultimately lose most of the time?!  That just doesn't seem right. It doesn't really seem physically possible for the die hard fan to root this way once the ball is actually tossed up. 

Basically, it's why I'm against the NBA draft altogether, and would like to see the system totally scrapped or significantly revamped. 

I've suggested this before, though, and never gotten any positive responses to the idea. 

[thirstyboots18]

I think it's interesting that a majority of the replies seem to take a negative view of "tanking."  At the same time, many fans get excited about the prospect of landing a young stud in the draft and are willing to see the team do what it can to get that guy, which, obviously, means tanking. 

This makes for a fairly schizophrenic situation for a sports fan; root for a team to try really hard to win, but to ultimately lose most of the time?!  That just doesn't seem right. It doesn't really seem physically possible for the die hard fan to root this way once the ball is actually tossed up. 

Basically, it's why I'm against the NBA draft altogether, and would like to see the system totally scrapped or significantly revamped. 

I've suggested this before, though, and never gotten any positive responses to the idea.

TP.  I also hate the draft system, but I have no idea what they could substitute for it.  I think we are just stuck with it.  Having the #1 pick is no guarantee of success anyway.

I guess I am the only one who actually likes most of our moves so far.  I think we need a veteran Center and a backup point guard and we will be in good shape.  If KG and PP leave the team I do think we will need someone else (beside Rondo) to provide veteran leadership.  (I hope they stay, personally.)  There are a few on the bench I wouldn't mind moving...Terry, Lee, White, Crawford and maybe Bradley if we could get a good center.  T. Williams is a question mark.

[bfrombleacher]

It's fun to see the kids play.

As long as they keep some of the good kids around (Sully, Rondo, AB, Green), I'd be happy to watch.

However, even if they don't, it's still my obligation as a fan to check in at least several times.

[CelticConcourse]

It's fun to see the kids play.

As long as they keep some of the good kids around (Sully, Rondo, AB, Green), I'd be happy to watch.

However, even if they don't, it's still my obligation as a fan to check in at least several times.

Yea, I'd still check in at least several times...












...an hour.

[CelticG1]

I would probably end up watching the Cs a lot more on dvr.

During the season I pretty much hog the tv from the wife with the Cs.

It'd be a lot harder to do if or when the celts suck

[Celtics18]

I think it's interesting that a majority of the replies seem to take a negative view of "tanking."  At the same time, many fans get excited about the prospect of landing a young stud in the draft and are willing to see the team do what it can to get that guy, which, obviously, means tanking. 

This makes for a fairly schizophrenic situation for a sports fan; root for a team to try really hard to win, but to ultimately lose most of the time?!  That just doesn't seem right. It doesn't really seem physically possible for the die hard fan to root this way once the ball is actually tossed up. 

Basically, it's why I'm against the NBA draft altogether, and would like to see the system totally scrapped or significantly revamped. 

I've suggested this before, though, and never gotten any positive responses to the idea.

TP.  I also hate the draft system, but I have no idea what they could substitute for it.  I think we are just stuck with it.  Having the #1 pick is no guarantee of success anyway.

I guess I am the only one who actually likes most of our moves so far.  I think we need a veteran Center and a backup point guard and we will be in good shape.  If KG and PP leave the team I do think we will need someone else (beside Rondo) to provide veteran leadership.  (I hope they stay, personally.)  There are a few on the bench I wouldn't mind moving...Terry, Lee, White, Crawford and maybe Bradley if we could get a good center.  T. Williams is a question mark.

I'd like to see a system where teams can just sign youngsters as free agents right out of high school.  Finish expanding the D-League so it's a true 30 team system.

The first part of that equation isn't likely to happen, but it's what I'd prefer. 

[PhoSita]

I'd like to see a system where teams can just sign youngsters as free agents right out of high school.  Finish expanding the D-League so it's a true 30 team system.

The first part of that equation isn't likely to happen, but it's what I'd prefer.

You'd basically have to fold or move half the franchises in the league if you did that.


Anyways, I've never held with the idea that choosing not to watch every single game that your favorite team plays makes you a fairweather fan.

Being a fan is supposed to be a rewarding experience.  It's supposed to be enjoyable.  It's supposed to be entertainment. 

Yet sometimes our favorite team is downright painful to watch.  Sometimes it sucks to be a Celtics fan.  That was definitely the case at times this year.  I don't blame anybody for turning off the TV, or not bothering to watch at all, in that situation.

Now, if you lose interest in the team completely and don't really follow what's happening with the team at all just because Kevin Garnett retires and / or Pierce gets traded?  Well, that does strike me as rather "fair weather" in the sense that suddenly you're not really a basketball fan anymore just because your favorite players are no longer in town.

I'm often a devoted fan despite myself.  I'll vow not to bother watching the team for a while and yet I still tune in to the third quarter of a close game only to kick myself for it when they're suddenly down 12 with 8 minutes remaining in the 4th quarter.  I won't watch many of the games -- I certainly skipped watching a lot of the regular season games in the second half of this season -- but I'll still constantly look at ESPNBoston.com and check the front page of Celticsblog to see what's going on.  There are many different ways to be a fan.

Even if somebody on this site doesn't watch the majority of the games, the fact that they're bothering to post here means they probably know 3 or 4 times as much as the yahoos who call into Felger and Mazz on weekday afternoons to complain about Rondo.

[Celtics18]

I'd like to see a system where teams can just sign youngsters as free agents right out of high school.  Finish expanding the D-League so it's a true 30 team system.

The first part of that equation isn't likely to happen, but it's what I'd prefer.

You'd basically have to fold or move half the franchises in the league if you did that.


Anyways, I've never held with the idea that choosing not to watch every single game that your favorite team plays makes you a fairweather fan.

Being a fan is supposed to be a rewarding experience.  It's supposed to be enjoyable.  It's supposed to be entertainment. 

Yet sometimes our favorite team is downright painful to watch.  Sometimes it sucks to be a Celtics fan.  That was definitely the case at times this year.  I don't blame anybody for turning off the TV, or not bothering to watch at all, in that situation.

Now, if you lose interest in the team completely and don't really follow what's happening with the team at all just because Kevin Garnett retires and / or Pierce gets traded?  Well, that does strike me as rather "fair weather" in the sense that suddenly you're not really a basketball fan anymore just because your favorite players are no longer in town.

I'm often a devoted fan despite myself.  I won't watch many of the games -- I certainly skipped watching a lot of the regular season games in the second half of this season -- but I'll still constantly look at ESPNBoston.com and check the front page of Celticsblog to see what's going on.  There are many different ways to be a fan.

Even if somebody on this site doesn't watch the majority of the games, the fact that they're bothering to post here means they probably know 3 or 4 times as much as the yahoos who call into Felger and Mazz on weekday afternoons to complain about Rondo.

I don't think that would necessarily be the case.  I'd want the league to put some kind of safeguards in place that would prevent the top teams from simply snatching up all of the top prospects out there.  You could still do a round system where each team signs one rookie free agent per round.  And, there'd still be a maximum salary structure in place for what you could offer free agent rookies.  I don't have a detailed plan, but if you were over the cap, you probably couldn't get Andrew Wiggins or Jabari Parker as rookies. 

I wouldn't put it past Andrew Wiggins, for example, to choose to want to have a go at trying to help turn around his hometown team instead of necessarily choosing Miami, LA, or New york. 

It would be difficult, but I think it could be workable, and could actually end up rewarding good talent evaluation and development more than being a system where the deepest pockets and the most "desirable" destinations automatically win out. 

[PhoSita]

It would be difficult, but I think it could be workable, and could actually end up rewarding good talent evaluation and development more than being a system where the deepest pockets and the most "desirable" destinations automatically win out.

What you describe sounds like it could maybe work, but it seems like a complicated solution, and in any case, I think the draft is here to stay.

They really do need to do something to fix the messed up incentives in the NBA, though.

Maybe they could make it so that the teams with the 3 or 4 worst records in the league are not eligible to get placed into the top 3 picks.  That way there's some competition to not be in the very bottom group.

Or you could just expand the lottery selection to the top 5 picks and then give every non-playoff team even odds to get selected into that top 5 group.  You could even make it so that the bottom 4 seeds in each conference get to have their names in the drawing, with perhaps one quarter or one third as good odds to get a top 5 selection.


Basically, my issue is with the messed up incentives, not with the draft system itself.  I like the draft because in theory it rewards good scouting and smart team building.  I want NBA teams to be shaped by smart management, not the whims of players deciding where they'd most like to play.  In that sense I am very pro-owner, or really more pro-franchise.

[Celtics18]

It would be difficult, but I think it could be workable, and could actually end up rewarding good talent evaluation and development more than being a system where the deepest pockets and the most "desirable" destinations automatically win out.

What you describe sounds like it could maybe work, but it seems like a complicated solution, and in any case, I think the draft is here to stay.

They really do need to do something to fix the messed up incentives in the NBA, though.

Maybe they could make it so that the teams with the 3 or 4 worst records in the league are not eligible to get placed into the top 3 picks.  That way there's some competition to not be in the very bottom group.

Or you could just expand the lottery selection to the top 5 picks and then give every non-playoff team even odds to get selected into that top 5 group.  You could even make it so that the bottom 4 seeds in each conference get to have their names in the drawing, with perhaps one quarter or one third as good odds to get a top 5 selection.


Basically, my issue is with the messed up incentives, not with the draft system itself.  I like the draft because in theory it rewards good scouting and smart team building.  I want NBA teams to be shaped by smart management, not the whims of players deciding where they'd most like to play.  In that sense I am very pro-owner, or really more pro-franchise.

Those are interesting ideas.  TP.

I still like my idea, though.  I'm pro-franchise, as well--more particularly, I'm pro-one franchise, the Boston Celtics--and despite many fans' insistence that we don't have what it takes to compete for players wanting to come here on their own accord,  I still think this legendary franchise has a leg up on most other teams in the league when it comes to desirability. 

I also think that the hype surrounding kids out of high school tends to get way overblown.   Lebron James was an extremely rare case.  I'm still taking a prove-it-to-me attitude on whether or not Andrew Wiggins is the next Lebron James. 

I think my system would reward good scouting and smart team building as well.  It would definitely eliminate the current climate of getting bad to try to luck into building a contending franchise.  And, I think that would definitely be a positive for the NBA.

[LooseCannon]

What people don't get is that the NBA lottery created a greater disincentive for teams to tank than what it replaced.  As it stands, you can have the worst record and end up picking fourth.

The problem isn't that teams tank, the problem is that some teams think tanking is a good strategy when it really isn't.

I would still follow the Celtics if they tanked, but I would be a fan who is very unhappy that his favorite NBA team is being poorly run.

[bfrombleacher]

What people don't get is that the NBA lottery created a greater disincentive for teams to tank than what it replaced.  As it stands, you can have the worst record and end up picking fourth.

The problem isn't that teams tank, the problem is that some teams think tanking is a good strategy when it really isn't.

I would still follow the Celtics if they tanked, but I would be a fan who is very unhappy that his favorite NBA team is being poorly run.

Well said.

You look at ORL. They've gotten a franchise player twice but the rest of the team was so tanked out they ended up being a farm for LA.

[D.o.s.]

What people don't get is that the NBA lottery created a greater disincentive for teams to tank than what it replaced.  As it stands, you can have the worst record and end up picking fourth.

The problem isn't that teams tank, the problem is that some teams think tanking is a good strategy when it really isn't.

I would still follow the Celtics if they tanked, but I would be a fan who is very unhappy that his favorite NBA team is being poorly run.

Well said.

You look at ORL. They've gotten a franchise player twice but the rest of the team was so tanked out they ended up being a farm for LA.

I think there's a big difference between the Bobcats, who lost games because they're bad, and a good team that loses on purpose--the Warriors tanked without mercy to keep the Harrison Barnes pick (which would've otherwise got to Brooklyn, I think), and that resulted in some seriously shameful basketball.

[bfrombleacher]

What people don't get is that the NBA lottery created a greater disincentive for teams to tank than what it replaced.  As it stands, you can have the worst record and end up picking fourth.

The problem isn't that teams tank, the problem is that some teams think tanking is a good strategy when it really isn't.

I would still follow the Celtics if they tanked, but I would be a fan who is very unhappy that his favorite NBA team is being poorly run.

Well said.

You look at ORL. They've gotten a franchise player twice but the rest of the team was so tanked out they ended up being a farm for LA.

I think there's a big difference between the Bobcats, who lost games because they're bad, and a good team that loses on purpose--the Warriors tanked without mercy to keep the Harrison Barnes pick (which would've otherwise got to Brooklyn, I think), and that resulted in some seriously shameful basketball.

I think they had several injuries that hampered them.